Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/10/19 MINUTES OF A CONTINUED BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building Monday, October 19, 1992 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Decker, Commissioners Carson, Fuller, Martin, Ray, and Tuchscher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Howard, Associate Planner Reid, Associate Planner Miller, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Decker and was followed by a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS The Chair noted that the meeting of October 14, 1992, was called for lack of quorum and continued to this date. Chair Decker reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: HISTORIC DISTRICT STUDY - HEARING ON ALTERNATIVES PCM-88-08 - Applicant: City of Chula Vista MSUC (Carson/Fuller) 6-0 to continue PCM-88-08 to November 18, 1992. ITEM2: PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-93-01, PCM-92-16, PCS-92-05, PCS-93-0i: CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, EL RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMERCIAL CENTER AMENDMENT, AND PC Minutes -2- October 19, 1992 RANCHO DEL REY SPA I PLAN AMENDMENT; PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT, RDR EMPLOYMENT PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES AMENDMENT; TENTATIVE MAPS CHULA VISTA TRACTS 92-05 AND 93-01; AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN; WATER CONSERVATION PLAN; PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN; DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT; CEQA FINDINGS, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IT/aM 6: GPA-92-02; pCZ-93-B AND PCM-93-03 - REQUEST TO 1) AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN FROM "VISITOR COMMERCIAL" TO "RETAIL COMMERCIAL"; 2) REZONE FROM C-V-P AND A-8 TO C-C; AND, 3) ADOPT A SPECIFIC PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS "BONITA GATEWAY" FOR 2.23 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF BONITA ROAD AND 1-805 ~ Robinson Pacific, Inc. MSUC (Martin/Tuchscher) 6-0 to continue items 2 and 6 to October 28, 1992. Chair Decker requested that Items 7 and 8 be considered out of order. ITEM 7: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-92-03 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHAMPIONSHIP CLASSICS I, CHULA VISTA TRACT PCS-92-03 - Cottage Industry ITEM 8: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-92-04 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHAMPIONSHIP CLASSICS II, CHULA VISTA TRACT PCS-92-04 - Cottage Industry Associate Planner Miller requested that both items be heard simultaneously. Upon concurrence of the Commission, he presented the staff report. Based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report and Planning Commission Resolution PCS-92-03, PCS-92-04, and Draft City Council resolutions for subject tentative subdivision maps pertaining to the General Plan, Subdivision Map Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act, staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval by the City Council of both tentative subdivision maps for Championship Classics I (PCS-92-03) and Championship Classics II (PCS-92-04) subject to the conditions enumerated in the Council resolution. He noted that approval of a water conservation plan and air quality plan was being required for Championship Classics II (PCS-92-04) prior to being heard by the City Council. Commissioner Carson asked for clarification as to why this project would have private streets rather than public. Assistant planning Director Lee replied that this was basically a condominium development with small dwelling units (approximately 10 per acre) and there were no individual lot lines. Guest parking was to be in parking bays; it was not a typical street PC Minutes -3- October 19, 1992 section where public streets would be providing parlrng; would be maintained by homeowners association; easily distinguished at the entry way as a private, gated community. Commissioner Carson asked why the water conservation plan was not to be required for Championship Classics I. Assistant Planning Director Lee said both would be subject to that program. Commissioner Carson questioned whether schools had been dealt with. Mr. Lee said they were included in the Mello-Roos District. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. David G. Gutlerrez, 209 Avenida Del Mar, San Clemente 92672, the applicant, was available for questions. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Martin/Ray) 6-0 based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report, recommend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Championship Classics I, Chula Vista Tract PCS-92-03, subject to conditions 1 through 32. MSUC (Martin/Ray) 6-0 based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report, reconunend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Championship Classics II, Chula Vista Tract PCS-92-04, subject to conditions I through 34. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf asked that, for the record, the Commission consider and make a motion finding that the Environmental Review Coordinator had reviewed the previous environmental documents with regard to this project, and that no further environmental document is required. MSC (Tuchscher/Martin) 5-1 (Carson against) that the Planning Commission find that the project as a later activity to that evaluated in the program EIR-81-03, FSEIR-86-04, and the Negative Declaration for IS-92-04 would have no new effects that were not examined in the preceding documents. MSC (Ray/Decker) 5-1 (Carson against) to recommend that the City Council approve a tentative subdivision map, PCS-92-03, known as Championship Classics I for 5.1 acres at the southeast quadrant of EastLake Parkway and Greensgate Drive, and recommend making the necessary findings and readopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations, inclusive of items "a" through "d" on Resolution PCS-92-03. Commissioner Carson stated that she had nothing against the project, but as a matter of principle she was voting against because she got the information late and did not have time to study it. PC Minutes -4- October 19, 1992 Commissioner Tuchscher was voting for the project in order to not hold up the applicant, but put staff on notice that in the future he would follow Commissioner Carson's lead. MSC (Fuller/Ray) $-1 (Carson against) to reconunend that the City Council approve a tentative subdivision map, PCS-92-04~ known as Championship Classics II for 7.9 acres at the southeast quadrant of EastLake Parkway and Clubhouse Drive, and recommend making the necessary findings and readopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations~ inclusive of items '~a~ through '~d' on Resolution PCS-92-04. ITEM 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-90-02, RANCHO SAN MIGUEL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (continued from September 30, 1992 meeting) ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-19, PCZ-90-M: CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED COMMUNITY PRE- ZONE FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH, LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, WEST AND SOUTH OF MOTHER MIGUEL MOUNTAIN AND NORTHEAST OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD - San Miguel Partners (continued from September 30, 1992 meeting) ITEM 5. CONSIDERATION OF CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH EIR-90-02 (continued from September 30, 1992 meeting) MSUC (Martin/Ray) 5-0 to excuse Commissioner Tuchscher from voting because of perceived conflict of interest. principal Planner Howard presented the staff report, and noted the item had been continued from the meeting of September 30, 1992 on the issue of biology, involving the biological impacts of the development on the northern parcel to the project, and that the Commission had directed staff to work with the applicant and the Wildlife Agencies on an acceptable mitigation plan for the impacts to the northern parcel. The summary of the agreed upon revisions were as follows: 1) a stronger commitment on the part of the applicant and the project to the State Natural Communities Conservation Program in an attempt to provide a comprehensive look at preservation of rare and endangered native flora and fauna throughout the south part of the County; the only exit of the program by the applicant was if the program did not succeed and the City Council agreed to applicant leaving the program; 2) to strongly commit the applicant to the NCCP results, which may preclude development on the property if they find the area in the northern parcel is an extremely sensitive wildlife area that needs to be preserved, or may allow development if the area is found not to be a strategic or sensitive area as is believed at this PC Minutes -5- October 19, 1992 point by wildlife agencies; 3) set up minimum mitigation standards, which could be made higher, for a mitigation plan that would be put into place if the NCCP is not implemented on this property, subject to a supplemental EIR which would be prepared at the time of the preparation of a SPA plan. Mr. Howard noted that letters had been received from the State Department of Fish & Game, and the Endangered Habitats League. principal Planner Howard stated that the Commission had received letters from Mr. Michael Roark and the Sweetwater Planning Group which stated that the Chula Vista General Plan adopted the County Sweetwater Community Plan by reference in our General Plan, and this project did not meet the criteria stated in that General Plan for development of this property. Mr. Howard said a reference was included in our General Plan under the Sweetwater Area Plan Section; however, according to our General Plan, the San Miguel Ranch project is not within the Sweetwater Area Plan but is within the Eastern Territories Area Plan which is covered by the Chula Vista policies relating to the Eastern Territories and not the Sweetwater Plan. Commissioner Fuller asked if the determination that this project was part of the Eastern Territories rather than the Sweetwater Plan was staff's determination or a legal opinion. Mr. Howard answered that it was a staff interpretation based on the chapter regarding the Sweetwater Area Plan, and a map included in the Land Use Element which shows this project in the Eastern Territories Area Plan. Staff had conferred with the City Attorney, who also felt it was a reasonable interpretation that it was the Council's intent, when adopting the General Plan in 1989, to adopt the County's Sweetwater Community Plan only for the area that the City included in the Chula Vista Sweetwater Area Plan. Those areas were not coterminous; they exclude the San Miguel Ranch and other properties in the far eastern area of the County's Sweetwater Plan which are in Chula Vista's Eastern Territories Plan. Commissioner Carson stated, for the record, that she had been absent from the previous meeting at which this item was heard, but she had listened to all the tapes and read all the materials provided to her. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Michael J. Roark, 3645 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita, attorney for the owners at 3645 and 3655 Proctor Valley Road and Jensen's Kennels, and representing the Sunnyside Ranch Equestrian Community, said they were not opposed to the project. However, he believed the EIR was a very narrow document for the study of the environment; very strong on wildlife habitat and biological plants located on the plan. The EIR prevents the developer from developing the northern plan until 1994, if there is an NCCP. The EIR, the GDP, and the zoning did not consider the County's General Plan. He believed, however, by working together with the surrounding property owners, the property could be developed. -6- October 19, 1992 PC Minutes Eugene J. Spofera, 3311 Fairway Drive, La Mesa, CA 91941, was concerned with the EMi~ transmissions. He stated that he was putting the Commission on "public notice of liability which was non-transferable to others, and anything that arose with the project that related to EMF." He said Dr. Morgan's 1989 Sti~dy stated "Don't err on the side of doubt." This project was not compatible with the Sweetwater Planning Community Plan and there would be traffic, flood control, and sewerage impacts on the area. It would also impact the viewshed and watershed. What would be done to mitigate the loss of water going to the Sweetwater Reservoir? Don Rose, 101 Ash St., San Diego, representing SDG&E, said SDG&E was concerned with the design of the project as proposed--land use compatibility. The sub-station in that area was the major sub-station on their system, supplying over half the citizens of the San Diego region, and would have to expand as the region grows. If people live as close to the sub-station as was being proposed, they would object to the additions to the sub-station, the louder noise it would create, the greater visual impacts, in addition to the current fears of the potential of health effects. He felt the mitigation proposed in the EIR was insufficient. SDG&E was concerned about the Gnatcatcher habitat on the north side of the sub-station, and the potential socio- economic impact of emergency listing of the Gnatcatcher. If the Gnatcatcher was listed, all development of Southern California would be on hold indefinitely. That should be addressed in the EIR. He asked the Commission if the residential development existed first, and SDG&E came before them with plans for 45 acres of sub-station hardware, what their reaction would be. Commissioner Martin asked if, with modern technology, Mr. Rose saw in the foreseeable future, possibly in the next 10 years, the elimination of transformers as we know them. Mr. Rose said the transformers would occur regarding sound reduction, but the A-frames on the incoming towers would not be eliminated. Because of the heat in the higher voltages, it was difficult to underground the lines. SDG&E would be undergrounding their first 138 volt lines in 1994. With future superconductivity, with no resistance and no heat, they should be able to underground them in the future, but Mr. Rose guessed that would not happen during the next 30 years. Commissioner Martin questioned SDG&E's position on the EMF. Mr. Rose said they did not know; they agreed with the scientific community that it was something that needed to be determined; there had been no correlation between the magnetic fields and health effects. Commissioner Martin asked if SDG&E had approved a park underneath transmission lines, right-of-way, or easement since 1989. Mr. Rose replied that they had approved use of their rights-of-way for trails, but he did not believe an active park had been approved. Chair Decker asked if the regulatory group for the electrical producers had ever funded a study for EMF. Mr. Rose said the Edison Electric Institute had funded several studies. He noted that the utilities had given a great deal of money to the California PUC, who had not released their conclusions. -7- October 19, 1992 PC Minutes Toni Ingrassia, 4463 Acacia Avenue, Bonita 91902, representing the Sweetwater Community Planning Group, said they were very concerned that in the Final EIR, the majority of the problems that adversely affect their community could not be mitigated without a redesign of the project. It was incompatible with their community which would be severely impacted due to the project's density, the massive grading, the manufactured slopes, the destruction of significant landforms, and the loss of sensitive biological resources. They were also concerned with traffic circulation and the drainage plan. Staff had failed to consider the Sweetwater Community Plan as an integral part of the analysis. The EIR should be denied and returned to the applicant for a redesign to address those concerns. Nonna Sullivan, 5858 Scripps St., San Diego 92122, representing the San Diego Audubon Society, said it was an extremely critical habitat that would be impacted negatively, and the mitigation was insufficient. The inhabitants of the Coastal Sage Scrub do not survive on 10-15 acre plots next to homes and needed the large corridors. The Gnatcatcher would be listed soon, if not by the State of California, by the Federal Government. She felt this project would kick off an emergency listing. She suggested that the Commission deny the project and refer it back to the applicant for redesign. Regarding EMF, she recommended that the Commission read the book authored by Paul Brodeur; she felt there was a very real danger in living near the transmission lines, particularly on children. Commissioner Martin asked if the Audubon Society took into consideration the fowl from south of the Border. Ms. Sullivan answered that it was a different species, which was also under threat from development. Kenneth Weaver, 1113 Senwood Way, Fallbrook 92028, representing the Endangered Habitats League, said they believed the preservation of the entire north parcel was essential for a South County multi-species reserve. They recommended approval of the environmentally preferred alternative, which placed those lands in permanent open space. There were some positive features regarding the Second Addendum. David Nairne, 950-4350 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, 92122, representing the applicant, said in the northern parcel, approximately 1630 acres would be open space. The program was worked out in conjunction and with the concurrence of the Fish & Wildlife and Fish & Game, and would not require an emergency listing of the Gnatcatcher. The plan for the north involves the creation of a baseline, a minimum level of standards which has to be met, and the developer acknowledged that these baselines are not recognized as being the ceilings. The plan specifically provides that other standards may be required, and those standards could be determined either through the NCCP Program or through the subsequent environmental process which would be needed on the north. Commissioner Ray was concerned that SR-125 was not a fact; it had not been funded; he did not feel it would become a mitigation until the road was built. If it was not tangible, in place, how could it be considered a mitigation. -8- October 19, 1992 PC Minutes Mr. Nairne said the condition to their project was that the traffic study would be included as part of the next phase of analysis. This mitigation was to cover a technical concern that staff had with the General Plan. Commissioner Ray was struggling with the subsequent environmental impacts because of traffic concerns and traffic patterns that would be changed if some of these mitigations did not occur- not only. with this project, but also with others. Mr. Nairne stated at this level of review, there were assumptions made as to traffic. One of the assumptions had to do with the potential existence of SR-125 over time. Their project was being conditioned for a full traffic study being undertaken before getting to SPA to study the feasibility and likelihood of SR-125 being in place. Commissioner Ray asked staff to make an assumption that SR-125 never would happen, and if they would be comfortable recommending approval of both the mitigation program and the EIR. Principal Planner Howard replied that the EIR was based upon the eventual construction of SR- 125. If SR-125 was never constructed, any subsequent review of the project would take that into account, and there would be a significant change in the project at a subsequent level. Given the assumption that SR-125 would eventually go through, they could go forward with the plan and the EIR at this level. If SR-125 was not built, at the next level of review there would be a very different project. Commissioner Ray was concerned that even at the next level they would be working on the assumption that SR-125 would be built. He did not feel comfortable with that assumption and using that as a mitigation for a significant impact. Commissioner Ray, regarding parks, recreation, and open space, page 42, items 1 through 14, said that several items referred to how to protect the trail system basically in the open space from any further impacts. Where was the protection, physically, for the environment that someone would not intrude into the open space. What more could be done to mitigate this circumstance. Mr. Nairne agreed that it was a problem; there was very little that could be done to keep people on the paths throughout the project. They had tried to make enough trails on the property to satisfy people to stay on the trails. They would work with Parks & Recreation to meet the policies created by the City, and abide by them. planning Director Leiter added that the City, through the Parks & Recreation and Planning Departments, would be developing a master plan and more specific design guidelines and operational guidelines for this trail system. They would be looking at issues of maintenance, vandalism, etc. and trying to develop specific guidelines that would apply to the entire system. That would then tie into developers' plans at the SPA level. This would be developed separate from this project. -9- October 19, 1992 PC Minutes Chair Decker asked how much of the open space was contiguous. Mr. Nairne answered that there was one contiguous open space area which would constitute over 1500 acres. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Principal Planner Howard clarified that, regarding the recommendation of the Department of Fish & Game, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Endangered Habitat League, their first choice would be the preservation of the northern parcel as open space at this time. Commissioner Decker moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that they approve the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan as stated. Motion died for lack of second. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf suggested the PC first consider the Final EIR, and make the findings regarding the content. He suggested they vote on item 1, page 3. Commissioner Ray did not feel comfortable that the EIR was adequate because of the assumption that SR-125 would be built. The mitigation circumstance is not a fact; this was not something tangible he could count on, but was used as a mitigation. The City has no control over SR-125. Things are not in our control that are specific to the project for a mitigation. Commissioner Martin asked the status of SR-125. Mr. Leiter stated that California Transportation Ventures and CaiTrans were preparing an environmental impact report for a proposed SR-125 toll road. The process would take approximately two years to complete. Following that, there would be a hearing process with CalTrans to make a final decision on the routing of the facility and the various financial and other implementation. The final decisions would probably made in approximately three years. Commissioner Ray noted it was still in the review process; pending other approvals; that was his concern with SR-125--that it may not be funded before the year 2010 or 2020. Commissioner Decker noted that if it was a toll road, the State would not have any monies involved; it would be not be incumbent on the citizens to finance it, except for those using it. He also pointed out that we do not know the availability of water. MS (Fuller/Martin) to adopt the Final Environmental Impact Report, San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan EIR-90-02. Commissioner Fuller was concerned about approval of the environmental review report because of the second addendum, which had included findings that she could not agree with at the last meeting, which included land use issues, transportation circulation access which had not been addressed adequately. Since the second addendum also changed findings in the CEQA findings -10- October 19, 1992 PC Minutes to present what staff felt was Planning Commission's approval of those areas--and she didn't agree--she would vote in opposition to approval. Commissioner Carson echoed Commissioner Fuller, but was also concerned about the wildlife and habitat; that it had not been addressed in enough depth. She believed that the entire northern parcel should be left open. Commissioner Martin did not like the second addendum. Voting against. Commissioner Ray said his concern with SR-125 was not necessarily that SR-125 was the cure- all; it is the affect if SR-125 does not go through, it included anything having to do with SR-125 (which had been brought up by Sweetwater Planning Group, and by other speakers on projects such as Otay Ranch, Salt Creek, and others affected by the mitigation). Commissioner Fuller added she was also concerned with the assumption that the project had made that they would get a County General Plan amendment in order to revise the circulation for this project. That had not been done. VOTE: 1-4 (Decker voted for; Martin, Fuller, Carson and Ray voted against) MOTION FAILED Commissioner Ray stated that the type of project being proposed was best for the community and he appreciated the quality of work and the type of product being proposed with the larger lot sizes, and working with the Commission. Thought the project itself had a lot of very strong merits, but could not accept the EIR itself. Rich Rudolf suggested the Commission take action on the project, also, so the applicant could appeal to the Council if he desired. Commissioner Carson asked if the project could not go to City Council, as is. The attorney wanted to make the record clear in case there was any ambiguity in anybody's mind that the planning Commission had not considered the project itself. If the applicant wished to appeal both and have the opportunity to have the Council find in favor of adequacy of the EIR and in favor of the project, they both need to be before the Council, and the appeal of the project itself could not take place until the PC actually rejected it. Commissioner Ray stated that if the EIR had in his mind sufficiently come up with alternative mitigations to SR-125, he would have voted for it. The EIR had to be in response to whatever is being proposed, but he did not think the project itself had to be changed in order to change the mitigation. There were other transportation and circulation options. He felt to be consistent he would have to vote against the project, although he thought the project had its merits; and if someone had just asked him about the project, regardless of what the EIR stated, he would have voted for it. -11- October 19, 1992 PC Minutes Upon Commissioner Carson's query, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf explained that the General Plan consistency issue concerned both the CEQA and the project. He advised the proponent that in his view, if no action was taken by the PC with regard to the project itself, the only thing that would be before the Council would be the proponent's determination of adequacy of the CEQA document, with which the Council could agree or disagree. If the Council disagreed, it would have to come back to the Commission for action with regard to the project. MS (Fuller/Ray) to deny the General Development Plan and Community PC zone, with findings as stated, based on the inadequacies of the CEQA document or EIR. Commissioner Martin asked to hear from the applicant. David Nairne said he would like the vote to be taken, so they could appeal to City Council. Chair Decker clarified that if the Commissioners wanted to deny, they would vote in favor. To approve, they would vote against. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION: To deny the General Development Plan and Planned Community Zone, based on the inadequacies of the EIR. VOTE: 4-1 (Martin, Fuller, Carson, Ray voted in favor; Decker voted against) DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Planning Director Leiter asked the planning Commission to review the proposed meeting dates, which would be discussed with the Commission at their next meeting. ~OMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: Commissioner Carson asked that a letter which the Commission had received from Councilman Malcolm regarding quarterly meetings with the Councilmembers prior to Commission meetings be included on the meeting agenda for October 28, 1992. Chair Decker read into the record his resignation from the Planning Commission effective October 20, 1992. Chair Decker suggested that the Commission rotate an ex officio member to the City Council to be present at the Council meetings for communication purposes when reviewing EIRs. Chair Decker also suggested that Commissioner Fuller be appointed as the interim Chairperson until the next meeting, when an election could be on the agenda. -12- October 19, 1992 PC Minutes Assistant City Attorney stated that, under the Brown Act, since Chair Decker's resignation would be effective the next day it caused the need for the Planning Commission to have either an acting Chair or Vice-Chair. The need did not arrive until after the agenda had been prepared for the current meeting, so legitimately the subject of an acting Chairperson for the Commission would be a proper item for the Commission to consider as an off-agenda item. The Commission needed to make a finding that the need to take action arose after the formation of the agenda for this meeting, and then vote on a selection of a member to act in that capacity. MSUC (Decker/Carson) 5-0 that the Commission make a finding that due to contingencies beyond their control, with the Chairperson's resignation occurring that night, the Commission had no further recourse than to elect an official to lead the meetings. MSUC (Decker/Carson) 5-0 that Commissioner Fuller be elected interim Chairperson and Commissioner Martin as interim Vice-Chair for the remainder of the fiscal year. Commissioner Martin asked that delivery of materials at the dais be discontinued. It confused the issues. Commissioner Carson said all they had to do was to say "no." ADJOURNMENT AT 9:45 p.m. to the Joint Planning Commission meeting of Friday, October 23, 1992, at the County, and the Regular planning Commission meeting of Wednesday, October 28, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. I~ancy Ri~ley, Sec~tary Planning Commission