HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 06/18/2001June 18,2001 Vol. 36, Page 255
1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR
2 PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL MEETi'NG
3
4 MONDAY, JUNE 18, 20.01
5 COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6
7
8
g ROLL CALL 3:45 P.M.
10
11 PRESENT: Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson; Council,. Members Healy, Maguire,
12 ~ Moynihan, Torliatt, O'Brien; Mayor Thompson (4:20 P.M.)
13
14 ABSENT: None
15
16
17 ******
18
19 PUBLIC COMMENT
20
21 Geoff Cartwright"", 56 Rocca Drive, referred to Council's Budget Workshop Meeting
22 of June "6, 20:01. He thought that Council Member Moynihan's comment regarding
23 General Plan Consultanf Rajeev Bathia's name being among: the "half the :names
24 you can't pronounce" was prejudicial and. inappropriate. He reminded Council that a
25 few months prior to th"e June 6th meeting,. they voted 4/3 fo reduce the scope of the
26 General Plan project.
27 •
28 Jack Balshaw, 1680 Kearny Court, experienced frustration when attempting to
29 obtain packet documents regarding the proposed water rate increases. The staff
30 report listed ,as the first alternative, "Do not refinance existing debt." Hethought
31 there was appar..ently another reason for refinaneing;,~but the report d,id not say what
32 it was. He urged Council to compare project budgets vs. actual expenditures in
33 previous years. It appeared "to him that the City was 'not spending 'what had been
34 budgeted for projects, and yet this year's budget.. showed "incredible" increases. He
35 termed the staff report ``grossly inadequate,"and added, that Council okiviously" did
36 not understand: "how City finances were] going." He said he agreed with Council
37 Member .Moynihan that, "money being processed by the City is presented in a
38 confusing manner.''
39
40 Council Member Maguire asked Mr. Balshaw to which. figures he was referring.
41 , . .
. ,.
42 Mr,: Balshaw replied that; he was saying that the information was ,presented in a
43 confusing marine"r. Council Member Moynihan was trying diligently°to understand
44 the budget. Mr... Balshaw thought staff .needed to present information in a more
45 easily understood manner. He concluded that, "Finance was] always changing
46 things so you can never compare anything."
47
Vol. 36, Page 256 June 18, 2001
1
2 PUBLIC COMMENT, confinued
3
4 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson noted for -the public that Mr. Balshaw is a former City
5 of Petaluma City Council Member:.She thanked Mr, Balshaw for his comments and.
6 explaihed that Finance birector Bill Thomas would respond to Mr. Balshaw's
7 concerns in ~writing.
Council Member O'Brien thanked Mr. Balshaw for' his insights and observations.
11 Catherine 'Edmondson, .250 Cambridge Lane:; Vicforia 'subdivisi'on, asked that
12 Windsor Street, be reclassified from a collector street to a residential street so the
13 speed limit could be ;lowered and crosswalks. installed. She- noted that two more
14 subdivisions would .be: built `in the area. and those residents wilt also use Vl/indsor
15 drive.
16
17 Vice Mayor Gader-Thompson asked Ms. Edmondson if she :had talked. with Public
18 Facilities and Services Director Rick Skladzien or Engineering Manager Mike Evert
19 or invited` them to a homeowners' board meeting.
20
21 Ms Edmondson replied that she had not poken to them,; but other members of the
22 homeowners' association .have. Members of the Poliee~ Department talked to the
23 association.
-, -
25 Council Member Moynihan noted that the Traffic Committee has yet to meet this
26 year. He suggested Ms. 'Edmondson address her concerns fo -the Tkaffie
27 Committee. He added that there was some money set aside in the CIP. for" traffic
28 calming,
29
30 Ms. Edmondson added .that ,the top signs currently ,instalCed really don't work..
31 Trucks coming through the~_are`a have to gear down for the stop signs', which' ad'd
32 noise and exhaust: She: thought it' preferable to slow'the traffic.
Council Member O'Brien; stated he could also confirm that'stop,sgns rarely help; He
said he .would ask the Police Department 'to have the motorcycle: officers ride
through the-.area more frequently;.
Ms. Edmondson rep ed that it~would.be._fielpfu,l.
,Joe Devito, .Council f:or Community Television, `24;9:-A Kentucky Street, participated
in the riper clean ..up.. He was amazed at° what he could see from the middle of the
river; even more: amazed when he fouin:d, out what was in the river. Footage of the.
clean=up effort will-be aired on PCA, Channel '26; Friday, June, 22, 7::00 P.M~.,
Monday, June 25', 9:00 P.;M"., Friday! June ~29, 7:00 P.M., and Tuesday,. July 3, 7:00
.~~
P,M.
****~**
June 18, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 257
1
2 COUNCIL COMMENT
3
4 Council Member Torliatt:
5
6 Regarding 1Nindsor Drive, she agreed that. the Traffic Committee should discuss
7 the matter.
8 Announced that the Petaluma Trolley received its non-profit status, which is
9 retroactive for one year. She and the other members of the Trolley's Board of
10 Directors are really excited to be moving forward.
11
12 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson:
13
14 Announced. that she can no longer serve as Council's representative on the
15 Tourism Board.,. and asked if someone else on Council would be interested. The
16 meetings are on Wednesdays at 3:00 p.m.
17
18 Council Member Moynihan:
19
20 Referring to .his comment, about Mr. Bhatia's name. being difficult to pronounce,
21 stated that people. confuse pronunciation with. prejudice. He invited those
22 -present to attend a Hate Crime Prevention Training meeting sponsored by the
23 Petaluma. Community .:Action Comrniftee on July 13, from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00
24 P,M. The training focuses on hate crime prevention,_.resp_onse, and developing
25 Petaluma as a Hate Free Community. E-mail swalton@sonoma-county.org for
26 more information. He added that, he. would like to enlist volunteers to start a
27 similar program in Petaluma.
28
29 ~ *****
30 MINUTES
31
32 The minutes ofi July 22, 1999, December 21, 2000, April. 16, 200.1 (City Council
33 portion of Joint FCDC/Council Meeting), .,May 30, 2001 (Council Portion), and June
34 4, 2001 ,(Council Portion), were approved as written.
35' ~ ~~
36 The. minutes `of June 7, 2001, were approved as amended to change the word `join"
37 to joint"on page 1, line 3.
38
39 *****
40
41
Vol. 36, Page 258 June 18; 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
'10
11
1.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
PRESENTATIONS
AMATEUR WATER CONSERVATION VIDEO AWARDS, PRESENTATION
One $500 award was presented for each of five, categories: Classroom; Award,
Individual Student: Award, Family. Participation Award., Individual Non':-Student
Award, and Peoples Choice Award.
6T" GRADE WATER CONSERVATION
Savings Bonds were presented to winning 6th grade Petaluma students,: The
students' artvuork was featured i`n an. Argus=Courier insert during, May, which was
Water Awareness ~Mor%th. In addition to the City of Petaluma; some of, the sponsors
for.fhis,projeet were the Bay Institute, the Council for Community Television, antl the
Argus-Courier..
APPOINTMENTS
*****
In a motion made by Council Member :Maguire., seconded by Vice Mayor- Cader-
Thompson; Council voted to recommend to the Mayors' & Councilmembers'
Association that.: Jake 'Mackenzie. (Rohnert Park) :and Dick Ashford (Sonoma) be
.appointed fo the; 'Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District
Advisory (SCAPOSD) Committee,.
Ayes: Vice:Mayor'Caller-Thompsorr;.,Council,Members Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
O'Brien, Torliatt; Mayor Thompson
Noes: None
Absent: None
*****
.CONSENT CALENDAR,
The following items, which are non=controversial and: which Have ,been ,revievved by ~ .
City Council- anal. City Management .were :enacted in one motion,, which was
introduced by Council Member Torliatt;and seconded by Council Member Maguire:
*****.
RESO_. 2001-11:2 N:C:S.
TWO TRUCKS'SURPLUS
Resolution 2001-112 N.C.S. Declaring Two Trucks, Surplus to the City's Needs
and Directing the: City Manager to Dispose of th`e Trucks in Accordance wvth
Provisions of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
June 18, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 259
1
2 *****
3 STATUS REPORT
4
5 Status Report Regarding Payran Flood Managemenf Project Financing and
6 Budget.
7
8 *****
9
10
11 The following items were removed from the Consent. Calendar for discussion:
12
13 RESO.2001-113 N.C.S.
14 PURCHASE OF A20.01 EMERGENCY AMBULANCE
15
16 Resolution. 20:01-113 N.C.S. Authorizing the Purchase of a 2001 Emergency
17 Ambulance Type Ill From Braun Industries in the Amount of $106,842.45.
18
19 Council Member .O'Brien noted that the resolution, specified a 2001 model, and
20 asked Chief Krout: if if should be amended to say "or 2002" in case a 2001 is no
21 longer available.
22 .
23 Chief Krout explained that he had been assured it would not be an issue.
24
25 Council ;Member O'Brien asked how insfallation of the ALS equipment was
26 progressing.
27 '
28 Chief Krout replied that it was on schedule,
29
30 Council Member O'Brien thanked. Chief Krout and his staff for their efforts.
31
32 The resolution was introduced by Council Member O'Brien and seconded by Vice.
33 Mayor Cader=Thompson.
34
35 Ayes: Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson; Council Members Healy; Maguire,. Moynihan,
36 O'Brien, Torliatt; Mayor Thompson
37 Noes: None
38 Absent: None
39
40
41
- 42
43 *****
44
45
46
47
Vol. 36 Page 260
June i'8, 2001
1 ORDINANCE 2T°16 IV.CS.
2 CENTRAL B.USiNESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
3
4 Ordinance ;2116 N.C.S. Amending Central 'Business District. Redevelopment
5 Plan.
6 -
7 The Ordinance was introduced by Vice Mayor Cadet:-Thompson and seconded b;y
8 Council Member Maguire.
Ayes:.. Vice "MayorCader-Thompson, Couricil Members Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain:: Mayor Thompson; .Council Members Healy and Torliatt
18
19 PROPOSED AGENDAS
****
June 23, "200.1;: Item 1, Recruitment acid Selection, of Future: City Clerk, .Council
Member7orliatt asked to move the City Cierkjob description to the~beginnng of the
discussion, :and wanted to trike'item D, "City Clerk Reporting to City Council or City
Manager:"
Mayor. Thompson noted. that a number of Council .Members were not available on
June 23. He would meet with City Manager Stouder regarding the meeting:
29 June.25, 2001: Council Member Healy, was concerned that ltem 8, Russian Riper
30 Gravel Mining, had not been drafted to include reference to th'e appeal before. ,the
31 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
32
33 Mayor Thompson had been receiving many phone calls about the: ;grave.l' mining ;
34 issue. He suggested.. moving; the item to a meeting, on Monday, July 9 to assure
35 sufficient tune to discuss the `issue.
36
37 Council Member Q'Breri thought. July 9 was °accepfable, assuming the meeting, was
38 limited to fhe single item:
39
40 Vice Mayor Cadet-Thompson announced. she would not be available on July 9:.
41
42 Mayor Thompson asked if the other Ccuncil Members agreed fo.meet July 9:
43
44 Council Member Moynihan wasn't sure:
45
46 Vice Mayor C:atler-Thompson stated she would submit, questions for the meeting:.
47
June 18; 2001
Vol: 36, Page 26.1
1 ~ PROPOSED AGENDAS, continued
2
3 Council Member Moynihan asked if the subject was gravel use within City limits.
4
5 Mayor Thompson replied that there would be discussion regarding the aquifer,
6 destruction of fascia,: etc.
7
8 Councit Member Moynihan. asked, if the use of gravel. within City limits would be
9 included on the agenda,
10
11 Mayor Thompson :clarified that discussion would include the City's continued use of
12 aggregate -from :the "river, and possible destruction of the aquifer, degradation of the
13 river from gravel mining:;
14
15 CouncilMember Torliatt also thought it would include direction from Council
16 regarding the question of support for Shamrock's request.
17
18 Council Member Moynihan thought it would be appropriate to allocate time to
19 integrate Council Goals with the Five-Year CIP.
20
21 Mayor Thompson. agreed, but added thaf June 23 was not a good date; ~he would
22 meet with City Manager Stouder to determine another meeting date.
23
24 The proposed .agendas were `approved as amended. in a motion ,introduced by
25 Council Member Maguire and seconded by Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson.
26
27 Ayes: Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson; Council Members Healy,-Maguire,
28 Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliatt; Mayor Thompson
29 Noes: None -
30 Absent: None
31
32 ***** -
33 ...:UNFINISHED BUSINESS
34 'FY 01/.02 CITY BUDGET .
35 `
36 Continued Discussion, Possible Direction, and/or Resolution/Ordinance Adopting FY
37 0.1/02 City Budget:
38
39 A. Resolution Approving the Revised Fiscal Year 2000/200.1 Budget and: Adopting
40 the Fiscal. Year 2001/2002,Budget.
41 B. Introduction and Adoption of Ordinance Appropriating Funds for the Operation of
42 the City of Petaluma From July 1, 200.1 to June 30; 2002 and Declaring the
43 Urgency Thereof, fo Take Effect Immediately.
44 C. Introduction. of Capital Lmprovement Program Budget
45
46
47
Vol. 36, Page 262. June 18, 2001
FY 01/02 City Budget, continued
Vice Mayor°Cader=Thompson wanted to move forward with approval of the budget.
Council Member Moynihan wanted to table the. budget until the next meeting.
33
Council Member Healy was generally happy with the budget: He thought `it would be
possible to cut costs by limiting the amount Council spent on conferences and
facilitators... He had submitted ,questigns to the' :City Manager's Office regarding the
possibility of installing the remaining LED traffic lights sooner rather than later.
:Mayor Thompson.'noted he was very close:to"approving'the budget,
Council. Member ,Moynihan had continued concerns regarding transfers in: and.
transfers out> He aid..he had 'been" waiting for over a month for a Sources and Uses
.Summary; which, was part of -the City budget process "for many years. This summary
showed fund sources in and out and net impact on reserves. He thought that' in the:
current: budget, trans,"fees in and "transferrs out didn't match, and wanted, Council to
review"the `Sources and ,Uses :Summary before making any decisions..
Hew,arited. to go through the CII'' item by'item to make sure it met with ,everyone's.
"approval before approving $42 million. He had; asked Finance: Director Bill Thomas
for i'nforrnation regarding anticipated CIP overhead charges and how t?hey will
impact the General Plan: Mr. Thomas had responded with a memo:. He °pointed out
~" a 15% increase 'in general fund expenditures between last year's budget' and. this
year's, and asked City Managernenf to find ways to reduce the budget "by $300,00.0.
Mayor Thompson asked. Mr. Thomas how close he was to completing the; Transfers
In/T`ransfers Out`"and Sources and' Uses, ummaries.
Mr Thomas explained that, he was" very close to completing the Transfers
In/Transfers'Out summ, ary:
"-Mayor Thompson`:asked Mr: Thomas,~'if he budget were approved tonight;: would he
continue to.wo"rk onthe summary?
Mr. Thomas replietl that he would..
Mayor Thompson asked ~Mr. Thomas and City Attorney Rudnansky 'if it would. be
possible to re"move the CIP portion and pass the remaining budget.
Mr. Thomas'thought it wou d be ..possible.
Mr.. Rudnansky didn't know. "
Mayor Thompson thought'th'e "C1P and Council Goals should be discussed at the
June 18, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 263
1 FY 01./02 City Budget, continued
2
3 same meeting.
4
5 Council Member .Maguire pointed .out that it wasn't as if Council "approved the
6 budget and Mr. Thomas gets out the checkbook."Council will have lots of oversight
7 of projects.. He didn't think it necessary to adopt the budget without the CIP.
8
9 Mr. Rudnansky asked if Council was talking about having a separate discussion of
10 the CIP but leaving a placeholder in the budget.
11
12 Mayor Thompson confirmed.
13
14 Council Member Healy asked' Mayor Thompson if he was referring to the Five-Year
15 CIP.
16
17 Council Member Moynihan would support plaeeholders for years two through five,
18 but didn't think it possible to use a placeholder for year one.
19
20 Council Member Moynihan stated there was $1.5 million in the CLP for street
21 resurfacing, but $8 million was. needed. He explained that $10-12 million was
22 available in the PCDC sub-area, ..and suggested taking $6 million from that area and
23 adding it to the $1.5 to make $8 million. After that, he continued, it would be time to
24 convince the public of the need for an assessment.
25
26 Council Member Torliatt wanted Council to .move: forward with approval of the
27 budget so that City Management would be free to work toward solutions to street
28 issues.
29
30 Vice Mayor Cadet-Thompson agreed with Council Member Torliatt. Regarding the
31 proposed .$1,500 per Council Member limit on conferences, she thought the
32 ,conferences she had attended were very valuable.
33
.34 Council Member Moynihan wanted to review the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
,35 funds.
36.
37 Mayor Thompson did not think there was support from the rest of Council to do so.
"38
39 Council Member Moynihan reiterated his belief that Council should walk through the
40 CIP and look at each project: He was concerned that the way the CIP was laid out,
41 it was not possible fo maintain an accurate system of "checks and balances."
42
' 43 Council Member Healy recalled that during the departmental budget hearings, only
44 the operating budget for the coming year was discussed. Council was told they
4'5
46
Vol. 36, Page 264 June 18, 2001
1 FY .01/02 City Butlget, continueal
2
3 would receive the CLP, and that has not happened.
4
5 Council .Member :Maguire noted that CIP projects came back to Council on a
6 recurring ..basis.. He believed Council Member Moynihan` was looking; :for places to
7 make ,budget cuts.
8
9' Council Member Torliatt asked if there was a quorum for a meeting on June 21:;
10
11 Mayor Thompson replied that #here was.
12
13 Council Member Torliatt thought That would be an opportunity to tape about the CJP:.
14 Council had: agreed last ,year to have a policy for evaluation of TOT projects • in
15 place.
16
17 Mayor Thompson said he would be very happy to agendize that: He thanked Mr.
18 Thomas for his patience and for his outstanding work on the budget.
19
20 No, action taken.
21
22 *****
23
24
25 RESO.200T:.-114.IV.C.S.
26 MCD'OWELL BOULEVARD/E..WASHINGTON STREET LNTERSECTION •
27 TR~ANSPORT~4TION.IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT,#2000`-01-
28 :(PROJECT N0. 9863, PHASE 3)
29
30 Resolution 200.1-114 N:GS. Confirming Unpaid Assessments, Authorizing Issuance
31 of Improvement Bonds.,. and Direeting.A~tions Vllith Respecf Thereto for Assessment
32 District` 2000-01. `.
33 •
34 The resolut_on was introduced by Council Member'Torliatt, seconded by Vice Mayor
35 Cader-Thompson. _
36
37 Ayes: vice Mayor Gader-Thompson;.Counc_it Members Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,,.
38 `O'Brien; Torliatf; MayorThompson ' - ••
39 Noes: None
40 Absent: None
41
42
43 *****.
44
June 18, 2001 vol. 36, Page 265
1 MASTER WATER AGREEMENT
2
3 Discussion and Possible Direction Regarding Public Participation in Policy
4 Development for New Master Water Agreement Based Upon June 4th Sonoma
5 CountyWater Agency Water Advisory Committee Meeting.
6
7 Council Member Torliatt reported that at the Water Advisory Committee (WAC)
8 meeting on June 4th, the discussion centered on the process for development of the
9 new agreement, and the idea. of the individual contractors taking on that process.
10 Council Member Torliatt asked for input on the following:
11
12 Should there be representation from each agency's elected officials and/or
13 staff?
14 Is the City willing. to have: the City Attorney's office, ,put, in time on the issue?
15 Alter.nafively, does the City'want to hire another outside firm to do this?
16
17 Council Member Torliatt supported Mr. Hargis as representative of the City
18 Manager, but: added that she thought it important for Council to continue to get
19 feedback. She thought the issues raised.. during last year's water summit could ,be
20 the basis of the new water agreement, and she suggested Council and staff meet to
21 discuss #his.
22
23 Council Member Maguire asked Mr. Hargis if other people on WAC have the
24 "heartburn" with John Nelson (Water Conservation consultant) that he had. He was
25 concerned .with what he thought was Mr. Nelson's ``inability to think out of the box."
26 ~~
27 -Council Member Torliatt noted. that at the last couple of WAC meetings, Mr. Nelson
28 had opened up~to making sure this was being driven by policy. He has had Sonoma
29 State University look, into facilitation of policy.
30
31 Council .Member Maguire said it appeared to him that. Mr. Nelson had a hard time
32 "looking at the bigger picture." The was .more to be considered than `just build
33 more, drill°more, pave more."
34 .
35. Mr. Hargis thought it could take longer than two years to complete a new
`3.6 agreement; It wou'Id be important for Councils to stay involved.
37.
38~, Council Member Healy stated that each of the water contr'actocs designate people
39 ao be their, primary representatives to the water agency. Some contractors
40 designated elected officials, others desigriated technical staff. He thought policy
41 discussions should be among elected officials; technical discussions among
42 ;technical staff. He asked Mr. Hargis if he was suggesting two groups.
43
44 Mr. Hargis thought there should be a technical subcommittee.
45
46
Vol. 36, Page 266
June 18, 2Q01
1 MASTER WATER AGREEMENT, continued
2
3 Council Membe.r;Magui_re stressed the need to craftwell=balanced policy„ keeping in
4 mind the larg"er contextual questions.
5
6 Council Member Healy thought: Council. hould recommend to SCWA that there be
7 one committee of elected representatives, and another body set up, with techri'ical
8 staff.
9
10 Council Member :Maguire agreed, and added that a_ny representative should stand
11 firm on the single veto issue:. He believed if the City gave up that.. authority- the
12 water agency would take advantage of that; in a. way conflicting with what Council
13 believe is best.
14
1.5 Council Member Torlratt noted thaf'it was important for staff to provide, Council what
16 technical irriprove:ments they believe are needed.. so They carr be .incorporated into.
17 the policy. She suggested ;a subcommittee of elected officials to participate in the
18 public hearing process.
19
20 Council Member Maguire thoughttherewas a general consensus among'Council.' , ,
21 _ ,
_. .
22 Council Member Healy had a discussion with SCV11A Director Randy Poole a 'few
23 .days. earlier: M.r, Poole said he did.. not object to the .idea of contractors designating
24 more than one re,presentatve. ; -
25
26 Vice Mayor'Cader=Thompson wanted o see different points of view. represented;
27
28 Mayor Thompson, suggested Mr. Hargis `and C.ouneil Member To'rliatt b_ e
29 representatives, with Council Member:Healyas alternate. '
30 -
31 Council Member Healyclarified that it wasn't amember/alternate- structure.:
32 ~ ,
33 Mayor Thompson° agreed.
34
35 Geoff Cartwright; 56; Rocca Drive,; believed eleeted,.bodies should be Gifting on that . ~`~
36 board. Recommendation should come from: this Council to;. 1NAC! meetings. H.e
37 believed that some of the current water problems resulted from they lack of elected-
_3,8 official representation with the water agency.
39
40 Council Member Torliatt asked how voting would be handled if there were two ~ ~:
41 representatives.
42
43 Council Member= Healy thought they were talking -about a separate body -not. the
44 V1LAC. ..
45
46 Council Member Maguire thought direction should be to have Petaluma's
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
June 18, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 267
MASTSR`WATER AGREEMENT, continued
representatives raise the question of a subcommittee at the next WAC meeting.
Council Membe_ r Torliatt explained that WAC is the 'group that will be working on
policy.
Mayor Thompson clarified that Council. would have further discussion prior to the
next WAC meeting, and Council Member Torliatt would continue to be the voting
representative:
*****
AMEND PROI
RESO. 2001-115 N.C.S.
ES AGR€EMEIVT WITH DYETT & BHATIA FOR
P:REPAR:ATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Resolution Authorizing City Management to Amend the Professional Services
Contract With Dyett & Bhafia for Preparation of the General Plan, in an Amount
Not-to-Exceed $1,,356,000.
Director of General Plan Administration. Pamela Tuft, per direction received from
Council at the June 6, 2001 budget workshop, presented ~ an amendment to the
contract with Dyett & Bhatia to restart remaining elements of ;the General Plan.
Mayor Thompson .noted that the last time this was discussed, he had. said he was
not happy with the: total .amount.
Council Member Healy did .not think Council needed to, dictate the process., but did
think it was their consensus that the zoning and subdivision ordinances be updated.
He suggested Council allow staff fo decide how to proceed.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson agreed.
Council Member Torliatt agreed, and asked that it be done as soon as possible.
Ms. Tuft agreed.
Council Member .Moynihan said he had problems with cost, which he could probably
overlook, and problems with. the process, which he could not.. Recalling the Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) process, he stated the public had virfually.no impact, and
"what was decided was decided'in advance." He described that process as having
been done "in a wanton way that did-not consider-land use."
He said he would rote "no"on this item.
Vol. 36, Page 268 June.18, 2001
1 RESO,. 2001-115 N.C.S. ~ . .
2 AMEIVD;P;ROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DYETT"& BHATIA FOR
3 PREPARATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN, continued
4
5 Council. Member To.rliatt describe;d the Generale. Plan .process as a "grassroots
6 process.." No one would be shut out of this .process. Regarding the UGB 'issue, she
7 was ve:ry`proud fo have put on ballot.
8
9 Council. Member Maguire pointed ou't that .80% .approval by voters of th~e~ UG'B was
10 "proof of the pudding."
11
12 In ,a motion. introduced by Council Member Healy; seconded by Vice-Mayor Cader-
13 Thompson, Council vofed to adopt Resolution 2001-115 N.C.S.
14
15 Ayes: Vice,Mayor Cadet-Thompson; Council Members Healy, Maguire, O'Brien,
16 Torliatt; Mayor°Thompson
17 Noes: Council Membet Moynihan
18 Absent: None
19
20
21 *****
22
23 NEW BUSINESS
24 .
25 TRANSIT~.SYSTEM AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL TRACKING:.
26 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING: TRANSIT .SYSTEM
27 - . _
28 Discussion -,and Possible Direction Regarding Transit System: and' Alternative
29 Fuel Tracking. Overview° of~ Exi'sting Transit System and Discussion of
30 Alternative Fuels for4Fiature Transit Bus. Rurchases.
31
32 Director of Public;Facilities and Services Rick Sk:ladzien p:coVided information on the
33 City's transit system and veh'ieles and alternative fuel options.
34
35 Council::" Member Torliatt asked. Mr. Skladzien if he was looking for Council diirection.
36 -
37 Mr. Skladzien explained that they were asking for Council :direction regarding
38 pursuit of an alternative fuel track. l# Council' agreed, the City could .begin' applying
39 for grants.
40
41 Council Member Torliatt stated that. she had questions .and concerns:„ regardi'hg
42 alternative: fuels. Shea was interested in looking at biodiesel fuel use for- the City's
43 existing flee_f. She also wanted to-pursue a partnership with the school district so the
44 City could share a fueling station with the schools.
45
46 Council., Member Healy asked for more detail regarding the time frame: fo`r replacing
47 the existing fleet.,
June 1'8, 200.1 vol. - 36, Page 269
1 TRANSIT SYSTEM AND'ALTERN-ATIVE FUEL TRACKING:
2 OVERVIEW OF~EXISTING TRANSIT SYSTEM, continued
3
4 -Mayor Thompson did not. think there was sufficient time at that .night's meeting to
5 discuss the matter.
6
7 *****
8
g ~ RESO,. 2001-1'16 N.C.S.
10 DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS' ON THE LAFFERTY RANCH PROPERTY
11
12 Resolution Authorizing Submission of an Application and Supporting the Sonoma
13 County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District's Acquisition of the
14 Development. Rights o,n the Lafferty Ranch, Property i;n Order to Protect the
15 Land Forever from Development and .Aid 'the City in Covering Expenses Associated
16 with Securing. Access to "the Property and- Opening the. Park Per the City's Plan.
17
18 Council Member Torliatt thought the $250,D00 figure in the staff report seemed low
19 for a lot on Sonoma Mountain.
20
21 Director of General Plan Administration Pamela Tuft clarified that that amount was
22 for the developmenf rights, and did not included the fee title.
23
24 Council Member Torliatt wanted the City to get fair market value for Bevel"opment
25 rights. ~.
26
~:
27 Mayor Thompson explained that the item at thaf night's meeting, dealt "simply with
28 submission of'an application.
29 - .
30 Council Membe;rO'Brien thought the function of the Open Space ,District was to bi.y
31 land that was. iri danger of being developed. Since the City owned: Lafferty, he did
32 .not understand the. point. ~ _ ..
33
34 Mayor Thompson explained that the ..point was that a future City Council might
35 decide to sell Lafferty for funds for the. General ,Fund. If the :City did not hake
36 development rights at that point, the property would be further protected:
3T
38 Council .Member O'Br.i'en agreed, but suggested that since the Open Space :District
39 had a limited amount. "of money for open, space, and there were no development
40 threats on Lafferty at this point, the City should sell fhe development nghts to the
41 Open Space Districf for $1.00. ~ .
42
43 Council Member Maguire clarified that the Open Space District money .came from
44 residents of the county, The. south end of the county had gotten the "short end of
45 the stick"as#ar as open space is concerned. He `saw this opportunity as a
Vol. 36,; Page 270
June 18,'2001
1 RESQ. 2001-116 N:C.S:
2 DEVELOPMENT' RIGHTS ON THE LAFFERTY RANCH PROPERTY, continued
3 - _
4 win/win7.w,in situation for the Open Space District, 'Sonoma County, and the City.
5 This was an opportunity for'the Open Space IJ:istrct to acquire 27.0 acres: of open
6 space. In the City of Sonoma; he explained, the .City Council wanted to sell the
7 hillside property to developers. Lafferty. Ranch, needed fo be permanently safe;: -
8 Thin was the. opportunity to take the community's money;, collected by the Open
9 Space .District, and.;"put it, to good use. He added that it was a "pretty decent chance
1'0 of being a real step forward to opening Lafferty Ranch and it's a good deal' for the.
11 Open Space: Districtt."
1'2
1'3 Council Member O'Brien. thought 'Council could. protect Lafferty without costing the
14 taxpayers anything. If the development rights were. sold 'to thee.-Open 'Space District.
15 for $1.0.0., °the; City could ask,for som, ething in return. "
16
17 Council. Member Maguihe ;thought if was a good `concept, btit pointed out that
1.8 protecting Lafferty was not the same as .opening it.
19
20 Vice Mayor`Caller-Thompsortthought this would give the City"the financial ability to
21 ,move forward.
22 ~ "
23 " .Council.. Member Healy supported the resolution and did not think Council should
24' "waif for sale sign to be put out before .getting the Open Space District involved:'' It
25 was not inconceivable that two. to three years down the line there might be~ a
26 lessening of public support. He thought it appropriate: to submit the application and
27 he hoped the Board of Supervisors would look favorably upon it. Appraisal would
'28have to be done and negotiating begun.
29
30 Council Member. Moynihan thought Council was unanimous on: the goal,, but ,.,had
'31 diffe,rent_perspe`ctives on how. to approach it. He; did, not think" this was the best, way.
32 .This resolution, affer being placed, on afternoon agenda on Friday, might not be a
33 violation of Brown. Act,. but "was" a ""violation of the spirit: of tMe Brown Act::" He
34 described. it as a "stealth resolution;" saying Council often waits for many months for
35 things to appear on an :agenda and this. ;item `"mysteriously appeared:" Next time
:36 <sornething ;like this- should be noticed and published'. He said that .n'o one from the.
37 ~ public"had come. to talk- about `it - :because they didn't know it was on the agenda.
38 He thought if, the resolution was passed,. it meant the :City would go; the Open Space
39: District, ;and "con them into thinking we'll, build four.houses if they` don't' buy the
4.0' easement:"'He believed the City would 1'ook,foolish. He did not think this was a good
41 or appropriate use of public funding„ .arid added that. it would sets very ":.bad
42 precedent. He concluded that. the Staff Report; "says: w,e will take .funds and use fo
43 sue: Peter Pfendler."
44
45 Council Member;Maguire replied.that the City was not going to sue Peter Pfendler.
46
June 18, 2001 Vol. 36, .Page 271
1 RESO.2001-116 N.C.S.
2 DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON THE. LAFFERTY RANCH PROPERTY, continued
3
4 fn a motion introduced by Council Member .Maguire., seconded by Vice Mayor
5 Cader-Thompson, Council voted to adopt .Resolution 2001-116 N.C.S.
6
7 Ayes: -Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson; Council Members Healy, Maguire, Torliatt;
8 'Mayor Thompson
9 Noes: Council Member Moynihan; O'Brien
10 Absent: None
11
12
13 ******
14
15 CLOSED .SESSION. - 6:25. P.M.
16
17 City Attorney Rudnansky announced that Council would adjourn to Closed Session
18 on the following items:
19
20 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION, Subdivision (a) of Government
21 Code §54956.9, Olmstead vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No.
22 223404.
23
24 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6, Unit 8,
25 Department Directors.. Agency Negotiator: Stouder/Beatty
26
28 - ROLL CALL - 7:00 P.M.
29
30 PRESENT: Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson;' Council Members Healy, Maguire,
31 Moynihan, Torliaft; O'Brien; Mayor Thompson
32
33 ABSENT: None
84
35
36 REPORT OUT OF._CLOSED SESSION
37
38 Mayor Thompson announced that there was no reportable action taken in Closed
39 Session.
40
41 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
42
43 At the request of Mayor Thompson, Herb Bundesen led the Pledge of Allegiance.
44
45 MOMENT OF SILENCE
46
47 At the request of Mayor Thompson, a moment of silence was observed.
48
Vol. 36, Page 272 June 18,..2001
1 PUBLIC COMMENT.
2
3 Terence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, ,gave Council copy of letter; and spoke regarding
4 the. Boy Scout`s of America, and the :Jewish Decalogue.
5
6 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive., read a letter #rom !City Manager Stou"";der asking
7 for assistance in support of .obtaining :federal funds for the flood project.. Mr.
8 Cartwright urged all citizens interested in seeing the flood project completed to call
9 City Hall or call him at 763-2883
10
11 Matti Christensen, 1.09 Rocca. Drive, stated. that Council had .heard from. many
12 residents. on the ,impact of development in the, floodplain.:She wanted to add _h_er
13 voice. She :had heard that one justification for such development was that it would
14 help fund street repairs. She couldn't. believe the Cify would advocate floodng.some
15 of the citizens in order to.pay for street repair.:She thought all citizens should join in
16 to pay for street repairs.
17
18 Jill Scatchard, 125 Petaluma Boulevard North, spoke in support of improvement's to
19 the Keller Street Parking Garage.
20
21 ******
22
23 CO:U.IVCIL COMMENT
24
25 None
26
27 ******
28 _
29 PROCLAMATION -
30 RETIRED ANDSENIOR UOLU.NTEfR PROGRAM (RSVP).
31
32 Mayor Thompson read the proclamation declaring ..June 20, 20:01 RSVP
33 Recognition Day. The program consists- ofi more than 100 senior volunteers: The_
34 proclamation was accepted by Sally Sofer; w,ho .thanked Council 'for recognizing, ,
35 senior volanteers, and- added That studies show that seniors who volunteer are
36 happier:
37 ~ -
38 Council Member Torliatt asked how people could become involved with the..
39 program.
40
41 Ms. Sofer Suggested they call the Volunteer Center at 762-0'111.
42
43
44 ******
45
June 18,-2001 Vol. 36, Page 273
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 SETTING VI/ATER RATES AND CHARGES
3
4 Open Public Hearing for Discussion and Possible Action on Setting Water Rates
5 and Charges Pursuant to Chapter 15.16 of the Petaluma Municipal Code and
6 Repealing Resolution No. 00-185 N.C.S.
7
8 Director ofi Water Resources and. Conservation Tom, Hargis explained that this was
9 the first of two public hearings .on proposed water r:,ate increases. The second is
10 scheduled for Monday, June 25. Utility Manager Steve ,Simmons spoke regarding
11 the noticing procedure and responses.. Water rates: increased $3.5 dollars per
12 month in November 2000. That was the. first increase since 1994-95. Water and
13 water pumping i_n its various forms is the biggest consumer of electricity in
14 California. The rate. increase for a typical family would be $6:25 per month;
15 commercial rate increases would be similar.
16
17 Mr. Simmons had received five. or six phone; calls from :citizens with suggestions for
18 improving the way water rates are set. Elderly callers wanted to make.sure we were
19 considering elderly and Jow-income citizens, M'e explained that_the City had atiered-
20 rate sysfern in th'e planning stages. He had .also. received .letters praising the
21 reliability-of~the water system -citizens stated they wished there did not have to be
22 °a rate increase -but understood that. in order to make sure the water system
23 remained reliable, an increase .was necessary:
24
25 Council Member Maguire. asked if there was a way to fast track the tiered rate for
26 elderly and low=income. citizens.
27
28 Mr. Simmons. replied that this would be the first part of the rate system completed.
29
' 30 Council Member Torliatt noted that she had asked SCWA for an accounting of their
31 electrical costs. If their electrical costs had decreased, the~City should .receive some
32 rebate. She wanted Council. or City Management to ask the water agency for this
33 information once again.
34 _
.
35 _
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson agreed.
36
37 PUBLIC COMMENT
38
39 Victor Checha_nover; 2301 Marylyn Circle, congratulated: the Water :Resources and
%~ 40 Cgnservation Department 'on .their ,goal of completing the tiered-rate study by
41 October. He asked what ,proportion of ,the tofal cost of water were electrical costs.
4'2 ~ ~ . . .
43 Mayor Thompson believed a portion of Council Member Torliatt's request
44 encompassed that.
45
46
Vol.. 36, Page 274 June 18; 20Q1
1 PUBLIC: COMMENT; continued
2
3 Mr. Hargis: wanted to 'provide written answers to Council. He would have to break
4 down some. numbers; to answer Mr: Chechanover's questions.
5
6 Council.Member Torliatt explained: that. a portion of the increase in electrical costs.
7 was from SC1NA, but the. City also has pumping costs..
Geoff' Cartwright,; 56 Rocca ;D:rive:, supported those who.had spoken before him: He
noted, that the .Eleventh. Amended Water Agreement included the G~ty helping .to
fund ,an additional. pipe all the way across Sonoma. County, plus the filtration plant
SCWA was now' proposing because '"theyare :fouling up the river." '
14 Vice Mayor C.ader-Thompson statetl. that the previous .week she had -seen a water
15 survey that: included lots of questions about conservation; the pumping station,. and
16 the City ofi Petaluma. She asked anyone who knew who had conducted"the.~survey
17 to pass that information on to her.
18
19 Council Member Healysuggested a separate line item on water bills indicating what,
20 portion of th:e increase was: due' to_ electrical; costs: He had read in' a recent news
21 story that in the City of Santa Rosa, one of the advisory bodies was recommended
22 thaf the City .not move. to tiered rates: Me asked Mc. Simmons. if tiered rates were:
23` consistent with best management practices. _
24
25 Mr. Sammons, replied that: Santa Rosa already uses Tiered rates
26
27 Council Member Healy asked Mrs Simmons to .expand on what he had. said to Mr.
28 Balshaw about thee. bond refinancing issue.
29
30 Mr. Simmons explained that they were 19:90 bonds with a.~rather high interest rate;
31 offset .by an increased
32 enou h move be held i rese,rve requirement: ,The bond eonvenant ,required that
g y _ _ n "reserves so that capital was not "dipped into.'' `
33
34 Council Member Healy concluded that in order to realize the 'long-term savings in
35 interest; this one-;time increase was necessary.
Mr. Simmons agreed.
Alice Strawler, address not given, .said she had moved up to Petaluma 1981 from
Marie. She had experienced. drought in Marie and was instilled withhabits of
conservation. She supported educating the public .on, water waste issues.. She did
.not think it ;fair .for :retirees living i'n small,, modest homes to be .charged.. the same.
water rates as those living in large homes.. Common: sense should prevail..
Mayor Thompson reminded Council that this issue would be continued on June 25.:
June 18, 2001 ~ Vol. 36, Page 275
PUBLIC COMIViENT, continued
2
3 Council Member Moynihan pointed out to Mr. Chechanoyer that what motivated
4 water conservation. habits was increased rates; in fact, that was .probably the most
5 effective conservation measure the City could take. He acknowledged
6 correspondence he had received from constituents on fixed incomes. He would like
7 Council to consider some form of rate relief or shared bill paying. He did not think
8 Council had any choice but to raise water rates.
9
10 The Public Hearing was continued to June 25, 2001.
11
12 ******
13
14 ORDINANCE 2117 N'.G.S.
15 ADOBE CREEK. WEIR AND DIVERSION CHANNEL
16
17 Discussion and Possible Action .Regarding the Introduction of an Ordinance
18 Providing for the :City of Petaluma Special Tax Procedure for the Adobe Creek
19 Weir and Diversion Channel. This Ordinance Vlfould Allow the City to Establish
20 the Mello-Roos Special Tax District That. Will Provide the Funding for On-Going
21 Maintenance and Monitoring of the Weir. and Diversion Channel.
22
23 Community Development Director Mike Moore explained that this was the. next step
24 toward completing the Gross Creek subdivision.
25
26 Council Member Torliatt was Troubled by the possibility of -seff'ing a. precedent for
27 use of this type of financing in the future. She said the .reason she would consider
28 voting for this was to "clean up a mess that lad been created before she] was
29 actually on the Council." 1Nhat she didn't want, she said, wa"s_ for this `to~ be used as
30 a precedent for other projects.
31
32 Council. Member Maguire's understanding Uwas :that Mello-.Roos was the.- vehicle for
33 addressing the deficiencies in the Cross "Creek subdivision that°the current Council
34 inherited.
35
36 Mr. Moore pointed out that page 3 of the ordinance, section A, described "facilities"
37 for which Mello-Roos could be used.
38
39 Council Member Torliatt did not want this to, be as a fiinancng mechanism for
40 building in =the Corona Reach area.
41
42 Vice Mayor Caller=Thompson said. she was the only Council Member who did not
43 vote for this last ~ time. She believes Mello-Roos could be abused. There is the
44 possibility that this could be used for development in the floodplain. She announced
45 she would vote- "no" because of the possibility of abuse..
Vol.:,36, Page 276
:June 18, 2001
1 ORDINAfVCE; 21'17 N.C.S.
2 ADABE CREEK WEIR AND DIVERSI.ON. CHANNEL, continued
3
4 Council Member Healy asked'Mr. Moore if any future Mello-Roos issues would have
5 to come before Council.
6
7 Mr, Moore sad'that was correct.
8
9 Council Member Healy did not regard' it as enabling construction ~in the floodplan.
10 He set he would support the item.
11
12 Council Member O'Brien agreed.
1;'3
14 Council., Member Moynihan saw this as a potential funding vehicle for sidewalk
15 repair,. etc.
16
17 Council, Member Maguire thoughtthis was .the best solution the City. currently had to
18 mitigate the: flood' risk.... He stated that. if Council did not: support this solution, they
19 would. be undoing all the work staff 'had done to ameliorate the shortcomings of he
20 project.
21 °'
22 Counci) Member Torliatt announced she. would, vote against the item because she
23 had not been told that it .could. be, used for .other ,projects in the City, therefore
24 potentially supporfing~floodplain development.
25
26 Council Member .Maguire asked Mr. Moore why the Me_Ilo-Roos could. not be ,.used.
27 for just one project.
28 '
29 Mr. Moore' explained that. counsel's comments; were. t .hat as a charter city, Petalum_ a
30 could apply `'if to. abroad range of projects.
31
32 Vice Ma or ;fader-Thorn son
Y p ~ thought the citizens deserved a real public: hearing so
33 that the could understand what this ordinance could do. This was about just twelve
34 .homes.
35
36 Mr. Moore: said that a, public notice .;appeared in the newspaper describing the
37 ordinance:- Property owners were not noticed.
38 ~ '
39 Vice Mayor C_ader-Thompson .had also thought;it would be only about those, twelve
40 homes, adding that if it could be abused,. it would be abused.,
41
42 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive; said he had no .idea it would cover the, entire
43 community. He thought it"was bad enough. when it only covered twelve homes, but it
44 :was necessary tomitigate damage already done. He did not. agr"ee with :.it as it
45 stood.
46
June 18, 2001 Vol. ~ 36, Page 277
1 ORDINANCE 2117 N.C.S.
2 ADOBE CREEK WEIR AIVD DIVERSION CHANNEL, continued
3
4 Mayor Thompson pointed out that'the problems with this project were generated by
5 the City -not the developer.
6
7 Hank 1=1um, 1721 Stonehenge 1N'ay, lives under the burden .of .Mello Roos. He lies
8 in the smallest house in the development, and will be paying a total of about
9 $30,000 in Mello Roos. If the developer had paid this up front, it would. have added
10 about $5,000 to the price of the house. Instead, Mr. Fluor will be paying six times
11 that amount because of what he viewed as an inefficient system of financing public
12 effort. He encouraged Council to be very cautious with Mello Roos. He saw it as a
13 winner for the developer, and just another cost that the homeowners picked up.
14
15 Council Member Torliatt did not think the citizens. of the community understood what
16 this action could do:. She asked to either-segregate_ the .action so it applied only to
17 the twelve homes, or remove "floodplain"from the reference.
18
19 'Mayor Thompson asked Council Member Torliatt if she would vote `yes" in that
20 case.
21
22 Council. Member Torliatt said, she would vote `yes" if it was only to be used for the
23 twelve homes in Adobe Creek.
24
25 Council Member Maguire compared this situation to the eminent domain issue. The
26 ordinance would get a second reading, so people would have the opportunity to
27 protest if theyliked.
28
29 Council Member Healy asked staff for clarification - Mello=:.Roos requires an
30 affirmative vote. from. a majority of owners 'who would be affected. It would be
31 difficult to, place on existing developments. He .tfougfit citizens ~watchi_ng the
32 meeting on television. might be worried,, and he wanted to reassure them that Mello-
33 Roos could not 'be used. that way.
34 _
35 Mr: Moore confirmed that it could only happen after a process fh;at would require a
36 majority vote of homeowners.
37
38 City Attorney Rud'nansky pointed out that since the developer is the owner._of all
39 twelve homes in this case, the majority issue did not come up.
40
41 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson stated that this was not what was discussed at the
42 original meeting. She thought legal counsel should .have been looking at what
43 Council had been discussing .and was trying to accomplish.. Why did we have to go
44 through this process if it already exists.
45
Vol. 36; Fage:278
..June 1'8, 2001
1 'ORDINANCE'211'7 N.C.,S.
2 ADOBE CREEK WEIR AND DIVERSION C:WANIVEL; continued
3 - .
4 Mr. Moore, replied that it was to be used as a financing mechanism forspecific~pl'an.
5
6 Vice ..Mayor Gallen-Thompson replied that it: was not what the minutes stated... She
7 thought this. seta huge and unacceptable precedent~for property devel.opnnent in he
8 floodplain, "She said -she woultl request the minutes of that meeting. She°asked why
9 Council was considering something this'b.g with no public input. She said she knew
10 "the public ~ .had no' clue, because she] fiad~ no :clue. "
12 Council Member Torliatt 'agreed,, saying she. couldn't believe, what: Council' was
13 being asked to approve, because, like Vice Mayor :Caller-Thompson, she thought
14 they had been talking about only twelve ..homes.
15
16 Mr. Moore reiterated, that the ordinance was about ;a Council' decision to use a
17 financing tool: -
18
20 :efforts IMardeb h dorone throe h' in work n dlwith th oundaries. She appreciated the
' g g g e Clty. However,. these were note
21 the steps to which she'had agreed..
22
23 Council Member Moynihan commended. staff for their. foresight and Mr.: Rud`nansky
24 for h,is .efforts. to move forward. He thanked the developer and his attorney for their
25 patience:
27 Council. Member Healy,stated that at this point the building permits had. been. pulled,
28 ~ and the houses were under construction, if' not complete: Mello-Roos must bye in
29 place by August 1St;.
30 -.
31 M'r. Rudnansky eonfirme'd that:: the agreement stated that if Mello-Roos were not in
32 place, by August 1,, 2001, Mandell; and therefore the buyers of -the twelve: homes,
33 would not have to participate. in the maintenance of'the Adobe wer:and channel:
34
35 I,n a motion made by Council Member Maguire, seconded by Council Membeh
36 Healy;, Council voted to 'i`ntroduce Ordinance 21 f7 N.C.S:
Ayes: Council Members Healy,, Maguire, Moynihan.,, O'Brien Mayor Thornpson-
Noes Vice;Mayor Caller-Thompson, Council Member Torliatt
Absent: None
42
43 r
*.*****
44 RECESS: 8:20 F.M.
45 RECONVENE: 8:30.I'.M.
June 18, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 279
1 APPEAL
2 SALVATION ARIIlIY PETALUNIA CENTER
3
4 Appeal of the April 10, 2001 Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a
5 Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction and Operation of a Variety of
6 Religious Services, `Community Assembly and Social Programs in an R-1-6500
7 Zoning District by the Salvation Army Petaluma Center on Property Located at
8 721 North McDowell Boulevard (APN 007-570-208).
9
10 Betsi Lewitter, Planning Consultant,. gave an overview of the project, the Application
11 of the Salvation :Army, approval, appeal by Scot Steele and Susan Zanotti, and
12 staff's response to the,, arguments of this appeal, as well as arguments put forth in
13 an additional letter from the appellants.
14
15 Council Member Moynihan thought the report was :good., but asked.. why the site had
16 not been rezoned; to PUD, which would have eliminated the need for all the
17 conditions...
18
19 Ms. Lewitter could not answer the question without the zoning ordinance in front of
20 her.
21
22 Council Member IVloynihan asked if she could provide that answer at a later time.
23
24 Ms. Lewitter agreed.
25
26 Council Member Torliatt thought that if it had :been rezoned as 'a PUD,,. the potential
27 would have .been that the neighbors would not have as much public input.
28
29 Ms. Lewitter replied that it would still require public hearing and rezoning.
30
31 PUBLIC COMMENT
32
33 Ray Handyside, 1333 Lombardi Avenue.,. a 36-year resident, explained that his
34 backyard is on Caulfield. What is now Ecumenical Services what proposed as. a "rna
35 and pa quick mart.'' That was defeated. Hethought it was understood at the time
36 that homeowners wanted the neighborhood to remain resitlential, and also that they
37 ~ would receive notice about any similar proposed projects. Although it might appear
38, politically incor.recf or uncharitable, the residents were concerned that if the
39 Salvation Army won approval of the project,, the church would become a large
40 people services center, possibly federally funded. Time was erosive, to restrictions.
41 He could not understand how the Chief of Police could say there. would be no
42 impact to traffic on Caulfield and McDowell. He stated there were many accidents
43 there. Lombardi Avenue had become a short cut to avoid the intersection.
44
45 J.R. Bush, 716 Park Lane, in a letter submitted by Tina Shaw, and delivered to each
Vol. 36, Page 280
June.18,.2001
1 APPEAL
2 SALVATION ARMY PETALUMA. GBNTER, continued
3 r
4 PUBLIC COMMENT, continued
5
6 Council, Member, said he had been in cori~fact.wth Jane Thomson of the Planning
7 Department;. whq told him she would "never get caught up because of the mountain
8 of paper on her desk, because the City has.nof hired a Code Enfo"rcemenf Officer in
9 years." Mr. Bush also wanted to thank. City officia'Is and neighbors 'for their
1.0 involvement.
11
1`2 Elaine Ramirez; 611 West Street, has .been to awo qr three Salvation Army Board
13 Meetings, and believes any organization. is "as good as its board:"'Thee Salvation
14 Army has a eery dedicated, hard-working board. Neighbors. of the project are fearful
15 of what will happen. The board talks about neighbors in very caring way, and has
16 :gone 'way above :and beyond the call ofi duty. Tlie childcare. they are proposing 'is
17 badly .needed in the community. Trying to find childcare for the- evening is very
18 difficult, and no one .else. in ahe community that .does what this organization is
19 proposing fo do. The board will address. any.problems that come up.
Susan Zanotti,, 1420 Sarkesian Drive, representing the East Side Neighborhood.
Alliance,, asked at whaf :point her organization would "get to have a, .conversation
with someone who makes decisions:"
25 Council Member Maguire noted he had m.et with representatives of 'the Salvation
26 Army about the programs ,proposed for the site: A schedule was' included in _
27 'Council's packet, but'i't was not complete.
28
29 Council. Member Torliatt ,asked Ms. Zanotti ;if she had not received clear .answers to
30 her questions regarding the proposed schedule of operations. ' .
31
32 Ms. Zanotti replied that the schedule 'in the packet. was still not accurate.
33
34 Council Member :Healy, regarding condition 1.3, asked for confirmation. that an
35 alternative design configuration would be going back. to the Planning Commission
36 and then to SPARC, at which time there could be further appeal.
Ms. Lewitter replied thaf he was correct. , .
40 Council Member O'Brien explained that he~ had. spoken with Ms. Zanotti :over the
41 w.eekend', and assured her she. would get opportunity to;speak.
42
43 Carol Quon;, 1301; Lombardi A~eriue, has Lived there since 1:974: She said she has
44 often wondered why things were allowed to be built where they were: built, She. 'is
45 100% behind what the Salvation :Army does, but thought. this was the wrong .spot .for
46 it - it should be in' a more open area wifh less traffic. She submitted photographs to
June 18, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 281
1 APPEAL
2 SALVATION ARMY PETALUIVIA CENTER, continued
3
4 PUBLIC COMMENT, continued
5
6 Council of the driveway at the site:
7
8 Kimberly Keller, 741 South McDowell Boulevard, needs evening childcare, which is
9 very difficult to find, and she urged Council to deny the appeal.
10
11 ******
12
13 Vice Mayor Caller-.Thompson asked for clarification on food distribution. She had
14 heard "one Time per month," and wondered if that .:meant each person could come
15 one time per month.
16
17 Captain Hooper, confirmed, and. added that if they find there are certain days when
18 too many people want to come, they will find another way to break it down. They
19 may find a tendency for people to want fo come. on the 15t" and 30t" of each month.
20:
21 Council Member' Maguire asked if the activities plan that had been shared with
22 neighbors was: cornprefiensive.
23
24 Captain Hoover. replied that everything theyplan to do was on that list. It had been
25 updated twice.
26 ~~
27 `Council Member Maguire asked for a description of the security lights.
28
29 .Captain Hoover explained that 20-foot lights were planned for the center of the site.
30 Low-level lights would be used around the perimeter.
31
32 Vice Mayor Caller=Thompson thought Council .needed to discuss truck traffic. on
33 McDowell sooner rather Phan later. Regarding an earlier comment she had heard
34 comparing daycare at. school's and at the Salvation Army, she did no,t believe
' 35 schools had daycare for children ages 0-5, and school daycare ends at 6:00 `P.M.. It'
36' was not,a,vald comparison.
37
38 Council Member O'Brien asked Captain Hoover if the daycare facility .was open until
39 10:00 P.M,,,_wh"at time the center would be completely closed..
40 '
_ ..
41 Captain Hoover explained that they would strive to 6e out, by a couple. of minutes
42 after 10:00 P.M.
43' -
4`4 Council Member O'Brien asked what would happen if a parent had not arrived to
45 pick up a child by 10.:.00 P.M.
vol. 36, Page:282 June 1:8;.2001
1 APPEAL
2SALVATION ARIVIV PETALUMA CENTER, eontinueal
3
4 Captain .Hooves noted that as part of'thei'r Site Operations Plan, the child would be
5 taken to the socialaervices area in the front of the center and would meet'his or'her
6 parent there.
7
8 Council Member O'Brien asked if the roll-up door cou_Id be made electrical.
9
10 Captain Hoover replied that it could.
11
12
1:3 Council Memb,es O'Brien asked about ahe~ plan to choose: the two neighborhood
14 representatives.
15
16 Captain Hoofer stated that they had already been appointed. Ms. Zanotti was one;
17 he did not know the :name of the ofher representative.
18
19 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson.. asked :about the possibility of :moving: the building
20 farther.back .o,n the site; and placing the "tot lot'' at the front, or at the south erid .of .
21 ~ the property; She wondered if the :neighbors would be happier with that
22 arcangemenf.
23 ~ `
24 Captain Hoover said that she would have to consult with childcare 'lieerising .
25 authorities, b.ut he thought it soundell reas_ onable
26
27 Vice Mayor Caller=Thompson. asked Captain Hoover if there would 'be ;forty children -.
28 in the evening daycare:
29 _
30 Captain Hoover confirmed this.
31
32 Vice Mayor. Caller-Thompson asked during. which hours there would be forty
33 children.
34 1 -
35 Captain Hoover clarified that: there.. would be approxi.rnately forty between. fhe hours
36 of 3:00 P.M:.antl 6:00 P~'.M,; the number would start; to dwindle around 6:.0.0 P.IVJ. or
37 '7.:00 P'.M.
38
39 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson ,noted', that: residents on Sarkesian Drive were
40 concerned about potential' 'traffic.:. She thought parents. corning to and from the
41 . cenfer shou d be told they should. not ..use Sarkesian. if there were a problem down
42 the line, some kind of'trafficealming would be required on.Sarkesian..
43 '
44 Captain Hoofer thought it reasonable ao tell.: parents: that they would: be denied'
45 services if they were caught using S'arkesian Drive. ~ ~ `
46
June 18,'20Q1 Vol. 36, Page 283
1 APPEAL
2 SALVATION ARMY PETALUMA CENTER, continued
3
4 Council Member Torliatt asked someone to show her exactly where the soundwall
5 was located.
6
7 Wayne Miller of Lieb and Miller pointed out the soundwall.
8
9 Council Member Torliatt asked. for clarification -was no soundwall proposed along
10 'the edge of the Ecumenical Projects property?
11
12 Mr. Miller replied that all fencing was under evaluation.
13
14 Council Member Torliatt, expressing concern. about:. the proximity of the driveway to
15 the intersection of Caulfied and South McDow. ell, compared it to the area on
16 Lakeville Highway after McDonald's where reduced-size driveways into the
17 Gateway Shopping Center had been installed in an effort to calm traffic. She said it
18 had caused bigger problems.
19
20 Mr. Miller explained that his firm had looked' at a number of different circulation
21 patterns, and the pros and cons of each. ;UVhat .evolved was in response to a
22 number of different constraints..
23
24 Council Member Torliatt understood but was also concerned about traffic from
25 McDowell. The driveway was very close to the intersection.
26 __
27 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson had talked with Captain Hoover today and walked
28 around the neighborhood.. The soundwall had,been erected because of the existing
29 church building. The wood fence would remain because residents didn't want it
30 changed.
31
32 Mr. Miller noted that. his firm's idea was to develop a mix of fence designs. to deal
33 with issues such as protecting tree roots.
34 ~ _ . r _
35 Vice Mayor Cade:r-Thompson referred again to~ her concern. with the location of th`e
36 driveway; and suggested using only one entrance for_~delivery and .pick-up of
37 children. ,.
38
39 Mr. Miller agreed.
40
41 Vice Mayor Caller=Thompson asked if the placement of the building and tot lot could
42 be reversed.
43 ..
44 Mr. Miller replied That the actual configuration of the building would have to be
45 changed, but it cou'Id be ,done.
Vol. 36, Page 284
June 18, 2001
1 ~4PPEAL
2 SALVATION ARMY PETALUMA CENTER, -.continued
3 -
4 Council Member Healy asked Mr. Miller what his firm platined to submit to ,the
5 Planking Commission regarding condition 13.
6
7 Mr. Miller explained that once they knew the ,outcome. of.tonig""ht's meeting, they
8 would be prepared to submit alternate designs withi'h a couple. of weeks:.
9
10 Council Memb
11 when introducier Healy thought it extremely important to avoid unnecessary impacts
ng a project offhis sort into a residential neighborhood.
12
13 Council Member Torliatt asked about the .timeline for construction.
14
15 Mr. Miller replied that the first phase would be the infrastructure. lndivdu:al buildings;
7 6 would f_ollow,. It would depend on available capital funding. If all the construction.
17 were. done at once:, it would take less than a year:
18
19 Councif Mernbe:r Torliaft said that- as a neighbor she would. want some idea how
20 long construction. would take.: Sh'e' 'agreed that infrastructure improvements ..needed
21 to be cornpleted.~prior to buildings.... She also wanted to see a review afier six or
22 twelve months by the Planning Commission. for status .and to. get a completion, date.
23
24 Captain Hoover said that.. by the end of the: year they would have completed the
25 feasibility study and would be able to give them a firm. completion date.
27 Council Member Torliaft asked about a camper parked at the site. .
28 . .
29 Captain Hoover.assured'her thaf it,would be mo~ed~by the end of summer.
30
31 Council Member°Torliaft asked Mr. Moore about. the Community Development
32 Department's- lack: of a Code E=nforcement; Offices.
nn * '
Mr. Moore replied that: theCity did not. have a position entitled Code `Enfo_rcement
Officer. Jane Thomson does many.of the zon'irig abatements fo.r the City, but: a
variety of, staff are working on different prole'cts, The department tries to get to
abatements ASAP. The department lost three positions h this `budget year:, which..
has resultetl• in some delay in their- ability to deal with code enforce.menf issues.
During the `oast year, Ms': Thomson has ..been able to clean up over 1.00 abatement-
.issues. Some .take snore time than others.
42 Council .Member Torliaff: asked how the neighbors would know that the, Salvation
43 Army was following up on ~tfe 97.co.nditi:ons .of the approval:
44
45 Mr. Moore replied that: the City. doesn't "have the .luxury of'sorrieone out cruising
46 sfreets (looking for violations]." If there were problems, he added:, they.hear from
June 18, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 285.
1 _ APPEAL
2 SALVATION ARMY PETALUIVIA CENTER, continued
3
4 the neighbors. He pointed out that the Planning Commission always has the
5 opportunity to call back a Conditional Use Permit.
6
7 Council .Member Moynihan thanked Captain Hoover, the Salvation .Army Board and
8 the neighbors who made. an .effort to participate. He did not recall seeing as .many
9 community meetings about a' project as he -had seen. for this one. He commended
10 the groups for working together toward better project. He thought meeting the 97
11 conditions. of the :approval was an onerous task,. and he commended the Salvation
12 Army's courage in doing this and working with the neighbors.
13
14 Council .Member Maguire thought the key to successful management of the project
15 was oversight. He suggested the approval have a year's probation. It should be
16 looked at again after a year to see how things are going. He noted thaf the
17 Salvation .Army did make considerable improvements to its. last location. Suitable
18 site's are very hard to find. He concluded that, "hVe all carry the burden of living in a
19 civilized society."
20
21 Council Member Maguire then moved to deny the appeal. Council Member
22 Moynihan seconded the motion.
23
24 Council Member Torliatt asked for confirmation that Council Member Maguire. was
25 moving to deny the appeal., but was including a review in twelve months.
26
27 Council Member Maguire replied. that he was..
28
29 Council Member Healy clarified that in twelve .months it should be brought. back to
30 the Planning Commission, not to Council. He pointed out; that the Salvation Army
31 has every incentive to be a good neighbor,, because. it is a Conditional Use Permit =
32 which can and do get revoked. Regarding the extended childcare hours and the
33 concern about outside noise, he did not believe the outdoor playground would be in
34 use during the.entire time the daycare was open.
35
36 Captain Hoover confirmed that the outdoor playground would be used from 9:.00
37 A.M: and 6 P,.M. during winter months, and until 8:00 P.M. in the summer,:
38
39 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson was concerned with.. the first driveway -saying it
40 "comes up on you very quickly." She thought the second driveway should be used
41 as the primary driveway for those arriving from the south.
42
43 In a motion made. by Council Member Maguire and, 'seconded by Moynihan, Council
44 voted to deny the appeal of the Conditional Use Permit, and stipulated that: the
45 project come before the Planning. Commission for review in twelve months' time.
VoL 36, Page 286: June t8, -2001
1 APPE'~4L
2 SALVATION ARMY P,ETALU,MA CENTER, continued
3
4
5 Ayes: Vice Mayor Caller=Thompson;.Council Members Healy, Maguire, Moynihan;
6 O'Srien, Torliatt Mayor Thompson
7 Noes.:: .None
8 Absent: None
9
10 ADJOURN
11
12 The meeting was ad~ournedat 1:0:00' P.M:
13
14
15 ~°~~
16 ~ ~ E. Clark Thompson! Mayor
17
18 ATTEST:.
19 ,~, QQ~
20 ~ ~~i~ ~ ~C/~;
21 Claire Cooper,, Clerk Pro item
22
23
24
25-
26
27
28
29 ******