HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/02/1973311
Approval of Minutes:
CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Item #4
Miwok Park
Res #.6255 NCS
Agenda Item #5
Casa Grande -
Annexation #1.
Washington Street
Widening -- Keokuk- to
Kentucky Streets.
Project GT-1 -7`2 ''
Re 46256 NC-S,
a
Absent: None.
Due to the-absence .o.f the Reverend Albert Foster,
First st "Chu'r,-ch • no .invocation was- given.
Regular -' of --the, City Council of the
City of Petaluma. was :cal to order by Mayor
Putnam at hour of* 4:00 -o`clock. p.m.'
Present :. Councilmen Brunner Cavanagh, Jr.,
Clecak,-Daly,. , Matt:ei ; Perry, Jr'. ,
arid•: Mayor .Putnam
MINUTES OF MEETING
OF 'CITY COUNCIL.
P.ETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
1 2 ' 1973
The ,minutes of ' March 1-9,.-1973, were. approved
as recorded
- Agenda Item #1 was, removed from the Consent.
Calendar for later discussion and ,considera-
tion'. A motion •was - made - ;by Councilman Brunner
and- seconded by. Counc`ilma`n &Clecak approving.
Items 4`2, #3', and #`4_, filing Item #5.; and
d,ele_ting Item #1 of the :Consent Calendar.
Motion carried unanimously.
Resolution #6253 N.0 S. ,.'authorizing, the Mayor.
to. execute .a cooperative agreement, with the.
.State of California Division of Highways for
the proposed .construction ' of the extension-of
. Baywood Drive.
Resolution #6254 N.,C: accepting completion
of work required in Cambridge Square.,Subdivi- p
sio.n Units #1 and. #-2 . V -� r
Win—
Resolution #6 N.C.S. naming Miwo °k ,Park . 14
Notice of pui)lic hearing on April 5, 1973, at
3 :.00 . .m.. -in .•Room '10 -2A; Sonoma County Admnistra
ti'on.Building, uy the.,Local Agency; Formation
Commission to, application for annexation of
territory .to tie City of Petaluma .des`ignated
as "Casa Grande Annexation #1," submitted and
filed,
Plans and .spec.if.ications for the subject pro -
ject -, submitted and filed,
Y
Director of Puulic Works David Young explained
to. the .Council ' that the proposed signal instal -
lation at the intersection of 'Washington and
Kentucky Streets and at Washington and Howard
S't`reets will .be a separate wher.eupon
Res'olutio #625 N..C.S., approving plans and
S for the subject project was in
trod'uced by Councilman Clecak, seconded.by
Councilman—Daly,,. and adopted" by the following
vote
Ayes: Councilmen Clecak, Daly, Mattei, Perry,
Jr ., , and Mayor -Putnam.
Noes: Councilmen Brunner and Cavanagh, Jr.
- Agenda Item' #2
Baywood .. Dr i.v
Extension.
Res #62.53 NCS
I
Agenda _Item #3 -
Cambrd'ge Square
Units #1 and #2
Res #62.54 NCS -
Agenda Item #4
Miwok Park
Res #.6255 NCS
Agenda Item #5
Casa Grande -
Annexation #1.
Washington Street
Widening -- Keokuk- to
Kentucky Streets.
Project GT-1 -7`2 ''
Re 46256 NC-S,
a
Absent: None.
Due to the-absence .o.f the Reverend Albert Foster,
First st "Chu'r,-ch • no .invocation was- given.
Regular -' of --the, City Council of the
City of Petaluma. was :cal to order by Mayor
Putnam at hour of* 4:00 -o`clock. p.m.'
Present :. Councilmen Brunner Cavanagh, Jr.,
Clecak,-Daly,. , Matt:ei ; Perry, Jr'. ,
arid•: Mayor .Putnam
MINUTES OF MEETING
OF 'CITY COUNCIL.
P.ETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
1 2 ' 1973
The ,minutes of ' March 1-9,.-1973, were. approved
as recorded
- Agenda Item #1 was, removed from the Consent.
Calendar for later discussion and ,considera-
tion'. A motion •was - made - ;by Councilman Brunner
and- seconded by. Counc`ilma`n &Clecak approving.
Items 4`2, #3', and #`4_, filing Item #5.; and
d,ele_ting Item #1 of the :Consent Calendar.
Motion carried unanimously.
Resolution #6253 N.0 S. ,.'authorizing, the Mayor.
to. execute .a cooperative agreement, with the.
.State of California Division of Highways for
the proposed .construction ' of the extension-of
. Baywood Drive.
Resolution #6254 N.,C: accepting completion
of work required in Cambridge Square.,Subdivi- p
sio.n Units #1 and. #-2 . V -� r
Win—
Resolution #6 N.C.S. naming Miwo °k ,Park . 14
Notice of pui)lic hearing on April 5, 1973, at
3 :.00 . .m.. -in .•Room '10 -2A; Sonoma County Admnistra
ti'on.Building, uy the.,Local Agency; Formation
Commission to, application for annexation of
territory .to tie City of Petaluma .des`ignated
as "Casa Grande Annexation #1," submitted and
filed,
Plans and .spec.if.ications for the subject pro -
ject -, submitted and filed,
Y
Director of Puulic Works David Young explained
to. the .Council ' that the proposed signal instal -
lation at the intersection of 'Washington and
Kentucky Streets and at Washington and Howard
S't`reets will .be a separate wher.eupon
Res'olutio #625 N..C.S., approving plans and
S for the subject project was in
trod'uced by Councilman Clecak, seconded.by
Councilman—Daly,,. and adopted" by the following
vote
Ayes: Councilmen Clecak, Daly, Mattei, Perry,
Jr ., , and Mayor -Putnam.
Noes: Councilmen Brunner and Cavanagh, Jr.
31-2
April 2, ,1
Young and Stokes
Re zoning - 7Env.-J-ron
mental Impact Report
Res #6257 NCS
�Young and
Re-zoning
Ord #108
This being the,ltime - set to consider the
mental .-Impact -Report relating to, the •application
ung and kes to rezone -A.
of Yb' Sto P. and
A.P.1. #50.40-04. (property located between Cas'a
Graride,_Road and F-r-a-tes Road) from an ` -1- 10.,'000
(One family Re sidentla'l) District and an "A'-
(Agrid;ulturdl) District' to a PCD (P-lanned,Com-
m District an& of�.
rezoning
portion's of A. 03 and A.P. #5- 040. -0
frdt an R-Ir-1"0;y'Q0 District and an, Agricultural'
District to a. CH-7'PUD '(Hiqhway.,,Commercial7-Pianned
'-
Unit - Development) District (K-Mart), the hearing
was opened, and``the City'C-lerk Announced that no
written communications were received. Copy'qf'
the En submitted and
filed,,�
Plann-ing:Director -Mc.Givern,rep,orted that the
PlA j , by. a unanimous vote of
those res recommended to the Council that
the report is ,.-adequat(Ei and a6curate and that
it'be ac
The'Mayor then called for comments from the
,public on the EnVironmental Impact - Report. No
one,apppared.,.-
In.. response to q uestion concerning :traffic
r
related to t r he ea proposed to be rezoned,
o ed,
the City At.:t6rne,y explained that the
dociiments all the problems that, may or.may-'
not. exist, and is accepted for. the facts.con-
tainpd therein -with regard to the of •pro-
perty whether- -they: �be positive or negative.
The report is accepted as a report required by
law to. be filed. Acceptance of does
not automatically a' rove,.the develo ment. The
pp P
inf'6rma-t_i in the E.I.R. will ;-be' used -. by..the
-Co,unc in t he!,:fu,,t.ure to develop'de
disions on
the various 4spgct of-the development. 'C ouncil-
Daly added '-that, a number of piublic .hearings
were bp1d''by thd Pl.anning-CoMmi7S,Sion which also
become, a part o,f the E.I.R.,
Following .a brief 'jdis,cus:si discussion, the hear-ing'was
_closed and, Re N.C.,S. adopting
Enivironmental Impa Report relating to•younq
and - Stokes rezoning , was 'dhtroduced by Councilman
Daly seconded by:Councilman Mattei, and adopted
b 'I aff"
y'. irmdtive votes.
Stokes This being the time set to hear comments or pro -
tests ; reqArdinq - . an-'amendment to the Zoning.
NCS' Ordina!nce 41072 N.C,S.: recommended by the Plan
n in C ommi Resolution #Zl ,7 dated ted.
March 6 197 reclassify A.P�.' #17- 0'3.0 -T'6 and A ,.-P #5= 0 40' =0.4; ' � . (property, located 'between
Cas Grande 'Roa. - d.- `dhd'Frates' Road) from an R-1-
1-0,000 (One -, _ , family .Residential) District ct I and
am "'A"" .(Agridul. District -to - a. PCD
(Plann6d. -Commun,ity Deveiopm6nt) "Di'stri&t, the
hearing was bpened.
n
P'lann g staff—to.port ' dated October 17
1
Plannin 1 1 1972;
amended'staf,f: report,, 'dated, 11, 1973;
, P , 'la , hnknq Commis miftUt(�s dated November 3.
i97,2, �De_cem`b_e 5 19,72, January, 1,6,, 19 . 7 3, F e b.-
r u a y r ' 6 r 15 7 T February 21, '1913, and*March 6,
Y . � r
1973, stbmitt6d . and filed.
P' . . A
e
313
April. 2, 1973
Young and SEokes
,gram of the-.gene.ra-1 layout - of the
A de
Rezoning-
45.8"3 -acre - sIte . - wd shown and described by
'Ord #rO81 NC
-Pl Dir'ectot William McGivdrri. - S,did pro-
(continued:)
p6sed' in.dlu a combination .of
dwelling units and acormercial -development
with a k-Mart -store. - 'The density of" the total
development.., excl'.Ud-iftg, the commercial area., is
six.units" per . acre . He explained-the tentative
g ss of F
acc6s.sand eg ress - the developi the plan
fient'
to include the old Lakeville Highway into the
property if- aband.oned- byothe Cityj and the ex-
tension of McDowell Boulevard South to Lakeville
Highway; between ,'the propose.d,Planned,Community.
Development. �Lnd the. proposed commercial area'.
Ipm
The,cb erc'ial area requires. rezoning from a
-
,
BCD to CH-PUD. It.was noted .that -the service
.,station located in the triangular parcel at
Cas.a Grande Aoad.and_L,akeville Highway is under
another ownership. McGivern also pointed
out that the.plan-provides'for the abandonment
of the old Lakevill'e.Hig.hway,; but if not ,aban-
doned by thei..Ci a revision of the proposed
..plan would - bb,.required to reflect the existing
right -of -way:
Mr. John Loun.ibos,,'at- the
developers, Younq.and, Stokes,. appeared befo're
the .Cbiihdi1 to -discuss the rezoning application.
Mr. GarY Stokes of '• a:nd'Stokes elaborated
on the proposed plan-. He, pointed, out that a
..portion o - the. plan. was % to the Resi-
dential - Devel'opment Evaluation,Board, but missed
an.,.allotment-for ' the l construction year by
a, f.e.w-poih,ta. Mr. Hess, architect, presented
color slides of developments
'in various' sections of.'the Stat illustrate
the.gen concept be used.
Mr. �Mich.a:el Skiles
of, Company; -spoke "in favor of the K-Mart' proposal
Those who appeared ,and- against the proposed
commercial zon•J:ng,-po.rt!on of the plan were as
follows:
,Mr. Jim Lu Street;
Mr;' Ly,.,l e, _Hood,, 133 11,2. Kentucky Street;
Mr- Brad 1, Downtown Merchants' Committee; and
Q 6h�
The .concern of.- those. who�.spoke -in opposition to
the. iz:ofnmerqia1 dev'elbpment was-based on the
ecoftomic.*.impact , have on
other commercial property in,the City.
Fallowing, complet-ion-'of presentations and"further
d'isc'ussion . the-hearing was closed.
Ordinance #1&81 N.C - amending Zoning. Ordinance
#-1;0'7'2 N...C,S.. by rp.c.1'as,si fying A.P. ' #17-030-16 ..
and, #- -04,0-4 ('property .located. between Casa
Grande Road -and Frat&s from ah-R-1-10,'000
.(.One�-,f dmily Res.identla-l) . District and an "A"
(Agr icultural) District to a PCD (Planned Com-
Di strict , j, was introduced by Councilman
Br-unner•,, sec.ond - _by_touncilman Plecak, and
ordered publi shed, by, -1 af f Irmative votes.
314
April 2, 1973
Adjournment.,
SI/ t Appea,l--Young and
Stokes Rez
0 0111, for K=Mdrt
Ord #1082 NCS
The time be . ing p.m.,, - the'Council
ad= j ourned to k'p'kime at, '7: o'clock.,.p.m;•
The meeting reconvened at 7:A5-o' clock - p..m. ,
Re--. Appeal f1le&by"Young and -Stokes of Plan-
n . ing Cbmmis,sion denial to rezone portlioris'of
A.P. . , #17- 0,30-16 .and. A.P.- #5-0-40-94, 'located
b6twe
I qn. Grande ' Road and Frates-Road-, from'
a . n R -1- 10,0:00 (one- f amily Residential) District
and (AgrimAltu'ral) District to a CH-PUD
(Hig•hway Commercial-Planned) Unit.. Development)
District .(.K, Mdrt)-
Mr. John Louni:bo attorneyrepre:senting the,,
applicant, reque that the matter of a
h
6' rin,cf be. ' over until a decision has been
reached on the)--re'toning the
total deve1bpm (Ordinance 41,081 'N.C•.S.)
Th ' e Attorney recommended that the ordinance
be inttoduc'ed -to'cover -thd appeal, explaining
that when- Ordinance #10,81 N.C..$..,L i's
by, the Council, and if, approved,, -then the
matter of appeal ij%y pr 0 ceed to be 'heard; but
if 'Ordin 4108I ..N.C.S. is defeated, the
matter :of - the. appeal- becomes MPP He added
that an dntr.64, ion - of an ordinance does not
commit: the Cou`r'cd`.l . to any decision,. but merely
es`t_ablish6 to p ost or publish the
ordinance.
After a.'brief discussion, ordinance #1082 N;C.•S'.•
amending Zoning Qrdinanc'e• 1072 N by re=
classifying gQrtioqs of A.,P., #17-030,-16 and
A.P. #-5-,040-0,4 located. between .Casa Grande
Roa,d and Frates . Road.,, f rom an (One7
family. Residential ), District and an'!LA I" (Agri"
cultural); District - to a CH-PUD ( Commer-
cia ' 1-Pla - nned .Unit-Development) 'District, was
int -by Councilman Daly, second'ed by
Councli,lman Cav&nagh,, • Jr. and ordered published
by the. *following vote:
Ayes -: Counci.lmen grunner,- CaVan agh,j.Jr., Clecak,
Daly, and. Mayor Putnam.
Noes: Councilmen Mattei and Perry, Jr.
Westridge Development
This . ,being the time set t:o , consider- 'the - Environ,-
Environmefttal Impact
mental :Impadt.Repqr re- latings to Westridge de
Report
velopm'ent located in. the Street and Sunny-7
Res #6 NCS
slope,.Road: area; .the hearing was - opened and the
following corntu were..read,:1
Letteri dated -March 27, 1 from Mr. George
_,- -, .973,
L L, I
R. 'Miller 24 Rd. 204, Lindsay, California,
and -owner ,of,`prdpbrty located at the Grant
Avenue -"I" Street intersection, that it, was
indicated I :tQ him -
the Environmental , Impact Repo rt
furnished c.ont-ai very limited. in-fbrmation on
the affect that the pr posed development . would.
,
have 'oh the downstream drainage and recommended
'
tha h the Co -incil.'�s f inal determination of
-
owing or not allowing the deV6lbpment,- that
a
cons'ideration given to the limited increased
3 15
April 2, 1973
Westridge.Develo
drainage How that would•,result from the pro-
Environmental Impact
'po.seddevelqpmen't�, submitted and filed.
Report,.
Res #6258 NCS
Letter-, dated -March 30 1973, from Mr. Richard:
(continued).'
R. Day of ;Fredernic.ks and Sw,enson, attorneys -at
law, .-representing some ,pro . perty,own in the
ared-b.f the : d&Velopm6nt. stating that the E.I.R.
in conned Development,is
. i: I nsuf-ficIent. for four - reasons, .and that if the
Councll.is to''continue the matter until
the next meeting he:- would have further informa-
ti6n:-tb supply with the matter,
submitted and filed..
Copy-of the Environmental Impact Report submitted
ilbd,.
Plann-ing Director McGivern briefly reviewed the
type of development proposed, including a com-
bi,'d.tion of -s'ingle-fa'mily detached units, single-
family townhouses,-,and.Multiple-family units for
an ultimate, total of, a'pprbx ' imately.380 units.
density The,overall desity for the proposed development
is 5 .,. ; L 6 un:its-: per-acre.-
Mr. McGiverh reported that after holding a public
Maring the E.I,.,R. the Planni Commission
recomm.6-nde'd -to- the Council that the report be
-accepted I - a s being accurate and factual.
No comments wer'e.,heard from the public on the
. -1 -
b - � . .
E,. I R. 1
Following a'..brieI jdiscussion, the hearing was
ql'o.sed and. Resdlution #61258 N..C.S. 'adopting
"tonme'nt
gpvi al. Imp,aCt. ,Report re to Westridge
Subdivision-,, was �,in by Councilman Clecak
seconded, by•C6,uncilman•,Brunner, and adopted -by
7 -aT f,irmatiVe, votes.,
Westridge Development
This -b6 the =time -set to hear comments or
comments
Re2oning Un.its
protests bn,r rezoning Wb�s Dev&1
#1 an * d #2
Un4ts,41, (Condio:tti Enterprises,), located
Ord #108-3 NCS
-
in the "V'l Str4eb and 5unn s;loio6 'Road area, from
a-PCD (Plan -tied Community District) to a PUD -
(Pl .,Unit Development) District, the hearing
wa :opened.
Pla-fining Director MdGivern explained that ,the
total. area wa°s,pre:zoned to a PCD before the
P
area was annexed "the City and the-application
no i presented . ted is to2 U n #1. and #2 with-
I
in the prQpo:s to PUD. The Council
- awarded , an-• Initial 100 units for this developmen•t
for the - construction year 1972-71 per i
Resoluton ,
#60 2;8 N,. C. In addi4t-Ion thereto► an application
.Wals . subm to the Residential Developmen t
Evaluation - Bo , ard 'and -.an' allbtm of 100 units
was -awarded. by'the Council for the 19.73 -74. con-
st.ruqt!oq ye4r..r - The PUD.Units #1 and #2, as
s
propo -ed-, comprls'el the 2:0 residential units.
The Planning Comm li s'si- . an uftan the
X"ezoninq applica.tiori and recommended Council
adoption per'Resolution #Z6-73, dated March 6,
L03 .A map of the displayed to identify
the location of •this portion of the development.
Mr. Arthur Lafranchij• attorney representing
developer.C Enterprises, appeared before
316
April 2, 1973
West-ridge Development. -,
-the Council,pointing out.that the- development
, *
Rezoning, Units
i -
is --i n conformity' wit h the Environmental Design
it and #
Plan,, Element and was ed 'by
I approv
Ord #1083 NCS
the Residential Development E'valu Board..
(continued)
He urged Cbunc to approve the rezoning:
In 'response t-.o- Mayor, Putnam ,' s-call,,,for opponents.
to speak, Mr Maws'on,, :attorney representinj
a ndrrvbdr 'of di.•l along Sunnys,lope Road. and
Street-,• .i,n.,,, address'ed
Council, -in to the procedures of heating
then �- rezoning -as recommended -b . y . t h e Plan I ning,
Dire'dtor He _pp,in-ted.• out -that Section 19-900
i ,
of, Zonin4 Ordinance 41072 N.,C..S. regarding PUD
.rezon-ings require s , the. Counci
11 to.rrfake certain
f Indihgs . Uponl,,atpproval of , the rezoning He- di--
rected the. drainage.and thoroughfare
ad.equacy reqqiif�p - mlent-,of . the' findings,,. :and -l in this
respect -,'. he noted -the-pos inadequacies o
Thomp.s Cre - and. af. the jjre condition:of
the th.or.oughf,4 d . anSunnyslope
Road) leading- proposed development. He
suggested that, - action on the rezoning -applica-
tion be.pqstponed urit.r these il th - se - findings can be
- _7
mora'11y - -and legal - .made that,th6 Council
not, introduce. t)a6: 'ordinance at this time.
Othe-k who a-nd- . spoke against the
development were;
..Dr,.,. Frank Denham, 9.10, "1 Street-,-.
Mr.. Jim, -Wi.l-liamsl_� 9 0:4. " 1-` Street
Mr. Clarence G-11,ardi 110.0A Street;
Mr Brilun,',13 Sunnyyslope Ro.ad,;
q
Mr. James Colwell., 11.76 "1" Street,,
Mr D'an Libdrl'e.,_'.l3'l49 ;'"'I" gtree't; and
Mr. Johh,,'nelson, *. owner"" of property (?n,.
Sunnyslope Avenue,,.:
Mrs.. Leota Ayers 3 . 3 0 - Sunny s 1 ope Road,;
a letter,.-dated•Mardh 1973 from -Marion
E_ Stith reporting his opinidn of a dangerous.
c6ndition O "I", and Sunhyslope Road
and. he auggestqd that the 'County, and City ork
y
h
toget—er in a.IJo.iftt effort to revamp Sunnys.lope
Road Said letter fil'ed.
Recess
The,comments made In opposi
tion to the, develop -:
menu generally involved the concerns of possible
drain-age problems and,-the hazardous street con-,
di pArticularlyv w regard, to the safety
'of school children. if -the, propaaed. residential
development ;p-roj'e ac,curs.
A recess was declared at 9:45 o',clockjp.�ff . The
meeting Was,resumed at o'clock p.m.',
Further-dis,c - uasion continued on the street
conditions and auio�erv�bsor Philip Joerger indi-
cated that the Sonoma County Bbard of*'.Suppr-
vi,s,ors,- - In priorities � fo' r. the next - thr three
:
years -does: not. have:, -any funds re s erved, f o r
improvement of - Sth nyslope Road and "I"' Street.
In determining the pr`ocedureito follow regarding
the rezoning -application and, consIderation of,
the tentative : ma
t e, � e p, City Att-Orney'Robert advis''ed
I
thaaqh. item b cons. ddred s arat,ely on'its
1
April 2, 1973
317
Westridge Develo own.-merits, = It..was ,clarified by' -the Mayor that
Rezoning - Units -. ' ' introduction ••of� .an ordinance does not indicate
#1 and #2 - th:e vote of- , .any' - Council member at the time' the,
Ord #1.083 NCS - - ordinance is pr esented for adoption;; . that intro-
(continued) - dudtion merely :autl or;izes the posting or publishing,
of. "said ordinance.
1
Westridge Units #1
and #2,- Tentative Ma
The.•hea -ring :wasp closed and. upon decision to pro -
ceed;wi,th,ntroduction of - the ordinance, ordinance
#`1083, N:.C.5.` amend'i'ng. "Zoning Ordinance #1072 N.C.S.
by recs
lasify ng Unit&' #1 • and #2 -as shown on the
general development plan of the Westridge Planned
Community,'located -in the "I Street and Sunnyslope
Roa °area from:ta, PCD� :(Planned Community. District),
tO PUD. (Planned- Unit Development) District, was
in`tro,du'ced, y, -b Councilman Mat_tei, seconded by
Councilman-Daly; and ordered pubiished by 7 af=
Eirmative vote's
Re: Planning.Commiss-ion Resolution #5 -73 recom-
Map
mending approval, of tYe tentative map of Condiotti
Enterprises., Inc., .for "Westridge Development
Un as Al and 2:•
Planning Director William McGivern'reviewed
the..19- -conditions- of approval of the tentative
map set forth by,the Planning Commis +sign on
March,_.6•, 1973. Said conditions submitted and
City .Engin'e`er- `David Young also reviewed recom-
mendations on 7 the tentative map in relation
to - the ' public - improvement, requirements of the
Subdivi,son.Ordinance'and the.provisions of
the Map Act as- reported in.fetter,'dated
February 2l, 1973; part of -the.
Planning. - .Commission conditions of approval. Mr..
Young'- .ex pl:'ained "'the possible .City .maintenance
problem involved with the propos'ed.7-2 -inch.
drainage .pipe.. in the •event the . Sonoma. ,County
Water reject any maintenance
re's;pons•bility -on t'Yi,s: pipe. Ah alternative to
the'p pe would be a bridge on Westridg:e
spanning. the- natural,' creek,; however, he pointed
out, -this would entail added expense to the
developer and•a reduction in lot yield from the
property.. He stated-that-the Planning Commission
did no't� take- any. action and a Council decision
its Creq;uired on the matter; Mr. -Young also
point an important requirement with - regard
to theismall. dam on the Jacobsen. Ranch adjacent
to.the rear of the lots along the. south side of
t`he, proposed development.. If the dam is.not
r emoved the a'soils engineer report attesting
to .the ~stability 'o;f the dam is to be submitted.
'Mr. Laf- ranchi spoke'' at .leng;th regarding the
s,pecifi'cs oif th.a-requirements and claimed that
never has - the 'City- aasked '=so much from a developer.
He :que's.t pried -the- effectiveness of the, tentative
map; 'and. whether �or" ;not The tentative map was,
considered with-in the time 'allotment in the State
'-statutes of the'`Subdi.vis on Act.. He questioned
the:,. following .requreme.n;ts: (1) Density. (2)
D.r.anage - Condition 47'r:equires "that the drainage.
.:improvements - loc'atiohs -, easements, - and sizing
shal .b'e pro V. ded as required ' by the City Engineer
318
April 2,.. 1973
Westridge Unit #1
and the Sonfoma County Water.Agency in accordance
and #2; -= Tentative Map
- with ''the Agency==. s design standards.-,".: If the
(continued`,) -. -
tentatrive. , map is ,approved with . this • cond'ition .
Mr..Lafranchi said that the developer, -& taking'
amr'is. because- ,4111.be confronted with the
problem of : meeting, standards set 'down,- by 4_he.
Agency. (3") iStreets . The requirement, to
improve.. "17 Street from 'the southerly end of the
deve to' Sunnyslope, Avenue. and the entire
_
distance, fronting the,::deve'lopm'ent on. Sunnyslope
Road to "'I" Street:. Mr. Lafr:anchi,questioned
this on the State Map Act,
Business�and• Code, which,, he believed
requires that the° improvements made.-' by the
developer, must be ,related tol the impact and
questioned.whetaer. the impact as proposed is
sufficient 'to.. r'equ: re the extent of the improve-
"
merits:
Because: the .applicant is desirous of going
ahead ,.with the-.developinent,: 'Mr. Laf'ranchi
_
stated 'that .'Mr,:. -Condiott , is willing to with: -
draw hies objection - with regard to the street
requir-ements if . the . City,. would consider the
following four basic possibilities.•
1. City consider A sewer, reimbursement agree-
ment,f.or oversiz.ing the; -lane within the.
propose'd,_a -rea to be 'developed. The reason
for :this -request-is, that installation of
such maih� will 'be of benefit to .property
other than'' that`owned'by- the developer.
Letter,. dated April 2,,1973, from - Condiotti
'Enterprises -. Inc; ,. regarding the, request
for . sewer..r'dimbu.rsement, .,r.ead ,and filed.
.2. That the C -y commit the entire number.
of the potential - -qf the 380 units a
shownt on `the original PC to: be• granted.
'within th's year the next, year,..and pos-
sibly- -the year thereafter. 'Mt". 'Lafranchi
added, that this :commitment. is .being re-
que :ted .;because of the extensive s''treet
improvements- to :serve =the. entire
4, units, of, the development and not just
for Units #1 and #2:
4. That the .ten at ve map be•approved.without
requiring • the. alternate . proposed by they
City Engineer of the possibility of `building
a 'bridge on Westridge Drive .in the
development.
• i
In conclussion Lafranchi.bh : served that.the
City in its :Envi'roninental, Design Plan e
a balanced•.growfh for the eastern and western
sections of'' -the .city, and,, to. comply 'W'ith the -
E Mr. ' "Condiot'ti is proposing the subject
development: for,fYie western -portion of the City.
He..asked' the Counc`i.l to consider this' ; point when
making its d'ecis`ion on the teritative 'map.
Mr ., Jon Anderson,- Enginee with MacKay 'and
Somps and reptes,enting Oonddotti Enterprises,
appeared before the Counc "il. -with ,regard to
technical information 'on- traffic, drainage and
the sidewalk I r.eq.ui,rements on , ""I" Street. He
pointed out the, possibility -of disturbing the, -
terrain and, encroaching on oak trees' if .required
to install the sidewalk as required by the
319.
April 2, 1973.
Westridge _Units #l;. -City Engineer .•on•the. west s ,d`e. of "I" Street
and #2-- Tentative Map from Grant- Avenue •to Sunnyslope Avenue instead
(continued) 'o f, •on the easter.l.y. side of the street, as pro-
1
•posed -in ' the developer:.`:s plan • The • question
in, this matter -is whether the school children
from the subdi vi•s;on will•, be attending Grant
School,. or McNear School..
Mr';. , Mawson made,. the following comments upon
hearing the attorney for the applicant:
Adjournment
1
1 —That approval of the tentative map be
contingent upon - securing the PUD zoning.
2:, .Request „legal advice in terms of estab-
lijshing .an, objective :standard for park
development.
3--The has requested a.-commitment
from.the.City regarding'the master plan
fork the whole area.'and that the developer.
'should be,- r.e,ques`ted to' guarantee he will
keep .hks -.-side of' bargain.
4 .
Whet-her . or .not a veiled threat was involved
with regard to the time allotment of the
tentative map,
The City •Attorney concur -red with Mr.' Lafranchi
and •Mr.s;. Lois �Ka-na, 9 `South Ely Road, was
claimed - out' of; zorder to, discuss a matter unre-
lated to the subject tentative map.
,Upon conclusion of more discussion relating to
the.drainage; and street improvements, the meeting
was adjourned"at 11:35_o'clock p.m.,to 4 :00
o'clock p.m; on.- Tuesday, April 3,, 1973