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