Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/03/19783'0.1 MINUTES OF MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 3, 1 REGULAR MEETING The Re gular Meeting of,the Petaluma City Council was called to order by Mayor Helen Putnam at the'hour of T: p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Balshaw, Bond,, Cavanagh, Har-berson, Hilligoss, Perry *, and Mayor Putnam. Absent: None. *Vice -Mayor Perry arrived at 8:10 p.m. INVOCATION The Reverend Ray Vinson of the First Church of God, gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Putnam asked Bob Wells, reporter for the Press Democrat, to lead' the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of December 1, 1.977, were approved as mailed. The minutes of the combined meeting of the Petaluma- Community Development Commission and Special Council Meeting, December 12, 1977, were approved as mailed. CONSENT_ CALENDAR Agenda Item #2 on.the.Consent Calendar had been removed from the Agenda prior to the beginning of the Council Meeting. A motion was made by Councilman Cavanagh, seconded by Councilman Bond, to adopt the resolutions, Items #1, #3,4 4.and #5 on the - Consent Calendar- Motion carried unanimously. MOTION TO CHANGE. A'motion was made by Councilman•Hilligoss, seconded by AGENDA ITEM ORDER Councilman Bond, to move. Agenda Item #16 to this place on the .Agenda. Motion :carried unanimously. RESOLUTION OF CITIZEN COMMENDATION HONORING WILLIAM WURZBURG, STEPHEN GARNER,, 'CHARLES .CRAIG & JOHN RAJALA RES #8047 N.CS The City Clerk read the following re 'solution into the �� 'record. O0Op c Resolution No. 804.7 N.C.S. RESOLUTION OF CITIZEN COMMENDATION PLK;:mi 12 -28 -77 INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMAN - M-. Patricia Hilligoss -. and SECONDED BY" COUNCILMAN James_ L. Harberson at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Petaluma, on the 3rd day of • J'anuary 1978 WHEREAS', four citizensr, 'William Wurzburg, Priricipal• of McNear Elementary School, 'Stephen Garner •and, Charles Craig, teachers, and John Ra'j°ala, Nystrom Ma Com an salesman did th their u "' g p p y g ' q„ ick- thinking and, courageous actions on Friday, December 9., 1977, , avert a gotential tragedy when a distraught father of two pupil's 'fired seven ,shots- from- an - automatic Pistol on the 'busy school grounds;..and,. WHEREAS, had not the aforesaid William Wurzburg grabbed the man's arm�in an effort to stop further gunfire-, and Stephen Garner, Charles Craig and John Rajala assisted in disarming, him, the bullets may well have found a human target with tragic consequences,;- and':, WHEREAS, in the struggle-, both Mr. Wurzburg and Mr. Garner sustained cuts on their hands, yet all four men risked serious injury -or worse in subduing'an armed man who had lost` control of himself; and., 370 January 3, 1978 WHEREAS, this Council desires that the permanent records of the'City con- tain appropriate recognition of. the actions of these,fo.ur men`for their coura- geous actions and outstanding 'service to the citizens of the City of Petaluma,, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Council,does hereby commend and honor- William Wur.zbur&, Stephen Garner, Charles Craig- and John R•ajala for their - courage and 1cool judgment' in the. face• of , this potentially tragic incident. BE :IT' FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk. shall forward. a copy of this resolution to: said citizens as a gesture of the City's appreciation., under the, power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of . said' City. I hereby, certify that' the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted`by the Council of; the City of Petaluma on the 3rd day of. January ,. 1;978 by the following votes: AYES;: - Councilmen Balshaw, Bond, Cavanagh, .Harberson,, Hillgoss, and Mayor Putnam. NOES': None, ABSENT: Councilman Perry ATTEST: -Marjorie J. Wilson -Helen Putnam ° city Clerk Mayor, Mr. Wil Wurzburg and Mr. Char Craig,were',present in the ' aud ie n ce. Mayor Putnam thanked them for their extreme courage in their desperate time, - and; indicated although the City would like to ,lion'or -them in a greater way; tfi Council felt they wanted to recognize the courage of all four g,entleme - nfor. the actions they had taken on December 9,,. 1977. Mr. Wurzburg responded' by stating he was sincerely p- leased with" the honor the Council had bestowed •on the, ;four of them., He has found living in Petaluma very pleasurable, and this was one of -the reasons when a City Council °would take time to honor their citizens a. away.. The Mayor asked the City Clerk to see that each person named" iii - tle res.o-lution received a copy.. 0� APPROVE OCCUPANCY_ A letter to the City Gouncil dated December , addressed A PORTION OF 28, .1977, asking approval for 20 lots for occupancy, ALDERWOOD SU!BDIVISIO.N located on Redwood Circle in Alderwood Subdivision was RES 4.8048 NGS read by the City Clerk. and is on file. City Engineer David Young' indicated he was not., ure whether the 'Council was aware that the creek adjacent to the subdivision has not yet been fenced' by the developer,, Mr. Young ,suggested some type of fencing be pit up in order to ;protect the small children in.the area.. -He also indicated:, in checking with t developer, th developer was` willing- to construct a te m por ary fence until weather permitted the proper. grading and installation, of a permanent fence.. City ,Attorney Larry Klose ag-reed,. some type of temporary fencing; should be installed in the absence of the permanent_ fence and : also requested that the City receiv,.e,some additional insurance coverage from the deve.•loper -in .order for the City not to be held financially responsible, in case of an accident. It was pointed.out the ,creek area would eventually, become the responsibility of: the Sonoma County Water Agency; however, they: would not accept maintenance on it until all then work bad'been completed, nor would they accept any responsi- b,- lities Mr..Leonard Wilson the. McBa Company, was' present at the Council Meet- ing. He advised they had made arrangements with Ab1e. Fence. Company to nstall temporary fencing, fence will be rented and placed inside the property line, leaving enough., room to do the ,grading necessary for the installation "of; the permanent structure,.' City Manager Robert, Meyer _asked if the f;ence.was.to be S that there would be no access to the'creek. Mr. Wilson indicated it will be a-closed area. There January 3; 1978 APPROVE OCCUPANCY would be.one gate,along the Washington Street side in A PORTION OF order for the Waster Agency to have access for main - ALDERWOOD SU_BDIVI tenance. Mr. Wilson understood if the fence was not RES 48048 NC_S. installed before the residents were ready to occupy,the (Continued) homes, they would not be.permitted to move in. He also indicated he would be willing to work with the City Attorney on the additional insurance requirements. City Attorney Larry'Klose stated.these conditions would be made a part of the "resolution, i.e., that the development would be securely fenced prior to occupancy of any homes and'that the developer .supply an insurance certificate showing coverage for risks incurred pursuant to the occupancy prior to final approval. Z Resolution #8048 N.C.S. approving; occupancy. I for a portion of Alderwood Subdi- vsion,.was introduced by Councilman Harberson, seconded `by Councilman Balshaw, and adopted by 6 affirmative-and 1 absentee votes. LETTER.FROM..SONOMA A letter.dated December 23, 1977,'addressed to City COUNTY MUNICIPAL Manager Robert Meyer, from the Office of the 'Court V COURT RAISING BAIL' Administrator, Sonoma Sonoma County Municipal Court, was read SCHEDULES by the City Clerk and ordered .filed. The letter advised parking bail schedules would.be raised'as follows: Bails formerly set at $1.00 would now be $3.00'; those set previously at $2.00 would now be'$5.00;, and, the former $5.00 bail would. now be '$8.00. City Manager Robert- Meyer indicated on December 13',. his. office had received a telephone call advising of the raise in the bail schedules. Mr. Breninger, at, . that time,, asked the Court Administrator's Office to send a letter'so the City would have something in writing;.. Mr. Meyer assumes the same letter was sent to the other cities in the County. Mr',.. Meyer had conferred with the City Attorney, as it was his understanding it was up to the City Council to set the fees for parking violations :; however, the Court has determined they would set the bail schedule and .t.appears, as though the City has no say'iri the matter. Council- man Cavanagh pointed oust' the Council did discuss one time raising the parking meter fee from $1.00' to $2..00,' and it is his recollection the motion didn't even receive a second,at that time. City Attorney Larry Klose stated there is an iriter2sting situation concerned with the matter. The Court is entitled.by law to set the bail., which is not the same. as actually: paying the 'fine: `The `situation; as it now stands, is if a citizen appears: in `Court he pays" the fine as p'resc'ribed' `by the' City Code, and if he doesn't appear, he pays more, which is the bail. The Court does have the right to set the. bail_, but the citizen .also has 'the right to appear .'in court., and based on his' plea,, .be charged.athe fine. Mr.'Klose advised'he has not had an opportunity to discuss the, matter with any of the ,j'udge's but felt they probably "should have asked th& City to raise the fine to coincide with the bail schedule. Mt.'Klos:e stated he -felt the action tends to usurp the legi's'lative function of the City Council-in some degree when the City Council'is the body which imposes the re q piremen't for 'the fine in the first place'. Mayor Putnam asked the City Attorney if he would_ dir - -ect a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator raising some 'of the quest ions'regar.d!hg conflict with local control in this matter. The Council concurred with this action and asked for a rep * ort back from the City Attorifey. There was some discussion regarding the actual amount the :City received' from the bails collected by ' , . the, Municipal Court. Mr. Klose indicated the State Legislature sets the. ,percentage cities receive;, and ,as fax as he can determine from the bails collected' in Petaluma, the Court receives 24 percent and the City the balance. Cf.ty Manager Robert-Meyer indicated other cities pay a higher fee to the court and receive .less while others receive a higher per- centage of the 'bail. Councilmen Cavanagh and Perry both were concerned' about the impact the $3.00 bail for overtime parking would have on the downtown'business community. Mayor Putnam asked that the Chamber of Commerce, be, kept° up Ito date on the matter._ January 3,' 1978 CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS EDA PROJECTS City Manager Robert ;Meyer advised the City�had received approval for the December 5 •starting date for the McDowell Boulevard Improvement Project. In' addition, the.Economic Development Administration granted the, City an extension until January 9 to begin work on the Historical Library and Museum. Mr. Meyer indicated some of the work had' commenced.as of this date. MAYORS' AND City Manager Robert,'Meyer advised the next meeting of COUNCILMEN R . the Sonoma County Mayors' and Councilmen's Association ASSOC.. MEETING would be held in Sonoma,. January 12', 1978. The,prin= cipal speaker will be Eugene Leon. BUDGEV PRIORITIES the 1978 -79 budget. lists by January 11,. Council on January 1 Mr. Meyer reminded the Council they had been given a memorandum from John Scharer asking for direction. for Mr. Meyer asked members of the Council to return their so they could be compiled and a report brought-back-t6 the 6 for a general. discussion. 208. SURFACE RUNOFF City Manager Robert Meyer advised the Council the 2;08 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Program, as far as Surface Runoff Management .is con - cerned,. will 'impose additional .responsibilities on' the. City with regard to sweeping which could relate to expend"i"ture of'fund for equipment and` manpower.. These are some of the problems which' will have'to be, discussed by. the Council when considering i -tems for the budget.- RULE 20A UNDERGROUND Councilman Cavanagh re d he and' City Engineer "avid �\ . , g atte � . nd eeting. ING FACILITIES Young had in the Count he City's te g nd C Tl e first• priority PRIORITIES. with other agencies : the undergrounding of utilities on P y' rema ns East Washington Street. The Committee will'be coming to the G'ouncil in the near future asking for a district be formed in that area. City Engineer David Young advised the C'ounty.'Committee is going to recommend.to. the Board of Supervisors that $13'0 „000 of,' th'e C'qunty's, Rule '20 ?money be allo- cated, to the Petaluma Mr. Young stated the estimated:cost for the entire East Washington Street,under.grounding project 'was.approximately. $440,000 at,the` time it was, made; however all cities are going to Have to, take into account the inflation facto`s,, and the longer, projects have to wait` to be comp meted:,. this :inf,laton factor has to ;be added to the estimated' cost of the Project.. Mr..Bud Bartlett, Manager of the Petaluma P_.G;:& E. Office, was present in the_ Council Chambers *, and stated. the Engineering Department of his Company is. working very closely with the City on this project. Councilman Cavanagh ,St it w brought up, at the . that at :some time in the future it may be necessary to urge Pacific Gas and Electric Company to expedite the -project. Mr. Bartlett stated they were moving, along as., rapidly as Possible; however, the rights - of -way - had to be.cleared Ci:ty'Engineer David Young stated the estimated time for construction was about 15 months after' the rights -of -way, have: been cleared. He also advised the undergrounding,`has to be accomplished .before the street widening work can b:e'done., COMMISSI'ON.& BOARD REPORTS RECREATION'COMMISSION. Councilman Hilligoss,, the�Council's Representative on VISITS TO COMMUNITY = the Recreation,, Music and Parks•'Commission;,,reported CENTERS that on the previous Thursday, Recreation ssioners Nancy Read, G1ade.Giles, Vince Mamone,,. and she, along with Roy'kelly and Jim, Raymond, visited community centers in the Cities.of Fairfield:., Walnut Creek, San Rafael, and Vacaville. i January 3, 1978 LEGISLATIVE REVIEW Councilman Cavanagh reported the latest Legislative COMMITTEE Bulletin from the League of California Cities indicated the new sess'ions' for the Legislature will begin shortly, and the "League would" like, to lave the Council again.. appoint a Committee to review the legs.latoin,. In the previous year, the Assistant City Manager, David Breninger,'`had served with him, along with the City Attorney.. Mayor Putnam asked if they ivould continue to serve in this capacity. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 3 REVENUE SHARING Councilman Bond, Chairman of the Committee, advised V(00(0 COMMITTEE: that the Committee comprised of himself, Councilman Hilligoss, and Councilman Cavanagh,; would be holding a public hearing on January, 3,1, 1978 -, at 102:00, a.m to consider possible uses in f the community for revenue sharing funds.. Application forms are available for public groups and individuals in the Finance Department. CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL The final_ Environmental Impact Report prepared for the RO IMPACT "REPORT -- City of Petaluma and Duffel Financial and Construction PROPOSED PREZO.NING Company, Casa Grande .Company'and Valley Green Company, APPROX.. 233. ACRES' prepared. by Del Davis Associates, Inc., San Rafael, EAST OF ELY BLVD. SO. California, November-, 1977, submitted and filed. RES #8049 NCS Planning Commission Resolution No,. 37 -77., adopted � November 1., 1977, recommending,that the City Council 1 certify the E.I.R., submitted and filed. Excerpts of the Planning Commission 1 , Meeting of November'l, 1977, submitted and filed. Staff report dated October 25, 1,977, from the Planning Department to the Planning Commission, submitted '• and filed. Staff report dated July 14; 1917, from the Planning Department to the Planning. Commission, submitted - and filed. Staff report dated December 28, 1977, from Planning Director Ronald Hall to City 'Manager Robert Meyer, sub - mitted.and filed:. Notice of the Public Hearing on the - certification of the Environmental Impact Report by the City Council: had been published by the City Clerk. Planning Director Ronald 'Hall stated this is the certification hear -ing for the final E.I,.R., prepared for the proposed prezoning of lands East of Ely. Boulevard. The E.I...R, had been prepared by Del Davis and Associates: for approximately 233 acres of land, and the project is located between Foothill Manor Subdivision #1 and Casa Grande, Road. The, alternate number of units to be constructed' on - the 233 acres is '730 residential units. The first year's allotment, as provided by the Residental•'Developmen.t Control System, would allow, 2.76 single- family and 16* duplex units for the =197'7-78 ' construction year. Subsequent units would be subject 'to review the Allocation System. `Mr'. Hal'l - stated three separate subdivisions would be involved in the lands East of,Ely Boulevard. They are Village 'East, Petaluma Acres, and Tanglewood Subdivision. While the t A .R. had been prepared for the prezoning,, the consultant' developed it to cover the projects as well., Mr. Hall then reviewed the summary of the final E.I.R. pages i through iv. The Environmental, Impact Reportfollows the new guidelines in the California En- vironmental Quali "t -y Act;.. After the Environmental; Impact Report is •certified, additional ongoing activities would be requ of both the Planning Commission and the Couhcil, including prezoning and' annexation to the City of Petaluma. Mr. Hall then reviewed the sections of the report concerning safety with regard to the proximity of the Petaluma Sky :Ranch to the proposed development , and', reviewed the mi,t- igative alternatives suggested by the coristiltant. Mr'. Hall also indicated it maybe necessa -ry to impose height•limitations.for dwelling units which may pene,t "rate the approach.. angle: of the r"unw"ay to the Sky Ranch,. The second impact which Mr. $all explained in detail, was that of traffic as reported on Page 55 of'.the:Environmental Impact Report. In addition,, Mr. Hall stated he was in, receipt of a memorandum from 'City 'Engineer Dav =id A Young., dated December 29 -, 1977, asking that,- CALTRANS!'be asked to respond to .the final draft E.I.R. before the City,Council acts upon final certification. Mr. Young stated the analysis of the ,impact upon' the intersection of South McDowell Blvd.. and Lakeville Highway 'had been omitted' from the `December .13, 1977 Traf.'fic Analysis Addendum. Mr. Young also stated since'Lakevil,le'Highway is under State jurisdiction, the State's input into the timing, design and construction of the Lakeville Highway . Widen- ing,Improvements is necessary and critical'to the solution of the problem of traffic impacts related to Lakeville Highway. January 3, 1978 CERTIF IMPACT SO,. Mr.,Hall reviewed the section of the Environmental. Impact Report which projected the average daily trips and the."s;treets and intersections of the area which would have the greatest impact. He also reviewed the intersections recommended for 'signalizat:ion by the, corisu- leant. Mr. Hall stated., generally, the Planning Commission'and the Planning Department felt the Environmental Impact Report is complete, with the exception of receiving the reply from CALTRAN& regarding the; widening of Lakeville - Highway:. 'He suggested the E.'I.R. , could 'be certified by the ' Counc= l pending a reply from CALTRANS on that issue.. Mr. Hall completed his staff report, and Mayor Putnam for questions from the Council., Co un cilm an Ha'rbers•on stated' he felt it- was' eSSent_ial to have the corn of Caulfield Lane and Ely 'Blvd.. signalized. 'as there- are' already complaints re- garding this intersection, particularly thps'e'motor sts who wish- to turn from Ely Blvd,, onto Caulfield Lane have encountered difficulty.. He asked to have' his comments included in the Environmental Impact Report. City Manager Robert Meyer also stated the let -ter from City Engineer. David'. Young to Planning Director Ronald Hall dated December 29, 1977,1 the subject of which was the. final draft E.I.R., including traffic analysis ad'd'endum dated December 11 � P 1977 and response to comments receiyed'fr-om City Engineer dated October - 17,­1 for planned unit' residential "subd` vis ons East of Ely :Boulevard, should b'e included in the record. A copy of the letter is on' file 'with the City Clerk. 'C'i'ty Manager Robert Meyer also advised' `the Council the, law,, which became effec `tive January 1, 1,978, lim its political agencies to a'O -year time f,rame_'within which - to:compae:te all phases for development.. The countd "own for these three projects would begin with this public hear=ing on, the Environmental Impact Report.; All the necessary steps for the, development will have, to, be completed within a one-year-time period. Councilman Balshaw, the. Council's Rep'resen'tative to the Planning Commission, stated the Planning .Commission. :felt theL Environmental Impact Report adequately covered the potential impacts; however, there was some question regarding the fut_ure,of the airport., Councilman Balshaw felt the City would have to-make .some decision regarding the airport before approving annexation on a,ll'.of,the property iri question.. He indicated by prezon ng and annexing 'the area', a financial burden may be 'created for the City. _ Councilman Bonds;tatedhe,f:elt the decision regarding the airport was critical.. It was understanding 'the Council was to have a study session on -the matter some time iii, January. Community Development and Services Coordinator'Frank.Gray stated., with regard - t'o the, `municipal airport„ the staff, is in the process -of' request` - - proposals from'three consultants, to prepare the necessary federal, and state documents in order to - get the funding for the airport.. Mr. Gray stated' it 'pears the minimum amount of, time it would take to begin construction of a.munlc pal airport:would about two Years. but would probably be more in the range of four years.. The runway, in its present location, if'properly maintained, will. ,p;robably be in service for at least four more,,years. Mr: Gray indicated he' felt 'the _r-esponses to his request: would 'be available, and a study session_ could be schedu - 'led on the airport toward the:end of January. Discussion was held regarding,prezonng the.property prior, to annexation to the City.' Councilman BaIShaw suggested prezoning,the - area be delayed until some decision is made . on, what is to be done? regar-dilg` the airport. He felt pr zoning,the entire area for residential development could possibly create a financial `obl`igat'ion. 'for- the City., If the land was permitted. to remain in an agricultural designation„ it would have one val"u"e;, however if it was prezoned for residential use,, the value of the property would, increase. Counciiman would be _ the Air It out the Form g. 'questioned y Y property which ation Commission.'requixes ' annexa.tion of a,.complete, parcel.. Mayor Putnam, who serves on the Local, Agency Formation Commission, advised the`matterhas not, been' before'LAFCO, yet, and LAFCO staff would have to consider. it. Councilman Harberson suggested".that. since ; parcel maps have.. -to b.e cons dered in one action, perhap''s 'the area could. be pre'zoned' in two, different ways;. If LAFCO would 'approve, it may `be possible to' 'pre'zone a portion of a ,parcel map for R=1- 6,500 and the remainder agricultural airport zone, safe zone,'or whatever designation could be applied for the area in the flight' path for the airport. 1 January 3, 1978 Councilman Balshaw questioned if; the Council. certified the E. I. R.�,,would it preclude the actions suggested. by Councilman Harberson to,prezone the area in two dif ferent classifications - RES, #80'4,9 City Attorney Larry.Klose advised the E.I.R. is an (Continued) informational document. Delaying certification of the E.I.R. until a report is. received on the airport would not change the E.I.R. The _information contained in the E.I,.R. is to assist the Council in making decisions regarding such things .as the airport, prezonings, and all other actions that go the future d:evelopme_nt of this area. The document identifies the maximum proposal and what the impacts are. If mitigations of impacts are necessary, that action is.taken when the actual ..project is considered. i Mayor Putnam asked for comments from the audience; there-were none,, and the following action was taken,. Resolution 48049 N.C.S. certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed prezoning of.approx-imately 233 acr.es,.:located East,of Ely Boulevard South, to ailow for.approximately 620 residential units, was introduced by. Councilman Balshaw, seconded by Councilman Bond.,•and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. a. . V City Attorney. Larry Klose suggested the information to received from CALTRANS not be included as part of the E.I.R., but be considered as information when the various projects come up. RECESS Mayor Putnam called a recess at 9:20 p.m., and the Council. - reconvened at 9.:25 p.m. MOTION. TO CHANGE The,motion was made,by Councilman Balshaw, seconded by AGENDA ORDER Councilman Harberson, to move.Agenda Item 4418 regarding an appeal for Use Perin-it for.additional.p nball.machines, to this place on the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. REPORT RE APPEAL City Attorney Larry-Klose had,directed,an opinion to PINBALL, MACHINES the Mayor and members of the City Council, dated. 231 BODEGA AVENUE December 29, 19.7:7, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Klose adv.ised.the matter of appeal was not.properly before the Counci He had examined the matter of the Police Chief's letter and whether or not iit.could'be_ used as an appeal, and had reached the opinion the applicant is, entitled to the decision of the Planning Commis- sion, sinee,the Police Chief "s letter did not constitute a formal.appeal.., City Attorney Larry Klose stated his memorandum was the result of.the review he hadi done in preparing the,materials for the Council's Agenda; Mr. Klose indicated the Subdivision Ordinance makes it very clear that all three of the findings.oulined: must be made in "modifying the Subdivision Ordinance, Mr.. Klos.e,indicated. although -.he could not find any problem with Findings 1 and 3 stated in the Planning Commission' s.Resolution No.. 45- 77, .he. did take r.except on to Finding No., 2, as . in .his review Iof . the _P,lanning_ Con- mission Minutes _and the proposal, he .could ; find no .evidence ,to :support.,that the modification was necessary for the preservaiion':and enjoyment.of,.a substant=ial property right of the petitioner.,: Mr. Klose stated the Subdivision..Ordinance requires the same conditions of all property owners for the building ;of side- walks, and he felt the proper place to address modification to the street section would,be in cons deting,changes to the "design in the,Subdi- vision_Ordinance. Mr. Klose advised, unless.there is additional evidence -presented at this meeting,, he felt the Council -would be prohibited from making this finding. Councilman Balshaw., the,Council's representative on the Planning Commission,, stated they based their the fact they felt the developer was , going to provide a desirable environment,, and there was no specific safety reason.for requiring a sidewalk. The Planning Commission was not aware they needed to have ,specific findings as required by 4 variance.. REQUEST FOR Planning, Commission Resolution No. 45-77, adopted MODIFICATION'TO December 20, 1.977, submitted and filed; memorandum from SUBDIVISION ORD. the.City Attorney to the Mayor and City Council dated CREEKSIDE OAKS December 28., 19.77, submitted.,and filed., SUBDIVISION' - - - - . , _ jr -x•31 January 3, 1978 REQUEST FOR Anthony Wright, a member, of the. Planning'Commission, MODIFICATION spoke to the.Council - indicated as a member of the SUBDIVISION ORD. Planning Commission and as 'an.attorney,. he differed CREEKSIDE OAKS with the City Attorney`s opinion. He felt the Planning SUBDIVISION' Commission did make the 'findings whichL would, permit the (Continued) modificat'"ion.io the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Wright stated it was the unanimous decision of the Planning Commission that they wanted to get away from the stereotype of subdivisions. This" particular subdivision is on "the.•edge of the City, in a rural setting,. and the :Plannin'g Commission was pleased the developer wanted to provide 'something other-'than the normal subdivision with s Mr.. Wright suggested if the modification is ' iiot permitted under the present Subd "ivsion Ordinance, the City should consider changing-the Suldiv"sion Ordi- nance to allow a variety of types.of subdivisions which would for indi- viduality and get, away from uniformity.I Mr. Wright also .stated it was his opinion it would be legally possible to approve this' project with the modifi- cation. There was a lengthy d'is'cussion on ',the interpretation of the statement in the Subdivision Ordinance regarding "the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property rig -ht of the petitioner." Mr. Wright felt the fact the development. would present the City with an ae sthetically pleasing project was a. substantial property right and could be interpreted as such,. Councilman Bond indicated when he served on the 'Planning Commission, thin condition .was reserved- fqr cases where ,.there was an extreme hardship; such as 'topograp;hica -L diFff`'cult' es:. Mr. Wright indicated the petitioner was not requesting the modification the basis of,.hardshp and the Planning Commission approved it on the basis of what, they felt was .good planning. C=ity Manager Robert Meyer stated.the Planning Commission was charged with the responsibility of seeing that the Subdivision Ord''inance is properly applied to projects. There are certain items in the ordinance which are discretionary, but others'are.:definitely spelled out. The'or.din'ance has been,adopted by "the Legislative body ,of the City. If•there. are portions which should be changed,' the Council has the authority to.d`o so. Councilman Balshaw stated he felt when ;such matters come before the Planning Commission,, the Commission should have the benefit 'of . the City Attorney`''s, op :riion prior to tacking action,, rather than a'f,ter the , fact.. The. City Attorney should.r6view in order for Planning Commission to avoid .taking acti.on'for which they have no authority. Mayor Putnam stated she views the Planning Commission as advisory to the Council. She referred to a remark made by Mr. Wr.ght'where"he felt the City Attorney was "second guessing " Planning Commission. She also indicated she felt Mr. Klose - was discharging his-duties as'th'e City Attorney and legal'advsor to the Council in ,giving his opinion on the matter. Mayor Putnam stated she agreed tha . very possibly these matters' should come to the attention of. the City Attorney, before the Planning.Commission acts ' them in order that time -is not wasted by the Commission. She also stated if there is a weakness .iri-the ordinance, then the matter should be brought before the Council in order, for changes to :be .made., ;She also st'a.fed not feel the Council should make aii, exception and' keep the ordinance in its present .form. City Attorney Larry Klosestated since the debate seemed to center around the opinion he rendered'. he, wanted to make point clear. He stated he did not see his''function as responding 'to the advisory effects of an. action. He does not'believe in 'the philosophy that you only obey the aaw when you can be challenged on'i•t, Mr. Klose stated he understood his ass gnment with the City is td review. these matters at the' earliest. exercise his legal judgment and'advise the Council.. Mr. Klose indicated the Charter provides for' him to be legal advisor to the :Council; however, ,:some `procediires have been' changed .since this matter came to his atten- t'iori, and he will now review some matters 'before they go to the Planning Commission. Mr: Klose - then spoke re ,garding`-the opinion he had rendered on this' particular subdivision and stated he 'had based his judgment * on the modification and appeals section of the ordinance, the evidence recited in the minutes of the Planning Commission,, as well as the Planning staff reports,and various documents submitted,: Mr: Klose stated in. reviewing all of this material tie. could find no .evidence which. would " justify the _ modificat -ion to the Subdivision Ordinance. His opinion had not been made as a request by any staff member. bid :through his normal °review of materials which are to be presented.to. the'Ci.ty Council. City Manager Robert Meyer suggested if the Subdivision Ordinance does, iri fact, require sidewalks to be installed in the subdivision, they need not be stereo- types -= regular curb, gutter and- sidewalks,:as in other developments in the City. Perhaps.,.the applicant would want to consider a meandering walkway which could be constructed of asphalt material rather than concrete. Councilman Hilligoss indicated she felt the white .line painted on the street fo,r'the .pedestr.ian walkway would be confusing as: t -h.ere are, white lines painted throughout the City for bike paths. She would much prefer to have some kind of innovative walkway created away from the area provided for vehicles in order to protect children. She suggested gircular..paths, or meandering paths made out of redwood rounds or some other.material could be used in order to maintain the rural feelirig.in the' neighborhood. There was some discussion regarding.,the lot sizes :in the subdivision: Dr. Larry Jonas, the developer of ,the'pr6posed p.roj''ect.; stated the average lot size would be one -half acre; however, the nine lots proposed for development at the present - time are one - fourth acre each, and lot. #10 would.be divided into four lots at a later date, which would 'be almost one acre each.. Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank Gray advised the Subdi- vision Ordinance provides for the elimination of sidewalks where the lot size for' each; lot is one -ha acre. or greater. Mr. Jonas felt he should be able to use the average lot size,; however, Mr... Gray indicated 'the'Subdivision'Ordinance is precise and in two places refers to lot sizes over one -half acre. Councilman Balshaw indicated he felt the Planning Commission had considered all the aspects of the subdivision, that it was a'un =iq,ue development, there were special circumstances, and he felt the Planning Commission had acted in good faith in making their findings. City'Attorney Larry Klose indicated he,had no .question regarding Findings #1 and #3. He felt these were adequately satisfied.. What he was concerned about was the, °second 'finding which ±;plate's, to the neces - sity' to preserve a substantial property right. He indica't'ed the evidence was hot shown at `the Planning Com- mission level, nor has it been heard at this nieeting to warrant this finding. Mr. Klose also stated_he does not bel ieve'the finding,can be substantiated by the physical circumstances of the subdivision. If' the Council wishes to consider the aesthetic.creativty o."f a project, these kinds of concepts should be written in a policy in order for other developers to have the same advantage. Dr.. Jonas, the developer for the proposed, project, stated he thought. he-had, complied with. Sect on'22,.9D'21 -i the Subdivision Ordinance which relates to substantial property rights.' He is not.claiming hardship but felt. the- design of the project would-be of benefit "to the City., Dr. ,Jonas also stated at the Residential Developmeni'Evaluation Board,, aesthetics were highly considered., especially for building structures along - ridge lines. He then proceeded to show the'Council slides subdivisions located Marin County, Novato, and one or two developments -in Petaluma. `He stated he felt the City Attorney had not had the advantage of seeing the slide presentation as part of the evidence presented to the Planning Commission. There was further.discuss'ion . on changing the Subdivision Ordinance to allow for creative design or a unique quality. Councilman Harberson stated he had no ..1 ? 7 }. A t January 3, 1978 REQUEST'FOR There was some discussion regarding the development . MODIFICATION TO' itself, and Counc•lman.Harberson questioned which side SUBDIVISION ORD. of the street was proposed for parking.and which side CREEKSIDE OARS - would have .the four = f'oot,pedestrian walkway painted on SUBDIVISION the street. Councilman Balshaw indicated the plan was (Continued) presented to the Planning Commission as a cul -de -sac subdivision, and, this was what they considered when making their findings. They were informed 'the subdivision would ultimately be 18 lots, although M1 10 lots are.'shown on the tentative subdivision map. The pedestrian.walkway w,ould,be on the left side of the'street near the homes, and the parking would be, on the, opposite side of the street -,. Councilman Balshaw indicated three of the prospective purchasers for lots in the development were present at the Planning Commission Meeting and gave their approval. This was considered by the Commission when they ind cated'there were special circumstances. The street is not a. collector -type street,and would have a maximum of nine houses on each side of the street. City Manager Robert Meyer suggested if the Subdivision Ordinance does, iri fact, require sidewalks to be installed in the subdivision, they need not be stereo- types -= regular curb, gutter and- sidewalks,:as in other developments in the City. Perhaps.,.the applicant would want to consider a meandering walkway which could be constructed of asphalt material rather than concrete. Councilman Hilligoss indicated she felt the white .line painted on the street fo,r'the .pedestr.ian walkway would be confusing as: t -h.ere are, white lines painted throughout the City for bike paths. She would much prefer to have some kind of innovative walkway created away from the area provided for vehicles in order to protect children. She suggested gircular..paths, or meandering paths made out of redwood rounds or some other.material could be used in order to maintain the rural feelirig.in the' neighborhood. There was some discussion regarding.,the lot sizes :in the subdivision: Dr. Larry Jonas, the developer of ,the'pr6posed p.roj''ect.; stated the average lot size would be one -half acre; however, the nine lots proposed for development at the present - time are one - fourth acre each, and lot. #10 would.be divided into four lots at a later date, which would 'be almost one acre each.. Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank Gray advised the Subdi- vision Ordinance provides for the elimination of sidewalks where the lot size for' each; lot is one -ha acre. or greater. Mr. Jonas felt he should be able to use the average lot size,; however, Mr... Gray indicated 'the'Subdivision'Ordinance is precise and in two places refers to lot sizes over one -half acre. Councilman Balshaw indicated he felt the Planning Commission had considered all the aspects of the subdivision, that it was a'un =iq,ue development, there were special circumstances, and he felt the Planning Commission had acted in good faith in making their findings. City'Attorney Larry Klose indicated he,had no .question regarding Findings #1 and #3. He felt these were adequately satisfied.. What he was concerned about was the, °second 'finding which ±;plate's, to the neces - sity' to preserve a substantial property right. He indica't'ed the evidence was hot shown at `the Planning Com- mission level, nor has it been heard at this nieeting to warrant this finding. Mr. Klose also stated_he does not bel ieve'the finding,can be substantiated by the physical circumstances of the subdivision. If' the Council wishes to consider the aesthetic.creativty o."f a project, these kinds of concepts should be written in a policy in order for other developers to have the same advantage. Dr.. Jonas, the developer for the proposed, project, stated he thought. he-had, complied with. Sect on'22,.9D'21 -i the Subdivision Ordinance which relates to substantial property rights.' He is not.claiming hardship but felt. the- design of the project would-be of benefit "to the City., Dr. ,Jonas also stated at the Residential Developmeni'Evaluation Board,, aesthetics were highly considered., especially for building structures along - ridge lines. He then proceeded to show the'Council slides subdivisions located Marin County, Novato, and one or two developments -in Petaluma. `He stated he felt the City Attorney had not had the advantage of seeing the slide presentation as part of the evidence presented to the Planning Commission. There was further.discuss'ion . on changing the Subdivision Ordinance to allow for creative design or a unique quality. Councilman Harberson stated he had no ..1 ? 7 }. A t January 3, 1978 ob j ect-ion • to • changing-• the'• Ordinance but felt, : the: . ' • Council would ha ve. to be very careful, as he felt there would•be many developments with small lot•szes asking for the ,exception of building sidewalks in,.front :of developments;. Councilman Balshaw ;felt it- was; a. matter of interpretation, ,and the judgment would be made by the-Planning-Commission whop would be reviewing the project at a specific time. Councilmann Bond- remarked that Mr-. Klose . had given the City Council an opinion and asked whethe it was bind ng the'Council.. Mr. Klose replied in the negative. Mr. Bond then stated th "e Council has received a ;recommendation from the Planning .Commission which, the Council may still consider. He also stated,hle noted in Mr. Hall's memorandum,of December 28 that both_ the Planning Department and the Engineering Department had recommended denial of' I the modi- fications and asked for a clarification from either the City Engineer'or the Planning Director. City Engineer David Young stated he would be concerned regarding safety. Mr'. Young, stated. when a- pedestrian facility is combined, with a .roadway,, ,here is,a definite. compromise of pedestrian safety. Such a situa- tion is not as sa'f.e,as.a separate sidewalk. There is a minimum vehicle width of 32 feet on cul -de -sac streets. What this development proposes is a 20 -foot wide street right next to a, ,four - foot: pedestrian pathway,., Mr. Young also' stated he felt parking on only one._ side of the s -treet is impractical.. Th'e p :roject' would eventually contain 13 lots on .,,a .500 -foot long cul- ; de-sac street. The size of the development will create vehicular traffic, as'wel'1 as children walking on street. Mr. Young also expressed fear about children on bicycles, roller skates_, skate boards,and.. other ' wheeled toys coming out of dr and going, directly, into the street. Planning Director Ron Hal stated -rent philosophy is somewhat diff than that of the ;City Engineer,, - .At first,, in his .s "taff report, he .took .the 'pos ton of the, City Engineer becaus& he felt, there was' no discretion in the. ordinance. But, at the Planning Commission Hearing,, he stated orally he the idea of an alternative street section did have .merit. Mr... Hall stated he didr not have, however,, the basis in fact of what criteria cou be used for this alternative street section. Mr. Hall stated if it is not possible to use aesthetics as a basis of a. :finding, then `he would be: willing_ to expedite changing the ordi- nance. Dr advised cul.de -sac 'calls for a 50'-foot right -of -way and offered, if need' tie, to widen the st -reef four more feet. He. 'suggested this would accommodate both a separate and a ,ped'estrian pathway. Dr..Jonas also stated he could' see how the Council "felt' about the matter and would, make a concession'to.build a,sidewalk on one side of 'the subdivision; however,, he preferred..to have the sidewalk on the opposite side of the,nine homes which are to,be develroped. at the present .time., This would still keep the larger size , lots. Councilman Harber.son suggested if he wanted to 'maintain the 100 -foot depth ' lots, he'.. should co n sider moving the road over 10 feet. matter, Mr.. Harr Sa.ckrider stated'_ ,Two members of the audience ,poke on„ the y he was one of the potential owners in the su and he the concept; of the subdivision -. Mr. Phil Brentwood indicated , he . was reps -es -tin a potential purchaser. He stated' he felt the ''Planning Commission sdiould have _, discretion in these matters. Mr.. Brentwood indicated'he 'also favored the: concept - of this type of, developuerit happening 'in Petaluma.. GRANT MODIFICATION ill SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (EL'IMINATE SIDEWALK) CREEKSIDE OAKS RES 48050 NCS. (DEFEATED) - r• ' GRANT MODIFICATION_ SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE' !� (MEANDERING' SIDEWALKS)_ CREEKSI_DE OAKS RES #8051 NCS Mayor Putnam then called for a vote on the resolution, and 'Resolution #8050 N.C-.:S..granting certain modifl cations to the requirements proposed by the.Subdivision Ordinance of' this City, relating to property in the; Jonas.S'ubdivision (Creekside Oaks); was introduced by' Counc•ilman.Balshaw, seconded by Councilman Bond,. and DEFEATED by 3 affrma;tIve and 4 negative votes. Coun- ,cilmen Cavanagh,. Hilligoss,'Perry and Mayor.Pu'tnam voted "no". Resolution 2#8051 N'.C.S'. granting 'certa'in modification's to the requirements imposedby the'Subdivison Or=dinance of this City, relating to property in Jonas Subdivision (Creekside Oaks.) was introduced by Councilman Balshaw, seconded by Councilman Hilligoss, and adopted by 7 affirmative .vortes. This .resolu'ton provides for subst- tu of a concrete sidewalk with asphalt concrete. 1 37Y January 3, 1978 APPROVE TENTATIVE The tentative, map of the subdivision.had been discussed �7 SUBDIVISION' MAP. concurrently with the modifications of the Subdivision CREEKSIDE OAKS' Ordinance; however,, it was pointed out the resolution SUBDIVISION approving the !subd map,should include the. con' RES #8052 NCS, dition that no: trees,:greater than six inches in diameter, should be removed from• the site. Mr. Gray indicated . the tentative subdivision map shows'two'oak trees which are to be removed in order to provide the pad for one of the homes. Dr. Jonas indicated this must be an error':on his engineer's part, as he has been very specific that no trees shall be removed from the ; property. Resolution 48052 N..C.S. approving tentative subdivision map of Creekside Oaks Subdivision (Jonas Subdivis ori). introduced by Councilman Balshaw, seconded by Councilman Bond, and adopted by 7 a ffirmative votes. Planning Commission Resolution No. 41 - 77, recommending approval of the tenta- tive map, submitted and, filed ;, copy of the 'tentative map, submitted and filed; and, report from,the Planning Department to the Planning Commission regarding subject subdivision, submitted and filed. REPORT RE EFFECTS; Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank v 7,2 OF CHAPTER'1200 OF Gray advised Chapter 1200 of the 19.77 Laws will have a / 1977_LAWS AND :significant -impac,t on the Residential Development MASTER E IR., Control System combined with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. The,two are to be considered the development process.. Mr. Gray indicated it would be physically impossible to operate the system within the confines of the new law.. Basically, the law requires that any development project..consdered . by.the legislative body must be either approved or disapproved within one year of the date of filing a complete application for'that proj''ect, including an Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Gray also advised the 'law states that within 30 days of submitting an application, the staff must tell the applicant what is complete or incom- plete in his application. If the City fails to do this within 30 days, the application is to be considered complete. After a statement of completion of an application.has been issued,, the City cannot require any ,further informa- tion. Mr. =Gray stated; this:mean-s every development.p.roposal., including a use permit, the subdivisions and the site design review_, must be reviewed in a timely manner and a complete list sent back to the applicant stating precisely what needed.by the City:. If something is: overlooked it- cannot'b.e: required in the future. Mr: Gray stated all refer.rals.for projects must also. take place within the one -year time 11mit. The bill further requires the Ci complete the - Environment'al .Impact Review within this'. time.. - There • is , a limit: of 105 days for a negative declaration. Mr..Gray. stated - the- bill. . indicates there would no additional 'cos't for Iocal.gover:nment; however, a +llirefe rrals. be done by certified mail, and. extensive- assessing of' projects and referrals would create additional c'osts. Mr. Gray felt there would be many agencies challenging this statement in the bill.. Mr. Gray the Council to give consideration : for preparing a master Environ- mental Impact Report ;for the City. Without this document, the City would not be able to meet the, deadlines in the bill. Councilman Harberson questioned 'whether the Residential Development Evaluation Board Citizens' Committee Review' would fall under the regulations of this bill. Mr. Gray indicated it would be necessary for the to.write to the:Office of Planning and Research,or .the,Attorney General's.-Office for an opinion._ This process does exist in- of her. communities'; 'However_, in interpreting the bill, according. to the letter of the law, Mr. 'Gray fel=t: the Residential Development Evaluation �Process. would fall within'the one-year period,. Mr. Gray also stated he the Residential Development process would not .fall within the time limit, that the time would b at the review of the tentative map or:•wh6n.,an Environmental Impact Report would be required. Mr. Gray explained what function the-master Environmental.Impact.Report would have: in, the,.d'evelopment process., and explained although,the report would.not.give•detaled information on every area, it would indicate 'the•different type's of reports needed, for a particular area, suchf as geology "report perhaps hydraul''ic repor.ts 'or traffic reports. The master E.I.R. would. give a .gene'raJ1.environmenital_mpact on the development, and the data compiled would indicate what additional reports were needed. The applicant would then be notified of what is necessary to, complete the certi- ficate of application. City Manager Robert Meyer stated time could be saved for developers by having a master. E.I.R. report:. Even though the City would be putting the money up front to prepare the. master E.I.R., environmental fees could be charged for each project in order for the City to recover the fund's -. Mr. Gray also stated the development'of the E.I.R. should be a system development, January 3, 1978 REPORT RE EFFECTS rather than a product development, in order for addi- OF CHAPTER 1200 OF t . onal data to be incorp'o into the master E. 1977 LAWS AND to keep it up to date,. Mr. Gray also stated COMARC, MASTER E:'I..R. Design Systems has a lot of information 9toted for the (Continued)' City,and ' w ' ould submit a. proposal for the preparation of the master E.L.R. He indicated the City of SdriZA =Ros °a has gone to a semi- master E.I'.R. with Design Systems. Councilman, .Balshaw indicated ,he; was in ° favor of a master .E. I.R.. ; . however,, he felt it should be based on the. limits of the seven - year Environmental. Design Plan. Councilman Cavanagh questioned the time it would take.. to develop: the. master K.I *.R.,,and Mr Gray 'stated it would take from six months to. one year,.includ- ing the public Bearings and the amendments to the General Plan,. It was the consensus of the Council then, to'have.,Mr'. Gray solicit various proposals for. the preparation of, a ma'ster:, Environmental .Impact Report,for the City .for presentation to the Council at a future date. No action'was taken. MOTION''TO MOVE A motion was made by Councilman Harberson,, seconded by AGENDA,ORDER Councilman Bond, to move Agenda Item 419', concerning the Certificates of Compliance for Hillgoss„ Lakeville Highway to this place on'.the Agenda. Motion carried, by 6- af.f;rmatve votes, :with .Councilman Hill goss abstaining from voting.. AMEND RESOLUTIONS City.Att.oriney Larry Klose : stated Mrs. Hilligoss had RE_ CERTIFICATES OF contacted him after the Certificates. of Compliance had COMPLIANCE-- HILLIGOSS- been approved by the City Council on December 19, 19.77., LAKEUILLK HIGHWAY Councilman Hilligoss was absent from that particular RES NCS' meeting.. The City Attorney stated.Condition, i on the two certificates in question seemed to be .rather" broad. This condition required that when the property was developed, the.owners at that time' would be responsible for' ,making any public, improvements deemed necessary by the City of Petaluma and the Calif ornia'State.Department of Transportation, including any'dedication of lands which are:•nece-ssary Mr. Klose stated'Mr.s. Hilligoss was concerned',,;and he shared her concern that 'there were no limits placed -on the, statement as to how much would be exacted from the property. Mrs. Klose stated the second problem is °the section of. the Subdi= vision - Map Act only permits the City to impose the conditions; which. `were imposed when the lot,was acquired by the present property owner,. Mr=,. Klose also stated.,he recommended eliminating Condition #2 ,which required drainage plans and .building design to meet the Sonoma County Water Agency approval when the property is developed'., •Mr. Klose also advised if there had been a plan line set for the roadway, the City may 'have been able• to. require dedication. Any requirement for ded'icat'ion of a roadway could be made the City under ordinances in effect at the time of development' of`the property. Mr. William, H'illigoss, one of the property owners :concerned., �s;tatod-.he: was very much disturbed wit °the manner in which these two Certificates of Compliance; had been handled,. He stated he had not received any official notice from the City regarding, the certificates; and when he learned there would.be:a ded'ica Lion of property, he asked that "the certificates be withdrawn. A, copy of the letter' signed by W. R. Hilligoss and M. Patricia Hilligoss is on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Hilligoss :further stated he was aware that, Mrs;, Hillgoss - had received notce:of the certificate in her Council packa$e; however., he had not, as a,,p,rivate citizen, been notified and, felt he should have been noticed by. cer tifled mail. . Mayor 'Putnam indicated she felt it was an unfortunate over- sight, and it was. not the intent of the City to. take action without notifying the proper persons. At the conclusion of the.discussion,,,`Resolution 48053 9,Q.S,. amending,Reso= l:ut ons 44803.4 N.. Q. S;, and 448037 N;. C. S., to: delete conditions required 'as _ a part •of ap.proval of` Certificates of Compliance, (Hill;igoss) was. introduced by Coup- cilman_;Bond,­seconded by Councilman Perry, and :adopted.by 6 affirmative votes. Councilman Hi lligoss disqualified herself from voting. r January 3, 1978 AUTHORIZE .CERTAIN Ordinance #12.72 N..C.S. adding Chapter 1.12 to the F CITY EMPLOYEES TO Petaluma Municipal Code authorizing Police Service_ ENFORCE CHAPTER 1..12 Aides, Parking Enforcement Officers, and other. City OF PETALUMA MUNICIPAL Employees to enforce the provisions of the Petaluma CODE Municipal Code' wa`s. adopted by 7 affirmative votes. ORD #12,72 NCS' Effective date of Ordinance, February 2, 1978. (SECOND READING) It was explained the employees designated in the ordinance to enforce the provisions of the Petaluma Municipal Code would have very limited powers, would only be.able to.ssue citations :and if it became necessary .for arrest, they would have to call upon a Police Officer to make the arrest. None of the employees designated would have the same status as a Police' 'Officer. ENERGY ELEMENT AND CRITERIA dinator, submitted and City not pursue a:gran the present time. The A memorandum dated December.29, 1977, directed to the City Manager from Mike Acorne., Management Analyst, and Frank Gray, Community Development and Services Coor- filed.. The recommendation in the memorandum is that the t to prepare the energy element for the General Plan at Council concurred and` no action was taken. SIGN ORDINANCE- -SET There was a brief discussion held regarding the date DATE FOR REVIEW when the Council would review and introduce the Sign Ordinance,. It was agreed the mat -ter. would be scheduled for Monday, January 23,197&. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. 1 Mayor Attest: rty Clerk