HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 10/25/1977MINUTES OF MEETING
OF CITY COUNCIL
PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 24 1 -977
ADJOURNED MEETING An Adjourned Meeting of the Petaluma City Council was
called to.order by`Mayor Putnam at the hour of
4.05 p .m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Balshaw, Bond',, Cavanagh *,
Hilligoss, Perry, and. !Mayor Putnam.
Absents Councilman.Harberson.
*Councilman Cavanagh arrived at 4:15 p.m.
CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Vice -Mayor Perry, seconded by
Councilman Hilligoss, to adopt the resolutions on the
Consent Calendar and file the ABC application,.
Agenda Item X41 ABC application— Gulliver's, 177 North McDowell Blvd
.,C
ABC APPLICATION person -to- person transfer from Cheryl and Jack Heringer(
GULLIVER'!S,,.1:77 to Bernard A.. and Margaret Devine and Margaret Furtado,
N. McDOWELL BLVD. wais ordered filed.
Agenda Item #2 Resolution #7951 N.C.S. approving claims and bills
APPROVE CLAIMS #3326 X43364, inclusive, General City; and, #650 -
AND BILLS. #663, inclusive, Water., approved for payment by the
RES #7951 NCS City Manager, was ,adopted.
Agenda :Item #3
AMEND RES; 0934 NCS
INCLUDE BARSTONE
TOWN & COUNTRY
SHOPPING ,CENTER IN
PUBLIC HEARING
RES #7952 NCS
Agenda Item #4
AUTHORIZE.AMENDMENT
#1 -- HISTORIC SURVEY
PROJECT
RES #7953 NCS
Agenda Item #5
RESOLUTION TO GOLDEN
GATE BRIDGE RE
SUBSIDY--
SAN FRANCISCO
MUNICIPAL RAILWAY
RES #7954 NCS-
CITY MANAGER'S. REPORTS:
Resolution #7952 N.C.S. amending Resolution #7934 � n
N.C.S. to include Bars.tone Town and Country Shopping p(
Center in public hearing November 7, 1977, was adopted.
Resolution #7953 N.C.S., authorizing City Manager to ����
sign Amendment: #1 to Historic Survey'Project with the
:State of California, Department of Parks and Recrea-
i tion,, was.'adopted;.
Resolution 407954 N.C.S. requesting the Board of Direc-
tors of the.Golden.Gate Bridge Highway and Transporta-
tion District to rescind their action to subsidize the
San Francisco Municipal Railway,, or in the--alternat
to provide a proportionate subsidy to other communities
served by the Go -lden Gate Bus System, was adopted.
** ** ** ** ** **
KELLER�STREET PARKING City MAnage Meyer- reported to the Council the
LOT EXPANSION. underground storage.tanks at the Gulf Oil:Station which
had 'recently been.purchased by the-Petaluma Community
Development Commission, .would.be removed from the site
the 'following day.
ELECTRONIC EXHIBIT Community Development and.Services Coordinator Frank
DISPLAY -- ANAHEIM, Gray reported each year. the Micro- Electronic Industry
CALIFORNIA has two exhibits, one in San Francisco, which has
already taken place., and one in the Los Angeles Area.
Forslund Engineering Company of Petaluma had reserved a booth for the Los
Angeles show, but since they have sold part of. the r.'business, they will not
need the entire booth- They have offered half of the ,booth to the City of`
'Petaluma and the Greater Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce.. The cost for the
City would be approximately $250 for the four days, commencing February 28
s �
F1
11 9
October 24, 1977
ELECTRONIC EXHIBIT
through March 2. Mr. Gray feels this
would
be a good
DISPLAY -- ANAHEIM,
opportunity for the City of Petaluma
to contact poten-
CALIFORNIA
tial electronic firms for r.elocation.to
"the
City of
(Continued)
Peta- luma,, primarily in the industrial
parks.
In
addition, it would cost approximately
$250 to
$300 to
man the.booth for the
three -day period. Mr.., Gray advised this
type
of money is
budgeted in his budget
for industrial development.
It was the concurrence of the Council this would'be a good opportunity for the'
City to make, some important contacts in the electronic industry.
DISCUSSION REGARDING
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
PLAN WITH CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
REPRESENTATIVE'S
PRIORITY LIST -- USE OF City Manager Robert Meyer referred to a 1et.ter dated
RULE.20A. FUNDS' October
o.
r20, 1977 , by D Hea,Pu s blic Work Director,
y Y a Y g., City Engineer,
v signed by 'Thomas Hargis, Assisiant'City'Engineer, outlining the priorities for
projects for underground'ing existing.electrical utilities. A copy of the
letter is on file with the City Clerk.
Mr. Meyer suggested if any changes. were requested by the Council on the'pri-
O r ities, they should contact Coun cilman Cavanagh_, who is the Council's rep-
resentative on.the Rule 20A Fund Undeigrounding Committee. Mr. Meyer pointed
Out the projects listed on the priority' list total 'more than the funds avail -
.able to-the City. Councilman Balshaw indicated .even if funds are not available
under the Rule 20A d'istribution,' he'felt the City was commi'tted.to; undergrounding
the utilitie's concurrently with the videning of East 'Washington 'St r eet. 'This
matter had been a subject of the.Environmental Impact Report for East Wash-
ington The City Manager concurred, stating if the funds are not
available from the County, the money would have to be taken from somewhere 'else
in the City's :budget, possibly from the Gas Tax.funds.
Councilman Ba'lshaw. indicated . a meeting is to be arranged
sometime 'during the,week of November 14, with two
members of the City Council, two members of the Plan -
ning Commission, members of the staff, and representa-
tives_f,r.om the construction industry, to discuss mutual
problems regarding the Environmental Design Plan..
'There was a short discussion on the delay of the project on East.Washngton.
Street. Councilman Balshaw indicated he would like to focus in on the.reason
f'or_ the,'hold -ip on the, project by the.Federal government. Mr..Hargfs, the
Assistant City .Engineer, indicated t State of, California had telephoned
and advised they had been given approval from the Federal government„ and a
meeting is expected to be established within two weeks.
l�
DISCUSSION REGARDING 'Planning 'Director Ronald Hall, reminded the Coun`c`il they
SIGN ORDINANCE had previously revousl rovided with an amendment summary
for the Sign Ordinance; The date of the document is
October 7',. 1977, and is on file with the City Clerk.
The summary.outlines some of the basic changes proposed to be incorporated in a
new'Sign Ordinance. Mr. Hall stated Items 1'through 6'have been generally
accepted by those ,reviewing the Sign Ordinance. Most of the proposed amend
ments ar.e :more liberal. and are similar to-those as contained in the, ordinance
of the City of. Novato: Number 7 on.the summary is what actually triggered the
study on the Sign Ordinance, i.e., pre a new method 'for abating noncon-
forming igns. The new ordinance wou provide -for all illegal signs, i.e.,,
signs without a sign, permit„ or which are unsafe .,or insecure„ td be, .abated
through " XIV. They do' not ,fall under the "Grandfather Clause "'. ,In
addition,. all potentially le.g,al_nonconform rig signs. will be considered illegal
until they are registered and a permit is issued. All such signs being issued
a sign permit in the future which are nonconforming under the new ordinance
will fall, under the "Grandfather Clause" (S'ection XIII)., The third section is
all' existing signs with a current permit which will become_ nonconforming. under
the new ordinance will also fall under the ""Grandfather 'Clause" ((Section
XIII) .
Mr. Hall then referred to Page 11 of the proposed amendment to the S gn
of the-Pe.taluma.Zoning 0.r.dinance which had been prepared "February 14,,, 1977,.,
Under Section, XIII,; Nonconforming Signs; Item A, a building permit is required
for any facade,improvement of the premises other,than "general maintenance. Mr.
Hall explained this had =;also been accepted by the general public who reviewed
the Sign Ordinance. Originally, however, Item B was intended to cover changes
October '24, 1977
DISCUSSION REGARDING in use or changes in occupancy. The Planning Commis -
SIGN ORDINANCE sion.has recommended, only'a change of use. Therefore,
(Continued) the section reads: "a Use.Permi-i or business license .
is required . for a change, of! use". He cited as an
example, if.a shoe store changed to a stationery store, it would require con
formance with.the new ordinance. The second alternative would be if one shoe
company changed to-another shoe company,, it would not require conformance as it
would merely be a change of occupancy and "not a change'of use. The Council
would have the opportunity, however,, to change,the wording to cover the change
of occupancy to require conformance with the Sign Ordinance: Such a restric-
tion,in the ordinance would help to clean up some of the`b'ad signing throughout
the community..
City Attorney Larry Klose clarified a question posed by Councilman Hilligoss
regarding issuing permits for nonconforming "signs: He stated the permit would
be issued only for nonconforming signs which-,could be established as having
existed as a legal sign prior to the change in the.ord'inance.
City Manager Robert Meyer suggested if the Council wants to incorporate some of
the measures on regulating nonconforming signs,, this is the time to express
their views. If the Council,pref ers to have the signs changed to conforming
signs as, businesses change:n the City, the_.ordinance could be written to cover
such a- requirement. Firms are going to be'asked to register their signs in
order for the City to have an inventory of nonconforming signs. He suggested a
notice be sent to the various establishments asking for registration of their
signs. If the signs are not registered, then the,City would have the authority
to have them removed. The other alternative for enforcement would be to take
pictures of all the existing signs. Mr,. Meyer also.s -tated to properly enforce
the Sign.Ordinance., it would probably require the services of an additional
employee. Mr: Meyer also suggested if businesses are.in doubt whether or not
they have a nonconforming sign, they should register them with the City.
The City Attorney advised that - any sign that already has a permit issued would
not need to come in and the sign registered, as it would be "grandfathered"
in. He suggested the business community be notified as widely as possible,, . and
if they have some, doubts `they should bring the permit to the City in order for
the City to.have a,good list. Any sign that was conforming at the time it was
built would be issued a. permit. There are some, however,' throughout the com-
munity which were never conforming.
Councilman Bond stated he and probably other members of the Council are not
under any illusion that enforcement would be an easy problem: The reason for
proposing.a new amended Ordinance is because•th'e present ordinance could
not be enforced. He also stayed since the proposal has been away from the
Council for ,quite sometime;,, they should realize the proposed ordinance is a
greatly liberalized sign ordinance to the one adopted which proved to'be un-
enforceable. He was not in favor of the increased size of the footage of the
signs. He also stated he "felt Mr. Hall's suggestion need's to'be discussed
further, i.e., when a use changes a conforming sign should'be installed. He
suggested, in 'the Planning Commission's and - Council"s "attempt to•meet the
business community half way, the City has surrendered "'too much in terms of
trying to clean up the signs in the City: Mr. Bond also stated when he was
serving on.the Planning'Qommiss'ion, it was discovered that at least three signs
were approved by the'Si.te Design Committee which were nonconforming signs. He
felt if this Sign Ordinance is adopted, the City "has to be more diligent in
enforcing it.
The matter of enforcement of any sign ordinance was discussed thoroughly by the
City Council., City Attorney _Larry Klose indicated enforcement is a matter of
resources. There would,be a ,need for an enforcement officer to'enforce any
good sign,ordinance. City Manager Robert Meyer also ,stated enforcement 'would
not strictly be a matter for a building inspector or an enforcement'office'r
writing a citation. The City Attorney would be, informed,:bring the matter to
the attention of the City Council, and if the Council so'd rected, the City
Attorney would have to take the matter to Court,. - Mt.:Klose suggested viola-
tions to the ordinance should be determined to be a criminal offense. Civil'
proceedings require greater preparation and a longer time.
Councilman Hilligoss asked for clarification regarding those signs which would
be "grandfathered" and.not isubject to abatement;. City Attorney Larry K10se
indicated illegal signs,would constitute all signs which had been erected in
violation of any sign,ordinance iri effect at the time; however, if the sign was
legal at the time it was erected, with or without a permit, these signs could
be "grandfathered" and not made subject -to the new ordinance.
L0 7
October 24, 1977
DISCUSSION `REGARDING Councilman Balshaw indicated he would oppose he liberal-
SIGN ORDINANCE ized Sign-Ordinance as.he was against the proliferation
(Continued`) . .of signs throughout the 'City and the visual effect they
have. Mr. Balshaw indi'cate'd he realized there would
have,to be'a -90 -day period of. time within which to register signs:; however, he
felt the City Attorney should have the authority-to make noncompliance a
misdemeanor criminal act.
Mayor Putnam suggested bef -ore the.Couiicil'acts .on whethei'or not to adopt a new
ordinance or retain the present ordinance., the cost for enforcement should be
presenied'to.the Council. Als ; o,, the Council should be made aware of the amount
of staff time it would require in the Planning Department, the Ci't.y:Attorney's
Office, and even the Polce.Department.
City Manager Robert Meyer advised the•presen't Sign Ordinance would be very
costly to enforce; however, the more liberalized ,Sign Ordinance may bring up
another cost factor. In either:case,, enforcement would create 'additional
ex- pense.
Councilman Bond indicated .at. the* time the Planning Commission wa'sy studying the
proposed'Sign Ordinance, it was his recollection there were about.3.0 or-40
nonconforming signs on Petaluma Blvd, alone:. He stressed regardless of whether
the'City stays with its present ord'inance.or adopts the one as proposed by the
Committee and the Chamber of Commerce, then.at least it should be enforced,.
There was some further discussion about illegal -and nonconforming signs.
Community Development and -Sery -ices Coordinator Frank Gray adv'is'ed- th'd.Council
that as .long as the' C t-y,fails to enforce any type of sign regulations, it will
be faced,with additional ,illegal signs being erected almost daily. CityA`ttorney
Larry also indicated one of the problems with enforcement at th'e`pr'es'ent
time is` because signs are addressed not only in the Zoning Ordinance, but also
in the City,Code,. He stated it_would be prudent, in order to assist in en-
forcement,` to combine all of the regulations in one place for- ,ready reference.
City Manager Robert Meyer stated there were other areas where enforcement' was
needed. in the City,w.th regard to the business licenses, review'of site design
requirements:, and possibly these could be combined with the Sign Enforcement
Of ficer'..
Mayor Putnam then called.on.Mr. Fred Schram, Manager of the Petaluma Area.
Chamber of Mr. Schram indicated the Chamber asked to become involved.
in studying the Sign Ordinance and working with the Committee to prepare an
ordinance. The Chamber wanted this input and wanted to cooperate :. - Th'er'e was
concern also expressed by the business ;communit regarding the tunneling effect
of signs in the downtown. area,. 'The business community is, seeking some, type of
enf:orcemenf of_sign regulations: Mr;. Schram indicated he felt the proposed
ordinance provides for. adequate enforcement of the sign regulations and..the.
business, community would make an effort to clean up some of the dilapidated
signs in. the area. The main item the Chamber of Commerce , was int'ereste'd in was
the "Grandfather Clause ". ' Members, of the Chamber Committee felt, when, businesses
changed hands and,the new owners purchased' a business with a sign, the sign
should be permitted to remain.. If there was a change in the use for the'
building,, they would coo.perate;, how,ever,.a change' in ownership of a business
should be permitted, to grandfather the -sign with the change of ownership,. Mr.
Schram indicated for the most part,, the ordinance was the verbiage of ;the
Chamber, :s Sign. Committee with some alterations by the Planning staff, but he
felt it was an ordinance _to which the businessmen would respond
Frank-,,6r' ay cowmented on the existing nonconforming signs and the change. of use
in the buildings:. He suggested the Council realize when the signs were first
erected,, they were probably amortized over a 10 -year .period. When new bu-s -
nesses come in and change the signs and use the same :framework, they make an
investment in that sign, and - perhap's ;some thought should be -given t'o..when
reinvestment in existing signs should cease.
Mayor'Putnam asked City Attorney Larry.Klose to his opinion on 'the position
of the,Sign Ordinance. Mr. Klose indicated he was looking for" some direction
from the Council. If the Council prefers to remain with the.old standards, but
include new' enfor measures, he could write a document which' would cover';
or, if they preferred inco.rp'ora:te the new standards of enforcement into an
ordinance,.such:'a document could, be prepared. Mr. Klose indicated he felt 'it
was, a, policy question which the Council would haVe.to resolve. Mr. Klose also
advised one of fhe reasons he: emphasizes .the •s and'ards the 'council must set is
to clearly define nonconforming signs. A.sign which isi nonconforming:und`er the
present ordinance may be acceptable under the,more liberalized ordinance:
October 24, 1977
' DISCUSSION REGARDING Mayor Putnam asked;if any action should be taken at.
SIGN ORDINANCE this point. City Attorney Larry Klose indicated he
(Continued) felt this was more or less a : study, •item, but asked if
the following was the consensus of the Council as`to;
the direction he was to take: One, to attempt to distill the existing stand-
ards-to new into a unified ordinance, coupled with the new enforcement
provisions and grandfather in existing signs' that were legal at the time they
were created. Councilman, Bond indicated he felt the definitions and classi-
fication of terms should be contained in.the.new ordinance, and he hoped that
some of the provisions of the new ordinance'would be worked into the new draft
and specifically 'refe r red to off -site signs for religious, educational, chari-
table, and governmental or civic nature. These- not a part of the original
ordinance, and he questioned whether these additions would be contained in the.
draft. The City • Attorney advised he would endeavor'to draft_ provisions which
might facilitate enforcement of the ordinance.
A question.was also'asked whether the Chamber of Commerce would oppor-
tunity to respondto the new draft. City Manager Robert Meyer indicated he
would schedule another study session once the ordinance is drafted, and Mr.
Klose indicated he would distribute copies for review.
REVIEW OF FEASIBILITY Mr. Edouard.Robert, Chairman of the Golf Course Study
STUDY FOR MUNICIPAL Group., indicated Mr. William Sherman had prepared the
GOLF COURSE feasibility study and the Committee, of which he is
Chairman; and the Recreation Commission have not had
opportunity to review th'e report. He asked Mr. Sherman,, who was present, to
outline the highlights of the 'report, for- the benefit of the City Council. Mr
Robert indicated this was the first presentation of - the report, and he was
hopeful the Committee arid. the Recreation Commission would have ample time to
review it before any final action was taken.`
V
04
Mr. Sherman indicated the Golf 'Course Committee and the City staff had worked
and held regular meetings and had endeavored to'adhere to the schedule set
forth, He realized the Council would not have had Ah - opportunity to review the
lengthy report, but referred to the summary on pages.5 through '7'. Mr. Sherman
indicated one of .the main considerations before the group at all times in
considering a golf course site.was the problem of water for irrigation. This
caused•a twofold consideration of the study. One was how the effluent could be
used for irrigation of the golf'course. He then referred to page 9 of the
study which outlined various° sectors which couuld be taken under consideration.
.In evaluating the sites for the go f course, it was determined that ,Sectors A
and B would have the most potential. Of these two, :Site B was selected as
being the most, practical, due.'to the fact it had a greater amount of contour,
it was close enough to the Sewage Tteatment.Plant, and'had.a number of sites
which possibly could be acquired at a reasonable cost.. He pointed out, in
studying the sites, recommendations are made in general areas only. The
recommendation is that a 27. -hole golf course be initiated as the first phase of
the development and plans laid for an 18 -hole executive course,, or an addi-
tional nine holes of regulation length for future development,. Mr. Sherman
indicated often communities plan for recreational•complexes'but find that land
is not available. In add itiori 'to'the golf course, .he 'felt, it would be feasible
to purchase sufficient land, for future e `needs for recreational'pur-
poses. Mr. Sherman stated another possibility would be td plan a golf course
where housing` develop could be built 'adfacent some time - in' the futu're,.
He then referred to.pages 13 'and 14 of the study, report which depicted Sites B-
1 and B -2 Site B -1 is' 'bounded by Lakeville Highway, `Frates Road,, Browns Lane,
and what would be the: extension of. Ely Blvd.., and consists of 7 acres
owned by five different. parties,. Site' B -2 is comprised' of" the Gambonini Ranch
and Sousa Property. Mr Sherman explained these two sites were `selected
because they appeared to: be possible. There could, however' be Other'
which would quali=fy.:
Mr. Sherman then referred to .the 'market sector of. `the; study. In developing an
area, the consultant stated public "golf courses should be readily accessible;
and since it appears that the, growth -in Petaluma' will, be 'east "of , the freeway,
it would be wise to place it where neighbors, to the north and to the - south
would have easy access to the facility. The Sectors, A and B would be seen from
the i freeway and would 'be readily ',,identifliable. ,as a large greenbelt area and an
attractive addition to the community.. Mr., Shermanind'icated the communities of
Cot3ti, Rohnert Park, Novato and `.Petaluma would create the nucleus for weekday_
play at a public. golf course in Petaluma,, Holiday and weekend play would
probably have •a market area,°of a 10 to 35, minute drive; from Petaluma. Th& 27=
hole golf course would be a: further inducement f'or_holiday-and weekend play.
He adso indicated that weekend' and holiday, play on. a: golf course is the prime
time lo .generate the most revenue.
m �
October 24 1977
He then continued with .reviewing the report by out-
, lining the various.courses throughout Mae in and ;Sonoma
County, the size and'locat'ion'of the various courses..
After his review of the document, Mr.. Sherman intro-
duced Mr. Mike Pallette, Golf Course Ar':chitect associated with Rober;i
Jones, ,II. Mr: Pallette showed a conceptual plan which could prdVide'•the 27=
hole municipal golf course, as well as an, additional 18 -hole executive idourse. .
The ultimate master plan could include, in addition to the'golf :cours'es,' '
executive homes,,the'golf club, riding eluti,, p`ar:k system which would 'meander
through the area: andL could accommodate bicycle paths and riding'paths.
REVIEW OF,_FEAS.IBILITY•
STUDY FOR MUNICIPAL_
GOLF COURSE'
(Continued)
Mr -. Sherman indicated the', golf. course development cost for the 2'7 - Bole , facility
' is, to be $1,694,000,. The estimated cost for the club :house, which
would include the golf shop•, snack bar and. restaurant,, 'a 'possibl -e banquet area,
cart storage, fixtures and furnishings - , kitchen equipment, landscaping and
architectural and. engineering services would amount to $4861,,000. The mainte-
nance yard'.s building, and equipment would be approximately $30.3,000.
Mr,. Sherman next outlined the possible methods of financing which were con -
tained in the report. He:suggested probably the most practical method is the
non - profit corporation method of financing..
Mr. Sherman then continued to review" the remainder of the report; and -at the
conclusion of his presentation, he asked 'if 'there were quest =ions from the
Council,.he would'be happy to respond. Mayor Putnam indicated since it'was
such a voluminous amount of'material',to comment on at 'the time, she felt the
Council should wait until the Committee and the Recreation Commission have. An
opportunity to review it and come back to the Council .with•their recommend'a-
tions. She asked the Chairman of ° the Committee, Mr'. Robert;, when he ant ci-
pated finishing the review, and Mr. Robert indicated it would take about, six
weeks. Mayor Putnam then commented, she,felt perhaps the report could 'come back
to the Council sometime after the first ,of the year.
Mayor: Putnam thanked Mr. Sherman for his
presenta.tion and Mr. Robert - for taking
the matter on to the Citizens:' Committee ;and' to 'the Recreation Commission.
STATUS REPORT ON There was a'brief d'iscuss'ion as to whether' or not to
PROPOSED' MARINA defer, this; item to a later da te, i n order for more, time
to be devoted to'the review. Mayor, Putnam indicated
6:;00 p.m. had been indicated for the time for ; adjourn
menu of the meeting and expressed. some concern whether or not the Council would
be able. to make;a decision on the'.matter. Councilman Bond asked if it would be
possible.to have an introduction,.then.the Council could be con sidering °the
matter, and it could be brought back ;at a . l ater , date. This was agreeable to
the Council,, and Mr. Gray gave the "following summary:
In '106 the City proceeded to have a Marina Feasibility, Study prepared. The,
study was, completed and a loan application was made to the .Department :of 'Navi-
gation'and Ocean Development for over $2,000,,,000.. DNOD responded. and .suggested
they could only fund .$1.7 million 'bas,ed on the projected revenue: generation.
The City looked.at alternate sources for funding The proposed marina report
and a draft environmental impact report had be_'en prepared, and presented to the
Council. The Council took the reports under advisement, and it was found an.
additional $2,000 would be needed to complete the environmental impact report.
.Dames and Moore,advised their work to revise the;proj'ect and scale it'down to
the $1.7 million would .require an expenditure of $3,000. The Committee of "the
Counnci.l met with Congressman Clausen and his representatives to explo "re the
,possibility of additional funding from: federal sources. One of these was the
107 Grant Program. The,Army .Corps of 'Engineers recommended'to - the Council that
no for funding be sent 'to u n til the Congressman decid - which
source of funding should,be sought.
In..Dec.emb.er 6f" a. letter was written to the ,Army Corps of Engineers under
the Mayor's' signature,, requesting that a Section 10.7 reconnaissance study
proceed. Under the Section 101 Program, the. Army Corps of Engineers would
participate in dredging,and constructing the entrance channel to: Marina.
The Army' Corps. of Engineers is now in the process of preparing a `full 107
Feasibility Report which will be. ready in May of 1918 for discussion, purposes:.
The quesiion.the City has to :consider is' whether or not' there is anything that
can be:done in the meantime to proceed with the project.. It should - be deter-
mined whether or not to proceed with complet ng the environmental impact report
and modifying, the feasibility report. That matter had been, considered by the
Council before., and it was decided' at that time not to expend any more funds
until additional. funding co.u.ld 'b'e assured.
s `RP
October 24, 1977
STATUS REPORT ON Councilman Cavanagh, the,'Council',s representative to;
PROPOSED MARINA the California Marine, _Parks and.Harbors Association,
(Continued) indicated in his contacts with personnel from the
Department of Navigation and Ocean Development it was
his impression the funding of $1,.7 million 'could. he a 'little flexible and the
City may not have to come up with the add "itional.$4,00,000. He also stated DNOD
has advised him their files on the proposed Petaluma- 'Marina are being kept very
active by yacht clubs which visit Petaluma and have been writing letters to the
agency.
The City Manager also stated, for the benefit of the.new members of the Council,
the City would be required to provide funding for the purchase of the land and
some off -site improvements. The estimated cost for these are contained in the
report.
ADJOURNMENT
Attest:
City Clerk
There being no further business to come - before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. to an
Executive Session.
Mayor
I}