HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 05/21/2001May 21, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1.6
17
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes: of a Regular
City Council Meeting
Vol. 36, Page 149
Monday, May 21, 2001
Council Chambers
The Petaluma City Council met on this day at 3:00 P.M. in~the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: O'Brien., Healy, Torliatt, Moynihan, Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson
ABSENT: *Maguire, Mayor Thompson
18 PUBLIC COMMENT
19
20 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, advised Council that there was a Sonoma County
21 Planning Commission Meeting May 17th and continued.fo May 31, 2001 at 1:00 p.m. in
22 the Permit Resource Management Building, 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa.
23 Anyone concerned about water issues should attend.
24
25 A. J. Levis, 12 Parksitle, read a letter fie composed regarding dogs running off leash at
26 Oak Hill Park.
27
28 Vice Mayor Cader=Thompson advised Mr. Levis. that Council is tentatively scheduled to
29 meet on July 23`d in the evening to adopt a resolution accepting recommendations of
30 the Recreation, Music & Parks Commission regarding Oak Hill Park.
31
32 CITY CLERK RECRUITMENT
33
34 Bryant Moynihan would like the recruitment of a new City Clerk conducted
35 .internally as opposed to hiring a consultant.
36
37 Mike Healy would like to look into the possibility ofithe City Manager carrying the
38 title of Gity Clerk and have the office run by a Deputy City Clerk. Council, needs
39 to discuss whether the tasks currently in the Cify Clerk job description are
40 functions that best reside in the City Clerks office or in another office.
41
42 Janice Cader-Thompson would like the current job description brought back for
43 review.
44
45 Pamela Torliatt, Council needs to review; and agree on what the job description
Vol. 36,~ Page 1'50 May 21, 2001'
,.
1 should be.
2
3 Mike O'Brien agrees with defining the job description.
4
5 It was: Council consensus to add this item to the Council agenda for June 11 for
6 discussion and possible action on .the following:
7
8 Comparison of current job description and those of other cities...
_.
9 • How the City Clerk's Office should be run (City Manager/Deputy City
10 fleck).
11 • Should an. Interim City Glerk be' appointed?
1`2 • How Council agenda's and packet's are to be assembled and distribute,d?
13 Recruitment process.
14
15 PRESfNTATIOIV
16
17 Awards presentation for Sixth Grade Water Conservation .drawing project.. `The City of
18 Petaluma recognized and thanked Ellen Morehead wh~o~ was the force behind this
19 project. Thanks wenf to Joe Devito, Hal Morehead and Don Taylor.. These volunteers
20 located cash .and bond donations., water-conserving p ants for a whole classroom ..and
21 partnered with Copperfield Books for displaying a'll of the pictures in their front. windows.
22 The. Argun-,Courier also did an insert in the newspaper displaying the .drawings. This .
23 project helps send a water conservation message that says pay attention to. the way
24 your using water,
25
26 Viee Mayor Janice :fader-Thompson. presented awards to Krista Smith -Fifth. Place;
27 Cherlyn Jones -Fourth Place, Lassie Rabota -Third Place; Brandon. Cupoletti -Second
28 Place, Kim Beets -First. Place. An award was also presented to Liberty School - 'Third
29 .Place, Miwok School -Second Place, and LaTrecera School -First Place.
30
31 CONSENT CA'L'ENDAR
32
33 At the request' of various :Council Membe,cs, Items 5 and 8, were .pulled from. the
34 Consent 'Calendar for Council discussion and possible action.
35
36 MOTION: Council Member`Tocliatt moved, seconded by Healy;, to adopt Consent
37 Gal'endar Items .4, 6, and~7.
38
39 .MOTION
40 PASSED: 5/0/2 (Magaire,:Thompson absent)
41
42 4. Ordinance No, .2114 NCS adopting the 1Nater Waste Prohibition adding Chapter
43 15.12.07:1, to the existing Tifle 15. of the, PPefaluma Municipal ..Code. This
44 Ordinance is to promote water conservation and the efficient use of potable
45 water.
May 21, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 151
1 6. Appeal of the April 10, 2001 Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a
2 Conditional Use Permit' to'Allow Construction and Operation of a Variety of
3 Religious :Services, Community Assembly and Social Program in an R-1-6500
4 Zoning District by the Salvation Army .Petaluma Center on Property Located at
5 721 North McDowell Blvd (APN 007-570-028). CONTINUE TO JUNE 18, 2001.
6
7 7. Status Report Regarding Payran Flood Management Project Financing and
8 Budget
9
10 *** End. Consent Calendar ***
11
12 *Council Member Maguire arrived at 4:05.p.m.
13
14 MINUTES
15
16 MOTION: Made by Council Member Torliatt, seconded by Council Member Healy to
17 approve: the Minutes of June 26', 2000 and December 4,.2000 as
18 submitted.
19
20 MOTION
21 PASSED: 4/0/1/2 (Mayor Thompson absent, Moynihan and O'Brien abstained)
22
23 MOTION Made by Council Member Torliatt, seconded by Council Member Healy to
24 .approve the .Minutes of May 7, 2001, with the follow. ing correction: Page
25 11; Line 11 of Opposition to change to in Support of. Page 17 Line 34,
26 Council M_ ember Torliatt would like her comments listed.
27
28 MOTION
29 PASSED: _ 6/0/1 (Mayor Thompson absent)
30
31
32 5. Resolution 2001-102 NCS awarding of the Sonoma-Marin Fair Law
33 Enforcement Services contract for June 20 through June 24, 2001 to the
34 Petaluma Police Department in the amount of $29,844.85.
35
36 Council Member Healy asked if there was anything calculated into the bid sheet
37 for Administration or Department Overhead?
38
39 Sergeant Tim Lyons responded that the hourly rate of $64.34 per hour includes
40 administration cost, benefits and use of vehicles.
41 ~ '
42 MOTIO(V: Made by Healy, seconded by Moynihan to approve contract with. the
43 Sonoma-Marirr Fair and Petalura Police Department for Law'
44 Enforcement Services. for June 20 through June 24, 2001.
45
46 MOTION PASSED: 6/0/1 (Mayor Thompson absent)
47
Vol. 36, Page 152 May'21,, 2001 .
1
2 8. Approval, of Tentative Proposed. Agenda for June, 4, 2001.
3
4 Unfinished Business -
5 Discussion and Possible Action Regarding City's Board and Commission,. de ete
6 "C" Status Report on Appointment to vacant position on Personnel Board. Tf1is
7 position to be filled. along with the regular appointments.
8
9 Closed Session add Holmberg to the agenda.
1 '0
11 Appointments two positions open on ABAG. One position is for an Executive
12 Board: Member and second position is for an. Alternate.:
13
14 Introduction of Applicants for vacancies on Boards, Commissions and
15 Committees removed and continued fo date unspecific.
16
17 It was the consensus of the Council to get a elar.ification from the City Clerk as to
18 what part of the process has been completed; re-advertise for the vacancies as
19 soon as possible; authorize the Clerk to set an appropriate deadline for receiving
20 applications and work with the City .Manager to agendize.
21
22 Council would also like a list of the people who have returned their applications
23 so far and for the City Clerk to work with the City Attorney's office on the process.
24
25 MOTION: Made by Healy, seconded by Maguire to approve the Tentative
26 Proposed Agenda for June 4, 200.1 with those additions and deletions.
27
28 MOTION PASSED: -6/0/1 (Mayor Thompson absent)
29
30 5. Resolution 2001-101 N.CS Authorizing the City Manager to sign Amendment. l to
31 the Project Cooperation. Agreement between the Department of .the Armyand
32 the City of Petaluma for Consfruction of the Petaluma River. Project:
33
34 MOTION': Made by Couneilmember Moynihan, seconded ~by Councilrnember
35 Healy to Authorize Amendment 1 to the Project Cooperation Agreement between
36' the pepartment of the Army and the City of Petaluma for Construction ofi the
37 Petaluma River Project.
38
39 MOTION PASSED: 6/0/1. (Mayor Thompson .absent)
40 '
41 9A. Tom McCaw, Airport Commissioner gave a presentation of-the latest Airport
42 Hangar project. There is a waiting list of over 6.0 people and space to
43 accommodate between forty (4;0) to fifty (50.) hangars.
44
45 Estimated project costs:
4.6 FAA Grant eligible $ 300,000.00 to $ 500,000.00
May 21, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 153
1 State Aeronautics Loan $1,100,000.00 to $1,400,000.00
2
3 Construction should start in early spring. The project should be complete 6 to 9
4 months after start of construction with occupancy in late 2002.
5
6 City Council Meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
7
8 Reconvene Joint Council Meeting and Petaluma Community Development
9 Commission
10
11 AMENDMENT 2
12 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
13
14 Commission Member Torliatt recused herself because she had received a
15 commission from a property owner that is in the Redevelopment Area.
16
17 Commission Member Healy recused himself because his home is within 500' of the
18 existing Redevelopment District.
19
20 Chairman Thompson who was absent had previously recused himself because of a
21 potential conflict with Insurance clients.
22
23 City Attorney, Richard Rudnansky stated, for the record, Commission Member
24 Moynihan had indicated previously that he had a conflict, but because there is a legal
25 participation requirement he drew the short straw therefore he is on for the duration
26 of the amendment discussion and action.
27
28 Paul Marangella presented Council with the staff report on the Central Business
29 District. Staff .recommends that the Petaluma Community Development Commission
30 adopt a Resolution approving the Owner Participation and Business Re-Entry
31 Preference Rules and that the City Council adopt a Resolution Certifying the Final
32 EIR.
33
34 Mr. Marangella read the following letters .into the record:
35
36 Donald and Jean Smith, stating their opposition to the Amendment to the Plan
37 Amendment. They are opposed to providing the power of Eminent Domain for the
38 project area
39
40 Diane Reilly Torres is concerned about whether there has been any discussion
41 regarding AT&T's failure to provide cable service to the downtown area as per the
42 AT&T's Audit.
43
44 Mr. Peter Rose concerned about the use of Eminent Domain with regard to the Rose
45 property at the corner of "D" Street and Petaluma Boulevard South.
46
Vol. 36, Page T54
May 21, 2001
1 Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Hagopian, opposed to being included in the expanded area.
2 Also concerned with the proposed power of Eminent Domain.
3
4 Charles Gervasoni and Margaret Gambonini concerned about the power of~Eminent
5 Domain.
6
7 JoAnn Ritko Pozzi concerned aboutthe power of Eminent Domain as well as the
8 expansion of the Redevelopment Area because of the diversion of funds from the
9 current funding breakdown to other projects.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Marangella reported that at the end. of today's meeting the city would have five
days to respond to these concerns.
Council Member Maguire suggested adding "Sexual Orientation" to Section 4
Participation Procedure: H. Marital status, national origin, ancestry, sexual
orientation.
Council Member Moynihan, Redevelopment Plan Amendment, Ch. 3, Pg. III-2
Summary :of Proposed Projects -Mitigation of Blight. How were the calculations
arrived at and: can those figures be amended?
Ms. Seifel, Ch. 3 These dollar amounts were. designed to equal the amount or be less
than the amount of money you would have projected over the life of the plan
discounted at a 6%° rate.. It's not one years worth of funding, it's a 45-year stream of
revenue discounted to today. The figures can be amended at any time.
Bryant Moynihan, what are you projecting the .increase to be on an annual basis?
29 Ms. Seifel, We take a standard 2% growth on assessed value then in addition we
30 have a factor that's called Reassessment. Reassessment is looking at what happens
31 when property changes hands. If a home sells from, one person to :another there. is a
32 1 % factor. In addition to 2%° growth we would have an additional 1 % growth,, but it
33 varies from year to year and that's just a proxy number, it's. not an actual number...
34 Over the life of the project fhe basic growth would include inflation of approximately
35 3%. The last factor is to add new development. New development was obtained
36 based on looking' at what the Planning Department said the build-out could be. The
37 Specific Plan isn't yet approved so this is just a projection based on our best
38 knowledge at that tune and it could. change. .
39
40 Bryant Moynihan do you want to let us know the total of those 3 factors as to what
41 basis your using? _
42
43 Ms. Seifel on an average annual basis. it.comes out to a 4-'/~% growth rate of
44 assessed value and in the existing. project area it comes out to a 7%.
45
46 Bryant Moynihan Pg: IV-3' indicates a major goal of the Amended Redevelopment
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
May 21, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 155
Program is to stimulate private investment in the Amended Project, Area. Public_
investment in the form of Redevelopment funding will be used to leverage private
investment. Could you explain what that means?
Ms. Seifel, the idea behind Redevelopment'ischat if `you have the powers of
Redevelopment:and you invest these funds back into the project area you will then
stimulate more private development.
Ms. Traynum advised that prior to the adoption, of `the Amended Plan there has to be
an Implementation Plan in place. When the Council accepted the Report it included
the Implementation Plan, which included the expanded area. So effectively you've
adopted the Implementation: Plan through the Reportto Council. Your next step is to
go forward with 'the Plan. There is no separate Implementation Plan action that
would be faken from this point until-the. actual Plan.!s amended.
ry y pp g p Plan that was
B ant Mo nihan, su orfs usin the Five=Year Im leme,ntation
adopted April 3; 200:0: Would that pose a p.roble,m relative to this review process?
Ms. Seifel; riot haying the housing would pose a problem because we need to have
the implementation plan include the housing analysis for the additional area.
Bryant Moynihan would that be separate from the Five-Year review budget hearing?
Ms. Seifel,'you could -make: it as .part: of that as long as when your noticing you said
that you would be doing that.
Ms. Traynum:, an Implementation Plan is a wish list and it should not include specific
projects. The way the actual Plan 'iS written; it describes potential projects in vary
broad category and so the Council could~~ce,rtainly:act under the auspices of the
Implementation Plan to go forward with~specific projects.
Public Comment.
Peter Rose,. his father owns the property at the corner of "D" Street and Petaluma
Boulevard .South. They are opposed to the power of Eminent Domain.
Ms, Seifel, the power of Eminent.: Domain is one tool that the Redevelopment Agency
has to .implement i'n .its Redevelopment program. There are three exarriples of
where Eminent Domain might b.e used, one is; when you want to .acquire a property
from a willing seller who actually wants to use Eminent Domain because they want
to take advantage of the potential tax. benefits, there are Federal and State tax
benefits that can accrue when a property is taker%'through_ Eminent Domain so even .
though the agency went through a negotiated. sale. process. there may bean, owner
that wants fo choose to be taken. Secondly sometimes working with a developer or
it could be a..property owner in the city to assemble a .group of properties that are
needed to accomplish redevelopment of several smaller sites into one .larger
development. Third example is where you want to alleviate adverse health and
Vol. 36, Rage 156'
.May 21, 2001'
1 safety iss_ ues where a property has really gotten run down.,and you want to mitigate
2 than situation which 'is used as a .last resort.
3
4 .State' law requires in an Eminent Domain process the PCDG has to do a negotiated
5 settlement process first so you can't just go out'and :take a piece of property., Before
6 you can start. '.Eminent Domain proceedings the Commission has to make a
7 Resolution of Necessity -and make four findings. There has to ,be public hearing
8 where you estate the reasons for taking the property; One it has to be in the public
9 interest and it is necessary to undertake the project; Two the project; is planned and
10 located. in such a way that it .does the greatestpublic good and the least public harm;
11 Three. the acquisition of theproperty is necessary, and' the properly owners have
12 been offered just,. compensation: This ,;process takes a long time and also. the
13 Resolution of Necessity has. to b.e adopted by a super majority that means, five out of.
14 seven ortwo-thirds depending on' how many people can actuallyvote on the` item.
In addition. once you have done the Resolution of Necessity you try to :reach an
agreement° with the property owner and .negotiate a settlement. It's only if that
negotiated,settlement breaks :down that you go to Eminent Domain and if you ;go to
Eminent Domain you must pay riot; only for the pro,pe,rty but :also depending on the
natureU of `the person or business to be displaced you may also: have:. to ..pay
relocation benefits and good wiN payments for a lousiness establishment.
23 The idea is 'just' to give- the Commission the flexibility "to use. Eminent 'Domain,, ;It is
24 ,restricted. It; is not to be used on residential properties it's on y to be used on non-
25 residential,, properties. Furthermore you as the 'PCD.C ca_n choose to further restrict
26 Eminent Domain for example. you could take. out a parcel, you could say :we won't'
27 .use E_minent~ Domain on Mr Rose's property fox example. You could -take out a
28 street worth of properties. You could' change the process untl'er which you
29 undertook Eminent Domain; :you could. make. it'stricter .than state .law. 1Nhat we put
30 in the Amended Rede:velopmen# Plan was the- standard procedure that would
31 normally be required under state law.
32
33 Matt Maguire is it possible that the authority of Eminent Domain could depart:from an
34 elected body or is'it precluded. under state law?
Ms. Traynurrn, According to State Law if' the PCDC wants to delegate its ;power of
Eminent Domain to the City Council it h_as the. right:to do so-by adopting_a Resolution
delegat"ng the.power to the City Council, The. purpose of it,going .into the Plan today
is that the only way that can change is if the Plan. is amended in the future and an
Amendment requires the co_ nsent of the City Council,, .
There are'. Owner Participation ,rules that provide Mr. Rose with. further protection 'in
the event that the :city considers redeye oiling his property. He would be. given an
opportunity to present his ,pan #o redeveaop the property to the, City for its review.
He also, would, have; the opportunity ,to be relocated temporarily. outside of ..his
n -
property if it's the subject ofi redevelopment, then to be relocated back: on the
May 21, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 157
1 property once it has been redeveloped or he, has, the right to be relocated. into an
2 entirely different area with certain relocation compensation.
3 .
4 Bryant Moynihan if we were interested in getting a super majority` 6 out of 7 or
5 unanimous would there be a way for us to build that vote:. into the Redevelopment
6 Plan Amendment?
7
8 Ms. Traynum, the. short answer is yes the long ~ answer is, according to
9 Redevelopment Law if there is a major. change made to the proposed Amendment
10 that change -would have to go back- to the Planning Commission for a hearing. The
11 Planning Commission would either approve or reject- making a recommendation
12 back to the City Council and the PCDC. You would hold another Public Hearing on
13 that change only.
14 Adjourn: 5:05 p.m.
15
16 Reconvene 7:00 p.m.
17
18 Central Business District
19
20 Continued Joint public. hearing with the Petaluma Community Development
21 Commission and the City Council on the Central Business District
22
23 Paul Marangella, Redevelopment Director, stated for the record that this public
24 hearing was opened at this afternoons meeting, for those who could not attend this
25 evening. The purpose of the hearing is concerning :the proposed 2~d Amendment to
26 the Redevelopment Plan for the Central Business District Redeveiopment project.
27
28 For the City Council it' is also for that purpose, but in addition to that it is to discuss
29 and act upon the certification of the Final EIR.
30
31 He summarized the correspondence received from several property owners in the
32 expanded and existing areas of the Central Business District. There was some
33 discussion about the use of Eminent Domain.
34
35 Public Comment
36
37 Joann Rittko Pozzi, voting member of the Board of Directors of the Petaluma
38 Downtown Association, she shared her concern regarding the funding of $600';000
39 per annum plus an additional amount that would be used #rom the Community
40 Development. budget.. If you adopt the expanded boundaries of the Central Business
41 District then she would be a property owner in than area that the money is being
42 collected from. She would be potentially directly impacted-and that a policy change
43 appears to be being made by changing'the Pefaluma,Vistors Bureau funding to this
44 source rather than Transient Occupancy Tax.. She. believes thafthe Transient
45 Occupancy Tax is an appropriate place to fund things that create an environment,
46 which will encourage tourism.
Vol. 36; Page 1'58
May 21, 2001
1 S:he_opposes the ide`a.of having Eminent'Domain for non. public ervice usages of
2 property I_t~.is an encroachment on her Civil Rights.
3
4 C.OMMISSIO,N/COUNCIL CO'NIMENT
5
6 Matt Maguire; Ms. Se'ifel did go through and talk about Eminent .Domain. It does
7 require a super majority, which would be a vote of 5 members of this 7-member body.
8 lnthe,event,thaf the city-would ever use Eminent Domain as a. ast resort, the city
9 would have~ao pay businesses for their relocation and good will costs. He would'; ...like
~:
10 it stated. that the city will commit to the use of Eminent: Domain: only if practiced by the
11 PCDC :as long as it is the same bodies as the City Council or should that change the.
1'2 authority shall be transferred to the City Council.
14 Ms. Traynum would bring a resolution back fo .the Council. fo,r your next regular
15 meeting. Actually it would go from. the I?CDC; which would be the full PCDC;, but with
16 reference to the Plan Amendment language regarding Eminenf Domain that Chas to
17 be ironed out. It would be just to the four Councilmember.'s participating in this
18 discussion.
19
20 Bryant .Moynihan based on your memo that you provided us there was some
21 discussion about what.ittakes to undo such an-action like this and if it rests with the_
22 PCDC or the Redevelopment Agency could they not on their own go ahead and
23 .reverse that?
25 M's. Traynurn stated that she would bring back the resolution and the language to thee.
26 Amendment so that could. not be reversed. without going through the Redevelopment.
27 Plan A'rnendment process again.
28 Ms. Traynum also advised that state law requires if there are seven board members
29 you need five votes. It would be 4 out of 5 if there were five members.
30 _ _
31 PCDC public hearing was closed.
32
33 MOTION: made by Matt; Maguire to adopt the atfached resolution approving the
34 owners participation and business reentry preference rules for the Central Business
35 District; Redevelopment Plan with the change of nondiscrimination.
37 Ms.. Traynum, the Resolutions before you authorizing approval of the Amendment
38 cannon be acted upon until your next regular meeting which is June 4th under
39 Califo,rrii_a law tliere_are written objections to the Redevelopment: Plan you must adopt.
40 wr,tten,findings at,your next'meeting before the actual Resolution .and Qrd`nance can
41 be. acted on.
42 ' " . . .
43 Matt :Maguire, I amend my motion to~direet~ staff #o make the findings and bring back
44 at the nexf reg,ulaw meefiig. Seconded by Mike O'Brien.
45
46 MOTIyON PASSED: 4/0%1 %2 (;Mayor Thompson absent;.. Healy, Torliatt ab"stain)
May 21, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 159
2 Council public hearing was closed.
3
4 MOTION: Matt Maguire moved, seconded by Mike O'Brien to adopt Resolution 2001-
5 1 q3 NCS Certifying the Final EiR of the Central Business District Redevelopment
6 Plan.
7
8 MOTION PASSED:: 4/0%1/2 (MayorThompson absent, Healy, Torliatt abstain)
9
10 The City Council reconvened at 7:30 p.m.
11
12 ROLL CALL
13
14 Present: O'Brien, Nealy, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Moynihan
15 Absent: Mayor Thompson
16
17 Mr. Bill Phillips led the Pledge of Allegiance
18
19 A Moment of Silence was observed.
20
21 Terrance Garvey, spoke regarding the Boy Scouts and discrimination.
22
23 Patrick Glen, Petaluma Chamber of Commerce River Committee. Presented the
24 Council with a report on River Clean-Up Day., which was held on May 12.
25
26 Bill Phillips, Petaluma, stated that he had.. heard on the radio some of the water
27 problems of'the Eel Riverand °Russian River.
28
29 Geoff Cartwright, Pefafuma reminded; Council tha#~the Sonoma.County Planning
30 Commission will be meeting on 31St' of May at 1:00 p.m. to deliberate the Gravel Mining
31 permits. The meetingwill be held at 2550`Venfura Avenue.
32 <_ L
33 Council Comments
34
35' :Pamela To"rliatt:
36 Attended the McNear School-50th Anniversary.
37 Read a'portion of an article about the Valley Transportation Authority (Santa
38 Clara County) and their`focus on mass transit.
39 Received a .memo from. the_:Metropolitan Transportation Commission regarding
40 the'new budget #or the Governor, There will. be a two-year postponement of the
41 sales tax on ,gas funding, provisions of AB 2928 which is the Traffic Congestion
42 Relief Program. The proposed budget will redirect:the sales tax on gasoline that
43 was slated to fund the Traffic Congestion `Relief Program back into the General
44 Fund for the next two fiscal years.
45 Reportfrom WAC a copy of the scope of work for the new master agreement
46 among the eight primary" contractors was distributed to the Council. She would
vol. 36, Page 1.:60
May 21', 2001
1 .Like feedback from Councif to bring back to.the committee.:
2 • She also requested more information on ;the Petaluma Aqueduct and how much
3 it is pumping; and are'we re°ally in a water crisis?
4 _
5 Bryant Moynihan:
6 Attended the: second meeting of the: Hate Free Communities. There•w,ill be an
7 :upcoming event for a Hate Free Communities Training `Program: Anyone
8 wanting to participafe in, the training should call Cify Hall ands they~w.ill be sent an
9 invitation.
10
11 Matt :Maguire:
12 • Would ke to discuss the Shamrock (gravel mining) issue before it goes to the:
13 County Planning Commission on May 31st.
14
1.5 .Mike Healy:
16 ® This is a complex issue and a Special .Meeting should be scheduled to discuss
17 this item, ~ _
18
19 .Janice Caller-Thompson;.
20 Requested City Manager; Fred Stouder to look.. into the reason why the: Council
21 and some members. bf the Centraf Petaluma Specific Plan'Committee we're not
22 notified of` the. CPSPC .meeting last. Tuesday:.
23
24 Tentative future proposed agenda
25
26 Board', Commission and Committees:
27 Council would Like clarification from the City Clerk. on what part of the process he has,
-28 completed; find out if any applications have. been received to date, who they are; re-
29 advertise~:for'the Board and Commissions vacancies, se a deadline for applications to
30 be returned,.and_ set a~datespecific for:interviews. Tfe City Clerk ;is also ~directe;d to
31 work, with the City Attorney's. Office. in noticing and' with the City Managers.O,ffice' to
32 agendize.
33 ~ _
34; PARK CENTRAL
36 t0. A presentation was given by J: T: Wick on the: Park Cenfral project Ibcated at the
37 co"riser of. Lakeville .Highway and Casa Grande Road. The proposed project
38 entails the: development of 22,205 square feet of comrnereial space including
39 restaurant use,. 233.;499 square feet, of office; space in 'the center ofi the site and
4.0 24.0 apartments (108' town homes and 1.32 :garden, flat° apartments) ;at the
41 southern end of the property. The apartments will be approximately $1350'-1400
42 pear month:. Th_e larger three.'bedroorris will. be $2300 per month. and town homes
43 $2400 per month...
44 A .
45 Public Comment: ~ '
46
May 21, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 161
1 John Mills complimented the opportunities. He wanted to know if the sports
2 courts would be available to the public
3
4 Councif would like to see some of the following:
5
6 _Language changed in CC&R's to add Petaluma Poultry.Processors is a 24 hour
7 operation.
8
9° 'Bus stop to be excluded
10
11 Use different treatments for crosswalks other than standard.
12
13 Colored Bike paths
14
15 Two benches placed. at entrance to office buildings
16
17 Lighting in landscaped areas
18
19 Trash confainers
20
21 Matt Maguire, seconded, by Mike. O'Brien,. made the following motions:
22
23 MOTION: Resolution 2001-104 NCS adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
24
25 MOTION PASSED: 6/0/1 (Mayor Thompson absent)
26
27 MOTION: Resolution 2001-105 NCS Amending the General Plan Land Use
28 Designation from Industrial to Mixed Use.
29
30 MOTION PASSED: 6/0/1 (Mayor Thompson absent)
31
32 MOTION: Introduce Ordinance 2115 NC:S Rezoning a 20.63-Acre Parcel at the
33 southwest~corner of .Casa Grande Road and Lakeville Highway, APN 005-
34 040-049 from Light Industrial (M-L) to Planned community district (PCD)
35
36 MOTION PASSED 610/1 (Mayor Thompson absent)
37
°38 MOTION: Resolution 2001-106 NCS Adopting PCD Deve opment Standards
_ ' 39 '
40 MOTION PASSED '6/0/1. (Mayor Thompson absent)
41
42 MOTION: Resolution 2001-107 NCS Approving a Tentative Parcel Map subdividing the
43 property into eight parcels with common areas. APN 005-040-049.
44
45 MOTION PASSED 6/0/1 (Mayor Thompson absent)
46
Vol. 36, Page. 162
May 21, 2001
1 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT'
2
.,
3 Mike Ban;lNater Resources and Conservation Engineer Manager presented,-an.
. ..
4 updated' report, on the Water Recycling Facility. Projecf. Since this was lasf brought
5 before .Council December 11, 200:0, staff has met with the. Regional Water Qualify
6 Control Board to update ataff members on th'e project :and discuss permitting, issues,,
7 We have resoled access ,issues with the owner of Parcels A and B and executed right _
8 of Entry agreement; conducted site reconnaissance on Parcels A and B and the
9 oxidation pond site for special status species; Initiated geotechnical investigations;;
1'0 Began preparation of technical memorandums on specific treatment processes;. anal
11 prepared and submitted plan for water quality analysis to the Regional Water Quality
1`2 Control-.Board.
13
14 The initial study for the EIR docurnenf has been .completed, and.. we will be hosfing public
15 ^cooping meetings on June 5 and June 19. The award. of, bid is anticipated in:2003
16 with completion of construction scheduled for mid 2006.
17
18 Doug Wing,. Wetlands do require maintenance with ome vegetation managemenf. In a. .
19 nafural process there is potential for methane generation. V1/ith DAFS there is no
20 methane generation:
21
22 Matt Maguire, would you have the ecological footprint. of the energy consumption you
23 don':t have `with the wetlands?
24
25 Doug, there'is snore energy consumption with DAFs compared to wetlands..
26
`27 Mike. Healy expects is a formal. side-by=side comparison of DAFS an;d wetlands for
28 ecological footprnf, looking at energy, chemicals a_nd methane. This comparison,
29 should be broug'hi back to the Council.
30
31 Bryant .Moynihan, are we including micro filtration and sand filtration as alterna_ fives?
32
33 Mr. Wing, Yes, _alsa in the filtration tech memo we'Il'_have membrane :filtration vs.
_._
34 continuous backwash filtration.
35
3.6 The. pre design work will be wrapped up this year. Thee EIR process is actually,going to
37 go into 20.02, 'but it will just be the certification of the EIR.
39 Matt~Maguire would like the study on the methane comparison fo include ~an equivalent
40 number ofi cows that might produce the same amount-of rne;thane as the prop:osed~
41 wetlands so we can see what the impact is i'n context with, real life environment.
42
43 Bryant Moynihan 1Ne ought to be considering these alternatives. at least micro filtration
44 and sand filtration and then also the issue SC1NA brought re'fative to the potential: us'e of
45 extended aireation the pros and cons of that and it seemed- like from what: I, was hearing
46 the opinion had ch"tinged a little bit, can we imp"rove on sour process which we're doing
{
r
May 21,'2001 Vol. 36, Page .1..63
1 right now relative to the alternatives we're considering?
2 ..
3 Mike Ban., We are going to analyze .both micro filtration and sand filtration techniques for
4 filtration. For algae removal we're looking at wetlands and QAFS. Algae removal is sort
5 of a filtration pretreatment process so you do that before the filters.
6
7 Bryant Moynihan;Have .applications where micro' filtration is used for secondary and
8 tertiary processes been researched?
9
10 Mr. Wing, the secondary process is the..extended aeration process. It will be followed
11 by the ponds, followed by algae removal .process., followed. by a filtration step, followed
12 by disinfecfions. The membrane filtration is looked at as one of the types of filtration
13 process to get to tertiary treated water. It appears it does need an algae removal
14 pretreatment step as. well as sand filters need. an algae removal pretreatment step.
15 There's a potential'to take waters directly from secondary treatment to tertiary
16 treatment, which will be fhe filtration and void having to `go through the ponds and algae
17 removal step.
18 We could only use that particular direct filtration process during a portion of the summer.
19 We still need to remove algae and store water during the. times when we don't have
20 enough reclamation uses. 1Ne can't;discharge to the river from May 1 to November 1.
21 We have to have the sforage to be able to meet that requirement.
22
23 Mike Ban, we are going to look at desigrii.ng tertiary facilities strictly for recycled water
24 use and that during the: summertime we would take a portion of the water, run it through.
25 the filters and it would be slightly smaller scale than we're looking at right now, and we'd
26 essentially have two distribution systems 'for recycled' water, a secondary system going
27 up to the farm lands and then a terti"ary system. coming into the city.
28
29 Matt Maguire doesn't want to preclude potential redwood forest as a use of secondary
30 elite treated water as a way to address both the effluent issue and. produce something.-
31 that could have some economic benefit and habitat benefit too.
32
33 Mike Ban,. We .need. to recycle and store about 800 million gallons each year. We do ,
34 this right. now by irrigating .about 800 acres of pastureland and half of the Adobe Creek
35 Golf Course. What are. wegoing to do for the next 20 - 50 years? This is going to be
36 looked at as part of the Recycled 1Nater Master Plan that'is being prepared as part of
37 the V1l,ater Resources Element of°the General Plan. 1N'e fhirik it~is going to take about a
38 year and'/2 to 2 years to fully complete this document so the question we ask is what
39 can we do in the near term that would be compatible, with :our future. program?. In citing
40 water-recycling projects you look for your biggest: users arid:. center your program
41 around them.. In Petaluma the biggesf. users are recreational, Rooster Run Golf Course
42 is currently irrigated with potable water~so that is a natural anchor for our recycled water s
43 program. Each one of these alternatives are based uponbringing recycled water out to
44 Rooster Run..
45
46 Mr. Ban presented the d'iffe`rent Alternatives of the Water Recycling Program.
Vol. 36, Page 164 May 21, 2001
1
2 Alfernative 1 -Rooster Run
3' Alternative 2 =Rooster Run, Tertiary Facilities; .Construction of, Recycled Water Facility
5 ~ Alternative 5'A Eoxtended Ae at ofner Pipelines, Tertiary :Faciliti'es, Phase 1NRF
6
7 Pamela Torliatt, the 3.4 million tlollars that is actually. in our budget:for he Rooster Run
. 8 pipeline Versus:,what; we're estirnatin, g the cosf of `the proposal at $8'.4 million which is a
9 significant_increase in cost; are we:going to off set #hat cost by some of the' conservation
10 funds that we have se't,aside pursuant to Amendment.l;1,, or if we're going to have a
11 rate ,increase? :And 1 also wantto make sure that'the public understands that this isn't .
12 jusf an additional cost because, we currently':have an agricultural re,-use program,, which
13 does cost:-the city `just in O&M almost a $1 million dollars a year which doesn't include
14 any capital costs. ~ .
15 '
16 Mike. Ban,, the question regarding funding on this project I Think your referring to the
17 SCIIVA commifinent for Water Recycling Projects,;as part ofAmendment 1 T. It's not a
1!8 funding source#hat-,we're counting on; we've actually.ihcluded,this project i.n our budget.
19 There ,has. been some question. as to whether that money is going to be available, for
20 water recycling projects, how the money is going to be~ p_rorit'ized! w,h'ich: projects are
21 going to get funded; when their going to get funded I think that is still vp .in.the air.
23 The- $3:5 million is actually what. we budgeted for the first year, It's not the total 'budget.
24 In the budget'~we estimated around $6.5 million for the project. `1Ne will have to raise it
25 up fo the estimate of $8.5, but the $3.5 is just for next fiscal year.
26
27 We're estimating that the rates will have to increase. to pay for this project as Weil as the
28 Water Recycling Facility project and all the other capital projects that are included in the
29 budget. ,
30
31 Pamela To~rliatf; at the V1/AC meetings when they put h'e criteria together for evaluating
32 those projects she was lobbying in order to make sure that we could get partial funding
33 for larger projects as apposed to just#ully funding a project. I believe that was what was
34 passed at the 1NACG meeting.
35 Do we have an ordinance,re'garding drilling wells within; o:ur city limits; or within the
36 Urban Growth Boundary? V1/hat this raises for me is the: issue of when. it:becomes
37 cheaper to. drill a we'll for a_go,lf course. or other use. and it'a more. cos_ t effective than,
38 requiring someone. to purchase; tertiary treated water as opposed to regular water
~39 1Nhere do we have our controls because we are looking at 10% of-our water supply .
4.0 coming from our well system?
42 Mr.'Hargis,, the city only has controls on methodology~fo:r drilling wells; no lrn'itafi'ons on
43 the ability*to develop wafer upply.
44
45 Pamela.Torliatt, we re'all need to be.aookin
y gat that.here within. our city and I~,would like
46 that to come back to our council,for consideration on ho..w~we are;going to regulate it.
May 2.1., 2001
Vol. 36, Page 165
1: Because .it's a major issue for our domestic water supply; now particularly because
2 Amendment 11 requires us to use some of thaf well water.
3
4 Bryant Moynihan this would be an economic hardship on a lot of people. He suggests
5 that we look at the capital improvement costs. What we're not looking at is the
6 possibility of drilling wells in other areas and possibly-using the treated wastewater for
7 recharging the aquifer.
8
9 Janice Cader=Thompson;. it seems as though when they put., in the 8" pipe for the
10 reclaimed water thaf it should have been a larger pipe so we wouldn't be in this
11 predicament right ,now. 1Ne :need to move forward in preparing.to use the tertiary water
12 that we're going to have with'our'recycling. plant. It is not.financially feasible to start
13 drilling wells or environmentally sound to continue to pull more water out of the aquifer
14 when we should be using tertiary wafer.
15
16 Matt Maguire doesn't agree with drilling additional wells.
17 On the wetlands alternative have we done any kind of value of the economic
18 development that you see comparable for Arcata-weather it be a destination for birders
19 and people who enjoy the outdoors? We will want to factor that in when looking at cost
20 and benefits.
21
22 Mike Ban, we haven't translated the estimated visitors into economic dollars. Looking
23 at the experience of other similarfacilities Like the Mountain View Sanitary District over
24 in Martinez where they are basically getting over 2,00,0 visitors a year, they've actually
25 had to scale back and it's a hard ticket'to gef to go see that facility.
26
27 Public Comment
28
29 Vasco Brazil, 4551' Lakeville Highway, had the following questions and asked for
30 Council and staff response.
31 1 Should we not b:e reminded who is on the project team and what pond
32 improvements are they discussing? ,
33 2. What did they learn from the site; tour visits? ,
34 3. What permitting issues did they discuss with'the Regional Board and was the
35 Board satisfied with, the status of the project?
36 4. What is the purpose of receiving water sampling
37 5. What is the issue re ated to wetland layout and design
38 6. How many~wetlands or special status species did. you discover; what.new
39 information will be madepublic at the 5/22 and 6/5 scoping sessions..and
40 should They not be further apart? _ .
41 7. Who are the value engineers?
42 8. Are the geoteehnical investigations completed. on the pond site? -Will .these
43 geotechnical investigations .relate to the pond site area seismic stability issue
44 as well as the water trespass issue?
45 9. Is the .city's discussing the siting of a raw. sewage plant (extended aeration) in
46 a site subject to seismic damage from a major earthquake and is known to
Vol. 36, .Page 166
May 21, 2001
1 leak~with any state or federalsagency.
2 10. What effecf will this •project have: on the: local economywhen the final' cost is
3 known?`
4
5 Geoff•Cartwright isconcerned we're headed into a water crisis.
6
7 Council; Comments: .
8
9 Mike Healy would like. to look:at:micro-filtration in more detail Proceed wifh the dine to
10 Rooster ,Run. There is a °need to displace fresh water usage out of ,the Russian .River
11 for a variety of reasons and we ,need. to .preserve well water to `the extent possible for
12 use in the city's dunking water supply: He supports staff's recommendation #or
13 Alternative. 1 accelerating the: Rooster.Run pipeline;, although he feels there aredome
14 issues that have. not been addressed fully in this analysis. The need to look, at the
15 urgency of .the impairment period that we now have in the,so.uth county because the
16 new parallel aqueduct won't be on line till the 2006%200.7 time frame,. Nothing tie's into
17 how serious a problem. we're goi-rig to :have because that.parallel aqueduct has..been
18 delayed. He can't~evaluate the costs of these alternatives without knowing. the
19 importance of what "it would :mean #o have a one, two or three year acceleration. of these
20 tertiary water reuse options: There'is going to be a new:Junor High School on'the, east
21 side, the RESA project .will be moving forward next year. Those are not. being factored
22 into the consideration of what parcels could: be picked up by tertiary water..
23
25 anfd SRJC eAlter at ve 1 doesdnot I rtec ude doi bri~ ging pipelines out to business parks
p _ . g ose areas, they would happen ;at a
26 later date.
27
28 The distinction between Alternative t and the others is that Rooster Run can use
29 secondary seated water: It is an option thaf we're pursuing right now. Lf we can't
30 accelerate bringing water°to' the other .users this is additional capital projects that our
31 staff will have to undertake.
32
33 Janice Caller=Thompson, Oouncil should be looking at a temporary moratorium: on
34 development if we need to conserve water.
35 '
36 Matt Maguire he would not'support Alternafives 2 or 3 because they preclude the
37 wetlands as a polishing and algae removing solution. He, does support' gibing direction
38 to staff `to continue with the recycling facility project and would support Alte.rnafive 1 to
39 aece e'rate the pipeline to Rooster Run. '
40 ,
41 Pamela.Torliatt, would like accurate information from the SCWA (Sonoma County Water
42 Agency) on when water is being ;pumped; how much is fjeing,purmped, .how much we
43 are using and if' it's being pumped 24/7 where is the water going if if is not going o
44 Petaluma?
45 '
46 Meeting adjourned at 11:2Q p.m.
i
May 21, 2001 VoL 36, Page 167
2
3
4 ~ ..
5 ~ti- ~-,~i-- .~ / .
6 Janice Cader=Thompson; Vice Mayor
7
8 ATTEST:
9
10
11
12 Paulette Lyon, Deputy City erk
13
14
15 ******