Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 07/19/1976MINUTES OF MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA JULY 19, 1976 REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Petaluma City Council was called to order by Mayor Helen . Putnam at the hour of 7:35 :p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brunner, Cavanagh *, Harberson*, Hilligoss, Mattei, Perry, and Mayor Putnam. 'i ABC APPLICATION- Absent: None. BALONEY EXPRESS : 'Councilman-Cavanagh arrived at 7:42 p.m., and Council - Agenda Item. #2' man" Harberson 'arrived at 7:37 p.m. INVOCATION The Reverend Henry Rankin of Two Rock Presbyterian TUCKER'S ORIENTAL -- Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Tim.Souza,. student.at Petaluma Senior High School, led Agenda Item 713 the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of June 21, 1976, were approved as mailed. AGREEMENT - A. C. The minutes of June 28, 1976, were approved as mailed. F �( ADAMS The minutes of July 6, 1976, were approved, after the _ spelling of Mr. "Duncan Olmsted's name was corrected. INTRODUCTION OF Assistant City Manager David Breninger introduced the POLICE CHIEF new.Police Chief, Robert B: Murphy, to the Council and tti'HEELCHAIR RAMPS, members of the audience. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Councilman Hilligoss, seconded by RES #7461 NCS Councilman Harberson, to file the ABC applications and Agenda Item #5_ approve the resolutions on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. Agenda Item #1 ABC Application for Baloney Express, 40 East Washington 'i ABC APPLICATION- Street,.: and Tony Mazzanti_, original on sale beer BALONEY EXPRESS : and` wine eating place .permit, was approved: Agenda Item. #2' - .ABC Application for Tuckers Oriental Food Store, 12 ABC APPLICATION Kentucky Street, Cecil H. and `Moto Tucker, for off. sale TUCKER'S ORIENTAL beer and.wine permit, was "approved. FOOD STORE Agenda Item 713 - Resolution #7460*'N..C.S. authorizing Mayor to sign Public PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Improvements .Agreement with A. C. Adams,.,West Street, AGREEMENT - A. C. was _ adopted. F �( ADAMS . RES #7460 NCS Agenda Item #4 Resolution #7461 N.C.S. approving plans and specifica- CALL FOR BIDS -- tions and calling for bids August 4, 1976, for con - tti'HEELCHAIR RAMPS, struction of wheelchair ramps, was adopted. (� PROJECT CDG -1 -76 RES #7461 NCS �. Agenda Item #5_ Resolution #7462 N.C.S. establishing certain classifi- ESTABLISH CLASSI- cation titles, specification and salary ranges by FICATION TITLES, amending Resolution #6113 N.C.S. was adopted. AND �,1 6SPECIFICATIOIN SALARY RANGES RES #7462 NCS July 19,, ..1976 PUBLIC HEARING -- The olic re ort on Seismic Safety and Public P. y P Safety SEISMIC SAFETY & Elements prepared by Envcom. Corporation with. Computer PUBLIC SAFEY Graphics b Comarc Design Systems, submitted and - filed. 111 T ' P y g y , ... ELEMENTS OF THE Environmental Impact Report,, as_part of the General GENERAL PLAN Plan, Seismic';-Safety Element, and the Envirbiimental RES #7463 NCS Impact Report, as part of the General Pla% Public.Safe,ty, Element, submitted to the Planning Commission. by Fred E. Tarr, , Associate.Planner, May 4:,'1976, is incorporated as part of the report._ Petaluma City Planning Commission Resolution No- 1346 recommending adoption of the Seismic Safety and Public Safety Elements to the General Plan of the City of Petaluma, adopted May 18, 1976, submitted and filed. Notice of the public h'earing'had been published by'the Clerk A's-required by law. Community Development and'S'ervices Coordinator Frank Gray. said the State law was amended in 1972 to require cities to include Seismic Safety Element and Public Safety Elements in their General Plans. The target date for inclusion was, end of 1973. The City of Petaluma was unable to meet that schedule and ; appl -ied for an extension. When it was felt, the requirements still could not be met, another extension was requested, but denied by the State. Mr. Gray stated no cities were granted further extensions on the preparation of these two Elements to the General.Plan. Guidelines were set by the State-, and the report being discussed this evening incorporates those.guidelines which will serve the City Council, the Mayor and the Planning Commission. The Elements 'include goals, policy; and safety criteria. Mr. Gray then went on to review the introduction.-contained in the policy report, pages 1 through 4, which cites the specific authority for the.preparation of the Seismic- Safety' and P.ubh c Safety Elements, as Government..Code' Sections 65302(f) and 6.5302.1. Mr-Gray, further_ stated the report is in two volumes: one is the policy section concerned with the implications of the technical findings .for the . City; and two is the technical section, which addresses the.nature and extent of Seismic Inundation and Fire Hazard. Mr. Gray further,'explained the policy report would be the document which the Council, if.approved, would adopt at this meeting. Mr. Gray then introduced Mr. Chuck Swift of Envicom, the geologist who:hatd prepared the seismic safety portion of the report.. Mr. Swift stated in - - paring the =xeport:it was the'intent to identify the natural hazards which might affect Petaluma. These,are primary seismic-hazards which are ground - shaking and the potential for ground rupture along the surface trace of the fault. Secondary seismic hazards result from the interaction of ground shaking, and include liquefaction settlement landslides, tidal waves, and oscillating waves in lakes and reservoirs, 'In comparing the wild fire hazard in the area as opposed to southern California, Mr. Swift stated Petaluma is not in as great a danger due ro the lack of chaparral areas. It was their.feeling, the combined fire pro - tection,of State Forestry,. the City of Petaluma and other firefighting agencies was adequate for the area. In relation to the flooding hazard, Mr. Swift stated there are several areas in the City which will be inundated by a.100 -year storm. -He specifically mentioned the.Denman Flat area, the area west.of McKinley School, south of' the Sonoma County Fairgrounds, and the low -lying agricultural areas east of Haystack Landing. Mr. Swift also stated that bridge crossings constructed over the Petaluma River have.increased the flood potential'of the area. Mr. Swift stated Petaluma has'been specified as a flood hazard community by the of Housing and Urban Development;. As far as ' :seismic hazards are concerned, Mr. Swift stated,Petaluma is - in a part of Califonia considered 'to be.seismically active. The major faults which would affect the City are the San Andreas Fault, which is active and is expected to be K the source of a great earthquake in the next 50 to 100 years- The other fault to which he related was the Heald sburg- Rodgers Creek Fault Zone, which is ex- pected to be the' source of - future significant earthquakes. Seismic activity can be expected,,from faults in the area, but;the magnitude would.be somewhat less. With - - relation to the Tolay Fault, Mr..Swift stated there is so little informa- tion, it is difficult to assign it to an active or inactive category at this time. Their recommendation is for additional studies to be made on the Tolay Fault: - July 19, 1976 PUBLIC'HEARING `. } ° Mr. Tom Tren=t,. another member of Envicom; then spoke. to ' SEISTZIC SAFETX & the. City Council,. regarding the- policies contained :, in. the .. `. PUBLIC SAFETY report. Mr. Trent stated once the'ha?ards have been'- ELEMENTS` OF THE' -., ridentified. and described, then. policies should 'b'e. set as' GENERAL PLAN J to what action to take. The purpose of the policy' RES #74,63 NCS re p ort.is to describe.or recommend what'the ideal level (Continued) :' '.of protection would be for the City of Petaluma-, The ideal•level of protection would be the level of accep- ^'table risk. It is recognized you cannot avoid earth- quakes, flooding, or "fire, but there are various means to minimize the effect , of - = such hazards. ` °Mr. Trent - 'stated these policy recommendations are out! ned'.on Page 22 of the'Report', and 3'3 specific policies are outlined on Pages 23 through. = 34 of the Report. 'The-Report does not contain any engineering design criteria for new or old structures or a land .use prohibition of an p y kind. , Mr.. Trent' stated their recommendation would be for the, City to make•the Building Code more.,., specific for new structures. Following this, a qualified, engineer _ :. should-review the Building- Code and the Seismic Safety. and Public Safety 'Element °.Report;,, prepared:by Envicom,: to: determine where some regulations could•be relayed and others be made .more 'stringent;. "> Their second recommendation regarding. new structures would be* to Have a'soils engineer make studies,"particularly in the areas where landslides `and lique_ faction ma'y.occur', and recommend design measures to alleviate the problems. The third- recommendation regarding new structures., particularly ho :spitals, - police - !stations, and other' public safety buildings, `is to locate the structures, - avoiding areas of high- hazard risk. 1 relating to existing str--uctur.es, Mr. Trent stated their recominendation,•in light.of the. ground- shakirig data contained in the report, is that the City evaluate, the older structures, 'par. titularly those built blefore,19:33, to deter'- mine ghat the risk_level•is. He further stated it would be advisable'to'evalu- . ate the water and sewer systems to find out what they could,withstand. Mr. Trent recommended the City solicit other agencies,to.look at their facilities to determine the potential impact of; an expected earthquake, and he specifically mention.ed.CALTRANS, Northwestern Pacific Railroad .Company, Pacific'Gas and -- ' .Electric Company, Pacific- Telepho,ne'Company, and the Sonoma County jdater These agencies should.forward their comments -to the.City of Petaluma. "'Mr Trent went on to state - the: most difficult part of the policy. is to determine what action should -be taken if a building is found to be unsafe. There are means of strengthening buildings, such. as `reducing `the occupancy, but, of'course, the '. final,decision would be demolition. ;. In relating to emergency planning,. the City should review their emergency plan to determine if -the City could be self= sufficient during the first week or so of , a disaster.. g _ His Tinal was to ins p ro r Lute a am, to increase_ citizen • aware-, • ness of the hazards that.exist< in the community. Mayor Putnam then asked the co4s.ultants!, Mr. Swift and Mr. Trent., to r.espon'd to questions from•the City Council.. Councilman Harberson indicated the report refers to damage. to Lawler Reservoir because of the Heald sburg= Rodgers Fault, and he asked whether the main concern is flooding or the loss of water,. Mr. Swift indicated both.wou d be of some concern; however,.the greatest concern would be the loss of the source of water supply. Councilman Mattei questioned whether or not it was', mdnd for the-Council. 't'o. adopt the:S:eismic Safety Element or if there was some alternative. Mr. Gray stated the law clearly - indicates we shall adopt the Seismic Safety Element,,, -' which shall include the identification and app- raisal of seismic hazards. Mr. Gray stated the polic `es contained on page 22 of the report would meet the minimum requirements for'policies to be adopted by the City,. Councilman MAttei further questioned whether: the City had to identify specifics to pass the reso- lution before them this evening. Mr. responded by stating the proposal before them was to set the.level of.acceptab'le risk, and they specifically would be adop:ting'the.three goals stated on page 21 of the report and the policy ' recommendations.stated on page 22 of the report. 333 July ,19., ..197-6 PUBLIC HEARING-- Councilman Cavanagh inquired whether "or not the mandate SEISMIC SAFETY & from'•the State pertained to charter cities as well as PUBIC SAFETY general law cities. Mr. Gray stated the'Sta -te Attorney ELEMENTS OF THE General's opinion was 'it applied to all cities. GENERAL PLAN . RES #7463 NCS Mayor Putnam opened the public hearing.. (Continued) Mr. Skip. Sommer addressed' the Council stating the Great Petaluma Mill, which he was presently rehabilitating, had requirements placed on it to withstand a.shock equal. to 8.0 on the Richter scale and questioned under what authority this requirement had been placed on the structure. .City Attorney Matthew Hudson advised Mr. Sommer th&'Un form Building Code adopted by the City some time ago included this provision. In' fact, in 1948 the Uniform Building Code outlined earthquake standards. Mr. Hudson further stated he '.anticipated the 1976 edition of the,Unif.orm Building'. Code would impose far greater res'tricti_ons'as far as earthquake standards..are concerned in view of the disastrous earthquake in southern California which took many lives and destroyed a hospital. There being no further comments, Mayor .Putnam closed the public hearing. Resolution #7463 N.C:S. adopting the Seismic Safety and Public Safety Elements of the General.Plan of the City of Petaluma was introduced by Councilman Harms berson, seconded by Councilman Perry,. and adopted by 6 affirmative and 1 nega- tive vote. Councilman "Cavanagh voted "no.. PREZONE PROPERTY- A memo dated June 8 1976, addressed to the Planning _ 10 BERGER LANE FROM 'Comission from the Pla mnning.Department_, submitted and d; Planning Commission Resolution No. Z8 - recom- � � R -R 'TO R -1 -20, 000 file g . DISTRICT mending the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, . ORD #1220 NCS dated June 15, 1976, submitted and filed; excerpts from (SECOND READING) the Planning Commission minutes dated June 15, 1976, submitted and filed... Planning Director Ronald Hall stated.the application was for prezoning the Leonard Paul Jay property at 10 Berger Lane,, which'is presently zoned R =R in the County, to R- 1- 20,000 sq. ft. This zoning is a relatively new change to the City and is a transitional zone between the rural residential and the higher . residential areas in the City. The area is bounded by Berger Lane, Gossage Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. Mr:. Hall stated the staff was directed -by the Planning Commission to file a Negative Declaration, which was posted with the City Clerk on June 16, 1976. 'Mr. Hall stated the applicant had instituted the prezoning preparatory to being annexed to the City the request of the-'City Council. Councilman Cavanagh questioned whether the R -1- 20,000 sq. ft. is only a first .step or the final zoning. Mr. Hall stated the area is approximately three acres and will be divided into 'four lots. Mayor Putnam then opened the public hearing. No comments were received from the audience, none had been received from the City Clerk, and the public hearing was closed. Ordinance #1220`N.C.S.'amending Zoning Ordinance #1072 N.C.S. by prezoning A.P. ir48- 134-55 (consisting;of approximately three acres) from County R -R, Rural Residential .District to R -1- 20,000 (Single - family, 20, -000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) District located,at 10 Berger Lane, at the southwest corner of Magnolia Avenue and Gossage Avenue— (Leonard Jay) was adopted by 7 affirmative votes. Effective date of ordinance is August 18, 1976. A14ARD BID -- STREET Purchasing Officer C. D. Huffman reviewed the bids which ? STRIPING MACHINE had been .received and•'opened, July 14, 1976. . The bid RES #7464 NCS from J. E..Bauer Coatings,.Los Angeles, California, was rr July. 19, 1976A AWARD BID -- STREET the second lowest bidder; however, -a't was t -he only bid':' •. STRIPING MACHINE of .the two low bids to meet the specifications in every' RE S. #7464 NCS . ' , respect': He further advised the low bidder i Ric k er (Continued) Mdchinery, bid' a. machine that did not ,meet the speci s fications' and would not serve the purpose for which it was intended. P..ublic Works Superintendent Roy explained the Ricker Machinery Company bid a piece of equipment with a 30 HP . :... engine instead of a 60 Ht engine, which was not adequate for the-purpose. Councilman Cavanagh requested clarification on the high bidder, which'was-from -' -', Brown - Bevis. Equipment Company, Hayward, California, and Mr. Kelly. explained this type of equipment was meant to be used for highway striping and was much -more sophisticated than needed for the City's purposes. It was ,a full size truck with a V -8 Engine, which far exceeds the needs of the City., At the conclusion of the d scuss,ion,. Resolution #7464 N.C.S. awarding the con- .. tract for. the purch'ase..of o,ne street _striping machine for the Street Department to J. E. Bauer Coatings, 1021 North Mission Road' Los Angeles, California,' 90031, in the amount -of $18,691.42,'was introduced by Council Perry, seconded by Vice -Mayor Brunner, and 'adopted by-7 affirmative votes. _ A letter dated June 17, 1976, addressed to the Mayor � BICENTENNIAL \ . COMMENDATION -U:S from. Moon . Landrieu, President .of the United States` b CONFERENCE OF MAYORS ,Conference.of Mayors, was read by the City Clerk and ordered filed.*. In addition to the letter,, a- Certificate of Commendation to the City of Petaluma forts part- -. ;• cipation in.the Community Bicentennial, "Lasting Re -- 'minders to document :City Bicentennial programs of last - '•ing value`', was presented to the_City: Mayor Putnam. .'requested -the Bicentennial Committee be made aware of ' the award. LETTER OF APPRECIATION „ Putnam read' a letter she had received from Mrs.' : FROM ROSE SCHOENINGH & ''Schoening-h,.thanking the City for the plaque which was to FAMILY '. have been'preseritedto former Mayor Vincent J. Schoeningh '. _ at the. Grand Ball held -July 3;, 1976;, however rir. Schoenngh awayshortly before the Ball, and the plaque was presented to,Mrs,. Schoeningh in his memory. FEASIBILITY - STUDY -- A:letter dated July 1, 1976,. from Armando. F. Flores, \ 'LIABILITY. SELF- Mayor of the City of Rohnert Park, with their Resolution '\ INSURANCE' PROGRAM . - #76' -104; ; , entitled Resolution Endorsing Study of Fe.asi - . f bitty of Liablty',Self Insurance; had been received by members of the City Council and was not read by the :City ' Clerk. In the discussion which followed, Assistant City Manager David'Bren nger advised, he had been in coritact 'wi.th the City Manager of Rohnert Park regarding the resolution. Rohnert Park would.like to encourage other cities in the County to develop a cooperative study on general liability self' - insurance program, The : cost of the feasibility study.would run.somewhere between '$5, and $7,000. =, Mr. Breninger also stated the Mayors' and Councilmen's Association will be ; discussing the matter at a future meeting. He felt it might be appropriate to wait until they had had an opportunity to review it, Vice -Mayor Brunner indicated'he felt the City.should take a very slow approach' to self - insurance. It` was suggested the City continue the: program, of relying on the expertise.of the independent insurance agents who make recommendations - regarding such a program; ' CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS CLAIMS BILLS Resolution #7465 N.C.S. approving claims_ and bills 48803 RES 417465 NCS to 449004., inclusive, General City,;: and, #707 to 7`55, ''inclusive, Water, approved for payment by the City 335. July 19., 1976 . CLAIMS & BILLS RES 97465 NCS, (Continued,) Manager, was introduced by Councilman Perry., seconded by Councilman,Hillig_oss;,, and adopted 6 affirmative votes and 1 abstention. Councilman Harberson abstained from voting because there was.a claim on the listing_to CDM,. Inc., with which he has had some business contact. PRESENTATION OF CHECK Barbara Southern, representing the Circus Vargas, Souther - TO CITY. BY land Advertising Company, and the Washington Square WASHINGTON 'SQUARE Merchants Association; presented a check in the amount SHOPPING CENTER of $1,085.00 to the City of Petaluma to cover the cost for additional services for traffic and other police services provided by.the City of when the Circus Vargas appeared in Washington Square in January, 1976. - PRESENTATION OF Police Chief Robert B. Murphy,presented a - certificate.to CERTIFICATE TO Michael Shelton signifying his satisfactory completion MICHAEL SHELTON of courses entitled "Municipal Police Administration",, ADMINISTRATIVE offered.by the of Training and`Municipal, ASSISTANT -- POLICE Administration in conjunction with the International - DEPARTMENT City Managers' Association. Mayor Putnam and Chief Murphy._both congratulated.Mr. Shelton on his achieve- ment. 1976 STREET Assistant City Manager David Breninger advised the RESURFACING REPORT Council the 1976 Street Resurfacing Report is an update v6 of the 1965 and 1970 report.previously submitted to the Council._ All of the streets in Petaluma have.either been walked over or driven over by the staff resulting in this comprehensive report.on a street resurfacing program. Mr. Breninger stated Mr. Young would like to review several aspects of the,report with the Council in order to proceed to:prepare the plans and specifications to call for bids for.the 1976 Project. City Engineer David Young advised the Council at the present time approximately $84,000 is budgeted for street repair work. In reviewing the- he-esti- mates the cost of the work 'recommended for the warranting resurfacing would cost, about Through discussion.with -the City Manager and the Finance Director during the previous. week, Mr. Young stated-he learned there were funds available. Mr. Young stated one of the primary problems within-the older section of the City.is the high -crown streets. He also advised Frank.Gray has been working on a program in which some funds mandatorily have to be spent on public improvements, rather than private improvements, and it is felt these funds could be' used to do the overlay work in the older sections of.town. Mr. Young indicated he felt.it would be more economical to do a larger project at one time, and that more favorable bids would be received. The urgency of the matter was to receive bids and begin the over.lay.project before the Fall of the year. He also stated in fiscal year 1976 -77, the City -would receive sufficient gas tax funds to make up the difference between the $84,000 and the $160,000. At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion was made by Councilman Harberson and seconded by Councilman Mattei, authorizing the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for Street Overlay Project, 1976, in an approximate amount of $160,000. Motion carried unanimously... APPOINT DONALD P. PETRO MEMBER- - WATER C0 RES X67466 NCS Resolution #7466 N.C.S. appointing Donald P. Petro to F/O/ the Water Commission, was introduced by Councilman Perry, seconded by Cgunci.lman Hilligoss, and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. Expiration date of appointment, June 30, 1980. M 6. . r. July 19, 1976 •. APPOINT ROYCE Resolution #7461 N.C.S. . appointing Royce Van Beb'b,e.r to �� '' VAN BEBBrR• MEMBER"- 1 the. Personnel Board, was introduced by Councilmen Perry, ' PERSONNEL BOARD seconded by Councilman Harberson and adopted by 7 RES #7467 NCS. affirmative votes. Expiration date of appointment, June 30, 1980. COUNCIL. REPORTS. ; REDWOOD EMPIRE "Mayor Putnam a brief Redwood Empire t gave report on the. DIVISION MEETING ."- Division of. the League of California Cities Meeting in EUREKA, JULY 17, 1976 :.Eureka held July 17, 1916. There was a .good,attendance from the Sonoma County area, and although Petaluma was 4 . second in attend'an.ce_, Healdsburg, as usual, received, the `attendance plaque. Mayor Putnam advised that°.Vice -Mayor Brunner, Councilman Cavanagh, Councilman . Hilligoss, Councilman Perry, and she had attended the meeting: PAGEANT.OF THE Mayor 'P utnam'r.eported she had been requested :by the - -. MASTERS Lea gue of California Cities to attend the Pageant of the .' K .Masters held'in.Laguna Beach in Orange County. The Pageant is held in the - Irvine Bowl, which belongs to the °. City,. and a certain. percentage of- the-revenue received is returned to the City. ... - The revious ear the had received P y y $165 000. In addition to the-Pageant of the � Masters, a festival of the arts is held at the same place ;concurrently with the Pageant: This is for..artisans to show their crafts and wares and..to'be able to sell them. However, i,n. order .. to participate in the festival of the arts, they - must be.approved by a panel..of judges. Mayor Putnam stated although Petaluma is nowhere near -doing these types of things, the Recreation Department does annually sponsor an Art- in-the =Park Project, and she gave the program for the event to the new Counci- l.'represe t.ati_ve on..the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission, Councilman Hilligoss RECESS Mayor Putnam called a recess at 9:20 p.m. and,the > Council reconvened at 9:30 p.m. AMEND ZONING. Planning Director'Ronald Hall indicated to the Council ORDINANCE` TO REZONE this is the.'first phase of Park Place Subdivision, which MILLTlEISTER PROPERTY would provide - for approximately 100 sing -le- family dwel- FROM PGD TO _PUD -- lings. The ' hearing is set for August 2, 1'976,. :. PARK PLACE The first phase proposal does not include any amenities, SUBDIVISION = such as p arks and so forth.: The area is known -as the ORD #1222 NCS former. Millmeister property and is comprised of:approxi- . mately 23.6 acres.:° Upon conclusion of his explanation, Ordinance #1222 N.C.,S. amending Zoning Ordinance 161072 N. C: -S. by reclassifying A.P.. ��136- 110 - 11 110 -31: #136-110- 34, X6136= 110 -38; X6136- 110 -39, and X6136- 110 =40 (consisting of approximately 23.6 -. acres) from a PCD (Planned Community District) to PUD (Planned Unit-District), . a located on,North McDowell Boulevard, adjacent to and south of the existing: Candlewood Mobile .Home Park =- (Park Place), was introduced by Councilman - Hilligoss,..second'ed by Councilman Harberson, and ordered published-by 7 affir- mat-ive votes. ORDINANCE APPROVING Mayor Putnam remarked the redevelopment matter was the .' AND ADOPTING topic. of a public hearing held on July 12,, 1976,. which �. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - - was widely attended by citizens of the community. The CE N TRAL ...,. lopment Agency was g fol1 eentire ~ r BUSK SS DISTRICT present at the meeting, and the matter was g . _., REDEVELOPMENT .PROJECT ";'recorded by an official court reporter. At that.time,. ORD #12.21 NCS the public hearing had been concluded. She further SECO READING) stayed any questions which seemed to be appropriate at TABLED) , : ttzis evening's meeting should be those' of the City ' 337 July 19, 1:976 ORDINANCE APPROVING Council for purposes of clarification. Subsequent to AND ADOPTING. the public hearing, a.questiori had been raised..regarding REDEVELOPMENT PLAN -- the matter of boundaries'and'possible changes.in the PETALUMA CENTRAL boundary lines. Mayor Putnam then asked Mr. Joseph - BUSINESS DISTRICT Coomes, the Special Legal Counsel for the Redevelopment REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Agency, to clarify.just. how precise is the matter of the ORD X61221 NCS District's boundaries. Mr. Coomes responded by stating (SECOND READING) if the Redevelopment Plan is adopted, the method of (TABLED) changing the boundary .is a_fairly simple one.' To in- (Continued) elude or exclude property in the Project Area requires a finding by the City Council that a change in the boun- dary is necessary,, a Nofice of Public Hearing to go to the property owners in the project area, and depending upon the extent of change in the boundary area, an environmental assessment may be required. Mr. Coomes .stated it is not a complicated procedure:: City Attorney Matthew Hudson suggested to the three Councilmen who are unable to vote on the matter.thit if they wish to speak, to make their remarks -from the floor, rather than from the pod "ium. It was at this time that Vice -Mayor Brunner, Councilman Mattei and Councilman Perry moved to the audience. Speaking from the floor, Councilman Mattei asked.to have several matters clari- fied. .One was regarding voluntary participation in the Plan, and the other.was whether or not the Community . Development Commission could acquire property against an owner's will.. Mr. Coomes responded by stating the Plan itself is-the authority for, the.Agency to carryout the project and is one that anticipates maximum voluntary participation by owners in the Redevelopment Area. The Plan offers the way for redevelopment programs. which are permissive and not compulsory and will not significantly interfere with the rights of property owners - within the .Project Area. The only exception would be to 'acquire land. for additional parking and for public improvements to be- carried out. Councilman Mattei questioned whether or not as a property owner in the downtown area, would he be able to acquire.property adjacent to his property in order to provide off'- street.park ng. Mr. Coomes responded the „plan does not contemplate this type of activity. Actions the Agency can take under the Plan are the actions of.the nature of public improvements.. The provision for public.parking downtown is pursuant to the scheme the City has and !t: twill- : - co.n.t nue to ­ attempt 'to implement parking in the downtown area. Mr. Mattei .then questioned whether or not if he 'intended to his business. and double its size, would-he be able to acquire adjacent property for this purpose. Mr. Coomes.stated the Plan is intended to 'encourage the upgrading of business conditions in the Project Area; however, if a.businessman came to the Agency and asked the.Agency to acquire property which was properly zoned and a conforming.use and sell it.to the applicant, the Agency would be unable to do this. Speaking from the audience, Mr. Jack Beasley asked if he was not in a position to upgrade his property and repair it, would'he be able to keep it_ Mr. Coomes response was the Agency's limitation would be to create a buildable site if the land was owned by the Agency and the structure was not suitable on that pro- perty. Mrs. Lucille Elmore then asked another question regarding land which may be held in trust under the terms of, a will.and could the agency alter these provisions. She further stated that once property is left in a life estate, there is little flexibility of what can be done with the property. Mr. Coomes responded by statng,.the Plan does not in any way, affect the transfer of property. In fact,'it doesn't change the Zoning or Building Code provisions which would be applicable to the use of the property in any event. Mr. Coomes then cited some examples, the first being if the property contains a structure where title changing by will, it is being sold,,'but still being used accord- ing to the proper zoning and is an adequa_te,.structure. The Redevelopment plan is not going to change the use of the. property. The second instance he pointed out was if there was a nonconforming building which was so dilapidated that it couldn't be -used; it was unfit for occupancy, and it was a blight on the sur- rounding area, then the Agency has the ability to eliminate the blight caused by July, 19, 1976. ORDINANCE APPROVING ; the: structure in the downtown area. The third example -. AND ADOPTING � was if..a ro. ert owner had a structure that . he Baas REDEVELOPMENT PLAN =:- :: unable to repair and would rather sell.':. PETALUaA CENTRAL instead, this person could come to the 'Agency on a' - BUSINESS DISTRICT voluntary basis to inquire if the Agency.would -be REDEVELOPMENT. PROJECT „_will ng to help_ him dispose of the property. ORD 11221 NCS ' - (SECOND, READING) On,the matter of eminent domain, Mr.. Coomes stated the ( TABLED) or the City may acquire property fo.r public (Continued) parking or for any public purpose...However, the Agency is required,before . it.acts, hold a public hearing to , ' give the property, owner notice, and to declare.by`a two - thirds vote that'the - Acquisition..of the property is necessary to carry out the plan; and that: there is -no other alternative way'to carry out the'objectives - of the Agency.: Property must be condemned its fair market value, and relocation - costs must be paid; in the case of businesses;. moving ,costs, :must be paid, and' in' the case of residences ..rental payments, must be paid. It would also be nec'es- sar , to . pay g ood will , in' the y • p y g c ase of businesses,,, and by a combination of pro -. cedural'and payment requrements.under the law,, to totally compensate anybody who may lose their property-through acquisition under the Plan. Mayor Putnam then - addressed Councilman.Cavanagh, stating he had expressed a wish at the meeting of July 12, 1976.,, when. the Petaluma Community Development Com- mission- and the, Council had met in a joint session, that he would like to have citizen -input before the final action - on the Redevelopment Plan was made by the - City Cit Council. Council-man.Cavana � h s' . tated had-indeed asked citizens'. :. . -. partic patzon,an many 'letters received man letters and comments,�both pro and con: He also felt _these were other agencies which could handle -the improvement 'in the. downtown area, mainly AB 103. Petaluma Improvement Association.,. Another matter which.Councilman Cavanagh g stated disturbed him was the fact - that , only four members -of :the:City Council, acting as. Commissioners on.the Petaluma. Community Development Commission, were able to vote on the matter. He addressed his Comments to Mr. Coomes ques tioning. whet her or not this Tway change at Some future date.' Mr. Coomes said this.was.a problem created by the.passage.of ::. Proposition 9; however, ..it would .•not necessarily apply as actioha' are; :taken to- carry out, the Plan, and certainly' would not apply to the extent there is to be a'' power of condemnation. It•d'oes apply, however,,, to the adoption,.of the redevelop - .. ment plan. , Councilman Cavanagh stated he was disturbed because the power of ' condemiTation'was included in the plan and selling by negotiation to someone else -." the land which had :'been .condemned. He realizes there is a safeguard which calls for public, hearings and so' forth. Councilman Cavanagh further ;stated'he was no z sure whether the enthusiasm of.'the. downtown property_owner,s was. behind the project, and it-was not clear to him what percentage of property owners were in ' - ... favor of the -plan J. Councilman..Cavana'h then went on to review the responses to his request . g for, . 5 public input, stating. had .received a petition containing about 20 names in - favor of the redevelopment. He Also 'stated he had approximately 6.0 phone calls, 35 of were for the "'.Redevelopment Plan and about 25 against the Plan.. In addition, Councilman Cavanagh stated he had received,a- petition containing'211, names of: the. tenant's who were in the Golden Eagle Shopping,Center. owned by'. Walter Kieckhefer. Councilman' Cavanagh stated the Heritage Homes and the Chamber of Commerce have also expressed their concern regarding the project to - him, and- he'rec:eived a petition from Mr. Thompson with approximately names of property owners, customers.and clerks in favor of the project in the downtown ". area. A petition against the development from business firms and landlords, with.approximately 110 to 120 signatures had "been given to him, and:Councilman. Cavanagh stated'all in -all he.felt that he received some very good input., Councilman Cavanagh stated his famil has had ersonal.ex er ezce in con g y P P nation of property'by the City. To him the :power of condemnation is a very frightening 'thought., and the ,action 'taken by this , ordinance is of deep concern ' to him. Councilman Cavanagh stated in his opinion he feels the Council needs . more cooperation for all the parties before taking action to adopt the ordinance . which would cover a 25 -year period in order to have a unified downtown'areA.. :_ '339 July 19; 197..6 ORDINANCB APPROVING Councilman Cavanagh also stated it was his understanding AND ADOPTING the Project Area Committee had met during the.past week REDEVELOPMENT PLAN closed doors where all the members were not PETALUMA CENTRAL invited to attend, and if this'was so, he did not BUSINESS DISTRICT approve of the strategy. REDEVELOPMENT- PROJECT ORD #1221 NCS Mayor Putnam stated Mr..Skip Sommer had asked permission (SECOND READING) to respond to Councilman Cavainagh's remarks regarding-. TABLED the Project Area Committee meeting, and permitted Mr. (Continued) Sommer to address the Council. Mr. Sommer stated the Project Area Committee meetings have always been open to the public, and all members had been advised of the meeting held last week. Notice of the meet -ing was also contained in the local . newspaper., and even though,all had - .,probably not been contacted personally by telephone, they had been advised of the meeting. Mr. Sommer also said he.agreed with Councilman Cavanagh regarding the three members of the.City Council who were unable to vote on the matter of the Redevelopment Plan because of the strict requirements imposed by Proposition 9, but there was little that could be done about it. Mr. Sommer further;went'on to state the power of eminent domain has been one, which cities have had for years throughout the Country. The Plan, as proposed,. puts a few safeguards in it so that rather than leveling buildings and creating bare land, redevelopment would take,.place. Mr. Sommer then asked Councilman Cavanagh if he would read the title of the petition forwarded -by those 'persons who oppose the Redevelopment Plan. Councilman Cavanagh stated the petition read as follows "I.do not approve'of, or agree with, .the Redevelopment flan. As.a merchant, I do not believe it will increase -sales enough to compensate for the doubling of'our overhead_." Mr. Sommer then stated the most disturbing matter. about the Redevelopment Plan has been the lack of interest by persons in the Project Area to investigate what the Plan was all about. Mr. Sommer further stated the.Proj.ect Committee solicited members, asked for input the merchants in the area, asked for their suggestions, but very few attended their meetings. Councilman Hilligoss stated she had read the petition and felt it was not a valid petition. There 'would be no way for the Commission to determine whether . rents or overhead would be doubled in the project area. She felt some of the people who signed the petition were misled into thinking they were signing against double - rental. With respect to the letters and petitions received by Councilman Cavanagh, none were turned over to the City Clerk;.however, Councilman Cavanagh stated he wanted to evaluate"them further and would then submit them to the Glerk' filing. The discussion then led to the tax increment financing and how it would affect the City.as a whole., Councilman Cavanagh asked Robert Stimson, a member of the School Board, if it was not necessary for the Board to sign an agreement with the County regarding the loss of revenue because of the tax increment. Mr. Stimson stated as far as he was aware there would.'be no effect on'the revenue of the schools The schools had been properly notified, and SB 90 would take care of any loss of revenue. . Councilman Harberson stated it was brought out at the public hearing last week the tax shift .would be very minimal. He felt the sales tax generated by the revitalization of ; the downtown area would more than compensate for the loss by the tax increment financing base. It was his opinion there was not any real rationale to oppose the tax shift on the project. Referring to'condemnation, Mr. Harberson stated.there are no more powers vested in the Community Develop - ment Commission than what the City already has. There was further discussion pro and.con regarding the Redevelopment Plan with Mr. Harold Wojciechowski concerning his opposition to the Plan. Mr. Jim McCor- mick inquired about the tax base, and Mr. Coomes responded that the allocation to the Agency would be the difference . between the 1976 -77 assessed valuation and the 197.5 -76 assessed valuation. Ms. Janie Warman, Project Manager, also spoke �3 4 July 19, 1976 ORDINANCE APPROVING to the City Council stating there are many property ° AND.AD'OPTING ".. owners in the downtown area that do not live in Peta REDEVELOPMENT PLAN -- luma. Fifty -four property owners live outside''of the ITi pment Agency has been in contact by .. ~ PETALA CENTRAL :,area: The Redevelo BUSINESS DISTRICT letter and receipts for the letters have been received REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT by­ the Agency. Very few comments have been­ received. by, ORD ( :1221 NCS the st"aff.. Pas' Warman also stated' 16 of the parcels in SECOND READING) the Project Area are owned by the City of Petaluma. TABLED. . (Continued) rir. '- Richard Lieb, Chairman of the Project Area Cam mttee, . s'ta'ted he felt if given a chance, the ' Proj:ect, Area Committee, the Agency and the Council could work . the Plan.'out. He further st he would like to have fir. Robert,McLaughlin join the Troject Area Committee in order for the Plan to be explained to him in ' full. Mr. Ernie Curtis 'spoke to. the Council again in opposition to the Plan. , At the conclusion of the discussion, and before the action to be taken on, the ordinance, Community Development and Services. Coo.rd.'inator Frank Gray suggested the City Council consider adopting a resolution which would limit the Council's use of-eminent domain without the adoption of .a specific project. Mr: Gray. asked the advice ,of botl ' the. General Counsel for the Redevelopment Agency and Mr. Joseph Coomes, the> Special ; Counsel,for the Redevelopment Agency... Mr. Hudson suggested :it would be a'. olic resolution of the Council 'ust for the-Redeuelo P Y j p- ment Plan and Mr. Cop it, would be an appzopriate resolution to be adopted by the Counc :l. ,.bef ore. or "after the adoption of the ordinance.: After a brief discussion, a mot -ion was made by Councilman Harberson.and'seconded by ' Councilman Hilligoss, to,add the policy resolution,to the. Council's Agenda as No. 18 - Motion carried unan mousl} *, by 4 affirmative votes and 3. abstentions.. DEFINE POWERS OF Resolution #7468 N.C.S. defining powers of eminent ' EMINENT DOMAIN FOP: domain- for'Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Central 0� RED EVELOPMENT PL.yti Business District Redevelopment. Project was introduced: #7468 NCS by Councilman Harberson, seconded by Councilman- Hilli- Boss, and'adopted by 3 affirmative and 1 negative votes.. and 3 abstentions., Councilman Cavanagh .voted "no' RECESS_. :. r_At this point in the proceedings, - _City. Attorney .Matthew Hudson asked for a brief recess in order for'Mr. Coomes and `him to .confer. ,, The MA or. called for a recess at` " Y. 11:10 p.an. -, and the Council reconvened at 11:25 p.m. When the Council had reconvened, Mayor Putnam spoke stating the - issue, . before the. Council this evening was..of= . great importance to many people, Councilman. Cavanagh,,` ", ' she stated, has indicated he opposed the issue of condemnation as he and his - _family had had a personal experience with the proceedings. Mayor•Putnam- atated =` she the issue.was a very critical one and asked the City Clerk to'read the title of the ordinance. r - TABLE ORDINANCE Bef ore the'City Clerk had an opportunity .to,read the #1221 NCS title of Ordinance #1221 N.C.,S., Councilman Hilligoss RES 1 0461A NCS A,. stated that since ,Councilman Cavanagh had made the, , "suggestion to postpone the matter,, she would like to.. introduce a motion to table.Ord'inance #1221 N.C..S. Her motion was seconded by Councilman, Harberson, and- Re- solution #7467A N.C.S. laying on the table the matter of, the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for the Central = .-' District Redevelopment - Project was adopted by 4 Z Affirmative votes and .3 abstentions.. -' 34T' July 19:, 5k. DETERMINING TAXICAB.. City,Attorney Matthew Hudson advised the Council he had _2 q0 RATES_ & REPEAL read the language written into the new :resolution to RES ;6693 NCS .. n both the Taxicab_ Company owners, and they were in con RES "V7469 NCS currence with,the. - rates specified`in the resolution. Resolution #7469 N.C.S. fixing and determining rates which may be charged for taxicab service and repealing Resolution #6693 N.C.S., was introduced by Councilman-Perry, seconded -by Vice -Mayor Brunner, and adopted i by 7 affirmative votes. 1 CONSIDERATION OF Councilman Mattei at this time asked whether it would be UNFINISHED possible for him to resign from the Redevelopment Commis BUSINESS sion in order for the Commission to appoint a member who - would be able to vote under the terms and restrictions placed by Proposition 9. City Attorney Matthew Hudson asked to have some time to take the matter under advise went and discuss it with Mr. Mattei. CONDEMNATION OF Mr. Victor DeCarli addressed the.Council at this time PROPERTY -- and stated during the course of the discussion on the VICTOR DECARLI Redevelopment Plan, he was in a.neutral..position. However, Mr.. DeCarli stated several years ago the City had acquired property on East Washington Street. Mr. DeCarli stated.he was required to remove the business located_on the property. The property in question was needed for the widening of East Washington Street, and Mr. DeCarli stated. up until this time, he still has not been paid for the - property or the.destruction of the business he had located in the area. Coun cilman Cavanagh stated he felt there were other,people in the same Project Area who still had not received answers such as posed by Mr. DeCarli. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.: in memory of former Mayor Vincent J. Schoeningh, and to an Executive'Session,. CD � Mayor .A14