HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 06/04/2001June 4, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 201
1 City of Petaluma, California
2 Minute"s of a Regular
3 Joint Petaluma Community Development Commission/
4 City Council Meeting:
5
6
7
8
9 Monday, June 04, 2001
10 Council Chambers
11
12 The Petaluma Community Development Commission and the Petaluma City Council
13 met at 3:00 P:M. on this date...
14
15 PCDC/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING
16
17 ROLL CALL
18
19 PRESENT: Vice. Chair/Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson; Commissioners/Council
20 Members Healy, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliatt; Chair/Mayor
21 Thompson
22
23 ABSENT: None
24
25 Clerk`s
26 Note: For the purpose of these minutes,. the joint bodies of the City Council and
27 the CommunityDevelopment Commission shall be referred to as the. ,
28 Council and the members of fh,e joint bodies shall be referred to as elected
29 by-the public and/or appointed by the° Council; that is; Mayor, Vice Mayor,
30 and Council Members. ~,,...
31
32 PUBLIC COMMENT
33
34 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, announced a Friday, June 8, 2001 meeting of th'e
35 .Public Policy Facilitating Committee (PPFC) to be held in the Sonoma County Board of
36 Supervisors Chambers, 575 Administration Drive, Room T02-A, Santa Rosa, regarding
37 implerneritation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act as called for in a
38 Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S'. Army Corps. of Engineers, National
39 Marine. Fisheries Service., and the Sonoma County Water Agency. Mr. Cartwright urged
40 all those "interested in good, clean drinking water"to'attend this meeting.
41
42 COMMISSION/COUNCIL COMMENT
43
44 Council Member O'Brien asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Robert
45 Kelley, Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley's father, and also in memory of Jim
46 Ghilotti. Both gentlemen passed away recently.
Vol. 36, Page 202 June 4, 2001
1
2 Mayor Thompson agreed..
4 Council MemberMoynihan noted that he; would like to include in the Goal Setting
5 Workshop scheduled for Monday, June 11, reevaluation ,and possible modification of
6 the 5-Year Implecne.ntation .Plan .and the PCDC Budget. He asked for a copy of the draft;
7 Five-Year Imp ementation'Plan ,being prepared by Engineering Manager Mike Evert, as~
8 well as a copy of the Five-Year Plan that was adopted in 1996.
9
10 Council Member Torliaft understood that the~June 1.1t" Goal Setting Meeting was not.a
11 PCDC Meeting, and',therefore an inappropriate meeting at which to discuss the Five-
12 Year Implementation Plan.
13
14 City Manager Fred Stouder explained that the meeting could be "anything: Council
15 wanted if to be, "but that. his understanding was the same a_s Council Member Torliatt's..
16
17 Mayor Thompson., Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson, and Council Member Maguire
18 concurred. Council Member Maguire added that the agenda-for that. meeting was
19 already quite :full.
20
21 Council Member Moynihan thought that the-goals set at the June. l 1t" meeting should
22 be a part of the PCDC Budgetand the Five-Year Implementation Plan. He asked that
23 goals and funding for both areas be added to the agenda for thatmeeting.
Mayor Thompson preferred o go forward with the June 11 t" meeting as:it was.
27 Council Member'O':Brien agreed.
28 ; .
29 Mayor Thompson. asked if Council agreed. Council concurred.
30
31 APPROVAL OF PCDC MINUTES
32
33 May 7, 2001 (Revised)
34
35 Vice Mayor Caller=Thompson thought that, on page 5', line-32; she, had said, "/
36 understand that, you're not happy with the :answers, but you may never be: happy with
37 the answers..."
3~8
39 Cl.aire~ Cooper,, City Clerk's Office; explained thaf she had been asked to transcribe'th'at.
'40 portion of the meeting. verbatim; and that Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson acfually had
41 said; "I understan. d that you're not happy with the questions; but you may ne~er'be
42 happy with the 'questions... "
43
44 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson clarified that she meant to use the. word "answers:;"
June 4, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 203
1 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved., seconded by Uice Mayor Cader-
2 Thompson, to approve the PCDC minute"s of May 7, 2001.
3
4 MOTION
5 PASSED: 7/0
6
7 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8
9 1. Central business District:
10 Council' Members Wealy and Torliatt, and Mayor Thompson, announced that they
11 would recuse themselves from the item due to possible conflicts of interest.
12 PCDC:
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
A. .Discussion and Possible: Action to Adopt Resolution 2001-07 Delegating
the Power of Errmi"Went Domain to the City Council. (Marangella)
COUNCIL:
..,
B. Discussion and Possible Action to Adopt Resolution 2001=1.0.8 N.C.S.,
Adopting Findings to .1Nritten Objections. to the Second Amendment to the
Redevelopment ..Plan. for the Central Business District. Redevelopment
Project. °
C. Introduction of Ordinance'2116 ,N.CS. Adopting the Second Amendment
to the: Redevelopment Plan for:the Central Business District
Redevelopment. Project„
PUBLIC COMMENT
~~
JoAnn Pozzi, 1310 Sunset Drue, spoke in opposition to Council having power of
eminent domain, and presented a petition with 11.4 signatures from other Petaluma
residents who.agreed. '.
COUNCIUCO.MMISSION:COMMENT
Council Member Maguire notedthat:he, had discussed the°issue with Ms. Pozzi on
Saturday, June 2, and,assured her tlatthere would be no,ab_use of this power, once it
was i`n place.
Council Member. O'Brien agreed.. , ,
Council Member`Moynihan referred to a draft resolution submitted by Derek Simmons,
139 Alice Street, Santa Rosa, with which the "PCDCC would delegate to Council .its .power
of eminent domain, to be exercised.~only by a supermajorty (6/7) votes. Council Member
:Moynihan asked City Afforney Rich .Rudnansky if the PCDC could adopt. a resolution
requiring a 6/7 vote:
45 Suzanne Sullivan, .representing Meyers, Nave., Rieback, Silver and Wilson, legal
46 counsel for the City's Redevelopment Agency; replied that state law required a minimum
Vol: 36, Page 204 ~ June4; 2001.
1 2/3-majority vote-for condemnation action.: The PGDG could require .a,higher vote, but
..
2 thin requirement should be included in"fhe Redevelopment Plan and. nthe ordinance
3 adopting the ,Plan. She thought that such a; requirement might be a disaduanfage in the
4 future. -
5
6 Council Memb°e_r Moynihan. restated thaf the PCDG' had before there a resolution
7 requiring a 6/7 vote; and asked if they could vote. on it.
8
9 Ms. Sullivanreiterated thaf the requirement should also _be included in_ 'the:
10 Redevelopment- ;Plan and the ordinance adopting t_he :Plan.
11
12 Council Member Moynihan asked if•the Plan eould''be adjusted without being sent bacK
Y3 through the process of pubaic hearings.
14
15 City Attorney Rich Rud'n`ansky explained that at an earlier meeting; the PGQ'C had.
16 considered requiring a unanimous vote to exercise power ofi eminent domain., At than
17 meeting, Elise Traynum, who ;is also with the aw firm, of Meyers;. Nave, Rieback; Silver
18 and Wilson, -stated_that if such a requirement were made:; the;;Redevelopment Plan
19 should be recirculated. She discouraged the Commission from requiring a unanimous
20 vote, as there `was no legal precedenf'for such a requirement; and it would place the
21 Cityat risk of litigation. She recommended °that the Commission. stay with he state
22 mandated 2/3-"rrmajority vote requirement. ,` -
23 ~ "
24 Council :Member Moynihan stated that he'had .been told there were. "technical issues"
25 with requiring anything other, than a 2/;3-majority wofe.: What he was hearing tonighf was
26 not what he heard before.
27
.~ ~ ~ .
28 Mr. Rudnansky replied th°at his,understandmg was"that the vote requirement could only
29 be changed by an amendment to ,the City's Charter, a City ordinance:; or a state statute.
30
31 Council Member ~O'B'rien expressed' concern about the possible legal challenges to ueh.
32 a resolution, if the vote. requirement was. changed.
33
34 Ms. Sullivan did not -think this was a concern; however, she em._ phasized that such. a .
35 voting.requirenent could jeopardize future ituations where eminent domain was
36 needed., if a 6/7 vote was notobtainable.
38 Mr.: Rudnansky 'thought that:. if the cequire:ment w,as.;not made via an ordinance, if could'
39 be legally chat enged..'.Preparing such: an ordinance would cause :a delay:
40
~41 Council Member'O'Brien though"t that if at least five of the seven Commission/Council
42 Members- present `were in favor of adopting the resolution without increasing the voting
43 requirement, itshould be moved'forward.
44
45, Council Member,M'agure agreed with Council'Member O'Brien,
4.6 ,
June 4, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 205
1 Council Member Moynihan thought he had been given "mixed messages." 1t appeared
2 to him now that a 6/7 vote could be required. He was not happy with the information he
3 had been receiving.
4
5 Council Member Maguire supported power of eminent. domain for PCDC and City
6 Council. He described it as a necessary tool for economic development.
7
8 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson agreed.. She thought the matter should move forward, and
9 was confdeht that PCDC/Council would not take the matter lightly, should it arise.
10
11 Council Member O'.Brien stated that he did not take the 114 signatures gathered by Ms.
12 Pozzi lightly. He thought'that a 2/3 vote had worked statewide and it would work for
13 Petaluma.
14
15 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by O'Brien to adopt PCDC
16 Resolution 2001-08 Delegating the Power of Eminent Domain to the City
17 Council.
18
19 MOTION
20 PASSED: 3/1/3 (Council Member Moynihan voting "no"; Council Members Healy and
21 Torlatt, and Mayor Thompson recused,)
22 ,.
23 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by O'Brien to Adopt
24 Resolution 2001-108 N,C.S., Adopting Findings to Written Objections to
25 the Second Amendment ~to the Redevelopment Plan for the Central
26 Business District Redevelopment Project.
27
28 MOTION
29 PASSED: 3/1/3` (Council_Member Moynihan voting "no"; Council Members Healy and
30 Torliatt, and Mayor Thompson recused.)
31
32 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by O'Brien to Introduce
33 Ordinance 211'6 N.C.S.; Adopting the Second Amendment to the
34 Redevelopment Plan for the Central Business District Redevelopment
35 Project.
36
37 MOTION
38 PASSED: 3/1/3 (Council Member Moynihan voting "no"; Council Members Healy and
39 Torliatt, and Mayor Thompson recused,)
40
41
42 ADJOURN JOINT PCDC/CITY COUNCIL MEE~IIVG
43 `' `
44 CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
45
46
1.
2
3
4
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vol. 36; Page 206
June 4, 2001
APPROVAL.O.R CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
May 16 and May 17 2001
Council Member Moynihan noted that_ on page,. 4; .line 23, "He asked,,if a.breakdo.wn of
revenues: and expenditures for PCDG had -been completed;" should read, "He.asked f:a
comprehensive summary of revenues: and expenditures for PCDC had'been
completed: "
MOTION: Council Member .Maguire moved, seconded. by O'Brien, to approve the
minutes of .May 1'6 and 17, 2.001, as corrected.
MOTION
PASSED: 7/0/0'
CONSENT CALENDAR
At the request of various Council Members, Consent Calendar items, 3; 4, and 6 were
pulled for discussion.
2. Adopt Ordinance 2.115 N.,C;.S. Rezoning a 20.6,3 Acre. ParceC~atthe Southwest.
Corner of Casa Grande Road and Lalce~ille Highway, APN 005-0.4.0-049 from
Light Industrial (M-L) to Planned Community District (PCD) for Park .Central.
(Moore).
5. Status Report Regarding Payran Flood Management~~ Project Financing and
Budget. (Hargis)
m,
MOTION: Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson. moved, seconddd b,y Council Member
Torliatt to approve Consent Calendar'items 2,and 5. . ,
MOTION _
PASSED: 7/,0 ,.
3. Resolution 20:01-1..09 N.C:S. Approving~'Quarterly Treas.urer's Report,
(Thomas)
4. Resolution 200'1-110 N..C.S. Approving Claims and Bills. (Th.omas)
6: Approval of Proposed'. Agenda for Council's Regular Meeting of June 18, 2001.
ouncil Member Moynihan aske_ d for clarification from ,Finance Director B:II Thomas
regarding interfund loan transfers (Treasurer's` Quarterly Report)..
Mr. Thomas. explained.
June 4, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 207
1 Council Member Moynihan asked for clarification from finance Director Bill Thomas
2 regarding sales tax (Claims. and Bills).
3
4 Mr. Thomas explained.
5
6 Council asked to have the following items added to the agenda for the June 18, 2001
7 meeting:
8
9 o Direction on response to questionnaire from'the Sonoma Local Agency
10 Formation Commission (LAFCO).
11 o Update on Water Advisory Committee (1NAC), and. direction. to City Management
12 regarding public outreach for the new Master~Water,Agreement.
13
14 MOTION:. Council Member Maguire moved,.. seconded by Healy, to adopt Resolution
15 2001-109 N.C.S. Approving Quarterly~Treasurer's Report.
16
17 MOTION
18 PASSED: 7%0
19
20 MOTION:. Council Member Maguire moved, seconded. by Healy, to adopt item
21 10489, page. 10, "Design, Community 'and Environment" from the Claims
22 and. Bills document.
23
24 MOTION
25 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Council Member Moynihan reeused himself from this line item)
26
27 MOTION: Council~Member Maguire mo~~ed,,-seconded by Mealy,. to adopt. Resolution:
28 2001-110 N'.C.S. Approving Claims and':Bills.
29
30 MOTION.
31 PASSED: 7/0
32
33 MOTION: Council Member Torliaft~ moved, seconded by Vice. Mayor Cader-
34 Thompson, to approve the Proposed Agenda. for Council'a Regular
35 Meeting of June 18, 2001.
36
37 MOTION
38 PASSED: 7/0
39
40 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
41
42 7. Resolution Adopting Revised Council Rules,, Policies & Procedures.
43
44 Continued to' the June .18, 200.1 Council IVleeting.
45
46
Vol, 36 Page 208 June 4,, 2001
1 NEW BUSINESS
2
3 8. RESO.2001=111 A, NCS
4 INTEIVTION.TO LEVY REASSESSMENTS
5 Resolution 20.01-11'1 A N.C.S., 'Intenti'on to Levy Reassessments and
6 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Limited Obligation Refunding
7 Improvement Bondsre_lating to Assessment District No. 23 (Redwood Business
8 Park LII)
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
RESO:'2001.=111 B NCS
ADOPTING REASSESSMENT REPORT
-.
Resolution 2001 111 B N.GS: adopting Reassessment Report, Confirming and
Ordering the Reassessment,pursuant to.Summary Proceedings for Redwood
Business Park ~3 AD '23.
RESO,'. 2001-1`11 C NCS
ISSUANCE OF LIMITED OBLIGATION REFUNDING 1MPROVEMENT E
Resolution 200'1-111 C Au'fhonzirig Issuance of Limited obligation Refund
Improvement,Bonds for Redwood Business .Park 3 AD 23.
Mayor Tho"meson and Council Member Moynihan recused themselve"s, due to
possible coriflict of'iriterest.
Finance Director Bill Thomas gave a brief urnmary of the item..He also
announced that sale: that morning of PCDC~ Bonds would save. the. City $334,00:0..
Council Member Healy congratulated Mr. Thomas, and asked:for clarification: thaf
this costYsavings from'the sale of bonds on tonight',s .agenda would be realized> by
the property owners; not by the City.
Mr. Thomas confirmed this.
MOTION:. Council .Member Maguire moved, seconded: by Toxliatt, to. adopt
Resolution 2001-111AN:.C.S. -'2001,-1"11C N.C:S.
MOTI~ON~
PASSED; 5/0/2 (Thompson and Moynihan recused)
9. Discussion and Possible: Direction Regarding Modified Work.. Week #or City'
Offices: (Beatty%Stouder)
43
44.
45
46
Assistant City Manager Gene Beatty presented. a proposed change in City- office
public hours as a way to minimize the impact of ongoing. escalation.. of utility costs
on the C.ity's budget..He described the possible benefits of limiting the workweek
to four days for most employees from July '1, 200.1 "through the. end of .October.
June 4, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 209
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
If Council supported the idea, City management would work with labor groups to
identify individual issues that might arise out of this change in hours.
Council Member Maguire asked Mr. Beatty if he anticipated objections from the
labor groups:.
Mr. Beatty ;replied that he did. not know; the issue of childcare had been
mentioned. Certainly the City would continue: to support flexible working hours for
employees.; the more important thing was fo:r City offices to be consistent in the
number of hours open to the public.
City,ManagerStouder mentioned that some City Management members were
accustomed to using weekend time to work in their offices without interruption;
they~expressed concern that. they would become less effective if they were not
able to do this.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson wondered how less energy would be used, if the
workday we're lengthened.
Council Member-Healy thought the potential for energy savings was nebulous.
He agreed that during the summer especially, childcare was an issue for many.
Mr. Stouderstated.that anumber of City employees work alternative work
schedules. However, there is not a Citywide policy.
Council Member Moynihan asked Mr. Beatty what a 5-10% savings would mean
in dollars.
Mr. Beatty replied that he did not yet know.; if a reduced workweek was put. in .
place, utility costs would have to be tracked to determine how much was being
saved.
Council Member Moynihan. asked if employees' accrual of vacation or overtime
would be affected by such a change.
Mr. Beatty replied that it would not.
Council Member Moynihan asked if City Management had explored other ideas
for saving energy at City Hall.
Mayor Thompson replied that Director of Public Facilities and Services Rick
Skladzien was. working on that.
Council Member Moynihan was concerned about City offices not being open to
the public on Fridays.
Vol.. 36, Page 210
June 4, 2001
1 Viee Mayor Cader-Thompson, thought employees .should be' surveyed. Council
2 needed to know how they felt .about the- idea of a four-day workweek.
3
4 Council, Member Torliatt wonder,.ed if Frlday was necessarily the best day. She
5 also mentioned tfie possibility of some employees ``telecommuting:"she asked if
6 this proposal included City Hall being, open at noon, as that was the only time
7 many citizens could call or come in.
Mr. Beatty confirmed that it :did.
11 Council ,Member Torli"att thought that San Mateo C.ourity had instituted afour-day
12 workweek, with rave reviews from county employees.
13
14 Mayor Thompson suggested asking City Management to estimate.; as far as
15 possible.; the; potential. savings with a reduced workweek. If those sayings :were
16 significant,.. the next step would be the emp oye.e survey.
17
18 Council Member Maguire agreed. He also wanted City Management to compare.
1~9 those potential avings with savings that could be .realized from the installation, of
20 photovoltaic panels at City Hall.
22 Council concurred.
23
'24 :CLOSED .SESSION
25
26 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky announced that, Council would .adjourn to Closed Session
27 on the following:
ONFERENCE WI,T,H
§54956.9, Lonsgaf EGAL COUNSEL -Existing Litigation, Subdivision (a) of Government Code
e vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma County Supe"rior Court Case: No. 220489.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL =Existing Litigation, Subdivision (a,) of :Government Code
§54956.9, Holmberg vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case: No. 222739.
CONFERENCE WITH.LEGAL,C,OUNSEL.- Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation
Pursuant to Subdivision 9(bj of §54956.9: (1 matter)
Council adjourned to Closed Session at 4:30 P.M.
4;0
41 ******
42 :RECONVENE
43
44 The Petaluma City Council reconvened its regular meeting at7:O0 P.M. in the Council.
45 Chambers.
June 4, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 211
1 ROLL CALL
2
3 PRESENT: Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson; Council Members Healy, Maguire,
4 Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliatt; Mayor Thompson
5
6 ABSENT: None
7
8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
9
10 At the request of Mayor Thompson, Sue Ellen Thompson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
11
12 .MOMENT OF SILENCE
13
14 At the request of Mayor'Thompson, a moment of silence was observed.
15
16 REPORT OUT OF -CLOSED SESSION
17
18 Mayor Thompson announced. that:"there was no reportable action taken during Closed
19 Session.
20 -
21 PUBLIC COMMENT
22
23 David Glass., "41 Oxford C:oart, nofed'~that June 6th was ;D=Day, which he thought was. an
24 appropriate date fora City Budget Workshop, as `there is °rio money. "`He believed that
25 developers' impact, fees were too low, and the "develo'pers were riot.. passing on the
26 savings to the consumer..;He thought the City lacked the amenities that should come;
27 with such expensi~'re housing. ~ ~ _
28 ~ _
29 Bill Phillips,. 690 Skillman Lane, noted that the County Planning Commission had voted
30 to allow Shamrock Corporation to continue mining gravel ins the Russian. Rider. Th'e final.
31 vote was 3/2. He lamented that the: "assault on.the river contihwes from all directions."
32 He asked that Council Memkier Healy's resolution opposing such reining be brought
33 forward as soon gas possible.
34
35 Terence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive,,s,poke regarding the Boy Scouts, the Ten
36 Commandments, and Gay Liberafiori Month.
37
38 Jerry Price, 41,1 "D" Street, #3, urged: Council to consider making the area south of the
39 Outlot Mall into a park. He described~the.area'as one. of the few places of natural beauty
40 left along Highway 101. He thoughtaa cross-town` connector'would be more appropriate
41 north of the outlet mall... He suggested that Council visit. Vasona Park. in. Los Gatos, as
42 an example of a wonderful park that is just adjacent to the freeway.
43 John Mills, 1315"D";Street, thanked Council for inviting'hm to a joint meeting, of the
44 Planning Commission, rand the 'Sife and A_rchiteetural Review Committee (SPARC)
45 several weeks ago. He thought `that the commissions -and developers at that meeting
46 shared lots of good ideas. He asked Council not to raise developers' fees, as they were
Vol. 36, Page 21°2 June 4~ 2001
1 already very_ high.
2
3 Geoff Cartwright,: 56~ Rocca Drive; thought the City might need to raise. some fees in
4 order to fund the much needed road repairs:.
5
6 COUNCIL'COMMENTS ,LIAISON REPORTS'
7
8 Council Member Torliatt announced "that Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson had' been
9 chosen as next year's Fresident;of-the North'Bay League of California Cities. She was
10 excited that Qld Elrn 'Village, the 88-:unit affordable .housing project on `Payran S"t'reet,
11 was near completion, She :rioted -that Petaluma, had;. a "crying need" for more affordable
1`2 housing: Regarding the Water Advisory Committee, she asked the Sonoma County.
1'3 Water Agency (SCUVA) to include a public input process once the South `Transmission -
_.
14 Environmental fmpact.Report (EIR) is complete, in the spring. of 2002. They agreed.
15 She added thaf a public. input process would also be important for the. new Master
16 Water Agreement..
17 ... .
18 Council Member Maguire anno,unce.d that the Sonoma=Marin Area'Rapid; Transit- District;
_. .
19 (SMART) would ;make a presentation to Council in August. Their current coneern~ is the.
20 "disappearing" surplus in the. state budget.
21
22 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson had forgotten ~to attend, a Zone 2-A meeting last week.
23 She :asked to agendize in the near future a; discussion about; the process: by which -
24 citizens could ask to have bulletin ;boards installed; at parks. She had spoken with.
25 several people who expressed°friastration at their'inabilityto navigate this process.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Council Member'Torliatt added that she would also 'like to discuss the idea of citizens or
-_
groups donating money to dedicate benches in parks and along bike: paths.
Mayor Thompson announced that the June 2"d garagesaie to; benefit~the family of
Wayne Kipp,. the~Petaluma Marina Harbor Master who was murdered last December,
netted $'1,8.14.00.. He thanked°;the City employees and citizens-"who made it possible.
PRESENTATIO'iV
-..
1'D. Fresentation~ From Youth Delegates of Petaluma Community Health Foundation
38 Sue Ellen Thompson., member- of ahe :Petaluma Community Health Foundation
' 39 Board of. Trustees and,advisor to the Foundafion''s Youth, Delegates, described'
40 the Youth Delegate Program, which participates in the planning of #undraisng
41 events established by°the Foundation's Board. These. events include an annual
42 dance, proceeds from which are used to award four $500.00 seho arshps to
43 seniors who are continuing their~education and have demonstrated"a high level. of
44 community invo vement. Ms. Thompson introduced'`Casia Freitas, a former'
45 member :of the. Youth Delegates, :and ..Lisa Filippini:; who'is ~cu_rrently involved with
46 the group... They descr-bed their work with the program and the: atisfaction they
June 4, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 21'3
1 derived from it. Ms. Thompson thanked the Petaluma Police Department for the
2 officers they provided for the dance, and the Parks and Recreation Department
3 for the'use, at cost, of the Community Center.
4
5 AGENDA CH-ANGES ADDITIONS AiVD DELETIOfVS
6 _-
7Mayor Thompson announced; that ..item 1~3, Annual Landscape Assessment District
8 Maintenance Fees,. would be heard before item 12, (Vew Interchange and Cross-
9 Town Connector Project.
10
11 APPOINTMENTS
12
13 11. Appointments
14
15 A. Recommendation tothe Mayors'' &Councilmembers' Association for
16 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Board (Two
17 Appointments -One to the Executive Board and One Alternate).
18
19 Mayor Thompson announced that: Steve Rabinowitsh, City of Santa Rosa
20 Council Member, had expressed interest in being reappointed to the
21 -;Executive- Board,. and that Petaluma Council Members Moynihan and
22 Torliatt. would like to be recommended as Alternate.
23
24 MOTION: ~ -Council Member Healy moved, seconded by Moynihan, to
25 recommend to the Mayors' &Councilmembers' Association
26 ~ that Steve Rabinowitsh, Cify of Santa'Rosa Council
27 ...Member, be reappointed to the Association of Bay Area
28 Governments (ABAG) Executive Board.
29 ~ _
30 MOTION ~~
31 PASSED.: 7/0
32
33 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
34 Cader-Thompson, to recommend to the Mayors' &
35 Councilmembers' Association that Council Member Pamela
36 Torliatt be .reappointed as Alternate to the Association of
37 Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Board.
38
39 MOTION
40 FAILED: 3/4 (Council Members Healy, O'Brien and Moynihan, and
41 Mayor Thompson voting "no.")
42
43 Council Member Torliatt explained that she was applying for
44 reappointment to the Executive Board, and would be happy to entertain
45 constructive criticism from Council regarding her performance on the
46 Board in the past.
Vol. 36, Page 21.4
June 4, 2001
2 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson stated. that Council Member Torliaft's
3 reappointment. as.Alternate was: important: her position on A_BAG's board
4 had made possible her recent appointment to the: Metropolitan.
5 Transportation Commission (MTC) as the representative for ABAG.
6 Sonoma; Marin, Napa, and Solaro, counties each .have a rep_rese_ntative.
7 on MTC'. Council Me.mb,er Torliatt's appointment to MTC gives the North
8 Bray cou"nties an .advantage of _a fifth policymaker who understands
9 transportation needs and `issues. if~she were not reappointed to ABAG's
1 ~ Executive Board; Sonoma. County and the: North Bay would likely lose that
11 additional vote:
12
13 MOTION: Council Member O'Brien moved,:, seconded by Healy, fo.
14 recommend to,the. Mayors' '& Councilmembers' Association
15 that C.ou.ncil Member Bryant .Moynihan be appointed as
16 ~ Alternate fo the Association of Bay Area. Govecnrnents
1 ~ (ABAG) Executive Board.
18 ~~
19 MOTION
2D PASSED.: 4/3 (Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson, and Council Members
21 .Maguire and Torliatt.voting "no.") ~:
22
23 B. Recommendation to the Mayors' &Councilmembers' Association for
24 Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open SpaceDistrict Advisory
25 (SCAPOSD) Committee . (Two Appointments Open)
,26
27 Continued to June 18, 2001.meeting,
28
29 C. Recommendation'to :the Mayors' &Councilmembers Association for°t_h_e
30 Joint Powers .Authority Sonoma/Marin ..Area Rail Transit Commiss_ ion
31 (SMART) (Two Appointments Open)
32
33 Mayor Thompson announced'that,Cou.ricl Member Maguire had
34 expressed interest"in serving on this commission:
35
36 M'OTIOIVs Council Member Q'Brien moved, seconded by Moynihan, to
37 recommend to the Mayors' & Couneilrriembers' Association
38 that, Council Member Matt.. Maguire be appointed o the Joint
39 Powers Authority Sonoma/Marin Area Rail T_ rans_t
40 Commission ;(SMART)..
41
42 MOTI,O,fV
43 PASSED: 7/0
44 ~~
45
46 D. Recommendafion'to the° Mayors' &Councilmembers' Association,, Mayors'
June 4, 2001 Vol. 36, Page.215
1 City Selection Committee, to the Local Agency Formation Committee
2 (LAFCO) (One Appointment Open):
3
4 Mayor Thompson stated that he would like to be reeomm. ended for this
5 appointment.
6
7 MOTION; Council Member Moynihan moved, seconded by O'Brien, to.
8 recornrnend to the Mayors' & Councilmembers' Association,
9 Mayors' City Selection Committee.,, that Mayor Clark
10 Thompson be appointed'to'"the Local Agency Formation
11 Committee ~(LAFCO).
12
13 MOTION
14 PASSED: ~ 7/0
15
16 NEW BUSINESS'
17
18 13. ~~ Public Meeting to Hear Testimony Regarding, the Annual Landscape
19 Assessment District Maintenance Fees and Setting of the Public Hearing for
20 July 23, 2001... (Anchordoguy)
21
22 Parks Maintenance Supervisor Ed Anchordoguy explained the process by which
23 LAD maintenance fees. are determined.
24
25 Council Member Torliaft, stated that. she lives. within one of the landscape
26 assessment ,districts. When this is.broughf back;for vote.,. she would like Council
27 to vote on that district separately,, and she will recuse herself for that vote.
28
29 Council Mem, ber Healy was concerned `that some landscape assessment districts
30 still include areas of turf between sidewalks and streets.lNatering such areas is
31 very wasteful. - -
32
33 Mr. Anchordoguy explained that he'was working with Lynn Hulme of the 1Nater
34 Resources and Conservation Department, on ideas for redesign that "cgufd be.
35 made available.
36
37 MOTION: Council Member Torliatt moved, seconded. by Maguire to open the
38 Public Hearing regarding,'the Annual Landscape :Assessment
39 ®istrict Maintenance Fees and continue it to July 23.,.2001.
40
41
42 MOTION
43 PASSED: 7/0
44
45
VoL 36, Page 216 June 4, 20Q1
1 U.NFINISHED'BUSIIVESS
2 ,. ~ -
3 12. Discussion and Possible Direction .Regarding Coordination. of IVew Interchange
4 and Cross-Town. Connector Project with; Traffic .and Circulation Element of the
5 General Flan and Caltrans' Novato Narrows .Project. (Continued From May 7,
6 2001 Council Meeting)
7
8 Mayor Thompson asked General 'Plan. Administrator to provide an update on the
9 Traffic and Circulation Element:of. the General PI'an. He thought thaf Council
10 Commenf: should follow, so that. the public could gain a sense of each Counc_ it
11 Membe`r'a position on the issues. Public Commerf would follow that.
13 Ms. Tuft;provided the update and described the new traffic model, being
14 developed by-the firm of Fehr and Peers, using TransCAD software:
15
16 Upon reinstatement of the remainder of, the General Plan, related work on the
17 land. use :element will. recommence.. Delay in ,preparation of the. traffic model
18 could occur ;in a month or two if'the rest of the, General Plan is not reinstated.
19
20 Council'Member Maguire asked if the software allowed input of eurrent:data to
21 model different scenarios ;and, their effect on traffic.
Ms. Tuft replied that if did.
25 Council Member Healy thought; it important to'identify the best location. for a
26 future cross-town connector, acquire needed right-of-way,, and protect.the right-
27 of-way from further deve_loprnent. He distr,"ibuted a list of possible locations. He
28 wantetl to assure Co.
g uncil and the community that al possible ',locations would be
29 even fair consideration.
30
31 He understood, that,the traffic. data cotlecfion and modeling would be compacted
32 this fall.- He thought preliminary design .and costing of selected alternatives
33 should be.-comp eted`concur,.rently with this, Once the best alternative was
34 determined, 9 altrans_should be asked fo include, it,.(and widening of Old'.
35 Redwood Hi hway/10:1 Interchange) in the EIS/EIR for the Novato Narrows. Th_e
3.6 design could then be: finalized, the project could be prioritized along with other
37 traffic and circulation improvements identified 'in the: General' Plan, and funding
3$ sources could be identified'. He noted a memo from Suzanne Wilford of the
39 Sonoma County'Transportation Authority (,S.CTA) asking the status of Rainier~as
40 a City project,;
41
42 Council Member Moynihan, attended a Marin-Sonoma Narrows: Policy Advisory
43 Group (PAG) meeting in May, and.saw.alternative layouts for interchanges in~the
44 Narrows. 1Nhen Galtrans considers,a site, they analyze fhe possible limitations of
45 the site::as part of'the Environmental~1mpa~ct Review (EIR), of their cost.
46
June 4, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 217
1 Council Member Torliatt asked .for a-copy of materials Council Member Moynihan
2 received at that meeting. She asked that Council discuss what tonight's meeting
3 was really about. She thought it was "about Rainier."She noted that, no Staff
4 Report had been included in the packet materials. There was nothing to help
5 anyone understand what Council was supposed to discuss.
6
7 She mentioned the memo. from SCTA abouf Rainier. The memo, dated May 29,
8 2001, asks'if the City of` Petaluma currently has a source of local funds dedicated
9 to the Rainier Avenue Interchange project; and'if so, how much and from what
10 source. She wanted Council to discuss a reply to th's memo.
11
12 Vice Mayor Caller-.Thompson reiterated that there was no money available for
13 this project. She was unhappy that no materials had been included in the packet.
14 The project, she added, had started out as a "development scam,"and that had
15 not changed. She did not believe it would provide a way to travel across town
16 more. quickly, as the area would soon become massively developed, and traffic
17 would be even worse than before. She thought the estimated cost of building
18 Rainier`was far too low. She asked how this project could be considered when
19 the City does not have ..money to fix the numerous potholes in existing streets..
20 She did support "building new streets for developers."She .asked Ms. Tuft if Fehr
21 and Peers were identifying otheralternatives for improved traffic. circulation.
22
23 Ms. Tuft replied that Fehr and Peers' scope of'work included the analysis of a
24 possible cross-town connector.
25
26 Council Member Moynihan .stated that th'e Corona'Ely Specific Plan, dated 1989,,
27 supported" the Rainier Interchange only. Special assessment and benefit
28 assessment districts were formed, and developer in-lieu fees were paid. He
29 though# it possible to find fund's to construct Rainier; and That Council should.. "get
30 off the dime and proceed proactively,," to do what `they were obligated to do for
31 the community."
32
33 Council .Member Magui"re thought Council Members .Healy and Moynihan were
34 assuming that across=town: connector would ease traffic'circulation. He did not _
35 think that was a valid :assumption, and believed Council should wait for
36 completion of the Traffic Circulation Study, which would determine if a cross-town
37 connector was the best solution. He emphasized that it was not possible to `pave°
38 your way out of congestion,"adding that if that were true, "Los Angeles would be
39 heaven on Earfh, which it is not."He believed that the project would artificially
40 stimulate development. He did not think the City would ever be able to justify the
41 cost of the project.
42
43 Council MembeC Healy did not want to wait for completion of the Traffic .~
44 Circulation Study, because he thought the City would miss the opportunity to
45 have Caltcans fund a portion of the project.
46
`Vol. 36, Page 218
June 4, 20.01
1 Council Member Torliatt reminded Council that just' because a transportation
2 pro~e.ctwas outside the City"limits,,, that did not mean that it would not affect the
3 City. Irif"or:mafion from meetings in other parts of Sonoma County and .Maria
4 County needed to be. available to Council and. to'the pub'Iic. She reminded
5 Council,that during their goal setting sessions earlier in the~•year City
6 Management had ,recommended that Council .wait until, the Traffic Circulation
7 Study was cornplefe: before. making any decisions: SSh'e thought that `if Council did
8 not have- the information they needed to make decisions, they would: be wasting
9 City Management's valuable time.
10
11 City Manager S;touder asked Council to consider the; objectives of the Traffic
12 Circulation Study,, how-they will determine. if those objectives have been met, and
13 how much they are willing to spend on'the~ study.
14
15 RECESS.: - 8:45 P.M.
16
17 RECONVENE: ' 8:50 P..M.
18
'19 PUBLIC COMMENT
20
21 Vice Mayor Caller-T,hornpson read aGetter from.Stephen :DeLapp; who was'unable to
22 attend the meeting., Mr. DeLapp stated that. he was "not willing to trade the current
23 quality of life [in Petaluma] for the questionable benefits of:Rainier."
24
Paul Johnson, 141 Upham Street, read from an article: entitled "American Gridlock" that
appeared.. in the:. May' 28th issue. of U. S. News and World Report. The article states that a
study issued by the Surface Transportation Policy Project. indicates that because of
what economi"sts: calf'"induced demand," cities thaf add new roads actually experience
an increase in traffic.congestion, because of new~development that springs up to fake
advantage of land that :becomes :accessible`. Proponents of what is known as "smart
-growth" encourage development. that .requires less .dependence on ears.
33 John Chene_ y,, 55 Rocca. Drive, spoke in ;opposition_to the Rainier Project. He asked;
34 Council to `9eave the floodplain alone =please don't flood me .out of my house again"
35 because development.in the. floodplain wound inevitably lead to flooding.
:36
37 Diane Reilly Torres, Rainier Avenue, thoughtthat Council; was breaking the law.by not
38 providing ,materials requested by the public-., She asked where. the materials distributed
39 for this item were.
40
41. :Mayor Thompson replied that there were no materials for the item.
42
43 :Ms. Torres thought the City was risking litigation from citizens frustrated with their
44 inability to obtain, information. She wondered: if. Council Member Moynihan would.
45 suddenly `pull outa reso/ufion Gall- vote to build Raihier."
46
June 4, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 219
1 Pat. McShane, 34 Myrtle .Court, was flooded out of f1`er house in 1982, and spoke in
2 opposition to the Rainier Project. She asked Council to "think of your constituents and
3 please don'f forget the Payran residents:'"
4
5 Bill Paxton, 690 Skillman Lane, North'1N.est Petaluma.Concerned Citizens, stated that
6 he lives outside the City limits and thought it important for the City to work regionally
7 with the county to solve traffic issues.
8
9 Judy Hillery, 1745 Easf Madison Street, spoke in favor' of the Rainier Project. She
10 thought the information Ctouncl Member Moynihan presenfed from the. 1989 Corona .Ely
11 Specific Plan '"maybe old information, but. it's still good information."She believed that if
12 Council "killed Rai,-,Hier they would essentially be dividing the town."
13
14 David Glass, 41 Oxford Court, cautione:d Council against justifying the Rainier Project
1'S with the idea that funding could be obtained from the .state. The state, he said, was
16 "sinking in' a world of debf." 'It would. not be possible; to determine the cost. of Rainier
17 until it was one'-half built.; and. at that point,, if would be too late fo turn back. He believed
18 the City needed to impose a freeze; on development, and to "learn from its mistakes, not
19 repeaf its mistakes." ' "
20
21 Mary Gilardi;, Rushmore Avenue; stated that the'~ark Place development is
22 experiencing flooding problems nghtnow, and. she wondered how the City could
23 consider building something "right across the "street:.''
24
25 Rick Saver; P0B 227, F:eringcove, Penngrove. Committee, did not think the public had
26 been adequately noticed' about the meeting.
27 - .-~.
28 David Keller, 1327 "I" Street, asked what the meeting was about. He thought the
29 interested public had no way of~,know,ng what was to be discussed at ,the meeting„ fhe
30 item was not- properly agendize:d, and this.:constituted aBrown Act violation. He stated
31 that the public wanted fo preserve the right to provide input; on this matter. He
32 admonished Council, saying,. "You know 6etter,You know~how to involve the public.."
33
34 Council Member Healy repliedthatthis was riot~h-is job.
35
36 Mr Keller asked whose job it was.:.. -, ~.
37 ~ -
38 Council-Member Healy replied thaf it was `'staffs' job."
39
40 Mr. Keller stated that, "Staff didn't have.a club. There is no paper. No one had a clue
41 what the agenda really rt~eant."He hoped. that Council would direct M's. Tuft.. to move
42 forward with the G-eneral Plan, as,:thatwas the "real work"that needed to be done. He
43 thanked Ms. Tuft for "hanging in there:"
44
45 Geoff Cartwright, 56- Rocca; Drive, emphasized that development in the floodplain .would
46 lead to flooding in the downtown area, and floodwaters overflowing the Army.Corps
VoL. 36, Page.220 June 4, -2001
1 project,walls: He described Rainier as:a "development project, not a; traffic s,olution."
2 -
3Connie Madden,., 215,1Nafer Street, who was also sp:eaking.on behalf of B'efh arid Oz
4 Grimes, who had left the meeting; was. opposed to'the Rainier Project as commercial
5 development would follow -and traffic would worsen,. S_he thought that only the::outlet
6 mall and developers~would benefit from, the project, She also believed that residents'
7 would payfor the project through increased property taxes.
9 Patricia Tuttle Brown, 513-.Petaluma ,Boulevard South, stated that. she was opposed to
10 the Novato Narrows project, as she felt "the relative narrowness of that section ofi
11 Highway 10`1 was "what: prevented Petaluma from becoming an9ther sprawling
12 met""ropolis such as the South. Bay Area. However, she said, she had `'made peace"with.
13 the Narrows Project, but she would. hewer be .able to do the same. for Rainier. She noted
14 . thaf "the Lynch Creek Trail had "changed her comm. uting ife ".as she was now able to
15 bike to work. She hoped Council could have 'the vision to~ create a ,park instead, of a
16" cross-town connector:, and added th"at if'they:did, they would be~ `"hailed as visionaries;
17 forever "That,. she :added,. "would be. very good for you."
18
Beth Meredith, 104 Fifth Street, noted that,she saw".a consistent patfern errmerging of
failure on the;part of the City to provide the public with requested information, failure:to
adequately notify'the public of meetin-gs., arid failure to engage .the public consfructively.
She urged Council. to work with fhe public to develop solutions that are "win/win."She
noted that Petaluma had a `proud history"of developing, such solutions. She suggested
Council create a Citizen General'.-Plan Committee,, aril change the public scoping
sessions from August'to September, as many people'were vaeatioriing in August.
27 John Mills; 1.315' ``D" Street; spoke in favor of the R'airiier project, stating that"2/3 of the
28 City's citizens wanted to see it;built.
29 -
.. _,
30 Scott Vouri,, 155,7 Mauro Pietro Drive,; urged Council to reinstate. the. General Plan
31 process, and to fo"cus their energytoward funding street repairs.
32
33 Hank, Flum 172:1 Stonehenge 1Nay, explained that all cities have peak time traffic.
34 .delays, :which are a sign of the City's economic health. He`thought the City needed
35 more incremental ;traffic improvement"s, such as at Wash""rigtoh Street and McDowell
36 Boulevard', to help drivers move ,;round the Cify more, easily. He sapported a Caulfield
37 extension,widening Corona Road and adding on-;ramps to the freeway. He noted that
3$ those two projects together would cost many millions less than the Rai"Hier Project.,
39 .
.40 .CO.UNCIL COMMENT
41 .
4`2 Council Member Torliatt reiterafed' that tonight°s meeting had been.. "about Rainier;"and.
43 added that she wanted to engage the: public. n'the discussion. She di'd not chink,
44 publisfling notice of the meeting in the Argus-Courier was sufficient..`She wanted'
45 Council to discuss the: regional impacts of the City's .General Plan. She thought ~every~
4"6 city and the county needed to use the same ba_selin.e assumptions.
June 4, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 221
1
2 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson asked General-Plan Administration Pam Tuft when the
3 next General Plan meeting was scheduled (after Wednesday, June 6t"'s General Plan
4 Budget meeting)..
5
6 Ms. Tuft replied that if Council authorized the Generaf Plan to continue on Wednesday
7 .night, she would telephone Dyett & Bhatia on Thursday morning.
8
9 Mayor Thompson asked to have .updates on the'. Traffic Circulation Element within one
10 month. He wanted to be sure that 'it addressed the possibility of a cross-town connector.
11
12 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson reiterated that Council needed to discuss an answer to
13 SCTA's memo regarding Rainier.
14
15 Council Member Maguire stated that Rainier was not officially listed as a City project.
16
17 City Manager Stouder elucidated that Council action in 1998 removed Rainier from the
18 list of City projects. There is no identified source of local funds. He thought the various
19 agencies had been notified at that time..
20
21 Council Member' Healy wanted City Management to take the outline of possibilities he
22 had distributed, and add more information to it. He stated again that he did not believe
23 Council should wait for the Traffic Circulation Study to be completed, because of the
24 need to coordinate with Caltrans.. He added that he was committed to the community,
25 and any cross-town connector he supported would not increase~the risk of flooding, and
26 would preserve the integrity of the Corps of Engineers project.
27
28 Council Member Maguire asked:Council Member Healy is he was saying that he did not
29 assume that~cross-town connector writhe best'solution.
30 _
31 Council Member Healy agreed,'6ut~wanted to preserve the ability of building one in the
32 future, if needed.
33
34 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson wanted to move forward with the full General Plan
35 because it will provide fhe best footprint for the City's future.
36
37 Council Member Moynihan thought City Management and the Marin-Sonoma Narrows
38 Policy Advisory Group (PAG) should meet with Caltrans.
39 -
40 Council Member Torliatt disagreed. She thought it a waste of City Management's time,
41 and they should. instead wait until the Traffic Circulation Study was complete.
42
43 Council Member O'Brien agreed.
44
45 Council Member Moynihan asked for a resolution stating that across-town connector is
46 a City priority.
1
2
4
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
vol. 36, Page 222
June 4;,.2001
City Manager asked if 'he understood. Council's direction: City Management was. fq
advise the appropriate agencies that Rainier ;is not the ist of official .:City projects. IVo
particulardesigns for an interchangewould;be advanced with Caltrans;, City
Management would instead seek guidance from Caltrans.
Council Member:Healy believed that.contactbetween individual C.ouneil Members .and
Caltrans was counterprodactive.
Mr. Stouder warned'that if ,state artd federal=agenciessense community conflict and
divisiveness, they became unwilling to give:financal support on projects.
Council' Memfjer Moynihan thought that the City looked. very foolish to SCTA.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 1':0:37 P.M.
E;. Clark. Thompson, ,Mayor
ATTEST:
Claire C:ooper:, Clerk Pro T m
******