Loading...
PC MINS 19810609MINUTES City df Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting June 9, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. URV913aw ABSENT: Also present were Richard Thompson, Bergquist Angus. COMMUNICATIONS Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes None Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner and Assistant Planners Sandra Massa Lavitt and Alice tion for General Plan Amendment No. Director Hightower said she received a letter from Palos Verdes Properties requesting to withdraw their applica- 7. The Commission accepted said request and so advised any members of the audience that may have been present to speak on the matter. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the Commission determined to not consider any agenda items that are not underway by 11:00 p.m. this evening; any items not heard tonight to be con- sidered at the next regular meeting. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 170 APPEAL Ms. Lavitt said the item was continued 6913 Vallon Drive from the April 28 meeting, at which Appellant/Landowner: J. Nunn time the applicant agreed to consider the possiblity of redesigning the roof structure to lessen the impact of view obstruction to the adjacent neighbors. She said the change in roof design, from gable to hip, decreased the overall height of the addition in the view critical area, but that there still remained some view obstruction of Cata- lina Island at its northerly end. She'referred to the view analysis of the project showing a comparis6n of the orginal plan and the revision. Staff recommended that the Commission take further testimony, and since there is no longer substantial view obstruction, that the Commission ap- prove the appeal, thereby permitted the addition to be constructed as cur- rently proposed. John Nunn, 6913 Vallon Drive, presented an exhibit to the Commission, an overlay showing the difference between the hip roof and the gable roof. He said he has had discussions with the Cayleys on the matter, and he hoped the revision would alleviate the previous difficulties. Maureen Nunn, 6913 Vallon Drive, said they have done everything possible to alleviate any substantial view obstruction. She said they have been working with an architect and have designed a whole new roof which would not cause substantial view obstruction. Paul Cayley, 6905 Vallon Drive, distributed information to the Commission and staff. He said the pictures displayed by staff were misleading be- cause they were selected from positions where the view is not too evident. He said the entire portion north of the isthmus would be lost with a gable roof and that more than half would be lost with a hip roof. He presented exhibits showing a sketch of the island and where each roof would cut across. He said they would lose 91 percent of the view with the old design and 48 percent with the new design. He felt the impairment was very significant. He did not feel alternatives to the rear of the house were seriously considered. He responded to several Commission questions re: his photographs, such as where they were taken from, the type film used, etc. Irene Cayley, 6905 Vallon Drive, submitted to the Commission six letters in opposition from neighbors, and a petition in opposition containing about 68 signatures of residents in the neighborhood. She read excerpts from the General Plan, various policies concerning view preservation and also read from the height variation section of the Development Code. She said the applicant was seeking to acquire a lovely unobstructed view that she now enjoys. She said because they need more room, she was being asked to sacrifice. She submitted her written testimony to the Commission. Susan Parandeh, 6905 Vallon Drive, said they could see Catalina Island from anywhere in the living room and that the addition would destroy that view. Laura Cayley, 6905 Vallon Drive, said with the addition they would see only a wall and lose their existing view. She felt the applicant had other places to build and did not feel it would be reals.ona.ble'to grant the appeal. Dr. Brown did not feel the addition was designed and situated to minimize view obstruction. He felt the same amount of square footage could be placed elsewhere on the lot without the need for a height variation. He felt there was still a significant view impairment, although it was less than what was initially proposed. Dr. Baer concurred and said what the Cayleys lose, the Nunns would gain. Mr. McTaggart asked if staff felt the opportunity to develop in some other area on the property had been adequately addressed. Mrs. Lavitt-said'it had notbeen adequately ,addressed and was a possibility. Mr. McTaggart did not feel that the view impairment was significant btit-_ said it would be difficult to make all of the findings since staff felt it was possible -to -build the addition somewhere else. Mr. Hinchliffe said based on the information received he did not feel the revised addition represented a significant view obstruction. He agreed that the issue of developing somewhere else on the lot should be resolved. Dr. Brown asked for clarification from staff on placing the addition -at the rear of the structure. Ms. Lavitt said the square footage proposed could be accomplished at the rear of the structure without violation of any Codes. Mr. Hughes did not feel the Commission should be considering whether the addition could be built on the rear of the lot at this point, but instead should determine whether or not there is view impairment. He said a deci- sion must be made based on the application for this height variation. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to deny the appeal of Height Variation No. 170, thereby upholding staff's denial of the application, based on the Commission's determination that the proposed structure was not designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction and there was significant view impairment. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes NOES: McTaggart ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. 6/9/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- VARIANCE NO. 67 Ms. Angus said the Commiss'ibn- at its - 6345 Via Colinita meeting of May 12 directed the appli- Applicant: G. Cigliano, Trustee cant to work with staff and consider alternatives. She said the -applicant met with staff and expressed a willing- ness to cut the block wall down to 42 inches and step the fence/wall com- bination to comply with the requirements to apply for a minor exception permit. She said, however, the applicant did not believe he -could cut the pilasters and gates to the six-foot height. Staff recommended that the Commission consider the request for a variance only for the pilasters and gates that exceed six feet. Staff felt if the wall was lowered as sug- gested the problem with visibility would be minimized. As such, staff could make the required findings for the requested variance. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Angus said there was no electrical permit but that the applicant called the County and intends to get the proper permit. She said the County will not issue the permit until the City gives approval for the project. Mr. McTaggart said they should find out if the electrical work meets the current Code. Gerald Cigliano, 6345 Via Colinita, discussed the dramatic slope that the lot takes. He said any other part of the street is level other than the curving part. He said they_were-willinq-to do whatever is necessary con- cerning the electrical and that the.Commission could condition the variance accordingly if desired. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart saiZ�'the proposal to rectify the situation shows a willing- ness of the part of the applicant to work with the City. He felt they should condition the variance to require that the lights conform to the current City codes. He felt it was not the -applicant's fault that the error occurred. Dr. Brown said the public testimony at the last meeting was that this is an unusual lot with the curving street and the slope. He felt there were unusual circumstances in this case. The Commission was able to make finding A., concerning exceptional cir- cumstances, since this is an unusual situation because of the horseshoe shape of the lot and the variation of the grade. The Commission was able to make finding B., concerning the preservation of a propoerty right, because of A. above, and that such property rigFht, exists in the same zoning district. The Commission concurred with staff's findings for C. and D. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Variance No. 67 and directed staff to prepare a resolution based on the above findings and discussion. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 536 Ms. Angus said at the last meeting the 6853 Alta Vista Drive applicant was directed to bring back Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. L. Gintz plans of the court recessed to an ele- Applicant: Tom Milostan vation of 690.75 feet with the retain- ing wall opposite the rear property line side divided into two walls. She said due to the location of a sewer pipe the lowest elevation the court could be placed is 695.25 feet. She said the applicant has submitted scheme #4 showing this elevation. She said with this scheme a six-foot fence would result in a wall/fence combination of 10.5 feet and a ten - foot fence would result in a combined height of 14.5 feet. She said in light of the constraints of the sewer pipe, which runs across the slope at a depth of six feet and must be covered by a minimum of four 6/9/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- feet, staff suggested that the Commission discuss scheme 44 and decide whether it is acceptable in terms of the grading. o In response to Commission questions, Ms. Angus said it was a sanitary sewer. She said the applicant checked with the County and came up with the original height, that the County would require something on the deed which would permit them to tear up the tennis court if it becomes necessary to get to the sewer. Mr. McTaggart said it was not common practice to allow anyone to build over a sanitary sewer. Lee Gintz, 6769 Alta Vista Drive, apologized to the Commission for not considering the depth of the pipe before. He said he checked with the County Engineer and a four -foot cover is required. He said they would sign a document accepting responsibility if it is necessary to tear up the court to repair the pipe. Mr. Hughes said due to the turn of events, the Commission should discuss again whether or' not this use is appropriate for the site. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the effect the elevation may have on adjoining properties. He said the -Commission had previously expressed concern about views. He was further concerned about the structure bei g - placed over a sewer. Pts. Angus referred to one of the photographs showing where the fence line would be. Dr. Brown noted that there was some impairment at 690feetand _ more at 695 feet. He was uncomfortable about shoehorning the project in. He said the Commission previously reached the consensus that the use was appropriate if certain concerns were met, but that now the court is being raised again and being placed over a sewer. He said his concerns have nat been relieved. Dr. Baer said the court was raised five feet but that with a six-foot fence it might not be impactive. He did not feel a tennis court was out of place next to a golf course. He said apparently the applicant has made arrangements with the County regarding the sewer. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried with Dr. Baer dissenting, the Commission denied Grading Application No. 536. Mr. Hughes advised of the right of appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. VARIANCE NO. 65 Ms. Angus said at the last meeting the 4170 Maritime Road Commission directed staff to prepare a Applicant/Landowner: Shultz resolution to approve the variance for the side yard deck and rear yard deck. She said staff was also directed to contact Palos Verdes Properties re: the violation that exists on their property. She said a letter was sent to Palos Verdes Properties and she had been in_ touch with Monte Brower, who was tr_y-irig to contact -their -lawyer re: what action should be taken. She said Section 1 of the resolution deals with the side yard deck and wall, and Sections 2,3,4, and 5 deal with the rear yard deck. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the construction that took place on someone else's property. He said the contractor was obliged to know what was legal, and he requested staff to refer the matter to the State Con- tractor's License Board. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 81-45, thereby approving Variance No. 65 for the side property line wall, side deck, and rear yard deck. Roll call vote was as follows: 6/9/81 PLANNING --COMMISSION MINUTES -4- AYES: Baer, Brown, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. VARIANCE NO. 69 Ms. Angus said the request was for a 26 Sea Cove Drive new residence to encroach into the Applicant: George Sweeney Coastal Zone category 2 and Coastal Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. C. Lopez Zone Setback, and a wall/fence com- bination to exceed 42 inches in the front setback to accommodate a pro- posed tennis court at the front of the lot. She reviewed the four re- quired findings and staff responses as listed in the staff report. Re: findings C. and D. for the encroachment, she said the applicant has sub- mitted a geology report which states that the area is stable to within 15 feet of the toe of the slope. Based upon that finding, if the County Engineer concurs, staff could make those findings. Staff recommended approval of the variance subject to approval by the County Engineer of the geology report. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Angus referred to an overlay which was on display showing similar encroachments in the area. She said a house without a tennis court could be built on the lot without encroachment into the Coastal Setback. She said, however, tha the appli- cant has indicated even without the tennis court, he would want the -house to encroach in order to obtain a view. She noted that the current con- figuration of the house was to accommodate the tennis court. She said she received the geology report this afternoon and that there was no time to review it. Public hearing was opened. George Sweeney, architect, 75 Malaga Cove Plaza, Palos Verdes Estates, presented two exhibits to the Commission, one of which was an aerial photograph of the area. He discussed the geology report. He said the concern of the landowner was that he be able to enjoy the ocean view. He felt the proposal would be a plus for the community. He said the neighborhood was essentially developed. In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Director Hightower said none of the existing homes built in the setback were constructed since the adoption of the Coastal Plan, that they were all built prior to that. Mr. Sweeney said the geologist was with a very conservative firm and they felt if their recommendations were followed, the site was grossly stable. Stasys Petravicious, 15 Sea Cove Drive, said he was unable to see the plans until tonight. He asked several questions of staff and the Com- mission concerning the matter. He said the West Portuguese Bend Com- munity Association had an architectural committee that had not yet seen the plans. Marina Simes, 22 Sea Cove Drive, said she has been a resident for 30 years and wanted to remind the Commission that presently Judge Anderson's house on Lot #1 was in the slide. She wanted to bring this dangerous sit- uation to the attention of the Commission as any slippage would affect not only this home but everyone else's property as well. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to continue the public hearing and the item, since the geology issue was not given a review by the County and staff and the Commission desired more geology information. 6/9/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Dr. Brown did not feel the fact that the other lots did not have to conform to the current restrictions was a basis for approving this vari- ance. Mr. McTaggart and Mr. Hughes had similar concerns. In response to questions by Mr. Hughes, Director Hightower said the categories should be referred to as geologic categories rather than zones. Dr. Baer requested information from staff on the existing buildings in the area, including their lot numbers, etc. Vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart NOES: Hughes ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes directed that the item be placed on the first agenda following receipt of the required input from the County. RECESS At 10:00 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:06 p.m. with the same members present. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 528 Ms. Angus said the request was to allow 2085 Chandeleur Drive grading on slopes greater than 35 per- Applicant/Landowner: V. Jaksic cent to provide an access drive to an adjoining lot owned by the applicant's brother. She reviewed the background of the lot and the access problem and explained that the lot did not have the legal right to use the private drive and the pole to Daladier Drive is too steep to permit access. She said the proposed drive meets all the cri- teria for a driveway to service the subject lot, but the subject lot al- ready has access. She said, therefore, the Commission must determine whether or not the grading on slopesexceeding 35 pet -cent -is excessive.,' Staff recommended that the proposed drive is a feasible design but questioned whether the grading is excessive to the primary use of the lot. Staff requested an opinion from the City Attorney and his response was that the City did not have to grant access but could if the grading was acceptable. Staff recommended that the Commission discusss the proposed grading and decide if the grading is excessive or not. Mr. Hinchliffe asked the basis for granting the.C.67rtific ate= of- Compliance. Director Hightower said the Certificate of Compliance is not a lot split, that the City found the lot had been legally created earlier. She said the map shows an access via the pole and has no easement right on the private road and that apparently it was not obtainable. Vinko Jaksic, 2085IChandeleur Drive, said the lot is there and has an access, but that it was impossible to provide access through the flag be- cause the difference in elevation is approximately 55 feet. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Jaksic said he did not knowthe reason the neighbors would not -grant an easement fbr his brother's lot.-' He said he had approached his neighbors with an offer to buy the access right. He said he has discussed the matter with his attorney. Dr. Baer felt the traffic from one additional lot would be quite minimal. Director Hightower explained that the lot in question did not have on its deed access rights to the easement. I/ Mr. Hughes felt the applicant could provide an easement to this property from his lots. He said the applicant has access to the private road and this property is adjacent. 6/9/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- J. E. Guzman, 1940 Ilene Street, West Commission showing the retaining wall fill on the lot. He said they did not problems. Covina, presented plans to the and said there would be minimum foresee any geologic or soils Mr. Hinchliffe said it appeared that someone made a mistake in processing the map originally and did not check to see if the pole could really provide access to the lot. He said if the error had been caught at the time, this lot probably would have .gained access through the private road. He asked if the City could require that access be provided. Director Hightower said the lot was sold to Mr. Jaksic with the under- standing that there was no access. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe., to approve Grading Application No. 528. Dr. Brown felt it was very sad that this situation has arisen, that what would be a sensible access cannot be obtained. He said he was a pro- fessional partner of Mrs. Jaksic and that that had no baring on his decision. Mr. Hughes sugggested amending the motion to condition the application upon the proper recording of the necessary legal documents guaranteeing legal access to the subject property. He felt the approval should be contingent upon recording the document prior to any construction. Mr. McTaggart and Mr. Hinchliffe amended the motion as suggested by Mr. Hughes. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 7 Mr. Hughes noted that this item had been withdrawn by the applicant and, therefore, would not be considered. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37962 Mr. Thompson said the request was for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 66 the development of 64 single family Northerly of Barkentine Road lots and common open space on a 100 - Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties acre parcel. He said no construction Applicant: Sikand Engineering of homes was proposed at this time. He reviewed the project location, zoning, and design concept. He re- ferred to the exhibits on display, including various overlays. He briefly reviewed the issues of concern: environmental impacts, topography, geology, drainage, grading and street design. He said the County Geology Section was unable to recommend approval of the tentative map because of geo- logical problems associated with the proposed emergency road that was recommended by the Fire Department, which connects with Narcissa Drive which is located within an active landslide area. He referred to the required findings of the Subdivision Map Act and said staff could .make four of those required findings. Staff recommendation was that the Commission open the public hearing, take public testimony, and discuss the issues. Staff further recommended that the Commissi6n.deny the project based on the information in the staff report. In response to Hightower said because of the recommending a deadline. Commission questions concerning the deadline, Director the project had to wait a long time before public hearing staff backlog. She said one of the reasons staff was straight denial was because of the problems with the 6/9/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- In response to Commission questions concerning alternatives, Mr. Thompson said the same problems would exist with access, etc. Director Hightower noted that the applicant was given an indication very early that staff had severe problems with the project. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Thompson said it was a balanced grading operation. He felt no matter what project was proposed for this site there were several geology questions that must be answered, as the Environmental Impact Report {EIR} points out. He said the geology in- formation submitted was not complete, that there was a definite need for further studies in the area. He said the geological setback was based on data that the slide could not be stabilized. He said the County felt that whether the development is located on the slide or off the slide, the slide should be stabilized. Public hearing was opened. Monte Brower, Palos Verdes Properties, said the proposal was for 64 one -acre terraced lots. He said a number of geology reports were com- pleted prior to the EIR and were reviewed. by the County Geologist, who felt they were sufficient for the tentative map stage and that the pro- perty was suitable for development. He said the only area of concern was with the access route to Narcissa Drive. He said there were a number of alternative access roads. He said the property was excluded from the Moratorium because it was considered to be stable. He said they submitted a number of sketches to staff over the past year and that the applicant was willing to modify the design concept to clustering if it was the Commission's desire. He requested the opportunity to respond to additional questions prior to the end of the hearing. Dr. Brown said the EIR indicates that almost every project for this site would require things such as grading In the Open Space Hazard zone, some infilling of the canyons, etc. He said it also mentions blasting at one part of the site. Mr. Brower said the grading in the Open Space Hazard zone would only be for roads or for geological stabilization, and that filling in canyons would be for access. He said they were looking for feedback from the Commission and then would try to fine tune the proposal. He asked about getting a 90 -day extension on the pr03ect. Director Hightower said that would be the maximum extension possible. Ken Marks, Sikand Engineering, said the timing was a critical issue. He said they were told early that there were problems but wanted to get the project before the Commission for direction. Re: filling some of the canyons, he said, they could make them look natural. Dr. Brown said hydrology was also a concern with filling canyons. Mark Bryant, Converse -Ward -Davis -Dixon, geologist, said the EIR indicated potential risk and that they have provided mitigation measures to reduce the risk. He said he spoke to Mr. Smith of the County Geology Section on January 9, 1981 and he indicated no problem with the site as far as geology goes, only with the access location. He said they have recognized the slide, that it is relatively shallow. He said their preference was to stabilize the slide regardless of the project. He said they designed the shear key and buttress and made recommendations to Sikand Engineering for modification. He said they analyzed the site very conservatively. He said they would be grading about 670,000 cubic yards and that the grading would probably take about six months. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Bryant said they typically request that they stay involved with the project through the foundation phase. He said the project engineer would be out there during the grading and his people would also be out there in the field. He said they perform an adequate amount of testing. 6/9/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- �i • Phil Robinson, 3205 Barkentine Road, member of the Upper Abalone Cove Homeowners Association, said he ob3ected to development for the follow- ing reasons: geology ---the area has three active landslides, there were several ancient landslides, the EIR indicates the proposed buttressiftg technique has never been used before, the project may activate the slide, and geology was an inexact science; hydrology ---the increased runoff, the property damage that has already occurred, and the litigation in process; and liability ---the homeowners would hold the City liable. He felt this plan was extremely aggressive given the situation. He passed out copies of his testimony to the Commission and staff. Mr. Hinchliffe said perhaps this pro3ect would benefit the community by providing stabilization to the site. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, expressed concern about the grading, potential blasting, and the geology. She said the Barkentine Canyon was devastated over the past two years. She was upset about the Presley tract and the runoff. Zona Tolliffe, 6347 Tarragon Road, said she concurred with Mr. Robinson. Helen Huenerzager, 3156 Barkentine Road, said she lost one house in the Portuguese Bend slide and did not want--fQ jo8e another'.- She said that - slide was completely impossible to stop. She was very concerned about the potential danger to here present home. Ted Shurtleff, 6501 Le Bec, agreed with all of the speakers ob3ecting tonight. He said if he lived below this development he would be in mortal fear. Paul Christensen, 6317 Tarragon Road, said the geology must be checked out. He was concerned about access and the increase in traffic on Tarragon by over 200 percent. He felt that would be a hazard. Bob Pelton, 2 Packet Road, concurred with Mr. Robinson. He felt the Commission should go back and clean up the Presley tract before dealing with a new one. He was also concerned about the traffic. Mrs. Hendricks, 6320 Tarragon Road, concurred with the others objecting. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Thompson said if the Commission feels alternative designs for the site should be considered, staff felt the geology report should first be reviewed by the City Geologist. Dr. Brown was not opposed to getting further geology review but said there were other concerns. Mr. McTaggart wondered if the applicant had considered a much scaled down project. Mr. Hinchliffe said as a practical matter the developer could not spend the amount of money necessary to stabilize without looking to maximize the number of lots. He said if the landslide area could be stabilized it would be a trade-off for filling in the canyon. He asked if the City could have the City Geologist check the report. Mr. Thompson said the City had talked to Dr. Ehlig re: the project and he indicated that if the City chose him to review the geology report, he would need additional drawings, more borings, etc., as he felt there was not adequate information now. Dr. Brown felt the site had terrible constraints on it and agreed with Mr. Hinchliffe's suggestion for further geology information. 6/9/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9- Mr. Hughes said there appeared to be a consensus to continue the issue tonight and request the applicant to bring back additional geological information. Mr. Hinchliffe said perhaps the easiest solution was to have the applicant's geologist engage in conversation with Dr. Ehlig and staff and determine if there is enough time to resolve the geology issue. Dr. Hightower said it might be possible to get some kind of an informal feel for it. She said staff has in the past had Dr. Ehlig critique the geology report. She said she did not know what his schedule might be. Mr. Thompson said another alternative was to deny the project as submitted and allow the applicant to refile when the information is available. Mr. Hinchliffe said he would like to wait two more weeks since there is a possibility of dealing with this application. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to continue this item to the next regular meeting. Mr. Hughes did not feel two weeks would accomplish anything. Mr. Brower said they would be happy to work on whatever basis the Com- mission wanted. He said there was still a great deal of time left if they get the 90 -day extension. The above motion carried, with Mr. Hughes dissenting. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Director Hightower suggested that the Commission take this matter up prior to the scheduled Housing Committee meeting on Monday, June 15, 1981, in the Parks and Recreation building. She said the Housing Committee meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. and suggested that the Commissionmeet at 7:00 to consider this item. The Commission concurred. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. McTaggart read a letter he composed in response to the transmittal the Commission received re: policy on staff time. Director Hightower said that proposed policy was going back to the City Council for adoption. ADJOURNMENT At 1:25 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Monday, June 15, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. 6/9/81 PLANNING COMMISSION -10-