HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 12/03/2001
'December 3', 2001
Vol. 37, Page 57
1 City of Petaluma, California
2 Minutes of a Regular
3 City Council Meeting
4 Monday, December 3, 2001
5
6 ROLL CALL 3:00 p.m:
7
8 PRESENT: O'Brien; Healy, Torliatt, Vice. Mayor Caller-Thompson,
9 Mayor'Thompson, Maguire, Moynihan
10 ABSENT: None
11
12 PUBLIC COMMENT
13' There was no one wishing to speak.
14
15 ~ COUNCIL :COMMENT
16
17 There was no one wishing to speak.
18 CONSENT CALENDAR
19
20 The following items were enacted in one mofion made by Councilmember Torliaft,
21 seconded by Vice Mayor Gader-Thompson:
22
23 AYES: O'Brien, Healy, Torliatt, Moynihan,
24 Vice Mayor Caller=Thompson, Mayor Thompson.
25 NOES: None
26 ABSENT: Maguire
27
28" RESO. 2001-196 NCS
29 TREE .COMMITTEE RESIGNATION
30
3i Resolution 2001-196 NCS kccepti'ng the Resignation of Gabe .Kearney from the
32 Tree Committee.
33
34 ~ STATUS REPORT
35, PAYRAN FLOOD MANAGEMENT PROJECT
36
37 The Corps of Engineers contract for the transition channel section is installingsheet
38 pile wall adjacent to the Lakeville Street Bridge: The work should be completed' in
39 60 days..
40
41 Meetings are being arranged with the Corps of Engineers; 1Ninzler & Kelly and the
42 City to discuss timelines and dollar requirements for completion of the Corps of
43 Engineers. project. This information is necessary for requests for the 2002-03
44 .budget cycle to complete construction and reimbursement to the. City.
45
46 ***** End Consent Calendar *****
Vol. 37, Page 58 December 3, .2001
1 RESO.2001=197 NCS
2 MID-BLOCK CROSSWALKS'
3 NORTH MCDOINELL BO',U.LEUi4RD
4
5 Resolution 2001-197 NCS' Approving .the. Installation of Two. Mid-Block
6 Crosswalks on North McDowell,Boulevard Extension off of Old Redwood Highway
7 by Cisco Systems.
8
9 Councilmernber Moynihan feels there is a safety ,issue, since one. of the proposed
10 crosswalks is between two driveways. People pulling .out` of the driveway and
11 turning right: when there 'is someone stepping off the curb could potenfially place
12 that pedestrian in danger..
13
14 Michael .Evert, Public Facilities and, ,Services, stated that Cisco Systems 'has .
15 buildings:: on both sides. of North McDowell. and their employees cross the street
16 'numerous times. The traffic consultant reviewed two favorable .locations., The
17 location. closest to Willow Brook is a flashing crosswalk and. the crosswalk to the
18 north is a, painted: crosswalk. A flashing crosswalk is recommended because the
19 sight distance is reduced in .that one area. Hopefully it will make drivers more aware
20 of pedestrians.
21
22 City policy is that mid-block crosswalks need Council approval. Staff agrees with
23 this. recommendation; the recommendation of the traffic engineer; and the request
24 of Cisco Systems.
'25
q .: ~ ,.
26 Councilmember Torliatt re nests that Cisco look at an additional tabletop for one or
27 more of the crosswalks. and incorporate that rnto what is berng proposed, to ensure;
28 vehicles~actually slowing down.
29
30 Vice Mayo-,r Caller-Thompson asked if, tabletops in the ,crosswalks could, be put in ~.
31 place on Sonoma Mountain Parkway.
32
33 :Rich Skladzien, Public Facilities and. Services Director, stated that ped'estr.ian
34 crossing counts had been taken on Sonoma Mountain Parkway. ,Because of the
35 speed limit and'bus pullouts the safety issues need to be worked out.
36 _
37 Councilmember Healy recalled that,when Council discussed tabletops in connection
3~8 with the 'PEP Project on Douglas Street, it was obviously a very slow traffic
`39 environment. He asked how these tabletops work in higher speed environments.
40
41 Mr Skladzien stated that tabletops. can be navigated up to 40 mph, '..but a .lower
42 speed`'is best~when approaching them.
43
44 Councilmember Wealy will support this as long as, the Fire D:epartrnent signs off and
45 also the same. condition -that Cisco wouCd bear the expense and give staff the
46 discretion to do that.
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
December 3, 2001
Vol. 37, Page 59
MID-.BLOCK CROSSWALKS
NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD, continued
Councilmember O'Brien is not in favor of tabletops. His concern is not the speed
limit, which is 35 mph. He would like to know what the 85th percentile is on
McDowell. In addition to the Fire Department he would also like the Police
Department's input.
Mr. Evert explained that the average speed is 31.5 mph. The speed limit is 30 mph.
The 85th percentile is 35.3 mph.
Couneil'member Maguire noted that a lot of the people who do work in that area are
aware of the traffic patterns and the speed that comes up. With the Fire
Department's concurrence, he would support a, tabletop and added that any
additional crosswalks would be beneficial to the pedestrian traffic in that area.
Councfinember Moynihan felt that the. Traffic Advisory Committee should be _
making a recommendation to Council. The proposal merits consideration, but it is
inappropriate for this Council to be designing crosswalks. 1n light of these points, he
announced he would' be voting no.
Motion made by Councilmember Maguire; seconded by Vice Mayor Cader-
Thompson.
AYES: Healy, Torliatt, Maguire., Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson,
Mayor Thompson.
NOES: O'Brien, .Moynihan
ABSENT: None
TENTATIVE AGENDA
DECEMBER 17, 2001
Council consensus to remove the Council Rules, Pol.i'cies and Procedures and
Campaign Finance Ordinance and place. there on a Special Meeting date in
January.
AYES: O'Brien, .Healy, Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan,
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Council sang 'Feliz Navidad for PCA viewers.
Vol. 37, Page 60 December 3, 2001
1 VOTER'OPINIORI POLL
2 SIRE€T IMP:ROVfMENTS.BOND
3
4 Tim McCarney of G`odbe Research. presented the results. of the public opinion study
5 regarding the feasibility of a revenue measure to fund street. and road.
6 improvements.
7
8 After evaluating the results of the survey; Godbe looked at which of the funding,
9 mechanisms would be most viable for Petaluma and concluded. that both the. sales
10 tax and a benefit assessment could work.
The: ales tax in particular has 'the ability to raise more revenue than any of the
otherfunding mechanisms.
A sales tax measure also has a more equitable: mechanism for~generating revenue;
..All who benefit from the .improved streets and roads pay for the measure;, not just.
Petaluma property owners.: Along.. with the benefits, the City should; also. consider
the specifi'e `challenges associated with`the sales tax'.
20 Finance Director Bill Thomas explained that the sales. tax would. go to ,the General
21 Fund to be used for road improvements if that is how it is designated.
22
Mr. McLarney continued that there are two ways where .revenue .measures for
transportation improvements have been done: One is a sales. `tax where: it is
spec_'ifically ,said that it, is not only a sales tax, it requires 2/3~d vote and it's for a
particular set of purposes. There is also A=B .approach where there is an advisory
measure that states we should fix-our roads, and `B' is a General Tax and they're
linked together, but voted on separately.. That requires a majority. The problem they
have 'is "we'll fix our roads" receives 85% and the "we'll raise taxes";received 15%:
Unless the information campaign is done very effectively there's that disconnect.
"The enabling legislation. is required from the, state' and must be signed before a
sales fax can actually be, implemented: in the City.. A potential. conflict is if` the
.County of Sonoma puts a transportation sales tax measure on .the ..ballot. at or-.near
the same time. This could defract support from fhe measure.
Couneilmember Maguire asked if the City or County passes a measure, is the
enabling legislation a consent calendar item for the State?
Mr. Thomas replied that it had to be: before the election... He feels comfortable that
we would be able to put: this on the ballot 'for the Nouem.ber 2002 election.,. It would
require that the assembly in the senafe be in session. so we have somebody
introduce it for us. I believe there are seven other cities in the state thaf have this
enabling legislation:
45
46
December 3, 2001 Vol. 37, Page 61
1 VOTER OPINION POLL
2 STREET IMPROVEMENTS BOND, continued
3
4 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson asked the difference between a sales tax and a gas
5 tax. If the City did a gas tax, would it sfill require 2/3~d vote?
6
7 Mr. Thomas clarified that the gas tax is the portion of the sales tax on gasoline sales
8 that has returned to the City. If sales tax is increased by .25 there will be .25
9 additional sales tax going to the gas tax fund. That is a portion dealt to the cities by
10 population.
11
12 Sixty-six to seventy percent favored an increase in sales tax in order to fix the
13 streets over any of the other mechanisms that were tested in terms of support.
14
15 Older voters were much less likely to support the measure in the first and .second
16 ballot test. There was over 60% support in .all of the other groups. The sales tax was
17 much more receptive of supporting that measure.
18
19 Benefit assessment for increase in property tax $40 - 68%, $80 - 51 % with a benefit
20 assessment it is a weighted majority plus one so there isn't the 55% threshold.
21'
22 Both a sales tax and. a benefit assessment appear to be feasible. The first ballot test
23 received over 50% support from voters ,and owners. The owner group would be
24 those that would vote' for a benefit assessment. The second ballot test :received
25 over 60% from voters, and owners with over a 10% increase in support with
26 information. A support exceeds the needs for several of the tax thresholds tested
27 for both sales. tax and benefit assessment. Support is widespread across various
28 subgroups.
29
30 Councilrnember Healy pointed out that a '/a cent sales tax would raise something
31 like $2.5 million dollars: a year. Just to maintain the existing streets that are not
32 below the 70 on the API index would be about an $8 million dollar a year need and
33 that doesn't touch construction or repair of the streets that have fallen below that
34 standard. Is it ~an "eifher/or" or is there some way we can cobble together a program
35 that does both of these and directs funds from each to a particular purpose?
36
37 Mr: McLarney answered that in theory it was ,possible; in practice, probably difficult
38 because they are separate measures so you would want to pass a sales tax.
39
40 Councilmember Healy asked if it would be possible to go to the voters with one and
41 say `phis pot of money will be used for this .aspect of .tMe problem" and have a plan
42 and have"it known that the plan is fo go back to the voters with the other aspect of it
43 and say "this will be used to address a different piece of the problem."
44
45
Vol. 37, Page 62
December 3, 2001
1 VOTER OPINION POLL
2 STREET IMPROVEMENTS BOND, continued
3
4 Mr. McLarney replied that it could be done, but: could it be done in a way that 2/3ras
5 of .the voters .or a weighted majority is .going.. to support that down, the. line? If the
6 voters understand it and are willing to buy into it and they know that the sales tax
7 would be increased :and it goes to this project knowing that ;down, the line they will
8 have another measure.
9
10 Councilmernber Healy thought the implication was:! if the sales tax was raised by 1/a
1.1 cent that it will fix the problem and we know that isn't the case.
12
13 Mr. McLarney clarified that Godbe tried to relay in the survey that if taxes are raised,
14 it will not solve the whole problem, only a certain percentage.
15
16 Josh VViI ams, Godbe Research, said some of the negative arguments revolved
17 around., the County's consideration of a sales tax, belief that the City would
18 mismanage the money, and questions about the duration.: of a higher tax.
19
20 Mayor Thompson asked if a ballot measure stated it was specifically for McDowellx
21 Boulevard, Sonoma Mountain Parkway/Ely, Petaluma Boulevard'and Washington
22 Street, would it be more successful?
23 .
24 Mr. Williams replied that. Godbe looked at different projects and it was he pful in the
25 sense it wasn't. one of the top three,. but it was right in the middle. Forty-six. percent'
26 of the. people said it would make them "much more likely" to agree. Twenty-five.
27 percent said "somewhat more likely,"eight percent,said it;was "muchless likely." .
28
29 Mayor Thompson asked if it would be preferable to go after neighborhood streets
30 only on a tax measure.
31 -
32 Mr. McLarney said that in this case the- survey was designed to say,. if you knew
33 what would b_e spent on `X' would ,you be more or less likely and so we ranked
34 those.. The top ones are repair and maintenance of neighborhood streets. and
35 however they define neighborhood., If funding is too limited to improve every
36 neighborhood street, there is a potential downfall, whereas the major arterials are
37 streets that everyone uses.
38 "
39 Councilmember Torliatt thought that what was happening was a~lot of question
40 asking that Council should give. to a committee to discuss. The committee would
41 give Council a recommendation. on how much goes towards maintenance,. how
42 much goes towards an arterial street, how much should go towards neighborhood .:
43 streets. The ;City doesn',t have enough money to maintain the .existing: street system. .
44 She is concerned that if the City does rebuild a number of these streets it is
45 imperative that there be enough ,money to maintain them for the long term.
December 3, 2001
Vol. 37, Page 63
1 VOTER OPINION POLL
2 STREET IMPROVEMENTS BOND, continued
3
4 Mike Healy believes that 'if the City promised more than a particular sales tax or
5 other tax measure could deliver, there .would be, a credibility problem. The City
6 needs to be very clear with the voters.
7
8 Mr. Williams continued that one of the questions is how does the .support for a sales
9 tax measure change for increases greater than a ~/a%? People do recognize the
10 importance of this issue. At what point would the voters think it was too expensive?
11 The other issue is the Petaluma business community's potential organized
12 opposition to a sales tax measure its impact on the community. The problem is
13 there is a general.. reaction in the business community that.. sales tax is going to be
14 bad. People aren't ,going to buy groceries in Petaluma above that'/a% sales tax.
15
16 Vice Mayor Cadet-Thompson asked if the City could leverage Garvey bonds and
17 also do a sales tax. b:ecause one could be for maintenance and the other......... She
18 asked. what tfi`e sales, tax was for other cities in our area.
19
20 Mr. Thomas ;replied that: the sales tax in. Sonoma County is 7 'h% (sales tax is
21 uniform in counties) He will look into leveraging Garvey bonds. It is not a lot and will
22 not make a majoc~impact for the City's amount of gas tax.
23
24 Mr. Skladzien~ added that the City ,has. about $250,000 effective dollars that we can .
25 use from the gas tax and we could leverage about $2 million dollars out of that. We
26 would have to give up the: gas tax for a period of time.
27
28 Counclmember Moynihan the recommendation we're looking: at potentially of
29 increasing sales tax in an amount in excess of .25°I°, in your estimate based on the
30 survey conducted, would a .T or a 70% have a chance?
31 ..
32 Mr. IVIcLarney of what point is the tipping point? Between .1 and .25, Godbe didn't
33 see a real' change in demand for the public benefit. In other words, as we raise the
34 price, support didn't drop: very much, ~;b`ut you can hit a certain point and it will drop
35 off significantly. The language for a sales tax on a ballot is very different. Let's write
36 'it very specifically ,and try and package this in a way' we think it should look. One of
37 the big questions then would be the. threshold.
38
39 Mr. Williams to know that. such a large portion of the voters see that maintaining
40 streets and roads is such a problem would that, translate-into a higher ales tax, we
41 don't know.
42
43 Councilrnember Moynihan, there isn't one: bond measure that will pay for the $160
44 million in street resurfacing and maintenance.
45
Vol, 37, Page 64
December 3, 2001
1 VOTER OPINION .POLL
2' STREET IMPROVEMENTS BOND, continued
3
4 Can we focus in on a part, of the problem. and then use .,gas tax, Redevelopment
5 Agency Funds, Traffic Mitigation Funds to pay for the balance of the improvements
6 as far as our projects or program goes? Go after it incrementally and'identifystreets
7 and approach it than way and then come back with. another one when you have a
8 „proven track record.. I'm wondering if we can maybe parcel this. out and .make it
9 happen.
10
11 Mr. McLarney; f;yo.u establish a track record thatyou did. X, Y, & Z, that it cost this.
12 much and we .f,ulfilled our end' of the deal -and now you have these great streets,,
13 there is a positive impression of that and so you're in a much. betfer position to go
14 forward. It h'as worked more often in the reverse.
15
16 In general and primary elections you're competing with a lot of other sources; of
17 information. You've: got a host of candidates who are trying to get to the voter and
18 you. have also a turnout, which isn't going to be affected mucfiby communication
19 Special elections are situations where the turnout is typically very low and two
20 thins ou'll find is A '
g y )you can communicafe because there. aren'.t other people
21 battling for-the voter's ear and B) 'because turnouf is~generally so~ low, a campaign
22 can have a pretty significant effect in boosting turnout or changing the nature of the
23 turnout.
25 Mr. Williams .added that. your "get ou.t the.. vote" effort. can be much more. effective in
26 a special election environment. You're more~able`to influence that.
27
28 Councilmember Moynihan. asked if~ the. senior's .,propensity to .vote.. would. be a clot
29 higher in a general instead of `primary election;
30
31 Mr. McLarney, seniors are the most likely to be turning. out in fbw turri out elections
32 and that is part, of what I factored in when we, s'ee the electorate tends to be_ a little
33 bait more conservative on special elections.
34 ,~
35 Mayor Thompson, .have you found that more tax: legislation ~is more.successful if'
36 there is a Sunsef Clause in it?
37
38 Mr. McLarney depends on the type of m'echanism`: ` 'We; have] CSI they do
39 benefif ..assessments and like sales taxes often. times. there are Sunset Clauses
40 put into them. 'One thing we found consistently. through; xesearch and also
41 through conducting both salestax, revenue measures and a lot of assessment;
42 measures is voters° tend. to focus on what is it for and how much. am I -pay? rNot`
43 duration.. When ,you cake their attention and focus it on duration five, years
44 sounds like a long time much less 20 years.
45
December' 3, 2001
Vol. 37, Page 65
1 VOTER OPINION POLL
2 STREET,IMPROVEMENTS BOND, continued
3
4 Councilmember Torliatt has questions she would like answers to in writing.
5
6 1. What would the timeline be and what steps do we need to take if we are
7 going to go to a November 2002 ballot measure? (assumes it would be a'/4
8 cent sales tax)
9
10 2. What is the cost of putting this on the ballot?
11
12 3. Needs clarification on how much annually does this City need for street
13 maintenance?
14
15 4. What projects are we going to be proposing or a citizens advisory committee
16 would be .looking at and how much at a split would we be looking at with
17 maintenance or capital projects or whether we would do all maintenance
18 and no capital projects or how would that work out (that would be something
19 Godbe would be assisting staff in evaluating)?
20 t
21 5. Council needs to make recommendation on who would be on a citizens
22 committee (need people with a variety of different- interests)?
23
24 6. How much is it going to cost an average .citizen 'in this community if we did
25 do a '/4 cent sales tax? How much does that mean 'to his or her pocket
26 book?
27
28 7. What competitive economic: disadvantage might be facing the City if we
29 increased our sales tax'/a cent over the other cities in the County?
30
31 Councilmember Healy should be pursuing at this time based on this presentation is
32 the enabling legislation from Sacramento. VVe should. be contacting our two
33 legislators and asking them to get moving: I don't 'know how much specificity is
34 required in the enabling legislation and if you have to specify the amount. He thinks
35 the '/a cent 'is the most likely to succeed. He asked staff to get mo"re detail on that.
36 He has ..not decided if a citizen advisory committee is appropriate and would like to
37 have staff's input. on that. He feels the range of issues needs to be narrowed. We
38 are looking at potentially a sales tax measure as well a_s an assessment district,
39 possibly directed at different aspects of the problem, -maintenance and capital
40 improvement projects, lists of streets, etc.
41
42 Councilmember Maguire, when we look into the state enabling legislation, do I recall
43 something you could ask for up to a half or 3/a cent but wouldn't have to pass that or
44 do you have to give them specific, because if we could ask for more or get the
45
Vol. 37, Page 66
December 3, 200.1
1 VOTER OPINIOiV POLL:
2 STREET IMPROVEMENTS BOND, continued
3
4 enabling legislation that would give us more elbow room when it comes time to craft
5 our measure.
6
7 Mr. Thomas I .have a section. of the tax code that specifically relates to the City of
8 Sebastopol and it says "may levee a #ransaction and use tax at a rate of .125 %" so
9 they are indicating a specific. This enabling legislation is identifying a"specific
10 ~ amount.
11
12 Councilmember Moynihan: A couple of things, we learned f.rom_ Novato who
13 successfully put their .initiative on the ballot. What they learned. from that experience
14 was that the citizens committee isn't formed by the Council. Before we start
15 outlining. who's going to be en the committee we~ should put it in perspective and
16 .see if there is a desire in the community to forward it and I would suggest that would
17 have a.'big impact as to what the timing of any potential ballot measure would be
18 and whether or not we can musfer" the votes for a special election or otherwise.
19 Maybe the. Chamber of Commerce and others would support it in such :a way we
20 won't have to worry about whether or riot the business community would organize
21 an "opposition. Lets balance, it out and-come. forward with a little more objective of
22 an approach.
23
24 Councilmember Maguire.If we are one' of several tax measures on the November
25 ballot we need fo have a strong campaign effort in order for success., We should. be
26 watching the economy for the next six months, see what other agencies are putting
27 their hat in the ring and then see what the impact of that.collectively is. A'/a cent or
28 maybe a little higher looks like probably the most likely and successful .form this
29 could take. ~ .
30 "
31 Councilmember O'Brien, in order to make people within the City feel better, when
32 this is crafted I think we definitely have to go with some type of language that says
33 this is for use to repair city streets and no't to be used for other projects. Whatever
34 we have for street maintenance, street repair is still going fo be there and this is
35
..,
36 going to go strictly for street repairs. Soy we don't get into the thing with the widening
37 of 101 how do .we know the money is .going to be .used for that specific projecf?
38 -
39 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson, asked which tax would have a better chance. of
40 winning, a safety tax (Police. and Fire) or street. ballot measure? If there were a
41 safety tax how much more money would we have available for road 'improvements?
42
December 3, 2001
2
Vol. 37, Page 67
VOTER OPINION POLL
STREET IMPROVEMENTS BOND, continued
4
5 Mayor Thompson, if we went out with a ballot. measure on one of those items and
6 tookthe, money that we typically spend in thoSe:areas and use it on the roads is that
7 an opportunity also?
8
9 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson, is there something that Mr. Thomas could evaluate to
10 let us know how much money we would need and :how much. money we would end
11 up with at the end for streets: maintenance by having more money in the General
12 Fund, if we had a special assessment for Police and Fire..
13
14 Mr. Thomas, the percentage amount and there's a period.. of time that it has to be
15 passed by the legislature before it can go out to a vote.
16
17 Councilmember Torliatt: just to, clarify when i was talking -about putting together a
18 Citizens Advisory Committee` I'm specifically talking; about that committee making
19 recommendations on what- would occur- and wh'af would be put into a measure. I
20 did not talk about putting. a campaign together. I understand' the prohibitions that
21 they said he has 'in ,getting behind and running campaigns on ballot measures but I
22 think that it °is important that we`engage the community at large, the business
23 community and. the stakeholders and: one or two members of the Council to really
24 be able `to look .af how and why we crafted the way we are. going to craft it, if we're
25 going to go forward here.. So I just wanted. to make that .d'i"stinction.
26
27 Mayor Thompson one of the reasons for the great success in Novato. was because
28 it was a grass roots citizen 'led committee a_nd because there has always been the
29 suspicion. by the population thaf any".thing that :is handled by the :government may
30 not always be handled correctly: It really .should be a citizen driven, grass roots
31 type ofi an operation to be successful:
32
33 Vice Mayor C.ader-Thompson yo.u,„would. have, to pick people in the community from
34~ all different areas~otherwse it's not going tg work.
35
36 Counclmember Torliatf asked if Council understood the distinction she was making:
37 crafting the measure and .establishing a committee to run the campaign would be
38 two separate functions: ,
39
40 Councilmem_ber Moynihan felt that.Council should not craft,fhe measure. The grass
41 roots committee needs to get behind it to come forward with the recommendation.
42: Council ..has, the ultimate; power as far as putting it on the. ballot, though they could
43 qualify it ,as; referendum: He believes Council has an obligation to make a
44 commitment.. fo the. streets and roads and to use the redevelopment agency funds to
45 repair~them~.
46
Vol. 37, Page 68.
.December 3, 2001
1
2 ADJOURN TO.C'LOSfD SESSION 3:10 p:m.
3
4 Richard Rudnansky; City Attorney; 'announced the foalowing Closed Sessions.
5
6 • CONFERENCE 1NITH. LEGAL CquNSEL - Existing ,Litigation; Subdivision (a) of
7 'G'overnment Code .Section 5;4956:9, Bobby Thompson; et al vs: City of .Petaluma,
8 Sonoma County- Superior Court. Case No. 225677.
9 • .CONFERENCE. 'WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXlsting, Litigation, S.UbdIVISIOn (a) Of'
1.0 Goyernrnent Code Section 54956.;9; Russell Kimberly vs. 'City of Petaluma,
11 Sonoma County Superior .Colart Case No, 225543:
12 o CONFERENCE 'WITH: LEGAL COUNSEL - Existing Litigation, Subdivision (a) of
13 Government Code Section 54956:9; Ronald ..Pike, vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma
14 County Superior Court Case No. ,22638.8:
15 CONFERENCE WITH. ,LEGAL COUNSEL - ;Existing, L-itigation; Subdivision ('a) of
16 Government Code Section 54956:9; Tammy Loeffler vs: City of Petaluma, U;,S: .
17 '..District Court;. Northern District of California, Case No. C01-0395 PJH.
18 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -,Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure ao
19 Litigation Pursuant fo Subdivision 9(b}' of Section 5495.6 9::(1. matter)
20 • PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE. EVALUATION, Government Code Section 54957.
21 Title: City ;Manager:
22 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR, Government, Code ~~Sectign 54957,6. -
23 Agency Negotiator:.City Attorney. Unrepresented Employee; .City Manager
24 ,
~25 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ RECESS ~`5::3~Q~p~:m.
26 ~- .
27 ~ RECOIVVfNE: 7:00 p:m.
28
29 ~ ' ' RQLL CALL
30 -.
3.1 PRESENT: O'Brien; Healy; Torliatt, Maguire.,. Moynihan,,
32 Vice 'Mayor Caller-Thompson, :Mayor Thompson
33 ABSENT: None ~-
3.4
35 Mayo"_r Thompson stated 'there was nothing to report. out of Ctosed Session.
36 ,. ~ .
37 ~- PUBLIC COMIVIEIVT
3:8 ~ -
39 Terence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, with .regards to . he ,Water Recycling Plant he is
40 disappointed the City; did not look at. the Napa Salt Ponds. The plant today costs
41 do,uble..what it, did on the: original estimate.. He would like Council to make a decision
42 as soon as possible before itgets any more expensive.
43
44 Dorothy Morris; Albert Way, .gave a presentation on Area Age,ncy~on Aging Advisory.
45 Council, She presented they Council with: three documents: Sonoma County Area
46 Agency on Aging Area Plan 2001-2005:, Annual Report :2000=2001 and Resource
47 Guide for .Seniors:.
48
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
December 3, 2001
Vol. 37, Page 69
Bill Donahue, Sandalwood Mobile Home Park, reminded Council. that residents of
the parks are being threatened with "abusive" rent increases and leases. He has
some concerns with the memo that went to Council from the City Attorney.
Glen .Brunner, Sonoma County Mobile Home Owners Association, said the current
assessment'of land of the park is $3.6 million. The structural improvements are $1.6
million for a total of $5.2 million dollars. He has questions about the memo from staff
regarding Council's options in Perms of'the ordinance now in effect. There is nothing
to address~`the situation except to throw the ordinance out and iet the park owners
take over. Under Section 50, .both B1 and 65 of the ordi"Hance, there is a
requirement that .the park owners submit 24 months net operating income in order
to issue. a rent increase and in order to file it with the City Clerk. It is his
understanding that Bonne' .Gaebler would fi_a_ve that. decision. in order to stop a rent
increase notice #hat doesri'f meet the proper requirements; and hoped she would
deal with it, because on the record, it has already gone to Superior Court and been
upheld.
COUNCIL COMMENT
Gouncilmember Torliatt:
® Mobile Home - No date scheduled for Rent Stabilization Program in 2002. Deal
with this on the December 17th agenda when scheduling the Tentative Agenda.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson:
® Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging -her father is on the committee. There
are many services available to senior citizens. She advises seniors to check out
the Resource Guide.
• Reported that Clara Nelson recently had a stroke. She lives alone and needs
assistance during her rehabilitation period.
Councilmember Maguire:
® :Mobile Home Ordinance -has not heard of this .being repealed. There is not
much in the ordinance that can be amended that will address the specific
situation. at Sandalwood. Some of that is outside the City's purview. Bonne
Gaebler,as Housing Administrator should be informed if there were actions taken
by th'e :mobile home park owners that ran afoul of our ordinance. If there are
things that develop beyond that; this body could always be notified of some
abrogation of the Rent Control Ordinance for review and possible action.
Mr.Rudnansky believes the ordinance designates the City Clerk as the person to
receive the rent increase applications, and they should be checked for
Vol. 37, Page 70
December 3, 2001
1 completeness. H,e will: ask Bonne Gaebler to make sure she talks. to the appropriate
2 person at the County.. .
3
4 Councilmember Maguire:
5
6 Clara.. Nelson: -~ he saw. Clara on Thursday night at the dedication of the Mary
7 Isaak Homeless Services Center.
8 This: Friday is the. American Lung Association Celebrity 1Naiter Luncheon....
9 m He would like to adjourn this meeting 'in honor of D'icK Day, who passed
10 away last weekend.
11
12 Councilmember O'Brien: -
13
14 .Post-.,Sonoma is being considered as a ferry terminal: This is needed to 'get ears
15 off the freeway.
16
17 Councilmember .Healy:
18 .
19 • Mobile; .Home - He, is unclear what the expectation 'is for the City. Is there a
20 concern that the, process'in place; is not working the way it is supposed to or if'
2:1 the proses"s needs to be changed? 1Nhat action is being requested of Council?
22 Bonne Gaebler •shou d ,give Council an update of the situation from .her
,23 perspective.
24
25 Councilmerriber Moynihan:
26
27 Petaluma Hate Free Community program: Meeting on December 12th from '9:0.0
28 q.m: to 11:00 p.m. at the Petaluma Community .Center,. 320 North ;McDowell. .
29 Boulevard: This `is an opportunity for those in the :b,usiness community,, in
30 addition. to the .general community, to participate.. They will be discussing how
3'1 we will implement the program. in the community through a series of .training
32 seminars 'to heighten awareness and get people to address some of the
33 concerns we have in the community. _
34 • He welcomed' the Scouts. who attended the Council meeting in preparation of
35 receiving: their Citizenship merit. badges. -
36 '
37 RES0.:20,01-198 NCS
38 CHILDRENS' HEALTH CARE C.OALITI'ON
39
40 Dr. John Scherer, Family .Practtioner :and .Patricia Souza, Coordinator for Family
41 Action of Sonoma County made, a presentation fo Council regarding the
42 establishment of a system under which all Sonoma County children ha~e'full health
43 care benefits.
44
45 Parents 'are being. encouraged to sign their children up for health insurance by
46 calling Sonoma County Department of Health Services at `1-80,0-427-8982. Most
Decernber 3; 2001
Vol. 37, Page 71
1 uninsured children are eligible -for one of the publicly funded programs but have not
2 yet enrolled.
3
4 For more information call the Family Action. of Sonoma County at 586-3032.
5
6 Resolution .2001-198 NCS introduced by Councilmember Maguire,. seconded by
7 Moynihan, to support the. mission of Children's Health Care Access Coalition.
8
9 AYES: O'Brien, Healy, Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan,
10 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson, Mayor'Thompson
11 NOES: None
12 ABSENT: None
13
14 ~ CONSENT C~4LENDAR
15 The following .items; which ,are non-controversial and which. have been reviewed by
16 the . Gity Council and staff, were enacted by one motion, introduced by
1T Councilm,ember Healy, seconded by Magui're..
18
19 AYES: O'Brien,;, Nealy, Torliatt, ';Maguire; Moynihan,
20 Vice Mayor'Cader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson
21 NOES: None
22 ABSENT: Norie
23
24 RESO.2001-199 NCS
25 AIVIERICA'N TOW SERVICE
26
27 .Resolution 2001-199 NCS Authorizing City Manager to ign Amendment to Tow
28 Service Agreement with American Tow Service.
29
30 RES;O. 2001-200 NCS
31 DIOIV'S 'DOW,NT0INN TOWING
32
33 Resolution ,2001: 200 NGS Authorizing the City Manager to sign Amendment to
34 Tow Service: Agreement with Dion's Downtown Towing.
35
36 CITY STREETS/INFRASTRU,CTURE
37
38 Mike Evert, Supervising Civil Engineer, based on. a: recent survey of all streets by
39 Coastland cost estimates have been prepared for the. City's arterial and collectors.
40 The Council .packet includes three exhibits. Exhibit A includes the estimated cost of
41 arterials .:and collectors outside of the redevelopment areas. Mr. Marangella will
42 present the arterials and collector costs within. the two-redevelopment areas.
43
44 The attached cost estimates have been separated into arterials .and collectors
45 outside of the redevelopment areas and those within.
46
47
Vol. 37, Page'72
December 3, 2001
1 CITY STREETS/INFRASTRUCTURE, ..continued
2
3 What I am going to present :you' today are all ~of the streets. that have. a, pavement
4 condition index of 70 and, below.. 'Those streets. are streets that- are in :marginal
5 shape to poor shape:.. Pavement condition index of 1;00 is in :excellent condition and..
6 pavement. condition of 0 is a total deteriorated destroyed street.
7
8 Connectors are streets that are in good condition that are between. treets thaf ;need
9 to be repai "red and the thought '.is to repair them or rehabilitate the. connector so
10 when we finish a street'the whole street-has been rehabilitated.
11
12 For 1'.00% repair of the streets for the. eastsde would cost $40 million, 'the west side
13 $18 million. Plus 40% overhead is $58 million. Maintenance of the streets after the
15 and t on. ~ Ind ~d$11 n oillmaintain no the streets wethave re a re'n excellent:. to good
g __ _p d, we have arterials
16 and collectors out there. that are cu"rrently in :good condition and we need to :maintain
17 those in good condition, which is approXimately $8 million dollars over 20 years~to
18 maintain streets that are 70% to f00% pavement condition index fqr 20 years and
19 the Council decided #o repair the arterials. and, collectors within the Redevelopment:
20 Agency we sfiow;$5 million to rnaintai'n (hose streets after they've been repaired .for..
21 a total of $88 million dollars-. "Thee total ~of maintenance is~ about $30 million over 20
22 years. - $1-$`1 '/2 million per year. Five years afiter a streefi is resurfaced. youstart the
23 first rnainfenance cycle. Fiue years. after thaf at 1,0 years .and. at 15 years: Th'e life
24 expectancy of a street ,after it's been repaired is 20 years. Based on the: way if is
25 proposed farepar the streets, the City should Beta longer life.
26
27 Sales tax over 20' years to .repair ;s"treet is 0 55%; sales tax over 20 years to
28 maintain repaired streets: is 0.1,5% for a total of 0:•70%. or approximately, 3%a%o
29 increase in the sales tax:would take care of:all the arterial and collectors in the.Cify.
30
31 . ,Bill Thomas,,the maintenance costs, include those streets within the Redevelopment
32 `Project Area. Redeye opment Agency can pay to repair streets but the funds
33 :cannot be' used to maintain streets.
34- ~ .
35 For 7Q% ofi streets repaired it would be'h% sales tax and for'/4% safes tax 30% of
36 the streets. can be repaired.. This does not include local streets, were in the process
37 of getting a handle on the cost to repair all the local streets.
38
39 V1lhat treets can be done for'/4%0?
40
41 For local streets lit is 4" of :asphalt. For collectors it is 5" and arterials are 6''; with the
42 proper base under the: roadway.
43
44 Mr. Skladzien: The pavement thickness .will be consistent and- uniform across the
45 City, whether in the redevelopment areas, or east or west-.; Different soils have. tp~ be
46 treated differently so various sub-bases will have different configurations. 1Ne .need
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
December 3, 2001
Vol. 37, Page 73
CITY STREETS/INFRASTRUCTURE, continued
a good sub-base., at least 4" in residential areas, to .handle the heavy Waste
Management garbage trucks, and 5" and 6" for the arterial. and collectors.
Councilmember Moynihan.. asked about PGl for residential streets. He would ike to
see a summary that 'includes all residential streets, collectors, and arterials, both
within and outside of the redevelopment areas. It is two.different sources of funding
for potential projects. Fie would like to work. with the whole picture instead of
focusing on sales tax driven strategy, and look. at multiple sources of revenue
including state and federal funding.
Mr. Evert stated that he would come back at another time with other scenarios and
costs.
Councilmember Torliatt pointed out that ifi streets are brought up to "brand new"
level, the a;mount° of traffic and the average speed .of: vehicles on those streets will
increase. Because of`this, she wondered if the„City should elicit .input from residents
- should the street be maintained at `patch level"to avoid the hazards of more and
faster vehicles? Do the figures, allow for signage, Tabletops, etc., for which she
thought the .City-would be aske'd'. once ttie_streets were upgraded.
Mr. Evert replied that the figures .included enough contingency for signs and
possible tabletop. traffic calming devices. He added `that the costs did .not include
any utility replacement, curb and gutter, sidewalk replacement, street tree planting,
or streetlight replacement. The figures covered roadway improvementsfrom lip of
gutter to lip of gutter.
F
Councilmember Healy suggested that as the City proceeds with the bidding process
for a new long-term contract for waste pickup, the weight of the trucks should be a
consideration. It might be cheaper for' the City to have smaller trucks collecting
garbage rather than repair the streets darnaged by th'e "nonster"trucks now in use.
Councilmember Torliatt. wondered if a recovery fee for road maintenance could be
included in garbage bills. - ~~
Mr. Skladzien explained that typically Empire; Waste Management would be doing
the billing and the City would get it back as a_reimbursement. ~,
Mayor Thompson explained that Empire Waste Management had expressed a
desire to go to "single stream" collecting; that is, using ore truck to collect both
1
waste and recycling (in separate compartment's)..
Councilmernbe;r Healy thought putting scales on trucks could be done before the
current contract expires.
Vol. 37, .Page 74
December 3; 2001
1 CITY STREETS/INFRASTRUCTUR'E, continued
2
3 Councilmember O'Brien: asked if single stream collection would involve larger
4 trucks.
5
6 :Mr. Skladzen replied that this was not" .necessarily the case. Instead; the trucks
7 would' have. the ability to compact an amazingly large volume .because "if is more
8 bulk than weight."
9
10 Councilmember Healy noted that further in the report. there was a discussion, of
1.1 historic street fighting on streets including all the major arterials on the ;east side and
12 that was a pretty significant- expense item. He asked for confirmation than #liis was
13 not included 'in the costs now being discussed.
14
15 Mr. Evert said this was correct.
16
17 Councilmember Healy mentioned a memo staff provided ;that estimated $41 million
18 dollar to repair streets: only;,; gutter fo ,gutter, .and . by the. time all the, other
19 components were added it was a subsfantially higher number.
20
21 Mr. Evert explained that the, memo described a. "worst case scenario" of having, to
22 replace all. the curbs,, .gutters; andsidewalks, all the water, sewer, and storm drain
23 systems, install street.trees every:50', and replace lights.
24 ~ _
25 Councilmember Healy _was concerned that the. City might be perceived as
26 exaggerating'the scale~of~the problem.
27
28 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson thought the ;gutters and sidewalks would be repaired
29 at the same time the_ street was repaired.; if. the: need was there. She asked if this
30 would be evaluated.
31
32 Mr. Evert replied that'it would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, on a: street-by-
33 street basis: If, the. curb' and gutter are in poor shape, they would be replaced.
34 Regarding the utilities; the 1Nater Resources and Conservation Department will
35 work with the Public Facilities and Services to coordinate any needed water .and
36 sewer work before street work begins,
37 .
3'8 Mr. Evert .explained that the policy for cutting into a resurfaced street.; is for five
39 years.,. unless it's an emergency. The utility companies:. may request to install a new
40 telepl%one duct or replace a gas main. That would not.. be allowed in the :first five
41 years unless. repairs are necessary :to prevent an interruption of se_rvice,, .and the
42 utility company knows exactly where the problem lies, so the street is only cut into in
43 one small area.
44
45 Councilmember Maguireaskedwhy40% was used as an overhead',
46
December 3, 2001
VoL 37, Page 75
CITY STREETS/INFRASTRUCTURE, continued
2
3 Mr, Evert answered That- most ag'eneies budget 40% overhead or higher: 5% for City
4 overhead (administration of project), 10% for design, 15%° inspection, and 10%
5 contingency. ~ .
6
7 Implementing this program would require either a number of consulting firms or a
8 very large City staff... Other agencies in the area have .had problems hiring
9 engineering staff to handle their large capital improvement. programs and have had
10 to hire consultants. These fees would cover consultants.
11
12 Councilmember Moynihan asked if it would be possible to set standards for each
13 type of street and .then. lay out amulti-year five- or ten-year contract for so many
14 linear feet. of arterials and. collectors.
15
16 Mr. Evert thought that would. be doable on streets that don't have any unique design
17 issues., but a lot of older streets. have drainage problems and high crowns that
18 require special designs so that when the overlay is completed, the problems have
19 been solved and riot exaggerated.
20
21 Councilmember Moynihan, asked if it would be possible to set some general
22 parameters .and bid if out to get awell-driven. price for amulti-year contract doing so
23 many miles a. jrear. ;
24
25 Mr. Evert answered that the key `,to getting good prices is: 1) Having a good set of
26 plans., 2) Going out to bid in 'the winter time so'the contractors are bidding in a low-
27 volume time, and 3), Be _ready to, start work as soon .as the rains end. Doing amulti-
28 year contract may be~doable and he will look into that.
29
30 Councilmember Moynihan, Following up on what Councilmember Torliatt was
31 sayings he, suggested that not only -the `C' Street Storm 'Drain Project needed to be
32 integrated but also the. ,redevelopment agency projects need to be integrated. He
33 would 'like to. see them all on one CTP He thinks the. projects need to be planned
34 consistently from all. departments'.perspectives to ensure. that improvements aren't
35 made-for one project aril then torn up for the next one. He pointed out that the CIP
36 the budget this year for street resurfacing is $1.5 million,: and it declines from. there
37 for the. next ~ five or six;. years. The .City has virtually no street resurfacing or
38 upgrad'ng~programs ,budgeted. currently. The Redevelopment Agency coritribution is
39 "virtually nothing" also at $1:3 million, which is for the 1Nashington intersection, and
40 :another $9000.00 for nanother upcoming, project. There is nothing going towards
41 street resurfacing or reconstruction or new construction. He would like to see
42 Redevelopment Agency funds programmed info the CI'P for an aggressive street
43 repair and upgrade project,. but wants if consistently coming through one integrated
44 plan instead of two or three different directions.
45
46
Vol. 37, Page 76
December 3, 2001
1 CITY STREETSZIIVFRASTRUCTURE, continued
2
3 Mr. Evert ..explained that this year's large jump in funding was due to the resurfacing
4 of Lakeville Street; which has federal, funds and some work on Sonoma Mountain
5 Parkway, where there were funds ,left over from the previous assessment district.
6 After that, there is barely enough. money to do an on-call pothole. patching project at
7 approximately $220..,000 a year.
Councilmember Healy had read the. $8 million dollar figure. as the cost, of
maintaining them once they're brought up to standard. He' asked what the annual
investment-would be to maintain the limited number of streets that meet the PCI 70
target and, keep them firom deteriorating..
Mr. Evert stated that: $8 million dollars was the cost. to repair the streets that are
currently in good.. condition fora 20-year period. The philosophy on street repair is to
do the repairs right away:.. The.-City' can't, program these repairs. out for several years
because the streets are deteriorating. There will be a significant amount gf work for
the ..first fire years, to :catch the streets before they deteriorate any further, and
maintairi them for the next 20 years. .
21 PETALU,MA COMMUNITY b.EVELOPMEIVT' COMMISSION ,,
22 IVIIINIJTES ~ ~ '
23 - .
24 Paul Marangella, Redevelopment .Agency Director, explained, that° the Petaluma..
25 Community Development Projecf Area :Boundary and -Central Business District
26 Boundary are two. distinct project areas from, which ~th:e City derives property tax
27 increment:. The :important Thing as we start talking' about 'streets, sidewalks„ ..and
28 streetlight programs is to understand what the intent. of the_~Redevelopment Law-is,
29
30 Normally,; the City would. derive approximately 12% of property tax from the 1% of
31 assessed value,.. If you owned a home that was assessed at $100;000 you ~wo,uld
32 pay $1,,00.0 a, year in property tax and of that $1;000, the Cify would ~norrnally get
33 $120.0:0. -
34
35 What the Redevelopment Agency does, in essence; is tell. ;all the other taxing
36 agencies, that are g ' ~-
gettin the balance of $880:.00 that we want to make
37 redevelopment irnprovernents in a particular area 'a'nd we. would like: o take. the
°38 increment that°would accrue year after~year as the property°goes up in value, So the
39 next year, say, the property would go up 2%° so it wou,Id~'be, assessed.. at '$102,000.
40 Approximately 66% of That incrernent~ would .come to the' `Redevelopment Agency,
41 not ,just the 12%. The taxing agencies say, yes,. that's. fine~'b'uf you have. to tell us.
42 how you're going; #o vse that money and'you have to use that money in a way that is
43 responsible, that will impact th. e economy, the vitality of-your community' and if you
44 can demonstrate that to: us we're okay with that:
45
46
December 3, 2001
Vol. 37, Page 77
1 CITY"STREETS/INFRASTRUCTURE, continued
2
3 When redevelopment,;goes out of existence we will get a higher tax rate because
4 the area has been ;improved:.,. 1Nith that comes, a ',responsibility on the part of the
5 Redevelopment Agency to .remember -that we're being watched by the taxing
6 agencies. State law further requires a 5-year implementation plan.. Every five years
7 you have to say how you intend to, spend the money. We did two plan amendments
8 in. the .last two years,,, one for the large project area and one for the small ,project
9 area. Both 'times. the City went through, an extensive process to document to the
10 taxing agencies that these were blighted areas. On the basis of those reports,
11 Council adopted a 5-year lmpiementation ..Plan.
12
13 It was a requirement of the state aaw and a requirement of the Plan Amendment.
14 Some councilmernbers were. not able to vote because they recused themselves, but
15 a quorum did adopt the 5-.year plan.
16
17 Mr. Marangella addressed what is contained in that 5-.year Implementation Plan and
18 how the Plan cou d .address the issue of streets,, sidewalks, curbs, gutters,
19 streetlights. and street trees. The taxing :agencies are- looking to see if we are. using
20 the tax increment to do something you would ordinarily do to .maintain your streets.
21 The City' must be very careful when doing these projects that they are .not `just
22 maintenance, bufare actually revitalizing, reconstructing streets, etc.
23
24 Mr. Marangella explained. that there are areas along Petaluma Boulevard, outside
25 the City's limits, which are unincorporated portions of Sonoma County, but provide
26 Redevelopment Agency tax increment: They -are .part of the .City's redevelopment
27 project area: r
28
29 Councilmember'Torliatt noted for the public that. the City does: not maintain certain
30 portions of Petaluma Boulevard North and South. Petaluma Boulevard, beginning at
31 the Factory Outlets; almost to Stony Point Road, and from McNear;Avenue South,
32 is maintained by.the County.
33
34 Councilmember O'Brien asked why,. if the County mamtams those areas, did. Table
35 4 in tonight's "packet" indicate $"12.5 million allocated to repave:, gutter; trees,
36 sidewalk, and.' historic lighting on those portions of Petaluma Bowjevard.
37
3'8 Mr. Marangeala rep ied that Council could choose to extend the amenities fo those
39 areas. 'Staff was.: not suggesting that they do so, but because the .City does. derive
40 property tax..increment from those areas, and,' representatives from the County
_ _
41 sometimes mention the possibility of the City. contributing to reconstruction costs,
42 'the figures were included.
43
44 The smaller project area was created long; before the larger project area: The
45 intention of both is~to .redevelop the area. As ,mentioned in the Seifel report, the only
46 ;reason they weren't combined is that the City would lose some life of the project.
Vol. 37, Page 78
December 3, 2001
1 CITY STREETS/INFRASTRUCTURE, continued
2 _
3 Regarding; fhe Five-Year Implementation Plan,, downtown improvements ,of $5
4 million. were included in the Plan', as well as $8.6million for improvements relatetl, to
5 the implementation of the Cen"tral Petaluma Specific. Flan.,-
6
7 Table 2 listed ,all ;the streets in, the Central Business District,. and what they would'
8 cost to repair, including paving, curb,. ,gutter, sidewalk, trees and historic lighting.
9 Column F shows ahe .total cost for .each 'streef. This ',is a "worst` case"scenario. ;For
10 example, Council, `may not want extend histo.r.ic street .lighting down 6;370 feet ,of
11 Petaluma Boulevard. As Mr. Evert mentioned,, ,hose. numbers were be refined. As
12 the City begins to prepare and plan,, those numbers would be refined: Column G
13 contained fhe cumulative. costs.
15 Mr, Marangella continued that he had made. an assumption that private
16 developmentw,ill occur in certain areas, and the cost of th`e infrastructure should be
17 .borne by the developer. The Commission,.. as an agency, w. ,ill likely give them
18 density,. and; in return"for the density they should ,pay the costs of infrastructure.
19
Returning to the Jmplementation Flan,, Mr. 'Marangella referred to Table 3, the F:CD
ProjectArea: $1:3 million: has .already been .allocated for 1Nashington, Street and
:.
.. .
.McDowell Boulevard: Another $1Q million, is available and: could.. be allocated for
streets and related improvements, plus another $9 million- there. listed. as a
redevelopment improvement line item.
26 Takife 4 listed. the major -arterials that staff recommended be reconstructed. He
27 reiterated that it. was unlikely the Commission would vote to install 'historic lighting
28 and:. sidewalks down the entire 9,150. feet of Petaluma Boulevard North';
29 nevertheless, th`e costs for that were .included. He noted that. the figures were in
30_ 2003 dollars, so th'e figures won't be obsolete.
31 . .
.32 ~ C:ounclmember Torliatt noted that'the Sonoma County Water~Agency (SCVVA) will
33 soon'. release the EIR for the. south transmission system. pipeline. The pipeline will
34 follow one: of, three; possible routes: Qne of them is; parallel to the existing rail' line,
35 cols through some of tl~e downtown area, and travels along Keller and Fifth Streets,
3:6 which are part of some-of the projects being discussed tonight`. She~,hoped the City
37 could potentially partner with ~fhe SC1NA, if that route is chosen,. to install cable f o.r
38 TV and DSL.
3'9
J 40 S,he asked about :the current situation for' street repair. Were all' the City employees
41 who work on the streets out on disability? Whatw,as being spent? What was being
42 done? How much is coming from the Water Resources and Conservation
43 Department, how much from the General Fund?
Director of Public Facilities and' Services: Rick. Skladzien responded that there are
currently 1-~/? employees available fo"r street repair. The City has a pne~urnatic
December 3, 2001 Vol. 37, Page 79
1 CITY STREETS/INFRASTRUCTURE, continued
2
3 patching machine: that will be going out as soon as the pull truck arrives. In the
4 interim, another one will be rented. The patching trucks will be operated under the
5 on-call patching, contract because the City does -not have a big enough crew to run
6 them. The City will also be going ou_t to bid on tote .regular maintenance overlay
7 program. The only pothole patching that will be done this year will be that which can
8 be done with the blow patching machine.
9
10 Currently, the department is concentrating on painting. Some of the people who are
11 still on lighter duty operations are able to help with .that and with streetlights. There
12 is only one employee for the City's more than 5,000 streetlights. It is an immense
13 project on every front' with very .limited' resources. Employees, have been worked to
14 the limit and have experienced' body fatigue, which is why some-are out on disability
15 and others are restricted to light defy.
16
17 Councilmember Torliatt asked if any patching was being done.
18
19 Mr. Skladzien .replied that just the blow patching and contract projects were being
20 completed.. Mr. Evert could address that .issue further. Several patches have been
21 done by the on-calls.. They're being used to ~do a lot of the larger potholes and the
22 smaller ones that can be done with the blow pateher; are being done in-house.
23
24 Councilmember Torliatt asked about equipment acid equipment replacement and
25 how the City is .going to look at maintenance in the future. Is the City setting. aside
26 dollars or looking. towards ,purchasing new equipment to be able to handle some of
27 the road repairs?
28
29 Mr. Skladzien explained that there would have to be an increase in staffing. For the
30 full-scale hot .asphalt patching, it's pretty hard to. be competitive with .:the private
31 sector. Ultimately,. maybe the City could'. have two machines out -but that would
32 take more money for employees and ..equipment. replacement -without having to
33 take away from the traffic marking and signing. _
34
35 Councilmember Torliatt wants to see, going forward, cost comparisons - in-house
36' and contract:. She thinks it important to keep City employees employed here -
3T because the City values its employees -and wants to make .sure .that they keep
3'8 feeling good„ responsible, part of the team. Evaluating that in the future when
39 Council looks at these programs is important.
40
41 Mr. Skladzien: replied that we always are evaluating that. Any time the Council
42 wants to boost. that up, we'll be happy to .gear up for it. We could run another
43 machine if' we could get more personnel When the patching was going on -there
44 was no painting; no signing,. no marking going on. We couldn't keep up. V1/e had to
45 look of what we could do quickly and cost-effectively, with the people we had.
46
Vol. 37, Page 80 December 3, 2001
1 CITY STREETS/INFRASTRU.CTURE, continued
2 -
3 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson: Regarding cable; she, thought that when the AT&T
5 nstal ationaThel C is sho that. part of the street repairs downtown would. be ,cable
y uld interface with. AT&T to see how that will work.
6
7 Mr. Marangella .explained that he had a meeting this a.m. about h,ow the City will
8 connect the downtown, based on the meeting where Council made that request,, so
9 the design engineer and landscape architect wil( connect the downtown with cable
10 and high technology.
11 '
12 Councilmember'Moynihan noted that the street maintenance budget this year was
13 $338,200 -that's, to` pay for' everything. The, Street, Resurfacing Program - the C1P
14 - is $1;,507,00.0..He wanted #o ask a couple ofpoints of Mr. Marangella. He noticed
15 that the Central Petaluma Specific. Plan's conceptual or. illustrative concept had
16 been included,, and there has been concern expressed by the CPSP cornrniftee that
17 this not be ,part of the report. The concern was that it would be picked,. up and
18 adopted .and become the bible, by which all-future land-use standards are jud"ged.
19
20 He_wasn't sure why it was in the packet,, but did not think it a good idea to ,give
21 people the wrong impressionthat heir,property is going fo be a parking, lot or high-
22 density office:: Looking back to when the two areas. within the Redevelopment
23 Agency we're, modified; he understood that the Five-Year Lmplementation Plan that
24 was adopted as. parf of getting. that modification. and exten_ sion could be ;amended ,at
;25 any point in time., if Council didn't like the: mix of projects. It. is also possible to "allow
26 some improvement. benefits outside the' district if the: Council or Commission makes
;27 -. certain findings. He asked Mr. Marangella what findings would be necessary to
28 expend Redevelopment Agency funds. outside the disfricts.
29
.."
30 Mr. Marangella reminded. Council that there was a :question of .whether or :not to use
31 redevelopme_ nt funds for the Polly Klaas .center. The- City would have had, to make
3.2 findings that it -would benefit the PCD project area: From tune. to time there may be
33. something that has overwhelriiing, benefit: Usually, it's .housing ~th`at. has
34; overwhelming benefit where a finding is made that the project. has a benefit to the
35 ~ project. area: Specific, findings have to be written and adopted.
36 '
37 ~ Councilcnember Moynihan wanted. to reapproach the Redevelopment Agency
3.8 budget, reassess priorities. in this community, and make streets a higher priority:..
39 Instead of the. few dollars that are ...now budgeted toward street re,pai"r; and.. He
:40 thought that type of redevelopment project was what redevelopment funds were
41 actually intended -for.. He added. that. the more street projects. the City has in
42, progress, :potentially the healthier its General Fund can be. He thought it ,spoke 'to
43 the need to .have an,aggressive street project.. It also points out that the City doesn't
44 necessarily- '.have to pursue historic streetlghting or replacing sidewalks or
45 streetscapes of trees or park benches:. It could focus specifically on' the streets,.
46 100%.
December 3, 2001
Vol. 37, Page 81
CITY STREETS/IIVFRASTRl9CTURE, continued
2
3 He requested that Mr. Skladzien, Mr. Marangella, and. Mr. Evert; Mr. Thomas, and
4 Mr. Stouder come up with one "effectively comprehensive ~C/P" showing, as is
5 traditional, "th'e various project revenue sources and the planned expenditures -
6 even if'the expenditures are "ba"llpark:"_He thought it would be good to :get an overall
7 picture of all the ,areas withih or outside the redevelopment area. -whether they are
8 local streets or collectors 'and. arterials, and to add as revenue sources developer
9 contributions, the ;gas tax in the Redevelopment Agency contributions,.. the major
10 traffic mitigation funds,' and all the other funds that go towards street projects,
11 similar to what's listed on the, current CIP on page 361.
12
13 The City could., he continued, put $15-2Q million onto: the streets. Alonger-term
14 ,.project might involve $10 million _a ,year.. He believes: there are significant funding
15 sources in redevelopment that haven't been tapped; and that Council .has an
16 obligation to the community to .repair and maintain the streets.
17
18 Mr. Marangella stated that from a redevelopment perspective, he would suggest
19 that what's possible within the redevelopment function. is~ extraordinary. Looking at
20 the ma_p and ,amount of funds available fo implement the improvements, for
21 example, to the downtown, to do all gf the work, would be $15,9 million. There is
22 already a substantial amount ..budgeted, fowards that -$13 million -and looking at
23 `rnost of the atreets in th°e CBD area, .within five years, there is the possibility of
24 `having those streets, sidewalks; curbs, and gutters redeveloped, with streetlights
25 °and streefitrees. ~ .
26
27 Councilmember Healy thought that: •part of .Council's frustration with the.
28 redevelopment "side is #tlat they see the' numbers. in the Five-Year CIP, but that
29 doesn't translate into what; projects could' be achieved. with those numbers..
30
`31 Mr. Marangella. noted,. for example, in this year's budget, the :design of Water Street,
32 and the design~,.of phase 1 of Kentucky Street, .and the Boulevard. Only recently
33 ,have funds been available~for`fhese project, because of the success on the flood
34 control project That `haS made it possible to turn those bond proceeds toward the
35 redevelopment areas:.' The final engineering -phase is in progress now,. and
36 construction will be starting in the next year, Because the City :now has clarity about
37 h:ow much money •is a'v'ailable; staff was abae to prepare the street report that
38 .Council recently received. Real planning and options :for the .redevelopment of
39 `specific streets. can now be brought to Council. He thought Council would see a
40 ,qualitative and .quantitative difference in the budgef for,next year..
41
42 Counclmember. Healy thought it important, for Council and the public: to see what
43 we're going to be able to get out of our existing resources before we go to them with
44 a'tax measure:
45
46
Vol. 37, Page 82
December 3, 2001
1 CITY'STREETS/INFRASTRUCTURE, con inued
2
3 ouncilmember Healy thought if Council could talk: about which streets could b,e
4 taken. care of offer the .next -several "years with; the two-redevelopment districts. he
5 would. agree with Council.member Moynihan that Council should try to make ;a
6 higher priority of street"s and roads: within the, redevelopment: budgets:
7
8 He questioned: whether the City would, achieve the knds`of, numbers he's .hoping to
9 .achieve; but he thought: as ;a first; sfep; Council should try to identify what streets
'10 could be dealt with using the redevelopment funds available. .
11
12 Vice Mayor C:ader-Thompson saw a. need #o ``think wisely"~ before shifting
13 re.deve opmenf dollars to :o,ne specific. project. She understood the poiht of
14 redeye oping "an area was that property and other taxes;would".:increase and more of
15. that:, money would go into .the redevelopment funds.. Council should: be looking at
16 lantls 'in the. downtown or on Washington Street that would produce. -the most tax..
17 dolla'cs; thereby increasing `the General Fund: -
18
20 nfot othink d #hate wtouldk ach eh erewhat loredevelopment was amteantoados;'ashe did
thieve.
21 Rede~eloprnent monies are supposed to develop -the community to increase: th°e' tax
22 base. She..:.saw many opportunities to do this,;, but thought Council. `need`ed•'to :be
23 "wise.. in their] redevelopment,:decisons:''She believes there `is "a real'opportunify to
24 clean up the downtown and Washington corridor and a lot of other areas"- but said
25 she. did "not feel like. that- conversation is .really happening _ = insteaa'', ;the
26 conversation is about how are we going to fix and maintain our roa'ds:'" She' thinks if
27 is imperative that; along-term plan for bringing in .more :tax. dollars. to help facilitate
28 street improvements be developed":.She didn't think if was as simple as saying,. '`we
29 have the worsf roads. in town and we have to fix them." ~ ~ ~ '
Councilmember Maguire"the thing that people lode about.Petaluma is the old..
Victorian downtown. They hate the streets, but if the streets were nice,, :and there
was no Victorian downtown, he did: not think the City would,;be,as popular `as it is
today. putting all the money info streets" would not serve -the- public, and as Vice
,Mayor Cader,-Thompson said, it would not'serve the .district. for which the'City is
trying to generate redevelopment.
Ne agreed that it ,probably wasn't necessary to put historic street lighting from the
southernmost off-ramp onto Petaluma Boulevard up to Stony Point. Road.:
41 He belie~,es maintaining aril enhancing the Victorian downtown 'is. every bit if not
42 more important than the street ..repairs.. Funds are starting to be found -both
43 redevelopment and hopefully,, through asales -tax - to address this in an organized
44 manner. Bicycle paths; pedestrian. paths, quality of" living; smart growth; land use
45 development.based on your transit possibilities; are all the solutions in'the long run.
46
December 3, 2001
Vol. 37, Page 83
CITY STREETS/INFRASTRUCTURE, continued
2
3 Gouncilmernber Healy clarified that he had no intention of putting every dollar of
4 ~redeveloprment funds-into streets.
5
6 Councilmember O'Brien .concurred with Councilmember Moynihan that streets .must
7 be a priority. He also thought Council should "look at the big picture" for increasing
8 redevelopment dollars. 'in the redevelopment areas. He noted that, "Every time a
9 project comes forward in the .redevelopment area or anywhere else, we seem to try
l0 to find ways not to have fhat project go forward. 1 canriof remember the last time
11 that we approved a major retail projecf in this town to bring more tax dollars in." He
12 stressed the importarice of finding. ways to increase redevelopment dollars and cash
13 flow to the City.
14
15 Councilmember Moynihan thought Council should. go back to the pavement
16 condition index, and prioritize the projects, whetherthey be -the residential streets,
17 the collectors, or the arterials, and move "forward with an action plan to determine
18 "how to approach this huge problem, that we have and how to fund this huge
19 problem." He believes it necessary to contribute significantly .more toward streets
20 than has b'e'en 'committed todate.
21 -
22 He urged Council to "change priorities, step up the line, and do something." He
23 recently heard the State. Treasurer speak at a U.C. Berkley Economics and Real
24 Estate Symposium. Hey was looking, at this: time of economic slowdown as an
25 opportunity for cities to invest `in~their:infrastructure, fo create economic incentives
26 and stimulate development Through .infrastructure.. Looking at economic
27 development and redevelopment `in those terms., Councilmember Moynihan
28 believes investment in the City_ 's .infrastructure is a very necessary thing, and that
29 there~is no more desperate an area of our infrastructure than the City's streets.
30
31 Councihme.mk'er Torliatt~ said she had also been at some conferences with the State
32 Treasurer, and described him as a big advocate of locating state buildings and
33 government .infrastructure facilities in downtown areas. He has been a proponent of
,_ ,.
34 infill development and. revitalization, which is one of the things Petaluma is trying to
35 do i,n the downtown. Councilmember Torliatt de"scribed this as "a long row to hoe"
36 because the two redevelopment, areas had to be "straightened out" before a plan
37 could be p.ut, in ,place, ;She sees this as. "creating, an economic engine for the long-
38 .term viability of this City, which takes tirne~and a, lot of hard work."
39
40 .She asked Mr. SKI'adzien,, Mr. Marangella and Mr. Euerf to relay to the City workers
41 on the streets how much Council appreciates their hard work: She said she could
42 only imagine how difficult 'it must be to go out each day and work for a City where
43 the streets have been named the. "Worst in the Nine Bay -Area Counties" and
44 maintain a positive attitude.
45
46
Vol. 37, Page; 84
December 3, 2001
1 CITY STREETSIINFRASTRUCTURE," "continued
2
3 Mr. Skladzien thanked Council_me,mber Torliatt .on behalf of the street, department
4 employee"s,, who he said do have a tremendous sense of pride in this community
5 and have literally "worked themselves to where they can't work,anymore trying to
6 cover all. the bases:"
7
8 Councilmecnber O'Brien echoed Couneilmember Tocliatt's sentiments. He had
9 received a call from a friend whose mother is in her lafe 80's, Thee streeflighf was
1:0 out in front of her house. He made one ..phone, call -and City personnel w"ere out
11 there within a week. "She thinks your department walks on ,water."
12
13 PUBLIC: COMMENT
14
15 Matt C.oH~Olly,; Che_I_sea ,Property Group, Inc., asked, .with. they money that. is
16 generated: from ,the loan from PCDC to the CBD, does that get paid back and `is
17 there. interest"? .Also PCD has also identified. $4 .million to the: Corona Road
18 impro~ernents and $3 million. for Old Redwood Highway, .and I wondered if that
19 would ,be looked at in the GIP in the future. In addition, both districts have the
20 :money that Mr. Marangella talked about. -the $9 .million fo.r redevelopment
21 improvements and also" the $8.6 million for CPSP related improvements. UVho
22 decides :how that money is .spent?
"~ -
24 Mr.. Marangella explained that the Commission could decide, °not fo cha'rge interest
25 on the loans but the two project areas have.~to ,be kept legally and financially
26 separate. That's why fhe loan, was established, from one, project area' fo the other.
27 The smaller project area will have, with the implementation of the CPSP, :cash flow
28 in the. out years, so th. ey could repay: fn the 5-year Implementation Plan there is $9
29 million. that was originally going to be for bridges. In~~the" final budget :it got"put back.
30 into a generic fund,, and th'at's where it could go for roads if the Commission s_ o
31 chooses. In the preparation of the 2002 2003" budgef there will be a' refinement of
32 the 5-year Plan indicating where staff recommends those-furids go.
:,,, _
34 Mr. Connolly is working on finalizing the EIR with City staff"'and has identified. some
35 issues. ~ -
36
37 He brought to the attention of the CouHcil a traffic re.fated matter that will not only
38 affect the development of the Chelsea. project but the Central Petaluma- Specific
39 Plan :and projects along the Was"hington, Petaluma Boulevard North, and Old
40 Redwood 'Highway corridors. "
41 ~ ~"
42 Chelsea has, ,requested the Community Development Department process a
43 development app ication for the modification of the River Oaks Planned Comm_unify
44 Development; whch.required a Subsequent Efivironmental Impact Report. (SEIR). I
45 understand from .staff that the project Draft S'EIR traffic analysis 'has looked at 12
46 intersections and there is the potential #hafi 4 intersections have impacts with the
December 3, 2001
VoL 37, Page 85
2 CITY STREETS/INFRASTRUCTURE, continued
3
4 project ,but there is currently not an improvement plan in place to mitigate. The City
5 needs to identify the intersections to be improved in the Capital Improvement
6 Program with the projected schedule when. the work iS to be .completed. Chelsea
7 can pay its fair share of the impacts from the project through the traffic impact fees
8 .but the project can't feasibly incur the total coats of all the recommended
9 mitigations. The identified intersections that would be impacted with the project that
10 are, either existing or in the future, based on the existing. General Plan buildout, are:
11
12 Existin
13 • Vllashngton Street :and Petaluma Boulevard -currently at LOS Level F in the
14 PM peak
15
16 Future V1Fith ,Project:
17 • OId ;Redwood Highway/U.S. 101 S.B.: Ramps -requires widening of overpass
18 • Petaluma Boulevard/Lakeville Street ~.
19 Petaluma Boulevard/Corona. Road
20 ~ ,
21 As the,City processes the DSEIR~ and other projects in the City; similar impacts will
22 need to be addressed due to existing and future General Plan buildout. If these
23 mitigations. were in the. Capital Improvement Plan (CLP) and utilized the traffic
24 impact fees paid from the development projects, and/or utilized redevelopment
25 .funds, the projects-wilf be able~to be processed without impacts.
26
27 Chelsea requests that Council direct ..staffi to evaluate the costs of .these
28 improvements; add these intersections to the CiP; and. consider allocating funding
29 not only from.the traffic fees but also#rom the PCDC.
30
31 The redevelopment opportunity from the properties in the Community Development
32 Project Area and the Central Business District Project. Area.. wilt; provide
33 considerable revenue to the City through incremental property and. sales taxes. ~:
34
35 ~M'r. Connolly also wanted to comment on some things that were brought up at
36 tonight's meeting. Nis firm .has been trying todevelop 'its project for five. years -:and
37 is close to succeeding. They are having some uncertainty with their potential
38 tenants: because of the timing of the project. He is excited about the opportunity of
39 having the draft EIR completed - but I think there are some things that need to be
40 looked.. at -not only from the impacts that we're being faced with to develop along
41 the Petaluma Blvd corridor, but I think the City wilt be looking at. that and the
42 Washington corridor and the Central Business District.
43
44 Councilmember Moynihan was glad Mr. Connolly's firm was thinking about doing
45 more retail and. getting a little more sales tax increment coming to the. City, He
46 asked Mr. Connolly if Chelsea would be willing to contribute to improvements to
Vol. 37, Page .86
December 3, 2001
1
2 CITY STREETS/INFRASTRUCTURE, continued
3
4 those :intersections identified. as being significantly .impacted by 'their expansion
5 project;
6
7 Mr: Connolly ,replied that they would, through traffic'impact fees.
9 Councilmember Moynihan noted _ that the Ofd Redwood Highway: widening
10 improvements used to be in ahe GIP. He didn't know why they were dropped. He
Ll thought there had been significant contributions toward it in the past.
12
13 Mr. Connolly asked if it was, parf of the $9 million that was 'lumped togefher but
14 could .be reallocated, if the Council. so :elects.
16 Councilmember .Moynihan did not think he was correct, because that. dealt° -with
17 PCDC funds, net major traffic mitigation: funds.,,. He would like to see. an accounting
18 of past commitments towards projects such as the OId Redwood Highway and .other
19 intersections. He saw a clear need to identifythe traffic~improvernents;that are going
20 to be required if ~we want redevelopment to occur in' the CPSP area, and figu"re out
21 how and when to get. them done. As projects come, along, he thought it fair and
22 appropriate to charge mitigation fees to offset the impacts-on those intersections.
Not having 'th'at established means: 1. The City not collecting, the funds, it could
potenfially collect' to make th.e necessary capital, improvements, and 2. Projects :are
prevented from going forward,. He suggested Council', reevalute the level of detail. in
the CIP for streets: add these projects in, and also add any projects the Engineering
Department be ieves will bye needed within the next 10-20 years. That way,
Council%staff will' have the whole picture and' can formulate an action plan to achieve
them over 4ime.
Mayor Thompson. asked Mr. Connolly for clarification on the reference: in his lefter
to, "existing -Washington and Petaluma Boulevard currentlyat` LOS Level F in the.
PNl peak"'
Mr. Connolly explained that it was: an existing condition but Chelsea was being
faced with it in their EIR. There are different ways to mitigate fhaf: The City could
elect to remove parking on street, or Ladd two left turn .lanes:
Mayor Thompson asked' if the City is doing an. EIR with the CPSP.
Councilmember Moynihan replied `yes:"
Mayor Thompson asked how that°was going to impact this `intersection...
Councilmember Torliatf replied thaf it was going to have `impact.
December 3, 2001 -Vol. 37, Page 87
1
2 CITY STREETS/,INFRASTR.UCTURE, continued
3
4 Mayor Thompson asked if the Eden Housing project was doing an EIR.
5 .
6 Councilmember To:rliatt said it was not, because that's part of the. CPSP.
7
8 Councilmember Moynihan thought the traffic impacts might have to be evaluated.
9
10 Councilmember Maguire referred to Councilmember O'Brien's comment that it
11 seems like Council is not allowing developments to go ahead in the redevelopment
12 district. H'e thought this. was one example of why that is: new development does not
13 pay for its own. costs. Here is an applicant asking;, "Why don't you put this in your
14 process so you can help pay for it?" That's not an illegitimate request, but it's
15 something we have to address in a judicious manner -certainly this is partly why
16 developments 'in today's world are difficult to find the proper mitigations for. They do
17 have impacts =the traffic mitigation fees don't cover all the costs of the traffic: .
18 impacts;- certainly not over time - so we have #o deal with that - I think Mr.
19 Moynihan put it appropriately -let's look at the whole. picture.
20
21 Mr. Connolly clarified that Chelsea was not saying it wasn't .going to pay its fair, .
22 share.. He had been .advised that these are intersections that are almost at a level of
23 failure today and. (here is no mechanism in place to repair or mitigate those
24 intersections as the City grows..
25
26 Councilmember Torliatt asked Mr. Connolly what impacts his project would have to
27 the Petaluma. Blvd/Lakeville Street and Petaluma Blvd/Corona Road intersections,
28 and what improvements v~ould have to be-made. .
29
30 Mr. Connolly .explained the alternatives for the intersections. He emphasized the
31 need to identify needed improvements now so Chelsea can ,pay its fair share and
32 make sure the improvements are made.
33
34 Councilmember Torliatt asked 'M'r. Connolly if the City was unable to pay for those
35 improvements, would Chelsea not. be able to have the EIR approved with
36 mitigations, because those mitigations were not going, to happen?
37
38 Mr. Connolly replied that if the City elected not to do those.,. Chelsea would be
39 asking Council to look at the project without them:.
40
41 Councilmember l'orliatt asked how the project could go 'forward without being able
42 to mitigate those impacts.
43
44 Mr. Connolly explained that they would be faced: with doing overriding
45 considerations. He added that the City would be faced with that for every project
46
Vol. 37, Page 88
December 3, _2001
1 CITY :STREETS%IIVFRASTRUCTURE, continued
2
3 that comes before Council. Eden Housing was- faced with the same issue as
4 Chelsea.
5
6 Councilmem; ber Torliatt asked- if Chelsea was. looking at another alternative of
7 scaling 'down the project'in order to reduce .the impacts on these intersections.
8
9 Mr: Connolly replied that they were not.
10
11 Couneilmember Torliatt. the entire,project' is .being proposed without any alternatives
12 to try' and decrease the impacts you would have-on traffic.
13
14 Mr. Connolly -correct -not in the EfR,- because the EIR is looking at' impacts.
15
16 Councilmember Torliatt - you're not having a reduction in square footage hat would
17 reduce the ~impa~cts.
18~'`
19 Mr. Connolly - nof'in the EIR:
20
21 ~ Couneilme.mber O'Brien' disagreed with:. Councilrnember Maguire's statement about
22 development. He thought that: residential- development did not pay for itself,
23 considering 'the 'infrastructure involved and .services required #or each, house.
24 However„ retail and large. commercial :development. - he used the auto mall as an
25 example- definitely .paid for itself. That land is now worth more., and the City gets
26 more property tax and sales tax because of it.
27
28: Councilmember Healy .thanked Mr. Connolly for coming and said, he had raised
29 some issues with which Council would ,,be dealing,. not .only with Chelsea, but .also
30 .within the entire ~C,PSP area, including. Eden Housing, Redwood Crossroads,, ,and
31, the H,UD~ project. Ln order to have an informed discussion, Council .needs to think
32 about improvements. needed at:these lintersections,, their cost and configuration, 'and..
33 what the alternatives are. He wasn't sure if that was the responsibility of the
34 proponents of the. various projects whose ELR's identify these intersections„ or the
35 City, br both.
36
37 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson had an issue. with the Sonoma County Transportation
38 ~ Authority (SCTA)., She believes Old Redwood Highway:and Corona .Road should be
:.;39 part of the highway-widening project. In"stead.,. for years, ,people have been arguing
40 ~ about building a '$40 million interchange to the factory outlets:. She 'thinks the Gity
41 has lost "huge" opportunities .because, of this "fixation" on Rainier. Citizens :..may be
42 asked for another tax in 2002 for transportation, to pay for things that should have
43 been on the SCTA list. If they had been, they'd have been incorporated into the
44 project and paid for -just Tike up in ,Santa Rosa and other .areas. Money should be
45 coming; from SCTA. and dev"elopers. `She doesn't think the. Taxpayers should be
46
December 3, 2001
Vol. 37, Page 89
CITY STREETS%INFRi~STRUCTURE, continued
2
3 burdened with these costs,. nor should money be taken out of fhe redevelopment
4 district orthe General Fund.
5
6 Stan Gold, what the. City should. be doing is seeking out business development that
7 would provide sustainable sales tax .bases. He believes the only way to deal with
8 streets is a major bond issue. If the City diverts funds instead, it will wind up with
9 greatly reduced potential'. for .building business base fo increase sales tax revenue -
10 and will provide only a "pittance" for street repair - so a bond issue would be
11 necessary anyway.
12
13 Councilrriember Mo nihan concurred wifh Vice Chair Caller-.Thompson -there are
Y
14 a number of sources of funds that.haven't been,tapped:. In the CIP-are ISTEA funds,
15 T21 CalTrans grants, state/local partnerships, TDA, TFCA -the alphabet of
16 available funds. Unless the City pufs together a plan to get those funds into the
17 community; he did. not think it would happen. He reiterated the need for a
18 comprehensive CI,P, including the CPSf', streets, and 'intersections impacted by
19'' future growth or future redevelopment. He asked staff what they needed from the
20 Council to move forward with a comprehensive lisf:.
21 ~~ ~ _
22 Mr. IVlarangella explained that Council, had before: them tonight. the genesis of a
23comprehensive, and quite extraordinary plan: The plan calls, within the next five
24 years., for redevelopment of the entire .downtown, repaving Petaluma Boulevard
25 ~from~ end to; end, East 1N_ashington from -the freeway to Bodega Avenue, Lakeville
_.
26 and Payran Streets. Alf Phis is possible with the funds that are reflected this evening.
27
28 This was a significant moment in the :City's. history -the resources. and staff are
29 actually available. ~Irj the 2002-2003' budget, Council will see .payoff from the
30 pavement: management plan and the work they are beginning to see .this evening.
31 For the Redevelopment, Agency, in this next year's budget they will see a fairly
32 comprehensive .approach. He .reminded Council that there. are two separate
33 agencies =with two separate budgets - 'the Redevelopment Agency distinct and
34_ separate from the City of Petaluma.
35 1
36 Mayor Thompson. asked when a more comprehensive plan would be, .available to
37 give Council .a better idea of how much the City would need to raise with a bond
38 issue.
39
40 Mr. Skladzieri replied that whatever committee or task force is formed would be
41 charged with ,,determining which streets would be repaired, and what approach
42 '.should b:e taken #o raise the necessary funds (e.g., sales tax, sales tax
43 assessments, increased revenues).. Once. that occurs,. the City will know what funds
44 will be available and what streets are to be repaired. PF&S will then coordinate with
45 the Water Resources and Conservation Department to determine what work that
4.6 department needs to do in advance of the actual street repairs. Direction from
Vol. 37, Page 90
December 3, 2001
1 CITY STREETS/INFRASTRUCTURE, con"finned
2
3 Council, will be needed on ,how extensive installation of historic streetlights; etc.
4 should be.. At that point; it will b;e possible to formulate a ..more comprehe_rsive .five-
5 year and ten-year program.
6
7 ~ Councilmember Moynihan didn'f see, a committee ,p,rovidng the answers for which
8 Council is looking. Vllhat's needed is a: ,list of streets; a list .of intersections, and
9 some "best guesses"` as to potential capital, outlays. He thought '.it would: be a
10 dynamic document that shows the overall magnitude and projects -and then sets.
11 .priorities: ~He noted, "You can get all the eifizens in the world to:come acid give their
12 two bits, which i_s appropriate; but they're not going to be able to teehnicalhy lay o.ut
13 the alternatives;and the CIF." He `would. really like the- City to do a complete-;CIP;
14 including the entire Redevelopment Agency .area, showing all; the funding sources.
15 He would. like. to. seer all the projects on one list.. He "asked if: the PCI (Pavement
16 Condition Index). and list of streets were a basis from which to tart.
18 Mr. Skladzen agreed that they were, "depending on how we want fo start:"~~He had.
I9 never'w,orked in;a situation before where. sfaff and.Council were: going;~to say, "Here
20 are. he streets we're going to do." Staff would work with'the committee, or task;fkorce
21 to determine the needs 'for 'the community and that would be worked 'in with the-
22 street needs, based on condition index: He explained that i# was "not stnetly a
23 condition index thing:" 'Traffiic volume; density, etc., have to be .considered.. The
24 committee, with staff' help,. would develop. some good, clean directon.~that can go:
25 on a bal_Iot` '.issue if that; was necessary. He clarified that the, :goal: was not to; aell~'
26 Council "here is what you should do,'; but, ``based on the"needs of the'comrnunity;.
27 the community feels this is~ how we should approach the program:"
28
29 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson believes that.the purpose of the'` redevelopment
30 district; is to redeu.,elop the areas .and; to have: the people who a`re going to be
31 developing the: areas. pay for the improvements to: the roads _ir that ,area - so the
32 citizens don't have to: be paying for the road improvements ,that are necessary for
33 the developer to build his or her de~eloprnent. Some peop e,want the; citizens to pay
34 for all the road improvements, but'she feels that development needs to .pay ifs fair
35 share; if not more.:. Once the CPSP is completed; current and. new developers; can'
36 be identified,: They need to know from the beginning that they need `to make these
37 -road improvements. She is concerned about putt"ng those ,on the CIP when they
38 should be part of a development project .
40 Councilmember .Maguire. noted that' the cost. estimate on arteriaC< and. collector
41 streets will help a lot with putting together the list hat will come back, to Council.
42 This is a good step forward :and shows the magnitude of issues. He ~fhought a Five=
43 Year CIP to cover all„collectors, arterials, and neighborhood streets would be wasfe~
44 of time. Lt would be. indiscriminate; The purpose, of the: cornmitfee is o, lay ou't the
:...
45 broad strokes and; with community input,. prioritize what can be done: with a"vailable
46
December 3, 2001 Vol. 37, Page 91.
CITY STREETS/INFRASTRUCTURE, continued
2
3 resources. Council's next step is to determine how to formulate this. committee. He
4 wanted to find a time in January to do that.
5
6 Councilmember Healy wanted to focus on what's doable, but he did not want to
7 bury the process,, but have it move forward, at a reasonable pace. He was pleased
8 with the information staff had .presented tonight. If the Redevelopment Agency
9 needed to hire extra help to get this going,. that was. fine with him, but he did not
10 think a citizen's committee was the way to go.
11
12 Councilmember Maguire; noted that community buy-in was imperative if a sales tax
13 bond measure were needed. A committee could serve a synergistic function.
14
15 Mayor Thompson agreed' that it would have to be sold to the community by a grass
16 roots committee.
17
18 Councifinemb'er Torliatt, thought. Council .and staff could narrow it down to a certain
19 extent, but she fh'inl<s it's 'important to get the community involved. She envisioned a
20 committee formed by dividing ahe City up into quadrants, recruiting two citizens from
21 each, addingy City staff, property owners,. and citizens at large,, This was not just a
22 Council function, but along=term plan for the community and was interlinked with
23 the whole General Plan process.
24
25 ,Mayor Thompson said he would" add it to :the .next meeting's agenda discussion for
26 the meeting` after that. The subject should b.e "The Committee: the Structure."
27 Meanwhile, he hoped staff would be coming up with some better figures and include
28 neighborhood figures iri there. _
29
30 Counelmember Moynihan :asked when Council would give direction to put together
31 the comprehensive list of`projecfs. ,
32
33 Mayor Thompson replied that when Public Works :has their final figures together so
34 Council can have "some~hard'figures to go forward with.
35 '
36 Councilmember Moynihan clarified that he was talking about the comprehensive
37 Capital Improvement Program -not just redevelopment.
3.8
39 Mr. Marangella explained that for the redevelopment, function, in the packet were
40 the tables showing the.'cosf:for every arterial. in the PCD .area as well as the costs
41 for the. CBD area. streets. He would like to work with PF&S to identify `what would be
42 a reasonable expectation for lighting and sidewalks in the next five years. He would
43' like fo return to Council and show them what could be done if the City did not put.
44 lights and sidewalk all the way up and down the Boulevard. That can be brought
45 back as part of the 2002-2003 proposed budget. The other part of the City will have
46 a different timeline, because of the ballot measure the City is considering.
Vol. 37, Page 92
December 3, 2001
2 CITY STREETSXINFRASTRUCTURE, continued
3
4
5 CoGncilmember Torliatt would also like to see staff's recommendations. on how we
6 go about getting a committee such as'Mr. Skladzien has suggested.
7
8 Mr. Skladzien "wanted,;Council to understand that the street measure is going to be a
9 major part. of the CIP. There is currently only $20OIE to work with - so it's already
10 winding down to, a little patching. He stressed the: need to know where ;the City is
11 going to go with. the bond issue because that would be the "big catalyst"-for
12 everything except the redevelopment" areas. There `is rough .informatiorn in a draft for
13 the entire street system,; and that can Abe used to `come, up with; some other. ;options.
14 How much can be used 'in discretionary funds? Are there grants available? Are
15 there assessments? Sales tax? The committee can then pull. all #hat together
16 present thee-package.
17
18 Counclmember .Moynihan asked if .when someone like. Mr.. Connolly asked about
19 contributing t~o ce'rtam intersections;.. (hose intersec#ions be potentially ;defined in this
20 draft. _
21
22 zien agreed, and added,. that staff would also: be bringing, that in with the
23 r
er ionkaldlan, which was just.. finished a few months, ago, and which talks about Old
9~ p
24 Redwood .:Highway irriprovements, interchange expansions, etc. They have to "fold
25 that. in'' and look at how much money comes from development, how much the
26 County will` bring in, and the timetables for all, that.
27
28 Councilmember Moynihan thought it sounded like ;the draft could b.e the,~basis:~:from
29 which costs arid' potential revenue sources, could be determined... He wanted to
30 make sure the draft continued to move fonnrard so when costs sand revenue were
~.... _..
31 identified,"the figures were good guesses and not stabs in the dark. He asked.if staff
32 needed anything from:. Council as far as policy or direction..
33
._ -: . .
34 Mayor Thompson thought Counclmember Moynihan's point was good, brut Council
35 needed more. definitive figures from Mr. Skladzien.
36
37 Mr. Skladzien agreed, and said that at that point, staff would coriie back to Council
38 for direction:
December 3, 2001 Vol. 37, Page 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Paulette Lyon, Pnterim City rk
******