HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 05/01/2000May 1, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 439
1
2 City of Petaluma, California
3 Minutes of a Regular
4 City Council Meeting
5
6
7 Monday, .May 1, 2000
g Council Chambers
9
10
11 The Petaluma City Council met on this date at 3:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
12
13 ROLL CALL
14
15 PRESENT: ~~ Council Members Healy, Keller, Maguire; Vice Mayor Torliatt
16
17 ABSENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton; Mayor Thompson
18
19
20 PUBLIC COMMENT
21
22 Lynn Haggerty King, 835 6th Street, McNear Elementary Site Council, presented a
23 petition signed by 300 +/- persons and spoke regarding her concerns about the safety of
24 the .children where McNear Elementary School intersects with Sunnyslope and asked
25 that an arterial stop sign be added.
26
27 Vice Mayor Torliatt recommended that Ms. King and Ms. Eckhardt contact Mike Evert in
28 the Public Facilities and Services Department to address their concerns, and keep in
29 touch with Council Member Gader-Thompson, liaison with that department. From there,
30' it will go back to the Council for action.
31
32 COUNCIL COMMENT
33
34 Council Member Keller requested a Special Meeting of the Council take place next
35 Monday, May 8, and that the General Plan Amendments to Sonoma County
36 Transportation Plan and Sonoma County Transportation Authority issues be scheduled
37 for discussion and possible action on the agenda.
38
39 Council Member Maguire supported that suggestion.
40
41 City Manager Fred Stouder indicated that he was not sure that all Council Members
42 were in agreement to have a Special Meeting on Monday, May 8, 2000.
43
44 Council Member Maguire advised he had called Mike Kerns' office and asked for a more
45 reasonable amount of time.
46
Vol. 34, Page 440
May 1, 2000
1 Council Member Keller responded that Mr. Kerns returned his called and advised.. that
2 Council has the time needed.
3
4 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked the City Manger fo contact ,all Council Members to see if a
5 Special. Meeting on Monday, May 8, 2000 would be attended to discuss transportation
6 issues and General Plan.
7
8 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
9
10 Continued to the evening ession as New Business. Council Member Maguire
11 recused himself as he .had a conflict of inferest created ~y the location of his
12 personal residence -there was no quorum:
13
14 8. Resolution Accepting Completion of the East ®Street:.Sidewalk
15 Replacement Project, Phase" 1, Contractor: Ghilotti Brothers Construction: Total
16 Cost. of Project: $56,731.00 {Moore/Johnson)
17
18 Continued#o evening session:
19
20 10. Resolution Awarding Contracts fora Landscape Maintenance in Landscape
21 Assessment District'Areas 1 and 2 to North. Bay Landscape Management.and
22 Area 3 to Nessco. Rejection of Bids for Landscape Medians, Area 4.
23 (Carr/Anchordoguy) .
24
25 Removed and continued to a date uncertain:
26
27 12. Resolution. Authorizing North Bay Construction as a Sole. Source Bidder, to
28 Provide Grading and Drainage at the Lucchesi Park-Soccer Field at a Cost of
29 $180,016, in Preparation for the installation of a Synthetic Soccer Field Surface:
30 (Carr)
31
32 13. Ridgeview Heights Subdivision:
33 a. Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
34 b. Resolution Approving the Tentative Subdivision Map ,and PUD
35 Deve opment Standards (continued from April 1'7, 2000). (Grunt/Moore)
36
37 APPROVAL OF' MINUTES.
38
39 MOTION: Council Member Healy moved, seconded by Keller,. to approve the
40 minutes of the October 2, 1999, February 24, 2000 and April 5, 2000
41 meetings, with the following correction:
42
43 .April 5, 2000, page 22, Firefighters .Local 415, state for the record that.. the
44 Council could meet with the firefighters individually.
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1.9
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
May 1, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 441
MOTION
PASSED: 4/0/3 (fader-Thompson, Hamilton, Thompson absent) as corrected.
PROCLAMATIONS
Vice Mayor Torliatt read each proclamation and presented them to the individuals as
follows:
Police Officer Memorial Week -Received by Police Chief Pat Parks
Be, Kind to Animals Week - No one present to receive the proclamation
Municipal Clerks' Week -Received by City Clerk Beverly Kline
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Resolution 00-74 N.C.S. Approving Claims and Bills (Cornyn)
2. Adopt Ordinance No. 2099 N.C.S. Implementing the Bicycle Plan (Second
Reading)
3. Resolution 00-75 N.C.S. Accepting Completion of the 1999-2000 Sewer Main
Rehabilitation Project, Project #9799, Phase 6. Contractor: Insituform
Technologies, Inc. Final Project Cost: $268,000. (Evert)
4. Resolution 00-76 N.C.S. Authorizing the Purchase of Office Furniture for
Establishment of the Department of Water Resources and Conservation.
(Hargis)
5. Resolution 00-77 N.C.S. Authorizing the Use of Walnut Park. for the 2000
Petaluma Farmers Market Season. (Carr)
6. Resolution 00-78 N.C.S. Approving a Joint Use Agreement with the .Petaluma
Swim Club for Use of the Petaluma Swim Center During the 2000 Swim
Season (Carr)
7. Resolution 00-79 N.C.S. Authorizing Free Use of the Petaluma Community
Center by Project Graduation of Casa Grande High School. (Carr)
9. Resolution 00-80 N_C.S. Authorizing the Purchase of NEC LS 21 Live Scan
Fingerprint System from NEC in the Amount of $38,205.00
MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Healy, to adopt
Consent Calendar items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9.
MOTION
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
3.8
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vol. 34, Page 442
May 1, 2000
PASSED: 4/0/3 (Caller=Thompson, Hamilton, Thompson absent)
11. Resolution 00-81 N.C.S. Awarding Bid to Install Athletic Field Lights-at "prince
Park'to United Utilities, Inc., for $180,750. (Carr)
Vice Mayor Torliatt requested a time line for the project.
Parks and Recreation director Jim Carr stated that as soon as the contract was
awarded, the time .line would be created.
Council Member Keller asked if there was an estimate.
Mr. Carr replied. that the contract holds that the lights need to. be in within 45
days. His guess was inside of 30 days.
MOTION: Council Member .Maguire .moved,. seconded by Vice Mayor'Torliatt,
to adopt Resolution 00-81 N;C.S. Awarding Bi'd to Install .:Athletic
field Lights at Prince Park to United Utilities, Inc. for $180,750
MOTLON
PASSED: 4/0/3 (fader-Thompson; Hamilton, Thompson absent)
Jim Morrissey, ..Harmony Electric, 2525 Joseph Court, Santa Rosa, spoke
regarding his bid on the project and his concerns regarding the City's" bid
process.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
14. Report Regarding Status of Payran. Project and Discussion and Possible
Direction Regarding Payran Flood Management. Project Financing and Budget.
(Hargis/Stouder)
City Manager .Fred Stouder provided status of the project. Last. week, four letters
went. to the.federal government putting forth strategy and discussions. The first
was a forma'I request with .attached invoice for payment to Dr. Westphal-; the
Assistant Secretary of-the Army for Civil works., asking him to invoke Arficle 14,
Section A of the" 1;996 agreement and deem the confiniaation of-the projecf. In
other words, it asked'the federal government to pay tha invoice the. City received
for $2.5 million while the larger question of a future authorization -and
appropriates is pursued: Mr. Stouder and Mr. Hargis nay have the opporfunity°to
meet with Dr. V1/estphal during his trip to the Bay Area. He was aware of this
request.
A summary of the interim payment issue is moving as well as it can. The letfer
received #rom the U.S. Army Corps dated April' 18 indicated the-need to notify the
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
May 1, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 443
Corps by May 10 of the City's intention to pay the invoice on or .about May 30. If
the City tells them it can't or won't, they will then suspend the project until the
funding issue is resolved. The City is not ready to recommend it attempt to pay
the invoice.
The second item concerned the long-term strategy with letters going to each
member of the Congressional delegation with suggested wording for new
authorization under the Water Resources Development Act. Mr. Stouder's
understanding was that the actual wording was under development. Many
parties, national and local, have worked out the suggested wording.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke regarding the flooding problem in
Petaluma and he urged the City to continue trying to get funding. He urged the
citizens to write to :representatives and ask them to try and get funds
appropriated for the project.
ADJOURN
The Council adjourned the afternoon session at 4:15 P.M. and noted that they would
meet at Aram's at 5:00 P.M. for dinner.
********
Evening Meeting
Council Chambers
The Petaluma City Council reconvened its regular meeting at 6:30 P.M. on this. date in
the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Healy, Keller, Maguire; Vice.
Mayor Torliatt
ABSENT: Council Member Hamilton; Mayor Thompson
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
At 6:35 p:m. the Council adjourned to Closed Session in the City Manager's
Conference Room.
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
Vol. 34, Page 444
May 1, 2000
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-.EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) Of Government Code
§54956.9), Hunter vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case Number220351
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code §54956:8.
Property: 4:104 Lakeville High. way (APN's 01.7-170-0.02 and 068-010=026) Negotiating
Party: Frederick C. Stouder. Under Negotiation: Price; Terms or Payment or Both: (Gray
Property)
********
RECOIVVEIVE
The Petaluma City Council reconvened its regular meeting ors this date at 8:30 P.M. in
the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Harniltori, Healy, Keller; Maguire;
Vice Mayor Torliatt
ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
PUBLIC COMMENT
Scott Seinfeld, representing the Prim Family, proposed an upscale street faire/farmers
market/open air market in the Corona Reach area.
Terence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, advised that, two weeks pcio~r he suggested to the
Council to offer a reward in the Fishman Supply case. He th®ughf'it should become an
official policy by Council' resolution. If the City declined to offer such a reward, it should
release a written statement explaining the decision:
John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive, thanked Council for their .hard. work on the Payran Flood
Control project. He expressed concern about continued construction in the flood plain.
Victor Chechanover, 2301 Marylyn Circle, spoke regarding his water bill and sewer
rates and asked for up to date information regarding allocating sewer charges to water
usage.
Council Member Healy advised that "the wheels were furning~"toward use based sewer
rates.
May 1, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 445
1 Council Member Cader-Thompson suggested including this information with the water
2 bills so the entire community will know what is going on.
3
4 Mr. Cheehanover advised he had made that suggestion several times. The second
5 issue he spoke about was the living wage. He thought it appropriate to know if the
6 Council had any philosophy about a living wage. He asked if that would be on a future
7 agenda.
8
9 Vice Mayor Torliatt advised it would be addressed around budget time.
10
11 Bryant Moynihan, 102 Dawn Place, reminded Council that the City Charter, section 59,
12 indicated that on or before the first Monday in May of each year, a drafted City budget
13 was to be before them. He did not notice any agenda mention of the budget. On-time
14 presentation of the budget was promised for this year. That promise had not been
15 fulfilled, as it was not last .year. There were other promises not being fulfilled, such as a
16 new budget format. He had asked previously about the Capital Improvement Plan,
17 which was presented in draft form, but not reviewed or adopted by Council. Mr.
18 Moynihan pointed problems with not adopting long term CIP's, specifically mentioning
19 the Payran Project. He asked what had been spent on that project and challenged the
20 Council to let the public know about what he viewed as broken promises.
21
22 Bob Martin, 171 Payran Street, using a visual aide, referred to a 10-year-old zero net fill
23 violation fully within the flood way, across Stony Point Road. He brought it up a few
24 months before and also ten years ago. He had heard unofficially that the fill had been
25 declared legal. He thought it was a good example on how a flood way had been
26 encroached on a zero net fill area, and that it cast a shadow of doubt on all zero net fill
27 projects within the City. Immediately upstream is Leisure Lake Mobile Home Park and
28 according to the Brian Kangas Foulk's fault numbers, in the storm of February 1998,
29 ten-year base flood elevations were exceeded by one foot during aforty-year storm
30 event. This measurement was taken immediately upstream of the flood way
31 encroachment. The flood way needed to be restored as soon as possible.
32
33 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca_ Drive, advised that when the Corps project started out, it
34 was a 205 project, with a $5 million commitment by the Corps and a $17 .million total
35 cost, with the City catching the additional. However, it became a $34 million project and
36 the City is still stuck with an 85% share and the federal government only stuck with a
37 15% share. He was amazed that Mr. Moynihan continued to attack the Corps project
38 and its funding; he was aware that Mr. Moynihan was a commercial real estate
39 salesman and may be making money in the flood plain and that he doesn't like the fact
40 that redevelopment funds have been tied in the Corps projects, but something must be
41 done about the flooding.
42
43 Diane Reilly Torres, Rainier Avenue, requested that the Council respond to the
44 problems of the homeless and how the City can help people. She asked that this be the
45 subject of another meeting, perhaps at Luchessi, so the public can address it.
46
Vol. 34, Page 446
May 1', 2000
1 Council Member Hamilton answered that there were' homeless services and suggested
2 Ms. Torres speak with John Records of Commission on the Shelterless (COTS).
3
4 Ms. Torres said she. would not go anywhere; that it needed to be addressed by the
5 Council. She wanted answers to questions.
6
7 Council Member Healy advised that when the Council approved Housing Administrator
8 Bonne Gaebler's budget, one thing included was an allocation of $1 million for the
9 armory replacement program. That is something staff is working hard on.
10
11 Ms. Torres said the homeless .still needed a place to eat and ,deep.
12
13 REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
14
15 Vice Mayor Torliatt announced that no reportable action was taken on the Closed
16 Session items.
17
18 COl1NCIL C-O,MMENT
19
20 Council.. Member Hamilton attended a poetry #o.rurn benefit at the Phoenix Theater and
21 gave a proclamation to Tom Gaffey on behalf of the City Council and the Mayor.. She
22 was happy tasee the .entire place filled and ,hoped if was jusf the beginning of events
23 where the community could meet and benefit the young people. The poetry was
24 wonderful. She had -never seen .anything like That in Petaluma:
25
26 Council' Member Hamilton. announced that- ".Ride Your Bike to Work Day" was May 16
27 and it would be convenient to have the Bike Plan on the City'; Web site so ,people-could
28 find safe routes.
29
30 Vice Mayor Torliatt thought it should be ready and. that there were bike maps available
31 at Redwood Business Park.
32
33 Council Member Healy expressed thaf in his view of the budget.. process; the most
34 important thing #his year' is to get a budget adopted before fhe fiscal year begins on July
35 1. His :understanding is that staff 'is till on track to accomplish that goal. He asked. the
36 City Manager to advise them of more specific :information.
37
38 Mr. Stouder advised Ghat it should be ready for printing before the. middle of the. month
39 so the. Council should have the draft before the first workshop. Thereare now two to
40 four public budget workshops scheduled.
41
42 Vice Mayor Torliatt advised that the ,previous Thursday and Friday, she and .Council
43 Member Caller-Thompson .attended the Association of. Bay Area Governments {ABAG)
44 annual conference,.. which addressed the Bay Area housing needs.. It was interesting. to
45 hear what other cities are doing and she: was. proud to say, that about 22%~of Petaluma's
46 new stock housing is "affordable." She also announced a "M~~w Down Air Pollution
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
May 1, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 447
2000" program., which is a buy-back campaign to increase public awareness of the air
pollution caused by residential gasoline lawn mowers. A consortium of public and
private entities are offering a monetary incentive to individuals who exchange their gas
powered lawn mowers for a discounted rechargeable cordless electric mower. It is an
electric/battery operated mulching mower offered for $219 instead of the regular $389
price. The local supplier is Lars Engine at 979 Transport Way in Petaluma. The
exchange is happening after April 29.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
Rescheduled to a date uncertain:
10. Resolution Awarding Contracts for Landscape Maintenance in Landscape
Assessment District Areas 1 and 2 to North Bay Landscape Management and
Area 3 to Nessco. Rejection of Bids for Landscape Medians, Area 4.
(Carr/Anchordoguy)
Item 15A will be heard before Item 15.
ANNOUNCEMENT
15A. Resolution Condemning Acts of Flatred.
MOTION: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Maguire, to adopt Resolution
00-83A N.C.S. Condemning Acts of Hatred.
MOTION
PASSED: 6/0/1 (Mayor Thompson absent)
APPOINTMENTS
15. Resolutions of Appointments to the Petaluma Youth Commission. (Carr)
Appointing a Youth Commission is the first of two steps, the second will be
appointment of a Teen Council in June. Thirteen people applied to sif on the
adult mentor group, of whom eleven were called in for interviews. Seven people
were selected. The interview panel consisted of Council Members Healy and
Caller-Thompson, along with Kay Russo and Sue Ellen Thompson from the
Petaluma Health Care District and David Rose from the Petaluma School District.
The seven people chosen were Tom Gaffey, Dave King, Jan Parkinson, Alan
Anspach, .Debra Eubanks; Bill Hartman and Faith Ross. Debra Eubanks, due to
a death in her family, sent a letter of resignation. The interview panel
recommended for the two-year term: Alan Ansbach, Bill Hartman, Faith Ross;
and for the one-year term: Tom Gaffey, Dave King, and Jan Parkinson. There is
the opportunity to move someone into the two-year slot. The interview
Vol. 34, Page 448
May 1, 2000
1 committee decided that if more people were needed, they would do another
2 recruitment.
4 Council Member Hamilton asked hat when .someone is picked for the empty slot,
5 that it be someone in their 20's.
6
7 Council Member Cader-Thompson thought someone in the arts should be
8 brought in. She also recommended that Tom Gaffey have the two-year term
9 because of his work with. the teens. Everyone. who applied was great and well
10 qualified.
11
12 Council Member Keller thought at leash one member of the Commission should
13 be fluent in Spanish. He would like to see a,couple of teens. as voting members .
14 of the Commissions; rather than have a group of adults setting policy and
15 programs.
16
17 Mr. Carr advised that their hope was to have two teens as voting members of the
18 Commission.
19
20 Vice. Mayor Torliatt'introduced the new Commission m~,mbers., She advised that
21 the Commission. is working through fhe schools,, the Phoenix, and other venues,
22 to recruit for fhe Teen Council.
23
24 MOTION: Council Member Maguire rnove,d; seconded by Cader-Thompson,
25 to adopt .Resolution 0,0-83 N.C.S. Appointing Members of the
26 Petaluma Youth Commission.
27
28 MOTION
29 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Mayor Thompson absent)
30
31 PUBLIC HEARING
32
33 16. Resolution.Authorizing the Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience
34 and Necessity to Greg McCord Authorizing the Operation of A-:1 Taxi of
35 Petaluma, Inc:; and On the Move;. Inc. Yellow Cab, Beiaire Cab:, Radio Cab.,. a
36 24-hour, 18 Cab Taxi Service Inside Petaluma City Limits. (Moore)
37
38 Jane Thomson stated.. that the C.ify Council was being asked to approve ,a
39 resolution for a Certificate of Public Convenience aril Necessity; requested by
40 Greg McCord, currentlythe owner of'a transportation company located in
41 Greenbrae. The name of his company is O,n; The Move.. He is requesting the
42 certificate because he plans to operate a 24-hour, 18-cab taxi service. He is in
43 the process of purchasing A-1 Taxi of Petaluma, Inc. from the current owners.
44
45 He also proposed to operate On The .Move; comprised of an additional eight
46 taxis: two Yellow Cabs, one Belaire Cab and five .Radio Cabs. Mr. McCord would
May 1, 2000
Vci: 34, Page 449
1 like to have the ability to operate the other eight taxis should he need to, inside
2 Petaluma. He proposes no change to -the current operations. The other eight
3 taxis will continue to be stored in Greenbrae and the dispatch center will also be
4 in Greenbrae. The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their meeting
5 on April 11 and recommend approval of the certificate.
6
7 The proposed resolution has four conditions that mirror those that are in the
8 Petaluma Municipal Code and talk about fares, taxis, etc.
9
10 Council Member Healy did not see if there was a change in the current fares.
11
12 Walt Watkins, A-1 Taxi, advised that the current rates are: $1.80 to start the
13 meter, $1.80 a mile. They have been that way since almost six years ago. There
14 is a 10% senior discount.
15
16 Gregory McCord, 4769 19th Street, San Francisco, is the proposed purchaser of
17 A-1 Taxi and he wanted to bring up item number 2, regarding the fare rates. The
18 rates listed are what he proposes to charge or at least be able to go up to in the
19 coming months. He would actually like to ask for a ceiling of $3.00 for flag drop
20 and $3.00 per mile. That enables him, over the coming years, to raise the rates
21 without coming back in front. of Planning and in front of Council. In other cities
22 where he has permits, he operates under a ceiling. The ceiling in Marin County is
23 $3.00 or $3.20. For seven years his business was at $1.90 and just recently
24 raised the rates.
25
26 Ms. Thomson responded that Petaluma has only one taxi service. The Planning
27 Commission requested that the staff do an analysis of the other companies.
28 Most in Sonoma County do not have a ceiling. It varies in Marin County.
29
30 Council Member Healy referred to the staff report, which indicated they were
31 going this route because of a section in the Municipal Code, chapter 14.20. He
32 wondered what that section of the code required with regard to setting fares.
33
34 Ms. Thomson answered that 14.2260, which is out of Title. l4 of the Municipal
35' Code_ states that all rates charged by owners of certificates shall be fixed and
36 determined by the resolution of the Council. The Council can fix the rate at the
37 ceiling of $3.00 and Mr. McCord has the discretion to charge lower rates, but not
38 higher.
39
40 Council Member Hamilton advised that the first time she heard about the ceiling
41 was that night and she would have to think about it. She suggested that the
42 resolution be passed as is and the applicant can come back to make that
43 change„
44
45 MOTION:- Council Member Cader-Thompson moved, seconded by Maguire, to adopt
46 Resolution 00-84 N.C.S. Authorizing the Issuance of a Certificate of
Vol. 34, Page 450
May 1, 2000
1 Public Convenience and Necessity to Greg NIcCoCd Authorizing the
2 Operation of A-1 Taxi of Petaluma, inc:, and On the Move,. Inc. Yellow
3 Cab; Belaire Cab; Radio Cab, a.24-hour, 18 Cab Taxi Service Inside
4 Petaluma City Limits
5
6 MOTION
7 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Thompson absent)
8
9 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10
11 17. Status: Report regarding the City of Petaluma's Integrated Pest Management
12 (IMP) Program (Carr)
13
14 Ed Anchordoguy, Park Supervisor for the Parks. & Recreation Department,
15 advised that. a resolution was adopted last August regarding integrated pest
16 management and he was there to advise Council of the current status.
17
18 Approximately 2,000 yards of mulch are spread through the parks and the
19 landscape assessment .districts. each year.: Mulching is the most effective way to
20 non-chemically prevent weeds. In the ..past year, they targeted between 3% and
21 5% reduction of use of herbicides arid so far thi's year, they have achieved .a 10%
22 reduction. They do use some chemicals for pest control, but those are the lowest
23 toxicity they can find that will still be effective. The posting program advises 48
24 hours before and' 48 hours after where. and when chemicals are applied. There
25 has been a positive response from the public to the posting.
26
27 They are.starting mechanical. means of removing weeds from the playgrounds.
28 They have discontinued herbicide treatment in playgrounds and set a.30-foot
29 perimeter around them.and most of those areas will 6e mulched.. They have
30 been experimenting with non-chemical use of different products; one made out ofi
31 corn that is spread .over the ground and melts and makes a barrier against. the
32 weeds - it is totally organic: There has been some success with that and they
33 are looking to expand it use.
34
35 In their landscape-assessment districts (LADs), they are about to go out to new
36 contract.and one stipulation is that mulching will be maintained and that.. the
37 areas not mulched will be'muJched. They are expecting that a yearfrom now, all
38 landscaping in all assessment districts will be mulched.
39
40 Council Member Maguire voiced his pleasure with the report.
41
42 Council Member Hamilton mentioned that right after sf~e read the reporf, she
43 walked. outside and passed someone who was spraying weeds (not someone
44 from the City) in the wind.
45
May 1, 2000 Voi. 34, Page 451
1 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked if it was possible to put something
2 together to put in the Parks and Recreation newsletter to let the public know what
3 the City is doing and what the public can do.
4
5 Mr. Anchordoguy has intended to that.
6
7 Ronnie Cohen thanked the Council for moving ahead on integrated pest
8 management. She thought that the City could do better than a 10% reduction in
9 herbicide use. She urged the Council to take action to speed up the process of
10 switching from toxic products. She is concerned about the use of chemical
11 sprays in and around waterways. She relayed an experience of a friend of hers
12 with breast cancer who was exposed to DDT as a child. She knows that the City
13 sprayed trees around a creek that runs through Westridge. She asked why
14 mulch was not used.
15
16 Last summer, the Council said it would try to include landscape assessment
17 districts into the Integrated Pest Management Program (IPM) as contracts for the
18 LADs expired. The City did .not ask the contractors to include in their bids the
19 price of incorporating the City's IP:M program or for the price of posting
20 notification in advance of spraying or for the price of using least toxic means. The
21 Council said it would bring the LADs into compliance in to the IPM program when
22 economically feasible. She asked how it would be known if it is economically
23 feasible if the contractors were. not asked to bid the jobs that way.
24
25 Hank Flum, 1721 Stonehenge Way, was pleased to hear about the IPM program
26 and reminded the public that there is still. another way to deal with weeds - by
27 bending down and pulling them. He lives in a neighborhood where the City has
28 tried to deal with the weeds in public space, but in the parkways, the
29 homeowners often neglect the weeds they are responsible for and the place
30 looks overgrown. The public needs to take some responsibility for weed control
31 as well.
32
33 Council Member Hamilton agreed with Ms. Cohen and would like to see the
34 City's efforts increased.
35
36 Council Member Keller also agreed that the contractors should bid on non-toxic
37 means. He would also like to see a program of public education. He asked. Mr'.
38 Anchordoguy if there were any instances of the Asian Wood Borer and what was
39 happening with the Sudden Oak Death Syndrome.
40
41 Mr.. Anchordoguy advised there were no Asian Wood Borer instances..- Sudden
42 Oak Death Syndrome appears to be coming over the hill from Sonoma Valley.
43 There are not many instances in Petaluma. Pablo Silvero, who is with the
44 University of California Extension, is working on possible prevention and Mr.
45 Anchordoguy will be talking to him towards the end of May. Right now, the only
Vol. 34, Page 452
May 1,.2000
1 preventative, the efficacy of which is 'questionable, is tf:~e application of a
2 chemical.
3
4 Council Member Keller asked that as-that information came in, Mr. Anchordoguy
5 advise the Council so that it could be distributed to the public.
6
7 Council Member Cader-Thompson. thought that on King Road there was an
8 infestation in some, oak trees and that it (Sudden Oak heath Syndrome) was
9 actually here..
10
11 Mr. Anchordoguy responded that, according fo the County's monitoring system,
12 as of two weeks ago, there was nothing in Petaluma.
13
14 Council, Member Cader-Thompson asked fora draft of what would be expecfed
15 regarding. pesticides use and the LADs.
16
17 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked how the City w.as working. with the school di'stricf on
18 this issue.
19
20 Mr. Anchordoguy responded that the City was not.
21
22 Vice Mayor Torliatt said 'that since item. 10 regarding the LADs was. pulled, she
23 thought it appropriate the LRM issue be addressed before. it comes bacK to the
24 Council. She also'wanted to let the Council know that:the Gityof Sebastopol
25 would be considering, the following day; a voluntary toxic free zone and. will be
26 looking at banning the application of all chemicals on publicly owned properties.
27 She thought they could learn from what they were. doing.
28
29 Council Member Maguire noted they were not approving the use of insecticides
30 in the landscape maintenance of the'LADs. He asked Mr. Anchordoguy'if they
31 talked about the mulching and noticing.
32
33 Mr. Anchordoguy advised that: they did not take .bids for an alternative because in
34 his discussions with contractors; 'the prices are from two to,three times. what they
35 ,are paying now. Some of the LADs cannot handle thai:. By this time next ,year, all
36 areas will be~mulched. That should significantly reduce fhe use of herbicides.
37
3'8 Council Member Maguire asked if it was fhe 48-hour noticing that drives.the price
39 up.
40
41 Mr. Anchordoguy had some discussions with everal different contractors~and
42 just posting could, bring the price. up anywhere from 25%o to 100%, depending on
43 the contractor.
44
45 Council Member Maguire asked if Sebastopol had LADs. .
46
May 1, 200.0 Voi. 34, ,Page 453
1 Mr. Anchordoguy replied that. Sebastopol only has one park and maybe two or
2 three medians in the whole city. They have no LADs. Petaluma has hundreds of
3 acres.
4
5 Council Member Keller would like to ask the management of the. LADs what they
6 want there and they would have to pay for it. There is a local funding vehicle that
7 is entirely under their control. He would like to see a meeting for representatives
8 of LADs.
9
10 Council Member Cader-Thompson could not. believe that the contractors could
11 not post at least the day they do the spraying.
12
13 Mr. Anchordoguy said that if you take a typical LAD, there are maybe five cul de
14 sacs, a front entrance, all areas that need to be posted. It does require
15 equipment and man-hours to do it. It gets down to a matter of ,money...
16
17 18. Application of Chelsea GCA for Processing a PCD Modification and Addressing
18 Condition 53 of Resolution 91-136 to Allow Future Development of the Factory
19 Outlet Village.
20
21 Mike Moore advised that on April 5, 2000, the Council meeting as the Corona
22 Reach Committee determined that it did not want to proceed with the Corona
23 Reach Specific Plan. They asked City Management to come back with a
24 resolution reflecting the Council's determination not to proceed with the Specific
25 Plan, as a result of the timing with the General Plan update and other issues. The
26 resolution would also direct City Management to begin processing the application
27 from Chelsea GCA for the PCD Modification and their project, which proposes to
28 add approximately 240,000 square feet of commercial retail space on Parcels B
29 and C, which adjoin the existing Factory Outlet Village on the north and south
30 sides. Attached as part of the. staff report is a copy of the.
31
32 Chelsea has asked for discussion. regarding a proposal in anticipation of an
33 Environmental fmpact Report that the consultant be under contract to Chelsea.
34 This is different from the City's customary procedure for selecting .and processing
35 and Environmental Impact Report. However, neither the state nor local
36 guidelines prohibit this from happening. The guidelines attached to the staff
37 report indicate that it is possible for a consultant to prepare an EIR under the
38 retention of the project applicant. This is not a scoping session. Joan Lamphier
39 & Associates was there to answer questions regarding her qualifications and
40 background. She comes with very good qualifications. This does not diminish
41 the City's responsibility of lead agency in review and approval of the EIR. The
42 City's role in the environmental review process would be the same as if the
43 contract were the City's contract with the consultant.
44
45 Council Member Maguire asked why the City would relinquish control,,
46
Vol. 34, Page 454
May 1, 2000
1 Mr. Moore responded that Chelsea has requested this option because they feel
2 they would like to be able. to control the timing. Given the staffing circumstances
3 at this time, Mr. Moore did not think it -was a bad idea. at would not necessarily
4 diminish the Gity's control. The option is that the Council could go with the
5 customary process'whereby the City would contract with a consultantand~the
6 applicant would pay for those costs. The applicant has also suggested a
7 reimbursement agreement that would cover staff costs associated with the
8 application and the EIR. That could enable the City to hire contract staff to move
9 the process. along.
10
11 Council Member Maguire asked if' Ms. Lampier was under contract to Chelsea,
12 would that mean that any correspondence between them is privileged.
13
14 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky said... that typically a public record is anything that
15 is kept, in the normal course of business of the agency.
16
17 Council Member Maguire asked, Mr. Moore to give a rough cost and timeline
18 using the standing procedure.
19
20 Mr. Moore replied that going through the, normal process would probably take
21 about six weeks: Staff does have the option. of single-sourcing the. document o
22 the process could be simplified.
23
24 Council Member Maguire asked for clarification on reimbursement to staff.
26 Mr. Moore .advised Chelsea has_ offered to reimburse staff for costs associated
27 with processing the EIR..There has been no detail worked out yet.
28
29 Council Member Keller voiced concern with the proposed resolution, 2nd ,page,
30 line 7, regarding "substantial compliance .with eonditior~ 53 and direct staff to
31 process Chelsea application without a need fora completed CRSF." He asked
32 for the meaning of "substantial compliance with condition 53:''
33
34 Mr. Rudnansky replied that if Council adopted this resolution,, it would be a
35 Council determination that, based on some of the events and. information
36 received, there is enough information that essentially would be the same as° the
37 preliminary master plan uhder condition 53.
38
39 Council Member Keller said that if he. disagreed that there has not been enough
40 compliance with the intent and performance of-condition 53 In his understanding;
41 the project applicants have chosen to push ahead without meeting the broader
42 requirements that a condition 53 would ..have imposed on .information for this
43 Council.. He was not sure he wanted to reference that inthis resolution. He did:
44 .not think there has been substantial compliance.
45
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
May 1, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 455
Council Member Maguire asked if the wording could be changed to "substantial
change in the need fvrcondition 53." The General Plan and EIR would be tools
to answer questions that could come up.
Council Member Hamilton asked Mr. Keller to clarify his comments.
Council Member Keller spoke regarding the need for condition 53. He understood
that the burden would be on the applicant to provide the City with enough
information. to make the judgment on issues that go beyond their project
boundaries, particularly drainage and habitat issues.
Council Member Hamilton did not know how the applicant could answer the
City's need for information for condition 53. It was Ms. Hamilton's understanding
that Council would be making decisions taking into account that they would not
have certain answers.
Council Member Keller clarified that Council has waived the necessity of having
full information ahead of their application.
Vice Mayor Torliatt.said that in the agenda title that it was an application for
Chelsea GCA for processing a PCD modification and addressing condition 53. It
did not say "satisfying."
Council Member Keller said the phrase could be altered to "agreed that the
project applicant will attempt to address issues raised in condition 53." He could
not agree with "substantial compliance."
Council Member Maguire offered his wording in the "substantial change in the
need for condition 53."
Council Member Hamilton would agree with that language.
Council Member Keller stressed that it should be clear that it is not the change in
the need for information as for the actual condition 53.
Mr. Rudnansky suggested another possible wording: "There has been a
substantial change in the circumstances which led to condition 53."
Council Member Hamilton replied that they have not changed at all. They could
say, "because of changed circumstance in the City's General Plan, the Council
deems that because of fhe prior studies and information, there has been
substantial change.in the need for condition 53."
Mr. Rudnansky suggested a combination of those two phrases.
vol. 34, Page 456 May 1, 2000
Council Member Maguire said that they are looking for an EIR from the. applicant.
They have stated manytimes in the past that the EIR, may .not be sufficient
information for Council to find in favor of the project. Chelsea is also at risk of
running afoul of changed General Plan, zoning, designations as well.
Council Member Keller wondered about the reference ~to the new General P an
being wrapped. info this resolution.
Council Member Hamilton thought the point was that Council was.letting
condition 53 go with the idea that whatever information is not obtained from the
EIR process will be obtained through the General Plan process.
Council Member Keller clarified that they .could not process the application until
the General Plan was done.
Council Member Hamilton di agreed; they were waiving condition 53:
Mr..Rudnansky said the reference'to the General Plan in the title should have
been deleted from the drafts.
Fred Etzel, attorney for Chelsea GCA, referred to .a point. raised by Council
Members Healy .and Hamilton. They do not want fo get to the end of the ELR
process and come before Council, only to be told the,ro will be no decision
.because the G"eneral Plan is not. done. He -would like confirmation.
Council Member Maguire responded. that until Chelsea. presented an EIR, there
was no way he could say the EIR. would satisfy his questions.
Mr. Etzel asked what would have to be in the E1R to satisfy Council Member
Maguire.
Council Member .Maguire .said a scoping session woule' determine that. The EIR
may answer all .questions as to impact, yet it may not. guarantee support of the
project.
Mr. Etzel clarified that Councif could certify the EfR as being' legally adequafe
and still rejecf the project.
Council. Member Maguire agreed that would be a possibility.
Mr. Rudnansky explained that all that was being said was that Council., was not
requiring the Plan.to be complete .before they rule on Chelsea's application.
Mr. Etzel said that if it looks Like-there will be changes in the. latest designation for
the Chelsea parcels A, B, and C in the General Plan process, Chelsea does not
May 1, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 457
1 want to be in a position where the Council will not make a decision because the
2 General Plan is not done.
3
4 Mr. Rudnansky said that is the issue every contractor and developer faces. He is
5 not saying that is what will happen, but he does not want any rights waived at this
6 point.
7
8 Matt Connolly, Chelsea GCA Realty, believed he has a quality project and is
9 looking for the opportunity to present that to the Council. The EIR will be a tool to
10 determine the merits of the project.
11
12 Joan Lamphier is the principal of Lamphier & Associates, in business for twenty
13 years. They work for about forty cities throughout the Bay Area. They do EIRs
14 and are hired by cities to act as staff on major projects and to assist them in the
15 environmental review. They are hired by cities when they have projects that need
16 to be processed in a timely manner, About 80% of their practice is directly for
17 cities.. Several clients such the City of Oakland, the Port of Oakland, City of
18 Santa Clara and the City of San Francisco :actually require the applicant to
19 contract directly with the EIR consultant. They view their job here as preparing a
20 legally defensible EIR document that complies with guidelines.
21
22 Council Member Keller asked Ms. Lamphier to explain the difference in the EIR
23 process when they are hired by the applicant and by the city.
24
25 Ms. Lamphier experienced.. no difference. The people are very sophisticated and
26 most people are aware of the standard of practice. The issues here include
27 hydrology and they have retained: Philip Williams & Associates with whom they
28 have along-term professional relationship. She believes they are one of the best
29 hydrologists in the state. For traffic consultant they have West in San.Rafael.
30 They have picked their consultant teams for technical ability and familiarity with
31 the community.
32
33 Council Member Keller asked about having all correspondence available for
34 public review.
35
36 Ms. Lamphier thought that would be no problem.
37
38 Council Member Keller asked if Council decided they wanted a different
39 subcontractor. but you were under contract with the project proponent, how they
40 would deal with that.
41
42 Ms. Lamphier answered that because they were legally responsible for the
43 document, they would want to be sure that the subcontractor has the technical
44 expertise that is needed.
45
Vol: 34, Page 458
May 1, 2000
1 Council Member Keller referred; to Mr. Control y's: statement that the EIR'is a
2 vehicle'to determine: the merits of the project Mr. Keller disagreed. The: SEQUA
3 is not a ,project evaluation tool other than a series of criteria for environmental
4 assessment. It does not address, the merits or validity of a project.
5
6 Mr. Etzel responded that. he had said 'it was "one of the tools."
7
8 Council Member. Healysaid thaf what struck him most about the materials .was
9 the expectation of turning.. out a draft EfR in 75 days.
10
11 Ms: Lamphier said that could be done. She explained there was a preliminary
12 scope of work that has been done. One of'the first steps is to do a, notice :of
13 preparation and an initial study and have a public scoping session. If the; Council
14 chooses o approve the resolution, they would meet with Mr. Moore and set out
15 that schedule. She hoped for a public scbp.ing session within thirty days,; which is
16 the typical .time frame., Dependin" g on what comes out at:that session; they may
17 have fo amend the scope of work. Philip 1Nilliams & Associates: has done a lot of
18 work'n Petaluma, so .they are familiar with the base line'condition and issues of
19 the community.
20
21 Council Member Keller asked who would do the initial assessment.
22
23 Ms. Lamphier said they would probably do that themselves.
24
25 Council Member Keller asked if her firm would do the coping session.
26
27 Ms. Lamphier said it would be in "partnership with the City because: all along, the
28 way, the City would want to be involved i'n the-process: Ultimately, the document
29 will come before the Council for consideration. They .can eh;air the session., notice
30 it, set it up, but City staff, Councif and Planning Commission would attend.
31
32 Council Member Keller noted it was :an unusual arrangement and he was trying
33 to sort out some of the issues, such as public involvement.
34
35 Ms. Lamphiex hoped that. the Planning Department would be involved. Each city's
36 General Plan is different.
37
38 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if Ms.:Lamphier had worked on or bid on any other
39 projects in the City of Petaluma.
40
41 Ms. Lamphier answered that many years ago; they submitted, a .proposal for a
42 project on the river, butshe did not think it wentthrough.
43
44 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked Ms. Lamphier how much time she would personally
45 spend on the project. "
46
May 1, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 459
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1'5
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
Ms. Lamphier will be the project manager and oversee all aspects.
Vice Mayor Torliatt asked Mr. Moore when they would have the Requests for
Qualifications (RFQs) back for the General Plan for the hydrology component.
Mr. Moore replied that the RFQ letter went out the previous week and the
process should be complete mid-summer.
Vice Mayor Tocliatt's concern is how the hydrology statistics on this project would
go with the information from the General Plan.
Council Member Keller asked who owns the work project on research performed
on hydrology.
Mr. Moore replied that if it is~information prepared for an EIR, he thought it would
be City information..
Vice Mayor Torliatt`would like the applicant to state that is, in fact, the case.
Mr. Etzel amplified that the City as the lead agency has the legal duty to exercise
their independent judgment on the EIR. If the City does anything less than that,
that goes right to the validity of the adequacy of the EIR and makes its potentially
subject to litigation. His organization has a strong interest in making sure the
document is legally adequate and open to full public exposure and debate. Any
information in the EIR becomes a matter of public record.
Vice Mayor Torliatt said that Philip Williams & Associates were not recommended
because they had proprietary ownership over the information they created in their
model.
Ms. Lamphier said that Philip UV~illiams & Associates have a concern that
someone would take their information and do designs based on it and then they
are legally liable because their information is used in a way that was. not
intended. In their contracts with Williams, they do sign that they will not use the
information for any other purpose. There is an errors and omissions issue with
them, but they could sort that out.
Council Member Keller said the problem with them as a General Plan consultant
was that they couldn't turn over the model. There was no issue with the data.
Vice Mayor Torliatt said that the City would want to use the information gathered.
Council PJlember Keller said the data would be available and that is why they are
casting again for the General Plan.
Vol. 34, Page 460
May 1, 2000
1 Vice Mayor Torliatt. agreed, .but wanfed to manipulate the dafa to fell something in
2 the future.
3
4 Council Member Keller thought that was related to the watershed model that
5 Philip 1Nilliams had .developed. The: issue there was the inability to actually have
6 that model and run future scenarios.
7
8 Vice Mayor Torliatt agreed and .said that the City wants to be able to do that type
9 of data search and manipulation. This consultant may not allow them to do that:
10
11 Mr. Rudnansky said it was not his experience that cities require in an EIR
12 process to have consultants turn over models the city Gould use in another
13 project.
14
15 Vice. Mayor Torliatt did not see why #his process shoulei be any different. from a
16 normal. contract and thought the City should contract directly with Ms. Lampier if
17 Gity Management was comfortable with this consultant.
18
19 Council Member Hamilton asked who pays the cost.
20
21 Mr. Moore .advised that. the :applicant paysthe cost of the EIR as it is scoped out,
22 plus a 20% administrative fee to fhe City. The other option is that' instead of the
23 administrative fee, the City could ask the consultant to cover the cost of
24 additional staff so it would be processed in a timely way.
25
26 Council Member Keller was uricomfortabie with.; giving ever the contract for what
27 is likely to be a controversial item to the applicant. It is not Council's common.
28 practice and it is important the public maintain a good. sense of (rust in'the
29 process.
30
31 Council Member Healy did ,not share some of the exprc sed concern because it
32 is stated that the Council will have overall .discretion... He asked the City Attorney
33 if there were .legal.. ramifications in terms ofi exposure to litigation for meeting or
34 not meeting deadlines.
35 .
36 Mr. Rudnansky said. that under the SEQUA guidelines, accepting an EI;R, or
37 eonsiderin an EI R re a_red b the develo er s consultant. was one of man,
9 p p Y p Y
38 options that you may use. The Public Resource Code set forth language. that the
39 local agency "shall'exeeute within 45 days from the dale that the agencysendsa
40 notice of preparation, a contract for an environmental c:onsultanf.'' A literal
41 reading is thaf there:'has not even been a notice of preparation submitted.
42 Chelsea. has taken the position that there has been deNay acid that, if the: EIR is
43 not done in the time they think it should be done, it could lead to some action
44 down the line.
45
May 1, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 461
1 Council Member Maguire stated there were two recommendations from City
2 Management. One was to adopt the attached resolution and the other was to
3 direct staff to proceed with the applicant's consultant to define the scope of work.
4 He moved that the resolution be adopted with a change on line 7, page 2, stating
5 that there "has been a substantial change of a need for condition 53."Once that
6 is voted upon, he wanted to move to proceed with the City hiring the applicant's
7 consultant. The new wording would be, "The Council deems that because of the
8 prior studies and information there has been substantial change in the need for
9 condition 53 and directs staff to process the Chelsea application without the need
10 for completed CRSP."
11
12 Council Member Keller asked if the phrases "new General Plan"and "new
13 information"would be included.
14
15 Council Member Hamilton clarified the wording to read: "Now, therefore, be it
16 resolved, that because of changed circumstances and the City proceeding with a
17 new General Plan, the Council deems that because of prior studies and
18 information, there has been substantial change in the need for condition 53 and
19 directs staff to .process the Chelsea application without the need for completed
20 CRSP. "
21
22 Matt Connolly, Chelsea GCA Realty, stated it .has been five years they have
23 been trying to process this application. In February of 1999 it was formally
24 submitted. In October, Council took it and now it is May. He preferred to have
25 Lamphier & Associates under their own contract because they are concerned
26 with the City's ability to perform. The City does not have a good track record. It
27 will be supported provided that a tight time frame will be followed. He knew there
28 were water run off issues related to the project, but was confident the project was
29 of merit and had positive aspects. He would .support the adopting of the
30 resolution and the City contracting direct with .Lamphier & Associates if the City
31 could hold to a tight schedule..
32
33 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, cautioned that the area had a history of
34 flooding. He had questions pertaining to impervious surfaces, i.e., roofs., roads,
35 displacement by fill, and grading. He referred to the phrase "incremental
36 increases."He asked what the percentage of degradation was to the protection
37 level of the Corps of Engineers project. He asked on whose parcel of property
38 those increments end up.
39
40 John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive, told the Council they were "crazy to hire the fox
41 and put it in the hen house."He did not think the Factory Outlet should have
42 been built. People fraught hard to put in condition 53 so there would be protection
43 later on when Chelsea wanted to continue building. Now Chelsea is using an
44 attorney to circumvent that Council should be concerned about people and the
45 environment. To hire the consultant and allow Chelsea to pay for it was
46 ridiculous.
Vol. 34, Page 462
May 1, 2000
2 Council Member Hamilton pointed out to Mr. Cheney that the applicant~always
3 pays for the Ei'R. She did not see what difference it would make.
4
5 Bob Martin, '171 Fayran Street, shared a flood plain. map. Flood plain conditions
6 have been altered significantly since the snap was created ten years ago. He did
7 not understand how the City could allow development.to occur in an area of
8 unknown base flood elevation. The maps should be revised first: It would be a
9 waste of time and money to process and EiR until the maps are revised.
10
11 Council Member Cader-Thompson sfated she would not support this because.
12 she. supported Tom Hargis and thought there should be a moratorium upstream
13 from the Corona Reach and. that is the direction the City should go until they deal
14 with the hydrology problem in the larger picture and the water ~ tied.
15
16 Council Member Keller agreed that Mr: Cheney and Mr: Martin were absolutely
17 correct that this EIR and project application wily not answer the question of how
18 the City will deal with flood plain management. There are not enough Council
19 Members who will support a moratorium. If there is not. a moratorium,. the. Council
20 is legally obligated to take the application..
21
22 Council Member Hamilton asked if the City eonfracted to do the ELR, how that
23 would affect the Planning Department. and the staff.
25 Council Member Keller answered that the City would have .to staff this project
26 proposal and Chelsea would have to pay for the extra staffing.
27
28 Council Member Healy thoughtthey were just Voting oil the initial resolution and
29 would then discuss contracting arrangements.
30
31 Vice Mayor Torlatt said she had. the ,same concerns as Council Member Cader-
32 Thompson. She would support the current resolution because they could .deal
33 with the larger watershed issue when the EIR is completed.
34
35 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Ham.ilfon, to adopt.
36 Resolution 00-85 N.C.S, directing City Staff to Process Chelsea.
37 GCA Application and Suspend Corona Reach Specific .Plan
38 Process.
39
40 MOTION
41 PASSED: 5/1/1 {Counciil Member Cader-Thompson voting "no'; Mayor
42 Thompson absent)
43 .
44 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
45
May 1, 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
Vol. 34, Page 463
At 11:20 P.M. Vice Mayor Torliatt announced that Council would adjourn to Closed
Session on the following matters:.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6, Unit 6, Police.
Agency Negotiator: Acorne.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to GOvernment Code §54957.6, Unlt 7, Fire.
Agency Negotiator` Acorne.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6, Unit 8,
Department Directors. Agency Negotiator: Acorne.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6, Unit 10, Public
Safety Mid-Management. Agency Negotiator: Acorne.
ADJOIJRfV
The Closed Session adjourned at 12:15 A.M. with no rep
ATTEST:
28
29
Beverly J. Kline, City rk
31
32
33
34
******
n taken.
Pamela Torliatt, Vice Mayor