Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/04/03 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:05 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, April 3, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Davis, Ray, Salas, Tarantino, Thomas and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Associate Planner Reid, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Moore PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. MOTION TO EXCUSE - None APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Willett/Ray) 7-0 to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 1996, with a correction showing that Commissioners Salas and Tarantino were present. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- April 3, 1996 Chair Tuchscher asked that Item 2 be taken out of order. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-96-14: AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) I PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 27.15 ACRES BY COMBINING THE EMPLOYMENT PARK iA AND EMPLOYMENT PARK lB DISTRICTS INTO A SINGLE EMPLOYMENT PARK DISTRICT AND MODIFYING THE PERMITTED, CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED LAND USES APPLICABLE THERETO - Cinti Land Planning representing various property owners Commissioner Davis stated that it may be determined that she would have a conflict of interest on this item; therefore, she asked to be excused and left the dais. Principal Planner Griffin noted that after follow-up discussions with the applicant, staff felt more work was needed. He asked that the Commission continue the item to the meeting of April 24, 1996. The applicant had concurred. MSUC (Ray/Willett) 6-0-1 (Davis-had left dais) to continue PCM-96-14 to the meeting of April 24, 1996. Chair Tuchscher then returned to the original agenda order. Commissioner Davis returned to the dais at this time. ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-96-18; CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL FOR 265-SPACE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY ON 4.2 ACRES WITHIN THE SDG&E POWER LINE CORRIDOR BETWEEN OLEANDER AND RAVEN AVENUES - John Kirby, Darryl Hammer and Mark San Agustin Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report. Staff asked for denial based on the fact that it was a large commercial use in a single-family neighborhood that created visual and operational incompatibility with surrounding areas, night lighting, noises and activity related to commercial use in a residential neighborhood, and security of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Griffin noted that a public forum had been held on this item on February 21 at the Boys & Girls Club. Over 100 surrounding residents were in attendance, the vast majority of whom raised various concerns regarding the project and were generally opposed based on issues regarding traffic and traffic safety as it related to children, noise, lighting from the yard, drainage issues, privacy, how activities would be monitored and controlled on the site, and also issues regarding security. A summary provided by one of the neighboring residents was included in the Commissioners' packets. Regarding security, the Police Department reported that theft and vandalism were not uncommon in these large storage yards. Mr. Griff'm noted additional petitions submitted by the neighborhood, and a petition submitted by the applicant which had been given to the Chairman. PC Minutes -3- April 3, 1996 He stated there were two additional letters in opposition which had been left on the dais for the Commissioners. Mr. Griffin stated that he had been asked to read the following statement into record regarding the mitigation on the project: "The determination of the Environmental Review Coordinator that 1 acre of Coastal Sage Scrub mitigation would be required is based on the following: 1/2 of the 4 acre site, or 2 acres, were designated as a Special Study Area, or an area requiring further biological study on the revised Multiple Habitat Planning Area Boundaries Map dated 6/20/95. The 2 acres were shown as disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub on the Geographic Information System for the Multiple Species Conservation Plan. Approximately 1/2 of the 2 acres, or 1 acre, has been used by SDG&E for maintenance access for many years and thus would not be considered viable habitat. This leaves 1 acre of habitat to be mitigated." Staff recommended denial of the project. Commissioner Davis stated there were other parks in Chula Vista in industrial areas and asked if there were presently any in R-1 easements. Mr. Griffin noted there were some small ones, but not on this scale--none which serve any outside communities. Chair Tuchscher asked if an RV park had been included in the Fox Hill project because of lack of parking. Mr. Griffin answered affirmatively. Commissioner Tarantino asked if in time the applicant found the fences and walls did not keep intruders out and they would be allowed to perhaps put barbed wire around the perimeter. Other RV parks had barbed wire around the top of fences and walls. Mr. Griffin said there were no City prohibitions against either barbed wire or razor wire on the top of fencing. He felt it was a huge liability, however. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that if the Commission were inclined to approve the project, a condition could be placed on the project precluding that or requiring it to come back for Commission review for any modification to the fencing program. Commissioner Ray noted he had previously had questions relating to drainage and run-off. Staff had let him know that because there would be a gravel storage basin, the run-off would go into a gravel area and the soil and hazards associated with any kind of run-off would be mitigated based on the gravel base around the project. He still had some concern about drainage and issues related to oil droppings or radiator overflows would run off into surrounding areas and create a potential hazards. He had been told that was not a concern of the City. Mr. Griffin pointed out that the property owner would be required to keep the soil clean. PC Minutes -4- April 3, 1996 Commissioner Ray was concerned about enforcement of a conditional use permit, and if there was a mn-off issue, no one would be monitoring the area and, therefore, would not know if there was a problem. Chair Tuchscher stated that the Commission could choose to include a condition. Associate Planner Reid noted that the Planning Commission could require that a study be done by an environmental consultant as to whether or not there was a risk in terms of oil potentially leaking from the RVs and whether that could be collected; also, it could be required that there be an inspection once a year. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mark San Agustin, 446 Montcalm St., CV 91911, the applicant, requested that they speak during the last 15 minutes after the opposition had spoken. Chair Tuchscher concurred. Mike Gunnlangsson, 1220 Oleander Ave. felt the RV park would have a major impact. There were two schools within a mile with a lot of traffic; a community park used for recreation by all of Chula Vista, especially heavy on weekends; a major little league, which also generates heavy traffic; Boys and Girls Club that has a daycare and weekly Bingo with its traffic. These existing uses belong in a neighborhood with R-1 lots. The applicants had scraped the land bare without proper permits, made false claims of overwhelming neighborhood and community demand for the parking lot, and claimed with the already heavy traffic, noise, and lights in the neighborhood, the traffic and noise from their RV park would not be noticed. Mr. Gunnlaugsson felt to allow the RV park in an established neighborhood would set a dangerous precedent for other R-1 areas. William [Iethcoat, 1251 Finch Pl. was concerned about the environment. He felt 265 vehicles on-site would leak oil, anti-freeze, hydraulic fluid, battery fluid, transmission fluid, and human waste. He felt the RV park would not contribute to the well-being of the community, and would be detrimental to their health. Aurora Gonzalez, 1224 Finch Pl. stated that she was opposed, but would not speak. Paul Taylor, 1298 Raven Ave. was concerned about traffic safety and questioned where the RVs would stage and the overflow parking. John Stokes, 463 Thrush St. spoke regarding the lighting and safety aspects; was concerned about the glow of the lights which would reflect onto the adjoining properties, disturbing the nighttime privacy of the adjoining property; by shielding the lighting, it would create an environment for people to hide, steal, or vandalize in the area; possible evasion of arrest by trying to escape through properties; project did not contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or community. PC Minutes -5- April 3, 1996 Claire Strickland, 528 Wisteria, registered her opposition but did not speak. Travis Mack, 1250 Waxwing Lane, gave an example of what had happened in Los Angeles, and did not want to see it happen here, by allowing one business after another come into the neighborhood. Kevin Lee Jones, 1299 Raven Ave., stated he was for controlled, well-planned growth. He noted that over 1,000 neighborhood residents adamantly opposed the project. He asked the Planning Commission to adhere to the wishes of the Parkview Community to follow staff's recommendation to deny the permit. Connie Mack, 1250 Waxwing Lane, lives one house away from the project site. She stated the project site was above the level of the streets next to them. The RV tires, the 12' high fence, and the 15' lights would start at the roofline of her neighbor's house. She felt that would be quite imposing. John Wade, 486 Thrush St., addressed the detriment to real estate values, and read a letter from a real estate broker opposing the project noting the reasons for opposition, i.e., strong possibility of reduced property values, visually detrimental to surrounding houses, open spaces, areas, increased potential for illegal alien, vandalism, theft, and graffiti, inconvenience of possible nighttime security lighting to surrounding properties, development not zoned or designed for commercial business, detrimental to positive growth to Chula Vista due to possible increased cost and additional police services, deterioration to existing streets. The letter stated there were multiple vehicle storage facilities in better suited locations in Chula Vista. He felt a more suitable location should be considered. The broker urged the Planning Commission to support staff's recommendation to deny the project. Edward B. Whitten, 1281 Cardinal Pl., registered his opposition but did not speak. Mildred Aker, 560 Azalea St., registered opposition but did not speak. Bill Tripp, 1401 Laurel Ave., stated that well-planned development is valued and he is an advocate for private property rights. The system has allowed private property ownership which is occupied entirely by a utility easement which precludes any reasonable development, but which is zoned single-family. The General Plan land use map designated the site as part of the open space system. Mr. Tripp stated that the General Plan talked about the SDG&E open space corridor being the increased park pedestrian and bicycle utilization of the SDG&E easement across the Montgomery Community, to form a continuous open space and trail corridor which was an important public amenity for the area. The development of commercial uses in the easement which would disrupt the continuity of this system was not recommended. Mr. Tripp was curious as to how a person could be expected to comply with regulations, when he had denuded the area of Coastal Sage Scrub before getting an approved permit. He also gave some other areas which could be used for the project. PC Minutes -6- April 3, 1996 Wanda Jones, 1299 Raven Ave., spoke regarding the safety of children and all persons living in the area. She said them were a lot of children-oriented facilities in the area: the schools, Park View Little League, Boys & Girls Club, and the park. Children in the neighborhood are in the streets roller blading, biking, skateboarding, etc. The RV storage owner's response was that they would not incur a safety problem. She felt the children could be harmed or hit. There were no safety patrol crosswalks; if approved, there would be parking and exiting of large vehicles and other vehicles as this business frontage and the back of the building on Raven. She asked the Planning Commission to listen to the concerns of the parents regarding any increase in traffic and any unsafe measure for the use of the business. She noted for the record that she and a neighbor had dropped of copies of the petition with over 1,000 signatures opposing the project. Robert Warner, 1284 Raven Ave., did not want to have to look at barbed wire every day. John Maschka, 1272 Raven Ave., noted his opposition but did not speak. David Wade, 486 Thrush St., opposed the project because it would block the view from their back yard. They had been promised open space when they moved in. Bob White, 526 Hibiscus Ct., said he was not directly impacted, except that he drove on Oleander and felt it would be very negative and a total impact on the community. An informal survey of the neighborhood of Hibiscus Ct. showed they was unanimously opposed to the project. He asked the Planning Commission to look into the definition of unclassified use and change that anywhere the commercial designation would be used. Linda Lawrence, 1275 Raven Ave., said 198 feet of her property line was shared with the SDG&E easement which is in her back yard. The proposed use is not necessary to provide a service to the neighborhood. She had contacted eight RV storage lots in Chula Vista and she had found that every lot had space available with vacancy rates between 10% and 30%. They had all taken steps to assure security with lighting and personnel. Five facilities had admitted to some type of vandalism within the last six months in their RV parks. Two parks only allowed construction vehicles to be stored there; four admitted to maintenance work being performed on the site. She had personally visited the sites, and didn't find one facility that she felt would be an improvement in any neighborhood. She was concerned about the separate compound at the southwest corner consisting of 19 spaces to store construction trucks and equipment which would use Raven Avenue exclusively. The equipment is noisy and they may have to pull their equipment out earlier than 9:00 a.m. to get to a job. She asked the Planning Commission to consider their quality of life and leave the field open; hopefully, in a few years the plants and animal life that were destroyed would return. Bill Ewalt, 1227 Raven Pl., was strongly opposed to the project. Mary Hobson, 1319 Raven, asked the Commission to protect and respect their R-1 zoned neighborhood. PC Minutes -7- April 3, 1996 Anthony Angelo, 595 Azalea St., stated that the neighborhood children and residents would miss the open area, being able to cross the area, and feel the breeze. He asked the Planning Commission to adopt staff's recommendation denying the project. Bill Odle, 1211 Raven Pl., was concerned about the environmental impact--the RV tanks which contain formaldehyde. Darci Itoffman, 1292 Waxwing Ln., stated she had a degree in biology with an emphasis in soil science. She lived directly below where the development would go in. About one quarter of the 4 acre area drains into their back yard. She did not feel a small berm of gravel would keep anything from draining down into their yard. The area is clay and is not stable when it rains. The RVs would be directly over them on the edge of the area. Her neighbor had a large portion of the bank slip down into his yard. She was concerned about what might come down into their yard when it gets wet and soggy. She asked if the applicant would install a retaining wall for them. John Kirby, 1887 Fort Stockton Dr., San Diego 92103, one of the three parmers in the project, stated that the project conformed to the current zoning of R-1 on the site, subject to a conditional use permit. The land use is permitted in all areas; the proposed unclassified use is permitted in all zones and will be compatible with the zoning and the General Plan and land use diagram; there is no impact. Mr. Kirby read from the environmental checklist that there was no impact on the environment. He did not agree that the traffic would be a real impact. The two items of concern were aesthetics and wildlife habitat. Mr. Kirby stated that when the habitat was purchased, it was considered to be a continuing fire hazard by the City of Chula Vista Fire Department and also the repository of unwanted items that are not disposable in the household trash removal pickups. They considered the view of the property to be aesthetically repulsive. Their plans indicated an attractive perimeter planting and fencing which presented a pleasant view to the public. Regarding degradation of the wildlife habitat, Mr. Kirby stated that the environmental checklist determined that it was potentially significant unless mitigated. With implementation of the biological mitigation measures and monitoring program, the plan does not have the potential to degrade the environmental or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. He asked for approval of their conditional use permit. Mark San Agustin, 446 Montcalm St., Chula Vista, a partner in the project, felt that all the issues brought up from the neighborhood could be mitigated easily. He felt the project amenities would upstage all public amenities far beyond the City aesthetics now in place and would soften the SDG&E horrific structures now in place. Lights are mandatory on the project and would be less of an impact than the park across the street, and no adjoining residences would disturbed as a result of their lighting. There is already a heavy presence of noise from the freeway and they believed that the loudest noises coming from an RV would be equivalent to the winds whispering through the trees. Regarding security and privacy, Mr. San Agustin stated that Maryjane Diosdado, the Senior Crime Prevention Specialist of the Investigation Division of the Chula Vista Police Department said that the City is incorrectly using information provided by the Police Department in branding the project as problematic. Regarding the environmental PC Minutes -8- April 3, 1996 issue on the 4.42 acres, the 2 acres in question had no type of bushes on that comer. The applicant had understood the special study zone was going to be completely eliminated from their property. The Fire Department had demanded that the area be cleared. The applicant had cleared it. The community did not understand that in the future SDG&E would put in another high tower next to the one existing, and there would be poles erected 60' to 80' high on the south border in the future. On the north side, there is an 8" gas line running through the property; the applicant was trying to upgrade the site and felt with the motorhomes there, there would be no traffic problem, and vandalism and crime is non-existent. He felt the Boys Club and baseball fields across the field brought in a lot of traffic and people, and the RV park had less of an impact. They had upgraded their landscaping; trees will grow from 14' to 16' high. The site would have more trees than the park across the street. The plans show 13 lights, but they could get away with less. He asked for approval of the project. Regarding barbed wire, they would not install barbed wire. Commissioner Ray asked if they had made special arrangements for the mn-off. Mr. San Agustin said there were two brow ditches D-25 details placed on the property. The water would be pushed towards Raven and Oleander. There is no drainage problem. Chair Tuchscher clarified that Commissioner Ray was referring to any residual toxins that might leak off the vehicle and go into the storm drain. Mr. San Agustin said that was possible, just as a vehicle parked on a public street. They were not trying to ignore that, and would take measures to prevent that as much as possible, or clean it up if it occurred. They were willing to be monitored and the conditional use permit cancelled after five years. Commissioner Davis asked if the applicants had looked at any other sites, and if so, why they were rejected and this one chosen. Mr. San Agustin felt with this site they could capture the market. There were quite a few motor homes in Chula Vista, and they felt they could capture the market and be selective with the motor homes coming into their property. Their prices would be the lowest or next to the lowest compared to other parks. Commissioner Salas asked if whether or not the storage facility was approved, the SDG&E poles would be there. Mr. San Agustin said they had seen the future plans of SDG&E and they would be installing a tower whether or not the RV park was there. The applicant had made provisions to accommodate when the tower is installed. The poles on the south side were also coming. Commissioner Tarantino noted that the petition Mr. San Agustin had presented supporting the RV park had addresses outside of the project area, from San Diego, Bonita Road, Hilltop Drive. He asked if there was any support in the immediate area. Mr. San Agustin stated that when they cleaned the lot, everything was going very smooth. As soon as they filed for the conditional use permit, the community opposed it. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the Chula Vista Fire Department demanded that the applicant clear the lot. Mr. San Agustin showed the Commission the letter from the Fire Department. PC Minutes -9- April 3, 1996 Commissioner Ray, speaking for Commissioner Willett, asked if the applicant saw a unit had leaked on the project site, could the applicant move the vehicle without the owner's consent and force the owner to correct the leak in order to maintain a space in his facility. Mr. San Agustin stated that the storage agreement indicated that the owner could only pick up and drop off their RVs. They could also include in the agreement that if there were any problems, such as leaking, that the owner could be required to correct that off-site. The applicant stated that he could have a tow company on retainer so that if there were a problem with leakage, it could be towed immediately. Commissioner Ray noted the applicant was required to clear the area based on the Fire Department's notification and asked if when the project was proposed, the applicant canvassed the neighborhood to try to gather support prior to the notice for the conditional use permit being issued by the City. Mr. San Agustin replied that he had spoken to some of the neighbors adjoining the property; he had spoken to Ron Neary who had no problem with it. The applicants had canvassed the neighborhood in general, talked to motor home owners, and friends and acquaintances. Chair Tuchscher asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak, and asked them to fill out a speaker's slip. He noted he would only take speakers that had not already addressed the Commission. Ron Lane, 1300 Raven Ave., asked if the applicants already had any type of commitment for any type of construction or equipment they intend to put there; any type of construction equipment would not be driven but it would be on a truck. The corners are tight and the trucks carrying equipment will need a large turning radius and would have an impact on traffic. There would be a lot of wear and tear on the streets. He asked if the traffic impact during peak hours had been addressed. Don Ainsworth, 1424 Ocala Ct., was concerned about heavy traffic and noise, and wear and tear on the streets. Lyn White, 526 Hibiscus Ct., had concerns about the air and noise pollution caused by warming up the construction and diesel vehicles. She was also worried about children running out in front of one of the vehicles. Ms. White then showed a chart indicating the residences of people in the neighborhood in opposition of the project. Lai-Chlng McDermott, 448 Redwing Rd., said that as soon as she found out what was going on, she started collecting signatures in her neighborhood. Mr. San Agustin then came to her house to convince her that he was going to do something good for the neighborhood. He told her he would lose a lot of money if it was not approved. She wished he had surveyed the neighborhood before he bought the land. The value of their property would decrease when the RV park was built. PC Minutes -10- April 3, 1996 Claire Strickland, 528 Wisteria St., who had registered her opposition previously and elected not to speak, came to the podium to say that she had talked with people who were storing RVs in their yard, who indicated to her that they had no intentions of moving their motor vehicles from their yard into a storage facility. This would not benefit the neighborhood in that the people had no intentions of moving their vehicles. No one else wishing to speak, Chair Tuchscher declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Tarantino noted that the question he had asked regarding barbed wire did not indicate that he was in favor of additional security, but the fact that if there was a need for additional security, and that barbed wire seemed to be the next step and could present an armed fortress in the neighborhood. Commissioner Salas stated the neighborhood had really mobilized and should be congratulated. Community participation is really needed and it is the only way in which the residents could have a voice in the way they want the community developed. Some of the comments highlighted her concern that there could not be an encroachment of commercial enterprise into a residential area. While there must be growth, it must be planned and appropriate for the area. She was impressed by Mr. Tripp on his research of the General Plan. She felt the encroachment could not be allowed in a residential area, and it would set a dangerous precedent. She could not support the applicant's request. Commissioner Davis understood the applicant had a potentially good project, but thought he had the wrong site. When a conditional use permit is asked for, an exception to the zoning had to be made. There had to be a reason to make the exception. In this case, she could not see a reason to make the exception. She believed it would have a highly negative impact on the neighborhood. She did not think it was compatible, that there was nothing to mitigate to make it compatible. She felt Mr. San Agustin should look at another site in Chula Vista, possibly on Broadway where it has more of a commercial/industrial area. She felt the traffic, lighting, illegal aliens would be exacerbated. She could not support the project. Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Agustin, regarding a letter from South Bay Storage, if the incidences on the letter reported to the police or if it was just what Mr. Young had reported to him. Mr. Agustin said it was just what Mr. Young had reported to him. Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Agustin if the letter he had written was to make the Planning Commission aware that the regulations would allow the project to be approved per the existing codes. Mr. Agustin answered affirmatively. Commissioner Ray, referring to a letter from the applicants, regarding security, Mary Jane Diosdado of the Chula Vista Police Department said the City was incorrectly using information provided by the Police Department in branding this project as problematic. He was concerned that City staff and the Police Department were not in sync with what was being reported to the Planning Commission, which makes it confusing and makes for conflicting responses. He asked PC Minutes -11- April 3, 1996 staff to look at it. Principal Planner Griffin said the statement in the letter concerned him, because he had spoken with MaryJane Diosdado about the issue, and the language in the staff report had been given to Mary Jane. She had taken that to the appropriate staff in the Police Department and returned to Mr. Griffin saying that they concurred with that statement. He was not exactly sure of its accuracy or if there was some misunderstanding. Commissioner Ray said he was very familiar with the area; there is quite a bit of traffic from the alien community migrating north; and a lot of recreational use on that facility. Knowing the intense use of Greg Rogers Park and the ballfield, although this is a permitted use within the zone, he did not think this was the right area for the project and could not justify voting for the project. MS (Tarantino/Davis) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-96-18 denying the request in accordance with the findings contained therein. Chair Tuchscher noted that the Planning Commission was charged with making decisions based on land use issues. Even though the environmental checklist did not indicate the project was impacfful enough to require an environmental impact report, he felt it clearly had a negative impact on the surrounding community, and was clearly demonstrated by a very vocal and cohesive neighborhood. He felt the neighborhood should feel proud of themselves that they were able to become a part of the system and make sure their voices were heard, and their neighborhood was cohesive. He especially applauded Mr. and Mrs. McDermott for their efforts. VOTE: 7-0 to adopt the resolution denying the project. Chair Tuchscher declared a break at 9:13 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:22 p.m. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT PCA-96-05; CONSIDERATION OF MINOR AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 15.04.070 AND 15.04.145 (EXCAVATION, GRADING AND FILLS) - City Initiated Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report, noting that this was a housekeeping item changing references in one of the Codes to refer to Planning Director or designee rather than City Landscape Architect. Staff recommended approval of the resolution. Commissioner Ray noted that due to the City budget cuts, the Landscape Architect was not replaced when the previous one retired. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes -12- April 3, 1996 MSUC (Ray/Davis) 7-0 to adopt Resolution PCA-96-05 recommending that the City Council approve the amendments to the Municipal Code, according to the findings contained in the draft City Council Ordinance. DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 4. UPDATE OF COUNCIL ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Lee reminded the Planning Commissioners that their next meeting was on April 10, although there may be a possibility of cancellation. The following meeting would be April 24, with a joint workshop meeting with the City Council and GMOC in the Council Conference Room at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Ray stated that the GMOC was a week behind in approving the recommendations, and there was a potential of a possible delay. Mr. Lee expressed his hope that it would not be delayed. Mr. Lee stated that the May 8 or the May 22 were two potential meetings for the tentative map involving the Otay Ranch, depending on what happened with the SPA Plan. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Ray asked that an item be placed on the next agenda relating to changing the speaker time to three minutes from five minutes. Commissioner Davis stated that she would be out of town on business and would miss the meetings of April 24 and 25. MSUC (6-0-1) to excuse Commissioner Davis from the meetings of April 24 and 25. ADJOURNMENT at 9:30 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of April 10, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Rip(ey, Secretary Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc96min\pcA 3.min)