HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 08/05/2002August 5, 2002
Vo1.38'; Page 139
aw~ALU ~ Cit. o Petaluma, Cali orna
y f .f
- City Council Meeting
Ig58,
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
3l
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
City Council, Meeting Minutes
Monday,. August 5; 2002
RegularMeeting: 2:00 p.rn.
PRESENT: Caller-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
O'Brien; Torliaft
ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
PUBLIC COMMENT
None:
CLOS'fD SESSION
® Public Employee Appointment: Interviews, Government Code. Section
54.957. Title: Interim~City Manager
® Public Employee Appointment; Government Code Section 54957. Title:
Interim City Ivlanager~and City~:Manager =
a Conference With'Real Property Negotiator; Pursuant to ~Governme:nt
Code Section 549.56:8. Property: One Parcel Located Southwest. 'of the
City's Oxidation Ponds. {APN Oi 9-330-009)., A Small Portion of One Parcel
Located at 3880 Cypress Drive (APN 005-090-062). Negotiating Party:
Frederick Stoud'er, Thomas Wargis. Under Negotiation: Price, Terms or
Payment, or Both.
® Conference with Legal Counsel: Existing Litigation, Subdivision (a') of
Government Code Section 54956.9,- Sandalwood Estates vs. C ty °of
Petaluma, Sonoma County SuperiorCourtCase No.'23041'4.
® Conference with ;Labor Neg_ otiator, Government Code Section 54957.6:
Agency Negotiator: Bill ~ Thomas%Frederick Stovder/Dennis Morris.
Employee Organization: AFSCME'.
® Conference with Labor Negotiator, :Government Code Section 54957.6.
Agency Negotiator: Bill ~ Thomas/Frederick Stouder/Dennis Morris.
__
Employee Organization: Unrepresenfed~ Unit 4 (Professional) and Unit 9
(Mid=lvlanagement).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
~1 `0
1l
1.2
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
3:8
39
4.0
41'
42'
43
44
45
46
47
48
Vol. 38, Page 140
RECONVENE: 3:1.5 p.m.
PRESENT: .Cader-Thompson,
. O'Brien, Torlatt
ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
August 5, 20Q2
Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
REPORT OUT"OF~CLOSED..SESSION
City Attorney Rucinansky reported 'th'at" the Council needs to "take action, on an
item that arose after the agenda was posted o'n Friday,. August 2, -2002. "
Motion to reconvene fo Closed Session. fo discuss. compEnsation for the. Interim
City Manager, as this action needs to be taken. now. M/S Maguire/Cader=
Thompson.
AYES: Cader-Thompson,
O"Brien, Tbrliatt
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
RECONVENE: 3:23 p.m.
Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire,. Moynihan,
Vice .Mayor Nealy reported that t_he Cify Council came to an agreement to
appoint a new"Interim City Manages:. Reintroduced Mike Bierman,
Mr. Bierman,sai'd he has spent many years in municipal go~rernrn"ent in Cincinnati;
Ohio;; Fresno, California and recently in Columbia; S:outh~Carolina. He :is glad to
be back in California where he wants to„be and hopes;to work. with the Council
to get the City's go:als.satisfi'e.d,and moving t,he~City's~projec"ts ahead.
PU:BLIG: COMMENT
Geoffrey H. Cartwright; Petaluma, commented that he .has given the' Council' a
copy of the Press' Dernocraf's July 25, 2002, article. entitled': "Flo,o'd;.defense relies
on "old dafa'." He said the engineers who planned. the County's flood control
system in the 1'9'60's relied on data. from the:1950-,1'960 that only covered. about
60 years of rainfall; ,Ifi the rainfall' data during the past 40 years is included, the,
size of a 10,0=year flood could have been underes,ti,ma'te;d by about 25%. Ihe, U.
S. -Army~Gorps of Engineers, Sonoma'County.Wa;ter Agency (SCwA); and the~Gity
of Santci Rosa are evaluating new.dat;a. ~A report is du'e soon,
__ . ~ ~ . .
Diane -Reilly-.T;orres„ Pefialuma, thanked the ;people who- showed up at the PAC
event on S.a~turday night. She stated that the public has .not" been provided, with.
the paper work on items That are added to the agenda after 5::00 p:m. on Friday..
She asked how could the public pdrticipate on agenda items if ;the paper,"work is
not provided"? She told.. the Council that if they- want the public to participate,
they shquld provide 'the paperwork.
August 5, 2002 Vol. 38, Page 141
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
COUNCIL COMMENT
• Council Member Moynihan:
Extended a welcome to Interim City Clerk Eleanor Berto, and voiced his
unanimous vote for new City Clerk Gayle Petersen because he could not
vote for her due to his absence from the City.
Welcomed' brick Interim Assistant City~lvlanager Gene Beatty. Suggested the
City fill the two funded vacant positions in the Police Department
aggressively.
Asked to pace on a future agenda for discussion the development of a
policy fo avoid the acquisition of properties that are contaminated with toxic
or hazardous waste.
• Council Member Torliatt:
Said she brought her copy of th'e Press Democraf's article on flooding.
Would look very closely at potential water consumption in future
developments.
Would support a request to update data on what may or may not happe,'n in
a floodplain in the City of Pet:aluma_.
Asked that the Petaluma `Waterfront Jazz Festival include the City of
Petaluma as one of the sponsors of the event.
Commented on City Manager Sto.uder.'s Weekly Report on Water Resource
and Conservation and the Water Superintendent's Report on activities in the
Water Division.
• Council Member Cader-Thompson:=
Remarked that she brought fhe =same article. Said as the City continues .to
look at development in the floodplain,~,the City~n'eeds better .data; "So w~e
know what we are getting ourselves .info because in .the past flooding 'has
cost us millions of dollars." .~ '
;-
Requested that the Council get an .update on fhe Interim Police Chief
search.
Would .like to know what the process will be to replace the soon-to-rewire
Director of Water Resource and Conservation.
Vol. 38, Page 142 August 5, .2002
1 • Vice Mayor Healy:
2
3 Stated thaf Santa. Rosa has five, ways for people to sign up for recreation
4 activities, such as by Internet, telephone answering recording, fax, mail or on-
S site .registration and would like to see the City of Petaluma ddopt'this method,
6
7 Waited in aline for over~three hours to sign up his children for swimming lessons.
8
9 Thanked; Gou,ricil Member,Moynhan for his memo on: police personnel issues
0 and would, ask the City Manager or Police Chief for their insights'.
11
12 Noted that the City Manager sent a memo to some department heads
13 asking them for' a response to his questions. recording_ flood data, so the
14 Council should b.e seeing' thd.t in .due• course.
l5
T6 Doesn"t know what the City should be doing on the contamindted property
17 issue, but dcknowledged that Council Member Moynihan found. a buried
18 railroad tank ear that no else. believed was there.
19
20 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
21
22 .May 20, June 10, June "17, June 27, July 8, July 22, 2002
23 "
24 Council Member Torliatt: May 20 minutes, page 6; about line 7, she thought
25 Council Member .Maguire, added to his m'ation that the. contract would come
26 back on the consent ~c:ale.ndar at the next meeting. O.n page: 10, did `the Mayor
27 abstain from that vote? Sh.e thought he voted ih favor of Stephanie McAllister.
28
29 Vice Mayor Healy agreed.
30
31 Council ,Mem'ber Tocliaft: June 1l0 minutes, page 13, line 25, change "'
32 moderating program ...'' to "... monitoring program ..."
33
34 Council. Member. Moyn'ihdn said he would abstain from approving the minutes. of
35 June 2Th and July 8th, as he,was-out of town'.,
36
37 Council Merriber O'BTien said he would afjstain from approving the min"utes of
.f. 4 .
38 July 22nd, ds he was absent from the meeting;
39 _ . ,
4Q Vice Mayor Healy said he would abstain firorn approving the minutes of June
41 17th, as he was absent from the meeting..
42 ..
43 Motion to approve the minutes of June: '17, June 27, July 8; and July 22„°2002 asp
44 written, and the rriinutes of M`ay 20 and June 10, 200?, as amended.. M/S
45 Maguire/O'Brien.
46
August 5, 2002
Vol. 38, Page 143
1 AYES: Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
2. O'Brien; Torliatt
3 NOES: None
4 ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
5
6 PRESENTATION
7 CITIES FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION
8
9 Rozy Fredricks; International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI),
10 spoke regarding fh'e Cities for Climate, 'Protection. Campaign, arid the ways in
11 which it benefits local governments.. All nine cities in Sonoma County have
12 committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and' having 100% of these
13 cities committing., fo climate protection sets a national precedent.
l4
15 Anna Hancock, Prgject Coordinator; thanked the Council for the Proclamation it
16 issued to participate in the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign to ..increase
17 public awareness and reduce the impacts of greenhouse gases. Petaluma is the
18 third city in, the county to issue a proclamation supporting this program. The
19 County of Sonoma will pass a resolution on August 20, 2002 and will be
20 participating as well. Governor Gray Davis is expected to sign AB 1493.
21
22 Council Member Torliatt commented that this is an exciting endeavor. Probably
23 in the next 10-20 years, mandates from the state will require the• City to reduce.
24 greenhouse gas emissions because of the global' warming effects of the policy
25 decisions Council snakes and the development and land use decisions fhat
26 Council ,makes in the community. She reported that the Governor `signed AB
27 1493, a legislative bill that proposes to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by
28 the year :20,09. Ten elected officials from: Sonoma County took a bus down to
29 San. Francisco and met the Governor as weal as Robert Redford. She said. she hds
30 also talked to one of the .professors at Sonoma State University who has interns
3.1 who would like to do some ~of this assessment for the Cify. Hopefully; Petaluma
32 wilt work.with the other cities in Sonoma County, and bring interns in from SSU to,
33 "help 'us get a handle on what is going on here." As a representative on the- Bay
34 Area Air Quality Management' `Dist"rice (BAAQMD) that represents Sonoma
35 County ,on -the Board, the. District is dealing with this issue frprn an air quality
36 standpoint. .The District is having a time where we ace exceeding the Federal
37 ozone- standards. Aldmed`a County is trying to reduce the. temperatures that
3~8 'they are creating and emitting off of their roofs and have a plan that. they are
39 frying to implement to try and reduce these greenhouse effects by reducing the
40 temperatures. She concluded by saying she was excited by moving forward
41 with this..
4"2
43 Council Member Maguire remarked that there is a very significant downside to
44 not pursuing 'these kinds of action. Scientists are currently finding that
45 cataclysmic environmental change can occur over a short period of time. As
46 recently as five years ago many scientists have said global warming is going to
47 cause gradual change oyes hundreds of years but the most informed thinking on
48 that in these days is that it can. happen in a very short period of time within a few
Vol. 38, Page 144 August~5, 2002
1 years. We should try to do what we can to reduce emissions and greenhouse
2 warming sooner rather than later so that we are not reacti'rg out: of a crisis„
3 mode. Another advantage. is that we earl do well by doing good. These really
4 have paybacks in terms of :economic b.enefifs, reduced illness as we. hear from
5 American Lung Association, and certainly toxic. cleanup and, nap-poinf pollution
6 sources polluting waterways anal al,l that stuff. He was glad the Mayor issued the
7 proclamation: Will be looking forward tq passing the resolution .on the Consent
8 Calendar and endorses,the program wholeheartedly.
9
10 Vice Mayor Healy :replied that 'the: resolution is an item ..on the :agenda tonight.
11 Will be looking forward to S:onoma S'ta~te University eloing an update on
12 greenhouse, emissions and will be looking forward in impl`emeritng that policy. In
13' the presentation it was_ mentioned fhat fhe three primary municipal areas, fhaf
14 affecfi greenhouse gasses and this Council is intimately familiar with the fourth.
15 and that`s sewage because- one of the factors that drove the, selection o.t the
'16 preferred alternative 'for the City`s new wastewater plant was the fact that one
17 of the eornpeting, designs was going to throw out an enormous; amount of
18 urethan:e gas;., :not carbon. dioxide,: and methane is an even more .potent
19 greenhouse .gas than carbon dioxide:. UVe had an environmenfal footprint.
20 analysis showing the ecological effects. of .the :different candidate's technologies
21 and partly on that ::basis 'selected the o:rie that produced' the less greenho~s:e'
22 gasses..
CO'fVSENT CALENDAR
,,
The following items:are .non-controversial. an;d were approved i;n one motion.
RESO.2002=11.7 N:C;S, _
CITIES FOR CLIMATES PROTECTION CAMPAIGN
Endorsing the objecfives of the Cities For.Climate Protection~Campdign.
RESO. -2002-118 N.C.S.
._
PURCHASE OF A 2003 FORD F-250 .CAB AN'D CHASSIS TRUCK
,_ .
Authorizing: the purchase of a 20.03 Ford F-:250. cab a_nd chassis. truck `from
,.Metro"se Ford in the amount of $20,,709.63
RESO'. 2002-119 fV.C.S.
PURCHASE OF A 2003 FORD'F-450 CAB AfVD CHASSIS',TRUCK
:Authorizing the purchase of a 2003 Ford .F'-450 cab and chassis truck from
Melrose Ford in the° amount of $27,404.43
August 5, 2002 Vol. 38, Page 1:45
1 RESO. 2002-120 N.C.S.
2 PURCHASE OF A D.U.I. CHECKPOINT TRAILER
3
4 Authorizing the purchase of a_ D.U.I. checkpoint trailer from Opperman & Sons in
5 the amount of $24,708.61.
6
7 RES0.2002-121 N:C.S.
8 CONTRACT FOR CITY CLERK
9
10 Approving the; Contract for the City Clerk.
11
12 RESO.2~002-'122 N.CS.
13 OXIDATION POND FLOW DIVERSION PROJECT
14
15 Authorizing the City Mdn_ager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with
16 Carollo Engineers for professional services in support of design of the Oxidation
17 Pond Flow Diversion Project.
18
19
20 RESO.2002-1'23 N.C.S.
21 SETTING ANNUAL ASSESSMENT RATES FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
22
23 Resolution setting. Annual Assessment .Rates forAssessment Districts.
24
25 Motion to adopt Reso. 2002-133 N.C.S. M/S Maguire/O'Brien.
26
27 AYES: Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
28 O'Brien, Torliatt,
29 NOES: None
30 ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
31 ABSTAIN: None
32
33 The following items were pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion:
34
35 RESO. 2002-124 N.C.S.
36 AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LN SUPPORT
37 OF PHASE 2 OF WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT
38
39 Council Member Moynihan: This is a resolution authorizing the City Mandger to
40 amend the professional services agreemenf with Carollo Engineers Professional
41 Services in ,support of Phase 2 Project Development of the Water Recycling
42 Facility project. This cost of the proposal will be increasing a total 'for just the
43 environmental planning and design from just under $7.997 million fo $8.476
44 million., in other words a $4.5 million .increase in this contract. This is referred to as
45 a change .order type. If seems we either failed to scope the property of a
46 project. correctly initially or we're doing something additional here and I would
47 like a bit of clarification. $8.5 milliori for environmental planning and design is
48 huge for the ratepayers to endure and I'm very much concerned that this may
Vol. 38, Page 146 August 5, 2002
l be d sign of things to .come with the plant construction and ofher things; and I
2 was hoping we would ge .enlightened why it's such a. wide. jump in the' contract
3 price. The increase is $450,000. I' m sorry if I .said $4 million, I got excited.
4
5 Mr. Ban: When we sco,ped fhe project over a year and half qgo we really sat
6 down and got into this project.. We put down a very detailed scope. As we :got
7 into the pre-design report and started looking' at a lot' of details and .examining
8 some of the details there were- Borne things that: came up ghat we could not
9 have predicted. early on in the, project. And that's what we have before us
10 tonight, One:of those was the outfdll maintenance: The autfdll, is something, we
1 l don't have fio go with -right now but we determined that it's a hydraulic
12 restriction at the. facility. It's not operating properly. We have diffusers .on the
13 ouffall: The water is supposed to,go out the diffusers but the outfall is sitaing near
14 the bottom of .the river and qll the diffusers are plugged. We have gates on the
15 end of the ,outfall and those are not. operating. This is an, opportune time with'. this..
16 pr_oje.ct to go in and repair th;e outfall. I°d be happy to go over the items, 'if'
17 that's what the Council w.ish,es:
Vice Mayor Healy: Actually, Mike,. you and I had talked over the phone about
an item with fhis and then with "Resole ion Authorizing the Manager to Execute
Professional Services Agreement with Carollo ,Engineers for. Professional S:erviees
in. Support of Design of the Oxidation Pond Flow Diversiciri Project" which has
already been approved,. but just for the Council's edification we can talk about
those. One was interesting given the previous discussion about: the
environmental loo print and going to a methane production here but could you
talk about that?
Mr. Ban: The process for handling fhis sludge we originally were ,looking of an
aerobic process. Oaring the predesgn efforts we had a value engineering effort
done on the project and :a suggestion was proposed that we Igok at an _
anaeno.bic process. We did some analysis on that and it looks like it''s a more
favorable process for us than the aerobic process. Doug Wing can explain it
better than I can.: One of the: benefits we found is that overall it's; a lesser cost o,n
an annual basis 'than the aerobic process: We can move to a production of a_
Class A sludge easier than the aerobic process. Doug Wing thinks it has a' lot 'of
benefits.
Vice Mayor Healy: To clarify the methane' point, ~eyen though fhis will produce
methane, all of that methane can be captured.. and burned so, we're not going
to be venting any g"reenhouse gases.
Mr. Ban: We: actually did an ecological., footprint analysis of both. They're very
close b:ut the gnaerobi'c -has a smaller footprint than the aerobic process.
45 Council Member Tbrliatt: A couple of the things fhat were- pointed; out here,
46 One had. to do with fhe ,gree`n building design inforrnatio.n, part of` operation
47 maintenance and laboratory buildings, which is about $62,00.0: It's great that
4.8 we're spending the money on the front end. because it will reduce. our overall
August 5, 2002 VoL 38, Page 147
1 cost in the long run. I like: the way you are looking of 'the. long term picture
2 instead of the up front cost of just doing the bare minimum and not 'looking at
3 the bigger picture. What is your goal for the leads rating? Isn't it platinum,, gold,
4 silver and bronze? I'm hoping that we''re going for the platinum.
5
6 Mr. Ban: Yes. We would be going for as high an U:prating as we can get.
7
8 Council Mem, ber Torliatt: I'd really like to see us move in that. direction. The other
9 large item here. that led to fhe increase, $151,000, is permits. That, bascdlly, is
10 out of our City staff's control. We're just subject to it. Thaf's about 25% of the
1 1 cost. Maybe it would be helpful if you gave us a cost-to-date update the next
12 time. How much we have spent, how much we budgeted for as we're moving
13 forward so we can track 'it on the bigger picture.
14
15 Council Member Gade_r=Thompson: Mr. Barn, as~we move on with the' process as
16 far as the sludge Class A, Class'B, if tfis is going. to be closer to an A, would you
17 be looking at just producing: an A and coming up with a cost as we move
18 forward?
19
20 Mr. Bari:. 'We wouldn'f be doing, that in the near. term. It would be something
21 we'd be looking df in the long term. Our near term plan doesn't require us to go~
22 to Class A, bu if the Couneii adopts a program, that would require a Class: A then
23 we would look at goring to a Class A atthat time.: _
24
25 Council Member Cader-Th.orppson: If we're getting closer to a Class A and. the
26 cost is virtually the same we may be better off goi-ng in that direction. So, I guess.
27 Mr. Wirig is moving on with- his design ofi something he can raise and bring back
28 to us if it works out well.
29 ,.
30 Council Member Moynihan: This is roughly a $500,000 change order. Do vve
31 expect more $500,000 change orders?
32 .
33 Mr. Ban: No, we don't.
34
35 Council Member Moynihan:' So, this,will'be if?
36 ~ ~ _
.,.
37 Mr. Ban: We have asked for -a contingency of about $'50,000 iri caste, during the
38 design effort, we come across something that we think would b`e of benefit. to:
39 the project.. In a project of this size i'f`s naturdl; at this :point- in the project, we
40 would comae forward with some. items thaf'we discovered, I don't anticipate
41 that happening again in that we have done quite a bit of work on the project. I
42 can't guarantee that. it would not happen ~buf we've got a great team; on this
43 project and we, really turned this project up anal down looking for all the benefits
44 we could bring to the project. We're ready to charge ahead and do fhe design
45 on it and'finish if up.
46
47 Council, ,Member Moynihan: This project cost is huge and the ratepayers are
48 going to suffer in trying to pay their bills as we increase it an average of $400 a
Vol. 38, Page 148 August 5, 2002
l year. I would: like- to implore you and the others in the departments 'to `fin'd "ways
2 to cut. cost from 'this point forward instead. of increasing the cost if a# dll possible
3 because. this is just a huge number., I appreciate your efforts,
4
5 Council. Member Ivlagu;ire: We are working on the rare study and working,
6 towards a rate structure that is tiered so tha_ t people who burden the' system
7 more pay more per unit., That's a more equifable way and that will` be
8 somethipg that' very appropriate;: I notice in the. -Staff Report that;, in
9 comparison amongst the staff ~ re:p.orts that we'we h,ad and. that:. we're
l 0 considering tonight., the cosf is actually very competitive compared.. fo other
1 1 sewer treatment plants.
12
13 Vice Mayor Hea y: M'r, Ban, yob a-nd I had a brief discussion on the 5,000 tons: o.f
14 s edge on the bottom of Pond 1. That was a .bit of an eye opener to read that..
15 W'e just. approved the removal of that in the professional design contrgc:t to gef
16 us started on; ;that. I just want you. to give us some assurance ~ tha,f that's not
17 going to be a smelly operation as 'it could potentially, be;.
18
19 Mr. Ban: What we're proposing to ~do is look at a couple. of different ways to
20 handle: the sludge down there.. Our goal ,is to minimize fhe sludge odors as much
2.1 as possible and that- will really 'be the top factor'i'n which direction we head, 'in
22 doing that. .
2~3 ,
24 Motion to adopt Reso. 2002-124~N.C.S. M/S'Moyniha:n/Mdguire.
25
26 AYES: Caller=Thompson, Vice. Mayo. r Healy Ivl'aguira, Moynihan,
2T Q'Brien, Torliat'#,
28 NOES: None:
29 ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
30 ABSTAIN: None
31
32 RESO. 2002-1'25 NC.S: -
33 FUNDING AND SLOPING FOR;THE"RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS:
34
35 Resolution Authorizing, th, a City Manager to Execute Professional' Services
36 Agreement with Cgrollo Engineers for professional services. in support of funding
37 and sco_ ping for the River Access Improvemenfs:
38
39 Council' Member Moynihan: l'm a little c,aiic'erned beca~ise I was absent when
40 th`e revised, CIP came to the Council on June 27'h 'that"was adopted' with the
41 budgef for the one-year term, '.My understanding was that we had a,ctudlly
g~ -
42 received assurances that the funds for,"th:is: as ect of`the project, the Wetlands
I?
_. _~ •.
4:3 Park. aspect,, fore both the land acquisition for the development cost, for the
44 icnprcvements and all, were going to b'e raised. through non-ratepayers sources
45 of funds: What I'maeeing here is a sifua'tio-n.where now thE~ ratepayers are being
46 asked to fund this park: I have a problem with. that.. The ~~IP reflects, indeed `as
47 the Staff Report indicates, a Planning budget of $50-,000` coming from fhe City
48 Water Resources budget which, has we all know, comes :from revenue raised by
August 5, 2002 Vol. 38; Page l49
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
the .ratepayers. or from the water and sewer ratepayers. I'm a little concerned
about this precedent. I'm very concerned that we are saddling the ratepayers
with the cost of a $9 million park on top of an $81 million plant. Maybe l'm wrong
on my numbers and maybe we don't know what the numbers are yet, which is a
bigger maybe, and I'd like us to change the funding source on this particular
issue.
Vice Mayor Healy: My recollection of the January 7, 2002 resolution was. thaf the
Council was willing to move the design and the environmental work with respect
to some of the amenities off of the exisfing footprint of City-owned land forward
with our Dollars in hopes of attracting grant dollars :for the acquisition of property
and for the development of those features. This is consistent with that direction.. I
would be willing to move this forward with the thought that, if possible, the City`s
ratepayers could be reimbursed for this funding as grant funds become
available,. I'd like to see this move forward.
Council Member Cader-Thompson:.I've been working,~dligently in fihding monies:
for the property acquisition and for this .park. And' it looks like we're going to be
successful in getting` the millions that we need. We have to understand that
when we're looking at this project there`s also storm water thot is interconnected.
with Parcels A and B because. of the development up by Lakeville.. There: is an
interconnectign,chere between doing the studies necessary because this will also
help wi;fh the ,polishing Wetlands. I do know .that there 'will be money avoilab e
for design on Parcel B from the funding agencies as, soon as t,hat's approved.
This is appropriate dollars spent because it's for the long term of the wastewat"er
facility and it's a little different~than quote. "conven,ti.onpl:.high-tech design."
Council Member O' Brien: I would concur with your recollection. That is exactly
what 1 remembered that the purchase of the.,land was supposed. ;to come out of
grant funding.. We agreed, to move .ahead with design and engineering: i do like
your suggestion about reimbursing the ratepayers if vve can :get~.the grant money
for that. So I would also support that:
:.
Council Member Torliatt: What we need -to rnaKe `sure ~ that the Council
remembers and we can inform fhe public. is.we rriay' be .getting a ignifi'cant
amount of dollars from California :Coastal Conservancy and. fhe Sonoma County
Agricultural Preservation and Open °Space bistrict for. acquisition of the parcel
that we're talking about that is going to ha'v.e many uses, which includes an
amenity for the community with walking` paths. We are going to be under .more
strict. water quality standards in the next fwerity to fifty years and we're going to
absolutely need that parcel in order to rpove forward on this. We're going to
receive a'huge benefit in the community through ofher~funds. This is such a small
part, this pedestrian :access area, that I can't imagine us not moving forward on
it. I appreciate the Council concurring with at least the design and engineering
of this phase.
Council Member Maguire: The highest number I've heard for the recreational
portion, including land cost, is $4 million. That would be for land cost,
Vol. 38, Page 150 August 5,.2002
1 improvements, etc.; not $9 million, but your recollection jives with my recollection
2 what the. Council action was.
3
4 Council Member Caller-Thompson: Wifh the' contact that I"ve had with the
5 fundi"rig .agencies -that they do want fo see. City participation in this, of course,
6 not up to the: dollar amount #hat they're gbi_ng to be giving us. 'This is .just a: drop
7 in the bucket .compared to what they're going to give us and they d~o like to see
8 that shared cost;. It` quite a benefit.
Council Member- M'oynih~an: Mr., Healy';, I would support your recornmenda'tion in
getting, through this item.. Yes, there was $50,000 of ratepayers" monies that'.are
being budgeted to handle this design and, engineering. I would like to point out.,
though, that in fhe Water Recycling Facility CIP, the land acquisition is stock.: The
$2.5 million t:o acquire this proposed park is not being j~icked up by outside
do"nations, or contributions .or` funds. Y'ou .can `read' the rIP. I`:m juste reviewing
what's in favor of it: It's Page- 513 and it shown. the understanding that we just
discussed here frorn_ the January meeting, hasn`t been reduced to writing -the
way we understood it. `We need to go .back and revisit this aspect of the :CIP
and make sure that the funding `is correct. When we get. commitments for
contributions or donations we fall through with there. The Animal` Services
Facility -we've gotten. $"150`,000 in; based on this CJ P.; of the $250,000'that'was'
pledged. These are the' type of things where, if the ratepayers 8nd up getting
stuck for the balance, and we're. riot talking a couple millions, we'`re talking as
Ivlr. Maguire indicates $4 million estimated.. today which, once we finish designing
it and. engineering it could be quite ".a bit more. That's not what 'the ratep.ay:ers
should.be paying and we need to have, as.a `fiduciary, the diligence'that we are
not sticking `fhese folks, a lot of whom cannot of-ford these hcreases.
Vice Mayor Healy: Lt seems t"o me that we dre rea ly on the verge of gettjng $4
million from, a coup"
' 1e of funding sources and this is going to be q big success. 'I
don't think: it's the: Coun;cil's~,intent, not withstanding what sorne_ document might
r
say, to support the acquisition of that property with ratepayers funds.
Council Member ..Maguire: I't's- important to recognize that the majority of this.
Council disagrees with :M'r. ,Moy,n~ihan's~ assessment' that `just because 'there"s~ a
figure i"n the CI_P document'there's no other way~to view"this., It is important to
remember thdt fhere's a tremendous potential return. on inwestmerit o_n fhs
particular project. That''s not.just in terrns:zofirecreation;al bE~nefits but also in terms
of meeting increasingly_,higher discharge standards that care to prepare for fhe
future now Phan to be caught flatfooted:'I don't think that anyone disagrees with
Mr. M,oynihan's position thdt. the: ratepayers should be protected:, I think. this
does do the best job of "protecfing the ratepayer by moving ahead with this part
of the pro'j'ect..
Motion to adopt Reso. 2Q02-125 N,C.S. M%S Maguire/Caller-Thompson,
Council. Member O''Brien: Mr. Vice Mayor does the motion include reimbursing
the ratepayer?
August 5, 2002
Vol: ;38, Page- l 51
1
2 Council Member Maguire: Actually it's just a motion to adopt th°e resolufion.
3
4 Vice Mayor Healy: That`s correct. There can be direction to staff to pursue those
5 opportunities down the road as they become available.
6
7 AYES: Cader=Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
8 O' Brien,. Torliatt,
9 NOES: None
10 ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
11 ABSTAIN: None
12
13 APPROVAL.OF PROPOSED AGENDA
14 FOR SPECiALiCOUNCIL,MEETIN:G OESEPTENI$'ER 9, 2002
15
16 Council Member Torliatt: l pulled this item because I am on fhe. Petaluma
17 Community Development Commission (PCDC) budget, which is the Water Street
18 Redevelopment Plan, which I'm assuming is the Water Street Improvements.
19 There are many members of the community that are. interested ip commenting
20 on this. My issue is with the time of day that we are 'hedging this agenda item..
21 would like to.see us have. this item on an evening agenda.
22
23 Vice Mayor Heay: I don`t disagree with that. But I`m looking at the evening
24 agenda 'for this meeting which includes Redwood Technology Center and 'that
25 might be a bit ambitious for one evening's. work.
26 . .
27 Council Member Torliatt: I understand that and I want to move forward with
28 Water 'Street Improvements and I so stated. If it has to go to another agenda
29 that's what it n`ee:ds to do. It's always interesting how we are prioritizing
30 development projects as opposed to our own projects that we're trying fo
31 create econorimic, development with.
32
33 Vice Mayor ;Healy: The evening of September 9t" would be free if you hadn'
34 insisted on putting Redwood Technology Center there.
35
3'6 Council Member Torliaft: We would have already dealt with a development
37 proposal that would have impacted this one.
38
39 Council Member Moynihan: Private development projects also create economic
40 development just for those who think that only public projects do it. I would like
41 to suggest that we also bring back the. Depot Project under the PCDC. We
42 haven't go'ften an understanding of that.. What l read again on the CfP is that
43 we've budgeted $550,000 of City Redevelopment Agency funds towards that
44 project. Lt used: to be and I know I .made an application when I was working, with
45 the Chamber of Commerce for TLC funds for that and it's an ideal project for TLC
46 funds, which is the Livable Communities Program by fhe .Metropolitan
47 Transportation Commission (:MTC). That's a half million dollars roughly that we
48 could use elsewhere 'to .fix our streets and do other things. I would like to apply
Vol. 38, Page 152 August 5, 2QQ2
for any grants available for that ,project.: It is a .good project: I would b:e open to
looking at some seed money for'it.
Vice Mayor 'Healy: I'm not sure that' there's anything that's right: for Council
action or Redevelopment Agency action at this point on 'the Depof` issue, '~/Ve
could ask for a MEMO from N1r. Marangella on this.
Council Member Moynihan:. l would go a step further and ask on the regular
agenda that we bring back.the CIP,. There are; some corrections' and changes
and additions that need t.o, be dome=there. w'e don't ha e a Five:=YearCIP. What
we have adopted with the budget was for this, year ;and y:ou do:'have projecfions
on the items; on `the plan. This year's; CIP didn't have driy park. projects. L would.
think that we''d .all 'want to make sure that we move forward acid gef our Fve-
Year C(P thought ova and thoroughly adopted, `in'tegrate the ~st`reets that.we're
going t..o fix and move forward iri a-sys'tematic way. Simply because wehave
adopted, the ;budget we can`t forget about :the Five-Year CIP for another .year..
L'm -requesting that the Five-Year GIP be:: placed on the agenda for the next
rnee.ting.
Council Member Cader-Thompson; I just want to make sure that the water rate
discussion is coming back on a date certain; obviously 'n'ot :on this next agenda.
Mr.: Thomas, on the item for t'he Construction of'the Airport Hangar Project;: there
might be some problems with f.undin'g because of the .State.:, Let's leave that
open. It rriigh "have to come off.
Mr. Thomas:: Efi will probably have fo come off...: I talked fa them :arid. potentially
we're .going to have to do same`tfing with bonds. I talked with them, last week.
and I haven't followed up. If probably wouldn''t be heard; at that time...
City Attorney Rie_h. Rudnansky: ;Pierre Miremont has appealed a decisign by` Cfy
Manager Stoude_r with. respect to Mr: Miremont's request; that a certain
advertisement be run on City buses... The Council might wish to .consider adding
that matter to the September 9th agenda:.
Vice. Mayor Healy: I wou d support-that.
Council `Member Maguire;; Ls there any reason why ice have to .h_ave the
Introduction of Building Codes in the evening:?. We could put that 'in t_he
afternoon; I know that may not take as much time as Water Street; however,
w,e've had a number of hearings on Water Street and the public has had many
opportunities to weigh `in. It'a at a point where 'it calls for th'e Co;uricil'`s
deliberation.
As far as Mr. Nliremont's: appeal ;if we're going to have th~~t dscussioh, we ,need
to have ~a diseussio;n about policies on all'~advertising on the buses, since we-`ve
seen some .co:mm:ent fro,rn our City Attorneypointing out sortie of the difficulties
of a public forurn~'like this and insuring e.quitability as, well as timeliness for people
August 5, 2002 Vol. 38, Page 153
1 who wish to avail themselves of that medium. "If we're going to open the can of
2 worms, let's look at all of them."
3
4 Mr. Rudnansky: If it's the Council's direction, we'll try to bring you an outline of
5 potential policies for your consideration.
6
7 Council Member O'Brien: Mr. Maguire's suggestion of moving the fntroduction of
8 Ordinances Adopting the Uniform Fire Codes, etc. to th.e afternoon and flip-
9 flopping them is a good one. We could probably move the appeal by Shirley
10 Halvorson because when this item came before the Planning Commission it was
1 1 not a really involved issue. If we hear the appeal in the afternoon session, it
12 would allow us to pickup more time to move the Water Street item.
13
14 Council Member Maguire: That's not a bad idea unless there are neighbors who
15 work and want to come in and speak to the .issue, in which case it kind of pushes
16 it back to the. evening.
17 Council Member Cader-Thompson: I think we should leave it open.
18
19 Council Member Maguire: How could you predetermine that is the problem?
20
21 Council. Member O'Brien: There are .a limited Number of neighbors. We've
22 dlready gotten a letter :from. them in the packet.
23
24 Council Member Torliatt: I would also suggest that the Miremont decision be put
25 on the afternoon agenda if we're talking about afternoon vs. evening.
26
27 Council Member O'Brien: This agenda looks pretty full. I would put that at the
28 bottom of'the pile in, terms of priorities as we already have stuff here.
29
30 Council Member Moynihan: I would like, on the Depot Project, to readdress the
31 PCDC budgetrelafive to the funding source for that.
32
_ 33 Vice Mayor Healy: Is there something. that needs review .of PCDC involvement at
34 this juncture? Because I think we gave direction previously to get their right of
. ' 35 entry into negotiating a lease.
36
37 Council Member Moynihan: .He's budgeted and he's .going. forward with 'the
. 38 assumption that he has $550;000 in cash to improve the buildings in this fiscal
39 year. We want to be very clear that's not the- ease and we want to apply for
40 TLC grants among other grants. If we show it in our budget that we're going to
41 come out with all cash, it's not going to improve our position in getting the
42 grants. We do need. to modify it to go forward and get the .grants that we've all
43 presumed that we're going to chase.
44
45 Vice Mayor Healy: Mr. Marangella's memo can address funding and grants. as
46 well.
47
48 Council Member Maguire: Do you want that on the agenda, Mr. Vice Mayor?
Vol. 38, Page 154 August.5, 2002
Vice Mayor Healy: I don't believe there's a consensus for that:
Council Member Maguire: Do you want the PCDC item to stay in the afternoon?
Vice Mayor Healy: Move: that to fhe evehing.
Council.Mernber Maguire: Move Uniform Fire Codes> etc. tq the afternoon?
Vice Mayor Healy: That is correct.
Council Member Maguire;:- Appeal from Pierre Miremont will be in the afternoon'?
Council Member' Torliatt: If .it's required for Us to hear it, the September 9'~
meeting is fine. If it's not required, then I'.d just move it to=the next meeting.
Vice Mayor- Healy: We've already :delayed him a month. It's not required, under
the ordinance. He's just exhausting his administrative remedies.
Council Member Maguire: In the communication from our City At orney there
was qn indication that he was. going to discuss Mr. Miremont's intent as to how
he wanted to proceed. That was my recollection of the memo. I don't believe
we've gotten any information back on that. I"d prefer t.o gave our City Attorney
de ermine what that is before we ag:endize the item:
Mr. Rudnansky: Prior to the meeting of September 9'h, the issue .is a' First
Amendment issue and if may be better to 'h'ave it'sooner rather #h°dn later as far
as the appeal_is concerned.
Vice Mayor Healy: 1 would add Mr, N1'irernont's issue and then the broader policy
discussion of both on the afternoon, and: the appeal by Shirley Halvorson stays in
the evening..
Council Member Maguire left the dais.
Council Member Moynihan` Our Five-Year Capital Improvement Program? Can
we get fhat on the agenda?
Vice Mayor Healy: I can't support that'.
Council Member Moynihan: Then I would suggest that we have another
meeting scheduled for this month so we. can bring that very' important subject up
and not let it drop..
Counci[ Member G•ader Thompson:.Mr. Vice. Mayor,. no one has agreed to that.
It's getting Idle and I `would like us to move on.
Vice Mayor Healy: May I have a motiop to approve fhe agenda for the Special
Council Meeting of September°9, 2002, as amended?
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
August 5, 2002
Vol.'38, Page; 15'5 .
11Aotion to approve agenda as amended. M/S Caller=Thompson/Torliatt.
AYfS: Caller-Thompson, Vice Mayor Hedly, O'Brien, Torliat`t;
NOES: Maguire, Moynihan
ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
ABSTAIN; None
Council Member Maguire returned to the dais.
RESO.2002-1'27 N.C.S.
QUARTERLY TREASURfR'SREPORT
.Resolution to ,Receive and File Quarterly Treasurer's Report.
Council Member Moynihan: I was glad fo see our cash and investments that we.
have as a' City for the Redevelopment Funds is $78,235,337. I :had two questions
regarding the Interfund Loan amounts. Each and every year we are going
deeper and deeper into the hole. Our Interfund"',Loans are not only to the PCDC
but also to the General Fund to the tune of $32,_00.0. We have about $1;:3 million
in In:terfiund Loans on top of the State- Loan that we .have. This is n'ot goring in the
right direction. There's no hope .in'sigh't from: what I can tell foc us to pay off the
Interfund Loan much more than the St"ate loan.. Should we not. be agendizing
this item and bringing it at least to the Redevelopment Agency-or seekin'g'. some:
other kind of funding .source so that this fund doesn't go deeper in the'hole each
and. every year?
Finance Director Bilf Thomas:; "Parks and Recreafion Director Jim Carr and J met
with the. economist that we had hired~a couple years ago to do the workout
plan. I just received a proposal from h'im to update that: The boating waterways
loans are in discussion with the State or,an ongoing~ba"sis;with that: It would be.
premature at this time to agendize that. We're still. working behind th'e acmes.
trying. to .get at least the ~ State loan concluded but that's a long drawn out:
process. Essentially we are waiting for what fhe 'State does with Spud. Point over
on the coast because we think that's going t.o b.e a pr"ecedent setting action on
their part. With the loans~for the State B`:oat and` Waterways are not paid and ,are
accruing '.interest every year and' it's going up. ~ The same way the
Redevelopment accrues interest. We're wo.cking on it and. are attempting to
.bring something. back to Council and hope~to do it by the. end of °this .calendar
year. I don't think there's .going to be a solu ion; but we're going to have a ..plan
to address that. ongoing debt wifh the State.. The Marina without the debt does
,pay for itself but it's the debt that's~causing that fund to go into a huge negative
.balance..
Council Member Moynihan: That would be ;fine if. we could bring it back of the
end of the year or'sooner and see. ifi there is ome way the PCDC 'can relieve the'
debt or.take over the. responsibility for it soave don't end up going upside down
on our books. every year in these fund areas. My other point is the Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) Interfund Loan from the General Fund. It shows an
Vol. 38, Page 156 Augusf 5, ..2002
l Lnterfund Loan of $97,810. I notice that at the year's end we: had a fund:
2 balance of roughly .$50,000 in the'TOT. 'Since we're taking these surplus TOT funds
3 and transferring. them .in'to, the General Fund' as a matter of course, why' are we
4 going and giving an interfund loan fjack to the'TOT from. the General Fund?
Mr: Thomas: Because that's th;e fund we use, to make loans... TOT has a negative
cash balance at June 30, 2002 and the only reason ,it has a negative cash
balance. is because we have accruals for the TOT tax vve earned but hadn''t
received as of June '30th. It's a loan but it's only a loan. on paper. We're not
ac u.ally taking .the money but it;'s a loan to cover the negative cash. even
though it has a positive fund balance because of the accruals.
Motion #o approve. Reso. 2002-1'27 N.C:S, M/S :Maguire/Cader-Thompson.
AYES: Carder-Thompson, Vice-Ivlay.or Healy, MgguirE~, Moynihan,
O'Brien, Torliatt,
NOES:. None ~ "
AB'SENT:, MayorThompson. .
ABSTAIN; None
*****End' of Consent*****
RECESSED: 4:45 p;m. ~ .-
.RECONVENED.: 4:52 p.m.
27 ROAD MAI~NTENANC-E IMPROVEMENTS. ANb~ RECONSTRIJ.CTICQN
28 _ . - - _ _._-
29 Further Discussion aria 'Possib'le ~Directio.n..R,egarding Strategy, Priorities,.. and
30 Potential. ,B'a_Ilot Issues ,for Financing Road Mainfenaric~e: Improvements and
31 Reconstruction.: ~ '
32 -
33 Council Member Maguire:. A, majority of` the Council `has indicated, strong
34 support for a tax measure and/or a parcel' tax and/or a benefit assessment
35 and/or a. flat parcel tax as "all potential methods of raising revenues to ad -dress
36 the road issue. T:;h.e maj"ority of the Council was committed to use' $50,000;000
37 over five years of redevelopment monies on road repairs. We have about
38 .$600,000 or so for the road repairs under gas taxes f.o_r this fiscal year along `with
39 ome miscellaneous monies to apply to it`as well. That is all a sighificant increase.
40 in the amount of financial commitmeht that, :the Councils of the past have
41 'made. f was amused to read in ,Jack Balshaw's column, which ,was full of
42 erroneous irif.ormation, Ghat he claimed fhe streets were in good. conditio"n'while
43 he was: on the. Gity Council but he didn'"t' bother "to do .anything about putting
44 money aside for~the future. We did raceve a request from Samantha fr"eitas and
45 some others to impanel a itize;ris advisory committee. There h:ave~ been
46 discussions going, on .about that in' :the community with different angles: I .wou:[d
47 .like to see it be a ,blu:e ribbon committee where' we ask people who have some
48 recognized stature `in fhe community to: be members of this b ue ribbon panel
August 5, 2002 Vol. 38,'Page '157
1 with the idea that they would review what staff has done to-date., which is
2 significant, in terms of assessing and analyzing the conditions of our streets and
3 what's required to bring ahem back to a good state of repair. That panel could
4' also look at prioritization of actual projecfs to apply funding. to the problem. I'm
5 interested in hearing what the Council thinks about that~as well.
6
7 Council. Member Torliatt: .Tonight., we have now chosen an Interim- City
8 Manager: We've talked about enabling legislation for some time., I would like
9 him to put together a plan that includes how we're going to get that in pldce.
10 Also, what our short-term needs may be if we need additional funds and/or what
1 1 we need to strat.egize around as far as streets that need immediate repair work
12 where there is some sort of safety hazard. I sup -port a blue ribbon committee to
13 review the .information that staff has compiled to .date, That's what we're
14 intending to do in the first"place is having community buy-in that is going to help
15 us pass some sort of sales tax measure. Just a sales tax measure is not going to
16 solve our problem. 1t's going to be a variety of fiunding sources and in the future,.
17 after, hopefully, a sales tax measure ,is approved that we go to some sort of
18 parcel tax. At Phis. point in time we have to look at whether a special elecfion is
19 better and/or a Novembers ection: I'd like to see the lnterim City Manager help
20 put together a plan with this blue ribbon committee to address these issues..
21 .
22 Council Member Cader=Thompson: l would agree as~far as a citizens committee:.
23 We have to deal with "road improvements. We're,. not really talking about filling
24 potholes. We're talking about reconstructing roads. ~As we move forward on fhis
25 project, You have. to look at if in a pragmatic way: You just can't pick a street
26 here anal pick a street here: You have to look dt it so that everything
27 interconnects. My preference is always looking at drterials and.then'moving out.
28 When we talk abou the $15,000>000 that the Council haS supported ~to use fio"r
29 road improvements that we look of a really pragmatic plan:. Look: at the larger
30 picture on how we're going to accomplish this arnd how .everything
31 interconnects between the redevelopment dollars and. the public dollars,
32 They're two separate posts of money that have to .be .used differently. That's the
33 approac_ h that I wou d .like to explore and. with the new In.tecim City Manager
34 coming in that he may have other ways of looking at"fhis that` we haven'"t `looked
35 at. To look at this as a $140,000;000 problem makes. it,a real problem: ..But if we
36 look at it in a systematic way''it's somefiing that can ~be accomplished, We're
37 not going fo do $140,000;000 in streets in one year, five years or ten years.. That's
38 just :not realistic. We should start focusing on those streets that are degrading
39 more, as a separate direction, because it continually costs more money if we let
40 them break down more. A few months ago on Washington Street by .Kenilworth
41 School water was spewing out of the street and; that whole area. is starting to
42 crack. So, while we're doing the Washington%McDowell' improvement maybe we
43 can start Looking at .how we can incorporate resurfacing that area because it's
44 close by. In talking t.o a paving contractor last week I asked questions about
45 what's a good.: ap;pro:a'ch. He said the. more work you can do at one time the
46 better off you are because it will cost less money if you're using more material in
47 a certain area.
48
Vol. 38, Page 158 August 5, .2002
-1 Council Member O"Brien:. I'm very interested in. citizen. ,inp.ut on this, especially
2 from the Chamber of C:o'mmerce, ,from the Downtown Association. I''rn ;probably
3 going. to be the lone dissenter here. I'm riot in favor of a com"mittee because I
4 think it will-delay the process. We already know that the "streets are a problem, If
5 it does go to a committee I would like to see the committE~e limited to discussing
6 curb-to-curb improvements:. W:e don"t need to ,get into: let's Yandscape this; act's
7 put benches here,. l'et's ,put a new bike lane fh'ere,1et's, fix the streets. Everywhere:
8 Igo all I hear from people is: When are you going to fix my street? Why do-"n't yo:u;
9 guys stick to the .basics? Quit doing all the tither garbage you're doing;? Just fix.
10 my streef. We should 'keep, it as basic as we cari. If we da a committ.e.e have a
1 1 sunset date on it"and come'in with.. recommendations by that date: Arid fhe.y're;
12 done: so this doesn't stretch out and we just talk it to death. I'd like to seerth'is
13 move forward and'take come action. -
14
15 Council Member lvloynh;an: I would hate for Council Member O'Brien fo be the
16 lone dissenter so I; will concur with your thoughts relative to the citizens advisory
17 cornmit:fee. What we would be setting up is a situation where we have members;
18 of the public second guessing engineer-s; who will b;e following the Pavement
19 Management Index: on the studies fhaf .have been done,: We will 'loo.k at this
20 objectively and not' subjectively:. The last thing we Want are the po iticians fo
2.1 pick which streets get paved :first or repaired first because my ;street is the most`
22 important and that's fh:e wrong attitude.. The citizens .ad~~isory committee, with'
23 some of the characters who have; -professed an interest in .doing it, we'd
24 probably have to get an oversight committee: to make cure they're doing the
25 fhings correcfly and follow them. Adding lay:ers.,of- burea~i~cracy to the process
26 will hardly get it d,on_e. l was very di"sq,ppoint,ed_ in reviewing the tapes of what.
27 actually has occurred. L :know you went,and did the same: survey again. I wasn`'t
28 too sure why. The reality, is we have not committed ~to f,ixng these streets as: a
29 Council. Anything we fake to `fhe ballot in November we must first demonstrate .a
30 willingness to'fix our streets. There's been a lot of talk abou,t.$15;000,000 going to
31 street reconstruction. It's going: to ~be $3,000,000 coming out of 'the PCDC this
32 year, coming. ou.t of the Redevelop,me,nt budget: I even. read a press clipping
33 where the Mayoracid it was carved in stone. 'He must have. meant sandstone or
34 soapstone. because when you approved the budget you ?just :forgot to approve
35 the .$3;000,000 iri this year's PCDC budget: I_ri~ our Capital Improvement Program
36 we have zero .dollars for street reconstruction. If Is was a voter, and I qrn, going` to
3T the hallo-t come November l wou d say: "Why should I throw more money
38 towards re ainn ", this roblem if
p. g p ~ the Council wo:n~'`f show a de'monsfrated
3.9 commtmen# to fixing it first:"' From~wha't I-understand there was very few revisions
40 in the budget. There's $358;000 for street maiht;enance this year and a couple
41 fhree hundred thousand to fix our street lights, our stree:f signals and :our
42 sidewalks,. But.$358,000 for mai~ntena"nee' and~zero dollars f~~r°street reconstruction
43 is not going to cut it. Until this Council is wlling `to go back and modify the budget
44 and get it going we`re not going to get anywhere. In regards to the Capital
45 lmprovecnent Program we need to engage a project mcinager; a sfreet czar'ifi
46 you wish,. to start,. to scope oua the projects, to define whcit nereds to 'go forward
47 and develop a plan where we can g'o forward,. not only ussing City funds but .also
48 reaching out for State- and Federal funding sources and the like. We"re a long
August 5, 2002
Vol. 38, •Page 1,59
1 way from going forward with any kind of a ballot measure. lf's a ,good :idea and
2 it's going to be part of the solution in paying for all these things but it's a little too
3 premature now. 1 want to .recognize the fact 'that the Chamber of Commerce
4 and ofher folks have come forward to volunteer to work towards the funding
5 necessary and to work on this ballot measure.. But for them to move forward. we
6 needed to have. sat down a long time ago; like in January or February, shared
7 the information we had from our Pavement Management Index Report,.• and
8 allow them to pick and choose what streets they could probably complete for
9 fhe funds that were available. We didn'"t sit down, we• didn't initiate that and
10 now we're fiinding' ourselves trying, to move a measure and run a campaign;
1 1 which is riot fhe role of the City Council. I'm very .disappoin'ted that this Council
12 with $10,000,000 of cash that we can put on our streets and repair our streets is
13 budgeting. $358;OQ0 in street maintenance qnd that's it. I would love to see us
14 come back with Phis issue and figure out just how we're going to systematically
15 approach it at the recommendations: of staff; Then, ifi we really heed more
16 funding sources, le.f's get a team going to go out and do that. That's where the
17 citizens could participa'fe.
18
19 Vice Mayor Healy: There's .pretty much agreement that we're not- going; to 'the
20 voters this November. The deadline is coming up in a few days and we' do not
21 have a'ny meetings scheduled before then. Because the mosf recent poll is; so
22 disappointing, I would support a citizens committee.. I would suggest that we
23 give directon; if there is, a consensus on the Council, to the City Clerk's Office to
24 go ahead and advertise that so• that, we can make appointments. at the
25 September 9'h meeting. That's something else we need to add to the agenda.
26 That would give adequate time and I'm looking at 9 to 11 members of the
27 community from varied walks of life to really dig in to primarily look. at the.
28 financing aspects ,of the whole thing. A lot of this work has been done prey.<iously.
29 We could benefit ahd fhe community could. benefit from people who are not
30 perceived as City Hall insiders. There is something of a checkered. past i`n
31 Petaluma to a citizehs blue ribbon comm_ ittee..: l q'gree with comments thdf one
32 or two .Counciil members made that it would not be ferribly produc#ive for a
33 citizens committee to be trying. to prioritize this road segment' or that road
34 segment. We .have a Pavement Management Index scores. for every ,road
35 segmeht in town. If you take that information an,d traffic. volume ihforrnatian that
36' wily give you an objective test for which. streets should be first on the. list for
37 reconstruction activity .given constraints with respect to underground utilities and
38 things like that and.the ability to construct those things ih q timely way. I would
39 like to see a .citizens committee, again, 9 to 1 1 members; on a limited time frame
40 to come in :.and logk at some of these .issues. With respect to fhe $3,000,000 a
41 year commitment that. has been raised by several folks, Mr. Moynihan is
42' technically correct that it doesn't show up iri some of the technical do'cumehts
43 but I would like .to ..confirm with staff fhat staff 'understands that was Council's
44 direction. a.nd that will be. done.. If we need to modify the documents we can. My
45 understanding is that wouldn't be necessary.
46
Vol. 38, Page 160 August 5, 2002
1 Mr. Thomas: We can amend the budget the next time. if w~~ do it in October or ifi
2 we do it in January. It was my understanding that. there wds. $3;OOO,OOQ 'to be put
3 in.
4
5 Vice Nlaygr ;He,aly, An.d Staff is proceeding on the understanding that we've
6 committed to $3.,000,000 ayear fro,m_Redevelopment..
7
8 Mr. Thomas: For five years.
9 ,
10 Vice Mayor Healy' I have given some further thought to #hat $3,000,000,a year
1 1 commitment;, I would like to see that commitment be exclusive to reconstruction
12 ,. ,
of major streets, curb to curb, without additional amenities being ,added and try
13 to work around the other issues with .that. I would like some feedback from Staff
14 on whether that would be disruptive of other projects.. My sense is that some of
15 the time: frames'in the previous CiP or in the current ClP are probably unrealistic>;
16 We do have the ability. We''re spending funds that we're raising through bonds::
17 It's not done on a cash flow basis: we can make that as a corncnitment so that
18 something like Water Street -d'oesn't chew up fhose funds.. we can d'o Water
19 Street .and reconstruct the major streets as well.
20
21 Council .Member` Cader-Thompson: I would agree, for curb=to=curb. but also we
22 need fo doo'k a~t the safety. issues as far' as sidewalks .are .concerned with
23 redevelopment dollars. We -can. ge:t into, t"rouble legally becau"se `theyy need "to be
24 improved in certa:i_n areas.l w_ ould just hate:. to have pit cut in stone :if it's only curb-
25 to-curb, You have t:o loo,k at the project fhat you're doing ;to, determine how tfle
26 gutters work. Are they cement gutters, thaf connect to i~he sf:reets? There: ace
27 different components throughou.f the. City on how the treets actually
28 interconnect with the gutters.. Sometimes they're going to have to be connected
29 with fhe sidewalks: Staff would know that inforrnat'on and bring that forward, to
30 us instead of.'being in stone and it` would only be curb-to-curb: We need °to let
31 Staff: do tf;eir work. I want the 'public to know thaf we've done $28'to $32 million.
32 of road.. improvernen,ts in the last four'years: When you start getting a campaign
33 ,going about potholes that's what the public hears and' they're not s.eeing or
34 realizing that we have spent millions of dollars in four years on street
35 improvements: When you have a city that: continues to~ grow and you approve
36 .new roadways and you don''t approve cndintenance plans for the existing ones
37 this is how a city that is 1 SO years old 'gets itself in problems. I made a comment'in
38 the past fhat when yo,u do improveme,nts.u,nderground that it's better to wait a
39 year so that the :ground settles. If 'the underground is done correctly and
4'0 everything i`s pounded in right; Then you. don't `h:dve to wait a year. It's the
41 quality of the work,and that's another importanf thing thdh'we'need to Took at is
42 the quality o,f'the work that is being, done ,in ,this community. I can't believe dhow
43 many new scree s need, to be recons_~tructed and they`re only nine, ten years old:,
44 'You need. t.o have a plan of what the qudlity of the work is goi'n'g to be so it Lasts
45 longer. Sometimes the quality upfront may cost more money' but in `the long
46 term it's a lot cheaper.
47
August 5, 2002 Vol. 38, Page l bl
1 Council Member Maguire: I was thinking curb-to-curb is an efficient way 'to
2 .spend' the money but if people are not safe on the sidewalks. they're going to
3 tend to drive their cars. One of the best efficiencies we can get out of fhe
4 expenditure of our monies is to provide alternatives to .people being in their ears.
5 That would be the kind, of thing I would be willing to have a blue ribbon
6 committee look at on a case-by-case basis and say ``Yes. INe should, go
7 sidewalk to sidewalk here or do sidewalk on one side." I'rn looking for a
8 predominate expenditure on curb-to-curb because we all recognize thaf's
9 where the heart of the problem lies. I agree with 9 to 11 people on the
10 committee and with the sunset date. Because of the necessity to get enabling
11 legislation in Sacramento we're not going to have anything on November's
12 ballot. But we do want to look at the potential fora special elec#ion next year.
13 That's absolutely a critical question. The second survey was done because the
14 first survey was done before September 1 l t".
15
16 Council .Member Moynihan: The first Godbe survey was done in December.
17
18 Council Member Maguire:' Nevertheless, the economy has had a significant
19 downturn.. Maybe it's -part of the hysteria of this pothole campaign. People are.
20 more dissatisfied but they're less willing to pay for the cost of making the
21 improvement. We know there's not $10 million in cash. Maybe one person. on
22 the Council thinks so. The .rest of the Council has gone through that discussion
23 numerous times and looked at the implications of taking ghat $10 million out of
24 the budget. ,It does have q significant negative effect on our police and. fire
25 services and: other required functions of local government, Council Member
26 O`Brien. says.: "Why are you guys dealing with all this trash?" The City does get the
27 trash picked. up on a regular basis, makes sure the toilets flush, makes sure the
28 water that .comes out of the taps is clean and unpolluted. Those are no small
29 accomplishments and need to be looked at to get the context of what we're
30 talking about when we're talking. about potholes. Some people don't want the
31 Council who are elected to do the job but they would appoint a street czar. I''m
32 not sure that .that has merit as, an alternative. On the- $15 million in.
33 redevelopment money, I understood that we were supposed to get a list back
34 from staff in about 45 days from our past action, with a list of where.
35 redevelopment;monies would be spent.. I anticipate that comes back when we
36 review and take action on specific projects. It's a matter of course just 'to
37 amend the budget to incorporate. thaf. I have seen that when the Council
38 makes its commitments, the Council keeps its commitments. Just the fact that
39 ~ there's not a number in a line item in the CIP does not mean that we do not
40 keep our commitments. We do.
41
42 Council, Member Torliatt: Council Member Caller-Thompson has said that in the
43 last three or four .years we have had $26 to $32 million worth of road
44 improvements, and those. projects needed to be approved, budgeted for,
45 designed and completed. That is normally attributed to past Councils and the
46 actions that past Councils have taken. What we are going to see as a result of
47 the Council in the last two years is what's going to happen in the next two or
48 three years as far as road improvements go. Hopefully, it will be in a very positive
Vol. 38, Page 162 August 5, 2002
direction. I agree with 'the eleven members. f believe th<~t we; should have, as
part of the criteria. of the folks. th°at serve on this committee; that they .are going:
to be able: to meet throughout thirty .days after their appointment. We can''t
wait Arid schedule meefings a montfl, 'two months, or three months from now..
I'd like to see a report back from a committee within 30 days to tell us what the
status is of their discussions because this needs to move forward': In regard t:o fh:e
Redevelopment Agency and. the $3 million per year we are supposed to have,.
as Council Member. Maguire stated,. a staff report backso we can: prioritize; (hose
projects that we may` spend the $3 million on. I have been advocating that we
use fhat $3 million to compleae ,infrastructure improv.,ements, street improvements
in the central F.etaluma Sp:e.cifi'c Plan Area, which is the Central Business District.
That is the area. we need our economic development for long-term stmt"egy so
this City" can maintain what w:e have. The City Manager needs to be; definitely
oh board with this process and 'moving forward with all the other aspects such as
enabling legisldtion.
Council Member O'Brien: Just for cla;rificatioh for Council Member Maguire. I
don't know if I misspoke- or if he misheard but we`ve got two Irishmen talking, with.
one talking and one listening. You never know. what comes out-of't, What 1.'m
getting from the. public. is: "They're feeling we're dealing wifh a loa of issues we
shouldn't be. We should be prioritizing things."
Council M'erriber Maguire`. I understood that..
Council Member O'Brien: Unforfunat.ely, perception. is' reality. I'd like to .get
perception back on track.
Victor' Chechanover, Petaluma: I gathered from the discussion here foday°th:at
this is not, the end.. of the discussion. I ca.n't tell what is k~eing done about the
potholes? I hate to use. that word but most people are concerned about
something happening .now.. Long range' planning is; abso utely essential. Street
improvement? I don"t know if fhat means filling a pothole or what, but I se.e the
words: road maintenance improvements and reconstruction. I think I know~whgt
reconstruction' means. I think 1 know what improvemenfs~ mean. But does road
maintenance mean filling up the ;holes? Seven months c~go there w,qs a list of
streets ,published in fhe Press Derno_ crat or fhe Argun. That's the lasf I .heard of it. Is
there a plan, in existence to start repairing streets and will we be notified as to
what streets are being taken care of and when?
Mr. Thomas: Staff is developing a list of projects that fhe ~>3 million can address:
As far as maintenance of existing streets, I believe the Public F:acili,fies
Department has developed a plan to repdir streets before- Fiscal Year 2003'. I
surely can,. refer that to Mr. Skladzien to get back to you,.. I believe: there. is a plan
that he has developed, to utilize the #und~ng that's availat?le i_h Fiscal Year 2003.
During this Fiscal Year they have a plan to maintain the streets:, I haven.'t seen it
'but I have discussed .it with: Mr. Skladzien. Our Public Works Director has Indicsated
that they have come up with. a p an to .address fhe maintenance' of fhe .streets
within the. budget numbers.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
T9
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 5, 2002
Vol. 38„ Fage'163
Council Member O'Brien: Is this something that we're going to see before
October? When are we going. to see this?
Mr. Thomas:. I'll have to ask Mr. Skladzien.
Vice Mayor Healy: If this has been prepared, maybe it could be circulated to the
Council and fhe public.
Mr. Thomas:. ('''m under the assumption thaf 'it was.
Council Member O'Brien: I was hoping that, you would use the. water bills to let
people know what's happening. At least, list' the streets or something. As I recall,
years ago that was: one of the things that the water .bills would be used for
passing on information to 'fhe public. I still haven't seen any information other
than "PAY YOUR BILL ON TIM E."
Council Member Torliatt: There is a maintenance crew that's out there filling
potholes as we speak. It is happening every day. You may not se,e it, directly in
your neighborhood and it may not be addressing. the major issues: Yes; we do
have a budget. Yes, we do have, people thaf are doing it. .Probably the
deferioration is exceeding the. amount of'potholes that will actudlly be done.
Mr. Chechanover. There must be: some plan. in exi te.n.ce . thdt would go
somewhat to alleviate the campaign against potholes. I'm not in favor of going
against them.. I just want to see them.filfed.
Vice Mayor Healy: Consider yourself .appointed, Victor._
Scott Vouri Petaluma: Related how the City of Alameda:;. with the ,h'elp. of a
Citizen Committee, passed a bond issue to fix their streets.
Vice Mayor Healy: I think we've heardsome areas where we would like more
information back from staff. _Do I have a consensus ffla.t the City Clerk's: Office.
....
go ahead and advertise for applications to be turned' in sometime in advance
of the September 9'" meeting and we can go ahead and do that?
Council Member Maguire? ~AI'though~ l do want to;~see a .short time line, is thirty
days going to be enough for any group o'f people to meet?
~.
Vice Mayor Healy: We don't need; t'o'~m'ake that decision tonight.
Council Member Maguire: I'm just throwing, that out for consideration. That's
one question. The other thing is I don't entirely agree with some of Mr. Vouri's
comments in terms of "Animal" anal Mr. Mirermo;nt being considered. What I'm
talking about. is a blue-ribbon committee, I don't want people who have been
embroiled in the hoopla. l'm looking for people who have credentials in the
Vol. 38, Page 164 August 5, -2002
community, and who ace pretty much non-controversial and ;non-assailable. I'm
not sure that those'two folks: meef those criteria.
Council :Member Caller-Thompson: I would support eleven members of th"e
committee. No ma_"fter whom you choose for this committee we'll sail hgVe fo
educate them on how to improve roads... L'we had to educate myself. I've had to
call people that are in the profession and'. I called more, f.han one so I, learned:
different things from different people. l would encourage once- this group starts,
that the first mete#in'g ed,ucaf.e yourselves on what it is to do to 'improve roads: L
want'to make sure fhat we';II be prepared for S'eptember'9ih to choose this group
or should it be the middle of September: Maybe give: it another couple: of weeks
only becaUse~we':re,still in summervacation, schools are going:back right around
that time and an extra two weeks may be to our advantage.
Council Member Torlydt't:. This- is going to be on the: front page of the Argus-
Courier.. It won't be for Idck of informa#ion.
Vice Mayor Healy: Jf we have it on the September 9ih .mEeting we could shave
,~
the deadline for applications on September 4th, which is a month from yesterday:
That will. give folks plenty of time.
Council Member Moynihan: Could yob clarify the role of -this proposed citizens
committee? Is it simply to identify an'd encourage funding or revenue:`sources for
the street repairs? Or are we talking about them second-guessing. our:staff and
being an oversight committee for our staff?
Vice Mayor Healy: `Thee role: is yet to be determined completely. The primary
function is to Gook at the'work thaf has been done fo-datE by our staff and then
look at the financing dlternati.v`es anal fry°to :develop -som_e recommendation for
the community with respect to how all; these things can be funded.. Everything's
on the table. •
~. ._
Council ;Member Moynihan: W.th=respect° to -our roles as; City Council Members,
that i_s our job. And if these Council Mem„bets. •are. true _n saying Streets are
Number 1 Priority., that should be corning back. to us gs so~~n as-possible and: we
should be dealing with that, ~We shouldn't pads the: buck off to some future
citizens .committee yet fo be defined whose role is ,going .to be self interpreted
and defined by themselves. 'I see this. as a very bureaucratic solution to say we
did something when alt we've: done'is sit; and talked:
Council Member O'Brien: The way th'is.is set_ up 'now I, cannot support voting for
this in a positive 'manner. We:'re giving, no direction to 1`his c:ommittee.. We're
advertising for a committee that's going. `to do who knows' what.. I just want to
move forward and fix the streets. Let's keep this simple.
Council Member Caller-Thompson: l think this Council. can .make the decisions of
fixing streets: I would start with. fhe arterials: If"we want to go ahead and putout
our favorite projects or what we think needs to be reconstructed the .most then
August 5, 2002 Vol. 38, Page 165
1 we can go ahead, bring it on the Council agenda, approve it, go on with
2 design, have sta#f move forward and start that process. Are we going to get a
3 consensus of where we're going to be starting? We have plenty of work that we
4 can do and we can make those decisions..I .can fhink of Washington Street, Ely
5 Street, the intersection of Sonoma Mountain Parkway needs to be reconstructed.
6 Where do we really want to go with this? Do we want to continue fixing
7 Bodega? Do we want to find roads in neighborhoods that are really dilapidated
8 like Cody Court, which only serves, maybe,. 16 families? For the last two years we
9 haven't approved one road project in this town:. The first two years I was on the
10 Council we approved about $28 to $32 million worth of projects. If we .want to
11 talk about where fhe problem lies, maybe it lies .because nobody's bringing
12 projects forward so we can approve them. Look at the back minutes. For the
13 last two years.. we have. approved zero projects. We should have been
14 approving projects because when Washington and McDowell ~is completed we
15 don't .have another one in the pipeline. to start.. That's what we should have
16 been doing is looking at other projects. so we would have them online ready to
17 go, That's why we are where we are' today _is,because it's been stalled for two
18 years. I would have liked to have approved projects.
19
20 Vice Mayor .Healy: I thought that we 3were: mov,irig ,forward with- reconstruction 'of
21 Lakeville Street this year.
22
23 Council Member Maguire:: The purpose of'the committee is fhat:it's going. to take
24 some form of tax measures to address the funding problem. Whether it's a sales
25 tax, ;property tax, parce tax, whatever, it's been commonly acknowledged... that
26 the road. to success on this ,is to involve the citizens and specify the projects a,nd
27 you need to get a committee or citizens effort going to educate the community
28 and build. the support to get, a measure adopted. That. is all the more critical.
29 now since we've seen the support in our surveys dropping:. If we form. a blue
30 ribbon committee, that's the first step i'n that direction:, I don,'t~have any problem;
31 with projects being brought forward for our deliberation. ,H'owe'ver the Covncil
32 wants to move ahead, that's fine. I`ve had discussions with the Chamber of
33 Commerce, people in the community; `Downtown Associ~a`tion, e'tc., and fhere
34 seems to be a pretty significant amount. of agreement that we should put
35 together a committee, start,.doing the educating and fhe outreach.. so we can
36 proceed. That's what I was envisioning with the committee. If we just want items
37 brought before us and take.the~ budget available and apply that to the worst
38 streets first, that's okay. We still have to .go .through that process of building
39 support and getting a measure on the. ballot. That's what the committee does.
40
41 Vice Mayor Healy: What I hear that there is a consensus and do go ahead acid
42 appoint a committee on September 9th.
43
44 Council Member Torliatt: Are we just going to give direction to staff to do that or
45 are we going to do that?
46
47 Council Member Moynihan: It hasn't been agendized to form this committee., I
4'8 would suggest that we would' bring that back on September 9'h at the earliest.
Vol. 38, Page 166. August 5, -2002
We don't need a citizens advisory committee: There .are a number of other,issues
that seem to be raised tonight, including what .th'e', existing, program 'is for streets
maintenance with the: $358,000 and what potential. capital improvement
program should be dome.. Lsuggest that we decide to brim this whole thing back
with .a prop.osal,. agendize `it correctly and -take the appropriate action; at that
time instead. of giving some kind of leg inst"ructions to staff and ask theme to .try
and work on that.
Vice Mayor Healy: W"e do have consensus here on the Council today 'to give:
direction to staff to go ahead and advertise. and. on September 9th to formalize
the committee and give. it its marching orders.
RESO. 2002-1,28 N:C.S:
STREET CLOSURE FOR ANTIQUE FAIRE
Resolution Approving Street Closure for Antique Faire for.Sunday, September.2~9,.
2002; Fourth Stree"t Between `B' Street'' and W'est:ern Avenue; Kentucky S:freefi
Between Western .Avenue and Washington Street;, and fihE~ 'A' Street Parking Lot,
Between Fourth Street and Fifth Streef,:
Petaluma Police Officer Marlon Christianson: The Petaluma Downtown
Association's application 'for street closures, for the annugf Anti'qu,e Faire, which +is
scheduled for SeptemberL29th.. Th'e event will. take place from: 8 a.m. to. 7 p:m.
.and. will require street closures from 3 a:rn. to 7 p.m: The estimated City costs for
the impact to the Police Department and Public Works Department is 'just over
$.1,100. The Chief :of Police has reviewed the application and from a Pub is
Safety standpoint would recommend. approval of the application ..including'; the
requested street closures and reimbursement to the City fior personnelcosts.
Council Member 'Cad.er=Thompson: Last -year there were issues w. ith some
merchants as far as closing the streets down., After reviewing the minutes we
decided to .keep V~/estern Avenue open a;nd' riot having food vendors so there
isn't a problem ~iri moving forward with this, except I would (ike the City to be
reimbursed `for the costs-for Police services;
Council Member Moynihan: I would, like to make a motion. to supporf this. I did
,have, the opportunify' to ~ speak.: to Samantha. Freitas can this issue and :the
concerns expressed in the letter"s that have been "received area being addressed'
She's trying fo work wifh those: particular merchants to make- sure that this. h,as
minimal. impact on them.With that assurance, I'm quite comfortable in voting
and moving this forward.
Council' Member Maguire: If there's no public comment l would'support thdt.
Council Member Torliatt: I' m `not opposed to moving forward this year ~on -this
issue but I have in the past year hqd some real adamant oppositi,o;n to having
this twice: a year. That's really the issue that the Council should.. deal with
August 5, 2002 Vol. 3$', Page 167
1 whether or not we`re going to support this twice a year. Is that what the motion
2 is or is th,e motion just to approve it for this point in time?
3
4 Vice Mayor Healy: Just- the one coming' up.
5
6 Council Member Torliatt;, f would be happy to support the one coming up but I
7 also would like to see 'the Council address the ;issue of once or twice a year. I
8 had requested thaf the last time w,e discussed this item and would hope that we
9 could get some consensus on that issue or some direction so people know where
10 they're going in the future.
11
12 Vice Mayor Healy; Was the adamant opposition. you were referring to your own.
13 adamant opposition or what you've heard, from some folks in fhe community?
14
15 Council Member Torliatt: What I heard :directly from Couches, Etc. and Petaluma
16 Market.
17
18 Council Member O'Brien: I would support Couneif Member Torliatt on that: I'we
19 heard the =same: opposition and this needs to be nailed down as to whether it's
20 going to be once a year or twice a yearevenf in the future.
21
22 Vice Mayor Healy: Technically, that has not .been agendized for this affernoon
23 but maybe, Samantha (Freitas), if you'd want to discuss briefly how you see this
24 event evolving .over time now that the Downtown Association has taken it' over
25 and thank you for doing. that.
26
_.
27 Samantha Freifas; ~Petglvma Downtown Association: Reporfed on how the
28 Petaluma Downtown Association is working with the merchants to put on 'a.
29 su'ceessful Antique Faire; revenue from this event goes back to support 'the
30 community. She sees this event moving forward in a very positive direction for
31 twice a year.
32
33 Council Member Torliatt; Are you going 'to compile some of these numbers s.o
34 when you're done with 'the Antique Faire you will have a better idea of how
35 much benefit it is generating in the City economically through re:fail ,sales and'
36 give us some cost estimates or revenue estimates so we can justify it a little bit
37 better?
38
39 Vice Mayor Healy: What would be appropriate is we can go ahead and
40 approve the streef closures for September 29'": of this year and then after this
41 event you. can put together a report showing what yov are achieving, where
42 your .plans are for the future, and the .trend lines from when you have taken it
43 over'and how it compares to before. the Petaluma Downtown Association took ifi
44 over. I think it's on the right track and I'd like to see it continue to be successful
45 with twice a .year. After .we get that report if members of the Council still have
46 concerns they can have it agendized.
47
Vol. 38, Page 168 August 5> 2002.
Co.u.ncil Meaber Cader=Thompson: I will support: that and give yourself a
2 time ine for after the event to have everything calculated. out. I'd appreciate
3 some public comments abou it because. a lof.of 'times we request that' we ge;f
4 the 'information back .and "then it's next year and: we haven't followed thrqu.gh
5 ourselves. I'd, appreciate that.
Council .Member Torliatt: Mr. Vice Mayor; there are ;no waivers of fhe-fees .and
this event will also be paying for the police services2 Is than correct?'
Vice Mayor.Healy: Yes.
Ms. Freitas: Wilr the,f.ees to„tal $l 10.0? Can I ~askfor clarification on ,the report that
will be, brought back?' There was a request for economic information by Council
Member Tbrlia"tf. P''m no;t going to be able to give ,you e><act dollar numbers in
terms o'f retail ,sales tax dollars from ,the Sta#e Board of Equalization that's
compiled into e"verything that' comes; info_the Cify. Are yogi looking for beneff do
the businesses downtown where I would dust walk into each of the stores and ask
them how't was for them?
Council Member Torriatt,: Don't you have some sort ;of method of k?.eing able to
find out what th;e gross sales were from fhe entire Antique Faire and require that
as part of the vendors reporting? How much each vendor actually sold. at this
event:?
Ms. Freitas We don't requir-e that'only because; we don''t take a percentage of
their. safes. There's a flat fee -that they pay. That,'s probably something; we can
institute but it`s going to be on an honors system.,
Council Member ~Moynhan_: Ms. Freifas, you do :good: reports. I''ve seen them.
before. bo your best. Bring it back. It' II be fine. Can we v~~fe on, this, please:?.
Motion to approve Reso. 20Q2-T28 N:C.S. M/S MoynihanjMaguire:
AYES,:. Cadet-Thompson,
O' Brien, Torliatt,
N"O'ES' None.
ABSENT::. Mayor Thompson
ABSTAIN: .None
'Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
RESO.20:02,-12.9' N:,C.S.
APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL Y'EAR'-2002/2003'
Resolution Adopting, the A. ppropridtion Limit'for FiscaFYedr'a002%2003 and Making
the Annual, Erection for Adjustment Factors,
Finance Director :Bill Thomas: The Gann's Appropriations Limit hasp been
calculated at $84,028,661. The appropriation.subjecf to the limif of Fiscal Year
2003 is approximately $1:7,446,000, 'leaving an, overage of $66,000,000:'There will
August 5, 2002 Vol. 3$, Page 169'
l
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
3$
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
be slight adjusfinents where we're undergoing some final audits for the Fiscal
Year 2000 Garin Appropriations calculations and I'll be bringing that back to you
.later on in the year.
Motion to approve Reso. 2002-129 N.C.S. M/S Maguire/O'Brien.
AYES: Coder-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan.,
O'Brien; Torliatt,
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION FOR RECONSIDER'ATLON
ADOBE LUMBER SEWER COfVNECTIO.N
Motion-for Reconsideration of Motion Adopting Resolution 2002-108 N.C.S. (.July
15, 2002), Approving the Requested Sewer Connection: for Adobe Lumber, the
Connection to be no Larger Than 4", For Existing Lumberyard Business Ohly, and
With The Condition, That the 1 1.4K Cubic Yards. of Fill Be Removed Completely fo
Comply with the City's Zero Net Fill Ordinance..
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma: Earlier today I stopped .into the City Aftorney's
Office with the question about the procedure here. There is a requirement in law
that for a motion for reconsideration to be brought back a member of th'e
Council who has voted on the. item at the previous. meeting should initiate fhe
reconsideration. On this agenda, that person is not identified. Who is .bringing
this item back?
Vice Mayor Healy: I was the one who made the motion at the previous meeting:
Mr. Cartwright: But the agenda doesn't point that out and l'm questioning
whether this is properly agehdize.d.
Council Member Moynihan: Mr. Cartwright has a point. I suggest that we
reagendize this for the next meeting.
Vice Nfayor Healy: With the Mayor's absence I don't anticipate that this motion
For 'reconsideration passing. I' m actually prepared at this time to withdraw it
because the issue would heed t:a be framed, further down the road. We had a
discussion wifh, only "five Council members present.. There was agreement
among all of us who participated in the discussion, that there is a desire to get
Adobe .Lumber to xemove the fill from its site that does not comply with the City's
Zero .Net Fill Ordinance notwithstanding that at this-time it continues to be in the
County and that Ordinance did not apply to it at the time. When the property is
annexed to the City it will need to comply with that and the issue is how to
provide a .proper set of incentives to Adobe Lumber to get it there. The motion
that was passed by the Council was: all sticks and no carrots and will not result i~n
one thimble full of fill being removed from that site. I'm in favor of looking for a
Vol. 38, Page 170 August 5, 2002
1 solution to this, probi.em that will solve Adobe Lumber's intE~rests and' address the
2 City's interests as well. f don't know if any .other Council, member wants. f,o s.ay
3 anything. l will withdraw fhe motion at this time. Mr. Connolly is .here if you want
4 him to say anything about that?
5
6 Council Member Moynihan; I was also absent but .I reviewed fhe tape on 'it. I
7 would like to say that I was disappointed that' the ecor~omie impacts of this
8 decision- weren't taken into consideration. Most' particularly, there`'s eight rrillio.n
9 dollars o.f sales going on out there right now which translates into $80;000 a year
10 in sakes tax revenue the City of Petaluma would get once if'.s incorporated and
11 for as long as than operation continues: And, for us to s~ruggle where we :are-
12 going to find. the: salary for a police officer and then just forget that we didn''t get
13 an $80,000 windfall by incorporating one piece of property is an. oversight. I
T4 would be happy to reagendize th'is`it.em and discuss it further if the applicant is'so
15 willing..
16
17 Council Member Torliatt; i believe that Council Member Moynihan `is incorrect
18 because the question being .posed to us was whether or not we were going to
19 allow sewer .hookup. There was not an annexation of this parcel that would not
20 result in any economic benefit to the: City of Petaluma. What the Counc
21 directed was to proceed with the prezoning in order 1.0 have this property
22 annexed. That' what we're ,looking to do is to create that. economic be.nef.it
23 and that. value based on a good develo.prnent proposal and land use. If the
24 Vice Mayor pulls o.ff this Cec.onsiderafion is it a dead issu;e and it stands as if is?
25 That question is to the City Attorney and it can't b.e reagendized as a motion: to
26 reconsider at fhe next meeting.
27
28 Vice Mayor Healy: I have no intention of doing that... I know .Adobe Lumber is
29 trying to get a handle on exactly how many of these 1 1.4K cubic. yards of fill that
30 were imported to the site are in violation of the Zero Net Fill Ordinance. Qs we
31 discussed previously they don't -have their arms around that yet so we don't
32 have that information,, I helve 'no intention of asking to reconsider the previous
33 motion in the future but it may be appropriate as events unfold to reagend'ize
34 the entire matter and bring it ;back to see•'if the terms that the C y proposed for
35 a sewer connection were appropriate and if that addresses the City's :needs as
36 well as Adobe. Lumber's ;needs. I wou d be happy to work informally wi,~fh Cou,nc:l'
37 Member Torliatt. oranother Council member and. th.e propE~rty owner to see if we
38 could crafta solution thatwill actually get the fill off the site.
39
40 Council Member Torliatt: We did sp;eak about this at Zone 2-A very briefly and.
41 there was a concern amongst Zone 2-A members about the `"ille;gal fill" that is in
42 there, I don't think what the C'ouncil'was'tdlking about at the, last rneetirg had
43 to do wifh just complying with the Zero Net Fill Ordinance. Qt was about removing'
44 all of the fill thdt was in there in addition to complying- with the Zero Net Fill
45 Ordinance. That was the determination thaf we rnade.,
4.6
47 Council Member Maguire: When the question 'is brought vp it's; enti,tle.d to
48 consideration. but this wasn't the firs"t `time that if had come `to this Co`unciL I'wds
August 5, 2002 Uol. 38, Page 171
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
concerned about the incremental entitlements- creeping along so fhgt when
you get to the point of adopting a new general plan or annexing, or some things
.have occurred like somebody who .cuts down 17 acres of trees to change the'
landscape of a piece of property under consideration for different uses; that's
not the way fhat we wgnt to do our business. I still have those concerns about
those incremental entitlements. If we were to do an economic analysis we
would also be looking at fhe potential cos# of irrmpacts of increased flood
damage. I'd be happy with you and Council Member Torliatt meeting with the
property owner, and fackling it head''-on because that addresses the incremental
entitlements issue, f Council agrees with that. l'Il supporf it.
Richard Savel, Penngrove: First I wouldlike to point out that the way the agenda
item is written, just so i't`s~correeted for the record, on the 4'" line it says: "Yard fill
is to be removed completely to comply..." It should be "and comply..." They
were two separate things. That's my recollection. This was b"rougflt up in a Zone
2-A .meeting.. We voted to send the City a letter of recommendation to remove
the fill.. at fhe site. A presentation was .made at the committee meeting by
Pamela Tuff and .Mike Ban relating. to the needs of the City and the County to
work together in their analysis of the impacts of development in the flood plain in
their respective General; Plans. A ;good :idea,. I ,have reviewed the packet
information that Geoff Cartwright has `provided which is not com.plefe, I believe. l
called Lola Caretti foday but she's gone. I did talk to. a gentleman there;and he
said typically when someone comes 'in aril tries to make legal something tha ,
was done illegally it still has. to go through an envronmenfdl review and it may
have gone through~what the Co,u,nty's version or understanding of wha-f ..Zero Net
Fill is. Anytime you .start researching something you' can find yours .elf getting into
information that isn't always: the' friendliesf to discover. One of the things that J
found and will raise the issue .o.f: "Wh.ere's the fill .going to be.;removed to if it``s
ever removed?" Part of the-fill at-this site, three to six thousand cubic yards of `it,.
are. spoils from construction:,on McDowell Boulevard, which we exported from
the City .illegally. -
Council Member Moynihan: ~ Nlr:. Vice: Mayor, Mr. Savel's points are good ones
and definitely need to be heard but the item in front of u-s :on,the agenda today
is .simply dealing with a motion forreconsideration. This issue~~needs to comeback
to the Council and we need to get inpuf` such as this, but we''re already' an hour
late.
Mr. Savel.f'Il be glad to come back if t~nrould be more appropriate dt a different
time. I believe that's all that would be pertinent to this portion of the meeting `ds
Council Member Moynihan said. ~ ~ - .
John. Cheney, Petaluma: I'm not sure if f'm speaking ~to fhe right issue. or where;
I'm going. I .missed the meeting of July 15'h. I h'awe in front of me a City memo
that was done by Pgrnela Tuft in 1999 indicating 'that the fill had been put there
illegally. It also indicates in that memo that in 1990 that same motion to put fill in
was brought in front of the City's Planning Commission indicating that they
wanted to start the fill .process. Evidently the City didn't work on it. As far as I
Vol. 38, Page 172 n August 5, 2002
1 know,. the. County didn't work on it. However.; the _ City requested an
2 environmental impacf report.,, not from' this Council. but from the Plahning Office.
3 When that' wasn't done the fill was put. into 'the ;place anyway. That isn''f just
4 carelessness. Thaf's plain shammy.
.. ,
Vice Mayor ;Healy:, NIY. Cheney,. I think the Council 'is united on wanting f,o try fo
get the 'fill out'of there that d,oesn`t comply with Zero Net Fill. We got hung up on
some of the details: and we are past that.
Mr. Cheney: We indicated on the; origindl forms t,flat thErre were 25~ :tho'usand
cubic yards of fill, no.t 1;4. We k-now the engineers are, always right and fhey went
in there and.. counted it thou;g'h it"s all ;fill. Right now l`m just here. I'II'.be back to
th'e next one. I think you shouldtake a good Gook at this memo.. Copy it and ;give
it brick to: me. if that was made and they went ahead and did the fill .anyway,
that's .more than ju"st carelessness.
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma: Speaking to fhe issue ofi the motion, L'm glad that it
has been wit2hdrawn. I really, don`t think this should comae ~ back in any for.,rn,
because when you look at this file that I'we provided you, ;it's a complete file of
1 1 or 12 years of violations. You're looking at an applicant,; a developer,~who' has
not' a'cte:d in good.. faith: I don't expect him to act' ih good faith. If' you're going
to .bring :this back; bring if'back as Q complete. annexation. package where you
have jurisdiction.
RESO.2002-130 N.C.S.. ,
DISCUSSION AN.D `POSSIBLE DIRECT
Finance ;Direct'or Bill Thomas: Patrick Whifnell, the represenfative from Myers ,Nave
Riback Silver and V</lson, Attorneys at Law; is, iri~the audienc:e and `I wou d like:.him
to speak as to the legal situation of the transfer: On ..lone 17t" the Council
approved Reso.lu:tion .2002-092 N_:C,S. conditionally .approving the proposed.
change of control; of AT&T Broadband from AT&T Broadband to AT&T/.Comeasf..
Final approval was based, on whether or not the City uncovers any compliance
issues. under the currentfranchise agreement. Until' now we have not been, able
to identify any;`however, there is a potential compliance issue:with the collection
of the Public Education Governmental ('PEG) flees. Mr: Whtnell will discuss- those
items..
Patrick'~Whitnell .M,yers 'Nave-:ef: al: 'Th;e originals resolution That you passe:d gave
the staff sixty days to identify an,y- cornpliarice;'iss,ues. Those sixty days are almost
u;p and today we 'have: not yet identified any compliance. issues, y:et 'there .has
been some sig_ nifiicant concerns whether ATB~T is in compliance: with its
obligations with respect to collect'ign and ,payment o_f PEG fees.. I've provided:.
you with a Confidential and, Privileged memo that gives our analysis of the
franchise agreement on that issue.However, the Council.' rnay, wish to have 'us
go back and do some additional research and see if they are in compliance
both with the. letter but also with what the intent' of fhe Council aril AT'8~T was at
August 5, 2002 Voh 38, Pdge 173
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
the time that this agreement was negotiated. The Council has two options. One
option is to do nothing and then, when the sixty-day period in the resolution is up,
it is deemed, an uncondifional approval and AT&T moves forward.. Now, the City
doesn't lose any of its ability to enforce any noncompliance with the franchise if
any is discov._ered after that point: But we do lose a litfle bit of leverage in that
we've allowed Phis particular action to request application from AT&T to move
forward. The second. option is,. contrary to representations that AT8~T has made,
the 120-day review period that the City, pursuant to federal law, has not beeri
completed yet:. The reason for that is it .did n"ot begin to run until May, which is
when AT8~T provided. us a satisfactory response to the City's request for
additional: information in support of what's known as the FORM 394 application
that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires them to submit fo
each of their local franchising authorities. The 120 days is not going to be up.
until September, so what we can do is amend that resolution that you had
passed in June to extend' the sixty day period until either the erid of August or
beginning of September, whatever works for your meeting schedule, acid to
provide us with whatever direction you have, ;in terms of investigating ahd
de ermining whether AT8~T is fully in compliance With the franchise and if the PEG
fees are a particular area of concern for the Council: We'll go back and take a
look at it .and will determine what was negotiated to the extent we can and
what was negotiated at the time this agreement was approved and whether it's
in full. compliance with federal law. At'~fhis .point .we are seeking some direction
from the Council.
Council Member Torliatt: As ,far as`you're concerned, is AT&T in compliance with
the I-Net requirements of our contract?
Mr. Whitnell: f wasn't aware that. there was an issue with ..regards to the I-Net. I
haven't,~taken a look at fhat.issue in terms of what they are required to provide
and what the mechanism is,;for. the G.ty~to request the`1-Net: I don't have the
ability to answer that at this time..
Council Member Torliatt: Weren't. you -hired to review the contract arid to see if
they were in compliance with the issues? Or what were yov hired to do:? Who's
in charge of making sure that t`s~'in compliance?
Mr. Whitnell: We were relying. on Staff's review of the franchise agreement given
their superior knowledge of what is ih~ the agreement but, also, what AT&T hc~s
and has not done and' to identify issues such as the PEG Fee issue. It wasn't until
today that, I was aware that the I-Net_was;-a potential area of noncompliance.
Whether it is or riot; I can't say at this..,point. We need to discuss that with Mr.
Thomas and Interim Assistant Manager Gene Beatty and determine whether that
is a compliance problem.
Council Member Torliatt: As far as you're concerned you don't know of any
noncompliance issues?
Mr. Whitnell: Not at this time.
Vol. 38, Page 174 August 5, 2002
1 Council Member Tocliatt: You are •relying on infiormation that Staff `is providing us.
2 Then my question goes to Bill' Thomas, which is: `'Is AT8~T in compliance with their 1-
3 Net regvirernenas for the City?'' I've.. been. hearing rumbin<~s about reducing the
4 subscriber fee 'from. the $2,.00 amount., which I want to hear more about. I want
5 to make. sure that: whatever we negotiate. maintains what the. Petaluma
6 Community Access. (PCA) needs. in order to maintain their operation. Does: N1r.
7 Risk, who had done the original assessment and had made recommendations `to
8 -the Council>, know what the status .of those_ recommendations are and whether
9 or no.t they "were ;implem'ented? In regard. to auditing, with. AT&T and the
10 revenues they '.have. been receiving., we've been get ing letters from AT8~T faking
11 about expanded service: here -and charging .$79.99 for this and that. l want to
12 know if they're- making more money`,are we making more rrioney and have our
13 revenues inerease:d pursu:ant'to that? 1 would like to get an update: of the status
14 with PCA dnd to get their rrios# recenfi :operdfing stdtemPnt. I believe Mr. Risk
15 had stilted `in an e-°maif thaf he had "sent back 'in March cif this. year saying. fh;at
16 there may be a way for AT&T to have to pay'for some of`an audit. I would like to
17 see how we .can get an audit done and .have AT8~T pay for it.
Vice Mayor Healy; Are you; trying. to ;give us answers to all our questions tonight
or are you just asking for areas where you, want us to: have you to 'provide further
answers.? In what specific direction are y.ou looking for tonight?
Council Member Torliatt: It-was the latter.
Interim Assistant City Manager Gene; Beatty: Some of the Council members may
be able to respond to some of "what has been happening the last ten months
because I do_n't have a clue. I can tell you about I-Net. In the franct'ise
agreement they were going to offer us to connect_the facilities to an I-Net. .
Council Member Torlia;tt: Are we just going to give the questions to staff :and
Staff come back so we don't have to have an answer right now?
Vice Mayor Hedly: We are in, a time crunch right now, If we need to deal with
this today,, we will, 'If we're to get an' extension or .,give ourselves. an extension,
does AT8~T agree with the timeline that Mr. Whithell' spelle<~ out or are we going
to agree or disagree about that?
Mr. Beatty: The last conversation I had with them. they disagreed with 'that. The
answer with the I-.Net is it's not a compliance issue. They weren''t giving it to us
anyway. They were going to .charge us. We looked into it and (heir system.
wasn't 'what we wanted'. 1Ne went with PacBell. That is the answer to° your
question. V~/e are .now cgnnected facility-wise not with tk~eir system `because ,it
was more expensive than we could get from sorrmebody else..
Vice M`ayorNealy; Mr, Beatty, are you and Mr: W.htnell cornfortable`that we can
grant ourselves an extension and; deal with this issue over the next several,
weeks?
August 5, 2002
Vol. 38, Page 175'
1 NIr: Beatty: Ye"s.
2
3 Council Member Maguire: -I stumbled on the meeting that Bill Thomas and Gene.
4 Beatty were having with AT8~T this afternoon at 1';00 o'clock. It was 'not exactly
5 as constructive as we had hoped. I heard from prior discussions that AT8~T was
6 talking about an 85 cent per month public access fee. It turns oUt that "today, or
7 a few days ago, they' claim if they were goin, g to make that fee "mandatory"
8 then. that fee was goi"ng to have to be used only for capital.: That's like "pull the
9 rug out" kind of :deal.. We were very clear in saying, "In your dreams.." I had
10 raised this with Mr. fiNhitnell today and I' m sorry that I had. to raise it with him
1 1 .before and M,r. Rudnansky, I know, I've given. you an e-mail on this prior to the
12 June meetings specifically saying. that because the original intent of the .monthly
13 fee was that That would be mandatory and fhat AT&T has interpreted it
14 differently that that, in of its.elf., constitutes a noncompliance in `the contract. I've
15 asked Mr. Whitnell to go bask, take a look at that and would ask. that. the
16 Council support that. That is potentially the leverage for us to start having some
17 more productive discussions. '
18
19 The woman from AT&T was claiming that FCC guidelines said that if you have a:
20 monfhly mandatory fee it has to go to capital: Mr. Whitnell's assessment is no,
21 that doesn't appear to be the cdse. We didn''t think it was because if that were
22 the case they would have been hiding behind that too, two and a half years
23 agow.hen we went through this orighal battle with them,. and they weren''t.
24 We`ve asked there; fio.r their citations on that and, asked. Mr. Whitnell to look into
25 that. I would support rescinding the resolution that was done at the June
26 meeting to extend the timing on that: That coupled with. their pattern of
27 attacking community access stations in this manner across the country .has some
28 validity as to questioning their integrity as a provider.: We were. disappoinfed
29 when they tried to claim that this was going tq be for capital only:.. We did point
30 ouf the history of .this, the fact that if says: if'this mandatory' fee. is not paid by a
31 subscriber .that AT8~T does not have to make up that payment nor, are fh;ey
32 responsible for collecting that .payment 'for those who default. That is not the'
33 same as making that a voluntary fee. That's the other stuff we want looked into
34 here to nail that down. We have a strong .ethical:, argument. Hopefully, the
35 attorneys will,•come back to verify the technical aspects of'it'as well..
36
37 Ellen ,Lewis,. Petaluma Community Access (PCA): We turned in a letter from the
38 Board that you may, .have. We would app"reci,dte that time to have this discussion
39 about the compliance issue. For me, it's d completely new discussion and what
40 ,that means. Bill Thomas and Diane Reilly-Torres have been educating me and
41 the Board on what are the compliance issues and what would benefit FCA the
42 most. The ability to have the time to discuss that issue would. be helpful to us. We
43 have an advisory committee that we formed of people from the. community to
44 get guidance from people in the -know on how to move PCA forward. I would
45 like to have ;that opportunity to have conversations with other access centers to
46 see how they're handling this AT&T change of name. Weil come back with .any
47 information we have and share it with you.
48
Vol. 38, Page 176 Augusf 5, 2002
Victor Chechanov.er, Petaluma: I wasn`''t aware, that you had approved :the
transfer. I'm very' happy that l'm not connected' to .the cable:... You are a,t the
mercy of AT8~T because if you reject #h'e: transfer all th`e poop e in Petaluma will
be down here stoning yo.u. Petaluma Community Access is a resource that has
to be protested in fhis negotiation... Any transfer should. be conditional on getting
the best possible deal, in Phis situation.
Bill Harnrner,mgn, , Petaluma iVet Three weeks, ago during public comment I tried
to put this onyour radar'screen; par'ticul'arly in connection with-the I-Ne : What
recall :about 'looking at 'th'e original' franchise agreement;, which had an entire
section dealing with I-Net, I''m not .sure, whether. w,.e'''re- ou;'t of comp lance or iri -
compliance but if th'e City is making fhe recommendation let''s go ah'e.ad.`with
this because we 'decided not to go with AT&T, and go with PacBell you are
overlooking d much larger picture. of how th'e I .N,et might benefit this community.
Keep in mind the franchise agreement has- a: '`P," has an ``E'' grid has a `'G"". I
interpret Mr. Beatty's comments to mean, that a' decision, was made, regarding
-
tfe "G". Wh,gt about the "P''~ What dbout the "E~"2 I would recommend ;that
there be an extensign made and that this be brough back for fuller discussion.. I
have the compliance report or audit that was. made at the end of the fourth
year..
The Council asked an ou:tsid;e consultant to do a very-thorough review. L'm not
so sure, based upon. what 1've he-ard so far in public,, that fhe Staff review has
been adequafe in terms of that original agreement:. I would like to. recommend
that you get professionals who are really expert in what 'goes into these
agreements. This can be handled very quickly bu't if you say' fhey're in
compliance I;'m ,not so sure. `I: would like to say that we've been involved with
volunteers from ;the community since 1:998 and the I-lyet was, part of the
~_ _ _
discussions at that time;., What can, an adequate: review, do? Santa Rosa held up.
the sale or the transfer because- the language in 'the' franchise agreement
involving connection 'to the Petaluma campus. of Santa Rosa Junior College had.
not been made. They stuck by that and hey won. their point. There are some
things: in this dgreement `which, if carefully analyzed. by profess'i'onals,. you'll tied.
out the- City is ,not getting what 'it should get. -
Vice Mayor Healy: Gene.and Patri'c_k, what should we d;o here tonight to ge;t.•this:
extension and. then when should we bring if back?
Diane Reilly=Torres, Petaluma: You spent $30,000 for John Risk. I was at the
meeting and 'the' direction, °was to follow through on the recomme'ndati'ons.
Nothing` was done; 1 ;don`t think. You"re spending j;100Q00, on another
agreement regarding the tax; audit. You''re 'spe'nding money wifh, the• garbage
fee. I would like the. Council tohire Sue. Burke to 'review this.,. This has been .going,
-
on for a long time. lt's important to~the City and. fo fhe pe~'ple in the community.
Mr. Whitnell: 1f theCouncil; wishes ,to .extend' 'the tirn'e t:o address the questions.
that have been raised .here this e ening the way'to do it is .through a motion `that
amends the previous resolution to extend the time period f~~r .compliance review.
August 5, 2002 Vol. 38; Page 177
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
It will have to be until your September 9'" meeting because that will be the only
opportunity before the 120-day period runs our.
Mr. Thomas: We received answers to our compliance issues questions from AT&T
on May 28t".
Mr. Whitnell: I't's later than I thought.
Vice Mayor Healy: The meeting of the 9t" is .getting jammed at this point. We
may have to have a special meeting the following week, if that's still within the
time frame.
Mr. Thomas: I will find out what that date is and I'll get back to you. I'm dfmost
sure that it was the last week in May that we received it.
Mr: Whitnell: We do need you to take action tonight to extend it. As a place
holder .for now extend it to your September 9'" meeting.. On September 9t" you
can either consider it if you have to put it over for a special meeting or continue
it until a later meeting.
Council- Member .Maguire.: You have to rescind the resolution tonight and give
them more time because the 60 days will be ending'in August.
Motion to adopt Reso. 2002-130 N.C.S. amending the Council's prior resolution
approved on June 17, 2002 to extend the time for staff's review of AT8~T's
compliance with the existing franchise. to the 120-day period, which will be
confirmed by staff. M/S Torliatt/O' Brien.
Council Member .Moynihan: The. Council has given pretty good sense of
direction that the PGA preservation is a concern. We need to trust the. folks: that
we have working for us to handle this matter, particularly; Mr. Beatty, Mr. Thomas
and Mr. Rudhansky. l have an ongoing concern on a number of issues but in this
matter, dealing with litigation, I want to avoid litigation where possible. It's a
definite possibility. That's a poor idea if Council members are going to be sitting
in on these negotiations and in light of some of the published comments that
have been .made in the past in regards to the negotiations with ATB~T that would
not contribute to avoiding litigation. I would like to ask, respectfully, that all
Council members not participate in these meetings but to allow staff to do their
,job.
Council Member Cader-Thompson: I would like to request that staff talk with
John Risk to review the audit for the last time because there were some
recommendations in the previous audit and I' m sure there are some changes.
Mr. Thomas: We did give the .issues that Mr. Risk brought forward in his last audit
to AT8~T. When we talk about the letter that -they sent us in May that was in
answer to those outstanding issues that AT8~T had not taken care of yet. We can
Vol. 38, Page 178 August 5, 2002
1 provide you with that. I' m not sure of any further discussions, bus we can discuss
2 with. him or the other person that was identified.
3
4 Mr. Beatty: I need some clarification. 'L' m hearing some direction. to contact
5 John Risk, and I'm hearing' Stie Buske. 1 .need to knov~r what the. Council's
6 direction is on this and also state that we'd like to find out if that is the Council''s
7 direction if either of those individuals is available: and what that would cost, It;s a
8 little late for whatever reason to do this at this poinf I don`t know when all this
9 sta_ reed.
10
T 1 Vice ,Mayor Wealy: There's, not much time even- with this extension: Your
12 examination needs to be very focused on the key areas cis opposed to starting,
13 some broad>brush issue...
14
15 Mr. Beatty: We have. the issue of `not only the access'fee, whether it's voluntary
16 or mandatory,,. and what impact that ,has on the .use of` those monies collected...
17 That's a big determiner. My understanding from PCA folks is that they would
18 prefer to have. a ong term 'funding source through, a man~a'tory flee. If that fee
19 is restricted to capital and they can't use it for- operations I would think they
20 would think twice about, that.. We really do need to get fhe answers to that:.. To
21 me, that's the most important outstanding issue. These other issues that were
22 brought up 'in the audit of a year or so' 'ago, there° was no fine 'fin:ding of
23 noncompliance. There are some issues that` need to be rf=solved an`d we. need.
24 to find out what's happened with that.
25 -
'26 Council Member-Gader-Thompson:. I don't know if it's Sue E3'uske or if it's John Risk.
'27 but I would like them to at least ,be a part of this.. Whoever could come :iri the
28 quickest- just to review the information I would 'fe:el much~.better going in that
29 direction and, no; I don't want the full blown audit that we did when 1 first' got on`
30 the Council then two years later. I would prefer John. Risk only :.because he did;
31 the past audit and he lives c ose in Petaluma and that might be a benefit. "That
32 would. be my. choice .because of that particular reason c~nd tha# would be my
33 request by fhe Council. I'm not looking of a $30,000 audit... I'm riot going in that
34 direction. I would. like the Council to consider hiring him to review- along with
35 staff.
36
37 Council Member Torliatt: I'd dike us to talk to Mr. Risk about ariy
38 recommendations he might :have. The City Manager heis the: authority, up to
39 $25,OO,Q, to deal with issues like this. f''d just like tq move forward.
4.0
41 Council Member O'Brien: Mr. Vice Mayor, there'sa motion and second. Please
42 call. for the vote.
43
44 AYES: Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor'Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
45 O"Brien, Torliatt,
46 NOES: None
47 ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
4;8 ABSTAIN: None
August 5„2002
Vol. 38, Page 79
1 .PUBLIC COM'MffVT
2
3 Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma: $45,000. That's how much Mr. Moynihan has cost
4 the City of Petaluma in his attempts to destroy campaign finance reform: T
5 wonder how many potholes that would have filled?
6
7 Larcy Kings Petaluma: I am addressing th;e litigation concerning Council Member
8 Moynihan. I would like to provide the C'ouncif Members with a copy of the
9 proceedings: before the judge as 'highlighted b_y me as to. what I think are the
10 relevant portions that this Council should consider when they consider the offer
1 1 to settle that .has .been communicated through me to your counsel. Hopefully,
12 you will be addressing it in Closed Session tonight:
13
14 Council Member Torliatt: Mr. King, has that been a written request - a written
15 sefflement?
16
17 Mr. King: In .response to your question, Ms. Torliatt, that offer has been made:
18 verbally by me to your Council: I understand. your Council. has. prepared a
19 Memorandum sefting forth what the terms of that offer'is. Ifi fhe Counciil_ has any
20 questions about that I''ll be happy to. answer thgt., I-would. like to point out,
21 contrary to what Mr. Cartwright said;; ~Couneil Member Moynihan has not spent
22 that $45,000. It was the. City Council that voted to bring this litigation, Prior to the
23 litigation, being. brought, I offered. fo -your Cbuncil~ to meet in Closed Session with.
24 your counsel or to have the item agendize.d so .it could be addressed here- in
25 public so that the Cou~nci~f would have the benefit of more thane one atforney's
26 view on this statute. We now have spent more like $50,000 and. you' had two.
27 attorneys drive from Sacramenfo to the hearing who then disagreed with each..
28 other as fo what the meaning of fhe .statute 'was before the judge. 1 am
29 concerned.,. based on the comments made by your attorneys in the newspaper
30 and in court, that this Couneil~has been .,laboring under th'e misconception fhat
31 this case is a slam dunk in which' it would be easily determined. that Mr. Moynihan:.
32 was in violation of the actual statute.. Y,ou've now had an independent ,judge
33 that has no political ax to grind. who has reviewed your att'orneys' ;best shot.
34 `~ ~ ~.
35 As you will see in the transcript, your attorney has indicated to fhe- court that
36 there's no more that he has .to ,present to the court in ;terms of additional.
37 evidence on this issue. What. fhe court has said,: after`Kreviewing everything that
38 your counsel has been able to present on ,,fhis issue,. is first of all in his tenfative.
39 ruling, which is now his final ruling,, and I quote: "The plain iff, which is the Cify of
40 Petaluma, has failed to meet its burden to show fhat the contribution limit
41 contained in: the campaign finance ordinance applied outside of the period of
42 the two-year election cycle in which the candidate ;is running for election.'` This is
43 a point I made in conversation with your attorney prior to the suit being brought..
44 The court went on to state, this is on the second page and it is highlighted for you
45 in the transcript of the hearing,.. and., I quote, the judge said: "In my mind this is
46 an ambiguous ordinance." He then goes on to say on page 6, which is
47 highlighted for you.: "What I think is ambiguous in the stq#u#e are the words
48 `during any election cycle' with respect to any Cifiy election fio that candiddte."
Vol. 38, Page 180 August 5; 2002
1 This is specifically what I argued to your counsel before suit was filed an'd argued'
2 before the court and. th-e court apparently agre.ed'. Now, the court -went on, 'on
3 page 7, to say, " now I really don't unders'fiand what that means but it certainly, is
4 a reasonable :interpre.tdtion that what that' means is thQit it only applies to a
5 candidate during the: two year cycle that they are elected. Certainly, that is'
6 one way to interpret the statutte." ~He goes on to sta#e can the same page,: "`'I
7 think you need •to go back fo ne drawing boards ,with fif~is sfafute if'~you want,.
8 something different. `' This is what I suggested to your counsel before "$50,OOQ was
9 spent of the taxpayers money. That if you really ,suppe>rt campaign finance
1 Q reform what you need to do is take the. statute that was passed in a hurry, when
11 there was, a lame duck majority, and' have'it state what yov mean:; If youw,ant'it
12' to mean two hundred' dollars :p.er person, in each election cycle, put that: in
13 there. I'd like to encourage you to go ahead :and read the highlighted portions
14 of this including his final statement in'which. he again,: and there are several other
15 statements he makes clear by somebody that"s not' polifically involved in 'this
16 issue and who is looking at'it ds a judge; and'who may be one. of the judges who
17 may ultimately' decider "this case,. My reading of it indicates that it would. be
18 interpreted as the~defen,dants .have interpreted it,. To sc~y that Mr. Moynihan,
19 should file the pir•it'.of the statute rather than the statute itself is directly"con#rary
20 to the legal: system in this: country; Due process requires th-at the statutesstate
21 clearly what is prohibited and~,wh:at is not prohibited:. The 'judge "has now told'.
22; you what I told your counsel b.efiore fh'is s-uit was filed, which is, this. is. an,
23` ambiguous st'a.tu,t,e.: You"ve had over a' year .to amend it: It'''s. time to arnen`d it.,
,~
24 It"s time to spend that $50;000 on things'-like police officers and streets and other
25 priorities and "stop spending it as your cons,tituen"t mentioned to you.
26 ,
27 Vice Mayor Healy.:.. I d'o not want 'to get~;into questions oi~ dialogue.. That's the
28 end of Public Comment on this.
29
30 CLOSED SESSION ~ -
31
32 • Conference with Legal Counsel -.Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government
33 Code Section 54956.9.' (.a);' "City ofi Petdluma`vs Moynihan, Sonoma County
-34 Superior Court Case No 228276.
35 Conference with Legaf Counsel - Existing Lti,gatioi~, Subdivision (a) of
36 Government Code Section 5495''6.9, Bobby Thompson, et a( vs. City of
37 Retaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court~Case No, 22677.
38 Conference with, Legal .Counsel - Existing Litigatioh, Subdivision (a;!) of
39 Government Code Section 54,956.9. Russell Kimberly vs. City o,f P'etaluma,
40 Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. 2255"43:-.
41 Conference with ;Legal; ~ -Counsel' -~ Existing Litigation, Subdivision ('a') of
42 Government Code Section 5495:6:9; Rondld Pike- vs. City ofi 'Petaluma;
43 Sonomd County`Sup'erior Court' Cdse No. 226388.
44 Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation, .Subdivision 9a) of
45 government Code section 54956.9:, Tammy Loeffler vs: City of Petaluma, U:S.
46 Distr:iet Court, .Northern. District of California, Case No. G01-039.5 PJN.
47 Conference with: Legal Counsel -Anticipated Litigafiio'n, Significant Exposure
48' to Litigation Pursuant to S.ub'division ~9(b) o,f Se.ction,5495b:9: (two matters)
August 5, 2002 ~ Vol. 38, Page;181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
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
RECESSED AT 6':50 P.M.
RECONVENED AT 7:54 P.M. .
PRESENT: Coder-Thompson., Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
O'Brien, Torliatt
ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
PLEDGE OF.:ALLEGIANCE
Led: by Fire Chief Chris Albertson
MOMENT OF SILENCE
REPORT OUT OF.CLOSED SESSION
Steven Churchwell; Livingston ~ Mattesich, .,representing the City of
Petaluma against Bryant Moynihan., reported that Judge Laurence Sawyer
rejected the City's lawsuit against Mr. Moynihan. Mr. Moynihan's lawyer, Larry
King, offered to settled the case if' the City paid Ivl'r,V~Moynihan $15,000. This offer
was rejected by the City. The City offered to settled the lawsuit if Mr. Moynihan
would pay .back the money he received in excess of the $200 campaign
contribution lirnf without any fine whatsoever: That is the offer.. In addition, his
law firm has agreed to work for the City yin' the next-stage of-fhe lawsuit pro Bono.
The firm is feeling badly. about the motion for settlement of the mofiion. We tfiihk
that th`e judge is wrong a,nd we would like to take that up to the- Court of
Appeals i'n San Francisco. to see if they would take fhe case now instead of
waiting for an' appeal if 'fh`e settlement offer is 'not accepted. We think the
settlement offer'is reasonable.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS,~AND'DELETIONS I ~"
Vice Mayor Healy announced that the Magnolia Place Subdivision item will not
be heard this evening. At the request of the applicant it has been taken off fhe
agenda and anew-date has not been selected as qet.
P_UBtIC COMMENT
Tom McGaw,: Johan Barella, and Fre. d (S'kip) Sommer: All expressed thanks to
Mayor Thompson for the good job that he has done as Mayor dnd hoping that
he would run for office for another four years.
Gerald'~Moore, Petaluma: Turned in another pe, tition containing 2,513 signatures
of people expressing support for the creation ofi a wetlands park and wildlife
sanctuary on the property located between Shollenberger Park and the present
water settling ponds on Lakeville Road. This is in addition to the. petition he had
delivered, to the Council in December of 2001, which contained 1..,064 signatures.
Vol. 38, Page 182 August 5, 2002
l Bill Donahue, Sandalwood. Mobile Home Park, Petaluma: Reported that the
2 Sandalwood Mobile Home Park owners have filed a suit in 'Superior Court
3 challenging the arbitrafor's 6~ award fo the park owrier~s for their space: gent
4 increase, He asked what is happening dn_d whom do fhey go to now that the
5 City's attorney in this matter is out of San Leandro?
6
7 City Aftor.ney Rudnansky replied that he would' cheek into the matter and
8 contact Nlr. Donahue.
9
10 Richard Brawn, Westridge Knolls Subdivision, Petaluma::poke to the Council
1 1 regarding a chanter school that is being proposed for a piece ofi the Hash
12 property at the end of''1' Street and expressed concerns that the public. is barred
13 from participating in the City's response to any charter sr_hool exemption from
14 zoning. He asked the Council to draft q letter to the Director of Community
15 Development to draft the necessary policy to allow public involvement.
l6
17 Richard: L. Parker, Petaluma: There are people at Waste Management
18 Corporation, by design, whom~you~cannot contact. Their trucks are stilf leaving
19 oil on 'the streets: He still hasn't received the 'information :from Nlr. Anchordoguy
20 that Mayor Thornpson_requested three weeks .ago on his. behalf`. He wants to
21 know how the $640,Q00 ,paid by the hom`ebuyers in Greystone Creek has been
22 spent? Informed the Council °fhafrt;h`e boa:fs are all. gone.
23
24 Don Weisenfluh, Petaluma: Urged, the Council and others to read the article on
2 water that is in the curren# issue of U.S. News Report.
26 ,. ~.
..~
27 Jay Si_Iverberg,; Petaluma: Expressed hope. thaf. Mayor Thompson would seek.
28 reelection because the people need him to, get through some of the issues that
29 the town is facing.
30
31 Bill Phillips, Cornmittee:'for Magnolia', Park,.. Petaluma;` 'Rep~~rted that. fhe people.
32 who have supported the;park in the proposed developm~E:nt are- co'nfuse'd' by a
33 recent flyer fhat was distributed by the developer and asked f;he Council. not to
34 accept any postcards ;that come in stating_supportfgr°the park..
35 ~ ~ '
36 Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma: Spoke on the"City of 'Tucson's "Water Haruesting
37 Guidance Manual," which describes the principles, techniques and design
38 process ofwater harvesting. He• explained thaw wate_r'harvE~sting is the process of
39 intercepting stormwater runoff from a' surface: and putting, it Ito beneficial use.. He.
4,0 hopes that Council Member Moynihan will accept 'fhe generous settlement offer
41 that's been made to him. ~ -
42
43 COUNCIL COMMENT
44
45 • Councii Mem, ber Maguire: ~ _
46
47 Regarding the offer'to ,Nlr. Moynihan, it. is the desire ofi the Council to curtail
48 the escalating cost. We have complete confidence that, "should we have to
August 5, 2002 VoL 38, Page 183
1 go to court, we will ultimately prevail. We hope that those who speak about
2 fiscal. responsibility will act in the manner in which they speak.
3
4 • Council Member Torliatt:
5
6 Attended. the. Water Advisory Committee meeting today along with all the
7 other confractors and members of the Water Agency where we participated
8 in a training for our new Master Water AgCeement negotiations. She will keep
9 Council updated on the progress of the. negofiations.
10
1 1 • Council Member0`Brien:
12
13 Reported on the Fire Department's Charity Golf Tournament he participated
14 in yesterday.
15
16 Echoed what the speakers had to say about. Mayor Thompson running again
17 for reelection.
18
19 • Council Member Moynihan:
20
21 Spoke on the revised Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which: was
22 presented to the Council before voting on the budget. This: year th:e: PGDC
23 projects were integrated in the CIP under_the -right departments, It was not
24 comprehensive. and did not include all the projects before the Council.. It's
25 not gfive-year program. If's a o'ne-year p"rogram. Council needs to continue
2b to work and have a full five-year CIP that all can irivesf in. There. were no
27 ,park projects that were incorpo_raaed. in the C(P fhis year. We 'have limited
28 maintenance funds and before we start building parks we need to identify
29 from where the maintenance money will come. There''s $400,000 in
30 developers fees that have been pledged for development. `We could phase
31 this project in and start some grading, etc. Also., 'West Ridge Park has. a
32 $200,000: outlay that could be used for a kids' playing field, in that area., It
33 .sends a wrong signal to adopt a Capital Improvement Program that has no
34 park 'improvement projects in it. There"'s no street reconstruction program.
35 We have to rectify fhat mistake by bringing back. the. PCDC budget
36 allocating the $3;000,000. He also commented on why the City is paying
37 administration fees after a project has been completed: at was the consensus
38 on the Council that we were to move .forward with some initial design on
39 Project 9528, which is the cross-town connector acid highway interchange.:
40 There were some funds that were supposed fo have been pledged in the CIP
41 f.or that.. He would like to bring that back as soon as possible so that we can
42 move forward on a long-term approach to fixing our streets and to moving
43 forward on some other areas.
44
45 • Vice Mayor Healy:
46
47 With respect to Richard Brawn's comment on the potential charter school on
48 the end of `I' Street, Council could suggest that the Planning Commission
Vol. 38, Page 184
August 5, 2b02
1 agen,dize that item for discussion and an opportun, ity fcx the public to come
2 out and speak on it.
3
4 PRO.CLAM•ATLON
Vice Mayor Mealy presented a Proclamation fo Lilly Mc~irello recognizing her
heroic actions and .keen observation that presented fle K~ossibility of "the loss of
life arid home of her neighbors.
Fire Chief Albertson in'troduc`ed Lilly's mother and commenfed that O'overnor
Gray Davis and Senator .Bar,bara Boxer also commended Lilly on her decisive
action.
APPOINTMENTS
CITY'BOARDS; COMMISSIONS; AND COMMITTEES
Lntrodu.ction and Appointment of Applicants for Vacancies on B'oar..ds,
Commissions and: Committees:
RES0,;2002-13,T N.C.S;
AIRPORT COAAMISSIO;N
Vote for one to .Serve aFour-Year Terrn 'Expi'ring .June: 30, 2006' ;and Confirm PAPA
Representative to Serve aOne-year Term Expiring :June `30; 2003.
Motion 'to appoint Jim '..Hudson to 'serv.e a :four-year term,. expiring, June 30,. 2006
on the Airport Commission an'd to confirm .the aKp.ointm,ent of ,PAPA
representative Don Smith to serve aone-year term, expirine~ June 30, 2003 on fhe.
Airport Commission. NI/S Maguire/Tocliatt.
AYES: Cader-Thompson,
O~' Brien, Torliatf,
NOES; None
ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
ABSTAINC None
Vice Mayor Mealy, Magui`rE> Moynihan,
RESO.2002`-1;32 N'.C.S.
TREE ADyISORY COM11flITTEE
Vote for two to Serve Two=,year~Terrns Expiring June 30, 200
AAotion to appoint Frances Wilson and Kit' Lofroos to the Tree Advisory `Committe`e;
to serve two-year terms expiring June 30, 2004. M/S Maguire/Cad'er-Thompson.
AYES:. Cader-T,hompso'n, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
O'Brien, Torliatt,
NOES: None
ABSENT:'• Mayor Thornpso,n
August 5, 2002
Vol. 38; Page 185
1 ABSTAIN: None
2
3 RESO. 2002-133 N.C.S.
4 PUBLIC'HEARLNG
5 REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING PERMITS
6
7 Finance Director Bill Thomas: These fees were inadvertently left °off the last' fee
8 increase in the .July 15, 2002 meeting. This goes along with the revenue 'and cost
9 study that was prepared by our consultant earlier.
10
1 1 Community Development Director Mike Moore: In reply, ~to questions from
12 Council Member Moynihan, he explaned~h'ow fees are charged based on ~tf1e
13 Uniform Building Code according to the work fhat is' being done,.
~4
15 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
16
17 Vice Mayor Healy opened the public hearing and called for comments from the
18 'audience.. Since' no one spoke on the item, Vice Mayor'Healy closed the Public
19 Hearing.
20
21 PUBLIC HEARLNG CLOSED
22
23 Motion to adopt Resolution 2002-133 N.C.S. M/S Torfjatt/Nlaguire.
24
25 AYES: Cadet=Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
26 O"Brien,, Torliatt,
27 NOES: None .
28 ABSENT: _ -Mayor Thompson
29 ABSTAIN: None
30
31 PUBLIC HEARING'
32 RESO.2002-134IV.C.S.
33 CONFLRM THE :COST OF ABATEMENT OF WEEDS
34
35 .Fire Chief Chris Albertson said the: agenda .item is the annual request of Council
3`6 to place the fees that were charged to 'the homeowners who did' not pay their
37 fees to be placed on the tax bill.
38
39 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
40
41 Vice Mayor HegLy opened the Public Hearing, and called for comments from the
42 audience. Since no one spoke on the item, Vice Mayor Healy closed the Public
43 Hearing.
44
45 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
46
47 Motion; to approve Reso. 2002-134 N.C.S. M/S O'Brien/Torliatt.
48
Vol. 38, Page 186
AYES: Coder-Thompson,
O'Brien, Torliaft,.
NOES': :None::
ABSENT:: Mayor Thompson
ABSTAIN: :None
August: 5, 2002
Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
PUB.LIC,HEARING ,~
RESO.; 2002-13'5 N.C.S:
,_
UVATER RECYCLING FACILITYIRIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTa PROJECT EIR
Certifying 'Water Recycling Facility :and; River Access Improvements Project Final
Environmental.lrnpact Report. (;EIR):; and
. .
RES0..2002-1:36 N:',C:S'.
WATER RECYCLING`FACILITYLRIVER ACCESS IIVIRROVEMfNT;> PROJECT
_~ _ _
Approving Water Recycling; Facili#;y and River Access, Improvements project,
Adop:tin.g Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adopting
N1'itigation Measures and Monitoring Program.
.Engineering'Manager Mike Ban: We are- re;ques`ting that the City Council
conduct ,a Public Hearing on the Final EIR for the Water Recycling Facility and
River Access Improvements 'Project. Also adopt the resolution certifying fhe
Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR and adopt a
resolution approving :the project and adopting the Findings and Sta.ternen,ts of
Ov..erriding Considerations, and adopting Mitigation Measures ,and Moni,f_oring
Program. Since this la't-est phase of the City's effort to procure: a new W-titer
Recycling Facility began in September of 1999 the City has continually sought
out and invited the public's input .on this project. This approach continued
through. January of this year when ,the City Cou,n:cil selected :a preferred
alternative and. directed City management to complEae the enyiconrnental
documentation. on the project.
Following this direction he City issued the. Draft EIR in April of this year and
conducfed„Public Hearings on May 13'h and May 20'": After the. public comment
period closed on Nlay 29t" the project team assembled all of th,e written and' oral
comments received on the project. Th_e responses are provided,~in fhe Pinal EIR.
The Final ELR was issued on. July 25t" of this year.. Notices on the availability ofi the
EIR were published` in the Press. Democrat and the Augus Courier and also about
tonight''s meeting. "We' made copies of fhe Final. E1R 'avail'i~ble at City HaII, .Santa
:Rosa Junior College, the ,Community Center, Senior Center dnd made available
;for purchase here at City HaIL No~ nevv information on the EIR has been
submitted to indicate: a new significant impact or substantially amore severe
impact;. therefore, there's. no need .to prepare and circulate a :revised Draft _EIR.
The Final EIR responding to the comments on the braft EIR has been prepared~'in
accordance with CEQ_ A an'd it's ready to be certified k>.y the City Council. All
comments submitaed on the Draft- EIR had been responded to in the Final `EIR
August 5, 2002 Vol. 38; Page 1'87'
1 and it is not the project team's intent to respond to any comments at tonigh"fs
2; public hearing.
3
4 Council Member Maguire: If"s great to see these steps go forward: This is a,big
5 project very important to the community, arid having, been involved in this one
6 for longer than I have been on the Council, it's gratifying to see the fine level 'of
7 work by Mr. Ban; our staff and consultants. Whaf is the current timing on the new
8 wastewater service rates coming back to the Council?
9
10 Mr. Ban: We're looking at mid-September.
11
12 Council Member Ca'der-Thompson: I also want to thank Mr. Ban for all his work
13 and the others involved. They've done great work and we really appreciate it.
14
15 ,PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
16
17 Vice Mayor Healy opened the Public Hearing and called for comments from fhe
18 public.
19
20 Vasco Brazil, Petaluma: Read afour-page letter stating that the Final EIR. should
21 not be certified'yet'because it is incomplete and stating his reasons. (A copy of
22 this letter is in the file).
23
24 Indrajit Ob~eysekere, Legal. Counsel for Kaiser Pecmanente: I would like to
25 commend staff for all the work they have done working on fhis project. I've
26 glanced. at it. I haven't read it in any detail. The EIR is fairly complex and. even
27 as a land use awyer, I can only understand portions of it. We at Kaiser
28 appreciate the need for infrastructure improvement in acommunity, and
29 recognize that is something that's important and probably needs to hdppen in
30 some form or fhe other. Our issue is quite simple. We've had several instances in
31 the last couple of years-with our facility. Mostly, this has to do with odors from fhe
32 existing retention ponds. We've talKed to staff about it and there''s been various
33 explanations .given. It did cause us quite. a significant operational impact. We
34 had to send employees home. We had members complaining and our concern,
35 primarily, is that this be addressed. So we will ask the Council and staff to make
36 sure to the extent that they can to insure that the mitigation measures identified
37 in the EIR are adequate to dddress the issue ofi odors emanating from the
38 treatment facility just so this doesn't turn out fo be a problem. down the road for
39 ovr members and staff.
40
41 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
42
43 Council Member 'Maguire: I have read all of the issues Mr: Brazil has raised in the
44 EIR with responses. There. is no new information there:: 1 know the issue of odors .
45 has been raised in the past and we have expressly structured this with odor-
46 control mechanisms and that's covered in the EIR.
47
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
Vol. 38, Page 188
August 5, 2002.
Motion to adopt Reso: 2002=135 N.C:S. and Reso. 2002-136 N.C.S. M/S
Maguire/Caller-Thompson.
AYES: Gader-Thompson, Vice. Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
O' Brien,'Torliatt,
- -,:r
NOES: None ~ ~~
ABSENT: Mayor Thompson ~ _
ABSTAIN.: None ~ t
Council Members offered comments .on how long they have worked on this
project and although the costs have gone up tfle project is now' on t'ra'ck for'
completion: .
AGEfVDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
Vice: N,layor° Healy .announced that- the- Magnolia ,Place Subdivision has b°een ' ,
continued to a meeting in September as per the request of the applicants.:
ADJOURN
The. meeting was: adjourned at 9:T9 p.m.
~~ .
Mike Healy, Vire Mayor .
ATTEST:
5 .S ~,O,c J -
Eleanor Berfo, Interim City CI'erk
******