HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/16/19733 2j 9
MINUTES OF MEETING..
OF' CITY COUNCIL
PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.
April 16, 197.3
Council Meeting Regular meeting.of. the City Council of the City
of Petaluma was called to order by Mayor Putnai'n
at.the hour of *7s30.o'clock p.m.
Attendance Present: Councilmen Brunner.,, Cavanagh, Jr.,
Daly, Ma:ttei, Perry, Jr.,. Mayor
Putnam.
Absent: Councilman Clecak.
Invocation The invocation was•.g:iven by Reverend G. Roland
Bond, Petaluma Christian Church.
Approval of Minutes The.minutes.of April 2, 1973,, were approved
with the following correction:.
P,a_ge 3 - Delete "'Mr. Michael. Skiles of Kresky
Company" from list of those who spoke :against
proposed commercial zoning and add the following
sentence to the end Paragraph 2-- "Mr. Michael
Skiles -of Kr.esky- Company spoke in favor of the
K - Ma'rt proposal:."
Page 4, Paragraph 3, Line 7, 6th word -- correct
spelling of-word to "moot."
The minutes of April . 3, 1973, were approved as
recorded.
CONSENT .CALENDAR A mot by Councilman.Mattei and
seconded Councilman Daly approving Items #1
thru #'7 on'the Consent Calendar. Motion carried
unanimously.
Agenda Item #1
Resolution #6264 N:C. - S. setting date of 7, 4Q5'S'.=
Appeal -- Newman B.
1973, at,7:30 o'clock p. for public hearing
Nelson
on the appeal -of' Newman, B.' Nelson for rezoning
Res, #6264 NCS
of 2i0 Vallejo Street from existing R -2 -3,000
to C 'Zoning.
Agenda Item. #2
Resolution . #6265. N:C'. -S'i establishing fees for ,S'9 1F
Fee - -Home
the filing-of an application for home occupation
Occupation
under- Zoning Ordinance #1072 N.C.S.
Res #:6265 NCS .
Agenda Item #3.
Resolution #6266 N:.C:S. declaring that the
[n1 edd Abatement
weeds rowin and the; rubbish - refuse and dirt
w _. growing g �� ..
Res #62'6 +6`NCS
existing upon the streets, parkways, sidewalks,
and. parcels' of private ,property referred to and
described- in'the resolution constitute and are
a public nuisance.
Agenda Item #4
- Resolution #6267 N.. plans and
Baywood Drive
spe;cif.ica'tions for 'Baywood Drive Extension
Extension.
Project,, "Cooperative Agreement #4-0314 C,"
Res #62:67 NUS.
and apthorizing the 'City Clerk to advertise
for b1ds,W6 for. the work.
Agenda Item #5
Resol;ution.46268 N.C.S: supporting the develop- 2;L
Regional Law
merit o;f an area cr.imina'l justice education and
Enforcement
tr ainirig..center. at Santa Rosa.
Academy -
Res #6268 NCS
- I�Lr
330
April 16, 1973
Agenda Item ' " #'6
Resolution #626,9• N:.C.S.. authorizing the. City
July ' 't Fire - '
Manager: to;, exe 'license agreement for use
'works Pr-ogr,am
of Fairgrounds'! facilities . (July 4th 197:3
Res #'62 6;9 -.NCS
Firewor'ks:' Program) .
f Agenda, Item, #`7
Denman Center-"
Resolution: #6270' N..C.5. accepting .completion
of work required 'in Denman Center Subdivision
o e�
J< S,ubdivksion #l'
#1.
Res #'6 2'7:,0 -N.0 S
Carnival =- Petaluma
Resolution #26 of the Petaluma Area Chamber.
O f Plaza
of Commerce.,, dated April 10, 19`73,, stating
that the East Petaluma Plaza Shopping, Center
has contracted ,for".adver,tising_ and promotion
sales events for the years 1973, 1974.,; and
1975"with Foley and Burke Shows the
East-Petaluma Plaza Merchants' Association
c'o.uld lose $5', 6i0q in contract fees because of
the City of Petaluma not allowing the adver-
tising, and promotion schedule to take place
May 2 -6, 1973; `, .that such a promotion draws'
little-or no more transportation problems than
other ,promotional events; that 'traffic conges-
tion ,caused by •sales' events .is ..a nominal
adjunct to do busines -s; and resolving that the
City of Petaluma issue the necessary permits,
so that the contracted -for advertising -and
promotion services can -be accomplished without
loss to the businesses involved, submitted and
filed."
Letter, dated-April 2,:1973, from Mr .. W.•
Kearny, P`res°ident of. the Petaluma Plaza Merchants
As -t ori, supporting Resolution #26 .proposed
by 'the Pet area Chamber.. of Commerce on
April 10, 19,73,1 concerning the. Foley and Burke
shows-.appearing in`the Center. May Z -6, 1973,
and that repre'sent,ation of the Association will
.be present, . . at • th'e. Council meeting April 16,
197 3,,, submitted and filed. _
Mr., Ernie Jensen, President of the Board, of
Directors of the Petaluma Chamber of. Commerce,
appeared before the Council in :suppor't, of the
Chamber's resolu.ton..
Assistant City Manager John .Nolan stated- that
City Manager :Robert :Meyer repo' 'rued 'to the
Councl recently that no permits-are going to
be- issued this year for carnivals at the Petaluma
Plaza , and Was Square Shopping' - Center
during reconstruction of the East Washington
Street overcrossing because of the close
proximty,.o`f•the shopping centers to the over -
cros sing.
Director of Public Works David Young reported.
that the Division of Hfighways' Resident Engineer
Was contacted with regard - to- the overcros.sing
construction,' activity It . ap.pears that trucks
will be hauling- : dirt,within the 'next two to
three weeks 'and" traffic will be contr.oll,ed by
flagmen: Chief Police Larry- Higgins spoke
to .the Council .relative to the :add
t °ra,f f ic, generated by a carnival... H& recommended
that if .a car- niva'l is permitted, trafic con
trol - be provided- at the Ea Washington- McDowe11 :1
331
April 16 1973
Carnival -- Petaluma.
Boulevard, at the - expense of the
Plaza.
- -promoter, He also recommended- that.- the °con-
(continued;)
.sies,sio-"ns , (the- so-called "joints ") b.e excluded
from the � carnival because of the numer•ou -s -
-citi received during past-
carnivals.
Mr. Vincent DeGregory,' past President of the
East Petaluma ,Plaza Merchants' - •Association,.•
appeared before the Council concerning the
threes -year commi.tm'ent with the Foley and.Burke
s the possible loss of $5,600 in con-
P
tractual fees if n'o't granted a. permit. He .
stressed the po.int:of•the hours of the carnival --
Wednesday- thru Friday,, 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.;
Saturday .•and.Sunday, all day until 10:00 p.m.
He felt -that these houurs: of operation .would
not interfere too.muc.h. with the over.crossing
;.
project.- He-agreed to exclude the "Joints" at
the ,
!,
:Some.general discussion followed. Councilman
Mattei- suggested that.a letter be written to
the -Chamber asking .t -t contact be made with
the City .before any 'further long -term commit-
ment-s, are made that require City approval. In
- .further c:onsiderat-on of the matter, the Council
was. informed b.y Mr, Nolan that other, requests
have ;been _re,ceived, for ear.nivals in the .general
area, and if, the subj'ect 'is granted it,
is probAb -le more applications wil follow:.
Upon conclusion of,the deliberation, a motion
was,made by.Councilman, and seconded by
Councilman Perry, Jr., granting permission for
_
the carnival at the Petaluma Plaza for this
year only. - , carried unanimously...
Councilman Mattel ,further, added that -he did
not feel the Council should honor the commit
meet by the Merchants for the next two years
and he requested that ,the Council consider a
general policy ; carnivals . The City Clerk
on
Ya asked to ddrect� t -he Mayor's attention to
schedule such a study-.
Claims and .Bills
Resolution #,6.271 .N'.,C.. :S.. - ,approving claims and
Res #6271 NCS - -
bills #2394 thru #2;52`2, inclusive, approved
for. payment-by the.,City Manager, wa,s introduced
by,. , Council_man ,Mattel, seconded by 'Counc=ilman
Cavanagh,,- Jr.- , -and adopted • by the following.
Vo
Ayes: �Councilmen.Cavanagh, Jr., Daly., Mattei,
Perry, r. •
y, a nd .Mayor Putnam..
Noes: Councilman Brunner.
Abs,ent•: Councilman C'lecak.
Councilman Brunner'vo,ted "No" in protest to
Check #24=90 in. ,payment to the" City Attorney
for, services regarding C.i,ty versus Barta Hide
Company in:.the.•'condemnation of property re-
garding the Was Street Widening Project.
332
April 16, 1973
•
J Sonoma County Board. Councilman Perry, Jr., -was- delegated to attend.
of Supervisors - -, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors` public
Revenue Sharing Funds hea - ring on May 2, 197 regarding the use of
Revenue Sharing Funds fo:r, a library facility:
r-
Othe: interested - Council members were urged
to attend.
Chamber of Commerce .Assistant,City-Manager John Nolan reminded
Annual Dinner Council members of'the annual Chamber of Com-
'mer-ce Dinner 'to be hel at the. Veterans'
Memorial Auditorium on Wednesday, April 18,
1973 at '7 :30 �o `clock p.m.
League•of California Assistant John Nolan reminded
Cities- Redwood Council members who to attend the subject
Empire'•Div•sion meeting•,to make r`eservations.with the City-
.Meeting Manager's office by Friday of,this week.
Mayors' and
Assistant City Manager -John Nolan reported that
Councilmen's
the and Councilmen;'s Legislative Con -
Legislative
ference will be held in Sacramento May. 14 -16,,
Conference
1973, and reservations are to.`,be made by
April 30,. 197:3: He -a'sked. interested Council
members,to contact:.the Manager's office,
Golden Gage .Bridge.'
Councilman 'Cavanagh, Jr., reported that City,
Highway and Trails-
Manager• . Robert Meyer, Planning "Director William
portation. District
McQivern., `Pl'an'nin'g Commiss drier John Bals aw,
and lie attended . a Cbmmittee, meeting of, ' the
Golden-Gate-Bridge Highway and Transportation
Distrct.on April 5, 1973. The City will not
b any additional•commuter bus ser-
vice at' this time due to shortage of f,und:s;.. .
however:, Councilman Cavanagh, Jr., added that
a club .bus servc,e-is being considered. The
Bridge -. D: strict" s ,involvement in this type of
service .is as -a subsidy to. a private operator.
Uri4er'this concept, a private bus company is
employed by. the 'Br_idge 'Di to transport
commuter's from Petaluma to and from ,San'
Francisco. Director of Public. Works David
Young expla -fined that Planning Director Mc,G i.vern
will contact•the var:iozs local Homeowners'
Assoc-iati - o"ns. regarding the use of club buses.
Dir•ector Public Works David Young reported
that. a- meeting was held last Thursday with the
Chief" .Engineer and Transportation ..Pl of
the Brid,ge..Dstrict and City staff members to'
di:s`cuss .the City's Bus Feasbil Study. It
is J ariticipated,that' the Study -will take about.
three - months' and cost approximately $7, .000 .
Th Study will A be: - financed. by Sena :te 'Bi11. 3.25
- Fui7ds ^appropr'iated_ to the.Bridge Dist for
planning purpo•s;es. The District's Transporta-
tion:,Planner presented•a format ,and scope of
work •for the Study and, It was ,agr6ed that - the
Bridge ffis`trict wou'1d draw up a Memera -ndum of
i
Understanding between the City and the Bridge
District, whith will "be .presented.to the Council
some time in May for endor-s_eme:nt by .resolution.
The Memoran°dum,of Understanding will provide
f o r employment I yy' t - District ' ,o ' a consulting -
engineer to do the Study and ,also 'will .provide
that 'the City will supply-,input data to the
consulting engineer and assist him without
char g e. Likewise, there will 'be no .charge
Petaluma Boulevard Director of Public -Works David Young reported. Zlpp
North=Payra- n.Str,:eet, to the Council, that the utility companies have
East. Washington -been. working: • on the . two subject underground
Stre„e.t= McDowe;1.1 utility districts for :some time. ' A fist of
Boulevard-Underground those property own'ers have not complied
Utility Districts =with the conn,ection-r:equirements has been sub-
mitted by the.utility companies. The.ordinance
establishing-the underground untility districts
- -z'es , the. City. Engineer to post a written
notice.on.the:.property of those who have not
.. compl .and thirty.' :days therea:f -ter. order *dis
cgnnectio:n. Mr:. - Young stated he'hesitated,to
invoke such, a severe measure :without Council
approval. ,
Mr:,. Clifford "-Bind" .Bartlett of P.G. and E.
Compa-ny,.•and Mr. ; Einhardt of the- ..Pac.if - ic Tele-
phone.,Company we - -re present to discuss the
matt-.pr. .. Both , stated , that the property owners -
a_r-e ,now; .in.• -the• process, of .connecting, but
progress is- slow.
After some discussion,. the Council concurred
_ that Mr.. Young write a , letter to the property
owners, on the li,st informing them that the
•ordinance °will be- after a month's
period if requirements -are not complied with.
The _City. .Clerk was, directed . to include a .
progress,report,regarding the.matter on the
-Counc .1 .agenda for .May 21.; 1973.
Former Christian_ Former - Chr:istian`Church restoration progress 46 , yA
Church Building'' ' report:, dated April- . 1.3',; 1,973, from Director
of Rec- r:eat�iom. • ,James Raymond ;.'submit ed and
• .. f i led.
Naming of the_.f'aclity. was referred ,to the
Council Namin:,6.Commi.ttee (Councilmen Daly,
Chairman , C'lecak ;, and. Matte i) .
333
April 16, 1973
Golden Gate Bridge
to the City for the aonsultant's services.
Highway and Trans-
_
por-tatkion .Di strict
(c'otinued)
League.of California.
Transportation Committee Councilman Perry,
Cities
Jr., reported- that,hez'attended a recent
League of California Cities.', Transportation
Gommit.tee meeting. Sacramento. The - League
is, sett.ing._up policies that will direct rec_ om -._.
menda-tions to the Legislature in financing
cities, counties, and-urban areas on-trans-
portation.- .
Human. -Resou- rce,s,- Development Committee and Public.
Safe.ty.,Comm tte,e,: Councilman Daly reported
. he and. Councilman Mattei attended a' recent
' j'gint • meeting - of the , two subject committees in,
Los Angeles. The most important issue discussed
;.
was the. Drug Abuse <:Program.
ABAG'Exec:utive
Mayor Putnam announced. that R. Tranter, the newer
Director _
°Exec;utl ve - D:ire.ctor of- ABAG, commenced his duties
today:.
Petaluma Boulevard Director of Public -Works David Young reported. Zlpp
North=Payra- n.Str,:eet, to the Council, that the utility companies have
East. Washington -been. working: • on the . two subject underground
Stre„e.t= McDowe;1.1 utility districts for :some time. ' A fist of
Boulevard-Underground those property own'ers have not complied
Utility Districts =with the conn,ection-r:equirements has been sub-
mitted by the.utility companies. The.ordinance
establishing-the underground untility districts
- -z'es , the. City. Engineer to post a written
notice.on.the:.property of those who have not
.. compl .and thirty.' :days therea:f -ter. order *dis
cgnnectio:n. Mr:. - Young stated he'hesitated,to
invoke such, a severe measure :without Council
approval. ,
Mr:,. Clifford "-Bind" .Bartlett of P.G. and E.
Compa-ny,.•and Mr. ; Einhardt of the- ..Pac.if - ic Tele-
phone.,Company we - -re present to discuss the
matt-.pr. .. Both , stated , that the property owners -
a_r-e ,now; .in.• -the• process, of .connecting, but
progress is- slow.
After some discussion,. the Council concurred
_ that Mr.. Young write a , letter to the property
owners, on the li,st informing them that the
•ordinance °will be- after a month's
period if requirements -are not complied with.
The _City. .Clerk was, directed . to include a .
progress,report,regarding the.matter on the
-Counc .1 .agenda for .May 21.; 1973.
Former Christian_ Former - Chr:istian`Church restoration progress 46 , yA
Church Building'' ' report:, dated April- . 1.3',; 1,973, from Director
of Rec- r:eat�iom. • ,James Raymond ;.'submit ed and
• .. f i led.
Naming of the_.f'aclity. was referred ,to the
Council Namin:,6.Commi.ttee (Councilmen Daly,
Chairman , C'lecak ;, and. Matte i) .
334
April 16, 1973
YOUNG AND • S,TOKES!
Rezoning --
Ord 41081 ;NCS .
(Defeated)
and
Appeal Re K - Mart
Re: Ordinance #1081 N.C.S'..amending.,,Zoning
Ordinance #10!7.2,. by reclassifying A. P' ..
#17- 0340 -16 and A.P'. _ (property 1dclated.
between Casa Grande Road and Prates Road) .from
an R- `1-- 10,000 '(One- family. Residential): District
and an A "'' (Agr.icul,tural) District to. a PCD
(Planned Community Development,) District.
Planning Direc McGivern presented.a map of
the. t'o:tal .,concept of the area to be rezoned
which,identified ,the various types of develop-
ment proposed there -in. The "development in -,
cludes-a combination of dwelling units and a
twelve - acre commercial site for a K -Mart
store' and a future food market. Mr. McGivern
reported that the Planning Commission recom-
mended.'to' the Council that rezoning -of the
total area to Plan ne'd'Community`Development
be approved. The Council •introduced Ordinance
#1.081 'N..C.S. "on april 2; 1973, for Consideration
of adoption at ,this meeting to.re`zone the com -
pl,etle area. Mr'.. McGivern added that the Plan -
ning ,C ommissi.ob. denied - •Young and Stokes' appli-
cation to rezone the-twelve-acre commercial
area'within the. development to CH--PUD' .(High -..
way' Commercial - Planned `Unit Development').. Young
and. 'Stokes ._'hav -led the 'Planning. Commission's
denial and requested the Council to reverse the
decision ('Ordinance #1,082 N.C. , S., introduced by
the Council April 2, 1'973).
In discussing the map,, the City-Attorney
pointed out the c,onc,ept of the total develop-
ment is considered' in i entirety-and if
accepted bye the.. Council., then , specifics re-
garding t'he 'H'ghwa -y Commercial are considered
in. another separate action.
Mr. Renato G. Martinez,, Tr affic, Engineering
consul tant. who prepared the traffic impact,
study portion .of•the Environmental•. Impact
Report for Young and.Stokes DeveTopmen;t,.,*ap
- peared�befere the Council to discuss the study.
He believed that the proponents have presented
an Environmental' Impact Report that is factual.
He .spoke at length on the impact. of •traffic
flows.,; installat -ion of traffic, s .gnala, -im
provement 'of •Lakevi,ll'e Highway, etc., of
which are covered in the Environmental Impa:et
Repor;t..on file.• It was noted that if the re=
zoning is approved, then specifics regarding
traffic. signal = installation, widening of-.Lake
vil Highway,'and related matters are considered
when the developer'submits a,site..des,ign review
to the; 'Planning .'Comm_i'ssion,
Some discussion pursued on the. proposal to
locate 'a K -Mart "store on -the twelve -acre
triangular. areal :bou'nded by Casa Grande Road,
McDowell Boulevard South Extens.o,n, and L_ ake-
ville: ,Highway.,., 'The Environmental Design Plan
desrignates Neighborhood Comm'erc- al for the
area; dna the C ;ty,Attorney defined Neighbor-
hood
Corercial to normally average three to
five
At•this point the Mayor declared the: public
April 16, 1973
335
Young, and. .'Stokes'"
hearing" opened and as °k"ed for comments from
Rezoning -: -' " `
the proponents
Ord #1,0: NC:S
- ,
(Defeated)
M - -`r•. John :Lounibo.s,; 'atto,rney representing
and
Young and Stokes before the Council
Appeal Re K -Mart
claiming that,t'he Coune.il's action is -to
(continued)
judge, zoning at *this time and that the issue
is orie.•of philosophy. In conclusion of-his
comments he urged the - Council to render a
favorable decision.
Mr.. Gary Stokes. spoke - to the Council with
regard -to: the •traTf ic problems" involved with
the - deve.lopment.and , of appli.cant's willing -
ness :tq cooperate with the City and the State
Division o.f,.Highways in an eff.ort_to reach
a solution.
Mr:.'Michael Skiles of Kresky Company verified
that the "only "building proposed in addition
to the K -Mart would' be for a',future food market.
Those who,appeared and spoke against'the pro-
po'sal were:,_
..P.lanning...Commi:ss:ioner- John. Balshaw. It .was .
his opinion that the, proposal-is inconsistent
with the-.Zoning. and felt that because
'. , ,Of the newness , of the- .PCD zoning .concept,, con-
fus16n was created at Planning Commission
level.
Mr : W : -E Kearny, President of the Petaluma
P laza Mer:chants'- Association. He spoke against
locating" -the :K -Ma-rt at the proposed site and
read .a•jetter fr Albertson's Food Market in
Petaluma Plaza- Shopping Center ..proposing to
expand the ,market to: accomm_ odate the
_
operation.:
'Mr.'Brad, of;the Downtown Merchants'
Association. He "so ..spoke against the K =Mart
sit , and felt that the... operation .sh.ould be
located -to complement the City's.,ex"is'ting
facility in-:the. downtown area.
Mr. Ernie Jensen 'of the Chamber. of Commerce
and, Mr. ;Jim Luiz. of Atlantic and Pacific
Builders Corpo,ration.each urged the Council to
confo,r-in `to . the• Environmental Design Plan.
The City Clerk the following communica-
tions-,:,
.Petition containing 1,283 signatures .stating
"We! want - to be able. , to . shop at a K- Mart.. Store
-
located in Petalumal.and believe the location
at -Casa. Grande and.,:'Lakeville is an..excellent
on,e -f.or 'thi•s store: ""
Mr.- Earl ' E'. Hearst .10.04 "F'" Street, favoring
K- .Mart :;Store in , Petaluma .
Letter,; da.ted Apr i1-,9,. 1.973, from Petaluma
Plaza' Merchants' ' Association that K -Mart be
located . sn an existin "g commercial area,.
�-
Said communications submitted and filed.
336
April 16, 1973
Young 'and Stokes
Rezoning-7
Ord 410181 NCS
(Defea'te'd)
and
Appeal, Re K - Mart
(continued).
Inter - department memo., dated April ' 13, . :1973,.'
from City.Manager-Robert Meyer suggestingY
that the ordinance relating to the .PC ^D z'on_hg'
be returned. to the Planning Co'mmi'ssion an'd -
t'he developers with th'e suggestion that it be
redone; reducing the' commercial :area •to the * ` �
size of ;a:. neighboxhood :center.: to serve 'the
- peo the'C'asa Grande- Lakeville. triangle
as it develops and according to the Environ
mental...Des,ign •'Plan; 'that the area shown, east
of McDowell Road Extension appears: to a1•
g g that the ' CH'- P,UD'
ri ht; and recommendin
.Zoning Or-diriance be defeated by t'he ' `Council ,
read -a -nd' f . ,
After hearing all comments considering
all facts .presen'ted, the hearing was declared
closed.whe:r.eupon, Ordinance #108.1u.N.C'.S.
amending •Zoning Ordinance . #14072 N.0 -.,S. by
re'classifyi'ng. A.,.T. 117- 030 -16 and A:,P. #.5-040-
04• (pro.perty lot -ated between Casa Grande Road
and Frates Road) from an R'= 1=10,.000 - '('One
family - Residential)` ,'Dist and an'. "=A "
(Agricultural,) District to :a PCD (P.lanned
Community .,Develo,pment) District ; was -`intro - `
duced by Councilman Brunner, secondedy
Councilman•'.Cle' k, and defeated by the
following vote:=
Ayes: Councilmen Brunner and Cavanagh, Jr.
Noes: Councilmen Daly -,,Matt.ei,.Perry, Jr.,
and•Mayor Putnam.
Absent: "Councilman Cl,ecak.
Counci-lman - Cavanagh`, Jr , explained his 'Ye's ".
vote by stating "I' .'think, we„ as a City Council
should ' stil:l , set 'a • po'licy. . " !He .added: that he
somewhat -- resented the City Manager.'s letter.
In d'iscussing the matter of refer.ring .the, re-
z.on:ing,'`tp- the.Plann =ing Commission for further
review,, City A•ttorn;ey' Robert read '5'ection 27-
1000.• o.f the Zoning 'Ordinance,: "hn case an
appli'ca.tion _ for amendment•' to the Zoning Ordi-
nan.ce is denied:; •said application shall, not. be.
eligib -1'e' fo;r 'reconsideration ,by the Planning .
Commission for one year subsequent to such
den except that a new application affecting
or including or part of same property,
which i:s determined. by the Planning Commission
to be` subs.tantiall'y different from the appl -ica-
tion denied or an application,denied
prej.:udice maybe eligible for consideration
..withi:n one year of the denial of the original
application.
In response to `Mr -. Stokes' question' as .to . the
status of the .development ,at the - .present time,
the City At'torne'y stated that if the ,zoning .
application becomes su'bs'tantially different
„from the • , !ap:plication denied, then the map is
el- gi-bmle for con, eration. He ruled, that it
would be: a st&£ determination whether -,or not
the zoning is. subs't'antially different.,.
Mayor Putnam r- reiterated , her earlier :suggestion
that the rezoning be restudied by the Planning
E
.
1
1
April 16, 19-73
Young '&nd ' Sto k e s
Rezoning.--
Ord .#l.Q,5j,NiCS
(Def.eated,).
and
Appeal . K7Mart.
(continued)
Recess
Appeal Re K- ' Mart
(Ord,. #1082 NCS--
No Action)
Commi:ssion. Cbunci Daly:, Counc-i-1,_ repre-7
iv - on, the Planning Commission '
sentat �e o as . . I I . w
pr' -, h .. e
asked to., p r e sent: t matter. for further con-.7
s1derati and review
A recess was declared at 10:20 o'clock p.m.
The at 10:30,o'clock p.m.
Westridge,.De.velopment
Rezoning .Units, : #1
and #2
Ord # -NCS
(Second Reading)
337
Qrdi�nance.,#,1,0!8,2,,14.C.S... amending .Zoning Ordi- 6V11
nanc,e-#1 reclassifying portions
of A .P. A #17- 030= and A.P.. #5-040-04'., located
between Casa Grand&Ro Frates Road, from
an� R.-1,-10,000 . .(One , -f,A'mily.Ros , idehtial) District
and. an "A:' (Agrictltural) District to a CH-PUD
(Highway Commib:�.cial*-Planned Unit Development)
District was_ considered moot in. light of the
defeat of Ordiffance #11081 N.C.-S.
Following brief. presentation by. Director of
Planning Wil.Liam,MdGive on the map submitted
by the applicant,.. the. Mayor declared the public
hearing open to con-sider adopt of ordinance
#1083 N.C.S. amending,- #1072
.N.C.S,by-reclas'.sIfying Units #• and #2 as shown
on the General..DeifelqpTent Plan of the West-
ridge Planned Community located in the "I"
Street a nd Road area from 'a PCD
(Planned Community: to a PUD (Planned
Uh-it Development),' District.
Mr,. Arthur -Lafranchi, attorney representing
A. Cdndio_ti. Inc., appear.bd be-
fore the CQLin requesting that the rezoning
be adqpted..as,.su.bmitted by the applicant.
Rqg,Arolng a.,question on the procedure
of i.t.. was, the: City Attorne y `'s'op.inion
.*that coftsider.atlio,n of the rezoning , and, of the
tentative s.ubdivi_s.ion, map are two separate
and distinct matters'• .and that the tentative
map ,cannot' be:-considered until appropriate
zon°ing;�.hcis.,'been He added that
he._;was"not in complete accord with Mr. Richard
Day, at'torn''ey - .-who- appeared on behalf of a
grou P. o. f - pr 6 pe rt e Road.
,'owners on Sunnyslop
'Mr. Robert`did . y*
. not take . the 'po,sition , that
establ.i,sh Unit 'Development Dis-
trict bY._the,.'adopt-ion'of the ordinance requires
absolutely. " the - .acceptance of the tentative map
in...the• form as submitt6d,. It was his opinion*
the Council can impose reasonable addi-
, cohdit , i ons ..upon., - a tentative map over and
above those.-..wh1ch_; imposed by the
Planning Commission:
It was 'generally ,agreed by the Council to pro-
c,6,e.d with consideration o the rezoning appli-
cation ,at .this time
Mr Nelson i , whose- •- parents own property
on corner !oI Sunnyslope Road and Sunny-
A venue, e�nue, ap
-peared, before the Council and
reviewed ,his letter, dated April 16,, 1973.
Copy o f- letter*.submittdd, and filed. The pur-
po.se� .of -the. letter, !Mr.; Nelson stated, is to
338
April 16, 1973
Westridge•Development bring to the Council's attention his opinions
Rezoning Units #'1 that,the'entire•Environmental Impact.Report
and #2 prepared -for the' .prof ect does not comply- with ..
Ord #1083. NCS State -law and State Administrative Code.
(S,econd' Reading)
It ,was His-.opinion that the E I..R., accepted'' by -
the Council is, not, legal and suf,f-icien"t, &s it*
presently .stands and claimed-,that'the City'
will'.,be'. taking illegal action if -it approves
the tent °ative. map without first undertaking a
complete overhaul..aind rewrite'of the Environmental
Impact Report. He-requested the.Councl'to
consider his letter before reaching.a decision.
With .regard to ,Mr Nelson's request, City
Attorney Rober "t - stated that, in his opinion,
the City adopt.ed'the' E.I.R. for the subject
.subdiv: sion •as -its own report on .,April 2,
1973, and that. at' time 'it met the require-
menus of.. the City'. He added that he was not
in accord with Mr. Nelsori':s appr:oach at
this. P' pint a new and different E.I'.;R,. is
required because of - the guidelines,of. the
State Resources Agency, which guidelines
were subsequently .adopted, by - the Council at
•the ,:same •meeting.
The following:communications were read by -the
City Clerk:
' Petitions: containing.' - 15,5 signatures of resi-
dents of the of•Sonoma.oppos,ing•the
pr.oposed..subdivision . in the area of I" Street
and Sunnyslope Road'until the traffic, road
density, ..an. drainage - problems 'are solved.
Said.p,etition submitted and filed.
Copy of letter,,dated Apri.l 1.97..3,.addressed
to Lesly McYer;_Superintendent, Petaluma City
Schools, from Marge Hodapp, President, McNear
PTA, stating that the Executive Board of the
McNear-PTA unanimously ' ,passed a motion to
advise_• Mr'. Meyer` .of the group's increasing
concern for-the-safety of McNear students and
asked.for his support'by requesting that he,
write ;a letter. -to the City Council of their
many -concerns . as - :outlined in'the l'ette.r. Said
letter submitted.' and 'filed,.
Letter , •dated.- April 10,, 1973, from Gordon W
Miller-,, Chief Engineer., by Carl R. Jackson,
Assistant Chief Engineer, of the Sonoma County
Water'Agency,� supplying the .Council with general
information. about Zone '2,A and a map, dated
October 196.5, q, w-17 those projects in the
Pet`a area •that• -h "ave been - complet;ed•., those
that ar.e .pre:sbnt. top priorities and those, that
have not reached - a priority stage ..(" I "" Street
uniit ' - project, inch -ded in the - las:t category)
that the present :estima'te, to construct the
"I" St reet. storm drain unit is .n excesfs; of
$3.50,0,0;0; and that most of the large storm
drain proj °ects req,u=re ;:several years of fund
accumulation to reach construction
Said letter- submitted and filed.
Letter, dated April- 13, 197`3 from Gordon_ W.
Miiler, Chief • Engineer., b ' 'B." T., .Ma y,es, Civil
A Engineer '#•3,, stating that. in ,reviewing the'.
April 16, 1973.
339
Westridge-, ca 'McKay ,and Somps..for
Rezbning flbws-expected through the propos.ed
and f2s, ---- DeVeldpment in the vicinity of "I" Street,.,'a
Ord #1083 NC slight. error- was f ound; and with this, correction
(Second Reading) a slight, in .storm flow run-bff. for-
(continued) Thompson,, due -to- - the development of
Westrid4e,.•is,sli4ht than 4%. Said
letter'.submitted and°filed.
Mr,.` Carl Jack.son - o - the - Sonoma County Water,
A iscdss de t ails regarding.
c �o:.d e
gen y� present t
.-the_antic1ipated.run70ff,, and-observed that
complete drainage san d ' y of.the area would take
several months,be.cause of other priorities.
."He, that no complaints have - been received.
by -his ' -6since.
,fficetfrom the.,area. 1961 when a
culvertwas installed:: He informed the Council
that there-is_flexibility on priorities if a
project can be' et e rmi fi.ed to -be urgent.; however,
he p ointed,out that.-based on the present tax
rat o .24 per $100 assessed evaluation, it
take'st a number'of - years to 'accumulate funds for
such, a project.
Councilman Matte i-Ispoke o a,meeting held on.
Friday., April - 13, in Mr. Lafrandhi's
office to discuss- problems regarding S� nnyslope
I . u
Road. - Those present were Councilmen'Brunner�,
'
Daly, Matteis ':Su
pervisor-Joerger, Mr. Lafranchi,
Mr...% Condiottti.. .,his, engine ' er John Anderson,
and.Mr-. Some possibilities re-
g4rding•road'.improvements are to be explored
for. - ,further - �report - :..
- presentations , the
hearing was,-declared closed.
-Before considering the-tentative map of West-
ridge Subdivj_sionL (next agenda item) the City
Attorney :podnted- out.that ' the ac ' tion of the
i
Council is to.determn6,whether or not there
..arle..additionaleconditions to be impose and
whether or-not are reasonable.
- .If -the tenta.tive-.map all requirements of
the
- City' s ordinance" acid the State Map Act and
there_ are :no additional .reasonable conditions
to-P.q imposed.at this time, then the possibility
of map without disapproving
the�to'tal subdivision, findingthe subdivision
does not ' . , meet-.the requ might be diffi-
cult-.-to. sustain.
Ordi-r1anc #10,83—N amending Zoning ordinance
bY.��re Units
V N.f.'s— #1 and #2
a�s :Geryer�a Development Plan of
the: Westridge ', located in the
`1` Street and 8unnysldpe Road area, from - a PCD
_(panned- Community, DIstrict) to a PUD (Planned
Communa:ty -'Dia was introduced
by i Mattei - 'seconded by Councilman
• Daly, and adopt - ed. by 6'-,a:f votes, 1
.
absentee:.
In approving : :the rezoning, the specific findings
were . made;,by thet.Council in accordance with
Sections 1.9-9 of 'Zoning. #1072 N.C:S.
,
340
April 16, 1973
�t Westrid.,ge. Subdivision
5$
Tentative Map,,Units
#1 and #2
Res #.6272 NCS
Continu with the-dis :cussi.on the.subject
tentative map from the -- Council meeting of.. April
2, 1973 Mr.-Arthur Lafr:anchi, atto'rney.�r'epre-
senting Condiott'.Enterprises, Inc,., presented
the following offer- Council c�onsider 1 1.
concerning- Sunny".slope Road: Depending, re-
lief that •tle City , .is willing to grant to-the
developer for improving "°I Street,, and as a
condition to the tentative map, tjhe developer
is, willing to,-- funds available for the
mpr.ovement•o Sunny =s lope . Road from the westerly
edge o.f' the proposed subdivision. to Sunny,slope
Avenue : of a contribution from
the - :homeowners : He - added that he ,noted the
position of some, members of the .;Council, at the
last. meeting ' - a•..cooperative effort between
the County,, City, theshomeowner's and the devel-
oper'on.this issue. At this paint, Supervisor
J'erger reiterated the. position . .of the County
in.this matter .Priorities have been set for
three. years -and there would be no County, con-
tr'ibuton° f'o.r Sunny 'slope Road in the . near
future.-
Mr. Lafranchi •further:clarifi,ed that if the
City °is 'wil,ling to a portion of the
obligation on'the part - of..the applicant, then
the amount of these funds would be, put-on
deposit, with the Cityfor a reasonable amount
of time (possibly two - years.) , and that if with -
in. that •period'.the..property owners, could work
out .a definitive ar- r:angement,• the money would
be available-for-,that use; 'however,, if ono plan
is developed, then the funds would revert back
to the City-to be used for any purpose.
Mr., David Lindberg, 283 Sunnyslope Road, appeared
befor`e. discuss an -1 survey
made: among "the residents of Sunnyslope Road
with a proposal °of.two plans for property owners'
involvement; however', he.reported' that the pro-
pert
y. owners. could not, in all good faith,
accept. such - an a'rrargement until specific per
cen'tages . or - information. are available. , He.
added,.however;. that the majority approved a
four- party arrangement..
With regard.to the procedure in the considera-
tioh o:f•the - tentative map, the City Attorney
adv.i,sed.that the conditions approved.by.the.
Planning Commission, other added conditions,
and Mr. Condiotti`s offer of a condition be
reviewed He ,aga•in '.stated- that the Council.
must have ba reasons °for disapproving the
tentative::map and be able to detail':all*the
information.
Cit-y ,Young reviewed; the require-
me'nts• _as specif,Ted:. in his letter of February
21, 1973 ; and �whi:ch were 'approved by the Plan
ni'ng Comr6is!s on, as part_ of the nineteen condi -.
pp._ pointed out that a
ditons of a, royal. He
decision was not made by the Planning Commission.
on they matter. of" a `,pipe` ,versus A bridge in the .
subdivision and a "decis,on is required_ by the
Council. He :exp'lain 'the reason, for the. sug-
gested.al.ternative of a bridge on Wes.tridge
Drive ;as outlined in -his letter.
3 'IS.
April 16, 1973
0
Westr.idge -Subdivisl n
'At this time Mt,� 'Lafr'an r6v'iewedthe;pbsition
T6'n M'ap,. Units
:�
of-the and - presentedobjectlons to
# 1 -�'and ; # 2
the c6ndi,+ '(1). The principal objection - -
Res
ope Road improv6mehts
"-I"' Stree- ,and. sunnysi
(continued)
which are off -of least that
portio'n"of•the property which was contemplated
for development thd tentative,map before
the Council tonight. .(2) Placement of sidewalks
as by Mr. Young on the west side of
- III" Stieet betw'ben Grant Avenue and Sunnyslope
Avenue.,- (3.), of a bridge - as . an
aiternate to pipe. (4) To the language on
p
Page 3 of=Mr. Ybung's.,letter, "Any necessary
roadway easeffents-tobe obtained by the devel-
oper.'"' "(5) That'the developer withdraw his
(?bjection.tol"I""'Str.eet improvements provided
tha - City -acts :f a.7-brab on the sewer main
extension proposal,-submitted April, 2, 1973,
and that -1
there id be a commitment by the City
wi regard to the total 380 'units that were
contemplated in the PC zoning on the map. L 'He
particularly stressed the point that many of
the conditions attached to the tentative map
were done in contemplation of the entire area
being- .developed now and in the future and were
not predidated'just-,on the 180 . units presently
before CoUhdil.: -(6) Regarding the•question
of any'right7of-wE�y by` the City, either byease-
�or.
ment - f ee ownership, Mr•. Lafranchi noted that
Q
in view of�.the piiblic.improvement requirements,
Mr.<Young has indica there, will•be no neces-
sity to -acquire any private property; however,
the developer wishes to object to the require7
merit if-the condition'is considered by the
Council.
(7), Mr. Laf ranc'hi further stated that at the
last.meeting it wa indicated by Mr. Wurzb.erg,
Adminkstrative Assistant to the Superintendent.
of Schools, that the children from the subdi-.
vision will be attending Grant School. Ba:sed
on this conc*ept,,.Mr_Lafranchi asked that the
iti
con `requiring sidewalks on the west side
1 I'll t m Gra
o StrQ,e from
Avenue,be removedand the sidewalks be..
in on the , east-s1de,as shown on the plans;
.however,,due-to a question regarding Mr.
Wur'zberg's statement the matter was delayed
pending 61a,ri:ficdtion from the Superintendent's
of:fice. Young; recommended that the side-
walk* -requirement be ch if a firm statement
is received that the children will be attending
Grant.Scho6l..
con: sidietable'discuss"on followed on the bridge
alternate and on the question
requirement.
whether or not the,Sonoma County Water Agency
wiil the reisponsibility-of,maintaining
a.,200-foot -pipe'.. Mr.' Young, also explained the
maintenance prbblem- involved with pipe
installation:.
- Those who spoke during the meeting in opposition-
to the - deVelbpment , were:
Mr. Gilardi, 1004 "1" Street, drainage;
§4r,s.- June, Ayers, 133 Sunnyslope Road, school
situation;
3 Al'
April 16, 1933
Westridge Subdivision
Tentative Map,, Units
#1 and 42
Res #62.72 NCS
(continued)
Mr. George Stamp, 57 Grant Avenue., .saf:ety of.
school, child- la.
Mrs'. 'Ldi-s Kana:, 904 Ely Boulevard South,`.
Condition #1 ;
Mr.. Dan Libarle, 1,319 "1 Street, drainage
Mrs. R:.,Acorne, 50'Grant Avenue, drainage
Mr. Walter - Bruth -, 131 Sunnyslope Road, drainage;
Mr -fames Colwell., 1176 "I" Street, Section
19 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Mrs. Wilma Kruse, drainage;.
Mrs. Marge Hodapp,.McNear PTA; and a number
of unidentified persons, on various•subjects.
Attorney Richard Day spoke again and•claimed that
the Council could . not:make -a decision on the
tentative map tonight- of 'insu-ffic.ient
information. He agreed with Mr. Nelson- 'concern-
ing his views that the Environmental Impact.Re- .
port accepted by the'Council is not adequate.
He felt that `'the ',E.1 doe's not disclose - the
total.information regarding the development
needed by 'the Council. It was ;,his, recommenda -° ..
. that, - unless conditions -can be devised to
insure that the traffic and drainage problems
created by the development are solved by the
development, the Council cannot approve the
tentative map tonight.
City_.Attorney Robert referred to, Section 22.4.,
1100 of the Subdivision ordinance which
"Within ten days after receipt of the report of
the Planrincg Commission, on the tentative map or .
at its,next,regular meeting, the City Council
shall act thereon. I'f the City Council shall'
find' that the proposed map complies with the
requirements o.f`.this chapter and the Subdivision.
Map Act,. it shall approve the map. If. the City
Council.'shall find that the proposed map does
not meet -the requirements of this chapter. and
the Subdivision'Map Act, it shall c.ondiitionahly
approve or disapprove said map." was his
opinion that at'this point in time, the Council.'
shall act upon the map; and when 'acting upon .
it, the map is conditionally, approved or d s-
approved. If -the' map - is disapproved, findings
. must be made that, in effect,, the tentative'
map ,_does not meet the ; conditions of the. City
ordinance and - - thb -State Map Act.
Considerable discussion followed•,on the condi-
tions imposed and the problems involved; and
a -fter ,reaching no deci,s °ion, Mr.. Arthur , Condiotti,
(the developer) and Mr. Lafranchk agreed to
continue the -, matter for a two-week period on
the basis that the public. d'scu's'sion be limited
to only new and p .ertinent- information.regarding
drainage. However,.Mr: Day -felt that.the public..
should have. an opportunity to present any addi-
tonal information to the Council concerning
other problems re -laced to.the development. It
was-the City Atto,rney's opinion ..t -hat considera-
tion.of a - tentative map is truly not in the
nature of a public hearing, but that any item
be -fore the- Council. is entitled. to 'public expres.-
sion and comment.
A 343
April 16, 1973
Westridge Subdivision
When considering the,- two -week delay,.the Council
Tentative Map,.Units
heard Mr. Jackson's statement that an depth.
#1 and . #2
drainage 'study and report of the area would
Res #627,2 NCS'
take several months because of present: project ,.
(continued)
commitments. When being apprised of this inform&. -
tion;, the. Council decided'to adjourn the meeting
at'1;35 o'clock a.m -., April 17, 1973, to 5:00
o'clock•P.m.- on.,Tu:esday, April 17, 1973.
Mayor•
Attest:
City e k