Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-10-2006 PC Minutes Planning Conlnlission Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 10, 2006, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm. Present: Chair Schaub, Commissioners King, Fasulkey and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Chris Foss, Acting Planning Manager; Linda Ajello, Associate Planner; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Biddle ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - Chair Schaub asked that item 7.1 (Goals & Objectives) be placed after the public hearing items. The Planning Commissioners unanimously agreed. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - Minutes of 12-13-05 were approved with a minor amendment. Chair Schaub commented that he appreciated the level of detail and the thoroughness of the minutes. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed. ORAL COMMUNICATION 5.1 Election of Officers for Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Mr. Foss, Acting Planning Manager, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Chair Schaub opened the floor to nominations for Chairperson. Cm. King nominated current Chairperson, Bill Schaub. Hearing no further nominations, Chair Schaub closed nominations. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Biddle absent, the Planning Commission re-elected Chair Schaub as Chairperson. Chair Schaub opened the floor to nominations for Vice-Chairperson. Chair Schaub nominated Cm. Biddle. Cm. Fasulkey nominated Cm. Wehrenberg. Chair Schaub expressed concern with nominating and voting for Cm. Biddle during his absence. (donning Commisshm 1{m/J[ar~.\feetill/1 1 .'January 10J 2006 Mr. Foss asked Chair Schaub if he would like the election of Vice-Chairperson to be continued to the January 24, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Schaub said yes. The Planning Commissioners agreed and the remainder of this item was continued. Chair Schaub then moved to the Public Hearing section of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 05-048 Tri- Valley Baseball Academy - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to locate an Indoor Recreational Facility at 6800 Sierra Court, Suite N. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Linda Ajello, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there has been a problem with parking since the operation of some of the newer business within the complex where the Applicant's business would be located. Ms. Ajello stated that she was not aware of any such problems and further stated that it may be too soon to tell. Mr. Foss, Acting Planning Manager, stated that if the Applicant's Conditional Use Permit were approved, the complex would be fully occupied. Hearing no further questions, Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Mr. Kim Eppard, Applicant and co-owner of The Pitching Center in Pleasanton, stated that he was available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. He further explained his business operations and stated his reasons for having the request approved. Chair Schaub expressed concern with the safety of the parking and busy traffic areas within the complex. Mr. Eppard agreed and stated that he has taken, and will continue to take, precautions with regard to such issues. Chair Schaub pointed out that there would be semi-trucks driving within the complex and near the Applicant's proposed establishment. Cm. King asked Mr. Eppard about the percentage of female pitchers in his organization. Mr. Eppard stated that it is a very small percentage. Cm. Fasulkey asked what the driving force is for these types of indoor sports industries. Mr. Eppard explained his background and stated his reasons for the demand. Cm. Wehrenberg asked the Applicant why he came to Dublin. Mr. Eppard stated that this is a great location for his business and his customers. Y(Olmitlf! ('omttm-siu!l 1?t:fflJ~lr '}4ei'lin,q 2 .'lanuary 10, 2006 Cm Fasulkey asked about enrollment. Mr. Eppard stated that they have had a waiting list for over a year at the Pleasanton location. He further stated that they conducted over 2,000 lessons last year. Chair Schaub pointed out that this type of baseball/ pitching outfit must be in high demand due to the fact that there have been other larger indoor sports facilities in the area that have not prospered. Cm. Fasulkey commented that he appreciated the background information given by the Applicant. Mr. Foss pointed out that warehouse buildings are in high demand for indoor sports operations due to the fact that they have a clear span and do not have poles or columns in the middle of the buildings. He reiterated that with the approval of this project, the complex will be fully leased and he further stated that availability on Sierra Court is quickly diminishing. Hearing no further questions, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. King, and by a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Biddle absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 06-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TRI-V ALLEY BASEBALL ACADEMY TO LOCATE AN INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY AT 6800 SIERRA COURT, SUITE N P A 05-048 Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff to review the appeal period with the Applicant. Ms. Ajello explained that there is a 10-day appeal period following the decision. If no one appeals the project, the Applicant will be able to get started on the project. 8.2 PA 05-050 Spotlight Arts Academy - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to locate Spotlight Arts Academy (instruction in dance, theater and vocal art forms) at 6979 Sierra Court. Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Ms. Ajello, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. CP{annwfJ Commissii1?l ~mU!lr :,'\1ct'tinli 3 }armary 10, 200(j Ms. Nasha Gentry, Applicant, stated that she was available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Cm. Wehrenberg asked Ms. Gentry if she was currently operating such an establishment. Ms. Gentry said yes and stated the location of her current operation. She then discussed the background and history of the project. Chair Schaub mentioned that because the Applicant's proposed location is not in a high traffic area, he expects that there will be no problem with parking. Ms. Gentry stated that because the classes start in the late afternoon, and because the parents normally leave after dropping-off their children, she has not experienced any problems with parking. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if recitals would be held at the proposed location. Ms. Gentry said no and stated that the recitals would be held at an off-site location. Cm. Fasulkey expressed concern over the adult/ student ratio of the proposed classes. He asked if at least 2 adults would be required to supervise the students since the parents are normally not present during the classes. Ms. Gentry stated that because the student age requirement is 7 years and older, only one adult supervisor is needed. Cm. Wehrenberg sought clarification on whether the intent of the operation will be solely instruction or will it also offer a social gathering after the classes. Ms. Gentry stated that her operation would be for instruction only. Hearing no further questions, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff to give the Planning Commission a brief tutorial on the requirements for childcare supervision. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, mentioned comparable instructional drop-in facilities that were approved by the Planning Commission. She further stated that the project before the Planning Commission is an indoor recreation facility and is not considered a daycare facility. Cm. Fasulkey asked how Staff would change the requirements if a drop-in facility began to migrate into a daycare facility. He asked if it would require a revision to the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Ram stated that it would. Cm. Fasulkey stated that in the past, Conditions of Approval would require that such businesses maintain an active childcare license. He expressed concern that the Police Department's Conditions of Approval did not require a specific adult/ child ratio. Ms. Ram stated that this is because the proposed project is not considered daycare facility. On a motion by Cm. Fasulkey, seconded by Chair Schaub, and by a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Biddle absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 06-02 P{arming CDmmission :R.F{!uElrj\fcl!ting A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 4 }al!Jwry 10, 2006 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE SPOTLIGHT ARTS ACADEMY AT 6979 SIERRA COURT P A 05-050 Cm. Fasulkey reminded the Applicant of the 10-day appeal process. Cm. Wehrenberg asked the Applicant the anticipated start date of the project. Ms. Gentry stated that the start date will be after the appeal and permit processes are finalized. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 7.1 Goals & Objectives Chair Schaub asked for the staff report. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, presented the specifics of the Goals & Objectives as outlined in the staff report. Chair Schaub asked how the Historic Specific Plan fits in with the Historic Overlay the Planning Commission worked on last year. Ms. Ram replied that it would be rolled into the Specific Plan. She further stated that the Historic Overlay was the first step toward completing the Specific Plan. Cm. King asked if the Planning Commission will have a role in the Camp Parks Training Area proposed development. Ms. Ram stated yes and further stated that the proposed development will go through the regular planning process. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the City was working closely with Camp Parks to ensure the proposed development will be aligned with City's vision. Ms. Ram stated that a meeting was held about a year and a half ago to discuss the proposed development. Cm Fasulkey stated that he attended the meeting as a representative of the Planning Commission, along with the developers, stakeholders, and others that had an interest in the project. He described the meeting and its outcome, and further stated that it was a good experience. Ms. Ram also discussed the specifics of the meeting and its outcome. Chair Schaub stated that the Children's Museum received a Letter of Intent that was specific to an actual part of the Camp Parks property. Ms. Ram stated that they have agreement that allows them to move to a different part of the property, if necessary. Cm. Fasulkey stated that the Army was active and interested in the entire process. He stated that the City of Dublin would benefit from this project. He further stated that this project allows an opportunity to create connectivity throughout the City. (J>[armmg Commiqion 'Rfffu&tr '/v!ct'ting 5 .'la auaT] 10, 2006 Cm. King asked if the final plan contemplates a large park with a grand entrance to Dublin Boulevard, and Ms. Ram stated yes. Chair Schaub asked if there was pressure from developers to develop around the Iron Horse Trail and Stagecoach areas. Ms. Ram stated that there was pressure to develop behind some of the existing residences. Cm. King stated that he thought that the City Council had expressed a consensus about preserving the area as an open space corridor. Ms. Ram stated that the City Council had expressed concerns and directed Staff to begin a study. Cm. Fasulkey asked whether the City would have to acquire the property in order to preserve it as open space. Ms. Ram said yes, and further stated that issue would be a part of the study. Chair Schaub asked about the deadline for taking action on this issue. Ms. Ram stated that it would be sometime this year. Ms. Ram continued presenting the staff report and pointed out specific areas on the Dublin Land Use Map. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the Dublin High School Master Plan was only relative to Dublin High School. Ms. Ram stated yes. Chair Schaub asked if the Dublin High School Master Plan would come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Ram stated no, and further stated that Community Development works with the School District, but that the City does not have any oversight over the School District. Chair Schaub asked where Kaiser is proposing to put in a hospital. Ms. Ram pointed it out on the Dublin Land Use Map. Chair Schaub asked if the location is between Dublin Boulevard and the 580 freeway and Ms. Ram stated yes. Cm. King asked Ms. Ram to point out the location of the DiManto property. Ms. Ram pointed it out on the Dublin Land Use Map. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Planning item #17 (Coordinate General Plan Workshop with City Council/Planning Commission), on the FY 2005-2006 Goals & Objectives report referred to reviewing and/ or improving the General Plan. Ms. Ram said no, and stated that it was to talk about the progress being made on the General Plan and how the General Plan relates to Specific Plans that are in place. Chair Schaub asked if the Planning Commission needs to start looking at the General Plan again. He stated that the General Plan is old and does not say much about the City of Dublin anymore. Ms. Ram stated that item #17 does not address this issue, but was intended to get the Planning Commission and City Council together to talk in general terms about the General Plan. Ms. Ram moved to the FY 2006-2007 Goals & Objectives portion of the staff report. (j>[annil/fJ CommiSSWfl ~ffiu&lr :-Y/n.:tin/j 6 .'lalit/a,:;; IOJ 2006 Cm. Fasulkey asked if Intergovernmental Relations item #1 (Work with cities in the Tri-Valley Area to develop and maintain affordable housing opportunities, and publicize and coordinate the region's housing needs), was a five (5) year cycle that has been completed. Ms. Ram stated that the State of California continued the housing element process to 2009. Chair Schaub asked if there were developers that were ready to begin development on the DiManto Property. Ms. Ram said yes. Ms. Ram stated that Staff is suggesting a Design Element of the General Plan in order to better understand what types of design issues are important to the community. Cm. King asked if the Dublin Ranch mitigation area could be annexed and kept as is. Ms. Ram stated that the Specific Plan shows sixty-seven (67) units for that area. She further stated that the area would be annexed with the existing General and Specific Plan, but no Development Plan. A Development Plan would require a General and Specific Plan amendment to lower the density. Ms. Ram began discussing the Dougherty Road Specific Plan and pointed out several areas on the Dublin Land Use Map. She stated that Staff felt that the area had been well developed and did not need a Specific Plan. Cm. King stated that he felt it unfortunate that development along the Dublin Boulevard area was set. Chair Schaub stated that he did not think that was true for the entire area. Chair Schaub began to point out the areas on the Dublin Land Use Map that remain open for development. Chair Schaub expressed concern over the fact that the Planning Commission has not had much input on the how the area will look. He discussed the assets of having Dublin Boulevard as a road that goes from one side of the city to the other. Cm. King stated that he does not want Dublin Boulevard to be developed by default. He further stated that he would like the Planning Commission to have more input on how that street will be developed. He expressed concern over the way Dougherty Road looks as a main entrance into the City. Ms. Ram stated that there will not be a median on Dougherty Road and that there will be some landscaping to the east side. Ms. Ram stated that she would like the Planning Commission to indicate the additional Goals & Objectives they would like to see on the list, and then vote on all of them. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission works in modes that run the spectrum from very proactive to due-diligence when it comes to planning issues. He stated that the Planning Commission has worked on the broad east to west planning of the City, but now needs to concentrate on specific areas that will create the look and feel of Dublin. He stated that he would like the Planning Commission to put more emphasis on how that 'look and feel' is defined and characterized, as well as how it will be attained. He would like the Planning CP[anning Commission 1?tfluLtr <ttcl!Nng 7 .'la nuary 10, 2006 Commission to take part in determining what a city with a population of sixty thousand (60,000) should be offering its residents. Cm. Fasulkey asked Chair Schaub if he was proposing a new Goal & Objective or referring to an existing one. Chair Schaub stated that having a long-term vision would make planning easier. He stated that the Goal & Objective of 'Preparing a Community Design Element of the General Plan' is a good idea and will contribute towards proactively designing the City. Cm. Fasulkey asked Chair Schaub if he was proposing to add verbiage to the aforementioned Community Design Element item. He agreed that the Planning Commission needs to determine the vision of the City. He asked if the Community Design Element item implies obtaining a vision statement from the community. Ms. Ram stated that it would be determined as Staff begins working on this item. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to see a common vocabulary document created that would define commonly used words and phrases of the General and Specific Plans, and other planning documents. He reiterated the importance of having the City's desired look, feel, and character defined. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she feels that the Planning Commission has been stuck in the western Dublin development. She stated that there are facial improvements being done, but there is little opportunity. Cm. King stated that perhaps there is an opportunity that the Planning Commission does not yet know about. Cm. King stated that Dublin is faced with two issues: 1) how to recover from decades of County planning that resulted in west Dublin and 2) how to take advantage of the new opportunities in east Dublin. Cm. Fasulkey mentioned a portion of the City Council's visioning statement that he felt was related to Cm. King's concerns. Cm. King asked how proactive the Planning Commission should be. He stated that the City Council is very involved in planning concepts. Cm. Fasulkey mentioned additional portions of the City Council's visioning statement as it relates to the structure of the Planning Commission. Cm. King asked if the Planning Commission should be proactive by creating its own ideas or simply examine ideas that are brought before them. Ms. Ram stated that she believes the City Council is asking the Planning Commission to be proactive. She then explained the concept of the Goals & Objectives to the Planning Commission. Cm. King stated that he does not want to spend a lot of time working on policies if it is not the Planning Commission's role to do so. Ms. Ram discussed the Planning Commission's role in the General Plan Amendment process. CFlannwg Commission .1(.(fil/&tr ;V!cetiTifJ 8 .'lanunry J 0, 20lJ6 Cm. Fasulkey stated that the purpose of discussing the Goals & Objectives is so the Planning Commission can introduce their ideas for the City's vision. Ms. Ram stated that the City Council developed a vision in 2004. Chair Schaub questioned how the Planning Commission would get from the City Council's vision to proactive planning. Ms. Ram stated that she believes it would be via the City of Dublin Ten Year Strategic Plan. Ms. Ram then gave a brief update on the status of those Strategies. Cm. Fasulkey proposed that the Planning Commission add to the Goals & Objectives a line stating that the Planning Commission has a priority to develop an implementation plan for the purposes of furthering the City Council's vision statement. Ms. Ram stated that the Strategic Plan is the implementation plan. Chair Schaub stated that the terms used within the Strategic Plan need to be discussed among the Planning Commissioners to ensure a unified understanding. Ms. Ram stated that the terms could be further defined in the Community Design Element item of the Goals & Objectives. Ms. Ram suggested that Goals & Objectives item #6 be amended to read: Prepare Community Design Element of the General Plan to further Implement the City's Vision Statement. The Planning Commission agreed. Chair Schaub asked about the idea of determining what the Planning Commission should be provisioning for the City. Cm. Wehrenberg asked Chair Schaub if he meant reviewing the remaining space, how it is zoned, and its adequacy. Chair Schaub stated yes and stated that the Planning Commission should determine the best practices for the community. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that it is best to be diversified as much as possible. She gave examples of other cities. Chair Schaub stated that he wants to be sure the Planning Commission does not overlook potential markets. Cm. King asked if the Planning Commission should have a meeting where they can verbalize specifics that they would like to see in the City. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission has time to develop their ideas. He asked Ms. Ram if she had an idea of what a city with a population of sixty thousand (60,000) should have. Ms. Ram explained that it greatly depends on the many different factors of the city. Ms. Ram asked the Planning Commission if there were any other items they would like to add to the Goals & Objectives. Chair Schaub stated that the amendment to item #6 would include creating the common vocabulary discussed earlier. {P[anning ('ommrssion: l(f{fukn ~tfedin/:i 9 ,!rumary 10, 2006 Cm. Wehrenberg stated that item #7 (Update Downtown, West Dublin BART and Sam Ramon Specific Plans into one comprehensive Plan that addresses the entire Downtown Area) is very important. Cm. King stated that it is a good time to discuss the Downtown Specific Plan. Chair Schaub added that he thinks Ms. Ram is proposing to put the three (3) Specific Plans into one (1) comprehensive Plan that will cover most of the concerns the Planning Commission has about Downtown Dublin. Ms. Ram stated that the Planning Commission could redo the Plan to make it address the streetscape, for example. Cm. King stated that the streets are one concern among many. He further stated that he would like to re-visit the Downtown Specific Plan. Chair Schaub reiterated his thoughts about having a plan and vision for Dublin and mentioned having a four-sided architecture for Dublin, as opposed to a two-sided architecture. Mr. Foss stated that the Community Design Element would only be one part of the Downtown West Dublin BART and San Ramon Specific Plans. Ms. Ram gave an example of how the Community Design Element could read in the General Plan. She stated that the Downtown Specific Plan would be more specific than the General Plan. Cm. King asked if item #6 primarily meant architectural design standards. Ms. Ram stated that it is broader than that. Ms. Ram asked if there were any other new Planning Goals & Objectives. Cm. King stated for the record that he would like to see a Community Theatre addressed in the Goals & Objectives. Ms. Ram stated that item would fall under the Heritage & Cultural Arts section of the Goals & Objectives. Chair Schaub stated that he would like the Planning Commission to have a lengthy discussion about how Dublin Boulevard should look from Schaffer Ranch to Fallon Road. He stated that he does not want Dublin Boulevard to simply be an alternative to the freeway. He expressed concern about putting 5-story buildings on either side of Dublin Boulevard. Ms. Ram explained that the tall buildings will be near the proposed Transit Center and that it is a deliberate desire of the City Council in order to achieve smart growth. Chair Schaub stated that this is an item he would like to discuss among the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Foss asked if this was one of the Planning Commission's highest priorities. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to have a plan for Dublin Boulevard before approving or denying future projects. Cm. King stated that he does not recall the Planning Commission or City Council discussing what they would like Dublin Boulevard to look like. Cm. King stated that he feels Dublin Boulevard is too important a street to allow it to be developed by default. He mentioned some villages on Dublin Boulevard that he feels should have been better designed. (Plonnil/g Commission 'Rt:ffu&.tr :'4feding 10 }armary 10, 200ft Ms. Ram suggested adding an item to the Planning Goals & Objectives that reads: Hold a Study Session with the City Council to discuss how Dublin Boulevard will look and feel from Schaffer Ranch to Fallon Road. The Planning Commissioners agreed. Cm. Fasulkey discussed the background for item # 14 (Develop City Telecommunications Policy beyond Zoning Ordinance for wireless communications). Cm. King asked what it would take for Dublin to achieve the technological advances found in countries such as Korea and Japan. Cm. Fasulkey stated that Dublin would need to foster a competitive marketplace. Cm. Fasulkey further stated that conduit has been set aside in Dublin for future development. He talked about making the Dublin Transit Center not only a transportation area for people, but a data transportation area as well. He used the City of Alameda as an example and stated that they own and operate their cable system. Mr. Foss added that Alameda owns and operates their utilities (water and electric) as well. Chair Schaub pointed out that there are new developments in East Dublin that do not have high-speed access. Cm. King stated that he was not aware the Planning Commission was approving projects that did not include data requirements. Cm. Fasulkey asked when the wiring Ordinance was approved. Ms. Ram stated about 2-3 years ago. She stated that there are some developments that were built with data requirements. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the City began incorporating data requirements in the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Fasulkey stated that it was for the individual site. Cm. Fasulkey stated that he is simply asking for a small amount of money to bring in a professional to consult Dublin on how to technologically advance. He stated that creating infrastructure today should be no different than the City's priority to create paved roads. Cm. King asked Cm. Fasulkey if he is requesting that the City bring in an expert on this issue. Cm. Fasulkey stated yes, and further stated that he would like the expert to validate his assumptions, and give Dublin professional guidance on how to proceed. Ms. Ram stated that this issue is in the City's Capital Improvement Program, but has not yet been funded. Chair Schaub agreed that this should be a higher priority on the Planning Division's Goals & Objectives. He stated that it is more than wireless - it is a communication policy. Cm. King suggested moving it from low to high priority. Cm. Fasulkey suggested that item # 14 read: Develop Comprehensive City Telecommunications Policy. The Planning Commissioners agreed. Ms. Ram summarized the additions and changes to the Goals & Objectives as follows: . Added "Hold Study Session with City Council to discuss how Dublin Boulevard will look and feel from Schaffer Ranch to Fallon Road." . Changed item #6 to read: "Prepare Community Design Element of the General Plan to better implement the City Council's Vision Statement." . Changed item #14 to read: "Develop Comprehensive City Telecommunications Policy." W[anninH ('ommtsSiim 'amah'!' Jf('din,q 11 .'fauuary 10, 2006 The Planning Commission voted on the Community Development Planning Goals & Objectives. Each Planning Commissioner voted for a Staff priority level of high, medium, low, or delete for each Goal & Objective item as follows: ITEM # Cm. Fasulkey Chair Schaub Cm. King Cm. Wehrenberg 1 High High High High 2 High High High High 3 Medium Low Medium Medium 4 High High High High 5 High High High High 6 (as amended) High High High High 7 High High High High 8 Delete Delete Delete Delete 9 High High High Medium 10 Low Delete Low Medium 11 Medium Medium Medium High 12 Low Delete Low Low 13 Delete Delete Low Low 14 (as amended) High High High High 15 Delete Delete Delete Medium New (Study Session High High High High on Dublin Blvd) 16 (replacing with Delete Delete Delete Delete Study Session above) 17 Delete Delete Delete Delete Mr. Foss stated that the Planning Commission's vote would be part of the Goals & Objectives package that is presented to City Council. Ms. Ram informed the Planning Commission that the Goals & Objectives Study Session with the City Council would be held on Saturday, February 4, 2006 in the morning. The City Council's Goals & Objectives Workshop will be held on Wednesday, March 22, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE NEW OR UNFINISHED Mr. Foss, Acting Planning Manager, reminded the Planning Commission that the Emerald Place Study Session would be held on January 24, 2006 at 5:00 PM. Mr. Foss reminded the Planning Commission that the Study Session on Traffic Studies would be held on February 28, 2006 at 5:00 PM. Mr. Foss informed the Planning Commission that the February 14, 2006 meeting is tentative. He stated that Staff would know by January 24, 2006 whether there would be an agenda for February 14, 2006. P{annil1g Comutt\'shm 1<r:fjllt4r~\1('eti1i,y 12 .'lamwry 10, 20U6 OTHER BUSINESS - NONE ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 PM. Respectfully submitted, Plfi~ annmg ommlSSlon aIr Planni ()Yanniui! Commtssion 'N.mu&tr ~,M.eetiniq 13 :JaUl/ary 10,2006