Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/10/10 " Tape: 314 Side: 1 . MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 10, 1990 Council Chambers Public Services Buildinq ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Grasser Horton, Commissioners Carson, Cartmill, Casillas, Decker, Fuller, and TUgenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Associate Planner Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Pl anner Herrera-A, Contract Pl anner Letti eri, City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Grasser Horton and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. ... INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Grasser Horton reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of September 5 and September 12, 1990 MSC (Carson/Decker) 6- 0 -1 (Cha i r Grasser Horton absta i ned) to approve the minutes of September 5, 1990. MSUC (Carson/Decker) 7-0 to approve the minutes of September 12, 1990. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM I. PUBLIC HEARING: (A) PCZ-90-G: REQUEST TO REZONE 2.52 ACRES LOCATED AT 647 EAST NAPLES STREET FROM R-I-IO TO R-I-7 - George Merziotis (continued from 9-12-90) . (B) PCS-90-04: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 2.52 ACRES KNOWN AS ELKS RIDGE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-04, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST NAPLES, EAST OF FOXBORO AVENUE George Merziotis (continued from 9-12-90) Assistant Planning Director Lee informed the Commissioners that the applicant had withdrawn the application, and no further action was required. Planninq Commission -2- October 10. 1990 ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-Q-M: CITY-INITIATED PROPOSAL TO REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY PALOMAR STREET WEST OF BROADWAY TO THE NORTH, THE SOUTHERN CITY BOUNDARY TO THE SOUTH, INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD TO THE WEST AND A LINE GENERALLY TENDING FROM THE POWER EASEMENT EAST OF BROADWAY TO FOURTH AVENUE AND BEYER WAY TO THE EAST, FROM THEIR CITY-ADOPTED COUNTY ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS TO CITY CLASSIFICATIONS UTILIZED THROUGHOUT CHULA VISTA. SHORT FORM OF TITLE OF PROPOSAL: "HARBORS IDE B PART II" Planning Consultant Lettieri gave an overview of the property referred to as Harbors i de B Part II proposed for rezoni ng. He noted thi s was the fi na 1 hearing on the Montgomery Specific Plan. Mr. Lettieri stated there were two specific areas: I) just east of Broadway at the Otay Market location which is presently zoned C37; and 2) the residential area zoned M54 just south of Main Street, for which staff recommended further study and to be brought back to the Planning Commission in the future. Mr. Lettieri reported that the Montgomery Planning Committee held a publ ic hearing on September 19, 1990, and unanimously recommended that the properties be reclassified as designated on Exhibit A. Cha i r Grasser Horton asked when the SDG&E property woul d come before the Commi ss i on. Pri nci pa 1 Pl anner Pass answered the SDG&E property was st ill being studied primarily from the standpoint of its potential health hazards. Mr. Pass stated staff felt it woul d be at 1 east a year or two before there would be any sufficient information to recommend a course of action. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Carson/Fuller) 7-0 that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. MSUC (Carson/Fuller) 7-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance changi ng the zones as cons i dered by the Montgomery PI ann i ng Committee and described on the attached Exhibit A. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-89-10 RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) III PLAN Associate Planner Barbara Reid stated this was the Supplemental EIR for Rancho del Rey SPA III which was prepared in conjunction with the previously prepared Final EIR in 1983 which included the entire Rancho del Rey area. Ms. Reid noted that the Park section of the report stated that all of the park requi rements had not been met but there is further work goi ng on between McMi 11 in and the City and that by the time the fi na I E I R comes forward, the park land requirement will be met. She also noted that additional comments had been received from the Clearinghouse. She then turned the presentation over to Ms. Betty Dehoney of P&D Technologies. '. Planninq Commission -3- October 10, 1990 . Ms. Dehoney gave an overview of the mitigable impacts, including geology and soil, drainage, air quality, cultural resources, transportation, parks and recreation, and public service. She stated the biological impacts (coastal sage scrub, gnat catcher, cactus wren, and snake cholla) still are unmitigated. The landform alteration associated with the project were considered significant and the impacts were similar to those anticipated in the original review. Ms. Dehoney then discussed the different alternatives evaluated. Commissioner Casillas, referring to a letter from Dr. Gordon Snow, asked if there was additional information on seismic hazards. Ms. Dehoney answered that geologic hazards, volting seismicity, liquefaction, and ground water had been evaluated in the technical report and a fairly extensive mitigation requirements, including the technical requirement, are to be made as conditions on the grading and technical work. Commissioner Casillas asked that a graph in sufficient detail showing grading be provided for review. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid answered that a 1 arger scale tentat i ve map woul d be provi ded on November 14 when the project would be coming back for final review. . Commissioner Tugenberg commented on the paragraph on page 6 of the staff report regarding community tax structure, and his understanding that residential dwelling units did not pay for themselves. Commissioner Tugenberg, referring to Section AA, Figure 4-4, of page 17 of the Draft EIR, questioned the height of the slope. Commissioner Decker asked why the staff report did not comment on the lack of Hidden Vista Road and Terra Nova Shopping Center and "H" Street intersections which would be impacted. Traffic Engineer Rosenberg stated that the TPP would govern the conditions of the development to the extent it would require whatever improvements necessary to satisfy the Transportation Phasing Plan. The project was only looking at the on -s ite and adjacent intersect i on and reI i ance wi 11 be on the outcome of the Transportation Phasing Plan which would identify the mitigations. A report would be prepared to show the alternative mitigations that would be possible to relieve that intersection of traffic. In answer to Commissioner Tugenberg's previous question, Ms. Dehoney stated that a fiscal impact evaluation was conducted in which the projected annual operating revenues and costs associated with the project were evaluated from an estimated start date of FY 1990 through 2010. The evaluation indicated that the net revenues would vary from the projections based on unanticipated and unforeseeable action. The revenue would decline as time progressed. Commissioner Decker questioned the ADTs which were not in agreement. Traffic Engi neer Rosenberg answered that SPA I I I generated 11,400 tri ps, SPA I and I I generated 28,600, with a total of about 40,000 trips for the entire area. . --- Planninq Commission -4- October 10. 1990 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Duard Houck, 1125 Paseo del Cerro, Chula Vista, stated he found the EIR inadequate in the areas of biology and open space and distribution of parks. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, would like to have another mitigation factor analyzed regarding natural slopes. He would like to see more of the slopes and more of the canyons left in their natural form. Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, representing the Rancho del Rey Partnership, offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Tugenberg asked Mr. Fukuyama if any soil would be exported. Mr. Fukuyama answered there woul d be none exported; they were goi ng to try to balance the project on-site. No one else wishing to speak, the pUblic hearing was closed. Commi ssi oner Cas i 11 as, re 1 at i ng to the gradi ng and the not i on of ma i nta i ni ng more of the natural slope, stated that Rice Canyon might be a good candidate. He suggested that it might be terraced for housing. He did not want to destroy the beauty of Ri ce Canyon. He asked that staff mi ght take another look at that. Commissioner Carson commented on the air quality when grading was being done, and the absenteeism of children from school. She asked if something could be done to eliminate the amount of dust and poor air quality. Commissioner Decker commented on the manufactured slopes. He stated that the General Plan said the existing topography would be maintained as much as possible, and he wondered if cutting a slope 70 feet was maintaining as much as possible. Commissioner Carson commented that no matter how they tried to mitigate it, the endangered species would be impacted with each project. Chair Grasser Horton directed that staff prepare the final EIR taking into consideration the comments made. ITEM 4: PCS-90-15 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EVERGREEN GARDENS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-15, Conrad Previs Trust Chair Grasser Horton stated she had a conflict of interest and left the dais. Vice-Chair Fuller took over the Chair's responsibilities at this time. Associate Planner Barbara Reid gave an overview of the project which had been approved by the Montgomery Planning Committee with reservations, and by the Design Review Committee. Ms. Reid noted that the Planning Commission's action would determine whether the individual units could be rented or sold. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, staff recommended that the Commission find that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-36. Planninq Commission -5- October 10, 1990 . Associ ate Pl anner Rei d asked that a new condit i on be added to the cond it ions in the staff report, that the appl icant annex to the Community Facil ities Oi stri ct 5. She then recommended approval of the tentat i ve subd i vi s i on map, subject to the conditions. Ms. Reid reviewed the concerns of the Montgomery Planning Committee which included: 1) Mello Roos' ability to meet the needs of the school children in the area of the proposed project; 2) recycling. Commissioner Tugenberg was concerned that the open space at the north end of the project was an SDG&E easement and that the children had no other open space in which to play. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the SDG&E easement was being studied and that it could not be definitively stated that the area should not be used. Mr. Lee stated this was a private open space area and, in addition, each of the units had private open space. . Commissioner Tugenberg asked about the decision as to whether the units could be sold or rented. Assistant Planning Director Lee explained the approval of the subdivision map would allow them to sell units as opposed to building as a rental project. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if CC&Rs would govern the project. Mr. Lee answered in the affirmative. Upon Commissioner Tugenberg's query, Assistant Planning Director Lee stated there would be maintenance fees involved. Commissioner Carson stated she was disappointed that the Parks & Recreation Department withdrew their request that an open turf area be provided east of the sand play area, and now on 1 y requi re the PAD fees. Since there is no definite answer as to whether the SDG&E easement area would be safe, she felt open space should be provided by the sand play area. Commissioner Decker questioned the width of the central access driveway. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered the driveway had been narrowed down by Design Review to provide additional landscaping through the entry point. Upon Commissioner Decker's query, Mr. Lee answered the project provided parking in the parking bays in addition to two-car garages. Private streets typically are narrower without parking allowed. Mr. Lee stated the project had been approved by the Fire Department regarding the width of the streets and the turning areas. Commissioner Carson asked about moving one lot to create an open space--where an appropriate place would be. Assistant Planning Director Lee said that normally the recreational amenities would be central ized; but in this case, if a lot were removed, it would be a cluster of units. He felt the area adjacent to the present open area would be logical if there was a desire to have additional open space provided as a guarantee if the SDG&E easement proved to be infeasible in the future. . P1annino Commission -6- October 10. 1990 Vice-Chair Fuller then opened the public hearing. Conrad Previs, 5847 E1 Cajon Boulevard, San Diego, stated the small-scale open space areas were rather useless; he felt the SDG&E easement was very usabl e. There would be CC&Rs and there would not be street parking. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Severa 1 of the Commi ss i oners were concerned about the SDG&E easement and the possibil ity of not being able to use it as open space. There was general discussion as to whether a lot could be landscaped and available in such case, and which lot would be most appropriate. Ass i stant P1 anni ng Di rector Lee suggested that the Commi ss i on recommend the project for approval with the stipulation that one lot at the north end adjacent to the easement be reserved at this time for recreation purposes, to be 1 andscaped, and the area 1 ater ut il i zed for the hous i ng as shown on the plan should the SDG&E easement study be completed and show that the area is not a health hazard. Assistant Attorney Rudolf noted that the Commission's action was final, unless appealed to the City Council. Vi ce-Cha i r Full er asked the app 1 i cant for hi s response to reservi ng the lot for open space. Mr. Previs stated this project had been cut down already. He felt the large back yards were sufficient. He felt it would be too much of a loss. MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) 6-0 (Commissioner Grasser Horton-conflict of interest) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-36. MS (Tugenberg/Cartmill) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, recommend that the tentative subdivision map for Evergreen Gardens, Chula Vista Tract 90-15 be approved, subject to the conditions 'a' through 'r', with the additional condition to annex to Community Facilities District No.5. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that he felt the back yards mitigated the problem of open space. VOTE: 5-1 (Carson voted against; Grasser Horton had confl i ct of interest.) Chai r Grasser Horton stated there would be a 5-minute recess. Commissioner Cartmill stated he had a conflict of interest on the next item and left the dais and the meeting. Planninq Commission -7- October 10, 1990 . ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-89-27; APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 75-UNIT LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROJECT FOR SENIORS AT 628/638 THIRD AVENUE Assistant Planning Director Lee stated the project had been considered by the Zoning Administrator and had been approved on September 14, 1990. This was appealed, but in consultation with the City Attorney's office, it had been deci ded to treat it as an appl i cat i on before the Pl anni ng Commi ss i on rather than an appeal. Any recommendation would be forwarded on to the City Council for final approval. The appl icant had provided the City with the additional fee to cover the cost of the hearing. The appellant's fee would be returned. Mr. Lee continued with an overview of the project. He stated it had received Des i gn Revi ew approval. He noted the appellant had objected to the overall hei ght of the bui 1 di ng, the limited parki ng, I ack of open space, and the number of units proposed. Assistant Planning Director Lee explained that the building was 4 stories in height, as opposed to 3-1/2 stories allowed by the underlying zone; however, the 44' height of the building was actually l' under the maximum set in the zone. . Mr. Lee stated the Commerc i a 1 Offi ce zone allows hous i ng by use permit. The parki ng needs and rat i os for subs i di zed sen i or projects were substant i ally lower than normal parking needs. The City Counc i 1 and recent Zon i ng Administrator approval of that particular project required the designation of additional parking at the adjacent Salvation Army site, one lot to the south. Assistant Planning Director Lee also pointed out the availability of services within the immediate vicinity. He noted the open space had been reduced from the traditional R-3 standards; but the units had private balconies, and there was a separate unit designated for recreation. Regarding density, Mr. Lee said the units average 1.1 persons per unit. Mr. Lee stated that along with the appeal from an owner at 625 Third, staff received a letter of protest from an owner at 659 Third. That particul ar letter objected to various activities at the present Salvation Army activity, which they felt caused traffic congestion and hazards in the area. . Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that he had reviewed with the City Traffic Engineer the accident rates in the area, and it had not proven to be a problem at that location as far as accidents being recorded. Mr. Lee noted that the Commission on Aging had indicated some concern regarding parking and the scale of the building. Mr. Lee stated he had offered to meet with the Commission on Aging at their next meeting of November 14, and the project would not be set for Council consideration until after the Commission on Aging had the opportunity to provide the input prior to the Counc i I heari ng. Planninq Commission -8- October 10. 1990 Mr. lee stated that based on the most recent analysis and the previous assessment, staff cons i dered thi s 1 ocat i on and 1 and use appropri ate, subject to the conditions required by the Zonin9 Administrator: 1) that the project comply with Design Review approval; 2) provide the 39 parking spaces on-site; 3) upon initial opening of the project, the Salvation Army shall provide additional parking if occupant demand exceeds availability; 4) the Council-added provision that should the grocery store operation at Third and "J" cease to operate, the Salvation Army would provide daily transportation for occupants to get groceri es. Mr. lee asked that the Pl anni ng Commi ss i on include the four conditions in its consideration. Commissioner Fuller was concerned about the loading and unloading of the buses when the seniors were taken to and from activities in the community. Commissioner Tugenberg asked why the project had not been executed previously. Commissioner Decker asked if the elevator shaft protruded from the top of the building. Assistant Planning Director lee noted the architect would respond to the foregoing when he spoke. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Priscilla Gilliam, loan Consultant to the Salvation Army, stated she agreed with the staff report. She noted this was Section 8 low-income housing, and it was a very competitive process. This site had been selected previously and they were not permitted to change sites, since the qual ity of the site was part of the competitive process. It had originally been submitted as a 5-story building which had been reduced by the City to a 4-story building. This required the Salvation Army to go back to HUD. It has now been approved by HUD as a 4-story building in its present configuration. Ralph Flewelling, 766 Colorado Blvd., los Angeles, architect for the project, stated there were two hydraul ice 1 evators. He stated the project had gone through several departments in the HUD system and now was in Mortgage Credit. They were led to bel ieve they would receive approval to go ahead within the next month. Pat Hutchins, Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Salvation Army, stated there were spaces for buses and vans to load the seniors in the Salvation Army parking lot, and the seniors were loaded there. There is, however, a City bus stop by the curb in front of the Salvation Army. Bess Pockl ington, 656 Glover Place, Chula Vista, stated she was against the Conditional Use Permit for the increased density; it would make a major environmental impact on the people living in the surrounding area; there would be an increase in dens ity and a reduct i on in parking spaces. There was not enough room in the Salvation Army parking lot for overflow parking; there would be an increase in traffic. Planninq Commission -9- October 10. 1990 . Ms. Pockl i ngton di sag reed with staff's est imat i on of the number of people res i di ng in the uni ts. She was concerned with the Fi re Department's abi 1 ity to respond to fires on the fourth floor. Ms. Pockl ington disagreed with the finding that the project would contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood and community. She asked other residents in opposition who were in attendance to stand. (There were 8 residents against the project who did not speak.) Commi ss i oner Tugenberg quest i oned City Traffi c Engi neer Rosenberg about the level of service in the area. Mr. Rosenberg stated he would research the file and report back. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the Initial Study had been reviewed by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator in conjunction with Engineering. The Traffic Section of Engineering stated in the Initial Study that they had determined it would not adversely affect the existing levels of service on roads and intersections in the vicinity. It was estimated that this project would have about half the number of trips the site would have wi th an offi ce complex. Mr. Lee di scussed the setback from the res i dent i a 1 area, access oriented to Third Avenue rather than into the residential area, parki ng, the surroundi ng amenit i es, and the typi ca 1 number of res i dents per unit. . In answer to Commissioner Decker's query, Assistant Planning Director Lee said the Fire Department had no objection to the project and the building would be sprinklered. Chair Grasser Horton asked about the entry age of the residents. Mr. Lee answered the age was 62 in this instance. Richard Ballard, 65 Landis, Chula Vista, stated he was a firefighter in the City of San Diego, and it was his experience that most of these types of residences had two occupants. He was concerned with the number of units, the additional noise, the elevation of the building, visual impact on the neighbors, and open space. He al so had a letter of opposition from another neighbor which he gave to the Commission. Mi chae 1 Green, 535 "H" Street, represent i ng James Mal co 1 m who appealed the action of the Zoning Administrator, stated his client was opposed to the project as proposed. He noted the parking problem, the visual impact, impact on future development, bad precedent, and asked what the neighborhood residents were getting out of the project. Mr. Green asked that the project be denied. Upon Chair Grasser Horton's request, Mr. Green gave James Malcolm's address as 625 Third Avenue, the owner of the property across the street. Ron Floyd, 629 Third Avenue, (hula Vista, spoke in opposition of the project. He felt the present (-0 zoning should be preserved. He did not feel the residential development in a commercial area would supplement the future demand for offices. He also spoke of the height of the building, the density bonus, parking, accidents because there is no turn lane, and open space. . P1anninQ Commission -10- October 10. 1990 Patrick Barajas, 375 "J" Street, Chu1a Vista, commented the Police Department does not respond to traffic accidents unless there is an injury. Therefore, all the accidents are not reported. There is no parking at the Salvation Army, should be less density; there would be trash on the balconies along with towels, beach umbrellas, etc. He thought it was the wrong location. Commi ss i oner Tugenberg asked Mr. F1 ewe 11 i ng, the architect, consideration had been given to underground parking. Mr. Flewelling that the HUD loan would not support undergrounding parking, the "202 did not require that amount of parking. if any an swered Program" Commissioner Tugenberg asked if another location had been considered for the project. Mr. Flewelling answered that the Salvation Army's intent was to get this type of project immediately adjacent to their Corps building because they have programs which the seniors can utilize. This was the Salvation Army's intent in most cases. Upon Cha i r Grasser Horton's query, Mr. F1 ewe 11 i ng stated the Commi ss i oners could visit Grace Tower, Trinity Manor, or Cathedral Arms which were larger than this project. Commi ss i oner Carson asked what the average c1 i ente 1 e was. Mr. F1 ewe 11 i ng answered that approximately 90% were women. Answering Chair Grasser Horton, Mr. Flewelling explained that the units had kitchens; there was no central dining; there was a large central recreational room with a kitchenette. City Traffi c Engi neer Rosenberg, answeri ng Commi ss i oner Tugenberg' s previ ous question, stated that the last study performed for the Growth Management Program in 1989 revealed that the intersection of Third and "I" was operating at LOS C during the P.M. period, Third and "J" was operating at LOS D, Third and "K" LOS C, and Third and "L" LOS D, with approximately 23,000 cars per day on Third Avenue. "J" Street and "I" Street carry around 9,000 cars a day. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Casillas stated that Mr. Green had asked what Chu1a Vista was gett i ng for th is project. He noted there wou1 d be 75 un its for 1 ow- income people. The General Plan and the Housing Element of the City require low-income housing. Commissioner Fuller stated she felt it was a good location since there was pub1 ic transportation, there was access to faci1 ities, and the height was not an issue since there were other buildings of the same height in the area, and patterns of traffic would be greater if it were an office complex. She supported the project. MSUC (Full er/Casi 11 as) 6-0 (Cartmi 11-conf1 ict of interest) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Limited Study and Negative Declaration, find that the project PCC-89- 27, wi 11 have no s i gnifi cant envi ronmenta 1 impacts and readopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-77. _u______ . . . Planninq Commission -11- October 10. 1990 MS (Fuller/Casillas) to recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit PCC-89-27 based on the Findings in Section E and subject to the four condit ions set forth in the report, and subject to an added condition that the development will be available for occupancy by seniors only. Commi ss i oner Tugenberg stated he woul d vote against the project, not because the senior facil ity was not needed, but because he felt the opportunity to develop the downtown area was being limited. Chair Grasser Horton said she would abstain from voting because she was torn between providing affordable housing for seniors, and also because of the possible parking problem; and the whole picture of what is needed for the downtown area. VOTE: 3-2-1 AYES: Commissioners Fuller, Casillas, and Decker NOES: Commissioner Carson and Tugenberg ABSTENTIONS: Chair Grasser Horton CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Commissioner Cartmill After referring to the City Code, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf informed Cha i r Grasser Horton that a Commi ss i on member who abstains shall in effect consent that a majority of the quorum may act for him/her. In this case, her vote would act as an affirmative vote. Mr. Rudolf asked Chair Grasser Horton if she was satisfied with her vote being affirmative. Chair Grasser Horton answered that she would let the vote stand. Therefore, the VOTE WAS 4-2, with Commissioners Carson and Tugenberg voting against. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Assistant Planning Director Lee brought the Commission's attention to a proposed ordinance which would allow Commissions and Boards to place items directly onto the Council's agenda. Mr. Lee advised the Commission that 15 E. "J" Street complied with the City's requirement regarding FARs. Ass i stant Pl anni ng Di rector Lee stated that the Community Deve 1 opment Department was request i ng that the Pl anni ng Commi ssion cons ider two speci a 1 meetings: Monday, November 12, to consider the Southwest Redevelopment Area; and Tuesday, November 13, at 6 p.m., a joint meeting with the City Council. At Commissioner Carson's request, Mr. Lee explained that there was a deadline of December and to meet that date, the meetings would need to be held by the aforementioned dates. Commissioner November 1 g. November 12. Tugenberg advised that he would be out of town November 9 through Commi ssioner Carson noted she would not be able to attend on Planninq Commission -12- October 10. 1990 Assistant Planning Director Lee stated he would discuss the matter with Community Development to try to shift the meeting to an earl ier date and possibly an earl ier time. Mr. Lee stated that November 12 was not a legal holiday for the City. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf asked for the Commission's response to the proposa 1 that the boards and commi ss ions have the abi 1 i ty to place items directly on the Council agenda. This, however, would have to be done by a majority vote of the advi sory board or commi ss i on. The Commi ss i oners stated it was a good idea to be able to go directly to the Council, because it could streamline and get much faster action. Chair Grasser Horton informed the people still remaining that the public hearing PCC-89-27 passed. Ass i stant Pl anni ng Di rector Lee poi nted out thi s item woul d be goi ng to the Commission on Aging the latter part of November and then on to the City Council in December. Notices would be sent out. ADJOURNMENT at 9:55 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of October 17, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3. L~<A ~'h-LU.1 Nancy Ri Ji ey, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 8520P