HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/09/1996P1arming Commission Mimuta - April 9, 1996
3
F
t'
CITY OF PETALUMA
PLANNING COMMISSION MI1qUTES
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL - PETALUMA, CA
APRIL 9, 1996
7:00 PM
Commissioners :Present: Feibusch, Rahman*, Read, Thompson, Torliatt, vonRaesfeld,
Wick
Staff Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
James McCann, Principal Planner
Vincent Smith, Senior Planner
Teryl Phillips, Associate Planner
• Chairman
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of March 26 were approved with corrections;
Minutes of February 13, 1996 were approved as printed.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Memo regarding Economic Planning in Petaluma; memo
regarding upcoming agenda items.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Torliatt - Please stress to the Council
the Commission spent a great deal of time and has much interest in the Maxwell
Subdivision; Commissioner Feibusch - what is project at D and Lakeville? (Answer -
Planning Director Tuft - Jack's Produce (temporary produce sales as an interim use);
Commissioner Thompson - Concerns with Jack's Produce regarding traffic (right turn-
in/out), for produce stand; Commissioner Rahman - has spoken with three residents and
Mr. Hudson regarding Cross Creek.
CORRESPONDENCE: Memo from Finance Director SpUrnan regarding Cross Creek
property dedication; the following letters regarding Cross Creek were received: from
Petaluma Girls Softball Association, from Marty Hronec, from Chairman URen (Petaluma
Recreation, Music and Parks Commission), from Old Adobe Union School District, from
Petaluma Valley Little League; and 63 letters from neighbors of Cross Creek
development.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
3 OLD BUSINESS /CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
4
5 L CROSS CREEK; MARDELL LLC; ELY ROAD AT CASA GRANDE; AP
6 NO. 017 - 050 -001; (0068 GPA/ANX/PREZ/PTSM 07- 95)am/tp).
7
8 Continued consideration and recommendation to the City Council of a proposed
9 225 -unit detached single- family subdivision on 96 acres, and Initial Study. The
10 project includes applications for: 1) the adoption of a Mitigated Negative
11 Declaration; 2) General Plan Amendment to expand the Urban Limit Line
12 eastward to incorporate 46 additional acres; 3) General Plan Amendment to
13 designate 46 acres as Urban Separator and redesignate 11.4 acres from Urban
14 Separator to Urban Standard; 4) Annexation of 96 acres; 5) Prezoning of 47.5
15 acres to PUD and 48.5 acres to Agriculture; 6) approval of a Pretentative
16 Subdivision Map to create 225 detached single - family lots on 47.5 acres and one
17 Urban Separator parcel comprising 48.5 acres. (Continued from Planning
18 Commission meetings of October 24 and November 28, 1995 and January 9 and
19 February 13, 1996.)
20
21 Associate Planner Phillips presented the staff report.
22 Principal Planner McCann presented environmental information and additional staff
23 recommendations.
24
25 The public hearing was opened:
26
27 SPEAKERS:
28
29 Commissioner Thompson - Are there any concerns from Petaluma High School District or
30 only from Old Adobe regarding capacity? (Answer - Staff has not received any
31 communication from the Petaluma High School District regarding capacity issues.)
32 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Elaborate on Williamson Act benefits/penalties.
33 Commissioner Read - Question to Mr. Graham - Elaborate on how this could help in
34 operation of airport.
35 Bill Graham Airport Manager - Question of safety, control over the open space in
36 question would provide the City with ownership of the approach over golf course and this
37 property; airport operates as separate enterprise separate from general City financing; if
38 this property comes to the City, FAA will credit us with this in grant money as reflected in
39 the memos from Finance Director.
40 Commissioner Feibusch - Has lived near airport for several years any safety
41 compromised if this Urban Limit Line is moved?
42 Bill Graham - Does not believe any safety compromised, rather acquisition would enhance
43 safety.
44 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - (to Traffic Engineer Tilton) - Elaborate on City required
45 improvements to Casa Grande Road with this project.
46 Traffic Engineer Tilton - Traffic signal or a round -about at Ely will be required; explained
47 lane configurations; Casa Grande transitions from 5 to 4 lane at Garfield; narrows to 3
48 lanes at Allan; down to 2 lanes in County; standard curb, gutter, sidewalks.
49 Commissioner Torliatt - Questions regarding area near round -about area on Garfield
50 (proposed for dedication and will be landscaped and maintained through an LAD);
51 disclosed meeting with developer last week.
52 Commissioner Read - Reviewed tapes, Minutes, will participate in this vote.
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
"i
Commissioner Thompson - Disclosed meeting with developer /developer representative.
Steve Arago - Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission - urges support of this project;
spoke with Recreation Director Tim Carr - prohibitively expensive for City to obtain and
develop this open space property; Recreation, Music and Parks Commission supports
project.
Doyle Heaton - Developer (Mardel) - Thanked staff - very well written staff report; has
worked with homeowners, still some differences; has tried to answer all concerns.
Matt Hudson - Project Attorney - Sorry about recent illness (delay in process of project);
submitted several letters, memo from Mr. Spilman, memo from Tim Carr regarding
financial information; thanked staff for model staff report - very clear, concise; applicant
agrees with all conditions in staff report - met with staff often, made many modifications
to project in response to meetings; March 18, 1996 memo from Tim McCann - believes
developer can meet those recommendations; showed version of plan to reflect possible
compliance with mitigations and conditions; moved easternmost street about 60 feet west
- described proposed park improvements - extension of Wiseman Park - no expense to
City, will not ask for reimbursement - parking for about 70 cars could be provided; all
houses fronting urban separator will have an advisory deed notice recorded to advise
future residents of the potential for recreational uses (somewhat like avigation easement);
schematic has 210 units (down from original 245) all lots facing new Urban Separator will
be very large (approximately. 10,000 sq.ft.); amount of land dedicated for fields, airport
protection will increase to 49.9 acres; courtyard homes reduced from 70 to 55 (no more
than 4 per courtyard); at last meeting, density discussion - density is 4.2 units per acre - to
compare Village East unit 1 density is 3.49 units per acre - Unit 2 is 5.8 per acre, etc.;
feathering issues - densities range from 3.5 units to 6.2 units per acre; regarding
courtyards - (Mountain Valley Villas homeowners are very satisfied with their courtyard
homes); comparison to Victoria is difficult - Victoria homes much more expensive and
different than these homes; regarding parking in courtyards - described on and off street
parking; landscaping cross - sections along Casa.Grande/Ely to urban separator - protected
by landscaped berm - meandering sidewalk well set back from roadways.
Commissioner Rahman - Where will reduction in density occur with staffs recommended
conditions?
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Clarify map submitted includes staff conditions.
Commissioner Feibusch - Comparison with Mountain Valley - street widths?
Doyle Heaton - Described lot sizes/density in Mountain Valley; some small lot homes in
Mountain Valley - narrow and long lots in Mountain Valley - proposed lots are wide and
shallow.
Don Smith - Airport Commission (8 years) - This project is win/win for airport and City;
airport does not have money to purchase this land; 1 dwelling unit per 3 acres could be
allowed in Inner Approach Zone; Transition Zone - 4 units per acre allowed; airport is $11
million investment - pays its own way; encourages approval of this project.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - questions regarding number of units allowed in Inner
Approach Zone (answer - can be clustered).
Rudy Tescallo - 11 Brengle Ct. - Is this where you want our children to play, under the
Inner Approach Zone ?, isn't this unsafe? Schools are already full in this area.
Planning Director Tuft - A second elementary school is planned for this District (Sonoma
Mountain Elementary) - houses will not be occupied until school capacity is available (new
school anticipated to be open fall 1997).
David Tecker - Has attended all meetings with developer - original project was very
offensive to existing neighborhood; developer is moving in right direction, but maybe this
is a bait and switch process (original was so bad, any new project might be acceptable);
upset by Park and Recreation ruling - who wouldn't want a free park? can we afford a
new park (maintenance standpoint); precedent will be set; concerns with safety (2 baseball
diamonds, soccer field) under airport approach area - could be hundreds of people in park
at onetime; golf course is under outer approach, park under inner approach; airplanes
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
already fly over areas (homes) where they're not allowed; Petaluma's #1 issue is growth -
opportunity to "hold the line" on growth; conflict of interest - all groups supporting this
project have much to win - opposition (neighbors) are the only ones to lose; things have
not changed from last meeting; at Parks and Recreation meeting Jane Hamilton stated -
Urban Limit Line is not for sale.
Rich Miram - 1212 Wren Lane - Has attended most meetings on this project;
staff/developer all open to listening to neighborhood concerns; we all want to do what is
right; moved here in 1990 - Planning staff indicated area would be developed in kind to his
neighborhood; regarding courtyard homes - no conclusive evidence indicating courtyard
homes are what is needed in this area; problem with 2 -story homes backing onto existing
2 -story homes; new homes located along fence -line should all a single- story, regarding
Wren Lane - should not be extended - cul-de -sac not necessary - leave it as a deadend
road as it has been for years - it works fine; maintenance of the proposed recreational
facilities may be a problem; developer did not offer park in original proposal.
Susan Dynarski - 1088 Wren Lane - Concerns with park - not a neighborhood park, more
of a community park (although benefit to entire City) neighbors desired a "neighborhood"
park; who is winning here? existing neighborhood is loser - houses close to property lines;
traffic concerns; concerns with drainage.
Lia deBettencorp - 12 Starling - Property values in neighborhood are dropping; appraiser
indicates values are going down because of proposed courtyard homes.
Nancy Ozlati - 1208 Wren - Has been trying to sell home, property values lowered
because of proposed courtyard homes.
Val Henshaw - 1064 Wren Drive - Concerns still remain; still have a long way to go;
questions regarding vehicle access along Countryside Drive due to proposed recreational
facilities, should be extended to Casa Grande; questions regarding Airport Commission
review; is Hodges and Shutt report still valid? letter submitted last week - not
acknowledged; concerns with staff interpretation of GP Policies (page 6, staff report).
Don Weisenfluh - Watched November 28 Planning Commission meeting tape - many
conclusions made by staff are conjecture, not based on fact; this is first step in encouraging
urban sprawl; when City gets control of property through annexation, opens door to
development; has seen this happen in eastern part of country; slowly will create pressure
to develop; Commissioner Torliatt is right to encourage economic plan discussion; density
issue - this parcel cannot be considered the same as a normal parcel because of being
adjacent to Urban Limit Line; limited density mandates are not being met - not consistent;
127 units should be maximum - standarized mathematical procedure should be developed;
density could be transferred; discussed inconsistency with General Plan Policy 13;
architecture is inappropriate (courtyard units); courtyard units exceed 10% policy (mixed
types); courtyard units unnecessary; plan does not clearly result in a better situation; lots
should be at least 6,500 sq.ft.; inconsistent with General Plan - at least 3 major
amendments to GP would be necessary to bring this into conformance; R -1, not PUD is
appropriate; enforce the General Plan!
Mike Pezet - 1465 McGreagor - supports staff and developer on this proposal; consistent
with General Plan and believes he would win as a tax payer if this proposal goes through.
Frederick Rothberg - 1020 Garfield - attended many meetings including Parks and
Recreation meeting; concerns with aesthetics, density; developments encircling this
neighborhood; need for neighborhood park, not community ballpark; disappointed that
property values have gone down and will go down more with this project; this is chance to
make proper planning decisions; review very carefully.
Matt Hudson - Staff report supplies all information mussing from previous discussions; this
project is not more dense than adjoining areas.
Doyle Heaton - Regarding property values - courtyard homes do not substantially lower
values - real estate values have gone down all over California.
1 The public hearing was closed.
2
3 Discussion:
4
5 Commissioner Rahman - Requested that staff respond to the comments offered.
6 Principal Planner McCann - Ms. Henshaw indicates two concerns - 1) is project different?
7 No. The application hasn't changed; conditions and mitigation measures have been
8 recommended to address concerns. This is the public hearing process; 2) should there be
9 further review by Airport Commission? Good suggestion that the plan as approved to
10 reflect the conditions of approval could be referred to ALUC for confirmation of
11 compliance with criteria - could add as a condition; responses to comments from speakers
12 - Parks _Department has discussed need for on -going maintenance of proosed recreational
13 facilities.
14 Planning Director Tuft - Parks Commission can direct (during Capital Improvement
15 Program) to redirect maintenance expenses; Landscape Assessment District will be
16 required for common and public areas; regarding "bait and switch" comment - if publid
17 and staff comments result in a better project - then the system works; was project planner
18 for subdivisions east of Garfield Drive - comments from existing neighbors were the same
19 as re being voiced now by Village East property owners.
20 Principal Planner McCann - Developer will be paying $700,000 in park fees in addition to
21 donating property; no future development potential will be gained by moving the Urban
22 Limit Line; avigation easement (reflected in recommended mitigation measures) will
23 address issue of informing home buyers of airport noise; regarding courtyard homes - staff
24 has recommended 20% reduction; single -story homes required through recommended
25 conditions to be placed adjacent to existing single -story homes; open space between
26 subdivisions - property viewed in entirety - open space requirement met by virtue of Urban
27 Separator (49 +/- acres) dedication; lot -to -lot drainage addressed in Initial Study and staff
28 report; regarding property value losses - has no evidence that appraisals are being affected
29 to large extent by possibility of courtyard homes being built; density transfer - staff
30 strongly disagrees with Mr. Weisenfluh's analysis; regarding PUD - Commission must
31 determine if this reduction is sufficient; provisions in Zoning Ordinance - this proposal
32 satisfied requirements for PUD.
33 Planning Director Tuft - Regarding Ms. Henshaw's question about cul -de -sac - if road
34 connection made to Casa Grande - concerns exist that the transition of urban road
35 improvements are moved east closer to the City Limit line; impact to new neighborhood of
36 urban separator and possible recreational improvements are addressed through street
37 design and deed notice; detached garage units meet 10% architectural diversity issue;
38 urban separator improvments and design - still needs to be reviewed by Parks and
39 Recreations Department - entirely possible that passive play areas will be included.
40 Commissioner Torliatt - How many houses could be built if Urban Limit Line not moved?
41 (minimum and maximum) - Answer - 105 to 250 (2.1 - 5.0 du/ac).
42 Commissioner Wick - Initial Study - pages 4,7,17 - recreational component indicated not
43 part of project - inconsistency between proposed project in staff report and Initial Study -
44 clarify.
45 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - That point is also relevant to Traffic Study.
46 Commissioner Thompson - Traffic Study does not include ball field proposals (done in
47 1995).
48 Principal Planner McCann - Commissioner wck makes good points - that's a complex
49 question. These facilities are not required and do not directly bear on the GPA. But, they
50 are an important aspect of the proposal by Mr. Heaton. The Commission must determine
51 the extent to which the facilities bear on the GPA; Initial Study does not analyze precise
52 components/design of recreational facility but acknowledges that the offer has been
53 presented by the developer.
1 Commissioner Wick - This is a much better project, however, environmental review
2 regarding the recreational facilities should be rethought; I cannot support the application.
3 Commissioner Read - Merits of project have not even been able to be made by
4 Commission yet - should come back at later time for further review - staff should look at
5 Initial Study; would feel more comfortable continuing to another meeting.
6
7 Continued to Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1996 - Item 1.
8
9
10 Commissioner Wick left - 10:37 PM.
11
12 NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARING
13
14 IL PAYRAN STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT; CITY OF PETALUMA;
15 PAYRAN STREET @ THE PETALUMA RIVER; FILE CUP96013(vcs).
16
17 Consideration of a proposed Conditional Use Permit to replace the Payran Street
18 Bridge.
19
20 Senior Planner Smith presented the staff report.
21
22 The public hearing was opened.
23
24 SPEAKERS:
25
26 Planning Director Tuft - clarified - trails under bridges would not be constructed with this
27 project; maintenance access roads would stop at the bridge; the bridge is designed to
28 accommodate trails.
29 Commissioner Torliatt - How long would this project take?
30 Engineering Director liggis - Construction completed prior to end of year.
31 Commissioner Feibusch - Retaining walls in front of existing homes - heights?
32 Director Hargis - Jess/Rocca retaining walls can be as high as 8 feet; property at corner of
33 Jess and Payran has been acquired by City, being used as construction office.
34 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Where is first house located?
35 Director Hargis - Severe impacts on one property; 25 feet to property line.
36 WMme Lewis - 13 Payran - Construction is being scheduled without any easements being
37 signed; this bridge will not reduce the risk of flooding; diagram shows girders in floodway
38 - not allowed; bridge should not be replaced with this size of bridge; Balshaw bridge
39 (pedestrians/bicycles only) should be copied here; bridge speed limit should be 25 mph
40 with speed bumps.
41 Tim Bradev 13 Payran - lived at 10 Payran 5 years ago; genuine feeling of neighborhood
42 since bridge has been removed; no noise, speeding traffic, constant automobile traffic;
43 does not want another full-size bridge; Lakeville could continue to handle traffic;
44 rebuilding bridge will not help flooding; welcome pedestrian crossing here; no prior
45 posting before bridge was removed; neighborhood is being forced to seek legal counsel;
46 do more than letter or even spirit of law, make whole - hearted effort to carefully consider
47 all concerns to neighborhood.
48 Bob Martin - 171 Payran - Glad that Payran Street bridge has been removed; not
49 impressed with new design; potential for debris collecting under bridge supports; full -span
50 bridge design should be considered; if cost is overriding concern, look at savings to
51 leaving bridge out.
6
I Tom Partalocki - 107 W. Payran - Have been discussing moving driveway, do whatever is
2 possible to reduce traffic speed over new bridge - should not be allowed to be over 20- 25
3 mph; supports should not be allowed in river; look at design of bridge.
4 Commissioner Feibusch - Regarding design - can single -span be installed?
5 Engineering Director Hargis - Corps of Engineers recognized certain amount of debris
6 would build -up on standards -taken into account in design; balancing of dollars and
7 design without adding too much height; channel being widened from 60 feet to 160 feet;
8 City contacting private property owners regarding right -of -way acquisition-
9 Commissioner Read - This project can't wait another year; Army Corps of Engineers will
10 no longer be funding this type of project; this must be done before funds are no longer
11 available.
12 Engineering Director Hargis - Discussed public noticing process; will give consideration to
13 traffic questions raised tonight.
14 Traffic Engineer Tilton - Responded to speed limit questions; new bridge design will be
15 substantially safer than old bridge.
16 Commissioner Thompson - Weight limit for large trucks?
17 Traffic Engineer Tilton - Payran Street already has restrictions on truck traffic.
18
19 The public hearing was closed.
20
21 Commissioner Read - This Use Permit is just a technicality.
22 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Missing too much information - can't make findings with
23 information supplied.
24 Commissioner Thompson - Does not know if he has enough information -needs more
25 information to vote.
26 Commissioner Read - Did Flood Control Project EIR go through this Commission?
27 (Answer: yes).
28
29 Majority of Commissioners requested more information on surrounding area, elevations
30 on property; clearer information on design - relationship of elevations to existing
31 elevations.
32
33 Commissioner Read - Design of this bridge has gone through much review.
34
35 A motion made by Commissioner Read did not receive a second.
36
37 Assistant Ci1y Manager Salmons - Regrets that Commission feels that not enough
38 information has been provided by staff, believes that enough information supplied; this is
39 not related to traffic, speed, or aesthetics; recognize this will disrupt neighborhood; issue
40 tonight is flooding and hydrology and the relationship of this request to the provisions and
41 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Floodway provisions; this is first component of
42 large construction project; self - mitigating project; overall project has an adopted EIR,
43 those mitigations will be adhered to and monitored project -wide.
44
45 Further Commission discussion occurred.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner'Read and seconded by Commissioner Feibusch to
48 approve the requested Conditional Use Permit to replace the Payran Street Bridge based
49 on the findings and subject to all applicable mitigation measures listed in the EIR for the
50 Flood Control Project certified by the City Council on September 5, 1995.
51
52 Commissioner Read: Yes
i Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
2 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
3 Commissioner Torliatt: No
4 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
5 Commissioner Wick: Absent
6 Chairman Rahman: Yes
7
8 PROJECT FINDINGS
9
10 Environmental Findin s
11
12 A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared and certified by the City
13 Council on September 5, 1995 for the Petaluma River Flood Control Project: The FEIR
14 identified specific impacts and required mitigation measures to be addressed through
15 subsequent project specific review. Pursuant to Section 15162 and Section 15168 of the
16 CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the previously certified EIR
17 remains adequate in addressing all impacts associated with the proposed bridge
8 replacement, and further, based on the analysis contained in the FEIR, including the
19 mitigation measures specific to the replacement of the Payran Street Bridge, the Planning
20 Commission finds:
21
22 A. The proposed bridge replacement is substantially similar to the previously considered
23 bridge design and location and therefore does not require any new environmental
24 analysis;
25
26 B. The Mitigation Measures certified by the City Council will reduce impacts created by
27 the bridge replacement to a level of less than significant and no significant changes to
28 the environmental setting have occurred.
29
30 C. No new information has been discovered that the impacts, previously identified in the
31 FEIR, have increased in severity.
32
33 Use Permit Findings
34
35 The proposed Payran Street Bridge replacement will conform to the requirements and
36 intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the bridge replacement satisfies
37 the Zero Net Fill requirement of Section 16 -703.2 because fill will be removed from
38 the Floodway; 2) the height of the bridge will be increased to approximately 2.5 feet
39 above the 100 year flood elevation; and the design of the bridge will allow for the
40 future channel widening Flood Control Project.
41
42 The proposed Payran Street Bridge replacement will conform to the requirements and
43 intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan in that the removal of fill and
44 the installation of a bridge which is well above the 100 year flood event elevation
45 satisfies the General Plan requirements of improving the Floodway and land adjacent
46 to the Floodway in an effort to reduce the potential risk of flood damage. The
47 Planning Commission also finds that the bridge replacement meets the requirements of
48 the Circulation Element of the General Plan by restoring Payran Street to its Arterial
49 classification which provides for a more efficient neighborhood and area -wide
50 circulation system. Once in place, the bridge will reestablish the circulation system
51 originally designed for this area and will carry the traffic volumes anticipated for
52 Payran Street and the surrounding neighborhood.
53
8
I The proposed Payran Street Bridge replacement will not constitute a nuisance or be
2 detrimental to the public welfare of the community because the installed bridge and
3 minor bank and abutment work will improve the existing flood constraints at this
4 location along the Petaluma River. The higher bridge will allow for greater flow
5 capacity of floodwater or debris contained in the floodwaters and will permit the later
6 channel widening phase of the Flood Control Project.
7
8 The height and location of the bridge allows for future floodway improvements to be
9 installed consistent with the Floodway Project and does not preclude any planned
10 improvements anticipated in the River Access and Enhancement Plan.
11
12 USE PERMIT CONDI'T'IONS
13
14 1. All applicable mitigation and monitoring measures contained as a part of the FEIR for
15 the Flood Control Project certified by the City Council on September 5, 1995 shall be
16 implemented.
17
18
19
20 COMMISSION BUSINESS
21
22 Commissioner Torliatt steps down due to possible conflict of interest.
23
24 III. NESSCO LANDSCAPING; ED NESSINGER; 859 N. MCDOWELL BLVD.;
25 AP NO.048- 080- 0200cm).
26
27 Review of the degree of compliance with the conditions of approval and direction
28 to staff regarding next action including possible revocation.
29
30 Principal Planner McCann lead the discussion.
31
32 DISCUSSION:
33
34 Commissioner Read - What is time frame for review for SPARC approval?
35 Commissioner Thompson - Do we have a specific date?
36
37 Commissioner consensus: All permits, entitlements must be received within 64 days of
38 submittal of request for SPARC request for trailer.
'39
40 Ed Nessineer - There will be change in the business, that's the way it is, I'm a growing
41 business; trailer was going to go to a jobsite, but due to weather, was not able to move
42 trailer to jobsite; now working on legalizing trailer for office (ramps, landscaping, etc.).
43
44 Commissioner Rahman - From the beginning we discussed that if your business grew too
45 much, you may not be able to stay at this site.
46
47 Ed Nessinger - This is one of the last places in country where someone can make
48 something of himself, don't make it hard for me - 60 days no problem for me, will take
49 care of all requirements.
50
• �:3 _. 51
9
IV. PROJECT STATUS:
3 1. Woodside Village - staff has discussed Commission direction with the
4 applicant.
5 2. Marina Village (EIR) - Request for proposals (EIR) have been sent.
6 3. Old Redwood Highway / N. McDowell Blvd. Master Plan Update - Update
7 given.
8
10 ADJOURNMENT: 11:50 PM - Adjourn to Special Joint Meeting with the Site Plan
11 and Architectural Review Committee on April 11, 1996 at 5:00 PM (City Manager's
12 Conference Room).
13
14 min0409 / plan68
15
16
17
10