Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1977/10/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA October 26, 1977 A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Chandler, Smith, G. Johnson, Pressutti, Renneisen and O'Neill. Absent (with previous notification): Commissioner R. Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Assistant City Attorney Harron, and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Renneisen-Smith) The minutes of the meeting of October 12, 1977 be approved as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented. DIRECTOR'S REPORT As Director of Planning Peterson was scheduled to attend another meeting during the latter part of this meeting, he presented his report early. He called the attention of the Commission to the memo sent to them suggesting that a special meeting be scheduled for December 7 (the first Wednesday in December) to begin consideration of a new General Development Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey. He asked for the Commission's consent with regard to a special meeting. MSUC (Pressutti-O'Neill) A special meeting be scheduled for December 7, 1977 for the Planning Commission to begin consideration of the General Development Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey. 1. Report on proposed rezonin~ of 2 acres from C-O-P to C-C-P and 1.18 acres from R-E to C-C-P on the southwest side of Otay Lakes Road, south of SDG&E easement - Don E. Norman & Glenn Ashwill, and City initiated Director of Planning Peterson noted that this rezoning was considered by the Planning Commission on September 14 based on an application filed by Messrs. Norman and Ashwill to rezone 2 acres from C-O-P to C-C-P and the staff's determination that the adjacent 1.18 acres, presently zoned R-E, should be included in the same zone as the 2 acres. The staff's recommendation at that time was for denial of the requested change from C-O-P to C-C-P and that the 1.18 acres be rezoned to C-O-P. The Planning Commission agreed wi th the findings in support of C-O-P zoning for the 3.18 acres and forwarded that recommendation to the City Council. In a public hearing held on October 4 the Council determined that the Norman and Ashwill property should be rezoned to C-C-P. Inasmuch as that determination was not in concurrence with the Planning Commission's recommendation, it is required by law that this proposal be referred back to the Commission for reconsideration and a report back to the Council. -2- October 26, 1977 Mr. Peterson advised that despite information presented to the Council by the property owners, it is still the staff's feeling that the C-O-P zone is most suitable for this site due to the ample supply of retail commercial zoning in the immediate area. Chairman Chandler announced that although this is not a public hearing, the Commission would be willing to hear from the property owner if he desires. Glenn Ashwill, 255 Camino del Cerro Grande, advised that they had appealed to the City Council because they were unable to appear at the earlier hearing before the Planning Commission, and that based on information which they supplied to the Council that body had concurred that the C-C-P zoning should be expanded. He pointed out that six acres of the adjacent C-C zoned property has now been approved for residential development which is being implemented. He also reported that two acres which fronts on Otay Lakes Road has been sold to Par Construction Company, which firm is actively planning a commercial development there. As a result of that development proposal, Messrs. Norman and Ashwill are receiving more inquiries with regard to retail commercial use of their property than for commercial office use. He expressed their desire to marke~, the property and the need, therefore, to obtain the zoning with the most appeal to potential users. He pointed out that prior to 1974 the entire l0 acre parcel was zoned C-T-D but their attempt to develop the property resulted in a downzoning action to C-C and C-O. He contended that with architectural control the city could be assured of commercial development that would be compatible with the apartments presently under construction on the adjoining six acres. In response to a question from Commissioner G. Johnson, Mr. Peterson affirmed that there is no other C-O zoned property in the area but that office uses are allowed in the C-C zone. Commissioner Smith pointed out that it appears on the locator plat that the right of way for Otay Lakes Road is narrower for that portion of the road which abuts the 1.18 acres presently zoned R-E. He felt that rezoning of that parcel should be contingent upon the dedication of the additional right of way. It was moved by Commissioner Pressutti, seconded by Commissioner G. Johnson, that the Commission report to the City Council that the original findings in support of C-O-P zoningfor the 3.18 acres are still vali~ and the Commission reaffirms their previousrecommendation to deny the rezoning application on the 2 acres and to rezone the 1.18 acres from R-E to C-O-P. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, G. Johnson, Chandler and O'Neill NOES: ~Commissioners Smith and Renneisen ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson It was moved by Commissioner Pressutti, seconded by Commissioner Renneisen, that the Commission recommends that whatever zone designation the Council adopts for the 2 acres the same designation should also be applied to the 1.18 acre parcel. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Renneisen and Chandler NOES: Commissioners Smith, G. Johnson and O'Neill ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson -3- October 26, 1977 It was moved by Commissioner Pressutti, seconded by Commissioner O'Neill, that the Commission recommends that the finalization of the rezoning on the 1.18 acre parcel be contingent upon the dedication from the owner of the 1.18 acres of additional right of way for the widening of Otay Lakes Road. The motion carried unanimously by those present. 2. Consideration of request to move existin9 structure on to ll50 Walnut Avenue- Willis Richardson Director of Planning Peterson advised that a request has been received to move a two-story duplex structure, presently located in San Diego, onto the vacant lot at 1150 Walnut Avenue, with one portion to be used for a plumbing contractor's office and the other living unit to serve as a caretaker's residence, with the garage area beneath the units to be used for storage of plumbing supplies and equipment. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the Planning Commission's role is limited to a determination of whether or not the building proposed to be moved in is comparable to the architecture of other structures in the area. He passed photos to the Commission of the building to be moved and of the existing buildings in the area, commenting on the similarity of the architecture of the proposed buildings in the area, commenting on the similarity of the architecture of the proposed building and the existing Palomar Inn. Mr. Peterson called attention to the recommended conditions relating to the use of the building, the site plan and the public improvements which would be required in the approval of this development of property. The staff recommends that the Commission find that the move-on building is architecturally compatible with the area and recommends that the Council approve the moving permit. Although not a public hearing, the chairman acknowledged the applicant. Bill Richardson, 3630 Fir Street, San Diego, advised that the site plan has been changed to eliminate the problem of cars backing into the street as pointed out in the staff report. He concurred with the desirability of having full street improvements installed in Walnut Avenue but felt he should not be required to make such improvements right at the end of the street if the remainder is not done at this time. Commissioner Smith commented on the statement in the staff report that the Department of Public Works intends to cause full improvements to be installed through Block Act requirements and asked if this is similar to a 1911 Act district. Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt advised that it is part of the same section of the Streets and Highways Code but is a more streamlined procedure than the 1911 Act. MSUC (G. Johnson-Pressutti) The Commissions finds that the building to be moved on to 1150 Walnut Avenue is architecturally compatible with the area and recommends that the City Council approve the moving permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. 3. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.) Conditional Use Permit PCC-78-3 - Request for retail food sales with operation of~service station, 898 Third Avenue - Atlantic Richfield Co. -4- October 26, 1977 Chairman Chandler pointed out that this hearing has been previously continued on two occasions and the applicant has requested a further continuance to the meeting of November 9, and that a similar application for another site be considered at the same time. MSUC (Pressutti-O'Neill) The public hearing in consideration of conditional use permit PCC-78-3 be continued to the meeting of November 9. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-78-2 - Request to develop two lots without street frontage at the rear of 72 H Street- Mike quartararo, et al Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that this variance request is similar to other variance applications submitted for properties further east on H Street, which were approved based on the finding that there was no other means by which to develop the rear portion of those properties to their fullest potential. In this case, an approved subdivision will extend a dedicated street from First Avenue to meet the property under consideration and under that circumstance the staff could not find a hardship which would justify the granting of the variance to develop without street frontage. Mr. Peterson displayed a plat showing the applicant's proposal to develop two additional lots on an access easement from H Street and affirmed that extending the future street to serve the subject property and other parcels to the east would reduce the capability of the property from three to two lots. He pointed out that under the code restrictions, financial hardships are not the basis for granting a variance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Quiriault, 66 H Street, advised that he owns the property adjacent to the subject lot on the east. He pointed out that a drainage ditch on the rear portion of the lots represents a problem in implementing improvement plans, and also asserted that he would not let the public street be constructed across the back of his property and he believed the owner to the east would take the same position, so the street could go not further than the lot under consideration in this hearing. Mrs. Miller, owner of the house adjacent to Mr. Quiriault, affirmed that there is no way by which she would permit a street to be extended across the back of her property. Rather than divide the property she would sell the whole lot. Mike Quartararo, 3815 Sweetwater Road, Bonita, contended that developing one additional lot on the extended street would not be as practical or desirable in terms of site plan as development served by a private access easement from H Street, inasmuch as the proposed street would be narrow and houses fronting on that street would be facing the rear yards of houses on Shasta Street. Mr. Quartararo expressed the opinion that the extensive drainage ditch at the rear of the property represents a hardship in developing the property which would warrant granting the variance request in order that one additional lot could be developed. He also felt that approval of similar requeststo the east should bear ~ome significance. Bill Ansley, 355 K Street, advised that he is associated with the builder who is developing the small subdivision to the west of this site. Their final map will be submitted for approval this week and development will soon get under way. He discussed the improvement of the drainage channel which will be placed underground -5- October 26, 1977 across their property. He pointed out the improvement which has resulted to the adjacent ~lots to the north. He also spoke of their attempts to purchase the lot presently under consideration in order to enlarge their subdivision, but the property was subsequently sold to another party. Mike Quartararo expressed his apology if his remarks were taken as being critical of the development being undertaken by Mr. Ansley and Mr. Mestler. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Pressutti-G. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-78-26 and the findings stated therein, this project will have no significant adverse environmental impact, and certifies the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Renneisen pointed out that similar variance requests have been approved and in this case the question is whether the possibility of developing on the cul-de-sac warrants denial of the request. Commissioner G. Johnson pointed out that one of the goals of planning is the development of property on dedicated streets. It was moved by Commissioner G. Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Pressutti, that the Commission deny variance application PCV-78-2 based on the findings as stated in the staff report. The motion failed to obtain a majority vote, as follows: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Pressutti and Chandler NOES: Commissioners Smith, O'Neill and Renneisen ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson Assistant City Attorney Harron affirmed that the tie vote represents a denial of the request since approval would require the support of four members of the Commission. Chairman Chandler advised the applicant of his right of appeal to the City Council within ten days. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-78-8 - Request to construct six multiple family dwellin9 units in C-O zone, 623 Third Ave. James C. Malcolm Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of an 18,400 sq. ft. parcel on the east side of Third Avenue which presently contains six multiple family units and a single family residence. The property is landlocked and takes access by a 14 ft. driveway across the property to the front which is developed with an office structure. The applicant proposes to remove the single family dwelling and complete the development of the property by the addition of six more apartment units. A swimming pool and recreation area are existing on the site and the parking requiremens for the 12 apari~nent units can be met. Although the property is zoned C-O, residential uses presently exist on both sides so the proposed development would be compatible in the area. In response to a question from Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Lee advised that with a development of this type, the developer pays a fixed fee to assure the avail- ability of schools for the increase in residents. -6- October 26, 1977 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. James Malcolm 737 Pearl Street, La Jolla, Owner of the property, expressed the opinion that this is the best use that can be made of the property. He noted that the existing single family home is an unsightly building, 50 to 100 years old, which has no historical value. Additional commercial development on the site is not feasible due to the location of the office at the front and the limited ingress and egress. He expressed agreement with the conditions recommended. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Pressutti-Smith) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-78-24 and the findings stated therein, this project will have no significant adverse environmental impact, and certifies the Negative ~eclaration. MSUC (Pressutti-Smith) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the Commission approves conditional use permit PCC-78-8 to construct apartment units at 623 Third Avenue, subject to the three conditions as enumerated in the staff report. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-78-10 - Request to conduct class in defensive driving, 320 Trousdale - Academy of Defensive Drivin~ Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that this applicant proposes to lease office and classroom space in the Sweetwater Industrial Park development to conduct classes under the direction of the San Diego Municipal Courts. In addition, 5.5 acres to the west, in the right of way of the future freeway and flood control channel, will be leased from the State of California, to be used for behind-the- wheel-training. Students attending the classrooms would be required to park in this area and would be transported by van to the classrooms. This use is considered appropriate so long as the 5.5 acres can be leased and one of the recommended conditions limits the use to that period of time. It is also noted that if any vehicles are to be stored inside the building, additional construction may be required to satisfy the fire rating requirements of the building code. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. James F. Mulvaney, 5172 San Aquario Drive, Pacific Beach, reported they are very anxious to proceed with this program to handle court referral cases. He advised that the program has been very successful in Orange County. He concurred with the conditions recommended in the staff report. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Renneisen-Smith) In accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-78-27 and the findings stated therein, this project will have no significant adverse environ- mental impact, and certifies the Negative Declaration. MSUC (Renneisen-Smith) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the Commission approved conditional use permit PCC-78-10 for a driving school at 320 Trousdale Drive, subject to three conditions enumerated in the staff report. -7- October 26, 1977 7. PUBLIC HEARING: a. Precise plan PCM-78-7 for development in I-L-P zone, 1180 Walnut Avenue - GarS Iverson b. Conditional use permit PCC-78-7 - Request to operate 24~hou~ truck repair service in I-L-P zone, 1180 Walnut Avenue - GarS Iverson Current Planning Supervisor Lee pointed out that with "P" Modifying District on the property a precise plan is required for any development to occur. A truck repair facility requires a conditional use permit in the industrial zone. Mr. Lee reviewed the history of the use of this site noting that the original permission for use of the site was for construction of small racing cars in the building. It was later used as a boat repair facility. In December 1976 a zoning pemit was approved for Mr. Iverson to use the site for truck repair wi th the stipulation that all work be done inside the building. With the growth of the business, considerable work is now being done outside. Outside work is also necessary due to the size of the trucks, which are too large to get inside the building. Conditions recommended for approval of the conditional use permit would restrict outside work to the area to be screened by a solid wall or fence. The applicant has requested approval of a 24 hour facility, but it is recommended that normal work be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., with emergency work only to be done during other hours. Mr. Lee noted the receipt of one letter of objection from the owner of the property at 1171 Walnut Avenue, mainly on the basis of the 24 hour operation which would result in excessive noise during the night. Mr. Lee discussed the site plan improvements required in approval of the precise plan and the public street improvements that would be required of the applicant. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Gary Iverson, operator of the PortaShop repair service, raised objection to the restriction of hours. He pointed out that the service station to the south stays open all night,as well as the Paxton Towing Service across the street. The Halfway House operates on a 24 hours basis and the Pal omar Club is open until 2:00 a.m. He also advised there is no other 24 hour truck repair service in San Diego, and that trucks are often brought from some distance to receive, needed emergency service. He requested that the restriction of hours be removed. He also asked that the required fence height be reduced from 9 feet to 8 feet and that the requirement for closing the gates apply only to those adjacent to Walnut Avenue and not to the gate opening toward the driveway at the rear of the property. John Slooten, 1393 Fern, Imperial Beach, stressed the need for having 24 hour emergency repair service, pointing out that if repairs for a refrigerator unit are not available thedrii~rmight lose the entire load due to spoilage. Luis Vizcarra, 1169 Walnut Avenue, expressed concern as to the cost of improvements to Walnut Avenue would be charged to the owners of residential property on that street. He also asked how much time it would take for such improvements to be approved or disapproved. Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt indicated it would be six months to a year. A1 Hale, 1393 Fern, supported the applicant's request, emphasizing the need for 24 hour repair service in the San Diego area. -8- October 26, 1977 Ken Weimer, 1184 Tobias Drive, owner of the property occupied by Mr. Iverson's repair facility, affirmed the need for improvements to Walnut Avenue and reported that a petition for a 1911 Act Improvement District were started three or four years ago. He pointed out that due to lack of lighting, very little repair work would be done outside after dark. In the winter time this would mean closing by 6:00 p.m., but during the summer months it remains light until 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. He expressed concern about improvements that would be required to the alley or driveway at the rear of the site. Mr. Lippitt advised that when street improvements are put in on Walnut Avenue an alley type entrance will be required. Mr. Stevens, 986 Fifth Avenue, expressed fear that the fence required in the precise plan conditions would restrict travel to the Palomar Club which has access via the alley. Mr. Lee pointed out the location of the required fencing, noting that it in no way would restrict travel in the alley. Commissioner Smith asked the applicant if the work to be done at night would involve hammering or any type of body work; or if the main source of noise would be the approach and departure of trucks. Mr. Iverson advised that emergency repairs mainly include tire changing, or repairs to fuel lines or broken air lines, or refrigerator units that would not start. He reported that he would want a man on duty at night to receive the vehicles that are towed in to determine the problem or extent of repairs needed. As no one else wished to speak, the chairman closed the hearing and called a 10 minute recess at 9:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Commissioner O'Neill pointed out that the emergency truck repair service appears to be a needed service in the area, and that one of the objectives of the city is not only to bring in new business but to build up existing business in the area. He therefore favored approval of this request. Commissioner Pressutti noted that there appears to be only two areas of contention in the conditions. He suggested enlarging the concept of emergency or removing the restriction of hours. He also supported reducing the fence height to 8 feet instead of 9 feet. MSUC (Renneisen-O'Neill) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-78-21 and the findings stated therein, this project will have no significant adverse environmental impact and certifies the Negative Declaration. MSUC (Renneisen-Smith) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the Commission approves conditional use permit PCC-78-7 to operate a truck repair facility at 1180 Walnut Avenue, subject to the four conditions recommended in the staff report, with an amendment to the last condition to require gates only adjacent to Walnut Avenue to be kept closed during hours of operation except as necessary for ingress and egress. MSUC (Renneisen-Smith) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the precise plan for improvement of the property at 1180 Walnut Avenue, including a freestanding sign, subject to -9- October 26, 1977 the conditions recommended in the staff report with a revision to condition "d" to stipulate an 8 foot high fence or wall instead of 9 feet. Chairman Chandler advised the applicant that the precise plan will require final approval by the City Council. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Subdivision map PCS-77-10 for Hudson Valley Estates Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of four acres east of Second Avenue and north of D Street, noting that the single family dwelling with frontage on Second Avenue would be retained and the remainder of the property would be divided into 10 lots. Las Flores Drive would be extended to the north to serve the 10 lots. Due to the topography of the area, most of the homes will be split level with the garages at street level and the dwellings above the garages. Although this is a small subdivision, the extension of Las Flores Drive will provide impetus for development of the canyon area to the north and east. Mr. Lee called attention to the l0 conditions recommended for approval of the tentative map. Commissioner Smith commented on the requirement for the subdivider to construct a gravity sewer to serve this subdivision. He asked how far it is to the trunk line, noting that extensive sewer construction could place an economic burden on this developer. Director of Public Works Lippitt pointed out the two alternatives for making connection with a sewer trunk line. Commissioner Smith also questioned the size of the storm drain to be constructed by this developer, noting that it appears large to be charged against 10 lots. Mr. Lippitt concurred that the charge should be spread against the whole district. If this developer installs the storm drain he can request a reimbursement district in order to be reimbursed when other properties are developed. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Robert French, 129 Second Avenue, a neighbor to this development, expressed support for the plan. He pointed out that the E.I.R. on the project had indicated a requirement of this development that D Street between Second Avenue and Las Flores Drive be improved with gutter, sidewalk, etc. The report indicated that the builder might be required to make those improvements or a 1911 Act might be imposed. As the sole property owner adjacent to that street on the north side, he questioned what portion of those improvements might be assessed against his property, noting that it would be no advantage to him. Mr. Lippitt advised that if an assessment district is imposed, he did not feel the charges would be on the basis of lot frontage adjacent to the street. Howard Carter, 6353 Clyde Avenue, San Diego, asked how to start an assessment district so that property owners on the east side of the canyon can get development going. Mr. Lippitt suggested that he come in to the Engineering Department to receive assistance in that regard. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, pointed out that the EIR, as well as the report -10- October 26, 1977 to the Commission for this hearing, indicated that the developer would be assessed fees for parks. He asked where those fees will be used; whether it will be to provide a park in that area. Mr. Lee suggested that Mr. Watry contact the Parks and Recreation Department to learn what park funds are available and how they will be used. Mr. Watry asked if Las Flores Drive would be a through street and whether it might be used as an exit for K.O.A. campgrounds. Mr. Lee advised that it will end in a cul-de-sac and will not make connection with the campground. Jim Algert, 428 Broadway, engineer for the project expressed concurrence with the conditions with the exception of the requirement for demolition of the existing pump station by the subdivider. He felt that should be included in a 1911 Act assessment. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (G. Johnson-Pressutti) The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the tentative subdivision map for Hudson Valley Estates, based on the findings stated in the staff report and subject to the conditions recommended in the report. Mr. Lippitt advised that if there is a 1911 Act or assessment district, there will be a protest hearing before the City Council at which time each person has the right to protest the amount of assessment spread against his property. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-78-1 - Amend the General Plan from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for various areas Current Planning Supervisor Lee called attention to the four areas, constituting approximately 40 acres, which earlier this year were rezoned from R-3 to R-1 or R-2 in keeping with the established residential development in each of the areas. It is now appropriate to change the General Plan designation in order to maintain consistency between the zoning map and the General Plan land use designation. Mr. Lee reported that a petition bearing 10 signatures was filed in support of the change for the area designated as "D" on the plat, located at the westerly terminus of Sea Vale Street. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was declared closed. MSUC (O'Neill-Renneisen) The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the General Plan diagram be amended from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for those areas shown on the exhibit as a, b, c, and d. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairman Chandler reported that he will be on vacation during the month of November and will necessarily be absent from the Meeting of November 9, 15 and 23. -ll- October 26, 1977 Comment was made of the low attendance at the last study session meeting, and it was noted that each member who was absent had reported his inability to attend to a different person so that no one was aware only three Commissioners would be present. It was suggested that all anticipated absences be reported to the secretary in the Planning Department. Commissioner O'Neill commented that he has been reading a good deal~about the County's Growth Management Plans and noted that this does affect Chula Vista in the Rice Canyon area. He asked who would have jurisdiction if the City and County are at loggerheads concerning the development of that area. Director of Planning Peterson advised that the attitude of the County Planning staff has been to treat that area virtually as though it were incorporated within the City of Chula Vista. Recently the County Board of Supervisors has also taken that position. Although it is technically in the County, the County has taken the position that they would not encourage any development in such unincorporated areas but would refer the developers to the City. The City of Chula Vista is working with the owners of that property virtually as though it were in the City. Commissioner Smith suggested that a future study session should again cover the subject of development of the E1 Rancho del Rey area since so few members attended the last session. Mr. Peterson advised that an attempt is being made to arrange another joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission and ACCORD to hear the final presentation by the consultant, Mr. Tom Cooke. It is hoped that will be early in November. In any case, prior to the December 7th meeting, there will be a study session which can be devoted to that topic. That will be the session scheduled for November 16th at 5:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretary