Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/01/1977M' I N U` T E S. PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER ;1., 107 REGULAR MEETING 1` :30 P'.M. .CITY COUNCIL• CHAMBERS, CITY HALL'' PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA - PRESENT Comm. Balshaw, Head, Horciza, Lavin,, Shearer *. Wairte_ . *Arrived, at 7 35 p;m. . ABSENT: : :Comm. Wright STAFF ;: Ronald Y. Planning: Director The mihutes,of the meeting of ;October 1&, 1977, .were were APPROVAL�OF MINUTES;•. •• , approved 'as.submitt'ed..: CORRESPON DENCE.: ;None k CONSENT CALENDAR The motion :was" made by Comm Horciza, seconded: Comm. . Shearer- -o remove the - following ,items f -rom the Consent cal ` Christensen & Foster, She`ll Oil to-, Douglas McCabe. Motion 'was carried -unanimously. Agenda �.i-tem #4 Tele Vue Systems, Negate , Ve':Declarat 6n and Site Design . Res. 5'.=501, approving° radio tower •to be located `at 1221 • Petaluma Blvd. North. The motion was made .by Comm.. 'Horciza, seconded by ,Comm. Lavin ,to approve Item 4. Motion was carried unanimously -. CHRISTEN,SEN & FOSTER- ;Mr•., Hall ,explained the, request by Christensen :& ,Foster E.I..Q. EVALUATION/ for pro po ed _ndustrial to 'be located at. the SITE DESIG REVIEW,' southeast, corner of. Lakeville Highway,and'Petroleum Avenue. The site is ;to be developed- with; ;six indus- trial build n s %n fours hses; :The intended uses for the g p a _ - property ,,include warehousing;, - automotive repair- and,•boat sales and service. The applicant also ,indicated •there would be <r-etail, boat, sales - which' :are not permitted: in 'a; Light Industria]. area , Comm. Waii -e inquired in which, Phase the street improvements 'on ' .Petroleum Avenue -would. be .constructed. He,;expressed concern ;that. I;, II and. could be .: completed` and the ;street::mprovements would not ma if' Phase; f IV is post= _oned. Comm -,Head stated the,.small, developer zho.ul'd have a little more p stated leadway, when, required to :nstall.pulile improvements', Mr Hall indicated that the 'public improvements, were recommended ,to be completed,when,the project commences.. " The: Public. Hearing to consider the` Environmental Impact ouestzonnaire'was opened Harold Tyler, property owner, indicated he would 1 ke to seet develop- merit in. the area .and did not . object to the project.. M. Pat icia .Hilligos'_s,: asked 'what - the 'State requirements were - -re- - ard ng the property. Mr_ Hall stated the; State; Departmentt of ,Transportation required' that 'the pavement' along Route' ' Petaluma City .Planning :Commission Minutes,,, November 1,'1977: 116 he extended the 'full . to" easterly corner' ;of the properay. Ingress, _ and egress. to Route 116 =,..approx'imatel y 520 feet ,from Route. 116 Petroleum Avenue intersection;; should. be for egress;'only and , provisions; `should be made for -. truck- movements. ' The ingress and, egress to Route • 116=, approx`ima'tely' : 280 feet f`r_om Route 1'16 /Petroleum Avenue iintersection, should be for ; ;ingress and egress -. The'.` ° opening should, be widened to. 35+ feet .to provide for truck. turns,. Mr.. 9611, added the. State did not indicate that a: left turn `lane would be. 'required =for vehicles encroaching •onto Iakeville' Highway. William Hil1'igoss, asked f auto :motive repair is allowable in Ah Ifi -rial, ,zone. Mr. Hall . quoted. Section '14 =. 405 of the Zoning Ordinance which indicates' this ;use; could be considered conditional 'use allowable n..a Light Ind`ustri`al. `District. He added that., .f there were any, objection to an automobile shop, ,the use .,,should be con - tested at a later. 'date. Chris Christensen 4epoi6ted that pace would- be lea ;to. `automortive tenants,. Public improvements would be accomplished during. Phase' III•of the pro7e6f. The'. applicant , would improve Petroleum AvenU- e down to the railroad tracks if' the improvements could be worked in conjunction, With, other pro - owners' along ' Petr_ oleum • Avenue. Lucy' Webb 620' East 'Washington: 'Street- stated the corner° of .. Casa Grande Lakeyill'e H i.,ghway is zoned commercial which is contiguous to this property. Mt. Hill` goss questioned i f the ;applicant had clear to: Parcel 4,, the corner;proper'ty:' Mr: Chris tens en, Indic ated that clear. 'title to the property ;had been obtained , The .Public: ;Hearing was;. closed., Comm -Hea d. moved to d:�r-ect :the, :Planning Director - to prepare .and, post a Negative Declara'tio'n for the project,.. 'The motion, was seconded by Comm. Horciza AXES 6' 1 N0E8. '0' ABSENT Comm. Horciza [stated th at since access 't0' :Phase I and II• would 'b from - akeville- H ghway, the applicant could forstalI the c 'improvements on Petroleum . Avenue until Phase -III. Comm -. Lavin, ;sta'ted he wanted' i,t understood` that ap - proval would, be .given to> the proposed. group, of buildings ,and not the_ uses for- -the buildings.,- - Comm_. Head ; moved to approve; the - -site d'es.ign, for' the 'proposed industrial complex with conditions' of approval as recommended. by the istaff' and; coricu'rred :with by,' -. the—Architectural & Site Design Review Comm ttee -with the' follow ng changes Condition 2 -reworded = .The plastic facia shall be provided on Buildings A, 'C C. and F as ndica "ted on Exhibit 'A; and shall be 'molded: with a decoraltive design . w ' sub.jje to approval :by' the P:lann'ing Director. , The proposed_ material to be used for shingles and the color "scheme shall be ;approved, by the Planning Director prior tc the issuance. of a building permits ' during Phase III along the Petroleum Avenue frontage,. Im r treet improvements Condition 6 modified' ­ �a licant shall ''construct-half p plans shall'' bey prepared ':by °a registered civil'" engineer and' submitted, to the: City Engineer . for review and' approval "prior to' the issuance, of a building permit;. " AYES' 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 " •. 3 {I «" 'Petaluma City` Planning' Commission Minutes:, November 1,,, 1937 ;. SHELL OIL COMPANY ,Mr Hall „ explained the request. by Shell Oil. Company for' • . • EVALUATION' a E -•I:Q. / proposed expansion,to.an existing service f ,SITE, DESIGN REVIEW:`. s ation' located' near.' `Old `Redwood Highway =and U S,. ._ : • • Highway, 101 Iinte'rchdrh e� Iir 1960a: Use Perm t was T. granted., for the service station, and .the City Council granted an, encroachment permit_to allow entry .onto the public ;right -of -way on Petaluma Blvd. North. The” City Attorney ruled ; that the city had no objection' to a continuance of the " encroachment for 'tfie anew site plani, 'but that i.t,'was somewhat inconsistent to permit occupancy , of' .land no; longer needed for municipal purposes when such. property' could be conveyed, to the;:property owner .and placed on the tax rolls,: The Public Hearing to•.consi'der the: Envirorimenta '1, °Impact .Questionnaire `was :opened. i .Michael Clark -, ;District Engineer, She'll 'Oil Company' of , San•. Mateo; explained that Shell Oil would .like. to modernize the`.sIte.. She11 Oil looks at a project froiiL,an economic standpoint to evaluate the 'costs for. 'improving the is'ite. 'He stated -the Site Design condit oris `:.for the; project were' "too severe,. , Signing,, , from an. economic standpoint is ,necessary° 'for •a service_ s tat on to - function; ` He ;request -64 that Site Design Condition, #7 b`e deleted so that ;the exi.sting�•signs could remain :te . He Conit #`3, d= 'ion ri that it would not be . advantageous 'for Sliell Oil or the,'property owner to acquire ;the •right, -of -way area. Mr. Clark 'stated the Shell. Oil time -frame for , the-project would not allow -tune for right df =way n'egot'iations . - He; ,asked„ what the 'taxes , wer, on the , right -of -way. strip. . Comm•. Waite stated 'that the s';trip frontage could .lie of subs-- tantal 'b.eneft to the property owner Mr. Clark stated benefits could not be .derived'for many years as the building lease is: for 2;0 years: Comm. ,Horc i a, commented that the applicant „'cannot,•be forced to buy the right of =way., Mr 1 1. Hall': explained that in °view of - a lack of apparent, ,need of the right -of -way for the existing right s - ,p; p , applicant _ � - '=_ of -way and . : agree t tou lease s or purchaseths adjoining subject parcel. Mr. ` Clark felt it= was,. unethical to ,require the ;applicant :to purchase 'the right -of- . ' way,,. Comm. Balshaw. explained `that 'this, proposal could be compared with that of .4an applicant 'who on building! a• new house, would, have to abide by the, new set- ;back, requirements,.. Hel €avored :.:disposing- of; the City right -of -way property. Comm,. Lavin asked if the nonconfor-mi•ng sign was on; city , property. Mr.. Clark explai.ned that the -'high ,rise. sign :was to the rear of the station and not. on city property. Comm Balshaws stated that cif; the, project comes, under the sign, grandfather- clause `the existng.,sgns remain:. Mr. Hall explained, that a free - standing sign . for a a t ervice' s,atori, The existing modular sign. is 132 ,square• ; feet. and therefore. is not in- conformance with the 'sign ordinance. Condition #7 could• be.modifled to read, that the :modular sign remain and an x. amount of`.sgu-ar:e foo,;tage be allowed for signing;` i , ,100 feet of s for other, signs could be ;permitted. The P.,ublic,.Hearing, was ..c. g Comm. Head moved 'to direct the P.,lanni'ng Director. `to prepare and post „a.: Negatipve a P J`ct . , Declra e, tion for th ro e.” The motion was seconded by .. .. Comm. S hearer. AYES' 6 NOES' 0'' ,ABSENT ' .l . ,Mr >.` ,Hall, tstated °that, if 'the modular' sign,. is ,p`ermi, -ed .it would come under. the grandfather clause and any' other exst <rig signs, approved' at, , this _hearing would, .' come' under the. .clause;: -3- -.4- ' `Petaluma City" Planning Commission Minutes, ilovember Comm: Shearer moved . to a g p• p elf service Approve the si te' design for then , ro osed s gasoline• station with, conditions of approval as' recommended by' :the staff and . concurred with by the Architectural & Site Design Committee ^the following changes - Condition" reworded - The applicant: must abandon the existing -. right -of -way and agree to lease '..or•purchasee the right -of -way area with the: adjoining 'subject parcel. Condition 'S. `reworded- - Flood. proofing or other acceptable design: methods, " .approved, by the Sonoma -Count y `Water Agency, and the City o_f Petaluma "must'be ' provided ^ ,for ac11 ;facilities 'assoc "ated with 'the operation af, this use,. . CPPdP All ex_stirig proposed signing must conform "to "the a ro riate r- Ply - ons of the Zon n Ordinance ,(with the tion excep of" .the modular 'sign) before 'a new sign °permit or building permit is� au'thdri = zed DOUGLAS MC' CABE: Mr.. Hall explained the request by Douglas McCabe for a.. _. ' E I:;Q. :EVALUATION/ -, proposed .office buildin 'to b�e; located A t-.'725' East g .. SITE`DESIGN:REVIEW.; "t city.lo `,. • thehaliuttin €hto andpfetheotranshase g _ action is 1dq mpleted„ intends: to expand, the parking lot and.develo ,the p parking .. _ spaces, -with office floor area. The proposed building is 21 feet.. n height covers approximately 3,:600 square feet of the site. Adequate' setbacks are _. provided :for the eventual widening' 'of East 'Washington Street. N. Comm. Balshaw °:stated that the schedule for'the widening of :East Washington . Street is April 197& and it would 'be impracticable to .constr`uct.s dewalk §:for the, ro s ed ,project when they would be 'removed when East, Washington Street 'is p ." po widened. He requested that, .. -10' to 12 feet be dedicated to the City. for'the , wid'en'ing' 'of East 'Washington Street. - The g to:consid'er the Environmental Impact Ques,tionnaire.was._ Heating openedbl � informed Mr.., John H of , , li'251 Schuman Lane' that the . • zoning for the area was Neighborhood Commercial." Uernon::Avi1a.,. bull ding designer for the project, stated `lie had justpurchased' the °,proper:ty- and felt'it was unf Alt 'to`require,a dedication, especially when East Washi Street will not b'e .improved' for some time.. Comm: Balshaw explained: that: if •tlie dedication , 'is requi'red,, it is up to the applicant to appeal this condition to the City .. Council,. Gomm. Shearer explained .if .the applicant ; waited until the City? widened East, ^Washington the City would have to' purchase the right -_qf -: ' wa but if the a licant� , intended' to develop p this time, a: y pp the ro dedication of the property• would have: to be made to .the; City. Mr,, Hall stated, ;< ' the City ,Attorney, would 'have to .giv �a e n opinion on the ;re'commeridation f or right- of'= way:dedi•cation.. Comm. Lavin asked that the matter be, continued until an opinion could, be; given from the City Attorney: - 'Balshaw suggested 'that' the Commission take action and the matter could, then be,discu'sed at` the 'City' Gduncil level,.. He would then ask for a right-of -way dedication from the, City Council. d direct the Planning Director to e prepar and ,post a Negative ro ect.- The motion, was seconded. b Declaration p j y Comm, Horciza,, ;AYES 6 -NOES 0 'ABSENT 1. -.4- P.etalumA City Planning, Commission Minutes;, November .I, 1977: Comm, Head moved tp a rove the site design for the zp co building, the Architectural Site Des g _• PP " g P posed . by' , 5 n Rev with conditions of approval as recommended by t e e with f the n follow : ng changes; &i ew Commi ;tte, Conditioh,2 - Deleted Condition 4,- Deleted Cond%tuing City rafscreenPngidnot expand the de velopment.,'into the lo,t,. a fence shall-:be 'installed along the -:full length of the rear property line by 'a, date , ,specified' by,the Planning Director.. All �fenci 09 shall conform raith.the specifications of the Zoning Ordinance and shal=l be subject, to °approval. by the Planning Director;. - RONALD HARRIS'- Mr. .Hall ; explained "the request -by Ronald Harris to ;REZONING -REQPEST:c rezone f -rpm' R- 1- 6 to .R -1- 20.,,000:, a . one =acne lot located at! 80D Bodega Avenue. A parcel map had been submitted -in the'spring of 19.77 to,diyide the one - .acre parcel into two lots, and as a condition of the lot split,, the applicant is required to apply. for 'a. rezoning 'of. the .property from .R 1 ' ;& 500. to R =1 '20 j 000 to bring the zoning, into conformance with the EDP and'General Plan.. The .Public'Hearing was opened to consider, the Rezoning °request.. No comments were of' fered from the audience. and the Public Hearing was closed. recommend a proval of the requested: - 20,000 rezoning to Comm. Head moved to p the City 'Council as described ;in Exhibit - A. The motion was seconded by Comm: Lavin. AYES, 6 NOES' 0. ABSENT' 1 12. 62, Mr. Hall explained that the, ,development consists of 15" „ JONASQ 50USA' single_ :family units and is located ,between Magnolia CHERRY `HILL WEST / Avenue and Schuman Larie, near..Paula Lane and Elm Drive. _ `REQUEST FOR Plans were or' nail y submitted by the applicant on g ' , RESIDENTIAL ALLOTMENT• July *8,, 1976,.,for a 35 -unit "subdivision. It was deter- mined 'that. the. proposed - density exceeded. the maximum designated for the'area by the EDP; The applicant is now requesting a: re- evaluation of the amended design that, conforms in density °with all City plans,- The development :has to receive 85. points to pl?e. awarded an. allotment-., . This 'deve`lopment was `not evaluated_, as an EIR -had, to be prepared; for the project. ' Comm. Lavin -asked that since the: EIR had -not been certified could the:, Planning Commission a'et ,on thisi evaluationT 'Mr. 'Hall stated that the *hearings, regarding, the park,proposal were very time consuming to the applicant. The.applicant then brou `g ht. "in a redesign .for the 15. units as a, fall back in the;,, there was not, a. change n'the EDP`. Thi °s _proj'ect did not receive an allocation last year.. Comm., 'Balshaw ,stayed' 'that the City `Clerk -had cleared, out the residual of. allotments and:it, appeared that the - original submission was .invalid and there should have been no problem with the quality of'the development, but ' there was concern on ' ." ,.- they p art "of the neighbors in the area. Thin project is, • not : competing. , _6_ Petaluma City Planning 'Commission Minutes, November '1., '197?' against anyone. The question is,, would this development score above. 85 points:'. We Are only concerned about; the° quality of design on this- ,project. '.Comm: ' Horcza asked if there would, be. some monetary contribution to satisfy t ; he open space requirement, This, development ,_s_ houl'd not be `p'enalized, for not installing trails or bicycle . paths, as it, is a ; _ small project. Mr. Hall ,answered that I _. lieu- fee's woul.d' levied if the- project progresses. . ' Manuel" Pacheco., developer, stated that the.. lower section near.Magnolia Avenue - and near Schuman :Lane zoned `R -1 -6, 50.0. The - upper por-ti of the property 'iDo.t-ent'ial;, was a park . buts`.. -was rejected by the ,rie' ghborhood. Thirty -five` units could riot be built because the ,park situation. Comm. "Shearer; .asked how 'many : -:... lved in the acres were -involved 15 units. Mr Pacheco stated there were approxi -,. mate.ly. '7 acres which .extends into the `Eucal yptus grove and is located in the'', lower, section near Magnolia Avenue. They will, try not to_cut.into- the hillside and do as h.ttle .grad.ng as possible.; The, majority .of the :pine trees 'located" off of'Magnolia Avenue.wil1 'remain : Comm. .Waite asked the number of;_,acres involved in. the proposed 15 homes;. Mr_. Pacheco stated there were approximately - 4, :or 5 acres. Comma `Shearer asked if 'the: applicant would have to pay the cost tolnstal'T flow meters on the, existing Cherry Valley.sanitary'sewer system'. Mr_. Pacheco indi -.. sated, that this 'would ;be a. `requirement of the • City Engineer''s Office;. He :.• ;stated, that 15- gallon, trees would• be provided for- each ;lot , and, landscaping is proposed for the pr9Jec't,, but not shown on the plans.. Mrl..Hall, stated there ; was no 'indication that" landscaping would "be provided and an indication would, have to be made in, writing; Mr. Pacheco stated there , would be, a s.ubiruttal. in writing on the proposed landscaping. Comm. Lavin asked what' is intended for the 8 remaining lots if the '15 lots are approved Mr. Tacheco, stated that due.to thel topography the,_property this is , the only 'logical proposal' for the property. Mr Hal-1 stated that the or - jina,l, application as presented has to remain, and if the: 'EDP is! , changed the , original application has to, be evaluated'by the Planning 'Commiss:ion.as it. was presented -. Mr. Hall: informed the Commission 'that their completed''ballo`ts for; the proposed development should, be submitted. to tie 'City, Clerk within one week,, .. - GENERAL PLAN' &''EDP The .Public Hear, ing `was reopened toconsi the ade- MODIFICATION- BETWEEN quacy of the Draft E prepared by ECOSCAPE for the MAGNOLIAAVENUE AND proposed amendments tb the General Plan , and .,Environ - SCHUMAN LANE NEAR mental Design Pld.n'for.12 acres of. .land "located between -ELM DRIVE- E.;I.R. Schuman Lane. and :Magnolia Avenue` near Elm Drive. EVALUATION;;. ' (Continued) ECOSCAP,E'submitted responses to two of th& commen'ts -° submitted by reviewing - agencies. The Sonoma County Water Agency ',indi_cated'•that- the E.I.R. should riot. undertake a technical drain= .. age study of the property`, but should put all interested parties, on 'notice that P. off -safe drainage work 'ma be required in con develo merit of the Y eq p Sousa property. 'Sonoma State College recommends that as a mitigation measure the. City require a Otailed: archaeological investigation prior to final subdi- vision approval for the Sousa propert.y.- _6_ 'Petaluma City Phainng Commission !Minutes Noveiiiber I 1977 - Harr y S hroeder , 36 Pa_ila , ;Lane , re uested the .Commission to retari'n the present 7 q lot sizes and. stated he ;had no objection_ to the `lots being, larger,. Mr. Hall . informed.Joe Brockiner cof Paula Lane that. the E: h R. addresses a change in the density,. The- original proposail was. consistent the• neighbor hood, but not, consistent with,'the EDP The Public Hearing.. was closed.,,. ECO CAPE otthe tyeCounci31sub e . 1 o thee _Draft E.I R., prepared by : _..- consultant'''s inclusion of, a y response 'to the Sonoma ;County Water Agency's comments(, - and, the inclusion of` a mitigation measure which recommends that a detailed archaeologcal. invest Bat on on, the, Sousa .ptdperty'`be required prior:to . I inal s`ubd'ivision, map ap- proval, The , mo.t on was seconded by .Comm.. Hor,ciaza;. -. F� AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Mr:. Hall ex l p• ained De1.Day.is &;Associates had SUBDIVISION- EAST'OF reviewed Al11 the written and verbal,; comments to•the ELI SOUTH DRAFT, Draft E:I'.R. and have incor orated most of these com- ,. P ALUATION: ments as .a supplement 'to 'the Draft °Environmental Impact, Continued) Report for the proposed ,prezonng of lands located' east � j of `Ely „Blvd: 'South. A detai t a,ffic analysis had' ' also'beeh prepared in ,response to the City Engineer's:'request. Mr. Hall stated that the "City Engineer " had: not as -yet had the, opportunity to review -the re -. sponses I to his .comments„ } - - Comm Balshaw stated the: City Engineer should be involved in the traffic miti- • atn _ g g, measures. W,e the .input ,orr the airport° and traff c °and will: now need' input 'from the C ty on which way °to go. Comm Horciza' stated that thd!City neer ; i's presumably going along :with the mitigating measures as traffic signals will be Installed. on' Caulfield' Lane 'at ;.South. McDowell. 'He ' said the�Draft.E.I'.R. was. a very complete document wherein the consultant ` ... r • - elaborates on the traffic' impact and•safety: Comm a .: Hed moved tos'recommen • d ° certification of the Draft E. I. R. :prepared by D,el'.Davis & Associates to the, City Council, .subject to the�City'Engineer's determiriation ,r''that. the ' E.I:R. adegtiatelg as`ses°ses:'the traffic impact. 'The motion was seconded by Comm.. Horciza. " AYES: : -6 NOES'- 0 ABSENT, 1 AMENDMENT TO Mr. Hall explained the proposed'Amefidmen't to the General CIRCUIATIONI ELEMENT Plan for' a Highway 101 Finterchange and connecting link. OF 'THE ” CITY GENERAL • `to Rainier 'Avenue:, , -to, be 'located approximately :4,, 400,' *PLAN! ,AND •E,. I,. R. „'AS A feet, northwesterly of• thee, East. Washington- Street over ,PART OF T-HE :crossing at Highway 101 'The purpose is to allow for an alternative southbound ; _Highway 1 on. -ramp and northbound Highway 101 off ramp wh ch•would- relieve the East Washington Street %' McDowell Blvd. intersection where the traffic: levels are currently at a•criti cal _point.' The time frame for the project would 'lac• from'! to lq years. r -jComml.i Balshaw •stated the :Rainiier Overcrossing as far as fund`ng Is concerned, , s .out .of the. question. .City staff had dridicated that -`it, is!-.,possible to cross =7: Petaluma City Planning Commission Minute's, November 1,:. 1927 under the freeway where the; railroad crosses, whi : ch.could"be 'a costly -° expenditure than a sou thb ound ramp.., Mr.,Hall'stated another interchange is 7 needed and the proposed amendment to the General Plan would show that an�,inter- - change. is needed in this v c nity. , Comm Horciza. s, fated; that we ".ar.e .talk ng .° .. ` about a 'long ran ge_:plan : . . Some" of the n:ew. developments; could . redi tri:buted so commuter's_ couid have .access to the freeway further nor-Eh.. Comm; Head stated it might be -more feasible to. wait':for the : Coronal. Interchange th 1-i.eu of-. the time 'involved to ob`tairn, funding for the, Ra iiier� Interchange. A priority .should be 'established for, - another east /west route,..: . The Publ.c`Fiearing was opened to consider- the Amendment to. :the General Plan ,Jon: Josl.ynj� Qantas ,Devel'.opment, stated this is a, premature - -situation..` An overall traffic 'study of east Petaluma should be conducted 'by the City.. Jon Andes "son, MacKay &: Somps;, also r "equested that the City budget. money for. a - traffic study.. • Comm. Balshaw , recommended that "the City .p.rovide 'reso rces., for: - :. ., ,. an alternate,' plan for the entire easterl.y section of ' the City for either a 10 to .20 year ; period. ; Comm. - Head moved'to table the amendment proposal. and- ,recommend: that., the •City Council authorize the appropriation of _adequate: ;funds fora comprehensi, e . traffic; survey of, _.tt e entire iCity 'for 'a- 10 .year period., The motion. wasi see onded• by Comm. Shearer'. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT. 1 . ANN UAL PLANNING It was the: consensu s that the ,Annual P anning CommiS COMMISSION DINNER: sion D" inner would be held ate- Sonoma Joel's , Rest aurant .;on Wednesday evening', No�embetr. 1`6., " 197;7.. _ ADJOURNMENT: There. "bei'ng no .further busibe s s ithe meeting was adjourned at 11_:45.p.'m. Chairman Attest: