Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/24/19920•, rAtwim I L Planning Uommission Minutes November 24, 1992 7:00 P.M. PETALUMA, CA i COMMISSIONERS: Bennett, Read Parkerson *, Thompson, Torliatt REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL ABSENT: Tarr, Rahman STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner James McCann, Principal Planner Jennifer Barrett, Associate Planner Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician Chairman Minutes of November 10, 1992 were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Torliatt inquired when the General Plan update was to begin and also asked status of Petaluma Cinema's EIR. Staff replied that it is anticipated that the. General Pal update will be discussed by the new Council in the first quarter of 1993 and that the Cinema's EIR is being prepared by consultant and a draft is expected in early February. CORRESPONDENCE: Greensheet; letter from Jerico Products regarding proposed General Plan amendment. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orally or in writing are advised to raise all pertinent issues at this stage of review so that possible solutions may be implemented or adopted at the earliest opportunity. If you challenge the action taken by the City of Petaluma in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public review process, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the conclusion of the public review process. 300 Planning Commission Minutes CONSENT. AGENDA None. November 24, 1992 OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING I. PATTI .GAEIR, SONOMA JOE'S CARDROOM, 5151 MONTE -RO WAY, APN 007- 421-16, FILE NO. CUP92032(hg). 1. Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a cardroom which will operate 24 hours /day within the existing facilities of the Sonoma Joe's restaurant and bar located at 5151 Montero Way: The cardroom will occupy a 1,440 sq. ft. former banquet room and will provide twelve card tables. The following actions are required: a. Finding of exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the Guidelines. b. Granting of a Conditional Use Permit to Patty Gaeir to authorize the operation of a cardroom, a commercial recreation use. The public hearing was reopened. SPEAKERS: Jim McCann presented staff report. Commissioner Read - what type of improvements are needed? Jim McCann - described scope of site improvements which include a more clear and defined drive in and out (landscaping, striping); applicant will engage the help of a civil engineer to help with design. Commissioner Thompson - are we going to get plans on this or is it going to SPARC? We're going to need to see what's going in for landscaping. Pamela Tuft - we anticipate either full or administrative SPARC review. Tom Gaeir, 1721 Chehalis - concern with signage; staff report wants both signs down, and after talking with :staff, we have no problem with removing the off -site sign but depend on the freeway sign for business; landscaping and exits are to be revamped with the help of a civil engineer. Commissioner Read - wanted to clarify that the Gaeir's are purchasing Sonoma Joe's as a restaurant and adding a cardroom, not changing the existing use to become just a cardroom. Tom Gaeir - yes, restaurant and bar will remain. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bennett - supports the cardroom; feels there's been a good compromise reached regarding the signage (remove the off -site sign and reduce non - conformity of on- site sign). Commissioner Parkerson - supports use; sign on Old Redwood Highway should be taken down. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to find that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 3 01 grant a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment and operation of a twelve -table cardroom within Sonoma Joe's Restaurant and Bar /banquet facilities based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Absent COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: i Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Absent Findings-, co �p 1. The proposed cardroom, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and `� intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance for uses permitted within the C -H zone. Z 2. The proposed cardroom, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Transportation, and Local Economy Chapters of the Petaluma General Plan.' 3. The proposed cardroom, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. 4. The existing free- standing signs are non - conforming and their removal will achieve consistency with Article 25 of the Zoning Ordinance. Conditions All requirements of the Chief of Police must be complied with, including: a. The parking lot shall be well lighted and .marked in .such a fashion as to maximize the free and easy movement of pedestrians and vehicles. There shall be open visibility to all parts of the parking lot. Said lighting and marking improvements shall be reflected on. the site masterplan which shall be reviewed and approved by the 'Planning Director and Chief of Police prior to the commencement of the business. Lighting improvements shall be installed prior to (occupancy of the cardroom unless an alternate improvement schedule (phasing) is approved by the Police Chief. b. The applicant shall provide the Police Department with a comprehensive written security plan for the location and the operation of the business prior to commencement of use. The plan shall include policies, procedures and the actual numbers of security people on the premises at any given time of day. C. The applicant /owner shall coordinate a monthly meeting with the Police Department for the first twelve months of operation. d. For each year following the first year of operation, the applicant /owner shall arrange an annual review of the operation with the Police Department. 2. Twenty -four (24) hour operation of the cardroom is not permitted until such time as the Petaluma Municipal Code has been amended appropriately. 3 3 02 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 3. The applicant shall produce a masterplan for circulation and landscaping for staff review and approval. prior to commencement of use by the cardroom. All components of this plan shall be installed within one year following_ the granting of this Conditional Use Permit, subject to staff review and approval, unless an alternate improvement phasing is approved by the Planning Director. A good faith performance bond shall be provided to the City prior to commencement of the cardroom use. The following requirements shall be included in the masterplan: a. Parking designed to City Standards for 136 vehicles b. Landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs and groundcover designed in a manner consistent with the City's landscape guidelines. In addition to typical landscaping, the landscape plan shall incorporate tree clusters along the parking lots east and west boundaries in islands and at both ends of the two rows of parking to the east of the building. Plantings within these interior islands should be of type(s) and density that will not obstruct visual surveillance of the parking lot. All required plant material shall be served by a City.approved irrigation system. C. Improvement and modification to the triangular island at the terminus of Montero Way shall be mad_ e to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in order to improve ease and safety of ingress and egress. Said improvements shall be completed pursuant to plans reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, prior to occupancy and commencement of use. * * d. Parking lot drainage improvements shall be provided as deemed to be necessary by the City Engineer (scope to be limited to on -site improvements). 4. A sign permit shall be obtained from the Building Division for the on -site free standing sign oriented towards Highway 101 prior to the commencement of use of the cardroom. Staff shall work with applicant to consider minor modifications to the on -site sign to bring it closer into conformance, to the extent possible. Said- en- site-f+ee- st�xding- sige- l��- Fe�QVed -dr- Jodi €ied- t ©� ©�p1y �t�- e�rr�n�� €a�dar�s��it�ia eofyffx -o€ the -rise. The off -site free'- standing sign located on Old Redwood Highway adjacent to the Steel Bear Deli shall be removed prior to the occupancy of the cardroom use. 5. Any additional outdoor advertising signs shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department. All'-signs must conform to the Zoning Ordinance and be compatible with the building and surroundings. 6. The following conditions of the Engineering Department shall be met prior to commencement of use: a. The landscape island located in Montero Way is not part of the City street system. Proposed improvements of this and adjacent parcels may result in restricting access to some parcels by large delivery trucks'. It is the recommendation of the Traffic Engineer, therefore, that alternative access and island configuration be considered by affected property owners. 4 PON 1 Planning Commission Minutes I November 24, 1992 b: ----- -�--d� all .b�req�ired alog�3s -1{l� freeway f�tage�o- act ©iodate g �eri €tea -- from-- Eal�aos in£l�zdi�g- � - -of- -any dedieatian -mil} all -fie- end- �o-- Ei�- sta € €-- �c�-- la.teF-- tl�a�r -b4- days-- a-f�o� issu&Roe -o€-t- his- eondi44onal- use -permi t-. 7. The unused utility pole on the site near the freeway shall be removed prior to the commencement of the cardroom use or shall be used for parking lot lighting, subject to staff review and approval. 8. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials or equipment unless screened from view to staff satisfaction. 9. The applicant shall. obtain all necessary permits pursuant to Chapter 6.20 of the Petaluma Municipal Code prior to commencement of business activities. 10. This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at any time due to complaints regardingl lack of compliance with conditions of approval, traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating characteristics. At such time, the Commission may revoke the use permit or add /modify conditions of approval. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING II. MATT HUDSON,. ATHLETIC EDGE SPORTING GOODS STORE, 260 WATER STREET, APN 006 - 284 -36; FILE CUP92035akt). 1. Request for approval Iof a Conditional Use Permit to allow Athletic Edge, a retail sporting oods store, to install a commercial recreation use consisting of six pitching /batting cages, one pitcher /catcher range, and one soft toss cage. The following actions are required: a. Adoption of a Negative Declaration. b. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow commercial recreation. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jane Thomson presented staff report. Commissioner Torliatt - has applicant replied to Joe Kagan's (Building Division) letter? How is applicant going to obtain additional parking? Will there be alcohol allowed on site? Would like to see use stay open until 10:30 PM - would sound /noise complaints reduce the hours of operation ?. Jane Thomson - applicant is working on plans to be submitted to the Building Division as well as working on obtaining additional parking; no alcohol will be allowed on site; noise complaints will be addressed by the Planning Director. Commissioner Thompson - agreesi with Commissioner Torliatt on the later hours of operation- suggested 9:30? Jane Thomson - this time was suggested by the Police Department. 303 5 3 04 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 Pamela Tuft - the conditions can be modified to allow business to stay open later; complaints on noise are typically from the activities that occur on the sidewalk and street, not from inside. Commissioner Torliatt - if there is a problem with noise, wants it to come back to the Commission. Commissioner Read - has construction already begun? Will this be a compatible use as it is so close to Kicker's bar? Jane Thomson - staff does not feel. Athletic Edge would be an attractive nuisance. Matt Hudson, 205 Keller St., applicant representative - Athletic Edge has absolutely no connection with Kicker's bar; entrances between Kicker's and Athletic Edge are 300' apart; the customers are going to be children from Little League, Girls. Softball and high school athletes; noise will be softened by 2" foam insulation within the building, there are no windows; applicant would be delighted to have hours of operation extended; parking is the biggest issue as Kicker's ties up all the parking on -site after 5:00 PM - Kicker's is willing to release some parking behind the building; Building Division's requests will be satisfied. Commissioner Parkerson - how will parking be accommodated after 5:00 PM? Pamela Tuft Kicker's cannot arbitrarily release parking without complying with conditions of their operations regarding provision of parking; staff will be glad to work with applicant on the parking issue. Commissioner Read - uses on Water Street are intensifying, along with increased signage; would like to see a six -month review for Athletic Edge. Commissioner Thompson - is this the same retail business that was located on Lakeville? (reply from audience was yes, for 4 years) . Charles Berman, 337 Pleasant Street - will hopefully be occupying the space below the applicant with a marketing company; will only need 7 parking spaces until 5:00 PM and will not need signage. Victor. Thuesen, 14 Martha Street - hears all.the noise from Kicker's; routinely calls the Police Department and the Planning Department, but neighborhood has virtually become unlivable on the weekends; wants this project denied until Kicker's problem is resolved because (a) City has been unable to resolve Kicker's noise problem and it's unfortunate that this use should be held hostage because of Kicker's, (b) doesn't believe City staff (Police and Planning) would know how to capably handle problems if more noise was generated; sound coming from building (base beat of 1800 watts of music) nowhere near resolution, especially after 8:00 PM; constant .fights, profanities, vandalism, speeding cars, inebriated patrons, park .curfew is presently ignored by Police Department, neighbors must make a citizen's arrest, for police to act on complaint; City is kidding itself to think. that noise from the two uses can be segregated; neighborhood never had a parking problem until Kicker's arrived - patrons are not utilizing Kicker's spaces and instead park on street, in driveways, drive over yards causing damage to landscaping; not impressed that doors to both uses will be 300' apart - suggests placing door to Kicker's on the back side of the building to allow noise to spill that way; has tried to deal with problem (with Kicker's) in a reasonable way to no avail. Shirley Wilson, 300 Kentucky Street - wants to see good planning consideration; concerned with emergency access doors; Kicker's is a very serious problem; her car has been. vandalized and beer cans /bottles thrown in her yard; parking is a problem; not against the new business but feels City needs to wait until Kicker's is resolved. Mike Healy, 304 Kentucky Street - wishes Mr. Couey a successful business; realizes Kicker's is not up for discussion but it does impact the neighborhood as an on -going occurrence; City right now has very little credibility regarding noise control; understands there is an, abatement underway for Kicker's; curious why no acoustical engineer has been brought in regarding noise; insulation hasn't stopped Kicker's noise (one big boom box); doesn't in believe the pitching machines will be quiet but questions the amount of noise to be generated by the aluminum bats hitting the balls. R Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 3 05 Lawrence Longenbaugh, 225 Kentucky Street - lives between. Kicker's and Guadalajara bar - there was no problem with noise until Kicker's arrived; parking not well marked or well lighted and that may be the reason parking spills onto neighborhood streets instead; feels patrons of Kicker's will patronize Athletic Edge and. then go back to Kicker's; he has never been notified of these uses. (Kicker's, Athletic Edge), because he lives in a commercial district; would suggest Water Street parking be-better utilized. Commissioner Read - when bar was denied liquor license for a short time in July, what happened? (audience responded -It was quiet!") Matt Hudson - it is not anticipated that there will be any loitering or overflow of patrons outside the business; emergency exits are locked on the outside so patrons from Kicker's cannot enter that way - only the patrons inside Athletic Edge would be able to het out; applicant agree if the City wanted to add a condition to meet the objective criteria of noise; has a hard time accepting that. Athletic Edge would have to pay for someone else's violations. Commissioner Torliatt - what is the lighting situation of, the parking lot in the back of the building? Matt Hudson - there are only one or two dim bulbs for lighting. Victor Thuesen - City has done sound studies and found that Kicker's routinely violates the noise ordinance; the neighbors don't oppose Athletic Edge from going in, but we can't divorce them from Kicker's problems that the City can't handle, and want these problems taken care of before anything new is considered. The public hearing was closed. Pamela Tuft - the issue of Kicker's is very sensitive; has observed the neighborhood on several occasions late at night; is not fond about the abatement process, but it is the law; the abatement process is presently cumbersome and time consuming; a noise study was done (Kicker's paid for it) and did show Kicker's violated noise ordinance; Kicker's doesn't charge admission or offer live music; it is a permitted (existing) use and as Zoning Administrator, can't require a conditional use permit or notify neighbors of the permitted use; abatement must be pursued through the Zoning Ordinance instead of the Municipal Code; the abatement is proceeding; the City has tried to divorce the two uses; would like to augment recommended conditions of approval to address lighting on Mr. Goliti's parking lot. Commissioner Parkerson - on -site parking is an important issue; present parking is not working well and needs to be addressed; the neighborhood parking is intolerable. Pamela Tuft - will speak to the City Attorney to see if proof of leasing (for Kicker's parking) can be recalled in order to address lighting. Commissioner Parkerson - if parking can't be resolved, hours of operation should not be extended. Pamela Tuft - parking after 5:00 PM is the concern. Commissioner Bennett - is satisfied with the project; problem is with Kicker's patrons not using their allotted parking spaces. Commissioner Parkerson - how will the Commission be notified if and when the parking and hours of operation are resolved? Pamela Tuft - will be happy to give the Commission an update and also supply a chronological log regarding the problems with Kicker's. Commissioner Torliatt - understands the proposed use will operate only until 5:00 PM until the parking issue is resolved; is concerned how to resolve the lighting problem; suggested conducting sound study using pitching machines and hard balls vs. aluminum bats. Commissioner Read - potential noise from the bats is unknown, if many are going at the same time; agrees with Commissioner Torliatt about conducting sound study. Commissioner Bennett - there is a big difference between a permitted use and a conditional use; we have a handle on the proposed use because it will operate under a VA 306 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 different set of rules; is also concerned with the potential sound from aluminum bats hitting balls. Commissioner Parkerson - how would sound study work? Pamela Tuft - we need to get some pitching machines and players and do a trial test during the day and, evening, with staff. positioned at various locations within the neighborhood; if the sound and parking issues are resolved, is there a consensus that the operation may extend until 10:30 PM? (answer: yes). Commissioner Parkerson - there is an urbanization process taking place downtown; hopes abatement process on Kicker's progresses quickly to allow relief to the neighbors. A motion was made by Commissioner Torliatt and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration based - on the amended findings listed below: COMMISSIONER READ: No, can't make finding #3. COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Absent COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Absent Findings 1. An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance with CEQA and local guidelines. 2. Based upon the Initial Study and any comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditionally approved to address issues on parking, lighting and noise, would have a significant effect on the environment. 3. The project does not have potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the Fish and Game Code; either individually or cumulatively and is exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it will involve no physical change to the environment as the building is existing and no exterior changes are proposed. A motion was made by Commissioner Torliatt and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to grant a Conditional Use Permit to allow establishment of a commercial recreation use at the Athletic Edge Sporting Goods Store, based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER READ: No COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Absent COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Absent Findings 1. The proposed use, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. r 1 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 2. The proposed use, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan. 3. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Conditions 1. The operation of the commercial recreation use shall cease at 5:00 PM unless rights to additional parking facilities within 300' of the site are obtained and secured through a legal agreement and agreed to by the Planning Commission. At that time, the commercial recreation use hours of operation shall may be expanded to 9:30 AM to 9�:344M 10:30 PM, seven days a week. Hours of operation may be a nist+atively reduced by the Planning lif:eet-ef Commission upon receipt of complaints and due notice given to the owner /operator of the facility. The location of the parking and the terms and form of said agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 2. No expansion of the, commercial recreation use (e.g., additional cages or amusement games or expansion of hours) shall be permitted without amendment to this Conditional Use Permit. 3. All conditions of the Building Division shall be complied with, including: a. Building must comply with conditions as per the Building Division's 10/6/92 letter to the building owner, Ed Goliti (Exhibit B). 4. All conditions of the Fire Marshal shall be complied with, including: a. Provide one fire extinguisher 2A rated ABC dry chemical type for each 3,000 sq. ft. of floor space. b. Extend sprinkler system to protect all areas of tenant space alterations. C. Permit required from Fire Marshal's office for sprinkler system alteration prior to work being started. Two sets of plans are required. d. Fire sprinkler system shall be protected from physical damage from baseballs /softballs. e. Post address at or near main entry door - minimum two inch letters. f. Provide exit sign over exit doors. g. Provide second exit from sales and display area - "cannot exit through storage area ". h. Provide signs over exit doors stating: "This door to remain unlocked during business hours ". Letters shall not be less than 1" high. i. No extension cords. All equipment and appliances shall be direct plug -in. j. Provide metal or flame retardant plastic waste cans. 307 C 308 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 k. Provide key with tag indicating address and suite number for KNOX box. Provide emergency lighting in all public areas and at or near all required exits. m. All gates shall have latching hardware conforming to Uniform Building Code requirements. 5. This Conditional Use Permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions of approval, traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating characteristics. At such time, the Commission may revoke the Use Permit or add /modify conditions of approval. 6. Building permits shall be obtained for all existing signs identifying Athletic Edge or said signs shall be removed prior to the establishment of the commercial recreational use. 7 Additional lighting and parking identification shall be provided on the Water Street frontage, subject to staff review and approval, before commencement of use. 8. Prior to :commencement of use, a sound test using aluminum bat(s) and hardball(s) shall be conducted at the sate, subject to staff review and approval. Any costs associated with the test shall be borne by the applicant. IIl. CITY OF PETALUMA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. 1. Country Club Estates 2a and 3a, McNear Avenue at Bear Creek Court, portion of APN 008 - 472 -10, - File GPA92005(dd). Consideration of a proposed General Plan amendment to change the land use designation of a 200'+ portion of the above parcel along a seasonal creek from public park to open space. The change is required as a. mitigation measure and condition of project approval (Resolution No. 92 -287) adopted by the City Council on November 2, 1992. 2. Miscellaneous Text Amendments regarding river - dependent uses; Jerico Products, applicant; File GPA92004(ky). 3. Circulation Map amendments regarding bikeways; City of Petaluma, applicant Ob). These amendments have been found to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per the "General Rule" exemption: Guidelines section 15061 (b). Country Club Estates 2a and 3a Open Space The public hearing was opened. 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 3 09 SPEAKERS: Pamela Tuft - the City is only allowed to amend the General Plan four times a year, which is why they are clustered together; they will probably go before the City Council on December 21st. Jim McCann present staff report. Public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to find that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to recommend to the City Council adoption of the amendment to the General Plan Land Use CV) Map to change the designation of an approximate 200' portion of land along an unnamed seasonal. creek from Public Park to Open Space, based on the five findings listed below: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Absent COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN TORLIATT- Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Absent Findings 1. The proposed amendment to delete the public park designation is deemed to be in the public interest because the stream represents a valuable natural resource, but is inappropriate to develop as a public park. 2. The proposal is consistent with and further promotes the objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan to preserve open space areas along streams, (Policy 23, p. 52); require dedication of open space easements along streams at time of development (Program 26, p. 52); and to select park sites on the basis of safety and consideration such as accessibility, topography, and visibility (Policy 13, p. 60). 3. The potential impacts of the project have been assessed and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed General Plan Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment or be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. 4. The project has been found to be exempt from processing under the California Environmental Quality Act per Guidelines Section 1"5061(b)(3), the "General Rule" exemption. 5. The proposed amendments have been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). River Dependent Uses The public hearing was opened. 11 310 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 SPEAKERS: Kurt Yeiter presented staff report. Derek Simmons, 891 2nd Street, Santa Rosa - represents Jerico Products - is asking for a policy action for the City as a whole; Jerico located on the river, is dependent ion the river for its operation; met with staff to help develop language that makes up current proposal; current language offers no guidance for use of properties on or' along the river; potential changing. nature of land use is why the General Plan needs some discussion now to let property owners and the public know policy in relation to navigability of the river; there are conflicts now which may preclude preservation of dependent uses the river; no ability for continued expansion of business without assurances General Plan is considering their continuing viability; proposals are not site-specific; river is currently kept navigable by dredging and is an additional transportation corridor through the City. Les Shorter 210 Landing Way - Initial Study and constraints analysis on the South Petaluma Boulevard area just completed; he would expect this type of language in South Boulevard - Plan and urges its adoption now. David Baldwin, Real Strategies, Inc. (RSI), 1830 Jefferson St., Napa - RSI has been retained by Southern Pacific to try to find buyers for their property; they are reviewing property and determining the best course to take and see what is impacted by the General Plan; Southern Pacific owns approximately 16 acres south of D Street and they are opposed to the General Plan amendment because they feel not enough discussion or study has taken place yet; the River Enhancement Committee did not address or give a recommendation on the proposed General Plan text; the General Plan review is supposed to start sometime in 1993• the question is not "why not now" but "why not later" when all the facts are studied developed and explored. Matt Hudson, 205 Keller Street - represents Southern Pacific, J. H. Pomeroy and Shamrock Materials - these property owners are opposed to the General Plan amendment; they feel ivis a site- specific proposal; the determination of whether these amendments are necessary came from the attorney of the client, not the City fathers; understands there is a comprehensive review coming up; there is not a comprehensive body of information available about what it takes to dredge the river or what is sufficient tonnage; we need to find out about alternatives; proposed language should be submitted to the City Attorney before the Planning Commission ,acts on it; agrees with a Specific Plan study but not with the proposed General Plan amendment; three of the largest landowners in the area oppose this amendment. Derek Simmons: - we're talking about General Plan amendments for the benefit of the entire community, not a few landowners. Les Shorter - feels his water- dependent business is part of Petaluma and it adds to the cost - benefit of dredging; if the City gets into a Specific Plan, he would desire some of the property to remain Water - Dependent as well as allow Mixed -Use. Bryant Moynihan,, 111 Post Street - involved with the Chamber of Commerce and the River Committee; the sole criteria for dredging by the Corps of Engineers is the amount of tonnage on the river; wants to make sure dredging continues, both inside and. outside the city limits; speaking for himself, is in favor of the amendments. Matt .Hudson - President, Board of Chamber of Commerce - Chamber Board has not taken a position on this issue. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Read - this is a General Plan amendment that will p to the City Council with or without a recommendation from the Commission; the entire crux is what is the criteria of the Army Corps of Engineers; Southern Pacific owns the land, not Jerico; prefers to go with a Specific Plan before the text amendments. 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 Commissioner Bennett - city has a duty to keep the river as a commercial use; endorses a Specific Plan; also has no problem putting language in the General Plan for the short -term; does not; feel the amendment is parcel- specific. Commissioner Parkerson - generally agrees with Commissioner Bennett; the Petaluma River is the backbone of this town - it helps provide a unique environment, is another highway through town; we need to think about the uses along the whole river; it is important to focus on the river now - it is elemental to how Petaluma operates; this is just one part 16f the General Plan process. Commissioner Thompson - agrees with Commissioners Bennett and Parkerson. Commissioner Torliatt - how do we update the General Plan in going through this process - who participates? cD Pamela Tuft the strategy of how to do the five -year review has not yet been decided by the C r) City Council - there are a number of alternatives possible. Kurt Yeiter - this will be a new process; we've never had a mandated five -year review; nature of review is to make sure the General Plan is still in step with City values and desires. Z Commissioner Torliatt - supports the amendment and also doing a Specific Plan. Commissioner Parkerson - regarding the 11/18/92 letter of Matt Hudson contained with the staff report, his language changes would soften the actions the City might take in following up on any of these items; prefers the wording of staff as it is similar to language already present in the General Plan; feels a Specific Plan is a good idea and feels both can be accomplished and can be expanded upon; why was the freeway included? Kurt Yeiter - if intensive development (or redevelopment) occurs in Pomeroy area, traffic would likely impact Lakeville / 101 interchange. Commissioner Read - a Specific Plan.for this area is an inevitable part of the process. Commissioner Bennett - would like to proceed as quickly as possible on this. A motionmas made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to find that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to recommend to the City Council approval of the General Plan Text Amendments regarding River - Dependent Uses based on the findings listed below: COMMISSIONER READ: No COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Absent COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Absent Findings for General Plan Text Amendments (River Dependent Uses and Circulation Map/Bikeways Study): 1. The proposed General Plan amendments are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15061 and 15304 of the State's CEQA Guidelines because they are primarily clarifications and refinements of existing City policies. 2. The proposed _amendments do not have potential for adverse impact to the environment and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The proposed amendments are deemed to be in the public interest 311 13 312 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 4. The proposed amendments are ' consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected. 5. The proposed amendments have been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Additions = italics Deletions = slfil£eeuts (p.36) The existing Mixed Use definition shall be amended to read and provide as follows: Mixed Use: Any combination of commercial, office, and residential uses, and, where applicable, river - dependent uses. The intent of Mixed Uses is to allow housing along with commercial uses including but not limited to retail commercial, offices, and restaurants. (p.39) 5.1 The River and Its Functions The significance of the Petaluma River lies in its roles as a natural habitat, a carrier of flood waters, a centerpiece of urban identity and local history, a recreation resource, a water -borne commercial /industrial transportation corridor, and a waterway of potential beauty. The City installed 480 feet of new docks along the turning basin in the summer of 1985; and new marina is proposed on the east bank just south of the highway 101 overpass, replacing Shollenberger Park, etc. etc. 5.2 Reclaiming the River These three goals are compatible and mutually reinforcing. Sevef -al ist�ies -�tl- use -rid- r�l}�- thy -ive. River- dependent industries, such as dredging and barging operations, still use and rely on the commercial navigability of the river. Thus, making the river attractive for recreation will involve improving water quality, stabilizing and upgrading the banks, changing land uses that degrade the river, and managing the Petaluma River watershed, etc., etc. (pgs. 41 et sq.) To Be Added to Sec. 5.4 OBJECTIVE (k) Preserve and Protect the Petaluma River as a commercially navigable transportation corridor. Policy 11: River- dependent commercial and industrial land uses shall be fostered, provided they meet other General Plan objectives. Policy 12: All proposed actions affecting river front land designated for commercia4 industrial, or mixed uses shall be reviewed to assess the impact the action may have on the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers' continued dredging operations necessary to keep the Petaluma River commercially navigable. L� 1 14 Pfanning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 313 Policy 13 Maintenance of commercial shipping tonnage on the river sufficient to justify continued dredging by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers is a high Priority of the City of Petaluma. Policy 14: The City of Petaluma will undertake action calculated to assure continued funding of all dredging necessary to maintain the commercial navigability of the Petaluma River. Program IS: Review all 'Mixed Use" developmentproposals along the navigable river to determine that they are designed to encourage long -term retention of existing river - dependent uses to the extent feasible. Co (p. 141) GLOSSARY- add: c River- Related - Land uses for which the river is an amenity but not a necessity. These include public or private uses such as a restaurant or office building with a Patio facing the river or residential developments in which access to the river corridor is encouraged. River- Dependent - Land uses which must be on the river in order to function. Such uses are typically commercial operations that require water transportation, such as dredging and barging operations, and tend to occur in the downstream part of the river. By consensus, the Commission also. recommends that the Council direct staff to initiate a General Plan Land Use Map amendment to create a Specific Plan area that encompasses the river - dependent /industrial area. Circulation Map /Bikeways Study: The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jennifer Barrett presented staff report. Commissioner Torliatt - are we retaining a bikeway over Rainier overpass; would also suggest thinking about putting bike racks on buses. Jennifer Barrett - yes, there will be a bikeway over Rainier. Commissioner Parkerson - likes the future bike routes. Mike Bryant, 329 Pleasant Street - likes all the proposed changes; thinks the Hopper St. route is good because it is close to the transit stop; will bikes be allowed under the freeway at Lynch ;Creek? Kurt Yeiter - Yes. The City has contacted Caltrans on this issue. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Torliatt and seconded by Commissioner Read to find that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to recommend to the City Council approval of an amendment to the Circulation Map to incorporate recommendations of the 1987 Bikeway Study as listed below: 15 314 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Absent COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN .TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER `THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Absent A. Those Class III bikeways recommended to REMAIN on the Circulation Map as future on- street bike routes include: 1. E. Washington Street (major arterial) 2. Bodega Avenue (major arterial) 3. Western St. - from pedestrian bridge to Howard St. 4. D Street - from.Payran to 6th and east of Sunnyslope Ave. 5. 6th Street - from Western to I St. 6. Webster St. - from Bodega to B St. 7. I St. from 6th to Sunnyslope Rd. 8. Sunnyslope Road - from Smith Drive to I St. 9. El. Rose Drive from D Street to B Street 10. B Street from Webster to El Rose Drive (connecting segment) 11. G Street - from Petaluma River to Sunnyslope Ave. 12. Keokuk Street - from E. Washington to Magnolia. B. Based upon the feasibility analysis, the following bike routes are recommended to be..DELETED from the Circulation Map: 1. B Street 2. 8th Street 3. Douglas Street 4. Hayes Avenue (except segment connecting Webster Street(s) 5. Garfield Drive 6. Crinella Drive 7. Anna Way 8. Bond Avenue 9. St. Francis Drive 10. Cader Lane 11. Yarberry Drive 12. Wood Sorrel Drive /Southpoint Blvd. 13. McGregor Avenue 14. Sutter Street 15. Weaverly Drive 16. Lindberg Lane C. Future bike routes recommended to be ADDED to the Circulation Map include: 1. Western Avenue from Webster to Windsor Drive in the Victoria Subdivision (connecting segment). 2. Copeland Street to connect with the routes designated along D Street, E. Washington Street and the Petaluma River. 3. Webster St connection from Hayes Avenue to B Street. 16 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 315 4. Extending the bike route through Wiseman Park along the west side of the Airport /Sky Ranch Drive to connect with future bike routes within the Community Park to Lynch Creek, and the community separator. Moving the bike route designated along the east side of the future Cottonwood Golf Course to the west side of the property along the future Community Park, as shown on the approved site plans. 5. Adding a segment of the bikeway to be developed north of Old Redwood Highway along Willow Brook Reach within the Redwood Business Park development. 6. D Street connecting 6th Street to Sunnyslope Avenue. co 7. Sunnyslope Avenue from G Street to I Street (in place) 8. A future off - street bike route along Hopper Street and the railroad right -of- way to connect from U.S. 101/116 interchange near Caulfield Lane to D Street /Transit site. 9. McDowell Boulevard South through Lakeville Business Park. PLANNING MATTERS IV. CITY OF PETALUMA MUNICIPAL CODE PARCEL MAP REGULATIONS (Pt /Jm)• 1. Consideration and recommendation for adoption to the City Council of an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to repeal the present regulations governing Parcel Maps and to establish new requirements and procedures. SPEAKERS: Commissioner Torliatt - asked for clarification on language on page 2 (Sonoma Co. Water Agency fees). A motion, was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Torliatt to recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed revisions to Chapter 20.20 of the Petaluma; Municipal Code, relative to the processing of Parcel Map Subdivisions, based on the findings listed below: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Absent COMMISSIONER. PARKERSON Yes CHAIRMAN�TORLIATT Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Absent Findings 1. The existing procedures and regulations outlined in the present Parcel Map Ordinance are cumbersome, dated, and difficult to interpret and use. WA 316 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 2. The revised Parcel Map Ordinance is consistent with the policies and intent of the Petaluma General Plan. 3. The revised Parcel Map Ordinance is consistent with the provision of the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 through 66499.58). 4. The adoption of the revised Parcel Map Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines which state that CEQA only .applies to projects which have the potential to cause significant effect on the environment. 5. The adoption of the revised Parcel Map Ordinance will further the City's ability to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Draft Revisions to Chapter 20.20 - Parcel Map Subdivision: 20.20.010 Defined. A 'Parcel Map subdivision" is a subdivision of land which conforms to all the characteristics set forth in the Subdivision Map Act. (Ord. 1046 NCS §1 (part), 1972: prior code §22.5.100.) 20.20.020 Procedure for approval - Chapter application. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title to the contrary, the procedure set forth in this chapter shall govern the processing of and requirements pertaining to Parcel Map subdivisions. (Ord. 1046 NCS 61 (part), 1972: prior code §22.5.200). 20.20.030 ,Filing Tentative P arcel. Map. The subdivider of a Parcel Map subdivision shall file the Tentative Parcel Map and an application together with all information or documentation deemed applicable as specified by a form or forms prescribed by the Planning Department, and such additional copies and data as may be required for each proposed subdivision. The Planning Director shall indicate upon all copies of the Tentative Parcel Map and accompanying data, the date of filing. whi�hhall -be- the - date - ©Friel- al��t�rr�d maps;- tFac }ngs aid- ac- e ©rrpa}ig- data - arm- ear# €led - ors- tentnttvelf- eolet� (Ord. 1289 NCS 69, 1978: Ord. 1046 NCS § 1 (part), 1972: prior code §22.5.300). 20.20.033 Fees. At the time of submission of the Tentative Parcel Map, the subdivider shall pay a- application and applicable processing fees as established by resolution of the City Council. The-- paFeel -map a�lie }- shall- ��- ac- e© Frtpa�ied- ��- #��- F�rietr��Fr#�d- hazaFd �e�- fees -a� esta�l�she�l -b f- th�v� ©F�a �- aunty- �v�fer-- agene�: -- rte�r- �o- ee�- hoil�lieg�ttes will - lie- ei�ae= by- tlte- ga�e�ap- snbdiio- applied- €ee- is -FeiFe (Ord. 1289 NCS 510, 1978). 20.20.035 Certificate of complete application. Within thirty 30 calendar days from the date of filing, the Planning Director shall determine if the application filed is complete and shall notify the applicant in writing as to whether such application is complete thFOUgI� - #be - isFtce -af - -a LI Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 317 eeni €kate­© € -comp l -on -a f&Fm -- - -fo -- the -- lamer -- -ease, Deficiencies or inaccuracies identified by responding departments and /or agencies will be noted to indicate the manner in which the application can be made complete. ( OFd--1289 NG&S-1-1 1 -}7$). of the application. i 20.20.037 Distribution of Tentative Parcel maps. within- thFee -iv© Frig ys- �f- e�rtif�g- a,- eglete- �pplie- atioFra € -: and u 20.20.040 Action on Tentative Parcel Man Ceti €ieetim- of inap- mW- eoriveyanee: such Il Faop-, -the ->mpanymg ies of the c agencies Each -of submitted in writing to the Planning Director within twenty -one (21A days after the in has been distributed.QFV�a -tom tho- plarigeet ©F- $- writteF} repot -o-€ tts € }Fng�nF��eoxexdtiens- ther�a€ Failure to respond within the required time period shall be deemed an endorsement of the project. Mess- a-- wFttten -or -ofal F { -o€- end} xgs -n - -r ©F enda�i�ns -nre- use rtes- difee4y -- to- - the -- playing eommissioa -at- the -timed the -he-aring- 4Qr4.-142 89- NHS- §12 1 #7$. -) Following certification of complete application, the Planning Director and City Engineer must determine if the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of this title.€ tpa�eel snap- i�detened- Foot- €a43e- tFrfl- e ©Ft€orty- with- th�ha}�te t- �o�neeF- shad - wise- €���d�i�er= Q€��l� -aF- additions- that -most be - e�ongieeeF- shall- so��Ftt€y- aFrthe- ��eee£ the -�a}� .and- en- a�co�e�aneo to-he i 19 Parcel Map nor does it insure that the map complies with the law and this Chapter. 318 Planning Commission Minutes 20.20.041 Findings for Tentative Parcel Man November 24, 1992 20.20.042 Submission for Review of Parcel Map and Improvement Plans 20.20.043 Filing of Parcel Map NCS §13, 1978: Ord. CS 51 (part prior code §22.5. Ord. 1289 20 satistactowy compietea. Planning Commission Minutes r 20.20.044 Filing with County Recorder 20.20.045 Decision time limit. November 24, 1992 319 Approval or disapproval of the Tentative Parcel Map by the Planning Director and City Engineer must . be made within one U)—year from the date on which the (0 application for the Tentative P arcel Map was eeFfified -as determined complete. In (� the event the Planning Director and City Engineer fail to act to approve or co disapprove the Tentative Parcel Map within the time limit prescribed by this article, such failure to act shall be deemed as an approved approval by the Planning Director and C ity Engineer. Any appeal of the decision of the Planning Director and City Engineer by the applicant shall take place after approval or denial within such time allowed for an'appeal,� shall not be included in the computation of the one -year time limit. (Ord. 1289 NCS § 14, 1978.) 20.20.050 General Rrequired conditions and improvements.- ge*eFali3- A Parcel Map subdivision shall conform to the standards specified in Chapters 20.28 a'nd 20.32. A Parcel Map shall conform to the General Plan. applicable Specific Plans and Zoning Ordinance. _ and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) Guidelines any}- in- additi- the- reiree- }�ree3t�as- 2206E} -aid 24: 2-0 �Q�1} a }l- be- }mgose�- as�a- eondi�i ©r�� �gpr�a }- © €- a- paFee }- map- s�bdi�i�o�r (Ord. 1046 NCS §1 (part), 1972: prior code §22.5.500.) 2020: 860 -Coo& aaee- to-wmingofdivanee: - erea�ed- sha} }- eoo€o�ni �a- the- ��p } }eob�e- re��rex�er� -ef ��e �aai�gorc} }aaaee: (OF .4046 N-5 §44 1.97 - 2 - friar - wde - § 20.20.076 Utility easement and right -of -way dedication. Where applicable, U easements and street rights -of -way shall be offered for dedication. (Ord. 1046 NCS § 1 (part), 1972: prior code § 22.5.502.) 20.20.080' Water Supply - Sewage disposal. Water distribution supply and sewage collection systems dispo%} shall be satisfacto to the City Engineer. (Ord. 1046 NCS §1 (part), 1972: prior code §22.5.503 2020.40, -PubW iinprovefnents: ------ �r�F- to- €i�a }- a�gFO�a1 -o€ € he paFEe)-- Fnap;- ��blie- �pFave�eFtt�-- agFeeFr�nt }�- €oF�-- deso�ibed -irr- Section - X4:24:364 - s }�a1�- �o- euteFed- 4n�d- be�eeFr -the subdivAef and - e- amity -- and - sectrFi }-- t)�ere€o� - s-- deseFibed- 4x- -Seeti s 2.8:2:3- �a-- aF�d-- �a24:38}3 - dal € -� -- submitted---- �e- li-- a- greemeat - �a� - -be 21 320 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 rewired p�rli�4mprovem�nt� are- eflnstrtteted -�riQF -to- Feel•. rip- aPp�ova� (0f6 -44-S5 -W- S--§1 - 1.98.1:--- QFd - -J -04 -NC- fpaFt�, -- 19-72 :--- -pf4 -code §22:5:594}: 20.20.100 Appeal to Planning Commission. In the event that the subdivider is dissatisfied with any determination of the Planning Director or the City Engineer in regard to the Tentative P arcel Map sobdivisieff, the subdivider may appeal to the Planning Commission. The subdivider shall file with the Planning Commission a notice of appeal within, fifteen fourteen (14) calendar days after the notice of the decision of the Planning Director and City Engineer has been mailed to the subdivider. Upon receiving notice of appeal, the Planning Commission shall forthwith set a date for hearing and p Lr ovide written notice thereof to the subdivider not less than five ten (10) calendar days before the hearing. Upon appeal, the Planning Director shall , submit to the Planning Commission a report setting forth the determinations of the Planning Director and City Engineer regarding the Tentative P arcel Map subdivision and the reasons for such determinations. At the hearing, the Planning Commission shall consider the report of the Planning Director and any written or oral evidence produced at the hearing by the subdivider, the Planning Director,. or the CityEngineer. Within- thirty day&-a €tom -the- hear-ifig The Planning Commission shall render € }le• witl+- the --eity eoulw -4 -its decision - reeormnee4 a4ofi as to whether the Tentative P arcel Map subdivision shall be approved, modified., or disapproved. The decision of the riaruuug wmmissions aecision oy tiding a written appeal the City Clerk The City Council shall thereupon consider said application, appeal and recommendation, together with all the papers and reports filed in connection with said matter and shall determine whether the Tentative P arcel Map subdivision shall be approved or disapproved, finally or conditionally. The decision of the City Council shall be final. (Ord. 1046 NCS S 1 (part), 1972: prior code §22.5'.600.) 20.20.110 Modification of Parcel Maps. After a Parcel Map is filed in the office of the Sonoma County recorder, such a recorded Parcel Map may be modified in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act. by a certificate of correction or an amending map if: A. The 61) -wtkneil City Engineer and Planning Director finds that there are changes in circumstances which make any or all of the conditions of such a Parcel Map no longer appropriate or necessary; and B. The modifications do not impose any additional burden on the present fee owner of the property; and C. The modifications do not alter any right, title, or interest in the real property reflected on the recorded map; and D. The map as modified conforms to C-i v - r- rimeot- -C-ode- gection- 64-74. the Subdivision Map Act 1 22 Planning Minutes 20.20.120 Field survey. November 24, 1992 321 In all cases where a Tentative Parcel Map is requested, said maps shall be based upon a field survey and the Parcel May made in conformity with the Professional Land Surveyor's Act and as outlined in Sections 20.24.160 and 20.24.220. (Ord. 1785 NCS s6,1990.) 20.20.130 Item- en&frent Front and rear lot corner pies: monumentation All rear lot pipes and front lot corner pipes or offset crossmarks in the concrete surface of the public sidewalks shall be. shown on the parcel map with offset distances stated on the map. (Ord. 1785 NCS §6, 1990: Ord. 1046 NCS §1 (part): prior code §22.6.311.3.) i � J 20.20.140 Expiration 20.20.150 Extensions. 23 A --fir osed -- Jodi €ie tia� -X1 11 - -be_- - for-- pxl�lie -- eari g- -ate - -p e�i ed - -ia E�uere�t --E- ode- �ee�i ©�- b645�1:3 -- end-- s�rel}-- l�ea�r- �g- �all�- �e- c- o� €i�d -- to- -the eo�si�er�tien -�€ a�}�- actien -dn- the -- prop ©sed-- �ddi�ica�i ©n:--- {�3Fd: - 142 - DIES - §1 4-9$3-}: 322 Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 V. CITY OF PETALUMA ZONING ORDINANCE REVISION am). 1. Discussion of the need for revision/update of the Zoning Ordinance and of review strategies. This item was continued to the meeting of December 8, 1992. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 1993. The following meeting schedule for 1993 was adopted by consensus of the Commission: January 12 July 13 January 26 . July 27 February 9 August 10 February 23 August 24 March 9 September 14 March 23 September 28 April 13 October 12* April 27 October 26 May ,11 November 9 May 25 November 23 * * June 8 December 14 June 22 December 28 ** * May be. changed if Columbus Day is observed on the 12th * * To be confirmed by the Planning Commission if agenda load warrants LIAISON REPORTS 1. SPARC - update on 12/8/92 2. Tree Committee - update on 12/8/92 3. River Enhancement Committee - process going very well; will give a written summary to the Commission at the 12/8/92 meeting. PROJECT STATUS None. ADJOURNMENT 11:00 PM min1124 /pc -min7 rrx',