The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 02/06/1978MINUTES OF 'MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL PETALUMA,; CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY :6 1.978 SPECIAL MEETING A Special Meeting of. the Petaluma City Council was, called to order by Mayor Helen Putnam at 3:40 p.m. NOTICE OF CALL, Notice of Call - for Special Meeting dated February 2:, 1.97.8, Certificate.of Clerk of delivery of said notice, and Consent of City Council for holding said meeting, submitted and filed.. ROLL CALL Present.: Councilmen.:Balshaw *, Bond, .Cavanagh, Hilligoss, and'Mayor Putnam. Absent.: Councilmen Harberson and.Perry. *Councilman Balshaw arrived at 4:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 3, 1978; were approved`. as mailed., Minutes .of the Special Meeting of January 9, 1978, were approved as,.mailed. Minutes of the Special Meeting of`January 16, 1978, were approved as mailed.. CONSENT CALENDAR_ A motion was made byrCouncilman Hilligoss, seconded by Councilman Bond:, to,f ile.the ABC Application, Agenda Item #1, approve- participation. in Youth Development Program f,or 1978,; -,I-tem 442', and. the resolutions, .Items 443 through X49. Motion, carried unanimously, Agenda Item 441 ABC Ap.plication,_Salad Mill,. 6 Petaluma Blvd. North, ABC APPLICATION Jan and - Michele Rosen, on -sale beer and wine eating SALAD•MILL. place,, self - incorporation, was approved- Agenda! I -tern 42 , _ Request from the .E_mp oyment_ Development Department for V � 75 APPROVE YOUTH City participation in Youth Employment Program for .EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM. 197:8;rin.the.amount of $624.31, was approved.. 19.78 Agenda.Item. Resolution N.C. &, authoriz,ing.the City Attorney F _49? O EXTEND LEASE to sign ,supplemental letter agreement to lease DOT -FA FAA (CONSOLAN TOWER) 74WE 274`8 with the Federal. Aviation Administration, was RES '448069 'NCS adopted: Agend-arTtem #4 Resolution 4480.7.0_N.C:.S, reappointing.Beryl Casazza to REAP -POINT BERYL. the:-;Sonoma .County: Arts Council to ,September 30, . 1979., -� m ' CASAZZA. TO SONOMA. was ,adop.ted:. COUNTY ARTS COUNCIL RES 448070 NCS Agenda Item 445 Resolution 448071 N.0 +.S, approving claim of James D. and i APPROVE CLAIM Rebecca L...Smith, was adopted. JAMES D. & REBECCA L. SMITH RES 4480.71 NCS � Agenda Item 4k6 Resolution 448072 N.C.S,, approving claims and.bills, APPROVE CLAIMS audited; by City :Auditor arid. approved for payment by. the AND BILLS City Manager, 44009 - 444190, inclusive, General City; RES 48072 NCS" and, #803, 182'l., inclusive, .:Water, was. adopted. Agenda Item_ 447 Resolution 448073. N.,C. S.: ! authorizing the purchase of_ two CALL. FOR' BIDS` intermediate -size police cars.; and - calling.'-for bidsa9 TWO INTERMEDIATE- March 8,, 19,, °7�8 wa's adop.ed,. SIZE .POLICE CARS RES 448073 NCS Agenda Item X48 Resolution 44'8074 N.C.S. authorizing the purchase of one CALL FOR BIDS one -ton truck with cab, rear chassis, and dual rear I- c), ONE -TON TRUCK FOR wheels, for the Water Department, and calling for bids WATER DEPARTMENT March 8, 19.78, was adopted RES X4'8'074 NCS REPORT OF BID OPENING M r. Bill Richards of consulting firm, CDM, - Inc.., \� FOR BREACHING THE reported -one bid, had been received -.and opened' on. {� LEVEE January 24, 197$ This bid,. -from Dutra Construction Company, amounted, to ' p , $17b,08 °4,�. The Engineers estimate for, thei job was :$111,..000: :Mr,. Richards, - advised. the bid has been forwarded to the State of Cal fornia:for• their approval. 'He expects. an answer back from the State , within a week's time. If approval is given by the State of California, the City would have until March 10, 1,978, to award the contract. There, was some. discussion regarding the matter; and the Council, felt by re vising the scope of work, the bids may, come in at a lower figure,. Mr. Richard's stated, he felt Dutra Construction: Company realize they .are they only firm with the capability -of bidding such a project;, and. subsequent bids could go even, higher than M'r..Richai:d's pointed out the difficulty.with the j;ob is the material has to be, barged from the vicinity of the breach and. must be, handled three times. It would be deposited on the City” dump site, first being loaded: by barge,, taken upstream, then .removed from the barge,, ,placed, on the site.and leveled. The gdestion was rased whether or not the State ,would fund, the additional cost. . Mr.. Richards •stated they had recommended full, g <rant eligibility for the ,project to.' the State. of California. If the project is fully funded ih'e- b dance needed by'the.City would be approximately $21,000. The Council could take no action on the matter. Mr. Richards indicated' he felt'-h'e would have a decision from the State before the. next Council meeting and bring the matter back for donslideration.. LET G rY J di ected to the City RECOMMENDATIONS FOR Council by- Brian Kahn Chairman of' the Board of Super IMPROVED. JUVENILE visors, regarding the Criminal Justice Self:- As'ses'sment JUSTICE SYSTEM Project Recommendations for an improved,' Juven Justice System, is on: file with the City Clerk. Memorandum dated January 31,, 1978, from City Manager Robert :Meyer to the City Council, regarding the recommendations, submtted' and filed'. Police:. 'Chief ;Robert Murphy suggested the:' Council may: want to refer the matter to administration and have a r.esponse:.forwarded within the next week or so.. Chief Murphy stated he. felt .many' .of: the: recommendations were very vague and a couple of, them were almost overwhelming,. There is..some action occurring�on some of the recommendations,, but it :is very minimal., The Juvenile. Decliquency. Prevention.Commisson, of which he is a member„ has been formed; but:it will move very slowly. Councilman. 'Bond questioned the need for a position of Coordinator of Youth Services. Ch -ief Murphy stated the, Juvenile Deliquency Prevention Commission may be able to provide this function as,well as anyone else. There, is some difficulty coo,rditinating the efforts of the .. various school districts .and the Probation Department. He also stated'if there is any' agency in :existence which could provide the service, he felt this is the way it should be handled. No action was taken on the matter. , t February 6, 1978 Agenda- Item. #9 Resolution #8075 R.C.S. authorizing purchase CALL FOR BID'S four hand -held radars and- three moving traffic enfoxce- RADAR EQUIPMENT ment.radars; and calling for b ds March 8, 1978, was RES #8075 NCS adopted.' CONTRACT Finance Director John Scharer reviewed the two bids \ ONE ONE NEW, 1978 VAN r'ece AWARD r th ' Mr." tated. although e bid. from E TRUCK. Sceived.. on rd Fo,= Mercur a s to be higher than th'e- + - y " pP ear RES #80„76 NCS . 1 one from .Nave Dodge;, Nave "Dod' e has declined to transfer the radio equipment and, the :yeil revolving light mounted on the roof. Mr. Scharer stated to have the,, City personnel transfer the light ; and. to have the rado'technician transfer the radio would make the bids nearly equal. He also stayed the vehicle offered by Sanderson Ford'veighs 5,150 pounds., while the one from Nave Dodge weighs 4,600 pounds.. The recommen- dation is to purchase.!.the van from Sanderson, Ford- Mercury in the amount of . $4,851..20:. Resolution #80,76 N.C.S. awarding contract for the purchase of one .new 197!8 Van - Type' „Truck,'(Public Works Inspector) to Sanderson For&-Mo-rcury, Petaluma,-Cal - fornia, in the amount of $`4.,2851..,20, -w4s introduced by Councilman Cavanagh., seconded by Councilman Bond, and adopted by 4 affirmative and 3 absentee votes.. REPORT OF BID OPENING M r. Bill Richards of consulting firm, CDM, - Inc.., \� FOR BREACHING THE reported -one bid, had been received -.and opened' on. {� LEVEE January 24, 197$ This bid,. -from Dutra Construction Company, amounted, to ' p , $17b,08 °4,�. The Engineers estimate for, thei job was :$111,..000: :Mr,. Richards, - advised. the bid has been forwarded to the State of Cal fornia:for• their approval. 'He expects. an answer back from the State , within a week's time. If approval is given by the State of California, the City would have until March 10, 1,978, to award the contract. There, was some. discussion regarding the matter; and the Council, felt by re vising the scope of work, the bids may, come in at a lower figure,. Mr. Richard's stated, he felt Dutra Construction: Company realize they .are they only firm with the capability -of bidding such a project;, and. subsequent bids could go even, higher than M'r..Richai:d's pointed out the difficulty.with the j;ob is the material has to be, barged from the vicinity of the breach and. must be, handled three times. It would be deposited on the City” dump site, first being loaded: by barge,, taken upstream, then .removed from the barge,, ,placed, on the site.and leveled. The gdestion was rased whether or not the State ,would fund, the additional cost. . Mr.. Richards •stated they had recommended full, g <rant eligibility for the ,project to.' the State. of California. If the project is fully funded ih'e- b dance needed by'the.City would be approximately $21,000. The Council could take no action on the matter. Mr. Richards indicated' he felt'-h'e would have a decision from the State before the. next Council meeting and bring the matter back for donslideration.. LET G rY J di ected to the City RECOMMENDATIONS FOR Council by- Brian Kahn Chairman of' the Board of Super IMPROVED. JUVENILE visors, regarding the Criminal Justice Self:- As'ses'sment JUSTICE SYSTEM Project Recommendations for an improved,' Juven Justice System, is on: file with the City Clerk. Memorandum dated January 31,, 1978, from City Manager Robert :Meyer to the City Council, regarding the recommendations, submtted' and filed'. Police:. 'Chief ;Robert Murphy suggested the:' Council may: want to refer the matter to administration and have a r.esponse:.forwarded within the next week or so.. Chief Murphy stated he. felt .many' .of: the: recommendations were very vague and a couple of, them were almost overwhelming,. There is..some action occurring�on some of the recommendations,, but it :is very minimal., The Juvenile. Decliquency. Prevention.Commisson, of which he is a member„ has been formed; but:it will move very slowly. Councilman. 'Bond questioned the need for a position of Coordinator of Youth Services. Ch -ief Murphy stated the, Juvenile Deliquency Prevention Commission may be able to provide this function as,well as anyone else. There, is some difficulty coo,rditinating the efforts of the .. various school districts .and the Probation Department. He also stated'if there is any' agency in :existence which could provide the service, he felt this is the way it should be handled. No action was taken on the matter. , t ^4 X0.7 February 6, 1978 APPROVE FINAL Resolution #8077 N.C.S. approving -final subdivision map F(o 3 9 SUBDIVISION MAP of Pacheco Subdivision was introduced by Councilman PACHECO SUBDIVISION Bond, by Counci- lman and adopted by RES #8077 NCS. 4 affirmative and 3 absentee* votes ' ; REQUEST.CALTRANS TO City Engineer David Young ; stated the'request for the INSTITUTE PLAN -LINE resolution steins 'from the fact there. is development . in STUDIES -- LAKEVILLE the area, the most recent of which'was <the Casa de HIGHWAY Arroyo Subdivision. The Environmental Impact Report RES #8078 NCS for the area east of Ely Blvd. points out additional impacts which will be placed on State Route 116, or Lakeville Highway. Taking these into account and considering previous history, Mr. Young felt it appropriate: to ask. the State of California; to . ini.tiate plan - line studies for this highway. Since plan line's had not been established when Casa de Arroyo Subdivision, .was bult, the City required dedication of the right- of=way to the City of Petaluma.. Mr. Young stated he attended a meeting with CALTRANS.Planners,, and they felt this would be.the first step. They . weren'.t very optimistic, however, about budgeting. Resolution 08'078 N.C.S. requesting State Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) to institute plan line studies for widening State Route 116 (Lakeville Highway) to four lanes between U..S. Highway 101 and South McDowell Blvd.., was introduced by " ", seconded by Councilman. Cavanagh, and adopted by 4 affirmative . and'2 absentee votes. Councilman Hilligoss abstained from voting. Councilman Cavanagh su ggested copies of the resolution be sent not,only to the appropriate 'officials of CALTRA9,,,, but. to 'Stated Senator Peter Behr and Assembly- man Wornum, Assseinblyman Gage ` and' State_ Senator. Jc,hri,..Dunlap • "representing Sonoma. APPROVE FIVE -YEAR City Engineer David Young' stated the resolution before FD,_) FAU SYSTEMS PROGRAM the Council would approve the five - year Federal Aid - RES 48079 NCS Urban Systems`Program for the Healdsburg urban area, the Santa' Rosa urbanized area, and the. Petaluma urban area., Mr. Young stated the Metropolitan Transportation Commission requ that' the:proj`ects be rcoordinated through a County Committee. 'The City I of Petaluma does not hayet to compete with the City- of Santa Rosa*, 'but MTC` 's pro - cedure is' such, that they ask 'the. cities to approve the programs for both areas. The three projects which are applicable to the,Cit.y of Petaluma are the East Washing_ -ton'Street'Project„ Liberty Si reet,'and Ma'' is Avenue, and for the Golden Gate Transit D strict,' bub shelters and fringe., parking. In addition to the acquisition of rig ht-of - way °for the East Washington Street Project, funds have been added for tight-of"-way 'and construction. Councilman 'Hil"ligos ques whether Liberty Street w not going to be done by private: development.: Mr.. Young 'stated the City is hopeful this'is how i-C will happen, but it_ cannot''be relied upon;, therefore, the project was included for funding.. Councilman'Bond .questioned why the proeat s op,ped at Keokuk when the most dangerous g part of Magnolia Avenue.is at .the curve near the Cemetery. Mr. Young indicated, it. was -.a fiscal reason, and there 'is .no't sufficient money to complete . the. roadway. Mr., Young did' state the 'p'ro:gram can 'be"Ireviewed and the' City o� would have the option t add other pfbj'ects;. The Council concurred on the recommendation„ and,Resoluiion 018079 N approv- ng the five -year 'Federal Aid Urban Systems Program f6r`the Healdsburg urban area - Santa Rosa,urbanized..area. and the ,Petaluma urban area, wa's r introduced by Councilman H'illigoss, seconded by Councilman Balshaw, and 'adopted by 5 affirmative and 2 absentee votes. ACCEPT COMPLETION The City Engineer advised all the improvements had been 6M OF WORK - -PARK PLACE' 'completed- in accordance with the - 'subdivision agreement. SUBDIVIS,ION'.UNIT,:00:1. City Attorney Larry. Xlose. advised. the developer is. RES 008080 NC-S required to post a $'7'5,000 maintenance bond for the p.roject,, as, outlined in the resolution. Resolution 080'80 N. G'. S.. accepting completion of work required in Park Place Subdiyision'Unit 01, was introduced by.Councilman Cavanagh., seconded by Councilman Bond, and adopted by 5 affirmative and 2 absentee votes. i ti' _'i_ February 6, 1978 APPROVE LOZ LINE Community Development' and Services Coordinator Frari ADJUSTMENT--MARGOL_IS °,/ Gray described•the property-as the vacant lot on•Peta �\ GARDNER, 226 AND ,234 luma Blvd. North across from Mary Street which the PETALUMA BLVD,. NORTH Petaluma Community D.eve'lopment Commission had' once RES 48081, NCS considered for .a parking lot. Mr. Gray stated some time ago when the building was torn down, a common wall was left standing,. The wall has ,now been taken. down'; but 'when the land was ' conveyed., it was conveyed with the wall.. This had"been .done without the bene- o line inaits,pro er • lace e . Recommendation of is that approved.' '} Resoluf' on 48081, N.C.S;., approving lot 'line adjustment for properties located at 226 and 234 Petaluma Blvd. North I (Barney Margolis and Morris' Gardner)" was introduced by Councilman Hi lligoss;'seconded by Councilmani Cavanagh, and adopted by S affirmative and 2 absentee votes. ..t MASTER PRESENTATION',BY \'( WALT &_ASSOC. Community Development,and Services Coordinator Frarik V Gray'reminded the Council they fiad heard'AC proposal for a computer aided Master Environmental,Ympact System last week.' The presenta- .f ti6n this evening would be for "traditional- type" M.E.I.R. Mr,. Gray then introduced Mr. Walter R. - Smith of Walf: Smith.& Associates.` " T Mr. Smith first gave the Council a background of his professional career, stating he.had worked with ',public agencies.for eight years and' was fairly familiar w,;th environmental review procedure.. While working for the.-City of Santa Rosa, he was somewhat instrumental in having the data base prepared for that- community 'He left the Citi of Santa Rosa in 1975 and.went to work for Don Lai:dlaw & Associates.. While with the company,, he was "mostly in charge 1. of environmental review and "worked on the Petaluma Marina ;E, L.R. In 1977', he established his'own business and in recent. months completed the';E.I,.R. for for Development. Mr. Smith stated the proposal st is in. iwo stages: • (1) the' desig the Ci.ty's "staff to determine wY of the 'd'raft. document.. 'The cost $2,,500. The second phase would 'the scope of work. Time At con and twelve moriths.. Mr.' Smitih it selected,, the; final interpreta.t s aff'inter.preting the informat I Pre parat1on.of the document cou his firm consists himself' an qualified sub - consultants to' hi Councilman $alsliaw whether - ' or " 'n parcels,,. Mr. Smith 'stated the f may require further analysis.: problems were concerned w;th�sc problems would be, approached,. be. made of the appropriate' stud He, would involve a'traffic'engi A - dopy of the proposal from Wal emitted, to the City. of Petaluma .for the M'.E.I.R. ! s.tud'y 'where he' would, be working closely with i the' need's would . be;: and ( "2), the :preparation for the desigii study is estimated to be ,e between; $'27,500 and $35, depending upon iletion of, the_ M. E.I'.A. would be between' - ten I cated, regardless' of` the system. tY e: City �n woul depend upon 'someone. on the 'City's start almost. immediately. Mr. Smith advised one - eseareh assistan -t; However,, he, could add 'st'af'f ''for specialized siiudies:. 'When asked 'b'y the- document could 'be applied to' individual- Al p °roduct would indicate any problems which "uncilman , Balshaw stated he felt the biggest ols and traffic and' questioned how these' Sinith `stated a determiria 'ion would' need to t generation factor and applied to the'M'. :er to give guidelines for traffic information. Sinith is ' on 'file with the City Olerk. At- the conclusion of Mr. ,Smith's presentation, Mr. Ron Walter "s of COMARC' Design Systems reviewed the on -going costs the ',City may expect if their'firm. would prepare, -the M'E. .R.'and set up the 'information retrieval %reduction service. These charges are outlined in a letter dated February' 6, addressed' to Frank Gray, a, copy of which is on file, with the City Clerk. Frank -Gra y • systm te and, the, computer- aided :system would. .work fo.r . y a City. His recommendation,, however, was to employ 'the s'er- st b vices' of'. COMARC, first utilizing the Service Bureau which would: 'have. a $:10,0 ;per month fee,, plus .additional costs of between. $400. -$500; for services which may. include such items as inventory reports,, specific traffic analyses,, minor data updates and summaries of action by codes'. After, a trial, period., the City, may wish to install ttie gr- aphics terminal asi outlined in,COMARCIs letter of February 6, 1978. 1 r = February 6, 1978 ;j AWARD CONTRACT FOR Councilman Cavanagh asked where the funds would be r 7) MASTER E.I. -R. TO available in the liudget for the contract with COMARC-. / COMARC_;DESIGN. SYSTEMS City'Manager Robert Meyer stated the.funds-" aside RES #8082 NCS for Rainier Avenue would be- used,. Councilman Bond asked how the'develo p efs would share in the cost of "the • system. Frank Gray §tated'an'6nvironment'al review fee could be established which would, be equitable to the costs incurred by the "City. If further de- tailed analyses are requested by the developer, these costs would be the responsibility of the developer,. 'There would be a minimum cost per acre, then a per acre charge could be made. 'Councilman Cavanagh,asked - whether the' develop- ers are in agreement with the process and - the charges,to be assessed.. Mr. Jon Joslyn of Qantas Development Corporation was present, in the audience and'stated he•felt both the City .and the developer would have a better product in a shorter time frame. Resolution #8082 N.C.• awarding'contract for .the preparation of a Master Environmental.Impact Report for ,the C ty'of. Petaluma 'to COMARC.Design Systems was introduced by Councilman Balshaw, seconded by Councilman Hilligoss, and adopted by 5 affirmative and 2 absentee votes. City Attorney Larry Klose advised he•' distribute copies of the agreement with COMARC °af:t'er it `,has, been "d'rafted. .` ACCE I" PERFORMED Prior to the discussion on 'this item, a `let , ter was / BY. _AN$HEN & ALLEN ,given to the 'City Clerk from' the General Membership of CIVIC CENTER AND Heritage Homes of'P.etaluma, a copy of which is on file. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY 'The letter made several comments and suggestions' RES 48083 NCS regarding the' entire Civic Center Complex. City. - Manager Robert Meyer explained the matter before the Council at this meeting is to accept 'the work already completed by-the-Archi- tects on Phases I and II,, as per the agreement dated August 18, 1977, "between the" City of Petaluma and 'the firm of Anshen and Allen, Architec"ts.." - Frank Gray, 'the Director of Community Development - and. Services, explained the procedure which would occur if the Council accepted the project; The matter would be referred to the Planning Commission for a Use . Permit., 'At'that point, an environmental review will take place. Th*e mat-ter ` would be discussed in public hearings, and "then ref'e'rred ,back to the ' C "ity'Council . - The process at this stage is merely saating the consultant has completed his work as. requested by the Council,. The matter of traffic, aesthetic's and the - relocation of streets would.be considered during the environmental 'review .process. As a result`of the environments, review process, there may changes to the Master Plan which would need to be mitigated. l Councilman. Balshaw, staged he °felt that" once the basic design is accepted from the Architect, .the 'Co.unci11 is .committed to, that specific design. He stated he felt the most lo. 'gical move now for the Council.to take would be to find out if the citizens approve of the concept through a bond issue and then an Envi"ron-' mental' Impact Report. Mr.. Balshaw stated it was liis 'understanding 'a bond issue is the only way the project could be'built'. He felt the' concept, was a very: elaborate proposal,; and - the City could get along with less. He also stated he felt there was.a presumption that as the City grows, there would be a need for more police officers. Even "'if this is true, he felt'they would' not be in the station, but be on the 'street and he could not agr'ee,with the reasoning that there is addi- tional room needed',. City Manager R'obert'Meyer stated the temporary building now being usedl for Police Administration is "just that, a temporary building. The Planning'Commisson placed very definite conditions on the use of the 'building for no longer - than '.a five -year period The Police Department, is now spread ou`t over three differeni''buildings, and, if the 'Public Safety FaciI' y is not .bu lt, it may mean the City would have to rent space in the vicinity. Frank "Gray stated there,would be an advantage for having the Master Plan adopted before going .out. fo,r :a- bond issue,. ' The 'Master Plan ,would give- citizens ' an opportunity -to view the,.model. 'The City should prepare and disseminate as .much information as possible. A.ls the hearings before the 'Planning. Commission, and the City Council should proceed as quickly.as.possible.. Mayor Putnam acknowledged Jim,Webb who was in.the audience on behalf of Heri- tage Homes of - Petaluma..; Mr., Webb stated the.neui'spaper indicated the Council would be_accepting'the,.design for th'e Civic Center at this point in time without the benefit of input from citizens. Mr. Gray stated that would be the purpose of the public hearings; Mr. Webb also stated there isn't 'any real concern regarding the Public Safety Facility. t'. 4 41 't_ February 6, 1978 Resolution 48083 N.C.S. accepting work performed for Phase's I and' II of archi;tectdral. services •provided- by that . certain agreement dated.Augus:t 18-, 19.77;'by and between-the City of Petaluma and' - Anshen and All•en,, - Aich tec;ts ", was. introduced by'Councilman Hill gos's, seconded by,Mayor Putnam,, and adopted affirmative and 2 absentee votes I APPROVE APPLICATION Finance• FOR GRANT T4.SONOMA City's., d. COUNTY 'LANDMARRS COMM. "February (HISTORICAL ,LIBRARY / $10,•000 MUSEUM) mission. RES #8084 N.CS 1 and th County L City, I. ouncil.. 'This $10,,000 woul restoration work being donet at t; is approximately $105,000. irector'John Scharer advised'Ed' Fratini,, the signated Historian, advised him shortly before 1, he felt the City had an opportunity for a" rant from the'Sonoma County Landmarks Com The due date for the application was February application was submitted.. °the "'Sonoma. ndmar,ks Commission, subject to approval of the supplement the $,90':;,000 available; for the e Carne ie, Librar The _. g y . • _ project cost estimate Resolution #8,084, N;.C.S,. approving ,application to' the Sonoma County L a ndmarks, Commission for a $10;000 grant was introduced by Counci�lman'Hiligoss,, seconded by Councilman Bond, and adopted by 5 affirmative and 2'absentee votes. Mayor Putnam asked that Mr.'Fratini be thanked for his efforts on 'behalf of the city.._:. Memo dated January 23,, 'M, from Robert B,. Murphy, Police Chief" to City Manager Robert H. 'Meyer, sub- mitted and filed. Chief Mi fencing drainage Store. They feel the use of thi fo.r. young people and thee, Departi pedestrian use A. such faclit %i nance.,would provide assistance,: City Manager Robert Meyer 9tatec facility off McDowell and East. `6 should 'be an: accident City she noticed children in the aree concern because of the waster bey the water ,creates a, problem,, bu.i water.in the drainage ditch., Councilman Bals std-fed _he , fe young !people toLplay in would, b, vacant lot. He felt'the ordina dren'. He felt there are young areas' as playground s'and safely ordinance was to. keep children the,•Petaluma River. He could a were 'hiding in cu verta, but h;__ of the City of Petaluma off lira ph advised.the'Police Department is ekper- iff iculties with you .ng people.usifig the ditch., particularly .behind the : J.C. ;Penriey's drainage.ditch creates a hazardous condition nt would like'. to: have some way prevent the Chief Murphy indicated he felt this ord- , r the' Police Department,. young people ;are also, using. the drainage shington Street for skateboard °ing.., If ,there ay incur liability., Mayor Putnam. commented. going under the bridge and expressed some g very swift ,and deep,. Chief. Murphy" indicated he also feels' it is a hazard.when there is no t prohibiting the use of the drainage' ditch for the same as outlawing climbing trees;' iii, a ce` would' put add'i'tional 'constrain'ts on chii- eople 'all over the using the drainage so. He questioned, whether the intent- of the. way f'rom.all..waterways in the City, including ree when .safety was - a factor or when the ,kids object "ed to putt=ing the whole drainage system ts. City Attorney Larry Klo.se stated he was concerned regarding: the potential. liability created by the us;e of such .facilities.. Although the Sonoma County Water Agency maintains the drainage facilities, the f land' underneath it stil belongs to the o'f, Petaluma 8_nd ' should, an accident occur both', agencies . would probably be sued jointly. .Councilman Bond:.stated the,matter was ,brought before the City Council at the request_of� the. Chief of Police because he had ,already :encountered problems'. His second 'comment related+ to tl e, areas which are already fenced and 'fenced for a purpose,•i.e.,, to keep people-.away from the areas. Councilman Bond sta'ted,he is not ready to: make drainage ditches a, pant of the "recrea;tion ,program of the City and is opposed to the use If such facilities as play areas:. At the conclusion of the discussion, Ordinance 11 -277 N.'C'.S. adding Section 11.36.050 to the'Petaluma Municipal Co'd'e prohib:iting,pedestr an use of certain drainage facilities was introduced by Cou'ncil`man, Cavanagh,.seconded by' Council- man Bond, and : ordered.published by - 4 affirmative, 1 negative and 2 absentee votes. Councilman Balshaw voted "no ". ' �� •'4 t x.6y F a February b, 1978 ` AMEND ZONING ORD. ; Ordinance #1278 N.C.S amending Zoning Ordinance., #10`72 #1072 BY MODIFYING N.C.S. (the Zoning,Ord'inance) by modifying Section 20,- SECTION 20 - 300 300 regarding Parking'Requirements for Single - family, (PARKING REQUIREMENTS) and Duplex or Compac;t.Dwellings, was introduced by ORD #1278 Councilman Hilligoss.., seconded by Councilman Bond, and ordered published by, 5 affirmative and 2 absentee votes. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council; the meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m. �4 /r:.; Mayor Attest: CTfty Clerk_ 1 MINUTES OF :MEETING OF ;CITY COUNCIL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 6,, 1978' 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 Present: Councilmen Balshaw, Bond, Cavanagh, Harberson, Hilligoss, Perry*, and Mayor Putnam. Absent: None. *Councilman Perry arrived at 7:40 p.m. A copy of the appeal filed by.Mr. Parent, dated December 16, 1977, is on file with the City Clerk. Planning Comm ission.Resolution No. V14 -77, granting the variance and dated.11ecember 6 1977 submitted, and filed. Excerpts of the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of: December 6, 1977, submitted and filed. Planning staff :report dated November 30, 1977, to the Planning Commis- sion, submitted and filed. The City Clerk had notified all residents within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property of the public hearing. Mayor Putnam closed the Public Hearing. Resolution #8085 N.C.S.. granting in part, and denying in part the variance requested by Betty Jean Smith for real_ pr.op,er -ty located at. 7'58 "D" Street, was introduced by Vice - Mayor Perry, seconded by Councilman Harberson, and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. GRANT APPEAL OF TESSIE BRAZIL- - VARIAICE FOR WAYNE & URSULA GARDINER RES #8086 NCS Meeting of December 20, the Planning Commission An. appeal filed by Mr. Brian R. McCarthy, attorney for Fsss Tes:sie Brazil, and :dated December 28, 1977, submitted and .filed. Planning Commission Resolution No. V15 -77, granting variance to Wayne and Ursula Gardiner, 35 LaCr:esta Drive, and adopted December 20, 1977, sub- mitted and filed. Excerpts .of the Planning Commission 1977 and filed. Planning staff report to dated December 13, 1977, submitted and filed. Planning Director Ronald Hall reviewed the staff report from the Planning Department to the Planning Commission dated December 13, 1977. The report refers to the request by Wayne and Ursula Gardiner_; '35 LaCresta Drive, Petaluma, for an approximate four and 'o.ne -half foot variance to the front yard setback. INVOCATION The Reverend George Skaret of the Penngrove Community Church gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Arthur W. Parent, former Mayor, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: APPEAL TO VARIANCE City Attorney Larry Klose advised this matter had come' FOR REAL PROPERTY before the Council previously but had been continued 758 "D" STREET to this date due'to the illness of the appellant and BY A.W. PARENT the inability of one of the parties to appear. The RES #8085 NCS variance applied for by Mrs. Smith for the property at 758 "D" Street was an encroachment -for a garage setback. The variance was necessary because Mrs. Smith wished to split the property and could not record the parcel map unless the variance was granted. A resolution of the matter had been reached with both parties as outlined in Mr. Klose's letter of January 26, 1978, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk-. The terms _listed in the resolution required r_he non- ' conforming garage structure to be demolished or removed so as to comply with all applicable zoning to the terms. regulations within six months.. Both parties have agreed Mayor Putnam opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Arthur Parent spoke, stating he appreciated -the matter being set over, as he was unable to appear previously due to illness. Mt. Parent indicated he felt everything had been resolved very satisfactorily as far as he was concerned. A copy of the appeal filed by.Mr. Parent, dated December 16, 1977, is on file with the City Clerk. Planning Comm ission.Resolution No. V14 -77, granting the variance and dated.11ecember 6 1977 submitted, and filed. Excerpts of the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of: December 6, 1977, submitted and filed. Planning staff :report dated November 30, 1977, to the Planning Commis- sion, submitted and filed. The City Clerk had notified all residents within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property of the public hearing. Mayor Putnam closed the Public Hearing. Resolution #8085 N.C.S.. granting in part, and denying in part the variance requested by Betty Jean Smith for real_ pr.op,er -ty located at. 7'58 "D" Street, was introduced by Vice - Mayor Perry, seconded by Councilman Harberson, and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. GRANT APPEAL OF TESSIE BRAZIL- - VARIAICE FOR WAYNE & URSULA GARDINER RES #8086 NCS Meeting of December 20, the Planning Commission An. appeal filed by Mr. Brian R. McCarthy, attorney for Fsss Tes:sie Brazil, and :dated December 28, 1977, submitted and .filed. Planning Commission Resolution No. V15 -77, granting variance to Wayne and Ursula Gardiner, 35 LaCr:esta Drive, and adopted December 20, 1977, sub- mitted and filed. Excerpts .of the Planning Commission 1977 and filed. Planning staff report to dated December 13, 1977, submitted and filed. Planning Director Ronald Hall reviewed the staff report from the Planning Department to the Planning Commission dated December 13, 1977. The report refers to the request by Wayne and Ursula Gardiner_; '35 LaCresta Drive, Petaluma, for an approximate four and 'o.ne -half foot variance to the front yard setback. February 6,. 1978. GRANT APPEAL,OF TESSIE,BRAZIL -- VARIANCE, FOR ,WAYNE' &.URSULA GARDINER RES #9086 NCS Mr. Hall stated the Planning Commission questioned how the setback was established .at 18.6 feet. This had been determined by a licensed surveyor who had been given the ground rules in the ordinance. (Continued The'setback for the Brazil property and the property on the east side of the Gardiner property which faces on Manor Way were used, on advice of the City Attorney, to calculate the setback,requirement. If it was calculated,by using the setbacks on LaCresta. Drive of the contiguous properties to the Gardircer's, the requirement would be 14_9 feet. Mr. Hall stated this was the 'basis .for the Planning Commission's decision to :grant the variance. Councilman•B °alshaw,, the Council "s representative to .the P' °lanning Commission, stated their interpretation was that the setback was to be calculated, from the street in- question, i.e., LaCre.sta Drive. The Planning Commission was, not even certain•a variance would be required.on the basis of their interpretation of the ordinance that when averaging, the area around the corner should not be considered, but fo,r purposes of'deter-mination of average setback, the calcu= lations should`be on the same street. City Attorney Larry Klose advised he had considered whether. or not, the LaCresta frontage should be used as the measurement, but the Ordinance defines that the front yard.setback should be used, and the house next to the Gardiner°'s on- eastern side fronts on Manor Way. Discussion was held regarding lot coverage. Councilman Cavanagh questioned, whether there was ample lot room for the addition. The Planning Director advised there is a,great deal of open space to the rear 'of the property which the- Gardiners preferred to 'retain as a play area for their children Council man Bond referred to the Planning .Commission , minutes of December 20, 1977, where Brian• McCarthy, attorney fo;r�Mrs. Brazil., had stated several stop notices were issued to the Gardiners and wondered why work was allowed to continue. Planning.Directo:r Ronald Hall explained th:e stop work order was .issued for the area which may possibly encroach into the ,,setback area; however, the Gardiners were permitted to.continue.work on.that portion of the building -where there was no dispute. Work was not permitted nor done on the area which may encroach_ into the four and one -half feet in question. City Attorney Larry Klose stated he had conferred with the Chief Building Inspector regarding the progress of work.on the site; however,, no stop order was issued until, after the survey was received. Mr. Klos.e also stated, he did .not feel the City would be justified in issuing a stop order for that portion of the.construction which was not in violation. Construction was, stopped as soon as a stop order- was posted on the-property. Mr. Klose also'stated he understood that prior to the time the City-was contacted about the possibility of an encro'achment,, the Brazils started legal action against the Gardiners, based on.private rights. Mr. Klose 'also advised it was his understanding the Brazils were unsuccessful in that lawsuit. Mayor Putnam opened the-Public Hearing;. Mr. Brian R. McCarthy, attorney representing Mrs.. Tessie Brazil,, spoke on, behalf of the appellant. He reviewed what he felt was the sequence,of. events from the time the Gardiners applied for a building, permit on March 3, 1977, through December.,, 1977, when they applied fora variance. He indicated he felt the City Attorney's interpretation of the ordinance was the correct ;one and that the structure, if completed, would be. 4.6 feet in violation. Mr: McCarthy stated this 4.6 feet is vital to, his client, as there maybe a pos- sibility she could install 'a corner window, thereby retrieving some. o.f her view lost.by the construction of the addition to the Gardiner -'s home. Mr.. David B'irenbaum, attorney representing the Gardiners, ,next addressed the Council. He stated the Gardiners purchased the property with the full expec- tation of enlarging the home. During the court case it was brought out that 'a substantial amount of construction.had taken place before the trial,. He,also stated a sAst ant' al amount of work was completed before the s't'op order was issued'., portion of the building .which. does not require a variance obs >tructs Mrs,. Brazil's view b y about 95 %. Mr. Birenbaum stated the' additional four and one-'half -feet would not constitute :a substantial detrim6nt. ;which would be required in the findings-by the.Planning.Commission. Mr Birenbaum.stated if 1 1 the Council upholds the appeal' by Mrs. Brazil, they would be denying the February 6., .1978 GRANT APPEAL OF Gardiners the right to build the four and one -half TESSIE BRAZIL feet which would.cause his clients a tremendous amount VARIANCE FOR WAYNE of.unnecessary expense. He.also stated there is no & URSULA GARDINER inherent right to a view, and the law does not give RES 48086 NCS. Mrs. Brazil this right.; (Continued' Councilman Harbetson questioned why, after having received the letter from the Chief Building Inspector dated June 14, 1977, the Gardiners did not apply for a variance. They had been put notice by the City there was a variance requirement:; Mr. Birenbaum s'ta'ted in view of the outcome of the Superior Court case, he felt there may be a possibility of a resolution between the neighbors. He felt the application.for a variance might create more problems between the parties. Councilman Harberson asked if the Gardiners had tried to talk with Mrs. Brazil regarding the proposed addi- tion to their home before construction began. Mr. Wayne Gardiner stated his wife had discussed the matter with Mrs. Brazil. At that time their plans for the structure were not firm, they did not know just where it - would be located. They employed an architect, Mr. Richard Lieb, to draw up the plans. Mr. Gardiner stated he.was involved in.gett -ing loans and plans for the struc- ture; and he did not talk with Mrs :. Brazil until grading had begun and work commenced on the foundation and walls. At that time,, Mrs. Brazil spoke with him and stated the structure would block view. Mr. Gardiner stated he would contact his architect to determine if anything -could be changed. Mr. Lieb advised the type of property they were looking -for and to keep in harmony with the existing structure, it would be advantageous to leave the plans as he designed them. Mr. Gardiner also st:ated.he had a county map which showed the end of the proposed structure to be 30 feet from the curb. The map does not show any easement. He also stated the next he heard from Mrs. Brazil was through a subpoena - -- no personal contact was made. Councilman Bond questioned why work did not stop on June 14, 1977, in view of the letter sent by the Chief Bu lding,lnspector which stated there was a zoning setback violation. The letter also instructed the Gardiners to discon tinue work on the project; or, if they continued to construct, the Gardiners would be responsible for any construction from that date forward. Mr. Bond felt any modification that would come about, should the variance be denied by the Council, would be the responsibility of the Gardiners, not responsi- bility of the Council or the Planning Commission. Mr. Birenbaum stated work was not discontinued because they were awaiting the results of the survey, there was some confusion on the method for averaging, and the best knowledge they had was that the project was not encroaching. Mr . . Gardiner advised he conferred with Mr. Lonac after the stop notice was posted and was verbally advised he could.proceed with the legal portion of the structure but not the four and one -half feet in question. Councilman Bond commented he felt such a reversal of a,decision should be written and not given verbally, by City officials. Mr. Bond also asked Mr. Lieb if there were.any possible modifications for the structure. Before Mr. Lieb responded City Manager Robert Meyer stated what he did not understand until the other day was the fact everyone.was under the impression all of the land behind the curb line was private property. It is now the conclusion there is a substantial amount of public property behind the curb line. Mr. Lieb indicated this: is where the initial problem arose. Mr. Gardiner used the information supplied to him 'which indicated there an approximate 30- foot setback. Under these circumstances., it is standard procedure that a survey is not required.. He,,cited several in the vicinity where the properties encroach illegally. Mr. Lieb stated construction on a hillside usually entaila.building on the steepest part of the land and reserving the level portion for outdoor living. He also stated the roof on the addition is. approximately 18 inches lower than the existing home and it was not the intention to block anyone's view. Mr. Lieb also stated he did not know whether a compromise could be worked out. The structure had been designed to be compatible with the neighborhood, using a hip roof' instead of a flat roof. It is his opinion a flat' roof would have hurt the value of the other homes in the area. Mayor Putnam stated she had,visited the Brazil home to determine the problem. She felt hillside development was a complex problem and stated perhaps one of �!� I �� February 6', 1978 GRANT APPEAL OF TESSIE BRAZIL- VARIANCE FOR IWAY-NE & URSULA GARDINER the requirements which.-may be necessary is to have a survey made before any'development takes place on these unusual hillside parcels. RES #8086 NCS Councilman Bond.again; asked Mr. Lieb if there were any (Continued) possible modifications that could be made to the addition if the appeal is upheld. Mr. Lieb indicated a change in the design would creat& a- hardship for the Gard tiers, but if the appeal is upheld it would mean reducing .the.front room, which is the master bedroom. Mr. Gardiner indicated this would make this room 15 feet wide by-11 feet. Mr. Lieb stated even if a flat.roof replaced the hip roof,, °the line of sight would not be improved as it was his understanding the view from,Mrs. Brazil's home is obstructed by the wall built. on the part of the structure ' which is not in the encroachment area. Mayor Putnam questioned whether or not.the.additional four and one-half feet could' be removed from the structure as it :now. stands.' Mr_. Gardiner stated four pier holes had been placed - across the f.r.ant to stabilize the structure. Reconstruction would require going back 4.6 feet, digging new pier holes and digging ,a new foundation. Councilman Hilligoss stated she felt this portion could be .utilized by mod- fying the area into a. porch to match the one on the existing.hous'e _. She also expressed concern over the'fact that when'the.Gardiners were aware 'there may be a problem, no application was made for a variance. Before the public hearing was closed,, two letters were read by the, City Clerk which supported the.Gardiners. One was 'from Susan S'. Hall, 24. LaCresta Drive ;. the other, from Jim and Sally Doolittle, °52 LaCresta Drive. Both letters are on file with the City Clerk. Mayor Putnam closed the Public Hearing. Discussion was held on the 'findings ,the'Counc would need to make in order to u '' -the appeal of Mrs . Brazil. 7 u At the conclusion of the discussion,, Reso + lution #8086 N.C.;S. -granting appeal of Tess,e Nunes Brazil from the Planning Commission's granting; .o`f as variance for Wayne and Ursula Gardiner decision and findings of fact.., was introduced. by Vice -Mayor Perry, seconded by Councilman H.11igoss, and adopted by 5 affirm- ative and 2 negative votes. Councilmen Balshaw and Bond voted "no ". RECESS REZONE AP #136 110 -13 Mayor Putnam called',a recess at 9:45 p.m`., and the Council reconvened at'9:52,p.m. Planning_-Commission Resolution No.. Z adopted January 4, 1978, submitted and filed. Planning staff report to the Planning Commission;, dated December 16, 1977 submitted and filed. ('SECOND READING) 'Planning Director Ronald Hall reviewed the staff . report dated December 16, 1977, and located the parcel by means of the viewfoil for the :benefit of the Council and the 'audience... The subject parcel is on.North. McDowell, Blvd. , adjacent to ;Candlewood Mobile Home Park and the proposed future ext�ensiorn of •Maria Drive. The proposal is to rezone .a 27.9 acre parcel to a planned 'unit 'd-istrict. The tentative map area being considered later' during this, evening'''s' meeting is P. ase h, which will cover '21.8 acres. The subdivision deviates from conventional subdivision plans; therefore, .a planned unit district zoning is required. The minimum lot size will be 4, -500 square feet-and will have conventional unit 'placement with either paired commori, garages and zero'lot line.acees's drive, or indi- vidual zero lot line. garages with 'zero lot' line access drives!. The. at this time, is to place ,105 single = 'family 'logs on the 2'1.8; acre .portion,, .while Phase II have 37 units.," Mr.. Hall explained the original applicant was McDowell Investment Associates. '.Mr., Hall explained the staff report and his presentation would cover both the PUD rezoning-and the Tentative Map,j listed on the ,Agenda. under Item #9. The subdivision would be served by a collector street and three cul - -sacs serving the interior lots. Mr. :Hall explained the current developer, Feature• Homes, . Inc.. ,.- requested - a transfer ,of allotments which had previously' been awarded to McDowell Investment Associates. This request was approved by the City Council. and the current developer has SUNRISE' SUBDIVISION FROM R -1- 10.,000 TO PUD ORD #1274 NCS a February 6, 1978 REZONE AP #136,- 110-13 received Cityap.proual to reduce the proposed lot size SUNRISE SUBDIVISION and redesign the preliminary map to another conf- iguratio.n FROM R- 1- 10,;00,0 TO to better facilitate design for lower -cost units.. Mr. PUD Hall stated the Phase Il portion of the development ORD #1274 NQS. has been awarded "the 37 un -its for the 1978 -79 construc- (SECOND READING)' tion year. 'These units., however, are not a part of (Continued) this Tentative Map and will be submitted at a later date. The Planning Director then reviewed the General Deve'lopmen't Plan, including alternative house designs A, B and C Alternative A has common wall garages and a combined driveway which is separated by a'4- 'foot` by 10'f6ot planter strip. In some cases, Model ,A will have the zero lot line configuration. Mr. Mall then explained the street 'layout. Sereno Way is the street which would have the cul-de -sacs feeding into it. - Sunrise Parkway would be a collec- tor street feeding into North McDowell and eventually to Maria Drive. Phase II of the project would show the exact alignment of Maria Drive which has not been established at °this time. .Mr. Hall stated Qantas Development Corporation would - also be responsible for a portion of the linkage. Working with the two subdividers, a proper alignment from Maria Drive will be established. At the conclusion of Mr. Hall's presentation, City Manager Robert Meyer asked whether the common wall garages would have fire walls. Mr. Hall stated yes, they do have fire walls between the two structures. They are solid block walls and require one hour fire protection._ Councilman'Hilligoss questioned the legality of .the - present developer changing the' map from the one submitted by McDowell Investments' when they originally received allocations for the units for 'the property. Frank Gray indicated the City has been confronted with a similar prob : leiri. ' 'The general guidelines which have been followed in the:'past °have been that :..the processes of subdivision review will substant ally change' the original l'ayout.of the subdivision. The considerations. for the original elemenE dn°which the subdivision was evaluated are reviewed,'such as-park and open space, and in this case, the concept of low and moderate- income housing.' If the original`.conc`epts are there, the Council 'has, in the past,•established that the new'proposal' would conform. Mayor Putnam then opened the`Public Hearing. The City Clerk had received no correspondence regarding the hearing. Mr. Douglas Weeks of Home's.•spoke briefly to the Council. He indicated his firm had endeavored to keep the basic element of' the allotment in mind when designing the proposed sub`divi'sion. The previous design, they found, was not economically feasible for them to continue. The 'design they have come up with for the subdivision they feel is an excellent one and'in the best interest of the City. In response to questions raised' by the Council, Mr. Weeks indicated the homes would be considered low and.moderately priced, and the A and B units will be expandable so that a family could add to the structure to make a three and four bedroom, two bath home without altering the exterior of the structure. City Manager Robert Meyer pointed'out once the Council adopts the Planned Unit District and the Development Plan, the plan cannot be changed. He questioned whether houses would have : garages in front and'pointed out'Lots 71 and 72 where the plan shows°the. garage in front of the houses. Planning Director Ronald Hall'advised the garages are set back 20 feet`. Councilman Hilligoss stated the plan shows only'a one -car garage for the A units. Mr. Weeks re- sponded the A unit has a -car garage with an additional uncovered park- ing stall. Mr." Weeks explained the expandable feature of the' A.unit, stating it could be expanded to a three bedroom, two bath home, plus' a large attic'storage area. The original concept has one bedroom. Dr. Larry Jonas stated he was tkider'the impression when the original allotments were awarded; the lot size'was•10;0,00' square'feet.. By 'reducing the lot sizes, he felt it created a substantkal,Lftange - from when the development received allotments. Councilman Harb'erson indicated it was his understanding the original allotments were awarded for 105-units for. the'`same acreage. Mr. Gray also stated lot size under.the original allocation was not 10,000 square feet. February 6, 1978 REZONE. AP,.. #,13.6- 110 -13 Dr. Jonas then questioned the financial °feasibility of SUNRISE SUBDIVISION creating low- income hous =ing and wondered how much,low- FROM,R- 1- 10 „OOO.TO income housing the City needed and was. it the intention PUD to place. all the. .low- income housing on the east side ORD, - N,CS of ,thee community_. The Council indicated they have (SECOND, READING`) been .endeavoring over a period of years to encourage. (Continued,) development of low- to.moderate- income housing, and Frank Gray stated the estimated need at this.aime is. for 758 units. Dr. Jonas then asked what the prices of the houses would be. Mr. Weeks Indicated the original lot size on the plans was approximately the same as' their proposal. His firm..has, arranged the open space to what they feel would make it more usable by the public,. The .previ:aus plan called for housing to back onto open space which could create a security problem. The density is being increased slightly but is an economic issue. The•homes will range .fr=om approximately $37,950 -to - $4:9,950.. Mr. .W,eeks indicated. they: are trying to produce .a,product which will. fit a need. in the. City. Mayor Putnam then closed the Public Hearing. Ordinance #1274 N.C.S. amending. Zoning Ordinance #1072 N:.C.:S..by reclassifying the property located' on North McDowell near- Dynamic Street (A.P. #136- 110 -13), from R- 1 -10,000 -to a Planned Unit District. (Sunrise Subdivi 's -ion), was adopted. by 7 affirmative votes.. Effective date of Ordinance, March 8 AMEND ZONING ORD,. BY P PREZONING • APPROX. 240 ACRES. EAST_ OF ELY BLVD.. SOUTH .(LAN_ DS OF ATKINSOU, ET, AL) ORD #127.5 NCS (SECOND.READING) Planning Commission Resolution No. 1 -:7$;, ,adopted January 17, 1978, submitted and filed.. Staff report from the Planning Department to the Planning Commis sion, dated January 12, 19.78, submitted.and filed.. Excerpts, of the, meeting of the Planning Commission; of; January. 17, 1978, submitted and. filed. Notices of the Public Hearing had been mailed.by the.City ,Clerk to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the proposed prezoning,area. Planning,Director Ronald Hall stated the consideration before.the Council is to prezone app y s from County A (Agriculture) to City PCD roximatel 240 acre (Planned Community'District) for the land located east of Ely Blvd. South in the vic,inity Caulfield Lane. Mr. •Hall then reviewed the staff report dated January 12, 1978.. The City Council certified.the E.I.R. for the lands on January 3, 1978: The subdivision has been reduced .from the proposed 730 units to 6 units to conform with the Environmental-Design Plan.. Redesign o f the subdiv sionv eliminates street circulation patterns .in the glide path for. the Petaluma Sky Ranch Airport. Mr. Hall :stated the purpose of the Planned Com- munity„ District' is to - establish preplanning -for the development of large,., tracts of land. There are three property owners involved in this particular parcel, the applications were received-by the Planning Department at the same time, and it was * felt it would be appropriate to combine them into one project; although they have dis.tinct The tentative map for the.projects. and the PUD rezoning will come .before the Council, at "a later date.. By means of the viewfoil,,, Mr. H_all.ind'icated how the 24'0 -acre site would.be ed with a mixture of us developed es, including duplexes, condominiums, single - family units, a park, elementary school, church, landscaped channel,, and greenbelt. Mr. Hall stated the.staff felt there maybe. some problems with the school site because of the concerns expressed by the Federal. Aviation Adminis- tration. The school site is still 'very c]_ose to the potential hazard of the airport,. Mr. Hall stated there may a need for amending the Planned Com- munity District at a later date,; particularly if there is change in the status of :the . airport,., There. is a conflict between the : School ' Disitrict and where they want the Site and the concerns of the Federal. Aviation Adminis tration, Mr. Hall- indicated there•would be.no problem with the prezoning at this•'time, and this matter could be resolved during the first phases o'f the tentative map, ..,Before the tentative maps are filed, there will. be an exact location for the school. Since the subdivision will come in for approval in phases:., the .impacts on traffic.will' also come in phases. There.will be a need.; however, for miti- gation= measures as each of the, projects are' considered. Mr. Hall stated' no comments had been received from the Sonoma County Land.Use Commission; however, the Commission will consider the matter on February 16. The .results of the meeting will be reported to the 'Council and it may be necessary to take further.act.on on th.e. matter. Mr. Hall stated he would keep 'the Council advised. February 6, 1978 AMEND ZONING.ORD.BY Mr. Hall •stated the developer proposes to leave the PREZONING APPROX area in question for the,glide path for airport.,in 240 ACRES-EAST OF agricultural - .use until the matter has been resolved. ELY BLVD. SO.. (LANDS OF ATKINSON, ET.AL) Mr..Hall then,reviewed the conditions placed on the ORD #1275 NCS prezoning, A through H'„ a . nd marked Exhibit "C" to (SECOND. READING) Ordinance #1275 N.,C..S. , :which is on file. (Continued) Councilman Balshaw=;stated it was his understanding the Planning Commission :did not require. Condition F;. however,, it may have become lost in the motion. They had discussed one o'f - :the mitigating measures was making Lakeville Highway four lanes, and the Planning Commission felt.it was not proper for this developer to be required to construct Lakeville Highway, which is a State highway, to four- lanes. Mr. Hall stated as each phase of the development comes the mi'tigating measures would be reviewed and those which would be necessary would be imposed; however, the-Environmental. Impact Report, although it makes reference to Lakeville Highway, is not specific. City Attorney Larry Klose then read the section of the Environmental Impact Report for the project from Page 66, and it was his interpretation the E.I.R. stated the projects may necessi -tate the improvement of Lakeville and other major streets, but it does indicate the responsibility for completion. The Environmental Impact Report also indicates the area should be carefully monitored as development occurs. Discussion was held on signalization for various intersections, and Councilman Harberson indicated, although the E.I.R. stated a traffic signal would not be necessary at Ely Blvd. and the.extension of Cau- lf'ield Lane, he felt one would be required there. Mayor Putnam asked the City Attorney to comment and he indicated although some of the conditions are-vague in the E.I.R., the Council may want to be more specific about what is, to b required. The Council has been supplied with an Environmental Impact Report which indicates the possible mitigating measures. It would, therefore, be a policy decision as to how far the requirements would go off -site. Councilman Balshaw then referred to the Planning Commission minutes of January 17, 1978, where the Assistant City Engineer stated the Engineering Department suggests various signalizations and widening . of streets as necessary mitigat- ing measures. Mr. Balshaw indicated he felt these were rather specific. City Manager Robert Meyer . 'stated the matter before the Council this evening was prezoning for a.Planned Community Development.. When the developments come in, he felt the developers should be aware these mitigating measures may be required. He also stated he felt some equitable arrangement should be made in order for all the developers to share in the cost of the of.f =site and on -site improve- ments. Mr. Meyer also stated Lakeville Highway is State Route 116, and he does not feel a developer could widen this property. Councilman Balshaw expressed concern again regarding Condition F of Exhibit "C ", which states, "The traffic mitigation measures discussed in the Environ- mental Impact Report will become requirements at the Tentative Subdivision Map Review Stage ", and questioned if this condition should be allowed to stand as part of the prezoning. The City Manager questioned whether on a planned community development map, it was necessary to impose 'mitigating measures. Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank Gra -y stated his interpretation of the California Environmental Quality Act requires that the Environmental Impact Report be prepared on the 'level of specificity the City is seeking. At this time,. it happens to be prezoning of the land. There are certain impacts on the area and surrounding areas pointed out in the Environmental Impact Report. The Council has the full right and authority 'to pass statements of overriding concern for what the Council feels is a reasonable degree of off -site improvements. The other alternative would be to determine the cumulative impact -is so great that they cannot be mitigated, which would deny the project as a whole. Councilman Balshaw questioned if Condition F is left to stand, would they then become a requirement. Mr. Gray that would be correct, and the Council would have to pass statements of overriding concern when considering the different mitigating measures .71 February 6, 1978 AMEND ZONING,ORD,. BY Councilman Balshaw said he felt the Council should, . PREZONING.APPROX. either now or during the public hearings, indicate the 240 specific intersections the 'City would want s'ig'nalized ELY BLVD_ SO.,.(LANDS and any other off -s1te wo "rk. He felt if the Bevel - . ATKINS'ON, ET AL) opers were required to widen,the State highway or ORD #12,75: NCS provide,signals, they might abandon 'the land. Mayor (SECOND':READING) Putnam asked the City Attorney to comment. Mr. Klose (Continued',) indicated the.Council could be specific and ,go through the mitiga "ting measures and s "pecify each the City would require. The" other alternative, he suggested was to spec y fy in the conditions that the mitigating, measures would be reviewed and specified during the review of the maps within the P-CD. Mayor.Putnam then opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Van. Logan of Duffel Construc- tion Company,, indicated he was speaking for all three! petitioners for the prezoning of the prope Mr. Logan stated he felt Conditions F,. G' and Hare matters which should be discussed at the tentative map, stage. The petitioners and °erstand they are going to have to 'pay f.or some off-site improvements, :but all of the units are not going to be built at once. In all pro;babihty,, none of the "mitigating measures would be required for the first.100 units. There' would 'be a staging process and perhaps•a fund could be set and the developer contribute for future off -site improvements as required. Mr. Logan stated the subject of the meeting tonight is land uses. He also advised they had developed the new plan and took the most restrictive 'cond-it -ions as far as the-Petaluma Sky Ranch was concerned and redesigned the subdivision;. They are asking for prezoning which conforms to the information the Council had certified in the E.I.R. They are .interested in having 'the area,'prezoned in order to apply to the Local Agency Formation Commission. The next person to address the Council was Mr., Renaldo Rob,binos. Mr. Robbino indicated he felt the. Council was considering f'ar,more than the prezoning for the land_. Mr. Robbino stated he felt the meeting did not concern itself with the prezoning and felt the meeting was out of order.. Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank Gray stated he felt there was a m sconcepti "on,of the term "prezoning'.'. The term prezoning is used when land is in the County and not in 'the City. The term prezoning means estab lisping lands and uses for territory which is about to be annexed to the City. The Ltype of zone for this particular land w_as determined in 1972 when the City Council adopted a growth management plan.. This is one of the areas designated for growth. Mr. Gray explained there is a difference between land . use planning and zoning. Zoning is very specific and land'use planning is general. Mr. Robbino then stated he felt if the Environmental Impact Report is so important, he could not understand why the Council was not treating it with the importance it was due. City,'Manager Robert. Meyer explained to Mr., Robbino the public 'hearings held some time ago on the Environmental Impact Report for this land.. He then explained the. sequence ' of events which must take place on a, development before it is referred to the Local Agency Formation Commis- sion. He stated in order to have the land annexed to the City, the land must have a specific prezoning designated. Mr. Dick Hodge, 1.3 Haven Drive, expressed concern regarding this development and its compatibility with the airport. He.:felt if this is allowed, to proceed, the airport will surely be terminated.. Mr. Don Smith of 24 Raymond Heights also expressed concern- regarding the airport;. Mr. Smith indicated this was- the only real site for an airport in this community. One of the impacts felt by other communities,where,.air.port and .housing are mixed is that of noise. Mr.. Smith `stated he - would like to see the study, which .he. understands is in progress on the airport, before the Council approves the prezoning for this land. City Manager Robert Meyer advised' the trapezoidal area had been incorporated into the plan to satisfy the-requirements of the Federal Aviation Administra- tion. He pointed out,the ai- rpor:t is located totally within the County area - and felt the County Airport Commission should have made a.study some time ..ago. He also ,stated the present owners.of the airport could sell it at any time and discontinue its operation and there would be nothing the,-City could do about it. February 6, 1978 7o AMEND ZONING ORD. BY Councilman Harberson stated the only proposal the PREZONING APPROX. Council has seen regarding the airport was from Mr. 240 ACRFS EASLff William White of, San Rafael who wanted to abandon the ELY BLVD. SO. (LANDS present, airp,ott. and designate a new site farther to OF ATKINSON; ET AL) the east. Mr. Harberson 'felt if the present airport ORD #1275 NCS location is sold, it would also be developed with (SECOND READING houses. Mr.. ,Smith indicated he felt enough support (Continued) could be gained to invest into the airport. Mr. Smith also asked if there was a study being made at the present time. Community Development and Services ,Coordinator Frank Gray stated.the present owners of .the airport have made it clear that any private ownership of an airport is virtually impossible financially. Public agencies can receive 95% funding,and offer facilities which are far superior. One of the possibilities is for the City to assume ownership of the airport and operate.it on a leased basis. Mr. Gray stated there have been discussions with the Federal Aviation Administration about the possibility of relocating the airport in the vicinity of Lakeville Highway near the consolan towers. Because of the flight conditions in the Petaluma Valley, the present location of the airport is the superior site. One of the problems, however, is the runway is too close to Washington Street and too close to housing. Mr. Gray indicated.proposals have been requested from .three firms. It would take about one year to develop the airport master plan and the land use plan around it. He also stated the Federal Aviation Administration has established guidelines for levels of acceptable risk represented by glide path areas. Under Federal regulations, the only area where structures are.not permitted is 200 feet from the end of the runway. The recommendations of the professional consultant employed in the preparation of the E.I.R., as well as the Federal Aviation Administration, are represented by the glide path line as a level of accept- able risk. Mr. Gray pointed, out the pattern for movement at the Petaluma Sky Ranch is unique in that both incoming and departing flights make -a right hand turn from the airport and do not fly over the residential areas.. The normal procedure for approach and departure from an airport is a left hand turn. If the procedure in Petaluma would have been normal, the Federal Aviation Admin- istration would probably have required a larger glide path. The next person to address the Council was Mr. Arthur Cader, 1315 Ely Road. Mr. Cader stated he was a commercial pilot and also was very interested in the environment. He felt the Council has an opportunity to preserve open space and suggested the airport be a municipal airport rather than under private ownership. He further suggested the City acquire land to build a golf course next to the airport which would provide a built -in safety factor, as well as provide open space. Mr. Cader also stated he felt a larger municipal airport and the golf course would help attract business and industry to the community. There was some discussion regarding Mr. Cader's suggestion the City buy the land for the municipal airport and golf course, and Councilman Harberson questioned the cost for the land in the area. Mr. Gray indicated the cost for purchasing the addition to the new runway has been estimated to be about $600,000. To relocate the airport to the adjacent area would require between 500 and 800 feet in width and about a 5,000 -foot length. The next person to speak was Mr. Ray Peterson, 636 Gossage Avenue. Mr. Peterson was opposed to having such a maximum density right up against the clear zone indicated for the airport. He felt the Council should delay decision on the prezoning until after the County's Airport Commission had met and the master study for the airport received by the City. He also suggested the maximum density near the glide path should be no more than one to two units per acre. Mr. Peterson stated the subdivision of land and annexation into the City is not a right that somebody has, especially if it is going to put somebody else out of business. Mr. Pe't'erson agreed the Airport Land Use Commission has been delinquint in making a decision regarding the Petaluma Sky Ranch. City Manager Robert Meyer asked if the owners of the airport or their repre- sentatives were present at the meeting. Mr. Jim Higgins of 12th Street stated he was not the owner of the airport but was affiliated with it. Mr. Higgins stated he was pleased there was such a comprehensive discussion regarding the problem with the airport, but-he urged the Council to delay their decision on the prezonng until after all avenues have been explored, especially the purchase of the property for' a municipal airport. City Manager Robert Meyer advised that since the first of the year, all cities in the State of California are subject to the provisions of AB 884. This chapter of the Government „Code requires complete processing of all applications within a one -year period of time. This particular project has already started ivav�o February 6, 1978 AMEND ZONING ORD. BY PREZONING APPROX. 240 ACRES'EAS.T OF ELY BLVD. 50. (LANDS OF ATKINSON., ET AL) ORD #1275 NCS (SECOND READING) (Continued) on the countdown, and if the prezoning is approved by the Council at this meeting, it would next be scheduled to go before the Local Agency Formation Commission in March. If LAFCO approves the project, it would then come back to the City Council for annexation to the City, and after annexation the ,preliminary maps would be reviewed.. Mr. Meyer also stated there are only about 200 units in the entire project which have received approval for construction, and the anticipated start for construction would be in the Spring of 1979. Councilman Balshaw stated.he.was as interested in saving the airport as any- body-else however, he felt the Planning Commission had reached a very good compromise. He.also stated he felt the City has an obligation to continue with construction of residential units. The City has restricted the number of units to be allowed tin this project and has placed the developer under greater obligations to continue at the minimum level. Mr. Balshaw also stated the F.A.A. would - permit construct -ion under the glide slope area,: but this proposal calls for land to be left absolutely empty. He feels this is a reasonable compromise to preserve the existing airport until some other alternative is found. Some discussion was regarding the proposed master plan for the airport study. Mr.'Gray indicated it would-be approximately one and one -half years` to get through the procedures with the consultant before the City could even apply for funds for construction of an- airport. Councilman Harberson questioned what possibilities the City might have in order to "freeze" the land for use by an airport, either the present airport -site or outboard toward the east. Frank Gray stated there were two natives for the City. -One would be to amend the General Plan to show the - airpor:t. This would require the-County to - review the Land Use Plan on the proposal. The other alternative would be to-apply for prezoning, but-Mr. Gray cautioned that the City would have to prepare an Environmental Impact Report to change the General Plan or the Environmental Design Plan., which is, in essence, being done under the F.A.A. proposal. City Manager Robert Meyer also reminded the Council the County is preparing a study of the Sonoma Mountains'whi:ch takes-in all the area down to,Ely Road. There will be public hearings held on this study, and there should be some input made by the City. Ray Peterson suggested the City could develop a plan for the airport and submit`it to 'the Airport Land Use Commission, asking them to approve the use of this land for an airport..' This would bind both the City and County-to this land use.- Mr. Gray stated an Environmental Impact Report would still have to be prepared for the land designation. Mr. Robbino asked when the countdown started on this particular project, as far as the allowable time limit for processing, and asked if it was not the obligation of the developer to submit a completed plan as it was his•under- standing'the plan has been changed from the first one submitted.. City At- torney Larry Klose stated Chapter 1200 of the Statutes of 1977, or AB 884, require complete processing within a one -year period of time. When an agency receives an application, it must certify the application -is complete within a period of days, or it is assumed to be complete. Mr. Gray stated even though this application came in prior to January 1, 1978, the date to be considered for submission of application is January 1, and the City would have until December 31 to either deny or approve the proposal. City Attorney Larry Klose then referred to Condition F of the proposed ordi= nance on the prezoning. He advised if there is to be any change in that procedure, the whole matter'would have to be referred back to the Planning Commission. Councilman Bond questioned why the discussion should continue then if.the whole matter has to go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Van Logan stated they understood the sense of what the Council was' trying to do. They would -not like to see the matter referred back to the Planning .Commission. They were willing to agree to the conditions as they were. They started to plan for the development of this land in June of 1976. They were February 6, 1978 AMEND ZONlNG'ORD...BY required to prep are, an E.I.R. which took one. year and PREZONING APPROX.. two months., Mr. Van Logan stated, in view of the 240..ACRES.EAS.T OF length of time and amount of 'money they have spent, ELY BLVD. SO. (LANDS they do not think •this is a precipitous action and OF ATXINSON, ET AL) felt it was proper for. them to be here at this meeting ORD # #_275 :NCS' asking for the prezoning. (SECOND READING) (Continued) The City Attorney advised, the Council they could go ahead with the prezoning as long as it was the under- standing of the-developers the conditions may have a later adverse effect for them. Planning Director Ronald Hall stated he would rather see measure F remain rather Vague and have these matters completely discussed at the tentative map stage. City Manager Robert. Meyer also stated there would be further zoning on the land for the Planned Unit District in the Planned Community District. Conditions could also be placed, on the projects at that,time. Mayor Putnam then closed the Public Hearing. Ordinance #1275 N.C.S. amending Zoning Ordinance #1072 N.C.S. by prezoning A.P. #136- 060 -01, #17- 050- 02,' #17- 060 -02, and #17- 060 703, (consisting of approximately 240 -F acres) located east of Ely Blvd. South in the vicinity of Caulfield Lane, from County Agricultural to City P.C..D.. (Planned Community District) (Lands-of Atkinson,, et al.), was adopted by 5 affirmative and 2 negative votes. Councilmen Bond and Hilligoss voted "no ". Effective date of Ordinance, March 8, "1978. AMEND ZONING ORD_ TO RECLASSIFY A.P. #7- 471 -03 AND-04 LINDBERG LANE.TROM PUD TO R-1-6,500 Planning Commission Resolution No. Z2 -78, adopted F8 74 q January 17, .1978`, submitted ;and' filed. Planning staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 12, 1978, submitted and filed.. (PETALUMA VILLAS) The rezoning applies to approximately 7.4 ORD #1276 NCS acres of land.located between Lindberg Lane, Stuart (SECOND READING) Drive and Highway 101, to be reclassified from a Planned Unit District for a development of 28 single - family units on lot size R- 1- 6-,500. The area is currently vacant and sur- rounded by single - family residential, units to the north, east and south. Highway 101 is adjacent to the subject property to the vest. All adjoining property is zoned R -1- 6.,500. Notices of the public hearing had been mailed by the City Clerk as required by law, and published once in the newspaper. Mayor Putnam opened the Public Hearing. No comments were received from the public and no correspondence had been received by the City Clerk. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Ordinance #1276 N.C.S. amending -Zoning Ordinance #1072 N.C.S. by reclassifying A.P., # - 7- 471 -03 and #7- 471 -04, Lindberg, Lane at St. Francis Drive, from a PUD (Planned Unit District) to R -1- 6,500 (Petaluma Villas), was adopted by 7 affirmative votes. Effective date of Ordinance, March 8, 1978. APPROVE TENTATIVE Planning Resolution No. 43 -77, adopted F SUBDIVISION MAP January 4,. 1978, approving the Tentative Map for SUNRISE SUBDIVISION Sunrise Subdivision, Phase I, submitted and filed. PHASE I Excerpts of the minutes of the Planning Commission RES #8087 NCS Meeting January 4, 1978, submitted and filed. Planning staff report to the Planning Commission dated December 16, 1977, submitted and filed. Since the subject of the tentative map is a portion of the Planned Unit District located on North McDowell Blvd. near Dynamic Street:, A.P. #136- 110 -13, and the Council held a public hearing on reclassifying the property from R- 1- 10,000 to a Planned Unit District, much of the discussion which normally would have been held under the Tentative Map Approval was held when Ordinance 41275 N.C.S. was discussed at this meeting. % aq February 6., 1978 APPROVE TENTATIVE City Manager Robert Meyer called the Council's atten- SUBDIVISION`_MAP tion to Condition #4 for .the'Tentative Map which SUNRI'SE'.SUBD,IVISTON. states, " single- family lots` which back on North PHASE.I McDowell shall be provided with a uniform six -foot RES #8087 NCS solid fence along the"prop line ". Mr-. (Continued) Meyer advised previously the Council had stated all fences • that border ,on McDowell Blvd. would be made of masonry and not wood. Counc lman..H ll quesstioned' -whether . the requirements and recommendations made by the City Engineer in his letter of November 14, 1977, htems. #1 through #4, had been sa`tisf'ied as to conformity to °the various sections 'of" the Subdi- vision Ordinance. Mr. Hall ,advis•ed.these recommendations have :been corrected. Resolution #8087 N.:C.S. approving. Tentative Subdivision;Map of :Sunrise vision Phase L was introduced " y " b Counc•ilman Bond, seconded by Vice -Mayor _ Perry,, and.adopted by 7 affirmative votes. REQUEST CITIZEN Councilman Hilligoss advised she had attended the 6 PARTICIPATION IN meeting o.f the Task Force for ABAG''s proposed Manage - ABAG ENVIRONMENTAL ment Plan. She has received mail and comments where. MANAGEMENT-PLAN people feel the time for the public to .respond is much PROCESS too short,. She,suggesaed the Council adopt a.resolu- RES #808'8.NCS' tion asking the Association of -Bay Area'G'overnments to permit imore • time 'for public comment and review. Most agencies, including Petaluma, do not have the staff time to properly review the plan. Councilman, Cavanagh indicated he didn't know whether this would be an easy task, as the Association of_Bay.Area Governments has a deadline of June 3'Q to present.the Plan-to the State Legislature, and the 'State has a deadline of October to present the approved plan to the Environmental Protection.Agency. Councilman Hill goss stated ABAG' ;'s Task Force is handling four different plans and "is probably. six months to a year ahead,. of other, regions. in preparing 'the plan for EPA. There was some,discussion regarding the scheduled hearings and the dates for the General Assembly.. Mayor Putnam advised she and Councilman'Harbetson would be attending the - meeting the following day at ABAG. Res,olut-6n X80.88 N.C.S., calling for removal of restrictions on free and full. citizen participation in the Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) EMRP planning-process, was introduced by Councilman Hlligoss., seconded by Council- man Bond, and adopted.by 7 affirmative votes. City Manager Robert Meyer called to the attention of the Council the.sec of the Regional,Management Plan •which pertains to Sonoma County and Petaluma in particular regarding the 'Surface Runoff Management Plan. MOTION.`TO.ADD A motion was made by Councilman Harberson, seconded.b'y ITEM. .TO AGENDA Vice- Mayor Perry, to add a resolution to the Agenda regarding the declaration of a moratorium on applica- tions for permits. Motion carried unanimously. 'DECLARE�MORATORIUM - Community Develop p dinator Frank 1 , ON NE W y DEVELOPMENT Gray advisedsinceeAB 884 has I been adopted, when a 30- APPLICATIONS day period expires, for an application and the City has RES #8089 NCS not. certified to its completeness, the application is automatically considered complete.. The City has no f;orms.or processing method's for reviewing applications under the requirements of AB 884,. The applications thel City has on file now, and those which will, come in daily, - have a 30 - day period within which they must be certified' com- plete-, or they ar automatically approved:. The staff is., theref,or&, asking° for a 60 - day moratorium when no applications will be accepted by the' City of Petaluma. Mr. Gray stated there are 36 applications pending on various use permits and variances etc. The moratorium would be all inclusive. for use February 6, 1978 DECLARE .MORATORIUM permits, site designs, prezoning, rezoning, E.I.R.'s, ON DEVELOPMENT parcel maps:, 'tentative:maps, or ordinance amendments. APPLICATIONS Mr. Gray stated use permits and site designs are riot. RES #8089 NCS as much concern" to th e-staff as the major actions (Continued:) which would take place:. Councilman Cavanagh asked whether those developers who had received allocations had submitted - their applications.. Mr..Gray advised they have not submitted their applications and that was oiie.of the reasons for concern by the staff. Resolution #8089 N.C.S. declaring a moratorium of.new development applications for 60 days, to permit the City of Petaluma to develop procedures in compliance with Chapter 1200, Statutes of 1917, was introduced by Vice -Mayor Perry, seconded by Councilman Harberson, and adopted by 6 affirmative and 1 negative votes. Councilman Cavanagh voted "no ". ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting,was adjourned at 12:50 a.m., February 7, 1978, to February 13, 1978, at 4:00 p.m. �:_ .Mayor 1 Attest: Cit� Clerk