HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 11/28/1977MINUTES OF MEETING
OF CITY COUNCIL
PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 28,, 1977
ADJOURNED MEETING
ROLL CALL
1
An Adjourned, Meeting of the, Petaluma- City Council was
called to 'or.der by Mayor. Helen Putnam at the hour of
9:00 a.m.
Present Councilmen Bond, Cavanagh., Harberson, Perry,
and Mayor Putnam..,
Absent °: Councilman Balshaw.
APPEAL-- RESID$NTIAL, Mayor. Putnam asked the Cty.Atforney to .give some
V530
DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION background on the appeals procedure and the-position nom{ - r� Q
BOARD AWARDS :the. Council would take .at•.this hearing. r V ( 1'
City. Attorney Larry Klose. rev'ewed the Interim ,Plan and stated the purpose of
the. appeals .was.• to bring .to:-the attention of the. Council, new material which had
not heen-pres:ented'•e Cher in the written materials or before the Residential
Development, Evaluation-.Board...' The. Council does not, want, a presentation of the
entire material, but only matters which were not, presented t'o the Board when
they-'ruled on the, original action. Mr. Klose suggested appellants be ,permitted
five minutes 'f.or- presentation -and five minutes -for .discussion by the Council on
each appeal. The vote on all appeals .should be taken, at the conclusion of the
presentation by developers. The Plan allows 10 days after notification of the
points to the developers for appeals. 'Appeals not received ;in a timely manner
should not be considered,.
Some discussion was held regarding the..two. developments which had al -ready
qualified under the .allotment ,p,rocess; and how the -Appeal Hearing may affect.
their standing. City Attorney Klose indicated all ,developers have the right to
appeal and even if they had qualified under the point systeim,at the.Board
level,; they-mere not assured of receiving allatments4 He also indicated if ,.
developers were concerned the Ap'pe:als.Hearang'would change their.stand'ing, they
should have submitted appeals. He felt, however., as.a practical fact, if
anyone had qualified.urider' the procedure, it would be - unlikely they would lose
their position. However.,,. the system is competitive-and if any substantial
additional points "shouldibe awarded., thes8 :developments might run the risk of
being .passed by others.
Councilman) Cavanagh)'quest ioned whether or not the, Council, could award'. the' _
allotments to those two ddV61op_mentsr which, hawe been. awarded more .than. 100
points by the Board. City Attor-,ney K advised- this.procedur.e would be
illegal and. thej,Council Sshould hear all. :the appeals before awarding any
allotments. :,Under the•rules 'set. fort_h;.n the .plan, no allotments, can be
awarded- . a1' -1. the appeals have been heard'. and. ei -ther cd'enied.. or granted.
City - .Manager Robert :Meyer .reminded the Council appeals• in', previous .years were
always heard by . Board There were some changes. made, .by ,the. Board where
reconsideration was - asked.by developers. This year differs in that the whole
procedure:,. including the..app.eals,, is part ;of °awarding the points. , Councilman
Cavanagh' questioned whether LaCumb:r and. Feature •Homes, both of which had
exceeded -the 100 point requirement,. h;ad,been. :informed of their right to appeal,
Associate Planner Fred Tarr advised all developers had °received the same letter.
City Attorney Klose advised '.the. Council should. consider the written. materials
submitted• by.: the developers' zas relevant -, and the,iappedlant should, assume" the
Council has reviewed t_he materials. .He also pointed out.,the scoring done by
the members of the Board should be reviewed as a .judgment of that member,, and
developers should not expect to have any response at thi''s hearing from ind -
vidual,Board members.
Mayor'Putnam - then opened the Appeals Hearing.
EAST - SINGLE.FAMILY
12.69 -- QANTAS DEV. The, appeal, dated November 17, '1977, forwarded to the:
PARK PLACE City, Council by Mr. Jon.Joslyn, Qantas - Development.
Corporation,, submitted and ,filed.. Mr. Joslyn was
preserit 'r- epresenting his ' firm and emphasized many
a"
November 28, 1977
12.69-- QANTAS�DEV., points conta ned.in their written appeal. He felt
PARK PLACE their develo,pment..was • unjus,tly scored on Cr-iteria'B -IV
(Continued') (Circulat`ion).- He also.f.elt there .was, inconsistency in
scoring on safety, open space and public facilities
criteria. Specifically, Mr... Joslyn indicated he was appeal the scores given
by :. Board�Member-s, %.10. and 14. . He also. ,stated.:he would like 'to appeal the method .
by which't <the,. _Board awar`d'ed -- points for; low -'cost :housing,. and felt there was some
confusion on the part of the Board. He did not fee`1.Park Place Subdivision was
worthy of the two lowest scares given by Board Members 10. and 14.
I _..
Mr. Joslyn also suggested' the. two highest and the two lowest sco..res should, be
omitted from the calculations in order to. eliminate th extremes which may
exist. He suggested the Council...consider:reducing the 100 point requirement
back to the '85 as in previous years, as he felt the 100 points was unduly
restrictive.
r J.
Councilman Harberson asked, Mr. Joslyn why he felt. the development should 'have,
been graded higher, on the- Circulation 'Criteria: . Mr.:-.Jos'lyn stated the. project:
has curved linear streets;, which,ar.e more expensive and ,tend to cut down on
speeding,: There is aheavy emphasis on .cul -de -sacs in. the development which '
connect. with minor - 'residential streets, then to a collector network and -.on to
t he)arte.fial. He felt the street, patterns had been articulately developed`.
Mr:.. Joslyn- also indicated .the. :had. received. low scores, on, contiguous and
orderly ;developmen "t', which he' felt were, note deserved. - He: felt '.the' Board was,
riot aware,�Qan:tas had. to 7reserve 15 acres, for school and. park land on a.prev-ous
allotment,. This forced a.. portion of ithe 'proposed- .development outside the City
limits, r
12..70-- TANGLEWOOD The letter dated November 21, ,1977,,.to the;City Council
SUBDIVISION from Lucy.H.. Webb, Real Estate Agent for
ATKINSON.PROPERTY ._.. Lands.,•submit,ted and filed -. There was .no represen -.
LUCY H ;;-.WEBB , tat' ve at the meeting speak, on the 'appeal.'.
lZ'.73 - =CASA DEL. ORO A letter ,d'_ated November 14, 1.977 --, and one dated November
'SUMMIT BUILDING CO;.. .. 8,. 19.77 , had. been - received, by the: City Clerk and, are on
file.
Mr. John .Novak,, .rep'resen.ting, Summit Building: Company;,,
_ atated he..felt - Board Members 11 and .14 ;we -re, incon-
s in their rating in that they rated.some items low.and others high t'o
other developments.. Mr.. Novak stated he had received one of the best staff
repor:,ts on - ,all the :developments.. It was .rated in third place,, and: he felt, tie'
should have had:a first.place.rating He then questioned whether or not it,'
would be possible:.for him 'to; develop:. ten 1ot_s .as, :the owners, of .the, .property are
anxious to -sell He could buy 10 acres, of ,land each year and begin development
in this manner. City .Manager Robert Meyer advised' a similar proposal had °been
brought to -.the attention, of the City. Atytorney and an opinion had been :written.
It wa's outlined the 1978 - Interim.Plan exempts developments- of 10 residential
unit's: or. less:; .however;- the. rop,osal. was - :for ,only_ a, of a unified ,subdi-
vision• and. would, therefore,.'be a development exceeding .10 units.
City Attorney Larry_ Klos.e also, stated _if the p,roj;ec.t_ .is going to Ve ;part of, a
unified, development,_ ..the, number of units has to. be, 'determined and. to, allow onl
10 units..,per: year , .to be, built - would..be a sub',terfuge _to avoid thee.:requirements
of :the Subdivision ,Map. Act.. _
Mr. Novak, indicated, he had ;spent a. lot of_ time putting the. ,package together - -;
and. , when he. appeared before, - the, Board., :there. were :_f Ive. members ahsent:. He .fe t
his presentation- 49 .have.-been made to a afull .Board in order for him to
answer any questions. the -Board .may, have.. _.
12.74-- PETALUMA VILLAS A letter dated'November 11, 1977,, to the City Council
M.L.S'. DEVLOPMENT CORP. from Mr. D.ewayne Strawther..of' M.L..;S. Development Corpor-
ation, submitted to the City Clerk and is 'on ; file. :
Mr. Strawther stated their appeal letter indicated they could proba!Ay improve
on four of the Criteria. He- agreed with both Mr. Joslyn and Mr. Novak on :some
of th'e 'Board Members' sco:ring... He called particular :attention to Board' Member'
No. 14 and felt th s did not want any, building to occur. An :extremely
low scor'e'mouid prevent: builders from receiving 100 point "s. With respect to
the improvements, Mr. St "rawther stated._they' could upgrade their style in design
with,some nicer exterior trim. They are'trying to :keep the houses as reason -
ably priced as possible. They could work ri,some contrasting brick•, stone and
stucco work on the homes. With respect to safety and security, he felt they
November 28, 1978
12.74 -- PETALUMA VILLAS had built the ultimate into their plans for the_sub-
M.L.S.`DEVELOPMENT CORP. division and doubted there was,anything,else they could
(Continued)` do in'this category With regard to pathways and
bicycle trails•, they had been , advised by .staff that
these were'not,desired in the area,. With regard to circulation, the subdi-
vision would complete major streets which will tie together and should help to
improve traffic flow in the area.
EAST - MULTI- FAMILY
12.71 -- MEADOWOOD A letter dated November 18, 1977; addressed to the City
SUBDIVISION Council by Mr. Vary Norden Logan•of Duffel Financial and
DUFFEL / PETALUMA Construction Company, submitted and filed.
PARTNERS '
Mr. Logan spoke support of their appeal. He stated
their development would introduce a new type of housing
to'Petaluma in the form of condominiums. He proceeded to show the Council the
proposed plan for'the development and also some pictures of'a similar.project
they had completed in Danville. Mr.. Logan specifically was appealing the point
scoring given by'.Boa "rd Member No. 14. He, stated their is to get over
the 100 points as they would like to be able to •develop hous ng. which he felt
was needed, particularly'on th'e east side. Mr: Logan, stated he felt the
criteria from.B -V through B -IX were absolute. He felt:the development met the
City's requirements on these categories, and he did •not know what else they
could do. to comply. He felt their- development should have been given top point
availability in those categories.
WEST SINGLE- FAMILY
,.II .. _
12.78-- McNEAR:MANOR A- letter dated November 21, 1977, with attached charts,
SCENIC LAND ,forwarded,to the Council by Mr. George R. Thenn,
PROPERTIES,, INC -Jr,. ; Assistant Vice- Pres- ident:, of Scenic Land. Properties,
Inc• submitted to City .Clerk and is on file.
Mr.,Thenn advised they were asked for a loan commitment prior to really develop-
ing a project,. He referred to Page. 2 of their appeal!t letter; where. the financial
insti=tution,, Imper -ial Savings,and Loan, indicated they.lelt Scenic Land Properties
had.a good project'; they,were int;erested,,in.the Petaluma area, and were willing
to commit the advance'for the project,.
Mr. Thenn then referred to the rating on the A Criteria, which he felt had been
adequately addressed by the staff;. In speaking of the rating on the B Criteria,
they had submitted several charts which'showed howthe ratings could be changed
by eliminating the scores of Board'Members 10., 11 and 14, as well.as.how they
had rated their own project Mr:. Thenn felt. that Board Member No. 14 was
consistent in, his or her ratings., .but-all of- the ratings were very low., No,..10
and.11 were erratic in their ratings but the balance of.the- ;members were
consistent in evaluations.. He then referr -ed to Criteria B -:IV on Circula-
tion and indicated there would be no other way to circulate the site.' 'On B -V,
they received a.list of requirements from the Police Department and had met all
the requirements. 'He felt that Criteria B -VIII and B -IX were rebuttable by the
Department Heads. Mr. Thenn indcated,thei -r approach `to the rating would be to
develop'a curve to eliminate the three raters who.'were stent, and the .
three projects which would,.have no :chance of meeting the 100 points.. The grand
total of ,allotments_ wpuld be 5`31,, which: he. feels is °near; the objective set .by
the City.
12.79 - -L. REYNAUID A- letter' dated November 11, 19.,77; addressed to, the C=ity
SUBDIVISION Council from M.r.-Leon.Reynaud., Jr.,.spec fically appeal=
ing Criteria B- I, :B -II, _B -,IV, and B -X., submitted to the
,City Clerk and ordered filed.. t
Mr. Leon'Reynaud spoke to, the Council. He stated:;.. "through an oversite on the
part of his engineer and staff,, he submitted examp.ies of four house plans;;
r, 1 , . i
however, when they ora :ly presented their development to the'Residentlal De-
velopment Evaluation Board, they explained there would be,22- "custom homes and
the floor plans submitted-were merely examples., Mr. Reynaud indicated he felt .
the staff report marked their development down be of the submittal of'the
T , .
floor plans, and he felt their oral presentation before the Board was "not taken
into consideration. Mr. , Reynaud, indicated, he felt fhe staff report on the`
design of the-lots was favorable, but they were given scores of 6 and 10 which
7
November 28, 1977
12.79 - -L.• REYNAUD . . he questioned.. These scor-- es.,were +given by,Board -Mem
SUBDIVISION - +. r bers 10 and .14•: He..further stated there, had been.some
(Continu - problems with circulation; however, their engineers
corrected the problem to the. satisfaction of the
Planninvstaff, and he;fel't. the Board- Members.were satisfied also, but did not
take these corrections .into.iconsideraton;,because they 'were given orally before
the Board.
Mr. Reynaud, stated the type. of subdivision, they were proposing of all custom
built homes could not possibly qualify for the low cost housing;.the,refore,
they were only working with a possible 115 total.
Councilman Mr._- Re.ynaudc what.;,the size of the lots were for.the
pr-oposedi; subdivision and i,ts,location:,. Mr, .Reynaud stated it is at the .end of
English 'Street near Dana,. There ,is ' a. .,varieity of;, lot. sizes; some ,of' the lof S'
would be the minimum required lot size., and others would run to an,acre and an
acre• . _, r. ,r•., ; �. �....
Councilman;;.Cavanagh:j%who had-.served,on the . Resid 'ential,Development -
Board' 'as a � member ;of-the Council -„ comme.nted _ on the scoring, :for - the, plans
foiro the homes,. +Mr;. .Cavanagh indicated , they. did not, have any definite: plans to
evaluate, and he felt ther.e.wer.e_probab;ly two other,p.rojects in the. same . .,
position. _Mt:. Re_,ynaud stated they had four- examples. of house elevations. Mr.
Cavanagh .indicated other,developments,were graded.on the color.of paint, type
of wood,, °and.:thingsi ofi'ahis:,.na.ture,_,.but thee 'B'oard did not- ,have; these;, facts; -
before-them !fore this,;subd•ivis on-:,- Mr.. Reynaud •.indicalted :this, y9uld bei yer.y
dif`f.icult. ion a custom home,. subdivision,: - :There were.. no further, comments,, from
the Council.
12;.81 -- COUNTRY CLUB
ESTATES
EVANS; EVANS',, TARGON
&:-'HSI _(SINGLE= FAMILY;
Letter - dated November 11 19.77 'from Barry D. Parkinson,
representing -the firm of Evans;, Evans, Tar.gon,, and Hsi,,
as well as a. letter from Mr. Parkinson dated November
18.,, 1 97T, •'regarding `appeals- on -No.. 12.81 -and 12.82,
submitted and filed. In addition, a letter dated -
November 17, 1977 from :Global Homes, Inc-. ;signed by
:+- William A... Hsi; Managing Partner, submitted and filed.
12'.,82, -- COUNTRY CLUB
ESTATES Mr.,. ;Parry Parkin'son�, representing the firm "of Evans,
EVAN S,:'EVANS., TARGON Evans,.Targon, and Hs.it,�a'sked•:to both - 12 .81 and
& HSI (MULTI 'FAMILY _. -12.82 consideredntogether,••as they- wereo real--ly the same
- WEST) +- :� c ;'..• development,a located'i on: the I same piece of pr-,operty- •next
to the .Petaluma Golf,arid Country Club. The
family °.development encountered the same problems as had Mr. Reynaud' in that
they would' be custom, homes - -, and,' it was very • dif f icult"to. come up with archi-- .
tectural. and grading- designs.. The lots are an to be approximately'
20.,000!:squarei+feet be hillside view• lots ,• and wo.utld•have. customized -
homes.. Mr. Parkinson .indicated. that obvioiusly, with this :size -lot:, the de-
velopmerit would be very expensive..' He also 'stated in - view of the fact there
were•four members of the Boa -rd absent when the;presentatori was made, he felt
it was difficult for them to score the project. His second point was it. was .
his uriderstandings-,at , the. presentation, a - statemen•tuwas by -•a. member =•of the
Planning' staff•• there would - be:- sig -nif. cant'gradirig of the -ridge ine�. Mr,.
Parkinson. indicated the houses would bee designed•owl's 'lit level,. ;so there' wou -ld
be a minimal: amount grading and grading on the ridge line- itself.
Mr. Parkinson + indicated. his, clients - were also appealing 'the, number of point's'
required; i.e the 100 point 'level. Low - income housing would be'impossible to
consider on 20, foot sloping lots,.. Taking into consideration.that a project
would lose.a few points on various criteria, a development would have to ,get an.
average score of 91 from each member of the:.Board in order to pass the 100
point minimum. If one or two of the people'on the :Board scored .low, this would
give them• -a veto power:, and Mr,. Parkinson' ,felt this, was not. what the, Council
had'win mind when .-the :- systemilwas devised. <
Mr. Parkinson .also commented: on ` the structure of ••the. agenda for the hearing,
pointing out the east single - family projects were listed, then the =east multi-
family, the west single- family and' the west multi- family. I is. was not the,
case during the Board'hearings on, the proj;ec,ts. Thee scoring at the Board level
developed into a.rariking situation. He felt rather :than scoring ttie. develop -'
ments individually, and having the result of,•different types of developments
ranking above others, it would have been preferrable. to have outside : objective
standards. Mr. Parkinson then called the Council's attention to Categories B-
VI and .B -VII:, which. deal with open space;, trails and paths. The .subject
subdivision would :have 20,000..Aquare'foo lots.. In addition; the project
7
W , K a
November 28, 1977
dedicates over six and one -hal•f acres of land, 'to the City for a, wildlife refuge
or open space. Mr.; Parkinson indicated' if any subdivision deserved maximum
points for those .criteria, this one should; have received them. On Contiguous
and orderly Development, Mr. Parkinson indicated the property is immediately
adjacent to._the City. limits and I is probably what the staff and the City has
been looking for on the west side of ihe.community; it received low
scores of. 7, 8 and 9, out of a possible 15 points. ' Mr. Parkinson indicated his
clients were also° .appealing ° - 'B -IX'; . which ha&-,to deal, with public. facilities, and
especially on'the:PUD, Developmentx12_82. The developers would be required to
construct, a major. - sewer line which would not. , only, serve; this property, but also
other homes in the areaiwh ch are presently on septic tank systems.
At this point, the City 'Clerk questioned Mr. Parkinson whether,at this time he
was 'appealing both 12.81and 12, Parkinson indicated under B -VIII and
B --IX', the appeals would be , fo.r: both developments,.: He- would speak at a later
time during the hearing on .12.82.. Mr. Parkinson stated, however, his arguments
given at this time would•.certainly apply to both developments.
RECESS Mayor Putnam called a,recess at 9:40,a.m.,:and the
Council reconvened at 9 :45 a.m.
MULTI - FAMILY;- WEST:
12.76-- K <EOKUK'MEADOWS. A letter dated.November, 18, 1977, from Mr. Barry p'.
WALT VILLIAMS Parkinson,.representing Walt 'Williams on. the Keokuk
..Meadows Project, submitted and filed •
Mr. Parkinson spoke on behalf of his client and ap-
pealed the low scores.gven by Board Members.l0, 1-1, and 14. He also was
appealing -the :10.0 7point level. He_again,brought up,the fact that one person
could veto an entire project.,
Mr. Dick:'Lieb, .archite'ct for. both this project and. No. 112.77, Cherry.
Hill, • d , isplayed ,,some architectural renderings of the two projects, f.or the,
Council!sr benefit. - Mr.. -Lieb, spoke• partly on - Project„ 12.76: and 12;,;77, stating
the two projects would :open up .approximately'640 feet of Liberty Street.and
begin this much.needed .connection between Magnolia Avenue and Cherry Street.
He feels the City has. been. working on ;getting, :this project accomp'lished,, for a
number 'of years.: There .is already an: exisitingi develo.puier : t, in the area, and
there willrbe.a private driveway running between the two. developments which,
would :improve the- circulation:! There..wil-1 be. add- itional public'improvements,to
benefit not only this development.,, but.the surrounding area.
On Criteria B- VIII, this would'be on the west side and be-a.'fill -in ,project, it
is within the City limi=ts!,, and, should have received no less than a. perfect
score. 'These:bui•ldings are-designed to integrate with other buildings in the
area:• Much of - the natural landscaping will be reta- ined..• Mr. Lieb suggested
that .multi =family .project's,,• such as this; one And the. 'Cherry Hill multi- family
units , should be considered.as apartments or condominiums and the same criteria
would apply 'as .rr single- family homes, especially with - regard -to open
space.'
12.77 -- CHERRY HILL 'Letter_ of Appeal dated November 18, 1927, from Barry D.
MILT FORMAN Parkinson, repr:esenting.,Milt, on the Cherry. .Hill
P- roj °ect, submitted and filed. .
Mr. Parkinson indicated the'developer was appealing, the
100 - point crit`er a;; -The• .project. would' carry out' the same, style as: in the ,
existing- project - 'in the' area: ah&would 'complete a, 's'ection. which has been;-.on the
drawing board for a long time. The City had. previously =ap,prroved..thetdevelopment
when the first allotments were :given; however, the: developer at that time --
Camille Enterprises, went bankrupt. It was then that Mr. Williams and Mr.
Forman determined they would try to-complete the area with the two projects,.
Mr. Parkinson indicated there would be.a amount of open space for a -
multi- family development. I The trees in the area`wll be,preserved, and he
again indicated he felt a di-ffer-ent criteria should he specified for multi-
family uses. Mr. Dick Lieb also indicated he felt these two projects would
give variety to this area of apartment development.
Councilman Bond questioned whether the circulation in the area would depend
upon having both of the projects built to continue Liberty Street. Mr. Lieb
indicated it would be possible to have.ra private. driveway; however, Liberty
Street could not be completed unless this project,_ as well as Mr. Williams'
project, were approved.
4
November 2 %, 1977
12.82 -- COUNTRY . CLUB A letter dated.November - 18', 1977, E from Mr. Barry D.
ESTATES Park=inson, appealing the scoring of the,mult'i- family
EVANS,,EUANS., TARGON residential d'elopment - :for Country Club I Estates -,
AND HSI , . submitted and. filed,. • In. addition, a, letter from Global
Homes:, Inc.., dated November 17, 1977, submitted and
filed.
Mr'. Barry'Parkinson, .re'reseniting Aubrey.M.'Sander:son and.Global-_Homes, Inc
spoke" to' the Council-on behalf "of his clients, ' Mr. Parkinson indicated' this is
the portion "of `the development ,which, is toc be considered. a RUD. _ He called'. to
the Council's attention that'some.of' the units would' sell for about $415,.000
and„ in,today's market, could be considered moderate - income units. He was,,
therefore,- appealing the -scoring on- Criteria' B -X.. 'Mr. Milton Hudis^ addressed:
the Council and !stated he felt 'their project was' given exceeding. by -low -sco,res
for - public improvements -when they were'.being 'required to do. extensive develop-
ten- of' c, improvements - for both projects.. Mr. Chang,, the Architect for
the project also, spoke,to'the Council stating,, 'the ,family unit's would be
a cluster -type construction and there would;be a minimum amount of ,grading,: In
addition, `there would be a great deal of-open space with , a dedication of a
large portion of land to' the City. The ` bu -ildings in question would be tailored
to the lots, Mr. Chang indicated he had built a similar project in 'Bennett.
Valley i Santa Rosa.
Mr. William C.. Hsi also. spoke to the Council, indicating he�felt - there was -a.
need for a PUD in,the City of Petaluma,. The project is designed 'especially for
moderate- income families., and the features built into the project would be,
suitable for' senior citizens And for the handicapped. 'Mr. Hs'i indicated_ -he .
could not'understand.why they received no points' at all for the low- to modera:te-
income housing. He felt the 100 - point ,criteria could be vetoed by just one
member voting one point less than 100.
City-'Manager Meyer pointed ou_'t, there was one development on the west .
side of single family' homes which . had. received zero points the .low to
moderate- income but received a "total score of 102,.so he';felt� t was possible
to reach the 100 -point minimum, even though it was very difficult. Mr. Parkinson
concluded the appeal 'on 12.82 by stating he would' like; to= have':the Council
consider the':arguments he had'siven on bo:th.developments proposed by." ='Evans,
Evans,Targon., and Hsi,,: ..e.., for the single- family'and the multi - family units,
as it would be considered one-development project.'.
At'the'concluson of the above presentation, all of the written appeals
been. ,heard by the Council.. " Mr.� Douglas McCabe. of Val'l'ey Realty, asked 'to speak
to the Council and indicated be? wanted to in an appeal, but he aid. not,
receive a notice. City Attorney Larry Klose staged 'all of the applicants had.
received' a copy of .the. Interim Plan. which set- ,forth the requirements' and the
time limit for appeals, and advised it would not be approp = riate forlthe Council
to -hear-:Mr. McCab'e's appeal.
At °the °'conclusion of the Appeals Hearing, Mayor Putnam asked 'for suggestions
from 'Council how they wanted the.matter. Councilman Harberson
indicated he felt they had been given a great deal of :material and did' not'
think.it would be appropriate to vote on it at this time. He, would personally
be against eliminating' any votes of Boardt_Members<, ;as he felt the Board was set
, up with across section of citizens. He also indicated he would not want, the
Council to vote strictly in order get 500 houses. He felt perhaps a mistake
had been made when a minimum requirement of 100 points was designated.,. Mr..
Harberson stated he had served: on the, Residential. Development- Board for three
yd'ar "s. He felt the projects submitted. by the developers this year were the
mos °t immaginatiVe ever submitted;, and developers! indicated they were interested
in building quality homes and developments in the City of _Petaluma..
After ' a -br:ief discussion, the Council determined'. to -take the.matter .under
advisement` and. return with their - conclusions •at a special meeting to be held
Thursday, December .1, - at- 7:30 p.m.
RECESS Mayor Putnam called a, recess at 11:20 a._m., and the
Council r-.eturned - at 11:.30 a.m.
t
November 28, 1977
VISUAL'AND ORAL City Manager ,Robert,Meyer asked the Chairman of the
PRESENTATION-- PROPQS:ED Committee.,.P-o;lice Chief Robert B. Murphy, to give the
CIVIC - CENTER COMPLEX Council a brief summary of the work the Committee has
been d'oing� on' the. Civic Center Complex. Chief Murphy
indicated the Committee has seen,several presentations prepared by the archi-
tectural firm employed by the City of Petaluma, Anshen and.Allen. Several
members of.the local government worked on the Committee, including Councilman,
Hilligoss, former Councilman Fred Mattei, the Administrative Assistant in the
,Falice_Department, Mike Shelton, acting as Coordinator for the Project, the
late Fire Chief Joseph Ellwood, City Manager Robert- Meyer, City Engineer David
A. Young, Assistant City Manager'David Breninger, and sometimes substituting
for•the City Engineer, Assistant City Engineer Thomas S. .Hargis. A lot of
effort was put into having the architects know what the space needs for the
City would be to 1990. Putting that information together, the architectural
firm has prepared a preliminary plan. 'He then introduced Mr. Derrick Parker,
Ms. Fani Hansen, and Mr., Tom Leonard of.the firm of Anshen and Allen.
�a
i
V/ Olo.
Mr: Parker stated the.ProJect „Director was his partner, Ms. Fani Hansen, who
this morning would an oral presentation outlining the logic of the firm's
evaluations and some al ternative proposals,'for the Civic Center Complex. In
addition, she will indicate the various locations,proposed for the Public
Safety and 'show the Council.what the firm thinks is a rather exciting
opportunity f'or. the,Civic Center Complex. Mr. Parker indicated the firm would
like to have'some'direction from the Council in order, to come back in the
middle of December. They .could firm up a master plan for the Civic Center
Complex and by the. meeting in January, present to the Council a schematic
design for-the Public Safety Facility.
Fani then, gave.a, slide presentation, they wanted to, have,the
Council. =be aware•of all the options and al;ternatives,vtheir firm had considered
for the Civic Center Complex. %Ms.. Hansen.indicated the City Complex presently.
has about 35,00,0 - square ,feet.of.space, and;w th &,projection of how the City
will grow, it.is anticipated the space :requirements would need to. be doubled by
the end :of the century. : She. explained, with, they increase, in size of the
building,- the.;parking- space requirements, would , also.,have to be increased- from
92 spaces to approximately 150 .space's. , Ms. Hansen continued with, her slide
presentation. She. pointed out the historical and cultural aspects of the area
in the vicinity of. the Civic Center-, citing specifical the :former Zhrist an
Church, which:s now,'the Five Corners Community Center, and the St. Vincent De
Paul Catholic 'Church;. She felt 'these two structures should'be exploited and
preserved in conjunction with the Cvic in order to blend the old with
the new.:. 'She.als:o pointed out there are some beautiful, trees, pines and
willows; behind residences which face on Howard Street which,should be pre-
served and utilized in the .Civic Center Complex: area?: Ms: Hansen also stated
in Scheme "D ":, the: proposal: shows the. purchase of, the -three properties on
Howard Street which would add 25,70,0 square feet for the Complex.
At 'the -conclusion' oft the presentation by. Ms. Hansen,.:there was some discussion
by the Council;. Councilman, Cavanagh q,uestioned'whether..or. not they were .'
endeavoring .to) put .too.'much, on, a site which would be; too small. Mr. Parker
indicated. - it was, their) feeling.• -the ,site has, .capacity .to go beyond the. year
2000. Couricilmanr,Cavanagh asked-:whether consideration had been.given to.any
other sites in .Petaluma. ; Murphy indicated the Committee worked with .
three. sites- The, .firs'.-• was the exist =ing :area, the second the area around Upham
and Bassett ,'Streets, and the :third. the Fairgrounds area.. The Committee had
voted unanimously_ to retain the, Public Safety Facility within, the present: area.
Mayor' Putnam stated she was..happy the. architects: hadtt considered the- two - churches
in the. v cinity yin: the concep:tt of the, Civic Centers. • She felt these two struc-
tures, ,would act as• the anchor. point . for the'. center; especially the Five Corners
Community Center which is: being used extensively by: many .groups. .
In :the discussion concerning, separating the public safety..facil "l ies from fihe
Civic "Center Complex, .Counci- -loran H'il.ligoss; stated there was �a time, when- this'
concept was- considered to & better ar.rangement.,� but philosophies have now,
changed,• and compact facilities are more _desirable.. ; -To move the- entire. complex
would be a very expensive,pr,oposition. City Manager Robert Meyer also stated
it is desirable to'have the police facilities •in close proximity to the court
in order to.expedite - proceed ngs Counrilman,Bond.agreed with these concepts;
however, he .commented:, from , an .emo;t -ional standp'oint;;; ;building the. facilities
more; in . the. _cen:ter . of . the community wo,ul& be a more .unifying force. . Vice -Mayor
Perry.asked If any �considerat oni +had , been given to.Ahe. use. of the McNear Perrin
sul for 'the .complex as this had been considered, many: .years ago. Mayor Putnam
indicated she :felt the :Civic Center could be one unifying force in the city,
but possibly there could be some other type of unifying factor that could be
accommodated in the area of Kenilworth or - the McNear :Peninsula which would be.'
cultural types of activ iies,,such as a large. auditorium, theater complexes,
etc.
November 28, 11977
VISUAL AND ORAL ti' . City:Manager- "stated the present City, Hall
PRESENTATION -- PROPOSED. structure) would be expensive to duplicate -in another:
CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX, location.,' The present City Hall and the new addition
(Continued) have been well maintained; and if the maintenance is
continued; .it should last for:: many '
The +�Council.. architects .should .proceed, ito: ,pr.esent the mastery plan
based 'on Scheme ;".D" tto. bring. to for theist consid:eration :.
t ,
•. , •.; qtr ,:.- , -. , _ , . .. , - :t, _, � ..._ _ .. ; ,.
REJECT BID HISTORICAL
L IBRARY./MU SEUM 1 ,
RENOVATION AND
CONUERS.ION•• PROJECT
RES'' "1.7993 NC S'
AUTHORIZE MAYOR'•TO Finance Director John :S'charer, advised an•'exterision of"
SIGN AGREEMENT MI-TH - 40 days has 'been granted by the Economic Devexlopment
INTERACTIVE,-:RESOURCES, ')Adminis•tration .. to .begin:construction: the renovation
ING. FOR. MANAGEMENT and conversion, of: -the: • Carneg 'e Library..' i The 40 - days
SERVICES' -= HISTORICAL time !extensi'on. begins. December -1, 197.7x: In, order• to'
-:•,
LIBRAARY'RENOVATION proceed with the project: ;'Mr:. Scharer indicated they
PROJECT staff had reviewed various alternatives, since+the, sole
RES #7994 NCS j bid •received: b
y the City was in- excess... o'f what had•,:been
antic ated.:
-• � - • -- ". p The recommendation is-to; employ,,a con-
struction management firm which will act as the.• City''- s:.general;,contractor.;
except they will be providing.greater services than those you would get from a
contractor: 'Under.- they proposal., Interactive; Resou"r.ces.. would review 'the present
plans',dnd' specifics- tions:' for•l- -the renovation :of the library, they will make
recommendations -for cutting costs,, they will solicit and, select, - 'b,ids for the
various phases of cbnstruction, and they will review .the bids and ma'ke'. recom- .
mendatons to the City of Petaluma and :assist in any nego,tiatioris.. Mr'. - Scharer
added the° fi_trm woultd- not Abe seeking- formal'..birds,. but trying to , three _
quotations •=for' °each tphase of the ;proje.ct' :and J'selecting:'-the 'best. .price and most
responsible t°firin' 'to "complete each phase. • .Some::of the .duties to be assumed by
the 'firm' would -be 'to assist in the execution of contracts'), , prepare tang, update ' a
c ohs truction• schedule, coord-inatte contractor's ;activities ton the s'ite
review - contractors' .payment requests and make - recommend a.rtions to the Ci.ty.. Mr.
Scharer indicated the firm has done work- f'or the; City 'of .Richmond in restoring
the Richmond' Plunge They. are. presently involved in .a project in Richmond on a
performing arts theatre, and they have -also 'done .work :on -the .Steamer Gold,
Landing, Restaurant-,. - Mr. Scharer: advised'• the .fee; for the .'service. would be a.
lump. sum f;ee of • $12,000, plus' reimbursable. expense's:. The firm sign a
standard management ,contrac;t as, prepared by thee,American Institute of Archi—
tects.
Mr.. %eSchar'er' -s - recommendation was: to. ,haver the - Council :reJect Ahe.i bid. from Me
Brothers: as bein&lexcessive* and .also t-o. adopt - a :resolution .authorizing, the
Mayor to: execute -an agreement between.-the City - of. "Petaluma and `Interactive :..
Resources,, Inc;, to provide construction servicesi. Mr-. Scharer
indicated his reason for recommending proceeding; in this manner- would be to
meet !the. deadline for. beginning;,cons,truc.tion. =as required: by !EDA. .. .From that
time] on,i the ., City °would have `two :years ' with in••which to complete.,the, proJec;t.
During that period', of; time;, the- Council woxr1 & an opportunity to review the
alt"ernates:to reduce costs. Mr. S'ch_arer indicated the staff is confident the
work can be done•for lower than the figure received from.the one bid., At the
conclusion of the discussion, Resolution #,79:93 N.C'.5:, rejecting the .so,le bid
received: on ,the. Petaluma: Hs:tor_ical Library /Mu 'seum Renovation and Conversion
Project as' excessive, was introduced by Vice- Mayor Perry, seconded by Council-
man Hilligoss, and adopted. by, 6 affirmative .1 ,ab'seritee. votes. ,
Resolution #7:994' N. authorizing the Mayor, to,,sign an. _agreement with :Inter -
active Resources, '.Inc. ,, to ,,pr.ovide, management services eat the Historical Library/
Museum Renovation - ,and Conversion Project; was introduced: by:Vice- Mayor Perry,
seconded. by Councilman Bond,. and ; adopted. by & aff irmative. and. 1 :absentee: votes.
TRAFFIC ZCOMMITTEE TO
\ APPROVE CIRCULATION
'AND 'PARKING- VICINITT .
OF "B." AND. .SECOND STS..'
RES #7995 NCS t
Councilman Bond reported rthe Traffic Committee in the
City 11'411 this morning, with Mr,. Aubrey Sanderson and
Mr.. - Russell..Downward and reviewed the• parking 'situation
in the area.. They plan, tto; meet again the: lf'ollowin &
'morning `to make recommendations to: the Council., tCity
1 - Manager Robert Meyer suggested . the. Council authorize
1
November 28, 1977
TRAFFIC „COMMITTEE TO
APPROVE-CIRCULATION
AND PARKING-- VIC'IN -ITY
OF "B” AND SECOND STS.
RES #7995 NCS
(Continued)
the Traffic Committee to -make the recommendations so
the Department Public Works can proceed with any
changes to be made in the-area. Councilman Bond
indicated he felt they were very close to an agreement
between Mr. Sanderson and the tenants of the Great Mill
and could resod -ye the matter 'at the meeting to be held
Tuesday morning, November 29. The Council agreed the
Traffic Committee should be given the authority to
p roceed,.
Resolution #7995 N..C.&. granting authority to the
Traffic Committee to approve revised circulation and parking arrangements in
the vicinity of "B" and Second Streets, was introduced by Vice -Mayor Perry,
seconded by Councilman Harberson, and adopted by 6 affirmative and 1 absentee
-votes.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting.was..adjourned at 12:20 p.m. to
Thursday, December 1, 1977, at 7:30 p.m.
Mayor
Attest:
i
C` y Clerk