HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 12/04/2000December 4, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 341
1
2
City of Petaluma, California
3 Minutes of a Regular
4 City Council Meeting
s
6
7 Monday, December 4, 2000
s Council Chambers
9
10
11 The Petaluma City Council met on this date at 2:05 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
12
13 ROLL CALL
14
is PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire;
16 Mayor Thompson; Vice Mayor Torliatt
17
is ABSENT: None
19
20 PUBLIC COMMENTS
21
22
23 None
24 CLOSED SESSION
2s
26 Mayor Clark Thompson announced the following items to be addressed in Closed
27 Session:
2s
29 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS: City Designated Representative: City
3o Attorney Richard Rudnansky; Employee: City Manager, Government Code §54957.6
31
32 (,4dded) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, Pursuant to
33 Government Code §54957. Discussion of City Clerk Evaluation.
34
3s Council Member Keller excused himself and rejoined the Council in Closed Session at:
36 2:20 p.m.
37
3s ADJOURN
39
4o Closed Session adjourned at 3:00 P.M.
41
42 RECONVENE
43
44 The Council reconvened its .regular meeting at 3:00 P.M. immediately following the
4s meeting of the Petaluma Public Financing Corporation meeting.
46
Vol. 35, Page 342
December 4, 2000
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION:
2
3 Mayor Thompson noted that no reportable action was taken on items addressed in
4 Closed Session.
s
6 ROLL CALL
7
s PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson (3:20 P.M.), Hamilton, Healy, Keller,
9 Maguire; Mayor Thompson; Vice Mayor Torliatt
to
11 ABSENT: None
12
13 PUBLIC COMMENTS
14
is John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive, asked the Council if Mr. Zentner was doing the
16 Environmental Impact Report on the Factory Outlet for vernal pools.
17
is Council Member Keller replied that Mr. Zentner was hired by the City to monitor
19 compliance by Chelsea GCA for the environmental litigation for the loss of wetlands on
20 that site, and as the environmental consultant for the City on the Cross Creek
21 Subdivision to monitor compliance.
22
23 COUNCIL COMMENTS
24
2s Council Member Keller stated that he was informed by City Attorney Rich Rudnansky
26 that the Council must decide if Mr. Zentner's contract should be continued. He asked
27 that this be put on the agenda for the December 11, 2000 meeting.
28
29 Council Member Maguire asked Mr. Rudnansky if City agreements contain language to
3o the effect that the consultant may be subject to termination if convicted of violating
31 California law.
32
33 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky replied that they did not.
34
3s Council Member Maguire asked if City agreements would be standardized to contain
36 such .language.
37
3s Mr. Rudnansky replied that he had not seen such wording in typical consulting
39 agreements. Provisions could always be added to contracts.
40
41 Council Member Maguire stated that he would be would like to put that on the agenda.
42
43 Vice Mayor Torliatt agreed.
44
45
46
1
~~
December 4, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 343
1
2 MINUTES
3 MOTION: Council Member Healy moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Torliatt, to
4 approve the minutes of November 13, 2000 as submitted.
s
6 MOTION
~ PASSED: 6/0/1 (Council Member Cader-Thompson had not yet arrived)
g
9 PROCLAMATIONS
to
11 Historic `D' Street Bridge Renovation
12
13 Mayor Thompson read the proclamation, which thanked Fred Chapman of the
14 Water Resources and Conservation Department, and Mike Evert and Susan Lackie
is of the Public Facilities and Services Department, for their dedication and hard work
16 on the project.
1~
is Mr. Chapman and Mr. Evert thanked the Council. Mr. Evert commented on the
19 cooperative efforts on the part of the Council, the community, and the Public
20 Facilities and Services Department.
21
22 Mayor Thompson presented Susan Lackie with the Employee of the Quarter Award
23 and read the City Manager's letter of congratulations.
24
2s AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
26
2~ None
2s
2~ CONSENT CALENDAR
30
31 2. Resolution 00-204 N.C.S. Accepting Resignation of Mike O'Brien from the
32 Personnel Board. (Kline)
33
34 3. Resolution 00-205 N.C.S. Approving Contract for City Manager. (Stouder)
35
36 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky requested a revision to Agreement for the
37 Appointment of City Manager, to. indicate that "written" notice is to be given 45-60
38 days before the extension date.
39 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Hamilton, to
4o approve Items 2 and 3.
41
42 MOTION
43 PASSED: 6/0/1/ (Council Member Cader-Thompson had not yet arrived)
44
4s 1. Resolution 00-206 N.C.S. Accepting the Completion of the 1998-1999 "On
46 Call" Street Repair Project 9732. The project involved repairing streets at
~1~
Vol. 35, Page 344 December 4, 2000
1 various locations on an "On Call" basis. The Contractor was called in to work
2 whenever street repairs were needed that could not be handled by the City
3 Crews. Final total project cost: $128,859.00; Contractor: North Bay
4 Construction, Inc.; Funding Sources: $47,374.00 in Water Funds; $46,485.00 in
s Gas Taxes and $35,000.00 in Sewer Funds.
6
~ Council Member Keller asked why the contractor did not want to continue the
s contract for the second year.
9
to Mr. Evert replied that they were unable to reach an agreement on the scope of
11 work and on cost issues and noted that the City would go out for a separate bid
12 on a separate contract that would meet everyone's needs.
13
14 Council Member Keller asked Mr. Evert to sum up the difference in needs for the
is two departments.
16
17 Mr. Evert replied that Water Resources and Conservation's needs involved
is primarily repairing water and sewer trenches and Public Facilities and Services'
19 needs included repairing larger street sections, and traffic.
20
21 Council Member Keller clarified that North Bay Construction felt that the set-up
22 time involved in the small repair projects was too long in comparison to the work .
23 time needed.
24
2s Mr. Evert stated that to be correct.
26
27 Council Member Keller commented that he appreciated the existence of the
2s program and would like to see it continue successfully through the second year.
29 He also stated that he would like to discuss extending the warranties on street
3o trenches.
31
32 MOTION: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Torliatt, to Approve
33 Resolution 00-206 N.C.S. Accepting the Completion of the 1998-
34 1999 "On Call" Street Repair Project 9732.
35
36
37 MOTION
3s PASSED: 6/0/1 (fader-Thompson not arrived)
39
40 4. (Removed) Resolution Approving the Final Map for the Premo Subdivision.
41 The Project Would Create Ten Single-Family Residential Lots as Well as an
42 Extension of Wallenberg Lane. The Project is Located on an Easterly Facing
43 Hillside Adjacent to Suncrest Estates Subdivision to the South and Suncrest Hill
44 Estates to the North. Three of Ten Lots Front on Sunnyslope Road.
45 Construction for the Project is Scheduled to Commence Immediately Upon Final
46 Map Approval with an Unknown Completion Date. No Grading Will be Allowed to
1
1
1
~~
December 4, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 345
1 Occur Between October 15th and April 15th. The Estimated Cost of Public
2 Improvements for the Subdivision is $250,624. (Moore/Spaulding)
3
4 6. (Removed) Resolution Adopting Canvass of Election. (Newly Elected Council
s Members are Scheduled to Take the Oath of Office at the January 2, 2001
6 Council Meeting). (Kline)
7
s 6A. (Added) Resolution 00-207 N.C.S. Approving Claims and Bills. (Thomas)
9
to At the request of Council Member Healy, Water Resources and Conservation
11 Director Tom Hargis explained the meaning of penalties described on page 6.
12 They were a series of fines levied on the City of Petaluma Wastewater
13 Treatment Plant for various violations of discharge requirements.
14
is Council Member Healy asked what the time period was in which these fines were
16 accumulated.
17
is Mr. Hargis answered it was over aone-year time period.
19
20 Council Member Healy stated that he was willing to move this forward but he
21 would like to see some of the correspondence.
22
23 Vice Mayor Torliatt stated that Mr. Hargis had provided Council with a copy of the
24 letter explaining this and requesting the fees be dismissed. She also stated
2s concerns regarding other entities within the Sanitation District and other Districts.
26 The standards to which they are being held at the State level are much higher
27 than those for companies that are polluting the Bay, and she feels this is a
2s serious issue.
29
3o Council Member Keller asked Water Resources and Conservation Director Tom
31 Hargis if these fines were a result of activities of City employees or plant
32 employees, and who would pay the fines.
33
34 Mr. Hargis replied that plant employees had incurred the fines, and US Filter
3s would be paying them, but will be discussing if the City should pay any of the
36 fines.
37
3s MOTION: Council Member Healy moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Torliatt to
39 Adopt Resolution 00-207 N.C.S. Approving Claims and Bills.
40
41 MOTION
42 PASSED: 7/0/1 (Council Member Cader-Thompson had not yet arrived)
43
44
45
46
~~
Vol. 35, Page 346 December 4, 2000
1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2
3 5. (Moved) Resolution Adopting the Annual Report on Development Project
a Fees for Fiscal Years 1998/1999 and 1999/2000.
s
6 Finance Director William Thomas provided background information and gave an
~ overview and highlights of the executive summary.
s
9 Vice Mayor Torliatt stated that she did not review the report because she
to understood that it had been moved to a date certain. She requested that it be
11 put on the calendar for December 11, 2000 so the public and any Council
12 Members who had the same misunderstanding would have an opportunity to
13 review the report.
14
15
16
1~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Continued to the December 11, 2000 Council Meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Vince Landof, 12 Cordelia Drive, noted that the $6 million had never been
spent and questioned why it was being included now.
City Manager Fred Stouder replied that the $6 million to which Mr. Landof
referred had to do with the next phase of the project. He offered to meet with Mr.
Landof to discuss the report.
2~ Bryant Moynihan, 102 Dawn Place, stated that the report was incomplete and
27 should be consistent with the other report on the Payran Flood Management
2s Project. He pointed out that as of 1994, the City was required by the State to
29 report these fees, and it had not been done for six years. He thought the City
3o should recreate the past six or seven years and show them correctly, make sure
31 the Developer in lieu fees were properly accounted for, and have a public
32 meeting and allow an open discussion of the figures. He did not think it
33 appropriate for Council Members to adopt the report in its current form. He
34 offered his assistance to recreate the report.
35
36 Charlie Carson, Home Builders Association, referred to the requirements of AB
37 1600; GC 66000-66008, regarding development fees and asked that a more
3s comprehensive report be considered.
39
4o Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, stated that he believed here developers
41 wanted to have the funds put into the PCDC Fund so that they can be used for
42 development projects rather than legitimate redevelopment.
43
44 Finance Director William Thomas, in response to Mr. Moynihan's comments,
4s explained that the Payran Reach Flood Control amount was only $1,134,000, but
Il
1
~~
r
1
1
December 4, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 347
1 showed as $1,680,000 in the report. That figure included the Payran Street
2 Bridge/Lakeville Street Bridge/Railroad Bridges.
3
4 Mayor Thompson asked for an explanation concerning the lack of details in the
s report.
6
~ Mr. Thomas replied that it had been difficult. to get the figures from 1999 projects
a and that moving forward would not be as difficult because these projects were
9 currently being tracked.
to
11 Council Member Healy asked if a more comprehensive report could be made
12 available and if it was necessary to go back to 1994 in order to provide more
13 detail.
14
is Mr. Thomas replied that he would be able to provide numbers, but a percentage
16 breakdown would probably not be possible, as he would be using figures from
1~ previous audits.
1g
19 Mayor Thompson suggested that the item return next Monday, December 11 cn
20 for the Consent Calendar.
21
22 Council Member Keller asked what the consequences were of not going back to
23 1994.
24
2s Mr. Thomas was not aware of any consequences and deferred to City Attorney
26 Rudnansky.
2~
2s City Attorney Rich Rudnansky replied that he was not aware of any direct
29 consequences at this point.
30
31 City Manager Stouder stated that his understanding was that the State reporting
32 requirement, as it was first written, was satisfied with that information being in the
33 Annual CAFRA as opposed to the report that is currently being done.
34
35 Mr. Rudnansky replied that there had been inquiries in the past in that regard.
36
37 City Manager Fred Stouder, regarding the annual reporting requirement, stated
3s that the argument was that it was satisfied through the annual financial
39 statement.
40
41 Council Member Keller noted the importance of understanding the pros and cons
42 of doing the work, the expense involved, and the consequences of not doing it.
43
44 Council Member Maguire inquired of Mr. Thomas if he knew how other cities
4s handled this.
46
~~
Vol. 35, Page 348 December 4, 2000
1 Mr. Thomas replied that it had previously been handled through the City's
2 financial report.
3
4 The Council concurred that the item should return next week.
s
6 7. Regarding Payran Flood Management Project Financing and Budget.
~ Report Regarding Status of Payran Project and Discussion and Possible
s Direction
9
to City Manager Fred Stouder stated with the recent authorization agreed to by
11 both houses of Congress, it was appropriate to go back and see where the
12 project was financially and what the next steps would be, legislatively and
13 financially.
14
is Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paul Marangella
16 provided current financial information regarding the project.
17
is Mayor Thompson acknowledged Mr. Marangella's efforts and accomplishments
19 and extended his grateful appreciation.
20
21 City Manager Stouder noted that City Management asked for Council's direction
22 to publicly proceed with the next phase.
23
24 Council Member Healy supported requesting the $12.8 million in reprogramming.
2s
26 Council agreed.
27
2s PUBLIC COMMENT
29
3o Vince Landof, 12 Cordelia Drive, spoke regarding design and funding for the
31 project, reimbursements, and incremental development upstream of the flood
32 project at Payran.
33
34 8. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Acceptance of EMS Study as
3s Prepared by Emergency Consulting and Research Center. Cost of Proposal is
36 $29,875. Funding Source: Ambulance Enterprise Fund, which will be modified
37 to reflect the Fund Expenditure during the January 2001 Mid-Year Budget
3s Review. Total Staff Time: 300 Hours.
39
4o Fire Chief Terry Krout provided background information and introduced Mr. Ty
41 Mayfield of ECRC (Emergency Consulting and Research Center).
42
43 Mr. Mayfield gave a summary of the project, which included a review of the
44 existing EMS system, a financial analysis, and evaluation of the feasibility of an
4s enhanced Fire Department EMS.
46
1
1
E1
1
L~
~~
December 4, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 349
1
2 Council Member Keller requested a map of calls and response time delineations.
3 Council Member Healy suggested reactivating the Citizens Advisory Committee.
4 He also wanted a map of calls and response time delineations. He asked for
s input on having one ALS engine fully staffed, and consideration of more efficient
6 staffing during peak demands.
s Council Member Maguire stated that he was satisfied with the report.
9
to PUBLIC COMMENT
11
12 Judd Cunin, President of Firefighters Association Local 1415, stated that the
13 union wholeheartedly supported Mr. Hayfield's report.
14
is END PUBLIC COMMENT
16
1~ MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Torliatt,
is to Adopt Resolution 00-209 N.C.S. Accepting the EMS Study as
19 Prepared by Emergency Consulting and Research Center.
20
21 Council Member Keller asked if this would be coming back for follow-up
22 discussion.
23
24 Vice Mayor Torliatt stated that she would like to see the Mid-term Budget Review
2s incorporated in some of the recommendations of the report.
26
27 Mayor Thompson stated that he would like to see this in the first quarter of next
2s year.
29
3o MOTION
31 PASSED: 7/0/1 (Council Member Cader-Thompson had not yet arrived)
32
33 9. (Removed) Ridgeview Heights Subdivision (rescheduled to December 11,
34 2000) (Moore). Discussion and Possible Action on .a Resolution Adopting a
3s Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ridgeveiw Heights subdivision.
36
37 A. Discussion and Possible action on a Resolution Approving the Tentative
3s Subdivision Map and PUD Development Standards for the Ridgeview Heights
39 Subdivision.
40
41 NEW BUSINESS
42
43 10. (Removed) Presentation of Annual Report by Empire Waste Management and
44 Resolution to Adopt 2001 Refuse Rates. (Beatty)
45
~~
Vol. 35, Page 350 December 4, 2000
1 11. Introduction of Ordinance2106 N.C.S. Establishing a Set of Mandatory
2 Campaign Contribution Limits and Disclosure Regulations for Local Petaluma
3 Elections and Public Funding Provisions for Candidates. (Rudnansky)
4
s Council Member Hamilton provided reasons for .having this item added to
6 Council's agenda and thanked Mr. Rudnansky for his assistance in the matter.
7
s City Attorney Richard Rudnansky gave an overview of the campaign
9 contributions ordinance.
to
11 Council Member Maguire pointed out a typographical error on Page 9, line 20 of
12 the revised ordinance draft: The word "imitated"should be corrected to read
13 "initiated."
14
is Council Member Keller questioned "enforcement"as stated in the revised draft,
16 page 9, lines 12-13.
17
is Mr. Rudnansky stated that an individual could bring litigation only after they have
19 requested the City to initiate litigation. If the City did not agree within ten days,
Zo the individual had thirty days in which to file. He added that the City of Santa
21 Rosa's ordinance did not take into consideration matching funds, and added that
22 matching funds were voluntary.
23
24 Mayor Thompson noted that he did not support the City matching public funds.
25
26 PUBLIC COMMENT
27
2s Bruce Hagen, 145 Grevillia Drive, spoke in support of mandatory limits on
29 campaign contributions. He also spoke in support of mandatory limits on
3o campaign contributions on behalf of Mr. David Glass, a Petaluma resident, who
31 had to leave the meeting.
32
33 END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
34
3s Mayor Thompson asked City Attorney Richard Rudnansky if there was any
36 question as to the legality of this ordinance.
37
3s City Attorney Mr. Rudnansky replied not at the State level, but there was at the
39 Federal level.
40
41 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson,
42 to Introduce Ordinance 2106 N.C.S. Establishing a Set of
43 Mandatory Campaign Contribution Limits and Disclosure
44 Regulations for Local Petaluma Elections and Public Funding
4s Provisions for Candidates.
46
L ~s
December 4, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 351
1
1
I~
1 Council Member Healy supported campaign reform, noted that he would not
2 support the ordinance if the use of public funding was included, and commented
3 on a few of the practices that he supported.
4
s Mayor Thompson supported further research and. suggested asub-committee of
6 the Council address the item.
s Council Member Keller supported moving forward with the legislation and
9 clarified voluntary limits in connection with the matching public funds.
to
11 Council Member Maguire suggested a reduction in the voluntary funds to
12 .$10,000 and noted that it would reduce public matching funds in half.
13
14 Council Member Hamilton supported the suggestion.
15
16 Vice Mayor Torliatt supported campaign reform and commented on the
1~ provisions in the ordinance that she agreed with and stated that she did not
is support public funds being used as matching funds for political campaigns.
19
20 Council Member Cader-Thompson stated that matching funds were the key to
21 having a level playing field for all candidates.
22
23 Council Member Maguire spoke in favor of matching funds and encouraged
24 Council to recognize the value and support the issue.
25
26 Council Member Keller clarified that. if there was no public money and no
27 contract, there could be no voluntary cap and no public financing. He suggested
2s it was an environmental issue to clean up the election process in Petaluma.
29
3o Council Member Hamilton asked if the amount of funds was the concern and
31 asked Council Member Healy to be specific.
32
33 Council Member Healy replied it was the use of public funds to get people to sign
34 on with which he disagreed and he thought there were other ways, such as the
35 good will and good publicity created by signing on to a voluntary spending limit.
36
37 Council Member Keller stated that he had tried that twice -four and six years ago
3s -and had no success.
39
4o Council Member Healy continued that incumbents with name recognition had
41 less need for contributions and challengers have to raise more than the
42 incumbent.
43
44 Council Member Maguire thought that. was a good point.
45
9
Vol. 35, Page 352 December 4, 2000
1 Council Member Hamilton commented that she knew of several possible
2 candidates who had told her their only reason for not running was the exhaustive
3 time and energy needed to raise the necessary campaign funds.
4
s Council Member Cader-Thompson questioned the $200 limit and noted that
6 there were comments that it was too low.
7
s Council Member Hamilton stated that if anything it was too high.
9
to Council Member Maguire thought it was high enough.
11
12 Council Member Healy stated that he was looking for a campaign finance reform
13 package that did not include public funds.
14
is Council Member Cader-Thompson asked if the central depository included all
16 campaign literature.
17
is Council Member Healy stated it was in the language and directed her to look in
19 the packet from City Attorney Rudnansky, which included a provision to file
20 campaign materials to 49.7.11 C of the LA ordinance with the City Clerk as the
21 recipient; he then read it to the public, stating that the important point was that it
22 covered both campaigns and independent literature.
23
24 Council Member Cader-Thompson agreed to adding that provision.
25
26 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky clarified the inclusion of a provision to file
27 campaign materials to 49.7.11 C of the LA ordinance with the City Clerk as the
2s recipient. Regarding individual contractors, he suggested a revision to Page 7,
29 subsection A to add "ofher than himself or herself." One possibility would be to
3o eliminate the definition listed in the proposed ordinance and use the definition
31 used in the government code or add a provision indicating that if the provision in
32 the ordinance was inconsistent with the government code, the government code
33 definition would prevail.
34
3s Council Member Keller clarified that if the expenditures. were above the
36 contracted limit, the funds should be repaid to the public.
37
3s Council Member Maguire agreed that language to that effect should be included
39 in the provision.
40
41 City Attorney Rudnansky asked for clarification that the provision would indicate
42 that the candidate would return any funds over the $20,000 limit to the public
43 fund.
44
45 Council Member Maguire added that it should be returned within 30 days after
46 election end and that it should be made part of the contract.
1
0
O
December 4, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 353
1
2
Mr. Rudnansky summarized changes made to the revised provision:
3
4 Under heading "Definitions" page 2, subsection D of 130025 would be
s deleted and picked up later. In terms of eligibility for matching funds, there
6 would be added under 130060B an item 5, which would state that the
~ candidate would agree to pay back all public matching funds that exceed the
s contracted limit.
9 Regarding the clause for the twenty pieces of literature: Will add the LA
io section 49.7.11C and put it under "Disclosure" subsection C.
ii Page 9, line 20, change "imitate" to "initiate."
12
13 MOTION
t4 AMENDED: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson,
is to Introduce Ordinance 2106 N.C.S. Establishing a Set of
16 Mandatory Campaign Contribution Limits and Disclosure
i~ Regulations for Local Petaluma Elections and Public Funding
is Provisions for Candidates as amended.
19
20 Vice Mayor Torliatt noted that she would support the motion but that she was not
21 in favor of using public funds.
22
23
Council Member Healy stated that he would not support the motion and thought
24 $200 too low - $500 would be reasonable.
2s
26 MOTION
2~ PASSED: 5/2 (Council Member Healy, Mayor Thompson voting "no")
2s
29 PUBLIC COMMENT
30
31 None
32
33 ADJOURN - 6:30 P.M.
34
3s CONTINUATION OF CLOSED SESSION
36
37 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky announced the continuation of Closed Session; City
3s Clerk evaluation.
39
4o AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS - Nloved to the evening session:
41
42 12. (,4mended) Discussion and possible Action Regarding Request for Funds for
_ 43 Petalura Watershed Partnership.
44
45 12A. (Added) Discussion Regarding Formation of Subcommittee for Contract
46 Discussions with Petaluma Community Access (PCA). (Beatty)
0
Vol. 35, Page 354 December 4, 2000
1 RECONVENE
2
3 The Council reconvened its .regular meeting at 7:05 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
4
s REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
6
7 Mayor Thompson noted that no reportable action was taken on items discussed in
a Closed Session.
9
to ROLL CALL
it
12 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire;
13 Mayor Thompson; Vice Mayor Torliatt
14
is ABSENT: None
16
17 PUBLIC COMMENTS
is
19 Richard Brawn, 141 Grevillia Drive, spoke in support of the City Manager's approved
20 contract and acknowledged the positive contributions he had made to the City.
21
22 Terence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, spoke regarding holidays and AIDS.
23
24 Vince Landoff, 12 Cordelia Drive, questioned the employment of John FitzGerald as a
2s conflict of interest and spoke about flood insurance payments.
26
27 Eugenia Shribbs, 2100 East Washington Street, #104, spoke in support. of the City
2s designating an area at Kenilworth Park for Lawn Bowling, updated the Council about
29 the approval of the Petaluma Lawn Bowls Club non-profit designation and gave a
3o summary of their application for funding the construction of a lawn bowling facility.
31
32 Betty Coleman, 1177 Brighton View Circle, spoke in support of lawn bowling.
33
34 Eugene Ruggles, 106 Washington Street, #326, spoke in support of the Phoenix
3s Theater and presented Vice Mayor Torliatt with a bouquet of red roses in
36 congratulations for her re-election.
37
3s CORRESPONDENCE
39
4o None
41
42 ,
43
44
45
46
~~
December 4, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 355
1 COUNCIL COMMENTS
2
3 Council Member Cader-Thompson:
4
s Spoke in support of lawn bowling and asked that the item be scheduled for a future
6 agenda.
~ Stated that the light crossing on Sonoma Mountain Road is now working.
s Noted that she would like to see more push-button crossings for pedestrians.
9 Spoke about the expansion of Cisco Corporation and the impact it would have on
to the community; i.e., housing, transportation and recreation. She would like to have
11 the corporation come before Council.
12
13 Vice Mayor Torliatt:
14
is Thanked Mr. Ruggles for his presentation of poetry, and for the roses.
16 Attended the North Bay Watershed meeting and said there should be a reception in
1~ February to discuss North Bay Watershed plans.
is Attended the Water Advisory Committee meeting that morning and reported that the
19 Committee was not happy with the suggested additions Council made to the MOU,
20 but came to a compromise to agendize for the December 11th meeting for Council
21 Discussion.
22
23 Council Member Keller:
24
2s Reported that the Water Agency had not provided a financial report to the
26 Committee; the Water Agency had been working on a new filtration system for a
27 year now and have not had any discussion with the public, the Water Advisory
2s Committee or contractors. There was no written documentation for the filtration
29 plant, which was a $1,000.,000,000 project. The Committee has asked that a
3o disclosure be made.
31
32 Council Member Maguire:
33
34 Asked if anyone on the Committee had raised the possibility of a Freedom of
3s Information Act request.
36
37 Council Member Keller:
38
39 e Stated that as an individual Council Member he will be sending in a California Public
4o Records Act request to the Water Agency requesting all documentation for the past
41 thirty years on all Filtration Plant needs, decision making, policy-making, and
42 financing.
43
44
45
46
~~
Vol. 35, Page 356
December 4, 2000
1 Vice Mayor Torliatt:
2
3 Reported that in January 2001 the Water Agency Committee would receive an
4 update on Section 7 consultation; in February the SCWA was planning to provide a
s staff report and presentation on the six water filtration options.
6
7 Council Member Keller:
s
9 • Reported that the January Water Agency Committee meeting would be for
to discussion on Warm Spring Dam and Dry Creek. There would not be discussion
11 about the Potter Valley Project -the Committee had decided that was separate.
12
13 Council Member Maguire:
14
is • Referred to a letter dated November 28, 2000 from the City Manager regarding
16 sabotage affecting Adobe Creek.
17
is Council Member Keller:
19
20 Stated that it may be necessary to have a brief update next week for Council at
21 Public Session on the negotiations regarding the disposition and building permits of
22 high-water bypass at the Doyle Heaton property at Cross Creek.
23
24 CITY MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
25
26 None
27
2s COUNCIL, CITY MANAGEMNT LIAISON REPORTS
29
3o None
31
32 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
33
34 None
35
36 PROCLAMATION
37
3s • 75t" Anniversary of Petaluma Host Lions Club presented to Dick Lieb.
39
4o APPOINTMENTS
41
42 A. Planning Commission (One Appointment)
43 B. Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee (One Appointment)
44 C. Personnel Board (One Appointment)
45
1
~j
~~
December 4, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 357
i
2 In response to a question by Council Member Healy, City Manager Stouder
recommended an appointment not be made to the Personnel Board.
3
4 UNFINISIiED BUSINESS
s
6 12. (Amended) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Request for Funds for
7 Petaluma Watershed Partnership.
s
9 Vice Mayor Torliatt stated that she had requested this item be agendized, which
to is a request to help fund and support the beginning of the partnership.
ii
12 Council Member Healy requested information regarding the proposed funding
13 from the Water Recycling Facility Project and asked if the $22,000 for the project
14 would be from the water or sewer fund.
is
16 Council Member Keller stated that he would like input from the City Attorney on
17 the City's ability to put funding such as this into an enterprise which would act to
is enhance that activity at a lower cost with the potential of getting agency credits.
i~ This is a productive way to spend water system funds.
ao
2t Vice Mayor Torliatt reported that the North Bay Watershed Association is also
a2 doing this type of work, which is outside the City's jurisdiction. She thought this a
23 worthwhile project and that the Water Management Plan and water quality would
24 both be enhanced by this project.
Zs
26 Council Member Healy requested general principles for what are appropriate
27 charges that can be placed in the enterprise fund.
28
29 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky stated that typically it is to be used for the
3o particular project/enterprise. He added that he would research the types of
31 funding that could be placed in the fund.
32
33 .Petaluma Watershed Partnership Steering Committee Member Andy Rodgers
34 provided a summary of the Petaluma Watershed Partnership and review of its
3s work. He reported that the response from the limited outreach membership was
36 very good and that they already have several strong supporters for this project.
37
3s Mayor Thompson asked if Mr. Rodgers had spoken to Mike Kerns, Liaison to
39 North Bay Watershed Association.
40
41 Mr. Rodgers replied that he had spoken with Mr. Kerns and his response was
42 very positive.
43
44 Council Member Keller thanked everyone involved in the project. He asked Mr.
4s Rodgers to supply Council Members with copies of the budget for the $22,000.
46
~s
~_
Vol. 35, Page 358
December 4, 2000
1 Council Member Healy asked what would happen to the part-time staff position
2 after the six months is up.
3
4 Mr. Rodgers stated that it depended on the success of that six months and
s obtaining additional funds.
6
~ Vice Mayor Torliatt would like to see some of the Prop 13 funds used on local
s projects.
9
to Council Member Hamilton stated that the timing was of importance and that
11 Council needed to ask for the funds and bring that forward.
12
13 MOTION: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved, seconded by Council Member Hamilton,
14 to accept Request for Funds for Petaluma Watershed
is Partnership.
16
1~ Council Member Healy requested information form the City Attorney regarding
is the source of funds.
19
20 City Attorney Rudnansky stated that he was not certain how the funds were
21 earmarked iri this particular fund.
z2
23 Council Member Healy thought that important information to have before making
24 the vote.
Zs
26 Council Member Keller agreed that the item should return next week.
2~
Zs Item continued to the December 11, 2000 Council Meeting.
29
3o PUBLIC COMMENT
31
32 Terence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, spoke in opposition of creating a third agency
33 for water.
34
3s END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
36
37 Council Member Maguire stated in reply to Mr. Garvey that he didn't feel that
3s $22,000 would have a significant impact on the Water Treatment Program and
39 that the intent is to aid in improving water quality.
40
41 Council Member Maguire thought it was a good use of funds and recommended
42 putting it on the Consent Calendar for next week.
43
44
4s Council Member Cader-Thompson asked Mr. Hargis if the Zone 2A regulations
would be less restrictive when working outside Zone 2A so projects could be
46 accomplished quicker.
~~
1
D
December 4, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 359
2 Mr. Hargis replied that Zone 2A has done maintenance projects in the past but
3 he didn't know if it would be easier.
4
s Council Member Cader-Thompson commented that she wanted clarification
6 provided to Mr. Garvey.
8 Vice Mayor Torliatt stated that she would withdraw her motion pending additional
9 information about the source of funds and have it on the Consent Calendar for
to December 11, 2000.
11
lz Council Member Keller wanted the project funded and was open to any
13 suggestions as to where funds should come from.
14
is 12A. (Added) Discussion Regarding Formation of Subcommittee for Contract
16 Discussions with Petaluma Community Access (PCA).
1~
is Assistant City Manager Gene Beatty provided background information regarding
19 contract discussions.
20
21 Council Member Cadre-Thompson indicated her desire to participate.
22
23 Mr. Beatty added that Council Member elect Bryant Moynihan had expressed a
24 desire to serve on the subcommittee.
25
26 Council agreed to have two representatives with the understanding that when Mr.
2~ Moynihan took office, he would be the second representative.
28
29 Vice Mayor Torliatt requested that the City Clerk participate in the negotiations
3o and discussions, since she is a Liaison to the Petaluma Community Access
31 Board.
32
33 Council Member Keller asked if Council would be receiving an update on the
34 audit of AT&T and PCA Fees.
35
36 Mr. Beatty stated that he had an appointment the following day with the
37 consultant and an update would be available soon.
38
39 Council Member Torliatt asked Mayor Thompson if Council was in agreement on
4o those two issues.
41
42 Mayor Thompson replied that Council was in agreement.
43
44
45
46
~I
Vol. 35, Page 360
December 4, 2000
i PUBLIC HEARINGS
2
3 13. McDowell Boulevard/E. Washington Street Intersection Transportation
4 Improvement Project Assessment District 2000-01 (Project No. 9863, Phase
5 3).
6
~ A. Public Hearing -Receive .Ballots.
s B. Adopt Resolution Approving the Final Engineer's Report, Confirming
9 .Assessment, Ordering the Work and Acquisitions, and Directing Actions With
io Respect Thereto.
ii C. Adopt Resolution Waiving Traffic Mitigation Fees for Property Owners Within
12 Assessment District 2000-1.
13 D. Adopt Resolution Approving Compensation to the Best Western Petaluma
14 Inn and the Beacon Service station to Mitigate Construction Impacts from the
is Proposed McDowell Boulevard/East Washington Street Transportation
16 Improvement Project, and Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate the
i~ Compensation Agreements.
i8
i9 Engineering Manager Michael Evert reviewed the process and detailed issues
20 that must be addressed to determine if the public hearing could be closed that
21 night, reviewed the background of the assessment district and noted that fifty-
22 one percent of the assessed evaluation was necessary to approve the
23 Assessment District Plan.
24
2s City Manager .Fred Stouder explained that the City would be using the State
26 Investment Pool -which was partly how the City operates. It was a cash
2~ investment pool under which an investment from one secured investment was
2a moved to another secured investment.
29
3o Vice Mayor Torliatt clarified that the City would be receiving a return on the
31 investment on money it normally has invested in something which creates
32 income for the City.
33
34 Mr. Evert continued with his summary of the reviewed communications City
3s Management had with the property owners.
36
37 Mayor Thompson requested that any remaining ballots be turned at this time.
38
39 PUBLIC COMMENT
40
41 Victor Chechanover, 2301 Marilyn Circle, asked if the assessment costs were
42 based on a percentage or a fixed dollar amount.
43
44 Mary Grace Pawson, Assessment Engineer with Harris and Associates, replied
4s that assessment figures were based on a fixed rate on an approved amount,
1
~~
t
f
1
December 4, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 361
1 which is proposed to be $1,310,000. This is the maximum amount and cannot
2 be exceeded without another ballot process.
3
4 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if that amount was set high so re-balloting would not
s be necessary; and can the amount be reduced if costs came in lower.
6
~ Ms. Pawson answered that construction cost estimates and contingencies have
s been maintained at 25% above the anticipated cost for that reason.
9
to Mr. Chechanover clarified that the citizens of Petaluma area assured that the
11 City wouldn't be burdened with extra costs. He also suggested that the City
12 negotiate with COTS to give temporary shelter to the homeless, since the City
13 would be paying for these rooms.
14
is Chuck Sires, Plaza North property owner, spoke regarding how tenants view
16 assessments and added that he was expecting legal challenges from several of
1~ his tenants regarding assessment fees. He requested that the City help property
is owners by reimbursing assessment fees.
19
20 City Manager Fred Stouder noted that all the annual property /sales taxes did not
21 pay the cost of Police and Fire in this community.
22
23 John J. King, retired Council Member from the City of Petaluma from 1941-49;
24 1955-62, representing the Novak property/South Plaza, stated that there was no
2s way that we could get any profit from this project as the rent was set and couldn't
26 be changed. He did not see any benefit to the property owners.
27
2s Mayor Thompson stated that the #4 Resolution was approved contingent on
29 property owners approving the assessment district.
30
31 Mr. Evert replied that it would be good for the Council to move that resolution.
32
33 MOTION: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson, for
34 the Purpose of Discussion with the added contingency of the
3s majority of property owners approving the assessment district.
36
37 MOTION
3s PASSED: 7/0
39
4o City Manager Fred Stouder noted that the City's recommendation was that if
41 property owners did not agree with the project plan, there would be no reason to
42 proceed.
43
44 Council Member Maguire supported City Management's recommendation.
4s
J~
Vol. 35, Page 362
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3s
36
37
38
39
40
41
December 4, 2000
City Manager Fred Stouder thought that reimbursement to Best Western Inn was
fair.
Vice Mayor Torliatt agreed that the hotel should pursue the possibility of working
something out with COTS.
Victor Chechanover thought Council needed to pursue negotiations with COTS.
Council Member Maguire moved that the Mayor vote in the affirmative on the
City Parcel.
Mayor Thompson voted to Adopt Resolution Approving Waiver of Traffic
Mitigation Fees to Property Owners.
Mike Evert reported the result of the Ballot count was 54% in protest. City
Management recommended that Council hold the Public Hearing open until the
following Monday to determine what reasonable modifications could be made.
Mayor Thompson announced that the Public Hearing would be held open.
City Manager Stouder reported the reason for the open Public Hearing was to
open negotiations for changing conditions or resolutions to City Council. The
intent was not to re-negotiate the package.
Council Member Maguire agreed that the package should not be re-negotiated.
Vice Mayor Torliatt stated that she felt that all would pay the fees and that the
only alternative is paying mitigation fees.
Council Member Keller agreed.
Council Member Healy agreed.
Council Member Cader-Thompson agreed and felt the City had done well with
negotiations thus far in reducing the fee from $.24 to $.16 per square foot..
City Manager Stouder announced the continuation of the Discussion of Public
Hearing to the December 11th meeting, 7:00 P.M.
Mr. DeCarli spoke about private money being used for public benefit.
42 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
43
44 14. (Amended) Discussion and Possible Action on Introduction of an Ordinance
4s Expanding the Zero Net Fill Policy.
46
~~
~J
December 4, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 363
l]
1 Water Resources and Conservation Director Tom Hargis reviewed the Zero Net
2 Fill Policy and explained that the purpose of the ordinance was to expand the
3 Zero Net Fill area to include any area of the floodplain within City limits.
4
s His recommendation was to take the ordinance through the Planning
6 Commission and then to the City Council for Adoption of the Urgency Interim
~ Ordinance. He also recommended continuing with the 2-foot floor elevation
s requirement.
9
to Council Member Healy asked for clarification on what areas of the floodplain had
11 a 1-foot floor elevation requirement and which had a 2-foot floor elevation
12 requirement.
13
14 Mr. Hargis stated that anything other than the current net fill area had a 1-foot
is requirement.
16
1~ Council Member Cader-Thompson inquired as to how the decision fora 2-foot
18 floor elevation was made.
19
20 Mr. Hargis replied that in 1987 a resolution was adopted creating a Zero Net Fill
21 policy and was included in the zoning ordinance. It may have been concern
22 about hydraulics as a safety factor.
23
24 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked if a 2-foot floor elevation was sufficient.
2s
26 Mr. Hargis thought that it was.
27
28 Council Member Keller stated that under FEMA regulations, development is
29 allowed to increase base flood elevation up to 12 inches with no insurance or
3o coverage consequences.
31
32 Vice Mayor Torliatt, referring to the flood plain map, asked why the area at the
33 Brodie Parcel, adjacent to the railroad tracks, was expanded.
34
3s Council Member Keller replied that just as the construction of Highway 101 had
36 changed the flow -probably the construction of the railroad had changed the flow
37 and created a pond in that area.
38
39 PUBLIC COMMENT
40
41 Bob Martin referred to the flood plain map and noted that on the East side of
42 Highway 101 there wasn't much left and zero net fill would be advisable. He
43 recommended that FEMA revise the 11-year-old flood maps and apply some
44 Corps Project money to fund the FEMA re-mapping. He added that an accurate
4s base-flood elevation was essential for zero net fill to succeed.
46
~l.
Vol. 35, Page 364
December 4, 2000
1 David Bradley, Rider Homes, was concerned that the floodplain map was not
2 accurate, particularly with regard to the Brodie Property. He stated that the
3 Brodie Parcel was taken out of the floodplain and documented by FEMA and he
4 would like the ordinance to reflect those changes.
s
6 Vice Mayor Torliatt requested Mr. Bradley to supply Mr. Hargis with that
~ information.
s
9 Council Member Keller noted that the current panels are from 1989 and should
to reflect those changes and revisions.
11
12 Matt Connelly, Chelsea GCA Realty, Inc., supported the ordinance as drafted.
13 He asked what area was to be included in the zero net fill area and
14 recommended that Council consider net fill run-off. He is opposed to a
is moratorium. He thanked Council Members Hamilton and Keller for their time and
16 assistance.
1~
is Mr. Hargis stated that the recommendation from City Management was that
19 Council adopt the ordinance expanding the zero net fill area covering all lands in
20 the floodplain combined district within the floodplain.
21
22 Terence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, clarified that the ordinance only applied to
23 Petaluma and that the City should be working with the County and Zone 2A to do
24 the same thing. He discussed the holding reservoir plan that was discussed
2s years ago and felt it should be reconsidered.
26
27 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, stated that there wasn't much of the floodplain
2s area still undeveloped and thought the zero net fill policy should include the
29 entire floodplain area. He thought the policy was insufficient and .recommended
3o adding alternatives 1 and 3.
31
32 Vince Landof, 12 Cordelia Drive, stated that it was the new construction that was
33 causing the new flood areas.
34
3s Council Member Healy agreed with expanding the area to include the East side
36 of the Freeway above the Payran Bridge. He thought it appropriate for Council
37 to adopt the Interim Ordinance with respect to the entire area and then ask the
3a Planning Commission to look at the area and decide if upstream of Payran
39 should be treated the same as the downstream area. He then discussed the
4o possibility of adding fill one foot above the base flood elevation and asked City
41 Management about the possibility of Grandfather Rights.
42
43 Vice Mayor Torliatt suggested also adopting something to address the run-off
44 issues for parking lots.
45
46 Mayor Thompson stated that there was a program in place for that already.
~~
D
December 4, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 365
1
2 Council Member Keller would like to address that issue but keep it a separate
3 issue.
4
s Council Member Cader-Thompson did not agree with development in the
6 floodplain area and felt upstream development would degrade the project.
s Mayor Thompson asked the Council to vote.
9
to Council Member Keller discussed the designated floodplain areas and stated
11 that it was a policy decision for Council; the decision being whether or not
12 development would be allowed in the downtown floodplain area. He thought that
13 floor elevation, safety factors and the added risk of those properties being
14 phased should be considered.
is
16 He reminded residents in the Payran area that when that area was removed from
1~ the floodplain area and re-mapped, there would no longer be a Federal liability to
is carry flood insurance, leaving residents unprotected when flooding did occur.
19
20 Council Member Healy would like to have the Planning Commission review the
21 issues and come back to Council with a recommendation.
22
23 MOTION: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Torliatt, to
z4 Adopt Interim Ordinance, Article 16 of Zoning Ordinance Expanding
2s Boundaries of Zero Net Fill Area to be Submitted to Planning
26 Commission for Public Hearing and Recommendation to City
2~ Council Including Recommendation as Noted.
28
29 MOTION
3o PASSED: 7/0
31
32 NEW BUSINESS
33
34 15. (Added) Discussion and Possible Action on Urgency Interim Ordinance for the
3s City Council of the City of Petaluma Prohibiting Any Uses That May be in Conflict
36 with a Contemplated New General Plan and any Attendant Amendments to the
37 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Pursuant to Government Code Section
3s 65858.
39
4o PUBLIC COMMENT
41
42 Mr. Bradley, stated that_he is currently an applicant on the Brodie Parcel and
43 asked that this parcel be removed from the floodplain-designated area.
44
~~
Vol. 35, Page 366
December 4, 2000
1 Matt Connelly, Chelsea GCA Realty, Inc., was opposed to the Urgency
2 Ordinance and thought all properties within the watershed area should be
3 included.
4
s John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive, thought a moratorium was needed until the
6 project was complete.
g Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, referred to Government Code §65858,
9 whereas applications completed will not be affected by the moratorium - he
to would like to know how many applications there are. He then referred to the
11 floodplain map and demonstrated how building in the floodplain area would
12 create disasters downstream in the non-flooding areas.
13
14 Vince Landof, 12 Cordelia Drive, referred to page 4, item K, and stated that this
is .should include, "also increased flooding potential."He asked how many building
16 permits were applied for and granted within the last thirty days. He agreed with
17 Mr. Cheney regarding a moratorium.
is
19 Scott Vouri, 1557 Mauro Pietro Drive, supported delaying development in
20 floodplain areas until new studies, in concurrence with the General Plan, are
21 done. He discussed the recommended changes and proposed that the following
22 items be removed: page 4, last item; page 5, item O, line 1; item V, residential
23 rental units should not be exempted.
24
2s COUNCIL COMMENT
26
27 Council Member Keller thought that passing ordinance would put the City in
2s compliance with the federal policy if it stated the following:
29 ® No building in flood plain
30 • Protect only what cannot be moved and must be preserved
31 Remove anything else that would be in jeopardy
32
33 He was willing to make the exception "downstream of Payran."
34
35 MOTION: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson, to
36 Adopt Urgency Interim Ordinance with the following changes:
37 • Page 2, delete lines 8-12.
3s • Page 2, line 28, delete and change phrase to "which may
39 create flooding conditions."
40 Page 3, section 3, change language to "upstream of Payran
41 Bridge. "
42 • Page 4, line 12, eliminate "peak traffic generation'; likewise,
43 with lines 18-19, replace with "storm drain run-off."
44 ® Delete childcare facilities exception N; delete in section O,
4s `transit solid waste, non-commercial, recreation and religious
46 facilities."
J
I ~:
December 4, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 367
1 ® Leave below or at grade and parking.
2 Delete item V, line 15-17.
3
4 MOTION
s FAILED: 5/2 (Council Member Healy, Mayor Thompson"opposed)
6
~ Council Member Healy stated that the pursuance of three policies would
s preserve the long-term effectiveness of the Corps of Engineers flood. fix:
9
to Expansion of Zero Net Fill.
11 ® Zero Net increase ordinance for watershed.
12 ® Moving forward with the detention pond project that RMI started.
13
14 He did not support the moratorium.
is
16 Vice Mayor Torliatt thought there were existing problems that need to be
1~ addressed.
is
19 ADJOUFtRI
20
21 The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M.
22
23
24 E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
2s
26
2~ ATTEST:
2s
29
Beverly J. Kline, City C
31
32 ******
33
l~
[7
`~