HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 9187 N.C.S. 06/01/1981• PLK::ad 3-;31~-8Q.
ti '
. _...
' Resolution No 918 I~1. ~: S. _ .
- .~ ~ of the Criy of Petalt,~rna, Cal~foma .
RESOLUTION ~,APP,ROVING' ' TENTATIVE.SUB'DIVISI`ON MAP FOR
SPRING~'MEADOW-." aJN17S~ I'L and'~`II°I' SUBDI,VI-SI'OP~
.. ~ ~ ~ -
~ ,> -
~WH'ERfAS, MCBAIL._COMPANY a owner(s) a,nd Sub- ,~
d`vi'der(~s) have f`i l ed with ,this Counc'i l a ten.ta~ti'v.e map proposi n.g ao: subdi vi de 1 and'
. _ ; . --
~~~ ~ within this Cray ao be known as SPRING' MEADOW;, UNITS h:I, AND: II`I',
.. ~.
~S'ubdivision, and bane paid:a.l;l ,req.u:ir.e'd~f.l°ing fees;;and,,= ~ -
. ~
;_ ~WH'fREAS,• the Girt En ine:e,r, the Director of'.Plann;:ng, 'the S'o-noma. County'
~ y g ~ -
~_ .
'l~laaer Agency, anal`the! P1anni~ng Comm~ssio.n ha~:e~:examined an=d-"re;view,ed the same.°as '
.~ ' ~ .require;d .by law and all repoats;', re'commen,da`ti"ons, and. .comments .thereon have b:e;en
.fortivarded ao apd consi dered~ by fhis. Counci l at i~.ts meeting held- on _ - ,
,J une: l ~ 19 8`l
.
,..
. ' ~ 'NOW', THEREFQRE, BE hT RES;OLVE°p' fha thin Coun'ci 1 'he reb:y finds a;s follows
l.: The proposed su6d~vsion; togexther~wth provis;ons~for 'its design-.and
a`nd im r` `~ _„
p ,owement, is consisa'ent wah the General" =Plan. ~; ., ~.
~. ~2. ~ The proposed subdivision i compati~b`l.e-wiah fh"e ob-jecti"Ves, po]icies_, '
general, hand. uses, :and programs spe`ci`fied in s"a"id "General~:Fla<n. "
'3: The-. site is phys~cal'l,y' s',utable fo=r the type of~ development proposed.
E .
_ 4. The site is physical°ly s,uitabl:e:.for the~propo' ed .density o - development..
. .
5. `'The,. design of",the Subd:iyision and the .propo~se.d:i;mproyements therefor`
' will no,tp cause substanti.aJ env.i,~ronmental .damage, and': no substantial- or avoi dabl e
i'n ur w~i1T occur to fish or w.i1~
j' y dl i fey or. ~thei r hab.i ta:t..
~6". The design of the Subdivision and :fhe type of..mproverrents will. not - `~
cause 'se~ ions public 'health problems: ~ ...
,~.
7. The design of the Sub;di`vis:ion a_nd the type .of~. imp'ro:vement proposed'
. ,
will not conflict with° easements, ac u red 6
.. q, y the p'ub'] is at 1 arge, for access
th;ro:ugh or _u~se "of p-roperty within the proposed sub;d~i"vision: ._ ;~
- ,~ 8. : 'The di scharge o~f wasat'e from" the :pro:pose:d subd~ v~ s i;on into, the
' ~ ex'i s3tin;g communi ty' newer system. w.i`l l not result, in .v:i~`ol ataon ,o~f they ex~"s''t n.g
~r.e,qui cements pres.cr~bed by ~ the Re:g,i oral Glater •~Qua.l i ty Contro`1 ,Eoard'.. ~ -'
,_ -
,.
,:'~ ~
- ~
~ - _
_.
- .
- ~~ _ ~ .
- . ..
-. ~ ~ •, ~ ,
Res o;. ~ 9 L'•87 - ,1 ~ "~
Tenta~t~ive• Map Res;: PLK:ad~
~` r nevi e.d • 11/'80' •
. ,
1 BE 'IT FURTHER RESOL''UED;, b~a'sed'•o.n~'"the findings se.t forth .above; that the.
. above G,referre,d to tenta.ti ve map:, be and the same ~ is hereby,- approved as ~ di agramrned
i ~ -
• ~ in and sub"ect~,to the condition`s 'set, f..orth in Exhi'bi`t "A"' attached hereto. and'
in'corpo'rated iereinas i'f` fully' set forth.
.,
I •
I ,
I ~ _ -
~ - _ .
. i -
' i
•.
I
' I - _
• 1
I
.1
I
~.
I
. j i
1
' ~ -
I
l '
'Under:: the power and;,;autlioritw coriferred, upon this Council by ,the "Charter: of said-.City..
• I herebg. certify the. foce;oina:,Resolution was introduced and' adopted by tine
`;
j .. Council of the Cit"y of ;Petalurna at a (Regular) (~LdZj~ttXr~Q~XQ6~.Ac1C~ meeting
,,
a
on the f l:rsa...:.._. dagYof .............~.U11E.................. ......:.:, 19.....8. by the
~ folltiwing vote: '
I
I
AYES: ~ , ~ „ • _ ,
1PERRY, H'ARB N, BOND;, BATTAGLIA, BALSHAW,~"CAVANAGH, MAYOR
•
. NOES:' '_ i NONE _ ~ - '
. _... :_ y
.. ,,.
ABSENT: - ...r• _ • ,
' INO,,E .
.;
• _ -. -_ -
ATTEST':
.......
. .: y Clerk• _ Ivfayor ............
- 203 02
COUNCIL FILE-~_ -
' FARM>CAs2'1/,80 ~ ..o_~ ni.: 4 ~ ~ - ~ ' .
_.
,. .: -
~ r
,-
• A _
..~,; SPR'ING M-EADO~JS TENT%ATIVE?. MAP,.~CONDYITIONS ~-FO,R UN'.TTS II,_AND I°,II ~:. ,
.
z
~~
." ~
t ~
i
•
-. - ~
.1.;
s. ~ - _ • •
, • . - ~.
Exec_ute av=i th C''ty, a~ bi nd~~iing agreement f.or provi s iron of; :30 unii ts`
•~ • of ,moderate cost ho.u ~ ng :Rpri or to~ Final' Map approval or al te:rnate. .:
• ' . ~ ~ ~ p~rovi si on~a• agreed to by developer:: - • ••
-
- ~~•: ~
2^ -, ~ , ...
$..
: • See: ~add~ t-.on~a1: cond-.ti_on listed on ~.~ ty,''Engineer Letter dated •. ••
,
• ••.
€ May 7; 1981 _ ~ • • •
•
-
• ~ 3 . .. •
,:•Al1 • i4gni'ng, st~ripin`g andi• street painting to be responsi;:bi li~ty
• - per•p.er approval of Gity Engineer an;d Pub~l•ic:Works - ~ _:.
of dev,elao
,. ~
- _
• ,
. Sup.eri n t:en,dena~ s „ . -
9
- •
~
• 9
f
t
,
i
a
i
~~
•
'
n
.
4:
. orm
nce
o.
nage desi
.gn to be
n con
: Al
;d storm dra
l
grad~
,n.g a
-
.
- " ;, ~
- - _
Son'oma County Water.:~gency des~a,gn cr~te'ra. r -
- .
.' .' •"~ !5:• As proposed by deve'~l•oper;n the al:lotmen~t req;uest,~°_landscapi•n;g• •
; - ~ ; ands fencing sh`a`ll, be p,rov~ ded ,for a.l l units.
_
,;, -.
~. ~o '_Provide a~mec.haniEsm :for maintenance,.of landscaping°'and ~rriga~tion,:= _ -
_
~~ ; ;. _ - ": = system i'~n~'creek are'a~ an•d,bus~. s_to a;rea~,--~to° bee: a roved b Ci;t _. •
p P p, Y Y ~:.-
- ~~ ~~ ~ ~ •
' ~Eng-ineer~%C~ty~/~'ttorney prior `t~o Final Ma;~ app;roveal - -
•-~
` '~ _
r - j
~
.
- y
-
., ~
.
" i
,. .
..-
_ ~ ,-
..r
- y _
..
_ . .
. -
-
:. w ,
V
.• {I a
~.
~
~
. , r _,; f
~~
• ~ v ~ _ _
~ ..
.
'
,
..
-
-.. { ~
!.
.~
.
~
-
': _; • .
~ ,
.. ..
x, - ~
i'~
~ _ - ;,' .- .Pe'so, 9187. ' ~ ErXH;I•BIT A'a._-. page 1 o f ~•2: - •
1
CITY O F P E TA L U M A, Cali f ornict
P~ O. 130X 61, 94953 o I 1 ENGLISII STKEET a (707) 763-2613
Petaluma Planning Commission
city Hall
Pe aluma, CA 94952
May ~ , 19 81
Attention: Mr. Gregory C. Freitas, Planning Director
Subject: Tentative Map
Spring Meadows Subdivision Units No. 2, 3 and 4
Dear Commissioners:
Seca ion 20.16.420 of the Subdivision Ordinance specifies that the City
Engineer shall prepare a written report of recommendations on the Tentative
Map in relation to .the Public Improvement requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance and the provisions of the Map Act.
1. The proposed bridge crossing of the East Washington Creek should be
built to the full width including sidewalks on either side. The creek
channel should be improved to the limits of the existing property
which would include the proposed urban separator area.
~; 2. If the maps are intended to be filed in sequence, the improvements
across Caulfield Lane and Garfield Drive shown as portions of Unit 4
should be built in conjunction with the improvement plans for Unit 3.
3. The typical section for Garfield Drive should show the adjoining drainage
ditch northeasterly of Garfield.
4. Prior to the complete build-out of these projects, a re-evaluation
of the signal need at the intersection of Ely Blvd. So. at Caulfield
should be made.
Very truly yours,
~ ~ ~~-~ i,~t~
Thomas S. Hargis v
City Engineer
TSH/pf
cc: CE
ACE
CEA
File
%~ The Planning Commission recommended deletion of Recommendation
~t2 at their meeting of May 12, 1981.
g
Reno. 9187 EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 2