HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 07/24/2000July 24, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 11:3
1 _ City .of Petaluma, California
2. .. Minutes of a Special
3 ~ ~ ' ~ City Council`Meeting
4
5
6 IVlonday, July 24; 2000
7 " ~ '. Council Chambers.
8
9 The Pefaluma City Council met on this date at 7:00 p:m. in the Council Chambers.
10
1.1 ROLL CALL
12
13 Present: .Hamilton; Healy, Keller (arrived during Closed Session) Maguire, Thompson,.
14 .Torliatt
15 ~~ ~ ,.
i 6 . Absent:' ~' Caller-Thompson
17
18 -PUBLIC COMMENT
19
2 0 -None
21
22 CLOSED SESSION
23
24 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky announced the following item to be addressed in Closed
2 5 Session:
26 .
27 Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation, Si,gnifieant Exposure to Litigation
28 Pursuant to Subdivision (b)` of Government Code~Section 54956.9(b) (1 Matter)
29
30 ADJOURN
31
32 Closed Session adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
33
35
36 RECOIVVEIVE
37
3+8 ~The~Petaluma City Gouneil resumed its Special Meeting. on this date at 7:20 p:m. in the
3'9 Council. Chambers.
4` 0 - .
41 ROLL CALL =~
4'2 , _ ..
43~ Present:- Hamilton, Healy, Keller, .Maguire, Thompson, Torliatt
44
45 Absent: Caller-Thompson
46
Vol. 35, Page 1l4
July 24; 2000
1 REPORT ON ,CLOSED SESSIQN y
2 •_ ~-
3 Mayor Thompson announced there'was no reportable action taken in~ Glosed Session.
4 .
5 PLEDGE. OF ALLEGIANCE
6
7 At the request. of` Mayor Thompson, Randy Poole led the Pledge of.Allegiance. _
8
9 MOIUIENT' OF SLLENC~E ~ _
,:10 ~ '- •
11 At the request of Mayor Thompson, a Moment of Silence was observed. - _,
'12 -
13 PUBLIC' COMMENT ~ ~ `
14 4 '~
15 Beth Meredith.. 104 Fifth Sfreet spoke regarding the quality of pub is discussion,~and 'the _
16 recent forum on transportation. She asked that when a high. profile issue was. on they
-~ Council's agenda that the Council establish a specific time on the agenda, .
18 ,.
19 Mayor Thompson replied that~the format was staff report and'then public comment. If nof2a
2:0 public hearing, then of the end.of the Council's discussion. _
21
22 Geoff Cartwright 56 Rocca Drive. spoke regarding the meeting tfe fo lowing.evening{atth~
23 Rohnert Park Council Chambers flooding problem in Petaluma '
24
2 5 COUNCIL .C.OMMEIVT
26
27 Council Member Hamilton wanted people. fo know that she thought it was important: for
2 8 peop a to speak afterthe, Council's discussion. She: asked, that the format~of; the. meetings
29 be firmly established so the public would know when they could. speak.
30
31 Vice Mayor To;rliatt asked for an update regarding the McNear light removaland the stafus
32 of the Prince Park lights. installafion., Regarding Council: Member Hamilton`s:comments of
3 3 last week aboutCouncil's review of the City's Boards, Committees,. and. Commissions, she
3 4 noted the Senior Advisory Committee approached her and `indicated they would. like to be
3 5 first, on the Gist; they wanted. clear .direction. She asked City Management to schedule the
3 6 item on. Council's agenda soon.
37
3 8 Council Member Hamilton noted'`that the Senior Advisory Committee and -the Counci_I had_
3.9 never interacted as far as she could remember serving on this Council. .
40
41 Council Member I<eller~referred an electronic snail transmission the: Council received dated
z ,
42 July 21, 20.00 from .Richard .Brawn,. and. asked. that City LVlanage,ment <and `Council. .~
43 familiarize themselve"s with the points he made ~as they addressed substantive concerns
44 about the, Lok Marina Hotel development project: ~ _
45 '
July 24, 2000
1 COIJIVCIL AN® CITY MANAGEMENT REPORTS
3 None
4
5 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
6
7 None
8
9 MINUTES
10
Vol. 35, Page 115.
11 March 23-24 Washington D.C.
12 July 17, 2000
13
14 Motion: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved, seconded Maguire byto adopt the minutes of
15 March 2~3=24, '2000 (Washington D:C. meetings') and' July 17, 2000 with
16 the following corrections:
17
18 Torliatt: July 17"; 2000: Page, 4 line 24; "the `City would deduct their 10% share. of
19 this grant from the total value";
2 o Page 12 line 27 "Gerald;" not Garald;
21 Page 14, line 46 "Sheeks;" not Sheets;
22 Page 15, line 21 Add: "She favored the height at twenty-three feet; the
23 ~ stained glass window insert; heavy landscaping'to allow maximum.
2 4 privacy for the Dranits and 50%50 split; of the total amount of the cost
2 5 to replace the fence on the property fine with the Dranits."
26
27 Healy: March. 23 24 Washington D:C.- change roll .call to reflect parties actually
2 8 present; corrections submitted in writing to the Clerk.
29
3 0 July 17, 2000: Add the. vote of the Council for each of the applicants for
31 the Boards, Committees, and Commissions.
32
3 3 Motion Passed: 6/011(Cader-Thompson absent)
34
35 PUBLIC HEARING
36
37 1. Discussion and Possible Action on 11th: Amended Agreement for Impaired
3 8 Water Supply and Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water
on System Capacity AI_I;ocaton During Temporary lrnpairment and
39 Transmissr'
4 o Operating .Procedure for South. Petaluma Aqueduct/Operational Memorandum
41 of Understanding. '(Continu'ed from Council •Meeting of April 24, 20.00). Begh
42 Discussions of Possible Acquisition by Sonoma County Water Agency (SC1NA) of
43 Potter Valley Project and. Presentation by the SCV1/A Regarding 6.6% Water Rate
44 Increase to City and Discussion of a 10% City Rate Increase for Water.
45
46 Water Resources and Conservation Director Tom' Hargis provided background information
47 on the meetings and workshops that had been held since the beginning of the year. He
Vol. 35, Page 116
July 24, .2000
1 explained there were three major components to this item:.
2 _
3 1) The 11th Amended Agreement that ,had been adopted for the short term for the
4 expansion of the water supply and delivery system servicing the contractors off the
5 Russian River Water Supply;
6
7 2) A Memorandum .of Understanding developed by the contractors serviced off. the
8 Russian River Aqueducf, Looking at a.pipeline that did. not supply all of the City's needs
9 with a source of delivery that d_id not; meet, all the demands., the document addressed
1 o how the resource was to be shared over the next five to ten years.
11
12 The pipeline serving Petaluma and North M.arin Municipal 1NaterAgency (NMUVWA)`was
13 one of the most severely constrained elements of the water delivery system. Work with
14 SCWA led to the development of operating criterion applicable during the summer months
15 and other short periods of time whereby the resource would be, allocated with the
16 assurance of maintaining Petaluma's was not run dry:
17
18 3,) SC1NA;had proposed' a~,6:6% rate increase to the City and varying rates, to each of the
19 contractors that became eff_ ective this, month. The City proposed raising its rates to its
2;.o customers by18%,; this amount was:deterrnined by°past rate increases totheCitysince
2`l 1:995 that'had not. been prorated back to the consumer.
22
23 He referenced'C:ouncil's understanding'that a simlar.situation existed with the sewer rates;
24 'in order to fund the 'Gen_eral Plan, staffing; and., to discontinue taking monies out of
2 5 reserves., rates'for both water and sewer had to be raised..
2,;6
2'7 Council Member Hamilton asked, for clarification of the= format by which Council would
2:8 proceed with thee. item. She noted that the City of Petaluma was the only remaining
2 9 contractor needed to approve Amendment 11. .
30
31 Mr. Hargis :replied yes and added that another item to begin„discussing was the Potter
32 Valley project; it head been a long time-wince the ~Cou"ncil had; discussed the project.. He
33 prodded a handout that he ,received at; SCWA Contractors meeting that cporn~ing. The
3 4 priorities for this meeting were the discussions on Amendment 11, the pipeline and water
35 system expansion, the Memorandum of Understanding for impaired water supply.,... Less
3 6 critical was Council's direction to City Management regarding operating procedures and
3 7 rate incre"ases.
38
39 Council Member. Hamilton. noted that. at each meeting Council had aboat Amendment
40 11 she.heard,a''betweerrthe lines" threat°to the community that should Council not~approve
41 Amendment 11 there would,.be ~negatiVe repercussions and that the Council should just
42 approve it. She wanted it clarified that .there were: other choices.
43
44 M.r. Hargis replied;that she was correct and added that'the othcr~contracting agencies had
4:5 approved Amendment 11 by the latter part of 1999.- The. City had options. He d'id not~want
46 anyone left with the perceptiorrthat Petaluma would turn into a`dust bowl and blow.away if
July 24, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 117
1 Council did not si'gn.the agreement. Petaluma, by participating in the aqueduct expansion.,
2 would receive Russian River water to meet its existing General. Plan population.projections.
3 The City currently had an entitlement of 17 million gallons per day. At General Plan build.
4 out, without having gone into a_ new. General Plan. effort,. City Management wanted to
5 increase that to 21..8 million gallons. per day. That would come. off the aqueduct supply.
6 The City had alfernatives and he believed. City Management would continue to pursue
7 some alternatives; water`conservati'on'elementsincluded wafer recycling, improved ground
8 water utilization, water efficiency, and. storage and. ,recovery of winter flows from the
9 Russian. River'to supplement that ground water, salt water desalinization, would contribute
10 to the availability of more water resources. There were uncertainties with these elements
11 just~as there was with the Russian River water supply..
12 ~.
13 Council Member Hamilton again questioned whether the choice was limited to take it or
14 leave it.
15
16 Mr. Hargis replied that here would be a point in time that he suspected it would come to
17 that. The other contracting agencies and SCWA.were anxious #o proceed with the pipeline.
18 project. They. may decide to rewrite the agreemenf without Petaluma's agreement and
19 continue the project on their own' or at least enter into that type of discussion.
20
21 Council Member ;Hamilton asked whether the Council could recommend changes they
22 wanted includ'ed:'~, "'
23
24 Mr. Hargis replied yes. He added thafthere was some flexibility with the City's allotment in
25 the future with increases or,decreases reflected in the General Plan. Should Council not
2 6 sign the agreement now,; it did riot.necessarily.`permanentlypreclude the City from joining
2 7 at some time in the future; He explained that for the City to join in later a vote by the rest of
28 the contractors to agree~wa"s required:
2 9 i ~ ~ ,, .
3 0 Council 'Memb'er'Harnilton did not want to have a public hearing that focused on a yes or
31 no resolution :and she wanted the opportunity for the Council to interact with Amendment.
32 11's composition and provide input that would improve the agreement.
33
34 Gouncil~ IVlember Maguire inquired whether Santa Rosa had signed the agreement or not.
3 5 He understood that as of a~couple of weeks ago they had not as they were concerned that
3 6 wells: They drilled might be counted -against. their allocation.
37 - .. -
38 Mr. Hargis believed that issue;was addressed in the.Memorandum of Understanding forthe
39 impaired water°supply. He then deferred to Mr.. Poole.to respond.
40 -
41 Mr. Poole replied that was correct, Santa Rosa had not signed the Memorandurrm of
42 Understanding.
4:3 x
44 Mr. Hargis clarified.. that Santa Rosa had signed Amendment 11.
45
4 6 Councif Member Maguire agreed with Council Member Hamilton. He wanted the Council to
,-
Vol. 35, Page 118 July 24, 2000 - - .
1 approach this issue in a co_ mprehensive mariner. A number~ofimomentous,ssues were at
2 stake... Those included: ' ,-
3
4 1. Redundancy'in the water upply allocation..
5 2. How much water this Council agreed, should,,go south.
6 3. The. City's part and the City's cost in than: '
~ .4. The lawsuit against°SCUVA regarding the Potter Valley project;
8 5. The huge increase in take from the Russian Ri~e,r:
9 6, Implementation. of~conservation p.ractices'to avoid further exploitation of resources.
1.0
i1 Vice Mayor 'Torliatf stated her understanding was .that tYae. Council. could approve
12 Amendment 11 with changes. SCWA would then present- the other contractors with
13 changes to see if they would agree to abide'by those changes.
14
15 Mr. Hargis'belie~ed that'to be correct.
16
.,.
17 Sonoma~Gounty Water Agency General Manager Randy Poole tafed.at this time~SCWA
18 was, not prepared .to accept changes toWAmendment 1:1, SCW~~.wanted Council'sfvote that
19 night or within. 'the week or the agency would proceed with ,another document: He
2 o continued that the process for this document began in 1991 and a fair amount of time
21 expended on its development; it was not~somethi'ng that SCWA could go;back and': ask the`
22 eight other entities to changeover night. Arnendm_ent 11' wound not change..
23
2 4 PUBLIC' COMMENT
25 ~ .
26 1. John, King, 861`7 Petaluma. Hill, Road, Penngrove, :1055=Adobe,.`Road; Petaluma.
2~ presented a map with locations of wells that had lost~water, the Rohnert Park
2 8 EIR that identified the. water table had decreased and-Hewlett Packard/.Aglent
29 made a statement that they had to stop.:relyng on their well 500 feet as switched
3 0 to 1.00 percent: reliance to outside ., Is the County givir;~g consideration fo a move
31 to create a~ protection. by the: ;What was going on with ahe proposed ground
3 2 water study. ~~ ~ - '
33
34 2. Niel< Arguimbau, 697 Cascade Drive, Fairfax;9493.0;spok~ in .opposition -to, the,
35 City approving Amendment 11. ~"`` ~ x- _
36 Y .
37 3. Jeff Hellman, 6Z6 Cascade Drive, Fairfax~94930 spoke.`in opposition to-thee-City
3 8 approving Amendment 11.
39
4 0 4. Josh Knox,. 35 Ridge R, oad, San Anselmo 94,960 spoke in opposition to the City
41 approving Amendment 11 :without. amendments..
42
43 5. Don 1Neisenfluh, 1092 Wren, spoke in opposition "fo=the: City approving
44 Amendment 11'.
4 5 .r ..
46 6. Louis Nuyens LII, 40 Forest Drive,. P.O. Box 287, Forest Knolls,94933, spoke. in
~. _
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
July 24, 2000
Vol. 35; Page:119
opposition. to the City approving Amendment 11 and ,addressed growth,
increased rates, the Potter Valley suit, capacity., and a pipeline to nowhere.
7. Siena Belsky P.O. Box 377„ San Geronimo, Marin County, spoke in opposition to
the City approving Amendment 11 and .addressed fhe Eel River Lawsuit, the
Potter Valley Dam; Sonoma. County's incomplete SIR, and Mariri Municipal,
embarking on an EiR that was nine years old.
8. Tom Yarish, Tomales Bay Association; 23 Nelson .,Avenue, Mill Valley,. spoke in
opposition to the City approving Amendment 11.
9. Nadananda, Executive Director of the Friends of the Eel River, POB 2305,
Redway 95'560, spoke in opposition to the City approving Amendment 11. She
touched on issues involved regarding petitions, earthquakes, a new fault,. a `"
published newsletter, the Eel River ReporCer to follow the developments,:. the. t
FERC regarding the Potter Valley Project was not a done deal like Edwards.
Dam.
Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if there was a possibility of closing the Potter Valley darn. ~~
Nadananda replied yes
10. Chris DeG'abriele, North Mann Water District; 44 Monte Vista, Novato spoke in
favor of the Gift' adopting Amendment 11.
11. J.T. Wick, President, Petaluma :Area Chamber of Commerce, Baywood Drive,
spoke in favor of the City adopting. Amendment 11 and signing the MOIJ.
12. Geoff Cartwright; 56 Rocca Drive, spoke in opposition of supporting development
without the funds how much would'it cost the: City.
13. Kay Russo, 837 Rancho Way, spoke in support of the. Council adopting
Amendment 11 and the MOU; the water deli"very system needed to be improved..
1'4. Dan Libaro; 1.3t~9 "I" Street, sp.oke'in support of'the. G.ouncl adopting
Amendment 11 and the MOIJ; the City needed more water.
No Action Taken.
2. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Baker Street Bar & Grill, 205 Kentucky
Street
A. Appeal pt' Jon Jernigan and Jim Maestretti of the Planning Commission's ;9%1.4/,99
Revocation~of the Conditional Use Permit He_Id by Baker Street Bar & Grill at 205
Kentucky Street, APN 006-275-023.
Vol. 35, Page 120
July24, 2000
1 B. Determination that Public Convenience; and Necessity is No 'Longe.r .Se:rved by
2 ~ Baker Street; Bar & Grill Retaining its Type 47 (On-Sale General - Eafing Place)
3 State of California Alcoholic Beverage Control License.(Thomson)
4
5 Jane Thomson 1,.,. deny, up,h"old,'upholdthe appeal and revoke.cup.., Recommending PCN
6 not be overturned. (Caj:un Moon)
7
8 Council .Member' Keller ... and wanted to have: the; costs reimbursed by the owners.
9
1 q Council Member kiealy thought it was a separate ::issue.
11
~12 Mr.~Binion was not Baker Street
13 ._
,14 CounciLNtember Keller
15
16 Council Member Maguire 3 calls in six:months; ,progressively billed 5 - 10 calls revokes the
17 cup.::
,18
19 PU.BLIC~CO'MMENT
20 .
21 Jon Jernigan regarding clarification of ownership; joint partners have formed an LLC.
22
23 Motion: Council Member :Maguire moved,, seconded by Healy to uphold the appeal
24 subject to six=month probation; noise limits;; and hours of operation.
25
2 6 Motion
27 Passed: 6/0/1(Cader-Thompson absent)
28
2.9 UNFINISHED BUS1fVESS
30
31 14. Bodega Avenue Improvement' Project
32
33 A. Resolution Rejecting AIf Bids for the Bodega Q~enuE;..lmprovement.Project and
34 Authorizing City Personnel io R'e-advertise, for Bids in 2001 with the City's
3 5 Portion of Improvements Only. and V1lithout the West View (Estates Subdivision
3 6 Frontage Improvements. The: Improvements 1Ni_II Include a New Traffic}Signal at
3.7 Bantam Way, a Modified.. Traffic Signal at 1Nebste.r Street,., aTwo-Way Left Turn
3 8 Lane, :Bike. Lanes; Sidewalks;. Curb Rarnps; :Planter Strips, Streef Trees,; .the
3 9 Upgrade of Utilities Such. as Storm Drainage, 1Nate`r-and, Sewer Mains, Asphalt
40 Overlay, Bus Turnouts and Street Lights.
41
42 B: Resolution Amending 'West View E"states' Subdivision Agreement to Allow the
43 ~ Subdivision o Contribute $212,195`to the City's Underground Utility Fund fior the
4.4 '' °° Future Undergrounding of Utilities, Along Bodega Avenue, in: Lieu of
4,5 ~ Unclergroundng their Utilities Along Bode~ga.Avenue with the construction of the
4.6 Subdivision's: Frontage Improvements; Requiring Subdivision to Modify Their
July 24, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 121
1 Frontage Improvements Along Bodega Avenue to Match the City's Future
2 Roadway Lmprovements; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Payback
3 Agreement With the Developer for the Modifications.
4
5 Supervising Engineer Michael Evert reject bids and amend 1Nest View estates for (read
6 resolution language..
7
8 Outside Counsel Attorney David Ginn explained .advised the City to reject all bids.
10 PUBLIC COMMENT
11
12 Mike Senneff representing North Bay Construction, 50 Old, Courthouse Square, spoke in
13 favor of Council consideration /„adopting Option three to reject Argonaut's bid and proceed.
14 with North Bay's bid.
15
16 Rachel. Dollar representing Argonaut;
17
18 John Barella, 496 Jasmine Lane, Owner of North Bay Construction
19
2 o END PUBLIC COMMENT -
21 ~ -
22 Council Member Healy there was a threat°ofilitigation, he favored staff's recommendation.
23
24 Motion: Council IVlember~Healy,moved, seconded by Maguire to adopt the
2 5 following resolutions:
26 -
2 7 A. Resolution Rejecting All Bids.for the Bodega Avenue Improvement Project
2 s and Authorizing City 'Personnel fo Re-advertise for Bids in 2001 with the
29 City's Portion of Improvements Only .and-V1/ithout the West View Estates
30 Subdivision Fronta'ge,lmprovements. The Improvements Will Include a New
31 Traffic Signal at Bantam Way, a Modified TrafficSignal at Webster Street; a
32 Two-Way Left Turn .Lane, Bike Lanes., Sidewalks, Curb Ramps, Planter
3 3 Strips, Street Trees,,the Upgradepf Utilities Such as Storm Drainage,lNater
34 and Sewer Mains, Asphalt Overlay; Bus Turnouts and Street. Lights.
35
3 6 B. Resolution Amending West View Estates"Subdivision Agreement to Allow
37 the Subdivision to Contribute $212,1:95 to the City's Underground Utility'Fund
3 8 for the Future .Undergrounding of Utilities Along Bodega Avenue, in Lieu of
3 9 Undergrounding their Utilities Along Bodega:Avenue with the construction: of
40 the Subdivision's Frontage Improvements; 'Requiring Subdivision to Modify
41 Their Frontage Improvements Along Bodega Avenue to Match the City's
4z Future Roadway Improvements; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a
43 Payback Agreement With the Developer for the Modifications. .
44
45
46
Vol. 35, Page 122
July 24, 2000
1 Motion
2 Passed: 6/0/1 (,fader-Thompson absent)
3
4 ADJOURiV
5
6 The meeting adjourned at 11':35 p.m.
7
8
9
10
11
12 ATTEST:
13
~,
14
15 Beverly J. Kline; City Clerk
16
17 •.
_. Clark Thompson,; Mayor
18
19 .