Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-11; Planning Commission; MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ,- CITY OF CARLSBAD June 11, 1980 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Schick. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Schick, Commissioners Marcus, Friestedt, Larson, Jose and Leeds. Absent : Commissioner Rombotis Ex-Officio members Jim Hagaman, Planning Director; and Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, were also present. Staff present were Bill Hofman, Associate Planner; Richard Allen, Principal Engineer; Brian Milich, Assistant Planner; and Joyce Crosthwaite, Assistant Planner. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance.was led by Chairman Schick. /- AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Schick inquired if there were any late items of communica- tion for Commission consideration. Bill Hofman indicated Item No, 9 on the Agenda, while not a public hearing, was a companion matter to Item No. 3; therefore, Item No. 9 would be presented concurrently with Item No. 3. Chairman Schick advised he would be offering for Commission dis- cussion at the conclusion of the Agenda items, consideration of a Commission-sponsored request to the City Council that the Planning Department project relating to consistency of the General Plan and zoning be included in the 1980-81 FY budget. Chairman Schick outlined the Planning Commission Procedure as contained in the Agenda, explaining matters delegated to the Conmission for advisory recommendation and those with which the Commission is charged for a final decision, public hearing process and rights of appeal. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CT 80-16/CP-74, Sandy - Request for a tentative subdivision map and condominium permit for. 9 units on the east side of Hope Avenue between Home Avenue and Grand Avenue. An introductory staff report was presented by the Pianning Director, relating planning issues defined and discussed in the June 11, 1980 staff report. -l- Bill Hofman then detailed the June 11 report and, with the aid of a wall map exhibit depicting the project, explained major concerns involved design criteria and density. Specifically, the driveway and parking areas comprise over 50% of the entire site and recreation and storage areas for the upstairs units are located atop the carports. While the applicant has met all develop- ment standards and density of 10 to 20 is allowed, insufficient amenities were provided to justify 19 units per gross acre, as proposed. Mr. Hofman concluded that given the poor design of the project and lack of additional amenities, staff is recommending denial of the project. Public Testimony Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. and the Commission recognized Joe Sandy, Post Office Box 590, Carlsbad, Ca, representing the applicant. Mr, Sandy acknowledged the dominance of the driveway, remonstrating the criteria for drive- way and parking under the condominium ordinance necessarily required a dominant design. Mr. Sandy expressed the opinion the parking was not a disruptive feature, being accessible to each unit, as are the second floor recreation balconies irrespective of their location. Mr. Sandy further expostulated the issue of density, indicating the project was located within 100 feet of the redevelopment area. In support, he read portions of the letter from Jack Henthorn, Director of Housing & Redevelopment, .- which responded that the project appears to contribute moderate income ownership in close proximity to established employment /- and service centers -- a goal and objective of the redevelopment plan. Mr. Sandy concluded that providing this type of housing involved trade-offs. A lesser number of larger units could be provided, but then the price would increase. The Commission then recognized Richard Leivonen, 965 Home Avenue, Carlsbad, Ca, who referenced the wall exhibit, indicating the proximity of his property to that of the proposed project. Mr. Leivonen expressed concerns that the privacy of existing homes would be infringed upon due to the density of the project and use of recreational areas on top of the carports. Further, the proposed density would cause traffic problems and suggested larger, nicer units would serve to maintain the quality of the area. Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Sandy responded the proposed project was a 2 story structure, identical to existing apartments across the street and the appropriate screening would be provided for sound and visual attenuation. Further, the two existing projects represent 32 dwelling units to the acre which exceeds the general plan density in that the condominium ordinance requires a much higher standard to be met in terms of recreation, landscaping, parking, etc than those required for apartments. -2- Since no one else wished to speak, Chairman Schick closed the / public hearing at 7:25 P.M. Commissioner Jose questioned staff regarding the criteria being used to establish a recreational area. To wit, is a common balcony considered a recreational area because it has certain amounts of square footage. Mr. Hofman responded same was defined by the Code as "usable" space. By that definition, the tops of the carports could qualify as recreational areas and meet development standards. However, in making a determination of whether a project also meets design standards, the possibility of car fumes while sunbathing, etc., is considered. Chairman Schick remarked design criteria reflected those amenities normally associated with homeownership. Commissioner Friestedt expressed the opinion this project did not have the additional .amenities required to justify the density. Cormnissioner Leeds expressed the opinion that low cost housing by its nature did not include pools and jacuzzis, and that the proposed project was attempting to provide the desired low cost housing near the redevelopment area. In that regard, Commissioner Larson inquired of staff if, after reviewing the plans with the - applicant, there had been any point at which they had been close to an agreement. ,r- Mr. Hofman responded any potential agreement would involve a decrease in the density which would open up more desirable areas for recreation. Mr. Hofman acknowledged the need for affordable low cost housing. However, that is not the issue. The issue is design. The condominium ordinance sets criteria for design review, which this project does not meet. Furthermore, staff has no mechanism in the general plan to relate the criteria justifying density to low cost housing. Mr. Sandy expressed a willingness to discuss and work with staff in an effort to resolve problems. Mr. Sandy suggested, rather than continuing this matter during revisions with staff, that the Commission act on the matter now, explaining his client's current escrow and desire to keep the project moving forward. The Commission adopted Resolution No. 1657, recommending denial of a tenta'tive subdivision map (CT 80-16) and condominium permit (CP-74) for 9 units on property generally located on the east side of Hope Street, between Home Avenue and Grand Avenue, based on the findings contained therein and without prejudice to the applicant, based on Commission discussion. ,r MOTION: FRIESTEDT SECOND: JOSE AYES: SCHICK, JOSE, LEEDS, LARSON, FRIESTEDT AND MARCUS NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: ROMBOTIS -3- 2. CT 80-7/CP-57, Speare - Proposal for a five unit condominium development on Jerez Court 'in La Costa. An introductory staff report was given by the Planning Director relating planning issues defined and discussed in the June 11, 1980 staff report. The staff report was continued by Brian Milich detailing the June 11, 1980 report and, with the aid of wall map exhibit, explained project design, landscaping and storage. Public Testimony Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 7:32 P.M. and invited the applicant to speak. The Commission recognized Richard Speare, 7911 Herschel Avenue #300, La Jolla, CA, who expressed satisfaction with the project and urged Commission approval. As a point of information, Mr. Speare indicated that in addition to the 2,000 square footage of each unit, there was an additional 1,000 square foot area garage and storage area under each unit. Since no one else wished to speak, Chairman Schick closed the public hearing at 7:44 P.M. r‘ The Commission adopted Resolution No. 1643, recommending approval of a five unit condominium development on property generally located on the west side of Jerez Court, La Costa (CT 80-7/CP-57), based on the findings contained therein. MOTION: JOSE SECOND: MARCUS AYES: SCHICK, JOSE, LEEDS, LARSON FRIESTEDT AND MARCUS NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: ROMBOTIS 3. CT 80-9/CP-60/PUD-20, Woodward - Request for a 300 unit tenta- tive tract map to include an 86 unit condominium permit and a 214 unit planned unit development on the west side of Melrose Avenue extended, between Corintia Street extended and Alga Road extended m the RDM-Q Zone. and 9. SDP 80-6, Woodward - Request for a 300 unit Site Development Plan to include an 86 unit condominium permit, a 214 unit planned urut : etween Corintia Street extended and Alga Road extended in the RDM-Q Zone. An introductory staff report was the given by the Planning Director, explaining the nature of the matters and relating planning issues defined and discussed in the June 11, 1980 staff report. -4- The staff report was continued by Bill Hofman who, with the aid ,,"- of several wall map exhibits of the site, explained the entire project in relation to existing streets and illustrating those streets which will be extended as part of the project. In this regard, Mr. Hofman explained which public improvements would be constructed concurrently with which particular phase, indicating the improvements and phases were compatibly color coded for easy association. Mr. Hofman pointed out that when completed, each phase would stand on its own. For the record, Mr. Hofman indicated a change to the June 11, 1980 staff report at Page 2, Paragraph 3 from the words, "It should not be noted . . .'I, to "It should be noted . . ." Continuing with the maps, Mr. Hofman then detailed the June 11, 1980 report, separately discussing the various aspects of the project (CT, Cp, PUD and SDP) and explained their respective relationship to one another and their individual driveway and parking designs, private and public street circulation, and recreation areas. With regard to the Planned Unit Development portion, Mr. Hofman explained a condition (No. 35) had been added requiring a 35 foot setback and sound attenuation wall the length of Melrose to reduce potential noise impact for residents along Melrose, which is designated as a prime arterial. Commissioner Marcus referenced substituted Resolutions which had r been distributed to Commission and inquired what changes were reflected therein. r Mr. Hofman explained: Resolution 1644 (CT 80-9) reflected two changes (1) a new tentative tract map was submitted by the applicant, indicating a minor boundary change which has been labeled Exhibit 11 11 J as opposed to Exhibit "A"; and (2) a condition of approval was'added requiring the developer to dedicate and improve the south one-half street of Alga Road from A Street to Melrose Avenue and the east one-half street of Melrose Avenue from Alga Road to Ranch0 Santa Fe prior to Phase 1. Resolution 1645 (SDP 80-6) - 2 conditions (No. 3 and No. 4) were added, setting the expiration date of the SDP to coincide with the expiration date of the tentative tract (otherwise the SDP would have a one year expiration date by Code) and providing for applicant's submission of a reproducible copy of the Site Plan, a standard condition, which was inadvertently omitted. Resolution 1655 which provides that the Condominium Permit, in conjunction with the PUD is consistent with the land development of the general plan giving the density range of 4 to 10 units per act. The change was from 10 to 20 to 4 to 10 dwelling units per acre. .T--- Commissioner Jose then requested clarification with regard to whose responsibility it was - Planning Director or Parks & Recreation Director - to approve the irrigation landscaping plans. -5- Mr. Hofman explained the Planning Director approves the plans, - following a review and okay by the Parks & Recreation Director. Chairman Schick then opened the public hearing at 8:08 P.M. Public Testimony The Commission recognized Don and Scott Woodward of the Woodward Companies, with an office at 2725 Jefferson Street in Carlsbad. Mr. Scott Woodward then introduced Mr. Pete Templeton of the Planning Center in Newport Beach, Ca, who made a slide presentation in complement to the staff report by Mr. Hofman. The slide presentation included background references on the members of the consulting team who prepared and design the Hidden Meadows project, including La Costa Land Company, The Woodward Companies, The Planning Center, Rick Engineering, The Berkus Group, Dimensions, Inc., and Recon. Essentially, the presentation was comprised of aerial views of the site project, architectural drawings depicting design and slides illustrating a similar, existing project in Irvine, Ca, for comparison. Chairman Schick inquired how design considerations in the 80's, as featured in the slide presentation, incorporated the use of waste water. P The Commission recognized Bob Ladwig of Rick Engineering, who responded that a dual system was being installed which would use reclaimed water for all landscaping. The areas which can accommodate reclaimed water, among others, are medians, parkways and areas maintained by the homeowners' associations. Additionally, the project is oriented toward water saving devices and energy saving devices, with the units being clustered and landscaping designed for maximum water and energy efficiency. Commissioner Larson questioned the grading conditions, inquiring if the slopes would be on a 2 to 1 ratio , and of the potential or need for offsite grading. Mr. Ladwig responded all major slopes will be 2 to 1, and referenced the wall map exhibit, explaining that areas previously representing potential confusion as to the responsibility for maintenance were now all within the subdivision and it was clear as to who would maintain the slopes. Commissioner Jose inquired with regard to the operation of a homeowners' association in relation to the recreation and landscaped areas. Mr. Ladwig responded there will be a master association which will take into account the maintenance and requirements for - maintenance and the right to use for the single family detached and attached. There will also be a common maintenance agreement with this association which will maintain the Melrose setback from the wall to the street. -6- Additionally, there will be a separate association that will - maintain the common area, as it relates to the condominiums. There will be a master association that will maintain in conjunction with the two. Also, the single family portion will have a different association fee because they have common area front yards so there will be an association fee that applies to their front yard landscaping as well as what their proportionate share to maintain the common area facility would be. In his capacity as an ex-officio member, the Assistant City Attorney, Dan Hentschke, requested clarification with regard to inclusion of reclaimed water by the developer as a part of the subdivision process. Specifically, shouldn't the reclaimed water issue be dealt with on the tentative map? In that it is not, is same through inadvertence? Mr. Hofman responded the condition is in the PUD Resolution and the conditions of the PUD are incorporated by reference into the tentative tract. As a suggestion, if the Commission agreed, rather than returning the matter, staff would simply include the appropriate wording on the CT Resolution. The Commission and Mr. Ladwig agreed that would be satisfactory. Commissioner Larson then requested clarification regarding location of the RV parking area and inquired if that area was intended for ic the entire area, or exclusive use of this particular project. Mr. Ladwig indicated it was designed to service the entire north- east area of the La Costa Master Plan. For further clarification, Mr. Hofman pointed out that the RV storage site was originally located adjacent to the site previously designated for an elementary school site by the San Marcos School District. As a result of the agreement with the District and the La Costa Land Company for an exchange of sites, a relocation of the storage area was necessitated. In response to further concerns expressed by Commissioner Larson as to parking and storage of RV vehicles until the storage area was constructed, Mr. Hofman indicated the Commission may wish to consider the time for construction in the early stages, tying same to a particular phase. Mr. Ladwig and Mr. Woodward responded from a practical standpoint, completion of Corintia was a necessary factor in that prior to that time, there would be no access to the storage area in that Corintfa was scheduled for the last phase. Further, the terms of the association agreement would prevent RV parking and storage in undesignated areas per the CC&R'S. f- -7- .- ,- Mr. Hofman added further that staff would prefer to see the RV storage area construction during an early phase; however, because of the development pattern and time for construction of Corintia Street that would not be feasible. The alternative of requiring improvement of Corintia in the early stages would not be reasonable in view of the way the project is phased. Commissioner Larson suggested a condition to reiterate the fact that the CC&R's will prohibit authorized parking and storage of RV vehicles during construction and occupancy of the first 5 or 6 phases. Since no one else wished to speak, Chairman Schick closed the public hearing at 8:44 P.M. The Commission adopted Resolution 1645, approving a Site Development Plan No. 80-6, for a 300 unit residential project to include an 86 unit condominium permit and a 214 unit planned unit development on property generally located on the west side of Melrose Avenue extended, between Corintia Street extended and Alga Road extended, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; Resolution 1646, recommending approval of a planned unit development for a ?1;4unit residential project on property generally located on the west side of Melrose Avenue extended, between Corintia Street extended and Alga Road extended; and Resolution 1644, recommending approval of a 300 unit tentative tract map on property generally located on the west side of Melrose Avenue extended, between Corintia Street extended and Alga Road, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the additional condition regarding use of reclaimed water as discussed during the meeting and condition regarding RV storage (to include reference in the CC&R's); and Resolution 1655, recommending approval of an 86 unit condominium permit on property generally located on the north side of Corintia Street extended, west of Melrose Avenue extended, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. MOTION: MARCUS SECOND: JOSE AYES: SCHICK, JOSE, LEEDS, LARSON, FRIESTEDT AND MARCUS NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: ROMBOTIS RECESS Chairman Schick announced a recess at 8:56 P.M. The Commission reconvened at 8:57 P.M., with six Commissioners present. 4. CT 80-27/PUD-18 Birtcher Pacific - 18 Lot Planned Industrial Development at Yarrow Drive and Corte de la Pina, Palomar Airport Business Park. An introductory staff report was given by the Planning Director. -8- C The staff report was continued by Brian Milich who detailed the June 11, 1980 staff report and, with the aid of wall map exhibits, explained location and design of the project. In response to Commissioner Marcus who inquired if encroachment would cause problems in future development, Mr. Milich explained there was a required 20 foot setback in the PM zone. With the proposed 15 foot setback, staff was confident there would be ample room for any contingency. Commissioner Larson expressed concern with the access to buildings in the norther portion of the lot, which appears to be very narrow. Specifically, would there be a potential for conflict with large vehicles attempting to gain access in that area. Mr. Milich explained it was anticipated that there would not be a great volume of truck traffic during the day, but that the widthwould be sufficient in any event. Commissioner Larson furtheredthequeryby Commissioner Marcus re acceptability of the 5 foot encroachment of the northeast building on the sidewalk setback. Mr. Milich responded the PUD ordinance allows for modification of the underlying zone if you provide sufficient amenities. r Commissioner Friestedt then inquired if rolled doors were to be provided for access of large delivery vehicles. For example, if a delivery truck parks in an auto parking area, there would be congestion. Mr. Milich responded, referencing wall maps, explaining location of delivery access parking was not near auto parking. Further, none of the doors open out onto the same areas where deliveries will be made and even if someone did stop to unload there is extra width allowing other vehicles to pass. Commissioner Jose expressed the opinion the project did not provide amenities comparable to those reflected in recently-approved projects and inquired again if projects of this type were representative of the direction in which the City was proceeding. Mr. Milich responded that it was difficult to compare projects because sites are different. Additionally, it is difficult to quantify P-M Zone standards, but all efforts are made to maintain consistency. Chairman Schick then opened the public hearing at 9:12 P.M. Public Testimony The Commission recognized Bob Campbell, representing the applicant Birtcher Pacific. Mr. Campbell expressed satisfaction with the project, as proposed. -9- In response to Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell indicated a number of different types of businesses had expressed a desire to locate in the project, including warehousing operations and light manufacturing. Mr. Campbell expressed the opinion the project would provide individuality, placid entries, landscaping and recreational amenities. Mr. Campbell further responded to concerns regarding access, indicating the intent of the design was entry and pedestrian corridtors separated from parking. Commissioner Jose inquired if Mr. Campbell was opposed to a condition requiring rolled doors. Mr. Campbell explained security problems experienced due to location of entry doors had resulted in the current design. Further, most industrial buildings currently being constructed consistently used rolled doors, both for purposes of durability and attractiveness. Commissioner Friestedt inquired if the CC&R's provided for signing for circulation of vehicles or no parking inside the truck corridor. Mr. Milich indicated such a condition was included in Resolution 1649. While there was no stipulation to that effect in the CC&R'S, it may be appropriate. C Commissioner Friestedt agreed Commissioner Jose's concerns were warranted, and suggested an amendment to Condition 4 requiring - the signing program to be addressed in the CC&R'S re appropriate access for automobile and truck circulation. Chairman Schick offered the opinion that use of rolled doors and sign concerns would be considered in the course of good business practices. Further, the CC&R'S would be defined and refined in the interests of maintaining good business operations and he did not recommend too much regulation regarding design criteria. Commissioner Marcus expressed the opinion there would be an association or organization to handle the common area and the matter of parking and traffic problems should appropriately be considered by them. In the interests of conclusion, 14r. Hofman suggested if the applicant concurred, a condition be added establishing a property owners' association and CC&R'S to maintain the common areas and facilities. Chairman Schick inquired if anyone else wished to speak. There being no response, the public hearing was closed at 9:20 P.M. The Commission then discussed inclusion of a condition requiring rolled doors, at the suggestion of Commissioner Jose. It was Commission consensus this issue was an architectural matter and properly resolved via applicant's design; therefore, no special condition should be added. -lO- The Commission adopted Resolution 1648, recommending approval of an 18 lot planned industrial development on property generally located on the northeast corner of Yarrow Drive and Corte de la Pina (CT 80-27), and Resolution 1649, recommending approval of a planned unit development for an 18 lot planned industrial development on property generally located on the northeast corner of Yarrow Drive and Corte de la Pina (PUD-19), based on the findings and conditions contained therein, together with appropriate changes as discussed at the meeting. MOTION: FRIESTEDT SECOND: LARSON AYES: SCHICK, JOSE, LEEDS, LARSON, FRIESTEDT AND MARCUS NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: ROMBOTIS. 5. EIR 80-3, Carlsbad Pacific Industrial Park, Koll Company - An Environmental Impact Report discussing two possible impacts of the proposed industrial park. 6. GPA-50(A), Carlsbad Pacific Industrial Park, Koll Company+- A General Plan Amendment changing the land use designation on 558.6 acres rrom Non-Residential Reserve to a Combination District allowing industrial, commercial and public utility uses. 7. SP-180, Carlsbad Pacific Industrial Park, Koll Company - A Specific Plan establishing development standards and conditions on the 558.6 acre industrial park. 8. GPA-50(B), Ecke - A General Plan Amendment changing the land use plan designation from FRR (Non-Residential Reserve) to TS (Travel Service Commercial) located on the west side of Paseo de1 Norte, north or Palomar Airport Road. The Planning Director announced the above four items, in accordance with Commission direction, been scheduled for an adjourned meeting on Thursday, June 19, 1980. Chairman Schick inquired if everyone had seen the EIR documents. Mr. Hofman responded a packet would be prepared and furnished to the Commission the Friday preceding the adjourned meeting. The Commission continued EIR 80-3, GPA-50(A), SP-180 and GPA-50(B) to Thursday, June 19, 1980 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. MOTION: SECOND: AYES : NOES ABSTAIN: ABSENT: LARSON JOSE SCHICK, JOSE, LEEDS, LARSON, FRIESTEDT AND MARCUS None None ROMBOTIS -ll- With regard to the immediately preceding action, the City Attorney advised the four items acted upon should be re-noticed as public hearings in that there was no one attending the current meeting. 10. PCD-3(C), Capital Improvements - Coordinated Program of proposed public works, finding of General Plan Conformity. The Planning Director explained the nature of the matter, essentially as contained in his June 2, 1980 Memorandum to the Commission. Using a wall map as a visual aid, Mr. Hagaman explained the location of the lines in relation to the various designated sewer services areas, indicating if the Palomar Airport sewer service area is approved, the line will incorporate all plants allowing for a high degree of diversity to pump reclaimed water to whatever area needed. In response to Commissioner Friestedt, Mr. Hagaman indicated a fail safe system is a state requirement, although some plants were designed in the nature of an ocean outfall. Chairman Schick inquired if some kind of alternate system could be developed for the use of reclaimed water in the City if the Palomar service area is not approved. Mr. Hagaman responded affirmatively, indicating it was a matter of how and to what degree; technical, special equipment and political questions re rights of ownership of water were involved. /- The Assistant City Attorney further explained there were negotiations with tine Buena Sanitation District, Leucadia County Water District and other service agencies in the area, however at this time he was not prepared to render an opinion of what the various legalities of ownership are. All efforts are being made to obtain all the rights possible for the City. Commissioner Larson inquired of the rationale for tying all plants together: was it a geographical question? Richard Allen indicated this was an unknown, with Mr. Hagaman offering the possibility of a cost factor. Joyce Crosswaithe then explained the companion matter re General Plan conformity for the property east of the City library proposed for acquisition and use to expand City hall facilities. The Assistant City Attorney then gave a background report of City Council actions and directions, indicating there were no specific plans yet developed. There would not, however, be any displacement of homes. Chairman Schick expressed major concerns with the Commission making the required finding to allow condemnation of the property to proceed - in the absence of specific information and detailed plans of the proposed expansion, as required of other planning applicants. -12- Commissioner Jose concurred, inquiring of the effects such action would have on considerations given to relocating the Civic Center in the Palomar Airport Business Park area. Mr. Hagaman responded with a history of the consultant's study re needs of the community in terms of size and location which concluded that a centralized library, police station and City yard should be centrally located, with administrative offices remaining and expanding in this area, Chairman Schick expressed further concerns with the Planning Commission involvement in background, sequential planning for this matter and what the forecasts are. Mr. Hentschke then explained the process which the City must observe in acquiring land for its use in the future. In some respects it is a budget matter allowing policy makers to acquire property and coordinate it with the Capital Improvements Program. Commissioner Larson inquired if the Commission findings of General Plan consistency involved finding that the property has been designated for a particular use and if the City does develop as designated, then it is consistent. Mr. Hentschke responded the Commission finding was a technical requirement, basically as to location and extent. The Commission adopted Resolution 1654, finding general plan consistency for a coordinate program of proposed public works (PCD-3), with the deletion on Page 1, Paragraph 4 re garding provisions of Government Code Section 65402. The Commission continued consideration of Resolution 1659 to the special meeting of June 19, 1980 for further information. MOTION: FRIESTEDT SECOND: LARSON AYES: SCHICK, JOSE, LEEDS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON AND MARCUS NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: ROMBOTIS ADDITIONAL COMMISSION BUSINESS Chairman Schick referenced the June 9, 1980 memorandum from the Planning Director regarding a joint workshop meeting with the City Council ti discuss and clarify the presently existing roles of the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Commission discussed at length possible items for the agenda for such a meeting and possible meeting dates. It was the consensus of the Commission that the meeting be scheduled for a date in the latter part of July, with staff to prepare an agenda with items as discussed. -13- c F AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS ?--- Chairman Schick referenced his comments earlier in the evening with regard to the Planning Department project relating to consistency of the General Plan and zoning, indicating the zoning ordinance is in dire need of revisions. The Planning Director explained this matter was still under consideration. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Jose requested a change on page 4, Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 3 to reflect comments set forth there were attributable to him, rather than Commissioner Larson. Chairman Schick requested an addition on Page 8, between Paragraphs 4 and 5 to reflect his comments that the Commission possessed insufficient information to make a recommendation at this time. The Commission approved the Minutes of the May 28, 1980 meeting, as corrected and amended. MOTION: JOSE SECOND: MARCUS AYES: SCHICK, JOSE, LEEDS, LARSON, FRIESTEDT AND MARCUS NOES: None C ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: ROMBOTIS ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Commission adjourned at 11:OO P.M. to Thursday, June 19, 1980 at 7:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, JAMESC.HAGAMAN Secretary to the Planning Commission -14-