HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/13/1992269
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
20
21
22
23
24
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1
L_
54
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL
COMMISSIONERS: (All p
Thompson, Torliatt
ommission Minutes
October 13, 1992
7:00 P.M.'
PETALUMA, CA
1t): Bennett, Read, Parkerson *, Rahman, Tarr,
STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
James McCann, Principal Planner
* Chairman
MINUTES OF September 22, 1992 were approved with corrections.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT :, Bi- weekily .distribution of General Report (greensheet) will be
included in Planning Commission p cket.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Read reported that she had been
appointed an alternate to LAFCO.
CORRESPONDENCE: Memo regarding corrections to Minutes of September 22, 1992.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
OLD BUSINESS:
I. MOUNTAIN VALLEY VILLAS, DELCO BUILDERS, SONOMA MOUNTAIN
PARKWAY @ RAINIER CIRCLE, AP NO'S 136- 51 -01, 02 AND 03; 136 -51 -27
THRU 38; 136 -51 -42 AND 43; 136- 12 -59, 60 AND 61; FILE NO. TSM92003(tp).
1
Consideration of proposed - revisions to the PUD Development Plan for
Phases 1A, 2A and 3 of the Mountain Valley Subdivision consisting of 7.78
acres and to subdivide this property into 69 residential lots.
The public hearing was opened.
1
270 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/13/92
1 SPEAKERS:
2
3 Jim McCann - presented the staff report and answered questions.
4 Commissioner' Bennett - Was this designated higher density in Corona /Ely Specific Plan?
5 (Answer Yes); Why would lower density not be acceptable? How many more units would
6 be created at higher density range? (Answer - 17).
7 Commissioner 'Tarr - Have there been any market studies done regarding townhouses as
8 opposed t' o detached. single - family homes?
9 Planning Director Tuft The City relies on private real estate brokers and developers for
10 market survey information.
11 Doyle Heaton Project applicant - Presented roject and answered questions.
12 Tom Baldacci Mountain Valley Partners applicant) - Indicated that market research
13 showed that detached single - family homes were more desirable to buyers; described
14 marketing strategy for this project.
15 Al Burren - Project architect - described architecture; described the 14 elevations;
16 differences in massing.
17 Doyle Heaton - Described history of this project and the other projects in the Corona /Ely
18 area.
19 Commissioner Tarr - The Urban Diversified General Plan designation is not intended for
20 this type of development. Attached units, zero lot - lines, etc., should be utilized',
21 Doyle Heaton - Not able to obtain financing for townhome /attached units at this time.
22 Commissioner Read - General Plan and Corona El Specific Plan require Ely P q type and density
23 of project and as originally submitted it fits into these defined areas; this project is being
24 redesigned because of financing difficulties; this is not the best project for this site or the
25 community.
26 Commissioner Thomspon - Would like to see fewer homes on this site;, side -entry
27 garages are not possible on these small lots; agreed with density requested by developer.
28 Commissioner Read - If density is lowered here, where will density be recovered in the
29 Corona /Ely area?
30 Commissioner. Parkerson - Project needs more creativity (side entry garages, wider lots,
31 zero -lot line units, etc); unit architecture needs more work to provide increased diversity.
32 Commissioner Rahman - Problems with private streets; no control over parking, etc. on
33 private streets; side entry garages look nicer but may not be possible with such small lots;
34 maybe landscaping can be more creative.
35 Commissioner Bennett - General Plan and Specific Plan call for more diversity than this
36 project offers. Homebuyers would welcome a variety; very much prefers side -entry garage.
37 Commissioner Torliatt - Roof types /colors are all the same - need some diversity; should
38 have more affordable homes available.
39 Commissioner Parkerson - Wants redesign with higher density.
40 Tom Baldacci - Is density the main issue? A redesign. with higher density may preclude
41 design diversity.
42 Commissioner Bennett - Redesign could include mixed uses; need more diversity; be
43 creative. ' -
44 Commissioner Parkerson - Suggests emphasis be placed on design with effort toward
45 increasing density.
46
47 The public hearing was closed.
48
49 A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to
50 continue this application with direction to the applicant to redesign in response to
51 Commission comments.
52
53 COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
54 COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
t
21
22
23
24
25
26
7
8
�9
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
1
2
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/13/92
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
II. SONOMA GLEN ESTAI
FILE NO. TSM91008, RE
Request to subdivi
Parkway Company
residence will be
required:
580 CORONA ROAD; AP NO. 137 - 060- 76(partial);
:004(tp).
a 7.5 acre portion of the remainder lands of Sonoma
ito four residential lots for custom homes. The existing
tained on proposed Lot 1. The following actions are
a. Approval of a rezoning from PCD to PUD.
b. Approval of ar PUD Development Plan and Development Standards.
C. Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the property
into 4 residential lots.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Jim McCann - Presented the staff Ieport.
Tom Mershel - Applicant representative - agreed with all staff report items except PUD
Condition 2d; PUD Condition lh; condition regarding specifying finish floor elevations of
homes on Tentative Map (garage placement questions); objects to condition to allow large
family daycare as conditional use.
Commissioner Parkerson - Would
status?
Tom Me rshel - Open to suggestion
Commissioner Bennett - Do of
Tom Mershel - Yes, would, prefer r
Commissioner Read - Believes Cc
possible large family daycare
Commissioner Rahman - Would lil
Commissioner Bennett - Are th
prohibited?
Planning: Director Tuft It is allow
they may be prohibited, however, 1
exclusion in PUD's exist.
Jim McCann - Gated access off C
as a second access, not primary ac
be required prior to Final Map; ga
options to moving garage to allow I
The public hearing was closed.
developer nominate some trees for heritage /landmark
of heritage nomination.
ject to large family daycare as a Conditional Use?
of to allow this use at all.
aditional Use Permit is appropriate vehicle to consider
to leave this as a conditional use.
e any other areas where large family daycare is
d in all areas through Conditional Use Permit process;
rough PUD rezonings. Not certain how many cases of
-ona Road is recommended to maintain Corona Road
ess; some elevation information (assumptions) should
Lge location on Lot 1 may affect larger trees; discussed
otection of trees.
271
3
272 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/13/92
A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr
recommend to the City Council approval o:
based on the findings listed below:
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to
the proposed rezoning from PCD to PUD
Rezoning Findings
1. The PUD development plan, as conditioned, results in a more desirable use of the
land, and .a better physical environment than would be possible under any single
zoning district or combination of zoning districts through provision of density
feathering near the Urban Separator.
2. The plan for the proposed development, as conditioned, presents a unified and
organized arrangement of residential buildings which are appropriate in relation to
adjacent .and nearby rural properties and associated future :residential projects, and
adequate landscaping and /or screening is included if necessary to insure
compatibility.
3. The natural and scenic qualities of the site will be'protected through preservation of
the Corona Road corridor, and existing trees, and adequate public access and
utilities and private spaces are designated on the Unit Development Plan.
4. The development of the subject Sonoma Glen Estates property, in the manner
proposed by the applicant and conditioned by the City,, will not: be detrimental to 'the
public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in keeping with
the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma and
ith
w the Petaluma General Plan.
5. The PUD District is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to one
or more thoroughfares (Ely Road and Corona Road) 'to carry any additional traffic
generated by the development.
A motion. was. made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to
recommend to the City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development Plan and
Development Standards based on the Rezoning Findings and subject to the amended PUD
Conditions listed below:
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: No - A gate should not be required on Corona Road for
Lot 1
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
PUD Conditions
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/13/92
1
2 1. Prior to submittal for SPARC .review, the PUD Development Plan and
3 Development Standards shall be amended to reflect the following requirements:
4
5 a. Proposed driveway locations along Corona Road shall be indicated on the
6 final Development Plan. The proposed private. access drive shall be
7 identified by name, with paving area clearly delineated on the plan.
8
9 b The proposed 10' P E shown adjacent to Corona Road shall be deleted.
10
11 c Proposed setback lines shown on the Development Plan shall be amended to
reflect the following minimum standards:
1. Street frontages: 40'(designated front yard)
2. Interior side yards: 20'
3. Yards abutting private access easement: 40'(designated rear yard).
20 d. Front and interior side setbacks on Lot 1 shall coincide with the septic s stem
21 easement shown on that lot. y
22
23 e.. The proposed garage footprint and driveway proposed locations on Lot 1
24
25 shall be relocated andlor designed so as not to adversely affect the health of the
6 significant trees in this area. 4&4-he-west-side-of _let,
f. Fence design details shall be incorporated into the proposed development
standards for review and approval by SPARC.
30 g. A statement of intent shall be inserted into the Development Standards,
31 referencing applicable Corona /Ely Specific Plan provisions, Ordinances,
32 Resolutions and other project conditions of approval.
33
34 h. Large family day care homes shall be listed as a conditional use.
35
36 i. The Development Standards shall be expanded to require that all grading,
37 trenching, and construction activities maintain at least a 5' setback from the
38 existing dripline of all trees required to be preserved, and that any proposal
39 to encroach within 5' of the dripline, or to remove a specific tree identified
40 for preservation, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
41 Director. An arboris 's report shall accompany all lot development plans
42 which are within 5 of the driplines of identified trees to be preserved.
43
45 j In addition to trees shown to be preserved on the development plan, the
following trees on Lot 1 (shown to be removed) shall be identified for
46 retention: 8, 41, 42, and 55.
47
48 k. The Development Plan and Development Standards shall incorporate
49 amendments required under conditions of approval for the Tentative
Subdivision Map, and shall reflect consistency with the Tentative Subdivision
Map.
2. Development of individual lots shall be subject to administrative SPARC review,
with emphasis on the followine:
273
5
274 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/13/92
a. Preservation of existing trees along Corona Road and within Lots 1, 2, and
Proposed work closer than 5' from the outer perimeter of the driplines of
trees, or necessitating removal of existing trees identified for preservation
shall be subject to full SPARC review.
b. Compatibility of proposed residential design plans with existing development
along Corona Road and consistency with Corona /Ely Specific Plan
provisions pertaining to the rural character of the subdivision site.
C. Review of proposed grading, drainage and landscape plans for compliance
with City standards, potential effects on existing trees, and appropriate
transition at property boundaries.
d. Review of proposed driveways along Corona Road for compliance with
Specific Plan provisions, restricted (gated) access (with automatic opener),
and design adequacy.
e. App ropriate location and design of proposed accessory buildings and fencing
in ord to preserve open views along the public streets, and avoid "rear yard"
presentations along street frontages.
f. Review for appropriate addressing and mailbox location to facilitate
emergency services and visitors.
g. Review of parking for a minimum of 5 on -site spaces.
h. Review of proposed utility line locations for impacts to existing trees.
i. The applicant shall apply for SPARC approval to designate selected trees
(determined by the Planning Director) on the 75 acre property for Heritage and
Landmark designation.
3. The existing residence and water tower located on the proposed Lot 1 shall be
preserved. Any request for removal or demolition of this building shall be referred
to the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee for consideration, and shall be
accompanied by an archaeological report, prepared by a qualified archaeologist,
containing an analysis of the historic significance of the building and
recommendations.
4. Reproducible copies of the PUD Development ; Plan and Development Standards
shall be submitted in conjunction with the Final Map which incorporate all
conditions of project approval.
5. Flexibility in building location and the ability to remove smaller, less significant
trees ( #38 - 49) shall be permitted to allow reasonably sized additions to occur to
the home on Lot 1.
A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to
recommend to the City Council approval of the Tentative Subdivision map based on the
findings and subject to the conditions listed below.
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
no
1
6
7
9
10
w'
21
22
23
24
25
1�"
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
De
Planning: Commission Minutes - 1
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Y
CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yep
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT:
Lot 1.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
Tentative Map Findings
1
2.
3
13/92
to - A gate should not be required on Corona Road for
Yes
The proposed subdivision, as conditionally approved, together with provisions for its
design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs, the Petaluma Subdivision Ordinance, and the
Subdivision Map Act.
F
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development
proposed, as conditionally approved.
1
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, as conditionally
approved, will not cause substantial environmental damage, and no avoidable injury
will occur to fish and /or wildlife or their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements proposed will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed) subdivision.
Tentative Map Conditions
1. Prior to application for SPARC review of the project, the Tentative Subdivision
Map shall be amended to reflect the following:
a. No new public utility easement shall be shown along Corona Road. Electric
and gas service shall be provided to individual lots from existing utility lines
located in the public street right -of -way as determined by PG &E and City
staff.
b. The proposed common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 shall be modified to
avoid impacts to existing trees to be preserved.
C. The proposed PUE located in the vicinity of tree #87 shall be relocated at
least 5' from the dripline of the tree.
d. The proposed private driveway serving Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be modified to
avoid conflict with the proposed setback lines, and to ensure that sight -
distance visibility requirements can be met at proposed building and fence
lines.
e. Proposed lot draii
minimum floor elc
in accordance with
f. The following
1. Existing zoning
system and location shall be shown, and proposed
ins and maximum building elevations shall be shown
division Ordinance requirements.
shall be made to the map:
all be shown as PCD.
7
275
...... _,.... _._.....,.. . - - _...._.__._.., ....,.,_.._ ..................
276 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/13/92
2. Acreage of subdivision shall be shown.
3. Property AP Number shall be corrected.
4. The note referencing a 10' PUE shall be removed.
5. The note referencing proposed grading in conformance with soils
reports shall be removed unless grading is proposed, and the note
referencing no rough grading to be performed shall "be removed.
6. The signature block for Community Development and Planning
Director shall be corrected to show Planning Director.
7. Acreage of the remainder lands shall be shown.
8. Existing buildings and structures shall be identified, including the
existing wellhouse. Proposed and buildings to be demolished shall be
indicated.
2. The following requirements of the Chief Building Official shall be met:
a.
Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with
approved plans and will be required for occupancy.
b.
Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design foundation
per Uniform Building Code 2904(b).
C.
Show site drainage and grading topography.
d.
Indicate all utilities on site plan.
e.
Responsible party to sign plans.
L
Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
g.
Plans must show compliance to 1991 UBC, UPC, UMC, and 1990 NEC.
Plans must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Code.
h.
Provide structural calculations for all non- conventional design items.
i. Demolition permit required to remove any structure.
j. Abandoned water well or septic system must be done under permit from
Sonoma County Health Dept.
3. The following requirements of the City Engineer shall be met:
a. The proposed sanitary sewer main located within the remainder lands of
Sonoma Parkway Company and the portion in the rear of Lots 3 and 4 shall
be public and contained within an exclusive paved 10 -foot easement
dedicated to the City.
b. The sanitary sewer .located on the side yard of Lot 3 shall be private and
contained within a private easement for the benefit of Lot 1. Sewer service
1
2
I-
6
7
8
9
10
11
W
r~
l
21
22
23
24
25
r
e
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/13/92
C.
to Lot 2 shall be cc
lateral shall be loca
manhole located in
8 -inch public main.
Sanitary sewer late
within this develop
If positive lot d
control shall be
swales and inlets:
and water services shall be installed to serve each lot
t.
a
e..
f.
g. This development shall contribute a proportionate share to the cost of the
proposed SCWA Master Drainage Plan for the North and Lower Corona
Drainage Systems. C shall be based upon a ratio of runoff from
the site to runoff from the watershed, as determined by the developer's
engineer to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. -
h. ; Signing and striping shall conform to the City Standards.
Water meters (with
main easement.
Fire protection to
Marshal.
As required by the Fire Marshal, a turn - around of sufficient size to
accommodate emergency vehicles shall be installed at the end of the private
driveway between Lots 3 and 4 and in the area of Lots 1 and 3.
lids) shall be installed within the proposed water
development shall be to the satisfaction of the Fire
i. The developer shall I comply with the Petaluma Municipal Code Section
20.36.010 and 20.36.0 20 which require the developer to pay storm drainage
impact fees (as calculated in Chapter 17.30) on construction in all sections of
the City of Petaluma.
J•
This development
soils report for this
comply with all recommendations as stated in the
ct.
k.
1.
m.
n.
ned within a private sewer easement on Lot 3. This
within. a private sewer easement in Lot 3 and via the
rear of Lot 3. Sewer service to Lot 3 shall be via an
cannot be obtained, then all backyard drainage
an underground pipe system with surface catchment
A private storm drain maintenance agreement between lots served by the
above- mentioned system shall be submitted in a recordable form prior to
Final Map approva. This agreement shall also specify timing of
maintenance and be in a form acceptable to the City staff, and recorded
concurrent with the Final Map.
A grading and draii
improvement plan for
All grading and e
Ordinance 15.76.
This development
mitigation fee.
plan shall be included as part of the public
development.
control shall conform to the City's Erosion Control
ill be required to contribute to the City's traffic
277
E
278 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/13/92
o. A private driveway maintenance agreement between lots served by this
system shall be submitted in a recordable form prior to Final Map approval.
This agreement shall also specify timing of maintenance and be in a form
acceptable to City staff, and recorded concurrent with the Final Map.
P. Water pressure calculations shall be required for this development verifying
the system adequacy for fire flows and domestic- service. (This item shall be
verified concurrent with improvement plan review).
q. Prior to approval of the Final Map, all improvements such as lot grading and
drainage, private driveway, public and private utilities, etc., to serve these
lots, shall be designed and bonded for.
4. The following requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met:
a. Any building constructed in excess of 150 feet from a public way shall be
provided with an access, minimum twenty (20) feet unobstructed all- weather
hard surface .thirteen feet six inches (13'6 ") vertical height clearance (see
attached).
b. Buildings up to 300 feet from fire department access may, in lieu of a
minimum 20 feet access as required by the fire code, be protected by an
approved residential sprinkler throughout, including the attic and garage.
C. Provide fire apparatus turn - around at ends of driveways per City of Petaluma
Engineering Department standards. .
d. Fire hydrant general locations are acceptable. Hydrants shall be in water
easement and outside apparatus turn - around areas.
e. All lots shall be addressed to Ely Road to prevent emergency response
confusion.
5. The Tentative Map shall be amended and submitted for staff review within 45 days
of City Council approval and prior to SPARC application of the project to reflect all
applicable modifications required under the Tentative Map PUD conditions of
approval. Said amended map shall meet specifications of the City Engineer and
Planning Director. A reproducible copy of the amended map shall be submitted for
Planning Director signature following staff approval of checkprints.
6. This development shall be subject to all applicable development fees, and on- and
off -site improvements as set forth, within the adopted Development Agreement for
Sonoma Parkway Company (Bollinger property), or any subsequent amendment
thereto.
7. Issuance of building permits for this subdivision shall be subject to the allotment
schedule set forth in the Development Agreement addendum for :Sonoma Parkway
Company (Sonoma Glen Subdivision /Bollinger property) dated August 27, 1990.
8. The following requirements shall be met in conjunction with application for Final
Map:
a. The PUD Development Plan and Development Standards shall be amended
to incorporate all SPARC conditions of approval and two copies submitted
10
Planning Commission Minutes - 11,0/13/92 279
1
3
4
6
7
9
10
11
co
ce
C9
19r 2_ 0
21
22
23
24
25
26
8
9
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
1
2
4
for staff review. Reproducible copies of the, finalized documents shall be
submitted prior to recordation of the Final Map.
b. Two copies of the signed Tentative Map shall be submitted in conjunction
with the Final Map.
c. Improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for staff review which
incorporate all project conditions of approval.
d. Two copies of required maintenance agreements shall be submitted for staff
review and approval.
III. DELTA BATTERY COMPANY; LEO ORTEGA; 501 PETALUMA BLVD. NORTH,
AP NO. 006-091-29; FILE NO. CUP1.509akt).
1. Consideration of an appeal of an administrative action on the revocation of
the Delta Battery Company's Conditional Use Permit.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Planning; Director Tuft presented the'staff report.
Commissioner Tarr - Was Mr. Ortega the original applicant?
Planning Director Tuft - No, it was original property owner, Mr. Strausser.
Leo Ortega - I am being singled -out unfairly; poor parking near site - many of the cars
around the site are not because of Delta Battery business; there are two motorhomes
parked on Kent Street; City is discriminating against me; has outgrown this site, might need
a larger location, but can't find one.
Commissioner Read - Your business requires another location where there is more room.
Commissioner Bennett - You are performing operations which are not allowed under your
Use Permit because of space limitations.
Planning,, Director Tuft - Other uses in area are being investigated also; Use Permit has
already been revoked (since August) due to lack of compliance with conditions; Mr. Ortega
may appeal to the City Council.
Leo Ortega - Can I apply for a Use Permit for an auto repair business?
Planning'Director Tuft - Yes; however, Planning staff cannot support auto repair at this
site.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commi
deny the appeal and direct s
revocation.
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Y
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yf
CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT:
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
er Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to
to pursue enforcement of Conditional Use Permit
s
es
Yes
11
-- - --- - - - - -- . _...._.
0
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1992
CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
Planning Director Tuft will notify applicant of 14 -day appeal process to City Council.
LIAISON R EPORTS:
1. SPARC
2. Tree Committee - Richard Burger has been appointed SPARC member to the Tree
Committee.
3. River Enhancement Committee - Tomorrow night Committee will discuss the
downtown area.
PROJECT STATUS Petaluma Cinema EIR - the contract is in place, the EIR is
underway; Crane Glen Final Map - City Engineer was scheduled to sign the Final Map
today.
ADJOURNMENT 9:35 PM.
min1013 / pcmin -7
12