HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 10/16/20001
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
October 16, 2000
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
City Council Meeting
Vol. 35, Page 247
Monday, October 16, 2000
Council Chambers
Members of the public, and Council Members, with the exception of Mayor Thompson and
Council Member Healy, met at Mishi Apparel, 201 Western Avenue, at 2:15 p.m. for a tour
of the facility in connection with its water conservation strategies.
The Petaluma City Council met on this day at 3:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson (3:15 p.m.) Hamilton, Keller, Maguire;
Mayor Thompson; Vice Mayor Torliatt
ABSENT: Council Member Healy
PRESENTATION
Incentive Check for Water Efficiency Program to Mishi Apparel.
Director of Water Resources and Conservation, Tom Hargis, provided background
information about the various water conservation programs the City had in conjunction with
the Sonoma County Water Agency.
Tom Roth, representing Congresswoman Woolsey's office, thanked the City, the Sonoma
County Water Agency (S.C.W.A.), and Mishi Apparel for their success in the voluntary
industrial water conservation program. He stated that Congresswoman Woolsey was to
introduce to Congress an Industrial Conservation and Water Act.
Council Member Keller advised that the Council was prepared to support that legislation.
Sonoma County Supervisor Mike Kerns acknowledged the participants who made the
program a success and presented a check from the Sonoma County Water Agency
(S.C.W.A.) for $2,000.00 to the owner of Mishi Apparel, Hamish Hafner.
Hamish Hafner, owner of Mishi Apparel, accepted the check and commented that he did
not engage in the program for the purpose of a financial rebate and expressed his
gratitude, adding that he really hoped the program would grow in the community.
Mayor Thompson thanked Mr. Hafner for his participation in the water conservation
program and presented him with a check from the City for $1,140.00.
Council Member Maguire presented Mr. Hafner with a bouquet of sunflowers.
~~~
Vol. 35, Page 248
October 16, 2000
1
2
Mr. Hafner thanked the Mayor and Council.
3
4 Vice Mayor Torliatt commented that Sola, Petaluma Poultry Producers, and Clover
5 were scheduled to participate in this voluntary industrial water conservation program.
6
7 PUBLIC COMMENTS
8
9 Cliff Eveland, Petaluma High School Music Department, reported that the Petaluma
10 Invitational Band Review held on October 7th was an outstanding success and thanked the
11 Council for approving the event.
12
13 Council Member Cader-Thompson and the Council acknowledged the efforts of Mr.
14 Eveland in bringing the event to the community.
15
16 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed Rainier overpass.
17
18 CORRESPONDENCE
19
2 0 Correspondence was provided in the packet and at places.
21
22 COUNCIL COMMENTS
23
24 Council Member Cader-Thompson reported there was a change of meeting dates for the
25 scheduled Zone 2-A meeting, addressed remarks that she had made at the last meeting
2 6 and comments that had been made at the candidates forum regarding the lack of safety for
27 the public in Petaluma.
28
29 Council Member Keller noted that on October 28th a re-dedication of the `D' Street Bridge
3 o would take place between 8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. and would begin at Fire Station One, next
31 to the bridge on `D' Street.
32
33 CITY MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
34
35 None
36
37 PROCLAMATIONS
38
3 9 Mayor Thompson read the proclamation in support of United Nations Day as October 24,
4 0 2000.
41
42 MINUTES
43
44 August 30, October 2, 2000
45
46 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Hamilton to approve
47 the minutes as presented.
~-' ~.
October 16, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 249
1
2 MOTION
3 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Healy absent)
4
5 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
6
7 Council agreed to move the Water Summit Discussion item to follow agenda item 8.
8
9 CONSENT CALENDAR
10
11 On a motion made by Council Member Maguire, seconded by Cader-Thompson, the
12 Consent Calendar was approved 6/0/1 (Healy absent).
13
14 1. Resolution 00-186 N.C.S. Approving Claims and Bills. (Thomas)
15
16 2. Resolutions 00-187 N.C.S. Approving Reclassifications Reflecting the City's
17 Reorganization and Reassignment of Job Duties. (Acorne)
18
19 Council Member Keller expressed his appreciation to City management for their work on
2 o this project.
21
22 3. Resolution 00-188 N.C.S. Approving Selection of Banking Services. (Cornyn)
23
24 4. Resolution 00-189 N.C.S. Authorizing the Purchase of a Digital Imaging System.,
25 Related Software and Maintenance from ImageWare Systems, Inc., for a Cost of
2 6 $77,674.27. Funding: State of California Law Enforcement Technology Equipment
27 Program (CLETEP) Grant for $62,319.86; City Funding in Amount of 15,354.41.
28 (Parks/Aboudara)
29
3 0 5. Resolution 00-190 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma Adopting a Conflict of Interest
31 Code For Public Officials and Designated Employees as Required by the Political
32 Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and
3 3 Repealing Resolution No. 99 - 227 N.C.S. (Kline)
34
35 6. Resolution 00-191 N.C.S. Awarding Contract for Geographic Information
3 6 Systems (GIS) Parcel Data Conversion Services to Brown and Caldwell for an
37 Amount Not-to-Exceed $42,000. (Tuft/Cooper)
38
39 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
40
41 7. McDowell Boulevard and East Washington Street Intersection Transportation
42 Improvement Project Assessment District #2000-01 (Project No. 9863., Phase 3).
43 (Skladzien/Event)
44
45 A. Adopt Resolution to Make Acquisitions and Improvements
46
~ ~'+
Vol. 35, Page 250
October 16, 2000
1 B. Adopt Resolution to Preliminarily Approve the Engineer's Report, Directing
2 Actions with Respect Thereto, and Setting the Public Hearing for December
3 4, 2000.
4
5 Supervising Civil Engineer Mike. Evert provided background information and introduced
6 other members of the team working on the project.
8 Mary Grace Pawson of Harris and Associates provided background information about
9 assessment districts and Proposition 218, the legislation that addressed creating special
1 o assessment districts. She then presented overhead slides that depicted the properties
11 involved in the proposed assessment district, reviewed the costs of the project and the
12 projected assessments for the major property owners within the proposed assessment
13 district and answered Council's questions.
14
15 Discussion ensued that included:
16
17 1. How the Benefit Assessment District (BAD) boundaries were determined.
18 2. Whether there had been an accounting of the benefits to the hospital as a major
19 employer in the area.
20 3. Whether properties planned for mixed use were taken into consideration.
21 4. What would happen if the BAD ballot were unsuccessful.
22 5. The 20% benefit to property owners who paid the assessment upfront should the
23 BAD be successful.
24
25 Ms. Pawson and Mr. Evert replied to Council's satisfaction and agreed to revisit some of.
2 6 the issues with the highway engineer and provide substantiating documentation as was
2 7 requested.
28
2 9 MOTION: Council Member Cader -Thompson moved, seconded by Maguire to:
30
31 A. Adopt Resolution 00-192 N.C.S. to Make Acquisitions and
3 2 Improvements.
33
34 B. Adopt Resolution 00 - 193 N.C.S. to Preliminarily Approve
3 5 the Engineer's Report, Directing Actions with Respect
3 6 Thereto, and Setting the Public Hearing for December 4,
3 7 2000.
38
3 9 MOTION
40 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Healy absent)
41
42 8. Report Regarding Status of Payran Project and Discussion and Possible Direction
43 Regarding Payran Flood Management Project Financing and Budget.
44 (Hargis/Stouder)
45
46 Mr. Hargis provided a status report of the Payran Flood Management Project.
~, . ,_
~. ~ ~
October 16, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 251
1
2
Consultant Paul Marangella provided a status report of the financial reimbursement the
3 City pursued with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
4
5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project Manager Lynn Galal provided a status of the
6 contract stating the contract was 89% complete. A meeting to discuss additional warranty
7 and maintenance, funding, and responsibilities, was scheduled to take place on October
8 30, 2000 with City Manager Fred Stouder and Ms. Galal's supervisors.
9
1o Council and City management discussion included:
11
12 1. At the meeting on October 30'h, address that the City not be responsible for
13 mitigation during the implementation period.
14 2. Where the debris from the project was taken.
15 3. The timing for .FEMA (Flood Emergency Map Act).
16 4. Ms. Galal had accepted another job opportunity, would leave the U.S. Army
17 Corps of Engineers as of November, and introduced her replacement.
18
19 The Council expressed their gratitude for Ms. Galal's efforts and agreed to issue a letter of
2 o commendation.
21 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked about what appeared to be dumping at the
22 marina.
23
24 Mr. Hargis replied that he was not aware but would look into the matter and report back.
25
26 PUBLIC COMMENT
27
2 8 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, commented on Ms. Galal's work with the U.S. Army
29 Corps and in opposition to development upstream of the flood management project.
30
31 END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
32
33 No Action Taken
34
3 5 11. Discussion and Possible Direction on Petaluma Water Summit to be Hosted by the
3 6 City of Petaluma on Thursday, October 19, 2000, at the Petaluma Community
37 Center (Continued From October 2nd Meeting)
38
39 The subcommittee members, Vice Mayor Torliatt and Council Members Hamilton and
40 Keller, reported that the project was progressing very well and gave some highlights of
41 program.
42
43 No Action Taken
44
45
46
~~I
Vol. 35, Page 252 October 16, 2000
1 PUBLIC COMMENT
2
3 None
4
5 CLOSED SESSION
6
7 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky announced the following items to be discussed in Closed
8 Session:
9
1o Conference With Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to
11 Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code § 54956.9. (Two Matters)
12
13 Conference With Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Subdivision (a) Government Code
14 §54956.9 Raymond vs. Escalante et al., Sonoma County Superior Court Case # SCV-
15 220339.
16
17 Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.
18 Discussion of City Attorney Evaluation.
19
2 o Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.
21 Discussion of City Clerk Evaluation.
22
2 3 Mayor Thompson advised the public that after the Closed Session Council Members would
2 4 go to Dempsey's for dinner.
25
26
27 ADJOURN
28
29 The Closed Session adjourned at 5:30 P.M.
30
32
33 RECONVENE
34
35 The City Council reconvened its regular meeting on this day at 7:00 P.M. in the Council
3 6 Chambers.
37
3 8 ROLL CALL
39
4 o PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Keller, Maguire; Mayor
41 Thompson; Vice Mayor Torliatt
42
43 ABSENT: Council Member Hamilton
44
45
46
~~~
October 16, 2000
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
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vol. 35, Page 253
At the request of Mayor Thompson, Dick Sharkey led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Thompson read the proclamation declaring the week of October 23-31, 2000 Red
Ribbon Week.
Aaron White, member of the McDowell Drug Task Force, presented the Mayor with a
plaque that traced the origins of Red Ribbon Week as Drug Awareness Week.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Dee Brillhart, Animal Advisory Committee, 113 Upham Street, spoke in favor of animal
adoption and introduced Princess, aone-year old female dog who was available for
adoption..
Rudy Rentzel, 110 Roundwalk Circle, spoke in favor of the City publishing council packets
on the City's website for the public to access.
Sherry Cardo, 501 Bryce Canyon Court, spoke in support of the City's Animal Shelter.
David Glass, 51 Oxford, spoke regarding the high rate of flood insurance protection to
members of the community, in concern for public safety, against development upstream of
the flood project, and in support of having the FEMA maps updated.
Bob Martin, 171 Payran, spoke regarding floodplain management.
Terrence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, spoke in support of the Scouts and regarding the
upcoming North Bay Water Summit.
Kelly Schultz 1521 East Madison Street, spoke regarding the recent improvements to traffic
safety in the East Madison Street neighborhood and in opposition to remarks she read in
the newspaper that indicated that Council candidate, Mike O'Brien had made ethnic slurs.
Bryant Moynihan, 102 Dawn Place, spoke regarding fire safety equipment.
Council Member Cader-Thompson invited the public to speak directly with Fire Chief Krout
about fire safety equipment.
Diane Reilly Torres, Rainier Avenue, spoke regarding her television show.
44 John Mills spoke regarding the Rural Heritage Initiative and the cross-town connector
45
46 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke regarding the flooding problem in Petaluma.
47
~~~
Vol. 35, Page 254 October 16, 2000
1 COUNCIL COMMENT
2
3 Council Member Maguire spoke in support of the Animal Shelter and acknowledged the
4 work of the Animal Advisory Committee, and addressed Mr. Mills' comments.
5
6 Vice Mayor Torliatt commented that she had attended a meeting with the water contractors
7 last week and that the consensus was that they did not want to have separate agreements
8 and that they would attend the upcoming North Bay Water Summit. One of the goals of
9 the Summit was to move forward with a governance process. She then addressed Mr.
10 Moynihan's comments, noting that an ambulance, the ladder truck,.and equipment were
11 back ordered and that was why the vehicle was not in service.
12
13 Council Member Keller noted that on October 20th, the Marin Sonoma Advisory Committee
14 would meet to put together an overall program to expedite the CalTrans project between
15 Petaluma and Novato. At the SCTA (Sonoma County Transportation Agency) meeting on
16 Monday, SCTA voted unanimously to leverage $5 million frorn CalTrans for an auxiliary
17 lane southbound from East Washington to Lakeville; the additional funds would be held in
18 reserve. He then read a letter he had sent to the Argus Courier regarding remarks he
19 viewed as ethnic slurs made by Council candidate Mike O'Brien; he anticipated that letters
2 0 of rebuttal calling him overly sensitive would be forthcoming. He asked that Mr. O'Brien be
21 investigated as a suitable representative on the City's Personnel Committee.
22
2 3 Council Member Cader-Thompson spoke in opposition to campaign practices that smeared
2 4 candidates in the name of truth, in support of the Animal Shelter, and noted the success of
2 5 the recent Petaluma Band competition.
26
27 Council Member Healy commented on landlocked property at the proposed Rainier
2 8 Overcrossing and the Corona Overcrossing. He noted that serious questions had been
29 raised about retaining the aquifer and the long-term ramifications of continued gravel
3 o mining in the Russian River. He supported the City's adoption of an Ordinance to ban the
31 use of aggregates from the Russian River. He then commented about the Animal Shelter
3 2 and noted that he was concerned about the rising costs of the project and wanted to make
33 sure that the Animal Services Advisory Committee had thoroughly reviewed suggestions
34 made by Hank Flum.
35
36 Mayor Thompson expressed that he thought Mr. Keller's remarks were a "political hit
3 7 piece."
38
39 Council Member Cader-Thompson noted that she believed the campaign had sunk to
40 extreme lows, personal attacks on Council Members and their families.
41
42 PROCLAMATIONS
43
44 Mayor Thompson read the proclamation declaring October 17, 2000 as PetalumaNet Day
45 and presented it to Bill Hammerman, PetalumaNet.
46
LEI
October 16, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 255'
1
2 Bill Hammerman accepted the proclamation and spoke regarding the success of the recent
PetalumaNet Anniversary.
3
4 PUBLIC HEARING
5
6 9. Business Improvement District (BID): (Tuft/Beatty)
7
8 A. Discussion/Public Testimony on Establishment of Downtown Petaluma
9 Business Improvement District.
1o B. Introduce Ordinance 2104 N.C.S. Adding a Chapter to the Petaluma
11 Municipal Code Establishing the Downtown Petaluma Business Improvement
12 District.
13
14 Assistant City Manager Gene Beatty introduced Cheryl Wagner, Circle of Friends owner,
15 as the spokesperson for the BID.
16 Cheryl Wagner provided background information and a status report of the formation of the
17 BID.
18
19 PUBLIC COIVIIVIEIVT
20
21 Joseph H. Wagner, 136 Kentucky Street, Circle of Friends, stood in support of the BID.
22
23 Ray Farris,. Cavanagh Inn, 10 Keller Street, stood in support of the BID.
24
2 5 Tom Maunder, 200 Liberty Street #D, spoke in opposition of the BID.
26
27 Joseph H. Wagner, Circle of Friends, 136 Kentucky Street, spoke in support of the BID.
28
2 9 Jane Jernigan, Petaluma Downtown Association, 1187 Schuman, stood in support of the
30 BID.
31
3 2 Maggie Salenger, Petaluma Downtown Association, 18000 Gehriche Road, Sonoma, stood
33 in support of the BID.
34
35 Mary Neal, Petaluma Downtown Association, 625 Second Street, stood in support of the
36 BID.
37
38 Jeff Harriman spoke in support of the BID.
39
40 Wayne Vieler, owner of Kodiak Jack's, 256 Petaluma Boulevard North, had questions
41 about the wording on the resolution, the creation of a parking assessment district, and.
42 wanted an explanation from the Petaluma Downtown Association regarding how his
43 business would benefit; he was willing to support it but wanted explanations.
44
45 Consultant Dave Kilborn addressed Mr. Vieler's concerns related to parking, stating that
46 although it was not included in the BID at this time, it could be added in the future.
`~~
Vol. 35, Page 256
October 16, 2000
1
2
Steve Magnani, 220 Western Avenue, owner of La Famiglia, spoke in opposition to the
3 BID.
4
5 Gina Pittler, Petaluma Downtown Association, stood in support of the BID.
6
7 JoAnne Retko Pozzi, 320 Washington Street, spoke in support of the BID.
8
9 END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
10
11 Council discussion included:
12
13 1. Direction for the City to work together with the BID to clean up the garbage
14 downtown.
15 2. Page Two of the Fee Structure, line 25, should say "retail and restaurant."
16 3. The fee structure.
17
18 MOTION: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson to adopt
19 an Ordinance 2104 N.C.S. Adding a Chapter to the Petaluma
2 o Municipal Code Establishing the Downtown Petaluma Business
21 Improvement District (First reading).
22
2 3 MOTION
2 4 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
25
26 Recess: 9:00 P.M.
27
2 8 Reconvene: 9:10 P.M.
29
3 0 UNFINISFIED BUSINESS
31
32 10. Discussion and Possible Action on Interim Surface Water Management
33 Strategies. The Resource Management International, Inc. (RMI) Detention Pond
3 4 Feasibility Study Discussions Have Led to Several Alternative Options for the City to
3 5 Consider Including Banning or Restricting Construction in the Flood Plain, Modifying
3 6 Zero Net Fill Requirement, Fee for Development Impacts as Well as Construction of
37 Detention Facilities. This Item Will Seek Council Direction for Various Options for
38 Interim Surface Water Management Strategies. (Hargis)
39
4 o Director of Water Resources and Conservation Tom Hargis provided background
41 information and recommendations from City management regarding various options for
42 interim surface water management strategies. City management identified three objectives
43 they hoped to achieve:
44
45
1: Reduction of health and safety risks to citizens.
46 2. Reduction the repetitive damages to both public and private properties.
_,
October 16, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 257
1 3. Reduction of the post disaster public and private recovery costs.
2
3 He reviewed three proposals for the Council to consider as direction to City management:
4
5 1. Expand the existing Zero-Net Fill policy to all land covered by the floodplain
6 combining the district upstream of the Payran Street Bridge.
7 2. Adoption of a Zero Run-Off policy, which would limit any development from
8 constructing onsite detention, or for all. development to have to construct detention
9 onsite.
10 3. Establish a moratorium on construction so that there would be no additional runoff
11 into the Payran Street area until the General Plan was developed.
12
13 Mr. Hargis stated that the area encompassed the floodway and the flood plain, which
14 constituted the one hundred year flood plain, also referred to as the flood plain combining
15 district. He believed the City needed to lead by example; that is, this was a watershed
16 issue, not water basin issue. In order to gain attention regionally, the City needed to
17 address the issues within the City limits and then move forward with the County.
18
19 Council Member Cader-Thompson agreed with Mr. Hargis and stated that the City needed
2 o to focus first on protecting the members of the community and businesses from future
21 flooding; continued development in the floodplain would lead to greater problems. She
22 supported expansion of a Zero-Net Fill policy and expressed that the City should look at
23 the pros and cons of implementing this policy Citywide. She wanted a Council discussion
24 of the benefits of a moratorium upstream from the. Payran weir that extended to Industrial
25 Drive.
26
27 In response to questions from Council Member Healy, Mr. Hargis stated that when the
28 FEMA maps were revised, the floodplain elevations would change, showing a higher 100-
2 9 year floodplain elevation upstream from the weir. Downstream from the weir, the downtown
3 0 area, would still show as floodplain. Upstream, the benefits from the weir diminish around
31 three to four hundred feet downstream. The benefits also diminished and there was a 100-
32 year overflow through the old Friedman's site that impacted the downtown area. The
33 premise of floodplain ordinances was to allow development; that is, to fill in the floodplain
34 with the proviso that the 100-year flood elevation would not be increased by more than a
3 5 foot. Since 1989, there had been ongoing development pursuant to regulations prior to a
3 6 Zero-Net Fill policy and the detention pond concept. There was development in the County
37 resulting in additional hardscape that increased runoff in the City. No one that he was
38 aware of had determined what the likely changes would be to the floodplain elevation.
39 Floodplain studies were on a ten-year schedule for review/revision and one could
4o anticipate that changes may occur in 1999/2000 as the County's floodplain maps were
41 recently updated by FEMA.
42
43 Council Member Healy noted that he sent a memo the City Manager a few weeks earlier
44 asking for a calculation of how much net fill was added as a result of the recent
45 construction behind Fire Station #2 and wanted to know if Mr. Hargis or someone in his
46 department was working on that request.
~~~
Vol. 35, Page 258 October 16, 2000
1
2 Mr. Hargis replied that he understood it was being worked on. He did not know how many
3 cubic yards were added. He explained that it required a review of the grading plans to see
4 if there was a dirt balance and any indication of how much fill. This could involve contacting
5 the original developer for information.
6
7 PUBLIC COMMENT
8
9 John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive, spoke in support of a moratorium on construction so that
10 there would be no additional runoff into the Payran Street area at least until the flood
11 project was completed.
12
13 Matt Connolly spoke in support of expanding the existing Zero-Net Fill Policy to all land
14 covered by the floodplain, combining the district upstream of the Payran Street Bridge and
15 the adoption of a Zero Run-Off policy which would limit any development from constructing
16 onsite detention, or for all development to have to construct detention onsite. He was in
17 opposition to a moratorium.
18
19 Bob Martin, 141 Payran Street, presented a map of areas where water had been
2 0 displaced. He stated his concerns regarding water that had previously accumulated in the
21 floodplain and was displaced to another area by development. He spoke in support of a
22 moratorium and encouraged the City to pursue people who had done bermed landscaping
2 3 and elevated parking areas, such as at the multi-screened cinema.
24
25 Council Member Healy clarified that all of the areas covered on the map Mr. Martin
2 6 presented, with one minor exception, were, up until now, not included in the Zero Net Fill
27 area, which City management had proposed to include.
28
2 9 Wayne Vieler, 830-1 /2 `C' Street, supported the Zero Net Fill area and expanding it as City
3 0 management recommended; he did not support a moratorium.
31
32 Bryant Moynihan, 102 Dawn Place, did not support any of the proposed actions as he
3 3 thought that they would not keep the cost of housing affordable nor meet the needs of the
34 community to provide affordable housing. He pointed out that the alternatives
3 5 recommended did not coincide with the RMI consultants' report regarding detention ponds.
3 6 He recommended taking no action and/or moving forward with the regional decision
3 ~ makers, such as Randy Poole of the Sonoma County Water Agency (S.C.W.A.), the Zone
3 8 2A Committee, and the Board of Supervisors, to update the entire regional watershed plan,
3 9 implement new policies and mitigation measures that serve the community better.
40
41 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, did not support development and stated that he
42 supported all three recommendations made by City management.
43
44 END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
45
~S I...
October 16, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 259
1
1
l~
1 Council Member Keller provided historical background regarding federal policy. The City,
2 he stated, needed a comprehensive fix. Three components were before the Council,
3 which, he believed, were necessary: The extension of zero net fill in the floodplain lands
4 upstream of the Payran Bridge, it was necessary to have a zero increment in storm water
5 runoff and he wanted the following included, "and no change in peaks and timing." He
6 supported the upstream moratorium on floodplain construction until completion of the City's
~ Surface Water Management Plan including the modeling, the validation of the models, the
8 verification of calculations from any development project and the process by which it was to
9 be verified, a list of practices that developers could use to achieve acceptable and
1o recommended results. It required coordination of all the efforts including the need for a
11 "working, current, validated model, zoning, and best management practices." The costs to
12 incorporate these practices needed to be included with development fees.
13
14 MOTION: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson, to direct City
15 management to:
16
17 1. Expand the existing Zero-Net Fill policy to all land covered by the
18 floodplain combining the district upstream of the Payran Street Bridge.
19 2. Prepare for adoption a Zero Run-Off policy and include "no change in
20 peaks and timing," which would limit any development from
21 constructing onsite detention, or for all development to have to
2 2 construct detention onsite.
23 3. Establish a moratorium on construction so that there would be no
24 additional runoff into the Payran Street area until completion of the
25 City's Surface Water Management Plan, including the modeling and
2 6 validation of the models, the verification of calculations from any
27 development project and the process by which it was verified., and a
2 8 list of practices that developers could use to achieve acceptable and
29 recommended results.
30
31 Council Member Cader-Thompson provided historical background regarding flooding in the
32 area and stated she wanted the City to take a proactive approach to resolve flood
33 mitigation problems. She supported development but not in an area or manner that
34 jeopardized the safety of the community.
35
3 6 Council Member Healy noted his frustration with the slow progress, stating that on
3 ~ November 1, 1999, he submitted a memo to the Council that suggested expansion of the
3 8 Zero Net Fill area to include the 100-year floodplain on both sides of the highway, consider
3 9 an interim ordinance that required new development in the entire watershed upstream from
4o Payran to demonstrate zero impact on net runoff. He supported the resolution and was in
41 favor of taking along-term approach to the problem.
42
43 He believed the real issue for retaining the long-term viability of the flood fix was a
44 watershed issue, not a floodplain issue. He wanted to see an ordinance brought forward
4 5 that comprehensively addressed a requirement for zero net increment runoff for all projects
4 6 of a certain size upstream from Payran. He noted that onsite detention was not always the
Vol. 35, Page 260
October 16, 2000
1 best solution, as in some instances it would be necessary to have the capability to move
2 the water through more quickly than on others. He wanted to move forward with the
3 detention ponds the RMI report recommended and get a funding mechanism in place to
4 accomplish this. He was willing to look at amending the ordinance to include fill within a
5 foot higher, or what City Management recommended, of the current floodplain to foresee
6 problems.
7
8 He wanted to see as future projects came forward or as existing projects were redeveloped
9 that fill brought into the floodplain not be given "grandfather rights, such as Adobe Lumber
10 and the Auto Mall." He did not believe there was a basis for a moratorium in the floodplain
11 and explained that expansion of the zero-net fill, in a meaningful way, and addressing the
12 watershed issues, were the critical elements for preserving long-term effectiveness of the
13 flood fix. He questioned the City Attorney regarding the legal requirements that predicated
14 a moratorium; he recalled there was a necessity for specific findings based on evidence
15 and specific majority vote requirements.
16
17 Mr. Rudnansky replied the State statute that addressed interim moratorium ordinances
18 required afour-fifths vote; that is, a requirement of six votes of the seven Council
19 Members, and that there must be a finding that there was a necessity for the ordinance
2 o due to health, safety and welfare reasons.
21
2 2 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked for clarification of the statute that required afour-fifths majority of
23 the voting members and asked if that meant those present or the entire body.
24
2 5 Mr. Rudnansky replied that six of the seven Council Members must vote "yes" to adopt the
26 urgency ordinance.
27
2 8 Council Member Healy asked Mr. Rudnansky if there needed to be specific findings based
2 9 on evidence that supported the particular boundaries of a moratorium or the moratorium in
3 o general.
31
32 Mr. Rudnansky replied that it was helpful to have those findings. He added that in the past,
33 many moratorium ordinances had exceptions and that itwas very important when crafting
34 exceptions to be consistent; that is, not to work against the objective of the ordinance,
3 5 including boundary areas.
36
37 Mayor Thompson stated his concurrence with Council Member Healy's comments. He
38 noted that there was a motion on the floor to vote on Options One, Two and Three as set
3 9 forth in City management's report. He stated that he did not believe there was sufficient
40 majority of the Council to adopt an interim ordinance or a moratorium ordinance.
41
42 MOTION
43 AMENDED: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson, to amend the
44 motion and vote on Options One, Two and Three separately.
45
46 MOTION
~^ ,j _~
October 16, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 261
1 PASSED: Lack of a formal vote on the motion was deemed as Council's agreement to
2 amend the motion as stated.
3
4 Vice Mayor Torliatt inquired what property owners had been noticed regarding the agenda
5 item.
6
7 Mr. Hargis replied that no one was noticed; what City Management wanted was direction
8 from the Council on any of the three recommendations. That would initiate a process that
9 included formal noticing. He anticipated a significantly larger notice to the public than was
1o customarily done for discussions regarding detention ponds.
11
12 Vice Mayor Torliatt stated a concern that she had was that there was a requirement of a six
13 out of seven votes to carry any of the recommendations and asked if that should be
14 considered first. She added that all people who may be affected by the decisions made
15 should be involved in the discussions: the land owners, those with options on property,
16 Payran residents, Central Petaluma Specific Plan residents, praperty and business owners,
17 the Council and the Planning Commission. The developers needed to know what the
18 impacts were to people. A building moratorium could only be established for atwo-year
19 period. During that time, the City could complete its Surface Water and Drainage
2 o Management Plan. She believed there was cause for concern about how the City would
21 handle development and or redevelopment proposals over the next two years; the City
22 needed to see where the interest was currently for building on those properties. She had a
23 list of things she wanted to address that came up during the discussion, in particularly, the
2 4 increase in housing costs due to the Urban Growth Boundary. She believed the increase in
25 housing costs was due to the economic growth within the community and the number of
2 6 jobs created. The City was exploring high-density housing at a variety of sites in the
27 community. Also, regarding the "shift of peaks" and Council Member Keller's statements
28 that there would be no "shift of peaks," she thought the Council should look at the benefit
29 of possibly "shifting the peaks" in certain areas.
30
31 Council Member Keller replied that the City had no effective models for the basin. Once a
32 model was in place, the City could determine where and by how much it wanted to "shift
33 peaks." This was an interim policy until a Surface Water Management Plan was in place
34 and resolved through calculations and modeling.
35
3 6 Vice Mayor Torliatt continued that she concurred with her colleagues that there was no
3 ~ single solution. The City needed to have detention ponds with the existing conditions, let
3 8 alone additional development in the floodplain. She believed that minimally the Council
3 9 should adopt a zero net fill expansion policy of the lands affected. This Council had talked
40 with its Supervisor and the Sonoma County Water Agency (S.C.W.A.), Randy Poole
41 specifically, about a Regional Watershed Plan, drainage, run-off, water supply, and
42 groundwater. She stressed the importance of managing what was going on in the
43 community. She referred to Council Member Healy's comment that in a memo he had
44 written to the Council he asked for the expansion of the Zero Net Fill policy; she clarified
45 that it was not the Council who had not moved forward and was not active in its pursuit to
46 move it forward. The Council had waited for City management to come forward with it.
OBI
Vol. 35, Page 262 October 16, 2000
1
2 Council Member Healy disagreed, stating that City management responded to Council
3 priorities and he restated that he was disappointed that it had taken this long to get to the
4 point where Council had the opportunity to expand the Zero Net Fill policy.
5
6 Vice Mayor Torliatt did not agree. City management had worked on other prevalent issues
7 in the community such as the flood control project; they had worked diligently to get
8 reimbursement, and to get the job completed. She believed she shared the same desire
9 as Council Member Healy to have other items prioritized and scheduled on an agenda.
1o She wanted Council and the community to discuss priorities for
11 development/redevelopment in the floodplain, if approved. Prioritization needed to reflect
12 where the community wanted to build.
13
14 Council Member Maguire echoed Vice Mayor Torliatt's sentiments that the Council was not
15 the hold up on the Zero Net Fill. He recalled that he had asked for this item to come before
16 the Council prior to Council Member Healy being elected to the Council. There were other
17 things that had come up, such as getting the budget done in a timely manner to which each
18 Council Member had contributed. It was a gestalt, they all contributed to what ended up on
19 the agenda. If one was culpable, all were culpable. He preferred to view it in a more
2 o positive light. Council made tremendous strides in the operations of the City and moving
21 forward with this item now was an example of their progress. He was glad the maker of
22 the motion had separated the recommendations. He supported expanding the Zero Net
2 3 Fill Policy as proposed by City management and upon preparation of a refined Zero Runoff
24 Policy, he thought it should be brought back to Council for consideration and adoption.
25
2 6 Vice Mayor Torliatt agreed.
27
2 8 Council Member Maguire stated that the detention ponds as proposed by the RMI Study
29 presented an effective tool., but as Council Member Keller stated, there was a need to
3 o know the modeling to make it work. Regarding a moratorium, it was a mistake to build in
31 the floodplain. He did -not believe there was afour-fifths vote to adopt a moratorium now or
32 in the near future. He referred to Vice Mayor Torliatt's suggestion that if the City was to
3 3 allow building in the floodplain, it was important to prioritize and define where it was better
3 4 to allow it and where it was worse to allow it.
35
3 6 Council Member Cader-Thompson wanted a vote on no development in the floodplain
37 upstream from the Payran weir. She thought it was very important to vote on the issue,
38 though she knew it would probably not be successful. She wanted it to be a matter of
3 9 record that the proposal came forward and how members of the Council voted on it. She
40 referred to discussion about the RMi Study and noted that it addressed putting detention
41 ponds on properties whose owners had told the Council they did not want the City of
42 Petaluma taking their land so it could change water flow to avoid flooding problems. The
43 RMI Study would be outdated within twenty to thirty years and it was incumbent upon the
44 Council to make decisions with vision. The Council was responsible for making decisions
45 now that would protect the community now and in the future. She added that the Master
4 6 Drainage Plan for the County was outdated and there was a need to update it; a great deal
'J
1
E1
~ ~~
October 16, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 263
1 needed to be done and the County and the City needed work together. She supported a
2 moratorium and stated that development in the floodplain during the effective two years
3 should not be allowed. She added that consideration of development upstream of the
4 flood control project (which had a $34 million cost) was not reflect fiscal responsible.
5
6 Council Member Maguire, though in agreement with a number of things Council Member
7 Cader-Thompson addressed, did not support a vote of the Council now regarding a
8 moratorium. The item had not been noticed to the public as a significant land use issue
9 and even if a moratorium was ratified in concept, it would engender a great deal of distrust.
-~ 1o The Council took pride in extending maximum participation to the community in its decision
11 making process.
12
13 Council Member Cader-Thompson replied that she was asking for a vote at that time.
14
15 Council Member Healy wanted to parse the motions separately, walk through them and
16 have limited discussions on each one.
17
18 Council Member Maguire replied that the motion was already on the floor.
19
2 0 Council Member Healy agreed and added he wanted confirmation of the first motion; that
21 is, City management's recommendation of the expansion of Zero Net Fill. He was not clear,
22 after listening to City management, whether the motion was to adopt the draft resolution
2 3 provided immediately expanding the Zero Net Fill. He explained that was what he wanted
2 4 to accomplish. He noted that Council had waited a long time for this to come forward and
2 5 asked for clarification if further study was to be done and the item. was to consequently be
26 rescheduled to come back to the Council for something else.
27
28 Mr. Hargis clarified the intent was to receive direction to City management if the Council
29 supported a resolution expanding Zero Net Fill. If so, a public notice regarding an action
3 o based on the draft resolution would be published and distributed.
31
32 Council Member Healy summarized that Council had a draft resolution, the matter was
33 scheduled on the agenda for discussion and possible action, and questioned the City
34 Attorney whether the Council was in a position to legally adopt the resolution.
35
3 6 Mr. Rudnansky replied that the Council was probably procedurally in a position to take that
37 action. In a discussion he had with Mr. Hargis, it was recommended that additional
3 8 language and protection be built into any resolution the Council adopted.
39
40 Council Member Keller stated that he understood that the action was to legitimize giving
41 direction to City management to come back with a final resolution on each
42 recommendation. His motion was to affirm that the. Council wanted to move ahead with it,
43 develop the formal resolutions, provide comprehensive public notice, and bring them back
44 as soon as possible for Council action.
45
SIT
Vol. 35, Page 264 October 16, 2000
1 Council Member Healy noted that he would support the motion. He wanted a clarification
2 that should the time frame for the development of the three recommendations differ
3 substantially, he wanted them decoupled and brought back as they were completed. He
4 believed that the Zero Net Fill Expansion Policy should be less complicated. He wanted
5 the Zero Net Fill Expansion brought back in two weeks, that is, he did not want to wait
6 another year for it to be brought back to the Council.
7
8 Vice Mayor Torliatt suggested that the Zero .Net Fill Expansion Policy be scheduled as a
9 Consent Calendar item at the next regular meeting of the Council.
10
11 Council Member Maguire agreed.
12
13 Mr. Hargis indicated that he did not believe that would provide ample time for a
14 comprehensive notice to the public to be accomplished.
15
16 Council Member Keller supported having the Zero Net Fill Expansion Policy brought back,
17 independent of recommendations One and Two as provided by City management.
18
19 Mayor Thompson stated the intent was to expedite the item as soon as possible.
20
21 Council Member Maguire noted that he supported items One and Two.
22
2 3 Mayor Thompson clarified that if recommendation One, Zero Net Fill Expansion Policy,
24 would take less time than recommendation Two, Zero Runoff Policy, he wanted to have it
2 5 return independently of the Zero Runoff Policy.
2 6 Council Member Keller stated that given where he sensed the votes were at the time, he
2 7 wanted to vote on all three with direction to City management to bring them back as quickly
2 8 as possible, to group them as expeditiously as possible to have them on the same agenda.
2 9 He thought that recommendation Three, the .moratorium, was problematic; they would find
3 0 out quickly whether there was Council support to bring back a revised and more defined
31 recommendation. He thought Council needed to take the vote and he called for the vote.
32
3 3 Council Member Cader-Thompson agreed.
34
3 5 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked for clarification of which motion was on the table.
36
3 7 MOTION
3 8 RESTATED: Council Member Keller restated the motion was direction to City
39 Management to formalize a resolution and provide public notice to expand
4 o the existing Zero-Net Fill policy to all land covered by the floodplain
41 combining the district upstream of the Payran Street Bridge and bring it back
42 to Council for consideration, discussion and possible action.
43
44
45 MOTION
PASSED: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
46
Lit
October 16, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 265
1 MOTION
2 RESTATED: Council Member Keller clarified that the motion Council was to vote on next
3 was to direct City Management to prepare for adoption and provide public
4 notice for a Zero Run-Off Policy that would require zero increment in storm
5 water runoff upstream of the Corps of Engineers' weir (or Payran Bridge as
6 City management defined it best) and that there be "no change in peaks and
~ timing" which would limit any development from constructing onsite
8 detention, or for all development to have to construct detention onsite until
9 such time as a full Comprehensive Plan was in place.
10
11 Discussion by Council Members included giving City management more flexibility, and
12 depending on levels of comfort, to incorporate findings detailed in the RMI study. It was
13 agreed that should City management want to .bring it back with an argument for or against
14 the "changes in peaks and timing," the baseline was no increment in runoff from storm
15 water.
16
17 MOTION
18 RESTATED: Council Member Keller restated that the motion was direction to City
19 management to bring back a resolution that established a policy to
2 o implement zero increment runoff of storm water upstream of the Corps of
21 Engineers weir (or Payran Bridge as City Management best defines) and with
22 that a policy of no adverse change of peaks and timing; the baseline being
23 zero increment in storm water runoff; the alternative A and B is with or
24 without a policy on changes of peaks and timing.
25
2 6 MOTION
2 ~ PASSED: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
28
2 9 MOTION
3 0 RESTATED: Mayor Thompson restated that the motion was direction to City Management
31 to prepare and adopt an interim ordinance that suspended further
32 development on the land designated. floodplain combining district with the
3 3 General Plan 2000-2020 is completed.
34
35 Mr. Rudnansky noted that the passage of a moratorium ordinance required afour-fifths
3 6 vote. The motion was a direction to City management to bring something back and would
37 not require afour-fifths vote. He stated that Council input regarding exceptions and
3 8 boundaries, for example, was necessary and suggested that City management bring back.
39 a skeletal moratorium ordinance with the understanding that Council would fill in the gaps
4o at that time and establish a date that it would come to the Council for consideration and
41 adoption if there was support. He stated that the project would require considerable
42 resources and emphasized the importance that there be sufficient Council support prior to
43 City management 's commitment of those resources.
44
45 Council discussion indicated agreement with Mr. Rudnansky's clarification and suggestion
4 6 and included direction to City management to provide the Council with any knowledge they
~~~
Vol. 35, Page 266
October 16, 2000
1 had as to what projects were being discussed and who the participants were for future
2 development/redevelopment of floodplain properties with specific boundaries.
3
4 Community Development Director Mike Moore in anticipation of that request, provided a list
5 of projects currently in the floodplain combining district that were in various stages of
6 processing listed by project name location, project size and type, application status, and
7 noted that they were not listed in any particular order.
8
9 Council discussion continued and Vice Mayor Torliatt thanked Mr. Moore for providing the
10 information and asked him to provide the same to Mr. Hargis so it would be included with .
11 City management's report when it returned to Council. Council Member.Keller noted that
12 the list provided by Mr. Moore included of thirteen projects with over a million square feet of
13 space, and was larger than what he expected. He pointed out that was why the Council
14 needed to address the issue. City management was directed to divide the list to reflect
15 projects on the north side of the Payran Bridge and those to the south and that a map key
16 was included. Requests for a straw vote were unsuccessful.
17
18
19 MOTION
2 0 RESTATED: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Maguire, to give City
21 management direction to bring the item back as a discussion item for
22 development of a moratorium.
23
24 Council Member Keller called for the vote.
25
2 6 Council discussion followed and clarified that the action did not implement a moratorium,
27 that discussion about the development of a moratorium would come back to the Council
2 8 after proper public notice was done and City management was prepared to address the
2 9 Council on the matter
30
31 Council Member Healy asked for a point of clarification from the maker of the motion as to
32 whether or not City management was directed to come back with a moratorium of the
33 entire floodplain memorialized in a document.
34
3 5 Council Member Keller replied that it was as Mr. Rudnansky had suggested, that City
3 6 management bring back to Council a skeletal outline of what a moratorium would/could
3 7 look with any variety or possibilities that City management was appropriate for the Council
3 8 to discuss. That would become initial discussion for whether or not the Council and the
39 public wanted to proceed with a moratorium.
40
41 Council Member Healy indicated that he was willing to change his vote; he was willing to ~~
42 look at the issues in more detail.
43
1
44
45 Council asked to re-vote on the motion. ~,
46 MOTION
~~~
October 16, 2000
i PASSED: 6/0/1(Hamilton absent)
2
3 ADJOURN
4
5 The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
6
7
8
9
10 ATTEST:
11
12
Beverly J. Kline, City Cle
15
1
it
*******
Vol. 35, Page 267
E. Clar ompson, ayor
~~~