Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/11/29 Tape: 305 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, November 29, 1989 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Casillas, Fuller, Grasser (7:30), and Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Deputy City Manager Krempl, Director of Planning Leiter, Principal Planner Lee, Associate Planner Griffin, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Consultant Bud Gray, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Tugenberg and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Tugenberg reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Carson/Fuller) 4-0 Casillas and Shipe abstained (Grasser out), to approve the Minutes of October ll, 1989, as mailed. MSUC (Carson/Cannon) 6-0 (Grasser out) to approve the Minutes of November 8, 1989 with the following change: page 13, motion should read "disapprove the EastLake III General Plan Amendment for 1,817 dwelling units," not 8,817. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-89-27M: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FROM THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONSISTING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MINI-MART WITH GASOLINE SALES LOCATED AT 1725 BROADWAY - ATLANTIC RICHFIELD Associate Planner Griffin stated that the applicant had submitted a letter of withdrawal, so it would be appropriate to file the request. MSUC (Carson/Cannon) 6-0 (Grasser out) to file the request for DRC-89-27M. -2- November 29 1~989 PC MINUTES WAIVER OF THE 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR A REQUIREMENT TO WIDEN HILLTOP DRIVE AND NAPLES STREET Senior Civil Engineer Roger Daoust explained that the applicant'S architect submitted a preliminary plan showing exterior modifications for a had . · , ' the northwest quadrant of Hilltop Drive and commercial building !.?~a~y~.~und information on the pr~ect_an~_~d~t ~.~ ~treet. ~e gav~ ua~- · ~ *k~ ann~can~ ~ ~' ' ~'~F~ji~eering Department would .req~r~_~,.,~h ~ld be required along ~t~'~and sidewalk, along with ~t.r~e~p~?-"~'~*herlv nroperty line. T~e ~.n Drive transitioning to z~ 9~ ?'t:~YYZ~n ~ha~ been required ~n "~ ....~ at the corner of ?e ~n~er~y,~, .~ ,.,~.~nin~ along both ~io~t°wr~th their building permit to provloe u ~- ..... Hilltop Drive and Naples Street and also to provide substantial traffic signal improvements. The work indicated that would be required for this project would transition from the end of the improvements provided by the ?-Eleven Store to the ultimate curb line on Hilltop Drive, which was 26' from centerline. Along Naples Street, the widening requirement would be 6' The cost of that improvement work would be throughout the frontage. approximately $12,540. The applicant felt the cost of the improvement work was excessive with respect to the on-site work (approximately 22%) and requested a waiver of the improvements. No deferral was requested. Mr. Daoust stated that staff did not support the request for a waiver, and recommended that the waiver not be granted, since the City Code does not support a waiver. Commissioner Cannon asked what proportion of the ?-Eleven construction constituted street improvements. Mr. Daoust did not know the actual facility cost of the improvement at the ?-Eleven, but estimated the cost of the public improvement work to be approximately $111,000--$60,000 was traffic signal; the remainder was street, sidewalk, and curb and gutter. Commissioner Fuller asked if the improvement included all of the buildings in the shopping center other than the 7-Eleven. Mr. Daoust replied that it included the facade on all the buildings within the · x lained that the 7-Eleven was one ownership, ..~+(~.ln~ nrooerty. He then e p ..... ~ ..... st was an ownership of v--~. ..... ~ - _ .~__ ~.^m ~41lton urlve ~u ~-: -~ _. the small shops ex~e ~ ..... ~.~ ~ .n dditional ownership. ~pproximately 200'. Beyona ~n~, ~-= ....... a This being the time and place advertised, the public hearing was opened. la Vista 92011, representing Mr..Jay P~gh) ~he Tim Jones, 9?8 Myra Avenue, Chu . Puh had only owned t~e pro3ec~ tor present owner. Mr. Jones a! +t ttMorex.l in that the pharmacq waK.Eh2 approximately, two years; ~,~":J'~ ~the burned-out market was unoer o~TTeru.~ of their pro3ect. Lou s :~,,, ~,,d ownership. He gave some history of the project and presented a map showing the work previously done by ?-Eleven. Mr. Jones stated that if Mr. Pugh had PC MINUTES -3- November 29, 1989 come in with his project before the ?-Eleven was put in, their costs would not have been as high. Mr. Jones stated that the requirement of street widening would be a burden to the owner and they didn't feel it was justified. He stated that since there would be no expansion of the center, no additional floor space or rentable lease area, the project would generate no additional traffic. He referred to a letter,addressed to Cliff Swanson regarding the waiver, which had been handed to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. Commissioner Carson asked if Mr. Pugh originally owned the filling station which had been removed and if he had paid to have the contaminated soil from the filling station removed. Mr. Jones replied that Mr. Pugh had not; that it was not part of his property. Commissioner Carson asked if the street improvements are required, does the owner plan to continue to make any kind of improvements in that area? Mr. Jones stated the owner is going to improve the lot, but instead of the $12,000 improvement they are looking at more like $20,000 worth of street improvements. Commissioner Fuller asked why Mr. Jones thought it would have been less cost if they had come in before the 7-Eleven was put in. He stated the project would have consisted only of repainting and signage. Now, after 7-Eleven, they are being asked to re-color code, put in architectural columns, new tile mansard, etc. which greatly boosted the cost of improvements. Senior Civil Engineer Daoust pointed out that at the time the subject first came up when the plans were submitted, it was suggested that the applicant take this route--the request for a waiver or a request for a deferral--as a preliminary step to avoid the effort of going through the application for a building permit or preparing plans for a design review. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cannon said that while he may sympathize with the 20% improvement cost, the Code is very specific on the basis upon which there could be a waiver. Chairman Tugenberg stated that whatever the conditions were, this improvement must be done because, although the improvements may not increase the traffic on the site of the property, the volume of the traffic is increasing consistently at that intersection. Now with Naples Avenue being opened up, it will probably be one of the major thoroughfares out of the Sunbow development. Naples will carry more traffic as the years go by, and improvement of the intersection is necessary. Commissioner Carson concurred that traffic is increasing and left-turn lanes are needed. MSUC (Cannon/Casillas) 6-0 (Grasser out) to deny the request for a waiver. PC MINUTES -4- November 29, 1989 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-7: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE EASTLAKE I SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN TO REMOVE LANGUAGE PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE THREE PRIVATE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS - City Initiated Associate Planner Steve Griffin stated this particular amendment represented one of the components of an agreement which has been reached between the City and EastLake Development Company. The agreement provides that the City will relinquish any rights for public access to the three neighborhood parks in EastLake I in exchange for certain additional public park improvements in the balance of the EastLake project as well as other improvements, including the transfer of the trail around the EastLake Shores Lake to the City for use and maintenance as well as some improvements on that trail. He stated that this amendment removes language from the EastLake I SPA plan which refers to that public access. Staff recommended that it be recommended for approval to the City Council. Commissioner Cannon asked if there were other public parks in the area to take over for the waiver in the EastLake I area. Mr. Griffin referred to the exhibit which showed one community park which encompassed approximately 15 acres, which would be developed early in the EastLake Greens project. Commissioner Cannon asked for the rationale behind closing the public neighborhood parks and the smaller parks in the area to the public. Mr. Griffin said it was his understanding that the homebuyers perceived these were private facilities. They are owned and maintained by the homeowners association, so perhaps it was understandable that the homeowners would believe that. In exchange for these other improvements, it was staff's feeling it would be appropriate to maintain those as private facilities. Commissioner Cannon asked if the other improvements would not be made if this wasn't done. Mr. Griffin stated that was his understanding. Some of them would be done eventually--the improvement of the community park would occur, but it wouldn't occur perhaps as rapidly as indicated here. Deputy City Manager Krempl explained that when EastLake I went through with the Planning Commission hearings, etc., it was assumed because of the scale of the project that there wouldn't be any issue in terms of whether the parks were public or private, and in hindsight--and we were cautioned by some members of the public--he didn't think it would have been done as it was. The park areas that EastLake wanted were established and those areas were set up to be maintained by the homeowners association with access to the public. He said it appeared reasonable that the residents of EastLake would wonder why they were paying for the maintenance as a private homeowner and yet the facilities were open and usable by others as well as EastLake. The PC MINUTES -5- November 29, 1989 alternative to that would be that if they were open to the public, they should be maintained by the public rather than by the homeowners association. However, with the size, location and types of facilities that were located there, they didn't lend themselves to the standard neighborhood park that the City would be interested in maintaining. It was decided that while th~tParks are for the most part used by the EastLake residents, there really wasn much being lost in terms of public access by reverting them to be fully private facilities. In exchange for that, the community park improvements and additional improvements would be accelerated. Mr. Krempl stated that the General Plan contemplates other public parks--neighborhood and community--in the vicinity which have not yet been developed. Because of that, there is a lack of park space in the overall area. When the rest of the property surrounding EastLake is developed, there will be adequate public parks, and by accelerating t~e development of the community park now, it is hoped that needed public facilities can be developed. General discussion followed regarding the adequacy of neighborhood parks, fencing, and the fact that the lake is private. Regarding the timeframe in which 15 acres of park was to be constructed, Commissioner Casillas asked why 24 months and not 36 or 12. He also was concerned about closing these parks down and not providing an alternative park. Mr. Krempl responded that there are no statistics in terms of a survey as to how many people who are not EastLake residents have actually used these facilities. In terms of the 24 months, he understood that the timeframe was to try to have it done as quickly as possible. It needs to be accommodated rest of the property, providing street within the overall grading of the access to the property, providing the utilities, being able to put in an irrigation system. Commissioner Casillas interpreted the 24 months to be the most optimistic timeframe. Mr. Krempl concurred. Katy Wright, of EastLake Development Company, clarified that construction of the community park would begin early in 1990. It has already been graded and construction is ready to begin. An additional 5 acres will be designated to the City above and beyond the requirements. Chairman Tugenberg asked where the additional 5 acres would be. Ms. Wright responded that they are proposing them as part of the EastLake III project in the greenbelt area on the eastern side of the Olympic Training Center. Commissioner Cannon asked if there would be fencing around the three parks that are proposed to be made pr!vate. Ms. Wright stated there is no intent to ever fence them, and it is prohibited in the CC&Rs. Commissioner Casillas asked how many complaints there had been. Ms. Wright responded that there were only a handful, and they were trying to respond to that concern. PC MINUTES -6- November 29, 1989 Chairman Tugenberg asked if there were any additional comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Casillas stated he was not satisfied that there really was a problem, and he found it difficult to support the program. MSC (Shipe/Fuller) 4-2 (Cannon, Casillas - no) (Grasser out) to recommend that the City Council amend EastLake I SPA plan as shown in Exhibit A. Commissioner Fuller added that in seconding the motion, even though it is an awkward situation now, everyone was aware this was a problem that might grow into a larger problem in trying to establish private parks. She couldn't see making it an issue to actually deny the homeowners the right to have the private parks, since there would be adequate public facilities later. She supported the recommendation. Commissioner Cannon stated he had voted against it because there were no alternative community parks available at this point in time. He didn't like the idea of making something basically accessible to the public not open to the public. He was concerned about enforceability. He said he could see conflicts, and he could not see a problem. Chairman Tugenberg then declared a 5-minute break. 3a. REVIEW AND COMMENT ON EASTLAKE III GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN GPA-90-05, PCZ-90-H, PCM-89-18 (Council referral) Consultant Bud Gray stated that the item had been referred back to the Planning Commission for a report. The City Council in a public hearing on November 21, 1989, offered a number of modifications to the staff recommendations. 1. The conference facility commercial parcel easterly of the OTC Visitors Center is being proposed to be designated as a Special Plan Area. That would mean the City Council would create a special task force at some future point in time to put together some specific design guidelines and site planning criteria for the development of that easterly conference facility so as to integrate it with the Chula Vista greenbelt. Commissioner Cannon asked Mr. Gray to define the amount of acreage, the amount of commercial use that is proposed still within that area, and if there is still the prospect of not developing anything in that eastern area. Mr. Gray responded there were 25 acres; the amount of commercial acreage would be approximately 17 acres--within that, the remainder would be open space; and there would be development. PC MINUTES _?_ November 29, 1989 Commissioner Cannon said he gathered the remainder of the entire 25 acres of commercial would then be placed in the western area. Mr. Gray confirmed that fact. Commissioner Cannon then stated that the special study they were looking at was not to study what should be on the land, but how the project should be designed. 2. Reduce the overall amount of acres devoted to commercial activity in total within the entire EastLake III project. The motion offered by Mayor Cox was to reduce the overall amount from 33 acres which was the total amount of commercial acreage in the EastLake III plan to 25. Upon further clarification Mr. Gray believed Mayor Cox's intent was to have the easterly parcel be designated as 25 acres and to, in effect, have the overall total amount of commercial acreage reduced in keeping with Mr. Santos' proposal which would be about 27 acres. He stated there was a clarification which needed to be made there by the Council when they take final action on this particular point. Commissioner Cannon asked if the 17 acres of commercial area is the same size of commercial that was originally proposed in the eastern area. Mr. Gray answered that the original was about 25 acres of commercial on the easterly parcel and now it's 17. 3. Condition no. 17 to the General Development Plan indicated that the total amount of natural open space depicted on the EastLake III plan should be equal or be greater than the amount of open space shown on the Chula Vista General Plan. It was suggested that that be made more specific by putting the acreage of open space that is within the confines of EastLake III now shown on the General Plan -- that's 159.2 acres, making the condition more specific. 4. The number of dwelling units is being suggested to be decreased. EastLake was proposing 1835, staff was recommending 1817, and the Council is suggesting 1767, which is 50 units less than what staff was recommending and 68 units less than what EastLake Development Company was seeking. That reduction of units would come from the high density residential parcel which was in that area westerly of the OTC Visitors Center, so instead of 200 high density residential units, there would now be 132. Commissioner Cannon asked if that would then qualify as medium-high density when they put 150 into the same area. Would that change it from high density to medium-high density? Mr. Gray responded that it would change from high density to medium-high density. The acreage would also change, but there would be no high density residential in the EastLake III plan with this offered modification. PC MINUTES -8- November 29, 1989 5. This was a suggestion made by Councilwoman McCandliss to require EastLake Development Company to transfer the OTC site to the San Diego National Sports Training Foundation within 30 days after annexing the EastLake III property to the City of Chula Vista. 6. The final modification, also a suggestion from Councilwoman McCandliss, was to have an overall phasing schedule laid out which would indicate what particular kinds of units are going to be built at what particular point in time, from whatever is left from EastLake I, including the Greens and the future neighborhoods of EastLake which consists of the Trails, the Woods, and the Vistas; to try to get an overall look at what the total plan for construction of units and what types of units those might be. The remainder of the memo indicates some reduction in the traffic volume being generated with the changes or suggested changes. The amount of reduction in trips has been estimated to be around 13,000 because of the reduction in commercial acreage. The original estimate of the OTC property had been estimated high, but has been changed to show a 3,000 ADT reduction in trips. Upon Commissioner Cannon's query, Mr. Gray explained that the Commission needed to report back to the City Council as to their input to the project with the modifications suggested by the Council, and it would be appropriate to take testimony if the Commission wished to do so even though it was not advertised as a public hearing. The Council would like to have a report of their opinion of the project with the modifications. Chairman Tugenberg then opened the meeting for public comments. Bob Santos, President of EastLake Development Company, spoke briefly expressing support of the staff report as presented. He clarified that the eastern parcel which was previously 25 acres of commercial had been reduced by 1/3, which leaves 17 acres commercial in the eastern parcel. The 8 acres converted from commercial to open space actually include the 5 acre public park that was a requirement of EastLake I privatization of parks agreement to be constructed within the area adjacent to the City's greenbelt. He spoke of potential amenities to be included in this area, including the possibility of a mini-nature interpretive center featuring the greenbelt environmental system versus the bay system. He stated that because of the Commission's prior rejection, it stimulated them to seek out answers to their concerns. Carol Freno, 3703 Alta Loma Drive, Bonita, representing CROSSROADS, stated that CROSSROADS supports the Olympic Training Center and speaks in favor of that proposal but believes that a task force should be developed and would like to see that very carefully defined. She said the high density north of Orange Avenue was concentrated in EastLake III and that it possibly could be spread to other portions of the entire EastLake development rather than just in EastLake III. She wished to go on record that the low density development PC MINUTES -9- November 29, 1989 should be maintained in the future when a specific plan is brought forward. CROSSROADS believes that changes are made once the high density is developed first, somehow the low density is compromised in the future. She asked that this statement be included in the record. Commissioner comments followed regarding the eight points referred back from Council. Commissioner Shipe: His original concerns were loss of the designated open space that was incorporated with the project, increased density, and the significant commercial use. He said that the modifications had been responsive to his concerns and reduce the commercial uses; addressed and modified the natural open space; and reduced the maximum dwelling units and high density to medium high. That, in turn, would have a significant impact on traffic. He was more comfortable with the project and was ready to be more of a proponent. He stated he was unhappy with the name "Olympic Training Center/San Diego." He was willing to share it with San Diego, but would like to see the name "Chula Vista," or the name "Chula Vista, California" written in small letters. He would like to see the name "Chula Vista" on the title. Commissioner Casillas: He was prepared to substantially support the revisions and recommendations of Council. He particularly liked the notion that the commercial area will be restricted to those activities that are tied into the Olympic Training Center. He was not happy about the extent of reduction in the maximum dwelling units. He concurred with the matter of requiring and asking for the phasing schedule for EastLake I, II, and III. He thought the task force could make a very valuable contribution, particularly if it had broad representation from the total community. He was prepared to go with it. Commissioner Cannon: He stated he still had some concerns with the project. He thought the special planning area should have some flexibility, and that the commercial area in its entirety should be looked at from a flexible standpoint. He agreed with establishing a task force. He stated he disagreed with any intrusion into the greenbelt, but on this particular item, could live with some compromise into the greenbelt. He said there is no star on the Bayfront; there is nothing to attract anybody to Chula Vista, and there is no reason to point to Chula Vista to outsiders at this point in time. The Olympic Training Center could be at least one of the stars in the future for the City of Chula Vista. He was not impressed with the reduction in the overall density. He concurred with the title being transferred quickly so the Olympic people could get started and get their development on the road. Commissioner Fuller: She stated she was satisfied that the plan as presented by the Council had addressed the concerns she had and would like to give the proposal a vote of confidence. She felt that flexibility was ensured in the special plan area by the establishment of the task force. She approved of the specific planning in the commercial area making it more directly amenable to the Olympic Training Center. She felt there was still some openness between the developer and Council and they should be encouraged to make this a good project, and a star that is needed in the eastern part. That would be the Olympic Training Center. PC MINUTES -10- November 29~ 1989 Commissioner Carson: She had no problem dealing with the special plan area and the special task force. She was pleased to hear that there was some talk that there might be a nature interpretive center being considered, so the special task force might take a look at that. She recommended to the City Council that they appoint Tom Davis as a person from the interest group to be on the special task force. She liked the idea of an additional 5 acres being put into park land, and with the reduction of dwelling units. She supported Commissioner Shipe's feelings in the fact that some way Chula Vista's by-line should be attached to the San Diego title of Olympic Training Center. She agreed that we need to have some kind of model that our teens and young adults can look towards. Commissioner Tu~enberg: He was in favor of the task force. He stated that the job done so far on the Olympic facility design by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill was sensational, and he hoped the design of the commercial center would reflect the design of the Olympic Training Facility. He was always in favor of the support to the Olympic facility being directly adjacent to it so as to help the traffic problem. He would have preferred that they had maintained the high density on the eastern parcel because that one was the family or dormitory facility, and there is a cost factor there. He would have preferred to have seen the reduction of the density come on the north side of East Orange Street. MSUC {Carson/Shipe) 6-0 (Grasser out) that their positive comments be sent on to the City Council that very positively supports the EastLake III. Commissioner Grasser entered the dais at this time, having had a conflict of interest on the previous project. 4. STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED AUTO SALES PARK Planning Director Bob Leiter stated that the report was provided for the Commission giving the background and current negotiations regarding the auto park. He noted it was for information only and no specific action or other recommendations were being requested. The Commissioners discussed the possibility of visiting another planned auto park. Environmental and aesthetic aspects of the project were also discussed. It was noted that the public needed more information in order for the Commission to receive positive rather than negative feedback. Mr. Leiter said that in the future, the Commission would get a formal environmental review report. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-4: CONSIDERATION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE WESTERLY SEGMENT OF RIDGEBACK ROAD TO TERRA NOVA DRIVE - City Initiated {continued from 11-8-89) Associate Planner Steve Griffin pointed out that included in the packet was a brief report on the City's street naming policy. He said that this item PC MINUTES -ll- November 29, 1989 concerned the renaming of the westerly segment of Ridgeback Road. There are presently two segments of Ridgeback Road, one off Otay Lakes Road and one near Terra Nova Plaza, thus creating some confusion and potential problems in providing services. Staff recommended that the western segment of the road by renamed to Terra Nova Drive. Commissioner Cannon asked if this was a continuation of that street. Mr. Griffin replied it was not. Commissioner Cannon noted that he would like to see from now on that we not use two different names for streets that continue as one. 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 (SHIPE/FULLER) 7-0 to adopt a motion recommending that the City Council change the name of the westerly section of Ridgeback Road to Terra Nova Drive. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-2: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEW FOR ALL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES - City Initiated Associate Planner Steve Griffin gave the background of this item and stated that the amendment before them was one excluded from previous action, although it had been recommended by the Design Review Committee, because of lack Of adequate staffing at that time to handle the potential additional workload. The amendment would include all of the remaining commercial and industrial areas under the jurisdiction of the Design Review Committee. Mr. Griffin recommended approval of the amendment as shown in Exhibit A. 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 (FULLER/CASILLAS) 7-0 to adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact the amendment contained in Exhibit A for all commercial and industrial zones. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-1: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 19.58 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT FLASHING LIGHTS - City Initiated Principal Planner Ken Lee stated that the present City ordinance prohibits flashing lights as part of the City's sign regulations. In order to legally enforce that particular aspect of the ordinance, the flashing light now has to be identified as a flashing sign. To resolve the problem, staff is proposing an ordinance amendment which would prohibit flashing lights as a separate part of the ordinance {Amendment Section 19.58.410). There would also be a change asking for the words "Christmas lights" to be shown as "holiday lights." PC MINUTES -12- November 29, 1989 Commissioner Carson asked how many businesses were now in operation with flashing lights, and if they would be notified of any change in the ordinance. Mr. Lee stated there were about six businesses, and they will be notified. 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 (CASILLAS/CARSON) 7-0 to adopt Negative Declaration IS-90-14. MSUC {TUGENBERG/FULLER) 7-0 to adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an Ordinance adding Section 19.58.410 to the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A, and changing the word "Christmas" to "holiday" in the ordinance wording itself. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter from Eula M. Brattmiller - referred to Mayor Cox for response. Commission Cannon complimented the Commission on its handling of the EastLake item. He thought the comments were very intelligently taken, very well spoken, and very impressive. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Planning Director Leiter suggested that the regular meeting of December 27 be cancelled. He also suggested the workshop on December 20 be cancelled. He reminded them of the workshop on Thursday {11/30/89) at 4:00 in the Council Conference Room. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Casillas requested information on the General Plan of cities under attack because of lack of affordable housing. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:20 p.m. to the Regular Business meeting of December 13, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. N~ncy l~i pl ~tary Planning Commission WPC 7027P