HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/30/1973MIN:.UTES OF MEETING
OF CITY COUNCIL
FETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
,January 3 0 , , 1973
Council- Meeting _.Adj.ourned, meeting of the Council of the City
of.- Peta -luma was called to order-by Mayor,
Putnam, the hour of 4:00 o'clock p.m.
Attendance
DevelopmentlAllotment
Ratings
Construction Year
Presents:. Councilmen.Brunner, Cavanagh, Jr.,
Daly, Mattei, and Mayor Putnam.
Absent,: .- Councilmen Clecak and Perry, Jr.
Residential Development Evaluation Board
rankihq;s
Mr: Carlton F.. Reinaldo Chairman, Residential
Development Evaluation - Board, appeared before
the Council and.explained the Board's rankings
of the 16 applications-for development allot-
ments for the 1973 -74' construction year as
-- contained in report; dated January 22, 1973.
Said report submitted -.and 'filed.
Tally, of point rating by housing type category
City Manager_Robert Meyer presented a tally of
the development allotments by point ratings
showing the housing type category on the east
side and,on.the west side of the City. (NOTE:
The freeway, Highway..-101, being the geographical
.split line.), Said report submitted and filed.
Mr:.Meyer. ;noted that the breakdown was prepared
.in accordance with Resolution. #6113 N.C.S. and
.page 24..of -the Housing Element of the General
Plan,.
List of applicants' appeals
The City Clerk read the list of applicants
Who filed written.appeals.on.the points received
.from ; the Evaluation Board, January 10, 19;73,
hearing meeting.. They are as follows:
1:. Caster , Corporation.for Petaluma Estates
Mobile Home Park .Development.Allotment
Application. V.
2, Qantas D.e,velopment.Corporation Green-
�briar West, Development - Deve opment
Allotment,. Application #3.
3.:. Qantas Development Corporation for Green-
Allotment
Application . #4
4. J.; W. Combs for Cherry Street Subdivision -
Devel-opm.en.t Allotment Application #16.
5. Cariville Enterprises on behalf of Petaluma
Partners - Los Pinos Development - Develop -
meat Allotment Application #12.
6,. Camille Enterprises for Vineyard Hills
Subdivision - Development Allotment
Application #15.
Letters of appeals submitted and filed.
?64
January 30, 1973
Developmen,t,.Allotment
Ratings -- 1.973 -74
Construction Year
(continued)
Planning- Department confirmation. o;f.
appeals ;
Resolution #6113 N- .C.S., Section VI a -, stipulates
that. -it is the`° n.tent of the Council to listen
to•only, those applicants who have requested
reevaluation by Board and are still dis-
sat sf with`"the B'oard's decision. Report,
dated January 3 0, 1;9'73, from the_ Planning, staff
confirming whether or not the items appealed
are the same points._appealed to Evaluation
Board,.submitted and filed.
oral presentation.of appeals
Mayor Putnam -then called for further oral
presentation from each of .the applicants who
appealed of.ficially. A 5- minute time limit
was set each presentation.-
Allotment Application #'7 - Petaluma Estates
Mob le , Home Park
Mr,.,Peter. Sardagna, Vice President of Caster
Corporation,, addressed the Council and pointed
out inconsistencies in the - Board's voting,
particularly with to Criteria B- 5'(schools)
and C -7 (orderly - development).. He claimed that
the- development.will not be an impact on schools
as it is ° pro.posed to be an adult project and
that the - development accomplishes an orderly
and contiguous . extension of the exi -sting develop-
ment..as opposed'to a "-leapfrog developmen.t."
Mr. Jerry Caster, President-of the corporation,
also appeared in support of the appeal.
Allotment Application- #3.:` Greenbriat West
Development:
Mr. Jon Joslyn, representing Qantas Development -
Corporat ion ,,Cpointed out to the Council the
fact that 2 'o-f the 3 . Board -- members who rated
zero for Criteria B'3 ('drainage) ..reversed their
vote after hearing t:estimony.at, the appeal
session that the d- ra.nage was .adequate' for the
development and supported b' letters from the
Sonoma County "Water Agency and the City.
The third member "wa's,• =abs'ent at the hearing. and
-the vote remaned - as - the only zero for B' -3.
Mr.. Jo.slyn.asked'the- Council•to grant.an addi-
tional 5- points'due'to.the aforementioned proof
that the drainage , was•ade.quate.and.the peculi-
arity o.f on =1y 1 Board member having a zero vote
die to •absence at the hearing. He also
- requested that the rating for B- 5.(s'chools) be
...equal to match' the rating - for. B -5 on Allot -
meet Application #:1 (Norman Johnson development
located -. -in the. same school area) .
Allotment Application #4 - Greenbriar
Mr.. Jos - . stated, - - that" the drainage appeal
for Application #3 al,s:o applies to this.develop
men -t.,
1
ilr
January 30, 1973
Development Allotment ° Allotment:Appl cat
Ratings - -1973 -74 - Subd'ivision
Construction Year
41.6 - . C
265
(continued)._ Mr.. Barry. D.. Parkinson, attorney representing
.J.. W.. Combs, developer, further appealed on
Criteria .B -6 (s -eets) - and pointed out that
Mr Combs - -, plahs,,to repair the existing road
condition... Mr. Parkinson was informed that
appeals; =on Cniteri °a C were not presented to the
Board ,and,, therefore, notl be considered by
_ the Council.
Allotment- Application #12 = Los Pinos
Mr. Pat McGuire of .Camille:Enterprises, speaking
on behalf of.Petaluma.Partners, appealed the
zero;.votes on Critera.B -1 through B -6, with
the.exception of B- 4,;,on the basis of
r:eceived:' from the various, governmental agencies
stating.that,all'facilities would be made
- _
available.,
Allotment Application #15 = Vineyard Hills
Mr :..Pat McGuire of.,.G:amille Enterprises pointed
.. out that an' ;effort .was , xmade to comply with all
the.,requirements of the Board . with - regard to
p.resentaation;of the. development' but due to
-high engineering costs involved with the hilly
ter'rain,,of the area, it,was impossible to
subm t. the- necessary documents and a -slide
presentation was ,made to the Board of the
various.pr.oj:ects :that would apply to the level-
.opment. He:.r:equested Council consideration of
_ the-pr.oject..because. financial impact to
the "City.
Consideration of. appeals-
Before proceeding _with -. consideration of the
_applicantsj'- _appeals, the matter of, giving
priorities., of those - applic.aits within. the. City
:_limits As opposed to tho.se,outsi.de the City
was. d sc.uss.ed .and. the Council determined. that
no ;priorities would be - - iven at this time. In
--view of .the.faet.that. being inside or outside
of - the City limits,, .was••not considered by the
:, Eval-,uation..Board, , it was felt by the Council
that to , do. so, at .this time would change ' the
ru-les.• Councilman, Daly. was ,of the ,opinion that
preference.should be given to the applications
.within the City.
-Also discussed was the point that Criteria
B -5 .- (schoo.ls) . findings are .subj,ective and
> bas'ed more on j.udgment_than fact.
For Counc,i- l•information and of
vote changes,. Mrs. Dona Cook, - member of the
Evaluation - Board., ?•.,pointed out that at the. Board' s
appeal session,,J,anuary 10, 19.73, 3 Board mem-
_ berss were :.abs,ent -: -Board members. #3, #4, and
#14.
It was.,clarified to Mr. Cooper, representing
Norman Johnson,.Allotment Application #1, that
only. new evidence and. testimony, presented by
the applicants -.are to be considered by the
Council on the appeals*.
266
January 30', 1973
DevelopmentAllotment
Ratings--1973-74
Construction Year
(continued)
Recess=
Mayor Putnam declared a recess at_5::50 o'clock
p.m. The meeting- reconvened at 7:40: o'clock
Council action on,a'ppeals:
In the discussion -on 'vote c17ianqes:1, . the minutes
were read o;f the EValuation
session January 10, 1973 with regard to the
Board"s method of changing votes. Said, minutes -
submitted,and filed.
'otment-Application #7'- Pe'ta
Mobile home., Parx - Caster Co-rpor
Mr. Sardagna again claimed a number of incon-
s1sten 'in the vot:es... upon -consideration
of all the facts", a motion was: made -by Council-
man Cavanagh,.Jr. and seconded by:Councilman
Daly accepting the•rating the
DevelopMpp , t ..,EValidati6n, . Board. M otion carr ied
unanimously.
Allotment Application #•3 = GreenbrIar West
Qantas Developirient Cor-pbration-i
. .In - dis-dussing - the^vote-chang.e,requested for
B-.3 (drainage)',-; ' rs'
it was noted by -Mr . Dona Cook
of°.-th Residential _'D6velopment EV . altiation
Board
(sub,stlt-utIng for Board. Chairman Carlton Reinaldo)
that on this p4rticular Board did not'
overrule the absent Board member's vote and felt
.that�'such* a- be considered at
Council 1-evel,. if,, there was suffilcieht reasoning
to .do -.s.o.
Mr. Robert &'Neel:of•Q �
io, antas Development,
n I le
presented etters from the: County
Water-Agency and fr ' er-inq f irms - ve
pm - engine irms verl ying
that. the .drainage faci.lities - already. installed"
are adequate for - proper drainage of the .proposed
devel-opment.. , .'Mr.. ONeell conceded to - E -, he judg-
ment f actor .on - th - & - .-scho,ol i8s;ug,, but urged the
'Council. . chaChging. the absen't .. Board
mbmber's, vote on B-3 based on the facts pres I ented.
Following thorough-review of the evidence pre-
s`enteld,,. a motion was -made by 'Councilman,. Dal
and seconded by—CoLincIlman Mattei to accept the
,re.commendation.of the Board on B-3. Motion was
defeated by the .f ollowing - vote:,
Ayes-. Councilmen and Mattei.
Noes: Councilmen-Brunner, Cavanagh,,.Jr.,
and Mayqr Putnam.
Absent:,. Councilman , Clecak and Councilman. Per
A- was then Gouncilman Brunner
and :seconded by Mazy Putnam gtantlng an addi7
tionaL-5 points to the ap.plica_nt B-3 - on ' the
ground's that there's, in fact, adequate drainage
for th& development,- Mot carried by 5
aftirmative.- votes , 2 absentees .
. January 30, 1973
26 7
6
Development Allotment
Clerk was directed to change Board
Ratings--1973-74
.. The•City
member #14 vote from zero to 5 points to re-
Constru Year
flect.the.Counci_l's_action.
(continued)
Allotment,Appli '#.4. Greenbriar
It. was '-poin-ted, out - by Mr. Joslyn that the
adequacy of-drainage on this development was
indicated at.the . same time as the adequacy of
i -1 nage for Allotment
(ira - Application #3.
Mrs.. ..Cook -irif orme'd the, Council that the Board
felt the--samb regarding. this application as for
Allotment Application #3; whereupon a motion
'
was made by'Cou*nc'ilman*:Daly and seconded by
'
Councilman Brunner Allotment� Application
#4, B-3 '(drainage) , Board member #14, from zero
-t - o 5 'points.. Motion carried unanimously. The
City Clerk was directed to change the tallies.
-accordingly.
Allotment- Appl!icati6n A,16 Cherry ' Street
Subdivision
As.poin'ted out by the City Attorney, it
- Ehe-.consensus of that.items under .
triteria*C value-judgment factors
and no action was -taken on the Criteria C items
appealed -(C-4j and C-8) . Also, as so
_stated in the Planning staff's confirmation of
-appeals, no appeals were made.to the Board
regarding Criteria C i tems.
r -6
In regard to Crite'ia (streets) appeal, a
motion.was--made by Councilman Cavanagh, Jr.,
- c
an&seconded by Coun il man Daly upholding the
Board's decision. Motion carried unanimously.
Allotment Application #12 Los Pinos:
-Mr.....MdGuire,-the app-li-cant, stated that letters
have bee-n-filed,evidencing adequacy of water
(B�1), sewer (B"2); and drainage (B,-3) and
claimed that the same reason for the Council
changing the vote on A-ilo ' tment Application
-d #Aapplie�s_i case. However,
#3.an n, this c , in
- reviewing letter,j dat 18, 1972,
from.'Director of Public Works David Young,
water adequady was -questioned.
.,SInc the applicant submitted an appeal on a
number of Grite'ria-,B.and C items,
the Council
decided to separate the Criteria-B items into
the following 3 groups for consideration and
a B--l;- B-i2 and B-.3; B-5 and - 13-6. (No
action on Criteria C items.).
Criteria B-1:
Af te r con s1de'xing -water.* adequacy, a 'motion was
made by C ouncilman Cavanagh, Jr. and seconded
by. Cothdilmah.Briinner, the Board's
- c * '
de -sion on Criteria . and adopted by the
follow_ing vote.:
AYES : Councilmen .,.Brunner, Cavanagh, Jr. and
Mayor: Putnam.
.NOES: Council-men•Daly and Mattei.
ABSENT: Coun.cilmen and Perry, Jr.
(268
January 30, 1973
Development:,Allotment - Criteria B-2 and - B - =3-.
Ratinga=1:973 -7
Construction Year More discus:sion pursued and Mrs.. Cook.r
(continued) viewed' the .'Bo.ard`s discussion on the zero Votes".
re Criteria B7. B-,2', -and.'B-.3. She reported
that hone of "the votes were chan§qd._
Fur--ther. review,,of Public Works Director David
Young,'s* let of Sept 1972
indicated-
adequa.,te., and together with
other - letters pr..e by Qantas Develbpment
C6r'oratio adequacy, .a Motion was
made by - CoidnciIman Cavanagh.-,,Jr., seconded
by, Councilman.,Br,unner, cha:11ging votes
f B_3 or Criteria - B-2, and B3 fdr * - Board - Board member #16
to 5
points. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Clerk was * directed to reflect this
change - the land on . the -tally for the
reason that fa6ts,were. - presented by letters
from.various agencies evidencing adequate
sewer and-drainacre for -the development.
CrIterid. B:: 5
ARegarding,Criteria B,-5 and.B-6 (streets)
a, ffioti made by Council . man Ca I vanagh, Jr., 'and
seconded by Co,unc.lman Brunner upholding the
poard,s de,dlsion, -was, adopted- by 4 . affirmative
an
d,l"negative 2 absentees; Councilman
Paly voted "NO."
Criteria C-1 through C-7
on Criteria C-1 through
C-7,. Mr. - McGuire. expla ined questions r _
by the Board regdrding the. change in the con- .
cept•of-the d6ve.lopment. He-assured the Council
that there. would be no change and 'that the 100
unit would remain as presented;
however as no appeal was made to th'e
on-. Criterid C-1 th"rough C-T,, as conf irmed' byl.'
the.Pianning sta:fi,,plus the fact that decisions
re Criteria ,C were , conside , r-ed"subjbctive,'no
. action :was taken : by,the Council.
AliQ,tnent Application #15 7 Vineyard Hills:
Further- ,appeals were: -made, by Mr. I McGuire on the
Board's ratings,, and after con
sion, a mo on wa ' s. made. by Mayor - . Putnam and'
se68n_dqd,by-C6uhcilman Brunner .. upholding the
B6ard's, decisdonon alIl the votes for Allotment
Application #151. adopted by 5 affirmati've
votes, 2 abs•entees.-
List of Allotment Appli cat ions-. by p.o.ihts:-
Upon conclusion .of the appeals action,, the City
Clerk was directed to turhish -the, City Attorney
with a liat•of,the applications starting with
those-projects receiving the, most ,evaluation,
Pqints, in each category and proceeding ` down the
list in order according to the' action taken by
the Cou -1c,il,; the City- Attorney is. to use this
list f or, pr a resolution -for action by
the -Council at the February 51th meeting.
January 30, 1973
9
6 a �Q
,2 u
Development Allotment Allotffent' #1 Norman Johnson :.'
Ratings'--1973-74
Construction!'. Year` . During thee. hearing i - mr-; Cooper, representing .
t licatIon #l.
(continued) y. n-
t..*Notma A
for 70 miilti-.f:amily units, spoke in regard to
their decisi not to'- submit an appeale Mr.
'Johnson then addressed the CounciT (realizing
a
tha&the.5 addition 1 , p 6in
ts granted to Qantas
for Allotment Applica-ti advanced.this
to. rdt #1
development for an allotment of
. .l0A'mu , ltiple_-.f - amily: urfa-ts on the east side) and
requested 'any balance of -,the allotment be given
ff" a.S�__#L2:'_ 0 p'sit and to be considered in
the' 1.0;% modifidatIon q_Ubta, if the Council so
t -Resolution #'6113 N.C.S.',
grantsi. as 'spelled ou in
Section .3. He asked'.-that an answer be given as
soon as, poss.ible. It was indicated to him that at the February 5th : meeting the legislation
w "ll information relating to this request
for
-- Council action.
Staff direc.,tion':
,For. information to prepare the legislation,
th6-.Council-by consensus decided that a maximum
of.-l&O units be, for any one application.
Upon-conclusion . of the meeting, Mrs. Cook
e-ktend ' ed.,t--he-B6 to the staff
and°C , ou , d
ncil-for..-their.:coo.peration. She then
preser�'tb '.a letter,
dated January 22, 1973,
offering to assist the Council
ri its future resolution in rules and regulations
i
for 19.74 -75 Residential Development. Evaluation
Board. Said submitted and filed.
Adjournment There: business -- to .- come before
the Councll,_-tthe - meeting was adjourned at 9:45
.o'clock to..an executive session.
Mayor
Attest:
Clerk