HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/09/1970MINUTES OF-MEETING,
OF CITY COUNCIL
PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
July 9, 1970
Council Meeting Adjourned_meeting.of the Council of the
City.of Petaluma was called to order by
Mayor Putnam at the hour,of 2:30 o'clock
p.m.
Attendance, Present: Councilmen Brainerd, Cavanagh,
Jr:, Joerger,.Mattei, and Mayor
Putnam.
Absent: Councilmen Battaglia and Brun-
ner.
Amend Uniform Ordinance No. 981 N.C.S., amending the
Building Code Uniform Building Code, 1967 Edition, Vol -
Ord. #981 N:C.S. ume I, by amending Section 423 thereof
(second reading) to define value, was introduced by Coun-
cilman Joerger, seconded by Councilman
Brunner, and adopted by 5 affirmative
votes, 2 absentees.
Councilman Brunner
Councilman Brunner.entered the meeting
at 2 :35 o'clock p.m.
Opposing AB.2310
Councilman -unner explained that Assem-
Res . #5515 N.C.S.
bly 'Bill 2310 'proposes 'the . creation of
a regional government authority with
powers,, as opposed to a voluntary organ-
ization such as ABAG, and would essential -
ly"remove local government from local
control. It was noted by the Mayor that
the League of-California Cities and the
Board of Supervisors have declared,oppo-
sition to the Bill. In answer to Coun-
cilman Joerger, Mayor Putnam stated that
ABAG was a :of a group that met con-
cerning the Bill, at which time a statement
of opposition was prepared, but that ABAG
itself has taken.no action this time.
Following some discussion on an amendment
proposed by Councilman Joerger as contained
in his motion; a motion was made by Coun-
cilman Joerger to .amend Paragraph 2 of
the proposed resolution as follows:
"Whereas, the said'Bill authorizes the
establishment of regional government.
board which imposes -.upon this County
another level of government with far-
reaching taxing powers and the right
of eminent domain and other regional
jurisdiction which would be detrimental
to'our City's and County's best interests."
Motion was seconded by Councilman
Cavanagh, Jr. Motion was defeated by
the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Brunner, Cavanagh,
Jr., and Joerger.
NOES: Councilmen Brainerd, Mattei,
and Mayor.Putnam.
ABSENT: Councilman.Battaglia.
e) 4
July 9, 1970
�� Opposing AB 2310
Resolution No. 5515 N.C.S., opposing AB,
Sy Res. #5515 N.C.S.
2310, was introduced by Councilman Brun -.
(continued)
ner, seconded by Councilman: Cavanagh,
Jr., and adopted-by 6 affirmative votes,
1 absentee. Mayor Putnam.directed.the.
_
City Clerk to send a copy,of
tion to the League of California Cities,
Board of Supervisors Association, and
appropriate. State legislators.
Rules & Regulations
Fire Chief Benton explained to the'Coun-
Fire Alarm System
cil that the fire alarm equipment at the
Res. #5516 N.C.S.
main fire-station is being - moderni.zed and
brought up to Pacific Fire Rating Bureau
standards., and'it is recommended that Rules
and Regulations concerning private fire
alarm systems be adopted;.whereupon,. Reso-
lution No. 5516 N.C.S., establishing Rules
and'Regula.tions for private fire alarm sys-
tem in the City o.f 'Pe:
was introduced -by Councilman.Mattei, sec -
onded'by Councilman- Cavanagh, Jr., and
adopted by_6 affirmative votes, l absentee.
Destruction of
Resolution No. N.C.S., directing the
Redeemed Bonds
Treasurer to destroy redeemed bonds and
and Coupons
coupons,-was introduced by Councilman Mat -
Res. #5517 N.C.S.
tei, seconded by Councilman Joerger and
adopted by 6 affirmative votes, 1 absentee..
,Structural
Resolution No. 5518 N.C.S., petiti
Fire Pro'tec'tion
the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County
Res. #5518 N.C.S..
to exempt all levy of taxes for structural
fire protection; was introduced by Coun -.
cilma Brainerd, seconded by Councilman
Joerger, and 'adopted by 6 affirmative
votes, 1 absentee.
Sonoma County.
City ManagerLRobert Meyer explained that
Channel Obstruc-
the proposed legislation authorizes the
tion Ordinance
County to enforce its Channel Obstruction
Res. #551.9 N.C.S.
ordinance within the corporate limits of.
the City of Petaluma; whereupon, Resolu-
tion No. 5519 N.C.S., consenting.to the.
jurisdiction,of the Sonoma,-County Water
Agency in the City of Petaluma, was intro -
duced by Councilman Brainerd;,seconded by
Councilman Joerger, and adopted. by 6 affir-
mative votes, l absentee.
Plan Line -. The subject ordinance was tabled December
E. Washington St. 8, 1969, on a•motion made by.Councilman
from Hopper Street Mattei and seconded by Councilman,Brainerd
to Freeway to July 6, 1970.
Ord. #962 N.C.S.
Director of Public, Work David.Young.
pointed out to-the Council that plan
li "nes .on East Washington Street from
Hopper Street to the Freeway 101 are
not an immediate necessity because of
the following facts:
1
55
1
1
1
July 9, 1970
Plan Lines..-
1 .
Passage of bond issue to construct
E. Washington St.
Caulfield Lane.overcrossing and Street
from Hopper Street
Improvements which relieve traffic
to Freeway 101
on East Washington Street.
Ord. #962 N.C.S..
-
(continued)
2.
Construction of a traffic signal sys-
tem at East-Washington Street and
Payran Street within the next two to
_
three' months .
3.
Establishment of a no parking .zone on
East Washington Street with the
three -lane traffic plan.
4.
The proposed . reconstruction of East
Washington Street from the terminus
of the Washington Street Bridge pro-
ject to Hopper - Street to connect to
the Caulfield Lane Overcrossing,route.
Appeal - Monarch -
Pacific Units 8, 9,
and 10'
Tentative Map
It was also suggested b,y.the City Manager
that the staff be informed to encourage any
development along the.street to honor.Plan
Line..No. A -2 -1 recommended by the:Planning
..Commission.: No action was taken .as .it
was agreed the Council to hold a study
.session to review all details of the matter..
The City..Manager_was requested to schedule
a study session:-after the Budget is final-
ized and after vacation time-,when all staff
members are able.1to be present.
Mayor_Putnam_ opened the hearing of the IST&
appeal.. 'The City,Clerk reported that all
necessary documents have been filed by
the Planning Commission. and the ' appellant
with regard to.the appeal filed with the
Council by Atlantic and Pacific Building
Corporation of Monarch- Pacific Units
9, and 10"Tenta.tive Map Conditions 1A,
1B, 1C and 9 set:forth by the Planning
Commission June.16, 1970.
City Attorney - Robert stated that the law
provides an opportunity for the aggrieved
party to_present-.reasons for Council con -
sideration of deleting the requirements
appealed:
Director of'Public Works David Young _ dis -
cussed the - .requirements involved with
the conditions appealed. The conditions
are as, follows:
Condition ;lA - :Baywood Drive shall be
improved-,as an arterial street, that is,
64 feet _;meas.ured.,between the face of
curbs.,_and shall be constructed from its
conform near St: Francis Drive to Perry
Lane.with. . unit.of development.
The of Baywood Drive shall be
in accordance-'with the preliminary plan
56
July 9, 1970
Mr. Young .pointed out that completion of
Baywood Drive is d°esi "rable with the first
phase..of development in order to assure
construction of the street as a direct
route from South McDowell Boulevard to
-the Lakeville Interchange and. -in order I
to eliminate traffic problems in the area
_The ten ative map of Monarch Pad f.ic Units
8_ . 9 , and 10 .was , displayed to illustrate
the,..f acts. presented. Assistant. Planning
Director Andy,Anderson assisted in the pre-
sentation.
Mr. Arthur_.Laf.ranchi, attorney represent-
in' ..the appel -lant, appeared before the
Council to present evidence supporting_
the appeal. The reasons for the appeal
were reviewed by Mr. Laf;ranchi:
Condition lA - .Atlantic and Pacific.Corpor-
ation is interested in developing.Unit 8
.at.this time as the balance of the property
is under consideration by the City staff in
regard to zoning. It was pointed out that
it would be. economically unfeasible to.con-
struct.Baywood.Drive (which iswell- removed
- fro.m_the. proposed 39 lots in Unit 8) as re-
quired because the approximate construction
- cost of $.150, 000., would be prohibitive to
spread over 39 homes.
Cond - ition 1B - This parcel of land is not
owned .by Atlantic and Pacific Corporation
and it is 'impossible to guarantee the ac-
quis,ition of,the property.
Condition 1C.- It'would be unfair to require
the provision of a stub street to the lands
of "Wood and Little" as it would be.of no
benefit to Atlantic and Pacific Corporation
but only to'another land owner.
�V Appeal.-
which was submitted to and approved by the
Monarch-Pacific
g�
-Division of Highways regarding the right
Units 8, 9, & . 1.0
angle:-intersection of Baywood. Drive with
Tentative Map..
....Lakeville.Hig4way..
(continued)
Condition 1B,- The developer shall provide
additional rights -of -way across the parcel
shown-as the Lands of.Perry which fronts
on Perry.,Lane.
Condition 1C.- A street opening shall be
provided across Lot 72 which provides an
access to the remaining lands.of - "Wood and
Little ". -and also- provides a storm drain
easement. - into.. t_he, ;old Adobe School District.
Condition.9 - Since:.the tentative map.in-
cludes a multiplicity of various zoning
districts, the following shall apply:
prior the-recordation of any-unt of•
the proposed tentative map, all zoning
being requested by the subdivider shall
be approved, and adopted by the City Coun-
cil.
Mr. Young .pointed out that completion of
Baywood Drive is d°esi "rable with the first
phase..of development in order to assure
construction of the street as a direct
route from South McDowell Boulevard to
-the Lakeville Interchange and. -in order I
to eliminate traffic problems in the area
_The ten ative map of Monarch Pad f.ic Units
8_ . 9 , and 10 .was , displayed to illustrate
the,..f acts. presented. Assistant. Planning
Director Andy,Anderson assisted in the pre-
sentation.
Mr. Arthur_.Laf.ranchi, attorney represent-
in' ..the appel -lant, appeared before the
Council to present evidence supporting_
the appeal. The reasons for the appeal
were reviewed by Mr. Laf;ranchi:
Condition lA - .Atlantic and Pacific.Corpor-
ation is interested in developing.Unit 8
.at.this time as the balance of the property
is under consideration by the City staff in
regard to zoning. It was pointed out that
it would be. economically unfeasible to.con-
struct.Baywood.Drive (which iswell- removed
- fro.m_the. proposed 39 lots in Unit 8) as re-
quired because the approximate construction
- cost of $.150, 000., would be prohibitive to
spread over 39 homes.
Cond - ition 1B - This parcel of land is not
owned .by Atlantic and Pacific Corporation
and it is 'impossible to guarantee the ac-
quis,ition of,the property.
Condition 1C.- It'would be unfair to require
the provision of a stub street to the lands
of "Wood and Little" as it would be.of no
benefit to Atlantic and Pacific Corporation
but only to'another land owner.
July 9, 1970
J
Appeal -
Monarch- Pacific
Units. 8, 9, -& 10
Tentative Map
(continued)
5`
Condition 9 - This is- considered an unfair
condition because it is the developer's. �g°D!10 6
desire- to 'st-art - development of Unit 8 in
order`to have sufficient funds the
sale of-the houses.- to`help defer the in-
stallation costs of Baywood Drive, which
the.developer is willing to complete
obtaining final approval of, the zoning of
the balance-of'-the property. Construction
would start'immediately,but not on seven
lots�until such time as the zoning was af-
firmed either for a mobile home park or
single 'family on the adjoining land immed-
iately southwest Unit 8.
Mr .'Ron- Simpkins of MacKay and.Somps,
Enq- ihe6Yr for the developer, showed slides
of the area to describe the points of
objection.
Also -present.to discuss details of the
appeal were'two representatives of Atlan-
tic and - Paci�f c' - Corpo'ration - Mr. Walter
Williams; Vice - President, and Mr. James
Luis, Controller.
Mr. Larry Bernauer, 842 St. Francis
Drive, addressed Council and stated
that a group of.home owners representing
Monarch Homes and Directors of the East
Petaluma Civic Association met with the
Atlantic and Pacific Corpora -tion last
night to discuss the subject tentative
map: Mr. Bernauer said this group fav
ored approval of the tentative map for
Unit 8` without the restruction of con -.
structing Baywood Drive at this time and
that-this group also felt the developer
is being-fair by offering several lots
to the City -for a small -park area in lieu
of the bedroom tax funds. Mr. Ed Smith,
804 Mdple-Drive, -who attended the meeting
last night, also expressed the same opinion.
It was poin -ted out by Councilman Cavanagh,
Jr., that' it is uncertain whether the City
has funds to purchase the park site.
Upon I conclusion of the presentation, Mr.
Lafranchi requested the Council to uphold
the subject to the condition that
until the matter of rezoning is decided,
the developer not be allowed to construct
on those lots be used as two stub
streets-in the.event mobile home park
zoning-is not approved and a single - family
area is developed to the southwest.of Unit
4 8 .
-Fol'lowing -a lengthy.discussion, it was the
decision of the Council to further explore
and study the matter for action at an ad-
journed meeting on Monday, July 13, 1970.
e�
r
July 9, 1970
Agenda Consideration of.the 1970 -1971 Budget.,
the Water Commission and Plannin,g'Com-
mission,appointments were not considered..
Adjournment There b_eing.no. further business to come
before the - ..Council, the meeting.was ad-
journed-at 5.:40 o'clock p.m. to an .exe - cu-
tive .session and to Monday, July 13,
1970 at •7::3.0 - o'_cl.ock p.m.
Mayor
Attes
City C erk
I -
I