HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/17/1973345
MINUTES OF.MEETING
OF CITY COUNCIL
PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
April 17, 1973
Council. Meeting Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the
City of Petaluma -was called to order by Mayor
Putnam at the hour of.5:00 o'clock p.m.
Attendance Present: Councilmen Brunner, Cavanagh, Jr.,
Daly, Mattei, Perry, Jr., and Mayor
Putnam.
Absent: Councilman�Clecak.
Westridge Subdivision Before Council consideration of objections from
Units #1 and #2 -- the.developer of the various conditions imposed
Tentative.Map and consideration of the various problems re-
Res #6272 NCS lated to the development., Mr. Richard Day,
attorney representing a group of citizens in
the Sunnyslope area,.spoke to the Council re-
garding -legal points in connection with action
on the tentative map as stipulated in Section
11552 of the Business and Professions Code.
He also questioned whether the Council could
legally approve.the tentative map tonight in-
asmuch as -the City ordinance and State law
require that tentative map must be in sub-
stantial conformance with-the zoning of the
area. He pointed out that the ordinance re-
zoning the area, adopted'by the Council on
Apri1'16, 1973, does not become effective until
thirty days: In .response to Mr. Day, the City
Attorney stated•that'if this appears to be a
question, the Council can pass a condition
upon.the zoning becoming effective,prior to
the approval of the final subdivision map.
The following various matters were then
considered:
PIPE VERSUS BRIDGE:
The first matter under consideration was the
alternative suggested by City Engineer David
Young o.f a bridge at Lavio Drive instead of
the 72 -inch pipe. Mr. Condiotti objected
the bridge because -of economic.reasons and
loss of lots. His engineer, John Anderson,
estimated the cost to -be approximately $90,000
as opposed to anIapproximate' $15,00'0 for a
workable p -ipe, which, he added, meets the
standards'of the-Sonoma County Water Agency.
Mr. Young reiterated his reasons for a bridge
as. an alternate to the pipe. He stated that a
bridge would. be considerably . .less of a mainte-
nance..problem to the City, wouldbe less of a
hazard to the children, and would be more
aesthetically pleasing for the area.
In considering the matter, a proposal was made
-by Counci to install a large pipe
underneath the-road with no grates at either
end in lieu of a =foot pipe or a bridge.
After consideration of this proposal a compro-
mise was agreed upon by the City Engineer and
the developer to install a pipe under the road
with the.condition'that the creek be left in
its natural location and that the culvert be
4
April 16, 1973
Westridge Subdivision of sufficient -diamete to pass a 100 -year
Units #1 and #2 -- storm with allowance -for debris in accordance
Tentative Map' with Sonoma Water Agency debris stand -•'
Res #6272 NCS ards.• It.was also- 2agreeable that the developer..
(continued) would lose two lots under this proposal
SIDEWALKS,
Letter, dated April-17, 1973, from•,Superintendent
of Schools ' ...H. -Meyer, _restating the posi
tion.of the School'District in regard to West -
ridge'Subdivision- -that the area ( Westridge
Subdivision -) is in the Grant School'attendance
area do students generated by the subdivision
will be assigned to the Grant School; there is
a possibility that students coming from this
subdivision will more than fill.the Grant School,
pointing out • .that . in• the. last two years the
Petaluma School District has dropped,over.'two
hundred in enrollment; Grant,School.at the
present time has room for approximately sixty
-additional students, and when this space is
filled, .it .may be necessary to add additional
portable ciassrooms or transport students to
- such - schools as Valley Vista or Cherry Valley
where there are vacancies at_the present time,
read : and .filed.
Based on this information, the City Engineer,
stated that the developer's proposal for side-
walks as shown on the tentative map for "I"
Street would be satisfactory and acceptable..
Some discussion followed,on traffic conditions
in the area and comments were heard from Mr
Dave Craig, .902 "I Street, and several unidenti-
fied persons. In response to an inquiry from
Mrs. C. Dowdy, 741 • "I -" Street, as to whether
traffic 'at Sunnyslope Avenue and . "I Street
would warrant any flashing lights, Mr Young
explained is.currently being - conducted
by the City on, "The Safest Route to School,"
and when completed will contain recommendations
of this nature.
DRAINAGE
Mr. Young reviewed the status of the drainage
problem. The Sonoma County Nater Agency re-
viewed calculations of the development and
determined a 4% increase of water flow in the
Thompson Creek measured at Sunnyslope,Ro.ad.•
At last.night.'s meeting,-Mr. Jackson explained
that the Agency does not know what affect the
4% _increase will have as far as damage and
hazard to downstream properties, and that it
will,take,at least two months to prepare a
detailed study on the matter. Lacking that
information and from previous history of the
Creek, "it is felt that the Creek doe pre-
sently have capacity to handle a twenty-five -
year storm. Mr. Young continued by saying that
the - only method for drainage improvement in the
area would be -by a project through Zone 2A,
and'it was by Mr. Jackson that such
a. pro•jec't would 'be" a matter of priority and
if warranted; could possibly be accelerated by
April 17, 1973-
Westridge Subdivision
Units #1. and
Tentative Map.'
Res_ #6272 NCS
(continued)
1
The City At.torney,, .commented on. the alternatives
available to the City Council. (1) Impose
-additional conditions.; (2) approve subject to
zoning.becoming e.f'fective; (3) approve or dis-
approve• the, t.entative,..map, and if disapproved,
indicate specific ;fi - ndings that the proposed
subdivision d'oes•not conform to the Subdivision
Ordinance..
Mr. Lafranch-i stated,that the developer's posi-
ti-6n regarding drainage remains the same and
tat to impose.a condition with regard to
downstream drainage condition on
the tentative
Councilman .Cavanagh,. Jr., member on the Zone
2A Committee; indicated that the priorities
i - the district are 'fl and if the case
;is strong, it was his opinion that the District
and'th'e Board of Supervisors could possibly,
change the prdority-:. It was generally agreed
'by the Council the.Zone •2A District be
contacted regarding involvement in the matter.
ALTERNATIVES*
1
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL .CONDITJONS:
Mr. La- franchi.reviewed the additional condi-
tions imposed.
1 ......Condition #12-.-. The developer to
accept the language as recommended by Mr.
.-Meyer-in memo dated April 3, 1973, as
f.ollows.. "The. proposed public park shown
on the ten,tative.map landscaped
and.. approved - to' the -satisfaction of the
Recreation Commission and the City Council
.,and dedicated to the City. of Petaluma."
Y
347
the Agency and the Board of Supervisors. Such
a project was estimated.at $350,000 and could -
be several years..of. fund accumulation before
becoming -a reality..
City Attorney Robert reiterated that his posi-
t -ion has not changed the drainage
situation and that.he,did not see any cause
of action the downstream owner because of
development upstream as - long as the natural
.drainage is interfered. He added that he
believed there is:no.liability on.the part of
the.City nor the subdivider.
It ,was, the . City- Attorney' s opinion that such
findings were. not. the
map • "-
COMMUNICATIONS:
The following communications were submitted
and filed: An open letter, dated April 5,
1973_,. >•to the Editor.of the Argu•s- Courier en-
titled "Development.Needs Intent Study" from
Carolyn Dowdy,•741 "I." Street, and a letter
from Jiro- Ayers, 1:33 Sunnyslope Road, recommend-
ing.the Council vote ".No" on the development.
348
April 17, 1973
Westridge Subdivision 2 Sidewalk and Bridge Alternativ.,e.:- As agreed.
Units #1 and_ #2 -7 upon by`the; developer earlier in the meeting,
Tentative ;Map
Res #6272 NCS 3. Condition df tentative map th,&t the
(continued) necessary right-of-way acquisitions from
private property be'obtaned by the
developer Upon - recommendation ,by- the
City Engineer- 'it seems unlikely any
, right- -o'f'' ways : will be required and that
t her d.'is no .'way ''a private individual has
the power of eminent - domain., ,the condi
"tion wa`s , wa`ived .
4. Sewer- ,main extension proposal by the
developer; elated April 2, 1973 Accepted
r by the' City as outlined in -the City
Man "ager''s:memo,'dated April 3, 1973.
5. Sunnyslope 'Road improvements.- Mr. •Lafranchi
stated that as relief for improving
Street., the developer has offered a commit -
ment with regard.to improving Sunnyslope
Road -as explained at Last night' s meeting;
however, after considerable discussion on
the: "pr:oposal,.'it wa_s suggested'by the City
'Engineer to divorce the developer- from any
cbirimitment'regarding S.unnys'lope'Road and
have him build "I "Stree -f, and then through
a cooperative project with the,County.,'the
City coritr'ibute' a proportionate share of
gas,tax funds,'to improve Sunnyslope Road
- on a program'with participation from the
residents in:the' area. This suggestion
was agreed upon-by the developer and
C'buncil'. The'.City Attorney was directed
'to`prepare,a'res'olution of intention; said
'resolution to'contain a time period of two
years'to'initiate such a project.
6. That the tentative map is approved subject
to the'4oning becoming effective.
7. Mr. Lafranch'i, at this time, asked the record
to ..show an acknowledgment be made by the
Council that when the City Planner and City
Eng. veer :contemplated.the'additional require -
ments as-conditions to be attached to the
tentative map, they were done predicated'
on the possibility of the uatimate develop-
ment of 300 units and not on part, of- the
total development. Mr. Condiotti noted. on
the ma.p t <l at. approximately '60% of the pro-
perty is- to.be'use'd for the first 180 units
and that "the high density.is.n other
units.
The Mayor indicated that the Council could take
no action on the matter, but recognition
of the thinking of the planning that went in -to
the area be made a part of-the record.
TENTATIVE'MAP APPROVAL:
= Resolution #6272 N.C.S. approving tentative,
subdi:vi,sidn map of'�Westridge Subdivision,
Units`. #1 -and #2 was introduced by Mayor-Putnam,
seconded -by, Councilman Cavanagh, Jr., and
April 17, 1973
Westridge-Subdivision adopted by 5 affirmative, 1 Negative, and 1
Units' 41.and #2 -- absentee votes. Councilman Perry',.Jr-., voted
Tentative Map "No."
Res 6272 NCS
(continued) "
Measure "A It was decided by-the Council not to change
the language of Measure "A" for the June 12,
1973, ballot:
Adjournment There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40
o'clock p.m.
3
Mayor