Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/09/03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 3, 1969 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, Chula Vista, California. The following members were present: Hyde, Macevicz, Stewart, Chandler, Rice, Adams, and Putnam. Absent: none. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES City Attorney Lindberg stated the minutes did not clearly reflect the comments between himself and the Administrative Officer as pertaining to the amendment to the zoning ordinance modifying lot size provisions in the R-1 and R-2 zones. He asked that they be included in more detail. Member Chandler stated that he felt some of the comments he made during this hearing were pertinent and should have been put into the minutes. Director Warren indicated that the minutes would be corrected. MSUC (Rice-Macevicz) Withhold approval of the minutes. PUBLIC HEARING -(Continued) - Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - Modifications to lot size provisions in R-1 and R-2 zones and modifications of procedures in the R-2 zone Director of Planning Warren stated that this matter was continued from the previous hearing pending further study by the staff and Commission. Mr. Warren explained the details of the proposed ordinance: the addition of an R-l-5 zone with certain setbacks, but with no other specific restrictions other than those found elsewhere in the R-1 zones. He emphasized that it was not a replacement for the 7,000 square foot minimum zone presently on the books, but rather a supplement to the R-1 classifications. As to the amendment to the R-2 zone, reducing the lot size to 6,000 square feet minimum permitting attached single-family dwellings and the sale of such units to separate ownerships. Chairman Hyde questioned the consquences of allowing 5,000 square foot lots without restriction. He wondered what they would do when more than one large subdivision comes in requesting this lot size and meets the criteria of level land, etc. If they were committed to approving all of them, it would certainly overtax the density factors, and the Commission would, perhaps, have to turn it down. He asked if the staff visualized this happening. Director Warren stated they do visualize all developers coming into the City and requesting the 5,000 square foot size, as they now do the 7,000 square foot lots. However, it should be given only to those that have done some planning in areas of larger acreages where the developer proves he will have a balanced community, and will provide a mixture of uses. The R-l-5 Zone could also be used in level topography areas in the center City. -2- 9/3/69 Chairman Hyde claimed that in return for this 28% bonus for density, the developer should be willing to give Chula Vista something to earn that bonus-- that it should not be a one-way proposition. This would be only fair to those developers who have to abide by the 7,000 square foot lots. The Commission could not look at two subdivisions, approve one and deny the other for the 5,000 square foot lots--this would be discriminatory. Director Warren explained that the staff is not attempting to force the Commission to recommend an amendment which they cannot support and that he has offered all the justification he can, but he believes it is a necessary tool that should be available when it can be appropriately applied. The Commission held a discussion listing the pros and cons of allowing the 5,000 square foot lots without restriction. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission cannot legally say they will approve a change of zone in exchange for open space, etc. Rezoning must be applied with some degree of uniformity--you don't buy or sell zoning. He explained that Chula Vista has proceeded very rapidly in imposing requirements on rezoning because of the type of density and problems that will arise, in terms of street dedications, improvements of streets, site plans, development, etc. Zoning has to be applied in regard to the adopted General Plan, which is currently under revision. Tilis gives the Commission the necessary tool to be able to discern where and when they will authorize 5,000, 7,000, 10,000 or 12,000 square foot lots. It is unwise to get too far away from the concept of uniformity and anonymity and get into the bargaining process on zoning. Member Chandler reiterated his feeling that the R-l-5 zone should not be adopted without asking for open space requirements, and without some attempt at choosing areas of application in advance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. Mr. Brod Stevenson, 4237 Mission Village Drive, General Manager of American Housing Guild, stated his company is very much in favor of this provision--it would give them the spectrum of broad zoning on which the developer can plan for better housing. Chairman Hyde asked Mr. Stevenson if they are currently utilizing the 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots on any of their projects. Mr. Stevenson remarked that they now have three subdivisions on which they are building on 6,000 square foot lots, and they are in the planning stages of another unit whereby they will utilize the 5,000 square foot lots. The homes will be 2-story and approximately 1860 square feet. He indicated he would be sending a list of these subdivisions to the Planning Director along with a copy of the final maps. Mr. Ed Elliott, representing Corky McMillan Company, spoke in favor of the 5,000 square foot lot provision, indicating it should be used in an area where there is a mixture of other size lots. Chairman Hyde explained they can do this under the present ordinance, where the sliding scale has been adopted. -3- 9/3/69 There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Rice spoke of reducing the size of a lot coverage in this smaller zone-- 40% may be too high, and perhaps it should be reduced to 25% to assure more open space on each lot. Director Warren suggested they not pick an arbitrary figure, but that more research should be done to calculate this. Member Adams declared the 5,000 square foot lots should be allowed without strings attached; it is necessary and in the best interest of the City to be competitive. The Commission does not have to approve a subdivision map unless they believe the lots can be properly accommodated. Member Putnam agreed. In answer to Member Macevicz, Mr. Warren explained that the 5,000 square foot lots would be used on the more level lands. In subdivisions where there are large slopes, the developer would necessarily go into the larger lots. Chairman Hyde reiterated his feeling that a developer should not be given the 5,000 square foot lots unless he presents justification for getting it. Member Stewart indicated that the 5,000 square foot lot is needed, and that they keep hearing the other communities with this size lot on their books have had no problems with it--he cannot buy this as he feels this does not present the complete picture. Most of these cities in advance have stipulated where these small lots will go in their co,unities, where they feel it is appropriate; this he has no objection to doing in Chula Vista. City Attorney Lindberg remarked that there were no restrictions upon the applica- tion of the R-l-5, but there are the normal standards of good zoning practice of granting this zone. He doesn't believe that the questions of good zoning practice, issues of public convenience and necessity, are the things answered by a developer who may come in to persuade the Commission that he is deserving of the R-l-5. What the Commission must determine in its own mind is whether or not that type of zoning in a particular area contributes to the overall community well-being. He added that a developer will always confront the Commission on the economics of building his subdivision--this cannot be ignored but is not the major factor to be considered in good zoning practice; the Commission must consider how the particular type of zoning relates to the total community. Director Warren then explained the concept of the amendment for the R-2 zone allowing 6,000 square foot lots and the attached single-family dwellings for individual sale, making dwellings available at a lower cost. Chairman Hyde expressed his opposition to this reduced lot size, stating it was inconsistent with the basic 7,000 square foot lot in the R-1 zone. Essentially, they are reducing the size for two families to less than the size presently required for one family. -4- 9/3/69 Member Chandler agreed, adding that it is too much of a reduction considering the fact that the developer must provide l~ parking spaces--this would become a much worse situation than the 5,000 square foot lot development. Member Putnam remarked that this is exactly what one developer claims he needs, which is essentially the basis for the amendment. Director Warren declared it was no secret that certain revisions to the ordinance would be helpful for this one particular developer of 3100 acres of land east of the City; however, these are the same recommendations made to the Commission by the staff before the developer came in--it is just being brought back to them with added impetus. The Commission should not amend the zoning ordinance just to accommodate one developer; once it is on the books, it is available to everyone. Mr. Warren added that this particular developer, however, will assure a balanced community because of his large acreage, assuming that a comprehensive plan is in preparation. Member Rice commented that the 5,000 square foot lot size is needed; however, he is concerned about its application, as he feels they will have a battle as to where to apply it. He favors the 6,000 square foot lots in the R-2 zone, but nothing smaller. Mr. Rice further stated that Chula Vista does not have to be competitive with other cities in regard to these smaller lots. MSC (Chandler-Rice) Recommend approval of the R-l-5 zone to be adopted subject to certain controls as applied to open space provision, distance between houses, location, terrain, compatibility with adjacent areas, etc. Further, that the staff be directed to draft an ordinance incorporating the above to be approved at the next Commission meeting (September 15, 1969). The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Chandler, Rice, Hyde, Adams, Macevicz and Stewart NOES: Member Putnam ABSENT: None Second Aspect - Modification of procedures in the R-2 zone MSC (Adams-Putnam) Recommend approval of the ordinance as drafted by the City Attorney and approved by the staff with the elimination of item 33.504-B.3: "Two single-family dwelling units on any lot." The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams, Putnam, Macevicz, Stewart, Hyde and Rice NOES: Member Chandler ABSENT: None -5- 9/3/69 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - Southeast corner of Fig Avenue and H Street - R-2 to C-O - San Diego Gas & Electric Compans Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the lots in question (4 lots), the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicants intend to redevelop the lots for a business office for their company. The office would be oriented toward H Street. The C-O zone has site plan and architectural approval written into it. The staff is recommending approval since revisions to the General Plan will place this area in this Professional and Administrative zone; a study made of the H Street area recommends C-O for this property, and the use will be complementary to the existing shopping center in the area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank DeVote, representing San Diego Gas & Electric Company, stated the company needs a new office building and they feel this place answers their needs. Mr. Walter Alcaraz, 411 Shasta Street, and Mr. Jack Scrimiger, 415 Shasta Street, stated they were primarily concerned with the increased traffic that will be generated in the area. They asked where they, as residents, stand on this issue. Chairman Hyde explained that one portion of Shasta, south of the bank will be vacated, and that a traffic study is being conducted of this area. There will be some findings and recommendations made. Director Warren added that this report will be presented to the City Council and exposed to the public. If it involves any change in the street, it will be referred to the Planning Commission. Mr. Alcaraz asked that this report be sent to the residents of the area. Mr. Warren indicated this would be done. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was closed. The Commission concurred that the request was a reasonable one, and it would relieve the traffic pressures in the area. Member Adams felt the "D" zone or Precise Plan should be applied. Mr. Warren felt the "D" zone would not be helpful, because all the procedures of this zone have been written into the C-O zone. The Precise Plan, however, may be helpful. City Attorney Lindberg explained the procedure in the Conditional Zoning Section which would require approval of a precise plan. The ordinance rezoning the property would not become effective until plans for the project were submitted for approval. -6- 9/3/69 Director Warren further explained that frequently plans have been submitted to the Commission and Council as to what they plan to do with the property, if rezoned. Sometimes something happens along the way: the sale isn't consummated, and in this case (although he is sure it would not happen here) they could end up with 4 lots zoned for commercial use fronting a side street. With the Precise Plan, they would be assured that the 4 lots would be developed as one unit. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) The application for a zone change from R-2 to C-O under the provisions of the Precise Plan procedure be approved for the 4 lots on the southeast corner of H Street and Fig Avenue. Findings be as follows: a. While the General Plan designates this area as very high density residential, the revision to the Plan proposes Professional and Administrative use, to which the C-O Zone compares. b. The study entitled "Area Study - A Portion of H Street," which was approved by the Planning Commission, recommends the C-O classification for this area. c. Office uses are compatible with and complementary to the existing shopping area in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 746-748 Church and 765 Third Avenue - Reduction of setback from 20' to 0 and a request to construct a 6' high fence in the setback area - Stanley E. Monroe, M.D. Director of Planning Warren stated he received a phone call from the attorney (William Bauer) representing the applicant, requesting a continuance of this matter. Mrs. Harmstead, 746 Church Street, stated the addresses, as listed, were incorrect. Director Warren declared this was true--it was just discovered by the staff--and the application would have to be readvertised. MSUC (Rice-Adams) Application be filed and readvertised. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 284 East Rienstra Street - Reduction of rear yard setback from 20' to 15' - E. E. Miller Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The request is for a reduction of setback to 14'. Mr. Warren submitted a sketch of their proposed addition noting the 4' wide space between the house and the addition for windows. He explained that the Commission has granted variances in the past for reasons similar to the conditions existing on the applicant's property, such as topography, the neighbor's side yard being next to his rear lot line, the neighbor maintaining a 5' setback here and the applicant having to adhere to a 20' setback. -7- 9/3/69 Director Warren pointed out that these are recurrent conditions, and as stated in the Ordinance, conditions that are so general or "recurrent in nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation" should not be authorized for a variance. Under these conditions, if the Commission wishes to allow for structural additions, the staff should be directed to prepare text amendments for Commission consideration. The staff is recommending denial in this case, since they could not find any exceptional circumstances pertaining to this property that would justify granting a variance. T his being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Earl E. Miller, 284 E. Rienstra Street, stated the proposed addition was a necessity. He is building it for his mother-in-law who has had recent open- heart surgery. The addition will consist of a bedroom, bath and recreation room. The 4 foot space between the dwelling and the addition is for space for ventilation and lighting; this is a Building Code requirement. There is a difference in height between his home and that of his neighbor's, approximately 4 feet or higher. Both of his neighbors, on either side of him, have no objection to the proposed construction. Although his two neighbors have two-story homes, he cannot go this route because of the basic design of his home; it would take away from the property instead of adding to it. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Rice felt there were extenuating circumstances here--it's a corner lot; the neighbor next to him has a side yard abutting the applicant's rear yard, etc. The Commission discussed alternative ways of constructing the addition to the house. Director Warren indicated the staff was not opposed to this construction--only to the fact that there is no basis for granting the approval. Since this has occurred so many times, he suggested that the ordinance be amended accordingly. As to the proposed construction itself, he commented that it was an unfortunate one as far as the design went; however, it would not be visible elsewhere in the neighborhood. Member Stewart declared that the applicant still has open yard area beyond what they normally expect. He agreed that a modification to the ordinance should be drawn up. MSC (Chandler-Rice) Approval of the reduction of setback to 14' based on the following findings: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The abutting rear property's side lot line is the subject property's rear lot line, and thus the abutting property's improvements can be built to within 5 feet of the same property line from which the subject property's improvements must remain 20 feet. -8- 9/3/69 b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. This is a corner lot which has to observe more setback area than those of his neighbors; also there is a topographical difference between this lot and the adjacent neighbor's lot. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighbor- hood in which the property is located. The primary purpose of a 20 foot rear yard requirement is to provide a reasonable separation between the neighborhood dwellings in order to provide the occupants with living space, light and air, and a modicum of privacy. Sufficient ample space will be provided on this property with the proposed addition. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan will not be affected. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Chandler, Rice, Putnam, Stewart and Hyde NOES: Member Adams ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Member Macevicz Chairman Hyde directed the staff to prepare a draft of the ordinance, for Commission consideration, modifying this condition. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 3998 Palm Drive - Request permission to develop four lots served by a 25 foot easement - Daniel Green Director of Planning Warren presented a plot plan noting the property in question and the applicant's plan of splitting his property. He commented that this matter has been before the Commission several times in the past, and now it is for a variance to legalize a lot split. The applicant is requesting that his property be split into four parcels: two to the east to be served by the easement and the westerly parcels to be served from the stub off Calle Mesita. There are a few things here which the Commission must consider: how the street comin9 off Calle Mesita will be made~ what method of sewer the applicant proposes to use; and what effect this development will have on a future road through this property. The easement is an unpaved one and it would be unreasonable to request the developer to pave the entire easement. The Fire Department considers these unpaved roads a hazard, and this also has an effect on the insurance rates. The staff believes that it will be necessary to provide an easement for the extension of sewer as required by the Division of Engineering. There should also be an offer of dedication through the applicant's property so that a road will be available to adjacent developers. Because of building on a steep slope, the staff -9- 9/3/69 recommends that each of these lots have two additional on-site parking spaces. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, discussed the easement and stated that until it was a street in the City, they would not want it to be a dedicated public street--the Engineering Division would not want to have the responsibility of main- taining this street for these two lots, considering the distance to the lots. As to the cul-de-sac off Calle Mesita, he discussed this with the applicant and they would favor one which is less restrictive than the standards they now have. Details on this were not worked out--it would be finished off rather than have a blunt end street. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. William Johnson, 2415 East 19th Street, National City, owner of Lots 43 and 44 (fronting on Acacia Avenue) discussed the creek bed that runs alongside her property; this creek overflows onto the easement every time it rains, and she questioned the use of the easement for access. Mrs. Johnson added that if Mr. Green is permitted to develop homes on the hillside, it will add that much more water to their property below. She objects to the applicant's request. City Attorney Lindberg assured Mrs. Johnson that pursuant to the City's grading ordinance, the applicant will not divert water onto adjacent property. He stated that the question discussed here is one of development of property which is allowed under the law except for the one factor of not being on a dedicated street. Mr. Daniel Green, 47 Hilltop Drive, the applicant, discussed his proposed development, and commented that the primary reason for requesting consideration from the Commission tonight is for his proposed move-in. He was not aware of the fact that this was an easement road, and subsequently, had to file for the variance. The house he purchased had to be moved by September 3; however, he received an extension to October 20. As to the sewer question, he wants to get this for the two lots to the west on top of the hill, and the two lots to the east, on the bottom of the hill, will have cesspools. Mr. Green added that he has no objection to granting an easement through the property for road purposes. Mr. Warren explained that the Commission imposed the condition that approval of the move-in be subject to the granting of a variance; however, this should not delay the City Council consideration of the move-in. He would suggest a continu- ance of this matter to the meeting of September 15 at which time final consideration could be given; it could then go to the Council on the 16th as scheduled. Mr. Don Smith, an architect, 4191 Palm Avenue, stated he is presently building a home in this area and spoke of the conditions he met: soil test revealing expand- ing soil, instead of the average 75' cesspool, he had to have two dug: one 125' and the other ll8'. He felt that the manner in which Mr. Green is pursuing this development could result in conditions which would wreck the area, and he should slow down. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -10- 9/3/69 The Commission concurred that in view of what has transpired and discussed at this meeting, the matter should be continued for further staff research. MSUC (Adams-Putnam) The matter be continued to the meeting of September 15, 1969. (Continued) Request for approval of banner signs - 215 ~oodlawn Avenue - County Properties Director of Planning Warren explained that this item was continued from a previous meeting to give the Commission a chance to visit the site and observe the signs. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan of the site, noting the location of the signs. He commented that the applicant was apparently aware of the sign restrictions, but proceeded to install them, regardless. The staff is not objecting to signs--it is necessary and obvious; they are objecting to the signs that have been erected. They are recommending that the applicant be required to submit, for staff approval, two clearance signs not to exceed 1' x 5'; approval of any other signs; and that the banner signs be removed within 10 days. Mr. L. D. Ferguson, 45 Moss Street, owner of the car-wash, noted the size of the signs at the business establishment adjacent to his (Enco service station), and felt this would be justification for his existing signs. He indicated that he did not file for the conditional use permit on which the sign restrictions were imposed. Chairman Hyde explained that the signs at the Enco station were not relative to this matter, and that he was liable for any conditions imposed on the conditional use permit. The Commission discussed the clearance bar and the banner sign. Member Adams suggested the new signs, as proposed by the staff, should be of rigid material. Member Stewart felt it should be attached to the building, rather than to the bar. Member Putnam suggested the signs be limited to 5 square feet in area, rather than specific dimensions, which would give the applicant a little more flexibility. Director Warren read a letter from the Wilson Insurance Company in which he pointed out the need for the existing signs. He added that based on the informa- tion the staff has received, it would be advisable to allow the applicant to place these signs on the clearance bar, but that the new signs should be of permanent, durable material. MSUC (Putnam-Stewart) The following approval be made: that the applicant be required to submit, for staff approval, two clearance signs not to exceed 5 sq. ft. and any other proposed signs, and that the banner signs be removed within l0 days. Mr. Joseph Earhart, 290 K Street, owner of the property, stated he did not inform Mr. Ferguson of the sign condition when he leased him this property. When he thinks about signs, he thinks about advertising signs, as such, and the question of the signs tonight pertain to ones relative to being a safety device and are not objectionable. He asked Commission's consideration of approving the applicant's existing signs. -ll- 9/3/69 Mr. David Wilson, insurance agent for the applicant, stated it was in the interest of the insurance company and the City that these signs be readily visible. The banner sign on the bar now, has been knocked down and torn by cars driving under it without the proper clearance. This certainly indicates the need for the clearance sign. Chairman Hyde asked for any change of the previous motion. There being none, the previous motion stands. City Attorney Lindberg explained to the applicant that he has the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days. .~equest for extension of time on variance - 1312 and 1316 First Avenu~ - H. Pritchard Director of Planning Warren briefly explained that the extension was being requested for a variance granted on February 17, 1969, for the creation of two lots at the rear of 1312 and 1316 First Avenue with inadequate frontage on a dedicated street. Since the conditions have not changed in this neighborhood, the staff is recommend- ing approval of the extension. MSUC (Chandler-Rice) Approval of a one-year extension of time. Written Communications Letters and petition regardin~ Home for Mentalls Retarded Children - 448 Flower Street Director of Planning Warren explained that the staff received a request from Mrs. Helen Baxter indicating their proposal to open another home for retarded children at 448 Flower Street, immediately adjacent to their present establishment. No zone variance is necessary since this is a permitted use in the R-3 zone as long as they limit the number of children to six, as established by Commission resolution. Since that time, the staff has received letters from the residents and a petition opposing this. They point out the detrimental effect of the crying children. They want to prevent the other home from opening up. Mr. Warren commented that the Commission may now want to reconsider this matter. City Attorney Lindberg agreed, remarking that one establishment in an area may not be a problem, but two may well be. The Commission may desire to amend the ordinance and could well consider making this use subject to a conditional use permit. Mrs. Raymond Smith, stated she lives immediately adjacent, and spoke of the crying children which is affecting the health of her husband. Mrs. Robert Branshaw, 440 Flower Street, declared that the cries of the children can be heard across the street and all over the neighborhood. She indicated that this goes on continuously--the children are constantly screaming. -12- 9/3/69 Member Stewart remarked that these adjacent property owners are entitled to peace and quiet and something should be done about it. He questioned how the Commission could test whether or not the children would be crying all the time, when granting a request of this kind. City Attorney Lindberg declared there was nothing under the present ordinance to prevent the opening of another home adjacent to this one; however, the property owners in the area could go to an attorney and obtain an injunction; also the State licensing people should be apprised of this situation. Mrs. Branshaw informed the Commission that she has already notified the Health Department office in Los Angeles. Director Warren commented that the ordinance has a provision in it that all new uses requiring a conditional use permit will be non-conforming until such time that the applicant is granted a conditional use permit. Member Adams suggested this use be put into the Unclassified section subject to a conditional use permit. The Commission concurred. Director Warren stated he would advise the State Licensing Board of what is happening and hope they would take some action. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Staff be directed to withhold the Zoning Permit for the new proposed establishment pending further study. MSUC (Rice-Adams) The staff and the City Attorney draw up an ordinance establishing this use in the Unclassified zone subject to a conditional use permit and to set this matter for the earliest possible date. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - Amendment to the Zo.nin~ Ordinance - Amendment to Administrative Procedures Section City Attorney Lindberg asked that the matter be continued, as he has not, as yet, had a chance to study it and make any changes or recommendations. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) This hearing be continued to the next meeting (September 15). Oral Communications Director Warren questioned the Commission about resuming the third Monday meeting which was discontinued during the summer months of July and August. At the present time, he commented, there is no workload which would require it for the month of September. IqSUC (Rice-Putnam) Dispense with the third Monday meeting for September. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of September 15. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~/Jennie M. Fulasz, Secretary