HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 09/27/1976ADJOURNED MEETING -. An adjourned meeting.of the Petaluma City Council was
called to order by Mayor Helen Putnam at the hour of
7:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmen Brunner, Cavanagh, Harberson,
Hilligoss, Mattei, Perry,. and Mayor Putnam.
Absent: None.
STATUS REPORT- -
A \ MARINA
\ PROJECT
RES #1533 NCS
Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank
Gray reviewed the processes and.where the City now
stands on the application to the Department of Navi-
gation and Ocean.Development. He reminded the Council
a draft.Environmental Impact Report and a Feasibility
Study had been made for the project, and the City ,
applied to DNOD for a loan in the amount of $2,090.,456.
In a..letter directed to City Manager Robert Meyer, dated August 5, 1976, by.
Marty Mercado,.Director of the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development,
several areas.of concern were expressed regarding the project. Mr. Gray re-
viewed these with the City Council. With respect to planning for the marina,
DNOD felt more land should be available to consider future'expansion needs.
They suggested a.marina layout plan should developed to reflect this need.
In additi6n;.`th6y were.concerned regarding the-fact the Corps of Engineers may
not cont'ifiiid to dredge the Petaluma River as a Federal Navigation Channel. Mr.
Gray referred'to a letter dated September 14, 1976, directed to Mr. Morgan
Noble,.froin Col. H. A. Flertzheim, in which he stated the development of mari-
nas, such"'as planned.by the City of Petaluma,_ would tend to increase the bene-
f its. to the Petaluma River; and if commercial traffic continues at its present
level, the Corps would anticipate the benefit generated will continue to justi-
fy the.maintenance dredging of river. Col. Flertzheim further said he
could assure Mr. Noble the Corps of-Engineers has no plans.to discontinue its
dredging program.
The response from DNOD.regarding the economies and the market demand was that
they.felt there-was not enough. ' demand for dry.storage, and their recommendation
was to delete this. item - from•the:proposed.project`, They pointed out.by elimi-
nating.'the-: dry.'storage, the revenues 'would' also be. affected' in the-project.,
They.f urther.felt.the 350 -berth shortage inaccurate figure projected
for the future.
In analyzing.the loan application, DNOD felt they could - only support a loan of
$1,700,000.. With regard to the engineering of the project,, DNDD- .suggested the
figure in the Feasibility Report of from $12.00 to $15.00 per square foot was
not a realistic-figure and a more accurate projection would be from $16.00 to
$18.00 per square foot. They further discussed the .problem of locating a
marina 12 miles from San Pablo Bay.
Mr. Gray stated the question now is how would the City make up-the difference
between the projected cost for the marina and what DNOD was willing to loan.
Their projection does not -ncblude the cost for off -site -improvements and the
total amount needed by the City to complete the project as proposed would be
somewhere around $500,000.
Mr. Gray stated-he had received a comment from the Office of Planning and
Research indicating.the_State's review-of the Environmental Impact Document is
_complete.. The..Office of Planning and Research acts as the clearinghouse for
the ; State. One.concern_ was raised by CALTRANS regarding the impact of traffic
on Highway 116. The second concern was from the Department of Fish and Game,
which placed 'a series of requirements; including moving the dikes back 300 feet
.from the river to maintain marshlands in the area. Mr. Gray stated he had met
with representatives from the Department of Fish and Game and discussed this
1
u
,. September 27, 1976
STATUS REPORT - - ._"
"matter, and the':- dikes.proposed�
or the marina are„ in
PROPOSED MARINA
fact, 300 feet from the river.
They are - requesting the
PROJECT :'
ex=isting dikes be breached and
the dikes on the entrance
RES #7533 NCS
be lowered in °:order for flood waters*to
go over the top
(Continued)
of the dikes._- ., .Mr. Gray advised
the both he and
the•City Engineer, David.Young,'expressed
some concern
to the - Department of Fish and Game'regarding
revegeta -
'. Ling the dikes' because
of the water flow on the dikes,
and that some type of
material, such,as shell
or-rocks, placed banks
while revegetation
takes place.
With relation to the response from the San Francisco Bay and
Development Mr. Gray advised.the.Council,BCDC indicated they had no
jurisdiction..over the site, and jurisdiction extends only to the
fluence of Adobe Greek.They did, however, raise,some questions about insuffi-
cient flushing action and from the tallow works,.and they also suggested
circulati.ng.pumps.would have placed in the marina.in order to avoid
impacts associated with .the decline.of water quality standards. They stated
this.would be an additional cost above and the estimated cost for the
project.
Responses received-from Regional Water Quality Control Board and from the
Coast.Guard were addressed to•the - disposal of routine engine oil waste from
vessels.
Copies of all-the documents- mentioned by Mr. Gray are on file with the City
Clerk.
Mr. Gray.9tated the question before the Council now was whether to proceed with
the loan application and the final E.I.R. He indicated he received some
estimates for completing the E.I.R. and for additional engineering studies.
City Manager..Robert Meyer - requested the City.Engineer and the Finance Officer
to comment:on 'the'.project before hearing from the Project.Engineer. Mr. Young
stated he wanted to emphasize the problem of water quality. He felt the cost
of mechanical.,aer.ation should be included in the project cost.. The E.I.R.,
tended to assume - the.oxygen problem in the river was largely with
the.Sewer..Plant.and the oxidation ponds would.tend to decrease the problem.
Mr. Young.stated,.however, he did this would greatly the water
quality as- -the•. forms -. of . material flowing into the river are mainly from agri-
cultural..s_ources and:.runoff, as we ll.as.fxom..the: City Sewer Plant. Mr. Young
stated the oxidatibn.,ponds.:do'• -help the marina.because the discharge point is
farther'.down..stream:. The.ponds 'still do not significantly lower the B.O.D. of
the effluent, as.it.is still secondary treatment. Mr. Young stated he -felt the
capital.cost for the aeration within the basin should be.included,
and Mr. Noble:indicated.it would cost between $1,200 to $2,400 per year to
operate.' Mr. Young stated he-was. really disturbed by the letter from Fish-and
Game where they.. requested the dikes be• lowered; 'to a height 6 feet. It is
Mr. Young's understanding the engineering for the project is to have 12 -foot
dikes..,.The mean. high. or:higher'•water has an:.elevation of 6.1'ft:and this.would
cause °the entrance to the to be submerged and vessels trying to enter
would be unable to locate the channel.. .The highest estimated tide is 8 -1/2
feet. This condition, plus.a- flood stage, could cause more of a.shoaling
problem at'the.entrance, and. if: ;the Department of Fish and Game insists on
lowering- the.levels to 6-feet there would be problems every winter. Mr. Gray
_pointed out, in his opinion, the Department of Fish and Game placed these
. .restrictions.on the project of the requirements of the Sonoma County
Water Agency.
Mr. Young stated he concurred with the comments made by CALTRANS regarding the
traffic on Lakeville Highway, as there are developments going into the
area at the present time which greater demand on the intersection at
Casa Grande Road -and Lakeville Highway. Mr. Young suggested this problem
should be addressed more fully in-the final Ei.I.,R.
STATUS REPORT Finance Director
John - Scharer commented on the diffi-
PROPOSED MARINA. '.cu ties. the 'City'migh encounter..in finding private
PROJECT parties :construct the 250- seat.restaurant.and. the
RES #7533 NCR 50 -seat coffee shop. He anticipated an investment
(Contirfued)' ., would be heeded of between $500,000 in
order to .construct these facilit=ies. He questioned
whether it would be profitable in.that the gross income
from - the restaurant would have - to be approximately ° ,per year in order
for the investor to realize a five percent net profit, The second concern was
a marina ._propos al- has, been prepared: and a feasibility.study made,.bu
still. no one has indicated a- willingness.to. the ancillary facilities
on the site. He felt the City-should - have a firm commitment the construe-
tion of these facilities, by parties before...embarking'..on:. the. marina
proposal. He'stated his - main concern was in the concession areas.''-.
At the conclusion of presentation by'the staff, some discussion was held,
regarding Fish,.and_Game requirement for breaching`dilces along the Petaluma
River.. Councilman_;Matte :repeated, his: concerns: voiced at. earlier . meetings
regarding the..requirements : pllaced on the ".upper reaches of the Petaluma -River by
Fish and Game_- He was Fearful many of,-the which had been built over the
last.'century may have to.be breached, - the same requirement is not being .
placed on Makin County.`
Mr. Morgan Noble, the,Pr..oject Engineer of the firm of Dames and Moore, then
spoke. to the. Council. He stated he felt. the 'staff had brought' out some 'very
worthwhile-co ncerns: regarding - the - proposed.marina : proj'ect; however, he did not
feel. any of the.-problems:-could not be solved. He further stated-a, $1.7 million
project could .b.e..a viable project 7 and their report had scaled the project down
to a.$1.8 million project. When their _report was in the process of being
written, the,. Federal 107 Program for. small craft harbors was not available;
however,.at.this time., the -Army Corps of Engineers indicates funds are avail-
able .under, the 107 .Program. .. These . funds could cover 50%' of the non- revenue
producing aspects of the 'project, such as maintenance' dredging, the turning
basin, and protection of the slopes. With these'items deducted -from the total
cost of the.project, "Mr.. Noble felt it.c.ould.be.scaled down to meet the-$1.7
million. limit.placed-on it by the Department of Navigation and Ocean Develop-
ment... Mr— Noble stated he had'.been assured by the Corps if the City made
proper application for these funds, they would become available. When asked if
anybody.from the Corps of. Engineers was present-in the audience by Mayor Put -
`- nam, Mr. Jim Humphrey indicated he was associated with'-the San Francisco Dis-
trict...in:the,Navigation °.and Planning.Branch,. He stated he felt Mr. Noble'&
statement was correct. Mr. Humphrey - further stated the availability of funds
depends upon when, and how the applications for- the programs submitted to
the Distr,ict,Engineer. Previously, the program had not been cancelled, '.but the
funds..had been depleted.'-:
Mr. Noble..then.reviewed various areas where the project could be-scaled down.
With .reference to , DNOD's; statement. regarding the demand for - .berths, Mr.'Noble
stated he had checked with the Port of 'Sonoma and learned it-is presently full
and has, .16 applications on their waiting list. He feels there is a.demand for
berthing .in the area. Mr. - Nobl.e. stated 'the demand by the Fish and. Game to
lower..the. dike ;channel .area could bec solved by marking the channels, with'pilings
however, he. agreed with Councilman Mattei that the matter should be'. thoroughly
reviewed with the Department of .Fish and Game`regardng their requirements.
Mr. Noble stated many kood points had'been raised., but he felt all of them
1
1
September 27; 1976
STATUS REPORT - for slips ' .. They quote a figure from $16.00 to $18.00
PROPOSED MARINA pes .square foot`as being real stic.figure. Mr. Noble
PROJECT stated he has'been* constructing marinas for nearly 40
RES #7533 NCS years contacted several contractors in relation
(Continued) to the Petal'uma' Marina' Development. ' He did state it is
possible to get slips that would cost up to $18.00 per
- square foot, but he felt certain they could be built
according`to his 'figure of from $12.00. to $15.00.
With respect to the 107.Program, Councilman Harberson asked whether the City .
would have to have a loan application before for these .
funds. Mr..Noble stated he felt-both applications - should be worked together so
the City would know -what 'the whole picture. would be..'.-It takes about a year to
go through .the 107`= Program:''`:Mr. Noble _further suggested the Councilmen should
talk.to Congressman Clausen intervene for the City with the Corps of Engi-
neers. Then, .all the City-would have - ,do is forward: a. letter of application
to be included in the 107, Program.
Mr.'Noble stated the City should'preserve: their position with the State of
California by submitting.the application now the $1.7 million loan, as it
is already7in..the State's budget..-.:.In addition,'the City should send a letter
of application for the 107 In order to be assured of the DNOD loan,
the City would have to ,indicate they control of the land.
Councilman Cavanagh-asked it would-be necessary to have a reconaissance
report prepared. Mr. Humphre.y'from.the Corps of Engineers indicated since the
City has already prepared a feasibility report, this will make their evaluation
easier. The report indicates.the concept is economically feasible, but they
would, however, have to do some investigation.' Mr. Noble advised after having
heard from the Corps of Engineers�:that 107 monies may become available, they
reanalyzed the.sections which could be pulled out of the project. Their es-
timated cost for doing this reengineering work and meeting with the Federal
government and some, but not all, State.agencies, would. be-somewhere in the
neighborhood of from $3,560 $4,000.
Mr. Dan McNichols then spoke with relation,-.to the economic possibilities for
the proposed marina. He stated he had met. the previous week with Mr.. Bill
Satow, Chief of the Boater's Division, Department of ,Navigation and Ocean
Development. In his.-conversation with Mr. Satow he.:.learned the.Department has
received.applications for approximately. $30,000,000 in loans, and the total
budget-for the.year is around $12,000,000.. The funds for the next five years
have either been.comm tted or requested, and the theory of the Department is to
cut back on all projects:: In prior years, local commitments had not been -
required on projec DNOD feels -if the:City has no invested interest in a
project, it will not move very rapidly. Mr. McNichols stated there are several
applications pending, which range up to $5,000,000, on which no action has been
taken for about . five - years. He does not know of any way to get additional
funds from the:State. The State,:would .point:out three critical issues: 1) the
City's willingness to go ahead with -the project; 2) funding for the cost of.,
land acquisition; and; 3) capital to construct off -site improvements. State
funds for projects are budgeted-annually.: proceeding with the project,
if the City determined there was a.need for additional funds, Mr. McNichols
felt the State.would discuss -ad'ditional loans -as the project progressed. He
further indicated.the Corps -.of Engineers Grant funds could also.help to make-up
the difference.-
In relating to the concessions, "Mr. McNichols stated even though the State did
not feel the dry storage area should be included, he strongly suggested the
City set aside portion of.land for future use for this type.of concession.
He pointed out -there were 13,;000 boats under 21_feet in length registered in
Marin and Sonoma Counties, 8,000 of which are in Sonoma County alone.
In speaking of the restaurant facilities, Mr. McNichols stated once the plans
have been finalized and the fact is known:Petaluma is to build a marina, he
does not feel the City wou'ld•have difficulty in obtaining a lessee for the
restaurant. He cited as an example the City of Emeryville, which has four
400
September 27, 1976
STATUS REPORT-- :•restaurants "each showing a gross return of well
PROPOSED MARINA :. ' , $1; 000., 000 a year:.-: ' Mr o McNichols - suggested the City •
PROJECT :`staff contact.other communities which have marinas to
RES #7533. N;CS determine the - revenues generated from the restaurant
(Continued) :- facilities,
In - summary, Mr. McNichols stated since the City : had '
already applied,-for a loan, and DNOD has•indicated they would approve.$1.7
million,.the only action needed by. the. City-is,to advise the State 'the City,
intends-to continue,with.the project and then have,the ]regal terms of the
agreement worked out.
At the conclusion -of Mr. McNichols discussion, Councilman Mattei indicated he
had several reservations about the project. One was the:fact he did not feel
the restaurant would be able to be a- profitable- enterprise. His second concern
was the report submitted by Dames and Moore.-indicated' the Bicentennial Com-
mittee had ,undertaken.a "survey, but to this date he has °not.seen• the results of
the.survey.;, In relating - to the visits- to.Petaluma by the various yacht clubs,
he felt all they wanted to'do was to come- up'the river, stay over-ni=ght, and
return ,to their -home bases: His fourth concern was regarding - the concessions --
if they proved.to be unsuccessful, -would the City be responsible for the-re-
payment of the .loan to the State. Mr. McNichols stated when Jim Matsuada of
DNOD.appear at a.prior meeting, he indicated there was • no - obligation on the
part of the City to repay the loan. He- further stated in-the event City
would d'efau'lt on the loari, the State would have the option of`'taking over the
project, including the land., and operating the marina until such time as the
loan is repaid and their monies are recovered. At this point in time, the
marina would revert back to the City.
Mr. Noble responded to Mr. MatteiIs question regarding the survey taken by the
Bicentennial.Commttee and"stated'although -the survey has not been entirely'
completed due to the illness of McLaughlin, of the questionnaires sent out,
80 boat,.owners..of vessels larger than :20'feet indicated they would -be interested
in berthing facilities
Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank.Gray reviewed the.,actions
necessary.for.the City to take in order to -file the application as-follows: 1)
Send a letter..of request for 107 Reconais ance.Report to the-'Corps,-of Engineers;
2) provide-a"--timetable to tle.State`for land acquisition and -a statement that
the City has reserved' $75,,000 - to $150',000 for off --site improvements 3) a ;
final environmental impact report wo uld have to b:e completed,,. -which would cost"
between from $1,.300 to $1;500; and; 4) 'retain Morgan Noble�'t;o.,modify plans
to conform with the $1 >7 million project. This cost would be approximately
$3,500 to, $4.,000. In 'addition, Mr. Gray stated the staff time which would be
needed,' uti'lizing;.the services of -the City Engineer and himsel wou cost
approximitely
Some discussion was 'held regarding the land acquisition, and Mayor Putnam
suggested the - City would have no way of knowing the 'actual cost until.'they made
an effort to determine whether or not 'land would be available and the cost for
the acquisition. ;of same.` When asked by the :Mayor if the money would be avail-
able, City Manager Robert:Meyer responded by stating it ° s a.matter of where the
Council would.want to place.prioritie.sa Funds would be available in revenue.
sharing, but there are other demands from this source.. Mr. McNichols stated
the only money the City would have to expend in this fiscal year would be for
the land acquisition. It maybe the landowner would not require full payment
by next June; however,.it would be necessary to have an agreement to show the
State .;the City will gain control of the land. The money for the off' - site."
improvements,, i.e.', for roads, sewer„ and water, would not be due until fiscal
year 1978 -79.. 'Mr. Gray stated the State does, 'however, want assurances the
City - will expend this money and funds will be available for these mprovements.
Mavor Putnam questioned' if.the Council'took no action tonight. what would be
4a
September 27, 1976
STATUS' REPORT motion to have'the City send a letter to the Corps of .
PROPOSED MARINA Engineers regarding'.the 10.7 Grant,:nvest the st'aff's
PROJECT time in the completion of the final E.I.R., expend the
RES #7533 NCS necessary funds up to a maximum of $4,000 to Dames and
(Continued) Moore to modify the development to -meet the $1.7 million
loan, and to indicate to DNOD the City is willing to go
ahead with the project: He -would not want, however, to
make a commitment`on the funds for the land acquisition
or for the 'off -site improvements.
City Attorney Matthew Hudson advised the Council the recommendations by Council-
man Harberson should be included in a resolution.
Resolution.'No. 7533 N,C.S. affirming City of_ Petaluma's desire to continue
study of Marina Project and requesting continuation of consideration for loan
from Departuient,.of Navigation and' Ocean Development.was introduced by Council
man Harberson seconded by Councilman Hilligoss., and adopted 4 affirmative and
3 negative votes: Councilmen Brunner,. Mattei, and Perry voted "no ". After the
adoption of the resolution,, City. Manager Robert. Meyer stated if the staff was
committed to.two to.three months of time.over a six or eight month period, in
e
addition to the work they hav' already assigned to them, he would like some
direction from the Council as to what already proposed for the City
should be delayed�or eliminated. Mayor Putnam also made a statement that she
felt it would advisable for members of the City Council to meet with the
authorities in Sacramento to. discuss the problems facing the City regarding the
proposed.Marina Project.
RECESS Mayor Putnam called a recess at 9:30 p.m. and the
Council reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
J.W. COMBS REQUEST -City Manager Robert Meyer questioned whether or not
FOR MINI - WAREHOUSE this matter should be taken up in open discussion. He
(MARINA PROJECT AREA). felt a determination should be made whether or not the
mini- warehouse and open;storage.area would interfere
with.the Project. Mr. Noble has indicated the
project would not interfere.with the Marina, but Mr. Meyer felt it.should be
investigated further.. He felt if the City was to�,become involved .in purchasing
land in the area,.appraisals should be made.on the properties before issuing a
permit on Mr. Combs project, as this may increase''the value -of the land in the
area. Mr. Meyer.suggested a meeting be scheduled with Mr Combs to discuss the
matter, as we'll to determine whether or not would interfere with the.
Marina Project.
Mayor Putnam asked Mr. Combs if he had any statements he would like to make at-
this time, since it appeared -the Council would not take any action at this
meeting.. Mr.. Combs questioned the City Attorney whether or not the fact-the.
City would want to hold down the value of the property n-the area would be
illegal. City Attorney Matthew Hudson responded stating he did not see any
actions this Council would take at this time, or in the future, would consti-
tute inverse.condemnation.' Mayor•Putnam asked to have a..meeting set up with
Mr. Combs:, and no action was taken on the matter.
REFERENCE TO' Before the third item on the Agenda was to be discussed
MUNICIPAL CODE by the City Council, Mr. Glenn Head asked to be heard.
SECTION 2.04.010 -- He stated he had researched the.City's Code I in regard .
GLENN HEAD to the regular and adjourned meetings,
Section. 2.04.010, and read the section to the City
Council, specifically referring, to the time for ad-
journment as being 11:00 p.m. Mr. Head stated in view of the fact that the
third item on tonight's agenda was.taken.up after 11:.00 p.m.-and no vote of_ the
members was taken to. extend the meeting; feels the action taken at the
meeting September 20, 1976, after really did not happen, was
irregular, and should be- withdrawn from..the. Agenda tonight.
V
40"
September 27, 1976.
REFERENCE TD City Attorney Matthew Hudson, at the request of Mayor
MUNICIPAL CODE P.utnam•,.responded by saying the section to is
SECTION 2.04.01,0 -- discretionary rather than mandatory, in that it says
GLENN HEAD "it is the intent to adjourn by 11:00 p.m. The normal
(Continued) for the - Ci,ty Council has been to go beyond 11:00 p.m.
There is;nothng in the Code that says the Council must
adjourn -at 11:00 p'.m.,'and it was his opinion there was
nothing improper about the prior meeting.
APPROVE,AND ADOPT Mayor Putnam asked the City Clerk to read the title of
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN -- the ordinance.
PETALUMA CENTRAL
W BUSINESS DISTRICT Councilman Harbersorr'stated since he was the one who
�I�
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ••h
had voted.to remove•the ordinance from the tab - le, he
ORD #1221 NCS ' it with .the intent -to bring all the negative
(SECOND READING) comments•which were made into compliance; The objec-
tion raised on July 12 and 19; the matter which was
uppermost in the complaintants' minds and at least one
member of the City'Council, was the power of eminent domain as vested in the
Community Development: Commission: The intent in tabling the ordinance was to
work on this particular phase of the problem. Numerous meetings had been held
b y the.Project..Area Committee and members of the Council had received .com-
munications' from many people; and consequently because he :felt the plan is
essential to a healthy downtown competitive spirit, he wanted to introduce the
amended ordinance,. The.timing of his action to remove the ordinance from the
table was to forestall the plan being because of changes in the State
law. Councilman Harberson stated•he had discussed the matter of the additional
sentence added to ordinance with the General Counsel of the Community
Development Commission, as well as the Special Counsel, and. they were in Agree-
ment the language would remove the powers of eminent domain.
Mr. Joseph Coomes,.the Special Counsel, advised he had met with the. City Attorney,
they had reviewed .he plan and -the ordinance; and the proposed modification was
the appropriate way" to satisfy the objections voiced. Mr. ,Coomes stated the
Petaluma Community Development Commission would have no power of eminent domain
to carry out plan.
Councilman Brunner asked at this time that,'for the record, clarification be
made on his eligibility 'to' or not to vote at this time.
9:55 P.M. Councilman Mattei and Councilman Perry left the Council
Chambers at this time..
City Attorney Matthew Hudson stated, early in,'the consideration of the rede-
velopment process; - he had advised three of-the.-members of-the Council.,
Councilman Brunner, Mattei and Perry, they may be in conflict of interest if
theyvoted on matters pertaining to redevelopment. He based his opinion at that
time on a decision handed down by the Fair Political Practices Commission "
regarding a councilman in'the City of Antioch. Four days-after Petaluma's-
hearing on the ordinance before them tonight, the decision came from the Fair
Political Practices Commission regarding a councilman in the City of. Davis who
was in a similar position as Councilman Brunner.. On this case, the Fair Pol-
itical Practice's Commission determined that councilman could vote. Mr. Hudson
stated he received a..copy of this opinion from FPPC on July 21.. After con-
ferring with Councilman Brunner.,, it was the dec sion refer. the matter of his
participation to the Fair Political Practices.'Commission for a letter of
opinion. 'The response f rom the Fair Political Practices'Commis'sion was re-
ceived by the City Attorney on.September 23, stating Councilman Brunner could
vote legally in the adoption of.the Plan. Mr. Hudson stated it is `.his opinion,
as well as of.the'Fair Political Practices,.Commission, that Councilman
Brunner now has no'conflict of interest as far as voting on the adoption of the
Plan.
Councilman Cavanagh then asked:a series of questions regarding the , or-di trance.
His first comment was that he did not think there was time for input,, either on
APPROVE AND. ADOPT July 12.or July 19, and referred ao Page 2 of the
REDEVELOPMENT P.- LAN - ord'ihance regarding the Feasibility Report prepared by
PETALUMA CENTRAL Wainwright and Ramsey. Mr. Cavanagh stated it was his
BUSINESS DISTRICT understanding the report submitted to the Council was a
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ..draft report. Frank Gray, Community Development and
ORD #1221 NCS . Services.Coordinator,- advised the Councilmen the draft
SECOND READING) report and the final report are identical and will be
(Continued) reviewed on October.12. Mr. Coomes stated there was
other evidence of economic feasibilities submitted by
the City staff at the public hearing. Councilman
Cavanagh then questioned-,Section.l,(a) on Page 2 regarding conditions of blight,
and Mr. Coomes responded by stating this is a statement of intent of what the
City would hope to accomplish in the area. Councilman Cavanagh stated with
regard to Section 2(f),-he -would like to have added.to the sentence "on a
voluntary basis ". Mr. Coomes.responded by stating the rules adopted provide
full participation on a voluntary basis... Section l(g), Councilman Cavanagh
stated where it says "establish and enforce" he would like to see the word
"enforce" stricken from -the, ordinance. Councilman Cavanagh requested paragraph
'T' under Section 2.,.down to the new.sentence- incorporated in the ordinance, be
stricken from the ordinance. He further expressed concern regarding paragraph
"g" and "h ", regarding-relocation of persons in the Project Area. Councilman.
Cavanagh continued to comment on the various sections of the ordinance, and Mr.
Coomes responded on each question.asked by Councilman Cavanagh, primarily that
most of the statements.contained in the ordinance were required by Redevelop-
ment Law or.had been submitted as evidence at the public hearing.
At the conclusion of the question and answer period between.Councilman Cavanagh
and the Special Counsel,.Mr. Coomes, Councilman Cavanagh made a motion to have
the ordinance.amended to.,include his - recommendations. The motion died.for lack
of a second.
Councilman Cavanagh then asked the City Attorney what the procedure for future
amendments to the.ordindnce would be. Mr.. Hudson.deferred to -Mr. Coomes for
comment. Mr. Coomes-stated future amendments to the ordinance.would probably
involve amendments to the- Redevelopment Plan, and as a procedure for those
amendments, the Council would have to through-public hearings to adopt.
amendments to this ordinance.
Mr. Cavanagh then'asked the City Attorney what the procedure would-be to repeal
the ordinance. Mr. Hudson it could-be repealed by.an. ordinance adopted
by a majority vote of the Council..
City Attorney Matthew Hudson asked the Counsel, Joseph Coomes, what
would-happen if the Council repealed the ordinance- and.there were ~outstanding
owner participation agreements. Mr. Coomes stated if the Council had entered
into obligations and.decided:to - repeal the Redevelopment the people
benefitting from those obligations would have to cancel the agreements and:some
provision made for meeting the obligations:
At the conclusion of the discussion between Mr.,Coomes and Councilman Cavanagh,
Mayor Putnam stated she'was satisfied with.the responses Councilman Cavanagh's
questions by Mr. Coomes. She appreciated the fact that.Councilman Cavanagh
raised the questions.
Councilman Hilligoss asked to be permitted to make'a statement on the Redevelop-
went Plan. She commented she has been in favor of redevelopment and revitali-
zation of the downtown area.. She would, however, want to encourage private
enterprise to.participate in the revitalization in•the downtown area., Her
second point was that tax increment financing be used as she felt it was
the most equitable way'tp have the City finance parking, traffic and public
facilities. Councilman Hilligoss was firm in her objection'to the use of
Federal funds.for any partof the project. She felt this is something for the
City to do for itself, and it would be on a voluntary owner
basis.
At the conclusion of .her statement, Councilman Hillgoss indicated, if it was
proper, she would like to call the question. City Attorney advised before the
vote was taken on the matter, the ordinance, as amended, had been published on
September 23, 1976, in the official newspaper for City of Petaluma, the
Argus- Courier.
September 27 1976
. APPROVE AUD ,ADOPT At' the conclusion of. Mr.. Hudson's statement,. Mayor:
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN- Putnam directed the City Clerk, to read the title of the
PETALUMA.CENTRAL ..ordinance and call the vote. The ordinance was adopted
BUSINESS DISTRICT by.5.offirmative votest,, with two members abstaining.
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT On the roll call of the vote, - Councilman Brunner abstained
ORD 461221 NCS without comment; and City Attorney Matthew Hudson
(SECOND READING) indicated this vote,, under the rules of the Council,
,(Continued) - would count as an "Aye" vote., Councilman Cavanagh
-. clarified his "Aye" vote by having the City Clerk read .
a comment handed to her prior to the meeting., which
stated as follows: "With the reference of eminent domain somewhat eliminated,
and approximately 60% in favor, ,I hereby direct the City Clerk to vote 'Aye' on
my behalf ". Councilman Cavanagh then also verbally voted "Aye ".
At the conclusion., Mayor Putnam made a brief statement the .Council
had taken a very significant action at-this meeting: Although it.is a very
limited approach.to redevelopment and xevitalzaton,..it is still a way of the
City doing something for'itselfi The action taken at the meeting was something
which had been - instituted by the people in the community. Mayor Putnam said it
now becomes something all must work onto achieve the goals.
ADJOURNMENT Mayor Putnam adjourned the meeting in respect and,*
affection for Judge,Alexander J. McMahon, who had
'. passed away very unexpectedly on Wednesday, September, .
..,23. She asked the City._ Attorney to prepare an appro --
priate resolution.. The meeting was adjourned at 10:23
P.M.
. Mayor.
Attest:
City Cl� k..
r