HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 04/03/2000April3, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 359
1 City of Petaluma, California
2 Minutes of a Regular
3 City Council Meeting
4
5
6 .Monday, April 3, 2000
~ Council Chambers
s
9
10
11 The Petaluma City Council met on this day at 2:00 p.m: in the Council Chambers.
12
13
14 ROLL CALL
15
16 PRESENT: Council Members Caller-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Maguire; Mayor
1~ Thompson; Vice Mayor Torliatt
is
19 ABSENT: Council Member Keller
20 _
2i CLOSED SESSION
22 -
23 City Attorney Rich Rudnanslcy announced the following. items to be addressed duringf; ~ ~ ~ .
24 Closed Session:
25
26 Conference With. Labor Negotiator, .Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6, Unit 7,
27 Fire. Agency Negotiator: Acorne/BeattyGKrout
2s Conference VI/ith Legal Counsel,, Anticipated Litigation.,. Initiation of Litigation Pursuant
z9 to Subdivision (c)'of' Government- Code §54956.9 (2; Potential Cases).
3o Conference. With Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to
31 Litigation (Gov. Code §54956~:9;(b) ('1 ,matter)('added) ,
32 Public Empaoyee Performance Evaluation, Pursuant to Government Code ,:§;54957.
33 Discussion of City Clerk Evaluation.
34
ss ,ADJOURN
36
37 2:1'0 p.m.
38
39
40
41 ******
42
43
44 -
45
46
Vol. 34, Page 360 April 3 2OOo
1 RECOr~vENE
2
3 The Petaluma City Council reconvened its. regular meeting at 4:00 p.m. in the .Couneil-
4 Chambers.
s
6 REPORT OU.T 0;1= CLOSED; SESSION
s Mayor Thompson, announced that no reportable action was Taken on .closed sessign
9 items.
to
11 PUBLIC COMMENT
12
13 Bill Bennett spoke in opposition to the City exercising eminent domain with properties
14 targeted -for detention ponds:.
is
16 COUNCIL COMMENT
1~
is Council Member Hamilton received a phone call from a firefighter who wanted fo know
19 if the Council would b'e, willin°g to meet in a workshop. setting with the firefighters or. have.
20 a subcommittee of the Council meet with a ,group of them. She asked if that should. be
21 put on an agenda for .discussion.
22
23 Mayor Thompson agreed to put it on the agenda for Wednesday; April 5,; 2Q.OQ ,as a 5 -
24 1,0 minute discussion to decide if Council wants to meet regarding this item.
is
26 Vice Mayor Torliaft:informed~Council thaf~she had received a-copy, ofithe resolution
;2? from ABAG asking Councils within Sonoma County to expedite 'implementation of
28 ~AB1149, which recognizes the need to amend' rules for the replacement ,of overhead
29 electric and communication"facilities. She requested than it be put on the next consent:.
3o agenda because of the time sensitivity.
31
32 She informed .Council than Jerico Products .received a grant application in the amount of.
33 $121,600.00 for .engine, re-powe."ring of the Jei•ico Sp:'irit from the Bray Area Air Quality
34 Management D:stricf. ~ '
PROCLAMA_ TION
National Records and. Information 'W.eek
4o Administrative Secretary Claire Cooper accepted the proclamation on behalf ofithe City
41 Clerk's Office.
42
43 The Council acknowledged the efforts. of'the City Clerk's Office to profect the City's
44 information assets.
45
46 Earthquake Preparedness !Month
April 3, 2000
'VoL 34, Page 361
1 .
2 Fire Ghiefi Terry accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Fire Department.
• 3
. " " 4 PRESENTi4TIONS
. 5
6 Quarterly Employee Service Recognition Awards
~ _
s MINUTES
,." 9
to November 15, 1999.;. February 7, 20,00, March 6, 20Q0 moved to next meeting.
11
12 AGENDA CHANGES. ADDITIONS.AND DELETIONS .
13 ~ ~ .
14 CONSENTi CALENDAR
is
16 Item 4 wa ~ removed from the Consent Calendar.
17
is Re lolution 00=58 N.C.S. Accepting Clarres and Bills.
19
20 Ch i n e in wordin Resolution 00=60 N.C.S. Authorizin the Parks and
21 Recreation Department to Install a "Field Turf" Synthetic Turf at Lucchesi Park,.
Zz using SportTech, Inc:;. as Sole: Source for the Synthetic Turf Portion Hof the.
23 Project, and- to Utilize Park :Development Funds from Identified Park
24 Projects to Fund fhe Installation.
25
a6 Resolution 00-59 N.C;S. to Award. Contract. to Winzler and Kelly for Engineering.
27 Seruiees, and ZAC Landscaping for Landscaping Services for Proposed.
28 Pavilion gat Lucchesi Park.
_ 29
30 ~ ® Co ~rected re uested amount from ~$3 000 #0-$93,000 Resolution 00-59A
. ( ~ 4
3i N.C:~S: Discussion and Possible Action on Request from Petaluma ~uilf Guild
_ 32 ~ for TOT' Funds From the. 1999/2000 Budget_ in the Amount of .$13,000 for the
33 Purpose of Printing and Disfributibri of Flyers, Letters, Applications and Media.
34 _ Information, Needed for Mailing by April 14, 20.00.:.
35 .' __i
36 _ ,MOTION: Council Member Caller-Thompson moved, seconded by Healy, fo.
" 37 ~ ~ - ~ approve Consent Calendar items 1, 3 and. 5.
" 38 ~ _
39 MOTION
4o PASSED: 6/0/1 {Keller absent)
41 r
42 Vice Mayor T'orliatt°asked to pu11 item 2 for discussion. She expressed her
43 concern about getting the best possible price .and asked the Music, Parks and
44 ~ Recreation Commission to. provide a fee schedule for use of the field arid
4s expressed concern that there should be a revenue generator. She would. also
46 like to see time lines for project completion and for the Park Development Fund..
Vo1..34, Page 362
April,3; 2000
1
2. Council Member Healy questioned whether or not we :have the funds to~.actually
3 do this right now. "
4
s Mr. Carr confirmed the funds are available. - -
6
~ Council Member Maguire inquired as~ to whether there was a commitment from
s Petaluma'Youth Soccer to pay back,the Park Reserve Account.
9
Io Mr. Carr confirmed there is a commitment and a recommendation regarding fee
ii schedule will be made through the commission.
12
13 Council Member Cader-Thompson invade a clarification as to the difference in the
-
14 "synthetic turf "and ``astroturf".,She-was: disappointed that item. 7 was taken off
s the agenda because she thought this project tied into item 7 (wafer :conservation)
16 so well.
1~
Is MOTION: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved, seconded by Council Member Healy; to
19 adopt Resolution 00-59 NC.S_. to Award Contract to 1Ninzler and
20 Kelly for Engineering Services; .and ,ZAC Landscaping, for
21 Landscaping Services for Proposed' Pavilion at Lucchesi Park:
22
23 iVIOTION
24 PASSED: 6/0/1 ,(Keller absent)
2s
26 Melissa Hathaway, 311 .Howard Street, thanked the Council. for matching the
27 funds and invited everyone fo come to the Quilt .Show on August 12; 2000..
28
29 Council Member C,ader-Thompson referred Ms.:Hatliaway to \N~ally .Brag"non at
3o the Bank,of Petaluma and.. said he was.str im:pcessed with the last show that he
31 maybe able to help, with the funds she is looking for.
32
33 IJIVFIIVISHED BUSINESS
34
3s m Report Regarding Status of P,ayran Project; and Discussion and Possible" .
36 Direction Regarding Rayran Flood Management Project" Financing and,B:udget.
37 {Hargis/Stouder) ~ '
38 ~ .,
39 City .Manager Fred Stouder discussed meeting in Washington D.C last week
4o and thought that project should not be .under Section 205 limitations; aril that the
41 City should seek new authorization :and appropriation from Congress for:`65=75%.
42 federal and 25-35%.local. share.. The importanf success of the trip wasl~to get,
43 outside the adtlto,nal federal funding; which is~ limited to the Seeti:on 205;
44 provision ~of the 'law. That limits. fe.de:ral participation to~:$5 million or perhaps ,an
4s additional ~$2. million. A total of $7 million out of a $34 .million projeef -that's not -~
46 75% funding.. -
April 3, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 363
i
1
2 Firs Congress has to authorize this project in legislation before funds can be
3 appropriated. Then each subsequent year the City would seek annual
4 appropriations from Congress to fulfill that authorization.
s
6 Another option is to seek authorization and appropriations simultaneously.
7 Themost preferred option is to seek an appropriation and get on with it before
s authorization, which is contrary to the normal rules of Congress but this assures
9 the money happening all at one time.
to
11 There's a fourth option that we may be faced .with, and that is we may receive an
12 invoice for $1-$3 million in the next few weeks and I have no money to pay it nor
13 do I have authorization to do so. If this occurs, there is a possibility that. it could
14 get turned over.to the Department 'of Justice; fhe Army Corps could stop the
is project and it could come to a halt.
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
;commended that if there's cash flow needed to keep the project going we
Id strongly suggest that the Federal. Government provide the cash flow. We
pursuing authorization of appropriation but it will be after spring break.
~y, which Paula Cornyn, Paul Marangella and Lynn Galal are working on,
a clear handle on all costs and payments for the life of the project and
what is a 100% federally eligible project and then with that number, once
one agrees that it is a 100% project and we have the District Regional
s concurrence, then we pursue the new federal % share.
U.S.{Army Corps. of Engineers Lynn Galal provided an update of the flood
project. Two pump stations are currently underconstruction and essentially on
schedule. We are about 65% complete with the project as currently contracted.
is
The backyard drainage is currently under .construction on one bank of the river
and they will start on the other bank within a few weeks. The sheet pile wall -the
flood wall behind The Madison Square Village - is nearly done on one bank of
the river and they will be starfing the other bank this week and should be .
completed within a couple of weeks.
C
In answer to Council Member Keller's question, what happens when the water
overltops the weir; the top portion of the weir, which is at Lynch Creek, is 15 feet
above sea level and the project was designed so the water will spill over the weir
without coming out of the banks of the project. lt's designed to contain the 100-
year~flow at the weir. It would. only overflow the banks if you have an event
grater than the 100-year flow and the berm would keep it from going into the
Jess Street neighborhood.
The other question Council Member Keller had was, where will the project over
top when it finally does. The answer to that is where Edith Street intersects the
vol, 34, Page 364
April 3, 2000
i Petaluma River and. after that Lakeville Avenue. The time ,period you have is
2 approximately 10 hours for the river to crest and over top its banks.
3
4 Council Member Cader-Thompson inquired as to what will happen upstream
s from the weir and where's the water going to go and will it change the flood plain
6 area.
s Ms. Galal explained. that the project was designed so that it would not impact the
9 upstream area of the weir. The weir was actually put in place to regulate the
io velocity and flow level upstream of the. weir.
ti
12 ~ .Vice Mayor Torliatt thanked Ms. Galal for her help and cooperation.
13
14 ~ Ms, Galal thanked the Council and offered the district's support for the efforts in
is Washington D:.C.
i6
i~ ~ Mr. .Hargis informed Council that:the railroad bridge is progressing fine;-there are
is two pours: scheduled for this, week.. The Water Agency has given us the $3.
r9 million: .This is not new money but planned money.
ao
21 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, offered .his support in the efforts to gef federal
22 funding for the flood project and inquired as to additional .letters. he could write in
23. support. of the project. He urged all citizens in .P'etaluma to do the sarne~ in order
24 to get the funding.
2s
26 . City Manager .Fred Stouder elaborated on preparation that was done prior to the
27 ~ meetings in Washington. D.C. He asked for further assistance from the
2s community and stated that we want fo :be sure we're all pursuing and asking for
29 the same oufcorne.
30
3i Discussion' and Status Report ort Redwood Empire Sports Complex
32 Proposal Generally.located on East Washington Street, east of the Airport.
33 (Item moved #o April 17)
34
3s NEW BUSINESS
36
37 ® Resolution 00-61 N.C.S. to .Authorize the City Manager to Enter into the
3s Agreement for Funding of the Petaluma Industrial Wafer Survey and
39 Incentive Demonstration Program with the Sonoma County Water Agency;
4o and Approve the Professional Services:Agreement forthe Industrial Water
41 Survey and Incentive Demonstration .Project with Pacific Technology Associates.
42 Estimated Project Cost:. $60;000.. Funding Source: City's Share: of Amendment
43 #10 and Sonoma County Water Agency Funds. (Hargis/Simmons)
44
as Mr. Hargis introduced Ally Davidson with the Sonoma County V1/ater Agency.
46
April 3, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 365
i Cou'ncil Member Torliaft referred to the staff report regarding the SCWA share of
2 $35.000 and that the City's obligation was $25,000 and since this is a pilot
3 program on Sola, why wasn't Sola kicking back some of the funds as they are
4 the ones benefiting.
s
6 Sonoma County Vl/ater Agency's Ms. Ally Davidson provided some background
~ info ~mation on the :program and urged the City fo implement the second
a demonstration project as it is a stepping-stone for expanding program to meet
9 the public, needs.
io She then introduced Ned Orrett from the: consulting `team involved in the project.
it -
12 Ned Orre;tt provided and update on the program, where the project was headed
13 andwhat they were hoping to gain from this "project. He stated there has been a
14 32% reduction per pound of water use already. Sola has contributed a
is tremendous "amount of time and what we ,are gaining from this relationship will
i6 benefit the remainin°g"800 +/= industrial ratepayers. I would like to see one more.
i~ project sa we can see if this is really working or if we just got lucky.
i8
19 Sol ~ Optical Facilities Engineer Ian Elliott. clarified the expense that the City is
.. ,
20 being jasked to contribute^is:fortke instrumenfafion - instrumentation that the
21 company would normally go out and buy -and is a one-time deal.
22
23 ~ Vice Mayor'Torliatt thanked'~Sola for their cooperation with. the City to try and
24- solve."some of our water'issues. Would like to see partnering of business and
2s Cityprojects. ;
26
2~ Executive Director 'of The Bay`Institute Grant Davis thanked Mr. Hargis, Ned,
2s Johr and the SC1NA. He feels the City is part, of a national. model .leading the
29 way ~on, how to, ma~Ximize: water use efficiency and discharge reduction. He urged
3o Council. toprovide-authorization,to the city management to continue working with
31 the team to seek. additional funding to take the next step and teach other
32 communities how'fo~replicate what the City of Petaluma is doing.
33
34 Vice.:Mayor Member Torliatt asked if there was a telephone number for
35 interested people to be added to the list.
36 I~. _ . .
37 Ally Davidson replied with the`followng: Lynn Galal can be reached at 707-778-
38 4507 (Petaluma); Ally Davidson at 707-547-1'933 (Santa Rosa).
39
4o Council Member Cader-Thompson expressed that she was happy about the city
41 leading the way on this and thanked' everyone involved for their contributions.
42
43 Mr. I argis stressed the importance of ;getting businesses interested in doing this.
44 prof pct in order to keep it going. I would recommend that you pass the resolution
45 authorizing agreement. where we are committing some of our share of the Water
46 Agency funds to go into this program.
Vol. 34, Page 366
April 3, 2000
2 Vice;Mayor. Torliatt inquired as to the cost'of, the e.qui'pment: She also expressed
3 her :opinion. that the City should then. own the equipment.. and not the_ Wafer
4 .Agency.
6 Mr. Hargis stated that the .cost of the equipment was. about ,$25,00.0. of .the
~ mon
ey already allocated for the project and_ indicated th. at he thought the,
s equipment wou_Id stay in the commanityfor future use::
io Council Member Maguire- praised the group involved in this project. He
ii recommended that Council move to adopt the two. resolutions. .
13 Council Member Healy;agreed. " `". ~ ~_
14 ~ .
- _,, `,!
is Council Member Healy thanked everyone for'theireffo,rts.;and contributions to the:
16 project: Ne talked about the draft RFP that was prepared"by Mike :Ban for
i~ updating. water and sewer rates. .. -
is
i9 Ms. Davidson explained that generally the equipment would stay in Petaluma
20 unless another city or distributor wanted to use the equipment then we would
21 arrange for, them to use it; she d'idn't expect tfi~at'to happen within fhe 2-3 years.
22 "
23 Vice. IVlayor Torliatt :reiterated thatshe wanted the.City;to own the~equipment!and
24 asked ifi it was ;part of the motion. ~ ~ : .
Zs ~ `
26 Council Member Maguire replied that while we will have the benefits of
2~ owne,rshp we won't actually own the equipment-: ~ -
28
29 Mayor Thompson acknowledged,,., with much~appreciation, the time and help
3o contributed b Steve Simmons. He'is the Department Head of the.lNater
Y
31 Department of Petaluma.. "
32 _
33 Mayor Thompson asked for a second to the motion. .
34
3s MOTION; - Council. Member Maguire moved, seconded.. by Healy, -to adopt
36 Resolution 00-61 N.C.S.,, Authorizing the City Manager to. Enter-.into
37 the, Agreement for Funding of the Petaluma Industri'aI Water
38 Survey and Incentive Demonstration Program, wi#h ;the Sonoma
39 County Water Agency,. and.Approve the. Professional Services
4o Agreement for -the Industrial 1Nater Survey and Incentive
41 Demonstration Project with Pacific Technalogy,Associafes..
42 Estimated Project Cost: $60,0.00. Funding Source: City's Share of
43 Amendment #10 and Sonoma County Water Agency 'Funds.
44
4s MOT14N;
46 PASSED: 6/0/1
Apiil ?, 2000 Vole. 34, Page 367
1 ..
2 A®JOURN
3
4 The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
s
6 ******
7
s RECONVENE _
9 `. .
to The Petaluma City Council reconvened its regular meeting at 7:10 p.m. in the Council
11 Chambers.
12
13 ROLL CALL
14
is PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire;
16 Mayor Thompson; Vice Mayor Torliatt
17
is ABSENT:. None
19
20 PLEDGE OF_ALLEGIANCE
21
2z At the request of Mayor Thompson, Haf Mickelsen led the Pledge of Allegiance.
23
24 MOMENT OF SILENCE
2s
26 At the request of Mayor Thompson, a moment of silence was observed.
27
2s PUBLIC COMMENT
29
3o Don Wiesenfiuh spoke regarding California Gas Tax and MTBE. He displayed a list of~
31 assembly members in Sacramento with phone numbers and a-mail addresses and
32 urged the audience. to call and talk. to them regarding gas prices.
33
34 David. Glass thanked .the Council :members who went to Washington and indicated that
3s the City had already received 'b-.enefits :from. the flood project. He read the Tulsa,
36 Oklahoma flood report and encouraged Council to review- it and to~enact some +
37 ordinances that would .make a real difference in the flood project, today and; inathe future
3g and to help us recoup some of the $12-20 million.
39
4o Terence Garvey spoke regarding the City.finances with regard to the flood project and
41 other needs of the City; stating the need to be_appraised of the facts:and vote on a
42 suitable taxi increase to take care of the City's -needs. He urged the Mayor to get taxes .
43 increased to take care of these needs.
44
4s Hank Flurn (spoke regarding rate increases from AT&T for~cable use. He questioned
46 what could be done. to get rid of them and let another'franchisee in for competition.
Vol.. 34;, ;Page 368
April_3, 2000
1
2 CO.UNCIL.COMMENT
3
4 Vice Mayor l-orliatt reported. on information received from, the Metropolitan
s Transportation Commission.;~ MTC is making,a recommendation to Governor Gray Davis
6 for $7 million for.Raif EIR and $16 million for'wdening of the Novato Narrows..
7 -
s Council Member Maguire expounded on the request made tq MTC of Marin and
9 Sonoma and said that while the request has been made known, MTC has not.yef
io acknowledged.
it
r2 OPEIV_PCDC MEETING (To run concurrently wifh City Council Meeting)
13
14 Chairman Thompson opened the P.C.D.C meeting 7:30 p.m.
is
16
17
i8 Petaluma. Community Development Commission Meeting
19
20
21 ROLL CALL
22
24 PRESENT:. Chai mean Thompson,•rVice Cha~ma amilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire;
n Torliaft
2s
26 ABSENT: None:
27
2s PUBLIC COMMENT"
29
3o Bryant Moynihan, 102: Dawn .Place, spoke regarding. the $2.5~ million given to Benson'
31 Investments Inc. for a DDA-develo ers,.dis ~ osition a reement -without haul
32 review or hearin and ~re uested that the PCDC ufgt ~ - n,g a public
g, q .. p on the agenda. to discuss what:
33 happened so the: public can have~~an understanding of the mafter,
34
3s Bob Martinsuggested to Council the rezoning of undeveloped flood plain properties for
36 the purpose of flood plain management within the City limits:
37 ~ -
3s COMMISSION COMMENT
'39
4o Commissioner Maguire described Mr. Moynihan's comments, if he understood them
41 correctly, as-being incorrecf.:-~,~ .
42
43 Commissioner .Keller gave. information- regarding reimbursement of sales tax, stating
44 that~there was a public meefin:g held last year`witfl rede~eloprnent co.nsulfants; the City
4s had held. back payment of sales aax subject .to a review of the .contracts to make sure
i they had b
2 that time.
3
4 PUBLIC H
5
6
s
9
io
ii
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
vol. 34, Page 369
adhered to, which they had. Payment of balance due. was authorized at
(Joint City Council and PCDC)
COUNCIL MEIVIBfRS
Council Members, Caller-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire;
Mayor Thompson; Vice Mayor Torliatt
12 ABSENT: None
13
14 ROLL CALL: COMMISSION MEMBERS :. .
15 ~,
16 PRESENT: Commissioners Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire;
17 ~ Chairman Thompson;:Vice Chairman Torliatt
is
i9 ABSENT: ~ None ,,
ao -
ai
22 , . .~
Redeve9opment Plari; pscussion and:Possible Action on Negative- Declaration,
z3 Report .and. Recommendations of the Paanning Commission and Testimony From
24 Public Hearing on. Proposed ;Amendmerif to the Redevelopment Plan for the
2s Petaluma Community Development.. Redevelopment Project; and Adoption of
26 Ordinance 21,00 N:C.S.~Amending ~Ordinance1725 N;C.S. and Approving and
27 Ado ,tin the Amendment{to the Redevelopment Plan for the PCD Project.
P 9
2s (Beatty/Marangella) - , -
~
24 -
3o Ms. Seifel gave staff presentation and summary on ,all aspects of the report. and
31 recommendations of the Planing Commission: Qn March 6, 2000 we presented.
32 the report.fo Council;: March 2:8;2000 the plan was approved; April 3, 2000-which
33 is today- if the ~outcorne of the .hearing is favorable then .our proposal is to: have.
34 the second reading. on April 1.7th and that would .become effective on May 1`7;
3s 2000. The plan then would be to issue the tax allocation bond secure by the
36 PCD in June.
37
3s -
She explained that the formula for the, plan was hard to understand and
39 requested modification for a minor amendment. to clarify the formula for tax
4o increment Jimit, which at this time has a limit of $80millon.
41
42 Ms. Tuft handed out to City Clerk an Affidavit of Publication and Certification, of
43 Mailing of the Joint Public Hearing.
44
4s Ms. Seifel explained that the. first affidavit is, of Notice of Public Hearing on the
46 Proposed Implementation Plan and Amendment; the second is the Certificate of
Aprif 3, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 370
April 3;, 2000
.Mailing Notice and Joinf Public: Hearing on Proposed, Implementation Plan 'and
2 Amendment:to each :assessee of land in the project aeea; as shown.. in the;aast
3 assessment; the third Is,the Certificate of Mailing.'Noti'ce and Joint Publie Hearing
4 on the Proposed Implementation Plan, and .Arnendrrmenf to the gover,n_i.ng body of
s .each effected faxing. entity; the fourth is the Certificate of Mailing Notice and.
6 .Joint .Public Hearing on the Proposed Implementation Plan and Amendment to
7 the residence and businesses -within the project area.
s
9 Mayor Thompson explained that this is a combined hearing, so please make it'.
io clear when you speak which subject' you are referring to. The order of
ii procedures will be~as follows:
12
13 Staff' Presentation of Plan
14 ® Consider Comments
_- _. .
is m Receive Evidence and Ora[. Testimony`
i6 Consider Qbjections
.~.... ,
17
ig Ms. Seifel reiterated the purpose of thehearing.
19
20 Entered.. infothe record was a certification of certain official actionsthat have
21 been taken by the City:Council, City Planning Commission and the Community in
22 connection with 'the Proposed Amendment tQ the Redevelopment Plan for the
23 Petaluma Cornmurty Development Project.
24 .. ' .
2s Upon no objections, the Certification :was made,part'of°the "record.
26.
27 Ms.: Seifel continued:' Regarding the Ordinance Adopting the Amendment; .all
2s ~ financial aspects. of the plan°will not change. We' are focusing on the Tax
29 Increment Cap; asking'for it to be changed from a formula basis to an absolute.
3o nu"tuber, which is~ $800 m'i.llion,
31 Everything else stays=the same'.
32
33 Mayor Thompson gave instructions as to~directing questions to City Management
34 regarding evidence.
35 -
..
36 C.O.UNCIL .COMMENT
37
3s Council Member Healy inquired-as fo.how`this amount.was figured and was
39 expected real estate development revenues figured into the equation.
40
41 Ms. Seifel explained that the 1:9:$8 plan. was used .and the same: growth rate was°:
42 applied forward with a 5% growth and assessed'value for the life of the plan.
43 -
44 Council ,Memb.er Healy inquired as to the budget process forthe five-year
4s im,plementation plan -does. omething have `to happen in that five years in order
46 for it to'be funded. during thaf five-year period?
April 3, 2000 vol. 34, Page 371
2 Ms. Seifel .replied., "yes." However, it can be amended to add a project to it at a
3 later date.
4
s Council Member Heahy wanted to know how difficult it would be to get an
6 ~ amendment before. the life of the plan is up.
7
s Ms. Seifel replied, ~it is not difficult but there mu"st be a Public Notice given and a
9 Public Hearing.
io
i i Council. Member Keller gave his approval. to the staff regarding the Planning
12 Commission minutes. He talked about the issuance: of bonds .and clarified that
13 what we're talking about is getting the best value on the bonds.
14
is Mayor Thompson, upon. no objections made the report of the Commission was
16 made part of the record along with testimony just received.
. 17
ig Ms. Seifel referred to the Negative .Declaration; this is also a part of the report of
i9 the commission tothe-Council. The Commission is the lead agency in
20 preparation of the Negative Declaration:
21
22 Mayor Thompson, upon no objections, made the report part of the record.. He
23 then opened the floor for questions.
24
25
26
27
2s PUBLICC:O.MIVIEIVT
29
3o Brent Hawkins, McDunna Hall& Allen, referred. to and briefly summarized the
31 Plan Amendments and shared his concern about the problems with
32 understariding the tax increment formula. He requested that,an amendment be
33 made to change the formula. to a fixed amount.'
34
3s Mayor Thompson proposed the Amendment be made part of the Record.
36
37 Ms. Seifel discussed the Petaluma Community'.Development Project, California
3a requirements, how`the agency will comply with the various legal requirements
39 and what steps follow.
40
41 Mayor Thompson made the Proposed Implementation Plan part of the ;record.
42 He clarified that first statements or testimony should be in favor of'the
43 Implementation Plan, the Amendment, or the Negative Declaration.
44
45 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke in favor of the Implementation Plan,.
46
Vol. 34, Page 3Z2
..April 3.,.2000
Comments/testimon_y in opposition of Implementatian Plan, Amendment, or
Negative. Declaration.
4 Bryant Moynihan has concerns about the PCD version of the budget and
s forecast., He stated that.'the report to Council. was not accurate relative to-the
6 approved. budget. He referred to #1:3, part 6 of the report: The $'18 million bond
to reimburse previous funds, for the Payran Flootl Fix, should be shown ,as an
s expenditure-it is not.. Out of the $15 million proceeds only $10,149,;000 is shown
9 as an expenditure. He requested that the PCDC` budget be corrected before
to adopting the plan.
11
12 Mayor Thompson requested Mr: Moynihan have; copies of his .findings made
13 available ~for~Council Members and assured him if~iniould be clarified..
14
is Mr., Moynihan voiced his :.concern about having thefunds to. pay for Fire and
i6 Police,. He also referred to the ,fact; that we haven't had. CIP approval for ,two
17 years and he would like this to be made .public..
is
19 Council. Member Kell:e:r made clarification to Mr. Moynhan's comments: On the
20 adopted, budget, of "1.999-2000,;, page 72; under Public Improvements; category
21 9724 and 854`5, Flood Control Project $10,149;,0.00; Polly. Klaas Center
22 Renovations, $15,OOQ; sub total Public improvements, $10,164;,000. Page 70
23 shows expenditures and transfers out online 15 under public improvements:;
24' $10,964;0.00: He then directed Mr.. Moynihan to pecific pages of the report in
2s answer to the. questions and objections he made.
27 Mr; Stouder stated for the record, that historically the G.ty's Capital Improvement
2s Program document was a: planning document., .not a financing or budget
29 document. Thee. past CIP projected costs at a high level but this did not indicate
3o that. the funds were available to spend,
31
32 This .year's budget document includes an annualized twelve.-month :expenditure
33 of capital improvement projects even if they're multi-year projects.: This lead to
34 confusion and unrealistic expe.ctationsthat the money'vvas_.avaifable. Because
35 this was a planning document; the funds were not actually available for the.
36 project.
3s Council ~Mernber Maguire Voiced 'his appreciation for the many.great efforts Mr.:
39 ~Stouder'has made to make available #.or council and the. public, records
4o information aril for clarifying what it all means.
41
42 MOTLON': Council Member Maguire :moved, seconded by Torliatt to close the
43 Joint Public Hearing.
44
4s MOTIO:N
46 PASSED: '7/0/0
April 3, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 373
2 Mr. Hawkins discussed the fact that there were possible conflicts of the
3 Council/Commission members with relation to the PCD/CBD amendment. There
4 are no conflicts with regard the PCD amendment, but there are conflicts with
s ~~ regard the CBD amendment.
6
~ Council' Member Torliatt clarified her reason for stepping down from the CBD
s was b°ecause she lives in the redevelopment project area.
9
to Mr. Hawkins replied that it wasn't a problem. The PCD amendment is to change
11 ~ the formula; the CBD is being expanded.
12
13 PUBLIC HEAE~ING CLOSED
14
is Mayor Thompson opened the meeting of PCDC.
16
1~ ® Redevelopment Plan -Discussion and Possible Action on Negative Declaration,
is Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission and Testimony From
19 Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the
20 ~ Petaluma Community Development~Redevelopment Project; Adoption of Five
21' Year Implementation Plan,; and Adoption of Ordinance 2100 N.C.S. Amending
22 Ordinance 1725 N.C.S. and Approving and Adopting the Amendment to the
23 Redevelopment Plan for the PCD Project. (Beatty/Marangella)
24
2s Paul Marangella read the-title of the resolution:
26
z~ "Resolution:.of the Community Development Commission of the City of.Petaluma
2s Approving and Adopting the Implementation Plan for the Petaluma Community
29 Development Project:"
30
31 Brent Hawkins, Mc Donough, Holland, & Allen,, Attorneys at Law, would first.like
32 to have the three members of the council who have. conflicts of interest on the
33 CBD project to step down.: We will then, discuss the implementation plan as it
34 relates to the project: If we get a positive vote we'll bring the members back and
3s have a discussion and vote on the entire implementation plan.
36
37 MOTION: Commissioner Keller moved, seconded by Maguire, to adopt
3s Resolution. 00-05 of the Community Development Commission of
39 the City of Petaluma Approving and. Adopting the Implementation
4o Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project.
41
42 MOTION
43 PASSED: 4/0/3 (Thompson, Torliatt and Hamilton stepped down from vote)
44
4s Members brought back to consider resolution approving the entire
46 implementation plan.
Vol. 34, Page 374
April 3, 2000
1
2 Commissioner: Healy,proposed to: add a new interchanging cross-.town connector
3 to project list if we're able to get the additional funding.
4
s Commissioner Keller stated that he didn't feel it was a, good time to do an
6 amendment. like this.
7 ..
s Mr. Hawkins stated that it does need to be approved;. it can, be amended later..
9 --
lo Commissioner Keller,moved to keep it the'way it is and make amendrnents as
n needed 'in the future.
12
13 Commissioner Maguire concurred.
14
is Commissioner Healy feels it is better to add riow so there are no impediments in
16 trying to amend later.
17
la Mayor Thompson agreed.
19
20 Commissioner Cader-Thompson feels we need to decide where we actually
21 need. transportation improvements before adding to :amendment., She is
22 opposed to adding across-town connector project to list.
23
24 Commissioner Keller reiterated that this is not the time for this discussion; it.
2s requires general planning considerations, circulation and financial
26 considerations..
27
2a Commissioner Healy said he was only suggesting to add a fourth item to the list
29 which is,a very general list, in order to preserve flexibility for the community and
3o the Council to make decisions'in the future without the legal obstacles.
31
32 Commissioner Maguire disagrees that it would be an impediment. and .is
33 concerned that the language insinuates a priority. He suggested making a
34 - compromise and say "Transportation improvements."
35
36 Commissioners Hamilton and Torliatt agreed.
37
3s MOTION:: Commissioner Healy moved; econded by Vice Chairperson
39 Torliatt, to adopt Resolution 00-07 of the Community Development
4o Commission ofithe City~of' Petaluma Adopting Implementation Plan
41 for PCD. (Modification. to add the term "transportation
42 improvements" to the list.)
43
44 .MOTION ~,
45 PASSED:. 7/0/0
46
April 3, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 375
1 MOTION: Vice Cfiai.rperson Torliatt moved, seconded by Maguire to adopt
2 Resolution 0.0-06 of the Community Development Commission of
3 the City of Petaluma Approving a Negative Declaration for the
4 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma
s Community Redevelopment Project.
6
~ MOTION
8 PASSED: 7/0/0
9
to ADJOURN
11
12 The Petaluma Community Development Commission was then adjourned.
13
14 RECONVENE
is
16 The Petaluma City Council meeting was then reconvened.
17
is MOTION: Vice Mayor Torliatt. moved, seconded by Maguire, to adopt
19 Resolution D0-62 N.C.S. Approving a Negative Declaration for the
20 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma
21 Community Redevelopment Project.
22
23 MOTION '
24 PASSED: 7/0/0
2s
26 MOTION: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved, seconded by Maguire, to adopt
27 Ordinance 2100. N.C.S. ,.Amending Ordinance 1725 N.C.S. and
28 ~ Approving and Adopting the Amendment to the Redevelopment
29 Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project.
30
31 MOTION
32 PASSED: 7/0/0
33
34 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
3s
36 Agenda item 14 was moved to be heard before agenda item 13; agenda items 15 and
37 16 to be continued to Wednesday, Apri15 at 7:00 pin Council session.
38
39 PUBLIC HEARINGS
40
41 ® Public Hearing for 2000-2001 Community Development Block Grant
42 Allocations and Approval of 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Strategy.
43
44 Housing Administrator Bonne Gaebler presented the Annual Community
4s Development Staff Report and provided background information in two parts:
46
VoL 34, Page 376
April 3, 2000
i Review,.of consolidated plan -HUD required document every#ive years..
2 • Allocation of 2000-2001 .Block Grant Funding for projects and programs for
3 assisting low and moderate-income households.
4
s We are requesting funds in the amount of $389,031;. Staff recommends
6 $331,000,. The action we are requesting of the City is to conduct a public hearing
~ concurrently on the one year action plan and the five year consolidated plan;
s adopt: resolution approving the 2002 block grant fund; adopt resolution approving
9 new consolidated plan.
io
~~ COUNCIL COMMENT
12
13 Vice Mayor Torliatt questioned where will we receive the $308.00 that is a short
14 fall for the Child Care Voucher Program for PPSC.
15
16 Ms. Gaebler stated that it,does fall under the 15% cap and the PPSC can figure
i~ out how to do that.
is
19 Council Member Keller asked if there was:another source for the funding on
20 Domestic Violence. Program.
21
22 Ms. Gaebler stated that she would like to find another source of Federal Funding
23 and she will be working on that. .
24
2s Council Member Hamilton thanked Ms. Gaebler.
26
27 MOTION: Council Member Torliatt moved., seconded by Maguire: to Adopt
2s Resolution 00-63 N.C.S. Approving. Community Block Grant Project
29 and, Authorizing, the' City Manager to sign all documents; required by
3o JUD and Adopt Resolution 00-63A N.C.S. Approving the 2000-
31 2005 Consolidated Plan; and to direct statistics and documents to
32 HUD as required.
33
34 MOTION.
35 PASSED: 7/0/0
36
37 PUBLIC HEARINGS -cont.
38
39 • Weed Abatement:
40 o Protest Hearing Held for Property Owners Having any Objections to
41 Council Ordering Abatement of Weeds that are Declared a Public
42 Nuisance.
43 ® Resolution QO-.64 N.C.S. Ordering Abatement of Weeds that are Declared
44 a .Public Nuisance. (Ginn)
45
April 3, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 377
1 Fire Marshall Ginn requested a public hearing for Property owners having any
2 objections to Council ordering abatement of weeds that are declared a public
3 nuisance and a Resolution Ordering Abatement of weeds that are declare a
4 Public Nuisance.
s
6 Council Member Maguire asked that the native plants be excluded.
8 Council Member Torliatt reminded Fire Marshall Ginn that the property behind
9 615 N. Webster needs to be cut right up to the fence.
to
11 PUI3LIG COMMENTS
12 ,
r3 None
14 -
ls MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Torliatt to close
16 Public Hearing.
1~ ~ ~ <.,
is MOTION
19 PASSED: 710/0 -
._.
20
21 ® Consideration of an Appeal of a Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee
a2 (SPARC) Decision to Conditionally Approve an~ Addition/Remodel of an Existing
23 Structure af.600 East Washington Street .(.Corner of Edith,and-Washington
24 Street; Formerly the A&1N Situ) for Papa Taverna's ll:, APN 007-062-040. The
2s Applicant is Appealing Conditions of Approgal Rertaining to Landscaping, Signs,
26 and the Use of Animal Emblems on fhe Roof. (Borba~)
27
zs Irene Borba,presented considerations o'f'the Appeal'of a Site Plan
29 Architectural Review Committee Decision..and requested that. approval be given
3o for Addition/Remodel of an existing, structure, located at 600 East Washington
31 Street (Cosner of Edith and Washington Street, Formerly the A&W site) for Papa
32 Taverna's Il, .APN 007-062-04.0. The applicant is appealing conditions of
33 approval pertaining .to .landscaping, signs, .colors and.the use of animal emblems
34 on the roof of the structure. _ "
3s
36 Vice Mayor Torliatt stated for the record that she met with the applicants last
37 week.
38
39 Council Member Healy wanted to know if other signs in the area are legal and
4o was there a process to get authorization for them.
41
42 Ms. Borba said she does not have that information.
43
44 Council Member Keller questioned what the plans were for entrances and exits
4s for this site.
46
Vol. 34, Page 378 April, 3, 2000
1 PUBLI'G COMMENT
2
3 Louise Leff; 23 Park. Avenue! requested that SPARC review the revised pla. n.
4
s Nio Pritikin,73 Birchwood Drive, Novato, speaking:as a ten-year customer'of
6 Papa Taverna's; feels that the idea of the sign is good and' does not give :the
~ appearance of a jungle bu`t of a beautiful rain forest.
s
9 A gentleman "spoke on behalf of` his clients; Leo and his partner Lana Sufton and
to Leo's son Jimmy regarding the roof of the site.
1.1 . .
12 Leo Papas spoke:'about how and-.why he carne to Pefaluma to live; raise his
13 children and run his ,restauranf,business. He feels that the signs he wants to put
14 up are: not unaftractive~~bu,t something nice. He asked the Council to
is .compromise. ~ .
16
17 Ms: Borba clarified'the hold up on the permits is due to non-occupancy and
is delays d'ue~~fo calculations need to go the outside plan checker..
19
20 PUBLIC HEARING CLOS€D
21 - .. .. '
22 COUNCIL COMMEfVT _
23
.. ..
24 Council Member Hamilton had ~rio Vproblem~with`'the' sign, or the paint. She thought
that. SPARCneeded to make the de. visions regarding landscaping: She asked if
26 `the zigzag~was`:necessary or could it be a straight curb.
2s Council Member Maguire; thought.,the'z cut was appropriate for the rain forest,
29 theme;. tine stops could be~ placed back further. He also thought`the plant1ist
3o needed: to.go back to .,SPARC for -them to decide whaf is the best..
31 ,_ . ,.
32 Mayor Thompson agreed.
33 '
34 Vice Mayor Torliatt suggested using other materials., for the sign and thought it an
3s opportunity to make a statement with the sign. As far as the landscaping goes!
36 she didn't have a preference.
37
3:a Council Member Keller stated'. that the changes planned are going to be a great
39 improvement. over what was there. He wanted fo go back to SPARC for a
4o consultation on the selection of landscaping,
41
42 Council Member Caller-Thompson concurred.
43
44 Council. Member Healy didn't. see the benefits of the "Z" cut and concurred
4s regarding landscaping..
46
ti
April 3, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 379
1 Council Member Maguire stated it gives~more planting space and creates more
2 permeable space.
3
4 Council Member Keller clarified more shading is wanted for the parking lot area.
5
6 Council Member Cadet=Thompson didn't particularly like fhe colors and felf the
~ animals were fine but, would like them to be maintained well.
s
9 Council Member Keller felt the animals should be put up ata 90-degree angle
to and kept painted and well maintained.
11
12 Vice MayorTorliatt concurred with Council Member Keller.
13
14 Council Member Healy concurred with Vice. Mayor Torliatt.
is
16 Council Mernber~Maguire did not like the roof colors.
17
is Council Member"Hamilton didn't feel ~'it appropriate for her to make these
19 decisions:-
20
21 MOTION: Council~Member Keller moved, seconded by Cadet-Thompson, fo
22 ~ adopted Resolution `00-`65 N.G:S: Upholding appeal regarding
23 condition #1 with revised "palette; Denying appeal on #2 and ask
24 applicant to apply for a variance; Denying appeal on #3 and work
2s on solutions that provide more shading in the parking .lot area;
26 Upholding appeal regarding condition #4 provided the figures are at
27 a 90 degree angle and kept. in good condition.
2a
29 MOTION
3o PASSED: 7/0/0
31
.,
32 UNFIIVISIED. BUSINESS
33
34
ss Future.l_and Used' for the Kenilworth School Grounds Aeea
36
37 Summary of issues addressed by the Council: School district to put together
3s proposals; Took for proposals that did not. reduce parks and fields that now exist;
39 zoning would .need to be changed; joint meeting with all parties involved
4o including. Fair Board, :School. Board,. ete.; relocate fields in flood plain; use that
41 did not exacerbate traffic congestion.
42
43 PUBLIC COMMENT
44
4s Duane Bellinger, Cheetah Road, discussed potential transportation problems
46 with relation to Kenilworth site and what its future use will be. He encouraged
Vol. 34, Page 380
.April 3', 2000
Council to :gi~e::much consideration to, what; fhe site. wil} be used for and. its long-
term effects on the community.
4 Mr. Bill ~V1lhite: says the. purpose of pureh~asing the Kenilworth school is to create
s a center for nonprofit. I'rn here: with a.group of gentlemen who hope to purchase
6 school.. O:ur purpose is to create: a center for nonprofit.organizaton;, j:ob training
7 and a faith center. ~UVe, plan "to leeep.the schooh:intact, w.e do .need to~ resolve field'
s use issues. 1Ne plan°to-get entitlements for 400-450~apartment units ttiat;would'
9 give us financiaP engine for long,-.term buyability of. this project, and :to provide
io cash on an annual basis to .keep project funded. _
i~
12 John. Records with COTS gave nforrnation o.n the project plan. Theyhave
i3 .chosen.`the name"HUB"'for.the project. We are hoping to have the telecom
14 industry involved; the theme will be `connection'. 1N.e will try to arrange the
is space so there will be spontaneous socialinteraction and .activitythrough high
16 tech technology,. ;Imagine housing a 30-acre campus,that includes.job
i~ opportunities.,. licensed childcare, boys and_girls club, social services antl a faith
ig center. 1Ne also see opporturiityforeducation, training and careers: `1Ne~ could
i9 put the Petaluma Adult School there;; a regional occupational program and have;
ao anon-profit organization to keep the project;going.
21 -
22 Michael Hatfield of Cal X networks, 11:35 N.:McDowell Boulevard, thinks` fhis~'.is~
23 an excellent opportunity to get the community and the telecom companies.
Za involved. together. He also discussed funding and revenues.
Zs -
~26 COUNCIL COMMENT
27
2s Council Member Maguire said if~was great to see the °human synergy being
29 created and the. exciting potential.
30
3i ~ , Council Member .Hamilton asked', the amount of charfable contributions being
3z sought.
33
34 ~ Mr_. Hatfield replied $4-5 million.
3s
36 Mayor Thompson quesfioned ~Ms. Tu:ff regarding time frames.
37
3a _~ Ms, Tuft answered that she anticipates discussion on alternate~plans for' Land. use
39 to. take place 'next-year; however, ~it will take 2=3 years to adopt the General Plan.
40
41 Mayor Thompson stated that the Council really d'idn't have the authority to
42 decide what should go there.
43
44 Council Member Hamilton agreed, yet she was inspired by what.she saw this
4s evening.
46
April 3, 2000 Vol: 34, Page 381
1 Vice Mayor Torliatt thought it a positive plan ,that will r..emo~e~a large burden from
2 the City for having to provide and -free yp some funds for'future projects. She
3 wanted to look at the traffic,.. transportation, and fairground issues.
4
s Council Member Keller thought the School Board'needed~to make the decision
6 regarding who they'll sell the.-.property .to..,, He liked the .HUB idea but whether or
~ not. the School Board `liked it was up to~ them. He thought"a .member of City
s Management should'work°c,loselywith the Schoof`Boar"d so Councif would know
9 what proposals there were.
to
11 Council Member Maguire thought it a good idea for the community and it
12 sounded good financially.
13 ,~
14 Council Member Cader-Thompson thought it was riot in Council's jurisdiction to
is make these decisions .but it is up fo the :School: District to make those decisions..
16 She was concerned about selling the property next to Casa Grande High School,
1~ and thought the City needed to hold on to that.property. She asked what the
is long-term plan was -would the existing school remain? She agreed that the
19 Kenilworth site needed to be changed.
20
21 Council Member Healy thought the proposal put forth tonight was a good one.
22 He was prepared to move if forward. There needed to be thought given fo what;
23 studies or analyses are necessary to .move this forward. More specific proposal
24 information was needed.
_ 2s
26 Council Member:Keller wanted to address parks and fields. The loss of field
27 space at that .site would: be a great loss. He did .not. think the zoning on that.
2s property was going to stand. He thought Council should sit down with the School
29 Board and discuss what is and what isn't workable.
30
31 Mayor Thompson agreed.
32
33 Direction was given to Dr. Carl Wong, Superintendent of Petaluma City Schools,
34 and City Manager Stouder to~establish a date convenient for a joint meeting with
3s the School Board and Council to discuss future uses of the Kenilworth site.
36
37 Council Member Hamilton thought it might be beneficial for the board to hear the
3s Council's concerns about land use so they had that information as they looked at
39 the requests for qualifications and the requests for proposals.
40 '
41 Council Member Maguire asked City~Management''fo convey to the School Board
42 that the Council was not.going to come~to conclusions without considering the
43 land use. _ _,
44
4s Council Member Cader-Thompson felt a Master Plan was needed.
46 '
Vol. 34, Page 382
.April 3, 2000
i City Manager S.touder stated that. he and Dr. Wong would meet tomorro to
2 discuss optiors:for a joint`~meeting before ,proceeding viiith any additional..'.
3 research or staff work.
4
s .Continued o.April 5, 2.000.
. -.~>
6
~ 13. Resolution OQ.=66„N,C 5. Authorizing; City Manager to Execute Professional
s Services Agreement`Wifh Carollo Engineers. For~Engineering Services in:Support
9 of Phase 1 of'fh~e~ Water''Recycling Facility Project (~New'Wastewater
to Treatment Faelity)~. (Ban)
11 -.
12 Continued Resolution Authorizing City Manager to. Execute Professional
13 Services Agreement with Carollo Engineers for Engineering Services ri Support
14 of New 1N,astewater Treatment Facility:
is
16 Mr. Ban introduced hirnse f.:and SusanMcDonald; project manager' for Carollo
17 Engineers.
18 He offered to: give summaryyof report, o_r' go straight to que tion and answers.
19
20 Council Member: Keller stated that ion :page 9 of the old agenda bill. it shows
21 $97;OQ0 for task #3, ;which .is asses., critique and'value engineer the.
22 recommended project. 'Task.4.0 develop and evaluate alternatives:comes in of
23 $37,,000 and we're falking about developing three alternatives. Is that.going to
24 allow three alternatives, one.low-tech and two conventional;;, to be, thought`.
2s through and engineered to the same degree as the recommended approach so
26 we can have a valid comparison?
27
28 Mr. Ban stated that the difference would be the number of natural systems
29 experts that are part of the team.
30
31 Mr. Stouder questioned what level the comparison would be on.
32
33 Mr. Ban stated that: it will. still be a: planning, level document and would be
34 developed at; the same lexel. More effort wili'not be placed on one alternative
3s over another.
36
37 PUBLIC ~COM1111ENT
38
-, ..,,
39 Mr. Terence Garvey stated that;,at a prior meeting Councif gave direofions as to
4o the design. My suggestion is to give.seriousconsideration tq the design offered
41 by US FILTER, which was approved by Brown & Caldwell. They mentioned
42 drinking; water quality:` I u~rgeyouuA"to consider delivering effluence to. Sonoma
43 area; refabllitate the wetlands andgive them a try: This would erihagce our
44 environment and .will have ~$1 million a year for farmers to put. this water on
45 pasture. 1Ne could ,probably get the. Fish & Game and the 1Nildlife Assoc: to
:: _
.April 3, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 383
1 contribute funds to a project like this because they want the water. I recommend
2 you hire your own consultants to develop the wetlands..
4 Vasco Brazil, 4551 Lakeville .Highway, voiced his disappointment that whenever
5 he comes. to speak it's after 11:0.0 p.m. and the viewing audience is no longer
6 viewing.
s He commented with regard to item #13, regarding the issuance and sale of
9 wastewater bond series 2000 for the pond and fluent station upgrade and the
to Lindberg Lane replacement and phase 1 of the wastewater project.
11 He requested that the City Council ask sewer ratepayers to approve. a 30-year
12 tax increase of $70-80 million to build. a new treatment plant rather than upgrade
13 and improve the existing ,plant for $30 million.
14
15 His two main concerns are:
16 That the project team Is made up of 15 or 19 people; they will evaluate
. 17 treatment alternatives fior the City of .Petaluma every six months-only two
rs public meetings are scheduled for this period. I feel that all of these meetings
~~ 19 ~ should be open o.the public.
20 ~ ® For an unbiased evaluation of existing. plant relative to the upgrade and
21 ~ expansion. The present hired consultants have maintained, since 1.988., that
22 the existing plant has passed its useful life and should be torn down and build
23 anew one.
24
25 He feels that the City Council risks facing legal challenges should this bias
_ 26 process continue to select a plant that is firmly to its ratepayers.
27
as Council Member To:rliatt clarified that what Mr. Brazil was saying is that he is in
29 support of option #3/ 12.5 task for Hopper Street upgrade alternative, which
3o would cost $21,000.
31
32 Mr. Brazil clarified that what he wants is an unbiased evaluation.
33
34 MOTION: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Maguire.;. to Adopt.
35 Resolution 00-66 N.C:S: Authorizing City Manager to 'Execute
36 Professional Services Agreement With Carollo Engineers For
37 Engineering Services in Support of Phase 1 of the Water
38 Recycling Facility Project (New V1lastewater Treatment Facility),
39 including option #3 to refine the scope of work and. other tasks.
40
41 Council Member Torliatt stated for the record that she would like to be perfectly
42 clear as to what Mr. Brazil considers an unbiased evaluation to be.
43
44 Council Member Keller answered for Mr. Brazil (who had left the meeting at #his
4s time) that it meant not taking his property and the evaluation being done by
46 someone other than the City.
vol. 34, Page 384
1
April 3; 2000
2 Council Member Torliatt voiced her co,nce,rn'tlat perhaps City Management.
3 could talk fo Mr. Brazil and find :out what exactly he envisions as an unbiased
4 evalu,afon..
5
6 Mr: Ban stated that we've approached this from the standpoint that the Hopper-
~ Street site would be demolished (.in scope of work). If Counci) would like to
s include upgrading as part of 'evaluation it would be as unbiased as all the: other'
9 alternatves.,
to
11 MQTION
12 PASSED:. 7/0/0
13
14 ADJOURN
is
i6 The meeting was: adjourned 11:35 p.m.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
z4 ATTEST:
25'
26 `~C~/~t A. ~1~ J
Beverly J. Kline, CityCl~
s
29
30
31 ******
E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
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
April 5, 2000
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Special
City Council IVleeting
Vol. 34, Page 385
Wednesday, April 5, 2001
Council Chambers
ROLL CALL 6:00 P.M.
Present: Healy,. Cader-Thompson, Keller, Maguire, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Torliatt
Absent: Mayor Thompson
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no one wishing to speak..
COUNCIL COMMENT
Council IVlember Matt Maguire reported .that Governor Davis has added $37
million to his Transportation Spending Plan for Sonoma and Marin Counties
Commuter Rail.
David Keller, the :Governor's Transportation Budget is on the Internet.
City Attorney Rich Rudnanskystated that there are two matters on the written
agenda that need to. be added:by motion "in that the need arose to take : .
immediate action`on these matters .after the original. agenda was posted 72 hours
ago.
., .
1. Closed Session: Conference with Labor Negotiator with respect to Unit 7.
2. New Business ~#5: Discussion and Possible Appointment of City Council
Committee for informal meeting with'.Fire Fighters.
Motion was made by Matt Maguire, seconded by Janice Cader-Thompson to add
these items to the agenda.
Ayes: Healy, Cader-Thompson, Keller,~Maguire, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Torliatt
Noes: None
Absent: Mayor Thompson
Council adjourned to Closed' SessionLto hear the following:
CONFERENCE WITHLEGAL COUNSEL, ANTICLPATED LITIGATION, Significant
Exposure to Litigation Pursuant ,to, Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section
54956.9(b) (1 Matter).
Vol. 34, Page 386 April 3,, 2000
1 CONFERENCE- WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR; pursuant to Government Code Section
2 54957.6. Agency Negotiator: City Negotiator; Unrepresented Employee: City Manager
3
4 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR, pursuant to Government, Code. Section
5 54957..6, Uriit 7, Fire. Agency Negotiator: Acorne/Beatty/Krout (Needs to be formally
6 added by motion)
7
8 Reconvene 7:40 P.M.
9
10 ROLL CALL
11 Ayes: Healy, Cader-Thompson, Keller, Maguire, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Torliatt
12 Absent:, Mayor Thompson
13
14 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky stated there was no reportable action out of Closed
15 Session.
16
17 PUBLIC COMMENT
18 There. was no one wishing to speak.
19 -
20 COUNCIL. COMMENT
21 There was no one wishing to speak
22
23 Vice Mayor Torliatt changed the order of items on the agenda.
24
25 LAND U_SE
26 KENILWORTH.. SCHOOL GROUNDS AREA :: ~~
27 City Manager, Fred Stouder reported 'that he met with Carl Wong,
28 Superintendent of Petaluma School District o discuss Council's request; of a joint
29 meeting with the School Board:.. A tentative date has been scheduled for
30 Saturday, .May 13t" Mr. Wong suggested that there be a limit. of two. items on
31 the agenda, joint uses of recreational facilities and the proposal presented by the
32 HUB Group, He again reiterated gas he did Monday night that he .and. the School
33 Board did not feel that. the land use issue for Kenilworth was their responsibility
34 and did not want to encroach upon that-di'scussio,n, with, Cou°ncil.
35
36 RMI DETENTION POND FEASIBILITY'
37 Tom Hargis, Water Conservation Director; ;brought Council, up do date on this
38 item that -was brought beforeCouncil in: the Fall ofi 1999. The .Detention Pond
39 Study looked at the feasibility of :making detention ponds a mandatory
40 requirement of new develop.ment~ within, the community. The existing city
41 ordinance and code provides for either creation of detention ponds as part of
42 development or the option to pay into the Storm .Drain Mitigation Fees :where
43 those fees .could be used for drainage projects. Over time there. has been a
44 change in. the collection of fees that have. been used for partial funding of .the
45 Corps of Engineers, Payran Reach Flood Management Project. An outcome of
46 the study 'was that detention ponds should . be a component of a .flood
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
April 5, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 387
management strategy. The study indicated. that there was a need for discretion
as to where detention ponds should be constructed to make sure that they were
beneficial and not detrimental. The additional information requested by Council
was of such a nature that he had requested the consulting firm RMI to put it into
the form of a scope of services with dollars attached so Council could look at
each individual issue and discuss them in individual components rather than as a
package. The depth of questions and depth of analysis in order to respond to
that is a $124,000 effort.
Mr. Hargis' recommendation to the Council is the following:
1. .Incorporate Council supported elements into the Surface Water Element
of the General Plan.
2. Increase Storm Drain Mitigation Fees to reflect increase in construction
costs.
3. Direct .Management to prepare a Mandatory Detention Pond Ordinance
after Public Hearing on Draft Report.
4. Revise Floodplain Ordinance to ban construction within the Floodplain in
the City limifs.
5. Request the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors to institute a
Mandatory Detention Pond Ordinance and revise their Floodplain
Ordinance to ban construction in the Floodplain in the Petaluma River
Watershed in County jurisdiction.
6. Institute Moratorium on new applications in the Floodplain until either: a)
funding for completion of Corps Payran Reach Project is assured, or b)
completion of Corps Payran Reach, or c) Item 4 above is complete and
adopted..
There will be a new set of FEMA maps once the Corps of Engineers Payran Reach
Project is completed (1 to 1 'h years) which will change what the floodplain is.
We're spending multiple millions of dollars to ,provide a 100-year level of flood protection
through- General Plan .build. out in the city and county that is going to start. deteriorating
to less ,protection so were spending a whole lot of money to see things degrade. Mr.
Hargis was here. when the first Ordinance was adopted in September 1978 that
provided restrictions on construction in the floodway and setting safeguards that new
construction had to be built a foot above the 1'00-year flood.
Council Member Keller, brought to the attention of the Council the fact that Tulsa,
Oklahoma put in place the kind of program that we are discussing.
Vol. 34, .Page 388 April 3, 2000
1 Mr. Hargis -feels it would, be. critically important that. this be referred to the Sonoma..
2 County 'Wafer Agency Citizens Advisory° Committee so the City would have an.
3 opportunity for discussion at that level.. There needs fo be public. meetings in the city
4 limits, in the county, involve the Resource Conservation. District and try and .get as many
5 agencies that may have a perspective as an issue involved, and as many:citizens as
6 possible,.
7
8 Bill Bennett has .been concerned over the use of Eminent Domain. This is. something
9 that would be explored and conceivably incorporated, into legislation if the Council
10 supported Mr. Bennett's wishes that we do mandatory detention ponds, or city
11 sponsored detention ponds, and some of'them being .county area, as long as you have a.
12 willing seller. If you ban construction in the floodplains do we also want to look at using,
13 Open Space funds and Sonoma County Water Agency- funds for purchase of flood
14 prone properties that exist now and get some people out of harms. way or businesses
15 out of harms -way that are now subject to repetitive flooding?
16
17 Council Member Maguire, How would we pay for this? He would like to bring the
18 Mitigation Fees into the real world as~soon as possible, but would. it be enough soon
19 enough?
20
21 Tom advised that he .has not done. any projections to date. There are some efforts in
22 the works looking at development potential and things that are being donee to support
23 the General Plan. effort about available land. A floodplain would certainly modify that
24 too. If. Council ban's construction in the floodplain, you wouldn't have as .much
25 developable land to generate the fees, Pm not hopeful that this increase would be
26 enough in the near term to fund this .kind of~ effort'.. I think we're looking at the broader
27 General Plan and how we use funds from utilities.
28
29 Another issue Mr., Hargis will bring foruvard in the future is how the city wil_I pay for storm
30 drain maintenance of. our systems and where we're coming under the Phase 2
31 Regulations for Storm Water Pollution Prevention,. He believes the cify is .going to be
32 looking at an attempt to raise Storm Drain Fees similar to the Zone 2A as a benefit
33 election of watershed residents to generate funds for various kinds of projects.
34
35 Council Member ~ Keller, feels that everyone pays money for different utility services
36 provided, such as, sewage to be taken away and disposed of, garbage, electricity,
37 phones etc:,: and when the city provides ;a utility to the pub is that is the. dispersal or
38 removal of floodwafer from peoples property from storm water then they should also pay
39 for that aervice. V11e need to look specifically at a Storm Water Utility Fee:.. Tulsa,
40. assumes that all ;improvements are to be funded within. the county region. They do not
41 .rely on the State or Federal. Government: It is our water, our problem and there is no
42 reason. to depend on political outsiders to .grant us money even though. there-are. special
43 funds that does become available.. I think it's going to be up to the residents and
44 property owners within the: basin to fund it.
45
April 5, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 389
1 It was requested that a map that shows the floodplain with the parcels on it and the
2 depth of water in different locations be given to the Council, Argus Courier and Press
3 Democrat.
4
5 Vice Mayor Torliatt read a letter from Geoff Cartwright into the record.
6
7 Public Comment
8
9 Andy Rogers, Liberty Valley, lives above the Liberty Creek. Being an environmental
10 consultant he has made some inquiries and advised that there are grants available.
11 The Liberty Creek neighbors have submitted a letter of intent to`apply for a restoration
12 grant from Sonoma County Community Foundation to implement the recommendations
13 from the Enhancement Plan (Resource Conservation District) for~Liberty Creek.
14
15 He believes that these efforts as we organize are going to be a very powerful and
16 important voice to the General Plan efforts regarding urface'water. The city has done
17 a very good job providing outreach and I think that groups like the Liberty Creek
18 Watershed Group and Watershed Partnership also has to do a, lot of outreach
19 themselves in order for it to work. The other things, the Watershed Group,could do is be
20 developing our own watershed specific practices and policies,maximum daily loads so
21 the EDA doesn't mandate that five years from now.
22 -
23 Jan & Jim Riebli, 299 Rainsville Rd (Riebli Dairy), asked Council.. if the work`being done
24 on the creek behind Payran is intended to ever go any further than.the Payran Area.
25 She feels that if the project could go as far as Petaluma Boulevard it would be a ,
26 significant help to others instead of just those in the one_area.
27 ~ _
28 Mr. Hargis, there was a Drainage Master Plan done by the Sonoma County Water
29 Agency at the request of the city that looked for flood management improvements in
30 everybody's backyard. The concept was that there would be a project, starting at the
31 downstream end and over time channel improvements would continue upstream along
32 the river and the tributaries. The Master Plan concept was to continue .to make more
33 properties flood free over a long time period. , .
34 ~ -, .
35 Jane & Jim Riebli, their main concern is their ranch on Rainsville Road. They can't
36 handle any more water. Detention ponds will hurt them and the~,longer the-water stays
37 on the ranch the more damage it does to the pasture. Don't build in the floodplain as
38 was recommended. Three generations ago they built their buildings on higher ground
39 that has never flooded. Putting detention. ponds in an area that. is already a natural
40 detention pond would only make the green pastures turn to weeds and stickers. It
41 wouldn't be usable for cattle because nothing will ,grow. People will be put out of
42 business. It saves him $3-$4 thousand a week in hay savings by having his cattle graze
43 in the pastures.
44
45 Council Member Healy advised that the city is not planning on solving the flood
46 problems on the backs of rural folks. We will be very respectful of all of your issues.
,: Vol. 34, Page 390
April 3,.2000
2 Council Member Keller, how to work. the; land is a lesson that has been unfortunately
3 lost on folks. downstream who haven't lived on the land and who haven't worked it and
4 has taken what was pasture land and decided to build in the floodplain, and that has
5 been exactly the. problem that we have .now. Your knowledge of what happens with the,
6 creeks and rivers is lost upon new property owners who don't know how~to stay out~of
7 the floodplains and that's .really the problem we're trying to remedy or address at this
8 point.
9
10 Fran Bengtsson, .590 Cavanaugh Lane, Representing self and Petaluma Riding &
11 Driving Club also within the ;detention pond: area. They are spending a .lot. of mo_ ney
12 trying to .improve the property and make it more useable for the members. She wanted
13 to let the Council know thaf flier are concerned. Mr. Hargis' report was encouraging..
14 She has been in front of the~Council for 20 years with the floodplains issue. I appreciate
15 your recommendation'to the. Council to :accept and adopt no building in the floodplains.
16 She and others would very,.much like to° be placed, on a mailing list to be informed of
17 these meetings. ,,,
18 ..
19 Bill .Bennett, If someone wanted to sell their,place or refinance, this map puts, a cloud. on
20 the possibility this property`may become a detention pond. I think some .retraction
21 needs to be done~.to alleviate that problem.
22
23 Terrance ;Garrey; 83 Maria Drive; would like to see the Council. go ahead with this
24 detention pond study. ~ The county .and city need's fo work 'together. If some peoples
25 land can be used fordetention ponds they should be; properly compensated.. The: city
26 does not hold enough floodplains` to hold waters to prevent further floods. This. flood
27 control: project is going #o exacerbate the problem even more so and if you don't have
28 detention ,ponds you really will have problems. No further growth will be possible unless
29 we' have detention ponds.
30 -
.:-.
31 Bryant Moynihan; 102-Dawn Place, He is willing to .accept what he hears tonight even
32 though it is in conflict with many years of better advice that has been given by the same
33 individual. He reminds Council that they have no source of funds for this particular item.
34 When Council~approved:the Army Corps Payran flood fix project it had two purposes.
35 One- was to provide relief fo the residents of the Payran; flood ,area_, the .other was to
36 mitigate the incremental impacts o_f development within the floodplain, throughout the
37 urban growth boundaries: That is the project that the Redevelopment Agency. agreed fo.
38 fund. That is: the; project that we're going over millions of dollars in funding. To come
39 back now and say we`re .going to ignore the goals of this ..project that: we're going into
40 debt to fund seems to me to be a little inconsistent. Take a look. at the floodplain, look
41 at the. Army Corps map and see just .how wide of an area. if is and go tell the property
42 owners. in the Central Petaluma. Specific .Plan area and tell the property owners up in
43 the business parks, tell the property owners around the Factory- Outlet, tell them they
44 won't. be able to build. Tell them the city is going to do a .growth moratorium because
45 it's within their best interest even though we're all paying for the Payran flood fix.
4.6
April 5, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 391
1 Vasco Brazil, 4551 Lakeville Highway,. has the city or specifically any of the consultant
2 companies, Corps of Engineers looked at another way to alleviate flooding in Petaluma?
3 He believes that if you make a lock at the beginning of the Petaluma slough, and when
4 there is going to be a chance of a flood don't let the tide come in and it will alleviate any
5 kind of flooding you could have. It might not alleviate some flooding in the lowest areas,
6 but it will work and there is no anxiety, and no using rural properties to fix the flood. in
7 detention ponds. He believes it should be explored.
9 Richard DeCarli, 1325 Adobe Road, he doesn't want a detention pond on his property
10 and will do anything to keep it off.
11
12 Diane Torres, the Master Drainage Plan needs to be updated.
13
14 Tom Hargis, the Zone 2A Citizens Advisory Committee did have an agenda item to
15 discuss updating the Master Drainage Plan and the item was tabled.
16
17 It was the consensus of the Council for staff to bring back the following:
18
19 1. Gather Criteria and Data in order to inform the community which parts of the
20 Floodplain are most vulnerable to flooding or most. likely to cause downstream
21 flooding.
22 2. Work the Surface Watershed Management studies into the General Plan
23 process.
24 3. Incorporate a Partnership approach with all agencies and other cities.
25 4. Look at long term financing fees such as an increase in Storm Water
26 Drainage Fee.
27 5. Work with the Open Space District to possibly purchase property in the
28 Floodplain areas and/or detention areas.
29 ~ 6. Expand the Zero Net Fill area upstream from Payran.
30 7. Look at removal of development rights in the Floodplain area.
31 8. Hold a public forum and discussion on issues in the Floodplain regarding
32 Moratoriums.
33 9. Look at flood insurance risks that we have.
34 10. Look at an exact area of a Moratorium if we were to discuss that.
35 11. Look at increasing floor elevation of construction in the Floodplain.
36 12. Look at the need for a coordinated Detention Pond Policy regarding liability,
37 funding and construction or detention pond Ordinance.
38 13. Look at the possibility of a Zero Storm Water Increment Policy.
39 14. Continue to look at detention and retention pond sites and viability as part of
40 this process.
41
42 Vice Mayor Torliatt stated that the city needs to go to other agencies in the county such
43 as Sonoma. County Water .Agency, Resource Conservation District, County of Sonoma
44 and the State (Proposition 13) for Watershed funds. We are all partners and we all
45 need to contribute to the funding because it will benefit us all.
4"6
Vol. 34, Page 392 April 3, 2000
1 Council. Member Healy, is there. agreement on some sef of these issues. that can be
2 brought fonivard in the next few weeks as an interim Ordinance. UVhich of these items
3 could be implemented now as opposed to having to wait "for the General Plan. process. to
4 get under way? He suggests two,. one of which is expanding the Zero. Net Fill to cover
5 the east side areas that are not currently included upstream from Payran. and also ..using
6 Old Elm Village a"s a model for supplemental Storm 1Nater Detention Pond. Impact'Fees
7 in the Watershed.
8
9 Vice Mayor Torliatt, when we did go through the Qld Elm Village process .her issue was
10 with the detention fees that were required at that time. She does not want that to trigger
1.1 some sort. of mechanism where the city .is required to build .detention facilities and have
12 to take on the liability of the storm water runoff or whatever happens with. that and she
13 wants to make sure before we go there that that issue is taken care of.
14
15 Council Member Maguire, L'believe we did get some response back from staff that said
16 it did not obligate us in that manner.
17
18 City Manager ,Fred Stouder, we could take that list and bring it back to you responding
19 to what appears can be .done in a short period of time., how long it would take. and the
20 cost to do those things.
21
22 Council Member Keller, in the legislative list that Council.. Member Healy presented I
23 would add the Zero Storm Water Increment Policy, look at comparable policies
24 elsewhere.. How are: we going to grapple. with deve oprnent issues thaf come `to us day
25 by day until this information is in place..
26
27 Council Member Healy, the .zero net runoff increase issue. is one that I think "Q.Id EIm
28 .Village again as an example is addressing to the extent they canon site, but when your
29 talking in the modern, era increasing :densities of construction there' only<so much the
30 people can do ontheir own site and then it becomes more cost.. effective to do the
31 remaining work off site which_is what we gave them the option of doing.
32
33 Council Member Hamilton, Zone 2A funds have gone primarily to the Payran flood fix,
34 leaving those in the rural-areas needing funds.
35
36 This will be brought backto Council at a date undetermined.
37 '
38 CORONA REACH SPECIFIC PLAN
39 CHELSEA GCA REAL-TV
40
41 Mike Moore, Planning Director, the intent of this meeting is to continue your
42 review and discussion regarding the selection of Consulfant ofi the Corona Reach
43 Specific Plan. On March 1.3, the Council interviewed Three firmsinterested 'in
44 preparing the Corona Reach Specific Plan.. It was the Council's determination to
45 postpone that. decision to tonight's ,meeting. in, order to incorporate: the discussion
46 on the RMI Detention Ponds study and also. issues related. to funding -the Specific
April 5, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 393
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
Plan as well. as whether or not the Specific Plan could or should be folded into
the-General Plan process.
Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, This project is in the Floodplain -Don't
approve it, It will only result in additional flood damages by the displacement of
floodwater.
Diane Torres, 1657 Rainier Avenue, why are we using the county flood maps for
this plan instead of the city flood maps? Are we going to use the EIR done years
ago or are we~ going to spend a lot of money on a new one to get the same
information again?
Bob Martin, 171 Payran, he would like to see the developers be more sensitive to
surrounding areas in the floodplain. Elevate the structures on columns and put
the parking lot underneath.
Beth Meredith, 104 5t" Street, She would like to address the Council after Council
has had their discussion.
Ms. Meredith, has presented a lot of material in the past about Patricia Johansen.
and her approach to this type of work. If that fits into your decision I think that's a
good resource. and could really add some visionary design component to
whatever it is we undertake in that area.
David Keller, Given the time restraints placed on the City, it is not feasible to
achieve a Specific Plan that is done professionally and adequately and with
validity.. Let Chelsea bring their development application forward and address
the issues that this Council has mentioned time and again.
Matt Maguire, He would like to see a Specific Plan done professionally and
complete. To accomplish that the city needs time., but because of .Chelsea's
timetable that is not realistic. Because of that it should be done in the General
Plan.
Janice Cader-Thompson, It would be prudent financially to fold this into the
General Plan. There is a financial issue that we are dealing with and it `is
redundant to look at a Specific Plan while were doing a General Plan at the same
time. There are major problems in this specific area. The Factory Outlet has
flooded in the past, those problems were supposed to be mitigated.
Mike Healy, Condition 53 of Resolution 91-136 NCS (A Preliminary Master Plan
shall be undertaken for the area including Parcels 8 & C and extending beyond
those boundaries to include the undeveloped and underdeveloped areas south to
Lynch Creek, west to Petaluma Boulevard North and north to Corona Road.. The
proposed development of Parcel A for the Petaluma Factory Outlet Village .shall
be recognized as a given within the Preliminary Master Plan. Timing for
Vol. 34, Page 394
April 3, 2000
1 completion and funding for .the, preparation of the ;Preliminary Master Plan shall
2 be at the direefion of the City Council.) probably made. more sense at fhe time it
3 was put into place given the context of what was going: on then. and what'is going
4 on now. It is counter productive to continue. to try to shoe horn a Specific Plan
t_
5 into the .limited time frame necessary to process Chelsea's application. Another
6 issue that- is central to me is the fact. .that the major property owners 'in the
7 Corona Reach area; not just Chelsea, but including them, ace basically saying
8 that they don't want the funds that have been previously deposited to be used for
9 this process and d manding those funds back. He ,is prepared to .lose Condition
10 53 based on the changed circumstances and :ask taff to come backs with a
11 recommendation on the best way technically to achieve that.
12
13 Matt Maguire, if we do that I would point... out that.. we could still consider a
14 moratorium as .we go through the process. Chelsea ,needs to be attentive to
15 Council's concerns and' address these issues when they- proceed with their
16 application. The General Plan may change the land use, which could severely
17 impact their plans.
18
19 Pamela. Torliatt, Chelsea is threatening the city with. litigation. If they want to
20 process their application =then do that. if they don't want to play by, the Specific
21 Plan rules. I don't appreciate the process that they have gone through fo push
22 the litigation issue. in our faces. l agree with Councifinernber Healy that if we
23 don't have the funding for the project how are we going to complete it. Chelsea
24 should participate in our General Plan process.
25
26 David Keller; Chelsea should realize that they have. threatened the city with
27 litigation,: they have cut: off the funding source from'themselyes to provide for the
28 greater planning that was originally intended for the area, and then turn around
29 and say you have to take our development application. That doesn't mean that
30 the concerns raised in .Condition 53 and by Council the past two years are. going
31 away. They still. need to be addressed. You still have to deal with. flooding, water
32 retention, pollution,, and. preservation of the corridor as a habitat with public
33 access, traffic and circulation. If you think they are only .going. to be addressed
34 on your specific property without taking, a look at the larger context. of how that's
35 going. to fit into the city's utilities, circulation, floodplain acheme: and. everything
36 else, your mistaken. If you want. to take that on in your developmenf application
37 please. do.
3'8
39 Matt Maguire,. an amended E1R might serve the parposes of their project but he
40 tends to believe the project should require a full new ElR.
41
42 Jane Hamilton, she is very open to processing the application; looking at it in :it's
43 own merits with the information we have in light, of .the questions we have right
44 now. I think because of the prior discussion Chelsea knows what our concerns
45 are.
46
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
April 5, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 395
David Keller, I agree, and I apologize for being testy. .It's been a long process,
well over 10 years. Bring us something different. that addresses the issues.
He thanked the consulting teams for all their hard work and great ideas on how to
approach these issues. He would like to see how they could get a greater Level
of detail into the General Plan discussions for this area.
City Attorney Rieh Rudnansky, the consensus is that you would not .necessarily
proceed with the Specific Plan. You would want to process a General Plan and
process Chelsea's application and that staff will come back to you with a staff
report and any necessary actions or procedures.
FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 1415
It was the consensus of the Council to not form a committee to meet with Fire
Fighters to discuss their negotiations. Management is negotiating on Council's
behalf and therefore Council is not going to be entering into discussions on their
negotiations.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
ATTEST:
~~
Paulette Lyon, Deputy ~i Clerk
******
Pam Torliatt, Vice Mayor