HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 08/02/1976REGULAR MEETING,
ROLL CALL
INVOCATION
APPROVAL OF MINUTES -
MINUTES OF MEETING
OF CITY COUNCIL
PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 2, 1976..
The regular meeting of the Petaluma City Council was
called to'order.by Mayor Helen Putnam at the hour of
7:33 p.m.
Present: Councilmen Brunner, Cavanagh, Harberson
Hilligoss, Mattei, Perry*, and Mayor Putnam.
Absent: None.
*Councilman Perry arrived at 7:36 p.m.
..The Reverend Hugh Goss of the First Presbyterian Church
gave the invocation.
The minutes of the joint meeting of the Petaluma Com-
munity Development Commission and the Petaluma City
Council of July 12, 1976 were approved as mailed. The
minutes of the Petaluma City Council meeting of July.
19,..1976 were approved as mailed.
CONSENT CALENDAR- A motion was made by Councilman Harberson, seconded by
Vice -Mayor Brunner, to adopt the resolutions on the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
Agenda Item V1 Resolution #7470 N.C.S. approving plans and specifi-
�O\CALL FOR BIDS-- . cations for the 1976 street resurfacing program, project
1976 STREET RESURFAC - No. 9404 and calling for bids August 18, 1976 was adopted.
ING; PROGRAM-
RES # 7470 N.C.S.
Agenda Item #2 .Resolution #7_471 N.C.S. authorizing the Niayor.to execute
(} AUTHORIZE EXECUTION -OF, an amended BCDC Permit,for the City's outfall difusser
{ AMENDED BCDC PERMIT was..adopted.
G RES #7471 N.C.S.
Agenda Item #3
APPROVE LEASE AMEND-
MENT WITH STATE LANDS
,\ COMMISSION
V( RES #7472 N.C.S.
Resolution #7472 N.C.S..approving amendment to lease
with State Lands Commission and authorizing the Mayor to
sign was.adopted.
REVERSION TO ACREAGE---, City -Attorney Matthew Hudson advised the Council the
GOLDEN EAGLE SHOPPING Subdivision Map Act permits the City to eliminate the
OCENTER lot lines in the subdivision for a large number of
RES-#7473 N.C.S-. parcels. In this case, it is for the Golden Eagle
Shopping Center. Prior to the construction -of the
Center, it had been divided into lots, streets, public
utility- easements and so forth. The reversion to acreage eliminates, the various
lots and was a condition placed on the developer at the time the, tenative map
was adopted. The resolution for the Council.'s consideration is carrying out the
conditions placed upon the developer at the tentative map stage.
Mayor Putnam then opened the public hearing. No comments were received from the
audience and none had been received by the City Clerk. City Attorney Matthew
Hudson recited the two findings contained in the resolution which the Council
must make —The public hearing had been duly advertised and Mayor Putnam then
declared 'the public hearing closed'.
Resolution,#7473 N.C.S. approving reversion to acreage map (Golden Eagle Shop-
ping Center) was, introduced by Councilman.Hilligoss, seconded by Councilman
Harberson,,and adopted by 7 affirmative votes.
1
August - 2 �.. 119'7.6.
PUBLIC ,HEARING--'.:.'"".. _X'memorandum dated August;2; 1976 directed to the City
_
'COST" OF WEED -`.-Manager from .Fire Chief: Joseph= F: Ellwood was revi61ed ��
ABAT MENT.. PROGRAM..• by, the Fire Chief. The, a memorndum outlined the cost for
1975-•76 the weed"abatement program'for the fiscal year 1975-76.,-��
�
"
RES #7474_N.C.S:- -`A copy is' on file with.the City Clerk. The total cost
.
..of the program, including discing public property,.
_amounted to $.7,044:02. The total expenses for the
annual program was $7,.053.90 leaving a debit of.$9.88.
The.Superintendent of Public Works' report on the cost of abatement had,been
duly.post'ed on the Council -Chamber -door by the City Clerk. Mayor.Putnam then
opened "th.e,public hearing. No responses were heard from the audience, no writ-
ten comments had been, -received by the City Clerk and the'public hearing was
declared closed.
Resolution #7474N.C.S. confirming Superintendent of Public Works' report of
•
cost of abatement of weeds; rubbish; refuse and dirt existing upon the.streets,
sidewalks, parkways and parcels of, privateproperty in the. City of Petaluma -
ordered abated by Resolution V 36'3 N.C.S. was introduced by Councilman Perry,' "
'
seconded by Councilman Cavanagh, and adopted by 7 affirmative votes.
PUBLIC HEARING Prior to the discussion on the proposed rezoning.;"Plan-
AMEND'ZONING nin„'&,Director. Ronald Hall and"'City Manager Robert Meyer
"".
ORDINANCE suggested :the Council may wish to move Item 19 on the�`�
REZONE tANDS''OF' 'agenda relating to the approval of the tentative map for
.
MILLMEISTER RROM'.. Park Place Subdivision to'be discussed immediately after
PCD. TO PUD the public hearing for the rezoning for the. same subdi= "
ORD #1222 NCS vision.. A.motion was made by Councilman,Harberson,
(SECOND READLNG) seconded by Councilman Perry to move -Item 19 to become
Item 6A on'the agenda. Motion carried unanimously.
Planning Director.Ronald Hall then proceeded to.review the matters concerning
the rezoning of the property from a Planned -Community Development to a Planned
Unit Development,. Mr." Hall stated the developer is Qantas Development Company
of Rohnert Park.'.The subject property is locate-d on North McDowell Blvd. ad-
jacent to and.south of the.existing Candlewood-Mobile Home Park and consists of
`
approximately'23.6 acres. Councilman Mattei asked Mr. Hall to differentiate
between a PCD and a. PUD for.the benefit of the Council and the audience. Mr.
Hall'stated the'Planned .Community .District is the procedure where -the City
reviews the entire area, in its concept and shows the configuration of all three'
"
phases 'of the project;.'.;.The request' is to rezone .Pha-se. I of the project .to
Planned Unit District which -is more specific. Th.e existing zoning is PCD and
the proposal, -is to rezone'to.PUD: Mr. Hall'stated the property was prezoned and
annexed to the City .on April'`1- 1976. The EIR was certified for the total
project and Phase.I_on December 2, 1975 and by the City Council on December 15,
1975. The'characteri.stics of the project are the area covers 23.6 acres and the
design calls .for 63 units with zero lot lines. Twenty six of the units would
have flared lots and twelve units of "quad.raplot" design.. The development
allocation for the PCD .is"636'units of which 410 have been allocated. Of this.
410; 211 are single-family and 199 are multi -family units. Included in the 199
.
"
multi=family"are 19.low- to moderate -income housing units. Mr.. Hall stated
other governmerital agencies including the.Sonoma County Water- Agency and the Old
Adobe Union School District were contacted regarding the' development and no
negative comments had been received. -
The Planning Director" advised the proposed development conforms in concept "with
theGeneralPlan Design Plan and was subject to Site Design
,th:e-Environmental:
Review. At the•ad'journed meeting of the.Plannirig Commission on July 13, 1976
eight conditions of ;ap.proval were placed on the subdivision. by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Hall recited the 8.conditions a copy of which is on file with
the City Clerk.
'
During the course of t6.,dis.cussion, City Manager Robert Meyer asked the Plan-
ning Director if any con_siderat-ion had.been given to placing fencing.require-
"
ments for masonry 'or concrete fencing'in subdivisions in order to maintain the
'
appearanc'e and -not have a deterioration of neighborhoods as has occurred in
other areas. of. the,City:. Mr. Hall'stated no requirements had been placed on
fencing and Mayor Putnam"asked that the matter -be explored for future consid-
eration. Mr. Hall advised the City Council the Planning.Commission's Resolution
`s.'
n _ - _• ti, =i � - _ ,. ,. ..
- - - .• of-•
ter-"r`
- - 'i. �G�U
-
August-2,'.1976
`..
PUBLICHEARING ti,?Y x ; #Z9"76 recommends -approval. of 't•h.e.'rezonin"g and the `
APLEND ZONING,- _:'�t`; resolution and zoning map were, submitted to the 'Ci'ty..
ORDINANCE Clerk' acid ordered filed•. Excerpts of the minutes' of the'.'.
.yy u•:. '. .•'. :
' REZONE' 'LANDS,• - �;� •adjourned meeting of the Petaluma City Planning Commis= .'- • - -
'
_"OF
riILLMEISTER FROr1`;` s' '- Ysioir.of July '13:; 1976 submit"fed and filed; -a. staff
PCD TO ,PUD . rep:orf . from, the Planning, Department to the, Planning -
-.- ORD 11.222 NCS, ` .' .. _. '_ "`�Commiss on ;datedJune 29, 19,76 submitted and filed and
(SECOND 'BEADING)`,':: ;'`(Mr':' "Hall then concluded his,presentation.
(Cont.nued)
Some 'discussion 'was heldby the Council and the', City -
Manager regarding the proposed placement of. the hosp'ital'"
within she frauiew*ork'of.'the entire planrie'd community .development. Mr.', Jan.
Joslyn of Qantas. Development Company .advised, _if app;royal..was:,.given for the
hos.p tal'.'.s te,: -it. wou1( 'be--at-:the extreme south end of. the acr.eagee; Phase I
under consideration at_ this meeting would remain' as originally designated Mr.;
Joslyn' then, 'indicated "on he wall .map -how the proposed development would be,
_
changed, in 'order`to. accommodate the' hospital site: 'Planning -Director Ronald,
Hall stated.,ahere. would,',xbe *,no,'".change in. Phase I„ .but ,the` hospital site would.
effect' the development, `plans for Phase II and III.:'
Mayor-; `Putna'm -then : opened, thew.public , hearing and, asked; for• comments. Mr,. Jon "
Joslyn. spoke, stating .this, portion of,._ the' development• is exactly as submitted',.to .':_
-
the Council- approximately four years',ago and has not 'changed atall.! He' -did
state however changes. coiiad, be anticipated if the hospital is .,placed within: * the
area. ,Mayor Putnam asked=.-th.e- -City .Clerk %if any written comments::had been re=
cevEd _:• _None had-beet,..recieved and the public hearing was declared close$..
-
Ord'inarice, ' t,122.2 N. C.:S-..`am.ending fhe .Zoning Ordinance' '#1�072 N. C. S... by -r•eclas-
s.if.ying'F A .. •�I136=110-I1,, 136-110'=31, 136=110734, 136-11-0-38, 136-1.10-39 and:
4
'..13G:=.110-4,0--(consi'st ng"'o.f •Appr6x mate,ly- 23.,6 acres) from a P'CD (Planned `Com=
munity "District)-' to 'a PUD (Planned Unit District) , located on North" .McDowell ..,
Blvd',.. adjacent to and soutYi of the existing Candlewood Mobile "Home Park - (Park
•Place), was adopted by..;T, affirmative votes.' Effective date of Ordinance Sep- .
tember:,l, '1976':
APPROVE: TENTATIVE ':`Planning Director . Ronald Hall advised , r,epresentatiues of
SUBDIVISION MAP I the. developer,, the developers' engineers, and members -of
;
PARK PLACE .<• the city''s 'staff had met regardingthe' tentative map..
h
PHASE I _?° Several conditions had been placed on the tentative map
RES #7475 NCS :including those contained -in a letter dated June.22,,,..
directed to the Planning -Commission, by the 'City
-Young,.Mr.. Hall. '.read two cond t'ions
Engineer David • :
,'A'.
contained :in` Mr.4 Xo:ung''s' letter regarding' traffic impact mitigation measures.-.-
= called out' in the. Environmental Impact Report -for-.the initial stages for the
- project cons;truction.. "1) Construction, of Maria 'Drive from..Lucchesi'*..Park across'-;'.
Lynch Creek t.o:-a connection -with Sequoia Avenue, or- Lassen Street ,ext.end ng from
Park Place Subdiviso"n,. No`. T.; 2) 'Construction of. an interim' improved' •pedestr'ian :.• ', '
1
pathway'.. extending off=site: f,rom the subdivision along North' McDowell to a con''-
' necti.on with the - existing public sidewalk near East, Madison Street'" ': ' .Mr'. Hall
stated'the llaniing Commission's recommendations were to delete item_1 concern-*-
"
ing the. extension :of Maria' ;Drive: and 'the -suspension -of item 2 concerning The:.
pedestrian pathway: until, A -:-firm' determination is made_ relative to. the proposed •'
hospital relocation ad'j"acent to the subdivision property. In 'addition to the
two:conditions requested by the City Engineer to-prov de pedestrian access for
s'tudents attending Bernard' Eldredge ;S,chool, Kenilworth 'Junior High School and
LucchEsi Park 'as well' 'as mit ative. measures for the. traffic, impact ,upon the,
g
intersection.of McDowell and'East Washington Street, the City..Engineer'had made'.
11 other. comments:regarding-the•-.tentative, map;. : These are 'contained in his
V .
letter. dated June 22., 1976 which., is Exhibit "B" of Planning Commission Reso- '
lution. #16=76"-, and. is on; file with the City Clerk.' In addition to this 'exhibi't,
Exhi't4t "A' -the `;tentat.ive--map and 'Exhibit "C" the ,tentative map conditions of
approval. from the Planning Commission were submitted and filed .. -. .
The 'Council then requested .Mr. Hall' to clarify what changes, the. Planning 'Com•-
mi*ssi.oh had :made in the conditions -of' approval as �sug"gested by the staff and
those' which they finally- adopted. Mr. Hall reviewed the changes,. The .staff -..had
;. recommended 'the.requireme.nts of, the City Engineer shall be complied: with as
delete it l
stated in his let;ter'.. ''The Planning :Cohan ss;i'on wanted to' and'
_ 345"
August 2, 1976 _3
APPROVE TENTATIVE'.":.. suspend item 2 as mentioned'.previ.ously. The second.,
SUBDIVISION MAP change was the third 'item on the staffs report dated
PARK PLACE June 29, 1976 which -recommended the side yard setback of
PHASE I 15 feet to provide adequate'site'distance for "quadra-
RES #7475 NCS plot" lots 27, 28, 93, 94, 99 and 100 which border the
(Continued) proposed -arterial and collector streets. The Planning
Commission's recommendation was for a 10-foot setback
rather than the 15-foot setback. Item No. 8 on the
staff -report recommended that all 'rear egress from kitchen and living room areas
should open onto the rear yard for all lots. Changing items 3 and 8 would not
pose any particular problem as far as staff is concerned.. The primary problem
still remains with the extension of'Maria Drive. Mr. Hall stated, in checking
with the various agencies, Ino negative responses had been received. The Planning_
Commission,,"by their resolution #16-76, recommended approval of the tentative
map placing 15 conditions of approval on Park Place Subdivision Phase I.
Some discussion was then held regarding the staff recommendation #8 relating
to the rear egress from the kitchen and living room areas for all lots. Mr. Jon
Joslyn of Qantas Development Company spoke to the City Council stating 'they had
submitted four plans and of -the four only one has a side egress. The egress is
about two feet back from the rear of the home and enters onto a large splayed.
lot. Some concern was expressed by the Council that because of the zero lot.
lines in the subdivision there could be a possibility of all the houses having
the side -egress and each one.resembling the other. Mr. Joslyn responded by
stating of the four plans submitted for this subdivision only one has the side
egress. Af ter:sb•me discussion the Council felt they could agree with the Planning
Commission's recominendations'regarding the'side yard setback of 10-feet and
permitting the side egress for some of the units in Phase I of the subdivision.
The discussion then turned to the matter of the conditions of the City Engineer
regarding the construction 'of - Maria. Drive. Mr. Young reaffirmed his position.
that without the construction of this thoroughfare there would be no way for
-children to get to the Bernard Eldredge School. In addition, older children
would be attending"Kenilworth,Junior High School and some form of improved'
pathway should be constructed for their convenience. These matters were dis=
c.u.ssed in the Envirorimen.tal.Impact Report which had been previously approved by
the Planning Commission and the City Council.' Mr...You.ng stated his recommenda-
tions were minimum requirements for the safety of children going to elementary
school and to Kenil.worth,Junior High School.. Mr. Young stated at -.the prelim-
i.nary map stage, mentian.had been made of busing the children from the Phase I
development to the Berna--rd,Eld'redge School, however, no formal proposal has been
. received by theCity•. Mr,.Young further commented the entire Planned Community
Development -calls for the'completion of Maria Drive and although he realizes
there, is a capital problem and the developer would like to make this improvement,
during stages 2 or 3, he still'.feels it is necessary in order to have children
from Phase I safely traverse to the school. The alternative route would -require
children to cross a creek. McDowell Blvd: is not safe and does not lead di-
rectly to Bernard Eldredge School... Mr. Young further stated whether or not the .
hospital is located -at the site would be irrelevant because there would still be
a gap where a pedestrian facility would not be provided for the students.travers-
ing to Keniliaorth. Junior'High School.
City Attorney Matthew•Hudsori advised the City Council the ordinance which they
bad passed prior to this".discussion on the tentative map included the require-
ments as suggested by Mr•..Young in his letter of June 22, 1976, and in order to
be consistent.. with that finding the tentative map would have to include the same
requirements.
Mr. Jon Joslyn addressed the.Ccuncil, stating he knew the completion.of the
entire network of streets would be desirable.- The Environmental Impact Report
however recommended the completion of the, street network 1.n the early -stages and
did not. specify during the first Phase. He also said it was necessary for them
to extend the sewer line 2,200 feet and to redesign the storm drain system. He
indicated the Hospital District is once again taking a look at their site and
final approval.would depend upon the seismic work which still has to be com-
:_pleted. If the hospital,is located on the site they would'be improving one
section of McDowell Blvd. The first phase of -the Park Place Subdivision would
a'
August 2, 1976
ra:
APPROVE— TENTATIVE -.!also- be improving a portion.' of .McDowell Blvd. even-' -
SUBDIVISION though there would be no access to the homes from
_-MAP
PARK. PLACE _ McDowell as the rear lot lines �•�ould face on this
PHASE I- _-street. Mr. Joslyn stated. they would' like to begin -work
RES' #7475 'NCS on th.e first• phase of 'the. subdivision sometime by the
(Continued)": - `'''•'middle of,September and it -would be questionable whether
or . not it .would be completed this winter.. He had received .
•'..a.communication.from the Old Adobe. Union'School District
which stated their policy was to bus- children of kindergarten age who lived
beyond 3/4 of -a -mile from the.school and those in grades 1 through 6 diving 1
mile from the school; :Their firm is asking for a.postponement of the require-
ments in the•expettation:,that.by next year -all of McDowell'Blvd.`would be im--
'proved', Mr. `Joslyn also suggested, if -the hospital locates. n"th'e site, an
alternate route could' be completed which is one--of'the proposed streets 'in the.
Planned.Community Development.'.When -Asked'. by Mayor Putnam how he considered the ..
alternative proposed by Mr. Jbs.lyn;- City.Engineer David Young=stated the alter-.
native is part of . the .plan.' -, The goal, however,, is to ..get .the children to-
Ber—nard. Eldredgq,-:Sch.00_1 and-'.`tlie• alternative. plan 'is .speculative and depends upon
whether.•:or'.not the -hospital is. to be built at this site., Mr. Young commented,
unfortunately; ,th.e'--Counci1 must -make- the decision on the tentative map as pre—.,
sted'.'to them `'And" 'could:,not - depend upon' what might happen in the future.
en
City Manager. Robert Pieyer.'pointed out to Mr. Joslyn the had the ='
prerogativ.e.of':beginning the,su_bdivision.at the southerly end of the property,.
which.would-have-taken care of the ,street. problem. .However -.Mr. Joslyn stated it
' would mean' a'-longer,extension of the'sewer main. Mr. Meyer stated it then .
became a matter of, --the cost of the sewer versus the cost of the street. Mr.
. :Joslyn indicated''Maria Drive is a very expensive,street to construct and if the
req•uir.ement.is place'd_up.on..the tentative.map, their capability for obtaining
financing for the - project would be seriously impaired. Mr. :Tack O'Neel, also a
member of the,firin.of Qantas Development Corporation, spoke to the Council `
stating he would. •like ta..1'propose• a compromise that no one would move into t•he • `
first -.phase .of'' the '.subdiVision before next spring and their firm would pay a
.'portion of the busing' cost, for students.' He -stated whether or not the hospital
goes in they would•`"guarantee to complete a linkto the school -by next 'Spring and
within. -two -years -the entire_ -project would be completed.o "
There wa's some. -further discussion regarding, the street patterns,; transportation--.. ,.. .
and.rouies'-•for.children .traveling to both- Bernard: �Eldredge.and. Kenilworth Junior'.:.;:;
'h
High School'. 'Various 'alternatives were- explored one of which... was a suggest oh -_by
Mr.. Joslyn.th-at the City'.build the improvements and the developer would,buy them-
. .
back as -the -d'evelopment'proceed;EA.
Mayor Putnan asked t_he:City Clerk to read the title of the �resolution•to be
considered=by the.Ci.ty Council and Mr. Hudson clarified the matters which would
be incorporated ;in the'..'reSolution as, reaomniended by the Planning Commission to
approve items 3 and 8 as 'contained- in --the'staff .report, but..to require the
' conditions as set: forth. by." the City. Engineer in item #1. Mayor Putnam then '
stated -'the Council action would be to sustain the recommendations -of. the
Planning Commission with the. -exception of item 1 which would be, to follow the
recommendation.,:of- the City Engineer as .put forth 'in `his -letter of June 22, -1976.
Resolution 04.75 N.,C,. S 7 approving: tentative subdivision map. of Qantas Develop-
ment Corporation-(P,ark Place Subdivision --Phase I) was introduced by Councilman
Harberson, seconded by Councilman Perry, approved by 5 affirmative and 2.negative
votes.'_' Councilmen Cavanagh and Hilli,goss voted no.
RECES;S.','' Mayor Putnam called a recess'a::'9:45 p.m. :And the Coun-
cil reconvened at 9:55 p.m.
='DELETIONS FROM`; Items #10, 21 and 23 were deleted from the Council
- COUNCIL AGENDA'.. - ""agenda. at the request of the principals involved.
47.
_._.
S. August: 2, 1976.
BLD OPENING, ;_ . City .Engineer. David Young advised Mr.. Mary Lindorf and
-•
OUTFALL DIFFUSER; 'Mr. -Bill R-ichards of the, firm of CDM,•.Inc., were present i]
AUTHORTZE.'MAYOR; . at the -Council meeting to review the bids which had been
TO 'SIGN WATER"'.opened July 21, 1975 at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Richards reviewed
RESOURCES BOARD' the results of the bid opening. In order to clarify the
APPROVAL TO AWARD bids, Mr. Richards advised Schedule 1 for the outfall
RES #7476 NC5 difusser was 100 percent grant eligible. The alternate,
a slide gate for maintenance purposes, would.not be
.. grant'eligible. The -recommendation was to award both
Schedule l and the alternate. The three bids received were as follows: Healy
Tibbitts Co., for.a total bid of $58,36.5; Dutra Construction Co., $94,785 and;
Duncanson Construction, $104;483. The engineer's estimate for the total project
was $41,191. Mr.;Richards stated his firm had analyzed the bids and felt the
bid from Healy Tibbitts was a fair bid, and if it was the decision of the Coun-
cil to go'out to bid again,.he-does.not anticipate a lower bid.. Mr. Richards
stated they .had checked the,,references of Healey Tibbett's Construction Co.
City Engineer David Young advised the Council the action to b'e taken this eve-.
ning would not.•be to award the, contract but to authorize the Mayor to sign the
State Water Resources Board approval to.award. The document would have to be
sent to Sacramento* returned to .the City of Petaluma,• and then the actual award
could be made. Mr. Young also advised the Council that even though Schedule 1
was considered-100 percent grant eligible,:the City portion of this cost would
= be 12 Z. percent. -
Resolution #7476 N.C..*S'.-authorizing the Mayor to sign State .Water Resources
Board approval.to award•the sewer outfall diffuser contract was introduced by
Councilman Mattei, seconded by Councilman Perry, approved by 6 affirmative votes
and 1 abstention. Councilman Harb.erson abstained from voting stating there may
be a possible conflid.
t because he does some business with CDM, Inc., and may
: well have some contact with Healy, Tibbitts Corporation.
AWARD CONTRACT Assistant City Manager David Brenin.ger briefly outlined
FOR PURCHASE OF;- ,' the course of events leading up to the bids for the
PUBLIC SAFETY..'-; -public safety communication system. Mr. Breninger
COMMUNICATION CENTER =stated it was hopeful.the system could be ineffect by -
EQUIPMENT January 1, 1977,.at which -time the firefighters' hours
' RES #7477 NCS would be reduced to•56 hours .per week. It is antici-
,pated there • would ,be some problem in having sufficient
Personnel to schedule:, thus specifications were prepared
early, in-June'an.d-a',pre-bid conference was held June 16. The Council approved
the specifications June..28,_'and bids were received July 20. Two bids had been
received, .one "from ComCen'ter and the other from. Motorola, and both companies
requested more.information and clarification.
In a memo dated July 30, 1976 directed to -the City Manager jointly by Police
Chief Robert B. Murphy and Fire Chief.Joseph F. Ellwood, they stated it.was
their opinion both bids were equally responsive.- There were no distinguishing
features between,the two.bids-and their recommendation was to'award the bid to
the low bidder ComCenter Corporation. Both Chief Ellwood and Chief Murphy spoke
to the Council stating they had contacted other -.agencies• where•ComCenter had
installed 'their equipment. and both felt, on the basis of their research, the bid
should be awarded to the',low.bidder.
Mr. Howard Margowsky, President of ComCenter Corporation, spoke to the Council.
When asked by Couricil.man.'Per:ry who would service this center, Mr. Margowsky
advised .they would work.with Delta Communications System which is presently
doing the .work for.:the City. of Petaluma.
The,Council discussed space requirements for the system as well as the financial
requirements'to pay for- the 'system. City Manager Robert Meyer stated the esti-
mate 18 months ago was somewhere around $34,000 and the former Chief's office
and other areas which hold communication equipment at the present time would be
expanded to accommodate -the new public safety communications center. Mr. Meyer
also mentioned that in addition to Police and' Fire communications, the center
would accommodate the ambulance service as well and',, at some future date, the .
91.1 emergency service.
August 2 .1976"
AWARD CONTRACT �,: :r k;ti Mr. Bill ,Petersen of Motorola' Communications requested
FOR PURCHASE OF; :c`;:•; ;:,`;' and was granted 'permission tp speak; to the City Council.' '- -
PUBLIC' 'SAFETY . , _ `µ- Mr:: Petersen said Motorola was high .in their bid by'°
COMMUNICATION' CENTER'-'-'' ,'$800,. He complained about the specifications calling`-
EQUIPrNT :..:. ,. :' fora 'four status condition whereas 'the ',standard' is
'RES_#747.7 NCS_ �':':•J :three:' =in'order to comply with, the ;specifications;,
(Continued): ' ;`'t',°' .: ":, :Motorola would have to redesign at a. cost of approxi-
:=mately $10,000.- Councilman Harberson asked whether or
-
-4
not,this ma'tter'had`been.d*scussed at the pre -bid conference and, his question was,
answered _in the 'affirmative.... -:...
In response,, to: a•:quest�i'on-asked, by Councilman Cavanagh regarding the number of
suppliers who�,had received copies `of the specifications.,- Mr-. Br-eninger stated '--
four asked for -copies of the specifications ", howe''e'r, five had indicatedthey
would bid. `Only two bids"were received: •At the conclusion 'of the discussion,
'
Resolution #74,77, N.C.S., awarding 'the contract' for the .purchase. of the public
safety.communication•center equipment,to ComCenter Corporation, 6747'Valjean'
Avenue, Van Nuys,. California, in, the. amount of.$47;6.72:4'4 was introduced..by
"-
Councilman Mattei, seconded` -by Councilman Harb,erson, and adopted by 7 affirm-'`
ative^ votes .
;
LETTER. FROM A tter directed to the City Council dated July 28; '
fr
DR. FREDERICK _'`` ��,4976,:from Pre'derick A. Grove'rman, D.V'.M., President,
..GROVERMAN, •' w}�.'' : ,•.Boar,d of.Directors' Petaluma Hos;Pital 'District_, .had °been`
;w '
PETALUMA HOSPITAL :'received •by th'e City Council and= was': not read by 'the:
DISTRICT :-=. - City Glerk, but is; on file•. Mr. Charles Gowan, Admn-
'RE:- _SEWER, LINE istrator of the Hillorest Hospital, stated Dr. Groverman
:`
-EXTENSION ";';had been called away on, an emergency:and .;had asked him
r-''to appear. b.efi`ore the City .Council regarding -:their re=
` quest. Mr. Cowan read 'a statement .prepar'ed by Dr,.
Groverman for presentation to the City Council;, a copy of which i's' on, file with
the City„ Clerk. t't ; .
.
In';tlie discuss"ion .whiclir followed Mr. Cowan presentation, it was'b.rought out
the area they. are now ,considering is 15 acres -belonging to Qantas Development
'
Corporation in the property known as the Lands 'of Millmeister. In order for the -
hospital to; 'onnect-'into, the sewer line which -is to be built-in Phase I of, the .
Park Place' Subdivision,'.1:;8OG feet of sewer.main.must be..constructed. The:
hospital, district is asking the City . to advance, 'the funds for. this 1,,800 'feet. of
sewer line-. Mr. Cowan' stated_ some�;dec sion has. torlie arrived at`before.Qattas
and the hos ital.. district carer arrive" at an ;a reement on ,the .o 'ton for, .the' land.
P g.. P_,
City Engineer 'David Young. -stated the 1, 800 feet•, - most or less; wouhd °:be .the
,..
length. needed -'to 'tie into the sewer main to,r`be. constructed f:or -P,ark .Palace Sub'--.
y'
,
division, Phase I:, Wheii".questioned 'regarding the cost 'for such. a project; 'Mr.
'
Young estimated the cosa..to -be somewhere between'$50,,000 and, $55,000..`_''_
Some discussion`wag-held -on,.the `seismic data needed for the area and, Mr,-. Cowan:
stated. once th'ey�"have negotiated'an option with Qantas, they were prepared to go:.':
ahead. with the 'seism'ic: safety a'nd engineering studies. need'ed. However, nowork '
..
could' begin until they .had ,reached -some decision 'on the sewer 1"ines., • City
= tii
Engineer David_ Young_ stated, the City bar ,a mechanism whereby it- ,t,obld' recover
.; the 'funds expended by means of a sewer benefit district'.. Mr.. Robert, Meyer, City
:•; x:
Manager,. then ;stated, it .would be. ,possible, for- the hospital to en't`er' into a
:-
reimbursement•'program whereby' any .subsequent connections- to the main would
require a fee being paid to the Hospital'District.': .
Aft-er some de1'iberation, _ it was determined 'it would not `'be appropr,ia'te fo'r the,:
'
Council to ,take '''action; on :the. matter at. this meeting and the matte'was delayed: '
unt h August 1,6.31.1'976..:` ...-.' .. :
E
G
1
3 4.,.
August '2; 1976
RESERVATION, -FOR A letter dated July 23, 1976 directed to the Petaluma
BOAT DOCKING. City Council by.Mr. Bob.Mc'Laughlin, River Activities V4 I rf
FACILITIES FOR Chairman for the -Bicentennial Committee, had been dis-
VISITING YACHT. tributed to members of the .City Council and was'not read
CLUBS by the Cit Clerk b t d d f'1 d I
y u or ere r e n addition, a
memorandum dated July 3o�, 1976 from Assistant City
Manager David Breninger to the Mayor and City Council
was noted and ordered filed, and a letter directed to Mr. McLaughlin from Frank
B. Gray, Community Development and Services Coordinator,. is on file.
Community,Development and Services Coordinator Frank Gray stated Mr. McLaughlin's
request is for the.City Council to maintain a reservation list for yacht clubs
planning to visit Petaluma. Mr. Gray indicated the staff had discussed the
matter and some questions were raised which need a determination by the City
Council. For instance, the matter of increased liability and the possibility of
not being able to fight fires as the boats are rafted in the turning basin. The
,City is able to:'provid'e a place.for the boaters to dock, but reserving the
public.docks'is one pr;oblem the staff felt they -could --not answer. Mr. Bob
McLaughlin then.addres.sed the City Council reviewing the number of clubs which
have already visited Petaluma this year .and .outlining the schedule of reserva-
.tions through October. Mr. McLaughlin.'pointed out the reservations for the
yacht clubs also included reservations for restaurant facilities and brought
other business,.to the community. -Mr: Harry Simpson of the Marin Power Squadron
addressed the City,.Counc'il and advised that many of the people who make arrange-
ments to come.,to Petaluma make them ."a year.in advance. If upon arrival, they
are unable to.use the docking facilities because, other boats are tied up there,
the cruise to Petaluma would not be. quite "so popular. He urged that Mr. McLaughlin
be given authority to reserve spate for the visiting yacht clubs.
Mr. Dick Larsen of the Northbay Yacht Club, also addressed the City Council and
stated without some type of control at the docking facilities the groups would
not be able'to arrange cruises. He urged the Council to make some arrangement
to keep the dock clear when the groups_ arrive in Petaluma. Vice -Mayor Brunner
asked Mr. Larsen.•."if rafting of vessels was a common practice in other communi-.
ties and Mr. Larsen stated it is, Mayor Putnam then stated the Council was
concerned about fire and police safety as well as sanitation. The City is
supportive of'the:.river and is aware it has become a popular place for visiting
yacht clubs,.. She"also stated the community is hopeful of having more yachtsmen
use the river.:. In.addition, Mayor:.Putnam...stated-the more popular the Petaluma
River cruise "becomes for the various clubs throughout the Bay Area, it will be
necessary to develo.p..some.'sort of procedures. The City does have a responsi-
bility -and a.li.ability as pointed out in Mr. Gray's letter. She stressed these
are points which.cannot be'ignored. Mayor Putnam further pointed out there_ is a
bridge involved which needs to be opened as yachts enter the turning basin which
requires the employment of City personnel. The City.must also face the fact
that when the-br-dge.is"up, traffic. backs up on both sides. Mayor Putnam asked
Mr. Gray if he had any further comments. He responded by stating there seems to
be three subjects with.'which.the.Council is talking about interchangeably and
felt the problems.could be handled with,the proper regulations being adopted.
One is concerned with the public safety for the boating people -- adequate fire
protection, police protection, and sewage disposal. The second is in regard to
the length of time boats would be permitted to tie up.to the City's floats. At
the present time,,. -there is no regulation to as:k,peopl.e to leave after a certain
length,of time and Mr. Gray suggested perhaps a policy should be established
setting a 72 hour limit. The third problem .to which he related was the matter
of reservations.'for .the floats for cruise groups to visit Petaluma. These
reservations.were formerly handled by the Chamber of Commerce and'Mr. Gray
suggested the Cty.Counci.l,should either handle the reservations or delegate the
authority to'another group or person. Theses are the matters which he felt
needed clarification.
Mayor Putnam polled' th'e.Council for an agreement to form a committee to discuss
the matter and --try to resolve some of the problems .She suggested the committee
be formed, of a..member of the Council, a member of the City staff, someone from -
the public at large,.a representative from the Police.Department, and one from
the.Fire-Department.' No action was taken on the matter.
3 5 n'
August .2, 1976
COMMUNICATION ., `?=-`'A.l'et'ter dated July 21,.•.,1.9.:7;6 addressed,,to, Cit,.y• Manager',.
,
OLD ADOBE ASSOC.,`:d .';•,,and 'the Traffic Committee from Thelma Elphick., Secretary
s
.;
RIVER-ACTIVI-TIES :•,of.the Petaluma Old Adobe Association, has been d s'trib-
`�
AUG. 21, :197:6 sited to the ..City Council and members of the staff and . .
''was 'not -read by the_ City -Clerk. The points'.of the
;N ...
letter were°then discussed by the City Council and Mr.
Ross' Smith-, re-Petal'uma.Old Adobe Association. The first point in
the letter pertained to, hanging a banner across 'Petaluma Blvd. at. Western Avenue. `
an.d:Mr. Smith caas advised this matter could be handled directly through the.
_
Police Department: through .noral procedures. .The second matter in the letter to'.
which the Councit..addressed.itself was the closing of Fourth Street. between "Y'
;•
and_"E" between, the hours -of 7:'00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.; on Saturday„ August 21st.;*.
When questioned°regard•ing.the purpose of the .street closure,,'Mr_. Smith stated
ther'e.'.would be,.an' Ugly ---Dog Contest, a:Bicentennial Costume Contest and Wheel-
barrow Races..'.Ci.ty.Manager Robert.Me'yer- asked Mr. Smith whether the.business .
people adjacent -.to this .ar'ea'.had. been contacted regarding the closure -of the
street..., It -was,•suggested,-the-residents. and the business people on the.street :be.
=.
contact'ed and,,the matter' be' referred- to the Traffic Committee. With relation to
closingthe parking lot,�between Western Auto. and Petaluma Realty and, all of
Water Street,.`between Washingtori.Street ,and the River, Mr:. Smith indicated the
Bicentennial_Cel.ebrati'on.:has=,been expanded. -this year and is being called the..
Bicentennial Old..Adobe..Fies.ta Week. The Association plans a.river. %pageant .and.
other -water related' activities. including canoe races, water clowns, a decorated .
boat -contest,, an unusual' boat ,,contest, kayak and .row boat races,' firework"s, and
-•,
a patriotic celebration, at.thd, closing of the.,river..pageant..- At..the conclusion- .
of the river pageant; it,is planned"to have a dance .at the Golden Eagle Shopping .-
Center. The reason for...the �reques:t for banning, parking inthe area, is' in order
fora large number-of,peop.le to be' able to view the -,activities which.would take
place on the river--:,
Mayor Putnam stated sh.e'realized .there was a.time problem:in.order to get this
matter straightened out and. asked the City Manager what procedure he felt. should
be taken. Mr. ' Meyer stated that there were approximately 70 'parking spaces
involved - and he,felt...•the association should contact the Downtown Merchants to
get,;their feeling,regarding'the banning of parking in the.area on a Saturday as
this type of request,.had never been made of the City previously. Councilman
Mattei suggested a petition could be :circulated throughout-thedowntown area to
;
determine whether or no't the merchants would approve of the .plan..'..
Because of the;u"rgency';_of 'the matter and the short length of 'time involved;
Mayor Putnam 'asked. if ii,.'speeial 'meeting. of the Traffic Committee could 'be
called,.' providing the. information.was forthcoming from'Mr. Smith or -Mr -:- Schram;
irder'arthe.. Association to 'go ahead with their -plans. No'•action
was taken,.•
CITY MANAGER'S R�P6RIS ::.=. • •,: n :. .
-CLAIMS & BILLS-, `. "° ,",- ; Finance Director John 'Scharer advised the- Council this,
RES #7478 NCS :'`; ..:. 'r:' :`L is. the .first, computer -generated claims listing -presented
to the. City- Council. He regretted he did not have
sufficient time to prepare a memorandum explaining.' the
various nodes•' on-. the. -6 iaims. listing and asked to have t'hi's matter' deferred until •,
he has an opportunity to:prepare,a memorandum for them.
Resolution #7478 N. C. S,.`,;� approving claims and bills 11 through- 144; inclusive,'
General City;, ..and;: -#1 -through #5,'.inclusive, ,Water, approved for payment by the
;City Manager, Wad introduced by Councilman Mattei, seconded br• Councilman
Brunner and adopt.ed..:by.-7.affirmative votes.
Due: to the 1e,ng.t4l of, the meeting, City Manager Robert Meyer advised the Council,,
.
he- -had.. no further reports.,*,. '
August 2,- 1976
COUNCIL REPORTS:
LEGISI:ATION City' Attorney Matthew Hudson advised he would defer any .r
AFFECTING CITIES discussion on legislation to _a future meeting.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS' Vice -Mayor Brunner reported the Library Advisory Board
FOR PETALUMA PUBLIC met last Tuesday and he was seeking a policy direction
LIBRARY from the Council regarding some additional items needed
to be acquired for the Public Library. Mr. Brunner
stated the largest single expenditure would be to expand
the present reference'..desk at.a cost of approximately $1,800. Mrs. Dorothy
Bertucci, a member of the Petaluma Library Advisory Board and the Sonoma -County
Library Commission, spoke to the 'Council.stating_the items needed could come
under the contingency fund. The need for the expansion of the reference desk is
because of the heavy.use the new Public Library is enjoying. Originally,,
$35,500 had been allocated for furnishings for the library and of this about
$6,000 or $7,.000.was.not spent. She was asking direction from the Council
whether or not.they would:have.any, objection to -'spending the money for the
additional.irems.needed.: In addition to the reference desk, Mrs. Bertucci
stated a door is needed._for safety security in order to close off the mezzanine
area. -
After a brief discuss. on, a'.motion was made by Councilman Hilligoss,.seconded by
Councilman Harberson agreeing to add the item to the agenda for the purchase and
installation- of'the door as a safety measure. Motion carried unanimously.
A motion was then made.by Councilman Mattei, seconded by Councilman Harberson to
approve the purchase and installation of -the door at a cost of approximately
$432.50 with the.work to be performed by Henry Volker. Motion carried unan-
imously. Vice -Mayor Brunner advised the Council he would get a listing of the
other items and bring them back to the Council as a scheduled agenda item.
SPECIAL -CITY 'Recreation Director Jim Raymond advised the Council the
AQUATIC DAY proposal -was to have a community event at the Municipal ��
Swim Center for Saturday, August 14th-from 10:0.0 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. There would be, -no cost for participants and
he would like to:be.a.ble to ,award prizes.of passes for the various contests and
water activities.. The maximum loss to the City for.not charging entrance fees
to the pool would be $300.. Fifty-free-passes:for.pri.zes would amount to approx-
imately-$25, and the.drawing.for 'the free family swim pass would be about $25.
A motion was made.by."Councilman Hilligoss, seconded by 'Councilman Harberson
approving the aquatic fun day at.the Petaluma Swim Center Saturday, August 14,
1976 and the. awarding of 50 free passes for prizes. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC WORKS community Development and Services Coordinator Frank
EMPLOYMENT ACT Gray asked the Council to review his memorandum of July
OF 1976 30, 1.976 regarding the local public works employment act
of 1976. The City Manager Robert Meyer indicated this
would be.one of the matters.to be discussed at the
August 9th work study session.. No action was taken..
APPROVE OUTSIDE Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank
SETTER APPLICATION- Gray indicated the area on the wall map. At the present
1391 MT. VIEW AVE'.: time, the parcel of land is not adjacent to the City Fc2--,
PATRICIA -BECK,_,GW*ER .limits, however the applicant, Mr. Kenner has indicated
-KIRK KENNER, APPLICANT he will annex to the City when. possible. The staff
RES #7479 NCS recommendation is to permit Mr. Kenner to tie the sewer
into the City's system. There is one existing structure
on the- land which is to be.torn down and a new house
built.. Mr..Ke-nner waspresent in the audience.and at the request of the Council
indicated he would.annex.the property to the City at the earliest possible
opportunity.. Councilman Cavanagh questioned how hewas able to get to his
property and Mr. Kenner stated -there was a prior access easement. The present -
structure is served by �a septic system and the intent is to extend a private
sewer line to 'the property,'.' 'At the conclusion of the discussion, Resolution
#7479 N.C.S. approving the application of Kirk Kenner -(Patricia Beck, Owner) for
one outside residential -sewer connection for A.P. #19=232-05, 1391 Mountain View
Avenue. was introduced by-Councilman.Perry, seconded by Councilman Cavanagh and
adopted by 7 affirmative votes.
14
3 �
August 2, 1976_
MODIFY' SUBDIVISION - `: Planning ;Director :Ronald F. Ha1_1 gave -the .staff report.,:, .
6. ORDINANCE PROPERTY - on the::request'ed,:exception to the'Subdivis oii Ordinance
892 WEST STREET;., for the, property located on West Street in -the vicinity
C (DAVID .LIME) ._• -,.;. :M �.of' Amber Way, Laurel Street, Schuman..Lane and :Paula
\ RES i�74'80 NGS Line.,_. Planning Commission Resolution W17-76,, Findings
- of Fact, and.recommendation of the Planning Commission'
"1 for; the modification of the Subdivision Ordinance #104:6.
N. G. S': submit`ted :'and filed.;. The request was to permit lots 2 'and 3 to have a
65-foot width maximum -instead of the•75-foot requirement' in an. R-1-10,000 square
f oot •district . '; Lots. 2 "arid 3 would contain 8,645 square feet and.. lots in the
vicinit-y are,10;000 square'feet and some are 6,500 square feet. In addition,
- there are lots similar. in size to those requested by Mr.'& Mrs.`Li:"vie. The
third lot_ in the:.;proposal would be 10,050-.square feet. Mr. Hall stated if the'
parcel was to,,.be divded.into.two parcels these,lots would be approximately
15.,000 square -feet which would be more incompatible with the -district than'the
pr.posed._lot .split.` The.Planning Commission recommended_ the modification..be
granted:,
Upon'coiiclusion>'of'Mr'::'Hall'a presentation, Resolution #7480 N.C.S. granting
certai'ri'�modifications to: the requirements imposed by the lSubdivision Ordinance
of this City relating- to ,the. premises' located on West Street of David B. and
Elizabeth 1.-,Livie was iitroduced'by Councilman Perry, seconded by Councilman• .
Brunner`%and adopted,by,+Taffirmative votes:.
APPEAL= SITE .'; ::, <r '.:'' ` "` Planning Director. Ronald'Hall explained. the, reason.'for
O PLAN REJECTION' -i',rejection. o,f the= site plan is the area calls for two
RESIDENTIAL DEV.:_ry:•° ` units -per acre -and the proposal 'from Mr': Sousa was to
A'CONTROL SYSTEM::_: :`;`build three units per. acre.,. The proposal would .,not , .
J'ONAS SOUSA ",comply with'the criteria of the Environmental Design,
Plan. 'Councilman Matter -asked if it was compatible with.
the properties on either side. Mr. Hall indicated the
properties -which are inclose proximity are about the same lot size as proposed .
by,Mr. Sousa.The applicant indicates he has been. assured .:the proposed site
plan met every requirement of.the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hall stated in review"
ing the text of Environmental Design Plan the slope range, which is less
than 10 percent 'ori the broposed subdivision; would be consistant.
Mr._,'Hall ':advisedt lhe'., staffs; recommendation. would be 'to accommodate the devel-. -
oper but:'°to have him meet with the staff in order to work out some of the dif--d-,
ficulti'esl which.,appear t^o be presented by some -conflicting ,legis'lation_.': Mr.
Hall also indicated there were some other aspects about the proposal.whch he
would: like to discuss with the; developer and•one is the.length of the cul-de-
sac. : He. wou-ld prefer- to -have two cul-de-sacs of shorter -length for -the con-
venience of public safety vehicles..
The-re.was 'some„ further discussion regarding which' City ord'inanc'es grid :policies
had to: -be .brought'into- conformity and Mr.'Hal-3•'stated'.there is an inconsistency
betwTeen 'the Zonitz Ordinance and the Environmental Design Plan.. City Attorney.
Matthew'..Hudson-sugges,ted.the,'Council.neither reject nor'approve the proposal.
until these inconsistencies have been worked out and.to continue the hearing
until a future date:.,.-
. -
Mayor Putnam suggested to Mr` Sousa.' who'was present in the audience, to''make an .
effort to-meet,.Ath the Planning staff and possibly`.the City Attorney in order
to resolve some: of the differences and for .the' application to ,proceed 'in an
orderly manner,. Letter, from Mr. Jonas :Sousa .by Humberto Sousa dated July 16.,,. .
1976 regarding the-:appeal,was.filed with the City Clerk:
Mayor `.Putnam' declared the. -appeal continued' and asked', tree principals to. meet 'with
the Planning Director in-'the'near future.
• —, - its - - - .. - _,