HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 04/16/2001April 16, -2001
Vol. 36, Page 53
1
2 City of Petaluma, California
3 Minutes of a Regular
4 City Council .Meeting
5
6
7 ~ Monday, April 16, 2001
g Council Chambers
9
10
11 The Petaluma City Council met on this day at 4:40 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
12
13 ROLL .CALL
14 •
15 PRESENT:' Uice~ Mayor Caller-Thompson,. Council Members, Healy, Maguire,
16 Moynihan, O`Brien; Mayor Thompson, and Council Member Torliatt
17
18 AI3SEIVT: 'None
19 PUBLIC COMMENT
20
21 None
22
23 CORRESPONDENCE ~ -
24
25 None
26 _ .
27 COUNCIL COMMENTS AND LIAISON REPORTS
28
29 Council Member Maguire asked that a proclamation be . preparetl recognizing .and
30 observing May 2001 as Clean Air Month. He asked that the proclamation return to the
31 Council at the May 7 Council meeting.
32
33 Council agreed.
34
35 Council Member Torliat't announced that the BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality
36 Management District (District)) had a contest running to present an award to
37 "promoters"' of .clean air within the District.
38
39 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson ;presented. the Council with a draft letter in opposition to
40 SB 910 and asked for Council support and direction "to City Management to bring the
41 item back for approval by Council at the next council meeting.
42
43 CITY MANAGEMENT COMMENTS •
44
45 None
Vol. 36, rage 54 Apcil 16, 2001
1
2' SPECIAL ORDERS'Of'THE DAY
3
4 PRESEIVTATIOIV
5
6 Mayor Thompson recognized .Dorothy Bertucci for her continued service with the library
7 for the cemmunity.
8
9 ® Petaluma Regional Library - I<iyo Okazaki, ;Petaluma :Regional Library Branch
10 Manager gave. an overview about 'the Petaluma Regional Library and announced
11 that July .marked the. 25th anniversary :and an open house was planned:
12
13 Ms. Bertucci reviewed successes the City and the .Library had worked on together:
14 Currently the. library needed to' raise $363,.000 for expansion and improvements ;at the
1'S; existing facility; she asked the 'City .to consider to investing $1'"00;000 of the .necessary
16 funds and in kind'services.
17
18 Council Member Torliatt recognized both Ms. Okazaki and Ms. Bertucci for their
19 diligence and many long hours: of aervice. in the community.
20
21 MINUTES
22
23 March 21, .April 3, 24; 2000.; March: 26 and April 9, 2001
24
25 MOTION: Council Member Torliaft moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Cader.-
26 Thompson, to approve the minutes of March 21, April 3, 24-, 200Q.
27
28 MOTION .~
29 PASSED: >5/0/2 (M'oyriihan and O'Brienabstaining)
30
31 MOTION: Ceuncil, Member Torliatt moved; seconded by Vice Mayor Cade;r-
32 Thompson, to approve the minutes of March 26, ..April 9, .2001.
33 _
34 MOTION
35 PASSED: 7/0 ''.
36 .. .
37 CONSENT CALENDAR
38
39 At the request of various Council'- Members, .Items 1, 8, 9, 10 and 11. were p;ualed from
40 the Consent Calendar for Council discuss'ion :,and possible action.
41 _ ., Y
42 MOTION: Ceuncil .Member :Maguire moved, seconded by Torliatt, to adopt Consent
43 Calendar Items 2, 3;; 4; 5, 6, and 7,
44
45 MOTION
April 16, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 55
1 PASSED:. 7/0
2
3 1. Resolution 2001-088A N.C.S. Approving Claims and Bills. (Thomas)
4
5 Council Member Moynihan questioned a number of items, such.as
6 • ABAG' power pro-ration; the negative figure.
7 Substantial rate increases due to the energy crisis.
8 Booking fees to the County Sheriff.
9 ® The ervices rendered from Meyers Nave to substantiate $40,000 in bills -
10 he wanted. the City to work proacfively to reduce recurring liabilities.
11 • The Winzler and Kelly payment for work at the Community Center.
12 Increase in PERS payments.
13 Wfethe;r the $34,00.0 paid to Shute,. Mihaly, and Weinberg for their work
14 on the Lafferty Ranch Park project was budgeted and paid from the
15 General Fund. He was also curious if City Management time towards the
16 project had ..been budgeted.
17
18 Finance Director William Thomas. fielded Council Member Moynihan's questions
19 and agreed. to `respond to him directly if more in depth information was required.
20
21 MOTION: Vice _ Mayor Cader.-Thompson moved, seconded by Council
22 .Member Maguire; to adopt Resolution 2001-088A N.C.S. Approving
23 Claims and Bills.
24
25 fVIOTIOIV
26 PASSED: 7/0
27
28 2. Resolution 2001,-083 N.C.S. Approving the Plans and Specifications Prepared by
29 Carlenzoli and" Associates.; Awarding the. Contract. for 13odega Avenue
30 ~ Improvement Pr.~oject to .the Low Bidder. Improvements Include a New Traffic
31 ~ Signal at Bantam Way; a'Modified Traffic Signal at Webster Street; aTwo-Way
32 . Leff Turn Lane.; Bike Lanes, Sidewalks; Curb Ramps; Planter Strips; Street
33 Trees; the Upgrade of; Utilities Such as Storm Drainage, Water and Sewer Mains;
'34 Asphalt Overlay, .Bus Turnouts and Streef Lights. Estimated Projecf Cost:
35 $3;399:000. Construction Time Estimated at Eight Months. Funding Sources:
36' Water Pollution Control Fund ($213,0.00); Water Fund ($444,000); Traffic
37 Mitigation Frees ($2,362,000).;. Transportation .Funding for .Clean Air Act
38 ($92;000); Storm Drainage Mitigation Fees ($288;000):. (Skladzien)
39
40 3. Resolution 2001-0.84 N:C.S. Authorizing Program Administration Fees for the
41 IVlobile Home Park Space Rent.Stabilization Program~for 2001. (Gaebler)
42
43 4. Resolution 2001-085 N.C.S. Authorizing. City Manager to Sign Two Quit Claim
44 Deeds for Vllater Well Site and Access Easement No Longer Needed on
45 SOLA International; lnc. Property on Cader Lane.. (Hargis)
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
Vol. 36, Page 56
April 16, 2001
5. fntroduction.of Ordinance 21 l1 N:C.S. Amending Section 11..12.1'50 of The"City
of Petaluma Municipal Code, to Include all Streets Within thee. MclVear
Landing Residential Subdivision. (Parks)
6. Resolution: 2001-086 N.C.S, Authorizing the. City Manager to, Sign the Extension
of the Professional Services Agree_m_ ent' for Self-Funded Liability Claims
Management: (Acorne/Tliomas)
7. Resolution 2Q01-087 N:C.S. Approving a G"rant Agreement with the Coastal
Conservancy for $450,000 to be Used For The ,Expansion of the Petaluma..
Marsh.. Trail, and' Authorizing the City Manager to'Sign the Agreement. (Carr)
8. Report. Regarding Status of Payran Project and Discussion, and Possible
Direction Regarding Payran Flood Management Project. Financing and Budget.
(Hargis/Stouder/Marangella)
Council Member Moynihan noted concern over the changes in the President"s
budget; as the Petaluma River Project was not included.
Mr. Stouder reported that funding for the Petaluma ,Rives Rrojeet was removed
from the President's budget. He was optimistic. He did not ,believe it was a
setback; it was a reminder of how diligent `the City needed to be to make the
reimbursement happen.
Council Member Moynihan acknowledged the Corps' receipt of $1. million and
asked for. an update-on the. transition channel and project timeline. He~ wanted to
stay .apprised, of progress to the approaching "fish-window" and the possibility of
seeking funding in a Timely manner to sustain the project.
MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved; seconded by Vice Mayor Ca~der-
Thornpson to accept- the report regarding: the status of:the Payran
Flood project. ~ ,-
MOTION
PASSED: 7l0
~.
.~
9. McDowell Boulevard/:E. Washington Street. Intersection Transporfiation
Improvemenf~ Project (Project No. 9863, 'P.hase 3). (Skladzien/EVert)~
A. Gon`sideration of the .Adoption of a .Resolution . of Necessity to Acquire
Property by Eminent Domain; Property Assessor Parcel Number :00.7-340-
006; Address: 1'01 North McDowell' Boulevard (Maria .Novak and Martha
Thorup)
Council .Member Healy questioned ifi work or costs to'the proj'eet .were related to
April 16, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 57
1 the bicycle paths.
2
3 Public Facilities and Services Engineering Manager Mike replied in the negative,
4 and noted that a continuation ofi the discussion was scheduled to occur at the
5 May 7t" meeting.
6
7 Vice Mayor Cader=Thompson waded to know if the-City could go fo the Coastal
8 Conservancyfor grant funds; she offered to help Mr. Evert in that endeavor.
9
10 MOTIO,fV: Council Member Healy moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Cader
11 Thompson, to adopt' Resolution 2001-088 N.C.S. Determining that
12 the Public Interest and Necessity Require the Acquisition of Fee
13 Simple and/or Temporary Construction Easements and Directing
14 ~ the Filing, of .Eminent. Domain Proceedings for the McDowell
15 Boulevard/East Washington Street Transportation Improvement
16 Projecf (.101 North McDowell Boulevard).
17
18 Council Member Moynihan questioned the source of the $2,024,00.0 to fund the
19 project.
20
21 Mr. Evert.. replied that during Council consideration at the. May 7t" meeting; .he
22 would look to Council for direction on how/where to get the funds.
23
24 MOTION
25 P~4SSED: 7/0
26
27 10. Resolution Adopting Revised Council Rules, Policies and Procedures.
28
29 Council concurred to :reschedule. this item to April 23 meeting beginning at
30 6:00 P. M.
31
32 11. Approval of Proposed Agenda for CounciPs Regular Meeting of May 7, 2001.
33
34 Council approved the .proposed agenda for the. May 7, 2001 Council Meeting with
35 the following amendments:
36
37 Add Proclamation recognizing May 2001 as Clean Air Month.
38 Add letter of opposition to SB 910.
39 a Add discussion and possible action regarding across-town connector.; the
40 item should be worded as submitted in a letter previously distributed to the `
41 Council.
42 ® Add discussion and possible action regarding the roles and responsibilities of
43 the Bicycle Advisory Committee to the. item, "Continued .Discussion and
44 Possible Action Regarding City's Boards, Commissions and Committees."
45
46 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson noted that. she was to ask for an opinion letter from
Vol. 36, Page 58
April 1,6; 200.1
1 the. FPPG regarding any potential conflict: of interest that may prevent' her from
2 participating :in discussions; regarding. across-.town connector.
3
4 Council Member Moynihan asked for an update on the status of"the lease at the
5 fairgrounds.
6
7 MOTION; Vice. Mayor Caller-Thompson moved., seconded i?y Councl
8 Member Torliatt, to have a discussion .on transportation circulation
9 only.
10
11 'MOTION
12 FAILED: ~ 3/4 (Healy:;, Maguire,; Moynihan,. O`Brien and Thompson voting_ `'no")
13
14 MOTION:. Gouncif Member Healy :moved, seconded by..0'B:rien, 'to schedule-
15 on the agenda .for the. May 7, ;:2001 :City Gouncil Meeting the cross-
16 town connector; worded ,as submitted in a letter that was previously
17 distributed.. to the Gouncil by Gouncif Member Healy.
'18
19 MOTION
20 PASSED: 5%2 (Gader-Thompson and Torliatt voting "no")
21 UfV1=1NISHED BUSINESS'
22
23 12. Discussion aril Possible Action Regarding Relationship of Planning
_,
-24 Commission to; Site Plan and Architectural Review Comm'ittee~ (SPARC),;
25 (Moore).
26
27 Public Comment
28
29 Planning Commissioner Teresa Barrett did notsupport consolidation of the
30 commitfees.
31
32 Planning Comrri`ssioner Clare Monteschio did not support consolidation of the
33 cornrnittees.
34
35 Vin Smith, .Basin Street: Properties, 1:31;8. Redwood W,'ay; spoke regarding the
36 specific roles of each commission, and in support of SPARE.
37
38 John Mills;131~5 `D' Street; spoke in support of consolidation; eight ;members
39 plus the Council`.Mernber: ~ -
40
41 Scott Vouri, 1:5'5.7 Mauro ,Pietro Drive, spoke in support of two separate bodies.
42 -
43 Item continued to the. ~e,Vening session.
44
April 16, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 59
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
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
Council agreed #o move Agenda Item 13 to the Apri123, 2001 meeting, during the
evening session, notify all commission members,: and add discussion and
possible action regarding the role and responsibility of the Bicycle Advisory
Committee.
13. Continued Discussion and Possible Action Regarding City's Boards,
Commissions and Committees (Kline)
A. Clarification/Identification of All City Council Agency Recommendations and
Annual Appointments.
B. Resolution Repealing Resolution 95-39 N.C.S. and Revising the Composition
and. Reporting Authority of the Petaluma Bicycle.Advisory Committee.
C. Status. Report on Appointment to Vacanf Position on Personnel Board.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Richard Rudnansky announced the following items to be addressed in
Closed Session: -
CONFERENCE V1/ITH LEGAL COUNSEL - Existing Litigation., Subdivision: (a) " of',
Government Code § 54956.9, Bobby Thompson, et al vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma. ""
County Superior' Court' Case No. 225677.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - Existing Litigation, Subdivision (a) "of
Government Code § 54956.9, Russell Kimberly vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma County
Superior Court Case No. 225543.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - Existing Litigation, Subdivision (a) ofi
Government Code § 54956.9, Ronald Pike vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma County
Superior Court Case No. 226388.
CONFER€NCE WITH L-EGALCOUNSEL - Existing Litigation, Subdivision (a) of
Government Code. § 54956.9, Tammy Loeffler vs. City of Petaluma, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, Case No. C01-0395 PJH.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure
to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision 9(b) of Government Code § 54956.9 (Three
Matters)
Vol. 36, Page 60
April 1'.6, 2001
1
2 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR. NEGOTIATOR;, Government Code § 54957 Public
3 Employee Performance Evaluation, Title; City Clerk
4
5
6
7 A'DJO.URN
8
9 7:00 P.M.
11 RECONVENE
12
13 The Council reconvened. its regular meeting at 7:05 P.M: in the Council Chambers:.
14
15 REPORT OUT OlF -CLOSED SESSaOIV
16 Mayor Thompson advised that no reportable action was taken on items addressed in
17 Closed Session
18 ROLL CALL
19 PRESENT: Uice Mayor Cader-Thompson,. Council .Members Healy, .Maguire,,
20 Moynihan, O'Brien, Mayor Thompson, and Council MernbeCTorliatt
21
22 .ABSENT: ~ None
23
24 PLEDGE OF i4LLEGIANCE
25
26 At the request of Mayor Thompson; Fred Schram led the Pledge of Allegiance
27
28 MOMENT OF' SILENCE
29 At the request of Mayor Thom"pson, a moment of silence was~.obser~ed.
..
30 PUBLIC: COMMENT
31
32 Jerry Price; 411 `D' Street, #3, apoke. regarding Lafferty Ranch.
33
34 ~ Linda Buffo., Butter and Eggs Day Celebration; gave an update on the activities planned,
35 at-fh'is year's event.
36
37 Samantha- Dougherty, Executive :Director, Petaluma Downtown Association, 7 Fourth
38 Street,. Suite #61, spoke re aiding the Downtown Parking ;Study. .
g
39
40 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke r-egarding a recent' Sonoma County
April 16, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 61
1 Transportation Agency meeting that he attended; he did not' support across-town -
2 connector at Rainier Avenue.
3
4 Diane Reilly Torres, Rainier Avenue, stated she '.had received a check for $200..00 as a
5 rebate from he Water Conservation Program; slie then addressed countywide
6 transportation plan.
7
8 CORRESPONDENCE
9
10 Letter received from. Terence Garvey regarding the :Petaluma Water Recycling Plant.
11
12 COdJNCIL COMMENTS' AND ,LIAISONREPORTS
13
14 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson:
15
16 Thanked Larry and Diane Reilly Torres for the charm stones.
17 • Advised Samantha Dougherty to contact Public Facilities and Services Director Rick
18 Skladzen regarding the Downtown Parking Study and offered to work with her in
19 that endeavor.
20 • Announced an April 19t" Open Space meeting at Veterans Hall and stressed the
21 importance of public participation in this meeting.
22 Referred to an a-mail Council received regarding enforcement of truck weight limits
23 on City streets.
24 • Was pleased. that Izzy~ Barlas was the recipient of this. year's Butter and Eggs Days
25 "Good E'gg" award, which i"s :given to a~n outstandingcitizen for daily promotion of
26 Petaluma.
27
28 Council Member O'Brien:
29 . -.
30 • Reported that at a recent Planning Comrrmission meeting, .Chairman. Gary .Broad
31 suggested the City charge a fee to developers; :for trucks 'on consfruction projects
32 with certain tonnage, to offset stye°et maintenance costs. He recommended that City
33 IVlanagement consider this; he thought it was a good idea.
34 ~ .
35 Council Member Bryant Moynihan:
36 - _
37 • Noted that his website .had a survey for the worst• .potholes in the City; he had
38 expanded the survey to include the worst streets.
39
40 Council Member Maguire:
41
42 Attended the film "Green Plans" last Friday at City Hal[, sponsored by Sustainable
43 Petaluma. Michelle Rodriguez' from Marin County's .Plannning Department also.
44 attended, and spoke regarding Marin's Sustainable General Plan. He wanted
45 Petaluma to move forward with a General Plan based on sustainability principles.
46
Vol. 36, Page.62 April 16, 2001
1 Council Member Torliatt:
2
3 Noted., that on May 7th the Council wou_ Id discuss transportatiori; she wanted .the
4 Council to address across-town connector sp:ecificall,y at Rainier °n a; public meeting.
5 • Announced a, Sonoma County Transportation Authority meeting scheduled for:April
6 30, 2.001 at;6 R.M.. in Santa Rosa of the Permit and Resource Department.
7 Suggested ,posting information regarding the. County Parks and Recreation. Plan: at
8 Helen ;Putnam. P,ar.k and Shollenberger Park.
9
°10 CITY MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
,11
12 None
13
14 AGENDA`CHA_ NGES, AD'DITIOIVS, AND DELETfONS
15
16 ~ None
17
18 SPECIi4L ORDERS OF THE DAY
19
20 P.ROCLAM'ATLONS
21 ~ .
22. Thea S:, Lowry,, Author of Empty Shells -Mayor Thompson-read the proclamation
23 and presented it to Ms. Low, ry. ~ .
24
25 Petaluma Telephone Day.-Mayor Thompson read, the proclamation and presented it
26 fo Rhuenefte Allen of Pacific Bell.
'27
28 • Take Our Children To Work Dray -Mayor- Thompson read, the ,proclamation and
29 presented it to Joe: Manthey.
30 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
12. Discussion arid, Possible .Action Regarding Relationship of` Planning
. ~ -- -
Commissio,n to Site Plan and Archifec`tural Review ~Commitfee (SPAFiC).
(Moore).
Public ,Comment
Gary Broad; Planning Commission Chair, wanted to lace the matter heard at a
SRARC meeting 'and a. Planning Commission meeting. He did. not: support a.
committee/comm.ission~ that had to take on the roles and responsibilities .of both.
John FitzGerald, 1'10~,Lakeville, spoke supportively for efficiency and streamlining
the bureaucracy.
Linda Math'ies, SPARC member; spoke in support of mainfaining both bodies,
April 16, 2001 Vof: 36, Rage 63'
1 defining the roles; and eliminating redundancies.
2
3 End of Public Comment
4
5 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson wanted the issue- to return to SPARC and the
6 Planning Commission for discussion and. recommendation. She thought the City
7 should address fhe zoning ordinances.
8
9 Counci Member Maguire stated that the issue. was brought to the Council, as
10 requested by the Planning Commission, due to an administrative decision made
11 by the Community bevelepment Director. He thought it was necessary to have
12 two boards., but overlapping responsibilities should be reviewed. He preferred
13 Recommendation 4.
14
15 Council Member .Moynihan believed there was .room for both commissions, the
16 question was in what form. There was a lot of redundancy in the process and he
17 provided examples, such as the Martin Ranch. He did not support
18 Recommendation 4. He supported consolidating the two commissions.
19
20 MOTION: Council Member Moynihan moved to consolidate the Planning
21 Commission to Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
22 ('SPARC).
23
24 MOTION
25 FAILED: Lack of a second; no support.
26
27 Council Member Healy thought there was a place for both commissions. He
28 encouraged outside-the-box thinking on 'how to improve-the process. He looked
29 forward to updated the zoning ordinance and to a. discussion that redefined the
30 scope-of work for .both bodies.
31
32 ~ Council Me`nber Maguire suggested a workshop with both commissions and
33 memb~r;s of staff.
34 _
35 Council Member~Torliat't stated that what was needed was better communication
36 ~ between the commissions, staff, the public; and the Council. She supported
37 . ~ cornmen~ts that addressed refining 'the roles of each and bringing
38 recommendations to the Council. She .suggested preliminary plan reviews as a
39 SPA'RC~ function. She supported Mayor 'Thompson's and Council Member
40 Healy's comments.
41
42 Mayor Thompson read Recommendation 4 and asked that there. be a workshop
43 scheduled for both commissions, members of staff, developers, and users, to
44 solicit their:input.
45
46 Council Member Maguire suggested that City Management start with basic
Vol. 36, Page 64
April 16, 2001
1 empowering documents.,. extract...the- redundancies, aril ~ define how to ,divide
2 responsibilities:.: He wanted to have a review developer fees
3
4 Mr, Moore replied That was already-underway.
5
6 Councit Member Moynihan wanted consistent use; he wanted the permit process
7 streamlined.
8
9
10 MOTION: Council Member Torliatt mov.ed,. seconded by Healy, to .have City ,
11 Management .proceed with Recommendation 4„ "Retain the
12 Planning Commission and SPARC iri Their Current; Structu"re and
13 General Respons.bilities" prepare. and host a workshop to .include
14 users of the system,. members of staff, and both SPARC and'
~15 Planning Commission Members and report with recommendations
16 to .the Council.
17
18 MOTION
19 PASSED: 7/0
20
21 PUBLIC IiEARIN:GS
22
23 14. California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERKS)
°24 "
25 A. Resolution 2001:-0$9 N.C:S. of` intention to Approve ari-Amendment to the
26 Contract Between the Board of Administration, California Public'Employees'
27 Retirement System (PERS) and the City of Petaluma,, to Provide. Section
28 21362.2 (3% at 50 Full Formula) to Safety Members. ~ .
29 ~ "
30 B. Introduction of Ordinance 211.3 N.C.S. Authorizin°g an ,Amendment to the
31 :ContractBetween the :Board of Administration,: California Public Employees'
32 Retirement System (PERS) and the City of Fetalu'ma. 'to Provide; S:e`tion
33 21362:2 (3% at 5Q Full Formu a) to Safety Meribers. (Thomas)
34
35 MOTLO;N: Vice Mayor C_ader-Thompson .moped, seconded by Counel
36 Member.Maguire, to Adop"t Resolution 20,01=089 N.C:S, of Intention
37 to. .Approve an Amendment. to the Contract Between the B'oard,,of
38 Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement, System
39 (PERS') and the City of :Petaluma to P,ro~ide-Section 21362.2 (3%
40 at 50 Full Formula)' to Safety Members. - ~,
41
42 '.MOTION .
43 PASSED: 7/0 .
44
45 MOTION: Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson mooed, seconded by Maguire., to
46 ~ .Approve the Introduction of Ordinance. 2113 N.C.S. Authorizing an
April 16, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 65.
1 Amendment to the Contract Between the Board of Administration,
2 California .Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and the
3 City of Petaluma to Provide Section 21362'.2 (3% at 50 Full
4 Formula) to Safety Members..
5
6 IVIOTI.OIV
7 PASSED: 7/0
8
9
10
11 15. Introduction of Ordinance 2112 N.C:S. (First. Reading) Amending Ordinance
12 1026 'N.C.S. and Ordinance 1843 N.C.S., City of Petaluma Municipal Code
13 4.08.020, to Permit the Refunding of Revenue Obligations. (Thomas)
14
15 MOTION: Council Member Torliatt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Cader-
16 Thompson, to Approve: the introduction of Ordinance 2112 N.C.S.
17 (First Reading) Amending Ordinance 1026 N.C.S. and Ordinance
18 1843 N.C.S., City of Petaluma Municipal Code § 4.08.020, to
19 Permit. the Refunding of Revenue Obligations.
20
21 MOTION
22 PASSED: 7/0
23
24 Recess: 8:3C P.M.
25
26 RECONVENE .JOINT CITY COUNCI
27 COMMISSION MEETING
28
~LUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPM
. - 29 The Joint City Council/Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting was
30 reconvened at 8x35 P.M.
31
32 ADJOURN'
33
34 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson adjourned the meetin at 10.:35 P.M.
35
36 c ~'~
37 Janice Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor
38
39
40 ATTEST:
41
42
43
Beverly J. Kline, 'City Cler
5
April 16, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 67
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular Joint Meeting of the
Petaluma .City Council and the
Petaluma Community `Development Commission
Monday, April 16, 2001
Council Chambers
The Petaluma City Council, already in session with. all members present, met with the
Petaluma Community De~elopmerit Commission on thi's date at 3:35 P.M. in the Council
Chambers for a joint' meeting.
ROLL CAL'~L
Petaluma Community Development Commission
PRESENT: Vice Chair Cader-Thompson; Commissioners Healy,. Maguire, Moynihan,
O'BTien; Chair Thompson; Commissioner Torliatt
ABSENT: None
Clerk's Note:. For the purpose of #hese minutes; the joint bodies of the City Council and the
Community Development Cornrrmission shall be referred #o as tfi~e Council and the members of
the joint bodies shall' be .referred to as elected by the public and/or appoir-ted by the: Council;
that is, Mayor, Vice Mayor, aril Council Members. Action taken by specific bodies reflect
Council/or Commission accordingly.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
CO:UNCIL/COM~MISSIOfV COMMENTS
None
AGENDA CHANGES,: ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
None
Vol'. 36, Page,68 .April 1.6,..2001.
1 NEW-.BUSINESS,
2 .
3 1. Central Business D'stri`#, Redevelopment.Plan:
4
5 A. Resolution .Approving and' Ado,p.ting Arne,nded Owner Participation and
6 Preference Rules and Authorizing Transmittal 'of` 'the_ Rales to the City
7 Council.
8
9 B. Resolution. Certifying Adequacy of the Final EI'R, .Making Necessary
10 ~ Environramental Findings, Adopting a, Reporting or Monitoring Program; and
11 Statement of 'Overriding Considerations if Necessary, and Authorizing
12 Transmittal to~the City Counci :
13
14 C. Resolution Receiving and Approving the. Section 33352 Report to the City
15 Council on the Proposed Amendment to the Central Business District
16 Redevelopment Plan, Authorizing Submittal .of the Report to the :City
17 Council, Consenfi'ng to a Joint Public Hearing with the City Council on the
18 Proposed Amendment, Nand Requesting the City Council to ,Set a Date,:
19 Time and, Place Therefore_
20
21 D. Resolution Regarding Election and Resolution Regarding Use of _Housi_ng
22 Funds and Finding the: Provision of Low :arid Moderate Lncome Housing
23 Outside of` the Amended Rroject Area to be of 'Benefit tg the- Amended
24 Project: (Marangella)
26 Mayor Thompson and Council Members Healy;, Moynihan and Torlatt,
27 announced they would recuse themselves; that is,, they would. not participate ;in
28 the discussion and any action on this agenda item, as they. believed; 'they' had
29 ,conflicts of 'interest.
30 r
31 Mayor Thompson ,asked Vice, Mayor Caller-Thompson to preside; noting that; he
32 had several clients. within the Ce"ritral Business District boundaries to whom he
33 sold insurance;,
34
35 Council 'Memb`er Healy stated that his residence was located within five: hundred
36 feet of the boun"dar.ies of the. Central. Business District:
41
Co.uncif Member Torliatt stated than. she had, completed a, Lease transaction with
one of -the owners o.f property within the Central Business Dstriet'(CBD) with a
value over $250,.0.0,.
Council Mernbe,r :Moynihan had a source of income within the expansion area
that he 'h'ad received ..during the; past year in excess of the $25';0.00 limit
mandated by the conflict of interest legislation.
4.5
April 16, 2001 Vol. 36, Page' 69
1 Due to a lack of a quorum, City Attorney Richard Rudnansky announced,
2 pursuant to conflict of interest rules, straws (toothpicks in this case:) .would be
3 drawn by Council Members who had recused themselves from participating on
4 the item, to allow a member of the Council to return to dais in order to have
5 quorum so_as to continue with the City's business. The short straw, in this case,
6 allowed a Council Member to return to the dais. He stated that. upon returning,
7 the Counci( Member must disclose the type of economic interest(s) involved,
8 personal entity,(ies) which constituted the source of income, and why he/she
9 believed there was a conflict as sanctioned by the F.P.P.C.
10
11 Council Member Moynihan drew the short straw and provided information as to
12 potential conflicts of interest he 'may have. He had clients who owned property
13 within the redevelopment area that generated income to fiis firm by/from property
14 management fees :and leasing commissions earned.
15
16 Mr. Rudnansky advised that it was. necessary to disclose names and locations of
17 properties.
18
19 Council. Member Moynihan replied that the building to which he referred was the
20 Prince Building, 'the owner was James To.da, and it was located at 16 Western
21 Avenue. He sold a building at 19 Kentucky Street that was owned by Olive
22 Ramirez and received a commission in excess of limits .mandated by prevailing
23 conflict of interest legislation: He sold a building; at 405 East "D" Street; which
24 was within five hundred feet of the redevelopment area and was purchased by
25 two gentlemen who owned property on Second Street, Jim Nelson and. Dave
26 Martin; they owned property within the redeveloprrient area as well. Additionally,
27 he had ongoing relationships with. a client, Maggie Salengec, who owned property
28 within the redevelopment area and he was currently in the process of a
29 transaction outside the redevelopment area with. this client that would provide
30 him with an economic ,gain in excess of lirnifs mandated by prevailing conflict of
31 interest legislation; he had a potential conflict of interest in that regard. He stated
32 that he may have more but at this time, that was all he recalled. , _,
33
34 Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paul Marangella .
35 reviewed the agenda bill, highlighted the executive summary, and noted the
36 supporting documentation;. including eight resolutions, which, if approved,would
37 return. for a public hearing that was scheduled to take place on May 21, 2001.
38 The public hearing was originally scheduled to take place at 7:00 P.M. and was
39 changed to May 21, 2001 at 3;00 P.M. He introduced the consultant who
40 prepared the report to Council, Mark Sullivan, and Elise Traynum, the. City's
41 Redevelopment Agency attorney associated with the law firm of Meyers, Nave,..
42 Rieback, Silver and Wilson. He advised that that the two were `available to
43 answer questions about the process and or the documents presented..
44
45 Council Member Maguire asked for clarification of the number of resolutions.
46
Vol. 36; :Page ZO
April 1,6, 2001
1 Mr-. Marangella replied that there were a total of eight ,resolutions; number five on
2 the. report,was just an information item to the Council that indi'eated the. Planning
3, Commission did. adopt a resolution. `He then reviewed the documents included
4 wifh the re:porf that would enable the: City to proceed. to next step which was to
5 _ send outs 600 letters to affected property owners and ,b;usinesses advising them of
6 ; :the public hearing, and giving everyone: an opportunity to participate; he noted
7 that the City was running notices in newspapers::as well.
8
9 Council ;Member Moynihan, had questions regarding the use .of the power of
10 eminent domain, noting that there was considerable: eontroyersy in the
11 com.mu,nity 'for a Redevelopment ;Agency to have this power. He asked what.
12 public outreach efforts had occurred, what response had occurred; 'and. how
13 people .had been notified of the; meeting and other meetings as to the 'p:ossibility
14 of eminent domain powers being granted over their properties.
15
16 Mr. Mara.ngel.la replied that there were three ,meetings co-sponsored by the
17 Chamb rand PDA ('Petaluma Downtown Association); notices .had been .mailed
18 within the existing and proposed expanded, redevelopment area. Additional.
19 meetings would be noticed to the same .persons and. businesses advising them
20 that eminent domain would be considered, non-residential ..eminent, domain, and
21 those notices, would include, copies of'the minutes from previous meetings as weal
22 as the questions and answers.to the various questions that may° be of concern
23 regarding the expansion. He added' that the public hearing was to ,be advertised
24 four times.:in the newspaper.
25
26 Council Member. Moynihan replied that the ,powers of eminent: domain were
27 granted within 'the. attachment fourteen. of the .Amended and Restated
28 Redevelop_mert P.fan for the Central Business District Redevelopment Project.
29 and stated that he wanted to eliminate such powers being .granted to the
30 Redevelopment Agency; he asked for clarification of whether page. 13~, under
31 Property Acquisitions:, which outlined those powers, could be amended or have
32 ~~ di'r.ection provided on~ .how the resol'utions~ presented should be . modified o
33 eliminate any additional costs...
34~~
35 ~ Mr. Marangella stated .that was. the, purpose ,of fhe public, hearing that was
'3:6. ~ scheduled.. During the hearing, fhe Council" would isten to testimony .regarding.
37 the pros and cons regarding the inclusion of eminent domain,.
38
39 Council Member Moynihan asi<ed.Mr.. Marange la `if he; was indicating that; at this
40 point in time, it was not at the discretion: of the Council 'to eliminate eminent
41 domain.
42
43 Mr. Marange.lla re,p ied that he di_d not, know,
44
April 1`6, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 71
1 ~ Redevelopment Agency Attorney Elise Traynum, an associate with the law firm
2 of Meyers Nave, Rieback, Silver and Wilson introduced herself and asked
3 Council Member .Moynihan to repeat his question.
4
5 .Council Member Moynihan stated that he~ was concerned about the power 'of
6 eminent domain, as were o hers in the ~cornnunfy, and the potential abuse of
7 .• ,such powers- by the• Redevelopment Agency: He.xwan•ted to eliminate the: power
8 ~ ~ of eminent domain from. the documents 'presented. He asked Ms. Traynum how
9 ~ to modify 'the resolutions and the drafit Amended :andRestated Redevelopment
10 Plan. for the Central Business bistrict Redevelopment Project to accomplish that
11 goal. •
12
13 Ms: Traynum replied that what was before the Council was the draft Plan and the
14 report to the City Council from the Agency regarding the purpose of the
15 Amendment. She noted fhat the Planning Commission reviewed the Amendment
16 and all of the environmental documents, a requirement of community
17 redevelopment.. law. She explained that the Council had' the authority to redact 'or
18 add to the Plan at this time and reiterated Mr. Marangella's statement that a
19 public hearing .may occur on May 21 that.is.,, ;if the Coaneil approved that today
20 and there could be further elimination of items in the Plan and additions to the
21 Plan, as long as they were not considered substantial. For purposes of th'e
22 record, she stated that the powers of eminent domain only affected commercial
23 properties and, even then, very limited circumstances and a public hearing was
24 required.
25
26 Council Member Maguire did not believe there was. or would be an abuse. of the
27 powers of eminent domain:; it was one 'thing to fear abuse; it was another ~,to
28 insinuate `it. The Cify had a fairly long History ~of the existing redevelopment
29 districts and. he had not yet had heard of` .any example of such an abuse...-
30 Eminent :domain was a common tool used by redevelopment: agencies to
31 ~ encourage economic development; He hoped Council Member Moynihan would
32 support eminent domain powers for the redevelopment disfrict so that the City •
33 could do s_ ome economic development.
34
35 Council Member Moynihan disagreed, stating that the powers of .eminent domain
36 ~ '' `did not ..now an'd h'ad :never existed for the City's Redevelopment Agency. This
37 was done' inten_ fionally; as it effectively allowed, through developers, outside
38 parties~to come in and exercise such a power, or at least present a threat of such
39 a power. He believed that availed an opportunity for abuse. He stated that the
40 • City .had .issueswith eminent. domain in the past and referred to Helen Putnam
41 Plaza ~as,;an example, adding that research would produce further examples in
• 42 other communities. He did not believe the Redevelopment Agency needed that
43 power,; ..private property rights needed to be preserved. He thoughf economic
4,4 development could `take place without exercising eminent domain. He expressed
45 concern that eminent domain could put the Redevelopment Agency at risk. of
Vol. 36, Page, 72
April 16, 2Qp1
1 litigation due ao inve,rse condemnation claims. He asked Ms. Traynum to address
2 hi's concerns. .. ,
3 -
4 Ms. 'T:raynum clarified that the Community Deve opment Commission had the
5 pow. er of eminent domain. for'the past twentyyears .'and clarified' that it applied to
6 the PCD (Pefaluma Community Development) area, .not the CBD {Central..
8 Cali~ness.District), area. She exp wined than. redevelopm.ent_agences through"out.
fornia; and the' United States,, found. the ,power of .eminent domain a very
9 effe.ctiv..e tool in pursuing economic development: With.. respect °to misuse:,
10 litigation .and inverse: condemnation, she reminded Council that .there were
11 several opportunities in the process. to resist (hose types ofi attacks;' ~puhli'e
12 hearings were required.Before the agency even looked at a piece. of property, it
13 had to notify the. property owner that..his/he;r property .may a?e subject: to
14 condemnation..., This allowed, early in the process,,, fhe opportunityfor the property
15 owner fo approach the Council with any concerns. She reiterated; That. the
16 property. owner had the right to a public hearing.: She added that,. approximately
17 ninety=eight percent of. Litigation was due .to ualuafion problems. As long as the
18 necessary steps. were taken along the way, the City and 'the agency would be
19 guarded from'~the "risk of f~rivolous'litigation. ;
20
21 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson .and Qouncl Member Maguire, supported the.
22 motion with the inclusion of eminent domaih.
Council Member O'Brien :agreed with many of Council Member Moynihan''s
comments. He received ~a lot. of calls from business owners in 'the area who.
:expressed; their#ear of the powers of eminent dornaih. He asked' M . Traynurn
how the City could. differentiate between residentia'I and corrimercial;; to h'im if
should not be selective.; ,
30 Ms. Traynum: replied. that residential p'ropertywas in areas zoned residential:.and
31 commercial property.was=in areas zoned commercial. She stated that early on in
32 the process, an. appraiser would appraise the property at the residential or
33 commercial, level. Sh'e added that p"rior `fo that, wi#h 'the assistance. ofi the
34 Planning Department, Planning Director, .and Rede~elop:m,ent; Agency staff
35 memhe,rs,, a determination could be made very early on. She reminded ;Council,
36 with respect to concerns expressed about the property owners, that., should fhey
37 decide to;, their action would allow the. 'process to move `.forward into the public
38 arena for -the public to come before the Council and express their concerns.
39 Concerned property owners had the opportunity to wrife letters addressing; their
40 concerns or come before the Council and ,give testimony about their concerns: If
41 a majority of the. Council after receiving testimony wanted to remove fhe
42 prod"sign granting the powers of emi,nent~ domain they could. make the decision at
43 that time:
44 ,
45 Council Member O'B'rien restated. °his question. -
46
April 16, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 73
1 ~ Ms. Traynum deferred to City Management, noting that it was a policy decision.
2
3 Mr. Marangella replied that a very clear distinction was implied, there was an
4 unwillingness to~ take residential_ property. Most likely, if there were mixed
5 residential%commercial areas, they would not be considered for the type of
6 economic development projects that would .involve eminent domain. The positive
7 aspecf:to this was that there were tax benefits to friendly condemnation.
8
9 `Council Member O'Brien asked whether a hotel was considered commercial or
10 ~~ residenti'al.
11
12 Mr: Marangella replied that it was commercial unless it was a residential hotel; for
13 example; the Petaluma Hotel.
14
15 Council Member O'Brien., referring to a letter included in the packet received from
16 Jerico, they stated that; "there was no currenf agency plans to acquire land." He
17 asked if than was true.
18
19 Mr. Marangeila replied that the agency currently had no intention of condemning
20 property to acquire property. -
21
22 Council Member O'Brien asked why eminent domain was necessary.
23
24 Mr. Marange la replied. that the plan. was aforty-five year program. Within the
25 lifespan of the plan, it may be foreseeable that. the agency may need to condemn
26 property to allow the: plan to work. He added as an example a scenario where a
27 number of business: owners may want to enter :into an agreement to revitalize an
28 area of town and their may be one person who was unreasonable or trying to
29 gain an unfair advantage; 'the thread' of eminent domain is what allowed equitable
30 solutions to occur.
31
32 Council Member Maguire stated that he believed, as Ms. Traynum stated, as
33 long, as the necessary steps were taken along the way, the City and the agency
34 would be; .guarded from the perils of frivolous litigation. He agreed with Mr.
35 ~ ~~ Marangella; that is, when talking about aforty-five year project, it was important
36` ~ to met', u"p the necessary tools that would allow/assist you to accomplish your
37 goals. He believed that the required public hearings, which were mandated by
38 ~ law,. provided am. ple opportunity for any landowner to come before the Council
39 .and plead his/her, case. He did not see that the Council, during his tenure in
40 -town, abused that authority. He continued that whether or not his colleagues
41 were. for or against eminent domain, they could accept the reports and set the
42 public hearing;. that was the appropriate. venue for discussion. He wanted '.to
43 move ahead procedurally; set the stage, and then have the discussion regarding
44 eminent domain.
45
Vol. 36, Page'74
April 1,6; 200::1
1 Vice 'Mayor Gader-Thompson thought it was. important to keep .ertinent domain.
2 There was 'a need for cohesive. -plan and consistency between the two agencies. ;
3 The City was going to work with fhe property owners... lt. was; a forty=fire year plan
4 :and not,,-something that would happen .over night.. Eminent domain prodded the
5 City; the. property owners; and City. Council with the flexibility to look.at a. vision,. a
6 forty-five year vision. _
S Ms. Traynum referred fo the first ,resolution, for approval, the Resfafed Owner
9 Participation and Business:. Re:-Entry Preference Rules for the. CB,D Pan and
1.0 explained, if adopted; would allow business owners and :business tenants within
11 'the CBD' area the opportunity to participate 'in redeye oproent. This meant the
12 ~ City coald purchase `the property through a volurita_ry sale or through; eminent.
13 dornain. The City wou_Id be required to adhere to the owner participation rules
14 which.°allowed fhe business owner to either elecf to be moved, temporarily, and
15 ,then return once, :the ,area.. was redeveloped or' to be relocated to a location of
16 their choice with like-kind.,. like resit conditions. Of#en owners appreciated the
1.7 opportunity, as sometimes they may be .able to move to a newer area of a City
18 where there had' been a test of the economics of that particular area. She asked
19 the Council 'to consider the opportunities for commercial property owners that
20 would be "provided either to relocate: elsewhere in ;the City, to a place of their
21 choice and the opportunity to come back to the :area after it w. ,as redeveloped;
22 they would not be put .out. of business 10Q%.
24 Council :Member .Moynihan .asked whether he understood Mr., Marangeila's
25 response to CouncC.Member O.`Brien`s question, that is,. it was a political decision
26 or a policy decision ;by the Commission.
27
28 Ms. Traynum replied that he was correct.
29
30 Council Member Moynihan asked whether or not it was, possible for. the
31 Commission to .add residential .into the' plan.
Ms. Traynum. replied' yes, it w.as possible from. a policy standpoint: 'Legally;; that
would ~necessifafe revisiting the Planning Commission. stage,. °forming a PAC
(Project Area Committee:), and they would have #o have hearings, among .other
things. She stated it would delay~the process ariotheryear.
Council Member Moynihan asked if`elirninating eminent domain over commercial
properties would require the same process.
Ms. Traynum replied no.
Council Member Moynihan asked how to make a. resolution to remove the
eminent domain from. the proposed resolutions presented.
April 16, 2001 Vol. 36, .Page Z5
1 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson announced that she would take. public comment
2 before changing the resolutions.
3
4 Public Comment
5
6 Samantha Daugherty, Executive Director 'of fhe Petaluma. Downtown Association
7 (PDA), stated that'PDA supported the CBD Amendment but at the time the Board
8 of Directors voted to support it, the powers of eminent domain were not included.
9 Currently PDA was surveying their;membership to find out their point of view and
10 their perspective regarding the powers of, eminent domain. Prior to the resu fs of
11 the survey, P.DA supported the CBD Amendment.
12
13 End Public Comment
14 .
1.5 Council Member Moynihan asked whether the other Council .Members received
t6 and read the ELR (Environmental Impact Report) or not; he received his earlier
17 that day as he was out' of t -own on Friday when tie report, was made available..
18
19 Council., Members at the. dais nodded affirmatively.
20
2.1 Council Member Moynihan was not comfortable with moving forward and wanted
22 assurances that eminent domain' issues would not come back and put the City at
23 risk of litigation and Liability; he saw the numbers, as being potentially huge and
24 he did not think it was necessary. He supported economic development but
25 expressed concern.. about what 'he perceived as "force feeding the community"
26 this type of legislation.. He asked :Ms. Traynum again the appropriate way to
27 adopt or to make a motion modifying the resolutions `to eliminate the eminent
28 domain clause included.
29
30 Council Member Maguire was offended by .Council Member Moy,nihan's
31 statement that this was. being force fed to the community.. He did not believe that
32 was happening.
33 _
34 MOTION: Council 'Membec° Maguire .moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Cader
35 Thompson, to adopt PCDC Resolution 2001-04A Receiving the
36 Report to the City Council and the Proposed Second Amendment
37 to the Central Business Disfrict Redevelopment '-Plan and the'-Final ___
38 EIR.
39
40 Ms. Traynum reviewed Council Member Moynihan's question; that is, how to
41 reserve the right to remove the. ,power of eminent domain from the plan. She
42 .asked if that was correct.
43
44 Council Member Moynihan added tnaf he wanted to.know how he could eliminate
45 the power of eminent domain from the nine or eight' resolutions appropriately, in
46 making a motion.
Vol. 36, ,Page ;76; April 16„ 2001
1
2 'Ms. Traynum explained that could be achieved .by making a motion, having it
3 .seconded,, voting, and hawing it go into the minutes..
4
5 Mr. Stouder asked .forclarification. He wanted to-.know if the process she defined
6 was required on all the resolutions or-,did it appl-y to;~specific ones,
7
8 Ms. Traynum replied, that it.was a general action. All of the resolutions: before the
9 Council were to receive, informati'o`n. ;At. the public hearing the Cou-Heil would
10 actually be :approving :and taking. action., on 'the Plan and the EIR; it was in the.
11. ~° Plan that the power of eminent domain: was; placed.,. If` Council Member'Moynhan.,
12 got;~support for h`is ;motio;n, then.,. when the item returned at the public'hearing; ;it
13 would, come back. in the form of a discussion regarding the elimination of the.
14 power of eminent domain. At that juncture:; the Council could decide whether 'it
15 wantedao include if or not.
16
17 Mr., Stouder as ced for clarification. He questioned if that would be an overridi'ng'
18 motion that could betaken before or after approval' of theresoiutions.
19
20 Ms. Traynum replied#hat Mr. Stouder was correct.
21
22 , :Ms. Stouder further asked for further clarification of whether the sequence of ,the
23 motions mattered.
24
:25 Ms.'Traynum replied that that the sequence did not matter..
26
27 Mr. _Stouder asked' whether 'it could be made after the; motion that was being
28 discussed whether the motion. passed or failed..
29
30 -: Ms`. Traynum. replied That, Mr. S:tou,der was correct.
31
32 Council. Member Moynih'a'n ,asked for :clarification. He restated. that he wanted the
33 appropriate verbiage to modify the: resolutions to eliminate eminent domain from
3'4. ~ _ ~ the amended plan.
35
36 Ms. Traynum replied tha# would.. be the motion. The motioh would be that. he
37 `wanted; the `power of eminent `domain eliminated ;from. the .Amended Plan. That
38- motion should be taken separate y'from the resolutions:.
39
40 Council Member ;M'aguire noted that was not on the agenda for discussion. He
4 ~ was'. not sure that could b.e complefed: He estimated there. was not: enough
42. ~ support, for Co:uncif ..Member Moyniha'n`s Motion to pass 'arid implored him to
43 recognize what Council was trying. to accomplish, stating that if was. 'the:
44 - procedural ab.usiness of; the City. He thought Council ,Member' Moynihan should
45 __ -bring powers. of eminent domain .issues up,,atthe heari'ng'.
46 "~ ~ _
April 16, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 77
1 Mr. Stouder, i"n an effort to avoid confusion, asked to review some scenarios. A
2 question was raised, can an amendment or an alteration of what was before the
3 Council be made since the agenda did not state as an option amending the plan
4 to not allow eminent domain. He asked if that motion could be made and
5 passed.
6 ~ .
7 Ms~. Traynum replied yes.
8
9 Mr."Stouder asked if the City would have to wait till the public hearing. He stated
10 that what fhe Gity was trying fo do was to avoid. further delay and' lack of clarity
11 about. the steps to be taken. He asked if it was "true that the public hearing. could
12 be advertised for both scenarios, that is with the powers of eminent domain and
13 without; a Plan that says "as is" for the sake of the discussion and a Plan that
14 says "with the exception of having the powers of eminent domain removed."
15
16 Ms: Traynum replied that Mr. Stouder was correct and continued by stating that
17 action could be taken on the item tonight,. if Council Member Moynihan got
18 supporf for hi's motion; if he didn't, it was a dead issue. If he did not get support
19 and it was deferred to the public hearing, the notices had not gone out yet nor
20 had the notice been published. in the newspaper. If his motion passed, to have
21 the discussion at the public hearing, the notices would so reflect. The point of
22 taking action tonight was to determine the direction; if it was eliminated tonight, it
23 was .gone. Then at the public hearing, the power of eminent domain would not
24 be discussed.
25
26 Mr. Stouder asked, at the public hearing, should the powers of eminent domain
27 be eliminated at this meeting,. if there 'was ,public testimony encouraging the
28 Council to include the powers of eminent domain as part of the public hearing, if
29 the Council could include the item.
30
31 Ms. Traynum replied if the Council removed the powers of eminent domain at this
32 meeting,, the effect was that it would be removed from the proposed .Plan. At the
33 public hearing the powers of eminent-domain would not be in the proposed Plana
34 Therefore, if the powers of eminent domain: were not included in the proposed
35 Plan, the Council would not discuss or 4'ake testimony regarding it.as th'e Council
36 would have already taken action to have it removed; what was being p`rese"need
37 at the public hearing was the Final Redevelopment Plan. The Council would have
38 written objections taken at the :meeting as well
39
40 Mr. Stouder asked for clarificatign, He asked if the Council could remove it at the
41 public. hearing if it .remained. in the proposed Plan but they could not add it if it
42 was already taken out.
43
44 Ms. Traynum replied that was true for this process. What' they could do was to
45 start a new action, which would kick it back to 'PAC stage. They would have, to.
46 adopt rules to form a Project Area Commftee and there would need to be public
vol. 36,: Page.78 April 16;:2001'
1 hearings to accompli's.h that. Then, :the PAC wrould have: public hearings, among
~hings it ;woul'd start the whole process over again. .
2 other t_
3
4. Mr. S,touder cla. rifled that what he was trying to do was: to clarify/identify the
5 consequences of actions taken ;at the :me.efing. He stated that if he .understood
6 correctly, if tthe power';of eminent domain power was- removed today, it could `not
7 be added to the public hearing without beginning the process over again; if it was
8 left in, it could be removed at the :public hearing and the schedule could be
~9 maintained. A third option was to have direction from the Council to advertise the
1'0 puble~ hearing two ways., that is, a proposed Amended Plan "as is'` and a
11 proposed Amended ,Plan: that. takes exception to the powers of eminent domain.
12 The' Council would then have. the. authority to adopt either one at the public
13 hearing stage.
14
15 Ms. Traynum replied thaf Mr. Stouder's scenario was acceptable..
16
17 Council Member O'Brien had concerns about eminent domain but was walling 'to
18 move this forward if he had assurances from staff -that eminent domain could :b,e
19 taken up ;at the public hearing. 1f this was the case,, he did not have a problem
20 supporting the resolutions; the eminent domain .issue needed to be revisited due.
21 to the concern in the community.
22
23 Vice.. Mayor C,ader-Thompson asked. for clarification. She stated that by taking.
24 this action; the Council would move' forward and the eminent domain issue would'
25 be discussed at the public hearing..
26
27 Ms. Traynum stated the. Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson was correct.
28
29
30
31
32
33,~
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Council Member Moynihan asked the City Attorney, i~n lighf of the conflicts. of
interest the Council had and 'the selection process that occurred, of the Council
Members with conflicts. of interest,, which. Council Member would be 'the entity
part_ici~pating: in the discussion and: action at the public hearing when. the item
returned.
., : ,
Mr. Rudnansky replied'it would be the Council Members voting at this meeting..
.,
Council Member Moynihan asked for clarification. of whether or not. the quorum
would .be the same individuals ;participating on the. item at this meeting, unless.
one of them did attend, at which point they would. have to redraw straws.
Mr: Rudnansky replied -that he was. unsure. He noted 'the new rules stated:. that
once a decision °making body had. drawn straws and decided who was
participating in the initial vote; any follow up votes on that particular item would
be made by .f_he same members. He said he would verify that'inforrnation.
April 16, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 79
1 - ~C.ounci_I Member Moynihan stated, putting things into perspective, what would
2 happen was that a nurriber of people- concerned about eminent domain would
3 ~ ,come to the public hearing taking .the time of Council arguing their points, being
4 very upset and emotional, He did not think that was necessary as his position on
5 the subject would not change.; he heard from the constituency loud and clear, he
6 had read the information presented in'which the constituency made comments all
7 along, he: attended some of the meetings of the various organizations that had
8 expressed concerns.. He believed the businesses had an opportunity or should
9 have an opportunity equal to that of the residences.
10
11 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson wanted fo proceed -with the vote.
12
13 Council Member Maguire called for the vote.
14
15 Council Member Moynihan stated that lie wanted tamake a resolution and called
16 for a Point of Order. He had the floor and had been interrupted and he wanted to
17 complete his motion.
18
19 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson reminded Council Member Moynihan there was a
20 motion on the floor.
21
22 Council Member Moynihan replied that 'he was aware that there was a motion on
23 the floor and added that he wanted to make another, He wanted to know if legally
24 he was prohibited from doing so. _
25
26 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson asked the City Aftorney for direction.
27
28 Mr. Rudnansky replied that he believed the motion on the floor had been called
29 for a vote.
30
31 MOTION,
32 PASSED: ~ 3/1 (Council Member Moynihan voting "No"; Mayor Thompson and
33 Council Members Healy and Torliaft recused)
34
35 MOTION: Council Member Moynihan moved., seconded by O'Br.ien, to adopt
36 Resolutions 1 - 9 (included in the staff report), eliminating eminent
37 domain from all relative resolutions and the proposed Plan
38 Amend"ment.
39
40 MOTION
41 FAILED: 2/2 (Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson and Council Member Maguire
42 voting: "No"; Mayor Thompson and Council Members Healy and
4'3 - Torliatt recused)
44
45
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
4q
41
42
43
4.4
45
Vol. 36, Page~80:
April 16, 2001
MOTION-: Gounel ,Member Maguire mooed, seconded by O'B'rien,.to adopt ;
Resolution PCDC '2001,=04B Requesting a:Joirt ;Public Hearing on
fhe Second Amendment 'to the Re;developme.nt Plan for the CBD
Projecf Area and the Fi_na(EIR,
Council Member Moynihan. asked #or discussion: ,
Council Member Maguire stated the vote was°taken.
Council Member Moynnihan had not voted.
Vice. Mayor Cader=Thompson asked Council Member Moynihan to state his
question.
Council Member Moynihan wanted clarification. He wanted. to know if'the Council
was ,going to vote on each reso ution separately.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson advised that the Council would vote on each
resolution:" individually as recommended by {Mr: Rudnansky; they were ~on
Resolution #2 indicated on the Agenda Bill.
Mr. Rudnansky .clarified that the.. first motion was for the first resolution; this was
the second resolution...
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson .asked; if Council Member Moynihan's question `was .
answered. to his satisfaction.
Council Member Moynihan requested a brief recess.
Vice MayorCad'er-Thompson :asked -under what,grounds.
Co.uneil Member Moy,,nihan leff the dais. Council no longer had a quorum and
asked the City Attorney for direction.
Mr. Rudnansky suggested the Counciltake a, short recess.
RECESS: 4:25 P:M.
RECONVENE: At 4:35 P.M., ~V,ice Mayor Cader-Thompson, Council Members
Maguire, Moynihan; and, O'Brien returned to the dais.
MOTION,
PASSED: 3/1 (Council Member Moynihan voting, "No"; Mayor Thompson 'and.
Council Members Healy and Torliatt recused)
April 16,.2001 Vol. 36, Page 8'1
i
1 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Cader-
2 Thompson, to adopt Council Resolution 2001-083 N.C.S. Electing
3 _ to. Receive a Tax Increment Allocation Pursuant to Health and
4 ~ Safety Code Section 33607.5.
5
6 MOTION
7 PASSED: 3/1 (Council. Member Moynihan voting '`No°; Mayor Thompson and
8 Council Members Healy and Torliatt recused)
9
10~
11 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by O'Brien, to adopt
12 PCDC Resolution 2001-04D Finding the' Provision of Low and
13 Moderate Income Housing Both Inside & Outside of the Project
14 Area is of Benefit to the Community
15
16 MOTIOfV
17 PASSED: 3/1 (Council Member Moynihan voting "No"; Mayor Thompson and
18 Council Members Healy and Torliatt recused)
19
20 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky noted that no action was required on item 5
21 listed on the agenda bill:
22
23 Resolution of the Planning Commission ofi.the City of Petaluma Reporting on and
24 Recommending Adoption of the Second Arnendmenf to the Redevelopment Plan
25 for the Central. Business District Redevelopment Project and Forwarding the
26 Draft EIR to the City Council and Requesting that a Final ELR Be Prepared.
27
28 No Action Taken
29
30 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by O'Brien, to adopt
31 Council Resolution 2001-083A N.C.S. Resolution Receiving the
32 , _, _ ,Report to Council. on the Proposed Second Amendment to the CBD
33 ~ Redeveloprent Plan and Final EIR.
34
35
36
37 MOTION
38 PASSED: 3/1 (Council Member Moynihan voting "No"; Mayor Thompson and
39 Council Members Healy and Torliatt recused)
40~
41 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by O'Brien, to adopt
42 Council Resolution2001-0838 N:C.S. (#7 City Council) Consenting
43 to a Joint Public Hearing on the Second Amendment to the CBD
44 Redevelopment Plan and Final EIR.
45
46 'MOTION
Vol. 36, Page 82
1 PASSED:
2
3
4 MOTION:
5
6
7
8
9 MOTION
10 PASSED:
11
12
13 MOTION:.
_ _
14
15
16
1T
18 MOTION
19 ~ PASSED:
20
21
22
23 .ADJOURN
24
.April 16; 2001
3/1 (Council Member Moynihan woti_ng "N,o"; Mayor Thompson- and
Council. Members Healy and Torliaff recused)
Couraeil.'Member Maguire moved, seconded> by O'Brien, to adopt
Couneil;~ Resolution 2001-0830 N.C.S. (#8. City Council). Finding; the ,
Provision of Low and Moderate Income Housing Both Inside and
Outside of the Project Area is of Benefit to the Community
3/1 (Council Member Moynihan votng''No"; Mayor Thompson and
C.ouncil`Members Healy and Torliatt recused)
Council Member Maguire :moved., seconded by O'Brien, to adopt
( ) , pproving 'the Restated.:
PCDC Resolution 2001-04C : #3. PCDC A
Owner ;Participation and Business Re-Entry Preference. Rules for
the CBD Redevelopment Plan
3/1 (Council Member'Moynihan voting "No"; Mayor Thompson and
.Council Members Healy and Torliaft recused)
25 Vice Chair Ca_der-Thompson recessed fhe P.C,D,.`C~. meeting at 4:40 P.M.
26
27
28
29
30 RECONVENE
31
********
32 At 8:35 P:M.,, Chair Thompson reconvened the Petaluma Community Development. _
33 Commission 'for 'the purpose of reconvening the joint., meeting with the .Petaluma City
34 Council, already' in' session with. roll taken. _
35
36 ROLL CALL .
37
3$ Petaluma ,Community Development Commission:
39 T
40 PRESENT: -Vice Chair Cade,r-Thompson.; Commissioners Healy, Maguire; Moynihan,
41 O'Brien; :Chair Thompson; Commissioner Torliatt
42
43 ABSENT: -None
44
45 PU,.BLIC COMMENT
46
47 None
April 16, 2001 Vol._36, Page 83'
1
2 :000NCIUCOMIVIISSION COMMENTS
3
4 None
5
6 AGENDA CHANG'ES', ~4DDITIONS, AND'DE'LETLONS
7
8 None
9
10 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
11
12 2. Discussion. on VU'ork Program, Budget and Schedule for Implementation of
13 Central Petal`unma Specific Plan (CPSP). (Moore)
14
15 Mayor Thompson asked. Vice Mayor Caller-Tl'o:mpson to preside over discussion
16 and possible action`on this agenda itern; as he would recuse .himself noting that
17 he had several .clients 'within the Central; Petaluma Specific Plan boundaries to
18 whom he -sold insurance':.
19
20 Council Members Healy:, Moynihan and Torliaft announced they would recuse
21 themselves; 'that. is, they would not- participate in th`e discussion and any action
22 on this agenda: item, as they believed they had conflicts of interest.
23
24 Council .Member Healy stated that his residence was located within five hundred
25 feet of`the boundaries of-the Central Petaluma Specific Plan.
26
27 _
Council Member Torliatt statedthat she :had, completed a lease transaction with
28 one of theowners of property within the' boundaries of the Central Petaluma
29 Specific with a value over $250.__00..... .
30
31 Council Member Moynihan also announced that he had a source of~ income
32 within. th:e redevelopment area that. he had received .during the past year in
33 excess of the $250.00 limit mandated by'the conflict of interest legislation.
34
35 Due, to a lack of a quorum, City Attorney Richard. , Rud_nansky announced.,
36' pursuant. to conflict 'of interest rules, sfraws (toothpicks, in this case) would be
37 d"yawn by Council Members who had recused themselves from participating on
38 the item, to allow a member of the Council to return to dais in order-.to: heave
' 39 ~ quorum so as to continue with the City's business. The short straw, in this case,
40 allowed a Council Member to, return to .the dais. He_sfated that upon returning, .
41 the Council Member must disclose the type of economic interest(s)' involved,
42 personal entity(ies) which. constituted the source of income, and why ~he/she.
43 believed there was a conflictas sanctioned by the F.P.P.C.
44
45 Council Member Healy drew the short stick and returned'. to the dais.
46
Vol. 36, Page; 84
.April 16, 2Q01
Community Development Director Mike Moore provided background information
that included the .purpose of the work prograrri. He advised tfat~ City
(Management- made; some modifications 'fo the. original recommendation in the
staff report. dated March 5, which included Work Program A.
6 Due to development applications that were in various stages of review within the
7 CPSP area, City Management included 1Nork 'Program B for the C'ouncil's.
8 consideration. Options A and B both., addressed the existing CPS~P boundaries.,
9 ~ the vision, and, policy guidance. suggested in the December 199.9 CPS_P'. "1Nork
10 program B was provided. as a -means to have fhe. Policy and Land use
11 recommendations adopted as quickly as possible..
13 The. presumption was that, if approved, City Management; would extract. th'e
14 Policy and` Land Use recommendations from, the December 1999 Draft CPS'P,
15 work. th"rough issues that had come: ~up relative: to the Land Use Plan, versus .the
16 Illustrative: Concept Plan, and come up with a Land U e Diagram That addressed
17 those issues `in a consistent manner. He added. that they could, proceed "with'
18 some of the implementation steps that were discu'sse,d preuiousay and address-
19 zoning ordinances based on the needs of the entire community instead of just the
20 CPSP. Also, both options proposed a parking.stud.y and that had a scope of work
21 ;developed ;already and. was consistent with wliat~ was proposed; as parf of the
22 General PI'an Scope...
24 He pointed out that the significant difference between Options A,and B was in the
25 environmental analysis; 'if the Council. moved forward with. Option. B the'_re would
26 be no requirement to complete the CPSP ~EI,R: He clarified that if .did not. mean
27 the City wouldn;'t do any further en,uirgnmental review. There would be project-
28 specific en~ironroental review that would probably~continue until. the General Plan
29 was completed and the General Plan E1R conmprehensvely covered the entire:
30 community including the GPS;P area. Opfion A was a proposal o comp etc the
31 ... C_PSR as, it was ;intended. There were state requirements to pe met in order for
32 ..the project 'to 'be a "Specific ;Plan:" .Missing from the 'current draft: were the
33 implementation tools that are 'necessary to insure ;that the vision recommended in
34 the policies can be carried out; this. included develop~menf regulations-, zoning
35 .regulations;, design guidelines and completing; the EIR which. ,was in ari
36 ~ administrative draft, stage: Option A, that is Work Program A, includes; :a, scope
37 and schedule that would complete; that process by fhe end of the year. The City
38 had received proposals fro. m .consultants to eornplete the parking study, the
39 ~~ infrastructure :analysis.. The City: had. received a preliminary proposal on fhe EIR
40 ._ .~ho_wever there. were, come concerns raised, already, To fully address those
4 concerns-,and comply with; CEQA requirements; the $178;000 budgeted would
42' .~ r not cover the expenses..
43
44 ~ Council M,e.mber" Maguire asked how much. more funding. was necessary to
45 complefe.lNork;Program A.. '
April 16, 2001 vol. 36, Page 85
1 Mr. Moore replied that he did not know:and added that if the Council proceeded
2 with Work Program B, the historical analysis required could be done within the
3 amount budgeted.
4
5 Council Member Maguire noted that he had read Mr. Moore's staff report. He
6 wanted to ,know if Work Program B would be as comprehensive in terms
7 development regulations and design standards as Work Program A.
8
9 Mr. Moore replied "no,"that it would .not.
10
11 Council Member Maguire thought that proceeding with Work `Program B, and
12 quoted the staff report, "apply the guidelines as necessary," would be
13 adm'inisfratively burdensome and without clearly delineated criteria.
14
15 Mr. Moore replied that the short-term process set forth in Work. Program B would
16 entail City Management trying to resolve some of the regulatory questions by
17 creating a PUD (Planned Unit District) like zoning district that would be applied to
18 the CPSP area. As part of that process, they would be able. to identify use issues
19 and some of the major questions about parking ratios, and include those in an
20 all-purpose zoning district that would apply to the: CPSP area.
21
22 Council Member Maguire asked how that would be noticeably distinctive from
23 Work Program A.
24
25 Mr. Moose replied that Work Program A would entail more zoning detail than
26 would be anticipated in Work Program B.
27
28 Vice Mayor Cader=Thompson asked, if th`e Ge_ neral Plan process was not.
29 stopped, how this project would have folded into the General Plan process, for
30 instance traffic.
31 `
32 Mr. Moore replied that 1Nork Program. A, the original proposal, would have
33 created a process separate from the General Plan, that is separate EIR, separate
34 traffic analysis, separate parking study. There was sufficient information in the
35 administrative draft of the EIR; staff identified some major issues°to be addressed
36 as part of the EIR as traffic, noise, air quality, and school impacts.
37
38 Mr. Stouder commented, for clarity, that any traffic studies, for example, whether
39 they come from the General Plan or are separate, end up being data used for
40 both, so the.. traffic and parking studies are not separate, .lt was a matter of how
41 quickly they were used for which objective. If we have two different processes,
42 different questions might arise during those processes that ask more questions,
43 but traffic. counts are traffic counts, parking counts are parking counts; and
44 whether we use them for the General Plan or the downtown part of the General
45 Plan or the CPSP or something none of us have yet thought about, they are
Vol. 36, Page 86
April 16, 2001
1 ~, valid.. He did not want to le.a~e an impression that. they only had, a si-ngle purpose.
2 ~ He did not believe that was Mr.. Moore's intent.
3
4 ~ Mr. Moore .appreciated the: clarification.
5
6 Mr..Stouder added that the same traffic counts 'that began last fall through the
7 holiday eason, o the. City would have four or five different periods,
8 Thanksgiving,, Christmas holiday season, back fo school, summertime;, how they
9' impact the CPSP area, or the downtown, or the General Plan; or' matters of the
10' telescope, or the prospective use for analysis, the data is the data and it's. there.
11 -.
12 Council. Member ;Healy wanted to know to which analysis, with respect to
13 schools,,: Mr. Moore referred.
14
15 Mr.:Mo,ore replied that one of the comments that. had.. come up. in previous
16 ,discussions about. the CPSP was that there was a considerab e amount of
17 residential development anticipated for .the CPSP area; in fact, sorpe
1.8 recommendations were that. the be number increased. He thought it was
19 worthwhile to go fo .the. school district and make sure they were: aware of the level
20 of development anticipated and that. they had the opportunity, 'if they were
21 ,comfortable 'with this, to provide input and. if there were issues, they could be
22 addressed'~now.
23 _ -
24 Council Member, Healy recalled that the original plan was to have an EIR for the
25 CPSP tied to and dovetailed off the EIR Redevelopment expansion,., At some,
26 point that. fell, by file wayside. and he wanted to 'know if that was. no longer staff's.
27 recommendation...
28
29 Mr. Moore replied. that initially staff wanted to do them together.,, However, it
30 became imporfant to move ahead with' the- Redevelopment EI.R: 'The
31 Redevelopment. E1R actually did build on some' of the 'information in the.
32 Administrative braft of the CPSP EIR. He currently thought they would build on
33 ~ the Redevelopment E.IR, since if was cerfified,, and move forward with the EIR for
34 the CPSP based on some of that, information.
Council Member Healy asked for clarification; stating that if the Council went with
Work. Program B rather than Work Program A, .the primary cost ,savings, as; he
understood 'it, came from not doing a separate traffic study and' .possibly not
spending as much on development regulations and design guidelines.:
Mr. Moore added'the EIR.
Council Mem. ber :Healy questioned Mr. Moore regarding the use of a PU.D-like
:: ~...
approach fo"r design issues:;' f1e wanted to Know how,that would work.
April 16, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 8T
1 Mr. Moore replied that what he envisioned wa`s, rather than creating an extensive
2 ~*..set `of zoning .regulations; as proposed in~ Work Program A, Work Program B
3 would attempt to consolidate some of thaf into a basic set of regulations that
4 would serve until more comprehensive zoning .regulations could be'adopted.
5
6 Council Member Healy thought Mr. Moore"s comments were abstract and he did
7 not have a `sense of how' that affected' the process or whether the City would be
8 giving up much. In terms of projects the City wanted to come through in the
9 interim; what. was the City .giving up?
10
11 Mr. Moore replied that probably some level of ~defail of architectural styles would
12 be given up.
13
14 Coun"cl Member Healy asked if the Site Plan and: Arehitecfural Review
15 Committee (SPARC) would be able. to review projects coming forward and snake
16 recommendations. even though there weren't final guidelines.
17
18 Mr.. Moore replied that they could. The intent was to .clarify the process and then
19 provide basicguidelines built from the policy recommendations 'in the CPSP,
20 which would then provide the flexibilify for either SPARC or the Planning
21 Commission, whichever, reviewed.. those applications, to take whatever action it
22 deemed appropriate, not only-:based on the regulations but what the CPSP '.had
23 to say about that:
24
25 Council Member Maguire; stated that was "where the. rub was" for him. If the City
26 moved forward with 1Nbrk Program B, he believed, the City had tied its hands
27 somewhat in terms of enforceability. There. was 'discretion to guide but no
28 authority to say, "You must adhere to these. .ideas," He thought that was a good
29 portion. of -the problem with the Basin Street Property, in that City Management
30 ,was doing their job of saying„ "Here's what we ur-derstand should be done."
31 Fortunate y, the, project proponent has been very cooperative and did not say,
32 "~INell, too bad," and "Here's what the law says, and here is what 1 am going to do
33 and you know, Planning Department, sign-off on it or we'll see you in court." Had
34 that happened', the City would have been faced with a bad project .and all the
35 "good visioning" would have been wasted. He wanted to know tiow to resolve
36 that if the Council did not adopt Work Program A.
37
38 :~ `Mr. Moore; 'did nqt disagree with Council. Member Maguire's comments. He
39 wanted to make if very clear that: City Management wanted to see the CPSP
40 completed in some: form. He thought it.was a benefit to everyone to complete the
41 process. Currently;, the C.FSP is not quite. complete, although direction.. from
42 Council was, to implement .it as though. it were adopted. There were questions
43 about what that meant and, subsequent to the direction ,given last October, there
44 were questions abo;uf h,ow the current zoning regulations were to be applied,
45 ~ `what they meant; antl how they should be app ied fo specific projects. City
46 Management did want clarity; they did not want to spend time spinning their
vol. 36, Page:88
April 1,6,,.2001
1 wheels over process: The real question before the Council was; one of time;
2 neither. of the two work programs was an ideal solution. He thought fhat ,either
3 one ~ of . th:e work programs would take the City: _whe,re if 'wanted to go and
4 hopefully, capture enough of wflat was. in the Draft CP:SP to carry it forward on a
5 formal basis.
6 ~..
7 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson, referred to the proposed. timeline and the C`ouncil's
8 certification of the ElR :and adoption. of the CPS'I' as December 17, 20Q1., and
9 asked if that was Vllork Program A.
10
1' 1 M,r. Moore replied "yes,"that it was 1Nork Program A,
12
13 Mr. Stouder wanted it ..noted that what Mr. Moore could, guarantee was the
14 contract work, the. data.- gathering„ and the draft repgrts; whaf no one° could
15 guarantee was, what questions might arise and additional issues that come up as
16 'part of the p.ub is review process;. While he thought Mr. Moore 'might "guarantee
17 certain. dates;.." unless. -thee Council warited to say, "We've only'going to have ,these
18 meetings acid no rnore:and the E/R putilic,hearings would onlylasf time [a certain
19 amount of time] and no more," no one, as Council could appreciate, could
20 guarantee the time. table. He wanted to be sure that Council realized that."
21
22 Vice `Mayor Caller=Thompson stated ahe appreciated that.
Mr: Moore stated thaf when the timeline was established, there was n:o 'intent. on.
the part of City Management to. short ..circuit the ,process. If all the other things.
were consistent with whaf:.was ..done fo this point,. tie thought they should be able
to move relatively quickly through the publc_review, process with- either Program
A or B.
30 Council. Member .Healy inquired to what extent had staff resources .and timing
31 and work priorities been part of `the problem in getting this moved. ,forward. He
32 read that as a .subtext of" whaf was ~preserited to the; Council; that is, the less
33 comprehensive approach maybe more do-able because it was, more achievable.,
34 given the staffing in the P;Ianning Department. He wanted to know. if'that was- one
35 of the issues going on. .
Vice Mayor. Caller-Th:o_mpson thought, when, ~ they were getting: ~ the
.Redevelopment: District prepared; it seemed like that' was part of, the reason why. .
the City was: not mowing forward with the CPSP also. It was not` specifically thaf
the discussion was ab"out " he CPSP but the entire process the: City had to go
through with the expansion of the Redeveloprnerit D'strict., She did not think it ,
was just the CPSP and,asked Mr. Moore to explain`:: "
Mr.. Moore replied that tfe fact that 99% of staff Time was spent processing
current development applications was o.ne reason for the, delay. Another reason
was the Redevelopment Project Area issues mentioned, 'plus 'the conflicf of
April 16, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 89
1' : ~ interests issues that put everything related. to the Redevelopment Project Area
2 ~ arid the CPSP" on hold.
3
4 PUBLIC COMMENT
5
6 " Linda;:Buffo,, 841Schuman Lane; spoke. regarding "the length of time it has taken
7 to get the GPS'I' approved and implemented. and asked that Council bring.
8 ~ ,together the:. 'CPSP Committee to work with City Management to complete the
9 project.
10
t1 ~.~,~;, John FitzGerald, 114 Fieldcrest, #ormer .member of the CPSP Committee, was
12 concerned that members of the committee were not informed of the meeting and
13 spoke 'in support of the committee meeting again and working with City
14 Management to successfully complete the project.
15
16 Scott Vouri, 1557 Mauro Pietro Drive„ spoke in support of Work Program "A."
17
18 Wayne Miller, 328 Smith Drive, member of the GFSP Committee, noted three'
19 key issues: durable plan over time; clarity, regarding the approach; and
20 participatory process. He advocated creating. an advisory committee for
21 preliriminary design plans from the core- .group of the CPSP Committee to bring
22 ideas and concepts: forward with developers.
23
24 David Keller, 1327 `I' Street, spoke regarding the lack of notification to the public
25 about this meeting.. He had not received a staff report and .noted that he was a
26 co-chair of the CPSP Committee. He thought there was. no leverage in the plan
27 for compliance and asked that Council stop the process and not make ariy'
28 decisions until. proper notification was provided and the public and they were
29 given the opportunity to participate.
30
31 Gary Broad, 177 Grevillia Drive., agreed. with previous speakers and stated that
32 he was disappointed that the matter wasn't brought to the attention of the
33. Planning Commission.
34 ~- `
35 -Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive,. supported Work Program A.
36`
37 Patricia Tuttle Brown; 513 Petaluma Boulevard South, was disappointed in the
38 lack of notification given to the public and the enforceability measures for
39 compliance; she supported Work Program A.
40 _
41 Samantha Dougherty, ,Petaluma. Downtown Association, supported Work
42 Program A~, adding that fewer ambiguities would occur if approved.
43 ~'
44 .END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
45
Vol. 36, Rage 90
April 1...6,.2001'
1 Mr.. Stouder .reminded Councif the charge was. not. to change oramend the
2 CPSP.
3
4 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson referred to the ="broken: process,;" and "frustrated
5 citizens." Council 'had asked for more public notice:; ~ especially fo.r the .
6 committees: She supported. a .more specific plan approach, S.he .related the
7 discussion to one earlier in the day :regarding eminent- domain. Siie referenced
_,
8 the General Plan being; stopped and stafed the. importance of making decision`s
9 .based on the whole City, not just. the downtown.
11 Council Member Healy supported the. CPSP Commitfee, better noficing to the. -
12 public:,, and Vllork Program.. A. He was willing to discuss bringing back the CPSP
14 specifictareasathe firsttof wh~hgwould beldto a review loftthe FinaltAdmir c~ pe in
s rative
15 Draft to make: sure the document was consistent with the CPSP Committee's
16 previous: discussions..; In looking at'1Nork Program A, he thought it was ofi value
17 to the process to stick within the time frame provided, yet give 'the CPSP
18 Committee the opportunity to weigh: in on some of the really ,key issues ofi the
19 work fh'at needs fo ,be done.; such as parking structures, .historic preservation
20 guidelines, utilities, infrastructure,,: design guidelines,, over the next six`. 'monfhs.
21 He referred fo. discussions regarding illustrative maps rather than a detailed
22 master plan approach and stated that he thought it was too ,late to. graft a detailed
23 master plan approach to this process,, it would set the project's completion back
24 years.
26 C -ouncil M'ernber Maguire asked Council .Member Healy if he thought the maps
27 should remain illustrative and not specific detailed.
28
29 Council Member Healy thought #hat if' the City got' to the point where a specific
30 plan was crafted that stated, for instance,, that a particular parcel has three-story. ,.
31 townhouses and another has a movie theater; more; detailed economic °analyss
32 and' supply and demand arialyss_ would be required. Instead, if the. thought is to
33 have a dynamic mix of activities;; whatever might be economically feas:b,le; then
34 property owners and project proponents would be given the guidelines necessary - -
35 to move forward with projects that meet the spirit to have a dynamic downtown.
37 Council Member Maguire d_id riot think the Draft CPSP was~apecific enough. He
38 referred to a San Francisco Chronicle article that was ~opied,.for.~tfie Council from:
39 Beth Meredith regarding the City of Hercules, which had, adopted a ~Physiea0
40 Concept' Plan (PCP)., the purpose of which was to depict exactly where buildings
41 would be located. on specific sites. An urban. code that. provided specific details
42 about how buildings and streets: were structured. o create a:: vital. and safe, public
43 realm accompanied the PCP:: He thought if rnight:,be worth considering specificity
44 at the., level, of drawings that showed what: should go where; if not, he `thought a
45 ;pool of~amb,iguty wotald result: He wanted a complete p;rogram:_ 1N'ork P"rogram A
48 ,plus, under :Design Standards, Facade Appearances and Building Orientation,
April 16, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 91
1 and under Development Regulations,. add' :Pedestrian Orientation, for examp e.
2 He reiterated that he supported Work Program A with more detailed drawings.
3
4 Mr. Stouder asked to comment. Any real.. specific site plan had to have an
y . q ,:. 9
5 economic, market anal sis; t was; a re uirement, He estimated the cost for .loin,
6 this in Petalurna's Downtown would run. approxirnafely $10b,000 - $200,000 for
7 what used. to 6e called a'n EMAS (Economics Market Analysis). he EMAS
8 determined if those site-specific things suggested by the community were
9 actually economically feasible. As .C,ouncil Member Healy indicated, the CPSP
10 Committee did not wan. t to engage in that sort. of level of economic analysis or
11 parking analysis,. That`was one of 'the reasons the Draft CPSP did not go into
12 detail. If' the Council pursues a detailed. Downtown Development Plan, at some
13 point; they would be faced with the question. of defensibility and then they would,
14 pragmatically and ,;perhaps even legally, need to do an EMAS much. beyond the
15 scope he had ever seen done" in, the' community. The point was if the Council
16 wanted 'to proceed with a detailed approach, it was City Management's
17 responsibility fo tell them, in order to do that. thoroughly, there were other things
18 City .Management should do; City Management could propose what That might
19 cost.
20
21 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson. asked if there was a way to approach this without
22 going -.into an economic analysis.
23
24 Mr. Stouder was not sure.. He noted that. a lot of people worked very hard with a
25 lot of expertise and good, thoughtful ideas for fiive years to bring the City to this
26 juncture. He often said; "There were always answers that were easy, simple,
27 neat and wrong:"
28
29 When he heard the term "shortcut;"he usually thought that meant something was
30 not going; fo ,be satisfactory,,. that he would have fo go back and do it again, He
31 was snot sure the Council wanted to do that.- City Management was clear about
32 the process Council wanted to take and would help to that extent, or' Council
33 should .provide specific .guidance about things. they did, not want done.
34
35' Council Member OBrien supported .Work Program A because of the Updated
36 Traffic Study. ;He was concerned, about pufting anything into town that would, add
37 more traffic to Washington :Street or Petaluma Boulevard, for example: He
38 wanted `to see 'the results of the traffii'c model when they became available in the
39 fall. Taking all issues .into consideration, he thought. the City would get a lot more
40 "bang for their buck"with Work Program A.
4.1
42 Council Member Maguire stated that it would have been helpful to have~learned
43 sooner that an economic plan would have been a significant ,underpinning of a
44 full-on specific plan:.. It.was not included in staff report and. therefore did not occur
45 to him, altYiough if was-an important issue. H.e thought that to do this right, what
46 the City should be doing'is something that can be plugged into the General Plan. '
Vol. 36, Page 92
Aprif 16, 2001
He. reiterated his desire to .have fhe most complete;, compre:hens.i~e specific plan
possible an, d if if took an economic plan, then he wanted City' Management to
provide the cost and timeline for that.
,M r. Stoud'er interjected. H'e elarifi'ed that what was being; talked about was; ,an
economic market analysis;,,, which was different than an economic: plan. An
economic plan said, "Here.'s what w,e w,ant 'to try fa do and if we do ,fh`is; here is
the return for if.'' The market. analysis says;, "Based upon your market area, your
.growth,, the .number of square feet,. 'the .number of consumers, and' your buying,
power, would a .hotel meet occupancy, 'was another million square..feet of retail at
this. consurnerlevel, going fo be 'met. with. the populafon base...and :cane you draw
from Santa Rosa, amongother things."That was the kind of a study thaf many of
the major ;retailers .did priuafely for them"selves ,It. was different, from an, economic
,plan.,;. a, plan said this: is what we want to achieve economically, a market analysis
addressed whether o,r not the .plan that was crafted `was achievabae, would the
economist and consumer and the investors do in factwhat was planned, It was a.
different level of detail and.yes; it;was so.meone's.educated analysis.
Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson asked: if there was going to be an economic:'rnarket
analysis done in conjunction with the General Klan.
Mr. Stouder repaied ``no." He stated that he, did not mean. #o be flippant and
added. that to sorme ;degree; there was an economic analysis done in the: Capital
Improvement Program of the; General Plan.
Council Member Healy supported Co.unel IVlember Maguire's request to get more
spe,eific and. more detailed to the extent feasible. He believed, especially since
They were :crafting something that was fo be in' place for .decades and were really
shooting, at a moving target on the economic side, if was important to retain
flexibility to allow properfy ownerrs and others to b,r,ing forward proposals that
meet the. economic realities. of the day consistent w,ifh the design guidelines,
which he ;.hoped were set very high.
PUBLIC COMMEfVT
39
Vin Smith, Basin .Street P"roperties, spoke: regarding design guidelines,
understanding the rules, the economic analysis his firm had done on all of the
,parcels targeted for the Basin ~Stree,t Project, andnoted that fh~e C.'RS.P was done
with the oversight of an economist:;. Bill Lee of ;E:conomic Research ;Associates
always participated.
Scott Vouri„.. 1:5'57 Mauro Pietro Drive„ expar}ded on ills earl'i'er .comments
regarding flexibilify and specificity -the .range of uses created a middle- ground.
,David Keller, 132,7 "I" "Street, supported Work Program q adding that to help staff
and developers,, Council should reconvene the Ca'SF Committee to validate the
April 16, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 93
1 draft, and to have a dialogue with City Management about updates on specific
2 projects that had come up, clarifications, and to think ahead of how the City
3 would use redevelopment dollars to redevelop the area, which was, if necessary,
4 to purchase and leverage key parcels or uses in the area.
5
6 END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
7
8 Mr. Moore summarized Council discussion as follows:
9
10 • Move forward with Work Program A.
11 Proceed with the Infrastructure Analysis.
12 • Proceed with the Parking Study, as .soon as possible.
13 '
14 He suggested, based on the comments he heard, reconvening the CPSP
15 Committee and taking the opportunity to review the scope of work with them and,
16 in terms of the regulatory design guideline portions, talk with the CPSP
17 Committee, SPARC, and the Planning Commission about a more detailed land
18 use map and return to the Council with a final Work Program, recommendations,
19 and adjusted budget.
20
21 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson wanted to incorporate charettes, from the
22 beginning, with the Planning Commission, SPARC, reconvene the CPSP
23 Committee to avoid redundancy.
24
25 Mr. Moore agreed, adding that one of the items he included in the packet was a
26 staff report he prepared regarding the processing applications during the interim
27 period, before a completed, adopted CPSP. He had provided a number of
28 alternatives, one of which was- to either reconvene the CPSP Committee, using
29 the Planning Commission SPARC, Council, or whoever wanted to take on the
30 role of serving in a preliminary review/comment function, before a formal
31 application was filed.
32
33 Council Member Maguire asked that City Management review the original
34 economic plan or study to which Vin Smith referred and find out .whether it could
35 be updated without much trouble and expense to address the marketing issues
36 the City Manager raised.
37
38 Mr. Moore agreed.
39
40 Mr. Smith recommended the firm of Fisher and Hall to :facilitate the charettes.
41
42 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson agreed with Mr. Smith's recommendation. She
43 summarized Council's agreement to:
44
45 ® Move ahead with Work Program A with more specificity.
46 Reconvene CPSP Committee.
Vol. 36, Page 94 April 16; 2001
1
2 Council Member Maguire added that he wanted more Pedestrian Orientation
3 than what was exhibited in the Draft CPSP.
4
5 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson added. that she: wanted to see more green spaces
6 throughout the CPSP, not just the river area.
7 _
8 Mr. Moore added that the list of comments that Council provided at a meeting in
9 October 200.0 would also be included. He agreed to meet with .Samantha
10 Dougherty of the. Petaluma Downtown, Association about the Parking Sfudy..
11
12 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson stated that she and Mayor Thompson agreed to
13 participate, if needed, in those discussions.
14
15 MOTION. TO ADJOURN
16
17 The meeting was. adjourned at 10:35 P.M.
18
19
20 ~~-~ ~
21 Janice Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor
22
23 ATTEST:
24
2
Beverly J. Kline; City CI
2
28 ******.
29
30
31 ~ `