COUNCIL WATCH…
A Report on Council

Notes and commentary on the 8/3/09 Petaluma Council Meeting presented by the Council Watch Team of Petaluma Tomorrow.

In reporting Petaluma Tomorrow may agree or disagree with the positions of any council member, and it is legitimate to be critical of their decisions and question their motivations on any particular issue. Nonetheless, we should all recognize the commitment of time and energy they have made and respect that they are doing what we are not.

Executive Summary: August 3, 2009 Council Meeting:
Council-members Healy and Harris were both absent. This meeting was non-controversial, and resolutions were easily considered and acted on.

Public Comment: There was no pertinent public comment at this particular meeting.

Council Comments:
Councilmember Glass acknowledged City Staff, Sonoma County Transportation Agency, and CalTrans for working together to design the upcoming Old Redwood Highway widening project (Agenda item 3F below). This project is slated to occur from 2011-2013. Councilmember Glass also reminded the public that the east Washington roadway improvements are due to be completed in 2012.

Mayor Torliatt gave an update from the Water Advisory Committee. The WAC has approved a Resolution, sent to the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), requesting a written answer to a written request to SWCA’s Technical Committee, regarding a self-imposed pumping limit of 53 million gallons/day, which affects the contractors to SCWA. SCWA has yet to respond either verbally or in writing. The City and Council have asked SCWA to make a presentation on it, tentatively scheduled for the second meeting in September.


Agenda Item: 3F. Resolution 2009-125 N.C.S. Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Agreement Between the City and Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) for Delivery of Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED), Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E), Right-of-Way Acquisition and Construction of the Old Redwood Highway Interchange Project (Project C00501304) (Marengo/Lackie)

What’s at Stake:
The City, SCTA, and Caltrans have been working together to speed the delivery of the Old Redwood Highway Interchange (Hwy 101 on- and off-ramps) Project and the Central-B High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes Project, which includes extending HOV lanes on US 101 from just north of Pepper Road to just south of the Old Redwood Highway Interchange.

The Central-B Project, which includes inside and outside widening, rehabilitation of the existing roadway, and reconstruction of the ramps at the Old Redwood Highway Interchange, is currently 100% designed.

Elements of the Central-B HOV Lanes Project overlap with the Old Redwood Highway Interchange Project. The City, SCTA, and Caltrans believe that the best strategy for the fastest delivery of both projects, while avoiding unnecessary throw-away costs, is for Caltrans to combine both projects, then split thcm into two new construction projects. By doing so, the Old Redwood Highway Interchange Project will avoid the need to reconstruct newly completed ramps from the Central-B HOV Project in order to match the new overcrossing grades.

This project will potentially offer high-paying construction jobs, improve certain aspects of the local economy, upgrade Petaluma’s roadway infrastructure, and help facilitate traffic movement.

Analysis: This Resolution, along with all others from the Consent Calendar, was passed unanimously. Although it will improve traffic follow for a while, it will also encourage more driving.


Agenda Item:
5A. Resolutions 2009-129 N.C.S. - 2009-132 N.C.S. Appointing Individuals to City Boards, Commissions, and Committees. (Cooper)
Airport Commission-
One vacancy for a four-year term expiring June 30, 2013.
A term on the Petaluma Area Pilots Association was also considered, although not
mentioned in any Public Announcements.
Applicants:
Joe Debnar
Duane Wilkins
Donald Sloan
Public Comment: Joe Debnar lobbied for a position.
Votes: Five (5) unanimous votes for Joe Debnar, 4-year term, and Duane Wilkins
for a PAPA term.

Animal Services Advisory Committee-
One vacancy to complete a three-year term for the balance of 2009, expiring June 30, 2010.
Applicants:
Margaret Colglazer
Bob Dyer
Votes: Torliatt: Dyer, Barrett: Colglazer, Renee: Colglazer, Rabbitt: Dyer, Glass:
Dyer; Dyer seated.

Public Art Committee
One vacancy for a four-year term expiring June 30, 2013.
Applicants:
Eileen Hallock
Larry Jonas
Public Comment: None.
Votes: Larry Jonas gets unanimous votes.

Recreation, Music & Parks Commission
One vacancy to complete a *two-year term expiring June 30, 2011, one vacancy to complete a *three-year term expiring June 30, 2012, and one vacancy for a *four-year term expiring June 30, 2013.
Applicants:
Catherine Canto
David Martin
Heidi M. Rhymes
Public Comment: Heidi Rhymes lobbied for appointment. Cat Canto also lobbied.
Votes: Council member Barrett has spoken to David Martin and he was interested in
fulfilling the 4-year term. A motion by Glass, and a second by Barrett to accept
the following terms as agreed upon by the applicants in attendance (and verbally
by Mr. Martin) was termed as follows:
C. Canto- 2-year term
H. Rhymes- 3-year term
D. Martin- 4-year term

Historic & Cultural Preservation Committee-
This appointment has been put off until the August 24th Council meeting due to legal issues arising out of tonight’s Closed Session.


Agenda Item:
5C. Resolution 2009-134 N.C.S. Approving Agreement with GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. to Pay $75,000 to the City of Petaluma to Reconcile All Waste Hauling Franchise Fees, and Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) and AB 939 (diversion of waste from landfills through recycling) Fees Due through June 30, 2009. (Marengo)

In the process of reviewing Green Waste Recovery, Inc. (GWR) payments to the City for
solid waste hauling services, discrepancies were noted in both under and over payment of franchise fees, and household/hazardous waste (HHW), and AB 939 fees paid to the City over multiple years. The City's waste management consultant, HF&F Consultants, LLC, informed staff that a detailed review to ascertain the exact amount of the discrepancies could very well end up costing more than the amount owed to either party.
Therefore, it was recommended, and both staff and GWR concur, that a negotiated payment of $75,000 to the City, to reconcile fees due through June 30, 2009, should satisfy any discrepancies and would be preferable to embarking upon a costly audit.

What’s at Stake: Clearing up fees that GWR owes the City, so that a new franchise agreement can be initiated.
Public Comment: None.
Council Comment: None.
Votes: Unanimous in favor.


Agenda Item:
5D. Introduction (First Reading) of an Ordinance 2342 N.C.S. Authorizing the Expenditure of $5,500, Plus Costs and Fees, to Purchase Easements from Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) in Connection with the Caulfield Lane Extension At-Grade Railroad Crossing Project and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Required Documents. (Marengo/Zimmer)

The City desires to install a new at-grade railroad crossing on Caulfield Lane Extension in order to be able to close an existing crossing on Hopper Street at Lakeville Street. During the design, it was determined that easements on SMART property were needed for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the crossing, sidewalk, public utility, and storm drain system. Staff has successfully negotiated easement terms with SMART, at a cost of $5,500. SMART's Board approved the Caufield Lane roadway crossing easement and its associated sidewalk, utility and storm drain easements under the Easement Agreement between SMART, the City of Petaluma and PCDC at its June 24, 2009 meeting. Relocation of the existing rail crossing to Caulfield will improve safety and improve the potential for future development in the area. To facilitate construction of the railroad crossing, staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents relating to the grant of easement.

What’s at Stake: The new RR crossing at Caulfield Extension is safer than the original proposed crossing at Jefferson & Hopper.
Council Discussion: Glass asked about the amount being paid to SMART/NCRA and why it was necessary. Torliatt also commented on this small amount of money asked of Petaluma by SMART/NCRA, and reiterated the large amounts of monies having already been paid by the City of Petaluma to improve infrastructure for the train. It seems that such a small amount could be forgiven. City Staff, Larry Zimmer, explained that the $5500 is basically a land assessment fee based on the difference in value of the two land parcels, and that the new crossing at Caulfield Extension is of a higher property value, and since the City has no cooperative agreement with these government agencies, the fee needs to be paid.
Public Comment: None.
Votes: Motion by Barrett, seconded by Rabbitt; passes unanimously.

The community owes a huge debt of gratitude to Council Members Mike Healy and Mike Harris for their service on SCTA especially when funding decisions on these two projects were being made. I am happy to see Council Member Glass continue their work and hope we make as much headway on Rainier- it certainly would be much closer to reality had the Council not dropped the ball in the past. Transportation projects in California move slower than a snail's pace.

Rainier supporters need ahuge reality check re: the actual costs of this project, which is going to cost the City of Petaluma upwards of $200 million+ by the time it 'gets built'.
Developers won't pay for it, so where will the funding come from since CalTrans has already determined that Rainier will not benefit the State of California?
Rainier is a road project disguised as a 'cross-town connector".
It is basically a feeder ramp into the vast gaping hole of consumerism; a laissez-faire, free-market, casino-capitalism model that destroys and sucks lifeforce out of towns, people, resources, cities, etc. all across the nation and the world.

Long live the idea of Rainier! It makes for great BS fodder in local politics, and will not alleviate traffic at all by the time it may be built (in maybe 2019?!).

China owns most concrete making materials, The cost of concrete goes up, up, up, and the dollar is slowly being transitioned out as a global currency by China, Russia, and other countries.

oh my goodness.....korpi/townsville/b. way is BACK! i'm surprised it took this long.

Dunno if that is Townsville/Korpie....I know he doesn't want any "east-siders" over on his side of HIS city.....but....given the "over the top" comments, if you break down all the rhetoric, there is a point made. The cross-town connector WILL be fodder for future political campagins and there will NEVER be the money necessary to build it. The whole 'censored' subject is really a moot point! Any present Council member or future Council member even remotely bringing up the cross town connector during a campaign automatically has my NO vote.

Korpie may be a little tired from riding in the last Critical Mass in San Fransisco a week ago Not as young as he used to be, ya know....LOL

Michael- what candidate is the last few cycles hasn't favored a cross town connector? You must not be voting for anyone because I don't know of any candidate or sitting Council Member who said they do not support a cross town connector. The difference is, those who say it to get elected but don't mean it, work to make sure it never happens behind the scenes. If people only paid attention...

how right you are david...how right you are. they also mention (just to get elected) how they support a cross town connector knowing they will get votes for it and knowing that most people associate a cross town connector to be a rainer overpass. then they go on to claim to support another possible connector, other than rainer so they can say they didn't lie. and they don't even support any other connector for that matter. not being true to your word and genuine in your claims/statements is truly a pathetic trait and three of our sitting council people are guilty of this! just pull out an election flyer that went out during election time then call those three up and ask them about it!

I wonder why Petaluma Tomorrow hasn't posted their council watch analysis on any of the council meetings since August 3rd. Perhaps they are finally appalled by the actions of the council majority just like the rest of us are. Can't wait to watch the council's meeting tonight on prioritizing (stopping) development! I wonder how many more lawsuits that will generate?