HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/21/197511
MINUTES OF MEETING
OF CITY COUNCIL
PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
JULY 21, 1975
REGULAR MEETING Prior. -to the beginning of the meeting, Mayor Helen
Putnam announced Councilman Fred Mattei would be
absent from the meeting.because he had had an oper-
ation and was recuperating. She also.made note'of, the fact that Elmer Webb
who was usually present at the Council meetings would not be at the meeting
this evening because is presently hospitalized. The regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Petaluma was then.called to order by Mayor Helen
Putnam at the hour of 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brunner, Cavanagh, Harberson,
Hilligoss,.•Perry;-and Mayor Putnam.
Absent: Councilman Mattei.
INVOCATION Due to the absence of Reverend Albert Gray, St.
Vincent Church, no invocation was given.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of July 7, 1975, were approved as cor-
rected. It pointed out the spelling of Arcata was
incorrectly spelled "Arcada ". Correction noted. In
addition, Councilman Hilligoss remarked on a section of the minutes pertaining
to the.reorganization of the City Council and asked that the motion be changed
from "Adopt a policy.of rotation" to "Adopt a policy of annual rotation ".
There being no further corrections, the minutes were approved as recorded.
CONSENT CALENDAR A"motion was made by Councilman Perry, seconded by
Councilman Harberson, approving the resolutions and
filing the letters for Agenda Items l through 16 on
the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
Agenda Item #1 Resolution 47047 N.C.S. requesting a time extension
EXTENSION RE for the filing of the Seismic , Safety and Safety
FILING SEISMIC Elements of the General Plan was approved.by 6 affirm -
SAFETY AND SAFETY ative votes, 1 absentee.
ELEMENTS
RES 47047 NCS
i
Agenda Item #2 Resolution 47048 N.C.S. stating the City of Petaluma
1.975.SPECIAL CENSUS is willing to in-the 1975 Special Census P
RES 47048 NCS and will provide its share of the cost was approved by
6 affirmative votes, 1 absentee.
Agenda Item #3 Resolution 47049 N.C.S. authorizing the City Manager
GRANT APPLICATION to submit an application to the Office of Criminal
RE CRIME PREVENTION Justice Planning for a grant to fund a Crime Preven-
SP,-ECIALIST tion Specialist, and'rescinding Resolution 46995
RES 47049 NCS N.C.S. was approved by 6 affirmative votes,.l absentee.
Agenda Item #4
ACCEPT DONATION—
PETALUMA GARDEN CLUB
RES #7050 NCS
Resolution 47050 N.C.S. accepting $150 from the
Petaluma Garden Club was approved by 6 affirmative
votes; 1 absentee.
q
Agenda Item X65
ACCEPT DONATION- -
HELPING HANDS CLUB
RES 47051 NCS
Agenda Item #6
EIR, "D" ST. PLAZA
RES 47052 NCS
Resolution 47051 N.C.S. accepting $106.34 from the
Helping Hands Club, in memory of Mrs. Katy Miller was
approved - by 6 affirmative votes, 1 absentee.
Resolution 47052 N.C.•S. approving agreement for
preparation and submission of Environmental Impact
Report, 7- Eleven Store, ( "D" Street Plaza), at Petaluma
Boulevard South and "D" Street, (Robert Carmody) was
approved.
IE
V0
1
July 21, 1975
/ Agenda Item . #7
/ KENNETH G. JOHNSON
PUBLIC.IMPROVEMENTS
HIGH STREET
RES 47053 NCS
f Agenda Item #8
CLARIFY.CLASSIFI:CA-
TIONS -- COMPETITIVE
SERVICE PERSONNEL
SYSTEM
RES #7054 NCS
Agenda Item #9
CLARIFY EXEMPT
CLASSIFICATIONS --
PERSONNEL SYSTEM
RES 47055 NCS
-Resolut'ion 47053 N.C.S. authorizing.Mayor to sign an
agreement with Kenneth.G..Johnson and Helen L. Johnson,
his wife, regarding certain public improvements known
as "Proposed Street Improvements for Kenneth,Johnson,
100, 104 and 108 High - Street, Petaluma„ California ",
was approved 6 affirmative votes, 1 absentee.
Resolution 47054 N.C.S. clarifying classifications in
the competitive service of the Personnel System was
approved by 6 affirmative votes, 1 absentee.
Resolution 447055 N.C.S. clarifying_ classif ications
exempt from the Personnel System approved by 6
affirmative votes, 1 absentee. .
Agenda Item 410 Resolution 47056 N.C.S. indicating support of coopera-
��/ NOVATO= PETALUMA tive planning effort for the Novato- Petaluma Corridor,
CORRIDOR and intent to communicate with all affected agencies
RES 47056 NCS regarding proposed changes in land use, .service or
facilities in the corridor was approved by 6 affirma-
tive votes, 1 absentee.
Agenda Item 4411
Resolution #7057 N.C.S. setting a public hearing date,
SET PUBLIC
August 4, 1905, for the purpose of reconsidering
REZON -ING 70.7
reclassifying Assessor's Parcel #6- 051 - 49, consisting
PETALUMA BLVD NORTH
of approximately 1.2 acres, from M -L, Light Industrial
(P•ACCIORINI)
District,' to a C -H, H- ighway Commercial District,
RES #7057 NCS
located at 707 Petaluma Boulevard North, (P- acciorini)
•was approved by 6 affirmative votes, 1 absentee.
Agenda Item 4412
Resolution .447058 N.C.S. setting a public hearing date,
SET PUBLIC HEARING:
August 4, 1975, for the purpose of considering the
REZONE 11 ACRES RE
adoption of a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance
BODEGA AVENUE
41072 N.C.S., reclassifying Assessor's Parcel #6-441 -
STUDY AREA
02-, #6 - 441 -03, 446 441 -04, #,6 441 -06, #6: 441 7 26, #6-
RES #7058 NCS
441 -30 .116- 441 -35, #6- 4417-36, and, #6 - 441 -37., from a• R-
1 -6,500 (single- family .residential, 6,500 sq. ft.
minimum lot size) District, to .a R- 1= 20,000 (single-
family residential, 20,000 sq. ft, minimum lot size)
District, consisting.of approximately 11 acres bounded
by Bodega Avenue, Bantam Way and North Webster Street,
was approved -by 6 affirmative votes., l absentee.
Agenda Item 4413
Resolution #7059 N.C.S. setting a public hearing :date,
SET PUBLIC HEARING:
August 4, 1975, for the purpose of considering the
REZONE APPROXIMATELY
adoption of a proposed. amendment to Zoning Ordinance
52 ACRES BODEGA
461072 N.C•.S., reclassifying Assessor's Parcel ;46-181 -
AVENUE. STUDY AREA
28,-#6181-34, X66= 181 -35,. 466 - 221 -'01, 466 - 221 =02, 46'6 -
RES '467059 NCS
221 -03, 466- 221 - 04,-466 - 221 -05, X66- 221 -06, 466 - 470 - 02,
466 470 -03, 466 -- 470 -09, 466 - 470 -10, 466 480 -01, #6 -480-02,
466 - 480 -03, 466 - 480 -04, 466 480 -05, 466- 480 -06, X66 480 =07,
466 - 480 -08, 466 480 -,09, 466 480 -10, 466 543 -05, 466 543 -06,
466 543 -14, 465 543 -15, and X66 543 -,16„ from a R -1 -6,500
(single - family residential, 6,500 sq. ft.. minimum lot
size) District. to a R -1- 10,000 (single - family residential,
10,000 sq..ft. minimum lot size) District, to a R -1-
40,000 ( single -- family residential, 40,000 sq. ft.
minimum lot size) District, consisting .of approximately
52 acres`bounded by Paula Lane, Bodega Avenue and West
Street, was approved.by 6 affirmative votes, 1 absentee.
July 21, 1975
i
Agenda Item.#15 Letter from Sonoma County'Social Services Department,
HOUSING ASSISTANCE dated 8, 1975 and - addressed to Mayor Helen Putnam
PAYMENTS PROGRAM advising the City of Petaluma would be assigned 25
units under the Housing Assistance Payments Program
was ordered filed.
Agenda Item #16 Letter -to City Council., - dated.July 3, 1975 from the
•PARTICIPATION City of Pleasanton.thanking the City of Petaluma for
IN AMICUS CURIAE participating in amicus curiae brief prepared by the
BRIEF - CITY OF City of Livermore in the case of Morrison Homes vs.
PLEASANTON City of Pleasanton was ordered filed.
[1
CLAIMS & BILLS Resolution #7061 N.C.S. approving claims and bills
RES'#7061 NCS 664840 to #5075, inclusive, General City Funds, and
662934 to #2977, inclusive, Water Department Funds,
approved for payment by the City Manager, was intro-
duced by Councilman Perry, seconded by Councilman Cavanagh; and approved by 6
affirmative and l.absentee votes.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
LOCAL BUS SYSTEM Mr.-Meyer reported to the Council they are now in 3
receipt .of all the proposals from private parties and
the Golden.Gate Bridge Transit System for the opera -
tion of the Intracity Bus Service. Mr. Meyer asked direction from the Council
whether or not they wanted to appoint a committee to review the proposals, or
how they wanted to- proceed. Mr. Meyer indicated the matter has now reached
the point the Council needs to make a policy decision whether or not
they.want the bus system; how they want it to be operated, and how much money j
they feel they should subsidize. Councilman.Perry suggested a committee study/
the proposals and make a presentation to the full Council; however, Mayor
Putnam and Councilman Harberson felt the entire Council should review the
proposals. No definite time was set for further review.
TRIPLE USE PLAN Mr. Meyer advised the City Council he was in receipt
of An announcement setting� hearing dates for
public workshops - concerning the Marin- Sonoma Waste-
water Facilities Planning, and wanted to bring to the Council's attention the
Sonoma County meeting would be 'held Wednesday, July 23, 1975, at 8:00 p.m., in
the of Supervisors:Chamber•s in the Administration Building in Santa
Rosa...
The,Triple Use Plan deals with the reclamation and reuse of wastewater for
agricultural irrigation, the'prese_rvation of open space through direct acquis-
ition or long -time lease by public agencies, and -the maintenance of a healthy
dairy industry through provision• of - locally:available fodder crops. The
notice of the workshops and the purpose therefore -from the Office of the
County Administrator, dated July 14, 1975, submitted and filed with the City
Clerk.
Agenda Item 414
Resolution #7060.N.C.S,. setting a.public hearing date,
SET PUBLIC HEARING:
August.4, 1975, for the purpose of considering the
. PREZONE APPROXI-
adoption of a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance
MATELY 17 ACRES
#1072 N.C.S., prezoning Assessor's Parcel #19- 070 -01,
BODEGA AVENUE
#19- 070 -02, 419= 070 =03, #19= 070 -04, #19- 070 -05, #19-
STUDY AREA
070 -06 #19- 070 -08,. #19- 070 -09, 419- 070 -10; #19-070 -
RES # 7060 NCS
11, #19- 070 -30,; #19- 070 =33, #19- 070 -34, 419 070 -35,
X619- 070 -36, and from County "A ", Agricul-
tural.District.and C2P; Retail Business District with
Parking, to R- 1-40,000 residential,
40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) District, consisting
of approximately 17 acres bounded by Paula Lane,
Bodega Avenue, and West Street, was approved by 6
affirmative.votes, 1 absentee.
Agenda Item.#15 Letter from Sonoma County'Social Services Department,
HOUSING ASSISTANCE dated 8, 1975 and - addressed to Mayor Helen Putnam
PAYMENTS PROGRAM advising the City of Petaluma would be assigned 25
units under the Housing Assistance Payments Program
was ordered filed.
Agenda Item #16 Letter -to City Council., - dated.July 3, 1975 from the
•PARTICIPATION City of Pleasanton.thanking the City of Petaluma for
IN AMICUS CURIAE participating in amicus curiae brief prepared by the
BRIEF - CITY OF City of Livermore in the case of Morrison Homes vs.
PLEASANTON City of Pleasanton was ordered filed.
[1
CLAIMS & BILLS Resolution #7061 N.C.S. approving claims and bills
RES'#7061 NCS 664840 to #5075, inclusive, General City Funds, and
662934 to #2977, inclusive, Water Department Funds,
approved for payment by the City Manager, was intro-
duced by Councilman Perry, seconded by Councilman Cavanagh; and approved by 6
affirmative and l.absentee votes.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
LOCAL BUS SYSTEM Mr.-Meyer reported to the Council they are now in 3
receipt .of all the proposals from private parties and
the Golden.Gate Bridge Transit System for the opera -
tion of the Intracity Bus Service. Mr. Meyer asked direction from the Council
whether or not they wanted to appoint a committee to review the proposals, or
how they wanted to- proceed. Mr. Meyer indicated the matter has now reached
the point the Council needs to make a policy decision whether or not
they.want the bus system; how they want it to be operated, and how much money j
they feel they should subsidize. Councilman.Perry suggested a committee study/
the proposals and make a presentation to the full Council; however, Mayor
Putnam and Councilman Harberson felt the entire Council should review the
proposals. No definite time was set for further review.
TRIPLE USE PLAN Mr. Meyer advised the City Council he was in receipt
of An announcement setting� hearing dates for
public workshops - concerning the Marin- Sonoma Waste-
water Facilities Planning, and wanted to bring to the Council's attention the
Sonoma County meeting would be 'held Wednesday, July 23, 1975, at 8:00 p.m., in
the of Supervisors:Chamber•s in the Administration Building in Santa
Rosa...
The,Triple Use Plan deals with the reclamation and reuse of wastewater for
agricultural irrigation, the'prese_rvation of open space through direct acquis-
ition or long -time lease by public agencies, and -the maintenance of a healthy
dairy industry through provision• of - locally:available fodder crops. The
notice of the workshops and the purpose therefore -from the Office of the
County Administrator, dated July 14, 1975, submitted and filed with the City
Clerk.
- NATIONAL CONGRESS Mr. Meyer advised the Council if any of the members
OF CITIES plan to attend the National Congress of Cities in
Miami in December, there could be a $50 savings on the
registration fee if the fee was sent in by 'July 31st,
and a $25 savings if the fee was submitted by November
1st.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. Meyer advised the Council that in lieu of the
NEWSLETTER quarterly report traditionally sent to the City
Council giving an accounting of their expenditures, it
appears the Chamber is now publishing a newsletter,
and he asked the Council's direction or not
this would suffice in'order to dispurse the funds to
the Chamber of Commerce on a quarterly basis.
LEGISLATIONAFFECTING CITIES
A.B. 625 Councilman Cavanagh reported there will be a Committee
Hearing 11, 1975,.on A.B. 625. He further -
reported there is a possibility this :bill may not get
out of'Committee.
City Attorney Matt Hudson advised the Council if,
after"reviewing the League of California Cities'
Legislative Bulletin., there were bills which need
attention, individual contacts should be made with the
legislators.
A.B. 1022 Mayor Putnam advised the Council the Local Agency
Formation Commission-worked very hard to get A.B. 1022
passed. The.bill -has been passed and signed by the
Governor.. It pertains particularly to Sonoma Valley
and their endeavor to get a bill passed which would
place:the'requirement that any reorganization, including
an inhabited city annexation, must have an election
within the affected city.
{ VICE -MAYOR CAVANAGH, Mayor- Putnam advised the Counc -il -in checking the
DELEGATE -- REGIONAL Association of Bay Area Government':s publication, Bay
FORUM View, she noted that Vice -mayor Cavanagh had been
appointed.to'serve on the Regional Delegate's Forum as
the representative from BASSA.
July 21, 1975
City Manager felt -At was important for some elected officials to
attend the - workshop because the plan was implemented.it would take con-
clusive-decisions from the and the cities•of Sonoma County.
Mayor Putnam advised she would attend, along-with-Director of Public Works
David Young.
' FIVE CORNERS Mr. Meyer advised the City Council.plans were being.
COMMUNITY CENTER formulated to use the former pastor's.study at the
Five Corners Community.Center to store the piano so it
'would not be readily available and would be protected.
The other modification to be made to the building would be to. square off the
area where the baptismal tank is now on'the stage area, thus making the stage
larger. The for these two items would be $788.30 to partition an area
for the piano and $749.40 to work on the stage.
REDWOOD EMPIRE_
DIVISION MEETING
Mr. Meyer reminded the.City Council the- .Redwood Empire
Division would meet in the City,of Arcata August 2,
1975. He asked the Council to advise either he or his
secretary in order that reservations could be made for
the meeting.
ANNUAL CO.NBERENCE -- Mr. Meyer reminded the Council the Annual League
� 0 ; LEAGUE OY CALIFORNIA Conference would be held in.San Francisco, October
CITIES 19th to 22nd, and asked- members of the Council to
advise office in order to have reservations made.
I
1
1
July 21, 1975
CITY'S CERAMIC SEALS 'Mayor`Putnam.reported to the..Council that in May 1974
the City purchased, 550 ceramic tile seals, and to
date, 242 of the tiles have been sold. She also
reported they were sometimes sent--with-letters-.to various cities around the
world with local representativeswe Presently, Mitchell Schuster, who recently
graduated from .Petaluma High School and is a member of a jazz ensemble,-is
taking one of the City's tiles and a -to Okhinawa. It was at this time
that she presented one of the City's tiles mounted in a walnut frame to Councilman
Hilligoss which is done.traditionally by,the Mayor.
BICENTENNIAL PROGRAM Mayor Putnam advised the Council the League of California
Cities is putting out a survey to determine what each
city is doing by way of Bicentennial programs. People
appear to be pleased with the programs outlined to be done in.Petaluma. Each
city is doing matters in a : different manner.
The riew-chairman of the Mayors' and Councilmen's Association, Mr. Raboni, is
making a survey of what the - various cities in Sonoma County are doing; in the
mean. time, Mayor Putnam reported she was-in receipt.-of a- letter from the
County Committee, which is under the chairmanship of.Supervisor Johnson.
15
DROPGATES -- This item was taken out of order on. the Council Agenda
LAKEVILLE.AND: so preparations could be made for the slide presentation .!3
JEFFERSON STREETS to given under Item #20 listed on the Agenda.
RES' X67063 NCS
Director of Public Works•David.Young advised the
Council the Northwestern Pacific Railroad asked to
have Resolution X66933 N.C.S. rescinded, and.a new:.resolution prepared which
would not tie the Railroad Company down to.any definite amount for the con-
struction of'the dropgates at this area: He advised that half the cost would
be paid by the City regardless of what the final cost would be.
Resolution X67063 N.-C.S. authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with
Northwestern Pacific Railroad for the construction of dropgates, Jefferson
Street and Lakeville Street, and rescinding Resolution 666933 N.C.S.,.was
introduced by Councilman seconded by Councilman Brunner, and approved
by 6.affirmative and.l absentee votes.
SONOMA• COUNTY SOLID - Mr. John Conaway of the Sonoma County Refuse Disposal
WASTE:DISPOSAL SYSTEM Department advised the Council in 1972 the Solid Waste
. Board was established by the State of California under
the provisions of S..B. 5. Part of the Act required
each - county to generate a solid-waste master plan. Prior to this time in
1968; the County of'Sonoma had established a master plan for solid waste
management; however,-by 1972, the plan needed to be updated. A committee was
formed with Mr. Don Head as Chairman; each city is represented; there are two
representatives from Sonoma County Scavengers' Association, one member from
the Sonoma County Water•:Agency, one from the Department of Environmental
Health, and one member of.th'e League of WomenVoters. In addition, one member
was selected from the Department of Advanced•Planning, the Northbay Regional
Quality Control Board, and Santa Rosa recycling :representatives. The Sonoma
County Advisory. Board was-established by resolution by.the Board of Super-
visors in July 1974. The Board has been.meeting once a- month, but recently
has been meeting every two weeks in order to reach some final decisions and
come up with a recommendation.
The - Committee was charged with five general objectives. One was to develop
programs to meet the solid-waste of the County until the year
2000. The second was to come up with a plan that would meet the approval of
the cities. The third was , to - try to come up wthia.reduction of waste gener-
ation and try to promote and enhance the'conservat =ion of resources. The
fourth objective was.to generate the recovery of materials and energy from
solid waste in order to meet the mandate by 1980 for a reduction of 25 %. The
fifth and last objective was to provide litter control programs for the cities
and highways and entities.
Mr. Conaway advised the City °Council the County of Sonoma is unique among .
counties in that there are no private disposal sites within the County. All
16
July 21, 1975
areas used for disposal of sol -id waste are operated by the County of Sonoma.
During his slide.presentat -ion, Mr. Conaway showed views of the Annapolis site.
He advised.this site received about one ton per day which.costs the County
about $60. The second site is at Occidental, which receives approximately
five tons- per=day at cost of around $40 per ton.. The third site is at
Guerneville which receives 12 tons per day at'a cost of $30 per ton. The
fourth site is Healdsburg which receives 60 tons per day at a cost of $9.23
per ton. The fifth site is Sonoma which receives 65 per, day at a cost of
a little over $7.00 per ton. The sixth site is the central disposal site'
which receives 400 tons per'day at a cost'of $'3.20. Mr. Conaway pointed out
the costs he quoted did not include collection costs. Mr. Conaway stated the
County of Sonoma is .in a good position as far.as disposal sites are concerned,
and all the above mentioned disposals sites are of the land -fill method.
In his slide presentation, Mr. Conaway reviewed the various-types of collec-
tion systems used throughout the County and the estimated cost for collection
and disposal.
Mr. Conaway advised the Council that nearly 60% of the.mater-;ials received at
the. disposal site is paper, and only 8% to 10% is garbage. The sites also
receive what they call "white goods ", including refrigerators, stoves, etc.,
which are being re'cycled,. Mr: Conaway also there is an enormous amount
of agricultural waste in - Sonoma County; about 54 pounds per day per capita is
generated in the County. He stated that, fortunately, at the present time,
this material is-not coming to the disposal sites. If such were the case, the
land fills would reach their capacity in a few ' months -or a few. years. At the
present time, the agricultural waste is disposed.on the land., and it appears
that it will be handled in this manner for some time t come. Up until the .
report was-formulated, the County would not accept any demolition °material.
Mr. Conaway stated about 400,pounds per per year is generated within
the County. Just recently, the County determined to accept demolition waste
at the Guerneville site. He further stressed that since Sonoma County is
classified as -Class 2, they are unable to accept any chemical waste of toxic
materials at any of the disposal sites within the County.. He stated fortunately,
the County does not generate•a great deal of chemical waste, but what is
generated is shipped to Class• 1 disposal site in Martinez. Mr. Conaway
reported another of waste which is difficult to dispose of is sewer
sludge.
The is reviewing a better'.licensing procedure which would protect
them, as well as the County.' The Committee is also working with the haulers
to provide better service. The Committee has also undertaken the resource,
recovery element in order to meet the requirements of. the 20% to 25% reduction
by 1980. . There are two types-of operations.in resource recovery. One is the
volunteer recycling centers of which Sonoma County has four - -Santa 'Rosa has
one of the largest in the State.. The other is mechanical.recovery. Mr.
Conaway also stated the recycling center Petaluma is becoming very, active.
They separate bottles, paper, cardboard' which, until recently, there has been
an adequate- market. Unfortunately, paper and cardboard now.are being stored
because the price has been drastically reduced and it is not profitable for
the recycling centers and the commercial haulers to dispose of it the
present time. In speaking of mechanical recovery plants, -Mr. Conaway stated
they constitute a very - large capital investment-- $25,000 $45,000,000 is
not unusual. Bascially, it is a large incinerator which generates steam. It
takes between 1,000 and 2,000 tons per day in order to operate. At this time,
Sonoma County does not generate that amount; however, by the year 2000,
it is expected Sonoma.County will generate 1,000 within the confines of
the County.
Mr. Conaway advised some efforts are being made to .extract oil
from.solid waste materials; however„ much of this is in the expermental stage.
Another avenue being explored by -the Committee is consomat, which requires 25
to 250 tons per day to be ecomic'ally'- feasible. This is approximately the
amount of solid waste being generated in-the County at the present time. The
Committee must explore whether or not the system would be acceptable in the
air basins.. At the present there are 50 plants in operation under the
system. This is the only system they `know of. that. is really operating in the
world today. Anything else being discussed is in an .experimental stage.
July 21, 1975
Mr. Conaway stated the plan was, - -.to retur'n...to, the Council with a more detailed
report for their consideration order for the County to meet the requirements
of the.master plan for solid waste. Mr. Conaway then :.asked for questions from
the Council. Councilman Harberson as'ked'if at the central site they
had a=method to remove ferrous metals... Mr. Conaway stated they have plans to
remove ferrous metals and are seeking.a.market at the present time. He also
stated a system is being developed to remove aluminum by a.vibration method in
order -to reclaim this type of metal.
Councilman Cavanagh then asked what the 'County-feels-is the life of the Mecham
Road disposal site. Mr...Conaway stated was the County until the
year 2000. It is now predicted.to be full by the year 1994, and possibly
could be reduced to the year 1992.
WATER MAIN REFUND Assistant City Engineer Thomas Hargis advised the
AGREEMENT -- BURNETT Council this matter has been brought to their atten-
RES #7062 NCS tion upon the recommendation of the Water Commission
and under provisions.of.the City Code in the Water
Section. He advised the'Council the Burnetts would be
extending.a water main extension 65 feet their-property which would
benefit the lot across from them. Under the provisions of the agreement, the
Burnetts; would be able to, recover $525-over a ten -year period.
City Manager Robert Meyer commented on the refund.agreement• stating the City
would not realize in the way of water charges over the ten -year
period. Director of Public David Young stated perhaps now would be the
time for the Council to review own connection - charge. The present
connection charge was- establishedsmore than a'decade ago based upon the cost
of water mains. At one time, a water main extension cost approximately $8.00
per foot,. The cost now is'.consderably.higher than "that.
Upon conclusion of the discussion, Resolution #7062.N :C.S..authorizing the
Mayor to sign a water.main•.refund agreement.with Malcolm E. and Susan G.
Burnett- -end of Amber Way, was•introduced'by.,•Councilman Perry, seconded by
Councilman Brunner, and by 6 affirmative and -1 absentee votes.
City Manager Robert Meyer said he believed it should made a matter of
record that the connect on'fees - should be changed; and if the City continues
in its present policy, it would be years before it would be able to recover
the funds.
COMPLIANCE WITH The Director of Community.Development advised the
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Council they had been sent a copy of the resolution
ACT OF 1970 . before them tonight. The italicized sections con -
RES 47.064 NCS tained in.-the draft resolution are those items which
need - to be updated.- He further.advised the Council
,the'Planning'Commission had thoroughly reviewed the
revisions to the requirements of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and
recommended to the Council their acceptance of this resolution.
M.1
f
1"
Resolution 47064 N.C.S,. of the Petaluma establishing,..procedures for
compliance with the requirements'of the'Environmental. Act of 1970, by
amending Resolution 4465 : 33 N; -C:S., was introduced by Councilman Hilligoss,
seconded by Councilman- Harberson, - and approved by 6 affirmative and 1 absentee
votes. 'a 0 t ' b.'��
SELECTION 1976 -77 Board memb'er-s were selected by lottery as has been
RESIDENTIAL done previous.years; however, the - School District
- DEVELOPMENT members been appointed by the various school
EVALUATION district's: The only appointments lacking in the
BOARD MEMBERS resolution are'the two'ap.pointees. from the Planning
RES 0065 NCS Commission and one person'to serve from St. Vincent's
School.
Resolution #7065.N.C..S.. appointing - certain persons, to.the Residential Develop -
merit Evaluation Board for the construction year 1976 -77 was introduced by
Councilman H- illigoss, seconded by Councilman Harberson, and approved by 6
affirmative, 1 absentee votes.
I�
1
July 21, 1975
The following to serve:
CITY COUNCI- L..(2)
1. Mayor Helen Putnam 2. Councilman Fred V. Mattei
BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONAL (3)
1. William Barros
3. Dr. Wayne E. Musser
CITI- ZENS -AT- LARGE (6)
1. Carolyn Mayer
2. Donald Marquardt.
3. Barbara Lind
PETALUMA- SCHOOL DISTRICT (1)
1. Dr. Lawrence Saunders
CINNABAR.SCHOOL DISTRICT (1)
1. Raymond Peterson.
OLD ADOBE SCHOOL,DISTRICT
1. Donald C. Bennett
2. Robert Maser
4. Harry W. Schloetter
5. Elizabeth Doty
6. Rodney Cameron
TENTATIVE MAP -- Senior Planner Dennis Boehlje described the subdivision to be
TAMAR SUBDIVISION known as Tamar Subdivision. The matter before the City Council
RES 47066 NCS tonight is the tentative map.to approve 14 units of
proposed R- 1- b 'zoning,,- and it. with the
General Plan and the Environmental Design Plan. The
subdivision is to be located near Caulfield Lane and Park Lane, a small area
of.3 -1/3 acres. It is completely surrounded.by s- imilar type
development,to those being proposed. No lots would be frontin'g, onto Caulfield
Lane, but will face Tamar Lane. `The subdivision will build a half width
street on Park Lane with one additional travel lane•, plus a parking lane,
curb, gutter., and sidewalk, on the subdivision side: There will also be a
temporary turnaround. Four lots would face Park Lane.
Councilman Harberson asked whether or not the subdivision would be required to
pay for half of Caulfield Lane. City Manager Robert Meyer advised they would
not be required, and that one of, reasons the tentative map was brought
to the their consideration.. "Caulfield.Lane is one of the future
street projects for.the City, and'the subdivision across the way was not
required to'install half of the roadway.
The-matter of fencing along Caulfield Lane discussed. Mr. Boehlje
advised redwood fencing would -be required, and it would..be a 6 -foot high
fence. Councilman Perry sugges "ted the best - method of fencing the area would
be to install cyclone fencing with redwood slats to provide security.
In answer to City Manager Robert Meyer's question regarding the plans for
Caulfield Lane, Director`of Public Works David Young advised the plans, as
they now stand, would be to construct : a• -- four -lane road and at the time of
construction-it would.b.e the Councills :decision whether or—not to install a
sidewalk on the side to correspond with the present. Caulfield.Lane.
If the City decided to build road before the adjoining property were
developed; then it would be the City Council's decision if there was enough
pedestrian traffic generated to build the gutter, and sidewalk along the
west.
In answer to.Councilman question whether a bicycle path would
extend along this section of Caulfield Lane, Mr. Young replied.in the affirmative.
July 21, 1975
Upon conclusion of the discussion.-.Resolution #7066 N.C.S., approving the
tentative subdivision map of. Tamar Subdivision,.was introduced by Councilman
Perry, seconded by:Councilman Hilligoss., and approved by 6 affirmative aac! I
absentee votes.
Planning Commission Resolution #8 -75, Planning Commission Minutes dated July
15, 1975, Department of Community Development staff report dated July 16,
1975, and negative declaration submitted and filed.
LUCCHESI PARK Recreation Director Jim Raymond advised the Council O 32
- DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES there is continued interest in the development of .J/
Lucchesi Park. Recently the Recreation, Music and
Parks Commission reviewed a spending priority plan
after the allocation from the City Council. What the Commission and the
Recreation Director are seeking from the Council at.this time, is consider-
ation of some of the alternatives and guidelines in the development of the
park. The master plan for the park was developed by Sid Lewin & Associates in
1969. One year later, the Council asked Mr. Lewin to prepare schematic plans
for one quadrant,.or five acres, located between Novak and Maria Drives. In
the interim, two bond issues were placed before the voters, one which missed
by a mere 1 %, and the other by 11 %, for the development of Lucchesi Park, as
well as other park development in the City.
Mr. Raymond referred to a memo he to the attention of City Manager
Robert Meyer, dated July 18, 1975, which contains proposed development of the
park and a time schedule. Mr. Raymond advised that he and Director of Public
Works David Young, Director of Community Development Frank Gray, and Senior
Planner Dennis Boehlje, have been working-to review the plans over the last
couple of days, and he asked for questions from the Council. Councilman
Cavanagh questioned Item #1 which is the review'of. the site design by the
Planning Commission of the 1969 master.plan, and wondered if the three -acre
lagoon was still included in the master plan for Lucchesi Park. Mr. Raymond
replied in-the affirmative. Councilman then questioned if during the
public hearing held by the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission there had
been any suggested changes to development and specifically to the lagoon
area? Mr. Raymond indicated there have not been any objections voiced to this
part of the master plan. Councilman Harberson, the Council's representative
on the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission, stated he was not sure-the ,
Council would need to delve intensively into this matter tonight. The Commis-
sion had made a decision to hold public hearings in August on one quadrant of
the park, specifically to gain input from the residents in the area. The
answer may be the Commission would not recommend the development of one
quadrant, but might want to expend the money to prepare an irrigation plan, or
perhaps phase development of the park, for instance installing tennis courts
in-one area. He did not feel -the Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission was
ready at this time-to make any recommendations to the City Council. Mr.
Harberson further stated it may be that after the public hearing the one
quadrant would not be developed and the alloted funds would be used for a
final drainage and grading plan for the entire area. He further stated he
feels these recommendations should come from the Commission, rather than the
Council advising the Commission. He explained the Recreation, Music and Parks
Commission has reviewed the expenditure.of the funds, but has not as yet held
a public hearing; therefore„ he feels the public hearing is necessary before
the Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council.
City Manager Robert Meyer indicated it was his understanding there was not one
part of the park development which was ready to go out for .bid and he wondered
whether the Commission had taken into account the cost of moving the earth and
preparing the plans and doing the grading in the area. Mr. Meyer further
stated since this is the new Council, they might want to consider a complete
change in plans and go out to bid again on a set of general plans for the
area. He also stated if the.public hearing is to determine whether or not the
tennis courts are going to remain,, some thought should also be given to the
lagoon which has not always met with favor as part of the plan. He further
stated he felt Mr. Raymond was merely seeking some guidelines from the City
Council on how they wish to proceed on the development of Lucchesi Park in
order for him to go back to the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission.
2®
July 21, 1975
Mayor Putnam then asked Di "rector of Public Works David Young if it would not
be necessary to have a• complete grading plan and drainage plan before any type
of development could be considered for the site. Mr. Young replied that even
if only one quadrant or one section of the park were to be developed, the
entire park should have some type of master drainage and grading plans. He
referred to Lynch Creek which would be important -to the development of the
plan. He cited an instance where it would have to be determined whether or
not the lagoon would be capable of draining to Lynch Creek. The.flooding of
Lynch Creek could be critical to the area. Mayor - .Putnam then asked Councilman
Harberson if the Commission was thinking.in terms of the problem of grading
and drainage. Councilman Harberson replied that it is obvious the City does
not have the 2.3 million dollars required to,develop the entire park, but in
order to move ahead to show some progress on the park, he felt some hearings
should be held. He further stated the Commission was under the impression
that most of the grading plans had been completed and was not aware that the
plan drawn up by Mr. Lewin was simply a schematic plan, and it di'd not include
drainage for the area. He stated it probably would take most of the $90,000
allocated to draw up a proper set of• plans, and felt sure people in the area
would be disappointed that the money had to be spent for plans and no visable
sign of development would be shown on the park. Mr. Young stated he did not
feel that when Mr. Lewin prepared the schematics in 1970 -71, he had taken into
account the drainage plans, as this would not be in his line of work. He
further stated he does not feel the hydraulics of the matter were investigated
at the time; this would have been out of Mr. Lewin's line of work.' Mr. Young
stated he does feel the City'should know the engineering controls and then a
detailed plan could be prepared.
City Manager Robert Meyer stated at the time it was proposed to have a lagoon
in the area, part of the earth removal in the area for the.lagoon'was be
spread over the area in order to.avoid importing earth onto the site.
City Manager Robert Meyer asked the if they preferred to remain with
the present landscape architect for the area, or if it was their decision to
go to bid again for other proposals. Mayor Putnam indicated she felt the
Recreation Commission should meet on this matter first. ' The Commission would
have some very basic conclusions to arrive at in terms of the total area and
the limitations on moving the earth, and the drainage problems. Councilman
Cavanagh suggested the Recreation Commission review the points on Page 2 of
Mr. Raymond's memo dated July 18, 1975.
Mayor Putnam said she realized turning the matter back to the Recreation
Commission placed an extra burden on them; however,-she felt it should be
their decision whether or not to retain the same landscape architect or
whether they want to receive other proposals, and also to discuss the grading
and drainage in the area. No action was taken by the City Council
and the matter was referred back to the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission.
STATUS REPORT -- Recreation Director Jim Raymond reminded the Council
EAST :WASHINGTON CREEK Sid Lewin had been hired in February 1975 to design
LINEAR PARKWAY the master plan for the Eas.t.Washngton Creek Linear
Parkway. The land for the Parkway had been dedicated
to the City by the Greenbriar Subdivision. He reviewed
by means of wall maps and drawings, the parkway itself, which extends from
McGregor Drive to East Washington.Street. The park itself is approximately
1/2 mile long. The parkway begins with a 10 -foot wide path for approximately
100 feet, and extends to a 20 -foot width. The pathway itself is. approximately
five feet wide and will meander along the entire parkway. 'Mr. Raymond pointed
out there are homes backing onto the'pa- ik. Creekside Way. The rest
areas are proposed at or near the street intersections. The .main. purpose for
the parkway is for pedestrian and bicycle pathways.
City Manager Robert Meyer asked whether or not the width included in the park
would be wide enough for emergency vehicles. Mr. Raymond indicated emergency
vehicles could not be accommodated unless the paths are widened. However, the
vespar sko'oter could be used for security purposes or the Cushman could be
used for maintenance purposes.
21
July 21, 1975
The Director of Community Development indicated that Roy Kelly had expressed
some concern about being able_to get the gang mower into the area in order to
take care of any grassy areas. The plans were then changed on the vegetation
to include only a low ground .cover, and no grass would be planted in the area.
The design was for minimal maintenance in the area.
In response to the City Manager's question, Mr. Raymond advised the Council
the cost for the entire project would beo pproxmately $77,000, which would
include the landscaping, all of the benches at the rest areas, the lighting at
the corners, and.the bridge at East Washington Street.
City Manager Robert Meyer reminded the Council in the capital outlay budget,
$55,00,0 had been originally designated for the project and was transferred to
undesignated funds. In response to his question, "how much of the project
could be completed for this amount of money?" Mr. Sid Lewin advised the
project had been submitted on a unit cost breakdown. Within the monies
budgeted, he felt the pathway could be included, a good portion of the land -
scaping; however, one of the items not anticipated was the fencing along the
edge of the creek. This was a preliminary estimate to go along with the
preliminary plans. However, he does feel major improvements to the site could
be made within the budget mentioned.
Mayor Putnam indicated she felt two of the most.important improvements to the
area would be the fencing and °the lighting.. The creek does swell to a very
high level during the winter and some protection- should be offered. She also
felt that some type of planting should be placed along the slopes to avoid
erosion. Mr. Lewin lighting is a very expensive item, and was
wondering whether the area could not be fenced off and locked up during the
night and during times of high water. He stated he was offering this merely
as an alternate possibility.
Councilman Brunner asked since the Council had previously made the decision to
remove the $55,000 from this project and place it into undesignated project,
whether these funds could be used toward the development of Lucchesi Park.
City Manager Robert Meyer replied there could be some question about removing
the money from this area and placing it into Lucchesi since the money had come
directly from the Greenbriar Subdivision and the homes along the area. It may
be possible, however, to use the funds for McDowell Park which is in closer
proximity to the area.
Director of Community Development Frank-Gray indicated he does not feel it's a
legal problem where to place the funds, but a morale problem with which the
City Council is faced.
Mr. Lee Bond indicated he felt the funds could be utilitzed in a more functional
area. Mr. John Kerrigan also spoke to the Council stating he felt the developers
had dedicated the least valuable piece of property to the City for the parkway.
Director of Community Development Frank Gray.advised the.Council at the time
the requirement was placed on the Greenbriar Development to dedicate the land,
the Council felt by having the land dedicated the City rather than have the
developers complete the park, the Council would have better control over the
development of the linear parkway.
Mr. Meyer reminded the Council that public hearings had been held on the area,
both by the Planning Commission and the Recreation and Music and Parks Commission.
He further felt if additional public hearings were to be held, there would be
further arguments for and against the linear parkway. Councilman Brunner
indicated he has been constant in his opposition in regard to the linear
parkway. The Council has received recommendations, but he really doesn't feel
they are meaningful.
Marion Hodge then spoke to the City Council in favor of the linear parkway,
stating some provision should be made for bicyclists where they would not have
to travel on the streets which are dangerous: This would provide one type of
recreational area for those persons who prefer to bicycle along a park area,
rather than on the streets.
2 July 21, 1975
Mrs. Ronald Sartini then spoke to the Council.stating if the linear parkway
were abandoned and Lucchesi Park developed, perhaps a bicycle pathway could be
built around the lagoon area. She further stated the proposed linear parkway
was not wide enough to accommodate bicyclists. Mr. Gray indicated the area in
question runs from 10 feet to 30 feet wide in various sections. Mrs_. Sartini
complained about the rocks being placed on the flood control side.. Mr. Gray
indicated this had recently been done by the Sonoma County Water Agency to
provide an access road and that the rocks had been creating some problems.
Mrs. Sartini further questioned whether or not a gate was to be placed at the
end of the area near the Quick Stop, and Mr. Gray indicated this would be
something the City Council would have to work out with the Sonoma County Water
Agency. The matter lies with the Sonoma County Water Agency to protect their
own easements. Mr. Gray did admit that the area is heavily used by bicyclists
and sometimes motorcyclists on the flood control side; however, the side owned
by the City is used mainly by bicyclists and pedestrians who are attempting to
reach the shopping area.
Considerable discussion then followed which included discussions by Mr. Bond,
Mr. Kerrigan, and Mr. and Mrs. Sartini, regarding the proximity of the proposed
parkway to their homes, and the damage they anticipated by the placement of
this linear parkway in the area. Mr..Sartini also complained about the
maintenance of the creek and wondered whose' - responsibility it was, as it now
contains quite a bit of litter, and he indicated the addition of the parkway
would cause further littering problems.. Mrs. Hodge spoke again about the cost
of the installation of the tennis courts which she figured cost.$1.90 per
square foot to accommodate a few.people, where the approximate cost for this
linear parkway was $1.71 per square foot, which would accommodate many-bicycle
enthusiasts.
Councilman Harberson summed up the results of some of the - hearings of the
Recreation, Music and Parks Commission, stating that Mr. Bond, Mr. Kerrigan,
Mr. and Mrs. Sartini and Mr. Weyle, who was not present tonight., were mainly
opposed, basically, because they feared vandalism. At first, there was some
worry about damage to people who might fall into the creek. The people who
were for the project felt it would provide additional facilities for joggers
and bicyclists, and would create an attractive area. Personally, Mr. Harberson
stated he is for the project, and feels it is a good idea. He stated, regardless
of what the Council would decide, the fact remains that the pathway-is there,
it is -a natural pathway, and will be used. Some of the problems which now
occur are people using the opposite side of.the creek belonging to the
Sonoma County Flood Control- directly behind the houses, which is presently
covered with loose rock and does create a problem for homeowners in the area.
He feels if the City develops the parkway, it will divert people from the
opposite side of the creek and create a distance factor which would prevent
most of the damage being caused by rocks being thrown. He further felt the
City will never be without problems where parks, drainage ditches, or other
facilities back up to people's houses. He does feel that by the creation of
the- parkway it will enjoy more usage; however, people will be diverted to the
opposite side of the flood control channel. He further feels the problem will
not be solved unless there is•coordination with the Flood Control District to
block off the area near the Quick Stop.
Councilman Brunner asked if there were any alternatives. Could the land be
reverted back-to the developer? City Manager Robert Meyer indicated he felt
regardless of what happened, if the City did not block off both ends of the
area and with locked gates, it would be used by people one way or another. He
also indicated that even though the land was "dedicated "' to the City by the
developer, the residents along the area and future residents for the proposed
development along the area are really the ones who are paying for the land and
not the developer: The individual home owners are charged accordingly and
would expect some type of development to take place in the area as a part of
their subdivision.
Director of Community Development Frank Gray, in response to a question from
Mrs. Sartini on whether or not the remainder of the subdivision was not to be
a commercial development, indicated there are still homes to be built in the
area which would skirt the linear parkway.
23
July 21, 1975
Councilman Harberson questioned the City Attorney whether or not the area
which would equal about six lots, and .probably increased the cost of the
houses in the area, would cause the City any legal problems, and would the
homeowners have any recourse if .the City dropped the plans for developing the
parkway. City Attorney Matt Hudson responded by stating he felt it would not
create legal problems, that it was merely a political decision to be made by
the City Council.
At the conclusion of all discussions, City Manager Robert Meyer suggested to
the Council they may want to table the matter until there is a full Council
available. He does not feel, however, that the decision on the linear parkway
should not be put off much longer.
Councilman Harberson indicated the recommendation came to the Council and no
official appeals were made. The Council now is talking about spending money
to develop the plans. Mr. Gray indicated the.Site. Design Review and Use
Permit have been issued for the park and the time for appeal has expired.
City Attorney Matt Hudson advised the Council that since the matter was a
status report, and no action had been required, the matter need not be tabled,
but it 'would be appropriate to defer it until a later date. Mayor Putnam
suggested the Council.wait until seven members are present to reach a con-
clusion on the matter.
RECLASSIFYING 707 Ordinance #1181 N.C.S amending Zoning Ordinance #1072
PETALUMA BLVD. N.C.S. by reclassifying a subject parcel #6- 051 -49,
NORTH', (PACCIORINI) consisting of approximately 1.2 acres, from M -L (Light
ORD #1181 NCS Industrial) District, to a -H (Highway Commercial)
District, located at 707 Petaluma Boulevard North, was
introduced by Councilman Hilligoss, seconded by Council-
man Perry, and ordered published by 6 affirmative and
1 absentee votes.
RECL'ASS.IFYING:_APPROX- Ordinance #1182 amending Zoning Ordinance #1072
IMATELY 11 ACRES
N.C.S by reclassifying Assessor's Parcel #6- 441 -02,
BOUNDED BY BODEGA
#6- 441 -03, #6- 441 -04, #6- 441- 06,. #6- 441 -26, #6- 441 -30,
AVENUE,, BANTAM WAY;
#6- 441 -35, #6- 441 -36, and #6- 441 -37, from R -1 -6,500
& NORTH WEBSTER ST.
(single- family residential, 6,500 sq. ft. minimum lot
ORD # NCS
size)..Distiict, to R- 1- 20,000 (single- family residential,
20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) District, consisting
of approximately 11 acres, bounded by Bodega Avenue,
Bantam Way, and North Webster Street, was introduced
by Councilman Brunner, seconded by Councilman Harberson,
and ordered published by 6 affirmative and 1 absentee
votes.
RECLASSIFYING
An ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance #1072 N.C.S. by
APPROXIMATELY 52
reclassifying Assessors Parcel #6- 181 -28, #6- 181 -34,
ACRES BOUNDED BY
#6- 181 -35, #6- 221 -01, #6- 221 -02, #6- 221 -03, #6- 221 -04,
PAULA LANE, BODEGA
#6- 221 -05, #6- 221 -06, #6- 470 -02, #6- 470 -02, #6- 470 -09,
AVE.'& WEST STREET
#6- 470 -10, #6- 480 -01, #6- 480 -02, #6- 480 -03, #6- 480 -04,
ORD #1183 NCS
#6- 480 -05, #6- 480 -06., #6- 480 -07, #6- 480 -08, #6- 480 -09,
#6- 480 -10, #6- 543 =05, #6- 543 -14, #6- 543 -15, and #6-
543 -16 from a R -1 -6,500 (single- family residential
6,500 sq. ft. minimum
lot size).District and,a R -1- 10,000 (single- family
residential 10,000 sq.
ft. minimum lot size)..District to a R -1- 40,000 (single -
family residential 40,000
sq. ft. minimum lot size) District consisting of
approximately 52 acres
bounded by Paula Lane, Bodega Avenue and West Street,.
was introduced by Councilman
Harberson, seconded by Councilman Perry, and
ordered published by 6
affirmative and l absentee votes.
PREZONING AND An' ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance #1072 N.C.S. by
RECLASSIFYING prezoning and reclassifying Assessor's Parcel #19-070 -
APPROXIMATELY 17 01, #19- 070 -02, #19- 070 -03, 419- 070 -04, #19- 070 -05,
ACRES BOUNDED BY #19- 070 -06, #19- 070 -08, #19- 070 -09, #19- 070 -10, #19-
PAULA LANE, BODEGA 070 -11, #19- 070 -30, #19- 070 -33, #19- 070 -34, #19-070 -
AVE. & WEST STREET 35, #19- 070 -36, and #19- 070 -38 from County A, Agricultural
ORD #1184 NCS District and C2P, Retail Business District with Parking,
W
July 21, 1975
to R -1- 40,000 (single- family residential 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size)
Upon conclusion of his discussion, Resolution 47067 N.C.S., granting the
application of Lewis Hill for one residential outside sewer connection at
premises located at Highland Road, Petaluma, was introduced by Councilman
Perry, seconded by Councilman Brunner and approved by 6 affirmative and 1
absentee votes.
ADOPTION FINAL Resolution #7068 N.C.S. approving and adopting a final
A BUDGET -- CAPITAL budget for capital improvements, projects and equipment,
IMPROVEMENTS and designating reserves for specific purposes for
FISCAL YEAR 75 -76 fiscal year July 1, 1975, to and including June 30,
RES #7068 NCS 1976 was introduced by Councilman Perry, seconded by
Councilman Brunner, and approved by 6 affirmative and
1 absentee votes.
a i`� APPROPRIATION Ordinance 41185 N.C.S. introduced by Councilman
p' ORDINANCE -- Harberson,• seconded by Councilman Perry, which pro -
N\ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS vides for the annual appropriation ordinance for
FISCAL YEAR 1975 -76 capital improvements, projects and equipment, and
ORD 41185 NCS designating reserves for specific purposes for the
fiscal year July 1, 1975, to June 30, 1976,, setting
forth the appropriation for each improvement project,
item of equipment and was ordered posted by 6
affirmative and 1 absentee votes.
District, consisting of
approximately 17 acres bounded by Paula Lane, Bodega
Avenue and West. Street,
was introduced by Councilman Brunner, seconded by
Councilman Perry, and ordered published by 6 affirmative and 1 absentee votes.
APPROPRIATION
Ordinance #1177 N.C.S. introduced by Councilman Perry,
ORDINANCE FOR
seconded by Councilman Harberson, :for annual
MAINTENANCE AND
appropriation ordinance for maintenance and operations
OPERATIONS -- FISCAL
for the 'fiscal year July 1, 1975.to June 30, 1976,
YEAR 1975 -
setting forth the appropriation for each department
ORD 41177 NCS
and fund necessary to carry on the business of the
(SECOND READING.)
government, and appropriating funds for'debt service,
interest and redemption funds, was adopted by 6 affirm-
ative and 1 absentee votes.
AMEND TITLE -2 --
Ordinance 41178 N.C.S., introduced by Councilman
/
VICE- 14AYOR
ORD 41178 NCS
Mattel, seconded by Councilman Perry, amending Title 2
of the Petaluma 'Municipal Code by amending Sections
(SECOND READING)
2.04.060, 2.04.080 and 2.04.100 to provide for the
term of Vice- mayor, to provide that the term of Vice -
president and (Vice- mayor) shall be for one year, and
prohibiting consecutive
terms in said office, was adopted by 5 affirmative, 1
negative and 1 absentee
votes. Councilman Cavanagh voted "no ".
PURCHASE REAL
Ordinance #1179.N.C.S., introduced by Councilman
n
PROPERTY--10
Mattei, seconded by by Councilman Hilligoss, authorizing
i' /
BASSETT STREET
the purchase of real property at 10 Bassett Street,
ORD #1179 .NCS
Petaluma, at a price of $25,700, for the future expan-
(SECOND READING)
sion of the City Hall complex, was adopted by 6 affirma-
tive and 1 absentee votes.
PURCHASE REAL
Ordinance 41180 N.C.S., introduced.by Councilman
PROPERTY- -721
Perry, seconded by Councilman Mattei, authorizing the
EAST WASHINGTON
purchase of real property at 721 East Washington
STREET
Street, Petaluma, at a price of $38,000, for street
ORD 41180 NCS
widening purposes on East.Washington Street, was
(SECOND READING)
adopted by 6 affirmative and 1 absentee votes.
OUTSIDE SEWER
The discussion on the request by Mr. Lewis Hill for a
CONNECTION- -LEWIS
HILL, 12 HIGHLAND
sewer connection at 12 Highland Road had been held at
the meeting of July 14, 1975; however, action on the
ROAD
request was deferred until this meeting due to the
RES #7067 NCS
absence.of..Mr. Bill. Mr. Hargis briefly reviewed the
area and the proposed sewer connection.
Upon conclusion of his discussion, Resolution 47067 N.C.S., granting the
application of Lewis Hill for one residential outside sewer connection at
premises located at Highland Road, Petaluma, was introduced by Councilman
Perry, seconded by Councilman Brunner and approved by 6 affirmative and 1
absentee votes.
ADOPTION FINAL Resolution #7068 N.C.S. approving and adopting a final
A BUDGET -- CAPITAL budget for capital improvements, projects and equipment,
IMPROVEMENTS and designating reserves for specific purposes for
FISCAL YEAR 75 -76 fiscal year July 1, 1975, to and including June 30,
RES #7068 NCS 1976 was introduced by Councilman Perry, seconded by
Councilman Brunner, and approved by 6 affirmative and
1 absentee votes.
a i`� APPROPRIATION Ordinance 41185 N.C.S. introduced by Councilman
p' ORDINANCE -- Harberson,• seconded by Councilman Perry, which pro -
N\ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS vides for the annual appropriation ordinance for
FISCAL YEAR 1975 -76 capital improvements, projects and equipment, and
ORD 41185 NCS designating reserves for specific purposes for the
fiscal year July 1, 1975, to June 30, 1976,, setting
forth the appropriation for each improvement project,
item of equipment and was ordered posted by 6
affirmative and 1 absentee votes.
25
July 21, 1975
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the
Council,, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. to
July 28, 1975, 7:30 p.m., for the purpose of inter -
viewing various candidates to serve on the Planning
and Recreation, Music and Parks Commissions.
Attest:
City CI erk