Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1973/11/28 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOI~ OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Noven~ber 28, 1973 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California ~as held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Macevicz, Whitten, Chandler, Rice, Rudolph, Swanson and ~ilson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Associate Planner Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Robens, City Attorney Lindberg, Deputy City Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes. Chairman Macevicz led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of November 14, 1974 Commissioner Rudolph requested that the minutes of the meeting of November 14th be corrected on page 5 to show that she spoke in favor of rezoning the property at Second and Palomar to R-3-M, rather than speaking against that application. MSUC (~hitten-Rudolph) The minutes of the meeting of November 14, 1973 be approved as corrected. 1. Consideration of annexation of Bonita Ridge Estates Director of Planning Peterson noted that this consideration was continued from the meeting of November 21, 1973, at which time the request for rezoning and the tentative subdivision map were continued to the meeting of December 12th. The applicant then requested that the Commission consider the annexation at this meeting because of the lengthy procedures required in the process of annexa- tion. All persons who had expressed an interest in this matter at the previous hearing were notified that it would be considered at this meeting. Mr. Peterson advised that the staff feels this is a logical annexation to the City of Chula Vista and the City can provide the necessary services to the property. He pointed out that annexation in no way obligates the City to approval of any development plans or rezoning requests pending. In response to a question raised by Commissioner Rudolph, Assistant Director of Public Works Robens advised that the drainage problems of this area can be resolved and this will be resolved in the same manner whether the adjacent lots are annexed to the City or remain in the County. Commissioner Rice suggested that the adjacent lots jutting into the proposed annexation should also be considered for annexation in order to attain a more logical boundary line. Commissioner Swanson asked for clarification concerning the provision of sewer service for this property. Mr. Peterson reported it is the developers intent to provide a sewer connection to the Metropolitan Sewer line, which connection would then become available to the adjacent property in the County presently on septic tanks. City Planning Comm~_ ~ion Meeting -2- 11/28/73 Commissioner Chandler pointed out that the drainage problem which exists in this area and the possible traffic problem has occurred while the property was under County jurisdiction. He felt such situations should be noted when the City considers annexations which may result in the City being required to correct existing problems. Commissioner Whitten suggested that the staff contact the owners of the lots that are virtually surrounded by this annexation to see if they would be interested in being included in this annexation request. Chairman Macevicz asked for comments from the audience. Frank Sarris, 4375 Acacia Avenue, noted that the people of Bonita had voted in recent years not to be annexed to the City of Chula Vista. He felt this is a decision which should be made by the residents of the area. Although the developer wishes to annex the property at this time prior to developing 130 units, it is not known whether the future residents would wish to be in the city. Conrad Walton, 1636 Spanish Oak, E1 Cajon, representing Par Construction, applicant for the annexation, indicated they would have no objection to having additional parcels included with this annexation, but they do wish to have the application move forward through the many agencies required without further delay which might be entailed in contacting all of the owners of the other properties. Commissioner Rice reiterated the suggestion that the staff contact the inhabitants of this area to determine if they are receptive to annexation at this time. If they are that area should be included within the boundaries of this annexation; however, if there is opposition, the petition for annexation as filed by Par Construction should be processed. Stewart Pritikin, 11460 Eridanus Court, representing Par Construction, asked the time frame that would be required to contact these people and allow for their response. Mr. Peterson indicated that if the motion as suggested is adopted it would permit processing the application for the next available LAFCO meeting, with or without the added parcels. ~.~SUC (Rudolph-Swanson) The boundaries of the annexation of Bonita Ridge Estates be approved with the condition that the staff contact the owners of the outparcel to ascertain their interest in being included in the annexation. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-73-25, request to use existing building at 380 Third Avenue for church meetings - Christian Open-Door Brotherhood Church Director of Planning Peterson indicated on an exhibit the location of the commercial building, 567 sq. ft. in area, proposed for use by a small church group for Sunday morning and evening services and classes on Monday and Wednesday even- ings. The staff feels this use would not be incompatible with surrounding uses in the area and have recommended approval subject to two conditions relating to the hours of use and limitation on the number of people to be accommodated, which the applicant has indicated is their intent to conform to. City Planning Commission -3- 11/28/73 Commissioner Whitten inquired about parking in that area, and it was noted that this is within the Parking District. It was also pointed out that this is intended as an interim use and the church would be looking for a more suitable structure if their membership grew in numbers. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Reverend Edna G. Kinikin, 1615 Evergreen, San Diego, representing the church, advised in response to a question that there are no apartments upstairs in this building; that space is now occupied by the First Spiritual Institute. She also confirmed it is their hope that this will be a temporary location as its maximum capacity is 35; they presently have 10 members but hope to grow. Don Ritchie, 92 F Street, Chairman of the Downtown Association, reported that they had submitted a letter in opposition to the granting of this conditional use permit based on the opinion of the members of the Board that such use would seriously detract from the retail appearance of Third Avenue. He expressed the opinion that since this is the retail business zone, use of the property should be retained for such business; a church, even as a temporary use, would prohibit a permanent retail or service business from moving into the site. Niek Slijk, Manager, Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, pointed out that the Downtown Association in conjunction with the Downtown Improvement District is trying to promote a plan for the improvement of the downtown area and need a cohesive effort from all businesses in the area. He felt a church would have no benefit from a joint advertising campaign or from a promotional district. Sandra Crocker, 804 15th Street, member of the Board of Trustees of Christian Open-Door Brotherhood, pointed out that the Christian Science reading room and the First Spiritual Institute are presently located in this vicinity on Third Avenue, also that in recent weeks there have been three or four vacant store buildings in the downtown area. She felt their use would in no way interfere with the retail uses in the vicinity and she expressed a willingness to cooperate with the businessmen in any way possible. Melvin Morrell, 202 Sierra Way, stated he is the owner of several retail shops from 359 to 369 Third Avenue, on the opposite side of the street, and requested denial of the subject application based on the incompatibility of the use with retail development of the area. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Whitten pointed out this would result in a loss of tax revenue from a retail business which might occupy the site. Commissioner Swanson expressed the opinion this use would bring additional people to the downtown area which should prove beneficial to the retail establishments. ~SC (Whitten-Wilson) The application for conditional use permit PCC-73-25 be denied since it would not contribute to the general well being of the downtown business community. City Planning Commission -4- 11/28/73 The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Whitten, Wilson, Rudolph, Macevicz, Chandler and Rice NOES: Member Swanson ABSENT: None 3. Consideration of request to move-on residential structure at 642 Third Avenue- BaS Cities Ambulance. Associate Lee presented for Commissioners inspection photos of the building proposed to be moved and the area where it is to be moved to serve as living quarters for the ambulance service employees in accordance with a conditional use permit recently granted to that firm. He felt the proposed building would not be incompatible with other structures in the area and recommended that the Commission submit to the City Council the finding that the proposed move-in is architecturally compatible. MSUC (Chandler-Wilson) Recommended to City Council that the proposed move-in for 642 Third Avenue is architecturally compatible. 4. Report on 2-stors additions to residential structures in R-1 zone. Director of Planning Peterson advised that this report is in response to a letter addressed to the City Council protesting the construction of a second story addition to a house on Gotham Street. He suggested that the Commission adopt a motion advising the Council of the provisions of the S Modifying District in the Zoning Ordinance as a means of regulating building heights, but recommending that this district should not be applied to an already established residential area unless it receives the support of the persons living in the area. Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that in the design of a subdivision consideration is given to retaining views, privacy, and light and air for each residence. She suggested that a set of criteria be established to permit additions only if they do not affect the rights of another property. Commissioner Chandler felt it is best if such restrictions are included in the deed restrictions on property rather than imposed by the city. MSC (Whitten-Chandler) Report to the City Council that the "S" Modifying District is available in the ordinance and may be attached in areas where warranted. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Whitten, Chandler, Rice, Macevicz, Wilson and Swanson NOES: Member Rudolph ABSENT: None City Planning Commission -5- 11/28/73 5. SUBDIVISION: Tentative Map of Bonita Ridge Estates, PCS-73-6 - Par Construction. MSUC (Whitten-l~ilson) Consideration of PCS-73-6 be continued to the meeting of December 12, 1973. It was moved by Commissioner Whitten, seconded by Commissioner Chandler, that there be a separation period of at least two weeks between the adoption of an Environmental Impact Report and the consideration of the development of the property. Commissioner Wilson felt that a developer should not be impeded in processing a development by having the E.I.R. and development plans spaced that far apart since it has been found that some E.I.R's are not controversial and the development can be considered along with processing the E.I.R. Commissioner Rice agreed that it is sometimes possible to expedite an application by taking testimony on it at the same time as the E.I.R. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members Whitten, Chandler and Macevicz NOES: Members Wilson, Rice Rudolph and Swanson ABSENT: None 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD-73-2, Deerpark East - American Housin~ Guild. Associate Planner Lee advised that several years ago the City annexed and prezoned to P-C a rather substantial area in the southeastern section of the city and approved plans for the development of 1200 units. Since that time Brandywine Units 1 and 2 have been developed with a total of 300 units in condominium projects, which meant the remaining area to the east was originally approved under the P-C zoning for 900 units. This property has been purchased by American Housing Guild and they have presented plans for the development of 108 acres with 291 single family detached houses to be located in clusters. Mr. Lee indicated on a plat the area proposed for this development also noting the recreational area and a small commercial site. He also pointed out the adjacent park site and discussed the basic circulation plan which calls for dedicated streets to form a loop system and one cul de sac with private roads leading into the clusters. Commissioner Rudolph questioned the location of the recreational facility at the edge of the development and asked which residents would be able to walk to that area. Mr. Lee advised that it would be within walking distance of all residents through a system of pedestrian paths throughout the development. Commissioner Rudolph asked why an E.I.R was not required for this project. City Planning Commission -6- 11/28/73 Director of Planning Peterson advised that since this a substantial reduction in density from the original plan covered by the Brandywine E.I.R, the Environmental Review Committee felt that the item was covered by the original E.I.R so that a new E.I.R. was not necessary. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jerry Linton, American Housing Guild, reported that they had proceeded wi th development plans for this project based on the determination by the Environmental Review Committee that no new E.I.R. was required and while they would be pleased to furnish any additional information desired, they did not feel that should be required at this point to back up and prepare an entire Environmental Impact Report for the project. Mr. Linton expressed the belief that this project is a unique kind of development to provide single family detached homes under the P.U.D. ordinance which is more commonly devoted to townhouses or condominiums. He advised that detached homes are the most marketable type of residential structure. He also pointed out that since this a fairly hilly property it requires an innovative plan to preserve the topography. He reported that while there is extensive grading in this development there is no slope steeper than 2:1, and there is extensive use made of rolling slopes and contoured grading to maintain the natural hilly appearance. Mr. Linton further pointed out that no homes have been placed in the area previously designated as an earthquake fault zone even though this is, in fact, an inactive fault. He felt that leaving this as open space lends character to the development. Mr. Linton affirmed they would rectify the minor technical inconsistencies between the P.U.D. map and the tentative subdivision map. He called attention to condition 2 b, relating to maintenance of the common open area which he felt is in conflict with State law by requiring the developer to be responsible for the maintenance for a period of one year, whereas the Department of Real Estate requires that at such time as 60% of the homes within the subdivision unit are sold, the developer shall convey to the owners the common open space and recreation facilities. He pognted out that the home owners are then required to pay a monthly maintenance fee, which the developer also must pay for all lots which have not been sold, until such time as they are sold. He felt they could not be required to maintain the landscaping after the open space is conveyed to the Home Owners Association. City Attorney Lindberg concurred that the State law requires that the Home Owners Association, at such time as 60% of the units are sold, assume control of the common open space. He asked the developer if there would be one Home Owners Association for the entire project or a separate association for each of the four units within the subdivision. Mr. Linton advised that when 60% of the homes within the first unit are sold, the Home Owners Association becomes a true entity, and as additional units are developed and sold they are annexed to the area of the Home Owners Association. City Planning Commission -7- 11/28/73 As no one else wished to speak the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rudolph suggested that this hearing be continued in order that the Commission could review the Brandywine E.I.R. adopted some time ago and determine how this development relates to that report. Commissioner Chandler pointed out that with one-third of the number of units originally anticipated by the E.I.R. there is a lessening effect on the environ- ment from a density standpoint, a traffic standpoint and an air pollution standpoint and he did not feel it would be necessary to go back and review the E.I.R. which was previously approved anticipating a greater effect. Commissioner Wilson asked about the access into this project. Associate Planner Lee indicated the main access would be from Otay Valley Road via Brandywine Avenue, the easterly half of which will be improved in connection with this development. There is another access from Oleander, via Sequoia. Commissioner Wilson asked the location of the nearest Fire Department substation to this development. Clyde Longerbone, Assistant Fire Chief, advised that the closest station is located at 266 Oneida. The route from that station would be via Melrose to Orange, thence to Oleander and into the project on Sequoia. This is starting to reach the limits of running time. Associate Planner Lee indicated an additional fire station in this general vicinity is shown on the General Plan, although a particular site has not been selected. It was moved by Commissioner Rudolph that the public hearing for consideration of PUD-73-2 for Deerpark East be continued to the meeting of December 12, 1973. The motion died for lack of a second. MSC (Chandler-Rice) PUD-73-2 be approved subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report with a clarification of condition 2b relating to the maintenance of common open areas by the Home Owners Association after 60% of the homes in the subdivision unit are sold. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Chandler, Rice, Wilson, Macevicz, Swanson and Whitten NOES: Member Rudolph ABSENT: None 7. SUBDIVISION: Tentative Map of Deerpark East, PCS-73-4 - American Housin~ Guild. Associate Planner Lee noted this tentative map was discussed during the previous public hearing on the P.U.D. He further noted the recommended conditions for approval, including those from the Division of Engineering. City Planning Commission -8- 11/28/73 MSC (Rice-Whitten) Recommend to the City Council the approval of tentative map PCS-73-4 for Deerpark East. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Rice, Whitten, Swanson, Macevicz, Chandler and Wilson NOES: Member Rudolph ABSENT: None Mr. Jerry Linton, American Housing Guild, indicated they were not in agreement with the staff's recommendation on the required landscaping, which they felt would place an extreme financial burden upon the development. They would propose hydroseeding as a method of protecting the manmade slopes. The meeting recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD-73-1, Hilltop Terrace - Gersten Company. Director of Planning Peterson advised that in 1969 when the major portion of this property was rezoned to R-3, that zone designation was contingent upon approval of a Planned Unit Development on the property; the rezoning also left a strip at the northern edge of the property in the R-1 zone. At that time the proposed plan consisted of 42 single family homes in the R-1 portion and 318 townhouse units in the proposed R-3 area, for a total of 360 units. The applicant is now asking for conceptual approval of a different plan than the one endorsed by the Coucil in 1969. The present proposal is for 263 units, consisting of 2 and 3 bedroom, split level homes, with the necessary garage and guest parking spaces. This plan would encompass the R-1 portion of the property, as well as the R-3, and for this reason the applicant is requesting conceptual approval prior to the submission of an Environmental Impact Report or precise plans for the development. Chairman Macevicz advised that a letter addressed to him from Mrs. Vanderpool, bearing this date and delivered just before the meeting, requests that this hearing be continued until February 1974, due to the rush of the holiday season. Commissioner Whitten questioned the advisability of giving conceptual approval before an E.I.R. is available to determine the effect of the proposed project. Deputy City Attorney Beam confirmed that before final approval can be given for a project, an E.I.R. must be adopted by the City, but he could not say whether or not this request for conceptual approval would unintentionally bypass that requirement. Director of Planning Peterson advised that the reason for requesting conceptual approval is to determine if the Commission and Council would favor a uniform P.U.D. on the entire property as opposed to retaining the strip of R-1 zoning with the P.U.D. on the balance of the property. City Planning Commission -9- 11/28/73 Commissioner Whitten again expressed the opinion that this public hearing should not be opened, but should be continued until it is determined whether an E.I.R. will be filed. Deputy City Attorney Beam expressed the opinion that the Commission could give conceptual approval without committing themselves to approval of a specific plan until an E.I.R. has been adopted upon which they can make a decision. MS (Whitten-Rudolph) The public hearing for consideration of PUD-73-1 for Hilltop Terrace be continued to the meeting of January 9, 1974. Carmen Pasquale, representing the Gersten Companies, spoke against the continuation, and affirmed that the conceptual approval they are seeking tonight is whether the P.U.D. can be developed on the entire property as opposed to retaining the strip of R-1 zoning for single family development. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Whitten, Rudolph, Swanson, Rice, and Macevicz NOES: Members Wilson and Chandler ABSENT: None 9. Reconsideration of drainage ssstem for commercial propert~ north of Telegraph Can~on Road, east of Halecrest Drive - Pacific Ba~ Development C~mpan~. Director of Planning Peterson reported that question as to whether the drainage in front of this property should remain as an improved open channel or be enclosed in an underground system has been considered by the Commission on a number of occasions and was continued from the October 10th meeting to allow additional time for the applicant to demonstrate that the cost of the under- ground drainage system would render development of the property economically infeasible. On the basis of limited research of the value of the added parking space that would be available with an underground drainage system and on the basis of safety and aesthetic considerations, the staff recommends that the Commission reaffirm the requirement for undergrounding the drainage system along the commercial development. Gilbert Dreyfuss, 615 South Flower Street, reminded the Commission that this matter was continued for purpose of having economic data submitted to give the Commission some guide as to whether undergrounding the drainage would result in a hardship. He pointed out that their figures show a difference of one-half million dollars in the cost of underground drainage over an improved open channel; he noted that the staff disagreed with those figures, but did set the differential in cost at $355~424. He took exception to the statement in the staff report that added revenue of $11,000 per parking space or a total of $440,000 could be anticipated. He contended this $440,000 would represent added retail sales revenue, but the net profit on that would be a very small percentage-- less than 5%. He noted that the staff report averages the difference in cost from the applicant's figures and the Engineering Division estimate at a figure of $438,193, which he maintained is equal to a very significant part of the present land value. He also asserted that their plans provide for adequate parking area for the number of buildings proposed, and since they do not wish to increase the building area they have no need for the added parking spaces to be gained by placing the drainage underground. He firmly maintained that constructing City Planning Comm~_~ion -10- 11/28/73 the underground drainage would result in an economic hardship and felt the developer should have some discretion in the way he develops his property so long as it meets the physical requirements of handling the anticipated storm runoff which their proposed open channel would do. Commissioner Rice expressed the opinion that since there is adequate parking space without utilizing that to be gained by a covered drainage, and it would take some years to recover added cost even if it did result in additional revenue to the center, he felt the Commission should look more favorably on the open channel. Commissioner Whitten disagreed and felt if there is more parking space than required by the proposed development, why not increase the development. He expressed the opinion that the City Attorney had supported this guideline when the rezoning was enacted, and it is therefore a legal and reasonable condition to adhere to. City Attorney Lindberg indicated his position had been that if the Planning Commission felt the covered culvert was required on the basis of safety, then it was a reasonable requirement. He noted, however, the Engineering Division has accepted the open channel as satisfactory. Commissioner Swanson pointed out that the box culvert at the lower end of this property is not large enough to carry the volume of water anticipated in the design of the drainage facility for this property, so that still leaves a problem to be resolved. Commissioner Whitten maintained the open channel does present a safety factor as well as undesirable aesthetic value due to the collection of trash. MS (Whitten-Macevicz) The Commission reaffirm the requirement for underground drainage facility. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members Whitten, Macevicz and Rudolph NOES: Members Swanson, Rice, Wilson and Chandler MS (Wilson-Swanson) Recommend to the City Council that the requirement for underground drainage be waived and plans for an open trapezoidal channel be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Wilson, Swanson, Rice and Chandler NOES: Members Whitten, Macevicz and Rudolph 10. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Adoption of specific plan for Ba~front Area. Director of Planning Peterson reported that the General Plan Amendment and rezon~ng proposals for the Bayfront were approved on October 17 but consideration of the Specific Plan was continued to this meeting to allow the staff to review any changes that would be necessary by virute of the expanded industrial area City Planning Commi .on -ll- 11/28/73 which was recommended to the Council. The Council has not yet taken action on the two previous recommendations. Mr. Peterson further advised that the staff had reexamined the Specific Plan proposed by the consultant and recommended a new textual portion for Subarea E, which the Commission recommended be changed from an office designation to an industrial designation. He felt with this replacement as submitted in the staff report and two minor changes in the text for Subarea G to leave as an alternative the possibility of a shipyard in the vicinity of the present J Street Marina, the entire specific plan for the Bayfront could be recommended to the Council for adoption. Chairman Macevicz reopened the public hearing for any additional testimony not previously presented. Reva Lynch, 626 Date Avenue, again expressed the League of Women Voters support for the plan proposed by Sedway/Cooke. She reported that in a 10 page letter sh~ had received from Mr. Bauer, Chief Director of Ports, U. S. Maritime Commission, in response to her request, it was stated there are four shipyards on the West Coast capable of building LNG tankers and super tankers. She felt an additional shipyard is not warranted in the Chula Vista Bayfront area, and particularly not in the northwest portion of that area. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rudolph requested that the additional paragraph under the land use section for Subarea G include the following wording: "and that there will be no adverse impact upon the feasibility of the balance of the Sedway/Cooke plan." She indicated that her concern is that a shipyard may make the balance of the plan infeasible, since it might affect the desirability of the rest of the land for hotel and motel facilities. MSUC (Whitten-Chandler) Recommend to City Council the adoption of the Specific Plan proposed by Sedway/Cooke with the revisions recommended in the staff report, and including the additional wording suggested by Commissioner Rudolph. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson advised that the Planning Commission budget request is to be submitted by December 1. He asked for guidance by the Commission in the area of conferences, League dinners, and workshop dinner meetings. He indicated that in the rough draft of the request provision is included for three Commissioners to attend the Annual Conference of the League of California Cities to be held in Los Angeles. Commissioner Whitten expressed the opinion that the budget request should provide for all 7 Commissioners to attend this conference if possible. Mr. Peterson further noted the budget will include 10 dinner meetings of the local section of the League of California Cities to be attended by 5 Commissioners; also provision for six dinner workshop meetings to be attended by all Commissioners. He asked for an expression from the Commission as to attendance at the annual A.S.P.O. conference or the annual A.I.P. conference. It was suggested 2 Commissioners be budgeted to attend one of these conferences. City Planning Commission -12- 11/28/73 Mr. Peterson indicated that with these suggestions the budget request would be submitted to the City Clerk on December 1st. Mr. Peterson also advised that at the previous night's Council meeting, the Council suggested that the Assistant City Attorney be seated next to the Chairman of the Planning Commission during the regular business meetings. He noted this presents a problem inasmuch as the seat presently occupied by the attorney is not wired for the voting machine. Mr. Peterson reminded the Commission that no official action had been taken concerning cancellation of the meeting regularly scheduled for December 26. MSUC (Rice-Rudolph) The regular business meeting scheduled for December 26, 1973 be cancelled. MSUC (Swanson-Whitten) Adinner workshop meeting be scheduled for December 19. Deputy City Attorney Beam asked if the Commission would like for him to make a presentation on the E.P.A. regulations. It was affirmed the Commission would desire this presentation at the December 19th meeting. Director of Planning Peterson reminded the Commissioners of the day long seminar to be held on Friday, November 30th at which registrations have been made for t~o Commissioners in addition to some staff members. The location of this seminar has been changed from the Police Auditorium to the Chula Vista City School District library at 84 East J Street. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Macevicz declared the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretamy