Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/16/1978sa5 MINU.T-ES .OF .MEETING OF, CITY' COUNCIL PETALUMA,.CALIFORNIA JANUARY 1978 1 SPECIAL - MEETING A Special Meetng,of the City Council was called to order by Mayor'Helen Putnam at the hour of 3:10 p.m. NOTICE OF CALL Notice of Call f.or S'pecial,Meeting dated January 12, 1978, Certificate-of Clerk of Delivery of said Notice, and,- Consent, of Council for holding said meeting, submitted filed. ROLL CALL Fres,erita Councilmen Balshaw,., Bond, Cavanagh, Hilligoss *, and Mayor Putnam. Absent.: Councilmen Harberson and Perry. *Councilman Hilligoss arrived • at 3:15 p.m. 1 REPORT TO COUNCIL A report dated December 7, 1977 prepared by Williams, r� ON ENVIRONMENTAL P1"atz'ek and Mocine, City and Planners, Sausa- 63 / DESIGN PLAN AND lito California, entitled "The Environmental Design RESIDENTIAL DEVEL- Plan and Residential Development Control System, A OP.MENT CONTROL Report to the City Council, City of Petaluma" submitted SYSTEM and filed. Community Development and. Services Coordinator Frank Gray advised the discussion at this meet ng'would be concerned with the goals and policies for the.Environmental•Design Plan for the City of Petaluma for the years 1978 through 1985. Councilman Balshaw•referred to a report submitted by the Planning Commission to the City Clerk July 18., 1977 entitled "City of Petaluma Environmental DesigniPlan'July, 1977 to June -, 1984 " and asked -what the status of this particular report is* at the present •t me,. Mr. Gray indicated the recommendations contained.in the report submitted 'by the Planning Com- mission had been incorporated by the firm-of W illiam sy Platzek and Mocine into their latest -report. Mr.•Gray, then introduced Mr. Corwin Mocine. Mr. Mocine indicated their assignment 'and responsibility was-to-review a. large number of policies,, recommendations and,-studies which had-been carried on by various groups during past year or so as well as take a.look at the history of the use of the Environmental Design Plan as pro,posed';some six years ago which had been - formulated by various citizens' groups, the.City- Petaluma and their consulting firm. They were °asked to make some recommendations to the Council as to what might poss during :the -next period. The basic question was whether or not the City wished to continue with the process. Their firm assumed the City was favorable for the continuation.' Mr. Mocine stated there were three developments that motivated them to feel that it was desirable to continue with the Environmental Design'Plari. , The first development related to what seems to'be the almost inevitable- trend•for increased growth in the North Bay- Area. - This has been most °s gnificantly indicaibd th'e ,- new• report pub- lished by -the Assoc-iatlon�of "Bay Area Governments which recommends that the next period' of growth in'-the Bay Area, should come`- to''this- '•region. There= has also been a change of philosophy in the south counties that they have had so much growth it is:.beginning to. be damaging to their environment and quality of life. Such a philosophy will probably result in changes of attitude in the smaller communitiessin th'e�South�Bayi.and.:wil -1 probably have some repercussions in the North Bay Area.. •Mt. Mocine- said,.th"e second development is they feel there is _a substantial change fin , attitude of the County • of Sonoma -. 'Although there -were polite hearings °when the Environmental.Design Plan was first initiated, there was very little cooperation. There is now anew- attitude. in the county government which, would be more "suppor-.tive and 'responsive with the City and- its objectives.. The third "point brought out by Mr. Mocine was, as a result of the two preceeding points;, there • is•a need for the county ind- thetcities in�the- county to look -at these new developments-and come- up Iw ih real meaningful, long-range •county policy.' a S''w hat = ought to� happen, here - as with character of - county, the population growth, the location of the growth, the density, the preservai_ion the agricultural base•and this whole series <of questions. These 'things .s'eem . to indicate the Environmental Design Plan, which gives Petaluma a'chance to 'exercise these of`•controls,_ is every bit -as timely for the next` period.. as- it was in the-past.- Mr. Mocine, stated his. ;firm was asked• to look into the- goals and objectives incorporated in the, :Environmental Design. developed in.1972. In the light of the deliberations of the citizen&'.committee, which during.the ,past' year- has January 16, 1978 REPORT TO COUNCIL been concerned with the new'structure and the Planning ON ENVIRONMENTAL Commission',s recommendations,.a conference was held DESIGN PLAN AND with the Cfty Council and citizens of the community RESIDENTIAL_DE- approximately six months ago to recommend what changes. VELOPMENT CONTROL ought to take- place. There are two kinds of changes in SYSTEM the policies and goals in order to guide the,next six (Continued), or seven years o'f the, City's ,growth. 'The first recom- mendation made by the firm :is to organize the goals and pol=icies and,group them by significant areas in such a way as to make them more easily usable with regard to decision making and its relation to-the plan itself', Secondly,, Mr. - Mocine stated he felt .there were some new ideas which their, firm felt- qu to important.._ The °most ;important of. these which they felt quite significant were in relation,ta the so; called `greenbelt ": In the original plan„ the greenbelt was drawn around the City in such a way that the consultants .felt the City might logically grow into within - the next five to ten years. At that.time, they did not feel it was wise to tie the City into such a.. tight area so there would be no room for flexibility. The area at that time was larger than,they expected to be; absorbed. In .1971 and 1972' the City felt the impact of.gr.owth. They felt if there had "not been a greenbelt established, growth would,,have sprawled- out.considerably further than it did,. They felt then, and still hold the same opinion„ that'.a§ the City grows from now to the next century it,will pass the first designated greenbelt and.move.out to east.and west from.the center of the City.., Williams,, Platzek and Mocine feel there should be a permanent greenbelt They preferred' to designate permanent open sp'ace,as "open space frame ". This objective cannot be reached if 6& City accept indefinite and infinite expansion both in area and in populat -ioi_. This type of growth could endanger the agricultural land to the west of 'Petaluma as well as the�S'onoma,Mountains and put.the City contiguous to other areas in the county so there would, no longer b.e any real identity to the community, Mr. Mocine stated for all of these reasons they feel it is important that Petaluma decide how g it .ought to in terms of area. This would, in- turn determine how, big it would be in population. Mr. Mocine stated major changes must be made in the' density pattern of the growth of the City. 'They have not been able to determine any indication.of the. City changing to a higher density. Higher density would be the kind of change that would.have to be applied if a rgiven area of .land was to support greatly, increased -populat on. Choosing a.,geographic limit to the City would inevitably :choose a population limit. Mr:., Mocine stated,they did mot feel this is_the. kind . of .ques =tion the 'City should_ ;solve by itself. This ,is . part ,of the needed county and regional policy, and 'Petaluma.should endeavor to gain the interest of Sania,Rosa, Rohnert Par.k,and' Cotati,in such a study which would decide the pattern of open _space and populated areas. Mr.. Mocine felt' this would bel as important or more 'important than.the decision made 'by years ago. Mr. Mocine.siated:such,a policy and action by the cities in the county. , and the county,tself would not be easy to come by and would probably take a great_ .deal of. time to, accomp;lish.. Mr. Mocine,s-- tated,when the - report referred to the open,space frame,, which they foresee. as' "permanent" open space, it would mean a commitment to 'be reserved as ,far as could' be seen into. the fu:ture.. When. referring to the urban reserve, Mr. Mocine stated this 'would be the area set iAside - as, the ;area = within which the City could grow. The-Environmental Design Plan and,the.Residential Development Control S.ystem.would'be t h e, tools. t0 use to eventually grow into: this urban' reserve area,. There are 'three kind's of land.described.in their recommendations,. First. is the, urban area which is that. - part of the City. presently, committed to. urban d "evelop- ment;, urban reserve,, -the area of open space both east and west ; primarily `where the ,growth wl'1 take place;; and finally the area where growth will stop. Mr. Mocine stated this was the first,policy recommendation. It is new and, dif- ferent from;the' last set of, recommendations made, in the original. plan,.. Mr. Mocine then referred to Policy No. 2.,: Distribution. and Quality of City =wide Development Goal-:,., as shown on page 13 of the report., Mr -. Mocine stated he would. touch only on those areas, which ,differed, from the original documents. The firm feels it is possible to exp and, the planning .period from five years to seven years. In the beginning,they were very cautious;.but' since it has worked and worked. well they: believe_ .it is ; possible, to, extend., to' the,- seven years :but not beyond that period. The .impo,rtan ,functi,on of the Environmental Design Plan is'to bean intermediate.plan., The General,•Plan still remains the long_ range operational tool of the City. They are also .recommending a slight change in the rate of growth,. Their suggestion. is : to change . from, the 500 - dwelling„ units per yer to a.5% growth, rate. . This. rate, would:,compound as the population grows and would call f:'or a more rapid .grbwtth_ra -t,e.: An addltaional recommendation January 16, 1978 . REPORT TO COUNCIL made by the farm is that: the City begin an annual ON ENVIRONMENTAL review process where Planning Commission - would DESIGN ;PLAN AND report once a year to the Council on various indicators RESIDENTIAL DE - it.will study such as population growth, number of VELOPMENT CONTROL dwelling units, assessed valuation, school populat on;,- SYSTEM etc., which would'give'the Council a picture of what is (Continued) actually happening in Petaluma. On the basis of this, report the City would be able to adjust its rate of - growth either up or down to reflect the need's or preferences.which may come from that type of a study.. They feel once the study is begun it could be made without.any undue commitment of staff time.. This would tie nicely into the' City's capital budgeting process and other programs as`well as the-Environ- mental Design,Plan in very useful ways. Mr. Mocine stated the report feels the City should give great attention to housing for the elderly and low - income families. They.also feel the 'Housing Element should be regularly.updated and strengthened. Mr. Mocine stated he does not feel the City will be able.to achieve low or moderate- income housing under the constraints of the Residential Development'Control'System. It is a question of what'can be given up or scaled down in order to reduce housing costs while still maintaining adequate community quality and not acquiescing in the creation of future slums. Mr: Mocine stated another new recommendation would be to change the Zoning Ordinance to provide for professional and administrative office parks: Such a move might add substantially to Petaluma's economic base. There are some locations in the community which would be well suited for such development. Mr. Mocine then reviewed the goals and policies relating to circulation and transportation. Two new recommendations are iricl'uded in the report. One is to provide soine southbound and northbound access to the freeway`north of East Washington "Street south of the Denman area to relieve the',congestion at the intersection of East Washing=ton and North McDowell Blvd. He recommended the City urge CALTRANS to assist with this problem. Mr. Mocine stated they were encouraged by the development'of the transit system in Petaluma and.fee'l it is off to a very good start. They suggest the'schedule should be,integrated with Golder Gate Transit and the ; communi -ty should be encouraged to use the bus by having the City ,provide some commuter parking°lots,at'strategic locations in the community. Mr. Mocine then referred to open spaces and felt as the -City moves out 'toward the urban separator or the ",greenbel't ",'open space is- to be preserved within the texture of.the,'City. Such preservation of, opeif space would tend to break up the development and give point's of reference to the, areas "which they' feel would be an 'advant - age,. Mt.. Mocine stated the open I space along the river.'is an important recommendation which they,saw "in every ; report they reviewed. It is important, through,the Zoning Ordinance or.S'ubd'ivision Ordinance, to find a way to preserve the ridge lines as open space on the west side of the City. As the City grows in the next decade,, there will be more development on the western side of the community which is necessary to maintain'the balance between east and west. If p"ropdr1v developed, 'the - hillside area' could be the "most desirable section of the City. The,Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance would need to be.reviewed in order to deiermine`if 'they are encouraging the best develop- ment of the hillsides. Mr. Mocine stated. the regulations which apply to flat lands do not necessarily "promo „te the best development of hillside lands. These regulatory - documents'. may want': to encourage clustering of .homes and narrower streets, as well.as perhaps having homes built on only one side of the street. T.he next_policy 'reviewed by Mr.'Mo'cine r.el to ordinance administration. These included the idea of expanding the Eiivironumen'tal Design Plan to the seven =year time period,, the, idea of the Development Control System being tied to a regular. City review, and the importance of having the City and County' begin .to - work together on'some of the more basic issues. The report also states they feel the 01'd Adobe And Petaluma Elementary School Districts should be' consolidated. Foll.owing,Mr,; Mocine's presentation, Mayor Putnam asked for comments and ques- tions from the Council. Councilman,Balshaw expressed his disappointment in the Environmental Design Plan and 'stated he expected a working document the Planning Commission and City Council could use for decision- making: The document prepared by the Planning Commission. and the citizens' task force was organized to* set 'specific items up by function. Mr. BAlshaw,indicated he felt, this new document presented by Williams, Platzek and Mocine is essentially the same as`received in 1972.. The January 16, 1978 REPORT'TO COUNCIL questions he had regarding the document'w'ere regardin ON ENVIRONMENTAL the types of land wh -ich he'.felt were not`recommended,by DESIGN PLAN .AND' _ either l the� c . izecis' task force or the 'Planning Com RESIDENTIAL DE,- mission nor was the 5 %.popul'ation growth vs., the dwelling VELOPMENT CONTROL unit. I:t - was his understanding it was ihe consultants' SYSTEM job to pool together what was discussed by the other (Continued) two groups and not to rewrite the entire document. Mr. Balshaw stafied`he spent most of his time reviewing the Environmental'Des-ign Plan the City previously had and.felt this' documen.t was just a report. Community Development.�and Services Coordinator'Frank Gray responded by stating` Mr - . Balshaia was correct this is simply a report - - -it is not the Environmental Design Plan. The report w ll'be put into anofiher form and come, back to the Council.. The matters reviewed'by Mr'. Moci'ne'aere 'dscussed''in some-detail at the conference the consultants held with .members .of the com- mittee,. These are the,po icies discussed by the Planning 'Commission and the Citizens' Advisory Committee._ The' new Environmental Design 'Plan wil'l`i.nc'lude these ;goals and,policies• plus land use. recommendations for the;'next interim range period, Mr. Balshaw'indicated it was very difficult to relate this, 11 1. ; , document to' the one developed and dated',July 1977 - June 1984. He a Mr. Mocine where the 5% population gio'wth� rather than the residential units concept evolved. Mr. Mocine indicated.. it�had'been at' the conference which was held at the Green _Mill Inn about sX months ago. 'In fact, some of the member-si of.the subcommittees were relating to , a possible 6 %-growth increase.. At that me, the firm asked. to give the Council their recommendations on these.matter.s. Councilman Balshaw "then questioned the portion of the report which' related ^to urban separators.. He stated there is a Planning Commission document which relates to the the,'d'evelopment ;limit and wondered what brought" about the greenbelt as the urban separator rather ihan'a l- unit,.' Mr. Mocine ' stated they never foresaw the present"g- reenbelt - as being the ul;timate'City'" limit or 'the limit of urbanization.'`This was - made very clear in the'"original Environmental Design Plan. ;Lt. would 'be" possible, however, to' li=mit the growth to this area if' that is ,what the City wants Mr. Balshaw indicated' he felt the ul limits; for the City -were spelled out in the General P'lan.:' The En= vironmenial Design Plan is desig -ned to be* a.seven -year pattern for- growth: - The intent- of the greenbelt in the original plan_ was to "ry to protect the agri- cuitural iand from taxation by' taking the - pressure' off of`.1and being'assesse'd fora higher•use. Mr. Mocine indicated the original plan was for a five -year' period: The; new plan is for seven years, and he felt the area to be expanded into should be cirved.'out - and. ndicated'on the,Environmental Design'P'lan. Mr.. Mocin stated the Environmental'Design'Plan and'the General Plan should work together, but the 'General Plan would set ihe.ultiinate limit 'for" the'City;. Frank Gray stated the ultimate urbanization limits are those shown on the City's 'General Plan which provides for growth until' 1985." 'Thee proposed En- vironmen:tal Design.Plan would indicate the area to be taken:'ou.t° in 'the` next seven .years .for yurban zation :''The lands taken for urbanization - would, come from the urban reserve. Councilman .Balshaw then stated he felt f'the'General Plan def=ines the ultimate boundary of. the City,, he did not feel it needed -to be defined. in, the Environmental Design Plan. City Manager Robert Meyer the Tax Assessor only has to,look at the - ultimate limits of the General.Plan'to determine where the. future. growth' will go. He f=elt if the" City had. some determination where the' growth will be even, 20 years from1now the scheduling for s chools, parks,and*oiher public ..imp : rovements should, be. determi=ned during the. next few years. City Manager Robert Meyer stated he felt the consultants, Williams,'Platzek And Mocine, were, charged with responsibility of 'reviewing documents- presented 't0, them and making their recommendations as they have done in this ,report to the Council.. it would then be 'the responsbili_:ty of the Councl,'and the staff to determine what. items they wished to set for public hea- ring; ' Councilman " Balshaw stated he was under the impression the consultant , was to meld `together; ;all of, the documents and bring them back.for Council's review,. He referred to'th document presented to the Council on July 18, 19:77 where everything had .been categorized and asked if it would be possible to have other documents prepared on the Environmental Plan by the citiz=ens- - committee:, the ,staff, ;and, the Planning Commission crossref'eienced with this particular document' in order to have a ready reference-which he f'elt.'was contained in the July 18, 1.977'document. There was some discussion regarding' , raise of growth arid. the dwelling .units vs. the percentage of increase in population',. City Manager Robert out the rep,or.t prepared,by the City's economic consultants 'Wainwrigh and Ramsey, recommended the average yearly.. growth should be 5%; Councilman Balshaw questioned whether or not the�plan would'be to determine growth by percentage January 16, 1978 REPORT TO COUNCIL of population rather than controlling the dwelling ON ENVIRONMENTAL units. Community Development and Services Coordinator DESIGN PLAN AND Frank Gray stated p:opulation,.ultimately impacts'"tle RESIDENTIAL DE City and:, in order to prepare for public services, the VELOPMENT CONTROL City should know the approximate rate -of growth. Mr._ SYSTEM Mocine stated this was. one of the reasons why they (Continued) suggest the City review its development on an annual basis. Councilman Balshaw Ind- icated he felt - uncomfortable using population for the control rather than the control of development,. Mr. Balshaw, stated perhaps the City would achieve the same .results, but he did not, it.was as desirable as controlling development,. Mr. Moc'ine.indicated he felt the plan could work either way--either by controlling the number of people or. the dwelling units- - by using the occupancy factor. Frank Gray indicated one of the major tools for planning is to be able to project the number of people in order to plan for schools or other public facilities. Mr. Gray also stated the City would necessarily.have to go to the mid - decade census,-in to get'the.fac.to.r, of. the people per household of. °the,different types. Mayor Putnam indicated she felt the people themselves would determine .what type'of housing would be built. There may be a. large number of people who prefer. single' family homes. There may'also a change where people no longer consider-single-family residences and would seek out other types of housing. She felt it was important the City to meet the needs of: the people.in the communiiy'as far as housing is concerned. Mr. Mocine stated this becomes part'of the City's Housing Element and the Housing Action Program. The City has been updating its Housing Element, and he.hopes it will continue to do.'so as it is important to determine the market the city, the vacancy rat -o.by, different types of dwelling units, as well as the building record for previous years as to the types of dwelling units. City Manager Robert Meyer ,sta the report prepared by the citizens' committee and the Planning Commission named some very specific policies with.regard to capital outlay expenditures for repair of road's and other items. The City's capability of completing all of these' within the next seven years, along with other capital outlay projects,, would not be possible and he questioned whether they should be left in the report but prioritized. Mr.'Meyer stated he does not know whether the.Planning Commission reviewed the capital outlay program and suggested the recommendations be incorporated in the final report in order, for the Council to assign priority to the projects. Mr. Meyer suggested separate hearings should be held on the',s'even -year capital outlay program rather than incorporating them into the Environmental Design Plan. The items mentioned in the report prepared the- ' Commission and the Citizens' Advisory Committee could berefer-enced, in the capital outlay program. Frank Gray stated many of the goals and policies in the Planning Commission's report.are more specific, but the consultant has included them in this report in a general statement of goals and po,l.cies. Mr. Gray also indicated the staff needs direction from the Council as to the format they prefer for the final document. Councilman Bond spoke to the issue and stated the paper:.prepar.ed� entitled "The Environmental Design,Plan July, 1977 to June, 19'84' "'is the product of the Planning Commission looking at the recommendations of staff and the citizens' committee with a minimum of input by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission made slight modifications to the report. He stated he felt the report prepared by Williams, Platzek and Mocine was an appraisal which should be taken on the same weight level as other reports submitted. Mr. Bond stated he would like to see a column comparison of the var=ious reports which would give the'Council the. advantage of some type of visual comparison. Mr. Bond stated this would provide the tool for the Council to come up, with the con- sensus they are seeking. Frank Gray asked if it would be possible to make a matrix using.th'e Planning Commission and citizens' advisory documents and cross -reference them `by page and paragraph number so the Council could refer: to the references and review the document presented by Williams., Platzek and Mocine. Mr.. Bond indicated this may be adequate;' however, there are items mentioned in the Planning Commission report which are not mentioned in the document from the consultants such as the establishment of a sphere. of .in- fluence. Frank Gray indicated this would take some staff time but felt the documents could be cross- referenced. City Manager- Robert Meyer felt it was important to have everything spelled out in order for the staff to be able to refer to the document when-questions are asked''and answer them independently. Councilman Balshaw indicated he felt the report prepared in July, 1977 gave better points of reference and would be easier for the staff to work with. He suggested the format remain similar and felt it would not be too difficult to integrate the two documents. He also felt there should be some very specific recommendations for implementation of the goals and policies as stated in-the documents. He did not think it was wo- rthwhile "putting in goals and policies' without staffing for implementation or funding f.or programs. Mayor Putnam 1 January 16, 1978 REPORT TO COUNCIL stated it was her understanding the document',,..as pre- ON ENVIRONMENTAL seated by Williams, Platzek and Mocine,; was: not meant . DESIGN PLAN AND make RESIDENTIAL DE - . sureetheWsuggestions staff, the VELOPMENT CONTROL Commission and the Citizens.'.Advisory Committee :were SYSTEM taken into -account when the consultants did.th`eir (Continued) appraisal of these reports. Councilman Hilligoss referred to page three of the report submitted by Williams, Platzek °and,Mocine under* "Sonoma County - Country policies deserving City sup. -.. post ".,, ''and she referred .to.'the 40 - 60 acre minimum parcel size in the Sonoma Mountains except for a' limi.ted number of existing subdivisions,,.. Councilman Hilligoss'stated, to her.knowled'ge, Sonoma County.has not.adopted th- i`s.polcy.. Frank Gray indicated it is, _however,, designated in the County's; General Plan:. The. 'City Manager pointed out the consultant .d'id refer to the'parcel- size for the Sonoma Mountains.and refer -red the Council, to page 12,.•tem 3C. At the conclusion. of the - discussion, Mayor Putnam fated the indication from the 'C'ouncil is a consensus to- have. the documents :cross: - referenced as quickly as possible'and'brought, back to the Council. Frank Gray stated. at, the present' time the'Planning Department is without a considerable number of staff members but.the matter would .' be handled as expediently as possible. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to.come before the:'.. Council,, the .meeting was adjourned, at 5;:10 p.m. Mayor Attest: ty Clerk 1 1 MINUTES OF MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 16,, 1',97:8 REGULAR MEETING_ The Regular Meeting of the Petaluma City Council was called to order by Mayor Helen Putnam at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL } P resenti C6uncilmen'Balshaw7,Bond., Cavanagh, Hilligoss, Perry and Mayor Putnam: Absent: Councilmari Harberson. <r INVOCATION PLEDGEOF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES CONSENT CALENDAR' Agenda Item #1 ACCEPT COMPLETION' PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS MARIN /SONOMA MOSQUITO ABATEMENT RES #8056 NCS WESTRIDGE SUBD. UNIT #3 RES #8059 NCS Agenda.Item #5 , Resolution #8060 N..C.S. authorizing the Department of �� AUTHORIZE CALIFORNIA General Services.of the 'State of California.to purchase DEPT. OF GENERAL.. certa=in ,items,, was adopted, SERVICES TO PURCHASE ITEMS RES. #80.60. NCS _ Agenda Item #6 ,Resolution #8061 N.C.S. approving claims and bills,, APPROVE CLAIMS 43943 - .43995, inclusive, General.City; and., #793 - AND-' _ #801, inclusive, Wa'ter-,, was adopted. RES 48061 NCS Agenda Item, #4 Resolution #8059 N.C.S. authoriz'in'g: conveyance of an AUTHORIZE EASEMENT .easement for purposes of continuing maintenance to the FG TO SONOMA COUNTY Sonoma County Water Agency for Westridge.Subdivision WATER AGENCY Unit, was adopted. IMPROVEMENTS WESTRIDGE SUBD. UNIT , #3 RES - #8058 NCS Agenda Item #3 Resolution #8058.N..C.S. accepting completion of work ACCEPT-PUBLIC required in Westrid'ge #3, was adopted.�� IMPROVEMENTS adopte.d... HOLIDAY VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION RES #80.57 NCS Father Timothy West of St. John's Episcopal Church gave the Invocation. First Class Scout Sandor Tithe of Troop 111 led the Pledge of Allegiance -to the Flag. Scout Tithe's home address is 1594 Creekside Way. 4 . The minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of December 12, 1977, were approved as mailed.. The minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 19, 1977, were approved as mailed. A motion was made by' Vice-Mayor Perry, seconded by Counc lman.Hilligoss,,io adopt the resolutions, Items #1 through #7, and introduce' the ordinance for publica- tion,._Ltem'#8. Motion.carried unanimously. Resolution #8.056 N.C..S. accepting completion of the public improvements - Marin /Sonoma Mosquito.AbatementP4 Q UG/ District, was adopted. ' 1 1 Agenda'Item 42 Resolution #8057 N.C.S. accepting completion of work � ACCEPT PUBLIC,:.. required in Holiday View Estates Subdivision,. was / Q 8 A January 16, 1978 A genda Item #7 Resolution #8062 N..0 S.* authorizing Mayor to sign ACCEPT GRANT FROM acceptances for E.PA.,:and State Water Resources Con- EPA AND STATE WATER tro,l Board grant offers for breachl' g the river dike RESOURCES-- adjacent' to the oxidation ponds, was adopted. BR'EACHING�LEVEE 1321 McNEIL AVENUE RES #8062 NCS Commission Meeting'of December: 20, 1977, sub= Agenda Item #8 Ordinance #1274'N..C.S. amending Zoning.Ordinance No. `AMEND 'ZONING ORD.BY 10.72 N. C S., by reclassifying the property located. on •RECLASSIFYING A.P. .North McDowell near Dymanic Street (A.'P'. #i36- 110 = 13)-' #136 110 -13 (SUNRISE from R -1- 10,000 to a Planned Unit District (Sunrise SUBDIV;ISION) Subdivision) , was ordered ptbli "shed. ORD #1274 NCS APPEAL BY A. W RE 758 '.'D" STREET would be unable)toy Klose advi sed M Attend the meet s. Arthur Parent, PARENT City Attorney Lar,r y ng this evening °and ('CONTINUED - 'TO. 2%6,/78) another princip'al' involved in the matter.,, Mr,, Fred Rogers,, would be unable to attend. Mr. "Klose suggested the matter be continued'io = the meeting of February 6 1978,. The Council concurred.. The Notice •of .the, .Public Hearing had been ,published by the City Clerk as xe- quired by law,.. Residents within a 300 -foot radius had been advised of the meeting by mail. , Prior to the beginning of the rep b y the Planning Director,, Robin Piggott' gave the. City Clerk a letter supporting the facility proposed for 1321 McNeil Avenue. In, addition, a petition, signed by 16 citizens supporting the facility Mrs.. Piggott presently runs 740 Louise Drive, was submitted to the City Clerk. The appeal. submitted by Mr. Eagle.on.December 27, 1977,.to the Cit Clerk is on file. Planning Di- rector Ronald Hall reviewed the staff report dated December 20:, 1977.. The Planning ,D'epartmeht had approved a Use Permit and Site D'es'ign 'R'e'view for 1321 McNeil Avenue. The subject property is an existing single= family residence surrounded by similar. homes, with the exception - of the .Petaluma Inn to*the: north., The lot-size is 60 feet -by 100 feet, and would permit one: off , street parking pace. Access to the property is,by way of South..McDowel- l.Blvd. The proposed: day care center would receive children between the hours of 8 :3.0. and 9:301 in the-morning, and these, same.children would be picked up between 4 :00 and p.m. The Planning Commission had .received a petition opposing the project signed by 24 .ci;ti'zens from 14 households in the area The main . .objection was �,orr the basis. of traffic and noise. • The 'Planning. Department did not anticipate, ,any particular traffic 'problem and filed a .Negative ,Declarat'ion o t proposal.. The 'applicant, Mrs,. Robin Piggott, ha been operating a child, care .c6 h t.er f.or 10 children for approximately 10.years. 'The Planning Department received .excellent recommendations from both the County and the State regarding the operation Mrs. Piggott presently has. 'there have.'been no complaints ,received on the:activites at the present.location on Louise Drive. The,,pur,pose for the move by Mrs., Piggott was to provide more privacy for her family in her own home .and to' locate the facility in an area.which wou be convenient to h er, pr esent clients,. Mayor - Putnam then opened the Pub- -lit Hearing. The appellant, Mr. Buren 0. Eagle, 309 Coronado Drive, spoke in opposition to the ,day care center: Mr.. Eaglel indicated he felt allowing: one commercial. operation in. - this residential area creates the demand for additional commercial facilities to be.`located.in the single residential area.. Mr,, Eagle felt there was not a shortage of day care centers and cited the.one 'located approximately two blocks away on the corner of Maria`Drive and South McDowell Blvd. APPEAL BY .BUREN 0. Planning Commission Resolution No. U22 - 77, adopted - / EAGLE RE USE PERMIT December 20,, 1977, ,su'bmit'ted and filed; excerpts of the 1321 McNEIL AVENUE Planning Commission Meeting'of December: 20, 1977, sub= RES #8063 NCS' mitied and filed; Planning staff report dated' - December. 20, 1977, submitted. and filed. The Notice •of .the, .Public Hearing had been ,published by the City Clerk as xe- quired by law,.. Residents within a 300 -foot radius had been advised of the meeting by mail. , Prior to the beginning of the rep b y the Planning Director,, Robin Piggott' gave the. City Clerk a letter supporting the facility proposed for 1321 McNeil Avenue. In, addition, a petition, signed by 16 citizens supporting the facility Mrs.. Piggott presently runs 740 Louise Drive, was submitted to the City Clerk. The appeal. submitted by Mr. Eagle.on.December 27, 1977,.to the Cit Clerk is on file. Planning Di- rector Ronald Hall reviewed the staff report dated December 20:, 1977.. The Planning ,D'epartmeht had approved a Use Permit and Site D'es'ign 'R'e'view for 1321 McNeil Avenue. The subject property is an existing single= family residence surrounded by similar. homes, with the exception - of the .Petaluma Inn to*the: north., The lot-size is 60 feet -by 100 feet, and would permit one: off , street parking pace. Access to the property is,by way of South..McDowel- l.Blvd. The proposed: day care center would receive children between the hours of 8 :3.0. and 9:301 in the-morning, and these, same.children would be picked up between 4 :00 and p.m. The Planning Commission had .received a petition opposing the project signed by 24 .ci;ti'zens from 14 households in the area The main . .objection was �,orr the basis. of traffic and noise. • The 'Planning. Department did not anticipate, ,any particular traffic 'problem and filed a .Negative ,Declarat'ion o t proposal.. The 'applicant, Mrs,. Robin Piggott, ha been operating a child, care .c6 h t.er f.or 10 children for approximately 10.years. 'The Planning Department received .excellent recommendations from both the County and the State regarding the operation Mrs. Piggott presently has. 'there have.'been no complaints ,received on the:activites at the present.location on Louise Drive. The,,pur,pose for the move by Mrs., Piggott was to provide more privacy for her family in her own home .and to' locate the facility in an area.which wou be convenient to h er, pr esent clients,. Mayor - Putnam then opened the Pub- -lit Hearing. The appellant, Mr. Buren 0. Eagle, 309 Coronado Drive, spoke in opposition to the ,day care center: Mr.. Eaglel indicated he felt allowing: one commercial. operation in. - this residential area creates the demand for additional commercial facilities to be.`located.in the single residential area.. Mr,, Eagle felt there was not a shortage of day care centers and cited the.one 'located approximately two blocks away on the corner of Maria`Drive and South McDowell Blvd. January 16, 1978 APPEAL BY BUREN 0.. Councilman Cavanagh asked if someone would report on EAGLE, RE USE._PERMIT the shortage of child care centers., Mr: Gregory Fearon 1321 McNEIL- AVENUE stated he was curren't'ly of the California RES #9063 NCS Child Care Coordinating Counsel., Mr. Fearon indicated (Continued) he lives in the City of Petaluma and was formerly the Child Care Coordinator for, the Petaluma People Services Center. In that capacity, of the things he d'id' was to review child care in the City, of Petaluma. Mr. Fearon indicated' child care is a complex subject, There.are.varying "degrees, one of which is for the low- income single parent who would use the facilities at the Petaluma.Childrens' Center - located on South McDowell Blvd. There is also a.need for people who are.not eligible for the publicly subsidized childcare center. Mr. Fearon stated, in . fact, the need could not be satisfied with 100 centers. Mr. .Fearon actively supports the quality of the non- subsidized child which Mrs. Piggott provides. Speaking in opposition to the day care center was Mr. Victor DeCarli. Mr. DeCarli indicated he was a member of Petaluma Properties who developed.the Petaluma.I-nn_,Motel. The firm objects to the day tare center because they are already experiencing 'a great deal of noise from people who live in the area.. Mr. DeCarli stated he felt,, personally, it was , s'po:t zoning. He indicated he felt this type of business in the area would disturb the residency of the motel. Councilman Cavanagh ques,tioned.how many units would be affected by this particular business. Mr. DeCarli stated there would be eight units on the property line. The applicant, Mrs. Robin Piggott, was the next person to address Council. Mrs: Piggott she.had, attended classes.to qualify her for conducting a ' children's day care center, and her only reason.for. moving the.children from her home on Louise Drive to proposed.location is in order to have more space. She presently has 10 children under her care at the Louise Drive lo- cation and proposes to have.14.children on McNeil Avenue.. Mr's. Piggott was asked the size of her staff, and she indicated she has one qualified pre - school teacher and two high school aides who work in'.the.afternoon. Mrs. Piggott was also asked if she.intended to,keep- ,Children at the preserit.location as well as on McNeil Avenue. Mrs,. Piggott indicated she wanted to -,move all of the chil- dren to the McNeil Avenue location,-in order to.keep her home-,.private for her family.. - Mrs. Piggott described the schedule for her operation and stated - five mothers bring their children, to the,day.care center,.'between 7:30 - and 8;00.,in the morning, three other parents arrive around 9;:0.0.,, and these.same three pick their children.up at. noon.. Other'children are picked up around,2:00.in the afternoon, and most'of.. the ..children.leave;between.4i00 and 6:00 p.m.' The parents deliver,their children -to the center and pick them up at various times during the day, so there are never more than two or.three cars.in front of her home at one time.. Mrs.. Piggott stated parents are usually in a, hurry and the vehicles are 'parked in .front of the house no ,,longer than .four or five minutes. Mrs;. Piggott described the program she has established for -the day care,center.. At about 9 :00, the,children have what she calls "language arts ", where,the children.sit in,a,cir-cle. and converse with either another child or.an aqu -lt. At .9:30,,, they have. arts and cr- afts,; 10:.00 is ,snack time; at 11:00 the children play outdoors for 20 minutes When the children return to the fa- cility, .there is circle time,, `music,.and movement, and .some -.of the children. go home at noon. There;..are five children who.spend the entire-day at the facility. There are..some children who go.to elementary,school. ..These children will be dropped off at the Petaluma Childrenf's.Cenier, and Mrs. Piggott.would pick them up and take them to the day care.,facility..on'McNel Avenue. Jan Karske of 300 Coronado Drive spoke in opposition to the day center. Mrs. Karske indicated she was not opposed to a'day care center but did not feel this was the proper location. Carmen Kalt spoke in favor.of the day care,center. Her.child,presently. attends Mrs. Piggott's center on Louise Drive, and '.Mrs. Kal,t indicated she felt this type of,planned activity was, necessary for young,child -ren. Bridget,Tinelli -spoke in support. of- the. proposed -day car-e� center. Mrs. Tinelli stated she has two children at the center.. Her daughter is there,all day her son arrives after school at 2 :30 in the afternoon. She indicated she did not feel -the children,would_crea,te noise; and commotion and stated she -could not understand the complaints regarding noise -and the..traff.ic situation. Sharon Omen also spoke 'in.support of- the,facili,ty. Mrs.,Omen stated there,are no facilities available for middle - income persons,; and in order to place 1 '°- .. 1 January 16, 19`78 APPEAC A` AUREN 0. children in the Petaluma''Children' ;s Center, you have'to EAGLE RE 'USE PERMIT qualify in the lower- income range. Mrs. Omen stated, 1321 AVENUE she was impressed with the activities planned by .Mrs. RES_ #806`3 NCB Piggott and stated she didn't ,know the McNeil, Avenue (Continued) location was a retirement neighborhood. Olive Simoni next'spoke to - the Council opposing'the day car.e'center. Mrs. Simoni stated she did not feel'the yard the proposed location was large enough for 14,_ children to play. She also felt 2 chi- ldrefi:need to be outdoors more than 20 minutes .during the daytime. 'Mrs Smori. also complained the traffic in the the lack of_ °parking facilities, and the fact the location was at the end of a T street. Mrs- 'Simoni also stated . she:kn'e'w'the"moael people had some rooms they' were riot'able to rent because of noisy children' who lived on the corner - lot at one time:' The.nex,t person to_ speak in the day care'cente'r' was Kr-isti Wren. `Mrs. Wre_n he-was a student 'at Sorioma'State'College., and her hours change from semester to semester Her daughter attends the day care center two or three days , a week.. Mrs. Wren stated parking at the ,present location at'Loui' se Drive s"not problem, and she does not feel a problem would be created the McNeil 'Avenue location. Connie Berry, 304 Cortez Drive, spoke in opposition to the day care center. Mrs.,•Beiry area has been a, residential neighborhood and'fel.t th:e day care center would be a contributing factor to additional traffic'in the area. Linda.Irigram,spo"ke in favor. Mrs,. Ingram stated she works part -time ind''has flexible hours: She is impressed - with, the 'orderly .fashion Mrs. Piggott, runs her childcare center. iShe indicated she.wanted.to go on record: as stating Mrs.,Piggo:tt should be allowed to have this facility. :Herold Mahoney spoke in opposition. Mahoney he was one of the owners of the Petaluma'Inn. Mr. Mahoney stated he appreciates the care e.x -. tended to the children by Mrs. Piggott; however:,'he feels strongly the location is imp:ro,per. Mr. °Mah'oney stated fie felt the facility'would impact on' the which is probab one of worst in the community: Mr'. Mahoney then referred to the question of vandaiism. It .is his understanding , the facility would,be unoccupied in the evening hours and on weekends and.would be" a prime t'ar.get for vandals.. M r. 'Mahoney' stated he would like to g 0 on record as's a in g he felt the'facility, was incompatible'in the proposed 10- . cation. He also suggested that perhaps ��they 'could 'he'lp Mrs. Piggott find a` suitable location for, the day care cent "er I'f 'the Council,'.appr',oves the use permit, he felt °it. 'would be - very difficult to deny other commercial uses in the area; and he 'aware of at least one location in'the which, will be making a similar request,'to: the City. Mayor Putnam stated. may be indicative that the character of the neighborhood 18 to change. The fact that the neighborhood does back up to A6"inn and is so close .to`Washington Square ' there may be A possibility °the area is changing Mr.'Mahoney stated it was his understanding an. Environmental Impact Report' was not required *for the project;.. If' the City is thinking of changing the black to commercial „` perhaps'. an' Envir.on- mental Im p a ct Report 'would be required "and steps taken to rezone the` entire . block commercial.' Mayor.Putnam'stated she was not thinking in.these terms,. Mayor Putnam asked.P anning Director Ronald Hall to the use by Mrs.'Piggott for this area. Mr. Hall stated under the law,, this ,type of use would not be considered spot zoning. Day care centers are always sited in a, residential neighborhood because it is the' proper.environment for them. Because.of controversy, they are placed under conditional ise permits. Mr. Hall stated day care centers are difficult to site because- of the type of testimony given at this hearing. Mayor Putnam called attention' to the documents handed to the City Clerk by :Mrs. Piggott, one of which was a containing 16 s ignatures' of Mrs. PiggOtt''s. neighbo,rs'responding as. neighbors - indicating they 'had not been inconvenienced. Two - letters. were from.parent:s who had childen in the school, and another letter. was from Mrs Piggott''s mail carrier. Mrs. Putnam commented on the fact.the letter carrier stated he had no problems. in the area, except when is dismissed a - 'slight'traffic problem with students. returning home' from the high school. Mrs. Sheila Holcomb spoke in;support;of the day care center. Mrs. Holcomb stated she has twin boys at the school and has never observed, the young people playing in the front ,yard._ They are kept in the back yard., Mrs. Holcomb also she has never observed , double- parking in the area. 1 January 16, 1978 APPEAL BY 'BUREN,0. Miss Kelly,Hogan -, a student.at Petaluma High School,... EAGLE RE USE'P.ERMIT. spoke in favor of the day care center. She stated she 1321 MCNEIL AVENUE' felt what-Mrs. Piggott ,was trying to do was good for, RES 48063 NCS the childr "ei She stated in the area where she lives, (Continued) there is a woman nearly '1OO: years old who enjoys watch ing the.- childr:en_p1ay,. Miss Hogan also stated she did not think 10 .cars_coming and going would,.create.:much more of a traffic problem on .McDowell Blvd,. Douglas Moore spoke in favor of the use permit. Mr. Moore stated he did not feel the traffic, would .create additional impact at.the corner nor did he feel parking would bed problem. The last person to speak before the public hear was - closed,, was Mr. G. W. Berry, 304 Cortez Drive. Mr. Berry stated he purchased his home in the area 27 years ago, and. was opposed. to the day care center because. "of- the traffic. Mayor Putnam then closed the - Public Hearing. Council discussion followed. Councilman B'alshaw indicated the-one major con- cern at the Planning Commission hearing was the building was not going to be occupied as a.res•idence: It was because of,this the Planning Commission put a specific condition that the matter be brought back _to the Planning Commission for review in six "months. The Commission felt there was a need for this type . of facility and felt the applicant should,have,,an opportunity. Councilman Balshaw stated the community is one of commuters, many parents work, and the Commission felt this-type of facility,was.very much needed,. Mayor Putnam stated she no:ticed.one +of the on the.use.permit was. that the matter ,be reviewed . in June of 1978.. Councilman_ Bond stated, one of the things that comes to his,mind was the.las:t time a six - month use.permit,was granted,. The facility has,:become,one -of the , .�r"eal.trouble'spots.in.the, area'and the use permit has never been ,reviewed. If this one is granted, he would want to make.certain.a review was held..at.the scheduled time. Councilman Cavanagh asked Piggott if the application was rejected and the.appeal. upheld, would ,she - Still continue to operate th e .day care ce n ter ill h er present location. Mrs. Piggott indicated she.did not.think.she would be able to continue. Coun- cilman Cavanagh stated he.would feel obligated to consider the petition con taining 24 signatures opposing the center which had been presented to the Planning Commission. Mayor Putnam stated she felt the Planning,Commission has made every effort to see the operation,would .turn out well.. She asked Mrs. Piggott if she was,buying the property, and Mrs'. Piggott indicated she has already purchased it,; The question was asked by.Councilman-Hilligoss whether or not the garage was going to be,used for the Mrs. Piggott stated the Planning Com- mission indicated, no play equipment would be permitted in the front yard or side yard areas, so that when you look.at the house from the front it would appear to be,a,:normal_residence ; in the area: Resolution It8063 N- .C.S.,;deny ng the appeal of Buren 0•. Eagle from.the decision, of the Planning Commisson December 20,-19 and_ granting a Use Permit for a center proposed,to,be located at,1321 McNeil Avenue, Petaluma,-was introduced by Councilman Bat sliaw, seconded'by Mayor Putnam and DEFEATED by 2 affirmative, 4 negative,.and l absentee votes. Councilmen Bond, Cavanagh, Hilligoss, and Perry voted "no ". RE_ CESS . Mayor P,utnam called - a :.recess :at 9:,05 p.m., and the Council r-econvened;at .9:12- p.m. CITY MANAGER`S , ,REPORTS : DECLARE 'CITY PROPERTY -- Ci.ty:Manager.Robert.Meyer stated, the house located'at LOCATED. AT 739 SOUTH 739- South.McDowell which -the City' - purchased' some . McDOWELL BLVD,; 'SURPLUS years ago for the. widening, - of Caulfield Lane, is now AND'AUTHORIZE_ SALE' ready -to be sold -and:put backron.the tax rolls There RES 448064 NCS •: :will . b_ e no. entrance into th_e _property -off Caulfield Lane. iThe entrance will either be.from McDowell Blvd. or Daniel Drive. The resolution before the Council would- authorize the - Finance Director torsolici "bids for the sale of the house. 39to January 16, 1978 DECLARE CITY•PROPERTY LOCATED AT 739 SOUTH McDOWELL, BLVD : .SURPLU_S AND AUTHORIZE SALE RES 48064, N,CS (Continued) this, with the buyer t the garage.. Finance.Director John',.Scharer stated.an appraisal has been made of the property. The appraiser's estimate.of the value of, the. property when it would be brought back into a useful condition with an access and garage was. .$54 for the - house and' lot, and an. extra $15,000 •f.or the additional lot behind the house. The limit for the minimum proposal would be set;at,'s,ome level less than o do the work necessary to create the entrances and build Councilman Balshaw questioned whether the,.Council, would have an :opportunity to review the sealed'bid_s and approve the selling price. The,City.Attorney -ad'' vised it, would, be the same, with all contracts of'sale. The Council would have to makei the. final. approval,.. : Re.solut'- -ion_ #8064 ;N. C; S. ,declaring • surplus certain real property' .located- at 739 South McDowell Blvd. and authorizing sale of same was intrgduced.by'Uice -Mayor Perry, seconded by Councilman Bond,.and adopted 'by 6.affirmative. and l absentee votes. GRANT OFFER,FOR Community' Development and Services Coordinator Frank " (� PREPARATION OF Gray stated one of ;the- consultants `he and- Mike - Acorie l ENERGY ELEMENT had been, working on - the preparation, of an Energy Element -which "the Council had decided n'ot to pursue,,, contacted the State ,Energy Commission.. The staff at the •S'at'e Energy . Comni sion felt the type of :p :roject -the City proposed was precisely what they °..would like to fund,. Mr. Gray stated he, received a telephone call from Helen Holden, the, Grant Administrator from the ,State Energy'..Commiss'ion, wh'o : advised -it ,would not be necessary-for the City to expend funds The matching could all be done by in -kind services,. These in -kind services could include -off ice space and, other. items: as we] as staff ,time. Mike Acor:ne, has reviewed the amount of staff, time necessary and estimates six department heads at 60 hours per indi- vidual, with the, rest of the, in -kind services being, provided by the. County Citizens' Advisory Committee4. .Mr; Gray stated the program is not projected -in the City's. `Program, of Service; and, if' the Council' wished to pursue 'the matter:, .it, would mean setting a priority for this over-other items listed in the Program of•Service. . Counclman,'Balshaw questioned-what t,ype.of,information the.•City would receive from the study wh"ich.would be benefic=ial. Mr. Gray stated "three document's would evolve from the study. The first would' give the energy goals and poli= Gies of the City,, to be expressed in ihe Plan, which would be useful in developing future projects. The study would also give specific criteria ".for review by•th.e.Residential Development Control System.. The third document would be an energy inventory which could be-used as part of the Master E.I.R. for the City. , There was a discussion following Mr.•Gray''s 'presentation, and although some members of the Council felt it would be wise to have the Energy Element pre pared., they felt the.Planning staff already overburd'ened.,and would not be able to devote any time to the.matier. It was suggested such a program should be, outlined, in the Program, of Service for , the 1938 -79� budget 'year., No action was taken on the matter,. TERMINATE ALL City Manager- Robert ,Meyer - stated the Water Utility WATER RATIONING Director, Thomas Wilson, had received a 'letter from the Sonoma County Water Agency, advising the customers o• the Agency they were. free to release water and' rescind' water rationing measures. Mr. Meyer stated the City has previously terminated most 'restrictions o'n the use of�'water; however, there, are still some matters which need to be. rescinded. He suggested the resolution could be brought back to the Council at the next meeting for their: consideration. Mr. Meyer also stated because of the price the Waster Agency is.now charging for water, the City will no longer ,-purchase. water from:'the Sonoma County Water Agency but will use its own wells. 'Using the wells at,this time will give an opportunity to do some checking of new wells which had not been possible before. Mt. Meyer stated if the Council had no objections, this would be the.line the City would pursue Councilman Hilligoss asked whether turning the wells, on would have' any'ef,f.ect. on the underground water. The City Manager.stated he did not feel there would be an adverse of ect but felt the City should test the new wells in.order to determine their performance. A question was also raised about the status .of the wells in Rohnert Park. John Scharer stated, one of the wells is complete but has not been tested for gallons per minute.and has not been tied into the.agueduct. The other °well is, riot complete as the contractor has encountered,some sanding problems. + .. T.' January 16, 1978 . COUNCIL,COMMISSION' Councilman Hilligoss, the Council's representative on REPORTS _ the Recreation, Music and Parks :Commission,_ stated she 'had been.requested`by the County to remind the City of the $2. jease fee for Shollenberger River Park. Mr. Scharer this was an oversight, and the fee would be paid.. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Councilman Hil.lgoss advised the`Public Safety Com- COMMITTEE miitee met this morning with.some of the residents in the area who would be affected by the proposed facili- ty., The Committee still has to talk with other resi- dents in the area. REQUEST FOR CERTLFI Planning Director Ronald Hall stated the request by Mr. CATES OF COMPLIANCE Kr.ulev'itch was for three Certificates of Compliance for FOR ELMER KRULEVITCH property .located at 12 Bernice Court, 42, 44, 46, 48, ET UX and 54 Graylawn Avenue. Several buildings are already located on the property. The Planning Department felt since all three of the lots were.approved at one time, but not recorded, con- ditions should be put on the Certificate of Compliance that street improvements to Bernice. Court should be required to City Engineering Department specifications when any improvements are made to the property. .Cer,tificates of Compliance would .serve as notice to the property owner or subsequent transfers of the property that this condition would be required. Councilman Hill'igos's questioned whether this condition could be required of the two lots which fac,e.on Graylawn Avenue;, since they already have public improve- ments in front. City'Attorney Larry K1ose stated -the Map Act provides that the Council may ,impose conditions on all of the lots,, and it would be within the Council's discretion to do.so. He also stated the Council should be aware the conditions cannot•- be,required until the people come in for development permits. There was discussion regarding the propriety of the condition imposed on the certificatea,, and Mayor Putnam asked if the applicant was present to speak to the issue.. No one was present and the Council determined to take no action on the matter at this meeting. ACCEPT DEED A.letter dated January 5, 1978, . directed to Jim Raymond, F5,53 SHOLLENBERGER Recreation Director, by Joseph D. Rodota, Director, RIVER PARK 'Sonoma County Regional Parks, asked the City Council to RES #8065 NCS accept the deed for Shollenberger River Park and have the Certificate of Acceptance executed and returned to the County. Recreation Director Jim Raymond indicated the matter has been approved by the Sonoma County Board' of-Supervisors and is in accordance with an agreement made between the City and County- in.1973:. A land is being deeded to the City for park purposes. The County feels this park acreage is not within the realm of a regional park The City will now be free to develop the land in its own manner. City Manager Robert Meyer reviewed the history of the land and stated at one time the entire area ,was to be given to the City for development of a marina. At that time,,.the City had to,settle.for the launching ramp because of some. controversy over the,land with the State "Lands Commission. The City had to purchase the land for the launching ramp from the State,, which had been pro- posed to be deeded to' the City by the County. The deed.for the launching ramp is in the hands of tfie State of California, and not -with the City,, but the City has a 99 -year lease.. The City had to exchange property with the State Lands Commission,in order` to clear up the.City's dump site.._ The present dump site now belongs to the City. The County retained a portion of the land for youth groups to develop into baseball diamonds or other activities as they so desired. This has not happened', and the City has.not encouraged this type of development because of the traffic conditions. The ar_ea.ha`s not been developed on a pri- vate s. Mr. Meyer suggested the City may want to do this at some future dates Jim,Raymond stated the youth groups were notified the land was available if they wanted to*develop.it. Mr. Raymond also stated the Parks Department has been maintaining the area for the `past five year:s,..and some of the j ow -lying areas have been filled in, with `the`Parks Department leveling the land. Resolution #80.65 N.C.S. accepting deed for Shollenberger River. Park was introduced by Councilman Hillgoss:, seconded 'by Councilman Bond',, and adopted by 5 affirmative January 16, 1978 ACCEPT and 2 absentee .votes',. Councilman Cavanagh R!f,t _the' SHOLLEN:BERGER Council Chambers before the vote was taken on the RIVER PARK_ matter. RES 48065 NCS (Continued) ADJOURNMENT Mayor Putnam adjourned the meeting in memory of Senator Hubert H. Humphrey and Martin - Luther• King,,,,-Jr., 'whose. birthday would have been-January'15, 1978. The meeting was also adjourned to an Executive Session and to January 23; 1978, at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Attest:• ivy Clerk ,.