Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1993/08/25 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, August 25, 1993 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Martin, Commissioners Moot, Ray (7:05), Salas, Tarantino, and Tuchscher (7:08) COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Fuller (excused) STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Associate Planner Herrera-A, Assistant Planner Fry, Environmental Review Coordinator Miller, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf MSUC (Moot/Tarantino) 4-0 to excuse Commissioner Fuller because of illness (Commissioners Ray and Tuehseher not yet arrived) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Martin, followed by a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Martin reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Moot/Tarantino) 4-0 to approve the Chula Vista Planning Commission minutes of July 14, 1993, and the Joint City of Chula Vista/County of San Diego Planning Commission Public Hearing/Workshop minutes of January 15, January 27, April 22 and May 13, 1993, as submitted. OPAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- August 25, 1993 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-94-01, PCZ-94-A; CITY-INITIATED PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY PARK WAY, "G" STREET, FIFTH AVENUE, AND BROADWAY, TO RESOLVE GENERAL PLAN/ZONING INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN THE CENTRAL CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY. Associate Planner Herrera-A presented the staff report, noting that a public forum had been held on May 13, 1993, where many of the property owners in attendance had expressed their desire to retain the existing R-3 zoning. Staff recommended that the existing R-3 Multiple Family Residential zoning (32 du/ac) should be changed to R-3-P22 (Multiple Family Residential zoning - 22 du/ac) and the existing General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (6-11 du/ac) should be changed to Medium-High Density Residential (11-18 du/ac) for Subarea B-4G. Commissioner Ray asked if because of a single property owner's request this rezone request was initiated. Mr. Herrera concurred. Comanissioner Ray asked if the issues involving the schools had been resolved; the letters from the School District indicated they had not, and that was Council's reason for not going forward with this initially. Mr. Herrera replied that the property owner had requested that the Council re-initiate the zoning consistency study. At the time it had gone before Council, stuff was still in process of negotiating with the School Districts regarding the special study to be conducted. Council was aware of the SourcePoint Study and it would be brought before them for their review and consideration at a later date. Staff had direction from Council to proceed with this rezoning. Commissioner Ray asked if the property owner had something pending with the City that required resolution of this matter. Mr. Herrera said the property owner was considering development of his property and felt that, having waited over a year, he should be able to proceed with his proposal. Commissioner Moot, regarding Sub-Area B-4G, questioned the recommendation to change the area from Medium Density Residential (16-11 du/ac) to Medium High (11-18); in another section of the report, the same area B-4G was changed from R-3 Multiple Family (32 du/ac) to R-3-P22 (22 du/ac). Mr. Herrera explained that the first was a General Plan redesignation (6-11 to 11-18 du/ac); the other was a rezoning action which would change it from R-3 (32 du/ac) to R-3-P (22 du/ac). Assistant Planning Director Lee clarified the difference. The rezoning to R- 3-P22 was consistent with the General Plan designation of the 11-18 range. Commissioner Tarantino asked when the SourcePoint Study would be completed. Mr. Herrera said the Study had not been initiated; staff was negotiating with the Chula Vista Elementary School District regarding what the SourcePoint Study would contain and what conclusion it would make. When the negotiation was completed, staff would go before Council with a report asking them for direction to proceed with the Study. PC Minutes -3- August 25, 1993 Commissioner Tarantino asked if property owners did not keep bringing this up to Council, would the completion of the Study be a burning issue. Mr. Herrera replied the Study would be conducted; it was a matter of addressing some of the issues still pending with the School District regarding the content of the SourcePoint Study and how it would address some of the issues pending regarding the mitigation for school facilities. Commissioner Tarantino surmised that the School Districts were asking for more than the annexation of the property owners who would completely demolish and rebuild into the generic community facilities district. Mr. Herrera concurred. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dan Roy Zendejas, 448 Smoky Circle, CV 91910, speaking on his own behalf and on behalf of his parents Bulmaro and Victoria Zendejas, 536 Park Way, and his uncle Alfonzo Zendejas, 580 Park Way, was opposed to the rezoning. He said they were ready to develop their property but had been delayed for years. They had not addressed the issue, but had been waiting for the City to bring up the issue and resolve this matter. They disagreed with staff's recommendation and felt they were being downzoned. There was no incentive for them to build. Lupe Garcias, 516 Madrona Street, CV 91910, opposed the rezoning. She was a single-family property owner, with apartments on the south and east sides of her property. She felt the property would not be maintained, as the property on the south side of her home had not been maintained. She needed to replace her fence, but to do so, she would have to build a retaining wall because of the erosion. The apartments on the east side had subterranean parking with apartments on top which shadowed her house. She felt her property would be impacted, and the property was being upzoned. H. B. Bowlin, 567 Park Way, CV, said he owned the apartments at this address but did not live there. When he bought the land, it was zoned R-3, and he was instrumental in getting improvements put in. He felt the property was being downzoned. He was against it and felt betrayed. Ingrid Galchenko, 570 Park Way, CV, and owner of 576 Park Way, said when they purchased the property, it was R-3 zoning and that was the reason they had bought it. Without being told, the density had been reduced. She found it very unfair because now they had property they really didn't want, but if they sold it, they would lose. The few single-family homes did not make any sense. Her husband had previously requested zoning back to the original higher density than the current density. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Assistant Planning Director Lee explained that the reduction in density was through the General Plan designation, which had been changed to the 6-11. Part of the reason for this study was to try to bring the General Plan and zoning into consistency. Staff was recommending the 11-18. The typical apartment built in the City today is approximately 17-22 units per acre. The R-3 PC Minutes -4- August 25, 1993 density was on a sliding scale. The density being proposed, the zoning change to R-3-P22, would allow these lots to be redeveloped in an apartment design. The old densities, the 32 du/ac requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft., and has to be all one-bedroom and studio units to reach that density. The north side of Park Way had been done years before under the old standards. Mr. Lee discussed the parking requirements under both scenarios. Commissioner Moot said he was confused, because some of the speakers had talked about downzoning and some had spoken of upzoning. On the face of it, it appeared to be an upzone. Assistant Planning Director Lee said the confusion was because of the amendment in both the General Plan and the rezoning in both areas. In some cases the General Plan was going up, and the zoning itself was going down in terms of maximum density. However, it was a more realistic density if there was consideration of how apartments were currently being developed and the typical densities occurring. Commissioner Tuchscher said that with the current parking requirements, landscaping requirements, and other zoning and building ordinances, this was the realistic density scenario for actual construction. Regardless of whether the zoning were 32 units per acre, with all the other requirements currently in the ordinance, this zoning being recommended by staff was reality. Mr. Lee concurred. Mr. Lee noted that this had been discussed with the School District, and the net increase in the number of school children was 12, if all of the properties were to build out. It was relatively minor compared to the number of lots. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the "P" stood for Precise Plan. Mr. Lee answered affirmatively, and said that the "P" allowed the City to set a specific number. It would go through the Design Review Committee, and unless there was a special requirement placed on the "P" modifying district through the Planning Commission or City Council, there were no additional requirements of the developer. Commissioner Tuchscher inquired if an individual property owner wished to build more units than currently allowed by the zoning, what would be the procedure for approval of this type of project. Mr. Lee said they would have to seek a rezone, and it would have to be consistent with the General Plan. If staff's recommendation were adopted and the General Plan was set at the 11-18 range, any rezoning above R-3-P22 would also have to have a General Plan amendment accompanying it. Those could be done concurrently with the project; however, a typical rezoning was approximately a three-month process. The City utilizes two General Plan amendments per year, plus one utilized by the Council. So if a General Plan amendment was involved, it would be a longer timeframe--more typically in the six-month timeframe. Several projects are submitted together for General Plan amendment. PC Minutes -5- August 25, 1993 Chair Martin asked the difference in census at build-out. Mr. Herrera replied that there would be no change in the B-4F area. For Sub-Area B-4G, there would be an increase of approximately 68 units. Commissioner Ray asked if there was any potential impact regarding on-street parking. Mr. Lee said that up until four years ago, parking for apartments was set on the basis that half of the guest spaces could be located offsite on the public street system, with credit given because of street frontage, provided there was room. The credit for frontage was removed by the City Council and the present Code requires a certain number of spaces per unit to accommodate residents and guests. The current ratio is 2:1 for two- and three-bedroom units. There is no specific requirement for guest parking. Mr. Lee said this did not apply to planned community zones. Chair Martin was concerned that two speakers felt they were being downgraded in size and asked if the community was aware of what was going on. Mr. Herrera said that a public forum was held on May 13, 1993, and property owners were invited to attend. Mr. Lee stated that the speakers wanted the Commission to adjust the General Plan to be consistent with the present R-3 zoning to go to a high density designation. After considering the area and the mix, staff was recommending that the zoning itself be reduced down to the R-3- P22, which was consistent with present apartment construction and typically what was being built in Chula Vista. If lots were combined, the maximum layout of apartments may end up with one or two less than they might under the proposed zoning. Referring to Mr. Bowlin, Mr. Lee said he did not know if there was any other opportunity to physically add units on his property, or if Mr. Bowlin was concerned long-term if he were to clear his property and redevelop it. In theory, he could put more.units on it with R-3 zoning. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the public hearing could be reopened, since staff had rebutted. He asked if the speakers could respond. Chair Martin reopened the public hearing. Mr. Bowlin felt he was being downzoned, and it was unfair. He had six units on a 50x300 sq. ft. parcel. He had sold some of his property which had been developed in apartments. Now he was told if he wanted to tear down his units at 567 Park Way, he could only put in six units. There were currently six units. He felt B-4F was being given top zoning because they were already built out, and their property was being downzoned. Mr. Lee noted for the Commission that Mr. Bowlin's property at 50x300 feet was one of the typical problem areas that Design Review dealt with in terms of trying to determine a configuration in terms of an apartment building and parking that worked well. It was one of the most awkward sizes to work with because it was not wide enough for double rows of parking. Mr. Lee did not feel the property was set up to add units, and unless it was cleared and combined with adjacent property, it would not work out as a practical design standpoint. PC Minutes -6- August 25, 1993 Mr. Zendejas said that in 1988 before the zoning was passed, their family did not receive any notice. The City allowed them to build eight units; presently they would be only allowed four. With the new revised amendment, they would be allowed six units. They wanted it rezoned back to the higher density. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if Mr. Zendejas had done any site study or architectural work on the site. Mr. Zendejas said he had not on that site; but he was a homeowner/builder and had an architect. Commissioner Tuchscher said that due to other ordinances on the books regarding landscape and parking requirements, etc., regardless of zoning, the actual yield of units on the site would be consistent with the recommendation. Mr. Lee said that if they were building studio units, which would require less parking, it was possible to have a higher density. Mr. Zendejas had a 13,000 sq. ft. lot; the R-3-P22 was essentially one unit per 2,000 sq. ft., which would result in six units under the zoning category. Regarding notification, the City revised its General Plan several years before and it involved the entire City limits, plus the Sphere area, encompassing approximately 75 square miles. It was noticed in the newspaper, not individual notices to individual homeowners. In retrospect, it would have been better had the affected owners been notified by mail. The zoning did not change; the General Plan itself was amended. Special attention was being paid to notifying everyone being affected by rezoning. Mr. Zendejas said staff was going to rezone to Medium High now; originally it was High; and it was basically two units less when built out to maximum density. He was also concerned about a supplemental school tax. He did not see any incentive. Ingrid Galchenko said she was explicitly told that the zoning had not changed; only the density. In her case, that meant she could only build 1-1/2 units on her lot instead of four. In that area, no one wants to build nice single-family homes. Regarding schools, in the apartments most of the tenants were young people with very small children, or old people. There was hardly any impact on the schools. She did not understand why it was initiated in the first place. Chair Martin then closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ray reaffirmed that the General Plan had changed, but the zoning for the area did not; so the City was making both documents consistent. He was concerned about the school issue being resolved with any immediacy, whether or not the rezone was approved. Was there anything to make them think this would be resolved quickly? Mr. Lee was not sure how quickly it would be resolved. He said the area being discussed was very small in terms of the rezone; the number of units being built would be very limited; the number of students was even less. Staff was asking that a condition be considered that would mitigate the school impacts. Staff was not advocating that they would come back in a couple of months with additional rezoning actions; they were proceeding on with the study with SourcePoint. PC Minutes -7- August 25, 1993 Commissioner Ray asked the City Attorney to respond to what the condition meant, and his opinion as to what the effect may be on the unresolved issue. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said that staff was attempting to give some legal means for the School District so that, as a result of the constantly changing State legislation with regard to school fees something emerges within the next year or two, this condition would perhaps enable the City and the School District to attach some kind of requirement. This action did not require annexation to a Mello-Roos as a condition of this rezone; the condition attempts to leave some legal room for the School District to assert at some future time. Commissioner Ray was confused about the enforcement of the School District's plan. Mr. Rudolf said the condition left the City some discretion. The plan may be legal but would invite litigation, or was legal but unfair or disproportionate, or there was another better way that was also legal. The City was reserving the right to disapprove it. Commissioner Ray asked if the fee would have to be negotiated by the School District with the City prior to going to the property owner, or subsequent to going to the property owner. Mr. Rudolf said the School District would have to come in to the City first with its proposal for the City to enact, to make it legally applicable to any pending projects. Commissioner Ray was unclear what would happen to the property owner. Could the property owner ask the City what the fees would be and get a correct answer on the school fees? Mr. Rudolf said they would get an answer that would be correct at that time, but there could be other changes by the State or other regulatory bodies before the building permit was pulled which could change the amount. Commissioner Ray asked if the property owners in the area would be noticed for any hearings regarding those fees. Mr. Rudolf said they may be in some cases and may not in others--probably not, it would be generic. The Study would be going on; the report from the Study would be coming back; the results of that would be heavily reported in the newspapers. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the decision from the SourcePoint Study be retroactive to those people who had already pulled building permits and had not started building. Mr. Rudolf said it was possible; the City would enforce any appropriate legal mechanism--if it was lawful, reasonable, and fair. He found it difficult to imagine it would be retroactive. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted also that someone could pull building permits, then decide they wanted to build condominiums and file a condominium map, which would then go through another process. It could be subject to additional fees or annexation to a Mello-Roos through the condominium process. Commissioner Tuchscher felt this was a housekeeping issue, and did not understand the urgency in bringing this forward prior to the completion of the Study. He asked if there was some reason for bringing it up before the Study. Mr. Lee said the zoning consistency study itself had been going on for some time, and there was at least one request of the City Council to move ahead in this particular area. They were anxious to develop their property. Council directed staff to proceed with this, and they were following Council direction. PC Minutes -8- August 25, 1993 Commissioner Tuchscher wanted to know who was anxious to develop; there was no project before them. Mr. Lee said because the General Plan and zoning was not in sync, the property owners did not know what to develop or how to develop their plans. There was not a schedule regarding the SourcePoint Study; if there was a specific concern by the City Council, they could delay action on this matter until the Study was complete. Commissioner Moot said he understood that the General Plan amendment was a drastic downzoning that was inconsistent with what was already in the area. The Commission was amending the General Plan to bring it up so it was more realistically in line with what was there. Mr. Lee concurred, and said that staff was recommending a rezoning on the property which would reduce the number of units. Commissioner Salas felt it was important to act on the matter, because several of the citizens had voiced their concerns that they could not make a decision on what they were going to do with their property. The Commission was holding them up by not making a decision. MS (Ray/Moot) that based on the Initial Study and the comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that the proposed General Plan Amendments and proposed rezonings will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-32 for the General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study, Subareas B-4F and B-4G. Commissioner Tarantino was concerned about the impact on the schools. He said that, on the surface, it may not look like there would be an impact on the schools; but, in the western portion of Chula Vista, not only single families occupy the units. Extended families and multiple families live in one apartment, which means there is an impact on the schools in terms of the number of students that are generated. He also had a concern that if this amendment/rezone were adopted, he did not know what real incentive there was for the City to actively pursue the SourcePoint Study. He felt the Council would only react to public opposition, and if this was adopted, the impetus to pursue that Study was gone. Associate Planner Herrera noted that there were four additional existing zoning study areas to be addressed also, and that was basically the reason for the SourcePoint Study--to address those other areas and how they were going to impact school facilities. Staff was negotiating with the School Districts to come to a conclusion as to how the Study was going to address some of the issues regarding the other special study areas. Environmental Review Coordinator Miller added that thresholds were currently in use that were based on the numbers that were obtained from the School District. Those numbers were being used as the threshold for analysis. VOTE: APPROVED 6-0-1 (Commissioner Fuller excused) PC Minutes -9- August 25, 1993 MSC (Ray/Moot) 5-1-1 (Commissioner Tarantino voted against; Commissioner Fuller excused) to approve GPA-94-01 recommending that the City Council amend the Chula Vista General Plan designations for Subarea B-4F from Medium Density Residential (6-11 du/ac) to High Density Residential (18-27 du/ac); and for Subarea B-4G from Medium Density Residential (6-11 du/ac) to Medium High Residential (11-18 alu/ac). Motion by Commissioner Ray to adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance to change the zoning on Subarea B-4G from R-3 to R-3-P22 per PCZ-94-A, subject to condition b, as listed. Commissioner Tuchscher asked for clarification as to the reason for excluding Condition 'a' from the motion. Commissioner Ray was concerned that there was nothing pushing the City to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with the Elementary and High School Districts as a result of having Condition 'a' included. The motion died for the lack of a second. MS (Moot/Ray for purposes of discussion) to approve Resolution PCZ-94-1 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance to change the zoning on Subarea B-4G from R-3 (Multiple Family 32 du's/ac) to R-3-P22 (Multiple Family 22 du's/ac), subject to a precise plan, and conditions a and b. Commissioner Ray asked what Condition 'a' really meant as far as ensuring that the school issue would be resolved and not a nebulous thing. If the property owner was told a fee, but also told that it could be cut in half or doubled, Mr. Ray did not feel the property owner was being told anything. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said the condition carried forward the City's gentleman's agreement with the School District that it would do everything it could legally do to try to assist them in getting fees to solve their problems. At this point, there was no legal basis to extract school fees on this particular parcel. This was a slim attempt to give the School District a lifeline in the futura. Commissioner Ray asked staff if the School District was aware of Condition'a' and its wording, and what their response was. Mr. Herrera said they were aware and agreed with the language. Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff if a landowner brought forward a project, the School District would have to answer the question as to fee. In the case of a specific project, the School District would have to respond with the correct answer. If the property owner did not agree, he/she would have to appeal to the School District. Mr. Rudolf concurred. Commissioner Tuchscher said he was sensitive to Commissioner Tarantino's concerns, but thought it was incumbent upon the School Districts to come forward with the mechanisms. PC Minutes -10- August 25, 1993 VOTE: APPROVED 5-1-1 (Commissioner Tarantino against; Commissioner Fuller excused) Assistant Planning Director Lee reminded the audience that this item would go before the City Council and that they would be receiving notices. The hearing date had not been set, but would probably be in late September or early October. Associate Planner Herrera asked that any property owner in the audience who had not received notification leave their names and addresses with the secretary. OTHER BUSINESS ITEM 1: ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR MSC (Ray/Tarantino) 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Tuchscher abstained; Commissioner Fuller excused) to elect Commissioner Tuchscher for the position of Vice-Chair. ITEM 2: DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION FOCUS AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' TASKS IN ADDITION TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS - Chair Martin Chair Martin was concerned about three issues regarding the Planning Commission: how they could more positively impact the community, make themselves more business friendly, and have a higher profile in the community. He suggested that the Commission be more pro-active in the communicative sense--not the legislative sense. Chair Martin offered, as examples, that there should be some way to standardize signage for certain franchises which would have several stores to upgrade, rather than come before the Commission individually; and, also, checking on CC&Rs to make sum they were adhering to the conditions, etc. Chair Martin suggested that each Commissioner take an issue on which to focus: maybe someone could focus on SR-125, water, retrofits, etc. He felt it would be beneficial for one of the Commissioners to pick an issue and stay abreast of literature, etc., regarding their issue. He was not suggesting that each Commissioner would not have his/her own view, but would rely on the Commissioner, who was the "expert" on that subject, to support staff on an intellectual basis or argue with staff on an academic basis, to be better read than the average Commissioner. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that regardless of whether the Commissioners took on a particular issue, each Commissioner was an independent person and willing to speak his/her mind and make decisions independently. He felt it was a good approach to have individuals with particular expertise to take on particular issues, not from a reactive sense but from a proactive sense, in that they could be more well-read and bring forth issues under the Commissioner Comments area of the regular agenda to make the other Commissioners aware of what was going on, that there was a concern and they should keep abreast of it, or something that would affect a certain project or community. He volunteered to keep the Commission apprised of Community Development Department activities, redevelopment activities, and economic activities. PC Minutes -11- August 25, 1993 Commissioner Ray supported the issue of being proactive; he liked the idea of standardizing franchises, when they want a corporate image and duplication in various areas. He was concerned that a Commissioner would be quasi-expert on certain subjects, and that a Commissioner may slant the information because of his/her own feelings. Chair Martin explained he would respect the Commissioner's opinion on something if it supported other evidence, but as an individual, he would still have to read the information and he still would have an opinion. He was thinking more of a resource, another voice. Commissioner Tuchscher felt that the Commissioners could informally act as watchdogs. The Commissioner, under regular comments, would inform the other Commissioners--not on an expert level or on a specific project level, but mom on a general community informational level. He felt it would be a tremendous benefit. Chair Martin also felt the Commission should take the first step with the City Council. It had been almost a year asking them to meet with the Commission. Chair Martin wanted to know their philosophy. What does the City Council think about things? Am we moving too fast? Chair Martin pointed out, also, that Chula Vista had been very fortunate with staff and Chula Vista is a highly admired City by a lot of people. Mr. Martin felt the Commission should meet individually or ?? with the City Council and discuss things that had been done, as an educational point. He felt that possibly a Commissioner should be at the Council meetings in case the Council needed to know how the Commission arrived at a certain decision. He felt someone other than the Chairman should represent the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tuchscher was concerned that even though the Commission consisted of individuals with diverse opinions, them was the need to seek consensus. He did, however, feel that the Comlnission needed to communicate more with the City Council, but he did not feel it was incumbent upon them or that they had the time or resoumes to come to meetings. He felt written communication to the Council and staff could be improved, and suggested again that the Commission should have letterhead, and be able to communicate by memo through the Chair certain concerns, feelings, challenges that the Commission had with ordinances, systems, health/safety issues, etc. He felt it would make the Commission more effective and, in turn, make the Council more effective. Commissioner Ray was concerned that the Council had not responded to the Planning Commission's suggestion that the Council meet with the Commission. Did the Council want to meet with the Commission or not? Commissioner Ray noted that a reporter could be found to bring up the questions in public, if the Council wanted that. He asked that this be put in the minutes, and said that he would go to the paper next, if he did not get resolution to this specific topic shortly. Assistant Planning Director Lee responded that staff was trying to get the CEQA Workshop rescheduled for October, and as a second part of that, the question of joint meetings could be approached -- quarterly meetings, meetings with the Chair, or whatever could be worked out with the Council to open that communication line. Tentatively, October 6 or October 7, was being considered. PC Minutes -12- August 25, 1993 Commissioner Ray said he appreciated it; he knew it had come up on at least four or five occasions where staff had attempted to set it up and it had continually been deferred. He felt it didn't make a difference who he told or what he said, the Council would not hear him, because they did not want to meet with the Commission. He had no idea where the Council was coming from. He agreed with Commissioner Tuchscher that the written format would eventually be responded to. He had a problem about attending the meetings and giving a different voice than the majority; this was a Commission that reached a consensus, and he was not comfortable with sending someone to represent the Commission unless sent by the Commission. Mr. Lee reminded the Commission that the Council gets copies of the minutes and the report, and included in the report was the vote. Typically, the Council, if it was not a unanimous vote, would ask staff the reasons the Commissioners voted against. Chair Martin asked if any of the Commissioners would rather not represent the Commission at a Council meeting. There was no opposition; however, Commissioner Ray noted that he did not feel that every issue needed to be represented--only those that were controversial or that were not unanimous. Commissioner Moot said that the common thread seemed to be continuity. The Commission did not know what the Council wanted, how the Commission could do their job better for the Council. The Commission doesn't know what the Council does with an issue after the Commissioners have finished with it. It develops a frustration that none of the Commissioners develop a consistency in a particular area over issues over time. Commissioner Moot, regarding the first suggestion that each Commissioner be familiar with a topic that repeats itself over time, such as water, environmental component, suggested that possibly staff could help the Commissioners identify components of projects that regularly repeat over time, and help with literature or an article that's topical in a particular area, or the particular City ordinances on traffic, or the issue that the Traffic Engineer thinks about when the issue comes up, which would be helpful to give the Commissioners a sense of continuity over time. Commissioner Moot believed, however, that if the City Council was not particularly interested, it would all go for naught. Them was no mechanism set up to coinmunicate with the Council as to what they expected of the Commission, what they wanted the Commission to know, or how the Commission better explained to the Council the reason something was done. Assistant Planning Director Lee said that staff had noted it had been quite a while since the Commission had really looked at the General Plan in terms of that particular document--the goals, objectives, and implementation. He noted that the General Plan could be the subject of several workshops with the Commission to get more into the General Plan, and then lead on to the City Council in terms of what the Plan envisions, where the Commission is headed, etc. Commissioner Tuchscher concurred. He agreed with Commissioner Moot, but felt it was up to the Council to listen to the Commissioners. The Commissioners were there as volunteers representing the community and to give the Council their best information, best knowledge, intuition, decision on what they thought the community felt. He thought the Commission was doing its job and doing it well; he felt good about the Commission and the people involved and PC Minutes -13- August 25, 1993 the decisions made. He thought the Commission needed to enhance its ability to communicate with the Council and let them know the issues that the Commission felt demanded the Council's attention. Commissioner Tuchscher felt the Commission needed to get some letterhead and start using written communication. Commissioner Salas asked if it was being suggested that the letterhead be used to memorialize why they voted a certain way? Commissioner Tuchscher answered negatively. As an example, several months ago in order to seek consensus, the Commission agreed to draft a memo to Council expressing a particular concern. The Commissioners had all voted in favor of the issue, and the memo went forward. Staff lays out in their report how the Commissioners voted and the reasons. Commissioner Tuchscher said it would be interesting to see a matrix showing what issues the Commissioners voted for, and how Council reacted to those. He felt, however, that the Council listened to the Commission and followed their lead the vast majority of the time. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if each Commissioner received the City Council agenda. Some Commissioners received them because of another commission or committee, or because they had requested it. Mr. Tuchscher felt it gave a good insight as to what issues were before the Council on a regular basis and, also, the Council comments. The Commissioners who did not receive it asked that the Council agendas be sent to them. Chair Martin cautioned that he felt no Commissioner should meet with a City Council member as a Commissioner unless staff was present. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee asked if the Commissioners had received a copy of the response back to the Church dated August 24. On Corte Maria, the Church had been looking at properties in the area getting evaluations. There had not been any application received, the Chumh did not wish to meet with staff, but some of the neighbors were getting concerned. They had contacted the City Council by letter, and staff had responded back to them. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Ray asked if "Open Items" could be added to the Commissioner Comments section of the agenda. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said there was a problem with "Open Issues", but if a Commissioner had a concern, all he/she had to do was to tell the secretary to put it on the agenda. Then it could be discussed. Commissioner Tuchscher said the Commissioners needed to be proactive in gathering the information they needed. One way to do that was to draft memos to appropriate staff members from whom information was needed. The Commissioners asked staff to find out what would be needed to get letterhead. Mr. Lee said staff would look into getting letterhead and the cost involved. PC Minutes -14- August 25, 1993 Chair Martin asked the date of the next joint City Council/Supervisors meeting regarding Otay Ranch. Mr. Lee believed it was September 13. Chair Martin advised staff that he would be out of town the first week and the third week of September. Commissioner Ray stated he would be gone the first week--September 2 through 9. Chair Martin asked Vice-Chair Tuchscher to represent the Commission on Monday, September 13, at the joint meeting regarding Otay Ranch. Discussion ensued regarding what was to be on the agenda for the next meeting regarding Otay Ranch, and when they would be individually interested in representing the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT at 9:34 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of September 8, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Rfpley, Secretary Planning Commission (8-25-93 .rain)