HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/07/1975MINUTES OF MEETING
OF CITY COUNCIL
PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.
JULY 7, 1975
COUNCIL MEETING Prior to the beginning of the meeting, Mayor Helen
Putnam announced the Sonoma County Community Tele-
vision would be televising the Petaluma City Council
meetings on a regular basis, i.e., the first and third Monday meetings of each
month, to be shown over Petaluma Tele -vue System cable, Channel 3, the evening
following the regular Council meeting at 8:00 p.m. She also advised the
members of the audience and the City Council, the City of Petaluma was the
first community in the County to have Council meetings televised on a regular
basis. The meeting was then called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Helen
Putnam.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brunner, Cavanagh, Harberson,
Hilligoss, Mattei, Perry and Mayor Putnam.
Absent: None.
Prior to consideration of the Consent Calendar, Vice -mayor Jack Cavanagh, Jr.,
asked permission.to make a presentation on behalf of the members of the City
Council and the staff, Mayor Helen Putnam. He listed the members of the
Council making the presentation, stating Councilman - Hilligoss was starting her
first year, Councilman Harberson his third year, Councilman Perry his fifth
year, Councilmen Brunner and Mattei their seventh year, Councilman Cavanagh
his thirteenth year, and the City Manager his .fourteenth year. The presenta-
tion was made to honor the Mayor's beginning her eleventh year as Mayor of the
City of Petaluma.
In keeping with the theme of the Bicentennial, the -Mayor was presented with a
red, white, and blue corsage.
INVOCATION Due to the absence of Revered Thomas Wang of the
Chinese Christian Church,.no invocation was given.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of June 2nd, June 9th, and June 16th,
1975, were approved as recorded.
Councilman Mattei made a request that, if possible,
the minutes of the meeting be forwarded to the Council
at the conclusion of the week in which the meeting was
held.
REORGANIZATION OF Mayor Putnam advised members.of the audience the
CITY COUNCIL provisions of the Petaluma City Charter call for
reorganization of the City Council. Each city has
various methods of selecting their mayors and vice
mayors; even the two charter cities within the County proceed in a different
manner. The matter.before the -City Council tonight is to select a Vice- Mayor,
or as is called in the City Charter, the Vice - President of the City Council.
Councilman Mattei reminded the Council two years ago he had requested the
office of Vice -Mayor be selected on a rotating.basis. He stated he felt Vice -
Mayor Cavanagh had done an excellent job over the past 6 years, but he did
feel the matter should be passed on from Councilman to Councilman on a
rotating basis,. in order to give other council members experience in the
duties assigned. He further stated he felt the- rotation should be on a yearly
basis. Councilman Cavanagh indicated the Municipal Code, Section 2.04.080
does not refer to rotation of the office of the vice- president. City Attorney
Matthew Hudson read the section of the code which stated the Vice - President
should serve for a period of two years, or until his successor is selected or
qualified. In order to change the statute, it would have to be done by
ordinance.
July 7, 1975
After a "brief discussion, Councilman Ma.ttei "made a motion that the Council
adopt a policy of rotation for the office of Vice - President or Vice -Mayor of
the City Council. The motion was seconded by Counc.ilman approved by
6 affirmative, and 1 negative vote. Councilman Cavanagh "voted "no ".
City Attorney Matthew Hudson advised.the Council the.statement: made by Councilman
Cav,anagh.was quite correct. The office of vice- president of the City Council
is for a two-year-term and would have to be changed by ordinance. He would
see -no' object -ion, however, for Cavanagh to remain Vice -Mayor of the
City Council until an ordinance was passed. If it were•the.Council's wish,.he
would consider the adoption of the motion-as an instruction to prepare an
ordinance to bring before the Council at the July 14th meeting.
The question arose whether or not it would be proper to introduce the ordinance
at a meeting July `14th unless it was an adjourned meeting. City Attorney
Matthew Hudson felt the ordinance should be introduced at a regular meeting;
however, if the meeting tonight were adjourned-to July 14th, then it could be
properly .introduced.. No action was then taken on the selection of.a_Vice-
President of the-City for the ensuing year until the introduction and
adoption of an ordinance, to be prepared by the City Attorney.
1
At the conclusion_of the discussion, City Manager Robert Meyer .asked the Mayor
if the Council would give consideration to appointments to the various Commissions,
specifically naming members.of the Council to the Commissions in order for
these boards and commissions to have a quorum when they have their meetings.
Mayor Putnam advised the City Manager she would call a recess later in the
meeting to.give consideration to these appointments.
CONSENT CALENDAR At the request of Councji,lman Cavanagh, Item #6 pertaining
to referring demolition permits for primary structures
to the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee
for review was removed from the Consent Calendar. On a motion made by Council -
man Harberson, seconded by Councilman Perry, the items on the Consent Calendar,
Item X61 through #5, were approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #I .. The change.to the statement of Mr. Stroeh.in the
CHANGE TO MINUTES minutes of May l9, 1975, referring.to 26 acre feet and
MAY 19, 1.975 32 acre feet, to 26,000 acre feet and 32,000 acre
feet, was approved.
Agenda Item #2
CANCEL TAXES- -
DAVID D. YOUNG
RES #7034 NCS.
Agenda Item #3
CANCEL TAXES- -
LEXTON- ANCIRA,
RES •17035 NCS
Resolution #7034 N.C.S. requesting cancellation of
taxes on °property herein named acquired by the City of
Petaluma, was approved. Said property refers to a
strip of land 13 feet in width on North McDowell
Boulevard.
-Resolution #7035 N.C..S. requesting cancellation of
taxes'o.ii °property herein named acquired.b.y the City of
LTD Petaluma,, was approved. Said property refers to a
strip of land 13 feet in width along North McDowell.
Boulevard, adjacent to parcels of land referred to as
the Caster Mobilehome Corporation's site._
Agenda .Item #4 Resolution #7036 N.C.S. authorizing the Mayor to
(� AGREEMENT W /XEROX execute an agreement with the Xerox Corporation for
CORPORATION FOR computer - services, was 'approved. The amount of the
COMPUTER SERVICES agreement with the Xerox Corporation is $2,,085 per
RES #7 ()36.NCS month.
Agenda Item #5 Resolution '17037 N.C.S. consenting to sidewalk sales
SIDEWALK SALES -- August 1, and 2, 1975,.to be held by the Downtown
AUGUST 1, 2, 1975 Merchants Association, was approved.
RES #7037 NCS
1
A
July 7, 1975
APPLICATIONS FOR Resolution 47038 N.C.S. referring application for
DEMOLITION PERMITS demolition permits for primary structures to the
RES #7038 NCS Historic and - Cultural Preservation Committee for
review and consent, was introduced by Councilman
Harberson, seconded by Councilman Brunner, and ap-
proved by 6 affirmative, and 1 votes. Councilman Cavanagh voted
"no". Councilman Cavanagh had requested the item be removed from the Consent
Calendar. He questioned whether or not this Committee would have the auth-
ority to hold up the demolition of a single dwelling, and what effect the
resolution would have.
City Attorney Matthew•Hudson advised.Councilman Cavanagh the resolution
transfers the-authority-to the appropriate body, which is now the Historic and
Cultural Preservation Committee; and had formerly been called the Mayor's
Select Committee. Mr. Cavanagh then asked what effect the resolution would
have on the time schedule for the demolition of a piece of private property.
Director of Community Development Frank Gray advised. states that
if this Committee recommends to the City Council a certain piece of property
not be demolished because of .its historical value, Council could hold up
demolition for a 180 -day period, which could be extended to a period not to
exceed another 180 days. Councilman Mattei stated it was his understanding a
survey was to be made of all the historical buildings within the Community,
with districts being set up.. Director of Community Development Frank Gray
indicated this was in his Program of Service and should be completed this
year; however, in the interim, this resolution would preserve those buildings
until the entire study is completed.
PUBLIC HEARING-- Director of Community Development Frank Gray reviewed 0
REZONING OLD GENERAL the staff report presented to the City Council. The 7
HOSPITAL SITE request is to rezone what is known as the old Petaluma
ORD 41176 NCS General Hospital site, at the corner of Sixth and "I"
SECOND READING Streets. The property is presently zoned for Residential
Compact, which would permit thirteen units. Under
that zoning, all that would be necessary would be site
design review. The applicant, however, has requested a.planned unit develop -
ment, and intends to build "a - series of duplexes for a total of fourteen units
on the site. The main reason, however, for his request, is for the arrange-
ment of the buildings in the area so as to an open -space area in the
center of the development.
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the rezoning to the
Council. Mr. Gray then referred to the wall map and explained the layout of
the buildings to be placed on the site. He explained -all the dwelling units
would face to an inner court, or open space area. Mr. Gray explained the
major vegetation on the site, as it presently exists, is proposed to remain
with extensive additional landscaping to be provided by the developer. Mr.
Gray further advised the Council the main access to the property would be from
Sixth Street. The main objection of residents in the area at the Planning
Commission hearing was.the congestion at the intersection of Sixth and "I"
Streets. He advised the Council the Traffic Committee, at their last meeting,
recommended a four -way stop sign system be installed at the intersection. Mr.
Gray informed the Council the Planning Commission had made certain findings
pursuant to Section . l9- 900.of the Zoning Ordinance. In .order for this ordi-
nance to be adopted, the Council would also. -have' to make certain findings
pursuant to Section 19 -900, and Sections 19- 901.1 through 19 -901.4 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S. Mr. Gray also advised the Council the Planning
Commission had attached fourteen conditions to the development, a copy of
which.is on file with the City Clerk.
In answer to a question posed by Councilman Perry whether or not the develop-
ment would be geared toward low - income or the elderly, Mr. Gray felt the price
range would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $225 to $275 per month for
rent. It would provide excellent housing for the elderly, but they are not
specifically designed for low - income or elderly tenants.
July 7, 1975
In answer. to Councilman Cavanagh's question how they got around the implica-
tion this was'not spot zoning Director of Community Development' Frank Gray
advised Mr. Cavanagh this was .a permitted use, it's a compatible land use., and
would have been permitted under prior.zoning.
Councilman Brunner commented on the-fact that a petition opposing the develop-
ment had been - received when the ordinance was introduced. Mayor. Putnam then
opened.the.Public Hearing.
No comments were received from the audience., The City Clerk advised the
Council the petition received at the previous meeting.contaned• 68 signatures
which objected to Resolution #6973 N °.0 -.S. Said resolution set the date for
the public.hearing.on the rezoning. No comments were received from the
audience and the Public Hearing was closed.
Councilman Mattei sat as the Council',s representative on the Planning Commis -
sion at the time of the public hearing. He stated the objections received by
the Planning.Commission were not much against the P.lanned•.Unit Development;
as they were�against. the traffic situation at the corner of Sixth and `''I"
Streets. The other area of concern voiced by persons attending the public
hearing was the removal of the trees. Mr. Matted had the impression,' at the
conclusion of the Planning-Commission meetings on the subject property, that
most of the people seemed satisfied this.was•to be a first- class.development
and they had no further objections..
Councilman Cavanagh stated he could see.no reason for holding a hearing
if persons who objected by,the petition submitted to the City Clerk did not
voice their objections in person. Mayor Putnam again,asked.members . of the
audience if there was anyone who.wished to speak regarding the matter, and
nobody appeared.
The City Clerk advised the Council each person who had signed.the. petition had
been .sent a copy of the for this evening's meeting, and were advised of
the hearing to be held.
At the conclusion.of the discussion , Ordinance. #1176 N.'G.&—which had been
introduced by.Councilman.Mattei,; seconded by Councilman.Per -ry, amending Zoning
Ordinance No. , 1072 N.C.S. by reclassifying the property located at the morthwest
corner of Sixth and "I" Streets,, Assessor's Parcel #8 - 262 - 04 ; (consisting -of
approximately .9 acre) from an R -C (Compact Residential) District to a PUD
(Planned Unit) District (.Taylor); was adopted by 5 affirmative and 2 negative
votes. Councilmen 'Cavanagh and voted "no ".
SHARE EXPENSES -- A letter' dated'April 29, 1975, to the Mayor and members
DIPLOMATIC CORPS of the City Council, 'signed by Alfred Alys, - 'President,
TOUR,,AUGUST 4 and Max Mickelsen,.President Elect of the Petaluma
THROUGH 9, -1.975 Area Chamber of Commerce, was read by the City Clerk
and ordered filed.
In answer to•Mayor- Putnam's question, City Manager Robert Meyer advised the
Council there was 'some funds for promotional activities in the-Motel-Hotel Tax
Fund. Mr. Pat Shannon of the Petaluma -Area Chamber of Commerce, explained the
actual cost would be $100 for the first four hours., and $10 for each additional
hour. He also advised the Council the participants in the tour-would purchase
all of ,their supplies and materials in Petaluma before departing on their
4,000 mile tour- of the United States. Mr. Shannon-also advised he did not
anticipate.the need for the bus for longer than 4 hours. They are asking the
City to participate in an amount of approximately $60. A motion was made by
Councilman Mattei, seconded by Councilman Harberson, approving the-expenditure
of $60 to provide transportation for the. „.Diplomatic Corps. Motion carried
unanimously.
PROTEST -- GOLDEN GATE A letter dated July 3, 1975, addressed to.Mayor Putnam,
TRANSIT FARE INCREASE from Gerald Stewart, and signed by Pamela Elliott, Co-
chairperson, Sonoma County Commuters Association, was
read by the City Clerk, and ordered filed. In addition,
a letter from the City signed by Allen P. Stansbury, Councilman,
addressed to Mayor Jana Haehl of the City of Corte Madera,.was read by the
City Clerk and ordered filed.
July 7, 1975
Present in the audience to speak.on'behalf of the Sonoma.County Commuters
Association•were Mr. Gerald Stewart., Mr- ..Ned'Adams,, Ms. Pamela Elliott, and
Ms. Christine Smith. Mr.. Ned Adams-was the- spokesman for the group, stating
he was the secretary-treasurer the.Sonoma County Commuters Association, and
advised the Council the northbay commuters were to receive a 40% increase in
the rates for fares, bringing the total amount to $70 per month. Mr. Davis
also advised the Council Sonoma County commuters had received a 75% increase
in a little over one year. He compared the rates.from Sonoma County to San
Francisco with those charged by Southern Pacific for commuters from San Jose
who are paying $52.70 per month; and, the commuters from Walnut Creek travel-
ling on BART are paying $52;.80 per month. He estimated there are approxi-
mately 2,000 commuters. Sonoma.County, the majority of whom live in
Petaluma. Mr. Davis further objected to the fact the increase was announced
without giving the commuters any advance notice, or having input from
the commuters in the northbay. district. He did state the Golden Gate Bridge
District has regular open meetings; however, they.are held on Friday mornings
at 10:00 a.m., which is an inconvenient time for working people to attend.
Additionally, Mr.. .Adams stated the commuters were disturbed by the attitude of
the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors that if the commuters didn't like the
fare increase, they should south. Mr. Adams stated most of them are
homeowners in the area and contribute to the gas tax funds, by which the
Bridge District is partially supported, and pay other taxes which contribute
funds for the district'. Mr. Adams further stated the Commuters Association is
not pleased with the selection of the Board of Directors for the Golden Gate
Transit District because none of them are elected. He further stated of the
18 directors on the Bridge 'District, 9 are from the, City of San Francisco, and
the counties of Humbolt, Del Norte and Napa, each.have a member on the Board
of Directors and have very commuters in their area. Pamela_. Elliott
advised the City-Council the Marin County Mayors' and Councilmen's Association
voted to support the Commuters Association.
Ms. Christine Smith then spoke to the Council. She advised the Council that
Mr. Joel Shawn, an attorney and Councilman from the City of Corte Madera, had
been successful in obtaining a restraining order in the Superior Court of
Marin County, as well trial transfered to San Mateo County.
This will be held July 10th. Ms. Smith also stated the commuters group had
arranged a fact - finding meeting with Supervisor Kortum and Hinkle; however,
only Supervisor Kortum had- attended. They were interested in finding out how
each supervisor had voted on the matter.' However, she stated, it was ex-
tremely hard to get some•'answer•s. She urged members - of the City Council to
attend the July 9th meeting., and also stated that Assemblyman Wornum has
introduced.a bill to reapportion the representation on the Golden Gate Bridge
Board of Directors by.eliminating Del Norte County and Mendocino County, and
assigning these two'directors' seats- -one each to Sonoma and Marin Counties.
The Commuters Association would ask the City Council, if they so desired, to
support this legislation.
Ms. Smith further requested the.City.to please send a letter in support of
Corte Madera's suit, to be held July 10th. If there is an appeal .taken on the
case, they would further ask the City Attorney to investigate the - matter and
report back to the City Council whether the grounds are valid, and if so, to
send a letter or participate in an amicus curiae brief in support.
City Manager Robert Meyer suggested the Council contact Councilman
Lucius of the City of `Healdsburg who also serves as a Director on the Golden
Gate Bridge, to be present at the July 9th meeting in.order to answer some of
the questions posed by the Sonoma County Commuters Association. Mr. Meyer
explained Mr. Lucius.•has been , a member of the Board. several years, and is
quite knowledgeable of the Board's activities.
Some discussion was then held regarding the amount of Metropolitan Trans-
portation Commission funds the County of Sonoma relinquishes because -
of the transportation provided to Sonoma County.by.the Golden Gate Bridge
District. Director of Public Works David Young felt, speaking in round
numbers, the City of Petaluma would haue:been - eligible for.approximately
$248,000. However, the Bridge District was appropriated approximately $66,000
for inter- county service, $13,000 to $14,000 for intra- county service on local
routes, and another on their Route 71, which left approximately
$134,000 to $135,000 for the City of Petaluma for its transportation purposes.
July 7, 1975
Mayor Putnam advised the members'of' the Commuters Association the Council
would urge Mr-Lucius to be present at the Wednesday, July 9th hearing. She
also -urged members of the City Council to be - present. Councilman.Harberson
then requested the City Attorney 'to contact Mr. Shawn, the Attorney in Corte
Madera, to determine the effects .in the matter up to date.
Then, speaking for the Commuters Association, Mr. Mike Adams .indicated the
Association, although they were opposed to the hike in the commuter fare, were
more concerned in-the manner in which the raise was established. They were
unable to obtain facts from the Bridge District which justified the rate
increase; and he felt it 'was - important that the City Council and the.City!of
Petaluma support the Association's effort in trying to learn the facts. Mayor
Putnam then stated she would personally contact Councilman Lucius to determine
whether-he could be present at the meeting July 9th. The. Council took no
action on the matter, and agreed to place it:on the Agenda 'for July 14, 1975. .
LETTER-- S.ONOMA COUNTY A letter�from.the Sonoma.County Farm Bureau addressed
FARM BUREAU -- BALLOT to the :Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and all
ISSUE -Councilmen of the incorporated cities, was read by the
City Clerk and ordered filed.
Mr. Arthur Cader, President-of the Sonoma Farm Bureau, spoke to the
Council with regard to the letter. He-felt it was important for the Sonoma
County Farm Bureau to make this proposal and felt it should be. brought to the
attention of the people in the,County. The Farm Bureau is a bond
issue for a tax assessment to raise $ 300,000,00.0 - in annual increments as
needed _ the first to be in the amount of $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1975-
76. He urged the City Council to work closely with ,the Sonoma-County Planning
Commission to insure orderly growth in the pheripheral areas surrounding
the cities, and in reserving some of the area for open space., primarily the
lands now designated as agricultural lands. Mr. Cader further stated there
was a misconception regarding agricultural lands surrounding urbanized areas
where people felt the owners were merely ho'ld to the -lands until it
would be developed for subdivision purposes, etc. Mr. Cader felt this was far
from the truth - -that people engaged in - agriculture in the area would like to
be able to stay on the and.keep the land for farming purposes. However,
he stated -, the tax-rate is becoming prohibitive for agricultural purposes.
Councilman Mattei felt the better'solution would be for the Sonoma County Farm
Bureau to approach'the''Board of Supervisors and request them to hold down the
property tax assessments on agricultural land, and for the ranchers in-the
area to take advantage of the Williamson Act. Mr. Cader responded by stating
not everybody was eligible to come under the provisions of.the Williamson Act.
There are certain soils restrictions, acreage restrictions, and once under the
Williamson Ac -t, the property is locked in, and it is difficult for the owner
to secure any type of loans to'make improvements on the property. He did
agree with Councilman Mattei that it reduces the taxes; however, it places
other restrictions on the property. Councilman Mattei responded by suggesting
that the agricultural people go to the State level to have the provisions of
the Williamson Act amended. Mr. Mattei further stated he was in agreement, he
would -like to see the agricultural areas in the County remain as such if at
all possible.
Some discussion was held on the methods by which farm lands.within the spheres
of influence of cities were being assessed opposed to those in the outlying
districts. Mr. Cader felt the.lands within the spheres of influence should be
assessed according to what the land'can produce, not merely.because they are
in close proximity to the urban areas.
At the conclusion of the discussion, Mr..Cader again reiterated the purpose of
their ballot issue and the letter was.merely.to bring the plight of the
rancher and farmer, living close to the urbanized areas, to the attention of
the people within the County.
Mayor Putnam called a short recess at 935.p.m. for a Council discussion of
appointments of Council representatives to the Commissions.
July 7, 1975
Page 501
RESOLUTION APPOINTING Resolution #7039 N.C.S. appointing certain members of
CERTAIN MEMBERS OF the City Council as members of City Commissions: ?�
THE CITY COUNCIL TO Planning, Recreation;. Music and Parks, and Traffic �� J
CITY COMMISSIONS Committee, was introduced by Councilman Mattei, /
RES #7039 NCS seconded by Councilman-Perry, and approved by 7
affirmative votes.
The Commissioners named were as follows: M. Patricia Hilligoss, Planning
Commission;.James.L. Harberson, Recreation, Music & Parks Commission; William
A. Perry, Jr., Traffic.Committee. Mayor Putnam also asked Councilman Brunner
if he would continue to serve on the Petaluma Library Advisory Board, which is
not included in the resolution.
CLAIMS AND BILLS Resolution #7040 N.C.S. approving claims and bills
RES #7040 NCS 44834 to X64839, inclusive, approved by the City
Manager for payment, was introduced by Councilman
Perry, seconded by Councilman Cavanagh, and approved
by-7 affirmative votes.
BICYCLE LANE Director of Public Works David Young explained to the
STRIPING -- WESTERN City Council as the bicycle lane striping is presently 11
AVENUE proposed, it allows for an eight foot parking area, a
five foot bicycle lane, two 11 -foot traffic lanes,
another five foot bicycle lane, and an eight foot
parking area. Mr. Young stated it was his understanding the Creamery is
concerned about the parking of their very large trucks and the mixture of the
bicycles and the trucks in this particular location. The only solution he
could suggest would be to increase the parking area to 8 -1/2 feet, retain the
5 -foot bicycle lane, reduce the two traffic lanes to 10 -1/2 feet, with another
5 -foot bicycle lane and 8 -1/2 -foot parking area. He would not, however,
recommend.reducing the traffic lanes•below. the 10 -1/2-feet, because Western
Avenue carries a great of truck traffic.
Mr. Ross, the Plant Manager for the California Cooperative Creamery, was
present in the audience, and stated the Creamery was concerned strictly about
the safety standpoint. Their operation is located in such a way that it is
necessary for them to load-their retail trucks off Western Avenue by use of
fork lifts, which must extend into the'street in order to accomplish their
work. Mayor Putnam asked how the matter of widening or revising the bicycle
lane along the Creamery had been brought to the Council's attention, and City
Manager Meyer stated the Creamery had raised the question whether or
not it was a safe road for 'bicycle lanes. They felt because of the narrowness
of the parking strip, and`the width of the trucks bicycles could probably be
better served by being rerouted away from the Creamery down Stanley Street.
The Council was reminded they had approved certain bicycle -lanes to be striped
in January, and this was one of ..the routes approved by the Council. Mr. Young
further stated the Street had placed a dotted line along the intended
route which indicated the - design ,of 8 -foot parking, 5 -foot bicycle
lane. This dotted line is only temporary and if approved for this work, the
final painting would be done. Mr. Young stated the question before the
Council tonight was whether or'not to stripe the bicycle lane. If the lane is
striped, then the right -of -way is assigned to the bicyclist, and the fork
lifts used by the Creamery would be trespassing into the bicycle lane. City
Attorney Matt Hudson verified Mr. Young's statement by saying no vehicle could
intrude into the bicycle lane unless it was to park or enter a driveway.
City Manager Robert Meyer indicated he realized.the Creamery was situated in a
unique area which caused.problems for them; however, he reminded Mr. Ross that
each time the fork lift would traverse Western Avenue going in the wrong
direction, they were breaking the law. Mr. Ross said they realized this
created a problem; however, they felt it was even more dangerous to try to
cross the street with a fork lift and 1'oad on the opposite side of the street.
At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion was -made by Councilman Harberson
to revise the-bicycle lane striping on Western Avenue to allow for an 8-1/2 -
foot parking strip; the 5 -foot bicycle lane, the two 10 -1/2 -foot travel lanes,
another 5 -foot bicycle lane and another 8 -1/2 -foot parking area. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Hilligoss, and approved by 4 affirmative and 3
negative votes. Councilmen Cavanagh, Mattel and Perry voted "no ".
July 7, 1975 Page 502
INTRA -CITY BUS City Man "ager - Robert Meyer repor.ted.the proposals
SYSTEM received from private parties and`the Golden Gate
Transit District would be reviewed by the City Council
at the meeting of July 14, 1975.
Councilman Mattei requested the staff have'a report on the financial rearrange-
ment of M.T.C. funds available for the City Council at the meeting when the
intra -city bus system would be discussed.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS:
NOVATO - PETALUMA Mr. Meyer advised the Council he had sent them copies
CORRIDOR,MEMORANDUM of the Memorandum of Understanding,'which had been
OF UNDERSTANDING prepared for their and asked the Council to be
prepared - report -to him July 21st, whether or not
they had any objections-to signing- the agreement.
The Memorandum of Understanding was accompanied by a letter from David. A.
Dorfman; Executive Officer of Sonoma County LAFCO, and dated June 30,
1975. Mr. Meyer advised the Council the agreement would.assure the City
Council they would informed of any intended development - in the corridor
between Petaluma Novato, and both Marin and' Sonoma Counties, and the
cities.of Novato and Petaluma, as well as special districts, would have an
opportunity to review any proposed developments.
The Director of Community Development advised the.City Manager he had attended
a meeting this date and there to the Memorandum.of Understanding;
however,�the basic concept would.remain the same. Mayor .Putnam advised the
Council the matter had been taken to LAFCO Commission for their review, and it
was approved in concept.
SONOMA -MARIN MOSQUITO Mr. Meyer reminded the Council the - Sonoma -Marin Mosquito
ABATEMENT DISTRICT Abatement District would hold -their first meeting in
Sonoma County July 9, 1975, in the Supervisors' Board
Room. He also stated this meeting would conflict with
the one scheduled with Supervisor�Hinkle for discussion on the fare increases
for .the Golden Gate Transit District. Mayor Putnam indicated she would
endeavor to have somebody attend the meeting in Santa Rosa also.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP- Mr. Meyer reminded the City Council.they need to make
MENT EVALUATION BOARD appointment of two Council members to the 1976 -77
Board. He also asked direction from the Council on
how-to proceed with the additional appointments which
needed to be made at the July 21st meeting.
SONOMA COUNTY DUMP Mr. Meyer advised the Council he had been contacted by
SITE- -RATE RAISES the Petaluma. Refuse Company today advising him the
County was.raising the -cost for dumping at the County
dumps 22% in July 1975, 66% in . July 1 and then on
a graduating schedule until the rate increase reaches 233% in 1979:. He wanted
to have the Council be aware of-th fact would effect the .citizens
of Petaluma in a raise in garbage fees. He also felt the City Council may
want to* contact the Board of Supervisors this regard. Director of Public
Works David Young stated this rate increase ties in with the solid waste.plan
being proposed by the County of Sonoma. The plan is almost at the draft stage
at the present time, and the County people are asking to make a slide presentation
to the City Council on July 21st in this regard; City Manager Robert Meyer
stated the rate increase could be.a matter for discussion a -t the Mayors' and
Councilmen's meeting to be held Thursday, July 10th.
BUFORD WELL City Manager Robert Meyer reported the amendment to
the domestic water - permit . to permit the lease of the
Iw� Buford Well to supplement. the City's existing water
�1 directed Mayor Vand Dep ar t ment
fromFreder H ea l t h . H The l ette r
.D.,
su pply PP y P t
Hodges, M.D., Manager,
Health. Protection Division, Department of Health, is on file with the City
Clerk.
1
1
July 7, 1975 Page 503
LEGISLATION AFFECTING Councilman Cavanagh asked .whether each of the members
CITIES of the City Council had received the bulletin from the
League of Califormia.Cities regarding filing statements
of economic interest and campaign statements. The
Council had.already a copy of the bulletin and Mayor Putnam asked
City Attorney Matt Hudson if he would endeavor to clarify the bulletin. for
the Council's information. City Attorney Matt Hudson agreed he would prepare
such a rep.ort,;.however, he did state the City Clerk had been keeping the
Council advised:as to the proper forms to be filled out and the times they
were to be submitted, and he was.•hopeful that A.B. 464 would eliminate some of
the cumbersome, repetitive filing now called for.
STATE REVENUE Mayor Putnam reminded the Council they had received a
SHARING -- LEAGUE OF form from the League of California Cities asking for
CALIFORNIA CITIES the cities to comment on a proposed plan for State
Revenue Sharing, and asking for the information before
July 7th. She advised the Council she would be
attending a meeting on July 16th when this matter would be discussed, and
would'also advise the other cities at the Mayors.' and Councilmen's meeting
they still had some time to respond to the questionnaire. She also stated
some responses had been received from other cities. Arcata had reviewed the
questionnaire point by point, and stated if stringent guidelines were not
attached to the Revenue Sharing Program, they may not oppose it. However, in
its .present state, they did not feel could support the measure. The
City of Vacaville indicated they would oppose adding another layer of taxation
upon the people. The City of Santa Rosa indicated they.would oppose the
proposal, indicating 'they felt the residents of the State of California simply
could not afford an.additional tax. The City of Fairfield has advised they
have not yet acted officially, but believe they would support the League's
proposal.
Councilman Harberson indicated'he did not feel this was the proper time to
place a surtax on the public. Councilman.Mattei agreed, with the reservation
that if the City could reduce the p.roperty.tax the same figure, he would
not oppose such a measure. Mayor Putnam requested the City.Council give the
matter further consideration and report back at the July 14th meeting so she
would have the city's reaction to the proposal to report to the League of
California Cities Board of Directors on July 16th.
NAMING CERTAIN ALLEYS Director of Community Development Frank Gray advised
RES #7041 NCS the Council this matter had been discussed previously 2 ®�
(SECOND READING) by the City Council and the action to be taken this
evening was to hold a public hearing officially naming
American Alley, Telephone. Alley, Hill Opera Alley and
Pepper School Alley.
Mayor Putnam opened the public hearing. There were no comments received by
the City Clerk and no comments by any - person in the audience. The Public
Hearing was then closed.
Resolution #7041 N.C.S. officially naming.certain alleys in the City of
Petaluma was then introduced by�Councilman Harberson, seconded by Councilman
Matte, and approved by 7 affirmative votes.
RESCIND PREVIOUS Director of Community Development Frank Gray reminded
YEARS' RESIDENTIAL the Council he had been requested to report back to
ALLOTMENTS them on residential allotments awarded in prior years ��S
RES #7042 NCS on which there.had been no activity in the previous
allotment year. He advised the Council, since the
last hearing on- rescission., there has been no
activity on the 93 multi- family units alloted to Simonds on Magnolia Avenue
(Architecture, Inc.), nor any activity on the 87 multi- family units on Keokuk
Street awarded.to Camille Enterprises. The staff recommends the Council use
its discretion to rescind these allotments. Mr. -Gray also stated Mr. Milton
Forman who had transferred, voluntarily, 36 units to the Camille Enterprises
in a prior year.,, had asked that.the 36 units be.reinstated. However, it was
the staff's opinion the 36 were part of the 87. multi - family units for
Camille Enterprises and should be rescinded.
Upon the conclusion of the discussion, Resolution 47042 N.C.S. rescinding
certain residential was introduced by Councilman Perry, seconded
by Councilman Brunner,.and approved by 7 affirmative votes.
July 7, 1975
Page 504
REMOVE PARKING- -EAST. The matter of removing parking alon'g'a certain area
WASHINGTON STREET between the 101 southbound off -ramp, near the.entrance
RES #7043 NCS to Kenilwor.th.School, on the northwesterly side of
Eas:t'Washington Street, had.been' previously brought.
before the City Council. At that time;..the Council
asked the Assistant City Engineer to.check with:the State.of California to
determine whether or not the property owners along the area.had been notified,
and were - .agreement with the parking removal. Director of Public Works
David Young; advised the Council the State indicated the property owners.were
in agreement, and the staff -was recommending parking be removed.
Resolution #7043 N.C.S. establishing certain parking restrictions.along the
northwesterly side of East Washington'Stree;t, between entrance to Kenilworth .
School and the terminus of Route 101, southbound to westbound Washington
Street, was introduced by Councilman Perry, seconded by Councilman Mattei, and
approved by '7 affirmative votes.
APPROPRIATION Appropriation Ordinance #1177 N.C.S. providing for the
ORDINANCE annual.appropriation for and operations
ORD 11177 NCS for the fiscal year July 1, 1975,.to June 30, 1976,
°t setting forth the appropriation for.each department
and funds: - necessary to carry on the business of the
government, and appropriating funds for debt- 's'ervice, interest and.redemp•tion
funds,., was introduced by seconded by Councilman Harberson,
and ordered posted: The.introduction of the ordinance was approved by 6 ayes
and l abstention. Councilman Hilligos"s abstained because she had not been a
member of the Council when the budget was prepared.. A motion was then made to
post the ordinance,by:Councilman Mattei, seconded by Councilman Perry, and
approved by.7 affirmative votes.
REZONE 67 MAGNOLIA Ordinance 1111.74 N.C.S. which had been introduced by
... AVENUE Councilman,Cavanagh, seconded by Councilman.Har:berson,
ORD 111174 NCS and which had been duly.published, was adopted by
(SECOND. READING. aff'irmative"votes.
APPLICATION -- OUTSIDE' Mr. &'Mrs. Dennis the property owners..at 49
SEWER CONNECTION, Berger Lane. had'applied.to the City Council for one
49 BERGER LANE residential outside sewer connection•ai the premises
located at 49 Berger Lane; Assessor's Parcel #4'8 -134-
16. Both were present'at the Council meeting.
Assistant City Engineer.Thomas Hargis outlined the subject parcel .for the City
Council on,the.viewfoil.' He explained the appl_cants`Denni and Rosemary
Metcalf, have one home-on the parcel, and they are asking for one connection
to the City sewer system. He explained there is an.'existing,6 sewer line in
Paula Lane., and the topography is such that gravity .sewer out of the back of
the property into the stub of the'6 ":main on Paula Lane was possible. He
explained the staff had reviewed the property -, and the adjacent.property could
also be sewered by gravity flow into the Paula Lane.sewer. The staff's
recommendation would be to have the applicant install one -half of'a 6" sewer
across their property and defer the.other half the property across the
street•.is developed. 'The other c'onsiderat'ion would be for the property owner
to grant an easement in order for'Paula Lane to be extended at some future
time to Magnolia Avenue as shown on the select street system. Mr. Hargis also
advised the Council the property is adjacent to the City, and annexation could
be another consideration by the Council.
Mr. Metcalf, the'applicant, spoke to the.Council.saying he was'not in a position
at this time to extend the 6" main., or even half of a main in order to service
his.property. He could manage the 4" line to connect.to the exis.ting,6" sewer
main at the end of Paula Lane.
Director of.Public Works David Young then spoke to the Council stating this
particular parcel is immediately adjacent to the City limits and - could'be
annexed now. If the Council used the preogative of requiring the street
dedication from the applicants, could provide the access'needed,,to extend
Paula Lane'from 'Bodega Avenue to Magnolia. However, if the easement were
j
1.
1.
July 7, 1975 Page 505
granted to the City', it would sever the parcel into two lots. It is the
staff's opinion that the,severed lot would be large enough to accommodate a
single- :family.dwelling. This would then put the applicant in the position of
having to fund the construction for both sides of the street. Another al-
ternative would be to postpone the requirement for one -half of the improve -
ments until the severed parcel would be developed. Mr. Young stated the
applicant applied for the sewer connection because of a possible health hazard
due to a failing septic system.. The simplist way to correct the public health
problem and protect the neighborhood would be'to, permit him to build the sewer
lateral into the existing 6" main. On the other hand, Mr. Young stated, the
property to the north of Mr. Metcalf's would.eventually, when developed and
because.of the topography, flow into same 6" main on Paula Lane.
Director of Community Development Frank Gray indicated, from a planning
standpoint, he feels the property should be annexed and the road easement
granted to the City in order to provide the extension of Paula Lane at some
future date.. He felt if the easement were granted, it might be possible to
allow.Mr. Metcalf to hook up to the existing 6" main. Director of Public
Works David Young opposed this concept because it would disrupt policy set by
the Council on previous developments.
The discussion then lead to the alignment of Paula Lane and when the road
would be built. Mrs. Metcalf brought up the fact that a petition had been
circulated sometime ago opposing the extension of Paula Lane through to -
Magnolia Avenue. Mr. Metcalf indicated their property was approximately one
acre, and they do not want to annex to the City.
Mayor Putnam suggested the City Council defer.'the matter until the July 21st
meeting until they have had.an opportunity to go into the area, and review the
site and location of the subject property. The members of the City Council
concurred in this recommendation, and no action was taken. The matter was
deferred to the July 21, 1975 meeting.
APPLICATION -- OUTSIDE Assistant City Engineer Thomas Hargis outlined the
SEWER CONNECTION, subject property and its location on the viewfoil.
12 HIGHLAND ROAD The property is owned by Lewis Hill, and Mr. Hill has
an existing property at 12'Highland Road in the County
area. He is proposing a lot split and is applying for
an outside sewer connection for one new single- family-dwelling. There is an
existing 6" sewer line which ends at his line. _Mr. Hill is proposing
an easement be granted to allow the sewer line to run to the back lot and also
provide a driveway access to the lot. Mr. Hargis stated it is possible to
sewer the back lot by gravity without extending "the sewer.
Councilman Harberson remarked this is the type.of outside sewer connection
that he would be opposed to because it would be creating urban sprawl.
However, Councilman Matteis the Council's representative on the Planning
Commission, advised this is probably the last piece of property in the area
that can be developed. The residents in this particular area have expressed a
will- ingness to-annex,to the City of Petaluma; however, other residents in the
area have defeated the annexation procedures.
Director of Community Development Frank Gray said the lot is of sufficient
size but it would.be improbable for the lot to be split again. He also
advised that curbs, gutters, and sidewalks have been installed in the area.
Director of Public Works David Young reviewed prior attempts by the
residents in.'the area. It was the City's contention the urbanized area on
Sunnyslope Avenue should be brought up to urban standards, which would include
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and the improvement of the road and felt the
County participate in this endeavor before.the area was annexed to the
City: However, the County's Department of Public Works did agree to bring the
center portion of the roadway up to a reasonable standard; however, they were
not willing to install curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, so it have been neces-
sary for the residents to form an assessment district, which would have been
very 'expensive. He felt this was one of the reasons .why the annexation
.attempt was not successful.
July 7, 1975
Page 506 -
Because Mr. Hill was unable to attend, the matter - was deferred until the July
21st Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT There being no'fur,ther business to-come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at ll -.A0 p ', to
an- Executive Session,-.and to July 14, 1975.
1
Mayor
Attest:
City i Jerk
1
1