HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/21/1999Sepfember 21, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 457
1
2 City ,of Petaluma, California
3 ~ IVlinutes of a
4 City Council Meeting
5
6
7 Tuesday, September 21, 1999
8 Council Chambers
9
10
11 The City Council met on .this date at 3'30 p.m. in -the Councif :Chambers.
12
13 ROLL CALL
14
15 Present: Caller=Thompson, Healy, Keller, Maguire, Thompson, Torliatt
16
17 Absent: Hamilton
18
19 PUBLIC COMMENT
20
21 None ~,
22
23 COUNCIL CO:IVIMENTS
24 ~ ,.
25 Council Member Torliatt stated that; she recently visited the City of Los Gatos :and saw
26 an'interesting concept applied regarding home additions: First; a post was placed in the
27 lawn showing, a picture of the prgposed addition and second, a story pole was erected
28 .explaining the: effect of the changes. She felt this: was ."something the City of Petaluma
29 might want fo consider implementing. She also stated.:- she reviewed a letter from the
30 Sullivan family stressing 'fhe importance_ of Having the;,City's .ambulances equipped with
31 defibrillators. She requested City .Management provide a report fo Councif concerning
32 the issue.
33 ~. ..
34 Council. Member. Maguire stated that the City'.had .,recently received. a letter from .Action
35 for Better Cifi'es ~(ABCD),, a statpewide organization that was organizing to help cities
36 regain funding from tfe, stafe: Heinformed the Council that he was donating one
37 hundred dollars ($100) and e~neouraged others to help by also making a donation.
3'8
39 Council Member-Keller requested fihat the City Manager send a note of thanks for a job
40 well done to the Public 1Nocks~ crew ,that paved Petaluma :Boulevard near U. S. Highway
41 101..
42
43 .AGENDA CHANGES, AD®ITIONS; AND DELETLONS
44 r ,
45 None _
46
Vol. 33, Page 458
PROCLAMATION
Sepfember'21, 1999
2
3 Mayor Thompson announced National Pollution Wegk,;~September 20 - 26, 199.9...
4
5 Mayor Thompson announced a hazardous waste drop off on Saturday,, September 25,
6 1999, at the Petaluma Fairgrounds b"etween 9:00 a.m. fo 3:00 p.m.
7
8 MINUTES
9 "
10 Council removedapproval. of the minutes of July 6, 15, 19, and 26,, 1999., 'from th'e
11 agenda and :asked the' City Clerk to prepare. verbatim minutes ofi Council's discu"scions
12 and actions on those dates.
13
14 CONSfIVT CALENDAR
15 ,
16 Mayor- Thompson. announced thaf Consent Calendar Agenda Item #3 was removed. by
17 memo:
1.8
19 Council :Member. Tor.liaft requested the removal of Consent Calendar Agenda: Ltem #5,
~~
2'1 1. Resolutgn 99-183 N.C.S. Approving Claims &. Bills:
22 2: Resolution 99-184 N:C.S: Authorizing Closure,~.of._. Kentucky. Street on Sunday,..
23 September 26, 1999; Between the Hours of 5:00 a.m. and 6:09 p.m. for the;
24 Terith A'nriual.OutdoorAntiquc Faire -
25 3. [REMOVED BY MEMO] Resolution N::C.S. Awarding Contract to for. the
26 Re-,roofing of Fire Station 2 located gat 10010 :N:' McDowell and Fire :`Station "3
27 located'at 831 S. McDowell for the: Amount of. ~ `(Bid .opening 9/i6/99).
:28 4. [Written] 'Status Report ofi Downtown Actiyifes Including .Put_nam "Plaza.
29 6, Resolution 99-185: N:C "S':.Autlo_nzing the City. Manager to Sign Agreement with
30 the S,onorna County Water Agency' (SCWA) for Funding of the C:o.nstructi`on'
31 , Costs for° the City's Portion of the•. Army `Corps; of -Engineers U:-Shaped and'. .
32 Trapezoidal Channels.. SCWA Funding is `$1,,5`-1x8,000' for U'-Sh~aped~ and
33 $3,00"0,0.00. for Trapezoidal G.hannels: Project No: 9724
34 7. Resolution 99-186 N.C'S. Accepting Completion of :the Mountain View Water
3`5 Reservoir Project #9917; Phase 4 Qualityv Painting and Maintenance, P,O, Box
36 704,4"5, ";Reno; NV 89:570 fo:r th,e amount °of $21~3,,Q00.0.0' _ '
37 7a. Reso.lut'ion 99-187 N:,C.S. supporting.`Efforts to; :Identf_y; Long -Term, Solutions in
38 Restoring 'Ecol'ogical Health sand .'Irnpro~ing ~1Nater Managernenf for Beneficial
39 Uses of the Bay/Delta Estiaary_
40 Motion:. Council Member Maguire moped; seconded by Keller to adopt ',
41 Consent Calendar items 1, 2, 4' 6,; 7 and 7a. .
42 -
43 Motion Passed: 6/0/1 (Hamilton -absent) _
44 ~ '. f :'..:
45 Council. Member Healy requested that the :author of Consent Calendar Agenda Item
46 #7A, Supervisor Me.Kinsey, be provided a copy of the adopted. Resolutions.
September 21, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 459
1 5. Resolution 99-188 N G.S. Approving the Plans and Specifications Prepared: by
2 the Engineering Department and Awarding the Contract for Lakeville Street
3 1N,idening Project'.. _ .
4 ~ ~ .Y
5 `Council Member Tor.liatt requested City Civil Engineer Mike Evert report on the time
6 schedule of this project.
7
8 City Civil Engineer Mike Evert "responded that the contract work for the City was
9 'scheduled for November 1999; and that one of the components of the project was
10 upgrading the railroad' crossing arms at East "D" Street. City Transportation Engineer
11 Allan Tilton had a conversation with. the Railroad's Chief Engineer who advised him that
12 the traffic control .firm he had, hoped to use for the ,project had not responded. to the
13 Railroad. He stated that the Railroad estimated their work would occur in September or
14 October 1999:, and" thaf the schedule had not changed. An agreement with the State
15 was expected which'woiald go through the City.
16
17 The awarding of the project by Council would help the City's Engineering Department fo
18 work in unison with the Railroad. If the Railroad did. not relocate the crossing arm on
19 schedule, the City would proceed with widening Lakeville Street. Mr. Evert did state he .
20 felt confident that the Railroad would complete their work before the "D" Street closure
21 work in the spring of 2000.
22
23 Council Member Cader-Thompson expressed: that a right hand turn lane on "D" Street
24 to Lakeville was necessary to improve traffic circulation.
25
26 Mr. Evert agreed and stated that improvements to the signal light at the intersection of
27 "D" and Lakeville Streets and the addition of an extra lane southbound on Lakeville
28 would significantly improve traffic flow.
29
30 Motion: Council Member Torliatt' .moved, seconded by Maguire., to adopt
31 Resolution 99-187 N.C.S. Approving the Plans and Specifications
32 Prepared by the Engineering Department and Awarding the
33 Contract for Lakeville Street 1Nidening Project to Ghiloft
34 Construction, 246 Ghilotti Avenue, Sanfa Rosa, CA, for the amount
35 of $364,738.00.
36
37 Motion Passed: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
38
39
:.
40
: ,;
41 i4DJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
42
43 At 4:10 ~p.m:., Mayor_Tliompson announced that Council would adjourn to the City-
44 Manager's.Conference Room to address Closed Session items.
45
Vol. 33, Page 460 September 21, 1999
1 -City Attorney Richard. Rudnansky announced the following matters to be addressed
2 during "Closed Session: ~ ' ` ~ '
3 _ .. ;~
4 CONFERENCE: WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government .Code' :Section
5 54956.8. Property: 4104: Lakeville `Highway, Assessor- Parcel .Numbers 017-1'70-002 and 068'-010-026';
6 .Negotiating Party: Frederick:.. Sfouder. Under Negotiation:. Price, Terms::of,Fayment, or Both. ' (Gray
7 Property) ~ :. .. ~ .
8
9 CONFERENCE; WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION' (Subdivision (a) of Government Code
10 Section 54956:9) Signs vs. Qity of Petaluma. Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. 2179~91,.
11 .. :. ..
12 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL,000NSEL ANTICIPATEDLITIGATIO.N -Initiating Litigation. Pursuant.to
13 Governmenf Code. Section 54956.9 (1 matter) ~ : ,
14 - ~ .. _ '
1~5 ADI:OURN
16 _ .-
18
19 RECO(VVENE
20 ._ .
21 Thee City Council reconvened at,7:00 p.m. on this date in the Council Chambers:
22
23 ROLL .CALL
24
25 Present:. Caller-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy,. Keller, Maguire; Thompson, Tocliatt
26
27 Absent: None
28
29 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
30
;31 At the request of'M,ayor Thompson, Mary`Tupa led the Pledge of Allegiance....
32
33 MOMENT OF SILENCE
34
35 At the request of` Mayor Thompson, a Moment of Silence was observed'.
36
37 PUBLIC COMMENTS
38
39 Geoff Carfw_right, 56 Rocca Drive; ,spoke regarding a presentation he made. at the
40 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors meeting :about flooding pcoblerns jin Pe#aiuma
41 and suggested having Petaluma Community Access. (PGA) :film .the Supervisors"
42 afternoon meetings. Supervisor Kerns had commented..faanding would not be>a problem
43 since the Petaluma City Council .had recently`increased_funding, to PCA.
44 _
45 Planning Commissioner .David .Glass updated the Council ree~arding the. City's Planning
46 Commission's decision to .rescind the Baker Sfree Bar's icense (use perrrmit). It passed.
47 on a vote of four (4) to, two (2) with Commissioners Barrett,- Broad, Healy sand Glass
48 voting in the affirmative.
September 21, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 461
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.1
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3~8
39
4.0
41
42
43
44
45
46
Terrence Garvey,: 83 Maria Drive, encouraged. Council to change the Council meeting
date from Monday to Tuesday'in recognition of the Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur.
Maria Biasefto, 2980 Whfe Ololer, Sonoma, spoke regarding the care and. welfare of
animals and the Humane Society's cut back of funding. She stressed the importance of
the Shelter.
Council Member Keller commented that the Humane Society .canceled its contract with
the City of Petaluma and was concentrating its efforts on having one shelter ifor the;~~
County. He stated that the Petaluma Shelter would be rebuilt and operated at the
City's expense.
Council Member Torliatt explained that currently City employees staffed.. the Shelter and
Council had created an Animal Advisory Committee to address animal care and
protection issues.,
Alice Bonomi spoke against cruelty to animals..
Bob Martin, 171. Payran, spoke regarding Stony Point Road improvemenfs'approachng
Denman Flats and. expressed his hope that it would comply with.. the Council's Zero Net
Fill Ordinance. ~ _ .
Mark Meinhoffer, 1;30 Bond Avenue, spoke against growing marijuana `for„medical use
in a residential neighborhoods:
City Manager Fred Stouder introduced a Rotary International Exchange Student...
COl1NCIL CONIIVIEIVTS
Council Member Caller-Thompson announced that she had attended Saturday's "toilet
give-away." Timers, low-flush toilets, water conserving shower and faucet heads were
given to the public, :and she applauded the public's participation. In addition, she had;
received a call from a constituent concerning the Payran Railroad Crossing being
inoperable at :times. Also:, she had: a conversation. with Kathy Derenzi regarding traffiie
problems at Old Adobe School and. read a letter from the Sonoma County Board. of
Supervisors in this .regard. She commented that the County had done nothing about
posting traffic. safety signs. She expressed concern and asked that City Management.
be responsive to the community about traffic areas where safety-signs were needed.
Director .ofEngineering Tom Hargis announced that one. ;hundred twenty-seven (1.'2.7).
toilets were still available for distribution; over eight hundred seventy (870.) .low-flush
toilets had been given away.
Council Member David Keller wished the Jewish Community a Happy and Prosperous
New Year and thanked Mr. Garvey for his comments. He requested the Council
Vol. 33, Page 462 September 21, 1999
1 schedule. an agenda discussion and: pos_ Bible action. to send a letter to the -State Public
2 Utilities Comrnissipn (PUC) about the proposal by PacBell for an overlay or breaking up
3 of the zone into separate new zones., He stated that person"ally he did not want to `see
4 an overlay now, or atanytime in the future..
5
6 Council.. Member Torliatt supported Council Member Keller's suggestion ;and noted that
7 the issue had been raised six to eight months ago: She asked City" Management to
8 report whether any action had been `taken..
9
10 UNFINISHED'BUSINESS'
11
12 9. Status Report on Y2K Preparations
13
14 M.r;. Stouder introduced. the City's Y2K Consultant;. ,Mary Tupa, who had chaired the
15 City's." departmental committee to assure the City's progress and. readiness in
16 preparation for pofential fechnologicaf glitches that ma_y result during transition °irito `the.
17 year 20Ob. Ms.; Tupa_`met regularly with City" Management to review reports from each.
18 department, and monitor testing of various ;equipment. A detailed ,report was: distributed
19 to Council. He added that Ms: Tupa had another presentation scheduled that would;
20 ,occur before the New Year to update Council of` the status.
21 - "
..,.
22 Mary Tupa, Y2K' consultant; announced that. there .were one hundred one ('10,1) days:,
23 four {.4) hours.,-..and twenty-seven {27) minutes remaining before the New Year.. 'She
24 reviewed _the, :"status of the City's preparation :for Y2K and stated the City of Petaluma
. _
25 "was p"repared. She ummarized a written report;that detailed the steps and contingency
26 plans establi"shed. The report had been distributed to -the public and she added that 'it
27 was available at the. City's website along .with another' document entitled "Y2K-=What To
28 Do.,".She then provided a Y2K Information Telephone Hotlihe number, (7b7.) 776-36.07,
29 for the public fo calf regarding Y2K preparedness information.
30
31 Council: Members Caller-Thompson and Torl-att thanked Ms. Tupa and the
_32 Management Team for their Time and effort on this project-.-
33 "
34 1"0. New Wastewater Treatment Facility Project:-
35
36 Mr::Stouder reviewed. 'the Resolution f.or 'the new wastewater treatment' facility° project
37 and. introduced Mike B`an, Utility Engineer, fo answer questions..
38 -
39 Mr,: Ban introduced consultant team.. members that included :Pat Gallagher from .Camp:,.
40 Dresher & McGee; Gordon Kulp ,of Smith, Culp .& :Associates; 'Marv Weiner from Brown
4.1 & Caldwell '(lead person regarding wasfewater rates); and Bill Feist fr„om Brown
42 Caldwell He asi<ed if Council. had any questions regarding the Resolution 'that
43 terminated the: privatization process.
44
45 A. Resolution Terminating Privatization, Process. and Establishing City
46 Ownecsh'ip of New 1Nastewater, Treatment Facility.
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
September 2l, 1999
Vol. 33, 'Page 463"
Mofion: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Maguire, to adopt
Resolution 99-189 N.C:S. and incorporate the following changes:
(1) At page 3' of the Resolution, first bullet, "Requirement of fair Market. Vatue
Purchase," last sentence, to read:
"The price of the facility ,could not be fixed in the contract, but would depend on the.
value of the facility at the time of the exercise of the option, thereby putting the 'City and
rate payers at risk of having to pay for .part of the planf twice (added words underlined);
and
(2) At page 3, under "Third Party Services;" add a fourth bullet that read,
"Inability to agree on contract language after extensive .negotiations between staff and
Montgomery'lJnited Water."
"Specific contract language. covering the' above and other critical issues could not b'e
agreed upon."
Terence Garvey,.;$3 Maria Drive,,-spoke regarding environmental issues. He stated that..
the public wanted to see the results of the request for proposal (RFP) in order to
compare, engineering and construction before .negotiations with. one firm. He suggested
obtaining a performance specification and allowing, qualified contractors into the bidding
process.
Vasco Brazil, 4'551 Lakeville. Highway .spoke against constructing, a new wastewater.
treatment facility pfant° and in favor of expanding the existing plant over a period of
twenty (20) years in or'de:r to build up the City's reserve accounts. He inquired if an odor
evaluation had been performed and if the Cityhad a plan to control the odor emissions.
Indrajit Obeysekere, legal counsel for Kaiser Permanente, One Kaiser Plaza, stated his
emp)oyer .had. no objection or interest vested in the new wastewater treatment facility
project; that is; whether it was private or public, and the technology used. He did state
his ern,pioyer did not, want the detention ponds to be located adjacent to its property and
requested the City further evaluate the site decision, He expressed concern that the:
concepfual gaide roes developed by the Master Plan and included, in the Resolution may
imply that Council had approved recommendations in the Master Plan relative to the
siting of the ponds. He requested.. the .City Atforney review 'the wording. of the,
Resolution and provide clarification that it was a matter for further discussion.
Council Member. Keller thanked the speaker and, reported that Council had received.
several ,letters from business owners in the. area. who were concerned about having a
wastewater treatment plant adjacent to their businesses.. He expected Council to be
extremely sympathetic fo those concerns. He asked that Kaiser and other .businesses;
think about potential uses for that property for polishing wetlands, not secondary ponds,
Vol. 33, Page 464 September 21, 1.999
1 designed for po,ls.hng the effluent prior to either reuse or discharge; that was a re-
2 creation of a freshwater marsh and :the use of .buffers such astrees and other plants:
3 ,
4 Mr. Obeysekere stated he wanted to work wifh City Management ..and participate in the
5 decision-r;naking of the project since this was n.ot just a land' use issue but also a health
6 care issue.
7
8 Council Member` Healy added to .Council Memb"er Kelley's comments that. "this was not
9 the :end of a lengthy process and there were additional opportunities for citizens in the
`T0 surrounding areas, to provide input..
11
12 Council Member Hamilton commented that in the Environmental Impact 'Revi'ew (EIRj
1'-3 process; alternatives would be ,looked at and. thanked Mr. Obeys.ekere for lis
14 comments.
15
16 Bryant Moynihan, 102: Dawn Place., spoke. in favor ofi 10A and against 10B (due "to:,cost
17 and the opportunity of looking. at "other alternatives), against 10C (due fo not having
18 selected. a technology and design), and against, 10p' ,(due to concern. regarding the'
19 connection fees, especially the. commercial connection fee; calculationsj:, He stated he
20 would Like the opportunity fo review the Brown & Caldwell, report. He felt more public
21 information was needed, expressed. his surprise at not having,. a recommendation from
22 the '"Citizens Advisory Committee.; and` requested more time in looking at, all. -the
23' alternatives:
24 .
25 Council Member Torliatt replied regarding the increase in wastewater rates and fees
26 (TOD); that this"was the first of four meetings for public input. Other meetings scfleduled
27 were to take place on Monday; November 1,, Monday, November 15;, :and ..Monday;
28 December 6, ,all -af Z:00 p.m. Brown &, Caldwell's Master Plan was presented at the
29 Cou;ncil's June 7, 1999 meeting arid. had been availafle for the public to . read' and
30 provide comments since then.
31
32 Mr. Moynihan indicated he was referring to the Rate Study.
33
3.4 Mr,: Stouder clarified thee. intent "of this meeting was ~to 'introduce the: public to the
35'. proposal. Offici'ally,,; it was not a public, hearing. A flyer was to: be mailed during `the
36 week that included the date of the. public meeting and the two official public hearings #o;
37 which Council Member Torliatt "referred.
38
39 Council ,Member Hamilton announced that a copyof the "Draft.. Interim 1Nastewafer'Rate.
40 and Connection Fee Report" was available at the CityClerk's Office. "
4'1 .
42 Mr: Stouder preferred those .requesting; information go through, his office and he would
43 maintain a`list so follow-up documentation could be fonniarded to'interested parties.
44
45 Motion: Council Member Keller again moved,. and seconded by Maguire; `to.
46 adopf Resolution: ~9:9-1`89 N:C:S., Terminating Privatization ..Process
September 21, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 465
1 and Establishing City Ownership of New 'Wastewater Treatment
2 Facility; as amended.
3
4 Motion Passed: 7/0/0
5
6 Council Member Maguire added that the .following items, B, C and D, were the:resulf Hof
7 prior Council's extensive review and direction and City Management had answers to .any
8 questions posed by the public.
9
10 B. Resolution Approving Wastewater Treatment Master Plan.
11
12 Mr. Stouder reviewed the second Resolution, introduced during the summer;
13 recommending approval of the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan. Previous
14 discussions ,had not allowed Council to pose questions to the various participating
15 consultant team members. He introduced Mike Ban, Utility Engineer, to give an update
16 and provide additional information if requested.
17
T8 Mr. Ban reviewed the .Resolution approving the ~1Nastewater Treatment Master Plan.
19 The recommended project in the Master Plan was a wastewater treatment facility that
20 emphasized the use of low technical processes.. He stated that this proposal had rmany
21 benefits, but also `some concerns. Concerns :included individual processes proposed 'in
22 the Master Plan that had ,never been combined before.. He stated he was unaware of
23 any treatment facility that had attempted what was proposed.. A couple of the treatment
24 technologies, the advanced facultative ponds and the treatment wetlands, had not been
25 built to the scale that was under .consideration. Another concern was that of the bio-
26 solids management program's potential for generating odor. He stated that the stringent
27 permit requirements made. these concerns. even sfronger. Several independent experts
28 who had reviewed `the Master Plan echoed City Management's concerns. For those
29 reasons, it was recommended that the Wastewater 'Master Plan. be approved on a
30 conceptual basis #or"development of the new wastewater plant. This would allow for
31 greater scrutiny of what was proposed and a determination if it was appropriate.
32
33 Council Member Maguire asked. if Brown & Caldwell was provided the general
34 performance criteria used in the development of the technology foc the privatized
35 approach. He queried if they had experience in all the standard engineering` processes
36 and if the `individual components of each part of the proposals were tried, tested and
37 proven.
38
39 Mr. Ban responded in the affirmative.. He added that the one concept that had not been
40 fried was. th`e concept: of using ,the treatment wetlands as pre-treatment for filtration;
41 however, there existed some. evidence that it would work.
42
43 Council Member .Healy inquired if City Management recommended Alternative 2. He
44 asked if City Management wanted authorization to proceed to. the next level of: design
45 detail to work out the concepts, determine if some of the. very valid concerns raised by
46 experts could be allayed, and at what additional cost. He also asked if additional
Vol. 33, Page 466
September 21, 1999
1 features of the proposed design would be considered when taking. the project to the
2 next level of design and 'if an analysis of the "concerns raised. by the experts would be
~3 addressed.
4
.5 Mr. Ban replied that- the approach was to answer any questions that might arise
6 regarding, a conventional process and any benefits.. that: a conventional process would
7 ":have. The first' phase, of the design effort was to look at what was proposed in the
8 Master 'Plan and` determine if if was the direction of choice,, whether additions to the
9 "process were needed, or to look at other options because. of the risk factors.
L0
11 Council Member Healy stated he wanted to 'build into the process an "apples to apples"
12 ,comparison before proceeding because he was not comfortable-choosing one propo"sal
13 over another without ,more" .information... He thou"ght thaf Cify Management should look
14 at the Montgomery design charts that: compared private ownership with public
15 ownership He was concerned about the risk. factors raised by the experts.
16
17 Council Member Maguire replied #haf the Montgomery design was not what an engineer
18 would calla tandard desigp because it used a bio-..lack system not found. in a standard
19 plant. He stated' that the objeeti've was to :develop a design fir a plant, Ghat would be; as
20 cost-effective andenergy-efficient. as possible, as well as in harmony with natural
21 processes. He was comfortable with City Management's.recoimmendations.
22
23 C.o.uncif Member Heal",y agreed-that, energy intensity was, a valid concern: He' added that
24 design of a .plant that would reliably 'produce the highest quality effluent had not been
2'S addressed to his sa_ t_ isfact_ion.
26
27 Council Member Keller stated that the low=.tech. user of constructive wetlands for .
28 wastewater treatment was not a new concept. He asked'. if Brown & Caldwell had
29 determined. if this particular- combination existed elsewhere. ale stated that: Alternative 2
30 gave the. City a path to begin the process and address problems :as they .arise. He
31 stated that the Council would, never go through this process without doing the
32 comparison referenced by Council Member Healy. He .empriasized the. priority was to
33 have City Management and the consulting. team on line with a_ direction to proceed and
34 to answer questions through the public forum process.
35
36 Mr. Ban stated that City Management supported a rigorous analysis or compar'isori.
37
38 Council Member' Hamilton supported approval of the Master Plan as the conceptuaP
3.9 basis. for the design of the new wastewater treatment facility.
40
41 Council Member Torli_atf agreed that a good wastewater treatment facility would get -the
42 best water quality using natural processes at the, best .rate possible; She wanted City
43 Management to: further examine the: seismic: and soil .issues. She inquired ifi City
44 Management-was, prepared to provide comparisons of "less risky" processes and what
45 alternatives were available.
46
September 21, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 467
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lb
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
Council Member Healy stated in the City Management report, Dr. George
Tchobanoglous cautioned' Ghat there. was little evidence that constructive wetlands
would remove algae consistently during the fall and spring and he wanted it addressed.
He was not in a position to select. a tech. nology at this. point. He was prepared to
support the Resolution with an amendment that a comparison study with a more
conventional design was performed and brought back to Council.
Mayor Thompson agreed with Council Member Healy.
Mr. Ban stated that-one of the first tasks for the engineers. was to review the Master
Plan and perform. a rigorous analysis. He asked Council to clarify interest in bringing
forward several different designs:.
Council Member Maguire stated he was not in favor ofi bringing forward additional
designs. Couricil .had been thr,.ough this process a number of times before and he
thought the rigorous peer ..review suggested by M:r. Ban was sufficient. He was
confident that the desgn~Brown &'C'aldvirell had. developed would withstand.significant
peer review. -
Council Member Healy suggested. a: Motion be made that authorized City Management
and the .consultants to take the Master Plan design to the next level, spend the funds
necessary .to accomplish that; try to answer all unresolved issues, and provide an
"apples to apples"~.cornparisori to a-conventoona(plant of City Management's. selection.
~..
Council. Member Maguire stated there-.;was no off-the-shelf design to do that type of
comparison: - ' - -
Council Member Healy expressed concern. about unresolved technical. issues with the
Montgomery design. He wanted a comparison, a reality check, of this design versus a
less cutting-edge design.
Mr. Stouder replied that the engineering team evaluated issues in the Montgomery
report, and at the end of the process, concluded the design would not work.
ing.
Mr. Ban assured Council that whatever proposal came forward from the engineer'
team was backed-one hundred percent (1.00%). They were not willing to put their firm's
.reputation out on the line. He suggested, that "the next. step in the analysis of the Master
Plan was that City .Management would. provide alternatives if needed.
Council Member Keller wanted to move forward with the Resolution with no
amendments. He wanted to find out if the Master Plan worked.
Motion: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by .Maguire to adopt
Resolution 99-190 N.C.S. Approving Wastewater Treatment.: Plan
as amended.
Vol. 33, Page 468 September 21, 1999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10.
11
1.2
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
4.0
41
42
43
44
45
46
Council. Member Cader-Thompson stated she shared some of Mr. Healy's concerns.
She thought a comparison was already provided for. She was in favor of approving, the
Master Plan.
Mayor Thompson stated that. without an amendment to the Resolution he would not
support 'it.
Counci Member To;rliatt thought, the Resolution provided the .latitude. that was .needed
and strongly suggested status reports. along the way.
Mr. Stouder reminded .Council that. this'was an eleven (11O year ol'd community issue..
In seven (7) of` those eleven (°11) years, the City had spent three: million -dollars:
($3,000,000) on studies .and. analyses.: This; was afifty=six, million dollar ($56,000,000)
plant and .for each year of delay,.. another one milliorr~dollars ($1.,0.00,000) was spent.
This was fhe biggest. capital project that this City .Council, would probably ever address:
He continued thaf he thought there was nothing wrong with split votes; however;, if there
were ways to provide assurances to some Council. members," die was :ri`favor of that.
Council :Member Torliatt stated thaf every decision the: Council made carried risk of
various degrees.. Taking this step forward was necessary to evaluafe the ;ne,ed`s of the
;project. ~ . , .
Council Member Maguire inquired if Mr. Ban would come 'back for full updates ;at eery
milestone in the process, keeping the Council apprised of any significant developments.
Mr. Ban stated that. Council would be fully apprised with updafes of any significant
developments along the way.
Recess.:: '9;20 p.m.
Reconvened: 9:30 p.m.
Mayor Thompson .called for the vote regarding, 1 O B.
Motion Fasse_ d: 5/2/0 (:Healy and Thompson voting. ''No'`)
Council Member-Maguire-expressed, dismay at the two "No" votes and commented that
the majority of the Council believed .the'wording of-.the Resolution was flexible enough to
address their concerns, directly, thoroughly;, and, appropriately. He was sorry that.
Council could, not come to a unani,mous;;agreement.
Council Member :Keller agreed with Council Member Maguire about `tle sentiments
raised 'by Council Member Healy and Mayor Thompson and expressed that 'it was
_ _
unfortunate that the language of the. Resolution did not. -suit their preference. The
reality was that the comparison would get done.
September 21, 1999 Vol. 33; Page 4'69
1 C. Discussion and Possible Action on Method for Procurement of New
2 Wastewater Treatment Facility. (Ban%Stouder)
3
4 Mr. Stouder introduced, the third Resolution ,that. was the discussion and possible action
5 for a procurement. process for the treatment plant consistent with Item 10 B.
6
7 Motion: Council .Member Maguire- moved, seconded by, Hamilton, to adopf
8 Resolution, 99=1..91 NC.S..to proceed with a Procurement Method
9 for a New Wastewater Treatment Facility.
10
11 Council Member Healy stated that he felt that Mr. Gallagher's memo was quite
12 compelling in looki"ng at some of the alternatives. The Design Construction
13 Management Concept ,may hold some potential for savings; however, he thought it was
14 unnecessary to go through a sfudy to accomplish that.. It could be considered and used
15 .as a minor modification to the traditional'' procurement process. With that.. comment, he
16 stated he was prepared to support the Resolution.
17
18 Motion Passed:.: 7/0/0
19
20
21 D. Introduction on.Proposed Increases to Wastewater Rates and Fees.
22 ~ ...
.,-.
23 Mr. Stouder introduced the fourth Resolution regarding proposed wastewater rate
24 increases. He indicated' that a series. of public meetings and public hearings were
25 scheduled and then asked Mr. Ban for a brief introduefion of the item.
26
27 Mr. Ban introduced Brown & Caldwell Chief Economist Marv Winer, to provide to
28 Council a presentation that would -show how the proposed rates were developed.
29 .. .. _
30 Mr. Stouder noted. that the issue had been preciously introduced in concept acid Council
.
31 was aware that the dolPars, presentations, and` reports'c.ould be made available at future
32 meetings. ~ ~~
33
34 Council Member Keller stated that the public: would be better served if ;the presentation
35 happened af:the first ofithose meetings. '~ ~.
36 ~ . . -
. ,
37 Council Member Torliatt asked whom: the public should contact with questions and
38 requested a brief taternent ;of what was proposed. - ~ -
39
40 Mr. Ban replied that .the proposal for the next five (5) fiscal years included about eighty
41 million dollars ($80;000.;000); -the b.u.lk of which was for the. new wastewater treatment
_. ,
42 plant. To support the project, City. Management:. :recommended aseries of rate
43 increases for both residential; industrial/commercial ,rates;: and an .increase in
44 connection fees.: A public nofice would; go out thisweek notifying the public of tf1.e
45 proposed action:.The public.could call Mike Ban at 778=4488 with'questions about~what
46 was being proposed or to request a copy of the. Brown arid Caldwell report.
Vol. 33, Page 470
,September 21, 1999
1 ' ., -
._
2 Council Member Torliatt wanted. a~notice inse:rted in the. City's sewer and; wafer billings.
4 Council Member Cader-Thompson commenfed that;: to .date,,, .Petaluma had the lowest,
5 rates in Sonoma .County-and during the eleven .,(11) year process of- determining what
6 type of sewer plant was needed, `the. rates`were never raised..
7 -
8 Council Member Keller staled that the `C:ity had.'taken.cap;ital funds collected for t`he new
9 sewage'treafinent plant improvements and spent them to subsidize rates. The :Cify had.
1~0, continued to use capital funds., or other income.,, to subsidize rates' in order to keep ffe
1;1 rates low and. he: thought that aspect of'financing had now come dae.
13 Council Member Healy was in favor of _revisiting rate design;. issues sooner, rather than
1.4 later,, and, wanted the Council, duc'ing the next. calendar ~ye.ar, to moue towards
15 implementing some"thing. more progressive, taking .advantage of the City's utility billing
16 software 'and encouraged conservation. He :commented that he would ,recommend the
17 formation of a Citizens Rate Design Advi'sory' Committee that was supported ~ by a
18 consultant`to deliberate and come back with a proposal..
19
20
21
2;2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3'1.
32
33
Council Member' Hamilton stated she was also interested in a progressive ..rate structure
and thought the' entire Council supported this.
Council .Member Maguire requested: that. the rate. study be brought .back. as: soon as
possible ,and :that 'it be a .progressive rate structure that. enabled those who conserve to
hate the least economic burden. '
;.
No. Action Taken. - -.
' ~ ~.
11. Continued Discussion and,'_Possible Action on' Establishing the Allocation Pool for
Residential Subdiuision_ Allocations. 'for the Year 2000 Calendar Year and'
Reservation of -Allocations for the Year ~2Q01 Calendar Year. (Continued from.
March 17, 1999 Meeting) '~''
34 Associate Planner. Hans -'Grunt reviewed th'e proposal and stated that: the .Petaluma
35 Residential Growth 'Management Ordinance ~regulate.,d the rate at which. residential.
36 parcels and units were ;created within `the City of'Petaluma; that rate not to exceed 5.00
37 units. per year The .Ordinapnce established an annual process-by which the City Council
3:8 created- aril ,distr"ibuted a` ool of allocations,. Allocations allowed a property owner or
39 developer to. apply for approval of market' rate residential developments in excess -of
40 thirty (3Q) units'. This included, major subdivisions 'and market rate 'apartments. Chapter
41 17..26 of the `Petalu_ma. Muri;cipaL Code required tf1e. City Council to hold a public hearing
42 to consider the establishment- of the -annual -allocation, ,pool to estimate the limits of
43 projected developrnentactiuity~for'the following two year : 'The; City Management report
44 indicated that the granting of allocations was .not. a .;guarantee that the City would
..
45 -eventually approve -a given project. ~ In March 1999, °the, Plan:rung 'Department received
46 four allocation applications; for:' `.thee year 2000;- ;for acombined' total of one hundred
September 21, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 471
1 ninety-five (195) allocations. Applications.for acombined total of three hundred fifty-
2 seven (357) allocateion reservations for the year 2001 had been received. They included
3 Oak Creek Apartrraents' at Graylawn Avenue., Magnolia Park residential project proposal
4 off, of Magnolia and .Gossage.,. Hi]Iside-'Village, off. of Windsor Drive, and Traditions,
5 located at Sonoma Mountain Parkway and Maria Drive..
6 y
7 The Growth Management Ordinance established that reservations for allotments for the
8 year 2001 shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250).... This provision was to assure that a
9 meaningful' number of:allocations.~.were available for additional or alternative residential
10 development proposals. The draft Resolution granting one hundred ninety-five (1'..95).
11 requested allocations for the year 2000 also reflected a reduced distribution of tw.o.
12 hundred fifty (250) total reservations for the year 200.1.. Applications for the year 2000
13 allocations were previously discussed by Council in May.
14
15 The Council acknowledged that the granting of allocations was not an entitlement for
16 development. However, with the: potential, development presented by the requests for
17 allocations, the- Council voiced .,concerns,. including but .not limited to, potential drainage
18 impacts resulting from new developments. In May; a decision to grant the year, 2000
19 allocations and the year 2001:. reservations was suspended by Council pending .
20 completion of` the Interim Storm Water Detention Feasibility Study that was
21 subsequently presented to Council in August. The applicants and/or representatives of
22 the applicants of the four applications were. present to speak to specifics of their
23 projects.
24
25 David Reese, 4300. Gossage Avenue, spoke against the Magnolia Park allocation and
26 expressed his concern about the loss of open space.
27
28 Robert Maser, Neighbors for a Better Petaluma,,-2340 Western Avenue, spoke against
29 the Hillside Village. allocation and stated'that current taxpayers ultimately pay for growth.
30
31 Murray Rockowitz, 11 Eddie Court, spoke against the Magnolia Park allocation. He
32 stated that many people. were in .favor of eliminating the chicken ranch, but. would like to
33 see it done in a responsible: manner.
34
35 John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive, spoke against the Oak Creek Apartments IT and the
36 Hillside Village allocations due to flooding issues in Petaluma.
37
38 Jennay Edwards 905 :Samuel Drive, spoke against the Gossage/Magnolia allocation
39 due to flooding and traffic circulation issues in Petaluma.
40
41. ;Bill Bennett; 2902 B.odega Avenue, spoke against: the Hillside Village allocation and
42 about flooding issues in Petaluma.
43 ~-
44 Bill Phillips, 824 Blossom Court,, spoke against the Gossage/Magnolia allocation .and
45 :expressed traffic congest"ion. and safety concerns. The neighborhood's sentiment was
46 negative and full of concern.,
Vol. 33, Page 472
September 21, 1999
,~ .
2 Virginia Schaible, 81';0 .Blossom: Court,, spoke against~'the Gossage/Magnolia. allocation
3 and in favor of. progress with planning and foresigh"t by the City of Petaluma.
4
5 Rick Ramstead, 955 Gossage Avenue.; spoke against the 'Gossage/Magnolia, allocation
6 due to the density and wanted Council to consider separating~ahe two properties. as two
7 separate projects.
8
9 C arissa Ramstead; 955 Go sage.Avenue;, spoke. against, the Gossage/Magnolia
10 allocation and indicated drainage;.,pollution,, and fraffie as`issues,
11 ~- ~ -~.
12 Geoff Cartwright 56 Rocca Drive, reminded `Council about ongoing development in
;t3 Peta'luma and he negative. impacts of.'building in the floodplain.
14 _ ~.
15 Bill Cox, 1`109. Birch Drive:, spoke against the Gossage/Magnolia allocation and
16 associated traffic safety concerns. -
17 ,. -
18 George Spragens, 1.01 Bodega .Avenue, spoke in favor. of Council reaffirming their
19 commitment to housing density as established in the General Plan..
20
21 Mark. C. Johnson,_J. Cyril Johnson Investment Corporation, 125' 1Nilfow Road, Menlo
22 Park; stated h'is projected project tied in with the objectives that the 'Council had outlined
23 for the. year 2000. allocations. In redesigning the two-story project, the flooding; .issue:
24 was addressed, and the project did not lie in the floodplain: He had .consulted with. a
25 hydrologist and, determined that the first phase, of Oak Creek`.was built. with a significant
26 amount of detention capacity and this project would .use that capacity,: He w,as;
27 confident that if would. have a :zero net runoff in_ a one percent (1%) storm.; He
28 continued that this project would incorpoirate the River Enhancement Plan and include
29 bike trails and pedestrian paths and certain park-like features.
31 Dan Aguilar, Mission Valley Properties, .500:0, Hopyard, Pleasanton; spoke in favor of the
32 Magnolia Park allocation:, Two previous. designs had been denied allocation. 'The
33 present conceptual revised ..,plan included suggestions made by Council at- the May
34 hearing that focused specifically on .the Magnolia .site.: Tlio ,plan, reduced the density
35 from forty-two (42) to .thirty-three (33) lots, reduced the size of the lots. to four thousand.
36 five hundred (4;500)° square feet.. and reduced infrastructure. The: largest .lots facing
37 Gossage were one-half (1/2) acre lots; lots on the north side of the property averaged a
38 third `(1/3) of an acre..,, and the lots on the south side,, adjacent. to the existng.subdivision;
39 were a quarter ('1/4) of an acre. Eieven (11°.) acres would be dedicated as public open
40 space and proposed ce-vegetation of the park site at a ratio of three (3J trees'for every
41 tree cut .down last summer. -
42 _ .. .
43 He stated. that the storm ...drain issue was addressed and'part of the conceptual.. proposal
44 was to create three .detention ponds, ih the, Magnolia site for excess storm drain runoff
45 after eliminating some of the .nitrate problems. produced from the chicken, "ranch. A
46 roundabout' was suggested in ~tfeir propo"sal, as a solution for •traffic congestion. He
September 21, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 4.73
1 stated he .had worked with the :neighborhood since May and asked Council `to show
2 good faith and approve the requested allocation.
4 Council Member :Healy' asked what would happen to the Magnolia parcel should Council
5 not grant the allocation,
6
7 Mr. Aguilar replied that the McNear Trust owned they property and they had a buyer who
8 would take it to the County for approval under the County zoning.
9
10 David Bradley, Ryder Homes, 1425 Treat Boulevard, Walnut Creek, spoke in favor of
11 the Traditions No. 4 allocation. He briefly stated that the Traditions property was
12 currently designated under the existing General Plan as a mixture of urban diversified
13 and urban high, w.as .located, within the. approved C,orona/Ely Assessment District, and
14 was part of the C.orona/Ely Specific Plan. He emphasized that it was not in the
15 floodplain and studies were performed to determine excess runoff being detained on
16 site, similar to the Heritage subdivision site. He-felt that the property constituted an :in-
17 fill location within the City's existing IJGB (Urban Growth Boundary). The type of
18 housing had not been determined to date. Thee contract with the Brodie family was for
19 the urban diversified portion of the property :which was five to ten units per acre so
20 various product types were being considered.
21
22 Steve Arago, 1140 Daniel Drive, spoke..in favor of the. Magnolia Park. allocations since
23 two-thirds (2/3) of the plan was designated as open space -and there was a mitigation of
24 tree replacements. at the ratio of three (3) to .one {1) for the total number of trees cut.
25 His motivation was to try to develop some open space for the neighbors.
26
27 Council Member Hamilton voiced her disapproval of the City's allocation process. She
28 wanted City Management to assist the Counci in finding a way to allow proposals: to
29 move forward so Council could get into the substance of the ,proposals and make the
30 appropriate decisions without granting a certain number of houses.
31
32 Hans Grunt, Associate Planner, stated that Council could grant one allocation per
33 applicant allowing them to "get their foot in the door" for a subdivision map;. That would
34 allow them. to. reapply next year for allocations deferring the spread of the number of
35 units for°th`e project if it exceeded' some granted amount.
36
37 Council Member Hamilton stated that this process would permit Council to get closer to
38 knowing what was proposed and provide criteria to determine what number might be
39 more appropriate.
40
° 4;1 Council ,Member Torliatt was. in favor of a Resolution that rescinded the existing
_ 42 allocation process and provided alternatives for improvements.
43
44 Council Member Maguire asked. if one (1) allocation was needed in order to obtain the
45 actual_details of the project.
46
Vol. 33, Page 474
September 21, 1999
1 Mr. Grunt. replied thaf a package could be submitted for the granting of one (1)
2 allocation to .allow the [Planning] Commission and Council to fine-tune fh~e proiect
3 through the public review process..
4
5 Interim Planning Director Vin Smith clarified that the granting of allocations did .not
6 guarantee approval.. of a project. The :ordinance allowed the Council to set a pool and
7 grant. allocations in March. If there were unallocated units at the end of May, then there
8 was. a second. opportunity: He agreed than. an examinatioco and irnprovernent, of :the
9 allocation process was in order.. The alternative. presenfed would allow the,applicarits to
10 continue with the application process to make their. tentative map applications,,, but
11 would sflL regui_re them to go through the environmental review and public. hearing
12 processes.
1'3
14 Council Member Hamilton agreed that. a ..redesign of the Growth Management
15 Ordinance w,as;needed.
16
17 Council Member Healy ;agreedthat the Qrdinance, as, .currently constructed, had
18 outlined its usefulness and. needed to be .overhaul'ed. Regarding the granting of one .(1)
19 .allocation. ao kee the ro'ects ;movin-"
p p ~ g, he indicated it was important,, ~as Council
20 struggled with the process.,. to take action that made sense to the neighbors and t;he
21 applicants.
Council Member Tgrliatt warited to encourage the Traditions project because of its close
proximityto the:rail system.;
26 Council Member Hamilton agreed with CounciC Member Torliatt. arid` wanted to allow
27 Traditions.one (1) allocation.
28
29 `Council Merriber Torliatt wanted more than one (1) allocation for the Traditions project;
30 but only one (1)' for each of the other projects.
`31
32 Council Member Keller agreed with Council. Member Torliatt in granting, forty-:eight (4'8)
33 reservations. He'was willing to grant allocations'to Oak .Creek and' Magnolia, under the
34 condition that ..Council be provided with specific:. plans for (heir development. He stated
35 he wanted fo see higher density and smaller housing in anticipation of the East'Side rail
36 being developed as ~~a fufure transit stop. He was not willing 'to. grant an allocation to
37 Hillside Village: .
38
39 Mr. Grunt stated that the Oak Creek request was consistent with the General Plan
40 densities.
41
42 Council Member Maguire stated :he .was not. willing to give any allocations to Hillside
43 Village due fo ;ifs high density. He agreed. with giving' Traditions allocations of"fi~e "(5);
44 plus seventy (70) or more for the following year,: He appreciated. the efforts of Mr.~
45 Aguilar and was 'in favor of one (1) allocation for 2001 to. Magnolia.. Regarding Oak
September 21, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 475
1 Creek Apartments, he felt the drainage issue .needed to .be addressed, was willing to
2 give ninety (90) allocations for the year 2001, but with "no guarantees."
3
4 Council Member Caller-Thompson had no problem with Traditions, except she wanted
5 to see higher density in that area. She did have concerns about Magnolia and wanted
6 to keep the two properties: separate- and preferred waifing for the General Flan to be
7 processed. She :also wanted to wait on Hillside until 'the General Plan was processed..
8 Regarding Oak Creek, she was willing to give one: (1) allocation in order to evaluate the
9 flooding issue.
10
ll Council Member Healy inquired whether the applicant for Hillside Village would be
12 interested in a number of allocations in the sixty (60,) range rather than the two hundred
13 forty (240) range. He had. asked Mr. Varnhagen at a public hearing approximately one
14 (1) year ago if he would be in .favor of a reduction. He thought that the applicant' was
..
15 not in favor of a reduction. He wondered.'what the County's response would be, should.
16 the Magnolia parcel return to them.
17
18 Mr. Grunt responded Ghat he was not aware of the applicant`s intentions for Hill's_ide
19 Village. Regarding Magnolia, he thoughf'that the County would likely refer the project
20 to planning staff for their comments..
21
22 Council Member Healy, asKed Mr: Aguilar if one (1) allocation resolved his problems with
23 their current contractual situation.
24 '
25 Mr. Aguilar replied that h~e would have to re-approach the owners on this issue. There
26.. was no assurance in terms of density... He stated. that at the neighborhood meeting he
27 had, approached M'r. Tomasini of Cypress Cemetery about co-annexing his property in
28 conjunction with .Magnolia with the intention of carving" out. another one and one-half .(1
29 ?/z) acres- on the north side of the property that abuts the park site. Mr. Tomasini was
30 more than willing to an"nex both pieces providing that Mr: Aguilar's firm could help him
31 split his'two-acre parcel .into two one-acre parcels.
32
33.,~Council Member .Healy stated he was comfortable granting: the allocations requested for
34 'the Magnolia/Gossage parcels and pointed out that there was no legal distinction
35 between granting one ,(1') allocation and .granting the full number. In either case.,. it
36 allowed the process to Start. He felt that granting one (1) allocation would. cause the,
37 ~ whole project to disappear and the City would lose the opportunity for a park and open
38 space.. He agreed with the neighbors that further issues needed to be addressed as the
39 project moved forward.
40
41~ Council Member Hamilton inquired why Magnolia would disappear and Hillside would
42 keep coming back.
43
44 Council Member .Healy responded that Hillside would come back due to the nature of
45' the ownership and the parcel. If the Magnolia application was denied, an opportunity. for
46 eleven (11) acres of open space and parkland would be lost. The voters were told last
Vol. 33, Page 476 September 21, 1999
1 year in supporting, the 'Urban, Growth ,Bound'ary' Measure that this parcel was good for ~ .
2 sixty (60) units .of housing, The .Council would undermine the 'analysis done for -the UG,B
'3 ,if they did .not allow for the. densities that were .supported: He also supported the: full
4 number of allocations for'the remaining three (3) :applications.
5
6 Council Member Torliatt stated sle wanted to: see more than the two (2) story
7 apartments the design. plans fo,r the `Oak Creek property. She expressed her concern
8 regarding :Oak. Creek. and Hillside `Village because of flooding issues .and the pending
9 Watershed Study. .
10
11 Council Member Keller asked. Mr Aguilar what would happen to his proposal if' the
12 ;allocations were aplit so that there. ,was an allocation of some units for the Magnolia
13 property; brut not `for the Gossage property.
14•
15 Mr. Aguilar ,responded that. he wotald not proceed with the:- proposal if that were the case
16 .because the parcels were: integrated. The Gossage piece was attached to take the
17 pressure off the M:agrolia site and, at one time, if was one ('1) project, but' it had since
1'8 been. bifurcated .because the .road did n:ot go through an`d on paper, i,t was. 'two . (2)
19 separate projects,: ~ .
20
21 Council :Member Keller stated that ih granting an allocation to :Magnolia, he wanted; to
22 ace Borne .planning, done for the whole block. If the City were to receive. plans for one
_, _
23 (1) ;parcel at ~a. time there could be no coordination of City services:; traffic.; and streefs;
24 leaving the. City with a very expensive piece of real estate; unlessthere was: an
25 assessment district formed that; would pick, up the. tab ;for everything that: needed to be
26 done. _
27
_ ;.
28 Council Member Cader-Thompson agreed with Council Member :Keller and tated'that
29 Council had the: opportunity to improve this process:.
30
. ~. .
31 Mayor Thompson'took a poll for each :of'the applications.
32
33 Motion: Council Member Maguire moved,, seconded by Keller, to adopt
34 Resolution 99-192, N, C S. granting zero (0) allocations for -Hillside.: '
35 Village for tle•year;2000 and 2001.. ".
36 _
37 Motion Passed: 7/O/0 ~ ~ _
3.8 ~ ~~ -
39 Motion: Council Member' Maguiremoved, seconded by Hamlton,`_to ad'o;pt
40 ,Resolution. 99-193 N.C.S. granting 'Traditions an~ allocation of five ~~
41 (5) for the year 2000 and seventy (70) for the year 2001.
42
43 Motion 'Passed: 7/0/0
44
l
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
September 21, 1999
Vol. 33, Page 477
Motion: Council Member Maguire moved., seconded by Keller, to adopt
Resolution 99-194 N.C.S. granting. one (1) allocation for Magnolia
Park for`the year 2001.
Motion Passed:. 4/3/0 (fader-Thompson, Healy,.. and Thompson voting "No")
Council Member Maguire stated that. the applicant could. proceed and request. approval
of their full project, but if they received approval,. they would only be able to build one (1')
unit in the year 20.01 unless the City Council amended that at a future date.
Council Member Hamilton clarified. that if Council granted zero (0) allocations, the
applicant was prevented from beginning the pr"ocess. If one (1) allocation were granted,
the process could move°forward.
Mr. Ramstead inquired how the public would be notified if the request for future.
allocations took. place in ;March 2000.
Mr. Stouder responded that there was a mailing: list for those who had attended this.
meeting. and th~eq would receive notice. He asked. the City Attorney if any modification
to or abolition of the. Growth Management Ordinance would affect projects given:
approval under the existing Ordinance.
City Attorney Richard Rudnansky responded that what. had been approved today could
certainly be incorporated into any new ordinance; Council. could address this allocation
process and revisf the whole process in general at the same time.
Motion: Council Member Maguire moved.., seconded by Keller, to adopt
Resolution 99-194 N.C.S:. granting ninety (90) allocations for Oak.
Creek for the year 2001 with a stipulation that none of the
allocations be built in the floodplain.
Motion Passed: 5/2%0 (.Hamilton and Torliatt voting "No")
Mr. Grunt stated that the pool added up to one hundred forty (140) allocations for the
year 2000.
Motion: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Healy, to adopt..
Resolution 99-196 N.C.S. granting one hundred forty (140)
allocations for the year 2000.
Motion Passed: 6/1/0 (.Hamilton voting "No")
Mr. Rudnansky stated that a vote was needed on the second Resolution granting the
overall allocations and reservations based on what Council decided in the individual
motions.
Vol. 33, Page 478
September_21,, 1999
1 Motion: Council Member Maguire moved., seconded by Keller, to adopt.
2 Resolution 99-197 N.C.S. granting the :allocations. and the
3 reservations.
4
5 Motion Passed: 7/0/Q
6
7
8 PUBLIC HEARINGS '
9
__
10 12. Public Comment/Di'scussion and .Possible .Action to Adopt Resolution Authorizing
11 Staff to Submit the 1.998-1999 Consolidated Ann_ u~l Performance Evaluation
12 Report (CAPER) to the Department" of Housing and Urban Development.
13 '
14 Mr. Stouder stated that City Management did not prepare presentations, fore Agenda
15 Items 1.2,.13, and 1;4. The ifems had been "advertised and were straightforward': .
16
17 John Lowry, Executive Director of B"urbarik Housing, spoke'in favor of the::Resolution.
18
19 Motion: Cour%cil Member Torliatt moved., seconded by Maguire; to, adopf
20 Resolution, 9.9-1`98. N.C.S. Authorizing Staff, to "Submit: the 199;8'-
21 19"99 Consolidated Annual; Performance Evaluation Report
22 (CAPER) to the Department of blousing and Urban Development.
23
24 Motion Passed:. 7/010
25
26
27 13. Public Hearing for Bureau of Justice Assistance, Local. Law Enforcement Bock
28 Grant Program, for Ninety-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Six dollars
29 ($9:4,856). to Fund Police Officer .Position Assigned fo the Sonoma County Drug
30 Task force.
31
32 Motion: Council .Member Maguire moved; seconded by Torliatt; to adopt
33 .Resolution. 99-199 N.C"S. for Bureau "of Justice Assistance, Local
34 Law _Enfo,ceement'Block Grarit'Prograrn for Ninety-Four Thousand _
_. ~.
3'S E_ight Hundred fifty-Six dollars ($94,856;) to Fund "Polcce Officer
36 Position.Assigned to the Sonoma'County Drug TasK Force.
37
38 .Motion Passed:, 7/0/0
39 "
40 14. Public. Hearing and Resolution 99-200' NC.S. Accepting Allocation of State Block
41 Grant Funds of'Approximately $114;000 for Computer Aided Dispatch System.
42
43 Motion: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Torliaff, to adopt
44 Resolution :99-192 N.C'.S. Accepting Allocation of State, Block Grant
45 Funds of Approximately $114,0.00° for Compufer Aided Dispatch
46 System.
September 21, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 479
1
2 Motion Passed: 7/0/0
3
4 COUNCIL AND'MANAGEMENT REPORTS
5
6 None
7
8 Mayor Thompson announced that no reportable. action had been taken during Closed-
9 Session earlier this date.
10
11 ADJOURN
12
13 The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
14
15
16
17 .Clark Thompson, Mayor
18 _
19
20 ATTEST: _
21
22
~3 Beverly J. Kline, City Cle
24
25
26
27 ******