Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2007/03/28 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Council Chambers 6:00 p,.m. 276 Fourth Avenue March 28, 2007 Chula Vista, California CALL TO ORDER: Introductory Remarks ROLL CALL /MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Tripp, Felber, Moctezuma, Bensoussan, Clayton, Spethman, Vinson I 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 07-01; Consideration of the Urban Core Specific Plan and related rezoning actions. I Cmr. Moctezuma recused herself from the dais due to a conflict of interest with owning property in the Urban Core area and stated she would refrain from speaking as a private citizen. Cmr. Bensoussan as well, recused herself. from the dais due to a Conflict of Interest I~ because she lives within 500 feet of the study area. Ann Hix, reported that this item is before the Commission after havin been heard on 9 October 11, 2006. A Public Hearing was held and public testimony was heard, however, there were concerns about Proposition 90, therefore, the hearing was continued until after the election. Since then, Proposition 90 failed, Staff has reviewed and analyzed the comments made at the October hearing and made some minor changes to the UCSP, making it an even better and easier plan to implement The hearing tonight will be followed in a month on April 26 by a public hearing before the CVRC, RDA and the City Council for consideration on the final adoption of the Urban Core Specific Plan. The City's dynamics have changed dramatically with unprecedented growth in the east and as the second largest city in the County with a population of approximately 225,000, expected to reach 300,000 by the year 2030. Western Chula Vista has only , experienced sporadic growth with an over-abundance of underutilized commercial Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - March 28, 2007 areas Fortunately, development interest in the City's urban areas has been on the rise, The General Plan Update acknowledged this interest and momentum and focused a lot of attention on the west side of the City, At this time, however, the interest is not in growing further out, but rather, up The UCSP provides the new tools needed to implement the 2005 General Plan vision of a re-.invigorated urban core, which would be accomplished through new Mixed-Use zones, comprehensive planning, encouraging private market investment by providing certainty in the development process, and by generating new tax increment to fund public facilities and infrastructure It's been afive-year planning process to get to where we are tonight that has included extensive public participation and input, first with the General Plan Update and then with the UCSP process. The public will continue to be involved once the plan is adopted through the required review of individual projects through the CVRC and RAC process, Mark Broeder, a Principal Planner with Downtown Solutions gave and overview of the extensive public outreaches and input that went into the planning process since its inception in 2004.. Mr. Broeder stated the proposed UCSP strikes a balance taking into consideration the desires of the neighborhood, business community and developers. The Plan changes the old approach to planning for cars. Instead, the UCSP focuses on balancing scarce I land resources between pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and cars. The focus was to I provide key linkages along major streets and neighborhoods through pedestrian promenades, bikeways, with connections to the bayfront and the community to the east, In the northwest, attention focused on the Urban Core's nearly 700 acres primarily along Third Avenue, the business corridors along H Street and Broadway and adjacent older I residential neighborhoods, The 2005 General Plan designates a large portion of this area for Mix Use, This designation replaces the more tradition single land use designations with a combined designation that allows commercial, office. and residential to co-exist, as a way to invigorate urban life, creating a more vibrant; walkable, pedestrian-friendly environment. Along with Mixed-Use is a desire to link High Density housing around Transit, known as Smart Growth, Additionally, stepping away from the traditional planning approach where the function or internal use was the focus, and instead emphasizes building form over function, The UCSP encompasses three major zoning districts; the Village, the Urban Core, and Corridors. The urban form of Third Avenue was established through the General Plan and would be implement through the UCSP, The General Plan calls for predominantly , low-rise structures with mid-rise allowed.. Mid-rise means buildings up to 84 feet with a caveat that they include step-backs in order maintain the pedestrian realm that is so j important, Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - March 28, 2007 The UCSP envisions a gradual change along Third Avenue, from a predominantly first- floor offices, to more retail uses in order to create a livelier 24-hr street environment. Although the draft plan allows existing ground-floor offices to remain as legal non- conforming uses, once a space has been vacated for 18 months or more, the new use is required to be retail. This has raised concern from businesses along Third Avenue and from the Third Avenue Village Association for fear of a loss of income if new retail tenants cannot be found. The request to increase Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the corridor districts, minor increase in FAR better aligns with the urban form and intensity policies describe in the General Plan. An increase of the FAR from 1 0 to 2 0 could improve neighborhood walk ability, Mary Ladiana presented an overview of the Plan. Ann Hix stated the UCSP is the first in a series of significant zoning changes proposed to implement the vision of the General Plan including revitalization of western Chula Vista.. It will rezone approximately 690 acres with new Mixed-Use zoning, allow more comprehensive planning beyond the parcel to parcel level, encourage private market i investment, generate tax increment for public infrastructure, and help move away from an era of further decline and disinvestments and decay, I Staff Recommendation: to approve the resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Urban Core Specific Plan and related zoning actions, Public Hearing Opened. i Evelyn Heidelberg, speaking on behalf of Earl Jentz stated that it is their belief that the i Final EIR is inadequate in that it fails to discuss the conflict between the UCSP and the Cummings Initiative. Comments to that effect were made, but the Response to Comments amounted to no response. Second, in response to the truth of those comments, staff is now proposing amendments to the Cummings Initiative. Third, significant modifications have been made to the UCSP that have not been subject to j environmental review„ It's our contention that those recently proposed changes just before you in the agenda report should be subjected to additional review under CEQA. The Response to Comments states that information in particular sections of the EIR provides the basis that the UCSP is consistent with the Cummings Initiative; none of the i cited sections provide support for that conclusion. One of the cited sections proves that the UCSP violates the Cumming Initiative, specifically Section 5,8,6 of the Final EIR admits that UCSP will result in significant unmitigated transportation impacts in the form of acceptable Level Of Service along Third Ave. between E and G Streets There are with restrictions on rezoning residentially zoned property, The Response simply says that a response will be forthcoming CEQA requires a written response to , comments to any significant environmental issue. When staff later responds, their Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - March 28, 2007 comments underscores the decreased level of services on 3rd Avenue between E and G Second, it identifies three intersections at which significant unmitigated traffic impacts would occur if the UCSP is implemented, Third, the analysis of CVMC 19,80 contains a broad admission that implementation of many of the circulation system improvements needed to accommodate the growth under the UCSP, quote "cannot be assured at this time" Lastly, the analysis of CVMC 19,80 is incorrect in concluding that the restrictions on rezoning do not apply at all to the UCSP because they do not include modifications from/to zones listed in the 19,80,07 schedule, Betsy Keller, stated that she was there to express support for the UCSP, The time has come for us to develop and experience a vibrant downtown area. We owe it to the residents of Chula Vista, their families an their grandkids, the merchants, the building owners, the consumers, and the developers, who have been waiting for the passage of the UCSP so that they could have some direction and move on it In addition, Ms. Keller read into the record ah email sent to her by a 3~d Ave merchant (Susan O'Shanessey) in support of the UCSP and urging the Planning Commission to recommend its approval. Jackie Lancaster revitalization is one thing; plopping a metropolis on top of us is another. Most West Chula Vistans continue to not want to live in or near high-rises., Our ~ plea is don't destroy our communities just because you consider your vision superior to the vision held by apparently a majority of the citrizens. The UCSP has numerous flaws therefore I urge you to not adopt it. Thank you. Bill Hall stated that the Urban Core-Specific Plan has been a long time coming and it is I' absolutely time that it be adopted. i Community Development and City Staff have done due diligence with the citizens of this city; I haven't seen a better example of open government,. I strongly recommend that you carry forward a positive recommendation to City Council to rapidly adopt this fine Urban Core Specific Plan. Tom Salvestrini opposes a few items on the Plan; one being the traffic impacts at J and Third Avenue being unmitigated, The other item that I oppose is the 65-foot height limit, My property could potentially abut a 65-foot high building and that would not be good and a 65-foot structure behind our house with a 20-foot setback is unacceptable, If you're going to do it, give us 40 or 50-foot setback Tier the backs also.. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - March 28, 2007 Stan Wyler thanked staff for all of their hard work over the past few years and urged approval on this project, Tom Money stated he started his real estate business on Third Avenue in 1970 and there's been talk about redevelopment since then You've got to have people living in the core if you want businesses to thrive I commend you for eliminating the requirement that you only can have retail offices on the first floor, Historic Third Avenue was lowered down to 45 feet along the east side, but not along all the west side; from F to G Street is still 84 feet,. An 84-foot building destroys the idea of a village, The height limit from F Street to G Street on the west side should be lowered to 45 feet to match the rest of it. A second choice is to have it all 84 feet, The third choice you have is to leave it like it is. And that's the worst of all, If you want to try and save Third Avenue, then make the area between F and G Street 45 feet so the whole street has a chance to retain that historic look, If you don't think it's worth saving then make the whole street 84 feet, Further south along Third Avenue to J Street, the UCSP calls for 60 feet.. Right behind that is Del Mar Ave, That block, between I and J, is the most beautiful street in all of Chula Vista, If you allow 60-foot buildings there, that's going to completely destroy the ambience of that street,. And my choice is I hope you also lower between F and G to 45 feet, James Brown stated that he's a developer that wants to come to Chula Vista; his firm specializes in urban infill projects that puts people living above shops.. Growing up in Bonita, he remembers Third Avenue as being a vibrant downtown, however, that changed when large horizontal commercial center such as the one on H Street were built and Third Avenue became down-trodden, In the past few years there's been attempts to enliven the streetscape, and it's looking quite beautiful, but until you get the people living on top of those shops and the dedication to the pedestrian over the vehicle, it's not going 'to be maintainable I'm strongly in favor of the plan, It's a very good plan and one of the most conservative plans that are possible, because it's modeled on the way that cities used to be. Connie Mihos stated she is the record-keeper for the Northwest Civic Association, Over 200 residents voiced their concern to the former Mayor and Council requesting them not to go over 45 feet, and to keep Chula Vista a charming downtown, Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - March 28, 2007 ! I don't think there's anyone in West Chula Vista that wouldn't like to see revitalization take place, but not at the expense of destroying the historic feel to downtown Third Avenue,. Tina Zenzola Executive Director of Walk San Diego stated they've been working with Chula Vista for about the past two and a half years to improve walk ability and looking at some of the policies. We have some concerns with the details of the urban form in terms of building design and architecture I think we've missed some of the details with the walk ability piece. And so I want to outline three major concerns, One is the design of the sidewalks and the combination of putting bicycle lanes on sidewalks. The plan says there are going to be 16-foot sidewalks, but part of it is a sidewalk, part of j it is a bike lane in the middle of the sidewalk, and then part of it is considered parkway. The real cruxes of a walkable community are to make the sidewalks wide and make the streets skinny. If you look at what's proposed, it says very wide sidewalks, but in the details of the public realm design guidelines it says that the minimum sidewalk width is I four feet., For a wheelchair to pass a pedestrian on a four-foot sidewalk means somebody has to get off the sidewalk. We would like to see an increase from 4 to 5 feet width for sidewalks. Greg Mattson stated that the Urban Core Specific Plan needs to be approved as soon !i as possible, I support the current revisions presented by staff tonight, and request the planning commission to recommend moving the UCSP and the EIR up to city council for I approval i The business associates also have put forth a recommendation that Landis and Church and Garrett streets, which are the parallel streets to Third Avenue, be allowed some kind of retail commercial on those transitional streets, Ken Wright spoke on behalf of the Northwest Civic Association as their vice president, stated V2 and V3 between F and G Street, should be 45 feet. We should revise the parking requirement to make it consistent, which is one and a half space for a studio and one bedrooms, and two spaces for two and three bedroom units. Ensure that there is a program in place for the historic preservation implementation program. Lastly, having a walkable city is a great thing, however, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that it will all be geared toward pedestrian traffic and not enough parking is provided Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - March 28, 2007 My recommendation would be that you should consider holding off voting on this.. There are issues related to the EIR and other design issues that need answering. Patricia Aguilar stated she was speaking on behalf of Crossroads II Having served on DRC and the Planning Commission, it was standard practice that where there were changes to a draft environmental document, the staff report would include a statement to the effect that the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed those changes and has made a determination that no further environmental review is necessary as a result of those changes.. That statement was not included in this report and she wanted to know if indeed the environmental review coordinator had reviewed the changes and determined that there is no further CEQA review necessary If so, where is that documented in the public record? Mary Ladiana responded that the review of the changes were made by staff and the Consultant, Recon, We were very mindful as to the modifications that were being made and provided substantiation as to whether or not the changes were in keeping with both the General Plan, the UCSP and the Final EIR, Density and growth are not the problem; its about whether this plan will protect the charm and character of northwest Chula Vista as we grow, There are three choices; you can recommend to Council approval of the UCSP; recommend denial of the UCSP; or you can recommend approval of the UCSP with modifications. The latter is our recommendation.. I Crossroads II has a number of modifications: 1 Encourage redevelopment but at the same time protect the qualities of northwest. 2 The ability to increase building height by five feet, By allowing an increase of five feet in a higher than normal floor to ceiling ground floor, you allow another story,. That's in conflict with the general plan and we oppose that 3. One of the intents of the general plan was to protect the R1 zone property, (the R1 areas south of H Street between, between Broadway and I-5) This is awell-maintained, single-family neighborhood, which straddles UC10 and UC11; we believe it should be removed from the plan, the same way that Holiday Gardens and the mobile home parks have been removed I 4 Maximum allowable height in sub district C1 The two corridor districts on the two ends of Broadway has a height limit of 45 feet, The corridor district on the south end of third, has a height limit of 60 feet. It seems that where we want to have the density is on the north end of Broadway, which connects Chula Vista to National City. I Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - March 28, 2007 5 The parking requirements; we think that the simplest thing to do is just incorporate the same parking requirements that apply tc the rest of Chula Vista Lastly, H Street conceptually in the plan is .called for as having lots of courtyards, but when you look at the actual setback requirement, those courtyards will not occur, So we think that there ought to be a 15-foot front yard setback required for all development on H Street between Third and Broadway to require these courtyards to actually implement the concept of the plan for H Street as a boulevard, I'm Laura Hunter, representing the Environmental Health Coalition.. The plan does not guarantee healthful location of new housing, The science is very clear that it is a very unhealthful place for' children, the elderly and people with compromised respiratory systems to live within 500 feet of a freeway.. There should be an exclusion zone, The Air Resources Board issued a land use guidance document stating that we should not be putting housing within 500 feet of a heavily trafficked road The second area is around energy Buildings are about 43% responsible for 43% of the emissions that are causing global climate change, And yet, nothing in this plan requires anything above the minimum efficiency standards, which are baseline here. We can do better, The last thing, I would just say, we don't support the new exemption language,. We think exemptions should only be allowed by an elected body that's accountable directly to the public in implementing the plan. Jerry Livingston, Building Industry Association stated he was there in support of the Urban Core Specific Plan, and encourage its adoption, However, there are some areas of concern; one being over parking„ If we are going to be going to an urban setting, we should not be encouraging suburban-style parking, especially the recommendation to going back to the requirements that are in the code. Part of the goal of an urban setting is to have less auto traffic, and one of the ways you do that is by having less opportunity for cars to move from one spot to another.. We did recommend that you reduce the visitor parking from, one to ten, to one to thirty,. Recommend that you have a more limited number of requirements for parking in terms of one and two bedrooms, these should be one parking space, and three bedrooms, 1.5 parking spaces. We do support the idea of a consistent review, coming back to see whether or not the goals and policies are actually encouraging the development that you're looking for. We're concerned that the cost associated with doing the kind of development that you're Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - March 28, 2007 asking for won't be born by development here as it has been in the experience of the eastern portion of this city. My name is Lisa Cohen, CEO of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce. The Chula Vista Chamber's supports the Urban Core Specific Plan,. The Chamber represents over 1,000 businesses and their 27,000 employees, The Urban Core Specific Plan will stimulate and encourage the building of valuable projects in our city. The Chula Vista Chamber respectfully asks for your support of the Urban Core Specific Plan. I want to thank city staff for all their time, coming out to our committee groups and explaining the importance of getting to a thriving western part of Chula Vista, My name is Paula Perry, J Street, 271 J Street, I did not even know that there was an Urban Core Specific Plan or a General Plan, till last summer, I found out in August, when a developer came by our homes and wanted to buy out our homes I oppose the 65-foot height cap and believe it should be maintained at 45 feet, additionally oppose reducing the parking requirement. Charles Moore, President of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, supports the UCSP as presented to you today, The plan will work with appropriate step-backs and creative innovative urban design, Richard DeScoli representing the Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors stated he supports the UCSP These height limits that we're bringing down to 45 feet, 65 feet. Right now, there is no height limit. So you're actually taking away rights of some property owners to build things on their properties that before they would have been able to get past,. My name is Tina Modina We bought into the idea of redevelopment in our neighborhood so that our children's community would be a usable and prosperous community, the way it was when we were growing up This means that we can shop, eat, live, and work in our community.. The urban core areas are in desperate need of attention, I support the Urban Core Specific Plan and I urge you to do the same. Gordon Carrier, architect with Carrier-Johnson, stated he was there to express support for the Urban Core Plan and to thank city staff for working so hard over the last few years, Through the collaboration process, it seems the city has developed a plan that reflects an appropriate balance of community character and economic opportunity, Planning Commission Minutes - 10 - March 28, 2007 One area that could provide some improvement is in the incentive portion of the plan, You're proposing to give an increase in floor-area ratio if certain milestones are achieved in environmental building standards. This certainly makes sense, because the city and, and all of us want to encourage projects to be built in an environmentally sensitive manner Uh, but to achieve the desired result of a vibrant community, I'd ask the city to look at a couple more incentives Number one, encouraging employment-based uses,. Employment-based uses in the urban core will help keep activity in the community on a 24/7 basis, Residential development activates a street in the morning and evening, Employment-based uses help activate the streets in the middle of the day, The combination of both, makes fora dynamic environment. Our recommendation is to add an incentive for employment-based, based uses The incentive would be to bump AFR by 5 to 1 0 if you build a project that is at least 50% employment-based, i e non-residential, Joanne Hatfield representing Earl and Karen Jentz, Environmental Consultant from the Planning Center, 1580 Metro Drive, Costa Mesa We were hired by Mr Jentz to conduct an adequacy review of the environmental ~ documentation for adequacy and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act In summary, we concluded that recirculation of this EIR is required, because the 'i revisions to the Specific Plan are substantial and have not been analyzed or disclosed. My impression of the revisions to the projects are that they are substantial, and we don't know whether there would be significant impacts. I don't think the environmental process right now is defensible, I don't think it complies with CEQA I wouldn't comment one way or another on the merits of the Specific Plan itself My opinion as an environmental specialist is that the environmental impact for these changes were not I analyzed Alex Beaton with Citimark Development, 71 i3 Street, San Diego stated he lives in high- density housing where he walks to work, restaurants, does shopping and recreates,. High density housing limits traffic I am a developer and can say that having additional height makes projects happen, and unfortunately, limiting that will make projects not happen, Glen Googins stated he was representing Jose Cortez with respect to his interests in properties located at 311 to 325 G Street, all of which he desires to be included within the B3 subdistrict of the Urban Core Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes - 11 - March 28, 2007 The upper half of Mr Cortez's property is already recommended for approval and inclusion within the V3 subdistrict; the lower half is not, What we're seeking is a Planning Commission recommendation to City Council that the entire area be included within the V3 district, Although the Urban Core Specific Plan covers vast areas of land, there are not many development opportunities where you've got property that's large enough to develop, A property owner may have the capacity to develop his property in ahigh-density area should not be taken for granted. Mr Cortez is proposing amulti-family project with descending floors, Five stories closest to the proposed larger building, stepping down to four stories, and then to three stories, immediately adjacent to a, what would remain an R3 district, and what it's currently improved, with atwo-story, multi-family building The problem is that unless the entire property is included within the V3 district, this project cannot be built, The current line is immediately down the center of Mr Cortez's property. This project fits within the context of the general plan,. It also fits within the context of the ~I Urban Core Specific Plan.. Stella Sutton, owner of Stella's Restaurant on Third Avenue, stated it is imperative that revitalization take place by attracting new businesses and attracting people to move into an urban mixed use setting; she gave her enthusiastic support to the UCSP. Jeff Kuhn stated he and his wife moved to Chula Vista about 7 years ago because they saw the beauty of western Chula Vista, They are committed to investing in upgrading their home in the hopes that they made the right decision to buy here and that the downtown area will become a vibrant walkable, revitalized destination, He urged the Commission's support of the UCSP. Emily Stone stated she is in support of the UCSP and was very thrilled to see that mixed use was going to come to Chula Vista. Glenn Googins stated he was representing Bay Scene Mobile Home Park, which is also representing the interests of Terrace and Cabrillo Mobile Home Parks,. Bay Scene is disappointed that the mobile home park properties, including their property, is not included in the Urban Core Specific Plan, The exclusion of the mobile home park properties is extremely significant and creates kind of a patchwork of sizeable properties that are in ideal locations, many of which were, were proposed for redevelopment at significant densities, High densities at these sites is where the affordable housing is going to happen in the west side. And without these properties included, the vision that was set forth in the general plan, will not be complete, Planning Commission Minutes - 12 - March 28, 2007 We would like the Planning Commission to consider in their recommendation to City Council that as soon as the mobilehome relocation ordinance update process is completed, that these properties be brought back immediately for inclusion within the Urban Core Specific Plan, either at the densities and development intensities that were proposed in the draft plan, or potentially, even at higher development intensities as appropriate in the different areas to provide affordable housing opportunities with high density on the west side One last comment when I look at the maximum development percentages for the primary land uses on the various zoning sheets, it's not clear to me how that would be applied on aparcel-by-parcel basis, I would like to read a provision, and I would like to add to clarify how these percentages would work on aparcel-by-parcel basis The primary land use maximum percentages intended, are not intended to be strictly applied on aparcel-by-parcel basis,. Rather, if appropriate to the parcel, primary land use maximum percentages may be exceeded, so long as in the aggregate, district-wide primary land use percentage maximums are maintained, and that all other district development standards are complied with at the site, For purposes of determining a particular site's rnaximum FAR, no primary land use percentage or combination of percentages shall ever exceed 100% Public Hearing Closed. Cmr Tripp stated that based on the comments made regarding the adequacy of the environmental document, does staff believe that the EIR is adequate and sufficient? Mary Ladiana responded, yes, One of the things that staff was very mindful of when looking at some of the comments that were made through the public process was whether or not they would trigger a potential for recirculation. Staff wanted to stay within the realm of what the EIR looked at, because this is a programmatic long-range zoning document, it's aform-based zone as opposed to a regular zone, Some of the changes that were made, such as FAR, lot coverage, those were not specifically analyzed on a parcel-by-parcel basis for all 5,000 parcels What we were looking towards, is what the general plan assumed for these sites, When we did the EIR, the traffic was based on what the general plan land use projections were. So a change in lot coverage didn't necessitate a change in the overall projected build-out. Cmr,. Tripp noted that the plan talks about use with later activities and that subsequent activities in the program are examined in Tight of the programmatic EIR, and may require further environmental review down the road at the appropriate time when they're proposed, Cmr, Vinson asked for clarification as to whether or not the proposal presented by Mr I~ Googins to add Mr Cortez's property to V3, was feasible, Planning Comrnission Minutes - 13 - March 28, 2007 Ms. Ladiana stated that there are three separate parcels, and the one parcel that we recommended go to the V3 was contiguous with the parcel just immediately to the north that is part of an office building, It formed a nice square, The other two lots, as you move west on Parkway, are really adjacent to a lower density development, and we thought that the break really was at the lot that we drew. So there are three separate parcels, and they could be developed as one project Cmr. Spethman had a question regarding Mr Carrier's recommendation for incentive for employment-based uses, inclusion of ground-floor retail, and the FAR be exempted„ Is that something that can be included in this tonight, or is that something that needs to be looked at under different circumstances? Mary Ladiana responded that those are something that we could modify if the Planning Commission is so inclined,. They were not evaluated on aproject-specific level because we don't know if people are really even going to use them., So it's something that could be modified. Mike Shirey stated that with respect to the public's comments raised in the draft EIR and the way staff handled those responses, his office would have preferred to have the proposed changes to the plan be reflected in the final environmental documents„ A discussion ensued regarding the adequacy of the record and whether the Planning Commission is able to make a recommendation to Council based on the documents that they've received, Cmr Felber stated he has concern with parking and is hesitant in recommending that the present parking requirements be lowered,. Additionally, although he supports the pedestrian/walkable community concept, he is a little concerned with having bicycles and pedestrian traffic in a sidewalk MSC (Tripp/Spethman) (5-0-0-2) recommend approval uvith 1 parking space for 1 bedroom and 2 parking spaces for 2 and 3 bedroom; also to include Mr Cortez property to be included in the V3 Motion carried with Cmr, Bensoussan and Montezuma abstaining, ~j J//,~ Diana Vargas, Secretary to Plan Commission