Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 12/20/1976461 MINUTES OF MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 20, 1976 REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Petaluma City Council was called to order by Mayor Helen Putnam at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brunner, Cavanagh, Harberson *, Hilligoss, Mattei, Perry *, and Mayor Putnam. Absent: None *Councilman Harberson arrived at 8:20 p.m. Councilman Ferry arrived at 8:55 p.m. INVOCATION Reverend Timothy West of St. John's Episcopal Church gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Helen Putnam led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the City Council Meeting of December 6, 1976, were approved as mailed. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Councilman Mattei, seconded by Vice -Mayor Brunner, to file the ABC applications and adopt the resolutions on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. Agenda Item #1 ABC application, Claudette E. and James J. Barnes, 7- �� ABC APPLICATION-- Eleven Store, 124 Petaluma Blvd. South, original off 7- ELEVEN STORE, 124 sale beer and wine,license, was approved. PETALUMA BLVD. SO. Agenda Item #2 ABC application, De Schmire, 304 Bodega Avenue, Guy ABC APPLICATION -- Scohy and Carol Stastny, original on sale beer and wine F3 O DE SCHMIRE, 304 eating place, was approved. BODEGA AVENUE Agenda Item #3 Resolution 47601 N.C.S. authorizing the Mayor to exe- AUTHORIZE PUBLIC cute a public improvements agreement with the Marin/ IMPROVEMENTS Sonoma Mosquito Abatement District was adopted. AGREEMENT-- MARIN/ I I SONOMA MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT RES 47601 NCS Agenda Item A. Resolution 47602 N.C.S. granting request to file a late ��� APPROVE_ I .LATE CLAIM, claim - Charlene Mae Buttke, was approved. CHARLENE MAE BUTTKE - RES 47602 NCS Agenda Item #5 Resolution 47603 N.C.S. approving Certificate of Com- APPROVE CERTIFICATE pliance (Edjar Hansen - 221 Petaluma Blvd. South, A.P. F OF COMPLIANCE-- #8- 123 -09•, and 206 "E" Street, A.P. #8- 123 -14) was EDJAR HANSEN adopted.. RES 47603 NCS Agenda Item # 6 Resolution 47604 N.C.S. requesting cancellation of �� ®� CANCEL TAXES AT 19 taxes on property herein named, acquired by the City of HOWARD STREET Petaluma, was adopted. RES #7604 NCS Agenda Item #7 Resolution 47605 N.C.S. setting time and place of SET APPEAL HEARING-- hearing (January 3, 1977, 7' :3'0 p.m.) on the appeal of WILLIAM TIMMER Jon W. Ghiringhelli (William Timmer Realty, Inc.) from REALTY denial of application for a variance to allow a noncon- RES 47605 NCS forming free - standing sign on the proposed site of an office building, was adopted. D �. December 20,119`76 MOTION TO CHANGE A motion was made by Councilman Mattei, seconded by AGENDA ORDER Councilman Hilligoss, to allow consideration of Item #2`S, regarding the Carnegie Library, to this sequence on the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. DESIGNATE CARNEGIE Resolution des'ignating.Carnegie Library as Petaluma LIBRARY AS "PETALUMA Historical Library and Museum, establishing interim HISTORICAL LIBRARY operations plan and involving senior citizen's groups AND MUSEUM therein, was introduced by Vice -Mayor Brunner, seconded RES #7'60 6 NCS by Councilman H lligoss, and adopted by 5 affirmative and 2 absentee votes. Councilman Harberson and Coun- cilman Perry were not present when.the vote was taken. PUBLIC HEARING DENY APPEAL -- NEGATIVE Mayor Putnam opened the public hearing on the matter of (� DECLARATION, K.G.A. the Negative Declaration for the K.O.A. Campground O' CAMPGROUND EXPANSION expansion. RES #7607 NCS Planning Director Ronald F. Hall stated the hearing is a challenge of the Negative Declaration.-for Kamp grounds of America expansion, Pha e II and III, a portion of the development program. The subject property is located on Stony Point Road near Rainsville Road. The Planning Commission posted a Negative Declaraton.for the project, on November 16, 1976. The site design for Phase I was approved February 5, 1974, and occupancy for Phase I was approved in August of 1975. Phase II would include 155 additional sites, a swimming pool, a recreation area, lavatory, and shower facilities. Phase III would include 73 additional sites. Testimony Supporting Appellants Listed below are the persons who supported the appellants and their principle reasons for doing so: Mr. Clayton Clement, attorney representing the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Mack B. Johnson. Mr. Clement stated he felt increasing the from 81 to 309 would have a significant impact on the area. The two reports, i.e,., Moore & Taber pertaining to the water, and Renato Martinez, regarding the traffic, upon which the Planning Commission based their decision, did not sufficiently ad- dress the issue. Mr. Clement questioned the propriety of placing a campground in alight industrial area. Mr. Jack Bennett, 631 Rainsville Road. Principle objections: traffic on Rainsville Road, the dangerous junction as the road intersects with Stony Point Road,, and vandalism caused by pedestrians using Rainsville Road. Mrs. Helen Johnson, 541 Rainsville Road (appellant). Questioned the compati- bility of a campground in this location. Concerned about issues of transients, damage to property and violation of their privacy. Wanted to retain the "rural atmosphere" of the area. Mr. Lewis Baer, 465 Rainsville Road. Referred to the opposition the area residents had made, along with the City of ,Petaluma, to the Petaluma Farms Development. Questioned the reliability of the water supply. Mr. Ernest Yates, 160 Rainsville Road. Property abuts the development. Com- plained of people walking in their pasture with unleashed dogs. Also complained about the length of time campers are permitted to use the facility. Mrs.. Jan Emerson, Rainsville Road, approximately one mile from K.O.A. site. Concerned with the water problem in the area,and recreational vehicles using their driveway as a turnaround. Mr. Ray Emerson, 550 Rainsville Road. Stated Rainsville Road is inadequate to handle any additional traffic. Also felt the campground should not be placed in the flood zone which was a basis for denial of Petaluma Farms Development. Mrs. Cartensen, 125 Rainsville Road. Concerned with the impact additional traffic would have on the intersection of Stony Point Road and Petaluma Blvd. North. Also objected to recreational - vehicles using their driveway to turn around. Asked for restrictions to be placed on the development, if permitted, regarding the use of loudspeakers. 1 1 1 December 20, 1976 4 6 3 DENY APPEAL -- NEGATIVE The'Council, having heard all the testimony in support DECLARATION, K.O.A. of the appellants, and following the procedures pre - CAMPGROUND EXPANSION sented to them by the City Attorney, called for cross RES #7607 NCS examination of the appellants by City staff. There was (Continued) none. The Council'was then given a period of time to question the appellants under the procedures set forth. Councilman Mattei referred to Mr.,Clement's opening statement regarding open space around the area. Since there is no designation for open space, Mr. Mattei questioned whether there was some concern regarding the zoning. Mr. Clement stated no, it was his understanding the area was zoned light industrial. He did feel, however, the open space surrounding the area would be lost if this type of development was permitted. Vice - Mayor Brunner questioned whether the point of legality regarding a per - mitted use of this type in the area should be addressed at this time. City Attorney Matthew Hudson stated in his judgement, he felt it was beyond the scope of this hearing. He suggested the Council refer that particular matter to him for response at a later date as he did not feel this was the forum in which this particular issue should be answered. He stated he felt this hearing should be concerned with.whether an E.I.R. should be prepared, or if a Negative Declaration is sufficient. City Manager Robert Meyer questioned whether or not the principals of the K.O.A. development, or others in support of the development, would have an opportunity to speak during the course of the hearing. He asked at what point in the hearing would this be appropriate. Mr. Hudson suggested this testimony should be taken after. the Planning Director had an opportunity to present evidence in favor of the Negative Declaration. Planning Director's Testimony Ronald F. Hall, Planning Director, stated the matter of zoning is not germain to the issue and should be handled at a later date. A challenge has been filed to the Negative Declaration. Such a challenge has to be made to issues which are predictable. The matter of the current drought situation could not be addressed in an E.I.R. as it is not predictable -- only a challenge to the availability of water at the present time can be made. The City's referral system contacted the same agencies which environmental consultants would in the preparation of an environmental impact report. The applicant had retained the services of consultants to explore the water situ- ation in the area and a traffic consultant to make a traffic study. This is the type of expert testimony environmental consultants utilize in the prepara- tion of E.I.R.'s. Most of the mitigating measures had been imposed...as.site...design conditions. Testimonv in Favor of Applicants: Mr. Renato Martinez, RGM Traffic Engineering Consultants. Mr. Martinez stated it was his conclusion there would not be any significant effects on the vicinity traffic. He further stated if the expansion is denied, traffic would not be minimized. Mr. William Schlax, Moore & Taber, Consulting Engineers and Geologists. Mr. Schlax stated the development is located in the Merced formation which is easily recharged by rainfall. Their analysis indicates the water pumped to serve the campgrounds, at its full capacity of 321 units, would have an insig- nificant effect on the water table and it would take many dry years before the water base would be substantially reduced. Mr. Schlax indicated he did not f eel a full environmental impact report would reach a different conclusion. Councilman Mattei asked both of the above consultants if they were preparing a full environmental impact report, would such reports be basically different than those submitted. Both Mr. Martinez and Mr. Schlax indicated they did not feel an E.I.R. would reach a different conclusion.. Mrs. Odile- Nissen. Mrs. Nissen belongs to a camping group known as "Loners on Wheels ". She praised the.K.O.A. facilities throughout the nation and indicated the K.O.A. site in Petaluma contributes to the economy of the community. 4 6 4 December 20, 1976 DENY APPEAL -- NEGATIVE Mr. Oscar Carver, 155 Rainsville Road. Suggested the DECLARATION., K..O..A. city and.county meet• to try to reduce the speed limit CAMPGROUND EXPANSION on Rainsville Did not agree the additional RES #76,07 NCS pedestrian traffic was generated by K.O.A. as it.is the (Continued) same in winter months as during the camping season. Mr. Carver felt some of the uses to which the land could be designated could be more objectionable than the K.O.A. facility. Mr. Norm Sorby, Skillman Lane '.. Mr. Sorby felt the project provided a grassy, open space area.which was an.asset rather than a detriment to the location. Mr. Duane Shaw, Perry Trailer Sales. Mr. Shaw said the K.O.A. facility pro- vided an alternative for campers for parking their vehicles rather than using the backs of service stations, shopping centers and driveways. He.vi the campgrounds to do repairs or maintenance work on vehicles and has found it to be well maintained. Mr. Fred Schram, Manager, Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Schram was.of the opinion the facility provided a good economic and financial impact on the community. Mr. Henry Nicklas, 194 Upland Drive. Mr. Nicklas stated did not feel the campgrounds contributed to additional traffic ,impact on Rainsville.Road and he indicated the intersection at Petaluma Blvd. North and Stony Point Road has been a problem for many years. Mr. Art Machado,.Arjo AAA Towing Service.. Prior to the construction of K -O.A., recreational vehicles which had been disabled on the county's.highways could not be towed to a suitable site which provided security and hook -ups. Mr. Machado felt the facility provided additional income, not only for his busi- ness, but other small businesses in the community. Mr. Dan Castleberry. Mr.. Castleberry is employed by the owners of the camp - grounds.. He pointed out the difficulty encountered by youth seeking employment in the community. The campgrounds employs young people and he urged the-Coun- cil to take-this into consideration in their deliberations. _. Mr. Wayne Wood, owner - operator, K.O.A. campgrounds, 20 Rainsville Road.. Stated the area proposed for expansion is part of the 6.0 -acre parcel originally ap- proved. The facility was engineered to' handle 300+ units. The facility. has - brought a significant amount of business .to the community an'd.provided employ- ment for many young.people. It has also provided a sorely needed service in a clean, well -run atmosphere. It has no impact on schools and virtually none on police and fire services. Because of its seasonal nature, Phases II.and III would remain.clo.sed most of the year. Mr. Wood stated he had spent nearly a year clearing the property of 28 dilapidated buildings. In order to make the project economically feasible and for him to continue to pay taxes on this industrially -zoned land, he must expand the facility. Written Testimony Letter from Mr. Fred Willhite, Recreation Rentals, 1288 Petaluma Blvd.'North, supporting the expansion, read by the City Clerk and ordered filed.. At the conclusion of the testimony given in support of the appellant and in support of the.ap,plicant, City Attorney Matthew Hudson sugges.ted,, :if it was.the pleasure of the chair, one spokesman be permitted to give summation for the appellant and one for the applicants. Vice -Mayor Brunner indicated he would prefer to have the attorney representing Mr. Wayne Wood have,an opportunity to respond, since the appellant had.obtained an attorney to express their views. City Attorney Matthew Hudson advised if. this procedure is to be followed, the attorney, Mr. Clement, should have an opportunity to respond. Summation for Appellants Mr. Clayton Clement, representing the appellants, stated the issues before the Council have been obscured by a lot of talk about the merits of the camp- grounds, when the question really is has an appropriate forum been created to go into the overall consequences of having these 300 spaces for campsites in the area. His second point was whether or not the project is a permitted use. December 20, 1976 DENY APPEAL -- NEGATIVE 'Mr. Clement.stated neither of these questions had been DECLARATION, K.O.A. addressed directly, .except by the two experts who dealt CAMPGROUND EXPANSION with two narrow questions which would be addressed by RES #7607 NCS an E.I.R. Mr. Clement stated he would not respond to (Continued) some items discussed which'he felt were irrelevant. He did feel, however, the comments made by Mr. Wood that the site had been always planned for 300 units had some bearing on the issues. Mr.. Clement stated he has a copy of the Environmental Assessment Statement darted December 9, 1973, signed by Mr. and Mrs. Wood which states the developtent" would be for 81 spaces for campsites on 6.5 acres, with 53.5 acres left in open-space, recreation area, and for grazing of cattle. In view of this statement, Mr. Clement felt the expansion of the site was a new issue and not a continuation of something which had already been approved. In concluding his summation, Mr. Clement stated the appellants have, in good faith, advanced good questions relating to the neighborhood. The environmental questions raised relate to the immediate area. Summation by Attorney for the Applicants Mr. Bruce Taylor, an attorney representing Mr: and Mrs. Wood, then spoke on behalf of his clients. He stated he agreed some of the issues have been ob- scured and haven't been focused upon. The appellants brought up four issues: 1) traffic problems, 2) water, 3) the visual pollution, and 4) the alleged improper location in terms of zoning. Mr. Taylor stated, in his opinion, even if a project is covered by the California Environmental Quality Act, an E.I.R. is only required when a project, or a part of the project, has a substantial adverse impact on the environment. If there -is no substantial adverse impact on the environment, then there is no significant effect. Mr. Taylor indicated the key legal issue involved is what does "a substantially adverse impact on the environment" mean. Mr'. Taylor then referred to 'Resolution #7064 N.C.S. adopted by the City Council July 21, 1975. Article 2, Section 2 -1, Subsection "P ", which defines "a substantially adverse impact on the environment" as follows: "A project has a substantially adverse impact on the environment where the adverse environmental effects of the project outweigh the social and economic benefits of the project to the public health, safety, and welfare ". Mr. Taylor stated, in his opinion, there has not been any substantial evidence shown that there is any adverse environmental effect which would be caused by the proposed expansion. Mr. Taylor further stated he did not think the appel- lants spoke to the issues, nor did they substantiate any of the evidence. On the other hand, he felt Mr. Wood had provided expert testimony in the traffic study.and water study which had been prepared. Mr. Taylor also stated the area is not zoned for residential-use, but is zoned light industrial. City Manager Robert Meyer stated in view of the fact the Planning Director had referred to'his memorandum dated December 11, 1976, which had been distributed to members of the Council, along with the report from Moore and Taber, and the traffic study done by Renato Martinez, this should be made a matter of record. The documents are on file with the City Clerk., City Attorney Matthew Hudson then stated the definition "substantially adverse impact on the environment" is a critical one. In addition, he indicated the Council shou•ld..consider the'��;def :iriit ion Zfdr "significant effect on the environ- ment" as contained in the�tG -ty'..snResol i :tio.n.-it,7064 N. C . S . , establishing proce- dures for compliance with the requirements of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Mr. Hudson then recited from the.resolution the definition of signi- ficant effect on the environment as contained in Article.2, Section 2 -1, Subsection 0 through 5, and 5a, b, e, f, and g. Mr. Hudson advised the Coun- cil it is critical for the Council to understand the hearing does not call for a legal.decision on which.he could advise them. What is required is applying all the testimony:the-Council has heard and the evidence produced, and applying these definitions to the evidence. On the basis of these facts.and the evidence and testimony, the Council.must make a determination. Summation by Planning Ronald F. Hall Mr. Hall indicated the original proposal came to the City before the new guide- lines had been adopted.. The action had taken place under the old guidelines and the old ordinance. There is now a new definition for significant effect and the word "substantial" is mentioned. Mr. Hall indicated he felt the Council should take this under consideration. Mr. Hall further stated the two reports received are offered as typical of what lead agencies can do to get away from voluminous reports; i.e., to require testimony early in the environmental process. These two reports actually would constitute de facto, limited environ- mental impact reports. On the basis of these two reports and the mitigating measures in the staff report, particularly with regard to visual impact, the Planning staff continues-to recommend that the Negative Declaration be sustained. 4 6 6 December 20, 1976 DENY APPEAL -- NEGATIVE Mayor Putnam then closed the public hearing. DECLARATION, R.O.A. CAMPGROUND EXPANSION At this point, City Manager Robert Meyer for a RES #76 07.NCS point of order regarding the two members of the Coun- (Continued) cil,,Councilman Harberson and Councilman Perry, who. had not been present for the entire hearing, and whether -or not they should be eligible to answer the roll call. After a general discussion, both the attorney for-the appellant and the attor- ney for the applicant were asked if they would object the two councilmen voting on the issue. The Counsel for the appellant indicated he would not be in favor of the two members voting. The'Counsel for the applicant indicated he had no objection. It was the advice of the City Attorney then, in view of the objection, that neither Councilman Harberson nor Councilman Perry participate in the vote. Mr. Hudson further advised that the issue whether the development is in a proper zone should be eliminated from consideration, as it is irrele-' vant to the principle question. Councilman Mattei questioned whether the site design review was being consi- dered by the City Council, or merely the Negative Declaration. City Attorney Matthew Hudson advised the Council was concerned only with the Negative Decla- ration. Resolution #7607 N.C.S. denying appeal and affirming the decision of: the Plan- ning Commission -' Negative Declaration, K.O.A. Campgrounds expansion, was introduced by Vice - Mayor Brunner, seconded by Councilman Hilligoss, and adopted by 5 affirmative votes. Councilman Harberson and Councilman Perry were ,dis- qualified from voting. RECESS Mayor Putnam called a recess at 9 :55 p.m., and the Council reconvened at 10:05 p.m. DESIGNATE DET. A letter dated December 10, 1976, directed to the Mayor !� HQ. CO., and City Council from Richard T. Bedford, 1st Lieute- 579T 579TH ENGINEER nant, Detachment #1 Headquarters Company.., 579th Engi- BATTALION-- neer Battalion, California Army National Guard, Peta- "PETALUMA'S OWN" luma, California, was read by the City Clerk and RES #7608 NCS ordered filed. Lt. Bedford was present in the.audience and spoke briefly to the Council,. He advised the 579th Engineer Battalion stationed here in Petaluma would—, like to assist the City in any way possible. They specialize in community service, and. have experienced carpenters, plumbers, and other craftsmen avail- able for community projects. He would like to work out a scheduling program with the City in order to assist in any project for which their services could be used. The letter to the Council asks to have Detachment #,I., 579th Engineer Battalion stationed in Petaluma, designated as "Petaluma's Own ". Mayor Putnam thanked Lt. Bedford for his appearance, and he was assured the Battalion would be called upon to assist in many matters, in fact a long list would be ready for him very shortly. . Resolution #7608 N.C.S. designating Detachment #1, Headquarters Company, 579th Engineer Battalion, California Army National Guard, as "Petaluma's Own", was introduced by Councilman Harberson, seconded by Councilman Perry, and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. S® REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL DE- VELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS FROM MCDOWELL.INVEST- MENT ASSOCIATES TO FEATURE HOMES, INC. A letter dated ,November 22, 1976, addressed to the City Council from Feature Homes, Inc. of 3434 Mendocino Avenue, Santa Rosa, California, had been received by the City Council and was not read by the City Clerk. In the discussion.regarding the matter', it was'..deter- mined no, action could be taken on the letter as the allotments had originally been awarded to McDowell Investment Associates. They had been given a time 1 1 schedule within which to comply with certain requirements, and City Manager Robert Meyer indicated he felt'the Council should hear from McDowell Investment Associates before considering the letter from Feature Homes requesting the transfer of the development allotments. December 20, 1976 REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL DE- VELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS, FROM MCDOWELL INVEST- MENT ASSOCIATES TO FEATURE HOMES, INC. (Continued) {: 467 Vice -Mayor Brunner pointed out the second page of the letter indicates Feature Homes would be substantially changing the development-as had originally been awarded to McDowell Investment Associates and felt this matter should be discussed by the City Council. Mayor Putnam asked the City Attorney to determine whether it was .necessary to a public hearing or if the matter could be discussed. The consensus of the Council was to schedule the item for the'January 17, 1977 Council Meeting. No action was taken. ON- STREET PARKING & A letter dated December 8, 1976, addressed to the City V q NON - PARKING - - VICINIT -Y ' Manager from Skip Sommer, President of Sommer and Ryan, THE GREAT PETALUMA had been distributed to members of the City Council and MILL was not read, but is on file with the City Clerk. City Manager Robert Meyer indicated one of the requests in the letter was to installl ?.parking meters in the area. Mr. Meyer advised part of the area is within the-parking district, but some of it is not. He called on City Engineer David Young to explain a survey he had recently made of the area. By means of the overhead projection unit, Mr. Young showed slides which indicated the amount of red.curb in the area and the present parking situation. Mr. Young stated the reason for some of the red curb was to provide the Sanderson Motor Company with an easier access to their driveways. This has been acceptable for six years or more, however, with the advent of the demand for more parking at the Mill, five more parking spaces could be by converting the red marking to parking. This would make it more advantageous for parking, but would make it more difficult, but not impossible, for Sander - son's. Mr. Young also stated there were some areas which had chains across which permitted egress and ingress to Sanderson's Used Car Lot. Eleven more parking spaces could be gained if these areas were eliminated. Mr. Young stated although.the matter had been referred to the Traffic Committee, he does not feel it is a traffic problem, but more of a problem, as there is now a greater demand for parking in the area. After some discussion, it was determined the businesses in the area should be contacted and have an opportunity to respond before the Council took any action. The matter was deferred until a later date. REQUEST FOR EARLY A letter dated November 10, 1976, . addressed to the Cityl /q // r— POOL OPENING-- Clerk by Mrs. Anneliese Eggert, President of the Peta- Y �J PETALUMA SWIM CLUB luma Swim Club, wa's read by the City Clerk and ordered filed. In addition to the letter from the Petaluma Swim Club, a report had been received by the City Manager's Office December 17, 1976, , and had been distributed to members of the Council. A copy of the report is on file with the City Clerk. The report covered the request for the free use of the Swim Center from January 15 through June 15 in lieu.of the purchase of a pool cover, a cost analysis for six months with and without the pool cover, a projection for 36 -month utility and chemical cost comparisons with and without the cover, as well as the cost of the cover itself. Mr. Ralph Skorgy spoke to the Council with reference to the Swim Club's request and offer to purchase 'a pool cover. Mr.' Skorgy indicated the manufacturers of the pool cover claimed there would be a 70% reduction in fuel costs for heating the pool, as well as some savings in the reduction of evaporation of water and the loss -of chemicals. Councilman Harberson indicated a pool cover had been discussed at budget time, but because of the maintenance and the labor for removing the cover and placing it over the pool, the proposal had been vetoed. Mr. Skorgy indicated the Swim Club would provide the means for removing and applying the cover mechanically. Mr. Vincent Mamone also addressed the Council regarding the pool cover; and when asked by Mayor Putnam where this particular type of cover has been in- stalled, Mr. Mamone stated Rolling Hills in Novato has it,, Walnut Creek has a cover, and most of'the larger pools have pool covers. With care, the cover they anticipate purchasing is expected to last three years. 468 December 20, 1976 Center. With regard to placing the cover on the pool and removing it„ he felt the master's program which uses the pool in evening could be given the responsibility of. covering the pool and the Swim Club which uses the pool early in the morning could remove it. REQUEST Y R EARLY There was a general discussion regarding vandalism to POOL OPENING City property and how this.particular item could be PETALUMA SWIM CLUB protected and where it would be stored. Mr.. Mamone (Continued) indicated it would Have to be stored at. the Swim Councilman Cavanagh asked if the figures in the report submitted by the Swim Club had been verified by the City's Personnel. City Manager Robert Meyer indicated the staff had not had time to review the figures and would prefer to have an opportunity to.do so before making.any recommendation. He also indi- cated if a pool cover was to be purchased, he would p'ref'er to have the City buy the cover. The pool opening on February 15 was a compromise,at budget time, and until all the figures are checked,-he advised the Council he did not think a decision could be made at this time. Mr. Meyer also indicated it would be necessary to check with Tom.Wilson, Director of Water Utility Operations, to determine if the pool maintenance, which is scheduled during the winter time, could be completed by January 15. Mr. Mamone then asked if the Swim. Club is willing to pay for the cost of the pool in order for them to be in January 15, would the City be willing to permit them to use the pool under these conditions. The other alternative he sug- gested was to allow them to use the pool beginning January 15, and,take the money they would .pay for the utilities, apply it to the pool cover, and use their funds to purchase the'pool cover. Mr. Mamone indicated he felt the use of the pool cover would cut the utilities cost in half and, over a three -year period, their report estimates a - $28,000 savings. Mayor Putnam asked Finance Director John Scharer for his comments. He indi- cated he has not had an opportunity to completely review the report, but from his viewpoint, the City would be picking up three - fifths of the costs of the cover. The alternative he.suggested would'be for the City to buy the cover and have.the Swim Club continue to pay the cost of all the utilities during all the winter months. If the pool cover did save on utility costs, then the savings would be passed on to the Swim Club. Councilman Harberson agreed with Mr. Schare.r's'coneept stating felt the City should own everything which is stored on City'property. City Manager Robert Meyer brought out the fact if the.City purchased the pool cover, .it would be necessary to go out to bid 'because the estimated cost is approximately $5,000..00. This would probably delay installation. Vice-Mayor Brunner objected to.the proposal because he felt it would be expand- ing the Program of Service, and felt it should not be considered until the next budget year. Mayor Putnam indicated she felt since the matter had been pre -' sented to the Council, it should be reviewed by the staff.. Mr. Chris Hendrickson, speaking from the audience, supported'-the opening of the pool for the Swim Club in order for the parents not to have to transport the young people to various locations through Northern California to continue their program. Mr. Mamone again asked if the Council would permit the Swim Club to. use the pool beginning January 15 if they picked up the additional cost for utilities between, January 15 and February 15. Mayor Putnam asked the staff to prepare a report for presentation to the City Council on January 3, whether or not the pool would be available, and if the Swim Club could, in fact, use the pool beginning January 15. Councilman.Harberson indicated he.would have no ob- jection to this arrangement, as it would not change the budget. City Manager Robert Meyer indicated he would like to check with Tom 'Wilson and would have an.answer for the Council on January 3. No action was taken on the matter. DENY OUTSIDE WATER A letter dated December 3., 1976, addressed to the Mayor 5,10\ CONNECTION -- MARK and City Council from Mr. Mark Ammons, was.not read by AMMONS, 1077 WESTERN the City Clerk, had been distributed to the City AV_ENUE,,LOT- #2 Council and is on file in the City office RES #7609 NCS y DENY OUTSIDE WATER Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank CONNECTION- -MARK Gray outlined the subject property by means of the AMMONS, 1077,WESTERN viewfoil, indicating Lot #1 is within the 500 -foot AVENUE, LOT #2 line, but Lot #2 is beyond the 500 - foot limit. RES #7609 NCS (Continued) Mr. Mark Ammons spoke briefly to the Council, stating he has owned the property for many years, has always been hopeful the City would extend the trunk line out into the area, and has explored the possibility of doing it himself. In order for one person to do it, however, it would "be very expensive and almost an impossibility for him. Mr. Ammons stated he has never had an opportunity to annex to the City and would be more than happy to do so if the opportunity presented itself. The annexation to the City would be-contingent upon his neighbors annexing also, and Mr. Ammons felt he would not be able to get his neighbors to agree to this procedure. Mr. Ammons was reminded of the Council's resolution establishing a policy of not extending a water service connection beyond the 500- foot.limit, and that the request of Mr. Netter, who lives in the immediate vicinity, had been denied. At the conclusion of the discussion, Resolution 47609 N.C.S. denying request for outside water connection for property located at 1077 Western Avenue, Lot. #2 (Mark Ammons), was introduced by Councilman Harberson, seconded by Council- man Perry, and adopted by 4 affirmative and 3 negative votes. Councilmen Brunner, Cavanagh, and Perry voted "no ". CLAIMS AND BILLS Resolution 47610 N.C.S. approving claims and bills RES 47610 NCS 410,07 to 441135, inclusive, General City; and, 4168 to #196, inclusive, Water, approved for payment by the City Manager, was introduced by Councilman Perry, seconded by Councilman Cavanagh, and adopted by 6 affirmative votes. Councilman Hilligoss abstained from voting. APPROVE FUNDS FOR Resolution 47611 N.C.S. authorizing agreement for 1 66 PETALUMA COMMUNITY advance of funds to the Petaluma Community Development � DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Commission and repayment thereof, was introduced by RES #7611 NCS Councilman Harberson, seconded by Councilman Hilligoss, and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. The Council, acting in the capacity of the Petaluma Community Development Commission, had approved an advance of $6,200 from City funds to finance the Petaluma Community Development Commission during the calendar year 1977. This approval had been given at the P.C.D.C. meeting of December 13, 1976. AUTHORhZE AGREEMENT--. Finance Drector.John L. Scharer reviewed his memoran- F66 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT dum dated December 16, 1976, forwarded to the City COUNSELORS--HOUSING Manager, a copy of which is on file with the City PROGRAM Clerk. The matter to be addressed by the City Council RES 47611 -A NCS at this meeting is Phase I to set up the Housing Rehabilitation Program, for which $37,000 has been awarded by HUD. This amount is to initiate the legal and administrative program and to carry out an ongoing rehabilitation program. Mr. Scharer indicated there would be two ways the City could accomplish this. The first would be to hire a staff; including a rehabilitation officer, and go through the very complex learning process of financing; or, the alternative would be to contract with someone with expertise in the community development field: A proposal had been submitted to City Manager Robert Meyer, dated December 13, 1976, from Community Development Counselors, Ltd., setting a fee of $10,000 to set -up the program and provide flexible alternatives for financ- ing as the program continues. A copy of the proposal is on file with the City Clerk. There was a general discussion regarding the proposal submitted by Community Development Counselors, Ltd. It was questioned whether other proposals had been sought; however, Frank Gray, the Community Development and Services Coordi- nator, indicated this firm is the only one of which they are aware who has the necessary knowledge of this limited field. Mr..Scharer advised the firm is, at the present time, working with four other cities, i.e., Daly City, Pittsburg, San Pablo and Richmond. It December 20, 1976 4 At the conclusion of the discussion, Resolution 47609 N.C.S. denying request for outside water connection for property located at 1077 Western Avenue, Lot. #2 (Mark Ammons), was introduced by Councilman Harberson, seconded by Council- man Perry, and adopted by 4 affirmative and 3 negative votes. Councilmen Brunner, Cavanagh, and Perry voted "no ". CLAIMS AND BILLS Resolution 47610 N.C.S. approving claims and bills RES 47610 NCS 410,07 to 441135, inclusive, General City; and, 4168 to #196, inclusive, Water, approved for payment by the City Manager, was introduced by Councilman Perry, seconded by Councilman Cavanagh, and adopted by 6 affirmative votes. Councilman Hilligoss abstained from voting. APPROVE FUNDS FOR Resolution 47611 N.C.S. authorizing agreement for 1 66 PETALUMA COMMUNITY advance of funds to the Petaluma Community Development � DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Commission and repayment thereof, was introduced by RES #7611 NCS Councilman Harberson, seconded by Councilman Hilligoss, and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. The Council, acting in the capacity of the Petaluma Community Development Commission, had approved an advance of $6,200 from City funds to finance the Petaluma Community Development Commission during the calendar year 1977. This approval had been given at the P.C.D.C. meeting of December 13, 1976. AUTHORhZE AGREEMENT--. Finance Drector.John L. Scharer reviewed his memoran- F66 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT dum dated December 16, 1976, forwarded to the City COUNSELORS--HOUSING Manager, a copy of which is on file with the City PROGRAM Clerk. The matter to be addressed by the City Council RES 47611 -A NCS at this meeting is Phase I to set up the Housing Rehabilitation Program, for which $37,000 has been awarded by HUD. This amount is to initiate the legal and administrative program and to carry out an ongoing rehabilitation program. Mr. Scharer indicated there would be two ways the City could accomplish this. The first would be to hire a staff; including a rehabilitation officer, and go through the very complex learning process of financing; or, the alternative would be to contract with someone with expertise in the community development field: A proposal had been submitted to City Manager Robert Meyer, dated December 13, 1976, from Community Development Counselors, Ltd., setting a fee of $10,000 to set -up the program and provide flexible alternatives for financ- ing as the program continues. A copy of the proposal is on file with the City Clerk. There was a general discussion regarding the proposal submitted by Community Development Counselors, Ltd. It was questioned whether other proposals had been sought; however, Frank Gray, the Community Development and Services Coordi- nator, indicated this firm is the only one of which they are aware who has the necessary knowledge of this limited field. Mr..Scharer advised the firm is, at the present time, working with four other cities, i.e., Daly City, Pittsburg, San Pablo and Richmond. The Council, acting in the capacity of the Petaluma Community Development Commission, had approved an advance of $6,200 from City funds to finance the Petaluma Community Development Commission during the calendar year 1977. This approval had been given at the P.C.D.C. meeting of December 13, 1976. AUTHORhZE AGREEMENT--. Finance Drector.John L. Scharer reviewed his memoran- F66 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT dum dated December 16, 1976, forwarded to the City COUNSELORS--HOUSING Manager, a copy of which is on file with the City PROGRAM Clerk. The matter to be addressed by the City Council RES 47611 -A NCS at this meeting is Phase I to set up the Housing Rehabilitation Program, for which $37,000 has been awarded by HUD. This amount is to initiate the legal and administrative program and to carry out an ongoing rehabilitation program. Mr. Scharer indicated there would be two ways the City could accomplish this. The first would be to hire a staff; including a rehabilitation officer, and go through the very complex learning process of financing; or, the alternative would be to contract with someone with expertise in the community development field: A proposal had been submitted to City Manager Robert Meyer, dated December 13, 1976, from Community Development Counselors, Ltd., setting a fee of $10,000 to set -up the program and provide flexible alternatives for financ- ing as the program continues. A copy of the proposal is on file with the City Clerk. There was a general discussion regarding the proposal submitted by Community Development Counselors, Ltd. It was questioned whether other proposals had been sought; however, Frank Gray, the Community Development and Services Coordi- nator, indicated this firm is the only one of which they are aware who has the necessary knowledge of this limited field. Mr..Scharer advised the firm is, at the present time, working with four other cities, i.e., Daly City, Pittsburg, San Pablo and Richmond. -, 4 7 n December 20, 1976 AUTHORIZE�AGREEMEN.T-- The financing mechanisms as outlined in the proposal COMMU:N'ITY:�DEV,EL'OPMENT were discussed by the City Council. Mr. Gray indicated CO.UNSELORS-ROUS'ING at the completion of the contract, the City would have PROGRAM ;5 "' various alternatives under which they could establish a RES #7611 -A NCS housing rehabilitation program. He went on to. explain (Continued) this is only one mechanism to institute the program. There are.others,.such as Section 312 loans, which would permit residents.to get low - interest loans in order to rehabilitate their dwellings. The City is merely acting as a guardian to make ,sure homeowners receive the proper treatment. Mr. Gray also indicated there are other programs, such as the Marks- Foran Act, the Housing and Commu- nity Development.Funds from the State of California, and many others which the City is not aware of; however, Community Development Counselors are more familiar in the field. Mr. E. M. McCartt from the firm of Community Development Counselors:, Ltd. spoke briefly to the Council stating there are many programs being instituted 'from day to day; and week to week. It would be the responsibility of their firm to keep abreast of the new laws and report back to the Council on funds which may become available. He cited that Section 312 funds have only been available for about three weeks. Mr. McCartt reviewed the strategy his firm would use, indicating it would be necessary to make a general review of the housing stock within the community which would require him to.spend more time in Petaluma. Mr. McCartt - indicat after completion of the..initial contract,.if the City desires to have.somebody available to continue ongoing inspections, their firm would be able to accomplish th =is, or a member of the staff could be trained to carry the program forward. Upon conclusion of the general discussion, Resolution #7611 -A N.C.S. authoriz- ing the Mayor to sign an agreement with Community Development Counselors, Ltd., regarding the implementation of the Housing Program, was introduced by Council - man Brunner, seconded by Councilman H arberson, and adopted by 5 affirmative and 2 negative votes. Councilmen Cavanagh and Perry voted "no ". ESTABLISH NEIGHBORHOOD Although this item had been scheduled for discussion at BOUNDARIES FOR REHA - this meeting, it was held over until the January 3, BILITATION AND CODE 1977 Meeting,. CORRECTIONS CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS PROPOSED SIGN City 'Manager Robert Meyer reported the Chamber of ORDINANCE Commerce Sign Committee had submitted a proposal for a new Sign Ordinance. The proposal does not amend or revise the City's present ordinance. They have used the City of Novato''s ordinance as a model and made modifications. Mr. Meyer questioned whether this is-what the Council had in mind when they agreed..to have the Chamber's Committee review the Sign Ordinance, or whether they had hoped to have modifications.to the City's present ordinance. Mayor Putnam asked the City Manager to furnish copies of the proposal from the Chamber Committee to the Council for Council's review and comparison with the present Sign Ordinance. Vice -Mayor Brunner indicated he felt there was little to be changed on the City's present ordinance, except for the abatement procedure. City Manager. Robert Meyer advised the Council Fred Tarr, Associate Planner with the City, had been invited to attend one of the Chamber'.s Sign Committee meet- ings, at which time they asked him to take a copy of their proposal for the Planning Department's review and report back to the Chamber Committee. Mr. Meyer indicated he felt it was up to the City Council to review the ordinance and not the Chamber's Sign Committee.. Planning Director Ronald Hall stated his department could compare Novato's ordinance with the revised ordinance proposed by the Chamber of Commerce, as well as the City's ordinance. He indicated he felt the City should retain its own ordinance, particularly since they foresee some problems with the Novato ordinance. Mr. Hall stated witha few minor corrections, he felt the City's ordinance was a good one. Mayor Putnam asked Mr. Hall to review the three documents and report back to the City Council. December 20, 1976 APPOINT MEMBERS- -1977 CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE -- HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DE- VELOPMENT ACT PRIORITIES RES #7612 NCS T. 471 Janie- Warman, Project Manager for the Petaluma.Communi- ty Commission, advised the Council this is the third F 6 4 Citizens' Advisory Committee to be appointed. The Committee would make recommendations to the City Coun- cil, on.pro.rites' for implementation of the Housing and Community Development Block Grant for 1977. It is necessary, under the provisions of the law, to have citizen's input to establish priorities. Swallow, to June 30, 1977. Resolution #7613 N.C.S. appointing Manuel Pacheco to the Board of Building Review and to the Board of Appeals was introduced by Councilman Perry, seconded by Council - man Hilligoss, and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. APPOINT BERYL CASAZZA Resolution #7614 N.C.S. appointing Beryl Casazza to the/�bm TO SONOMA COUNTY ARTS Sonoma County Arts Council was introduced by Councilman COUNCIL Harberson, seconded by Councilman Perry, and adopted by� L RES #7614 NCS 7�affirmative votes. The expiration of the term for Ms. Casazza is September 30, 1977. APPROVE LANDS OF KELSEY - -2243 OLD ADOBE ROAD AS AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE RES #7615 NCS A memorandum submitted by Planning Director Ronald HallF 6&0 to City Manager Robert Meyer, reviewed the request for CJ inclusion in an agricultural preserve for this property, as well as the,one following on the agenda, belonging to Peter Olsen. The memorandum is on _fife .w_ith, the City Clerk. Both requests for agricultural preserve status had been submitted to the City from.the .Sonoma - County Planning Department. Resolution 47615 N.C.S approving A.P. #136- 130 -06 and #136- 130 -08 as part of an agricultural preserve (Lands of Emely H. Kelsey, 2243 Old Adobe Road), was introduced by Councilman Hilligoss, seconded by Councilman Perry, and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. Resolution #7612 N.C..S. appointing members to the 1977 Citizens' Advisory Committee for Housing and Community Development Act priorities, was introduced by Councilman Perry, seconded by Councilman Harberson, and adopted by 7 affir- mative votes. The following Petaluma residents were appointed to the Committee: Robert Smith 1113 Ponderosa Drive Virgil Moslander 1190 San Rafael Drive John Balshaw 1680 Kearny Court Lou Rasmussen 432 Garfield Drive Mary Runge 215 Grant Avenue Marilyn Gambonini 108 Grant Avenue Robert Fulwiler 1432 McGregor Avenue Herbert Bauck 825 Middlefield Drive Irwin Karp 551 Amber Way James Grossi 1657 Sarkesian Drive John F. Sellick 925 Samuel Drive Norma Morris 332 Ridgeview Drive John Dade 1725 Peggy Court Marie Wonacott 708 Fifth Street Irene Sasso 623 "F" Street Melody Gareis 1533,,,5 1erra„.D;rive. John T. Allison 2261 Parkland Way,. APPOINT MANUEL PACHECO The Council had three candidates serving on the Board. of who were interested in�� Building Review and Board of BOARD OF BUILDING REVIEW Appeals. After voting by ballot, the Council selected RES #7613 NCS Manuel Pacheco to_serve the unexpired term of Ezra Swallow, to June 30, 1977. Resolution #7613 N.C.S. appointing Manuel Pacheco to the Board of Building Review and to the Board of Appeals was introduced by Councilman Perry, seconded by Council - man Hilligoss, and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. APPOINT BERYL CASAZZA Resolution #7614 N.C.S. appointing Beryl Casazza to the/�bm TO SONOMA COUNTY ARTS Sonoma County Arts Council was introduced by Councilman COUNCIL Harberson, seconded by Councilman Perry, and adopted by� L RES #7614 NCS 7�affirmative votes. The expiration of the term for Ms. Casazza is September 30, 1977. APPROVE LANDS OF KELSEY - -2243 OLD ADOBE ROAD AS AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE RES #7615 NCS A memorandum submitted by Planning Director Ronald HallF 6&0 to City Manager Robert Meyer, reviewed the request for CJ inclusion in an agricultural preserve for this property, as well as the,one following on the agenda, belonging to Peter Olsen. The memorandum is on _fife .w_ith, the City Clerk. Both requests for agricultural preserve status had been submitted to the City from.the .Sonoma - County Planning Department. Resolution 47615 N.C.S approving A.P. #136- 130 -06 and #136- 130 -08 as part of an agricultural preserve (Lands of Emely H. Kelsey, 2243 Old Adobe Road), was introduced by Councilman Hilligoss, seconded by Councilman Perry, and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. 47 December 20, 1976 PROTEST WILLIAMSON ACT Resolution #7616 N.C.S. protesting execution of: Will -iam- �® CONTRACT -- LANDS OF son Act Contract for-A.P. #136- 080 -01 and #136- 080 -07 - � (^ PETER OLSEN Lands of Peter Olsen, was introduced by Councilman " RES #7616 NCS Brunner', seconded by Councilman Cavanagh, and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. APPROVE FINAL MAP -- Planning Director Ronald Hall reported the Planning PARK PLACE staff had reviewed the final map for Park Place Subdi- SUBDIVISION PHASE I vision in relation to the tentative.map and recommended RES 0 617 NCS certification to the Planning Commission. The 'Planning Commission, by their Resolution No. 28 =76, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, approved the final map. The map agrees with all of the City's requirements. and regulations, and was certified by the City Engineer accordance with Section 22..6.600 of the Subdivision Ordinance. City Manager Robert Meyer referred to a letter dated October 26, 1976,.ad= dressed to the City Council by Richard D. Maxwell, representing Qantas Develop- ment Corporation, and relating to the subject subdivision. Mr. Maxwell addressed the City Council citing four points which he felt should be clarified. The first was the completion of a bridge on.Maria Drive as it crosses Lynch Creek. He indicated his clients were required to bear the full cost of this bridge which would 'benefit others: in the area. The estimated cost for the bridge is $68,000. His second point was the requirement for.approxi- mately 230 feet of new street construction on Maria Drive, which would face Lucchesi Park on one side and the Convales'c'ent Hospital oil the other side of the street. 'This cost would be approximately $6,000. These improvements would be completely outside the subdivision. The third point Mr. Maxwell brought out was the requirement for the pathway along McDowell 'Blvd. in front of Lucchesi Park to East Madison Street. The developer's estimate of the cost of this pathway is $6,000. Mr. Maxwell stated this is also completely outside of the subdivision. The final point Pair. Maxwell cited was the requirement to build one -half of McDowell Blvd.,.which is a major thoroughfare, as compared to a residential street. The additional cost for building this half- street section on a major thoroughfare as they.progress in the subdivision is estimated to be $25,000. In referring to the pathway across Lucchesi'Park, Mr. Maxwell suggested since the subdivider has to pay approximately $24,000 for in -lieu park fees., this $6,000 be. 'given as a credit against that payment. He also asked the Council, to give consideration to deferring_ the requirement for the bridge until the de- veloper enters into the second phase of the development plan. In the interim period, Mr. Maxwell suggested City Council review their Subdivision Ordi- nance''tb determine if some language should not be incorporated into it whereby other developments outside the subdivision, which would benefit from such extensive improvements, should not share in the cost. Mr. Maxwell suggested an alternative would be to have the developer proceed with the improvements, but have the City work on changing the ordinance to develop a method of determining reimbursement to Qantas Development Corporation. In referring to the pathway along Lucchesi Park, City Manager Robert Meyer indicated this was one of the mitigating measures brought out in the Environ- mental Impact Report. The requirement for the pathway was to provide access for students attending the Junior High School.. Mr. Maxwell also stated the E.I.R. suggested the City and others participate in the cost of the bridge. City Manager Robert Meyer responded this is a mitigating measure which the Council,. if they so desired, could agree to, but, they had not done so in the past. Mr. Meyer stated he would defer to City Attorney Matthew Hudson, how- ever, for a legal opinion. Mr. Hudson stated both Mr. Maxwell and the City are correct in this instance.,_ The Council could set up an area of benefit for bridge and for the pathway on.McDowell. The Council is not required, however, to set up su:h:a benef_it distric these are improvements that can be required without City ` partici - pation, so long as.th_e Council agrees these improvements are reasonable in relation to the subdivision and are designed to service subdivision in general and any other ;benefits to the-City would be incidental. If the Council is convinced the would mainly benefit -.the subdivision, they could require the developer to bear the entire cost. Mr. Hudson cautioned the fallacy December 20, 1976 APPROVE FINAL MAP -- of trying to set up an area of benefit. If over 50% of PARK PLACE the abutting property owners object, then it cannot be SUBDIVISION discussed for a year. Mr. Hudson advised the City can PHASE I go ahead and require the developer to build all of the RES #7617 NCS facilities or, as an alternative, the Council could (Continued) attempt to create an area of benefit to either have the improvements built or deferred until after =an area of ;benefit can be created. City Manager Robert Meyer then suggested since the property east of Maria Drive will eventually benefit when it is developed, perhaps some sort of payback agreement could be arranged ' ,.for the cost of the bridge., since these two proper- ties will benefit most from the bridge in order to provide a means for children to get to the elementary school. He did state, however, the City's policy in the past has been to require building one-half of a street. This is how McDowell Blvd. has been developed: Mr. Meyer further stated, at the tentative map stage, it was determined the bridge had to be built and the road constructed. Mr. Meyer further suggested an equitable arrangement may be to require the property east of Maria Drive to Ely Blvd., when it is developed, to share in the cost of the bridge. Mr. Hudson suggested the Council adopt the resolution as presented to them, approving the final map for the Park Place Subdivision Phase I, and he under- stands the instruction to him is to prepare an ordinance setting up the pro- cedures for an area of benefit. This type of an ordinace requires public hearings and a determina by the Council what the area of benefit would be. City Manager Robert Meyer questioned whether or not it would be possible to adopt a resolution of intent, with regard to the sharing of the cost for the bridge. City Attorney Matthew Hudson indicated this would be a presupposition and he would prefer to wait until the public hearings are held on the ordinance establishing an area of benefit. Resolution #7617 N.C.S. approving final subdivision map of,,Qantas Development. Corporation for Park Place Subdivision Phase I, was introduced by Councilman .. Perry, seconded by Councilman Cavanagh, and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. 473 AUTHORIZE SUBDIVISION Resolution #7618 N.C.S. authorizing the Mayor to execute(�� AGREEMENT- -PARK PLACE a subdivision agreement with Qantas Development Corpor- rr SUBDIVISION UNIT #1 ation regarding Park Place Subdivision Unit #1, was RES #7618 NCS introduced by Councilman.Perry, seconded by Councilman Hilligoss,.and adopted by 7 affirmative votes. After the adoption of the above two resolutions, Mr. Jon Joslyn of Qantas Development Corporation, questioned whether or not the Council would adopt a resolution of intent for reimbursement because of the requirement for the oversized sewer .line in the development. Mr. Joslyn indicated he had written a letter in March of 1976 requesting a reimbursement agreement and was advised the time to discuss the matter was at the tentative map stage. It was not brought up when the tentative map was discussed and adopted. After some in- quiries, he was advised the proper time to handle the agreement would be at the final map stage. Mr. Joslyn stated it was his understanding it was the City's policy to reimburse developers who were required to install improvements which were oversized for the benefit of adjoining properties. Until the City Council has passed such a resolution of intent, the City Engineer is not in a position to work out some form of agreement. The City Manager asked Mr. Joslyn if he meant the sewer line which would go across McDowell Blvd., and Mr. Joslyn replied he was concerned about the over- sized line which had to be installed within the subdivision.to. service the undeveloped area east to °Ely Blvd. City Manager Robert Meyer then suggested the matter be brought back before the Council at a future meeting. PROPOSED BUS SHELTER-- Mr. Robert E. David, from the Office of Planning and GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT Research of the Golden.Gate Bridge, Highway and Trans - DISTRICT portation District, outlined the proposal for the placement of two bus shelters in.Petaluma to serve customers of the Golden Gate Transit System. One would 4 7 4 December 20, 1976 PROPOSED,BUS SHELTER -- be located 200 feet southwest of Mountain View Avenue, GOLDEN GATE'TRANSIT and the other would be on Petaluma - Blvd North near DISTRICT Hill Plaza Park, 32 feet northwest of Mary'.Sar'eet. Mr. (Continued) David explained the District had experienced a great deal of vandalism with some of the bus shelters pre-. viously built. The proposal for the two shelters to.be built in Petaluma would be to have the frames made of steel, but enclosed with acrylic material in order to provide-transparency. The two locations had been selected as a result of a survey taken as to where passengers most' frequently boarded the system's buses. There was some discussion regarding the.s1te on Petaluma Blvd. North in front of Hill Plaza Park. Concern was expressed'regarding the fact the bus shelter would be nearly the same height as the retaining wall for the' Park.'' was_ also questioned whether the sidewalk would be wide enough to accommodate_ bus shelter. Of the two styles of shelters suggested by the District, i.e., the post type and the',cantilever, the Council felt the cantilever shelter would be the most appropriate in this location, as it would not take up so much of the.sdewalk area. Mr. David indicated this could be accomplished and, in most cases where there is a narrow sidewalk,.they have gone to the cantilever style. Mr. David indicated they had taken a survey of all the bus stops, of which there are 870 throughout the system. They plan to build 70 shelters. This particular stop on Petaluma Blvd. in front of Hill Plaza Park is the 14th most utilized stop in the system. City Manager Robert Meyer suggested perhaps 'the bus shelter could be moved around the corner on Mary Street where the retaining wall would not become a safety factor. Councilman Mattei made a motion to approve both :sites and have the location of the Mary Street shelter worked out with'the staff. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hilligoss, and unanimously approved. AUTHORIZE EMPLOYMENT Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank OF ENVIRONMENTAL Gray advised' the Public Works Act application had been IMPACT PLANNING sent to the Area Clearinghouse, ABAG, and to the State CORPORATION Clearinghouse,, the Office of Planning and `Res earch'' for 0 0 RES 0 NCS review and comments. From ABAG, the City received approval, and from the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, there were no comments. However, the.Cali- fornia State Air Resources Control Board made comments to the negative Decla- ration. They had requested more information on air quality, what the ambient air quality is, and what the 20 -year projection of air quality would be because of the project. Mr. Gray stated even if 'the City is' not awarded Public Works Act funds, the matter would have to be cleared up before the project could ever be built. Mr. Gray - stated he had contacted three firms who do air quality projections; the three proposals range from $1,000 to $2,000, and all proposals stated they could do the work within two weeks. The recommendation of the staff is to award the contract to Environmental Impact Planning Corporation in an amount not to exceed $1,000. Resolution #7619 N.C.S. authorizing employment of Environmental Impact Planning Corporation to address comments made by State Air Resources Control Board was introduced by Councilman Perry, seconded by Councilman Harberson, and adopted by S affirmative, and 2 negative votes. Councilmen Cavanagh and.Mattei voted 11 no " . - - i..A. December 20, 1976 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE BY PREZONING 22.2 ACRES ON ELY BLVD: N. (WILLIAMS & AGUIRRE) ORD #1231 NCS Ordinance #1231 N.C.S. amending Zoning Ordinance #1072 N.C.S., by prezoning A.P. #136- 020 -21 (consisting of 22.2 acres) from County "A" to City R -1 -6,500 located on Ely Blvd. North (Williams and Aguirre), was intro- duced by Vice -Mayor Brunner, seconded by Councilman Perry, and ordered published by 7 affirmative votes. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1:45 a.m., December 21, 1976. Mayor Attest: City Xlerk 475