HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/12/1999i
July 12, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 1"79
1 City of Petaluma, California
! 2 Minutes of a Special
3 City Council Meeting
~ 4
5
6 Closed Session
7 Monday, July 12, 1999, 6:15 p.m.
8
9
10 The City Council of the City,.of~ Petaluma met on this date in the City Manager's
11 Conference Room at 6:20 p.m.-
I 12 '°
13 ROLL CALL: -
14
i 15 Present: Cader-Thompson, Keller, Hamilfo,n, .Healy, Maguire, Thompson, Torliatt
16 Absent: None
17
18 PUBLIC COMMENT ~- ,
19 .. `
20 NONE '
21 ,
22 CLOSED SESSION
23 '
24 CONFERENCE UVITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR, Pursuant to Government Code
25 §54957.6 Units 1,2 and 3; AFSCME, Agency Negotiator: Acorne/Stouder
~ 26 . - .. _
I 27
i 28 .. ,
29 ADJOURNED - ~ .
30 ;
31 -
~ 33 - .
~ 34
~~_..-
~ 35 .;, SPECIAL MEETING
.
36 .
- - Monday, July 12, 1999
37
38
39 The City Council of the. City of Petaluma reconvened on this date in the City Council
40 Chambers at 7:,05 p.m.
4.1
42 ROLL CALL:
43
44 Present: Cader-Thompson, Keller, Hamilton, :Healy, Maguire, Thompson, Torliatt
45 Absent: None
46
Vol. 33, Page 180 July 12, 1999
PLEDGE OF.ALLEGIi4NCE
2 '
3 At the request of Mayor Thompson, Mc. Flume".led the Pledge :of Allegiance.
4
5 MOMENT OF SILENCE
6
7 At the request of Mayor Thompson, a Moment of Silence was observed.
9 PUBLIC COMMENT
10
11 Paul. Kilbride, Main Street, Penngrove, spoke regarding the homeless, the:
12 environmental challenges, and concerns they have and in praise and" those. 'with'out
13 homes.
14 _ . .
15 Diane Reilly-Torres,. 1657 Rainier Avenue, spoke regarding pr~~posed sales tax
16 increases for transportation sand stated that the scarcity ofservices in Petalumaforced
17 citizens to-drive to Santa Rosa.
18
19 Sheri Cardo, 501 Bryce Canyon ~Coart L watched the City Council Meeting last w;eek',
20 and. I learned things I tldn't know'before.r that if w.e build'R'ainier, Iwill. saue'one minute:
21 going from the Eastside to: the Westside. One: rrii'nute! You' know what? I wouldn't pay
22 one penny to save one minute, let alone forty million- dollars ($;40,000,.000)..1 also
23 learned that if the City finances this project with bonds, we probably~will not have the
24 cash we need to finance other projects, projectsthat~may really make a difference tq
25 our quality of life. ' ~ `- _~- '
26 `
27 To my frustration, neither of these; major pieces of information `was reported in the
28 press,. which is a disseniice to readers`who are: hungry`to understand the subtlety of
29 issues, because 'therein lies the ability,to make good. decisions.
30 -
3.1 Nor have proponents of Rainer copped to the fact that the ,questions asked in the polls
32 done by the Chamber and the .Press De-nocrat were clearly crafted to achieve a certain
33 outcome. Rainier was presented to~ poll participants as "traffic relief," which we all now
34 know is a farce-. Of course, people said they: wanted -"traffic relief." And, of course;
35 Rainier is not the_only way we can get'it. But' if you've been,reading the paper, you
36 haven't found any discussions of''alternafives for traffic: relief-or land use.
37
38 By my calculations, there is only one small pro for Rainier, if ycu are a Petaluma
39 resident, and that's that ;you' might get across town one minute faster. And there's. one
40 huge'pro for Raihier if you're a developer,, and that's that two hundred: (200) acres of
41 open apace will be made available for. refaif development The.cons for Rainier are
42 manifold: building, in the floodplain, putting homeowners at nsk for more flooding,
43 putting our City of risk`for lawsuits frorri #Cood victims, placing the' City in enormous ,debt.
44 and compromising its. ability to fund future projects,; creating a massive structure out of
45 scale for our`amall town, and last, but surelynot least, enviro`rirrierital,, and aesthetic,.
46 degradation.
July 12, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 181
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
'ti_
Ironically, th'e most vocal proponents of Rainier a"re often the same people claiming the".y
want so-called "common sense" government. l would love for them to tell, me, where°is
the commonsense in continuing to support Rainier?Lam very grateful to those of you
who have been courageous: enough to say, "Let's kill this project... It doesn't make
sense.," even though the. public may not yet understand all of the problems associated
with it. That; fo me; ;is fine leadership and~steward"ship:; It's .the kind. of decision-making
we expect .from each of you. 4 hope that'the ultimate vote fo kill Rainier is unanimous,
because I would like to believe that every one of you has the Gity's and the residents'
best inferests at heart.
Lastly, I want to issue. a challenge to the reporters in the room.. I challenge you to
expand your coverage on this. issue and to understand how critical. it is fihat you report`
all the relevant. data. Forthe many people who don't watch Council meetings, your
reporting is aIL they have on which to base their decisions; and they can't come to
reasonable conclusions when you don't reveal all the essential elements to a story..
Thank you.
COUNCIL C.OMMEIVT
Council Member Harilton spoke regarding her conflict of interest. issue,. and identified,: -: .
two items, both regarding the Central Business'bistrcf Plan, on which s:he had voted.
She had consulted an attorney and had'. been advised to .request Council to reagendize_
those items, so she could recuse herself from participation. ~~
Council Member Healy asked ;Libby Seifel of Seifel Assocafes, if reagendizing the two
items would negatively'impact the schedule for the Central Business District Plan. Ms.
Seifel stated it would not.
Council agreed to reagendize these items.
e.
f
Council Member Keller spoke regarding the (SCTA) Sonoma County Transit, Authority
meeting of that afternoon (July 12) and reported: that Petaluma was likely to`receive _
several funding packages, including one hundred eighty thousand dollars ($180;0.00)
from CMAQ (Congestion'Mitigation-..Air Quality) for the East V1/ashngtori Bike Path; one
hundred eighty-eight thousand dollars ($188,000) from the-TEA (Federal Transportation.
Enhancement Activities') fund toward the Petaluma TransitOperations Center;`and two= ~ '
hundred- fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) toward -the Petaluma Lynch Creek Trail ~' -~ ,
project. He thanked staff for their hard work on these items. ~ . ~.
Council Member Caller-Thompson stated that: she would be out of town for several of
the .Budget meetings; and. asked Council to consider rescheduling them. Council
Member Hamilton asked to discuss this issue at the end of the meeting. ~'
Council Member Caller-Thompson reported., that on a recent trip to Konocti, she had
observed roads that were not up to ASHTO standards, but were traveled by thousands
Vol. 33, .Page 1:82
July 12, 1'..999.
1 of .vehicles daily and appeared 'in good condition. 'She felt that requirements that the
2 Lafferty Ranch 'roads meeting ASHTO -standards were inconsistent with the County's
3 apparent policies:
4 .
5 Council Mem. be;r.Torliatt asked staff for<an update on the Lynch Creek Trail. Project..
6
7 Mayor Thompson read a press release; from the Cify of Petaluma regarding water
8 shortage:.. The City's water storage tanks Nave been below normal. level ;due, to the
9 continued warm weather. The City's largest parks,,s~hools_and golf courses will;reduce
10 irrigation to conserve: water; and citizens have been asked to re'duee or eliminate
11 outside irrigation;
12
13 UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
- _
14
15 1. Continued Status:;Reporton the Rairiier~Cross Town Connector,and
16 Interchange -Project Regarding the Pr.oject's VI/or..k Plan; the Assessment;
17 District Feasibility Study; and Funding (Evert)
18
Mayor ClarkThom.pson: The first item~on;the agenda is Unfinishetl Business; Rainier
Cross-Town Connector/Interchange:
CounciC Member Torlatt: I'd, like to start the discussion, unless we?re.going to have
public comment;
Council Member Cader-Thompson: ~Mr. Mayor; I'm going to be leaving the room
because I :have. to recuse myself.
2T
28 'Mayor Thompson:; Certainly.
29
30 Cify Manager-Fred;,Sto.uder: Yes, Mr.. Mayor,, and, if I could; the discussion ended last
31 .Monday at about 11:20;; antl neither you nor I :asked for~was the discussion; of the status
3-2' report.fi"~ished'by the Council or was there~,sorne future direction in terms of what we
33 should dog next it relation to the resources curr,:,ently available. to; assess this project,. so 1
34 brought;tlis back for closure and direction of.'this discussion if'tMe Council so wishes fo:.
35 do that ~so we're clear on what .you want us to do, if anything,, at this stage.
36
37 ~ Mayon Thompson: '1Nhat I would like: to: do~,, and I'm sure we'.II get everyone else's
38 opinion, is wait°for~the RMl Study; and wait for a.ruling on:Janice'"s,status. I'm sure the
39.rest of the Council may or .may not. agr:.ee with that. ..
40
4;1 Council Member Torliatt: Just so Beverly,knows 1. have this in a written statement, so
42 you don't have to: type it while I'm saying it. f "prepared this because. of, the- discussion
43 we had at the Last meeting, and, obviously we all have ,probably been thinking about- this
44 issue a tremendous: arriount. I ..know I have:
45
July 12, 1999
vol. 33, Page 183
1 I wanted to start this discussion tonight because it seemed to me, based upon
2 comrnerts from other Council aMembers at'the'last meeting, that I have become the
- ., .
3 swing vote to kill or~continue moving forward: with the Rainier Project.
4
5 1Nhen I ran for Council in 1996,, I believed the Rainier interchange was a viable. project'..
6 The Council,-since that. time, has heard a tremendous amount of conflicting public
7 input. Many concerns have been `raised; including flooding, land use, environmental;
8 transportation,; and;financial impacts. Sfaff has compiled information to answer these
9 questions;to #he: best of ..#heir ability.
11 Our community had ~an, election -last November that again .raises questions as to what
12 message the public`is frying to send to its elected officials. Two Council Members who
13 were opposed to Rainier were elected,°and-reelectetl: One Council Member and. the
14 Mayor were electetl; slating they supported the project.
15 ~ . .
16 Frankly; at this poiht;, I'm notsure where the majority of the public stands on this issue.
17 have to say with the• current inforration :before me; I have a very different opinion of
18 this project than I did three (3) years ago. Here is the situation before the CounciL• First,
19 one vote could kill the. project; or allow it to proceed. Second, we have heard mixed
20 signals in public opinion for the last decade. Third,. I believe that this is not a decision
21 that should be made by a simple .:majority of the Council. This is a community question
22 regarding quality of 'life; transportation,. and the City's inability to finance this project.
23
24 What I reallywant is to Borne to a resolution on this issue., and stop the divisiveness in
25 our community. The.only way for this to happen is to let the people decide. I do not
26 want to tell them what they want. I want them to tell us what they want. I want the
27 Council to put Rainier on the ballot and include a funding package with it.
28
29 If the citizens of this City believe Rainier is a necessary and critical project, they should.
30 be willing to pay for it, because I will say it again: the City has no money to pay for this
31 project. Many people believe they have already voted. on the Rainier project, but the
32 initiative on the ballot in 199.2 was whether or not to make .improvements in the East.
33 Washington corridor before any other projects. The initiative did not state anything
34 about Rainier.
35
36 I was born and raised in this community, and will hopefully live here for a very long time.
37 I truly believe in the. democratic process and _I deeply care.about my community. I care
38 enough to allow thecitizens the opportunity to speak at .the ballot box: I am not avoiding
39 a decision..`I am living up to my promises in my campaign to foster an open public
40 process and encourage citizen participation. I .can live.: with what'the citizens decide in a
41 ballot box :measure.. I will implement their will, but 'I need a true representation of what
42 they want: "'
43
44 I just wanted to start, the'discussiori with that, and move forward.
45
Vol. 33, Page 184 July 92, 1999
1 Council _Mernb_er Ma wire: Thank you.. If I can carry the. discussion forward a little, The
9
2 same thing has occurred to men in'the past; ,cerfainly,.~over the last couple of years it .has
3 come up and l've kicked, it' around. Rainier; in my estimation, is a badly flawed project
4 and it is a waste of money, which we don't: have; to spend on it in any event.
5
6 As people have eome~ up and,, often. vociferously, demanded. that we„move.ahead and
7 build Rainier,.ASAP (as soon:as possibae);: and quit"dithering around," I,th~ink;
'8 somebody called it in :the past recently. I've challenged each. p"ers:on to say; a_re you
9 willing to pay for it, because we 'don't have the money,.,;And most. of the .people that I
10 ask that respond in the affirmative that. yes;;they` are. willing to pay for it:
11
12 But what's a little bit more disturbing. to me is when Istart asking them .if :the<y'Ve ever
13 read;the EIR (Environmental:Impaet Report). or if they:know the particulars~of the
14 project; generallyspeaking, they are ignorant.. of the particulars, and,ao that: has raised
15 the issue`in my mind about;whetherwe should putin on the ballot. Because it's:
16 possible we could put the project. as proposed on the trial ot, i1:'s possible it could pass
17 and people -would pay for it, but it would. still be a_ lousy project,., if wouldn't. achieve the
18 stated goals of fraffic relief, if you will, 'for Washington or as a cross-town, connector, so
19 I'm a little -wary ,of that as a_ solution, although I recognize "that there is value in 'just:
201 so begtthe people determine what it is they want done, and if they:wantto run off'a cliff,
22
23 But on the other Hand, it becomes the question of our responsibilities as elected leaders
24 kicking into p'laywhere, we have to say,; "Is this something that.can really beneft''the
25 community?" Can it really solve the question, and I have; my doubts that' it really would
26 solve the problems in this community. a think I .personally would .rather put an end, to fhe
27 Rainier project- and, then pursue an interchange at Corona, and the improvements we've::
28 already-begun that are on the drawing board for W'ashi`ngton/McDowell, and see what
29 the impact of that is;; knowing.that;we have also addressed,, as 1 said the'..last time we .
30 discussed 'this, fhe macro issue. by passage of the Urban Growfh Boundary., So l'd like
31 to hear'the resf of the Council's #houghts on that.side of it.
32
33 Council Member Keller: 1 might ask wh'ich.balfot.you.'d be looking at:: November 2000?
34
35 Council Member'Torliatt: Qn our'desks we received information. I had asked, Beverlq
36 earlier today. I called her. And .it showed wario,.us election ,dates an`d one could be March
37 2~d, one could be April '11th, or one could.be Novem"ber`7th of X000,. They cost;, in.
ry' g g es, a fair amount. I uess .one ~of rri .thou hts is even if it costs what ,.
39 says on March 2"d, fort thousand dollars . $4,0,000:00 go lace~this.`on the ballot .tit
Y (. ) p _ ,, hat
40 City staff will probably spend ,that much; or more.,, irn doing any other,-study' o,r moving
4:1 'forward or doing, some sorf:of;analysis on Rainier; ,f' it just, stays;~in the state that `it is.
42 And, so I don't; if may be forty thousantl dollars ($40,00:0':00) well spent. If`we wanfed: to
43 wait. till the No~e~mber 7tn elections. it would be five hundred forty-four dollars ($544.00).
44 What I really want to happen here..,. is I want ahe community to have some ;resolution,
45 because. it's been ten (10) years tliaf people have been told something which 'I think the
46 majority of this Council understands that,t's a.wision, and that's about all it is, because
July 12, 1999 Vol. 33, Page 1';85
1 there is no money for it. But if people.. really:want this project, then'I'm willing to let them
2 speak on it, and I'm willing to let them pufther:dollars in the bank to.pay for it:
3
~
4 .
Council Member Keller: I mi ht ask,.you,, would you do this asa Special Assessment,
g
S as a Property Tax, as a Sales Tax, how do you envision that? -
6 ~ ~
~~
7 _
Council Member Torliaft:`1'm up for.dscussion on that issue. I .would probably say it
8 would be an assessment on property.
~
9 '
10 Council Member Keller: So currently we're Jooking gat a,shortfall, if the project is thirty-
11 three million dollars ($33;000;000), and we've,;got, say five million dollars ($5,000,,000)
12 in traffic mitigation fees, and let's say we ca'n pull nine million dollars ($9,000,000) out
-
13 would be in lieu of that.
of an Assessment District for the properties',,.o_.wners, ..unless this
14 Would this be in addition to that, or in lieu of that? '~
15 ...
16 Council Member Torliatt: I think that you would have for ook at what is the worst-case.
17 scenario. , ,
~ 18 ~,
19 Council Member Keller: Okay. The worst.-ease scenario is That there is not a second
20
~ assessment district for Phis project for the property owners. So that means that this is in
21 lieu of the ro ert owners uttn u , thei`r,share. So, essential) we'd be lookin at
p P y P 9 p Y, g
22 asking the public to fund, maybe; twenty-seven million dollars ($27,000,000).
~ 23
24 Plus, if I remember correctly, the finance costs,,, which somehow have eluded all of the
25 tables on costs, the financing last time,. David Spilrnan indicated the number was
. 26 somewhere around seven o.r eight million dollars ($7;000;OOQ-$8,000,00.0) in financing .
27 costs. ~So we're really looking at a total project cost at the moment of about forty million
. 28 dollars ($40,;000,0- 00) not thirty-tw.o million dollars ($32;00.0,000). Because you've got to
29 pay that money back. So, we'd be asking property owners to pony up, say, somewhere
30 around thirty-five million, dollars ($35,000,000) for this project. If we'd look at fifty
31 thousand (50;000) people; that's, per capita. of ...oh, boy, math scares me. Does
32 someone have a calculator? I think it's somewhere around .seven hundred dollars
33 ($700). Thank you. Two thousand eight hundred dollars ($2,800) for a family of four (4).
34
35 Couhcif.IVlember Torliatt And, the; reality is, whether the citizens assess themselves,
36 or the City pays for it, it's coming out of (heir pocket, either way.
37
38 Council Member .Keller: And that bringsa me to something else. There are two areas of
39 th_ought_.I have about this as a locally financed measure: Sure, if the folks want;to pay
' 40 for it, on one hand that seems like a fair and obvious question: then payfor it.
41
42 But,., putting a measure like this on the ballot prings two' other things'to mind. One is that:
43 we have a tremendous number of other needs in th'is.Gity that are not paid for. W"e've
44 been talking about doing a parks bond, for instance; which would be another
45 assessment. I don't think you're going to do a very successful job of asking the public to
Vol. 33, Page 186
July 12; 1999
1 pony up money for, parks and,;R`ai'nier-at the;same time, or even within. several ,years of
2 .each other.
3 ~ -
4 We're short of parks; i:n acreage; we're short of facilities, we don't ..have. enough ,playing
5 fields, we don't have eno}ugh gyres, we don't haveFenough swimming pools; wedon't
6 have enough tennis courts, basketball courts, all the:_other things that make a
7 community rich,, and enjoyable~~and useful: And I'd be very hesitant to propose thatwe
8 use scarce. community capital to' pay for Rainier, when there are a number of i'ssu,es
9 about Rainier that trouble me,~even if-there was money for it.
10
_ _ ,
11 i still have major problems. with Ra'irier, not'the least of which is equity. If' we ask,"the
12 com"munity at large to pay thirty=five million dollars: ($35,000,000) or, -let's say #or some
13 .reason; it's, twenty-five~~million dollars ($25,000,;000)...or fifteen million dollars
14 ($15;000;000), and the property,owners who~direcfly benefit; because this is, a benefit
1:5 assessment, get no. surcharge. And we already -know that Chelsea has said, we cut a
16 deal with John Scharer, we're paying one ;million two-hundred thousand dollars
17 ($:1;200,000), we're. not paying', a dime ('1~0 cents) more than that towards this project,
18 even though, as a "guesstimafe".two yea"rsago; David Spilman indicated that a
19 probableassessmenton that propertyfrorri especial benefit assessment district, would,
20 be two million four-hundred thousand dollars `'($2,4"00,,000). So; one million two hundred
2'1 thousand :dollars; (.$1,,200;000) they've already~saved. They've already°walked away
22 with. And I'"rrm very~t'roubled by that. I think that's bad public policy.. It seerps~ like an
23 untoward sabsidy to be givng'to some developers-.who are doing very well.
24
25 And by doing very well, I need to 'throw'this into the picture. Courtesy of Leonard Jay;
26 who is 'the prior owner of the property and the. developer•of~the initial concept with
27 Chelsea for the outlet mall, they purchased sixty-five (65,} acres. And h~e gave me a
28 copy of their appraisal; from 1',989. So, :it's aten-year-old appraisal; so.allow for inflation
29 on top of'this. The purchase price of the "sixty-five (65) acres. ~nras three million three:
30 hundred thousand ($3.;300,000). That was'in...no; fhe actual property was purchased in.
31 December of 1986. Th'e.appraisal for the property under single ownership;, under _
32 singular control,; freeway frontage, but i'n present condition (this is 1989) fifteen million
33 dollars ($15,00.0;000).
Mayor Thompson: I ,can 'respond'to that, probab,ly,, and, only a guess:, that we weren't..
aware of Mr. Jay's financial position at-that time,, for taking that offer then.
38 Council Member Keller: Taking what offer?
39 r ~ ;.
40 Mayor Thompson: Did he not take~the three million five hundred thousand dollars
41. ($3;500,000). ~ _ •~~.
43 Council iVlernber Keller.:. No; h'e purcFiased the property fo-r three million five hundred;
44 thousand dollars .($3,500,00:0).. ;~ ~` ° •
45 - ~ .
46 Mayor Thompson:. Right. ~ -
July 12, 1999 vol'. `33, Page 187'
2 Council Member Keller: And when it was appraised, three (3) .years later, because it
3 was an assembled single-ownership control over sixty-five (65) acres, 'it was appraised
4 at fifteen million dollars .($15;000;000).. With plans approved for the outlet .mall and
5 Chelsea fully committed to the outlet center, at that point the sixty-five (65) acres went
6 up in value to twenty-seven million five hundred thousand dollars ($27,500,000) for the.
7 sixty-five (65) acres.
9 So it went from his initial purchase ,price of three million three hundred thousand dollars
10 ($3.,300,000) to fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) with the outlet mall committed,
11 we're now up to four hundred twenty-fhree thousand dollars ($423,000) an acre for the
12 freeway frontage property with Chelsea fully committed, and then...and this is the icing
13' on the cake, and this is where I wonder about equity, and. I wonder if the public would
14 be willing to stomach this...l have a hard tune stomaching this...with the outlet center
15 operating, and Rainier interchange and extension guaranteed, meaning approved by
16 'the City, at`fhat moment that the papers were sigmed, chose. sixty-five (65) acres jumped
1'7 `to thirty=five million. dollars ($35,000,400}'in appraised value; five hundred thirty-eight
1:8 thousand dollars ($538~,~000) an acre.
19
20 And these guys are whning:about contributing amore than one million two hundred
21 °~dollars ($1,200,004).. And we have a project that. may be fifteen million ($15.,000;000) to
22 thirty-five mill,~on dollars ($35,000,000) shy; and I'd be loathe to ask. the public to shell
23 out seven hundred dollars($700) per capita. to pay for these guys' share. And that's not
24 including the sharethat. would belong. to Johnson,. for the apartments, that would belong
25 to the back of Cinnabar Hill, that would belong to every other property through the ;Prim
26 ,property, the other properties up towards Corona, no less the Friedman-Gray property
27 on. McDowell. All of whom benefit particularly and extraordinarily by the approval of
28 Rainier as a. project.; And then to come along and say, "Public, let's subsidize these
29 guys, under the guise of producing traffic relief, wh"ich it doesn't do, and let these guys
30 ~ walk." I can't do it.'Thank you.
31
32 Council ~Meinber IVlaguire The other thing, in my ruminations on this., was if you were
33 going to vote-on something, I would. be of a mind to, you, know, give the folks a positive
34 project to vote on. But that. also. is a flawed approach as far as I got through my thinking
3'S because of. the time required to delineate a project,. choose what project would be
36 another favorable option to put in front. of the ,public. Given that, I sort of went around
37 the circle and came back and said,. you know, I think we need to make a decision.
38
39 Council- Member Torliatt: I just think that this project. is going to haunt this City for
40 forever, if we don't give the citizens an opportunity to vote on it. And. I can't, in my right
41 mind, give them an opportunity without putting. some financing behind it. I'm not willing
42 to put this City in a detrimental financial position, and that's where I'm really coming
43 from. on this issue.
44
45 If people aren'tgoingto the extent to look at the environmental impacts, to look at the
46 flooding, to look at the land use issues; and all of those things that I think all of us on
Vol. 33, Page 188 July 12, 1,999
1 this Council see, whether they believe it's detrimental or not; I think that the. public
2 needs to put it to rest. And I, think that four people on a. Council aren't going to be able
3 to put it to rest. They'II snake it go away,.. but think`the-community needs resolution:
4
5
6
7
Council fVlember Healy: I will start by agreeing with the. Mayor's brief comments:at the:
outset, and I think the most_prudent course of action is to wait the forty-five or sixty days
(45-60) until some. of the outstanding issues have been resolved...J.anice's ability to
partieipate`being one.,,..the preliminary results. of the RMI Ninety-Day (9:0-Day). Flood
Study, which will. give us some actual, scientific and engineering information, rather`than
mere supposition as to filooding aspects of'this and other projects.
also think that it would be appropriate to get- answers to some of the questions; that.
have been. posed and compiled `by the .City Manager. V1le have some preliminary . .
responses to some of #hese .questions: Some of .the questions. on the list.'ffat~-were mime
have. to do with design alternatives for Rainier that could subsfantia[ly reduce, both the
cost and the environmental impact: of the project.. Those were discussed =at; sonic length
at our meetinglast week. I think it would'be the responsible caurse of action to get of
least preliminary nformationon those questions before we take action: ~ '~
,23
24
25
26
27
28
As I said last time; l think #hat what the Council should, do .is move 'towards. approving a
Rainier project and recommit to building an .interchange and cross=town connector at.
Rainier, and what that would.: do is put us in a position totake advantage of`fhe next:
funding opportunity .that comes; along.
. .,,.
Quite frankly, I think ,even hundred (,$700) a person assessment~on people' in
Petaluma is a straw man:. It's not going to come to that. But what vice'. do need, to do is
be in a position to take advantage of the next. counfywide or statewide funding
opportunity that comes along. If Measures B and C .had passed„4t wvould have put us in
an excellent position to move forward with Rainier: As if tands now; ,there is no fund;n
for Rainier,. there is no funding for widening 1'.01 through the County,' including the
Novato Narrows; there's no funding for light rail. ~ -
g`
`33 I think we alf know,'that those issues a're ,going to come back. They're most,'likely to
34 come back in some kind of ~at least. countywide~:approach: There has been .discussion of
35 revising Measures B-and C;, and bringing them back soon: There's,;also Senator
36 Burton's Senate. Constitutional Amendment 3 (SCA3) working its way through the : ~'~
37 Legslature,:.whch would also provide aone-half cent.twenty-year sales tax on a courify- `~
38 by-county basis. Thaf would provide the same kind of funding that Measures B and C'
39 would have.
Senator Burton is also carrying various :bond measures for transit' on a statewide. basis:
And this .goes back`to vuhat the late, great, Speaker. of the State Assembly;,:Jesse .
Unruh, used to refer to as :the "Trolley Gar Theory of Politics.:" This revolved around.the
concept that if the. trolley comes: along:and you don't.have a nickel in your pocket:, .you
can't get on the trolley. 1Nell, if~the funding opportunity comes along, and we: don'f have:
an approved project, we're not: going to be able to take: advantage of it.
July 12, 1999 Vol: 53,:.Page 1;89 :,
1 ..
2 So, as I said, I think the prudent thing to do for the Council is to recommit~to~Rainier,
3 come up with a finalized design and approve it. Hopefully, we can fake advantage of
4 some of these cost saving and re-design issues that have been raised and the
5 questions that have! been submitted, but: certainly we should await those results, and
6 the results of the RMI Study before we take action. Thank you..
7
8 Mayor Thompson: Thank you: Ms. Hamilton, you had a question?
9
10 Council Member Hamlfon I have a lot of them. The first question is; I just wanted to
11 ask Council Member Healy, wfiaf would you gain from Janice being here? I mean, why
12 would. you want, know how it would help me to have .Janice here, and why I would want
13 her, but I also want to know...
14
15 Council Member Healy: Because that's my understanding of how we're .going to
16 proceed~with the entire,'issue;. and I was just following along with it. It's your choice if
17 you want to change it. Maybe you've had some discussions regarding it, but I haven't
18 been privy to them.
19
20 Council Member Hamilton: Are you insinuating that we've had...
21 •
22 Council Member Healy: 'No; no, not at alf.
23
24 Council Member Hamilton:.. But you: just said. that:,. You. said,, "I've not been privy to
25 them." If you haven't been privy to them, then you're saying that we have been having,.
26 discussions off the dais.
27 .
28 Council Member Healy: 'No. What I'm saying is that it was my understanding that
29 we're all goring fo wait for Janice to come back: Okay? Because she was; going; to go. get
30 the legal opinion., and now if seems that you don't want to wait. You want to go on with
31 it.
32 .. ..
33 Council Member- Hamilton:. Well, did you :hear at least three (3j Council members last
34 week say that they really didn't see any reason to wait? .
35 - ~ •_
36 Council IVlember' Healy: I did hear that, clearly. Sure. , • ;
37
38 Council Member, Hamilton: Okay. So, I'm just wondering what's the reason. Because
39 I'm afraid that it would take.a couple of months.. This is why I don't want to wait. I'm •
40 afraid it would take a couple of months. _
41~ ~. _
42 Council, Member Healy; That's fine. Majority rules. But, that's why my response. to the •.
43 answer of why_we were waiting for Janice came but;that way. It's because that was_:my
44 understanding of how we were going to conduct these entire Rainier hearings.. .
45
46 Council Member Hamilton: But did you have a reason?
Vol. 33, Page,190
July 12, 1999
2 Council. Member Healy: Then, if:we didn't want to do that, then why did we suggest
3 that Janice go, get the.. .
4 ..
5 Council Member Keller: Because she needs to clear it. up. Because at this point,;,
6 there's a question of whether she: can participate even :in system-wide discussions ~of
7 the entire transportation _system, so she rieeds to have a defiiifion of what "conflict" is
8 ..regardless. of'the outcome'of. Rainier.. "
9
10 Council Member Hamilton: And if there were: an impasse in -the cote:;, she also needs
11 to have that cleared up. But did you:also have a reason,; Council Member Healy?
12
13 Council Member Hea{y I was operating under the assumption that Council Member
14_ :Caller-Thompson wanted to be able to participate if she could, and lthoug'ht we all
15 thought we'd be getting hopeful-y valuable infor_matibn firom the RMI 'Study~ori #lood
16 aspects: Flooding has certainly been one .of the top. two issues: with: ~respe;ct to."Rainier
17 over the .years;. and we're finally'in a position where; we're close; to ,getting some hard,
18 engineering/scientific" ipfbrmation on it. And 1 don't see why we should run. ahead in
19 advance of that:
20
21 Co.unciL Member Hamiltoria ..:if Rainier would=be okay or not... And; second of all, I'
22 don'twant~to build Rainier because I~do_n't see the traffic relief...,.the cost/benefit ratio
--
23 that I think that~'this community deserves. And so; that's why 'I don't want. to wa"it for the
24 RMI Study, because ultimately, it won't be the deciding factor;for me. I have a lot,of
25. things here, but 'I want to.ask Council Member Torliatf; if we had the funding right now;
26 .would you vote, for Rainier?
28 Council ,Member Torliatf: If' we had the: funding right now..,.l guess..
29
30 Council Member Hamilton;. If the sales fax measure had passed, or wha#ever.
31
32 "Council Me
tuber Torliatf: As'I stated in .my comments, I don't think. I have a real grasp
33 right, now of whether this community really wants Rainier; or doesn't want Rainier.
34. We've heard from a ";handful of-folks,, very adamant; on both sides of`the issue:. There
35 -has. never been,, in my opinion, a :real survey.,.you know:; we've had people co_ me up
36 here and: say, "Se~en'ty percent (7.0%;) of the,,people are in favor of Rainier.",And I don't
37 know if I ,believe that..Because there hasn't been" a true vote b"y the citizens~:of this
38 community:
39
40 And I really think #hat if the funding was there, 'I'would still want to see whether b.r not
41 the citizens really wanted it. Because there are four people, at least,. on this Council,
42 who have reall:.y serious concerns -about this project; for a; variety ;of reasons. And so
4'3~ .so"mething Chas to be wrong, and there's a different point; of view on the Council;, so
44 there must be a different point of view' in the eornmunity, and it''s a democratic process,,..
45 and I think the'_people should be able to'voce their vote at the ballot box.
46
July 12, 1999
Vol. 33, Page:191.
~1. Council IVlember Hamilton; Okay.
2
3 Council Member Torliatt: So, I'm saying, I'd probably still want to see a vote.
- 4
5 Council Member Hamilton: Okay. I was just curious about that. l'm going to have to
~6 think .about your suggestion for a while.. So, I have a "lot of things. to think through about-
~7 it. The thing that concerns me right off the- top;, is if we put the question on the ballot;
8 the people who will have the money to spend on an ad campaign will be the people who
9 will gain from Rainier the most, which is the developers, who will be able fo develop
TO their land and benefit monetarily.. As'Ms. Cando said when she got up: "voters voting for
,11 congestion relief," thinking that Rainier is congestion relief, and I don't think it is, I'm
1'2 quite sure it isn't. So, that part .concerns me. And it concerns me about politics in
13 general, but that's pretty much how it goes. But l don't.. want to set up a major decision
14 to just play right into that scenario that we already live with.
15
16 In my opinion, this Council is trying to repair, make up for, or undo some very poor
17 decision-making that: has gone on in the past. It's making a.furn, our entire organization
18 is making a turn, to start being more productive, to make decisions that are more
19 thorough 'and grounded, thaf serve all'the. people. It takes a long time to make that.-kind
20 of a turn. So right now,,. with Rainier, the reason we haven't gone ahead with it is (here's
21 just really not the confidence in, it, on the Council, to go ahead.- And since we're still
22 dealing with it, we don't .have the time or money or .energy or staff time to work on
23 alternative congestion relief in this City. And we need to do that. So, we are empty
24 handed in a way right now. 1Ne can say, we don't want Rainier, .and we want congestion
25 relief and we're willing. to commit to it and we will get if, but we don't have a solid,
26 designed, and approved. solution.
27
28 Just let me look,af my notes for a minute.. I would.question what Mr. Healy was saying,,''
29 if we don't have an approved project,. we won't get the tax money. We won't be eligible
30 for the tax money;" Because:, as f remember in the tax measure, "Rainier or alternative"
31 was the wording. So we can say "Cross-Town Connector and Interchange for
32 Petaluma" and we can name it that or we could say, "freeway access." We could call it
33 "Alternative Project to Rainier" and probably till get funding. So I don't think that we do
34 actually have to rush' ahead ~so that we can get that funding.
35
36 I have questions on the assessments about everybody taking an equal assessment; if
37 we did put it out. the ballot. But then, I really want to know: can we do a special
38 assessmentfor the property: owners? Because they- have to pay much more than
39 anybody else:: The problem with making decisions, the problem with all of Rainier, as far
40 as I'm concerned, is there has not been. a thoughtful, honest discussion of the ELR. You
41 know;- all the answers .that were. in this ELR that made David .and me and Matt, a long;
- 42 time before we were ever on the Council, say, "This is~not good. This. is notworth it:''
43 That discussion has not happened regularly. ,Instead, it's been kind.. of an ad campaign,,.
44 like I said before, and opinion polls where:fhe question was asked assuming that.
45. Rainier was everything it was dressed up to be. I want to push. for informed decisions.,
Vol. 33, Page 192 Judy 12, 1999
1 and not popular opinion votes.. But I understand what you're saying. I'm willing to think
2 about it; and consider it; because we're in a dilemma.
3
4 Council, Member. Torliatt: Arid I, think on both sides there. is going fo be a; lot ofp;ush
5 for; "Yes,.. Rainier," and, "No, Rainier.." And I: think that there ale :going to be enough.
6 people ,out there ~~who .are. really,, truly, wed to -this, ~~th~at they're.going to, go .out and
7 pound the pavement: And 'it h'as fo be a, sell job, because the citizens trulyhave ~to ask
8 themselves, "Am I willing to pay for thi"s? Is Phis .going to get me what I want?" When
9 they go to the grocery.store, they look at an item and say; "That's one dotlar ($1);. Is it
10 worth.one dollar ~($1)?" And they have to say yes or no. And, is Rainier going to be
11 worth whatever dollar it is to ahem?
12
13 Council MemberMaguire: Just a point.:of clarification. There are. actually some:`funds
14 available. for rail; lighf or heavy, under the Prop 11`6 f.unds;, which ,requires a mafchrig
l5 funding source locally; and that's-what the. Sonoma/Marin Area Raif Transit Cornrnittee
16 is all about. I just wanted to throw that out 'there, because we don't want .to over=
17 generalize here.
18 - ~ .
19 If we were going. to do'this, the reasons that 1, think ;Rainier is a very flawed project,
20 besides the fact'that we don't have the money; is that I don't think we''re going t'o get the
2`1 value out of it, and that,the. cost that we would be paying would have, virtually,.
22 overwhelming negative impacts in the long run, particularly when you considerthe.
23 induced :traffic, which is now recognized and understood as a reality in road expansion
24 projects, where l think it, is in four years ninety' perce_ nt of the capacity is used up by
25 increased tra"ve.ling by the same number of people.
26
27 Plus the fact-that, if'.you .change the zoning on; the Gray property, for instance.,. from
28 Office/Commercial to Commercial/Retail, the impacts on that_ have ,never been
29 assessed by the EIR': ;So; .then: given that you've got some really basic, fundamental
30 flaws in the project as it's planned, I would h,aye to nook at, okay,, if we were going to
31 proceed with this. and put something on the ballot, then it would have:#o; b~e~after we
32 take a look at it to see`where things could fje reduced or the size ~shtunken;.
33
34 After our 1a_st meeting l had` a conversation with Mark Johnson, and ,he was saying that.
35 Mr. Healy had spoken with,hrm about Dan Burton's "Road Diet".approach to road
36 design. An.d altlough that is moving in the right direction, I do.n't know if .this project.
37 could b.e sufficiently improved using that. I have a hard~time accepting that you could
38 actually get CalTrans to allow you ao use traffic circles on offi ramps: and on ramps, for
39 instance...: Or thaf-,you could reduce Rainier to two Lanes and, `you know, still have the
40 sign-on by those .who think hat's what. they need: We would be required to'take the:
41 time to study these alternatives, .and I guarantee you that that would be a whole other
42 round and;probably, my guess would be, given our~staff'Coad, it-would be at.least
43 another year. V1/eal; maybe we could squeak' it' in August of next year is ahe cutoff'to get
44 onto the November ballot, but you. know how it is. The business of this City'is just
45 overwhelming right n,ow and any single little delay would';cause it to go ,out beyond That,,,
46 So then we're talking, again,, 2001; 2002. At which point",.hopefully, within a couple~of ~.
July 12, 1999 Vof. 33, Page 1'93;
1 years, we will have .actually made some physical improvements to McDowell and
2 Washington.
3
4 If we decide, if this Council. majority decides to go ahead and pursue. and Rainier
5 interchange, then there's the possibility that that might.-address significant enough; take
6 enough of the pressure off of the traffic.problems or the perceived traffic problems in
7 this City. Becau"se, frankly, a lot of the problems in this City are more perceived than
8 real. When people complain, like Mary Stomp always used to complain, "It takes me
9 fifteen (15) minutes'fo get across town!" There isn't a town of this size in the state that
10 you can get across any faster at rush .hour! It's just the reality. But if we are to proceed,
11 it's kind of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't."
12
13 I think the best thing we can do for today is to set ~a date when we can actually take
14 action, and T hope That date is soon. I think RMI information is valuable, but I don't think
15 it's going to be compelling in our decision-making one way or another. We know we've
16 got flooding problems. I certainly want to know what the answer is on Janice's alleged
17 conflict of interest: I personally think that a project this size has the type of
` 18 categorization or exemption that Libby Seifel referred to, I forget the FPPC term.
19
. 20 Council Member Keller: She lives within three .hundred (30.0) feet, so that doesn't
21 apply.
22
23 Council `Member :Maguire,: It doesn't apply even if effects everybody? Now, I read their
24 memo differently.. I .guess I misunderstood 'it. But. the Burton SCA3 is saying that it
25 needs the two-thirds (2/3) vote to get out of the .Legislature and onto the ballot. Then it
26 just needs a simple majority to pass, and. then it needs., I think, as it's written, a majority
27 of the City Councils in any County, signing on to it, a simple majority, at which point, the
28 other criteria, as I understand it, is that you have to already have a list in place of what
29 your projects are.
30
31 Council Member Torliatt: Which is being discussed at SCTA.
32
33 Council Member Keller: If I could clarify that? We will be getting very shortly #rom
34 SCTA; the discussion was today, that that list will be the Measure B list, period.
35
36 Council Member IVlaguire: Okay, so the Measure B .list is "Rainier or Alternative."
37 Great. I suspect that we can build Corona fior significantly less cost, gain the lion's
3.8 share of the benefits that are proposed for Rainier,. and if we don't, then we could look
39 at a cross-town connector at SouthPoint, or maybe atwo-lane cross=town connector at
40 a reconfigured Rainier at the point in the future where we have taken the step, and
41 we've seen it. All along, for years, I've been proposing, taking incremental steps. That's.
42 why I supported the 'improvements at Washington and McDowell, that's why I've been
43 pushing for years to get the free northbound on ramp onto 101 off of Washington., that's.
44 why I've supported the coordinating of the signals on Washington, and all the other little
45 pieces. Because the fact of the matter is, you know, you don't build your way out of
46 congestion. it's just never happened. If that were the. case, L.A. would be the place
Vol. 33, Page 194 :July 12, 1999
1 we'd all want to live, :and it's not!:Davi:d just.gave us a list of "Eight Myths of Traditional
2 Traffic Planning" "Bigger Roads lricrease Peoples' Mobility" -- Myth Number ;Five." So,
3 would just aslcthat we keep this in mind, that:you donot build your way:out of
4 congestion,. It: has never happened in this state. Thank you.
5 -
6 Mayor Thompson:; Just briefly: Everyone keeps saying that there's no money for
7 Rainier, and-the reason that. then
8 ro ect. I don't know how man te's no money for Rainier is that it's not an approved
P J y mes `I've .;got. to go through this, but the reason that.
9 we ve never earmarked or put any monies toward
10 approval on it.'1Ne of as far as the S eeific Plan s this is because we've'ne~er gotten
9 p with the alternative, and that's :as far
11 as that got.
12
13 Council Member Torliatt; I have. to disagree, because it was on Measure C.
14
15' Mayor Thompson: Right. This City Council has ,never approved it., .
16
17 Council Member Hamilton'The Council approved the EIR.
18 -
19 Council ..Member Torliatt But it didn't matter whether it was~approved or not; because
20 it would have been funded if the Sales Tax Measure went forward, so, as I, thirilc was
21 stated before; yes, we can get fu:n'ding, even without an approved project. -
22
23 Mayor Thompson: lt~was: part of`-the Genera] Plan. And, I think, by us removing it, we
24 also remove it from the General -Plan.
25 _
Council Member,Mag,uire:~ Buf, 'Mr. Mayor, consider also that if you did keep it'ih the:
General Plan, f'we approved it and we moved full speed ahead, the funding that would
be required :by Rainier would: bleed us and., we would have no money, for fixing the
potholes, for any other road improvements in this Cty;'for twenfy (20) years!"
Mayor Thompson:-That may, in fact, be, but I'd like to see that information from. the
Finance Director or from someone who....
Council Member Maguire,: Staff has stated this many times.
36 Mayor Thompson: One of-the .reasons., PGDC was. set up, and I may stand corrected
37 on this, and I think it was back in' the late .1980's; was for flood protection, was for `the
38 outlet mall,, and was. also for Rainier.
39
40 Council Member Keller: You areabsolutely,correct. .
41
42 Council Member liam'ilton: Right; and for the marina.. It was for development
43 purposes.
44
45 Mayor Thompson; I didn't say'the marina,. b,ut I'll believe it.
46
July 12, 1.999 Vol. 33, Page 195
1 Council Member. Hamilton: That was in there.
2
3 Council Member` Healy; Just responding; to one point: Yes, it's true, there is some
4 beginning funding for light: rail, but there's certainly not enough, money out there to.
5 implement light rail. 'Similarly; there is some money that we have 'set aside for Rainier.;
6 but we're nowhere near having enough money to build Rainier. So, I thinkthe analogy
7 that I made was.apt. But getting back to your bigger point, I think we need to decide.
8 procedurally where.: we warn to go with this;. because it's really on tonight's agenda for,
9 as I understood it, discussion and guidance on ,how to proceed in the interim. Now, if
10 the Council is of a mind that`we want to agendize this for action, then we should
11 agendize it for action. But; the question in my mind is do we agendize it for sixty days
12 from now, or do we agendize it for next week? And I would prefer to see the sixty days
13 and have some. more''information. `
14
15 Council. IVlember :Keller: This-is a bad project in the wrong place. Funding is only one
16 of the issues about Rainier. Let's say for a moment that the Burton Bill passes, goes
17 through the Legislature, the governor signs it, it goes on the .ballot, and let's say this
18 County passes it; and there's money for this project. That would put your Special
19 Assessment Districtessentially saying; we're going to have locally assessed properties
20 in addition to the sales tax', so thaf Petaluma, is. essentially ,paying for the project out of
21 our own pockets,. 'instead of just the sales tax, So, there's a potential conflict between
22 funding sources. Are we saying to the rest of the County, "Don't worry about the sales
23 tax collected in Petaluma. V1le'll spend our owri money; our own property taxes." So'it
24 would be a poison pill that says if'that passes, this one doesn't go.
25
26 Council Member, Torliatt:-That one doesn't go; or whatever funding is received., the
27 assessment is reduced to the residents.
28
29 Council Member Keller: I ,believe you'd shave to set a maximum amount, or a definitive
30 amount for the measure. ~ i
31
..
32 Council Member Torliatt: I would. think, so, an "up to."
33
34 Council,Member;Keller: Okay,, so agan,,.my issue on a Special Benefit Assessmentis
35' it s.eems,extraordinarily:unjust;'This seems to me to be just a perfect example, and this
36 Gity is unfortunately rife with fhem, of~ a gfa of public, funds to build in the wrong, place.
37 We have set so many subsidies for lousy projects! You can start with the golf course,
38 the marina, we can go on for,quite a.bit;on that. The auto mall! Oh yes; I forgot about
39 that. Thank you. We're still paying on, those projects. So I think it's a lousy tradition that
40 we would be asking .the public,.to continue.,
41
42 So that's just one..,aspect of funding this project. locally through a taxation in which,the
43 property owners,`gefto walk, and they get to go to the bank, and they say, "Hey,
44 suckers!.1Ne've got• our change'in the bank, look at the public. They're sending us on,
45 nice; fat, trips and: they're going to send us to a nice retirement, because .they got
46 suckered!" t •
Vol. 33, Page 196
July 1'2, 1999
2 Other problems with this:projeet: let's talk about the.RMl Study. The RMI Study is a.very
3 crude assessment of where. we are, and what information that we have, as a potential
4 basis fora detention. or retention policy;.. for an interim policy, between now and:when "
5 the full surface wafer management program is put,n place. The. RMI Study is based on
6 what information and modeling we have, which is woefully inadequate.
7 "
8 The RMf Study .uses ,FEMA's 1:989 Floodpfain Mapping. It's out of date! ~1N:e don'a have
9 anew definition; of the floodplain. lt's out of date,b.y at`least ten (10) years,'The RMI.
10 Study will give us the bare bones of a ,handle on what to :do f.or riew development. It's
11 not going, to give us-policy on what tb do in:an existing floodplain in jeopardy,; And fo;r
12 this I need. to: go back,. and I hope you'll"bear with me for a moment, digging ,throu'gh my
._
13 shelves, we have. Wesco's (they are'now the anfecedent corr~pany to .RMI) ;final EI,R
14 River Oaks/Petaluma Outlet Village, December,. 1990. This is~ why 1 'have no room'in my
15 office.
16 '
17 My question on the project flood issue'is "this"proposal demonstrates the :danger and
18 expense of the publicand .private. interests ofbuilding within the floodplairi and
19 floodways. This whole. corridor has experienced disastrous flooding over the history of
20 Petaluma: Indeed, the natural rneantlering of the river and .flooding. of. these lands itself
21 form the river Alai"n. Construction~'in the flogdplain puts fo 'a test the. willingness and "
22 ability of the taxpayer°to~bai[ out°pnvate'iriterests after each flood.':A"s we are all too
23 familiar; even the best=engineered plans have,,, at times; failed., There.:s no .magic wand
24 to prevent the river°frorn behaving: like a river. No engineer's license wilt keep this site
25 from flooding..
27 This. draft EIR does not .address tfie costs to the public via local losses-and ;from
28 lawsuits against public entities" as well aid' from the Counfy~, State,. and Federal,... FEMA,
29 of consfructiorr in dangerous. locations that;the City-has am;p"le experience~with... Past'
30 experience along the'Petaluma River"and "its. tributaries; and costs ~to government arid'
31 private owners should be included :in this data." " ~ ~°
33 Council Member Torl_iaft; ,1Nhaf:are you reading frorn~ r ,. -"~
34 ~ ~-
•~ - .- .
35 Council Member Keller: This the final EIR for th_ a outlet= mall, page 85: The response,.
36 the official".:response #:rorn the preparers and the Gties~"t"hese statements of opi-pion,
37 are acknowledged:" :I hopewe've progressed; a-lot~since then. ~ "
38
...
39 Council.Member Torliatt: Who made tfiatstate'ment? ~ ~ ~ ~ . ;
40 '
41 Council.Member ,Keller: That stafeme:nt was made by the EIR prepares, 1N'esco, who.
42 is RMI's predecessor--, and was sustained by"the City. They didn'f change it. That's the.
43 official document. `It said, "The proposed project would not increase.peak flow
44 downstream, and 'is thus not: dependent upon constructio_n_of the Payran Flood :Project;,
45 however., this.'ELR for the proposetl River Oaks Project is~not a foram for discussion of
.,:, . :.
_.
46 off site impacts associated with off site potential channel improvements upstream:''
July 12, 1999 Vol. 33, Page, 1'97
2 Okay? In other words,."Take: a hike! We're not interested in talking about the bigger
3 issues:" And yet; we still have proposals for substantial development in the floodplain.
4 RMI is not going to: address this in this Ninety-Day (90-Day) Study. This doesn't have
5 anything. to do with'RMI's study. That's going to come out of the modeling, and the level
6 of sophistication and technical expertise that's available in the full modeling and storm
7 water management program, surface wafer management program.
9 So I want to read to you, very quickly, again, from the Corps of Engineers Survey
10 Report for Flood Coritro and Allied Purposes., Petaluma River Basin, March 1972.
11 Okay? This is aCorps report before the 1982 Floods, because they had been asked to
12 come i"n and; take a 'look of a flood project", is there a ,flood project in the Petaluma
13 Basin, that is suppo.rtabfe? And there: answer was, "No. The benefit/cost ratios of any of
14 the projects: channelizaton, dams," at that point was ".02." You need 1.00 or greater to
15 get a fundable project..
16
17 Council Member Torliatt: 1Nhat year'was that done?
18
19 Council Member' Keller: 1`972. Ten (10) years before the 1982 Floods. And their .
20 response to~all of these questions about flood projects in Petaluma is this (this is page
21 24): "The mosf feasible floodplain management. measures for Petaluma River Basin
22 would consist ofi zoning, flood proofing in .existing and potential urban areas, and
23 designation of other'flood=prone areas as open space'for recreational activities. No
24 attempt was made to evaluate the cost and benefits to provide these measures.
25 Permanent evacuation of existing urban areas in the floodp ain would be very costly,
26 since it would involve reconstruction of .:many moderate-cost homes; however,
27 temporary evacuation of people during floods would.be feasible because of the
28 availability of temporary facilities such as hotels and motels within reasonable travel
29 distance from flood-prone areas." Take that, Payran!+
30
31 "Flood proofing measures are primarily the responsibility of the individual property
32 owner who, knowing .his property is in a potential flood zone, would take steps to
33 provide adequate protection .against possible damage.. This area could be better utilized
34 for activities more compatible with flood hazards:"
35
36 Okay? 1Nhat's the lesson? Galloway, 1994, or rather, 1995: The Galloway U.S. Army
37 Corps of Engineers: Report said. three things to do: change in Federal policy on flood-
38 prone areas: evacuate there, get the structures that are in jeopardy, get, them the hell
39 out of there. For those projects and"~structures that are dependent-upon being close to
40 the water, that,are critical infrastructure., like power plants,-and sewer plants: protect
41 them.. And policy nurnbe.r three: prevent new developmenf in the floodplain. It's very
42 simple, it's very elegant.
43
44 The Corps of Engineers; to their credit, .said in 1972; unfortunately, this City did not
45 follow up on it as did probably most of the rest of the: country. Napa is doing it now:. This
46 Rainier Project is absolutely dependent for funding and is, in fact, intended to serve the
Vol. 33, Page 198 July 12, 1999
1 development of this' reach of the river. Fortunately; during the outlet mall hearing, they
2 said explicitly, .despite an.y promises:. By the. way,. staff, .have, we gotten any lefters from
3 Matt Connolly showing any evidence :that the City promised that Rainier-would be built
4 for them? Have we gotten any correspondence'? .
5
6 City Manager Stouder: Not to my knowledge as of today.
8 Council. Member Keller: The EIR, says explicitly; "the Rainier extension and
9 interghang1 is not necessary (this.is page 159) for approval of the'Petaluma Outlet.
10 Villa a Pro'ect; nor is it the; only solution to the traffic .mitigations. required for Parcels B
11 and C under the land uses presented in the draft ELR" which is now two hundred.
12 thousand (200,:000) square feet of retail space, one hundred, ninety thousand (190,,Q00)
13 square feet of eomme;rcial and ~a hotel, a,couple of .restaurants. S`o„the City, at the time,
14 aaid, "Not only. do you not need if for the outlet village:, you don't even need if for,
TS development of the_rest of your parcels:" And I still mainfain that that's true.
16
17 To encourage Rainier; to approve Rainier,~whether`it's funded or;not, is a:gargantuan
18 mistake .that :this City will have to live with and its future taxpayers are going to have- o
19 live with, ,in perpetuity. Speaking of in p~erpe.tuity, since it's not a CalT,rans; project, wfo
20 the hell pays for maintenance of ,it? lt's a City;maintenance .responsibility. What's the
21 maintenance. regime'? `Who's going t'o. pay fo_ r that? Is that corning,-out of •the
22 Assessment Disfrict?:Okay? So let's take a few more million bucks onfo_ that: 1Nho
23 benefits? A select group of property owners. Who pays? The public.
24
25 It's a bad project; it's bad policy, it doesn't relieve traffic congestion, and'it induces and
26 supports development in 'the worst possible ;place in this City. So w,'hat I'd like ao° do at.
27 this omt is schedule; an action itgm for ourgnext meetin gto Vote u
28 and to then go ahead with dealin with con estion mana~ emr;nt inp or down on this,
this City, which''is
29 not addressed by Rainier; because the people-want it..PeoplE have said, "I want
30 congestion management; f want relief." What's been sold to them is thatthe answerto
31 that question is Rainier. lt's not the answer,. lnfortunate y, or fortunately as it may be:
32 It's unfortunate:fo;r.those property owners. It,airi't the answer. Fortunately.for us,;. if w,e.'re
33 going to spend thirty or forty million dollars ($30,0.00,00.0-$40;,.000,000),: we can get a
34 hell.'of a lot better job in congestion management and have: a hell of a ,lot. better°town if
35 'we do something else. And hd be happy to talk about- what some of those other things
36 could. be.
37 '
38 Council Member Hamilton: "One .thing I left gout when I spoke fjefore, I voted against
39 the EIR for Rainier, and the reason'I did, was the traffic numbers were never~projected
40 to counf ,the traffic inducement that will need- to incur with the devefopment'that;we must
41 approve to fund. Rainier, and it's this cozy little: Catch-22'. Those. numbers were not in
42 the projections, they were left :out. So the numbers: in the EIR aren't .,real, -and those
43 numbers -look acceptable for athirty=three or forty million=.dollar prgject anyway; but
44 they're completely un"real, l think that we would need to do a new EIR that.. asks the real
45 questions. The EIR that we have' right here did not. ask the real questions that needed
46 to be asked. Ithink' we should sef a date, and I'm interested in making it soon.
July 12, 1999
vol. 33,. Page #99
1
2 Mayor Thompson: Coultl; we compromise with Mr. Healy's sixty (60) days and Mr.
3 Keller with one (1) week, and go with one (1) month?
4
5 . Council Member Keller: No; because 1 `won't be here for the first two (2) meetings in
6 August, Matt is going to b.e gone .in September. I think we just need to make a decision:
7 I don't think anything is going to change between next week and two months from now`.
8
9 Mayor Thompson: I'm sure it's not going to eharige for~the Council, but I think the
10 public dese"rues at least a two (2) week notice if not more that this...
11
12 Council Member` Keller: The public knows. that we discussed this last week, this week,
13 that's three (3) weeks in a row.
14
~:
15 Council Member°Healy:, But:part of the problem on that is that this agenda item was
16 only added to tonight's schedule late Friday.aff~ernoon: I don't think,anybody in the
17 community knows it's here.. Certainly some" felephone~ treeing" :went on, but it was
18 never in .any of the regular media outlets. ~ _
19
20 Council flllem'ber Maguire: I thought we made it clear at the end of last week's meeting
21 that we were coming back.
22 ~ .. . .
23 Council Member Healy: Yes, my sense is that we°were going. to continue at another
24 date. I didn't understand at that poi'nt'that it was going to be the,next meeting.
25
26 Council Member°`Hamilton; Because, as haaid before, we: have'h'ad our time and
v.
27 energy and money bound up in this impasse of Rainer`for`years an'd years and years, I
28 want to release that time and energy and. money-to actually do productive work here.
29 So I'm for having it as soon as possible, and make a d'eci'sion.
30
31 Councif Mlember IVlaguire: I concur. Waiting :a. month. is notgoing to gain us anything. I
32 know, then,. we get into vacation time, when everybody's gone and I think we need to
33 make a policy decision.
34
35 Council'1Member Torliatt: I really stated how I felt at the beginning.
36
37 Mayor Thorv~pson: But I didn't hear in than statement whether you wanted to have. this
38 meeting in a week or in a monfh~or in two months. That's what l'm asking.
39
40 Council .IViember Torliatt: Well, if we're going to have a meeting, we might as well
41 have as soon as possible. That's fine with me if we're going to have a decision.
42
43 Mayor Thompson: Does that. meet your schedule, Mr. Stouder?
44
Vol. 33, Page 200
July 1,2, 1999
1 City :Manager Stouder: Next week is a few minor items,; like,, potentially, a decision .on
2 the. wastewater privatization plant; an appeal of a Planning. Commission public hearing
3 issue.
4
5 Council Member Hamilton:: That has to .be heard because of time?
6
7 City Manager Stouder Yes, Landscape Assessment District Meeting:
8
9 Council Member Hamilton: Two (2) weeks:., The 26th: 1 thinkthat's a good notice:.
10 That's: as much .notice as the City gives for-anything. _
11 ~ ~ -.~
12 City Manager Stouder: So; the 26th in the: evening? 1N'e have, on the schedule, which
13 we can still,eontinue; 'the~`General Plan,Revew.that you were unable~to.get to last week,,
14 and. the. additional Budget Rev_ iew.
15
16 Council .Member Keller:: =This would acfually tie into the General Plan_ because lit .
17 would be very explicit direction on a critical item, so it seems. to me that's time`Iy. A
n,
18 couple of otherpieces thatril:wantto throw in for your thinking between now and'then:
19 Chelsea has given us a letter, stating that they've generated to the City, since they
20 opened, almost. one million eight-,hundred. dollar's ($1,00:0,800) in property tax and sales
21 tax. Has that. been verified by David Spilrnan? _
22
23 City Manager Stouders I can cheek. ~ .
25 Council Member Keller: Co~u~ld.y,:ou please get us a memo on .that, whether or:not that
26 has? And even. if that-sounds like a lot of~money; one of the things in the E1R that was
,:.
27 supposed to have happened, one of the needs .addressed by=the outlet mall;. was
28 additional police patrols. And, in fact, the.'EIR;~alled for~two (2) police patrolsand-two.
29 (2) new ears, to be paid for by .the outlet mall, to. the tune: of fc-rty to forty-five thousand
30 dollars ($40,00..0_$45;000) per police ofificer, plus the cost of the cars; per year. So
31 that's about ninety thousand dollars ($9.0,000) per year for juste the' service time.. I don't
32 know what the current wages;. are. .
33 _ ..
34 Miraculously; that.got' cut tro'rn the Conditions of Approval, so that the outlet mall has
35 paid. not a penny that `the .EfR called for toward additional police services., So, you have
36 other shortfalls; and this is just another example.of' a subsidy for these guys; who are
37 laughing=all the way to the bank. ~~
38
39 Council. Member Healy: Lf we're going to dothis on the; 26th, I'd really like; 'as I've, .
40 stated previously; to; find a way'to keep'the Budget on track; .and I do understand the
41~ interconnection, between the Rainier questions and some of the .G"eneraL Plan issues:
42 On the other hand; the Budget, is'much more time: sensitive and critical in my mind; and.
43 it wouldn't hurt to give the taff a chance to regroup after we do whatever we~do with
44 Rainier; and fold: that into the General Plan `recommendations.
45 _ .
46 Council Member. Keller: I didn't get that'.
July 12, 1999 Vo1.:33,.Page 201
1
2 Mayor Thompson: Fred said that-the 26th was slated for the Budget. _
3
4 City IVlanager Stouder. We do not have the afternoon of that Monday scheduled, and
5 we-could schedule the afternoon for additional Budget discussions, or meet::earlier,
6 such as 5:00 or so for several hours of Budget, regardles"s of the General Plari. _
7
8 Mayor Thompson:. Why don't you and I work that out.
9
10 City Manager Stouder: Okay. And after this evening's meeting and Thursday's
11 meeting on the Budget, that will give also a better sense of how you'd like to pr"oceed
12 when .you have all the information. Also, I assume the schedule will expand and
13 contract regularly in 'terms of days you're available and hours you're available.
14 -
15 Mayor Thompson: Thank you-. So the 26th it is. I'm going to bypass Council and ~Staffi
16 Reports, :and City Manager reports, and I'm going to adjourn this meeting of the
17 Petaluma City Council. Take an approximately eight=.minute break and then come back
18 and then reopen.
19
20 COUNCIL AND:'STAFF REPORTS
21
22 None
23
24 CITY MANAGER REPORTS
25
26 None
27
28 ADJOURN
29
30 8:30 p.m. v
31
32
33 E. C ark Thompson, Mayor
34
35 ATTEST:
3'6
37
~u 38 Beverly J. Kline, City CI - -
3.9
40 *****