Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/05/14 Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF CHULA VISTA Plannin! Commission REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION Date: May 14, 2014 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 p.m. IVInu�es Council Chambers Public Service Building A 276 Fourth Avenue ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Anaya, Calvo, Fragomeno, Livag, Nava (out at 7:31), Vinson (in at 6:03) Absent: Chair Moctezuma Others in Attendance: Deborah Fox - Attorney with Meyers Nave; Jeff O'Connor — Otay Land Company; Eric Crockett — Asst Director of Development Services; Michael Shirey — Deputy City Attorney; Ed Batchelder — Advanced Planning Manager; Scott Donaghe - Principal Planner; Glen Laube — Senior Planner; Marni Borg — Contract Professional; Joe Gamble — Landscape Architect; Harold Phelps — Associate Planner; Dai Hong — Planning Technician II; Dave Kaplan — Transportation Engineer in addition to other members of the Applicant's party. MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Commissioner Calvo moved to excuse Chair Moctezuma as requested. Commissioner Nava seconded the motion and it carried 5 -0 -2 -0 (Absent: Moctezuma; Vinson) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE OPENING STATEMENT: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 12, 2014 Commissioner Nava made a motion to accept the minutes and it was seconded by Commissioner Vinson. Motion passed 4 -0 -2 -1 (Yes: Anaya, Calvo, Livag, Nava; Absent: Moctezuma, Vinson; Abstain: Fragomeno) PUBLIC COMMENTS: Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Board /Commission on any subject matter within the Board /Commission's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Board /Commission from discussing or taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the board /Commission may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2014 Page -2- CONSENT ITEMS: The Planning Commission will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a Planning Commissioner, a member of the public, or staff requests that the item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on this item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the Secretary prior to the meeting. An item pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. Let the record reflect that Commissioner Vinson arrived at 6:03 p.m. 2. Report: Review and Consideration of the Growth Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC) 2014 Annual Report. Resolution (PCM 13 -11) of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista Accepting the 2014 GMOC Annual Report and Recommending Acceptance by the City Council. ACTION: Motion to approve made by Commissioner Vinson; Seconded by Commissioner Livag. Motion passed 5 -0 -1 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS. The following item(s) have been advertised as public hearing(s) as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the Commission Secretary prior to the meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 14 -06 Planning Commission recommendation to City Council to approve an ordinance of the City of Chula Vista amending Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code regulating planning and zoning concerning sexually oriented businesses. Brought forward by: Kelly Broughton, Director of Development Services Glen Googins, City Attorney Deborah Fox, Attorney with Meyers Nave — special counsel to the City, gave a presentation regarding the updating and clarification of the ordinance amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code. The City of Chula Vista initially adopted zoning and locational regulations found in Title 19 of the Municipal Code in 1980. Since then, there have been minor modifications to the Title and the City has adopted a number of Specific Plan amendments governing zoning within specified areas in Chula Vista. The proposed Ordinance is a comprehensive review of the City's existing regulations for sexually oriented uses /adult uses and addresses the locational and zoning provisions. Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2014 Page -3- The purpose and intent of the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code are to: (1) mitigate and reduce the judicially recognized potential adverse secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses including, but not limited to, crime, the prevention of blight in neighborhoods, and the increased spread of sexually transmitted diseases; (2) protect quality of life and neighborhoods in the City, the City's retail and commercial trade, and local property values, and minimize the potential for nuisances related to the operation of sexually oriented businesses; (3) protect the peace, welfare and privacy of persons who own, operate and /or patronize sexually oriented businesses; and (4) minimize the potential for nuisance related to the operation of sexually oriented businesses. The ordinance amending the code is in need of updating to reduce and /or preclude undesirable secondary effects. As a result of staff's and legal counsel's research, the proposed ordinance provides the requisite balance between the City's interests in protecting the public safety, health, and welfare and the constitutional protection afforded to sexually oriented businesses. Moreover, the proposed ordinance provides the evidentiary and factual foundation required to reasonably conclude that sexually oriented businesses can create potentially serious and deleterious secondary effects in the Chula Vista community, and therefore, the City's sexually oriented business regulations should be updated. This ordinance is constitutionally sound as it provides a reasonable range of potential sites. Attorney Shirey handed out a List of Potential Locations for the Commission's review and reiterated that this was only an update of the ordinance and did not add any additional or change any sites. Commissioner's Questions: Vinson: Was not aware that we already had an ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses. He asked if we were only updating it; not changing sites, etc. Also wanted to know if the City was not in litigation, would we still be making changes. Ms. Fox: Yes, we're only updating it; the ordinance still needed clarifying and needs to be clear and consistent for the development of any additional SPA plans and other development so that they read, and are consistent, with your Municipal Code. Mr. Shirey, Deputy City Attorney, had given the Commission a listing of the approved sites for this type of business. There was discussion regarding the locations because, from looking at the information, they seemed to be all along several major roads /streets in Chula Vista. Attorney Shirey advised the Commission that most of the locations that looked like — from the addresses — that they were in a row along a street, were actually in "business clusters ". A map was later provided and shown on the screen. There was a concern that they Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2014 Page -4- could be placed near a school, but Attorney Shirey explained that there was a 500 foot boundary from school required. More discussion ensued regarding how Sexually Oriented Businesses (SOB) were regulated and if they were different than card rooms. Attorney Fox clarified it saying that SOB's were issued an Adult Use Regulatory Permit if they meet the locational and zoning criteria. They are not limited by number, but by location and buffers. Assistant Director of Development Services Crockett clarified that card rooms are regulated by zones and licensees. Advanced Planning Manager Ed Batchelder showed the map of locations and there was discussion as to what businesses were in the locations and whether there were schools located near them. Commissioner Anaya: Are we limited to the 500 foot buffer and do we have the ability to make it larger or smaller? What is the implication to the number of sites with new development — specifically the bayfront and Bay Blvd. Also, what is the implication regarding the current litigation and the current occupant of the SOB? Atty Fox: Case law generally dictates that you use the 500 or 1,000 foot buffers. However, you are not limited to those numbers. What is suggested is that you look at your community and how it is laid out and come up with a number that will give you a reasonable range for alternative sites. Regarding future development — you have to monitor the development and make sure you don't lose all your sites. Future schools should be marked in the General Plan, but you have to be careful with religious sites. In current times, sometimes you have churches and religious institutions using commercial sites. As far as the litigation with Eye Candy goes, the cross - complaint specifically addresses whether the city has a reasonable range of alternative sites. This matter will be examined by the court system. V -Chair Calvo: Do we have a strike -out version of the original ordinance? Atty Shirey: No, in this instance we do not. Calvo: By approving this, we are not approving these specific locations, just the method by which they are identified? Atty Fox: Correct. It will make it possible for future businesses to go to the zoning code and determine where they can be located. Public Hearing Opened A student named Mario came to the podium and requested an overview of the Sexual Oriented Business for his university paper. Public Hearing Closed Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2014 Page -5- Commissioner Deliberation: Vinson: Would like to see strike out of past ordinance. Having a hard time supporting the item tonight without knowing what it was previously and the full ramifications of the changes. Attorney Shirey advised the Board that a strikeout /underline version was not provided because whole sections of the ordinance are being repealed and replaced. There is no material change; the information in the ordinance is just being clarified. There was further discussion about why the ordinance was being changed and if any of the locations were new. Attorney Fox stated that no locations are new, but with the SPA plans that are being adopted, the City wants a clear picture of where the SOB's can be located. Also, the 1980 ordinance provided for a CUP, which an SOB cannot obtain. They are controlled through licensing and an Adult Use Regulatory Permit. Commissioner Anaya can support the changes being made tonight but, at some point, thinks we need to address: is the 1,000 foot buffer sufficient and will this municipal code impact things in the future. ACTION: Motion to approve made by Commissioner Livag; Seconded by Commissioner Fragomeno. Motion passed 4 -1 -1 -0 with Vinson voting no and Moctezuma absent. Items 4a (EIR 10 -04) and 4b (PCM 09 -19) were presented together by Scott Donaghe and Glen Laube. Commissioner Calvo recused herself from these items. In the absence of Chair Moctezuma and because Vice -Chair Calvo recused herself, Commissioner Vinson assumed the role of Chair. 4a. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR 10 -04 Consideration of the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 10 -04) for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map. Project Manager: Glen Laube 4b. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM- 09 -19; Consideration of the Village 9 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan including the Planned Community District Regulations /Design Plan (Form Based Code), Public Facilities Finance Plan, Affordable Housing Plan and other regulatory documents on approximately 323 acres within the Otay Ranch Planned Community. Project Manager: Glen Laube 4c. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS- 09 -05; Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS- 09 -05), implementing the Village 9 SPA Plan (PCM- 09 -19). Project Manager: Scott Donaghe, Principal Planner PCM 09 -19 and PCS 09 -05 Scott Donaghe, Principal Planner, gave a presentation to the Board on: Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2014 Page -6- PCM 09 -19 Village 9 SPA Plan Since 1993 the City has had a goal of providing a university to the residents of the South Bay. A number of steps have been taken to realize that vision and the application before the Board tonight constitutes the next step. It will potentially provide an additional 50 acres to the University site. In January the amendment to the Land Offer Agreement was approved. Tonight's proposal (Village 9 SPA and TM) would implement the General Plan and General Development Plan and would be the next step towards realizing the City's vision for a University in Eastern Chula Vista pursuant to the Land Offer Agreement. Mr. Donaghe explained the tentative map and what was contained in each area; the mixed uses within the land designations and stated that the plan included two elementary schools and a neighborhood park. In addition, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) authorizes 4,000 dwelling units, 27.5 acres of parkland, 5 acres of Community Purpose Facilities (CPF), 19.8 acres for schools as well as up to 1,500,000 square feet of commercial office space. Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS- 09 -05) The Village 9 Tentative Map covers 323.1 acres of land, and provides a 50 -acre irrevocable offer of dedication for the UPID. The proposed subdivision of the remaining 273.1 acres of land includes 32 multi - family development parcels and three single - family neighborhoods with 105 lots. There are two Community Purpose Facility (CPF) sites, two Elementary School sites, and five park sites. There will be approximately 10 acres of Open Space, and approximately 26 acres of land devoted to major roads and freeway right -of -way. The multi - family parcels may be resubdivided as development projects are submitted. The SPA Plan and the design process described in the Form Based Code will control the dwelling unit counts within each of these larger parcels and ensure that development occurs in an orderly manner. The overall grading concept results in a development site that is sloped from the north to the south. The grading proposes a balanced grading program with approximately 6.2 million cubic yards of cut and fill. In compliance with the requirements of the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP, contour grading techniques will be utilized on all manmade slopes. Also covered was the Form Based Code (FBC), Intensity Transfers, monitoring of intensity transfers, the Public Facility Finance Plan (PFFP), and the ongoing fiscal impact. Conclusion The proposed land uses, development intensities and grading program directly implement the provisions of the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The proposed project provides all of the public facilities required by the Otay Ranch GDP. The further development of the EUC and the development of a University Town Center along with the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system further implement pedestrian- oriented policies in conformance with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP. Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2014 Page -7- EIR 10 -04 Glen Laube gave his presentation on the EIR. The Village 9 EIR is a second tier EIR, tiering from the 1993 Otay Ranch GDP EIR, the 2005 Chula Vista General Plan Update and the 2013 Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments EIR. As a second tier document, the Village 9 EIR incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusion of previously approved EIRs and updates the technical information pertaining to this project. The Village 9 EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Review Procedures. The public review process for this EIR included a 30 -day distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and a public scoping meeting held during the NOP review period. Public feedback received during the NOP comment period was used to help scope the analysis in the EIR. There was a 45 -day public review for the draft EIR and comments received are included in the Final EIR. They did not require the addition of any significant new information that would otherwise require recirculation of the EIR. Two public hearings are scheduled for the project: tonight's Planning Commission and City Council hearing on June 3, 2014 As summarized in the staff report, the analysis in the EIR includes three categories of environmental impacts: • Significant and Unmitigated Impacts • Significant and Mitigated to Less than Significant • Insignificant Impacts Some of the environmental issues are listed in more than one impact category. This is because for each environmental issue, there are several thresholds by which the project is evaluated. Significant and Unmitigated Impacts were identified for the 7 issue areas and include both direct and cumulative impacts. Under this impact category, the project would either directly or cumulatively result in a significant impact. All feasible mitigation measures have been required of this project with respect to these impacts. While these mitigation measures may substantially reduce significant impacts, impacts will not be fully avoided. Because the project would result in significant environmental effects, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and included in the agenda packet. Conclusions are consistent with the previously approved 2005 GPU Program EIR and 2013 GPA /GDPA Supplemental EIR. There are no new significant and unmitigated impacts. Significant impacts were identified for 13 environmental issue areas. However, with mitigation, significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared to ensure that the required mitigation measures will be implemented in accordance with the specified monitoring requirements. Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2014 Page -8- The insignificant impacts identified in the EIR are Housing and Population and Mineral Resources. For these two issue areas, impacts were not identified and mitigation was not required RECOMMENDATION /ACTION That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. EIR -10 -04 - the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 10 -04) for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map. 2. Adopt Resolution PCM -09 -19 recommending that the City Council: a. Approve the Village 9 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and supporting regulatory documents including the Public Facilities Finance Plan, Affordable Housing Plan and other regulatory documents in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; and, b. Adopt an Ordinance approving the Village 9 Planned Community District Regulations /Design Plan (Form Based Code) in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 3. Adopt Resolution PCS -09 -05 recommending that the City Council approve the Village 9 Tentative Map in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commissioner Nava left at 7:31 p.m. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Livag had the "monitoring" slide put on the board and stated that he had reviewed the exhibits and tables in the traffic impact analysis and some of them were not consistent with the 2020 forecasts. He specifically noted Olympic Parkway and the segments westward to the 805 Freeway. He questioned which tables were correct as they seemed to be inconsistent. He also said in the mitigating measures the area between La Media and Heritage Rd had a significant drop by 2030. The difference is that Main Street is connected from the west side to the east side. Therefore, the main question and point of contention from Commissioner Livag was, "Why not make Main Street the mitigating factor instead of Heritage Road? Glen Laube spoke and advised the Board that the roadways are TDIF funded and it will take time to accumulate enough funds to build the roadway. In requiring the roadway sooner, not enough TDIF funds would have been collected as new projects will not have come on -line to pay for the new roadways. A considerable amount of time was spent on continued, extensive and detailed discussion about the TDIF funds and how they were collected and when the funds could be collected (as Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2014 Page -9- projects are approved and started) and traffic assumptions and studies. Also discussed was Heritage Road and "the fix' for traffic congestion. Eric Crockett, Assistant Director of Development Services spoke and advised the Board that in order to insure the facilities are going to be funded and come on -line when needed, there are two mechanisms: 1) the annual review of the GMOC and 2) a 4 to 5 -year review of TDIF lists making sure things are funded appropriately and to make modifications if growth and need in one area is not in line with the currently funded things. In order to avert a perpetual impact, things can be re- prioritized through either of those reviews. Since this matter was seemingly becoming a "circular discussion" and has been addressed at previous meetings, it was suggested that Commissioner Livag meet with City staff to come up with some acceptable answers for Mr. Livag. It was also suggested that these issues be brought before the City Council so that they are aware of the Commissioners' concerns. Livag wanted to know who had the authority to change the phasing of when the Main Street connection gets put through. Commissioner Anaya addressed the question of who has the authority to change the phasing and whether the Commission could make a motion to approve the project contingent upon acceptable answers to the concerns brought up. Scott Donaghe addressed the Commission and said that as a result of the questions Mr. Livag had from the Village 8 West presentation, staff and Mr. Livag met and the traffic study was explained. Livag seemed happy with the answers given to him and Donaghe thinks he understood the way the mitigations worked. Livag said that he did meet with staff and was satisfied with the answers. However, this is a different situation and the information on this clearly states we will have traffic conditions until 2030 that could be mitigated prior to that time. Commissioner Anaya again stated his question about making a motion and putting a condition on it. Deputy City Attorney Shirey stated he would prefer not to do that and that the applicant would like to speak to the issue. Jeff O'Connor, Otay Land Company, addressed the question of traffic congestion. As units are added and the roads become crowded, mitigation measures are done to bring them back to acceptable ranges. It would be nice to be able to build Main Street sooner, but TDIF funds are not available to do that. TDIF funds are there to be able to do the mitigation measures that will bring them back up acceptable levels before Main Street can be built. Livag wanted to know who chose Heritage Road to be built first over Main Street. Mr. O'Conner said that he worked very hard with staff and both parties' Traffic Engineers and they chose the mitigation measures in a certain sequence because those measures can be paid for by TDIF funds as units are added, which add cars to the roads. Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2014 Page -10- Discussion on this item continued and Commissioner Vinson addressed the subject of intensity transfers. Donaghe gave the Commission information to clarify the subject. The applicant said that they did want to build commercial buildings, but did not want to build commercial and retail prior to the building of residential units and have them set empty. It was asked if there was a way to insure the balance of commercial and residential so that there does not become a time when it is unbalanced and can a ratio be set by a motion? Planner Donaghe asked the Deputy City Attorney whether the Board had to act on the recommendations as they are or if they can add conditions to them. DCA Shirey stated that the Commission could add conditions to the recommendations to Council. Mr. O'Connor addressed the Commission and stated that it turned out to be a "supply and demand" issue. If the demand is there, additional commercial /office space would be built. They do not, however, want to have the supply so high that the demand is not there and spaces sit empty in this economic environment. Public Comments Opened Public Comments Closed Commissioner Deliberations Commissioner Livag stated that he liked the project and wanted it to go forward. He wanted to make a motion to approve the plan, with the condition to mitigate the traffic impacts and make a ratio of commercial to residential which will be maintained and stay balanced with what was originally intended. Donaghe asked how you could do that. There was a short discussion about building homes and commercial and if you could put a hamper on building homes and build commercial instead because commercial is where the City makes its money and how we provide services. Asst Director Crockett suggested that City staff meet with Commissioner Livag to resolve his traffic issues and explain how TDIF funds are calculated, what's available and what's not available. Also to show him the job costing analysis and the professional forecast for the City and what it means for the budget. You have to look at the Master Plan for the community and see that at build -out you will have a balanced community. As we move forward, we track these things, but in an aggregate community, the "roofs come before the commercial and retail ". ACTION: Motion that the Commission adopt EIR 10 -04 with the condition that the City mitigate the traffic issue with the build -out of Main Street by 2025 made by Commissioner Livag. Seconded by Commissioner Anaya. There was some discussion as to who was responsible for mitigating the traffic issue. The phrase "built by others" in the EIR, referring to roads, was thought to mean either 1) the City or 2) other developers. Commissioner Livag stated that the EIR speaks to TDIF monies which are collected and at the discretion of the City. Donaghe asked if Commissioner Livag wanted the City to reprioritize the TDIF facilities and move Main Street up higher on the list. Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2014 Page -11- Attorney Shirey advised the Commission that he thought they should vote on the EIR and that, if the Planning Commission agrees with Mr. Livag, that it be referred to staff to bring it forward to the City Council. Commissioner Livag disagreed and said that the mitigating measures are contained in the EIR and that if the Planning Commission approves it, then it will be cast in stone and there's no way to go back and undo the EIR. This is the point in time when these things are to be decided. Discussion continued and there was a difference of opinion as to if mitigation, as contained in the current EIR, would mitigate traffic issues sufficiently prior to 2030. Attorney Shirey advised the Commission that the EIR was an information document only and that the TDIF could be modified by the City Council. Assistant Director Crockett said that Attorney Shirey was correct and that the EIR was not the correct vehicle with which to reprogram the facilities. There was continued disagreement as to whether approving this EIR would hamper the ability to mitigate the traffic issues that Commissioner Livag wanted to bring forth or whether the conditions should be attached. After some additional conversation, in which Planner Donaghe asked if Commissioner Livag could give Transportation Engineer Kaplan his examples, Mr. Livag said that the motion had been made and seconded and he was ready to vote. Attorney Shirey suggested that if Mr. Kaplan could shed any further light, he be allowed to do so. Dave Kaplan, Transportation Engineer, approached the podium and found that Commissioner Livag was looking at Table 14 in the Traffic Analysis portion. Mr. Kaplan went over the roads /streets that Commissioner Livag was concerned about. Kaplan gave an explanation of the TDIF program, how it is determined, how it is collected and how /when it is updated (approximately every 5 years). It was explained to the Commission that the TDIF fees already collected have been spent on the roads that have already been built. The flexibility of those TDIF fees comes from the Growth Management ordinance. When, in the future, the traffic becomes a problem and starts to slow beyond acceptable levels, the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) has a direct avenue to the City Council by recommending to the City Council to reprioritize projects to eliminate the problem. Commissioner Livag was appreciative of the explanations and understands them. However, he feels that the Planning Commission has a duty for a responsible response to the issues we find and give Council a recommendation. Feels this is the vehicle to do that and that we are settling for an impact of a condition we know exists. There is a nexus to collect the fees, but no instrument to engage the authority to spend the TDIF fees to mitigate this issue. After extensive discussion about changing priorities, who can change the spending of the TDIF fees, when will things be built, etc., Commissioner Livag called for a vote. Attorney Shirey, again stated that he did not feel this was the vehicle to do Commissioner Livag's condition. He thinks, if that's what the Commission wants, it should be a recommendation to Council to update the TDIF fees. The vote was taken and the motion failed. 3- 1 -2 -1. Fragomeno voted no, Moctezuma and Nava were absent and Calvo abstained (due to her recusal). Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2014 Page -12- There was a question regarding making another motion and Attorney Shirey stated that there could be a motion to reconsider the motion without conditions. MOTION: to reconsider made by Acting Chair Vinson. There was no second. Motion failed. Attorney Shirey said that we could not move forward on this tonight, but the Applicant had two options. The first being to bring the project back to the Planning Commission and try to get a full seating of the Commission; the second option was for the Applicant to consider this and take it as an appeal to the City Council. A five - minute recess was requested and granted the Acting Chair Vinson. Advanced Planning Manager explained to the Commission that by denying the approval of the EIR, there would be no legal premise to take the other two items forward to Council. Motion to deny Public Hearings PCM- 09 -19; PCM -09 -05 was made by Livag and seconded by Anaya. Motion passed 4 -0 -2 -1 (Moctezuma and Nava absent; Calvo recused). OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: There was none 6. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: There were none ADJOURNMENT: At 8:17 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on May 28, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Sub itted by: Patricia Laughlin, Board Secr t ry Minutes Approved: July 23, 2014 Vinson / Livag 5 -0 -2 -0 (Moctezuma and Anaya absent)