HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 07/09/20011
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
July 9, 2001
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
Vol. 36, Page 303
Monday, July 9, 2001
Council Chambers
The Petaluma City Council met at 6:00 P.M. on this date in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Vice-'Mayor Caller-Thompson (via teleconference), Council Members
Healy:, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien,'Torliaft; Mayor Thompson
ABSENT: None
COUNCIL COMMENT
Council Member Moynihan objected to Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson participating in the
meeting via teleconference and thought it was in violation of the City Charter, as Council.
had not discussed it prior to the meeting.
Council Member Maguire replied that nothing in the Charter or Council's rules precluded
such teleconferencing. It was properly noticed and legal.
Council Member Torliatt noted that members of Santa Rosa's City Council have
participated in meetings wia teleconference on a regular basis.
Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson explained that the meeting, was posted meeting 72 :hours >
in advance at the post ofifce and at 264 Oakridge, Redway, California.
Council Member O'Brien was concerned. with the precedent this set. He would have
preferred to have discussed this in advance.
Council-.Member Torliatt clarified ,that the majority ofi .the Council Members must be
present in the Council Chambers in order for a Council Member to teleconference.
Mayor Thompson suggested that since Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson was having
difficulty hearing what was being said, the issue might be moot. He thought she might
be able to hear when Council was in Closed Session.
Council Member Moynihan stated again. that he objected to Vice Mayor Caller
Thompson's participation,. via teleconference as a breach of charter -and he asked this
to be noted for the record. He asked City Attorney Rich Rudnansky for an interpretation.
Vol. 36, Page 304
July'9, 2001
1 Mr. Rudnansky explained that, the situation was covered. under state law; in the :Brown
2.Act, Such teleconferencing is legal. If Council wanted to discuss whether
3 teleconferencing should 6e allowed., they can do so at a later date. He n_ oted that the
4 practice of teleconferencing is common ~in cities throughout the state.
5
6 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson ..remind Council that they had agreed that tonight's
7 meeting was to be a one issue meeting -the Russian River Gravel Mining. The Closed
8' Sessions were' added later.
9
.10 Council Member Healy asked. City Management to work with the speaker system while
11 Council was in :Closed Session to make it .possible for Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson to
T2 hear what was being said. during the evening session.
13
14 Council Member Moynihan reiterated his objection:.
15
16 Mayor Thompson that. his objection had been noted.
17
18 Mayor Thompson introduced Dennis Morris, the new Director of Human Resources.
19
20 Mr. Morris stated that he was glad to be in this beautiful, historic city, ..and. was looking
21 ~#oruvard to working with Council in ;the future.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
CLOSED SESSION
29 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky announced that Council would adjourn to closed session
30 on the followng~ matters:
31 ~.
32 CONFERENCE'WITH LEGAL C,OUNSEL,- Exisfin~g Litigation, Subdivision (a) of Government Code
33 §54956.9, Thompson, et al vs., City of Petaluma; Sonoma County Supecior'Court Case No.
34 225677.
35
36 CONFERENCE WITH. LEGAL COl1NSEL =Existing Litigation, Subdivision (a) of Government Code
37 §54956:9, Kimberly vs: City of Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No: 225543.
38
39 CONFERENCE wTH LEGAL COUNSEL -Existing Litigation,. Subdivision.; (a) of Government Code
40 §54956:9; Pike vs: City of Petaluma;, Sonoma County-Superior Court`Case No..226388.
41
42 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -Existing: Litigation, Subdivision (a) of Governrnenf Code
43 §54956:9., Loeffler vs: City of Petaluma, U.S. District Court; Northern pisfrct of California, Court
44 Case No. C01-0395 PJH.
45 . ,
46 CONFERENCE WIl'H LEGAL CQUNSEL -Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to' Litigation
47 Pursuant to Subdivision 9,(b) of§54956.9:' (1 matter)
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15-
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
July~9, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 305
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of
Section 54956.9 (One Potential Case).
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR, Government Code §54957, Public Employee
Appointment. Title: City Clerk.
CONFERENCE WIT.H.LABORNEGOTIATOR, Government Code §54957.6. Employee: Clty
Clerk Position.. City Representative:. Mayor
ADJOURN
Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6~1i5 P.M.
RECONVENE
The Fefaluma City Council reconvened its special meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the Courieil .
Chambers.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:.. Vice: Mayor Cader-Thompson (via teleconference).;. Council Members
Healy; Maguire; Moynihan, -O'Brien, Torliatt; Mayor Thompson
ABSENT: None
PLEDGE OF_ALLEGIANCE
At the request ~of Mayor Thompson, O.nita ~Pellegrini, =Petaluma- Area Chamber of
Commerce; led the Pledge of,Allegiance.
MOMENT OF SILENCE
At the request of Mayor Thompson; a moment of silence was observed.
_ REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Rich Rudnansky reported that. Council had authorized the City Attorney's
Office to initiate Litigation, if necessary,, on one of the matters :discussed in Closed
Session. Should Litigation be initiated; the name(s);~of the litigant(s) wilt be provided on
request.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Onita Rellegrini, Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce., read a letter from the Chamber
Board of Directors asking Council to prepare a ballot. measure aimed at raising monies
necessary to fund a major street rebuilding ,program. They also suggested that ~Couneil
move swiftly to commission a voter survey to gauge voter sentiment on the street repair
Vol. 36,;Page 306'
July 9; 2001.
1 issue and. determine show much. Pe.taluma's voters. mighf be willing to pay to have their
2 streets fixed. In fVovato, such a survey was a vital first step in getting a successful .ballot
3 measure formulated and approved.
4 .
5 COUNCIL COMMENT
6
7 Council Member Torliatf:
8
9 Thanked. Ms~._ Pellegrini and -said she! was ,happy to :know that the Chamber of.
10 Comrr;eree supported dealing with existing road conditions..
11 ® Noted that the City received grant from the,, Metropolitan Transportation Corrimisson
12 (MTC)'to complete an assessment of; road conditions Aso prioritization sari begin;.
1`3 s Announced that the: County of Alameda, has installed.. rooftop solar panels on County
14 buildings. and reduced power consumption by 20 %o.. She added that sfae hoped.
15 Petaluma's Council moved forward with sw.ifching to renewable resou"rces, wherever
16 possible,:
17
18 Vice Mayor Caller=Thompson:
19 `
20 Regarding agenda item 2, 'Russian River Gravel Mining, she. wanted Council fo jon.
21 with other city councils and deal with-the issue on a regional manner: She suppo.rted~
22 sending a letter 'to the Sonoma County .Board. of 'Supemiisors opposing, Shamrock.
23 Material's; use `permit, "until Council has held workshops- and gathered' more.
24 .,information on the subject.'''
25
26 Vice ,Mayor Caller=Thompson hung up 7:10 p.m.
27 - •~
28 Council Member Moynihan:`
29 _ ,
30 ® Attended a Sonoma. County Transporfa~tion Authority (S;C- TA) meeting where. h: e
31 learned: that Caltr.:aris was .going forward with an Environmental fmpacf Report (ELR)
32 on the proposed southbound -auxiliary lane, between Washington Street and
33' Lakeville Highway. Construction of the project is slated to start i'n 2004;...
34 ~® Announced 'that a Marin/Sonoma Narrows scopng session will. take .place- in 'Novafo
35 on August 1 at the Margaret. ToddCenter..-:A second. session is scheduled for.:August
36 22 of the Petaluma Community Center: These sessions are for review of the
37 environmental'. outlines of the ,Novato project. 'He added that this project :originally
38 included money to conduct a; crosstown connector study in Petaluma; but that `item
39 was removed due to the confentiqusness of'Counc'il' regarding. the matter.
40: ® Stated ,yet again that based on: Section 39 of Petaluma's City Charter,. he~ objected'to
41 any Council. Member voting Eby phone, etc.; until Council has discussed and; set
42 policy f.or situations such as this.
43
44
45
46
July 9, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 307
1 Council Member Torliatt:
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
Attended a. Water Advisory Committee Meeting. She explained she had asked the
Sonoma :County Water Agency (SCWA) for a status report on the implementation of
Amendment 11, -and: has .not received it. She would like Council to ask the water
agency for a written.stafus report. SC1NA Director Randy Poole was at the meeting
and announced that the agency is moving forward with the EIR for the aqueduct.
® Noted that. SCWA has said that because. of the age of the Ely Booster Station back-
up generator, if there were a malfunction, it could take up to 45 days to obtain parts.
She wanted SCWA to provide a timeline and bud'getfor upgrade of that entire facility
- as the aqueduct is dependent on it.
® Announced that. a public input session for the "New Master Agreement" would be
held on September'13 at 7:00 P.M., location'to be determined. She added that those
on the "water summit list" would be notified of this meeting as well.
Council Member Moynihan:
• Voiced, his chagrin that Council voted against adding $6.6 million to the street
resurfacing budget.
• Regarding the Chamber of Commerce's request that the City conduct a voter survey
to determine .how much Petaluma. residents might be willing to pay to have their
streets. repaired, he wanted City Management to provide an estimate of the cost of
such a survey; so Council could evaluate its worth.
Council Member Healy:
• Noted -that the nature of some issues raised tonight underscored the need for
Council to complete their goal setting: He was willing to dedicate a weekend day to
this within the next,.2 to 3' weeks.
Council Member Maguire agreed..
Mayor Thompson;
® Asked City Manager Sto,uder to ask his staff to arrange a date for this.
® Asked to have tfe Chamber of Commerce's request regarding a street repair voter
poll and ballot measure placed on a Council agenda.
City Manager Fred Stouder agreed.
AGENDA CHANGES, AD®4TIONS, AN® DELETIONS
None
Vol. 36~ Page 308
July 9,.200.1
1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2
3 1. Discussion antl Possible Action to ,Adopt a Resolution. of .Intent to Hold a Public
4 Hearing and Adopt ~a Me to-Roos Special Tax D.istricf for the. Twelve- Remaining
5 Homes in the Cross: Creek Subdivision for Maintenance and Monitoring of the
6 Adobe Creek Weir and ;Diversion Channel. Public Hearing To Be Set for
7 Thursday, August 9, 2001, 7:00 PM. (Moore)
8
9 Community Development, Director Mike Moore noted that at the June 25, 2001
10 Council° ;Meefing, he was directed 'to refurn to Council with a resolution to
11 establish a Mello-Roos tax district for the twelve remaining homes. in the Cross
12 Creek. subdivision..Accordi'ngly, Council had before 'them tonight the resolution of
13 intent to establish the district,. with an attachment specifying the. basic
14 procedures, amount of taxes, and method to be used to compute future.
15 increases.. The. public hearing has been set.. for Thursday, August 9, in
16 compliance with the legal requirement that it be .held in thirty days. This :also
17 allows time. for the paperwork to be sent to the County' Tax Collector's Office so
18 that the assessment can appear on the tax roles for this year.
19
20 Council Member Healy asked if the August 9 .public hearing date will allow the
21 City to meet Mardell's deadline. ~ ~ ~ .
22
23 Mr. Moore replied that Mardell had agreed to change the,~deadline to August 15'..
24
25 PUBLIC-. COMMENT ~ ~ .
26
27 None ~ .
28 ..
29 MOTION: Council Member Moynihan moved, seconded by Maguire:,.. to
30 adopt Resolution 2001-128 N.;C:S., Intent- to Hold; ~a: Public
3.1 Hearing and Adopt aMello-Roos Special Tax;. District; for the
32 Twelve Remaining Homes in -the .Cross: Cr,.eek Subdivision for
33 Maintenance and Monitoring of the Adobe Creek 1Neir and
34 Diversion Channel.
35
36 MOTION ~ _
37 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Caller-Thompsonabsent) , ,
38
39
40 2. Russian River Gravel ,Mining,::
41. a, Discussion Regarding Effects of Continued, Russian River Gravel Mining
42 on Russian Riper, Aquifer and Petaluma' U1/Fater Supply.
43 b. Possible Leffer to Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Regarding
44 Appeal of Shamrock Materials, Inc. Use Permit for Continued"Gravel Bar
45 Skimming.
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
July 9,.2001
Vol. 36, Page 309
c. Possible Direction to City Managernent Regarding Ordinance Prohibiting
Use of Russian River Aggregates 1Nithin the 'Petaluma City Limits.
(Continued From June 18, 2001 Meeting)
Council Member Torliatt asked for clarification of what Council was to discuss.
She noted she did not receive a copy of the proposed ordinance in her packet.
Mayor Thompson explained that Council was to discuss and hear public input
regarding continued gravel mining in Russian: River, its effect on aquifer and on
water supply.
Council, Member Torliatt asked if Council would be taking any action at this
meefirg.
Mayor Thompson replied that it was possible.
Council Member Torliatt asked. on what matter Council might take action. She
had gathered .information on the subject matter herself, but thought all Council
Members .should be similarly informed.
Council. Member- Healy thought. Council had two matters to discuss at tonight's
meeting: should a letter be_ sent to "the: ,Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
taking. a position on continued gravel mining. in the Russian River, and did'
Council want fo give direction to City Management to draft an ordinance banning
use of Russian River aggregate within th'e City limits?
CounciC Member Moynihan agreed, with Council. Member Torliatt that Council did
not have sufficient information to give direction.. or take action. on the subject. We
thought the purpose of tonight's meeting was discussion only.
Council Member Torliatt. asked if Council Members would be discussing items on
Director of Water Resources and Conservation Tom Hargis' February 21, 2001,
memo; which was included as: part- of.aonight'-s packet. She thought Council.
needed. to determine in which areas they needed more information, and. what
their objective was.
Mayor Thompson thought Council needed to hear input from the public.
Council. Member Maguire clarified that Council needed to hear input from the
public and to share their own thoughts. He noted for record that he and other
Council .Members met with representatives: from Shamrock Materials. He added
that his company did .business with Shamrock„ but he had been advised by the
City Manager that he did not have a conflict of interest on-agenda item 2b.
City Attorney Rich. Rudnansky noted that he was ouf of town, but he understood
that Council Member Maguire spoke with others at Meyers, Nave., Riback, Silver
V.ol.'36; Page 31.0 July 9,2001
& Wilson; Attorneys. at Law, and- was assured there was no conflict; 'of interest
issue.
Council Member'Tor,liatt announced that she was not a part of discussions with
Syar Industries or Shamrock Materials.
Mayor Thompson explained. that he. and. Council Member Healy had participated..
PUB'LLC` COMMENT
The following individuals spoke in. opposition to .continued .gravel mining in the
Russian. River; and/or in favor of a ban on use of Russian_ Rider aggregates
within the Petaluma city limits:
Representing Fetaluma.Tornortaw:
® Ray Peterson, 636 Gossage Avenue
® Tom Vasgird, 1937 Clydesdale Wa_y
• Stan Gold,, address not given
• Scott Vouri, 1557 Mauro Pietro Drive
a ._ Bill Phillips-, 824 Bfossom Court
• Hank Flum, 1721 Stonehenge V1Gay.
• Connie, Madden, 2:151Nater Street.
• Wayne Morgenthaler, 2151Nater Street
o Elaine Woods, 717 North McDowell Boulevard'
Representing Advocates for Equality:
• Beth Gnmes, T629 Saint Anne Way
Representing 'Trout Unlimited:
• Brian Hines, 1,.468 funston Drive; Santa Rosa
Representing Friends of the Eel River..
• DavidKeller, l Street
On~ his own behalf:
• .Fred Euphrat, 1.810 (Nest Dry Creek Road, Healdsb,urg
The following ihdividuals ;spoke in support. of ;gravel mining i"n the. Russian River,
andLor in; opposition to a ban on use of Russian River aggregates within the
Petalumacity limits:
Representing Syar Industries Napa:
July 9, 2001
Vol. 36; Page 311
1
2 • Ralph Locke, Napa
3
4 Representing Hansen Aggregates:
5
6 • Nick Tibbits, Santa Rosa
7
8 On their own behalf:
9
10 Steve Genet', 22 Benjamin Lane
11 • Nick Rado, Rohnert Park
12
13 The following individual spoke from a neutral position regarding the matter:
14
15 Representing. Tell the Truth:
16
17 • Jo Tensa, 311 Alton. Court, Windsor
18 -
19 END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
20
21 Council Member .Moynihan noted that there was an overwhelming amount of
22 information on the subject and. Council .is currently not prepared to make any
23 decisions. He reiterated the .importance of Council's goal-setting process. Ne was
24 not in favor of Council becoming .involved ~in th'is issue, saying they would be
25 "second guessing the Board of Supervisors and Sonoma County Water Agency."
26 Instead, he thought Council should be focusing on and putting the City's
27 resources toward issues such as street repair.,. He thought a ban on Russian
28 River aggregates ih the City limits would .have a huge economic impact.
29
30 Council Member .Maguire stated. that Council. was, "often in.;the hot seat of trying
31 to balance competing interests:" There was a great deal of information on the
32 subject: that Council had not reviewed. bf he were :presented with conclusive
33 evidence that mining was damaging aquifer, he would be comfortable with the
34 City setting an example by not buying Russian River aggregate: for use on its
35 own projects.
36
37 Council Member Healy had read, "everything he could get .his hands on" on the
38 subject, and. gleaned from his reading was that the river "needs to be managed."
39 It seemed to him that the river was not being "given a~ chance to heal itself." If.he
40 had to decide tonight to ban use of Russian River aggregate within the City limits,
41 he would be inclined to sapport it. He would prefer to "band with, other cities" on
42 the issue. The matter could also be raised in future discussions on the new
43 Master Water Agreement. He pointed out that #here were certain vested: mining;
44 rights that upercede the County's Aggregate Resource :Managernenf (ARM)
45 plan,~so the Board of Supervisors cannot enforce the ARM in those cases.
46
Vol. 36; Page 31,2.
July 9.,.20.01
1 Council Member Torliaft stated that Council had .gone :through. a huge education
2 process with Amendment 11 last gear. She did not think. most. people realized
3 how many cities in Sonoma, and Marie receive water from the Russian .Rives.
4 Council, was an elected body representing' :the ratepayers.; and the ratepayers
5 should .be given an :opportunity, to weigh 'in. on this subject, During the
6 Amendrrment 11 process; Council learned the importance of having a 1Natershed.
7 Management Plan. She wanted .the public to understand where, their water came
8 from, and what was at stake in the watershed:
9
10 She pointed out that gravel mining was only one of the important issues
11 concerning water. All mining near the: river has. effects on the river unless there
12 are appropriate mitigations. She thought the: goal of. the: ARM was to stop gravel
13 mining in the river. ,Shamrock Materials' permit: was not supported by the ARM:
14 She thought "Council needed fo take a p"osition. She thought it unfortunafe that
15 SCV1/A was not .:asking contractors, how theywanted to deal with. this::. The
16 contractors had to `dry to pull :info out of SC-U1/A to find out what's going on."
17 When she attended "the W_'ater Advisory Board meetings,. it was very difficult: to
18 get .any clear and concise information. She believed the County Board of
19 Supervisors needed to engage the ratepayers in discussion.
20
21 Mayor Thompson thought that Council needed more information on, agenda
22 ~ifems 2a, and 2c: If he had hard evidence that the aquifer was being destroyed by
23 ~ -~continued gravel reining, he was willing vote to~ .ban use of Russian 'River
24 ~ aggregates within the city limits. He asked the other Council Members if they
25 °~ wanted to work "through the Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association to band
26 .with other.city councils on this subject.
27
28 ~ Council Member Healy noted that there: was a Mayors' and Councilmembers'
29 meeting on Thursday;: July 12. Council Members attending could raise ahe issue
30' there and see if :other.,cities' council..members were interested: He suggested the
31 City host a-.weekend:'workshop where-both opponents and proponent's of gravel
32 mining and/or a ban on the use: of Russian River aggregates in Petaluma could
33 present. information supporting 'their positions. He also suggested asking City
34 Management to develop ~afrst draft of an ordinance banning such. aggregate use
~35 'and determine what findings on public safety or 'environmental issues would be
36 needed.
37
38 Council Member' O'_Brien had, heard' many valid points "brought up fore:discussion.
39 ~ He viewed this as an o~erreach'ing of City government. He was concerned about:
40 the potential economic`impacts of banning aggregate use, particularly with, regard
41 . ~ ~to the much_needed repair #o Fetaluma's streets. He thought it. important to avoid
42 ~~ ~ - ~a NIMBY' (Not I'n My'Backyard) attitude about Russian River aggregates: if it was
43 '~ "nof o,k." to take gravel out of the, Russian Rive"r, it should no : be "o._k." to take
.
44 gravel from any-other rivets in California. He agreed thaf the Russian River does
45 need to be managed. to protect it.
46
July 9, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 313.
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
Council Member Torliatt.. pointed out that if the City of Petaluma alone were to
ban Russian River aggregate. use within they city limits., the financial impacts
would be great, but if other cities in Sonoma and Marin Counties joined Petaluma
in such aban -the financial impacts would be less.
Mayor Thompson will bring up the matter at Thursday's Mayors' and
Councilrnembers' meeting. After that, Council .can decide on a time and place for
a Saturday workshop regarding gravel mining. Regarding the possible letter to
the Sonoma Courity Board of Supervisors, he did not feel he had enough
information to make an assessment or judgment on the issue. He did not want to
"second guess" the Board of Supervisors. He was willing to send them a letter
urging, them to very carefully review all the information available when making a
decision on the Shamrock appeal.
Council Member Moynihan thought such a letter would be poorly received by the
Board of Supervisors,.. and that it would be `politically a very silly thing'' ,for
Council to send a "watered down"`letter.
Council Member Healy suggested including language asking the Board of
Supervisors to "look at the broader issue" as they review the Shamrock appeal.
Council Member Moynihan had confidence in the Board of Supervisors' ability to
reach a good decision.
Council Member Torliatt wanted the letter to include a request that the Board of
Supervisors respond to the issues raised by the members of the County Planning
Commission. voting "no" on Shamrock's application.
Mayor Thompson was not willing to do that.
Council Member Maguire suggested asking instead that a response to those
issues be provided to Council.
Council Member Torliatt agreed, adding that the public should be given that
information.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.m.
E'. Clark Thompson, Mayor
A EST: .
Claire Cooper; Clerk Pro m
******