HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/01/1978MINUTES' OF'MEETING
OF' CITY COUNCIL
PETALUMA,.CALIFORNIA
MAY 1,. 1978
REGULAR MEETING
t
ROLL CALL
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Regular Meeting of, the Petaluma City Council was
called to order by Mayor.Helen Putnam at 7:35 p,.m.
Present: Councilmen Balshaw, Bond, Cavanagh, Harberson,
Hilligoss, Perry, and Mayor Putnam.
Absent: None.
Reverend Herbert Muck, United Church of Christ, gave
the,Invo.cation.
May-o:r Putnam asked Reverend Bauck to lead the Pledge 'of
, .Allegiance ,to the, Flag.
APPROVAL OF M_ INUTES The ;minutes of the, Adjour - -ned, Meeting of March 27, 1978,
were approved as mailed. The minutes of the Adjourned
Meeting of April 3, 1978, were approved as corrected.
CONSENT CALENDAR Agenda Item 46 , relating to participation with the
Cities of Sonoma:County, and the County of Sonoma, for
LAFCO to prepare a study for special service district`s for law enforcement was
removed from'the'Consent. Calendar. A motion was made by Councilman Cavanagh,
seconded by Vice. - Mayor Perry,, to adopt the resolutions, Agenda Items 461 through.
#6,-and order'the ordinance, Agenda Item 468, published. Motion carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 46.1_ Resolut -ion 4681.77 N.G.S. authorizing the City Manager to
AUTHORIZE 'CITY execute a license agreement.for',the use of the Fair-
MANAGER'TO,SIGN grounds facilities July 4, 1,978, was adopted.
AGREEMENT FOR USE
OF FAIRGROUNDS
JULY 4, 108
RES 468177' NCS
Agenda. Item. Resolution 468178 ''N,.C..S. setting hearing date May 15,
SET HEARING DATE FOR 1978, at 7:30 p.m•, for the purpose of considering,the
CONSIDERATION— rescinding-of certain•,housing allotments, pursuant to
RESCINDING HOUSING Section VI.B of the. Residential Development Control
ALLOTMENTS System was adopted.
RES 468178 NCS
Agenda Item 4631 Resol'utiori 468179 N.C.S. approving claims and'bills
APPROVE'CLAIMS audited by the City Auditor and approved for payment by
AND BILLS the City - Manager, 46j4823 .to #4905, inclusive, General
RES `468119''NCS City; and, #922 to 46940•, inclusive, Water, was adopted.
Agenda- Item 464
AUTHORIZE PUBLIC
%CONSTRUCTION
••AGREEMENT -- FOUR,
APPLES DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY 11 1
RES 448180 NCS
Agenda Item #5
AUTHORIZE AGRICUL
TURAL-LEASE WITH'
MERV AND-CAROL
SARTORI'
RES 468181 NCS
Agenda Item 466
APPROVE AGREEMENT
FOR PREPARATION OF
E. l: R..- , NOVAK
PREZONING
RES 468182 NCS
E-
L
t-
Resolution - 468180 N:C.S. authorizing Mayor to sign
public. construction agreement with-.Four Apples De
velopmeni Company-; Inc.,:for- '.'.proposed street improve -
ments for Kenneth Johnson,-.Madison Street, - Petaluma"
`was adopted.
Resolution:'4k8 •N. -authorizing Mayor enter into
that certain'-agricultural lease with'Mery : Sartori and
Carol Sartori, husband and wife, was adopted.
i
Resolution 468.182 N.C.S;. appr.ovIn'g - agreement for
tion and submission of Environmental Impact Report for
proposed Novak Piezoning atihe southeast corner'of'
CasaFGrand'e Road' and'Sartori Drive,. Petaluma, was
adopted .
y
. . e 4 .
a� '
May 1, 1978
Agenda Item 448
AMEND ZONING ORD. TO
REQUIRE MASONRY
SCREENING ALONG
ARTERIAL & COLLECTOR
STREETS'
O "4111292 NCS-
. ; r • , ... , .
Ordinance #1292 N..C.;S. amending Zoning Ordinance 41072
N.C.S.. by adding Section '23 -208, thereto requiring
masonry screening along arterial and collector streets
was .introduced and ordered published.
APPEAL BY LUCY H:, WEBB .Planning, Commission Resolution No. Z18 -'78, which failed
TO DENIAL BY, PLANNING to pass by a majority vote of Planning Commission
COMMISSI.ON TO REZONE April 4, 1978,, submitted and filed:; Planning staff
INDIAN :CREEK'PROP.ERTI'ES report- dated "March 27, 1976 - submitted and filed.
APPEAL UPHELD Notice of the Appeal'Hear:ing had been published by the
RES 48183 NCS City Clerk as: required by law.. P- rgperty owners within
a 300-foot radius were' also notified. by the City .
of the Public Hearing:. It is :to•b:e hoted.Councilman.Hilligoss excused herself
from the 'Council 'Chambers. while this, matter was being heard due to a possible
conflict of interestl -, Councilman Hiliigoss e.
returned:after' th°matter was voted
upon:
Planning Director Ronald Hall "reviewed the staff report prepared by the Plan-
ning Department.. the.Planning.Commission:'d'ated March 27 describing
the land uses, ,giving the.,backgr-ound,of the project, and the present - psop:osal.
to rezone .the..,propert.y. f.,rot light industrial, to .planned. unit development,. The
specific.uses ,propos.ed .include ,marine storage and', service,_ accessory and sales,
wholesale an 'retail sales._.of., al.1, automotive parts and acces;sories,, wholesale,
and retail. sales and repair of. all modes-of surface personal transportation, a�n
additon,to automobiles, wholesale'.and. retail sate, of goods;, machinery and
tools : t(?:. uses permitted;under light indusitrial zoning Mr. Ha
showed a. map which indicated' th& uses.for.the.various ,buildings Buildingsi A
and :B are subdivided into what is called "incubator ",warehousing. The P'.U,.D.
rezoning would provide' for. All uses allowed, in a 'light industrial Ais'fr ct.,
ncluding,princpal.us'es accessory uses and:conditional uses. Mr.'Hall stated
the Planning .Comm ss on felt by requiring a`P. .U..D. rezoning,, the integrity, of
the,light ndustrial. areas would be °preserved,. Although 'there would be some
flexibility to the plan,.those which.have been given approval under site design
would have to remain as•stipula.t'ed,,such as .the incubator warehousing,'
Mayor Putnam opened the. Public Hearing,.. Mrs.. Lucy Webb stated,, although. she 0 .
had signed the application, fo:r'the 'appeal . by Chras,tensen and_Foster• she felt.
Mr. Foster :should speak to the issue, Mr.. Ed -Foster of Indian Creek - 'Properties
indicated they had previously built .mini - warehouses on Lakeville Highway at the
intersection of 101 which have been quite successful. In their- research, they
felt this, new proposal. would 'lie an opportunity' to, fwill an economic need for
small businesses to ,lease space to provide automotive and sma1l.,seryice= type;,of
p.
the 245 square foof. iece of . ,ro e ng 9.0;,00.0 square. feet of .build.ngs on
o p er ations. y • antici ate .construct
p' p p rty. Thee buildings would. probably be
accomplished.in .three phases on an on- going.basis as .leases are obtained- The
facility would be known as, the. Lakev Ole. Business Park, signing would be -regulated,
And since only 3&.6 percent of. the property would,be.,covered with, buildings;,
the development would, be, '.highly landscaped.. .Mr... Foster indicated they,fe -1,t, it
would be, "bes:t to; use a P:U,.,D,. type of development which would naive .the uses -for
the business park... In. addition to. City `requirements,, the State Highway
neers have asked ghat. p.r.ovision. <be .made for _a. 10 -foolt left turn lane from ,the
highway, which they would be required.to pave. The City of Petaluma has also
requested,the.same treatment for Petroleum Avenue, including the. ,front of the
lots they do not. own., The firm has: agreed to, do _this. There would 'be no
parking on Petroleum.Avenue or:Lakeville ghway,. The,total cost of the project
would be in excess_ of ,$2,000,;000 'and, would have between 4.0' and 5'0 tenants. The
'development would probably generate between ;;$50.,000 to $50,000' per year in
taxes and it,. "was .felt, it would not cause any' impact on schools, a very low
impact on water and sewers, and very l the meed for Police and Fire protection.
Mr. 'Fos•ter stated he hoped the Council would make it possible for them to
secure '.the .P.U.D. zoning to. make this: plan feasible and a possibility.' If
approved,, .they, are prepared to start .construction as ,soon as possible:. .
Council discussion followed Mr. Foster•'s presentation. The question was asked
why the other.four.parcels were not included in ,the'P..U.D. Mrs. 'Lucy Webb
advised,they were unable to contact.the property owner when the ' pr - op.osal was
being put together.. This property can.be..included at a later date..
1
May 1 19.78
Ci "Larry- 'Klose also stated there 'has to.be
-100' 'percent consent, of thee. pr;op'erty_ owners involved in
the P.0 ".D.
Sd7
Councilman Bond pointed out there..:seemed to be a discrepancy
between the Planning staf 'f's "'r,eport, and the minutes of
the'Planning Commission regarding the compatibility of
- the 'proposed .development with the F.D.P. Mr. Hall
responded that he'did not feel the issue was' the incompabilty with the E.D.P.
an'd the Genera1 Plan._ The major, issue.:seemed to be that there was the intent
to have a line of demarcation b;etween.commer.cial uses And'industrial uses, and
that line.should be Petroleum Avenue For that reason, the applicant, after
having the app l-ica.t ion - denied' without pr:ej'.ud ° ice,' was. asked I to come back with a
P.U.D Mr. Ha11 agreed with Councilman Bond,' However,, 'that the E.D.P. does
indicate "P.etroleum Avenue as,. he�_line :of. Councilman Bond .stated
he did', feel,; however, the proposal,would 'be.a good transition,between the
mobile and the heavy ,industrial use's.
Councilman Balshaw indicated the,dissenting votes on the Planning Commission
were mainly regarding concern for continued strip commercial development along
Lakeville Highway Th'e automobile sales "lot and the.mobile home sales do not
generate a great deal. of traffic. It was felt' the' ancillary uses. to serve - the
principal uses in the P.,U.D.. would generate traffic. He questioned whether
this type of development was desirable. He also asked the City Attorney for
his'interpretation:of.: the.section.of the Zoning.Ordinance pertaining to P.U.D.
City, Attorney adyised',thd significant governing factor would be' the Environ-
mental DesignriPlan and the.Ge'neral'Plan. 'The P.U`.D, will - permit any'use'or mix .
--
of:u9es allowed under the General ,Plan and the Environmental Design Plan. The
City's,provisi6n for planned',,unit developments,. permits any mixture of uses
consistent with these overri'd'ing documents,. - P.U.D.'s are treated as entirely
separate ; dis,tricts. - P:. W. D'. approval` i's: a combination of site design and zoning
process_ into 'one' dist'rict;.:arid preemp .sect ons,' of the Zoning Ordinance.
The next person "to'speak "at the.Public_Hearing ,was,Lucy Webb. She ekplained°
the p're'sent proper" ty owner, Mr. ' William. ,Jonas, had leased the property to James
Equipment Cbmpany while this.proj;ec.i was .b.e ng.formulated. 'Mr. James''business
was properly zoned; however, 'he did not obtain a permit from the City. The
City has now filed :suit against Mr..Jonas as the City was unable to serve
papers on Mr. James.. Mr.. Klose advised Mr. James was eventually served. The
suit is' 'still .pending,, but h;e'w ll dismiss it when_ the "situation of the use of
the .land is. resolved. - It is' the City Attorney's understanding that Mr.' James
has vacated"`the propertyy. - Mr. .Klose advised,..._that technically the property
owner, as well, as the tenant is' resporisi'ble for whatever violation occurs.
Mrs. - Webb advised as s,00n.as the matter "is xesolv.ed, the old stockyard will be
torn down`and the'area cleared' immediately,'
Mayor Putnam 'closed the'P.ublic.Hearing.-
Resolution #8183 &.C..-8.' upholding the appeal by Lucy, R..1', Webb, Agent for Indian.
Creek Propert -ies (Chiis;tensen and Foster); was introduced by Councilman Harber- I
son, secondedby Councilman.Cavanagh, and. adopted by 5 affirmative dnd l negative
votes. Councilman Hilligoss was not present for'..the.roll call and had disquali-
fied herself from voting,. . ''.Co' ' man Balshaw'vo,ted ";no"
AMEND--ZONING ORD. ' Ordinance #1293.N.0 -S; amending Zoning-Or dinance 41072
' RECLASSIFY APPROX:. N. by .reclassifying' A. P: X405 050 - 02, 405 050 =10,
5.16 ACRES-- LAKEVILLE. and 405 050716 (located on the southeast corner of
HIGHWAY=-- 'FROM_M =L'TO Lakeville Highway and Petroleum Avenue, approximately
PUD (INDIAN `
5,..16, acres) from. M -L (.light. industrial) to P.U.D. '
PROPERTIES')' (planned "unit. development).. (.Indian' Creek" Oro' i ties);
ORD :41293 NCS '`' was introduced by Vice,,Mayor ".Rerry;'seconded by "Council-
"man Cavanagh, and orde'red.pub;lished by 6'affirmative
v.o:tes... Councilman Hilligoss disqualified herself from
voting `because of a'possible.cohflict of interest. It
should.be noted, at.this ,time, Councilman Hilligoss
returned to the Council Chambers at 8:50.p.m.
g0S
May 1,1978
UPHOLD_APPEAL - -- QANTAS The matter..of the Appeal-Hearing had been established.
DEVEI;OPMENT - =TO DENIAL by' the City Council by Resolution4'8163 N. C ;: S. , ' adopted
BY PLANNING COMM. TO April'17,'1938. The Not ce.of,the Hearing was
PREZONE PROPERTY ON by the City Clerk as requ r:ed by law.' Property owners
ELY ROAD in the vicinity f the proposed rezone area were
RE9 ;4 } NCS_ notified. "The ile'r',of appeal dated April i978,
4rom Jon • D. Jos_iyn of� as, Developulent Corporation,
submitted and filed,.Plann -i.ng Commission Res:o,lution No. Z6 -78, denying the
n -
rezoning' at; the meeting `of' April. _4:, 19:78., subm ;tted'. and filed; Planning staff.
report'dated,March..3.,, submitted a_nd,f: led...• The_ letter. of : appeal from,.Mr.
Joslyn was read ' by the City Clerk;.
•, , ,
Planning Director Ronald Hal adviised. theL application - by, Qantas Development
'C'or-porat -ion is to � prezone approximately 74 5., acres of e land located on the!
nortfiwest side of,-Ely Blvd. North app :roximate'i -y 1,00.0 feet • north of Lynch '
Creek;' from 'Coun ty' 'A.,.Agricultural, to :Cityy "PC D ,.'Planned Community District:.,
The prezoning "would.ahow for approximately 217 single-family residential
units, 2.20 multi- family units,,, a portion.of ,an` elementary school site;.
Mr,. Hall then . reviewed the staff report., He advised. most of the.'.comments from
reviewing.agencies related to the.deuelopment stage and no,t the ng
stage.. : Written comments - were' not •recei-ved.'from the C;;ity Engineer in time to be
incorporated•' into the staff' report:; however; they° ind "icated at the 'P- laming
Commission hearing "'that ihe' interisi"f.ied. development would add t'o, the txaff'ic
impact. "The Planning. .Department asked .the` Commission to reserve "the right. t'o
require'.'an Environmental, Impact.:RePort :a't the time: the PUD and tentative map
are considered. Mos.t.,.of. the.testimony at the Planning Commission Meeting
evolved :around the size of the park area and thetlocation. 'of the; school' 'site..
,There was some concern by: a'' Planning Commissi.oner- , the should be a pro
vision ;for a within 'thi`s' development p_r,o�ect, 'Tie Recreation Department
felt if 'the schoo:l,_ sit'.e 'needed ' to. - tie - removed' -"the, land provided ' the,'school
site could be utilized for a larger.park. Using the formula for the dedication .
of ark, slte's,:'Phases I through�V :would then. necessitate`12 acres of 'land to be
P
dedicat'ed,. Five,acres have been, satisfied by Phase, II. The Planning Department
pointed'out to'the Commission' the..school was provided' in"a location eon = - '
sistent with City policy, _ by. the Old' Adobe,School District
was` in conflict with this po icy. recommendation- Hallaadvis.ed he had updated, the County's
demographic study for school sites,,. His conclusion on the map he•mad'e placed
the'school site in essentially the same area as Qantas Developme-n,t Corporation,
indicated: -
City Manager questioned'.Vhether' the .plan should n,'ot' include. where
additional park land would. located...• He saated._snce.there would be multiple
units' in'the.deve'lopment which usually include•land'scaped areas, perhaps an
additional five acres would'be sufficient.,.. Mr Hall stated this was the,
feeling of the 'Recreation Department„ althotigh if calculated by the formula, 12
acres'would'..b ;e required .f6t ',all of the holdings :of. Qantas. This would be in
addition to the school site'. Mr. Hall stayed the matter liad'been d sciissed at
the. Planning.,CQmmission Meeting. It may be more, feasible to utilize* in-lieu
fees'rather than require a, six -acre park, becaus e' of • the'fact - fliere''are'.mu -1,t pie-
.family housing units in the plan. which may have provisions for park areas' Mr.
Hail stated it would be .an, advantage to:'the, developer,, however, to- indicate the;
park's: te,'on the plan,. If - not shown now, the developer', would have 'to amend the
,PCD at. later date. At t time, developer has.somi? tent3.tive plans.
indicating 'street layout and lot eon'fguration, and 'tli;ey may be , in - , a : position
now where they could designate a ;park',site. If the Council upholds the appeal;
they should do so with this particular 'condi;ti:on added as 'pant . of 'the approval.
The developer will 'be obligated to in- 1 "ieu.frees, in. any event, but this does
provide opportunity to show a park site if the.Council. feels 1t• is necessary.
City Attorney. Larry ,K_lose'advised•'td e Subdivision, Ordinance -is the" actual
vehicle park land; and. this development has not yet •reached this
stage.' He_agreed, with the Planning Director that.the condition should be
inserted the .developer maybe required ao dedicate a park.site.to be
specified later; ,and, under :the..Subdivision irdinance,' the developer will be.
required to contribute i lieu, • fees'',._ When t'he .City reviews the.'Su
Map,, that is the time the requir.ement.for,the land or the fees, or both, will
be imposed.
City.Attorney Larry K'lo'se pointed .out the Subdi .vsion'Ordinance : the
school .site to .be located adjacent to the.. park.. site,,, ,unless it is a physical
impossibility. City Manager. Robert. ,Meyer, also: stated. •the Council is considering
May 1„ 1978 •
UPHOLD APPEAL -- QANTAS •a planned.commnunity development map which has to be
DEVELOPMENT, -. -TO •DENIAL followed by.- a planned' ,uni.t district map. The PUD map
BY PLANNING 'COMM. 'TO would indicate the..stre'et layouts, the acreage; and the
PREZONE PROPERTY ON school and park ,si:tes..; Councilman B`alshaw stated if
ELY`ROAD >all the Council.was looking -at' was a parcel of .land,:
RES448184�,NCS then.he. could - see no logic'. to require the placement of'
(Continued) the school or park sites .on' :the map. The City ' Attorney
stated - the PCD is .a special district., somewhat like a
PUD; only less detailed.. He then referred to Section 19 -302:1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and;.:read,.' it • f'o;r - the', benefit ; ,of the C,ouncil:. , He advised it is appro-
priate:.'to p;rezone the land pr:ior.•to.annexati'on,and� the P.CD•- designates the land
uses.:tha '.will= be' permitted.' at'. such time the land is annexed., to the City.
City Manager Robert Meyer:questioned.whether the,map,..submitted, dated February
22,..' 1:978,, is:..to 'be, cons.ider,ed' Exhibit A, for. the- prezoning.. Planning Director
Ronald.•Hall - indicated the map before the` Council .shows.the,lott.ing.pattern.
The. first map submitted, shows. Rh'ases I. and _II, . and the: additional ,map shows
Phases III, IV -and V.. Mr. Joslyn sta.ted'the.map shows a- combination of
both.
Mayor•Putnam, opened the Public Hearing.
Mr."Joslyn; stated their official request for'. modification of the existing
PCD and prezoning the. new PCD.,. Without .a modification to the existing PCD, .a
portion of the school site runs across the road.. He. .,s;tated, therefore, both
maps have be viewed together. The first.portion,of the development on the
M- illmei property. does' not - include, a school, site.. - The new map would combine
the pork and - th'e'-,school. isite as required.; by City. policy. Mr. °Josly:n felt 'it
was important, apt- this time, for-both the � ty and they developer t&- to-
what' 'ifs to be' perf o'rmedl... He • stated- t hey: • must iknow the:s location for the .park' ' .
and the school and' cannot .tailk Ini indef'inte- terms:.. , He also felt the require -
ment=)for an additional. six =acre park, in the sing -le- family area would be excessive
and suggested the City actepf -in -lieu fees-.
Councilman Balshaw reviewed the.discussion.held by the Planning Commission.
There was concern expressed whether or.not the.Old Adobe School District would
accept the site. One_ Commissioner felt the',City.was giving.away too much land
by not requi -ring, dedication.- : It was . suggested: the in -lieu fees" should be
equal- =to .the value i.of the•+ developed land.'
Mayor-Putnam' advised she-had contacted the.School District to determi -ne if
there =would" Abe, an opportunity t'o: ' meet • wi.th> them.;. (. indicated the 'Board. had
already' taken action.. � • Subsequerit`1y., Dr,. =Vickers• cal=led and asked if a meeting .
could be- set up= for( F:riday�,, May? 12: :wi;th a member of thee-staff-, a :Councilman,
and a S chool. Board- Member:; to discuss the, matter. - - I _
Mr. Mclarland.from the Old'Adob.e School District indicated,the site selected by
the Board was, along Ely Blvd., .They were thinking in terms of development
progressing east of Ely Blvd They also expressed concern regarding th`e',
commitment the school may have to make to pay f.or 'one -half of'the street and
placing the school next to' a•`park, and'• the potent-ial.' for vandalism 1 They- are
not considering building a school unless they have a larger enrollment period
and 'are not sure•whether. the. school will needed. , He asked if t•would be
possible to leave the option open as.to where the:school woufld. located.
City - Manager .Robert. Meyer. :stated if the school .is, .not able to build on any site
selected., the ,land can. only.. be held for so long a,,period of time,. then it .must
revert; 'back to t=ie developer. Mr. Meyer also „pointed' out that wherever, a
schoo.1 is built:, it will have,streets.surrounding it, and not be built' directly
adjacent- to - residential'. development . The stree'ts be the respbnsib lity
Vf "the :School Board.
There 'was tur;then d scussio'n. regarding, ;the! requirement of the developer to
provide , park' :land - fbr the ,development:. Tlanningi -D rector Ronald. Hal L.:indicated
the - proposal - -for. - I•_ithiough) V-- 'r.equire,.,12.4..4 acres, _which is :adequate .asf
long' as''the multi= family :uni;ts arer_devexloped. Councilman. Balshaw :felt 15 acres
shoul&be designated as park. land,. then if the .'school .wanted to `proceed, they
could purchase 10,acres at '.a later date. t _
Mayor Putnam asked Mr. Joslyn if it was determined sometime• in the..futur,e that
the 15 to be designated for park and . school - sites was not used for those
purposes, could he develop the.land in some innovative manner. Mr. Joslyri
indicated the land could be developed, but they w.o.uld.prefer to know the street
patterns and configuration of the area at this 'time.
11
.M)f
May 19 Z8
UPHOLD - .,APPEAL -- QANTAS
DEVELOPMENT"-TO DENIAL
BY PLANNING COMM. TO
PREZONE; PROPERTY, .ON
*
ELY ROAD
RES 48184,NCS,
(Continued)..
, Councilman Balshaw ,made &motion e th
to: u hold a
_p up hold -ppe-115
with the.,provisioh. that five s0t.Aside fOI7..
park ;, and .10 Acres .f or a school site.. His' motion also.
contained, the statement;.that the not
require,the site,.within two years from submission -of
the. tentative subdivision'map - the. City would' have the •
option of. acquiring . the land.. by us4mg, the in -lieu f ees.
His motion,.was. seconded ,hy.Counc:tlfnan-Hilligos.s;.
Councilman Bond indicated he, not. suppor-t_ the motion. He stated he could
see, no need,_.f.or a :13- acre. park so_close_,to..Lucchesi, Park. , He f urther stated he
felt the City should require more realistic in -lieu fees.: The City. long
f elt Lucchesi Fark is,the number one ,priority for development.
City Attorney� ',Larky,Klose.advised 'he. felt the motion made a,:sigqificant modift-
cation-and•,did-not,know,,whether he could deal with thexiatter without research.
He. felt it probably, should ::be; returned. to. the Commission; 'whereupon,
Councilman Hilligoss,.withdr.ew"her second to.the motion and Councilman Balsh.aw'
withdrew the motion.
Resolution 44.8184 N'.,C. upholdirig the appeal- of. the-applicant., - Q4ntas.D'evelopment'
Corporati6n, includin the appropriate. findings of the. Planning Commission,, was
intioducdd. by: C-ounc. Hil'ligpss; 'and adopted by
6 affirmative and 1, absentee votes—
AMEND_ ZONINGi ORD., TO,.. Ordinance,11294 N.C:., amending Zoning Ordinance 4.107.2
PREZONE,'AP.PROX. -7.4,.5, R.,C,,S. by.prezoning., portions o .an d modifying
-
ACRES., - ELY3LV_D,. NO" .' existing Pjanned, Community District, on port-ions. of
(QANTAS) A.P. #136 -24,, 44136-11-27., #13'6-11 -29,, and #136"11-
ORD 441294 NCS 04, to include said. pa in. a single. PCD (Planned
Community Dist= rict), approximately, 74.5_ acres _located
on Ely Blvd. Nor.th,:Petaluma (Qantas')„ was! introduced by, pp,;rjry,,_
seconded by Councilman Bond, And ordered published by 6 affirmative and I
abse'niee.votes_
ESTABLISH *PRIORITIES•. Senior. Planner Fred. Tarr reviewed, the memorandum .da
,1978 HOUSING AND May 1, 1978, directed to, the City Manager-. 'Re �s t0edd
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-. 'the Citizens', AdvIsory Committee f I or the 1978 Housing
BLOCK GRANT- - FUNDS and.;Cofnmunity '.Development, Block Grant. met- April 28,, and
RES 448185 NCSi established the f ollowing priorities"": 1) -Hi-11cr-est-,
Hospital Conversion., $250 These fu nds would be
used t'd p ay' for engineering and architectural plan preparation to :convert the
, ;p
Hospital to a senior citizens '. congregate housin&,, a hospice., 'and, a s enior.
citizens' service center.
He then read' a", Letter 'directed' - to' - the , City'Manager by Charles E. Cowan Adminis-
trator, Hiilcres'i Hospitla'l,,, endbrairig' the pla.n.; A, copy of' the letter, ,is on
file w:UW"th6 City Clerk.
The' se'cond'-p,ri:ority would be.. senior citizen housing land, acquisliion,, 2 0 0,, 0.0.0 -
and the third would - be the ' continuation of, the sidewalk ramp pT- Target
Area "V!,, bounded by. Petaluma Blvd-. South, Eighth.Street, "D" Street and "T"
Street, for a total of $70,000.
Mr. Tarr adv.ised there are some funds still, remaining from last .,year to do some
s
the. priorit Y Ist.
de improvements, in Addition lo the ramps cion'ta-1 in th
i _W61
The Engineering ,Department will. be asked. to prepare-the.plans and specifications
to continue this ;sidewalk. iepair work.
tb Bond, questioned the figure. of- $100,000 ppx..acre for- senior citizen
housing. Mr. Tarr explained the land would be within, the central pzirt of town,
A rid probably would.cost that much,. Councilman Bond also state&on the Prelimi-
nary Report,. -there was some indication funds would be. used fok' a youth and
adult: building , Mr.. Tarr stated,, in, his conversation, with HUD, they indicated -
this would be a low ptio.,rity item. It,.w6,ul.d be difficult, W prLdye to them. it,
, would. be available f or low -sand moderaile- income individuals. It. is. his under
standing cities . have 'to take, special notice funds. are go.iftg to. be -used, for
low- an - d moderate- income groupa,i
Couhd'i-lIh4A,Balshaw sugge9t6d.'the two acres for the senior citizen. housing irfR land
acquisi be omitted. from the preapp.lication, and j,iist make the request for
Mayor Putnam opened Pub lic,'Hearin&.
I
May 1, '1978
ESTABLISH PRIORITIES Reverend Herbert B'auck,s;t'ated . he, was enthusiastic about
7 SING AND the use of Hillcres't Hospital._ Reverend Bauck advised'
C0MMUNOTY DEVELOPMENT
he is the Presde
B LOCK GRANTS FUNDS rit..of 'Petaluma Seniors Involved,, and•
�, �•�, r- •
the group;de've� lop.ed thi's idea las,t Fall. 'They have
RES #818'5 'NCS , :. _ ' "
formed a' coalition' and. feel. using the'- hospital ''in this
(Continued) +.,._
mariner will ;involve the entire community. He' a -lso
advised the Northbay, Senior_.P..lanning Council s' interested
in administering'the' program; and .also,: as's %sting ".in iAe funding. Reverend
Bauck`s.t'ate'd''the idea. - of a'Iiospice' very new: Basically, it' is a'home' center
movement ' wher -e most of the terminal care, is' administered in the home. It was
also the. feeling of the 'group that, in ad "dition to home ;'cane, there was a need
to cons der'soind facility- fo'r 'those ,wh`o: w.'ere' terminally" ill but could not be
kept iri` the 'home.' a`c
The also provide a, ser'vice'denter with activi-
ties and' permit`personswho are"aking "care 'of.'the l'1' or"'e'lderly'tohave' them
bussed' t'o the facility .wher.e they rwoul'd remain' during' the' day and return ' to' '
their hom at night.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Resolution 48185 N.C..S. designating Mayor-as representative for
purposes- of filing pr'eapplication -= 'H'ousing.'and Community Development'Act, and
establishing, priorities' therefor., was introduced by .Councilman Cavanagh seconded
by Councilman H'illigoss, and adopted by 6 affirmative and 1 absentee votes.
PREZONE`- 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. Z17 -78, ad
AND'l.67' ACRES FROM April 4, "078, submitte&'and filed; Planning staff
COUNTY'= AGRICULTURAL ' ,report dated Mardi 28,'1978, submitted and filed.' '
B-5 C -H AND M =L
OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY Planning Ronald Hall reviewed the staff report,
(LUCY` WEBB-= DENMAN and stated no deve'lopinent' plans have been 'submitted for
FLAT PROPERTIES) development ':' Following'' the `prezoning,' specific plans
ORD X61291 NCS, will be required, including site design'review, further
(SECOND READ) envirori Pe
ment'al. review and' of a`Use
ING rmit
befor.e'developmerit'pan take place. A late response had
been received from CALTRANS indicating, the ..development would cause no impact on
Highway 101. The uses proposed would be consistent with the.Environmental
Design Plan :and` the General.P.lan.. .Mr.. Hall indicated the right would be reserved,
under C.E Q.,A. Guid'e'lines,' to require' environmental`r`eview of the project' -and
the development plan as submitted. , He advised there were no
on, th "is appj 6ation ,responses had''been received'. by the general' public 'at
the' Planning. - Commission Hearing
Mayor Putnam opened the Pub:lic.Hearing.. No comments wer.e.made from•the`audience,
the City Clerk had receivedno,•comments, and the.Pub'lic Hearing was declared
closed.
Ordinance' #1291'" N. C.:S, amending Zoning Ordinance ' 610 N. C..S: b'y' prezoning A.P.
46047 - 211 =010 (,approximately. 23.79 acres)`, and A` P. #047 211 - 13 °(approximately '
1.6`7 acres) ' from, County Agricultural B -5 (1 2- acre' minimum) to_ C -H' (highway
commercial)'. and 'M-',L (.light "industrial, d "istrict), located on the northwest
of 01d.Redwood Highway, -east of U -.,S. 101 -- (Lucy WebbjDenman F1at'Properties),
was adopted by 6 and T absent:e'e votes. .'Effective date'of Ordinance,
May 31, 1978:. t, ,
RE- ADVERTISEtFOR BIDS; City Engineer David Young. advised: only one bid had been
TRAFFIC. S received, for° the, proj.ect. at Petaluma Blvd—North-and
PETALUMA', BLVD... NORTH Lakeville ;Street, to install, traffic, signals, and,
ANU LAKEVILLE STREET improvements. The bid,was received from'Ghilot.t
RES 46818 NCS Brothers on Schedule 2, which was the lowest schedule,
in the amount of $198.,554. The Engineer's estimate was
$136,,8:13.: ),Mr.. Young recommended. the Council go ,out .to. bid again -as only one
bid was,, received, and he_ did not feel it was,. competitive bidding. He had_
checked with, contractors who: took, out the,�plans, and. specifications, but it
seems . ,this. is - a, difficult time .for .;them•to bid•;, as most of ,them, are_ working_ on
other.•proj.ects.,, The single,�Ughest value :Of,, work: is the _traff,ic;
signal -,sys.-tem.-,-...and as far as;.Mr ,.•Y;oing, could determine,t only, one, electrical
subcontractor had furnish'ed.a'bid.
Resolution 468186 N'.G.S. authorizing re- advertisement'for bids May 25, 1978, for
traff `c' igpals. and street improvements, Petaluma Blvd. North and Lakeville
Street, Project No.',96'20_,.was' introduced b.y.Vice -Mayor Perry, seconded by
Councilman Bond, and adopted'.by 6 affirmative and 1 absentee votes.
6'-1'/
May 1, 1978
CITY MANAGER'S.'REPORTS:
LETTER FROM W. R. , -: A letter. dated April 18`, 1978,,' directed to the�,Gity
HILLIGOSS, Manager „by W..R.'Hilligoss ,offWestern Motors, was read
NO- PARKING; .P;ETALUMA by the City . C:lerk and: ordered filed..
BLVD. NORTH
Mayor-Putnam, asked the :City Eng ineer to comment on the
g parking p
letter,. Mr, Yours . staged he, .never felt. arkn should: be ermi:t'.ted. on Petaluma
Bivd. North... .,It,. is too narrow for. vehicles and although ' it ,is striped for four
lanes,, it is; not :used, as such:. In order, ,f,o.r. the. thoroughfare'to, be. used as a
four -lane street,,, it.,,should be .widened to accommodate four. Tane's, iCity. Manager
Robert. Meyer stated if the signalizat on.at,- Petaluma,Blvd.. North and.Lakev lle
Street :is accomplished;, this will help to a considerable degree,: Anytime
parking.is to be removed along Petaluma Blvd .Nor:th. the City has received
object_ions.- Mayor Putnam indicated .the. City 'has long recognized it as a
continuing problem. which is going . to be difficult to s'olve., The City Clerk was
requested to respond.to'Mr. Hilligoss' letter.
LETTER FROM JOHN 0: A letter- dated Mdxch., 9, 1978,. directed, to David .A..
NELSON ASKING' CITY TO Young, City Engineer, by John. O. Nelson; Chairman,
JOIN IN'REQUEST,ING Water Advisory Committee;,_ was read by the City Clerk
COURT TO REQUIRE BONDS and ordered filed..
OPPONENTS OF WARM
SPRINGS, DAM City., Manager 'Robert Meyer. indicated the let- ter•.had- :been
directed to -. all members of the Advisory- Commit'tee,• and
the NOr,th,Marin Water, District, Board of Directors.had,'taken action p*h the
matter.
Council ;ind cated would. like'' to have a, discussion on''the. let ter
before the,Council would reach -a conclusion and vote.on it.
The City Attorney was..reque'sted to prepare, to bring.'back ,to the
Council.' at .the next meeting.` No action was taken:
ESTIMATED COST -FLOOD A, memorandum dated May 1,, .1978„ to the City' `Manage_ r
CONTROL PETALUMA from * the City Engineer, submitted and filed..
BLVD,. AT "H”
AND "C"_ STREETS, The cost for solving 'the problems at "C" Street and.
Petaluma Blvd; South to First - S,treet_, is estimated. to'
be.$31,OQO. The second profect,, "H ".S'.treet.f:rom- F:ourih Street to the*River,
$.96,`000,
City Manager* Robert Meyer stated this item. was. brought to the Cotincil!s atten-
tion at the request of Counc 1-ma_n Cavanagh,. the Councills :rep on the
Zone 2A, Advisory. ,Cpmmittee.,.'..The flooding :in these,�areas. had' been. discussed
during. previous Council Meetings., Mr. - Meyer stated. there is a poss b city the•
least costly of the two projects,,.. !'C" S;treet,; could be, included as ,an. item fo'r
the. Petaluma Community Development. Commission .for funding, ;as 'it is' in' -the,
Pr,oj,ect. Area. . A new• bui -ldng is to be :coris'tructed where the °former ,gasoline
station stood,. and, the new owner. is -coricerne'dregarding the;-flooding;.
Councilman,Cavanagh ;asked the City Engineer to explain the difference in the
cost `between the ':'H" Street .P.roj :ect and, the. "C" .Street)P.roj•ect - -. i .ten.wor-ds
or less.,- The. .City Engineer's response „,.:'G;r -.eater.,.length and bigger Ipipe.s'_ . Mr.
Meyer advised: the "C-” S:tr"ee't, :P'roj e'ct. would' be - discussed.a.t the Community Development
Commisson'Meeting;. Of,3-May+8, , 19:78.
STATUS REPORT== WICKES` Community . Development: and. Services ;Coordinator. Frank
ANNEXATION ., reported -he. had; delivered a..leiter to Wickes„
They were concerned regarding sign restrictions -and the
comparison betweeni the County's restrictions ,and .t4ose imposed. by 'the' City -.
Mr. ' Gray indicated. the regulations for .both. A.hei County. and the City are, virtually
the same;, : There- still has been. no -word received :from the, head quarters.,of the'
Wickes Company regarding the' annexation.
Lucy Webb stated. she represented Benny Friedman of Friedman Bros. They, have
'
. , } 11 ., I c . e.
held off re annexat hoping to ,annex .at the same time as Wi and-
asked - what procedure she should take a;t this, time. ` Mr:. Gray asked if' they `'
,.; . _., . 1: -
would hold off for about two more weeks before submitting their 'application.
May 1, 1978 `
METROPOLITAN 'Finan'ce Director John Scharer. advised he attended the
TRANSPORTATION COMM. Public' Hearing held_by MTC;- in' Rosa, April 26,
PUBLIC :HEARING 1978 .The' purpose, of. the Hearing, was to assess the .
transportation needs; of',the County. The Cit;ies'of
Santa Rosa and Petaluma, as well.as. th'e:Countty of Sonoma, were represented., and
explained how TDA•f.unds were being used. 'They °reserved their right to explain
their' additional, needs until after the .Golden Gate. Bridge District Meeting of
May 12 .
City Manager- Rob,er't. `Meyer advised bus :ridership .in thee City has increased by
5,556 passengers in 1977' =78 over.1976 -77., when the City's bus system first
started.
COUNCIL,`COMMhSSION & BOARD`REP-ORTS ,
PLANNING COMMISSION Councilman Balshaw advised the Planning Commission will
MEETING REGARDING meet on th`e fourth Tuesday of the month to discuss park
PARK •POLICIES development' po =licie-s;., They haye;.asked staff, and the
;Recreation Commission for input_,regarding the types of
parks to be developed, whether in -:lieu fees sh.ould.,be required,instead of land,
the types of uses which should be designated, etc. The Planning Commission
feels the Recreation Commission should determine how the .land is to be used.
It was suggested, such. a meeting be, a, joint,,meet;ng of :the two Commissions:
f
REQUEST. LAFCO FORM Thin -item had: been;'- removed: fromG the Consent' Calendar; at
COUNTY,SERVICE AREA the request, of, Councilman. Cavanagh. He questioned
POLICE PROTECTION whether- i,thes City -was asking for the formation of a
SERVICES County Service Area,.
RES X68187 NCS_ _
City Attorney Larry Klose saated the intent was 'to
LAFCO to study the level of service provided by - the`County`for'police protection'
in the unincorporated areas Government Code provides if more intensive service
is.given.in the unincorporated areas and the services are paid by all, it is
possible to petition .for_. the' formation' of a. S'er�ce` Area. Cities receive
minimal ' service. Teem. the "Sheriff "'s; Department ''b'ut. -are' taxed on the same level
as 'rural areas. In' order for.. sUch a service area to ':be formed, an application
must be made 'tb`'L'AFCO.. LAFC' wi11 conduct' a; 'study 'and make the determination
whether or`not: such a service area should' be' forme'd: - Cities are providing
funds .for LAFCO, staff.to,conduct the.study. Petaluma's estimated pro rata
share is up to $3,.90,0. Mr.'Kl6se advised he would write a contingency clause
into the resolution stating'if Proposition 13..is,.successful in the June 6, 1978
Election, the resolution would be automatically repealed.
Resolution ,#8187 N.C.S. °directing that an applic'ation.be filed with the Sonoma
County,Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) f.or the formation of a County
Service Area,to provide,ex sting.Police protection services and making an
appropriation to finance an. impartial study.to determine the exact extent and
geographic locationl.of..such :services, was introduced by Councilman Bond,
seconded by Vice- Mayor - Perry ,,, and adopted.by 5 affirmative, I negative, and 1
absentee votes Councilman - Cavanagh voted "no ".
PROPOSAL °FOR AMENDMENT Considerable discussion was held, on the •matter.' Plan -
TO GENERAL PLAN AND ping Direc't'or Ronald Hall stated -;the time.-limit had
E.D.P.- - CORNER, EAST expired for the.des gnat on for'p.rof'e'ssional ice at
WASHINGTON STREET & this location. Dick Lieb had asked for another extension
ELY.'BLVD. �S,OUTH `.on,�•behalf of Art Condiotti. The Planning Department
' �cyould not grant such an extension.
City Manager Robert Meyer indicated.i.t. was not proper to discuss the matter, as
the'two. Mr...Condiotti. and Mr. .Garfield,,.had not been advised it
i
would be.discussed.by the..`C.ouncil. The City,Clerk staged since the Planning
Commission Resolution ask ed` 't:oIhave the matter referred back to them and the
resolution-prepared for the,. Council indicated the same, she was -not aware the
matter had to be published'.
At the conclusion of the.discusion, it.was determined this area should be
considered along, with :others when' the. changes :ar.e made to the Environmental
Design Plan Map. No action was taken.
Attest:•
C 1 Clerk
May 1, 1978
PREZONE 35.6
Ordinance #1295 N.C.S. amending.'Zoning Ordinance #10
ACRES--EtY.BLVD._,NO;
N.G.S., by preioning A-P-.4136= 1110-07, 136-m:110-68j•136-
FROM COUNTY ,A'TO CITY
136- 110-7211,, 136r110. =22, 136-110-2 136-110-35,
R-1-6,500
and 136-110-36. (approximatel" 35.6 acres) located, on
ORD #1295
Ely. Blvd,. North, fibmIC6unty.& (A 9 ricultural) to City
of''PetAluma, -R,-1-6,500, was, introduced'by Councilman.
11111.igoss� - seconded by CoiincilmadIohd, and .ordered
-published 'by 6 aff I ;Lrmai'ive- and I absentee v
APPLICATION TO•
Planning Director Rofiald Hall advised the S',tate7•His,-
DESIGNATE OLD
t,or-ical Resources Commission. w'iTl meet May 10 9 197:8.,
PETALUKA OPERA .
I I al '
they'will be considering the Or d Pet uma, Ope '^' -
ra ous_e,
HOUSE A HISTORIC
147'. 149 Kent ucky _5 reet . for desigridtion as, A historld
PUCE
i i
place. The building has been included in the City's
H storicallSurveyland Dan Petersoh -long, with, Connie'•
Braitp, have prepared the application on behalf.:of the owner, . Mr., Barnum Rawson
Watkins. A copy of the
application .is, on flle the City Cleik.
Community - Development. and 'Services Coordinator Frank Cray stated ' If ; . th& C ity;
approves th'e 4pIicati.on, he:, felt it 'Wou'ld,' Via proper to designate, Helen' lg
Chairman of <the Historic and tultural Prese'rvat-forf Committee, to represent the
City,? at they hearing, May
IQ'; ' 1978.,
HISTORICAL.
Resolution. #818:8 NI.C,.,S d6signating-Helen; tssel.
RESOURCES COMM.
Ch&irmAn, RetalumalHistoric and Cultural Pres"ervation
MEETING
Committee, as the City's Representative at the State
kESi #818:8.'N!CS
Historicacl 'Resodrc0s'ClommissIbn Meeting,'was' ihitrbdiiced
by Vice"Mayor Perry, seconded by CouAcilman and
adopted by 6 affirmative and 1 absentee votes=.
By motion of Vice-Mayor
Perry, which was seconded by Councilman ;Bond,, the.'-'
Council authorized the
expenditure of $25.60 registra fee f.or Mrs.. issel to
attend the,'meeting. in San Jose.
ADJOURNMENT.
There -being no,. further business to' come before Cou
the meet. ng adj ourned at. 12:04 7a,.,,m. MAy 2, '1
in honor of the birth of a new ci-.tiz!Ekn Robby Hatbet-
son, son of Cbiuncilman,James. L. Aarbersoh. The meeting
was .also adjournedj to May 8, at 7':30: p.m.
Attest:•
C 1 Clerk