Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/01/22 Tape: 331 Side: i MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, January 22, 1992 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Decker, Martin, Tuchscher, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Casillas STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Howard, Senior Planner Griffin, Senior Planner Bazzel, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Environmental Consultant Ponseggi, Assistant Community Development Director Gustafson, Community Development Specialist Abbott, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Associate Civil Engineer Ouadah, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SH.ENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of December 18, 1991 MSUC (Decker/Martin) 6-0 (Commissioner Casillas absent) to approve the minutes of December 18, 1991, as submitted. MSUC (Carson/Decker) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Casillas because of illness. PC Minutes -2- January 22, 1992 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER, EIR-91-02 AND CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS (Continued from 1-8-92 meeting) Community Development Specialist Abbott gave the background of the project and stated the goals of the Redevelopment Agency. He said the daycare center was making substantial progress on property at the comer of Ada and Industrial directly west of the trolley station; pedestrian and traffic links would be included in the proposed design of the project; improvements to Palomar and Broadway were specified in the conclusions of the EIR with a cost of approximately $1.7 million; the linear park was not anticipated to be constructed as part of the project because the issues of high tension wires and potential negative health affects had been referred to a study scoped jointly by SDG&E and City Planning to determine the ultimate uses of all SDG&E right-of-way projects within the City; and entertainment uses were still being studied because of parking issues. Environmental Consultant Ponseggi, Project Manager for the EIR for the City, stated that on November 16, 1991, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIR. On December 16, 1991, the Southwest Project Area Committee voted to recommend certification.of the Final EIR. The Montgomery Planning Committee also met on December 16, 1991, but did not certify the EIR. Questions raised by the Committee members concerned traffic within the area, the widening and improvements of Palomar Street, and how they would ultimately be accomplished. The applicant had prepared, and the City Traffic Engineer had reviewed, a tentative plan as to how that could be done, which was available for the Commission to review. Ms. Ponseggi stated that the Final EIR contained two addenda, one which addressed the possible phasing of the project, and the other addressing school impacts. All mitigations necessary to support the development of Phase I would be accomplished during the construction of Phase I. Ms. Ponseggi recommended certification of the Final EIR for the Palomar Trolley Center, and adoption the Candidate CEQA Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Based on some of the changes regarding the school impacts, there were some changes to be made to the EIR to be entered into the record: page 5 of the Mitigation Monitoring package, references to school mitigations would be deleted; page 2-8 of the Executive Summary referencing school mitigation would be deleted; page 12 of the Mitigation Monitoring would be deleted to reflect the modification in the wording for the Addendum for the transportation mitigation at Broadway and Orange on page 10-8 of the Addendum; the Executive Summary on page 2-6 would be modified to incorporate the new wording for the Broadway/Orange intersection; the findings under Section 3, number 5, of the Candidate Findings would be modified to reflect the change in wording on 10-8 that referred to Broadway and Orange. PC Minutes -3- January 22, 1992 Commissioner Carson asked to have the graphic shown on the overhead screen for the audience. Dan Marum ofJHK & Associates, the traffic engineers on the project, explained that the graphic was a preliminary graphic which had been included in the Final EIR. He discussed the geometrics and design of the intersection and the reduced impact that the geometric configuration would have on the widening and right-of-way requirements of Palomar between Orange and Broadway. Commissioner Martin asked if the child care center would be off site, across from the train station. Community Development Specialist Abbott answered that it would be across Industrial Boulevard west of the trolley station. The daycare center itself was conceptually proposed to have duplexes developed on part of the site, and approximately 6,000 sq. ft. of building, and outdoor play space. Chair Fuller noted that even though this was not a public hearing, there were requests to speak to this item. Upon concurrence of the other Commissioners, she recognized the speakers. Lee Wheeland, 1630 Walnut Drive, Chula Vista 91911, representing the Montgomery Planning Committee, stated the Committee had voted for denial. Throughout their deliberations, they were concerned about the schools and the impact not only on the people coming into the area, but the people working there; the traffic situation--it had been a major problem and the mitigation efforts which had previously been made had not been effective; the type of businesses going in were the same as existing and they were concerned it would further blight the neighborhood when the businesses went out of business. She stated she was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if it was the intention of the Montgomery Planning Committee to not approve. By not voting to approve, were they in essence giving the Planning Commission a recommendation not to approve? Ms. Wheeland confirmed that the motion was to approve, and the Montgomery Planning Committee denied it. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the Montgomery Planning Committee had taken the Project Area Committee's information into account. Ms. Wheeland said the PAC was expressing some of the same concerns--the traffic, businesses, economics, and schools. Even though the PAC had approved the project, their information had been carried to the Montgomery Planning Committee meeting. Chair Fuller asked if it was the Committee's feeling that some other type of project should be considered for this area rather than the retail. Ms. Wheeland said they did not want more pads, more fast-foods, more pollution, etc. PC Minutes -4- January 22, 1992 Commissioner Carson said one of the alternatives in the EIR was to reduce commercial development. She asked if the Montgomery Planning Committee would lean more toward that. Ms. Wheeland stated that anytime the density could be lowered, along with the traffic problems and pollution, the Committee would definitely look at it, something more environmentally superior. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that he would like the constfltants to use the word "~ll mitigate" instead of "may be mitigated." Kate Shurson, representing Chula Vista City Schools, distributed a letter from the Superintendent, and said that the District was extremely concerned about the last-minute addendum to the Palomar Trolley Center Draft EIR which reversed the findings from significant to insignificant impacts on school facilities. Ms. Shurson stated the analysis was flawed, speculative, and contained unsubstantiated assumptions. One of the major problems facing the School District in Western Chula Vista was growth in student enrolment where there was little or no new residential development. She said fees could only be collected when new development was proposed and constructed; even if 190 new homes were built, their construction and/or participation in Mello-Roos District financing was not a condition of approval for this project and could not be guaranteed. The School District asked that the Commission reject the Addendum to the Palomar Trolley EIR and consider the original findings or cause a revised document to be prepared and circulated in conformance with CEQA regulations. She also asked that the following comments be added in the record: "CEQA Section 15164, which is cited by City staffas the authority for the Addendum, specifically states an Addendum to an EIR can be prepared if: '1. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. 2. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA.' "Several conditions from this Section 15162 have occurred, which according to CEQA, require preparation of a subsequent EIR. Substantial new information in the form of the consultant's analysis has become available along with mitigation measures not previously considered in the EIR. These mitigation measures theoretically would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment. Clearly, changing a finding of significant to insignificant is a substantial change, not a minor technical change or an addition, and it renders the addendum internally inconsistent with the EIR text. Section 15162 also requires 'If the EIR has been completed but the project has not yet been approved, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR before approving the project.' In conclusion, we believe the use of an addendum for the Palomar Trolley Center is procedurally inconsistent with CEQA, as well as contrary to the intended spirit of consultation and cooperation contained in the environmental process." PC Minutes -5- January 22, 1992 Commissioner Tugenberg asked, if the project went to Mello-Roos District financing, would it be next to an established Mello-Roos District. Ms. Shurson answered affirmatively, and stated that commercial development paid 16.67% of the rate charged residential. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if a new Mello-Roos District were established, what would be the chances of an underwriter selling the bond issue. Ms. Shurson said certificates of participation could be sold instead of the bonds themselves, which are guaranteed by the District general fund rather than by Mello-Roos property. Commissioner Decker questioned if Ms. Shurson's opinion on the procedure was an administrative opinion or if it had been considered by their legal department. Ms. Shurson said she had spoken to counsel, although it was not a legal opinion. Commissioner Decker asked if the City Attorney would respond. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated they had assisted through the process of the preparation of the Addendum, and it had been reviewed by outside special counsel on CEQA. He was satisfied that the requirements authorizing the preparation of the Addendum under the circumstances had been met, and disagreed with the judgment call. Commissioner Tuchscber asked that staff comment on Ms. Wheeland's statement about businesses in the area being hurt. Community Development Specialist Abbott replied that the questions about economic impact were brought up in both the Project Area Committee and the Montgomery Committee, and the mitigation listed in the EIR for the negative impact on businesses in the area was that the Redevelopment Agency had approval authority for any user within the project in excess of 15,000 sq. ft. Agency staff and the Redevelopment Agency were using that in order to require that the developer put into the project the kinds of uses that would have less impact on the surrounding neighborhood than would some other kind. Two users had been approved by the Redevelopment Agency--Mega Foods and Ross Clothing Stores. Commissioner Carson was concerned with the small businessmen who no longer could compete; when the building became vacant, how would the problem be solved. Mr. Abbott answered that the study identified some potential negative impact, but the impact to the existing business people was reduced sufficiently by the requirement that large users be predominant in the project, and allows the Redevelopment Agency to require that the larger regional-serving users would be the ones incorporated in the center. Staff would not recommend the kind of users that would compete directly with the smaller business people. Commissioner Carson felt the traffic mitigation was still questionable with the large clientele frequenting the larger businesses and trip generation. Dan Marum of JHK explained the methodology used in the traffic analysis, and noted that if the impact exceeded the threshold standard, there could be additional studies done at that site to require that development to mitigate those impacts. PC Minutes -6- January 22, 1992 Commissioner Martin questioned staff regarding the daycare center and use of schools in the area by other members of the family. Had there been studies? Ms. Ponseggi noted that MTDB had similar daycare centers in other areas and people dropped the children off near the trolley station, and then went on to work. Chair Fuller, referring to the letter from Dr. Vugrin of the Chula Vista School District, noted this was the first time the Superintendent himself had written the Commission a letter. She asked staff to explain again why the addendum was added to the EIR and what it says to the project in particular. Ms. Ponseggi clarified that the original EIR which had been certified for the 12-acre site had not addressed school impact because that EIR was prepared prior to the SANDAG Study, and at that time it was recognized that there was no impact. As the Candidate Findings regarding schools were being prepared, staff went back and looked at the SANDAG Study again and realized some of the assumptions taken from the SANDAG Study were not correct. Chair Fuller was concerned that the consultant and staff had apparently done the addendum without discussion with and concurrence of the School District. Ms. Ponseggi answered that John Bridges, the consultant, had extensive discussions with Ms. Shurson of the School District as to some of the assumptions he used in preparing the Addendum. Chair Fuller was concerned that after the meeting of January 8, without notice to the District, the project was continued in order to completely reverse the EIR findings regarding school impact. She asked why after significant input and public review this change was made with no notification to the agency responsible for providing school facilities. They had been advised of the addendum by phone, but the actual document had not been provided until January 21. Community Development Specialist Abbott said that they had communicated with the School District when they realized the addendum was necessary. Deputy City Manager Krempl and Community Development Director Salomone had discussed the addendum with Ms. Shurson on the phone and subsequently the District was provided the addendum as soon as possible. MSC (Tugenberg/Decker) 4-2 (Commissioners Fuller and Carson voted against; Commissioner Casillas absent) to certify the Final EIR, as amended and revised, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State of California CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. PC Minutes -7- January 22, 1992 ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-91-04 AND PCZ-91-F: CITY-INITIATED PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN FROM "RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING" TO "RETAIL COMMERCIAL," TO AMEND THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN FROM "RESEARCH AND LIMITED INDUSTRIAL" AND "OTHER" TO "MERCANTILE AND OFFICE COMMERCIAL," AND TO REZONE FROM I-L-P TO C-C-P CERTAIN 3-ACRE TERRITORY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR STREET BETWEEN BROADWAY AND THE MTDB PALOMAR TROLLEY STATION (Continued from 1-8-92 meeting) Principal Planner Howard introduced Debbie Collins of Lettieri-McIntyre & Associates who noted that the original 12 acres of the project was already designated for commercial use; however, the City Council desired an expanded 18-acre commercial project, extending easterly to Broadway and southerly to the SDG&E right-of-way. Council therefore approved the 12-acre project under the condition that Pacific Scene not pursue development of that project until they had pursued an expanded 18-acre project. The reasons for desiring an expanded project was to provide for comprehensive planning of the area, and to provide additional sales tax and tax increment generation from the project. The 3 acres located to the south of the 12-acre project required a plan amendment and rezone. Without the proposed action, there would be a 3-acre landlocked parcel of industrial and institutional uses lacking street frontage and landlocked by the surrounding commercial development. This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Nancy Palmer, representing the Montgomery Planning Committee, was available to answer questions. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff if the discretionary action required the project to come back before the Planning Commission. Ms. Collins answered negatively. The action before the Commission was only for the 3 acres; the original 12-acre project already had the plan amendments and rezonings approved. The additional discretionary action remaining for the project would be required to go through Design Review, and the EIR addressed some of the design issues. The Owner Participation Agreement would go to the Redevelopment Agency. MSC (Decker/Tugenberg) 5-1 (Commissioner Carson voted against; Commissioner Casillas absen0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring Program. MSC (Decker/Tugenberg) 5-1 (Commissioner Carson voted against; Commissioner Casillas absen0 to recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution to amend the General Plan by redesignating the 3 acres depicted in Exhibit A from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Retail Commercial." PC Minutes -8- January 22, 1992 MSC (Decker/Tugenberg) 5-1 (Commissioner Carson voted against; Commissioner Casillas absent) to recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution to amend the Montgomery Specific Plan by redesignating the 3 acres depicted in Exhibit B from "Research and Limited Industrial" and "Other" to "Mercantile and Office Commercial." MSC (Decker/Tugenberg) 5-1 (Commissioner Carson voted against; Commissioner Casillas absen0 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to change the zoning classification from "I-L-P" to "C-C-P" for the 3 acres depicted in Exhibit C, including adoption of the Supplemental Findings for the application of the P Modifier. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-91-03, SALT CREEK RANCH SPA Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that this document focused on the impacts directly associated with the consideration of the SPA Plan and the more precise nature of the project in the description. The City of Chula Vista is the Icad agency on the project, and the staff report listed several other responsible agencies in the process. The document had been circulated to the State Clearinghouse; however, they did not start their 45-day review period in a timely fashion. State law requires that our local review period extend beyond that of the Clearinghouse and yet the Clearinghouse review period extended beyond the date of this hearing. Mr. Reid asked that the hearing be continued until February 12; however, the continuance would focus only on additional comments from the State Clearinghouse. Mr. Reid then turned the presentation over to Senior Planner Bazzel, the project manager on the SPA Plan. Mr. Bazzel, using overhead projection, gave the location and land uses of the project. He noted that the project was bisected by East "H" Street (presently Proctor Valley Road) which extended through the property and up through Proctor Valley, and also bisected by the Salt Creek drainage corridor in a north/south direction. Mr. Bazzel showed the areas to be developed and uses and densities projected for the areas, noting the open space areas. He introduced Julie McCall from Ogden, who presented the environmental impact analysis. Ms. McCall stated the supplemental environmental impact analysis included further update or detailed analysis of land use, landform aesthetics, hydrology, water quality, biological resources, cultural resources, transportation and circulation, noise, public services for water and wastewater only, and three off-site areas of impact for facilities such as water lines and sewer lines. She went into further detail on each of those issues, noting the areas of impact to habitat areas. Ms. McCall stated that in order to construct additional units up to full build-out of Salt Creek Ranch, the implementation of a four-lane interim SR-125 would be required. Since there are additional development projects currently proposed, at various stages of review, staff recommended that tentative subdivision map approval or other discretionary approvals which result in additional allocation of pre SR-125 circulation capacity, beyond approved projects, be deferred until results of the City-sponsored financing studies for SR-125 are complete and the City Council has approved an allocation program for the pre SR-125 capacity. PC Minutes -9- January 22, 1992 Regarding water, Ms. McCall stated the direct impacts to water could be adequately offset by the mitigation measures discussed in Section 3.9 of the EIR; however, regional cumulative water supply impacts could be slightly reduced by water conservation measures, but not to a level of below significance. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that letters which had been forwarded to the Commissioners during the previous week would be responded to in the Final EIR. He stated also that the Resource Conservation Commission had reviewed the Supplemental EIR and had recommended its certification with one stipulation. They had a question regarding the City's noise ordinance establishing a 55 dBA limit in residential R-1 zones and the fact that the report was analyzing a 65 dBA. This would be clarified for the RCC. Pursuant to Commissioner Carson's request, Mr. Bazzel pointed out the location of the Pyramid Company property. Commissioner Carson asked if staff had any information as to when the off-site wildlife corridor would be a reality. Mr. Reid answered that the study was partially complete; the next phase of the study would include the Proctor Valley area. He felt there should be a resolution within the next six months. Commissioner Carson, referring to page 2-6 regarding acreage for residential units and neighborhood parks, said she would like to have inserted the amount of acreage for natural open space. At Commissioner Carson's request, referring to page 2-11, table 2-2, Mr. Bazzel stated staff would analyze and correct the figures in the Final EIR. Commissioner Tuchscher, referring to page 3-21: grading; there was a statement that the grading plan proposes to avoid manufactured slopes in excess of 30 feet in height; there was no similar statement for subarea 2 or subarea 3. He asked if similar statements could also be put into subareas 2 and 3. Mr. Bazzel answered affirmatively. Commissioner Tugenberg, referring to page 1-8, asked if the riparian habitat enhancement was off-site or on-site. Ms. McCall answered that it was on-site. Commissioner Tugenberg commented on page 2-17, stating that he would move to condition the SPA Plan when it comes before the Commission that parts of subarea 3 be developed simultaneously with subarea 1--developing some large lots simultaneously with small lots. Commissioner Tugenberg stated also that in certain areas of subarea 3, the lot encroached on the General Development line. He had no objection to the encroachment of the lot, but objected to the encroachment of the line with the pad. Subarea 3 gave an opportunity to have a variety of architecture. PC Minutes -10- January 22, 1992 Commissioner Tugenberg, referring to page 3-17, asked about the contour grading. Mr. Bazzel answered that this was the concept the City of Chula Vista would require, but it was not readily seen in the Eastern Territories. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the rural community look would be implemented in subarea 3. He also stated that page 3-20 showed suggested fences which he felt were inadequate for a rural area atmosphere. Regarding neighborhood 13, he had no objection to the lot line exceeding the GDP line, but objected to the grading line exceeding the GDP line, and thought that by the reduction of two or three units, it could be achieved in neighborhood 13. Regarding reclaimed water, Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there would be enough water to fill the pipes to use the increased facilities supplied by the Otay Water District. Mr. Reid said they would have to respond to that on a short-term basis; however, on a longer-term basis, there is a reclamation facility proposed for the Otay River Valley near Harvest Road. The thought was to pump reclaimed water back up the valley into Otay Ranch and the Salt Creek Ranch. Commissioner Decker, referring to Table 2-2, asked if the acreage included the whole natural habitat area. Mr. Reid answered affirmatively. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Tim Wilson, 1293877 Carmel Creek Road, San Diego, representing Watson Land ownership, read a letter he submitted to the Commission. He objected to the access proposed by the Baldwin plan which he felt was inadequate to serve the Watson McCoy parcel, as well as the other smaller ownerships in the north, west and east. He said they were currently planning 165 estate lots on their land and two access points would be needed to provide easy access for the large Pyramid parcel to the north as well as to theirs. Commissioner Tugenberg asked what percentage of the Watson McCoy property had slopes in excess of 25% grade. Mr. Wilson answered 15%; most of the property was almost flat. Samlr Ghattas, 5203 Jackson, F205, La Mesa 92041, representing The Pyramids, Inc., was also concerned with access, and also gave the Commission a handout. He said the access depicted on the north property line failed to give proper access. To go west from the access point to serve their property and nine other property owners, the slope would be 33%; and they would have to cross a major creek running north and south. Mr. Ghattas stated they had an easement running from Proctor Valley through the L-12 neighborhood property which had been researched but has to be determined and designed by a land surveyor and agreed to by all parties. They were willing to meet with City representatives and Baldwin to determine the property access to the Pyramids, as well as to the other properties who would depend on the Pyramids for access. The proposed easement would not provide access. Also, Figures 1-1, 2-6, 3-1, 3-7 and 5-3 were depicted as open space; it should be depicted as vacant land. He asked about the flow of traffic from the northerly properties; how was the road designed and to what capacity; how was their property designated. The Pyramids only had 30 acres of less than 25 % PC Minutes -11~ January 22, 1992 slope on their property. They intended to leave 156 acres in open space and develop only 30 acres which had less than 25 % slope. Mike Roark, 4555 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita, owner of West Wind Arabian, said he had come to truly enjoy the benefits and privileges of a rural lifestyle in a community he called the Sunnyside Ranch Equestrian Community. One of the other areas that the City of Chula Vista has made a commitment to is connecting Bonita Valley and Otay Valley via a wild animal corridor or greenbelt corridor. This particular plan has narrowed the corridor and it was not wide enough for wildlife. He liked the quality of Baldwin's development; and felt they were an asset to any community and felt they should be encouraged in continued development of the area. He felt horse trails should be continued at least 40 feet wide on the north side of Proctor Valley Road. He asked staff if the trails in area 3 were riding or hiking trails. Senior Planner Bazzel answered that the original proposal was to have equestrian trails in the eastern subarea. Staff, however, would rather concentrate on the greenbelt corridor. Mr. Roark pointed out that it had been his experience in a rural area that they were a buffer between their homes and wildlife and the natural environmental. He encouraged staff to make the lots large enough to have horses and larger homes, and the benefit of having an environment that was desirable. There should be a minimum of 1 acre up to 2. He discussed the envelope concept for development which would protect wildlife during construction. Don Jensen, 3655 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita, complained about the heavy construction traffic that used Proctor Valley Road as a shortcut. He said it was very detrimental to horse riders. He also said a sewer line had just been installed in Proctor Valley Road, and it had taken the residents over six weeks to clean up after the construction people had left. No one else wishing to speak, this portion of the public hearing was closed, but continued to the meeting of February 12, 1992, for the purpose of receiving comments from the State Clearinghouse. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that he would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issue regarding sidewalks in estate housing areas and the requirement and need for those perhaps at some future workshop meeting, or he would meet individually with staff--specifically regarding Subarea 3 in this project and the northern part of San Miguel Ranch. From a character standpoint, he felt Mr. Roark had made a good point regarding that issue. PC Minutes -12- January 22, 1997. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Director of Planning reminded the Commissioners about the Special Business Meeting to be held on February 5, which would include the San Miguel EIR. The following Saturday, February 8, a field trip to the Kaiser facility in Riverside was planned. The next Regular Business Meeting would be held February 12. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Commissioner Decker asked if there was money in the budget to have one or more Commissioners attend some one-day seminars. Mr. Lee answered that the money in the budget was set up for two Planning Commissioners to attend a conference. He indicated staff could review the monies with the Commission and what they were set up for, and the Commission could pursue other alternatives if desired. ADJOURNMENT at 9:22 p.m. to the Special Meeting of February 5, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ¢ Nahcy Riple4J, SeCretary Planning Commission