Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/07/1973A G E N D A PETALUMA CLTY'PLANNING', �— REGULAR MEETING ITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PLEDGX11, ALLE(JrIANICE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL: , STAFF: Hilligos Waters Popp Comm,, Balshaw Bond AUGUST ?, 1,973 7:30 P PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Hood Mattei Frank B. Gray.,, &enior Planner Richard D. A. 'Anderson, erson, Associate Planner Dennis Bo&h-1j Planner AP.PROVAL CORRESPONDENCE SITE DESIGN William.McDevitt"s proposal for warehouse, COMMITTEE REPORT: storage -ge and limited hop . _use on Lots 15 and 16 of the Petaluma Indust,,rial-Park. QANTAS DEVEL Consideration of recruest by Qantas Development CORPORATION'jREQUEST Corp. for private streets in the proposed P.U.D. ' O R PRIVATE . STREET a located between McKenzie Ave. and McGregor Ave. adjacent to Washington' Creek. STANDARD OILj,COMPANY Publi,c Hearing to consider the- application of OF CALIFORNIA .:"Standard Oil Company of California for a Use USE PERMIT U8-73: Permit fbr.a service station located at 4999 Petaluma ,Blvd. North in a C-H.District, to re - move the non-conforming 5# as specified in sections 25-201 and 25-5 of the zoning ordinance. DR—CHARLES BRANONER Public Hearing to consider the application of -Dr. Charles Brandner for a Use Permit to allow a 'small animal veterinary 'el -in ic at 347 Lakeville Street in a C-11 District. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Consideration of an EIQ for proposed rezoning QUESTIONNAIRE from R-1-6,500 to R-MSG 'District for site located EVALUATION -iCONNOLLY onth e westerly side of the southerly projection DEVELOPMENT "COMPANY: of Park Lane,. PlannIng Commission Agenda., Aug-ust 7, 1,973 D; D., YOUNG Public Hearing to consider request for rezoning � EZON ' TNG Z1.0 -73: A. P."- ft0Q'7-40l-04 and from R-1-10,000 and M Dist, acts to R-M-C; District located be- tween Highway 101 and North McDowell Blvd. to the Southeast of Corona Road. D. D. YOUNG!- Public. Hearing to consider application for a Use USE PERTv_11T U3-73: Permit to allow a 1.02--space:mohi nark (Youngstowne Mobilehome Park) on site located between-Highway 101 and. North McDowell Blvd,, to the Southeast of Corona Road. 'upibATr OF THE Continuation of Public Ilela-rinq to consider the - PETALUMA CITY PLANNING'COMMISSION AUGUST 7, 1973 REGULAR MEETING; 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Hilligoss, Hood, Mattei,'Waters,, Popp ABSENT: ..Comm,. Bond, B:alshaw STAFF: _Frank B. Gray, Senior Planner .Richard D. A. Anderson, Associat e Planner Dennis Boehlje, Project Planner I , INTRODUCTI,C PLANNING CC MEMBERS: APPROVAL QANTAS DE CORPORATI FOR PRIVA OF NEW CITairman.Popp introduced, 'the two new members of ISSION the Planning Commission, Patricia Hilligoss and 'Fred Mattei, and welcomed ,them on behalf of the Conunis_sion., He also read a letter dated August 6 1973 from Edward J. Schmelz tendering his resignation from the Planning Commission due- to ill health. F MINUTES: i , i E_LOPMENT Mr. Boehlje celled the attention of the Planning 9 REQUEST Commission to° a map illustrating the private E STREET: streets and expla- the layout of the develop - men`t. He further indicated to the Commission that the Tentative Map had been approved by both the Commission, and the City Council. At a request from a member.. ®.f. the Commission, Mr. Boehlje indicated the position of the creek and the linear park . M I N U T E S - PETALUMA CITY PLANNING'COMMISSION AUGUST 7, 1973 REGULAR MEETING; 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Hilligoss, Hood, Mattei,'Waters,, Popp ABSENT: ..Comm,. Bond, B:alshaw STAFF: _Frank B. Gray, Senior Planner .Richard D. A. Anderson, Associat e Planner Dennis Boehlje, Project Planner I , INTRODUCTI,C PLANNING CC MEMBERS: APPROVAL QANTAS DE CORPORATI FOR PRIVA OF NEW CITairman.Popp introduced, 'the two new members of ISSION the Planning Commission, Patricia Hilligoss and 'Fred Mattei, and welcomed ,them on behalf of the Conunis_sion., He also read a letter dated August 6 1973 from Edward J. Schmelz tendering his resignation from the Planning Commission due- to ill health. F MINUTES: The minutes of July '17, 1973 were approved as submitted,. i E_LOPMENT Mr. Boehlje celled the attention of the Planning 9 REQUEST Commission to° a map illustrating the private E STREET: streets and expla- the layout of the develop - men`t. He further indicated to the Commission that the Tentative Map had been approved by both the Commission, and the City Council. At a request from a member.. ®.f. the Commission, Mr. Boehlje indicated the position of the creek and the linear park . Commissioner Waters made the motion to approve the private streets as shown .on the Tentative Map and Commissioner Hilligoss seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 i. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA USE PERMIT'U8 =73 j The staff report was reed citing the recommended conditions of approval for the Use Permit application of Standard-Oil Company for remodeling of an exist' :ng service station at 4999 Petaluma Blvd.. North, in a C - - District. The Public Hearing was opened and the audience was asked for comments for or against the granting of the Use Permit. Mr. Charles Travers, Standard Oil Company, informed ,the Commission that the 10,&OO gallon storage tank is not part of this application. Pe taluma City ,Planning Commission Minutes, August 7, 1.973 In light of this information the 'staff informed the Commission that the suggested condition #2 would not be 'applicabie. f. Comm, Hood inquired about the choice of land- scape trees and shrubs,. and Mr. Travers stated he would be agreeable to work the type of land- scaping out with, the staff. The Commission was also agreeable to that arrangement. The Public Hearing was closed. The staff explained to the Commission that at the time the service station was constructed a Use Permit was not required; however, under the present C-H Zoning a 'Use Permit is required, which when issued would remove the non-conforming status. Comm. Hood made the motion.to approve the Use Permit with the conditions of approval regarding landscaping and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 DR. CHARLES BRANDNER The staff report was. read citing the recommended - USE PERMIT U7-73: conditions of approval for Use ' Permit application of Dr. Charles Brandner to allow a small animal_ veterinary clinic at 347 Lakeville Street in a C-H District. 1 The,Public'Hearing was opened and comments requested from the audience either for or agAinst the granting of the Use Permit. Mr. Dick Lieb, representing Dr. Brandner, addressed the Commis'sion, stating that they were Agreeable with all of the conditions of approval and would work out the choice of street trees with the staff. Mr. Li6b added it was his under- stand ng the.Commission wouid.be considering the combination of the site design and Use Permit this evening. The Public Hearing was closed. J Mr. Henry Volker from the audience asked who would pay for the improvements on Erwin Street and was told the applicant would pay for half of the street. Thi's portion of the street im- provement was illustrated on the viewfoil for clarification. Comm. Waters refefted to the staff report which stated that further studies would be initiated in -2- j Petaluma ENVIRONME QVESTIONN EVALUATIO C ity Planning Commission Minutes, August 7, 1.973 the near future to make - the EDP, the zoning ng Plan, an e d the General Plan consistent with each other, and asked, when this.- .would be done Mr. Gray replied that this w.mild be completed by the end of the year Comm., Waters made the motion to approve I Lhe Use :Permit with conditions as cited and that separate site design review be accomplished. The motion was seconded by Co =. Hiiiigoss. AYES 5 NOES. 0 ABSENT 2 AL IMPACT Connolly-Development Company had submitted an RE application to rezone from R-1-6,'500 to R-M-G CONNOLLY for a si, te located on the vesterly .side of the COMPANY: southerly projection of Park Lane. The staff report was read which recommended that an En- vironmental Impact Report"be required for the project due to the land use changes and increased traffic this rezoning and proposed development would generate, and for which it was felt adequate measures to mitigate this effect had not been submitted- The staff report on the rezoning application was also read for the further edification of' the Commission, recommending disapproval as it would be a spot zone and have traffic problems. The Public Hearing was ope"ned and the audience was , Asked for comments for or against the acceptance of the Environmental Impact Questionnaire. . Norman Rollins, the addressed the Commission and stated he did not agree with the conclusions of the staff. He stated he was not a traffic engineer and 'therefore not qualified to state if .an EIR was required. Likewise, as to the spot zoning, he stated he was not an attorney and could not judge that factor. Mr. Rollins was asked what he intended-to do with the remainder of the property And he'r-opiied that he had attempted to use the property at an earlier date for what .the,City had planned,,bijt it had been turned down, therefore, he did not know what to do with the property. Mr. Rollins explained to the Commis- sion exactly actly which property he owned, and the Public Hearing was closed, Comm.. Waters questioned the development of Caulfield. Lane through to McDowell and was told there were no plans at this time to accomplish this connection. Chairman Popp reminded the Commission that they 'would have to decide the highest and best use of the land. He felt the -3- Petaluma C' ty Planning Q&fnisislon Minutes,* August 7, 1973 entire property should be included in a proposal. Mr. Gray advised that from a Planning standpoint there was. no objection, to the. apartment building, however,, the fact that it receives sole access th single family residential area was a -problem and it could only be alleviated by the continuation of Cauifd:eld Lan'e through to McDowell Blvd. He further reminded the Commission that this would result in spot zoning and that a PUD would be a better method of procedure. Discussion followed on past proceedings on this particular Piece of property and Mr. Rollins informed the Commission that he had previously requested a C-H rezoning which was in accord with what the City and their Consultant wished, and it had been'rejected.due to the opposition of the people. A short discussion followed r'e- gardin the usage of the 1 as a PUD, which would not be considered spot zoning and would be an appropriate buffer. Chairman Popp felt if an EIR were required it should cover the enti ' re,paT.cel under Mr. Rollin's ownersi� " ,h and Mr. - Gray advisod-- - that the Con sultan't would have to know what the rest of the property would be used,f6r of else he would have to make suppositi.on,s on the remainder. Mr. Rollins, was,a.sk.ed about placing the apart- ment building closer to So. McDowell Blvd. and, he answe r it was not considered appropriate for; that portion of the property. Mr. Gray added .that the staff` had discussed this with the applicant and was informed that the front portion of this property is considered to be more valuable economically and this would not be feasible. Comm. Mattei made a motion to require an EIR and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES. 4 NOES 0 ABSTAIN 1 ABSENT 2 .D. D. YOUNG - A letter from Malcolm jayred, Petaluma Industrial REZONING 910-71: Park-, dated August 6, 1973, was read which stated they f.,b'lt more space, should ,be allowed between IC residential areas, as. exemplified.by the mobile home park, and industrial lands, such as the Petaluma Industrial Park. The staff explained the development of surround- ing properties. and' dread the staff report. It was noted' that the Traffic Engineer's report included with the Environmental Impact Questionnaire, -4- Petaluma City Plann ng Commission Minutes, August 7, 1973 was an evaluation for ors ly the first phase of 56 lots,, not for the entire development. An g observations inter - office memo statin th e of the Advan!. -e Plahninj Section was also read for the edification of the Commission. The Public Hearing was opened and the audience was asked for comments for or against the requested rezoning, Chairman Popp advised, for the public'.s edification, that the overcross at Corona Road is built up over the freeway and the efframp comes downright next to this piece of .property : , so the proximity to the property across Corona Road is also buffered by a high piece of ground Mra Pat Shannon,, Petaluma Chamber of Commerce, informed the Commission that retaining the M -L .zoning in this area has been of no benefit inasmuch as, of the 69 representatives of in- dustrial companies they had brought into the area:the past three years, none had been interested in this area for industrial pur- posps, but p:referared. the Industrial Park and the Lakeville area. He added that there is a 6ontiderable buffer between , Corona Road and wh'at.is being presently in the Industrial Park, and indications are that it will remain that way for at least four. years, Mr. Shannon commented on the project underway by the Economic Development 'Agency for extension of Corona Road through to the Penngrove inter- change which is projected a's soon as funds can be made available,, and which he felt would increase industrial, development in the Indus - trial Park rather than in the area under con- sideration. He added that the Sonoma County Public Works.•1Department. had indicated to him that their 1975 program allowed for replacing the small bridge across the creek on that end of the river with a full two -width lane with some .realignment out onto the Old Redwood Highway, Petaluma Blvd. North,, and he felt this would lessen the impact and increase traffic capability' at that particular area. Mr® Shannon concluded by saying that he felt R -M -G rezoning would be beneficial to the City and would not hamper the efforts in the In- dus'trial Park d Mr. Shannon was asked :if he would prefer a mobile home park or light industry for the most value to the City, and he replied that he would rather have a mobile home ,park for adults only. This. was based on the fact that the Chamber of • Commerce had had no success with industrial Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,, August 7, 1973 development anda mobile home park is self- contained, would have no s:cholo,i problems, would reduce service requ . i of the City for police and fire, and. would have purchasing ,power. Mr. Shannon was asked if the Chamber of Commerce had , not found that as population moves out of San.,Francisco, that development such as light i•ndustry 'or warehousing seemed to follow, and he replied that was true, however, he felt it should be put in areas - ' zoned and appropriate for it first, and as he has stated, developers are not interested in :this: area at this time. Mr. ' Shannon, was asked. he had appeared before the Commission thls; evening' and he stated he was officially re -presenting the Chamber of Commerce, his appearance was strictly because , Qf , .'the zoning of M-L against R-M-G, and that stated the same 'position he had a year .,arid a half. ago. He added that he was not for thp.mobile home park per se., for the rezoning. The applicant, Mr. David D. Young, took the floor and stated that his engineer, John Stuber,'and himself Were,available for questions. Mr.. D. D. Young I presented the Commission with copies of 'a petition signed. by Petaluma 're'sidents favor of the mobile home park, and chairman Popp read the context of the petition for the benefit of audience. a - Mri D. Young stated he would ' like action on the rezoning a, ' nd the use permit request at the .same time. Mr. Bud Bartlett, PG&E, took the floor and stated he was also involved and.he, together with Gil - Taylor from their &an Raf Office, would be available to answer' any 'questions. The 'Public Hearing was closed. The surrounding zoning waa explai-ned by the staff for the benefit of the Commission. Mr. Gravy was asked what a good*planning outlook would,be on this and he replied that it was quite a dilemna and one that only the Commission could solve. He explained that there are several factors that could isolate this as a , M-L piece of.property as far as good planning is'concerned. That t is the he fact that there is a substantial flood control channel stunning between the existing mobile home park And this -6- Petaluma i 7 .ity.Planning Commission Minutes,-Auqust T, 1973 piece of land which would serve as a natural buffer between the two uses,. A positive factor is that the great, ind.u.strial growth anticipated in the late 1960's never materialized. There- fore, the dilemn.aremains of how to use the land which people had purchased with the in- tent oh of using it for-industriai land which never materialized, and the existing mobile home park next to .it and the tendency towards a mobile home village in.the area, The physical constraints of Corona Road and Highway 1.01 would be natural physical boundaries for a residential or mobile home district, however, a neg&t-ive-factor is the encroachment of Light Industrial uses onto this area, Mr. Gray concluded that all of these factors had to be weighed back and forth against each other Mr. Bartlett was asked if it would effect PG&E or hinder them if the zoning Caere to be changed. .He replied that they had been on the site for 10 years, had left their former Petaluma site to get out into property pro ' perly zoned, and planned to remain there for quite some time Mr.'Bartlett felt the rezoning could hinder them and they c"ould hinder development around them because of noise and lighting generated from their yard. He explained that they have night loading from approximately nine to ten and have garage maintenance which runs up to midnight, Also, he added they have heavy equip- coming J and out which he felt could be a problem, and ail these problems had been discussed with Mr. D. D'. Young. Mr. John.,Stuber, Murray McCormick-, addressed the Commission and stated that PG&E had proposed a design to buffer the noise from their yard, and the applicant had represented this design on the plans to be presented at the Use Permit stage, Mr. Gray advised the Commission that if they were to approve the rezoning it 'should be with the intention of a permanent use for a mobile home park and not temporary b,ecause of possible socio-economic repercussions from .a temporary usage, Comm. Hood remarked that it 'm I ust be kept in mind that if someone going,down the highway makes a great deal of noise the people in the mobile home park could not -complain; however, they could complain to PG&E living right next to them. Mr. Gray was asked if this could possibly end up w ith one small spot. o usage-, -7- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, August .7, 1973 PG&E, completely surrounded with residential uses. He replied that it was possible _:ind that consideration should be given to the fact that the Coxmiiissiorn has been presented with a proposal fo a land use which at this point appears to be economi.,cal and- feasible, and also the fact that PG&E is already established on the site with the presumption that the land around them would be of a light industrial ,nature Comm, Waters remarked that no commercial services were available in the immediate vici ity'and he considered the :.roads inadequate, He added that the'bad roads could be the reason it had not been developed commercially before, as there is riot ,a good access to it and won't be until another road is built, and .he could not. understand why an EIR had not been required. Comm. Hood reminded the Commission that one of the conditions for recommending a rezoning is that it be consistent with public necessity, convenience and general welfare, and he could not find compliance with the general welfare until something is to the road. He added that the Trafflc�Engineer report had indicated it was okay for 56 but had not considered the entire , development or the growth inducing impacts and he felt the Commission mmission did not have adequate information on the traffic that would be accumulating between this development and the next. one down the road; therefore he felt action should not be taken until some aspects of traffic, safety, and the involvement with PG&E were solved. 'Mr. D. D. Young interjected that at the City Council meeting the 'City Engineer had.., stated if fie had had the Traffic Engineer report that he would not have objected against It at all from .a traffic standpoint,, and he was talking of the 102' units , not the 56. Mr. Stuber informed the Commission th:at McDowell Blvd, is presently carrying 2,000 vehicles daily and it could carry between 4,000-5,000. The 56 units would generate 280 daily trips and 102 units would generate 50 average daily trips, which would still be below the capacity of McDowell Blvd,, He added that McDowell Blvd. has a low accident rate, Mr. D. D. Young commented that aloe Lorenz, who owns the f ive acres next to him,,, is one of the petitioners supporting, the development, and that there had been no problent with the four homes next to the PO&�E site -8- Petaluma C -ity Planning Commission Minutes; Aug.usf 7 1973 A r - ecess was called at 9':40 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 9:50 p.m.. Mr. D. D. Young requested that Mr. Bartlett' and Mr. Stube-r speak regarding the berms and fences proposed. Mr. Bartlett replied that their architectural,eng.ineer had come up with an 11 foot noise barrier which would consist of a 5 - toot -foot berm and,a 6-foot solid block fence and he felt that 11 feet would be adequate to take care of any noise problem, Mr. Stuber added that the earth berm ,would actually widen the distance between -the PG &E Yard and the mobile home park by approxi - mately 15 feet o and w ' u _ld be landscaped on both sides. Mr. D. D. Young referred to,Mr. Bartlett's letter to the City Council and Mr. Bartlett stated that in n his letter he was net protesting the mobile home park, but rather pointed out some concerns of PG&E. One concern was the noise barrier, which had been agreed upoh.by the berm and the fence. Another concern was what PG&E thought was going to be a secondary access road on . Road crossing their portion of the Corona Road property, however, it had been clarified it would be us4d for emergency use only. Mr. Bartlettadded that the factor was one thing he could not do much about as it was needed for security lighting. He stated they would turn off what they could, but did not want to be put in a position where they would .be required to screen their lighting at a future date. Mr. Bartlett added his main concern was in.looking into the future, that whateveris put out there, they did not want to be put in a position where they would have to moved Comm. Mattei questioned,the density for a R-M-G district and how this proposal fit in with the desired 6 omits per acre. It was explained by the sta,if that it varied from 10-20 units per acre, depending on the number of bedrooms per acre, which determines how many can be put.on a lot M. D. .D Young added that the density proposed was 6.2 per acre. Comm. Hood questioned if this could come under a Planned Unit Development and the staff advised that provisions for mobile home parks fal the R-M-G zoning and it would therefore be a misuse. The purpose of a PUD was read from the zoning ordinance for clari- fication. MI= Petaluma ty Planning Commission Minutes, August 7, 1973 Comm. Mattei asked.-clarification on why Mr. D. D,. Young had requested the rezoning and use ,permit to be considered at the same time and Mr. D. D,. Young , replied that it would protect the City 'from his using the property for something else, such as apartments, and he wanted it acted. on,at the same time so that he could only use it for a mob - Ile home park and .nothing else, He added he would still have to be awarded an allotment to build.. The staff ,further explained that if approved the rezoning would go to the City Council and the Use Permit would be conditional upon the rezoning approval. Comm. Waters made the motion to deny the re- zoning-be'eause, since the City Council has opted that they did not need an EIR, he did not feel the Commission*had.enough information to act intelligently ligently upon the rezoning, and perhaps the applicant would care to appeal it to the * City Council and they could then act in the same light that they acted without an Environmental Impact Report. Comm. Hood ,Seconded the motion. AYES 3 NOES 2 ABSENT The rezoning request was thereby denied and the applicant advised he could appeal to the City Council if he so chose. 2 D. D. YOUNG - - D Due to the D. D. Young rezoning denial, this UPDATE OFTHE T The Public Hearing for the update of the HOUSING ELEMENT. H Housing Element - was continued from the meeting of July 17, 1973. Mr. Boehlje went over the suggested changes to the Housing Element Update dated August 2, 1973, and explained why the changes were suggested. Maps were dis- tributed to the Planning Commission indicating residential developable land. With regard to the low income housing aspect, Mr. Boehlje stated he had checked and both Federal and County funds are cut off and there would be no way I to implement it except through the Resi- den'ti.al Development Control System. Mr. Gray interjected that at A previous meeting Comm. Balshaw had commented on the City of Davis' plan' low income housing and he had inquired and found out that it was not an adopted program but rather a suggestion from one of the Counci'l- men that had been found to be idealistic but probably unpractical. 16 - Petaluma City I. Plan ning Commission Minutes, August 7, 1973 Comm. Mattei asked if criteria had been set up where mobile home',or apartments would be allowed.as a percentage against single family dwellings and Mr. Gray replied that the Housing Element did deal with that to see what the per- centages were in relation to the housing stock. He went to explain that mobile homes can The low moderate to'moderate income housing, and he had very seldom seen "adults only" mobile home park as a low income housing source. Mr. Gray informed the Commission that when we are talking about low income housing in Petaluma, - we are talking about housing for the elderly, which usually refers to elderly persons who are simply living on their social security .check. These peopledon.'t,have cars for the most part and.,mu.s:t be within walking distance to their needed services., If the City en- courages,., through the point allocation system for'the inclusion of boarding type or a nonpfofi type organization apartment complex for the elderly, this is -the only way the staff can: without the City actually sponsoring a,hous that the low income housing w ill 1 1 be provided. it was felt that the problem is not with low income families, but with housing for the elderly,.. A study indicated that the. low income source was 1. right, around the core of the city and that a large percentage of the. low income people were elderly, Discussion followed on the use of mobile home parks as low income housing and the availability of low income housing in the City. Comm Hilligoss inquired about the maximum of 50.0 per year housing allocation and it was explai,-ned that according to the update a residue could be carried over from one year to another to meet-the total amount of 2,500 for the 5-year period. Comm. Hilligosz stated that the way the ballot read. it was only for a maximum of 500 per year. The Public Hearing was closed and.Comm. Hood made the motion to approve the Update to the Housing Element Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 OTHER BUSINES Comm., Hood asked if mobile home and accessories sales were allowed in a mobile home park. A short discussion followed and the staff advised they would check out the signing and business y license aspect. Petaluma 'ity Planning Commission Minutes, August 7, 1973, Chairman Popp ,commented about the recent granting for a sewer connection on Sunny Hill Drive by the ,Commission which he felt was in complete violation of all land related laws,, as the man was not only going to sub- divide on the four lots but is already sub- divi on the top of the hill on the original piece of property that he 'sold that piece of property from® He added that we are compounding matters by granting them sower connections at the lower part,. Mr. Gray in- formed him the,matter had been researched and that unddr the Subdivision Map Act, as in- terpreted by the City, what the individual is per- forming here is subdivision, as he has already parcel mapped the land three times and is taking one of the parcels and dividing it again four times. Under the way the County interprets the Subdivision Map Act, if land is divided into four parts and.sold, this land can be divided into four parts again by the new buyers, however, this is not the City's interpretation, Comm. Mat.tei stated he realized this, but it was just a dilemna the Council was left in however, the Council p4ssed- resolution last night that said the City Council will not grant any water or sewer connections to anymore lot splits until the City with, agreement with the i ,y comes up wi 1 County and they recognize the EDP. M At the request of Comm. Hood, Mr. Gray stated that the EDP and General Plan conformity would be scheduled for September 1973. Mr. Gray reported on some items of concern brought up by the Commission at a previous meeting: 1. S & M Motors had been contacted about the possibility of further screening and they said they would see ' about redwood slats to fit in their chainlink fence. 2® With regard to the trailers at the end of Lindberg Lane, the use is permitted under current zoning; however no permit for the fence was issued and no site design review was held. The staff is checking on these violations to see what can be done to mitigate them. -12- Petaluma 61ty Planning Commis-sion Minutes, August 7 11973 3. Regarding the cc)mplaint from the Divis. of 111ghways th;at Lhe. fill'. area or, Lakeville Highway was blockinq their drainage, Mr. John King was t;ontacted and he said soine dirt had been accidently dumped in the natura.L dta --hannel. and it would be removed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ChAirman At 1-1 AP-1- -13-