Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 08/03/1998~. ~, .. i~.i? _ - ~_ is ~ ~ 4. August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 159 1 1VIINUTES 2 OF A SPECIAL 1VIEETING 3 PETALUNIA CITY COUNCIL 4 1VIONDAY, AUGUST 3, 1998 5 ROLL CALL 2:30 p.m. 6 Present: Torliatt (PT), Hamilton (JH), Read (NR), Stompe (MS), Vice 7 Mayor Maguire (NIlVI), Mayor Hilligoss (PH) 8 Absent: Keller (DK) 9 MATT MAGUIRE: Is there any more Public Comment sign-up to MAYOR HII.,LIGOSS: There's a comment sign-up there. 11 MATT MAGUIRE: Anybody else signing up? 12 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: I haven't brought it up yet. I call this Special Meeting 13 to order. Would you call the roll please? 14 CITY CLERK- Council member Keller is absent. Council Member Torliatt? 15 PLANNING DIRECTOR TUFT: Here. 16 CITY CLERK -Council Member Hamilton? 17 JANE HAMII.,TON: Here. 18 CITY CLERK - vice Mayor Maguire? 19 MATT MAGUIRE: Here. 20 CITY CLERK- Mayor Hilligoss? 21 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Here. 22 CITY CLERK - Council Member Read? 23 NANCY READ: Here. 24 CITY CLERK - Council Member Stompe? 25 MARY STOMPE: Here. 26 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Okay. And then we'll have .Public Comment and 27 nobody? You should check. Okay then, we'll move on to Council Comment. 28 PAMELA TORLIATT: Are we going to have Council Comment at the 29 beginning of our Regular meeting as well? I'll wait till then. I'll wait till then. Page 160, Vol. 32 August 3, 1998 1 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Okay, then, the new business is discussion and 2 possible action on request to con-- 3 ?? We don't know if the mikes are on. 4 MATT MAGUIRE: They're on. 5 MAYOR HII,LIGOSS: They're on. 6 PAMELA TORLIATT: They°re on. 7 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY -ALTERNATE SUGGESTION 8 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Discussion and possible action on request to consider 9 proposal to provide an option to the ballot measure for the TJrban Growth Boundary to 1o expire in the year 2005. 11 NANCY READ: How about Ross speaking first? It:'s his letter. 12 MAYOR IIII.LIGOSS: Yeah. We got several--yeah, several messages that 13 they would like to have a choice. So that is why I called this meeting to order. The-- 14 should we let--Ross, would you like to be first? 15 ROSS PARKERSON: Thank you, Madam Mayor and members of the Council. 16 PAMELA TORLIATT: Not on, Ross. 17 MATT MAGUIRE: Your mike's off, Ross. 18 ROSS PARKERSON:When you don't come up here very often. Thank you, 19 Madam Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Ross Parkerson, 414 20 Broadway Street. We're here today to ask you to consider another option on the 21 November ballot, which would essentially provide the voters with another choice in 22 determining how long the time between the voting for the Urban Limit Line and the 23 culmination of--excuse me, the end of the limit line, Urban Limit Line will be 24 determined. 25 I know that you had many discussions on the 20-year limit line, Urban Limit Line. And 26 I think at the outset we should say that our effort here is that we are fully in support of 27 the Urban Limit Line. We always have been. I mean, I think those of us who are 28 interested in good land use planning for Petaluma, we've been at it for a long time. We 29 all know that Petaluma provides, has provided over the last couple of decades probably 3o the best land use planring process of any city in Sonoma County. And we have also 31 instigated to the growth management process by which we are able to control our 32 growth. And the Urban Limit Line is part and parcel of that process. And it is an 33 important part of the process. And we need to have it. There°s no question about it. 34 I think the issue here today for a lot of us is the consideration that the 7-year time 35 period as opposed to 20, and the 7-year time .period we would coincide with the 36 updating of the general plan or the new updating of the general plan, which would be 37 2005. And the analysis of the impacts of what an Urban Limit Line set for 7 years as 38 opposed to 20 years, I think is an important part of your consideration of the voters 39 consideration and for all the people that are coming here. They need to understand that . ~ {~2,k, r ~f '~...9 ~ ~ 1. August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 161 1 aseven-year time limit is a more practical way to deal with what we want. to achieve, 2 and that is to establish an Urban Limit Line by the voter. And that's fine. And we 3 support that completely. 4 I think one point we could make is that in terms of the seven-year time period, probably 5 most of us in this room can appreciate aseven-year future between here and 2005. And 6 we have some sense of what that means. I mean, it's not so long, not so far off. 7 But I would say to you that probably no one in this room has the slightest idea of what 8 a 20-year lock up will be on the Urban Limit Line on this town m terms of how it 9 changes econorrtically, socially, physically and any other ways that you aught want to 1o think about it as far as land use planning is concerned. It's a very important decision. 11 And we're asking that you give the voters a chance to take more--to have a choice and 12 looking at a seven-year lock up that corresponds with the general plan update as 13 opposed to a 20-year lock up. It seems to us that it is more practical, tt's more 14 reasonable in terms of the average person to understand what that means to them. And 15 also, it will give us a chance to relate the ongoing process of a general plan update as 16 we expect it to do in any case. So I guess I've said enough. 17 Thank you for your time. We ask you to consider option one that's on your agenda 18 today, and we would appreciate your consideration. Thank you. 19 PAMELA TORLIATT: Madam Mayor, I have a question for the speaker. 20 Ross, throughout what you just said, you kept saying Urban Limit Line and I'm 21 assurrung you meant Urban Growth Boundary. I want to be clear on... 22 ROSS PARKERSON:Excuse me. That's what... 23 PAMELA TORLIATT: ...what you're talking about. 24 ROSS PARKERSON:No, that's what I mean. I'm sorry. It's an old--I guess it's an 25 old reference. That's what I mean. Exactly Urban Growth Boundary. Excuse me. I'm 26 sorry. 27 PAMELA TORLIATT: Okay. And my second question is how do you think 2s this, if this was--is being considered obviously, but how would this proposal work with 29 the Measure D, which is the community separators in the county, because a 20-year 3o Urban Growth Boundary will allow for those community separators to be solidified. 31 And if it's only aseven-year, my understanding is that that it won't. So is there 32 anything that you've discussed with whoever else that is that is supporting this and has 33 brought this forward? Do you have an opinion on that? Or have you discussed that 34 issue? 35 ROSS PARKERSON:Not to any great extent. I could only answer you by saying 36 that it seems to me that we here are trying to determine where we're going for 37 Petaluma. That's our purpose here. 38 The other consideration, which I support, however, is separate and a part of this whole 39 thinking about controlling growth and having some say over it. Seems to me, though, 4o that we first of all should think about Petaluma. That's the first thing on our agenda. 41 And it doesn°t seem to me that there's any downside to a seven-year growth boundary 42 as it relates to Proposition D. I don't see any downside to that at all. Thank you. Page 162, Vol. 32 August 3, 1998 1 MATT MAGUIltE: Madam Mayor? Ross, did you attend the workshops on the 2 iJGB? 3 ROSS PARKERSON:I wasn't able to do it, Matt, I'm sorry. But I did follow them. 4 MATT MAGiJIRE: Did you go to the hearings at the planning conurission and 5 the City Council? 6 ROSS PARKERSON:I followed them on the tube. 7 MATT MAGUIRE: Did you stick to the end on meeting of July 20th? 8 ROSS PARKERSON:I did the best I could, Matt. I tried to follow you guys as best 9 I can. 1o MATT MAGUIRE: Did you watch to the culmination of the evening? 11 ROSS PARKERSON:I think I did. 12 MATT MAGUIRE: Okay. 13 ROSS PARKERSON:Yeah. I mean, I tried to--all I can say to you is I certainly try 14 to keep informed. I mean, I watched here every word, but I certainly keep inforrimed. 15 MATT MAGUIRE: No, I'm just curious to know if you watched the meeting 16 where we had deliberated as a Council? 17 ROSS PARKERSON:Right. I didn't. 18 MATT MAGUIItE: Okay. Thank you. And have you considered the force of land 19 speculation on long term land use planning when you wrote your letter to us? 20 ROSS PARKERSON:Yes. 21 MATT MAGUIIZE: Okay. And just one last question. Curiosity. We spoke, you 22 know, on Thursday evening of the, I think the 30th, the date of your letter, and I was 23 just curious to know why at that opportunity you hadn't brought the subject up in 24 discussion with me. 25 ROSS PARKERSON: Well, Matt. We were talking about something else. And we 26 got interrupted. I mean, I don't know that that--all. I can tell you is that the process 27 moved along very quickly and we're here to ask you to make these considerations 28 today. I mean, I think that's the important part of this discussion today. 29 MATT MAGUIlZE: Thank you. 3o ROSS PARKERSON:Alright. Thanks. 31 MATT MAGUIRE: Madam Mayor? 32 MAYOR HII,LIGOSS: Yes. Tp .,;l~L, August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 163 1 MATT l~fAGUIRE: As we go into the speakers, we've got a long list, could we 2 ask that the City Clerk keep us to a three-minute... 3 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Three minutes. 4 MATT MAGUIRE: ...time limit for the speakers. 5 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Right. Okay. Art Kerbel? 6 ART KERBEL: Madam Mayor, members of the Council. It's very interesting. 7 I was the first speaker in July 20th in the evening. We had a 120 to 150 people from g the public here. We had a really very democratic discussion that lasted so long that 9 two members of the Council couldn't remain for the vote. This afternoon, we have 1o about 20 people here for a special meeting and I think it's already been summed up by a 11 member of this Council what would--what this is aimed at. I'm not going to go mto it 12 any further. But let's find out what we're doing here. 13 We're talking about 2005 and 20 years, and I'm sorry, Mr. Parkerson, I respect that 14 gentleman as one of the greatest contributors to this city that I know. But I think he's 15 missed the issue. The current measure clearly states in 1C, and that can be changed at 16 any time, any time, 2001, one week after it's passed, way before 2005, by a vote of the 17 people. This change is going to take that vote away from the people down to vote, and 18 that's just what we're talking about and nothing else. Nothing else. Who has control? 19 The people of this community or the Council? Madam Mayor, you may be stubborn, 20 but I think you'll find out that the people of this city can be stubborn also. 21 Don't confuse them with two measures. If you want to go out and you don't like this 22 measure, then go out and campaign against it. I think you'll. find a lot of financial 23 support from certain areas. But this is not the way to do it. This is simply not the way 24 to do it. One measure which protects the people with a 1 C that says you can change nt 25 anytime, that falls within the 20-year rule of the county. That's what you passed at one 26 o'clock in the morning. There's no reason to be here on an afternoon thinking about it 27 again. Thank you very much. 2s MAYOR HILLIGOSS: John Cheney? John Cheney? Followed by Jack 29 Balshaw. 3o JOHN CHENEY: John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive. Boy, is this meeting today 31 ever a prime example why we need a 20-year growth. When each business interest can 32 come in .here and dictate this and we have dirty tricks for three people going to show 33 up and one was on vacation, you've--I've been sold literally down the river. The 34 factory outlet, the auto mall, yeah, you smile and you laugh. But when those places 35 have caused flooding, they're in the flood plains, they shouldn't have been there. Zero 36 net fill hasn't worked. And we need an urban growth control and we need the people 37 to be able to say yes and no. Not this Council, because this Council, as much as they 38 want to be right, cannot say no to the business interests. There's too much money at 39 stake. Well, the people can. Because the people know what they want. 4o They don't need the roads fixed as bad as they think. They need an opportunity to go 41 ahead and have a better life. And urban growth, where they control it, they can have a 42 better life. Otherwise, there°re going to be future Council members in here that'll do the 43 same trick that was pulled today and they'll go ahead and get that thing over. All tlis 44 was, was a chance to go back in seven years and talk this thing out and get another 2 ~. p y~. 3;8~ , ~%. ~~' ; ,F '~C Lei i Page fl64, Vol. 32 August 3, 1998 1 Council in here. It was dirty, .shouldn't have happened, but it's the reason we need this 2 20-year growth, no less, and let the people vote next time. Please do not vote this 3 thing in. Thank. you very much. 4 MAYOR HII.LIGOSS: Jack Balshaw? 5 JACK BALSHAW: Madam Mayor, Council Members, Jack Balshaw. I do like 6 having the option of having a choice, seeing as it is supposed to be the people's choice. 7 I like that option. s But let me tell--I'm .even more concerned with this concept of asix-sevenths vote for 9 the exception area. Not for changing even the Urban Growth Boundary. And we just to went through a change where we changed hiring, firing the City Manager from afive- 11 two to afour-three, and I think that was a definite statement of the public that they 12 want the majority of their elected officials to be able to make decisions. So, you know, 13 here we are, we're going back and I assume, you know, the Council listened to that. is And we're going back to asix-sevenths vote to make an exception. You know, not the 15 line itself, but just for the housing in the industry, etc. 16 And I would hope that in the discussion of this today that if it's going to be offered that 17 it be offered as just a straight majority vote for changes to the exception, 'cause this is 18 what it's supposed to be all about.. Otherwise, then I think everything should be a six- 19 sevenths vote and if you can't get it, then everything should have to go to the people to 20 make the decision. Should we buy seven police cars or four? Please consider getting 21 back to just plain old majority rule. Thank you. 22 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Thank you. John Barella? 23 JOHN BARELLA: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is John 24 Barella, I live at 496 Jasmine Lane, Petaluma. I'm here before you today to ask you to 25 consider putting on the second ballot measure for the Urban Growth Boundary. I think 26 that you know we've been talking about what the people want. I think you saw enough 27 people come out on both sides of this issue, what they wanted. I think everybody 28 wants an Urban Growth Boundary. I don't think that°s at question.. I think it's how 29 they want to see it presented and how they want to see it implemented for the best 3o ways for Petaluma. 31 And I certainly think that the seven-year is better in my opinion. The others have their 32 ®wn opinion. But if it's going to be a democratic vote, let's put both issues up there, let 33 them vote. You know, you can either vote democratic or republican. Why can't we 34 vote on two different policies here for the Urbari Growth Ioundary? I think it's only 35 fair that we do this. Give the people a chance. Why do we have to vote all or nothing? 36 Why can't we vote what we think what's best for Petaluma? 37 I urge you to reconsider and I'd like to see you put both ballots on there. I mean, let 38 the vote fall where it falls. In my own mind, I think, you know, the 20-year°s going to 39 win. But I'd like to have a voice of what I like to see happen, and let others make that 4o choice. And I don't think that°s wrong. Thank you. 41 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Steve, what is it? Geney? August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 165 1 STEVE GENEY: Madam Mayor,. Members of the Council, Steve Geney, 22 2 Benjarrun Lane. I think I'd like to see you consider this alternate to the ballot. Like the 3 previous speaker said, you know, we talked about the several meetings late at night. 4 Everybody got up, an entire city, it seemed like, and talked about the democratic 5 process, letting the people choose. Nobody's trying to change that, nobody's trying to 6 ram anything down anybody's throat. There's nothing going on here, but letting, letting 7 the people choose, you know, putting it on the ballot, make it, keep it a democratic 8 process ~s what everybody's been asking for. There's nothing wrong with adding that to 9 the rrux here. 1o The way I'm hearing and understanding this, it allows for the existing Urban Limit 11 Lines to stay where they're at, the exact same lines that the Council has drawn for their 12 20-year measure. Keeps those, freezes those current boundaries. It also allows us 13 some more time to study these, get these economic impact studies done. Everything 14 that the editorials read and that, there's a lot of people concerned about that, that didn't 15 get a chance to speak. That hits both sides so you know exactly what you're going to 16 put on, then boom, put it on the ballot, make sure it's the right thing when we do the 17 general plan and go that route. 18 'The way I understand the 20, the county separator issue,. the way it comes into play, 19 you know, there's this--there's a big assumption that all of a sudden that if we don't put 20 this thing on the ballot right now and then pose this 20-year UGB, that all of a sudden 21 there's going to be a massive intrusion in those areas that the county's not going to 22 protect us. Well, we haven't had a 20-year ballot, or a 20-year urban growth 23 boundaries before, and there hasn't been this--this mass rush to get these outlining areas 24 developed and not get that production, or that protection from the county. It just, you 25 know, look at what's been happening, stick, go with the Urban Growth Boundary, but 26 let's tie it to the general plan update and please put this thing on the ballot so we all 27 have a choice. Thank you. 28 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Thank you. Paul Ramatici? 29 PAUL RAMATICI: Good afternoon, Madam Mayor, City Council. My name is 3o Paul Ramatici. I just wanted to make the comment that my family, my daughters have 31 been here for four generations. I'm involved in a family business in its second 32 generation. I am unable to make decisions, what's good both for my family and for my 33 business 20 years out. In running a business and raising a family, I know that you have 34 to make decisions of the future, how things are going to be for them. And the thought 35 of 20 years of making decisions today that are going to affect both of those areas 20 36 years scares me a little bit. 37 And I would just want to let you know I°m here to support two issues on the ballot and 38 give everybody a choice of whether we want to make plans today that are going to 39 affect us 20 years out or seven years out. Thank you. 4o MAYOR HII,LIGOSS: Thank you. Don Weisenfluh? 41 DON WEISENFLUI-I: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council. I'm at 42 2092 Wren Drive. I'm hearing this seven-year UGB and the way I understand it, our 43 general plan has locked in an Urban Limit Line out to the year 2005 by default if the 44 people didn't accept aseven-year, they'll still end up with aseven-year Urban Limit 45 Line. Same place. So I don't know why they have to vote on something they already .. ~ ~ - `Y~ Page 166, Vol. 3Z August 3, 1998 1 have. They're going to end up with a 2005 UGB or ULL, unless they select the 20 2 year. So they've already got aseven-year UGB by default as'is written in the general 3 plan. 4 The other thing I'd like to talk about is this is really a flagrar-t dog and pony show. And 5 to try to get--to revisit something that the majority already approved and. what's not 6 brought back up again to be revisited by a member who voted. in the majority, I flunk, 7 and I°m not an attorney, but I°m sure the nice attorney here could tell us if that's 8 legitimate or not. But that doesn°t sound quite up to speed. 9 And I'd like to make a comment on Mr. Balshaw's comments earlier. In lus article in to the 21st of July issue of the Argus Courier, he identified what he called his personally 11 favors, and he lists those elements that you folks in the majority voted on and which 12 Susan Lower reported on, on the 21st of July in the Argus Couriei. And Mr. Balshaw, 13 although he decided to call. you folks elitists and manipulative, actually ended up with 14 what he said he would prefer having. So I think it's a step in the right direction and Mr. 15 Balshaw, if you read Susan Lauer°s article, I think you°ll recognize that you already got 16 what you asked for. Thank you. 17 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Janice Coder-Thompson? Janice Cader-Thompson. 18 JANICE CARER-THOMPSON: Good. afternoon. You. know, I just kind of 19 want to make a point that this is kind of ironic that two years ago that the Committee 20 for Choice also wanted a choice on our ballot; and 2000 signatures were forged, and 21 today Martin McClure and Mr. Hendrickson, they are starting, you know, the trial up 22 in Santa Rosa. And they also wanted a choice. 23 Well, you know, when you give the people a choice all you're really saying is let's 24 confuse the public. We don't really want to give them a choice, we want to confuse 2s them. And that's exactly what's happening today. And I think it's just really a shame 26 that this is happering in Petaluma, considering people are going to court today for a 27 crime. You know,. two years ago people put in a Council who was going to be 28 responsible to the public. And that's why the community voted in people who were 29 more responsible with growth. They were concerned ~~vith the quality of life in 3o Petaluma. And that happened two years ago. And I think people today are still 31 concerned with the quality of life in Petaluma. And I also have children and I do have 32 concerns about where my children will live, you know, when they're older and can they 33 afford homes. It's not just in Petaluma. It's all areas in California. You know, I, you 34 know, as a parent those are concerns but I still strongly support a 20-year Urban 3s Growth Boundary in Petaluma. T flunk that it was written up fairly,. has room for 36 expansion, and people were not left out. I mean, it's not as though it's `an iron gate that 37 can't be permeated when the need arises. And I think that this Council did a really good 38 job by putting this on the ballot, and I did attend all the U--well, one of the UGB 39 meetings, and I followed this for the four months. And I think that everybody had the 4o chance of doing the same thing. 41 And to come in today and call a special meeting to put another initiative on the ballot 42 for the sake of choice just reminds me of voter fraud and why .people decided to put in 43 amore responsible Council two years ago. Thank you very much. 44 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Bryant Moynihan? ~,f ' W ~ ~ A ~ Y •~ August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 167 1 BRYANT MO~i'NIIiAN: Good afternoon. Bryant Moynihan, 102 Dawn Place. 2 I kind of feel we're rushing here and not only here but all this process. And I think 3 unfortunately we're rushing to make a mistake. I did attend the community workshop 4 and had some good conversations with some of the people of the commumty. And 5 they're genuinely concerned, and from every gamut and every spectrum. 6 There were a lot of questions that were asked at those community meetings. You got a 7 whole bunch of them, I think six or seven pages, that the public had. And those 8 questions were never addressed or responded to. There were some conversations at 9 the Planning Commission meeting, and a lot of good input came in at the Planning to Commission meeting. And the Planning Commissioners, they formed an opinion and 11 they made recommendations to this Council. Those recommendations were not 12 followed, from what I can tell of this draft initiative. 13 The Council meeting had a lot of input and it went both ways, and most of the people 14 said we don°t understand exactly what's going on here, we're concerned 'cause there's 15 no economic policy in place or long term general plan. I questioned at the time the 16 integrity of the general plan once you make this amendment, if you're not chastising or 17 eliminating that. I still believe you are. I went on vacation. I did not attend the last 18 Council meeting. I came back and I found the draft of the proposed resolution, or 19 excuse me, ballot measure. And I recognized it was a lot of work that went into that to 20 get where you got. But I was disheartened to find that there was a mistake in it. That, 21 indeed, the Urban Limit Line that was recommended as being the long term 20-year 22 Urban Growth Boundary was not accurate, that the exhibit that was attached actually 23 went off the Urban Limit Line. And I spotted one example clearly on the Varnhagen 24 property. I don't believe that's intentional. I think it's just a mistake, but I don't know 25 what the implications are of that. 26 And again, I feel we're rushing to make a mistake. I'd like to ask this Council, are we 27 comfortable with the fact that there are no other mistakes in this .proposed measure? I 2s mean, maybe a misspelling, you know, a dangled participle or somethng really terrible 29 like that or maybe something substantial that jeopardizes the entire issue. Clearly, 3o when you represent it to be the Urban Limit Line and the map is inconsistent with the 31 Urban Limit Line, that is a serious mistake. It seems to me it leads to a lot of 32 questions. Now we have someone coming up and suggesting what I think seems 33 reasonable enough, at least the term is parallel in the general plan. I don't think it's a 34 great choice, but it's a better one than 20 years without the economic vision in place. It 35 allows the public to go back and participate in this process. It allows the public to 36 participate in the general plan update. It allows the public to come back and at that 37 point in time when they know what the implications are in the long term, to adopt an 38 Urban Growth Boundary 20 years from that point.. I think if you take a look at it, you. 39 look at the internal consistency with a general plan, and you look at the opportunity to 4o give voters a choice. 41 Voters aren't stupid. I mean, people think they're going to get confused over this. 42 Voters will figure it out. You folks and the members of this public will be out there 43 informing them. And those who want to understand .it will understand it, and they'll be 44 able to make an educated decision. I think that would be a hell of a lot better than this 45 measure we had in front of them initially. Because it is not an educated decision. It's a 46 rush to make a mistake. I encourage the option, but I'd like the whole thing to go away 47 personally. Thank you. 4s MAYOR I-IILLIGOSS: Thank you. Hank Flum? q II r ~ ~ r~.,a .~ ~t Page 168, Vol. 32 August 3; 1998 1 HANK FLUM: Hello. I'm Hank Flum, 172.1 Stonehenge Way. I did attend 2 the workshops and I did attend the Council meetings. 3 And now, I'm confused by this suggestion that we put an option or put an alternative 4 for the voters to vote on. It seemed to me that we had quite a bit of discussion in all of 5 these public hearings and at that time those people that were so disposed to believe that 6 the voters should have a 20-year choice or a seven-year choice, why wasn't that 7 proposed at that time? I believe the proposal now is definitely confusing, especially to 8 me. Because I don't see it, a seven-year Urban Growth Boundary, any different than 9 what we have right now, -which is the Urban Limit Line, and as I. recall. the Mayor to pointed out to us that we didn't need to consider the Urban Growth Boundary because 11 we already had an Urban Limit Line which was being enforced for seven years till the 12 year 2005. 13 I'm also confused when I heard the first speaker speak and continually use the word 14 we,. we believe. I'm just wondering who he was representing other than himself. 15 Normally, when I hear other speakers they represent their own point of view and I was 16 wondering who the we represented. One of the speakers just before me raised the 17 question of asix-seventh vote in the Council to make changes. Well, I think the intent 1s of the Urban Growth Boundary is not for the Council or anyone else, but really for the 19 general voting public to make a decision. And it's the voters who have the choice and 20 they have the majority vote. They don't require six-sevenths. They just require over 50 21 percent to vote it up or down. To vote an expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary 22 or to keep it. Whenever a proposal would be made by a solid voice within the City 23 Council or otherwise. 24 I believe those people in our community that are proposing this second alternative,. they 25 do have a choice, right now, and their choice is to get out and campaign like the devil 26 and convince the people of this town that we really don't need a 20-year Urban Growth 27 Boundary. Then the people will vote it down and we will have our Urban Limit Line, 28 and we can do whatever we want and keep the community going in the way that they 29 believe if they vote it down, the community should continue to either grow ad hoc or 30 otherwise. So I encourage them to use the public forum, get out, let the public know 31 that they believe the public should not vote in favor of an Urban Growth Boundary. 32 Use their democratic right. Thank you. 33 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Thank you. Beth Meredith? 34 BETH MEREDITH: Good afternoon. Beth Meredith, 104 5th Street. I actually 35 have a letter from Gary Broad, who couldn't be here. And he asked that someone read 36 it at the meeting. And I'll submit it to the City Clerk afterwards if anyone wants to 37 reference it. Dear Mayor Hilligoss and City Council Members. As a citizen of 38 Petaluma, I am disgusted by this afternoon's,. quote, unquote, secret Council session 39 scheduled by Mayor Hilligoss. As a planning commissioner, l; am committed to 4o decisions being made in public, in a public and open setting, that maximizes public 41 input. Today's mid-afternoon special Council meeting is clearly intended to circumvent 42 a public decision-making process. Council member Stompe was quoted last week as 43 characterizing a special Wednesday evening Council meeting as quote, undemocratic 44 and, quote, vote setting. Today's meeting is unarguably an undemocratic power play 45 by our Council minority in the absence of several Council members and attempt to 46 circumvent the decision of the Council as a whole made on >r~ehalf of our community. ~._ ~ ;y August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 169 1 The honorable action is for Mayor Hilligoss to admit her error and have this meeting 2 cancelled. Sincerely, Gary Broad. And if I have remaining time, I would like to give rt 3 to Ross Parkerson to tell us who we is, 'cause I'm very curious who we is. Do you 4 want to tell us who we is? 5 KOSS PARKEKSON:It's up to the Council. 6 BETH MEREDITH: Well, I have the time. 7 MAYOR HII.LIGOSS: Dan Libarle and Ross Parkerson signed the letter. 8 BETH MEREDITH: So that's who--is that who we is? 9 ROSS PARKERSON:Yes. to BETH MEREDITH: Okay. Thanks. 11 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: And by the way, the Charter gives me the right to call 12 a Special Meeting. David Glass? 13 DAVID GLASS: My name is David Glass, 41 Oxford Court. I'm an official 14 candidate for the office of Mayor for the City of Petaluma. What I would like to talk 15 about is the integrity that's happening here. I trust the majority Council. Like Mr. 16 Balshaw, I would like to see the majority Council rule. The majority Council ruled on 17 this issue when we.had the meeting on Monday, July 20th. They ruled four to one with 18 two abstentions dice to default that were not in their chairs to vote. There was long 19 discussion. All options were considered. The pluses and minuses of all options were 20 explored, and the 20-year Urban Growth Boundary was decided upon by the majority 21 Council. We've had a lot of talk in this city about the divisiveness on this City Council. 22 I'm looking forward to a six to nothing vote to show unity on the part of the Council 23 and respect the majority opinion. I hope that we see that six to nothing vote, because it 24 would restore the fact that even though you may be on the losing side of one single 25 issue on one given day, that you have the integrity to respect the majority opinion 26 which did their homework and presented this option to the voters. 27 We all know that aseven-year boundary would confuse the issue. The voters that want 2s the 20-year boundary would also vote for the seven-year boundary. The voters do not 29 want the 20-year boundary would simply vote for the seven-year boundary and the 30 seven-year boundary would get more votes, and, therefore, in a game of rrurrors the 31 seven-year boundary would win. Seven years won't discourage land speculation on the 32 perimeter, which is one of our primary goals in our general plan. I trust the integrity of 33 the majority of this Council to come back with a new general plan, more information, 34 not less, and submit with the new general plan the new Urban Growth Boundary. I 35 trust the wisdom of the voters to then approve that new general plan's Urban Growth 36 Boundary for an additiona120 years at that time. I want to thank Jane Hamilton for her 37 busy schedule for making it back here today to vote on this, because I think her vote is 38 going to prove to be extremely necessary. I hope you others will see that we do need to 39 come together. We need less divisiveness on our City Council. We need more ao openness and I hope that you will vote six to nothing and vote this down because it is 41 ill conceived. Thank you. 42 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Vince Landofl? i .i: ~ ,ti Page 170, Vol. 32 ,r--:',. August 3, 1998 ~~ 1 VINCE LANDOF w`•Vmce Landoff,? X12.,, Cordela ~Driv~ ~Petalu~rna ~=~I: agree with 2 Mrs. Broad and with Mr: Flum and what they had to say. In fact, they said "everything I 3 was going to -say. But I just wanted to point out something here, just my own feelings, 4 speaking for myself, incidentally. I think, personally, that you three over there did not 5 expect Jane Iiamilton to be back in town today. And you thought that you could... 6 MAYOR HII.LIGOSS: I didn't know that she was done. 7 VINCE LANDOF: ...overrule. Hm? 8 MAYOR HII,LIGOSS: I didn't even know she was gone. 9 VINCE LANDOF: Well, I kind of smell a rat in the woodwork here. Because I 1o think that this is an ill conceived meeting, a special called meeting to try to overrun, 11 overrule the vote that took place the other night. You went to 12:36, midnight. You i2 searched everything out well. You discussed it well. Especially you, Pam. And you 13 came to the decision and you voted on the 20-year UGB. This is not called for this 14 afternoon, because special interests wanted them over and they want that extra measure 15 on the ballot. And the fact that the general public, the working public, was not made 16 knowledgeable of this special meeting this afternoon, that is another concerted effort in 17 which to keep them out of this room so that they would not be able to participate or 1s know what was happening here this afternoon. You should really be ashamed of 19 yourselves. 20 MAYOR HII.LIGOSS: Thank you very much. Diane Rielley, she wants to 21 talk about the grand jury report, so we'll take that up in the next meeting. Yeah. No, 22 that's... 23 PAMELA TORLIATT: We're going to talk about it during our three o'clock 24 meeting, so you'll have an opportunity. 25 ?? Public comment now? 26 MAYOR HII.LIGOSS: No. This is just for the special meeting. 27 MATT MAGUIRE: We haven't got there yet. 28 ?? You haven't gotten Public Comment? 29 MATT MAGUIRE: No, we haven't. 30 ?? We had a city meeting. 31 MATT MAGUIRE: So, Madam Mayor, is that all the Public Comment? 32 MAYOR HII.LIGOSS: Yes, that's all the Public Comment. 33 MATT MAGUIRE: Madam Mayor? 34 MAYOR IiII,LIGOSS: Yes. 35 MATT MAGUIRE: Nobody's made a motion here yet. I suspect that if there's a 36 motion to adopt this proposed seven-year measure, that it's not going to pass. As you :roc; , r~~.r Y"i~s• 't''''C~'`'. ~~~~ ~ .. August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 171 know, I discussed this with. you on Friday, called you up to find out what your intentions were... MAYOR HII.LIGOSS: Talk me out of it. ~ MATT MAGUIRE: No, to find out what your intentions were and to see if you 5 thought this was something realistic. And you expressed that you felt that the public 6 needed a choice. And what I said at the time is they have a choice, they get to vote yes 7 or no on a 20-year UGB. And I think the point is being clearly made that if the 20-year 8 UGB fails there is still seven years remaining on our Urban Limit Line. That's a 9 consideration that came up in our discussions on July 20th. 1o We also looked at the fact that if we were to adopt aseven-year UGB that it would not 11 trigger the county's measure D, which would give us protection from accelerated 12 development on the outside of the UGB. And, you know, if this letter had come to us 13 with 2000 signatures or a thousand signatures or 500 signatures, you know, it would be 14 a lot more meaningful. But I have to agree that I'm particularly disappointed in the 15 form that this has taken, because this is not a new idea that was not considered in the 16 existing process to hear the UGB measure. 17 My understanding, it obviously doesn't say so in our Council Rules of Proceeding, but 18 my understanding of the authority of your office, Madam Mayor, is that you would call 19 a special meeting for an urgent, and I stress urgent item. This is not... 20 MAYOR HII.LIGOSS: I'm concerned it is. 21 MATT MAGUIRE: This does not fall under a definition of urgent. It's been 22 considered at length. It was discussed at length by this body. It's unfortunate that you 23 could not be here for those deliberations. However, possibly, had you looked at the 24 tape of that meeting, you might not have moved ahead on this, because you would have 25 seen that we did discuss it thoroughly. We are moving ahead with plans for a new 26 general plan when that is--and that°s going to be a full public participatory process. 27 And when that general plan is done, if we come up with a new Urban Lirrut Line, I 28 expect t}us Council or any reasonable Council... 29 JANE HAMILTON: Urban growth boundary. 3o MATT MAGUIRE: Urban growth boundary. Thank you. Any reasonable 3 ~ Council to put that to the voters at that time fora 20-year vote. But the issue here is 32 20 years, so that's--I await a motion to cast my vote. 33 NANCY READ: Madam Mayor? 34 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Yes. 35 NANCY READ: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm the one that kept the score at 36 midnight, or what time was it, Vince? 12:36? 37 V1NCE LANDOF: Yes. 38 NANCY READ: That stated the determination that we'd gotten to at midnight 39 about where the line was going to be drawn, how long a time it was, and from, you 4o know, 11 o'clock till one o'clock in the morning, that's when it was determined where 3 ,~ ~ ~~~ ~>,.~ t . ~ x ~ ~,,~,;, y(, Page 172, Vol. 32 August 3, 1998 1 the Urban Limit Line was going to go with option one, two or three. I'm glad that the 2 Mayor called this meeting so we can have this second level of discussion. I'm glad Mr. 3 Parkerson and Mr. Libarle wrote a letter so that we could do it. Because after Janu--or 4 July 22nd's meeting, it wasn't discussed. It was this is the line and it's going to be for 5 20 years, that's it. And Madam Mayor, we have in front of us and over the last three, 6 four weeks after this July 20th meeting, various and assorted folks have checked in and 7 stated what their opinions are. g After 21 years of giving my life to the City of Petaluma, there's some things that I'd 9 really like to be able to say. The first one is the history of Petaluma's general plan took 1o two years in the making. And the Mayor and I served on committees after committees 11 after committees and general plan coordinating committee meetings to get that award 12 winning general plan. It's not something that happened in four months or in 90 days. 13 To put an Urban Lirrut Line on would drive that general plan process -after 2005. 14 If we do have the ability to give the voters a choice of what kind of an Urban Limit 15 Line they want and for how long, we will have that ability to do a fiscal. analysis. I have 16 grave concerns about an Urban Limit Line that's going to go till 201.8, when we only 17 have the legislature, the legislation and the sequel process until 2005. What if it is not in 1s conformance between 2005 and 2018? And we havE; basically abdicated our 19 responsibility to follow the law because it's in kind of limbo land between 2005 and 20 2018. The 20-year Urban Growth Boundary that's being proposed is based on the 21 supposition that the adoption of the Central Specific Plan and the Corona Reach 22 specific plan will be adopted. We don't know that. Those two things haven't, have not 23 yet occurred. The idea that Measure D drives what. happens in the City of Petaluma is 24 another example of the cart before the horse. Another part of the fiscal analysis that 25 bothers me greatly is the vehicle license fee is back on the table once again. And the 26 potential of a two million dollar take away from. the City of Petaluma, and I hope it 27 down°t happen, is a clear and present danger. 28 I°m truly afraid that if a 20-year Urban Growth Boundary is instituted without the 29 financial analysis, that the City of Petaluma can kiss Telecom Valley goodbye. 3o AB 1614, as we're all on the computers more and more and the Internet and the sale of 31 goods and services through the Internet, the interest on sales tax, the cities collect sales 32 tax and property tax, and that's how we're funded. If the Internet becomes as popular 33 as it probably will be, those cities won't even have--our city won't have the sales tax 34 and the property tax to even fund our Police and our Fire Departments. If a 20-year 35 Urban Growth Boundary is adopted, then the public needs to accept the fact that there 36 ~ is going to be building on the Varnhagen property: You can't have it both ways. You 37 can't say no, we don't want it. But that is part of the quotient and. the mix of the 38 available land. And that's a reality if the citizens vote it in. 39 The choice factor is something that does appeal to me as a voter. I would hope that 4o the choice factor is given. People may think oh, we're safe with our 20-year Urban 41 Growth Boundary as Mr. Weisenfluth has said or seven-year Urban Growth Boundary. 42 Yes, but no. That's only predicated upon the growth occurring within that line. I want 43 to make sure that we legally can adopt an Urban Growth Boundary for 20 years 44 without being liable for not. following sequa and not having the formal review process 45 done between 2005 and 2018. One can probably in five minutes make a motion and it'll 46 probably go down on a three-three vote, but the rdea of saying you have a choice if you 47 want an Urban Growth Boundary, but it can 'only be this Urban Growth Boundary or 48 nothing at all down°t seem very fair in the City of Petaluma that has such a history of a . .. P` ~ ~' August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 173 planning process and has wrote textbook pages about planning. So thank you, Madam Mayor. MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Thank you. Council Member Stompe, did you want to...? 5 MARY STOMPS: Sure. First of all, this was a citizen request that we look at 6 this second measure. And just--I just want to reiterate some of the things that were in 7 the request. And this is quoted from the letter. That many citizens of Petaluma were 8 impressed by the success of the Petaluma General Plan, desire an opportunity to vote 9 on option one. This option would have allowed the city to analyze and review in detail to the impacts of urban growth boundaries on the city's econorruc health and welfare, 11 feasibility of higher densities within the city limits and whether the urban growth 12 boundaries conformed to the State's Housing Element. Just a week or two ago, 13 members of this Council stated that the public was up to speed on this issue and it 14 should go before the voters and give them an opportunity to vote on this. 15 The request that we have today is really about choice. We've heard a lot of people that 16 'have been supporting the seven-year Urban Growth Boundary and we've had a lot of 17 citizens that support the 20-year. If we put a second measure on the ballot, it will give 18 citizens the opportunity. I heard a comment that this would confuse them. But 19 honestly, I believe this is choice. We have a smart electorate that can really make a 20 informed decision on this. I'm concerned about and have raised these early on, about 21 the process we went through to put. this 20-year Urban Growth Boundary on the ballot 22 without going through a new general plan and not going through the full sequel 23 process. 24 I want to address some of the accusations made, particularly by Council member 25 Maguire, which were recently in the paper saying that this was dirty politics. This was a 26 citizen request, and a citizen request is really a far cry from the special meeting that was 27 called on Wednesday, I believe it was July 22nd, to accommodate Council member 28 Hamilton's vacation schedule. A special meeting was called on a Wednesday when 29 three members of the Council were unavailable and a Council meeting was scheduled 3o the following Monday. When Council member Maguire and I spoke, he said if we 31 waited till Monday, it would be a three-three vote and something to the effect that it 32 would be bloody. So, yes, that was dirty politics. Here, we°re having a discussion 33 regarding a citizen request. There's some concerns raised about land use speculation. I 34 think we go through the for public process. I°m not willing to make a decision based 35 on somebody's fear that there will be land use speculation. If we put this on the ballot, 36 put a choice on the ballot for seven years, people will continue to speculate, but it's up 37 to the citizens and those elected officials to do what's right. So I guess to summarize, 38 this is, this request, I think, is a choice for the voters and I will be supporting this. 39 MATT MAGUIRE: Madam Mayor? 4o MAYOR HILL:GOSS: Yes. 41 MATT MAGUIRE: I just have to say in three and a half years on the City 42 Council, this is the first time in my experience that a citizen request was--got a special 43 meeting agendized and, you know, put before the Council hearing. And I just might 44 add that in our discussion when I spoke to you on Friday, I asked you if you felt that 45 this wasn't a waste of our time given that you, yourself, admitted that it was unlikely 46 that there would be sufficient votes for this measure to pass. r~ ~ e 3'~J Page 174, Vol. 32 August 3, 1998 1 My--regarding my comments about this being dirty politics, because of the unusual 2 circumstances here, because of this, being an issue that has been heard, that prompted 3 my comments to the press, and I would just recount that the meeting we had on the 4 Wednesday following July 20th was a' clean up meeting. That's the meeting 5 Councilwoman Stompe denounced. Councilwoman Stompe refused to come to it. I 6 could say that certainly those of us could have refused to come to this meeting today. MARY STOMPS: Council Member Maguire. 8 MATT MAGUIRE: And it would not have been a quorum. And that would have 9 stopped it right there. However, you see the three of us here to vote on the issue to today. 11 MARY STOMPS: Madam Mayor? 12 MAYOR HII.LIGO S S : Yes. 13 MARY STOMPS: Councilman Maguire, I had to take care of my child and I 14 told you that. With less than 24-hour notice as it says in our rules of proceeding--my 15 husband works graveyards. Sorry. 16 MATT MAGUIRE: Yeah. My girlfriend offered to babysit. 17 NANCY READ: Madam Mayor, point of order. is MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Yes. 19 NANCY READ: This is going nowhere. It°s going nowhere. 20 JANE HAMII.,TON: Let's continue our discussion. 21 NANCY READ: That's what I said. Point of order. 22 JANE HAMII~TON: You know, the proposal for aseven-year Urban Growth 23 Boundary, I wish I could support it and I can't. It's offering the voters something that 24 we already have. And so why do it? To me, they have a choice of voting yes or no, 25 and if they vote no, they end up with aseven-year Urban Limit Line. I also find it--it's 26 something that was considered and was put forward and discussed thoroughly and 27 we°re reconsidering it because some people want it--want to make sure, I suppose. Our 28 general plan is very likely, from the comments I've heard from the Council,. is very 29 likely to be redone before those seven years expire. And with a new general plan, if 3o changes are recommended to the UGB, and if there is true community consensus, then 31 anew 20-year UGB can be put on the ballot and it will be passed by the voters. 32 There's--the voters are not--I don't see it as an unbendable, unmovable force that once 33 it's passed they'll never let it go. 34 I think if there's something for the community to really benefit from and there's 35 consensus and it's consistent, it would work through a general plan process, I would 36 expect a new UGB measure to be put on the ballot, but by passing a 20-year one today, 37 it puts the control and the finally say from here ~on out for a very long time in the hands 3s of the people who live here instead of in the hands of a very small group. And that's 39 what I am really aiming to do. I don°t really expect it to stay exactly the same for 20 n !i.' August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 175 1 years. I just expect that the voters will have the final say and on the issue of growth I 2 -think the voters should have the final say. 3 Someone mentioned that you can--it's been mentioned before that you can't foresee 4 what's going to happen in 20 years. I think the reason for asking fora 20-year UGB 5 and the reason that so many of my constituents have asked me again and again and 6 again to put a 20-year UGB measure on the ballot, it°s because people do want to be 7 able to know what°s going to happen for the next 20 years. Most of us buy homes and s some of us keep those homes for 20 years.' And we do try to make our decision of 9 what kind of investment we're making and project it ahead and say well, in 20 years to from now this will be--this will still have been a good investment. And I think the 11 reason people want a 20-year UGB is because they want to be able to calm t}ungs 12 down and count on a 20-year period of time instead of in five years waking up and 13 finding out that they now live next to something they never in their wildest dreams 14 imagined. This is what the majority of the people want in this community. Noting no 15 on it is voting for what we have. A seven year Urban Limit Line that wtll expire with 16 the general plan. I am not going to support this measure. 17 PAMELA TORLIATT: Madam Mayor? is ?? I'll make a motion afterwards. Okay? 19 PAMELA TORLIATT: On July 20th, I stated at length my reasons for 20 supporting the 20-year Urban Growth Boundary. So I won't go into that again. I think 21 it was clear in the record. And I think that we need to let the citizens vote yes or no 22 on a 20-year Urban Growth Boundary. It's just a matter of saying yes or no. And if 23 the voters say no on a 20-year Urban Growth Boundary, we'll be m the exact same 24 place that we are now. And I'm willing to accept that. And I'm willing to accept no on 25 this initiative. I just don't think aseven-year Urban Growth Boundary is giving the 26 citizens a different choice than we already have. And as I said before, I stated pretty 27 succinctly how I felt earlier, so I will be voting no on this, Madam Mayor. 28 NANCY READ: Madam Mayor? 29 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Yes. 30 1VIOTION ONALTERNATIVE URBAN GROWTH B®UNI)AR1' 1VIEASURE 31 NANCY READ: I'd like to make a motion, Madam Mayor. If the discussion's 32 finished. 1Vladam Mayor, due to the urgency that today's the last day that something 33 could get on the ballot at a Council meeting, that I will make a motion to request that a 34 proposal with providing an option for the Urban Growth Boundary to expire in 2005 as 35 opposed to 2018 be placed on the November 3rd ballot to give a choice, with the 36 resolutions A, B, C and D to accompany the--that accompany the staff report. 37 MARY STOMPE: Madam Mayor, I'll second it. 38 PAMELA TORLIATT: Madam Mayor, discussion? I want to ask whether or 39 not, and I want it be clear for the record, that at any point in time after, if this 20-year 4o Urban Growth Boundary is adopted in November, if a seven year urban line--or a 41 Urban Growth Boundary could be placed on the ballot and adopted. And I just want to 42 make sure the public knows that this 20-year Urban Growth Boundary is the first of-- 43 could be 25 proposals that are put on the ballot, either by a City Council or by a '.; , , ~~~ ;,:~ :~ d ~ ~ ~~.r~, Page t76, Vol. 32 August 3, 1998 1 citizen's initiative. Rich, can you answer that. question? Any UGB can be superseded 2 by a vote of the people. 3 RICHARD RUDNANSKY: That°s my understanding, but I believe, Pamela, did 4 you talk to Richard Taylor about that? 5 PLANNING DIRECTOR TUFT: It's my understanding that the wording within 6 the ballot measure would have to clearly state that it was superseding the previously 7 adopted measure. It couldn't just be an overlay to it. g PAMELA TORLIATT: So if a Council, after November, wanted to put on a 9 seven-year Urban Growth Boundary, they would be able to put that on the ballot for to any time in the future that~they wanted to and/or a citizen's initiative could be put forth 11 with the appropriate amount of signatures in order to put a measure on the ballot. 12 NANCY READ Madam Mayor, I call for the question. 13 MAYOR HII.LIGOSS: Okay. Pat? 14 VOTE 15 CITY CLERK Three ayes, three noes, that motion loses. 16 (Ayes were: Read, Stompe, Mayor Hilligoss) 17 (Noes were: Torliatt, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Maguire) 18 (Absent was: Keller) 19 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Goes down. 20 JANE HANIII.TON: Madam Mayor? 21 MAYOR HII,LIGOSS: Yes. 22 JANE HAMII.TON: I have a question for the City .Attorney. This is just a 23 technical question for future and just for my own information and other people's 24 information. If a matter is considered and voted upon, and pardon me? By the 25 Council, and someone on the Council wants to bring it back for reconsideration; what 26 are the rules of that? 27 MAYOR HII.LIGOSS: Somebody that voted for it has to bring it back. 28 CITY ATTORNEY RUDNANSKY: If it's a true motion for reconsideration, I 29 believe that in our procedures it is a member of the majority who is to ask for that 30 reconsideration. 31 NANCY READ: How did this differ from a reconsideration? 32 MATT MAGUIRE: The majority voted for it. 33 CITY ATTORNEY RUDNANSKY: Right. 34 MARY STOMPE: Since this was one of the--I mean, I felt it was worthwhile to 35 go over it again, if people want to go over it again, what our decisions are and why, but 36 just for the technical reason, how does this differ from a reconsideration since we August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 177 1 already reconsidered, we already did consider what was in this packet when we made 2 our decision. 3 CITY ATTORNEY RUDNANSKY: I don't know what went into the process on 4 Friday. I wasn't around in the afternoon, but I believe that the reconsideration issue is 5 when there's been actually a vote on that particular issue. In other words, that specific 6 call. In other words, if you had voted for the 20-year, which you did, and there was a 7 vote taken, if a majority of those voting for that measure or that motion wanted a 8 reconsideration or one of the majority wanted a reconsideration, because there was a 9 specific vote on that question, then you can ask for a reconsideration. But I wasn't at 1o the meeting on the 20th, so I'm not sure. But I don't believe that there was actually a l1 motion on a seven-year, seven-year boundary. 12 JANE HAMILTON Okay. 13 CITY MANAGER STOUDER Yes, this--when, well, in my conversations 14 with the Mayor Friday, I did not view this nor did she as a reconsideration because it 15 was not addressing whether the--anything specifically on the motion nor does the 16 Council passed, it was rather a thrust for a companion measure, a new measure, so... 17 JANE HAMII,TON: Okay. 18 CITY MANAGER STOUDER: And that's also why this was viewed as a 19 special meeting as opposed to putting something on the agenda that the Council had 20 already discussed. 21 JANE HAMII,TON: Okay. 22 CITY MANAGER STOUDER: It was a separate issue and viewed as an 23 alternative for the ballot. 24 JANE IiAMII,TON: Okay. Thank you. 25 CITY MANAGER STOUDER: ...my recommendation. 26 JANE HAMII,TON: I'm always looking to learn more about Robert's Rules of 27 Order. 28 CITY MANAGER STOUDER: Yes. 29 JANE HAMILTON: You know, it seems endless but thank you. 3o CITY MANAGER STOUDER: And it was in my understanding, too, just what 31 the City Attorney mentioned that if it was reconsideration it would have taken that to 32 occur at the Council meeting to put it on an agenda as a reconsideration and that 33 clearly wasn't appropriate. 34 MAYOR HII.LIGOSS: Yeah. I wanted to say something before I was 35 criticized for leaving the meeting early on that night, whatever night that was, July 36 20th. My son was to be operated on early the next morning and he had a tumor in his 37 throat and it was very ticklish. And I had to drive him in to San Francisco. And Nancy 38 Sniderman was the surgeon and she did a wonderful job. And the tumor was as big as a r:v~ i Y: Page 178, Vol. 32 ~ ~ _ ~ ;August 3,:.1998 - , 1 baseball. So it was serious.. Thank you. I'll adjourn this meeting and open the three 2 o'clock meeting at 3:30. Yes? 3 PAMELA TORLIATT: It came out fine. It wasn't malig-- 4 ADJOITI2N 5 The City Council adjourned to a Regular Adjourned Meeting immediately thereafter. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Patricia E. Bernard, City Clerk August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 179 1 MINUTES z OF A REGUL.AIt MEETING 3 PETAL.UMA CITY COUNCIL. 4 MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 1998 s I20I~I, CALL, 3:00 q.m. 6 Present: Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligoss ~ Absent: Keller s PUBLIC COMMENT 9 Diane Reilly - A countywide person to deal with grants would be good, the grants for money io would benefit the city. The Grand Jury report talks about a grant writer position being ii needed in the County. She formally requested the Council discuss this issue on an agenda. iz PT asked if this was going to be agendized. She was concerned when she read the budget on 13 risk management. The goal is to provide training for police on claims liability. Are we is assuming the Police Department will be sued? is Bryant Moynihan -the budget is not on the calendar. He has concerns about the budget. A 16 lot of tough questions need to be asked. When are we going to get to this process. Our cash i~ reserves look like they are being depleted very quickly. ~s COUNCIL, COMMENT i9 PT -when will the budget be available. ao JH could you also let the Chamber of Commerce know? Zi PT - how does the selection process occur on the Joint Powers Agreement for sa transportation? She wants more information on that. The toilet retrofit program looks i3 beneficial. She would be happy to let staff give us a brief update. za Clty Engineer Hargis - it is our intent to discuss this when we discuss our Water Capital zs Improvement Program. z6 NR -the Joint Powers Association for a Srnart Program has been appointed by the Board of s~ Supervisors. The NWP RR letter regarding no storm damage funding needs response. City zs Manager Stouder noted a letter has been written. The letter to the Governor to release the 29 Storm damage money predicated on the State budget. She wants the status of the State 3o budget and the proposed statewide reduction in Vehicle License Fees and the relating 31 remuneration to cities. The Marin Independent Journal did an entire section on Sonoma 32 County. 33 Allan Tilton, Traffic Engineer -there will be 10 members of the Joint Powers committee, five 34 from each county: 2 Supervisors, 2 from Mayors and Councilmembers Association, and the 35 5th would be selected at-large by the Board of Supervisors. There will be a meeting on 36 Wednesday at Lucchesi Park on this subject. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilrrrember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilnzernber David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-1'iee Mayor tLlatt Maguire Page 180, Vol. 32 August 3, 1998 i MM - if PT is not available for that Joint Powers appointment, he would be comfortable with 2 Allan Tilton as the city representative. 3 MS -requested that the Council discuss Families and Children Element to the General Plan. a There are a lot of large campaign signs still up, a rerrunder should be sent out. The Rules for s Procedure should be agendized. We need to address how we address ending the meetings, s such as items not. raised by 11:00 p.m. should be continued to the next meeting. There is not ~ a great deal of time between meetings and mornings. I work full time. I am forced to leave s meetings at 11:00 or midnight. The problem is how our meetings are structured. She has to 9 take time off of work. If you work out of the area the following day is difficult. Most other to Councils don't have afternoon meetings,. so they go late. Would like us to revise rules. ii MM - At 11:00 we are to have a discussion whether or not to continue business. His concern 12 is would there be any value to putting this on the agenda. Most of our rules are cut from i3 Roberts Rules of Order, unless other Councilmembers want to have this on the agenda. is MS -wants this on the agenda is PH -talked about a letter from the California Public Utilities Commission. They are .going to i6 have a meeting on deregulation and asked that staff attend that meeting -Finance Director i~ David Spilman will attend. is CONSENT CALENDAR ~9 The following items which are noncontroversial and which have been reviewed by the City 20 Council and staff were enacted by one motion which was introduced by NR and seconded by z i MM. 22 Ayes: Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligoss 23 Noes: None 2a Absent: Keller 2s RESO.98-161 NCS 26 CLAIMS AND BILLS 27 Resolution 98-161 NCS approving Claims and Bills #74740 to #75090. 2a ORD. 2075A NCS 29 DEBT SERVICE RATES 3o Introduce and adopt Urgency Ordinance 2075 NCS adopting the tax rate for debt service for 31 the fiscal year of 1998-99 at $0.005991 per $100 of assessed valuation. The debt service 32 cost to a residence with an assessed valuation of $100,000 will be $5.99 for the year. 33 The rate for last fiscal year, 1997-98, was $0.005918 per $100 of assessed valuation. The 3a debt service tax rate for 1996-97 was $0.00650, for 1995-96 it was $0.009381; and the 3s 1994-95 tax rate for debt service was $0.00887. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Courrcilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligass, MS-Courrcilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--Vice Mayor Matt Maguire . ~. -`4 August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 181 1 RESO.98-162 NCS 2 OXIDATION POND DIKE REPAIR -COMPLETION 3 Resolution 98-162 NCS accepting completion of the Oxidation Pond Dike Repair. The 4 contract was with Cal-Neva Construction Services for $106,532.47. The amount budgeted s for construction from the Water Pollution Control Funds was $122,735. Staff will seek 6 partial reimbursement from FEMA for $21,000 for damages caused by the 1998 storm. 7 ICES®. 98-163 NCS a COMPLETION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT SHASTA/SYCAMORE 9 Resolution 98-163 NCS accepting completion of traffic signal installation at Shasta to Avenue/Sycamore Lane and Petaluma Blvd. North. Richard Heaps Electrical was the 11 contractor. Total cost was $145,427.92. Payment will be through the Federal Intermodal 12 Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), State System Management Grants and 13 Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees. 14 RESO.98-164 NCS is ~ SUNCREST ESTATES FINAL MAP 16 Resolution 98-164 NCS approving the final map for Suncrest Estates Final Map, a 10.13 acre 17 parcel to be divided into 8 single family sites plus one remainder parcel. The subdivision is is located on the west side of Sunnyslope Road between Suncrest Hill Drive and Smith Drive. 19 Construction is expected to commence in August of 1998 with completion in approximately 20 October of 1988. 21 * * * * * End of Consent Calendar 22 RESO.98-165 NCS 23 FIRE TRUCK 2a Resolution 98-165 NCS authorizing the City Manager to submit a bid to purchase a used fire is pumper to replace a 1966 piece of apparatus. The Fire Chief estimates the used truck will 26 have a five to seven year life in Petaluma. Introduced by MM, seconded by JH. 27 Ayes: Torliatt, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligoss 2s Noes: None 29 Absent: Keller 3o ORD. 2075 NCS 31 PETALUMA SCHOOL DISTRICT REZONE - 200 DOUGLAS STREET 32 Adopt Ordinance 2075 NCS rezoning a 3.06 parcel at 200 Douglas Street, the site of the 33 former Hagstrom's Market, from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to Administrative and 3a Professional Office (C-O). The School District plans to do a lot split to create a parcel on the 3s southerly side of the parcel which they plan to sell as residential. Staff noted that parcel will 36 develop into at least 5 lots. The ordinance was introduced and discussed on July 27. 37 Ayes: Torliatt, Read, Stompe, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligoss 3s Noes: None 39 Absent: Keller Abstain: Hamilton (was absent for discussion on July 27) Key to abbreviations: JH-CounciJmernber Jane Harni/ton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorNl. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt AIM-Vice Mayor Matt Magzrire Page 182, Vol. 32 _ tik "~~4~ August 3, 1998 ,~; i,: :~= g:.,• i CLOSED SESSION - NR told the Mayor she would not be present this evening. z -The Council recessed to Closed Session to discuss the following items: 3 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8 Property: a 39 Rocca Dr., 23 Rocca Dr., 16 Jess Ave., 24 Jess Ave., 28 Jess Ave., 32 Jess Ave. Negotiating parties: Hargis s Under negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both 6 ~ CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8 - a Property: 13 Petaluma Blvd. North. Negotiating parties: Victory Chevrolet and Fred Stouder -Under 9 negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both to i i CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION -Pursuant to (Subdivision (a) of t2 Government Code §54956.9) -Lionsgate Corporation vs. City of Petaluma -State Office of Administration 13 Hearings Case No. A-0031-98 to is CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION -Pursuant to (Subdivision (a) of 16 Government Code §54956.9) -Lionsgate Corporation vs. City of Petaluma -Sonoma County Superior Court t~ Case No. 218960 is i9 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION -Pursuant to (Subdivision (a) of 20 Government Code §54956.9) - D.P. Nicoli Incorporated vs. Lionsgate Corporation -Sonoma County 21 Municipal Court Case No. 153968 22 23 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION -Pursuant to Government Code 2a §54956.9(a) -City of Petaluma vs. Bettman et al, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. 219212 zs ADJOURN z6 At 5:00 p.m., the Council adjourned to dinner at Westside Cafe. z~ RECONVENE 7:00 n.m. za Present: Torliatt, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligoss 29 Absent: Keller, Read, Stompe 3o PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 31 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. 3z MOMENT OF SILENCE 33 PUBLIC COMMENT sa David Glass -recapped what he heard during the afternoon meeting; would like to see not 3s might but right; asked the Council to try to do what is right. 36 Beth Meredith -regarding the Chamber of Commerce poll on Rainier. Said it indicated what 37 she thought all along, if you build Rainier it will increase traffic. New roads induce traffic. 3s Building more roads does not reduce traffic. Has a problem with passing off Rainier as a 39 traffic solution. If the business community wants Rainier, let them fund it. _ Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--Vice Mayor Matt Maguire :a':. ..,Tye.,. _; ,:u, - . August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 183 i Steve Block -talked again about his problems with Cross Creek Subdivision. A letter was z forwarded to residents of Village East which he said if signed by them would be signing away 3 their claims against Cross Creek. He held up a map of Cross Creek which showed where a `inundation' could be if there is a `significant event.' Impacts may become cumulatively s significant. He requested the Council issue a stop work order for Cross Creek until the 6 problems are resolved; order the developer to complete a supplemental EIR on blooding and ~ drainage; order the double fencing and barbed wire be removed. On the tenth of the month s he invited all. Councilmembers to attend a meeting on this issue. He has trouble with the 9 Master Drainage Plan because it is 10 years old and doesn't reflect new .subdivisions. He io requested this be placed on the August 17 agenda. He wants discussed the 4 acres of ii wetlands not yet created by the developer. He requested sending a letter to the Army Corps is to review the subdivision from their part. He said the Planning Director has agreed the i3 development is out of compliance with mitigation measures set up by the Army Corps of is Engineers. is MM asked staff to bring back a report on the issue i6 Hank Flum - is troubled, figures don't lie but liars figure. The leading questions in the poll i~ got the desired results on Rainier. He would have been surprised if they got any other than is supporting answers. Ask anyone about traffic in Petaluma. This is a problem everywhere. i9 Spending money on Rainier doesn't help traffic on Washington. Fix McDowell and 20 Washington, it would cut the traffic problems. People are being forced to support Rainier by 2i seeing only half of the story. zz Maurice Matheson -the Chamber hasn't asked him. He thinks Rainier would bring a lot of 23 water into the Payran area. It will make more traffic not relieve it. People are still going to za go the way their habits take them. He would pay $100 to a doughnut it will cost in excess of ss $100 Million. 26 Guy Gullion -neighbors should be approached directly regarding the land near them. Asked z~ about the Open Space District action on the property where the eucalyptus trees were cut za down outside of the City Limits. The neighbors feel ripped off. That used to be a forest. 29 What will happen about the run-off and fire danger there, now that the eucalyptus trees are 3o gone? 3i Marne Coggin -addressed his understanding of the Urban Growth Boundary action and that 3z the process had been taken away from the public by the Mayor. He is .angry because the 33 meeting was in the afternoon. Citizens have the ability to decide on decisions that will affect 34 them.. Having a competing obfuscating measure maybe reasons to oppose it. 3s Dianne Reilly -responded unhappily to an article about Council candidates the newspaper 36 referring to her as a critic of the City's domestic violence process. That, she felt, is an unfair 37 description of .her. She has sent tapes to Sacramento and received a response to keep on 3s lobbying for domestic violence programs in the city. Regarding her Council candidacy, she 39 said Petaluma would benefit having a Council member without a full time job and therefore ao available for citizens to contact. ai C®UNC>[I., C®MMEN'T as JH -wants Children and Families initiative on the agenda. She would like the Council to put 43 some into discussing the Chamber of Commerce poll on an agenda. City Manager Stouder 44 noted the Chamber has offered to do this. Key to abbreviations: JH-CouncibnenTber Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmernber Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. PatriciaHil/igoss, MS-CouncilrnemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember Dm~id Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MNI--Vice Mayor Matt Maguire Page 184, Vol. 32 August 3, 1998 i PT -went to a neighborhood meet at the Gullion house regarding the 1100 Magnolia Avenue z eucalyptus tree removal. A couple of the issues are run-.off and fire hazard from the chips. 3 She asked that the City send a letter .regarding that. If it is a county issue, we should also a address this. s MM -concurred with the foregoing. It is important our staff track the fallout from that 6 devastation. Regarding the Chamber poll, the results were very predictable. None of the ~ hard questions were asked, such as questions relating to flood and traffic., He has heard there s are results that are contradictory to this poll. There is no guarantee if you use a professional s pollster. io PUTNAM PLAZA PARK i i Police Chief Parks reported they have no leads the perpetrator of the broken windows in iz Putnam Plaza several weeks ago. If the City added to the Downtown Merchants Association 13 reward, that would be helpful. The Council complemented Police Officer Terry Campbell for is his work with the people downtown. is Two officers are assigned downtown. The Chief is trying to have the presence of at least one is or two officers downtown. They are scheduled to work 8 to 6 Tuesday through Friday. i~ They work the downtown walking beat from 3 to 6 in the afternoon. There is still a lot of is work to do down there, according to the Chief. ~9 Linda Buffo for the Petaluma Downtown Association -the business persons are being more zo positive and upbeat. Community Policing does work. Persons are being policed with dignity zi and grace. The Board will take into consideration the possibility of adding additional money zz for the reward fund. The Petaluma Downtown Association reward fund was built from z3 generous donations from the membership. MM -thank you for coming down and it is good za to hear about the progress downtown. zs When will the reward discussion be on the agenda and when arE; we going to discuss graffiti? z6 The PDA has identified the Keller Street garage as a location of continuing problems. There z~ will be some recommendations about this problem. zs PT -supports having a mural painted in the garage. It is hoped that a single telephone z9 number can be obtained to report graffiti problems. We appreciate your help on this project. 30 3H -Keller Street garage is my hot button issue. This should be easy to resolve. She hopes a 31 decision can be made soon. 3z The PDA has hired on a short term basis the Redwood Security roaming patrol which is 33 working from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. We obtain a report from them every day . Any time 34 you wish to see them, we would be happy to furnish them. 3s MM -would be happy to see the reports. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM--Vice Mayor Matt Maguire ~E ~.. .vt ~e "`~ ~ /K ~t ~. August 3, 1998 Vo1.32, Page 185 i John Hanania -congratulated everyone, he is pleased to see things downtown have improve a z lot. Xou catch more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. Several of the police officers 3 are good and helpful. He would like to know who did the damage to the windows. He is a very sorry about that. He noted that the City did place one ashtray downtown and suggested s that one or two more would be helpful. Also, the drinking fountain is still not working. He 6 asked about the encroachment issue with the tables being placed in the plaza near the ~ delicatessen. There is a permit for four tables, but there are seven tables there. The north a side of the park is full of tables. Where are the kids going to go now, it is to the other side of 9 the park by the businesses. There is no place to walk. The Parks and Recreation Department io have requested funds, and were denied. The Police Department has requested funds, and ii they were denied. Now the Mosquito Abatement District land is for sale and there are funds is to buy it. Why is the State's money invested in- tobacco? MM -said it is not invested in i3 tobacco. is PT -maybe we have the Parks and Recreation Commission do a tour of Putnam Plaza so is they can look at the table situation . MM - at some point that will come back to the City i6 Council. i~ JH -Seattle has parks and public places that invite people to use. How can we provide is places for people to sit and talk? i9 Diane Reilly -some graffiti has meaning, do you. know how to read it? Different symbols Zo mean different things. A friend said that the sayings should be removed as quickly as Zi possible. Regarding tables in front of businesses, sometimes it is so difficult to walk on the za sidewalk that she has had to walk on the street to get around the tables. Between the 23 newspaper racks and the tables in some locations there is little room. Also, she won't park in 2a the garage because of the activity there. Have you considered the use of solar lighting? Talk 2s about $10,000 for improvements for the alley, she won't walk there by herself either. A i6 police presence needs to be there at night. The security guard makes her feel safe. ~~ SONOMA COUNT' LAW ENFORCEMENT REVIEW BOARI2 2s Chief Parks said the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefls Association has drafted an 2v agreement whereby investigations about such things as fatal incidents are accomplished by 30 outside agencies rather than by the agency involved in the incident. This procedure would 3i also call for review, of an officer involved in a fatal incident, by the District Attorney as well 3z as the Grand Jury. Also recommended is that each jurisdiction select a representative to sit 33 on this county board. The Chief said they are not looking for a person to be a critic, rather 34 the person would be expected to do the right thing, i.e., make an informed decision, be 3s objective. 36 Diane Reilly, this is goof having a review board. There should be a guideline for people to 37 know when to call 911. 3s Chief Parks suggested the individual would be required to attend the Citizens Police 39 Academy. It was moved by JH and seconded by PT, to proceed to select a Petaluman for the ao Sonoma County Law Enforcement Review Board. ai Ayes: Torliatt, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligoss a2 Noes: None 43 Absent: Keller, Read, Stompe Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmerrrber Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilme~r~ber Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MA7 Vice Mayor Matt Maguire t ~. , ; p rff'~a~i f~'Y~jrTaA'fio rfi .4.;:'~~~~ Page 186, Vol. 32 '~~~ ~ ~" August•3;,1998 _ „~ - .a - i RES®. 98-166 NCS ~ 'u' j z NEED A~ATEIVYENT 3 Resolution 98-166 NCS confirming the cost of Abatement of weeds ordered abated. The a Fire Marshal's office billed the property. owners for abatement, work done on their parcels. s Those bills not paid by July 31 are sent to the County to be placed on the property owners' 6 tax bills. The hearing was opened. There were no members of the public wishing to speak. 7 The hearing was closed. Staff was asked by the Council if the Airport Enterprise Fund paid a for the mowing there. Staff was also asked to look at some property on North Webster 9 because there is still a weed problem there. Introduced by PT, seconded by MM io Ayes: Torliatt, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligos i i Noes: None 12 Absent: Keller, Read, Stompe 13 RES®. 98-167 NCS is PARKLAND FEES is Resolution 98-167 NCS establish the fair market value of Park land and the cost of 16 improvements pursuant to Municipal Code 220.34.010 commencing September 3, 1998. 17 The Fair Market Value is identified as $120,000 per acre. i8 The cost of park land up blic improvements is established at a $72,164. per acre. is The cost of turf and irri ag tion is established at $57,764 per acre. zo Introduced by JH, seconded by MM. 2 i Ayes: Torliatt, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligoss 22 Noes: None 23 Absent: Keller, Read, Stompe 2a Police Chief Parks .noted that the District Attorney received a plea in the voter fraud case. zs Mr. McClure's plea was `no contest' to Elections Code Section 18611 and Mr. z6 FIendrickson's plea was also `no contest' to Elections Code Section 1,8611. The District z7 Attorney has not been inclined to send the persons found doing this type of crime to state zs prison. Most likely these individuals would be referred to the Probation Office for the 29 oversight process. The Councilmembers would .like the persons to serve their sentence in 3o Petaluma doing community service such as graffiti removal. 31 AD.TOURN 32 The Mayor noted there was nothing to report out o losed Session ear er in the meeting.At 33 8:45 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. r-~' ~ ` 34 3s M. Patricia illigoss, Mayor 36 ATTEST: 37 - r ~,~~~~ 38 39 atricia E. Eernard, City Clerk Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilrnemberMary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire