The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 10/10/1972MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PETALrUMA, October - 10, 1:9'72 Council Meeting Adjourned meeting of the Council of the City - of Petaluma.was called to order by Mayor Putnam at-the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. Attendance Present: Councilmen Brunner, Cavanagh, Jr., Daly,'Mattei, Perry, Jr., and Mayor`Putnam.•. Absent: Councilman Clecak. CONSENT CALENDAR Upon :a motion made by Councilman Mattei and seconded by Councilman Perry, Jr., Agenda Items #1., #2, and #3 on the Consent Calendar .were approved by 6 a- f and 1 abs.entee .'votes Agenda Item #1 Resolution #6146 N.C.S. amending Resolution &Ar Employees' Com #4637 - N.C : .S'. a,s amended by Resolution #.4877 pensation Re, N.;C.S.- by'amending,Rule II by adding;Sed.tion Sick Leave and 4 to- General Provisions, adding Sections 3,•4, Vacation and*5 to:Rule V relating to.compensaton and Res #6146 NCS amending Rule XI, Sections 2 and 7 relating to sick leave and-vac,ations. Agenda Item #2 Resolution #6147 N.C..S. amending Resolution 17$r Classification #6118 to amend the classification -plan as to For Water Pollu- the duties'and educational requirements for tion Control the position' -o,f Water-Pollution control Superin- Superintenaent tendent and establishing a salary range therefore. Res #6147 NCS Agenda Item #3 Resolution #, 6148- N.C:,S.- declaring police reserves Police Reserves -- to.be regular employees of. the City of Petaluma. Regular City Employees Res #6148 NCS Appeal-- Rezone 817, City Attorney Robert addressed the Council re- S 53 F 821,,82'5, and 829 East questing a.motion be•made to hold Agenda Items Washington Street #4, and #9 in abeyance until questions.caused Ord. #1066 NCS by .the_ Court decision in Friends vs Mono. County are answered.. The suit was based on the California Environmental Quality Act ; of 1970. This Act requires an environmental impact report on any project that might have "a signifi- cant ,effect on..the environment . " He explained that a project ; may -'be stopped until a report is submitted and approved.by, a legislative body (if-said project was reported to have a signi- ficant effect on the environment). He attended a meeting of the Sonoma County City Attorneys and reported -they had not arrived at any conclusions as to how cities should proceed, who would be held.legal -ly responsible, what guide- lines should be followed relative - to - approval�,of projects, and at what.point in the building pro - cedure-- building °or rezoning - -is a report required. He'alao.point.ed. out that information required in an environmental impact.report and what projects .will need a report is uncertain. The City Attorney believes a report -will be needed for any change, in zoning such as a low intensity to a high intensity use and for "projects. "., October 10, 1972 Appeal--Rezone 817,; Supervisor Jo'erger ,reported on the Board of 821;• 825, and 82.9 East, Supervisors' •actions since the Superior Court' Washington Street decision.• He commented on the Boa =rd`s approval Ord. #1066 NCS of- re.zonings.in the.County with the County (continued) Counsel''s presence at their last meeting. The matter was discussed extensively and.many questio.ns.were' directed to City. Attorney. Robert . regarding the City" sr' legal posit -io_n - if .it pro - ceeded to •act in. a ,normal manner :until the present situatioh •is clarified •and - the'- consequences if the Court de'c1s= on. were' ignored <. The -: following, members 'of .the audience spoke in opposit.ioni�to.�any, vd -elay in the Couricil"s- taking action on 'Agenda ,Items #4 and 0 and the effect of delay concernn•g.,their interests: Mr. Ernest Curtis, Jr., 1277 Ely'Road", Mr.. Norman Rollins, Petaluma realtor'and developer Mr. Barry Inc , Mr . Stuart Curtis , : 21 After further discuss,ion:a motion was-made by Councilman Brunner, seconded by'Counc.ilman Perry, Jr,, to dis.regard.the City Attorney's recommendation to hold:in abeyance Agenda'. Items #4 and #9 and to proceed. with Agenda Item #4 The mot -on was approved by 4.affirma- tive; Z negative; and I absentee votes. Council- man Mattei and Mayor`•Putnam voted,. "No. NOTE: 30(1 F Appointments- R'e - Sonoma County ..Water. Agency Res # N "CS representing Foodmaker, Alma Court. Ordinance #`1066 N..C.'S.. amending Zoning ,Ordinance #6'62 N.C'.,S. by rezoning A'ssessor's 'Piar,ce1 #7- 022 -29_, # -33, 4-37 and the southerly 130 feet of Assessor's Parcel #7-022 -49 (817; 821, 825;., _8r29.East Washington Street) from: R =M -1500 (Multi - Family Residential) District to C -N (Neighborhood Commercial)_ Distr-icct, was intro - duced" by! Councilman Jr.,, seconded. by' Councilman Dar'ly,:a_n_d ordered,pu'blished by 6 af ve , a . l absentee votes. PlanningrCom miss ion Resolution #Z14 -72 recom- men.din'g � den-ial. -cif the application of Ernest Curtis -to rezone 817, 821, 825 a_nd 829 ;East Washington Street an •R - 150'0 'bistrict to a 'C -N Dis,tri-ct :was .overruled when Ordinance #1.066 N.C.S: was introduced and seconded and . an appeal was then unnecessary. ' City' Robert Meyer explained the introduction and second in effect,, took the place of an. appeal of the.Planning'Commission's decision. He'in- formed •'the Counci1 that a hearing will - be held when -Ordinance #.1066 N.C.S'. ds. to be on the agenda -f,or .adoption,,October 24, 1972. Resolution #'6`14 -9,. N,C.S..: appointing persons to committees of -the Sonoma County Water Agency was infroduced,by Councilman Cavanagh, Jr:, seconded'by Counclilman Perry, :Jr., and adopted by 6 'a:f f ir-mat ve 'and l' - absentee votes 1 1 .o October 2:4, 1972 Appointments - -Re Sonoma . County_, Water. Agency Res #6149. NCS (continued) Agenda ®1 The:ap:point:ees,and their respectIv.e committees .are as ;follows: -Carty Engi.nee.r David A.. Young, Water Utility Engineering Advisory Committee to the Sonoma County Water Agency. City. Attorney .Edouard. E. Robert, . Water Utility Legal Contract Advisory Committee to the ..Sonoma County Wa.,ter- Agency . ' - Councilman Pred V. Mattei, Water Utility Policy Advisory Committee to'the Sonoma County .Water - Agency. City Manager Meyer asked the Council to 691 V consider a- resolution.es- tablishing guidelines for the issuance of building permits until,need for environmental impact reports is clarified. He adv -ised the 'touric 1 oaf a .temporary .halt in issuance of building permits since last Thursday until the Council could meet and take formal legislative action. City- ; Attorney..Rgbert explained the of the resolution-was to estab'lish.guidelines by - listing those -projects that would not require an environmental impact report. Planning.rirector William McGivern expressed. concern for lack of direction for proceeding and urged - ; the- ,Co:uncil ,to establish adequate guidelines before _the,Planning�Commission- met on October.17, 1972. Of the two agenda items to be contemplated at said meeting,. one could ,have -an. environmental impact on the area involved. Mr Jim knuthson representing Camille Enter- . prises,-urged the Council to make a decision tonight regardingbuilding permit issuance, He,explained his company's project has been financed and has been.waiting for building per- mits for two weeks: Mr. Larry Venturi,.repre- senting Go.lden.West Savings and:Loan Association, also - asked * the- Council - to clarif what an environ- mental impact- report.is and what project -s would require such -a report. - City Attorney - Robert -re.iterated by declaring no one is.certain,at.this time to what the ..gudel.ines are and what-is required. The League o:f.California Cities -will be meeting next week to , explore the-implications of . the Environmental Qual ty' Control Act 1970 and the Supreme Court' decision. Supervisor •,Jo .erger informed the Council that the Board of Supervisors established some guide- lnes•,for. the County - :Planning 1 De;partment opera'- tons but re,served.the -right to determine., what projects will require environmental impact reports. After- f- urther discussion a motion was made by Councilman�Mattei;.second`ed by Mayor..Putnam, to add a.resolution,esaablishing guidelines for the Building Department for issuing building /n October 24, 1972 Agenda permits to the Council. Agenda..- The motion (continued.) failed affirmative, 3 negative, and 1 absentee votes;. Councilmen Brunner., Cavanagh; Jr . , Land, ,Peary., "Jr ..:' ..voted "No." Th Gity Ma- nage`r ; sked the Council to make a motion... regarding _a building permits; whereupon; . a motion-was-made Councilman Brunner, sec'- ys.. ond'ed •;by 'Councilman . Per , Jr .- , authorizing_ the Bui,ld•ing - Department to issue , all building. permit requests ., ' The motion , was- passed , by ' 4 aff- i- .rmativd, 2 ,ne,gAtive,, and 1 absentee votes. Mayor'Putnam and:C'ouncilma-n Matted voted "No." ),37V Knickerbocker Fire Chief Joe Ellwood reported on the history Hand Pumper #1 of Knickerbocker Hand Pumper #1 and an'offer Restoration from'the Sierra•.�Conserwation;Center, a State Project correctional facility, to restore the pumper. He asked for. authorization to use the..$4.0:0 :. . budgeted-,for this project and to- contribute surplus - brass to• bb used for ornaments; as. a part of•the restoration. A motion .was made by Councilman Cavanagh, Jr., seconded by Councilman Perry,, Jr. the City Atao - rhey. "to prepare, an agreement for the r•estoration'of . the pumper -by the Sierra Conservation Center. The motion.was passed by 6'affirmative; and 1 absentee votes. The Mayor , expresse' _ .,h'ope of, having the pumper exhibited during Petaluma's of our Country's bicentennial celebration.. East Washington Ordinance. #'10:67 N.C.S. pr.ecis'e Plan lines- var certain .proper.ty-for the re- • Lakeville to. Pervaton of future . right- of-way for the„ 0 ' . ' S..101-Freeway proposed realignment of a portion of East,., Ord #1-0'67 ..NCS ' Washington Street;. . from Lakeville Street to U.S Freeway.,; was introduced by Councilman Perry., Jr.:; seconded.by_ Councilman Daly, and ordered published by 6 affirmative and 1 absentee votes. 2 ) 49,, F .Rezoning--833 8,37, Counc-ilman Mattel commented on the traffic and 841 East problem in- proposed area- The Washington Street matter" was discussed and it was concluded that Ord #10,65 NCS the - problem will be •investigated. when the site (Second Reading) design is reviewed.. Following' the •discuss. on Ordinance 410 6,.5' U -C . S . •amend 'Zoning . ordinance • #66;2 N: - C.S. by "rezon•ing "Assessor's Parcels - #7- 022; - = 1.0; #"118,; (8.33:,, 837, 8`4:1 East Washing- ton stree,t): from an R=4-15 (:Mu�l.t i= Family ReSldell= tlad D]_`str.ict to C -N (- N,e.igI- orhood - Commer-.cial) - bi, trict, was introduce -d by Council - ,ma`n Daly, ,s!ec6 ded, by Co;unc,ilman Perry, Jr. , and adopted by ; .6' affirmative and 1 absentee vo;te's'. " .Reque :st , f,or Cityt-Ma'na -g.er 'Robert .Meyer referred to letter , Deviation -- dated October .5�,- 19,T'2 •,f:rom. David -..C. Traversi, Magnolia :Avenue. attorney .represent `f g Paul ':Ciampi, in which Plan. Lines, -_ -Mr. Ciampi proposed to-move the b,u.ilding located at 2 °0i •Nagnoli a `A4venue to the, ream of the. property - dedicate 22 feet 'along the front of his property, f'o -r Iuture widen - Magnolia Avenue, and con -' sxtzuc curb, gutter, and one =half, ,of the street along th-e, front of the property i,f the City will contribute $2 ,,0,00: towards., the project. 1 0 J October 2A, 1972 Request for Mr. Traversi requested the Council also agree . Deviation-- - to._the, proposal subject to the. approved site Magnolia - Avenue de'sign.not .having:to.be resubmitted the P1an.Lines Planning.Commission-before the structure is (continued) moved. He explained any delay may cause dif- ficulty in relocating the structure due -to weather .conditions. Pla nning Director NlcGivern suggested, - if the proposal is approved, a condi- tion be .included all applicable setback requirements are met:. Following a brief discussion a motion was made by Councilman seconded'by Councilman Matte.i, directing the- City Attorney to. prepare the necessary legislation for Council considera- - tion.. Motion passed' by 6 affirmative votes, .1 - - ^� absentee. Appointments - -. The Mayor explained the procedure followed forbeo F Residential the drawing of'committee appointees and how Development -. the final names were se,lected,. The applicants Evaluation Board were contacted by the Mayor to determine their interest in serving on.said committee. The .following: `people: were appointed to the Residential - •Development - Evaluation Board: City Council: Richard W._Clecak and John W.;. Cavanagh , .Jr ., Planning Commission; Lester "Budd" Popp and Mervin S., Waters. Business or Professional: East- -Vince DeGregory; West -- George Geiger; Central - -Mario Figone. Petaluma Elementary School: Robert Stimson..l._ Old. Adobe Union School District.: Bob Renaldo. Cinnabar School District:. Himmie Barlas. St. Vincent School System: Irene Chambers. Demoliti•on%Remova.l of Buildings -- 30 3.. Post Street Res # 150 :_Citizens at Large: East - - Lee Lbf ton' and Jim Harberson; Wesi - -Dona Cook and Fred Zurth Central=- Miss,Margaret Soberanes and Mr's. Ch-r -is Hendricks - h. The Council investigated the.possibility " - of 5 F rehabilitating the subject structure to bring it up to code.standards.; however, after reviewing bids received Se 1972, for demolition and rehabilitation "c'os'ts of said building, it was . decided to - demolisPi the ;building'. .After further dis cuss:. on,: .Resolution #6151 N.C.S. award -ing contract to the lowest responsible bid- der',' F. G; Mi'llerick, 5375,LOne Pine Road, Sebastopol, for the "Demolition and Removal of Buildings - - Project 303 Post Street, at a cost of $1,30'0, was introduced by Councilman Brunner, seconded by Councilman Perry, and adopted by 4 affirmative, 2 negative, and 1 absentee votes. Councilmen Cavanagh,.Jr., and Daly voted "Nb._ (The resolution was defeated by a 3°-3 vote, but. Councilman Brunner requested. his vote be changed from a "No" to a "Yes" vote.-) - 200 October 24, 1972 Adjournment There ~being no.further,business to come before the Council; the meeting Was .adjourned,to an executive session at 10:20 o:'clock.p.m. Mayor Attest: putt' Ci y Clerk 1 1