Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 03/07/1977MINUTES OF MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MARCH 7, 1977 REGULAR MEETING' ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF.MINUTES The Regular Meeting,of the Petaluma City Council was called to order by-Vice- Mayor Robert Brunner at the hour of 7 :33 pm. Absent: Councilman Hilligoss and Mayor Putnam. Present: Councilmen Cavanagh, Harberson„ Mattei, Perry *', and Vice Mayor *Councilman Perry arrive d.at 7:35 p.m. The Minutes of February 14,. 107; were approved as mailed. CONSENT CALENDAR Items 4; 5, and 7 were briefly discussed before a motion was made.b:y Councilman Mattel and seconded by Councilman Perry to adopt the resolutions on the Con— sent Calendar and.file the letter. Motion carried unanimously. Agenda Item #1 AUTHORIZE CONSENT, TO COMMON USE AGREEMENT -- P.G. &E. RES. #7680 NCS Agenda Item #2 AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT FOR KELLER PARCEL MAP RES 47681 NCS Resolution #7680 N.C.S. authorizing Mayor to sign a consent to-common use agreement with Pacific Gas & Fc�� Electrie..'Company and (Novak'Drive:and Lucchesi Park) was adopted. . Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Parcel Map Agreement.(Lands of D.P. and Eva L. Keller - Parcel F / 9 r l Map. #113) was. adopted.. Agenda Item #3 - Resolution 467682 N.G.S.,approving the agreement for APPROVE AGREEENT: preparation and submission of Environmental Impact r_;_0 TO PREPARE EIR Report. re Lands of .Lavio (approximately 75 acres lo- LANDS OF LAVIO cated southwest of Westrdge Unit 461 along "I" Street) RES #7682 NCS to'be prepared by Don Laidlaw & Associates. Agenda Item #4 AUTHORIZE ABAG.TO APPLY FOR HOUSING ASSISTANCE BEHALF OF CITY RES 47683 NCS Agenda Item 465 ESTABLISH POLICY. REGARDING ADVER TISING. ON CITY -BUSES RES 467:684 NCS Agenda. Item 466 ACCEPT COMPLETION- - WESTRIDGE. SUBDIVISION -UNIT 462 RES 467685 NCS Agendas Item 467 LETTER - -PUC . MODIFYING DECISION #81017 Resolution 467683 N.C.S. endorsing.and supporting the F66 / a 6 regional housing subsidiary distribution and authori. .zing the Association of Bay Area Government's to apply for Federal Housing and Assistance on behalf of the City of Petaluma was adopted. Resolution 46768.4 N.C.S. establishing a policy for ad- F�3 Vervising on City buses was adopted. !� Resolution .46.76$'5- N.C.,.S. accepting completion of work 4 required `in Westridge Subdivision Unit 462 was adopted. 565 Letter from Public Utlli Commission, State of r . Cali fornia,•dated February 28, 1977, addressed to the F(�& :City Council•outlining•modificatiohs to PUC decision 468701,7 regarding swimming pool heating was ordered March 7, 1977' 3 0 F 555 PUBLIC HEARINGS -- The rules of the procedure for the.Public Hearing.on BAYWOODiSHOPPING the appeals filed by Mrs. Susan Berg and Mr. Dennis L. CENTER--DENY APPEAL Bryant regarding the Negative Declaration filed by the 1, 197';7, the DECLARATION Batwooda ;ShoaninngCenterswere,reviewedy y pp' g by Vice =Mayor RES' #76'86. NCS Brunner prior to opening the Public Hearing,: Vice- Mayor Brunner asked the City Clerk to report on any communications received on the Negative Declaration,. A formal and timely appeal had been' filed by Mrs. Susan R. Berg as well as Dennis L. Bryant;. The Clerk reported numerous. appeals or complaints had been received by the City Clerk which were not received in time to be valid appeals. All correspondence: had been acknowledged by the City Clerk. In addition, 'prior to the beginning the meeting,: several petitions had been handed to the Clerk which did not relate to the Negative Declaration. The following documents relating to the public hearings were distributed to the members of the City Council and filed with the City Clerk: Staff report, December '16, 197:6,, from Planning Department— to,. Planning Commis- sion; excerpts of: Planning Commission minutes of December 2l, 1976.; Tra °f•fic Analysis Baywood -Shopping Center_, Petaluma, California, January 1977, prepared by John J. For:ristal, Consulting Traffic Engineer, Oakland:, California.', ex- cerpts of Planning 'Commission minutes of February 1;, 1977; -, Planning Commission Resolution No. U 18 -76 adopted .February -1„ 1977; .and, ; No c.e of Negative Decla- ration determined by the Planning Commission, February 1, 19'T7. Testimony of the Planning Director. Planning Director Ronald Hall located the subject, property as being near the Lakeville Highway fronting on Baywood Drive and near.S't: .Francis Way, which are arterial and collector street's respect= ively, The ;zoning for the property is highway' commercial and required a con _ _ ditional use „permit before the shopping center can be, developed. Two prior shopping centers had been approved for the location through the use permit provisions. The proposed shopping center would contain-82, square feet, include Payless Dr;ug,Store a Payless Nursury'and a Fry's Supermarket.. By means of ,the,viewfoil, Mr. Hall indicated the configuration.of the buildings on the site for two schemes, i.e., Scheme A and Scheme C. The•ste.conf°i:guration was considered under the environmental review. Potential adverse impacts were considered, such as traffic, noise, and lighting, on the nearby residences, as well as air ,pollution impact and compatib- ility. The Planning staff recommended the Planning Commis -on make •findings f;or a Negative.. Declaration on mitigation measures recommended by staff, the •fact no -adverse comments were received °from reviewing`agenc'ies, and also that two shopping centers of comparable size had previously been approved for the site-. There 'was a brief discu - ssion regard - ing the history of the locaa_ion-- 'regarding the highway commercial zoning designation.. It was pointed out 'the•ar'ea had been designated a .commercial district in the G'eneral'Plan,in 196.2.: Testimony of ,Appellants Mrs. Susan Berg spoke to the Council indi.,ca she =was aware;of' the fact the area was zoned commercial: However, the residents were led. to believe a shopping center would, be a small neighborhood -type center. There were a number of people at the Planning, Commission meeting•;who voiced considerable dissent to the larger shopping center being proposed. Mrs. Berg -indicated ithe Payless. Drug 'Store and the Fry's ' .Marke`t: would be dependent upon highway traffic for business, not the neighborhood. She expressed concern regarding `traffic problems which would be created on Baywood Drive:.. She also stated 'the •1962 General Plan designates the area, , as , service and thoroughfare, retail, And of -fce; and she asked how this designation compares with highway commercial. Planning Director Ronald Hall indicated it is compatible and means the same as highway commercial. Mrs. Berg. indicated a statement had been made that the increase in traffic would no;t be.very high, but she also felt if the traffic did not increase, the shopping center could not survive. Other measures which -she objected to were the noise and lighting facaors.. She T elt'the light- ing was one of the problems which° couldbe; subdued; however, the noise and traffic would be- problems with which the residents would 'be unable to cope. Mr. Dennis L. Bryant who had appealed the. shopping center spoke to the Council. Mr. Bryant stated he felt the Planning Commission had „'been misled when they de;termined Negative Declaration” appropriate. At the `Planning Commission.meeting., the developer tAtima;ted' the center would be a neighborhood Mauch 7, 1977 PUBLIC HEARINGS-- shopping center; whereas, at.- the site design review BAYWOOD.'SHOPPING meeting, it was revealed,to be a regional shopping CENTER-- DENY,APPEAL center to draw customers from Novato all the way'to REGARDING NEGATIVE Santa Rosa. Bryant pointed out California Law DECLARATION indicates all local agencies shall prepare cause to RES * #768;6_NCS be prepared.an Environmental 'Impact Report on any (Continued) project, which. may naye; a signif- ic'ant effect on the environment. Mr. ;Bty,ant fur ther stated if there is any doubt as to whether or,not it would.have a significant effect upon the environment, then an Environmental Impact Report must be pre- pared. Mr ,Bryant stated the developer submitted a proposal which indicated the development would not cause increased development in the area, not cause additional traffic, and would improve, the quality of 1i'fe.in, the area. Mr. Bryant stated the Planning,.staf "f did a cursory analysis of the_ proposal and found there would be . additional noise,,.it wodld development in the area . . , there; -would be a lighting d .increased dranage,,and increased air pollution. After that.the developer was required to have a traffic study prepared. This study indicated there would be an 88,per,cent increase in traf,- fit on Baywood Drive and 37.pereent 'increase on St. Francis Drive. Mr. Bryant stated on the basis of these facts, he felt a'Negative Declaration filed on k the property is improper. t Comments and cross- examinaton,by City staff In the.abseiice a City Attorney at the meeting, Vice -Mayor Brunner asked Community Development. Services Coordinator .Frank Gray to comment on the CEQA guidelines referred to by Mr. Bryant Mr. Gray indicated there are two points to be made of which, one was_ referred to.. by. Mr:. Bryant, i.,e., is if a project. may have a significant impact on the environment then an should be pre- pared. Mr, Gray stated the key words are "may" and "significant ". In this case, the Planning Commission felt the project may have an impact on the envi- ronment. With the ,information they had be.for`e them, they determined the impact was not significant. The determination to be made by the Council this evening is if there is a significant impact, an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared. I -f there is not.a significant impact.on the environment, then a Negative Declaration is probably the proper mechanism. echanism Mr. Gray,then read from California State. Law regarding the. purpose an Environmental Impact Report, CEQA' guidelines and Sec ions from Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S. Mr. -.Gray stated a Negative Declar:a;tion,do.es no.t•mean ther.e not be an I mpact on the neighborhood; 'the Negative Declaration merely means an Environ- mental Impact Report need. not,be_ prepared., The Plann, n.g Commission had a choice of two actions: (1) 'To require an Environmental,Impact Report; or (2) file a Negative Declaration., Planning Director Ronald ,Hall ,indicated Mr.. Gray had.read from the Environ -` mental Quality Act. The City is operating under the new-CEQA Guidelines which have been adopted by reference. The requirements in the new guidelines are virtually the same under the old requirements. The Planning Commission made the determination that they had enough.information available to them to make a rational decision with one exception -- they expected some answers from the Traffic" Engineering. Report. A firm from Oakland, Foristall & Associates, provided the report. Mr. Hall stated the Planning Commission minutes may have inferred some of the Commis'saoner,s felt they did not have sufficient .inf:or- mation;, howeger, all the Commissioners felt there was substantial information to make their decision. Additional mitigating measures were made by the staff, noise impact was addressed, as well as lighting and aesthetics. It was Mr.. Hall',s,opinion that all of these mitigating measures were handled properly. Vice- Mayor Brunner stated apparently the size of the shopping center seems to be a ifactdr ..in the objections raised by'the citizens. Mr. Hall stated.the size of the shopping center is a variable that has a., ran g -.'of values., This parti- cular, center, in the City's plan„ is classified as a neighborhood shopping center and highway commer-cial•d atr.ict� and central commercial zoning permits shopping centers with a use- permit. Mr. Hall stated in the research he has done through.various sales management organizations, the benchmark for a neigh- borhood-shopping center..is 50,000 square feet. The proposed Baywood Shopping Center is for 82 square feet which does exceed this benchmark. The next range considered for shopping centers community or district which has an upper level of 15'0,000 sq. ft. Regional shopping centers would have a market �► March 7, 1977 PUBLIC,'HEARIN,GS- population of ,150y000 .up. to I,; 00.0,, -000 people or' more. BAYWOOD SHOPPING I'n terms of linear front footage„ a community shopping CENTER- -DENY APPEAL center, would be between 500 and l,, 500 `feet;, a neighbor: -. _- REGARDING NEGATIVE hood shopping center from 300 to about 700 or 800 feet. DECLARAT.1 N The proposed Baywood Shopping Center is approximately RES #7'6.86 N,CS -' 5.00 feet frontage on Baywood'Drive. This would further (Continued) ind'ica'te the center to be a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Dennis Bryant then spoke stating they are.not contending the shopping center is in violation of the zoning, but that it will have an impact on the environment. He felt the vote taken at the'Rlanning Commission meeting was improper and that the Planning Commission had been misled. Mr'. Bryant sta -ted the developer's original proposal'indicated it would be a neighborhood shopping center drawing most of i'ts'customers from the local area and they could walk to the shopping center. At the' site design review committee meeting, it was indicated a center would be a regional shopp�ing center and'not.a neighborhood shopping center. Community'Development.and 'Services Coordinator Frank Gray indicated it should be established for the record whether or not the Planning Commission had before it the traffic analysis report when they considered the Negative Declaration; and' if, in fact, the traffic analysis was on the fact that the Payless and supermarket: would b be included• in, the shopping -center. Mr. Bryant indicated the Planning Commission did have the.,traf'fic report, but it had' been based on a neighborhood'shop;ping center. Mr. Gray indicated if the traffic analysis report contained figures on the normal patronage of a Payless Drug Store which would be sub - regional in nature,.and-in this. case, ;from'Novato north to the southern part of Rohnert.Park, then it was'hisfeeling the tra'ff'ic problem'had been addressed.. Mr. Bryant indicated the traffic analysis was done by the developer; however,. Iater in the meeting, Mr. Hall rebutted this fact, and•stafed- although the developer had . $_ p paid for the tr -af:fc analysis, the City recommends qualified.engineers to complete such studies objectively. Neither the City nor the developer is involved in the preparation of'the report. Vice= Mayor Brunner asked City Engineer Young to comment on the 'traffic analysis report. Mr. Young indicated he and his staff cbul °d'find nothing they could take exception to in. the analysis. The Engineering staffs app "roach would be when a traffic analysis is done on a commercial establishment, they would :comment if they found anything they .disagreed with in the conclusions of the estimated traffic. Mr. Young stated based on the fact that�Baywood Drive is four lanes with a fifth lane ;for storage, it is the Engineering,Divsion's belief it could handle the amount of traffic shown in the traffic analysis.. Mr. Young stated the four lanes on Baywood Drive could handle* 12, cars per day. He also stated what one person considers traffic'congeston and the ability of the street to function may be a difference of opinion. The pro - vision for the left- turn ' lane on Baywood Drive will function Mrs. Berg again addressed_ the Council stating she ha`s reached the point at the Council meeting she asked the same.ques '.tion at the Planning Commission -- were they going to vote on whether they needed more information in order to file a Negative De`clar'ation or - require an Environmental Impact Report? She does not feel the prop:osed'shopping center'wil'1 have a negligible impact on the environment'. According to the traffic report, there are mitigating measures such as the curvature of Baywood.,Drive, the-Arco Service Station,, and the fact that Baywood Drive is four lanes for some distance up to Sit. Francis and then immediately reverts to two lanes. Mr.s.'Berg asked what action the' Council would now take. Mr. Gray explained the Council could either uphold_ the Plan - ning Commiss on's decision or 'they can require a full Environmental Impact Report,. If the Council upholds the Planning .Commis'sion's Negative Declaration, they can approve the use permit as r,ecommen the Planning Commission's decision. -Mr. Gray stated CEQA regulations indicate a pr.oj`:ect, cannot b e denied using the rationale of the environmental analysis. Testimony o'f Pro'ject. Applicant Mr. Dick Williams spoke regarding the "size of the shopping center, "and' relating it to Washington Square which is indicated on the Environmental Design Plan as a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Williams stated Washington Square is from 4 to 10 acres, and this area is quite a bit .smaller. He stated ;in designing the project they tried•to, eliminate those specific use's which would bring 1 5 a March 7, 1977 PUBLIC HEARINGS - - ' traffic from the freeway, such as a bar, restaurant, or BAYWOOD'SHOPPING' fast food stores, When.he first. looked at the site, he CENTER - -DENY APPEAL talked 'to the C' ty_, and it was his understanding the REGARDING'NEGATIVE area was intended 'for the type of development he pro- - DECLARATION posed. Mr. Williams stated he can't believe the City RES #7686 NC$ would plan for something in the area which would have a (Continued) negative impact on the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan,. He also stated he,had made considerable invest- ment in 'time and money in the proposed project and hoped his plan's would not ='be changed. He further stated the Payless Drug Store tenants for the shopping center want to draw their customers from the Petaluma area and not on a regional,basis. Final Summation by Appellants Mr. Bryant stated he 'did not feel the hearing at'this'point was to determine whether or not the design meets the zoning requirements.* The object is to determine whether or not it will have a significant effect on the environment. The traffic study shows an 88 percent increase in traffic on Baywood Drive and he contends this is a significant increase. Mr. Bryant also stated there is a great deal of public interest regarding the project and this should be con - sidered. He'felt there was practically no one in the neighborhood who was in favor of-the project, that it was designed to draw not from the local resi- dents, but from outside of the area, including Novato, Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa. Final 'Statement and. Summation by Planning Director Planning Director Ronald Hall responded to Mr. Bryant's statement regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Report with regard to the traffic. If a determination was made to require a full Environmental'Impact Report, the same information 'would ' be provided by expert testimony such as given by Mr. Forristal in his report which has already been taken into consideration. No new information on traffic would be brought 'forth in the requirement for an Environmental Impact Report. It would merely be a duplication. The same thing applies to other testimony given throughout the 'hearings. Unless the general public can provide the Council with an issue not predfc'ted and addressed beforehand, then the Council cannot require an'Environmental Impact Report. For the Council's benefit„ Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank Gray read the definition Negative Declaration and Significant Effect on the Environment f -rom the revised guidelines. Additional Testimony Mr. Elwood Bowen, representing the tenants of the Baywood Arms Apartments, spoke to the Council ndi'cating`'he 'had taken a petition and poll of the res- idents living in Baywood Arms. There are 72 units containing approximately 335 people. Mr. Bowen indicated he did not contact every resident,'but had con - tacted 15.2, and all were h favor of the shopping center-. Their principal reason for wanting the center was because it would be from .4 to .5 of a mile and a'convenience to the residents of the apartments.. Janice Tenser spoke to the Council regarding the traffic on Baywood Drive. Ms. Tenser indicated they had a fatality in their family on this street and she obj'.ected to the fact there were no crosswalks to provide safety for pedestrians. Vice -Mayor Brunner questioned City Engineer David Young regarding the traffic on Baywood Drive. Mr. Young indicated he felt the.traffic analysis adequately assessed the traffic impact. In response to Vice -Mayor Brunner's question as to when a traffic signal would. be installed at the intersection, Mr..Young stated the intersection is now presently protected'by a four -way stop sign'i4hich is the most positive way to stop vehicles for the safety of pedestrians. When the school warrants are met for a school traffic signal,, a request will be made of the City Council for funding. The last count taken at the intersection did -not meet the warrant for 'a school traffic signal. Mr. 'Young also questioned whether a school traffic signal protected school children better than a four -way stop sign, as the four way stop sign is the most positive way of stopping vehicles. March 7, 1977 PUBLIC HEARINGS -- Vice -Mayor Brunner advised the Council had been provided BAYWoOD SHOPPING with all the documents and minutes of Planning Commis - CENTER- -DENY APPEAL sion meetings regarding the matter. The Council now REGARDING - NEGATIVE must make a decision, based on the evidence given at DECLARATION this Bearing, whether to require a full environmental RES X6768'6 NCS impact report or uphold the Planning Commission's (Continued) decision. The Public Hearing was then closed. A motion was made by Councilman Harberson,, seconded by Councilman Perry., to grant the appeal and require a full- environmental impact report. The.motion was defeated by the following votes: Ayes - Councilman. Harberson. Noes - Vine -Mayor Brunner Councilmen Cavanagh, Perry, and Mattei. Absent -- Councilman Hilligoss.and Mayor Putnam. Resolution #768.6 N.C.:S. denying appeal regarding the Negative Deelara.tion on Baywood Shopping Center was introduced by Councilman Eerry,,'seconded by Council- man Mat:tei, and adopted by 4 affirmative, 1 negative, and -2 absentee: votes. Councilman Harberson voted "no ". RECESS Vice- Mayor Brunner called a recess at 8,:45 p.m., and the Council reconvened at 8:58 p.m. DENY APPEAL- - USE PERMIT 666 BAYWOOD SHOPPING CENTER RES X676.87 NCS Vice-Mayor Brunner r s. Susan the procedure for hearing the appeal of ice- R. Berg and Mr. Dennis L. Bryant from the decision of the Planning Commission regarding the Use Permit for Baywood. Shopping Center. The City Clerk reported an appeal had been filed by Mrs. Susan R. Berg and 'by Mr. Dennis L. Bryant. In addition, other letters regarding the shopping center had been forwarded to the City Clerk, had not been received in a timely manner in'order to be valid appeals, but had been acknowledged by the City Clerk. The Clerk reported she had also ,received a petition with 23 signatures from the Downtown Merchants' Association and other merchants located in the downtown area opposing the Baywood Shopping Center. A'pet; tion signed by 22 residents in the.vicinity of the project opposing the shopping center ha•d been received by the City Clerk. A letter signed by 10`merchants of the Petaluma Plaza Mer'c'hants' Association opposing the shopping center had been submitted. A letter - of transmittal from the Petaluma Chamber of Commerce forwarding a letter from Washington Square Merchants' Association opposing the shopping center had been submitted. Docu- ments are on file with the City Clerk. In addition, petitions and correspon- dence :received by the Planning Commission are a part of the record- Statement o - f Regulations Concerning Use Permits Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank Gray reviewed the City's regulations under which Use Permits are,iss;ued. The purpose of Conditional Use Permits were .reviewed by Mr. Gray. He.-also read from various sections of: the Zoning. Ordinance, including Article 21, the'Architectur•al and Site Design Review Provisions. The action of the City Council at this hearing 1s based on Section 26.508. Mr.. Gray also.stated a Use Permit which ha's been subject of appeal before the City Council would become effective immediately if it is granted.by the Council-. Mr. Gray also reviewed the general provisions of Section 21 on which the Council.would have to .base their findings. Staff Report, Planning Director. Ronald Hall,descr.ibed the facilities which would be located in the shopping center, including the Payless Drug Store,, the nursery, Fry's Supermarket, and four smaller shops. The original proposal included a bank which has been deleted from the development. Mr. Hall described the surrounding land use; which includes.th Baywood Arms Apartment Complex, a service station to the south, a service station and open land to the west, and single- family residential dwelling units to the north and east. A ,drainage ditch runs behind, the property. To .the . rear of the site is Cedarwood Lane., which is „approximately 8G feet from the property line, and 150 feet from the nearest shopping center building. The homes on Alderwood Court are adjacent to the site,. When the site design was reviewed, the Planning 1 Commission took this into consideration. Parking would allow for 239 spaces to serve the 82,000 square feet. There would be four frontal en rances.; Baywood. March 7, 1977 DENY APPEAL-- Drive., and one rear entranc& for trucks on Perry Lane;.. USE PERMIT Recommendation for ;site design review were incorporated BAYWOOD SHOPPING in the Use Permit '" provisions CENTER RES #7687 NCS Testimony of .Appell-ants' (Continued) Mr. Dennis L. ,Bryant pointed out even though there is a service station'south of' . area, the remainder of the development is bounded on three sides by residential uses. He expressed con- cern for safety of the children because of the traffic:. He also indicated he felt property values of the homes in the area would-be affected by the develop- ment. He stated while the Council has determined a Negative Declaration is proper, one environmental issue which had not-been addressed was the use of water by the development estimated to be 100 gallons p'er hour. Mr. Bryant also indicated the merchants are against the project because of competition and felt there were vacant buildings in Petaluma where these stores could locate. He again stated he did not feel it was a neighborhood shopping center, but a regional shopping center which would not be compatible in a residential area. Mrs. Susan Berg next spoke to the Council. She reported one of the Planning Commissioners stated at the. Planning Comission meeting he could not vote for a Negative Declaration and n6t grant­a Use Permit for the project. Mrs. Berg reviewed some of the mitigating . measures,in the traffic study prepared for the `pro.ject. Also, she expressed concern for traffic'on the street and stated she felt the shopping center would become an additional attractive nuisance for children in the area. Vice -Mayor Brunner indicated the testimony given by tie appellants included many of the same measures'd during the prior hearing concerning the environment. He asked Planning Director Ronald'Hal'1 to confine his remarks to the Planning Commission's justification for issuing a Use Permit. Mr. Hall indicated the project is beyond the upper limit of a neighborhood shopping center; however, the Council could consider reduction in the square footage. He did not know whether this would 'meet the approval of the appli- cant, or whether the applicant would be able to retain his tenants under these provisions. - The Planning Commission felt the site design review would mitigate nearly all of the testimony which was adverse. . Mr..Hall then reviewed Design A and Design C proposed for the project. Design C had been adopted by the Planning Commission. It.reverses the location for the proposed tenants the location of the, drug store and the super- market. One of the mitigation measures was to stop truck traffic from loading and moving around the periphery of the site. A :special meeting had been called by the Planning Commission to meet with the staff, the citizens in the area, and the applicants. Mr. Hall stated it was his recommendation at that time to reverse the procedure to al -low for more area for truck loading. The appli- cants., however, prefer Design A.and their architect has indicated this could also be accomplished in the original configuration.. Mr. Hall stated either Alternative A or C could be compatible with the neighborhood. Payless Drug Store would require most of the parking in the development and that is their argument for preferring Scheme A. Mr: Hall then described the access points, stating one would be eliminated and there-would be three instead of four. Mr. Hall explained the loading pro- cedures necessary for servicing the drug store and the supermarket on the site. He also indicated truck traffic would enter by way of Baywood Drive, Perry Lane and to the rear of the shopping center. _ Councilman Mattei questioned the validity of placing the satellite shops so' close to the property line. Mr. Hall indicated this' was not a major issue during the hearings, and most of the testimony objected to the size of the two larger buildings. Mr.''Matt'ei stated this par icular site has been discussed as a commercial development for the past eight years that he knows of, and feels that the Council has an obligation to go ahead with some type of shopping center, but he expressed concern regarding the satellite area. Councilman Perry questioned - whether or not the satellite buildings would create traffic problems. Mr. Hall indicated there would be no circulation of traffic March 7, 1977 DENY APPEAL-- USE PERMIT BAYWOOD' SHOPPING CENTER RES #7687 NCS around the satellite shops.. Councilman. Cavanagh asked what !square footage wou -ld be in the proposed smaller shops., and Mr. Hall responded by stating they would be from 2,500 to :3, -000 square feet. (Continued) Councilman Mattei asked the appellants whether or'not the satellite shops created any problems as far as they were concerned. Mr. Bryant indicated every proposal they had,reviewed at the Planning Commission level had satellite.build'ings. It was never really made an issue on which they felt they were permitted to raise objections Mr. Bryant then brought up the matter of the economics of planing another shopping center in the City of 'Petaluma. He felt the City could not support additional supermarkets or drug stores. The general discussion then led to the results of the Wainwright and Ramsey Report,.an Economic Study prepared about a year -ago. Mr. Gray quoted,from the report wherein,it stated commercial p -olicy should not overlook basic food and service requirement needs for residents in the southwest and southeast portions of the community. The report further stated it was felt several. food markets could be absorbed in areas where recent growth has taken place. Mr. Gray stated the conclusions drawn from the report and from an economic standpoint, indicate the shopping center is properly,located. Mr. Bryant responded by pointing out the Prairie Market has recently located on Casa. Grande Road.; there is a Safeway and Albe•rtson's Store on the eastside;,and., as far as the Payless Drug Store is concerned, he does not feel it would be a convenience to the neighborhood. It is not intended to serve the local neighborhood, but to draw from outside the City. Councilman Cavanagh questioned Mr. Bryant on, how he had arrived at his conclusion that property values in the area would be af'f'ected by the shopping center. Mr. Bryant stated he based it on his own feelings acid those of other - neighbors in the area. He d_Oes not.feel his home will be worth less than when he bought it, but feels it'will .not increase in value as much being.so close to the shopping center. For the benefit of the Council., Mr.. Hall reviewed.all the conditions of the site design.,, 16 of which had been originally placed on the 'site design, and 7 additional ones added at a later date. At the later meeting, two of the ori- ginal conditions were deleted by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hall indicated the ap.plic'ant,..Mr. Williams, is appealing some of the conditions of the site design, which . would be the appeal hearing following this one. City Manager Robert Meyer pointed out by placing the shopping cefiter'on this approximate 5 acres would eliminate further construction on the site which could -be permitted without a Use Permit in a highway commercial zone.: Some of these uses include bars.., restaurant -S, mortuaries,, creameries, used car sales, hotels', .commercial parking 'lots, etc. Mr. Gray pointed out the Council has the ability to restrict the use under the Use Permit procedure. The City Council also has the 'right 'to review the 'satellite building and,d6termine whether 'it: is appropriate for the site. Vice -Mayor Brunner then closed the public hearing. Councilman Mattei then moved that the Use Permit be approved with conditions, i.e., that no satellite building shall be built in front of the shopping center until -it has been further, approved by an amendment to the U'se'Permit and the Site Design Review. Motion was seconded by Councilman Perry. Before taking a vote on the - motion, there was some discussion regarding whether or not the developer could; at.some future time, app'ly have.the satellite building constructed on the site. Mr. Gray indicated it would be a possibility; how- ever,, the. applicant would have to begin with Use. 'Permit amendment and Archi- tectural and Site, .'Design Review, similar to the 'action which had been taken to - build the McDonald's in the Petaluma Plaza Shopping Center. It.was also deter - mined.the conditions of the appeal apply to Scheme C for the proposed Baywood Shopping Center. Resolution #7687 N..C.S. denying appeal and approving Use Permit for Baywood Shopping Center with conditions was introduced by Councilman Mattei., seconded by Councilman Perry, and adopted by 4 affirmative, 1 negative; and 2 absentee votes. Councilman Harberson voted "no ". March 1977 APPEAL HEARING - -THE The City Clerk acknowledged receipt of the appeal filed MAHONEY COMPANY RE, by Victor P. Obninsky, Secretary of the Mahoney Com- SITE DESIGN CONDITIONS pany, Inc., to the decision of the Planning Commission BAYWOOD SHOPPING rendered on February 15, 1977, regarding site design CENTER review. RES #7688 NCS & RES #7689 NCS The following documents have been distributed to mem- bers -of the City Council and filed with the City Clerk: Site design review approved`by Petaluma Planning Commission, February 15, 1977; excerpts of minutes of Planning Commission meeting of February 15, 1977; report of Architectural and Site Design Review Committee to Planning Commission, dated February 8, 1977; and, report of A'rchitectur'al and Site Design Review Committee to Planning Commission, dated December 21, 1976. Community Development and •Servi.ces.Coordinator Frank Gray explained the appli- cant is appealing two spe'cific,provisions placed on the shopping center. The Council can uphold either one of the conditions as the Planning Commission required them, modify them, or eliminate them entirely. Staff Report Planning Director Ronald Hall advised the appeal is based on a requirement of the relocation of the two ma or'`tenan,ts and the requirement for the 10 -foot masonry wall. Mr. Hall stated even though. the appeals were filed before the staff had sufficient time to fully evaluate them, it'was his opinion the screening could be accompli_shed'either by the'Monterey Pine trees as proposed by the developer, or by the wall. Staff would also accept either Scheme A or Scheme C. From a site.design layout., all things accomplished under Scheme C could be accomplished under` Scheme A, as the site design is basically the same. Testimonv of Appellant Mr. Richard.Williams of the Mahoney Company indicated when he first became interested in the property,,a Use Permit for it had just elapsed. Mr. Williams stated of the three schemes presented, Scheme C, approved by the Planning Commission, is the least desirable.. If'he has to abide by this ruling, he probably will have to get ftew.tenant-s for thel buildings. Scheme A presents a low profile of shops along ' Alderwood Court. Mr. Williams stated he was opposed to the elimination of the sdrell -ite building as this 'type of shop, in the location designed by the'architects, creates a circulation pattern and brings people to the other small shops located near the Fry's Store. Mr. Williams stated. he agreed to consider the 10 -foot wall at the Site Design Review Meeting with the local residents and two members of the Planning Com- mission. After doing some investigation into the cost, Mr. Williams stated it would not be'economically:feasible, as the cost is estimated to be somewhere between $30,000 and $40,,000. Planting pine trees in the location where the 10- foot.fence is proposed would muffle the sound as well as the wall and would be more aesthetically pleasing. Some discussion was then held regarding the fencing presently adjacent to the proposed site. Councilman Cavanagh questioned whether or not a variance would be needed for a 10 -foot wall.. Planning Director Ronald Hall indicated since the 10 -foot wall was prompted by.the citizens, kf a variance was required, the same people who had requested- the.10 -foot wall would appear in support of the variance. It was his opinion it could =:be required by site design review, even thougl,not normally required by the City's Ordinance. There is an existing 8- foot masonry..wall which would require the addition of two feet. The drainage channel is protected on both sides by cyclone fence as well as a pillar and wood fence along the backyard's of the residences on Cedarwood Court. City Manager Robert Meyer advised the existing 8- `foot,masonry wall was required because a commercial venture had previously been planned for the site. Mr. Victor P. Obninsky, appellant and attorney for Mr. Williams, then spoke in support of the appeal. He reviewed the manner in which the Planning Commission had voted at their meeting of February, 15'. Mr.,.Obninsky asked the Council to C reconsider their requirement for the elimination of the satellite building. He March 7, 19:77 tr APPEAL HEARING- -THE MAHONEY COMPANY RE SITE DESIGN BAYWOOD SHOPPING CENTER RES '068& NCS & also asked, the Council to approve With regard to the requirement for wall, Mr. Obninsky felt the matter and there are alternatives to the wall. Scheme A as submitted. the 10'-foot masonry had been discussed requirement for the RES #76 NCS Vice - Mayor Brunner advised the appellant at this hear - (Continued) ing had no opportunity to speak when the requirement for the elimination of the satellite building was placed on the development at the previous hearing. He asked Councilman Mattel if he would want to move to reconsider the matter. Councilman Mattei indicated he would not want to reconsider at this time; however, the. developer could again apply at some future time for the satellite building. Testimony of Opponents Mrs. Elaine Wllnborg, who resides is the vicinity of the 'shopping center, stated she f:elt.many items had.been addressed,, `but the- ma•tter.of noise pollu- tion.had' not been properly handled. There had been some discussion .regarding limiting deliveries to the center to the hours between 8 00 a..m. and 5':00 p.m.; however;, Mrs. Wi.11inbo,rg felt this would be an impossibility. Mr. Dennis Bryant spoke in opposition to Scheme A., as it would place the food store closer to ;the - residents. The supermarket has more freezers and.:air conditioning units which would cause a noise problem. Mr. Bryant also 'felt the food store would cause a rodent problem in the area. Mr. Charles,B'erg spoke in opposition to the development. He felt the Planning Department had not given due consideration to the residents in the area. He: also felt the matter of traffic had not been properly addressed by the Planning Department since no adverse comments had been made. Vice -Mayor Brunner closed the Public Hearing. There was some discussion of the alternatives available to the Council regard- ing the 'appeal. Mr'. Gray indicated there are two parts to the appeal.. One is to reverse, the Planning Commission's, decision requiring Scheme C, and the other is to modify the requirement for the 10 -foot high fence and provide substantial landscaping for ;screening. Councilman Har.ber's,on indicated, at the Planning Commission Meetinghe felt there was little difference between Plan A and Plan C; however, because of the requests from the residents in the neighborhood who felt Scheme C was less undesirable than Scheme A, he had voted to approve Scheme C. Councilman Cavanagh pointed out if the Council: approves Scheme C, there ,probably would not be a development in the site for some time, or until new tenants can be obtained by the developer'. On this basis, .h.e' would ;favor approving Scheme.A, and made a motion to approve Scheme A with some determi nation for a 10 -foot barrier, not necessarily a block wall. Vice -Mayor Brunner asked Mr. Gray the present status regarding the 10 -fo6t concrete or masonry wall. Mr. Gray indicated under the current Use Permit,, a,10= foot.blo.ck or masonry wall is City Manager Robert Meyer suggested the two portions of the appeal be voted on separately. A motion was made by Councilman ,.Harberson, seconded by Councilman Mattei, Resolution #7689 N,. C.S., denying the appeal requesting the elimination of a 10- foot'fence for'Baywood Shopping Center. The resolution was adopted by 3 affirmative,. 2;negative., and 2 absentee votes. Vice -Mayor Brunner and Council- man Cavanagh voted "no ". Motion to approve appeal.and permit Scheme A without • the satellite building in front of Baywood Shopping Center Development, Resolution 0,688 N- .C.S., was introduced by Councilman Cavanagh, seconded by Councilman Perry, and adopted -by 4 affirmative, 1 negative, and 2 absentee votes,. Councilman,Harberson voted " RECESS Vice -Mayor Brunner called a'recess at 11:25 p,.m., and the Council reconvened at 11:30 p.m. V AWARD CONTRACT -. City Engineer David Young reported on the bid opening WHEELCHAIR RAMP held February 23, 1'977, Ten bids had been received, 01 ` PROJECT CDG' -1 -7:6 ranging from a low bid of $25,750 to a high bid.of (9410) $65,590. Mr. Young recommended the contract be awarded RES 47690 NCS to the.,low bidder, L. Ferdig Company,.from Vallejo. March 7, 1977 AWARD CONTRACT- - WHEELCHAIR RAMP PROJECT, CDG -1 =76 (9410) RE`S #7690 NCS (Continued) LETTER RE PETALUMA LaCUMBRE PROPERTY F r'. Resolution 069.0 N..0 S. awarding contract for the F 1 6 construction of wleelchait ramps, Project CDG -1 -76 9 (9410.) was introduced by Councilman Cavanagh, seconded by Couricilman'Harberson; and adopted by 5 affirmative and 2 absentee votes,. The contract was awarded to L. Ferdig and Company, P.O. Box 1767, Vallejo, California, in .th "e amount of $25, 75'0. A letter directed to the Council from Mr. Kenn A. Kennedy of Los Gatos regarding the Petaluma LaCumbre Property was no't read by the City Clerk, but is on file. After a brief discussion, the Council determined they would prefer to discuss the matter when a full 'Council was present, as Councilman.Hilligoss had ex pressed an interest in this property for park land. The matter was deferred until March 21, 1977. Mr. Kennedy was present in the audience and spoke to the Council briefly, advising they had received an offer on the property, but wanted to ascertain whether the City had an interest in it before the final determination was made. They felt this would make it easier for the developer to work with the City if the City was not interested in acquiring the property for park land. UNIVERSAL STUDIO'S A letter dated March 3, 1977, directed to the City REQUEST TO FILM Manager and City Council from the Manager of the "THE HEROES" Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce, was read by the City Clerk and ordered failed.. Mr. Schram was present at the meeting to advise that Universal Studios would be filming for between four ,to 'four and one -half days in Petaluma. Universal would like to use Water Street from .Western.Avenue for a distance of approxi- mately 20 to 30 parking meters, to park their equipment. In addition, they would be filming on Western.Avenue and request closing the street between Keller and Petaluma Blvd. at 10 to 20 minute intervals throughout the afternoon on March 22. Mr. Schram indicated he had contacted the merchants along Ken- tucky Street and Petaluma Bivvd..,and received their approval. The studio would be willing to pay for the time on the parking meters, as well as for any extra police or security services they need. A motion was made by:Co.uncilman Maatei, seconded by Councilman_Perry, approving the proposal to purchase meter-s.on Western Avenue and Water Street, and reroute traffic in various sections of the City. Motion carried unanimously. QUESTIONNAIRE-- The 'letter, dated February 14, 19.77, had been directed STRUCTURAL FIRE to the City Council 'by Mr. Howard Reeser, the Sonoma SUPPRESSION County ,Ad Hoc Committee, 'Structural Fire Suppression. After a brief discussion regarding the implications contained in the questionnaire which would require the City to respond to structural fires,, Chief Ellwood recommended a complete study be made rather than answering the questionnaire in the affirmative. The City Clerk was advised to return the'q'uestionnaire indicating the City would not support a plan to respond on an initial attack outside of the City's legal responsi- bility. A copy of the questionnaire is on file with the City Clerk. CITY' MANAGER'S "REPORTS CLAIM'S & BILLS Resolution #7691 N.G.S. approving claims and bills RES #1691 NCS #1557 to #,1678, inclusive, General City; and, #270 to #299, i-nclusive,:Wat'er, approved for payment by the City Manager, was introduced by Councilman Mattei, seconded by Councilman Perry, and adopted by 5 affirmative and 2 absentee votes,. March 7, 1977 1 REPORT -- WATER The City Manager reported on the status of the various EMERGENCY wells proposed throughout the,County., Rohnert Park SITUATION anticipates going to bid on the two wells to be con- structed. The County wells will not progress until a final decision has been made by the City of Cotati. Mr. Meyer reported a meeting herd in Sebastopol regarding, the waster table in the'County reached' the conclusion -that additional wells would not seriously affect the water table. Engineers have there is plenty of,,under- ground.water to use as a resource. The Federal Government has completed a program for an emergency livestock feed assistance program. Mr. Meyer indicated this information has been passed along to the ranchers in the area. The City Manager,asked for clarification-from the Council regarding the limit. of the number of residential water hook- ups' to be permitted; and whether or not the Council meant.50 units within the .City, or with -in the water ,service area. The Council indicated -their intention was.to allot the 50 units within the water service area.. WASTEWATER RECLAMATION Mr. Meyer reported.the staff had met with Mr. Richard PROJECT Rogers of the Marin Municipal- Water District regarding ,the fees, for reclaimed wastewater. A copy of the report prepared by William Liebel., Administrative Assistant, Community Services., was submitted' to the City Clerk, and is on file. ESTABLISH CHARGES AND City Manager Robert Meyer stated the resolution, as CONDITIONS FOR RE- proposed, would establish the same charges as contained �\ CONNECTING WATER in ISecction 15.18.180 of the Municipal Code., It would \ SERVICE also provide that the Director of'Water Utility Opera - RES #7'692.NCS tions may, depending upon the merit - of each case., require a device ba installed on the meter to restrict the flow of water. After a brief, discussion by the Council, .it was determined to increase the charges from $5.00 to $10.i for reconnections made during regular working hours, and from $15.0.0 to $25.00 'for reconnections made at any other time rather' than regular working hours. Resolution #7692 N.C.S. establishing, charges and conditions , for reconnection or restor• ;atioi of water service terminated pursuant to Section 15.1$.1$0 of 'the Petaluma.Municipal Code (Water Emergency) was introduc'ed'.by Councilman Mattei, seconded by Councilman Perry, and adopted by 5 affirmative and' 2 absentee votes. APPROVE 5 -YEAR URBAN City Engineer David'Y advised the adoption of a SYSTEMS PROGRAM resolution approving : the Federal Aid Urban Systems RES' #, 69.3 NC Program is an annual requirement and is in response to a letter directed to him by the Transportation Planner for the 'County of Sonoma. The priorities for Petaluma .for proposed projects include the signal modification. at 'the intersection of North McDowell Blvd. and East Washington Street, which is no..w complete; right - of -way acquisitions for Eas.t`Washington 'Street, Liberty Street, and' Magnolia Avenue; and, with regard to public transportation, for Golden Gate Bus Shelters and fringe parking. Resolution approving the 5 -year Federal Aid Urban Systems Program for the Healdsburg Urban Area, Santa Rosa Urbanized Area, and the 'Petaluma Urban Area, was introduced by Councilman Perry, seconded by Councilman Matte ", and adopted by 5 affirmative and 2 absentee votes. g past attended l- STATE PARK BOND Recreation Director Jim.Raymond reported he and FUNDS -- SELECT: man• Hil'li oss over the as two weeks, had attended ALTERNATIVE.NO. 6 meetings with the State Park Bond Committee. Two major formulas had been reviewed by the Committee, namely Alternative No. 4 and Alternative No. 6., He reviewed a March_ 7, 1977 STATE PARK BOND revised Alternative No. 6 which had been presented to FUNDS -- SELECT the City Council; a copy of which is on file with the ALTERNATIVE NO. 6 City Clerk. This alterna<tve would provide $129,700 to (Continued) the City.of Petaluma, a p•roport'ionate distribution to other cities in the County, and a $10,000 contribution to various unincorporated areas, with the County of Sonoma receiving $413, 648.:.._::,The-_total funds available to the entire County. amount to $1,057,382. Mr. Raymond indicated i.t was his recommendation that Alternative No. 6 as revised be approved by the City Council and the Regional Committee be so advised. City Manager Robert Meyer stated the allocations are -based on population, and if all the cities approved the same alternative, No. 6, as revised, would probably be the one approved. The Council unanimously concurred with Mr. Raymond's recommendation to select Alternative No. 6 as revised. MAGIC WAND CAR WASH Director of Water Utility Operations Tom Wilson reported REQUEST FOR WATER on the usage by the magic Wand Car Wash during the VV (J VARIANCE months of November, December, January, February, which averaged ,3,740 gallons per day. During the first six days of March, when it was required for car wash operations to reduce their usage by 30 percent;, the Magic Wand Car Wash averaged 3,615 gallons per day.. Mr. Arthur Burkhalder, the owner,, had previously re- quested a moritorium on the restriction of water until he was able to have a well drilled for his operation. The Council was advised Mr. Burkhalder has taken a well permit, but it is not known when the work will be completed. The Council asked Mr. Wilson to monitor the use at the car wash facility and report back to them at the next meeting. The Council did not feel it was appropriate to issue a variance at this time. A. BASCHERINI Mr. Wilson advised Mr. Bascherini intends to build a VI o 1 /A REQUEST.FOR WATER small fish grotto and is asking.for a water hook -up to VARIANCE service the facility. The esimated usage, based on the consumption at the A & W, is 1,600 per day. Mr. Bascherini advised the Council he plans to have a small fish grotto on Weller Street in the same building with medical offices located, on the.first floor, and the restaurant occupying the second story. Before spending a great deal of money, for architectural design, Mr. Bascherini indi- cated he would like to have some determination from the Council whether or not a water hook -up would be possible. Councilman Harberson felt this matter should be handled similar to the request previously made by a realty company- - that nothing be done until the administrative procedures have been - completed.. Dr. Larry Jonas also spoke briefly to the Council stating they would be willing to comply and were interested.in being placed on the waiting list for water hook -ups. Dr. Jonas also stated if Mr. Rieckhefer drills a well in the vi- cinity,.they.would not have any problems. The action on the matter was deferred at this time,. as plans have not been submitted for the building. PETALUMA INN PROPOSED City Manager Robert Meyer advised the Petaluma Inn EXPANSION wants to expand their facility by building 26 more units. No definite plans or timetable has been sub- mitted; however, they have been advised the calcula- tions for water would be based on 50% of their usage last year. COAST GUARD STATION Mr. Meyer ,referred to a letter received by Captain H. WATER ALLOCATIONS W. Pagel, Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard Train- F/0/9 I/9 . ing Center. Mr. 'Meyer iridica.ted he has been conferring with Captain Pagel and reviewing the facilities with him. The letter requests the commercial uses at the center be treated the same as commercial uses within the City, i.e.,, 50 percent cutback by June 1. They are further requesting residences be treated the same as those in the City. March 7, 1977 AMEND CHAPTER 15 Ordinance #1235 N.C.S.'amending Section.15'.16.040 of MUNICIPAL CODE! Chapter 15 of the Petaluma Municipal Code (Volume, Water (VOLUME WATER USERS) Users) was introduced by Councilman Perry, seconded by ORD #1235 NCS Councilman Harberson, and ordered published by 4 affirmative, 1 negative and '2 absentee votes. Councilman' Cavanagh expressed some concern regarding the development schedule, stating'. the project has already been delayed and given several extensions of time. Mr,. Weeks indicated his firm entered the program just last November, and they were trying to move ahead a timely manner. Councilman Mattei advised he had been a.member of the development allotment board. when the 'original. award was made to :McDowell Investment Associates'. At that 'time he vas' .intrigued with the concept of the expandable home and, based on this feature. and .the -fact that.lo."w.- to moderate - income housing would be. included in the development, the Board awarded higher rating than to :others competing for developments at the time. Mr. Weeks indicated the expandability feature of housing is very popular and he thinks his firm can include this f'eature rather- than ,building a smaller home. There is a great.deal of buyer demand for expandable homes. City Manager Robert Meyer also pointed out the original allotment,was given for 44 units with an additional 6'1.units allocated as a bonus based on the concept of the. expandable home and the low- to moderate- income.hous ng,included in the project. Mr. Weeks explained a t'the time the allotments were awarded, the coast of; con- struction was a great .deal lower than at, the present time, and each month cost is increasing at a rapid rate. Councilman Mattei questioned if the allotments were transferred, whether the City would be able to hold the-developer to some type.of; expandable home in the subdivision. Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank Gray stated, assuming the allotments were not transferred and the-original ;owner was pro- ceeding on the plans, at the time the subdivision was processed through Archi- tectural and Site Design Review, the Planning Department would check back against the original allotment criteria- The Planning Commission and. the Council-would hear whether or not the development was in compliance with the original allotments. The same condition could. exist in this particular case if the allotments were transferred to the new owner of the property. The present owner would not be relieved of the burden for the items originally granted under the allotment system, i.e.., low- to moderate - income housing and the expandable home. Planning Director Ronald • Hall stated the Environmental Impact.R'ep'or -t has been through the Planning Commission, but was being field pending action on the transfer of the allotments. TRANSFER ALLOTMENTS Mr: Dennis Weeks, Director of Planning and Development McDOWLL INVEST- of Feature Homes, Inc., Santa Rosa., addressed the O FROM MENT ASSOCIATES TO Council regarding the proposed . subdivi -sion' located n FEATURE' HOMES, INC. CONDITIONALLY northeast of C Mobile Home Park on North . McDowell Blvd. Mr'. Weeks indicated before they can ` proceed with the.development schedule and • the design of the subdivision, they have to be assured of the. trans- fer of 'the allotments. , The firm is ready to move ahead•on the project and if all schedules are met, they would•'hope.to break ground by the middle of January or February, 1978. Mr. Weeks indicated they would like to use the new Section 245 FHA Experimental Financing Program for the project. .This allows what is called Negative Amortization which 'enables the homebuyer to make a lower monthly payment at the beginning of the purchase and payment's :increase as the owner is able to afford them. He advised they plan to use the same program in a Subdivision. 'in Fairfield.. Councilman' Cavanagh expressed some concern regarding the development schedule, stating'. the project has already been delayed and given several extensions of time. Mr,. Weeks indicated his firm entered the program just last November, and they were trying to move ahead a timely manner. Councilman Mattei advised he had been a.member of the development allotment board. when the 'original. award was made to :McDowell Investment Associates'. At that 'time he vas' .intrigued with the concept of the expandable home and, based on this feature. and .the -fact that.lo."w.- to moderate - income housing would be. included in the development, the Board awarded higher rating than to :others competing for developments at the time. Mr. Weeks indicated the expandability feature of housing is very popular and he thinks his firm can include this f'eature rather- than ,building a smaller home. There is a great.deal of buyer demand for expandable homes. City Manager Robert Meyer also pointed out the original allotment,was given for 44 units with an additional 6'1.units allocated as a bonus based on the concept of the. expandable home and the low- to moderate- income.hous ng,included in the project. Mr. Weeks explained a t'the time the allotments were awarded, the coast of; con- struction was a great .deal lower than at, the present time, and each month cost is increasing at a rapid rate. Councilman Mattei questioned if the allotments were transferred, whether the City would be able to hold the-developer to some type.of; expandable home in the subdivision. Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank Gray stated, assuming the allotments were not transferred and the-original ;owner was pro- ceeding on the plans, at the time the subdivision was processed through Archi- tectural and Site Design Review, the Planning Department would check back against the original allotment criteria- The Planning Commission and. the Council-would hear whether or not the development was in compliance with the original allotments. The same condition could. exist in this particular case if the allotments were transferred to the new owner of the property. The present owner would not be relieved of the burden for the items originally granted under the allotment system, i.e.., low- to moderate - income housing and the expandable home. Planning Director Ronald • Hall stated the Environmental Impact.R'ep'or -t has been through the Planning Commission, but was being field pending action on the transfer of the allotments. March 7, 1977 TRANSFER ALLOTMENTS At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion was made FROM McDOWELL INVEST - by Councilman.Matte >,, seconded' by Councilman Perry, to MENT ASSOCIATES TO transfer the allotments based upon the approval of the FEATURE HOMES, INC. development schedule and' certification of the Environ- CONDITIONALLY mental Impact Report.. Motion carried unanimously. (Continued) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 a.m., Tuesday, March 8, to an Adjourned'Meeting, Monday,'March 14, at 7:30 p.m. Vic-a or Attest: Cit Clerk 1