Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1972/01/03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 3, 1972 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Rice, Adams, Macevicz, Chandler, Rudolph and ex-officio member Miller. Absent (with previous notification): Member Stewart. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Senior Planner Williams, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant Director of Public Works Robens. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) The minutes of the meeting of December 20, 1971 be corrected to indicate that it was Chairman Stewart who welcomed Mr. Allen Miller to serve as an ex-officio member of the Commission, and that the minutes be approved as corrected. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT , 420 Third Avenue - Expansion of te~¥p'hone equipment buildin~ and parkin~ in R-'3 ~one - Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. ~ VARIANCE - Reduction in side yard from 15' to 6' - Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. Senior Planner Williams advised that the request by the Pacific Telephone Co. is for a conditional use permit to construct a 3400 sq. ft., 18 ft. high, single story cable vault addition to their existing telephone equipment building at 420 Third Avenue in the C-C zone and to use a 90' X 150' lot at 315 Roosevelt Street in the R-3 zone for parking facilities for their commercial use. They are also requesting a variance to allow construction of the proposed addition to within 6 feet of the side property line rather than at the 15 ft. setback as required by ordinance. Mr. Williams pointed out that the original structure was built prior to the adoption of the present Zoning Ordinance regulations and at that time the set- back requirement was 5 feet. The staff recommends approval of both requests. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Hal Marks, representative of the Pacific Telephone Company, pointed out that their equipment installations were designed to grow in a westerly direction. The requirement for additional telephone lines within the city results in a need to expand their frame which must be done in a straight line. He displayed a photo depicting the problem which results if they attempt to change the direction of the frame. Since this expansion would have been possible under the provisions of the ordinance in effect at the time the building was erected, they feel it would represent a hardship not to allow the expansion as proposed. Charles Heaney, 310 G Street, owner of property adjacent to the proposed exten- sion of the building, contended that the proposed addition will cut off the light from the duplex constructed on the rear portion of his property. -2- 1/3/72 No one else wished to speak, for or against, and the public hearing was closed. In discussion the Commission concurred there is no other alternative to accom- modate the required expansion without incurring a great deal of added expense. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Approval of a conditional use permit to allow the con- RESOLUTION PCC-72-2 struction of a 3,400 sq. ft. single story cable vault addition to the rear of existing equipment building at 420 Third Avenue, and to use the property at 315 Roose- velt Street as a parking facility. Approval is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. A 6' high masonry wall be erected on the west and south sides of the parking area. The south wall to set back 10' from the south property line. 2. The existing driveway be marked for and restricted to ingress only. 3. A grading plan be submitted and approved. 4. That, if possible, some trees or other landscaping to soften the effect of the proposed addition should be planted along the north property line. Findings are as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well- being of the neighborhood or the community. The growing demand for additional telephone service in this area requires expansion of the present facilities at this location. The use of the R-3 property for parking will offset the loss of parking on the present site due to expansion. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Access to the parking area from Roosevelt Street should reduce the present hazards by restricting the existing drive to ingress only. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions speci- fied in the Code for such use. The proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions of the City Code. d. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any govern- mental agency. The General Plan recognizes the necessity of public utilities and expansion of these facilities to serve the growing population. -3- 1/3/72 MSUC (Rudolph-Chandler) Approval of the variance for reduction of side yard RESOLUTION No. PCV-72-1 setback from 15' to 6' on the north property line at 420 Third Avenue for the construction of a single story structure containing 3,400 sq. ft. Findings are as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. The location of the present structure was based on previous ordinance re- quirements, and the location of the main frame in this installation at that time dictated the limits that the applicant can set his building back from the property line. Therefore, the 1969 ordinance change requiring a 15' setback, if strictly enforced, creates a hardship in that this use could not be expanded at this location. b. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of sub- stantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone and in the vicinity of the subject property. There are no similar uses in this same zone or in the vicinity of the sub- ject property, as this is a quasi-public use. c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of the Ordin- ance or the public interest. The reduction in setback will not be substantially detrimental to adjacent properties. The current zoning ordinance requires a solid masonry wall between commercial and residential property. On this particular property, due to the change in elevation between it and the R-3 property (2'-4' dif- ference), a solid wall would have the same effect as a building constructed on the property line. The 6' setback will reduce detrimental effects on the adjacent property. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The reduction in setback will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan as this is a necessary quasi-public facility. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Ota~ Valley Road, East of I.-805 - Solid waste disposal site - County of San Diego Director of Planning Warren indicated the location of the solid waste disposal site operated by the County of San Diego and advised that the conditional use permit was initiated by the City to assure continuation of the operation if the property is annexed to the City of Chula Vista. He further advised that at -4- 1/3/72 a hearing held on this date LAFCO filed the annexation application. He recom- mended granting the permit to become effective if annexation is completed in the future. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Paul Foxworthy, Community Development Department of the City of San Diego, dis- cussed the operation of this facility under the lease arrangement between the City and County of San Diego. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Ex-officio Member Miller questioned tile proposed condition that the permit be reviewed at the end of its 15-year life expectancey, and suggested that the Commission require a yearly review since it is not known how the population growth will effect the use of that site for the disposal of waste. Director of Planning Warren pointed out that the operation is subject to per- formance standards which will be enforced and he felt the County would not want to be limited to a one-year permit. MSUC (Macevicz-Rudolph) Approval of a conditional use permit to the County RESOLUTION NO. PCC-72-1 of San Diego to continue operation of an existing solid waste disposal site north of Otay Valley Road, approximately one mile east of 1-805, subject to review at the end of the 15 year life expectancy of the site (1987) for any further extensions. Findings are as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well- being of the neighborhood or the community. This use will provide the community with a service that is well located due to easy major road and freeway access, the long life expectancy and the separation from adjacent uses. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. If the operation continues its sanitary land fill nature, conforms to the Performance Standards section of the Zoning Ordinance and does not change its hours of operation there will be no detrimental effect. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions speci- fied in the Code for such use. All regulations and conditions will be complied with as prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance and other sections of the City Code. -5- 1/3/72 d. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any govern- mental agency. The General Plan designates this area as an open space area; the interim use of this site for a sanitary land fill operation would be in conformance with that proposed use. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 666 Third Avenue - Public Use in C-O zone - "Our House" Director of Planning Warren indicated the location of the property under con- sideration and reported that the City Council had directed the Planning Com- mission to hold a public hearing to consider a new location for the operation of "Our House" which has been located at 392 Third Avenue since May, 1971. Mr. Warren displayed a plat showing the location of the large two-story building near the center of a large lot, with a front yard of 115'±, rear yard 105'± and side yards 65±. There is a 5' masonry wall at the rear of the property and good separation between this structure and adjacent residential dwellings Mr. Warren reported the receipt of petitions protesting this use containing 283 signatures representing 174 properties. - City Attorney Lindberg commented that the subject of Our House and other similar establishments have generated a great deal of emotion and fear. It should be recognized that the existing establishment has created apprehension on the part of those who have gone into the downtown shopping area and the City has there- fore attempted to find a location where there would not be interference with the daily activities of the business community. Mr. Lindberg further remarked it is assumed that this operation will be conducted within the law and if there are violations of the law those matters will be taken care of by the police and by the courts. He expressed the hope that the testimony to be offered in this hearing would avoid the insinuation of possible illegal or immoral activities. This operation is conducted by a substantial group of people in the public interest, and the issue is whether or not this is a good location for that activity conducted on the highest level, not the lowest. He requested that the Commission bear this in mind and that the public desiring to testify regard it in a similar manner. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Gary Wappes, 773 Madison, director of Our House, commented it has been evident that they have had a hard time finding the right location. This site offers the advantage of a building more than adequate for their needs and the surround- ing yard area makes it well buffered from adjacent homes and businesses. He reported that money has been appropriated to cover the added cost of leasing this site. He further reported that the only complaints against them at the present location have been for loitering on the public street. The ample front yard at this location should alleviate this problem. He advised that their directors and the City officers who have worked with them feel this is the -6- 1/3/72 best location available, and the realtor is anxious to lease the property to them. Robert Hazlewood, 674 Landis Avenue, reported that he is, in a sense, spokes- man for the people who signed the petitions, and that 16 additional signatures have been obtained since the petition was submitted. He was speaking more directly for the people in his immediate neighborhood, known as Cortez Manor, and located west of the proposed site. Of the 62 or 63 single family resi- dences in the area about 85 to 90 percent of the owners expressed opposition to this location of Our House. He asserted the people are not quarreling with the idea or objective of the organization but with this location; they feel it will be a detrimental influence on the neighborhood and particularly on the children of the neighborhood. Richard Zogob, 638 Garrett Avenue, realtor, commented that the nearby homes are valued up to $65,000 and he questioned whether the establishment of Our House on that property would enhance the value of the residences around it; he felt it would lower them. Kathryn Moore, 1134 Tobias Drive, speaking for the South Bay Citizens Planning Committee, favored the granting of the conditional use permit, pointing out there is a necessity for this type of service to the community to be established and the sooner it can be established and get into working condition, the better off all residents will be. She felt there is a lack of understanding of what this organization is trying to do to help youth who are in the drug situation. Lois Skidmore, 884 Monterey Court, reported that she owns the property at 661 Third Avenue, directly across the street, and operates the nursery school, Candy Cane College. She felt this use would not be the proper environment to have right in front of a nursery school. Elsa O'Neill, with residence in the 600 block of Second Avenue, reported that her husband has an office in the 600 block of Third Avenue. She pointed out there are numerous physicians and dentists' offices in the area and since Our House is a drug oriented group it should not be located in an area where there are offices that carry drugs which would be a target for theft by those de- siring the drugs. Jack Wood, resident manager of Treehaven Apartments located behind Food Basket market, reported that locating Our House at this location would present a problem for them in that five residents have already notified him they would move if Our House is located there. He felt it would also be detrimental to the business of the Food Basket, and that it should be possible to find a location where those using Our House facilities would not be rubbing elbows with the residential area. Jack Taylor, 691 Third Avenue, felt that neither he nor other residents had all the information they should have. He expressed the opinion that with proper supervision this might not be too objectionable, but that the people in the area should have the opportunity to vote on whether it would be located there. -7- 1/3/72 Major Bob Yardley, San Diego City Commander for Salvation Army, commented that they are located just north of the proposed site for Our House and the Sal- vation Army has for 105 years been a rehabilitation program for people. He suggested it would be very interesting to have more information from Gary Wappes relating to their staff, the type of work they are actually involved in, and the success that has been theirs. He felt that many of the people were unaware of the value of the program or the disadvantage of it. Mike Raya, 672 Garrett Avenue, asked what the function of Our House is and whether it is a rehabilitation center. City Attorney Lindberg felt this was a valid question. He reported that Our House has been patterned after similar establishments in San Diego County and throughout the country in order to provide an open door to young people who have been involved in drug use and who are fearful of approaching the "estab- lishment'' operations, even those such as the Salvation Army which has had a very fine record in helping people toward rehabilitation. It is an open door to young people to find assistance of great variety--medical, psychiatric, counseling--it is an unstructured pattern where young people are not afraid to come openly, even those who have been on a "bad trip." Mr. Raya asked if people who go to Our House would include dope addicts. Mr. Wappes responded that it is open to any one who wishes to come. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Member Rudolph pointed out the problem of drug use is prevalent in residential areas now and it is better for those involved to have a place to go. She reminded that these are "our children" and that Our House is trying to help them. She felt that more understanding and acceptance would relieve the problem. Member Macevicz commented that through his role as school principal and working with young people, he can testify to the fact that Our House has been instru- mental in reducing drug use. The more of these little institutions that spring up, the less the problem on the street. He also noted that not one of the residences in the area are within 100 feet of the building and he could there- fore see no objection to the use of that property for Our House. Member Adams expressed his agreement and support. Member Chandler pointed out that the location of doctors and dentists' offices in the area, where drugs are kept, might make it a less desirable location. Chairman Pro Tem Rice felt this is the best location that has been suggested, adding that it is unfortunate that any location will raise objection from the residents, but without such a facility the kids don't get the help which is needed in this regard. -8- 1/3/72 City Attorney Lindberg added that the City has indicated a concern for the young people involved in the drug problem and has appropriated money, not solely for that problem, but to help the community in general to eliminate the drug problem. The Council feels this will promote the health and general welfare of the community. He also reiterated that the conditions as set forth by the Planning Commission will have to be adhered to, and if there is a violation of laws in this regard it would result in a review of the matter and a rescission of the conditional use permit. MSUC (Rudolph-Macevicz) Approval of a conditional use permit for the location RESOLUTION NO. PCC-72-3 of Our House at 666 Third Avenue as a public use in the C-O zone subject to the following conditions: 1. The use shall be subject to annual review by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. 2. Any congregation of people in the rear yard area shall be avoided. 3. Parking, striped in accordance with the parking table, shall be provided. There shall be 10 spaces plus one space for each employee or volunteer Findings are as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well- being of the neighborhood or the community. The use is near the central portion of Chula Vista with good vehicular and pedestrian access and will well serve the needs of citizens throughout the community. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The site is well screened from adjacent residential uses and has substantial setbacks from adjacent uses. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions speci- fied in the Code for such use. All conditions and regulations of the City Code shall be complied with. d. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any govern- mental agency. The General Plan is not affected by this proposal. The Chairman advised there is a right of appeal within ten days to the City Council. -9- 1/3/72 Mr. Raya then asked what the hours of operation will be at Our House. Mr. Wappes advised it is open from 3:00 to 11:00 p.m. on week days and 1:00 to 11:00 p.m. on week ends. MSC (Adams-Macevicz) The conditional use permit be amended to include the hours as stated. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Adams, Macevicz, Rice and Chandler NOES: Member Rudolph ABSENT: Member Stewart Member Rudolph stated that she did not feel the hours should be limited by the conditional use permit. Further discussion followed concerning the hours as related to holidays and vacation time. Mr. Wappes reaffirmed that Our House is open from 3:00 to 11:00 on days when school is in session and from 1:00 to 11:00 all other days. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) The previous motion be rescinded and the conditional use permit be amended to include a condition that the hours of operation would be from 3:00 to 11:00 p.m. when school is in session and 1:00 to 11:00 p.m. on other days. Request for modification of conditions for PCC-70-34, Lions Club Service Center - 539,547 Fourth Avenue Director of Planning Warren reminded that this request was discussed at the meeting of December 20 and deferred to this meeting, and asked the staff to contact the owner or manager of the adjacent apartment units east of the alley to determine if they would be interested in participating in the im- provement of the alley. This was done by letter and the management company that handles the apartments called and reiterated his earlier comment that they would not cooperate and could see no need for improving the alley. Chairman Pro Tem Rice asked if there is any other legal recourse the City might have to compel improvement of the alley. City Attorney Lindberg advised that the 1911 Act is the only method of assessing the owners for the cost of installing public improvements and that the City Council can override a majority protest by the owners if the public health is endangered. -10- 1/3/72 Andrew Henry, 22 Casselman Court, President of Chula Vista Service Club Center, asked the Commission to'consider a three month extension to continue efforts to form a 1911 Act Improvement District. If this is not accomplished they would go ahead and complete the improvements as required by the conditional use permit. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) A 90-day extension be granted to Chula Vista Lions Club for the purpose of forming a 1911 Act Improvement District to improve the alley adjacent to their property. Request for modification of condition for variance granted to Steve Cropse~ - 200 block East "3" Street Senior Planner Williams reported that the applicant is requesting a modification of one of the conditions of a variance granted for reduction of street frontage in the development of property in the 200 block of East "J" Street. The con- dition stated that the lots shall not be graded to accommodate building pads, and the applicant now wishes to fill the front yard area in a similar manner to the adjacent development. Filling the front portion of the lot would permit locating the garage at the front of the dwelling with direct access from the street, rather than constructing a driveway to one side to reach the rear of the property. There is some question as to the number of trees which may be lost if this modification is approved. Steve Cropsey, applicant, affirmed that two trees would be lost, but he would maintain four large eucalyptus trees in the rear. He felt this modification would permit more usable open space in the rear portion of the lots which would have been used for driveways under the original plan of development. Member Adams commented that he thought this is an improvement in the develop- ment plan over that previously approved. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) The request for a waiver of the condition concerning site grading under'variance resolution PCV-71-19 be approved. Discussion on appointment of Committees Director of Planning Warren reported that due to holidays and vacation time the staff is not ready to comment on the formation of committees relating to legislation, transportation and land use and he would request that this be deferred to another meeting. Member Adams commented that serving on such committees in addition to regular Commission meetings would be too time consuming. He felt that reports con- cerning such matters are a staff function. They provide the studies and present to the Commission the problems, data and analysis for making the decisions. Member Rudolph remarked that so much is happening in the three fields sug- gested--legislation, land use and transportation--and the Commission should keep up on all of these things; if the members are divided into committees, each one will not have to concentrate on all three. -11 - 1/3/72 Chairman Pro Tem Rice concurred that perhaps the Commission should broaden their coverage and the matter of forming committees should not be closed until the Commission considers it further. Member Macevicz suggested this would require expanding the Planning Commission because you can't have a committee of one. Discussion of proposed public policies for Chula Vista Bayfront Study Director of Planning Warren reported that the City Council and the Port Com- mission have adopted a schedule for reviewing and making a decision on the proposed recommended public policies. These policies must be accepted, modified, or rejected by the City Council and the Port Commission before the consultants can continue their work. The greatest concern by other agencies and companies relates to the possibility of eliminating or changing the freeway interchange design and elimination of the connection of Tidelands Avenue across the channel into National City. This is not included as a public policy, but is mentioned in the report. Mr. Warren then reported on the letters received ~ertaining to the report as follows: Santa Fe Railroad disagrees with various conclusions in the report. Their basic premise is that they bought the land for industrial use and the City and Port have been guided by plans that have projected industrial use over the years. They feel the economic consultant has not been thorough in order to justify the findings presented; they state they propose to hire their own consultant. South Bay Economic Council has taken issue with any proposal to change the interchange design; this link will be vital for any use that takes place on this presently undeveloped land. The City of National City has taken the same position; they believe it is necessary that Tidelands Avenue be extended as presently planned. South Bay Citizens Planning Committee endorse the preliminary analysis and the recommended public policies. The Division of Highways has written that time is very critical in regard to the freeway contract; if the Council's policies require major changes to the current plans, there is no alternative but to delete from the proposed contract all roadway construction to Tidelands Avenue. They say an alternative could be added at a later date. In a separate letter written to the Planning Director of the Port District, the Planning Director of National City stated that "a plan based upon the conclusions and recommendations in the Sedway/Cooke report would not be realis- tic, feasible, or in the best interests of the South Bay community." He emphasized the importance of the orderly growth of the deepwater port and related industrial growth in the immediate area. -12- 1/3/72 Mr. Warren read the seven points presented by the Chamber of Commerce task force which studied and endorsed in concept the study as prepared by Sedway/Cooke. The Chula Vista Garden Club also endorsed the report essentially as proposed. Chairman Pro Tem Rice reported that Chairman Stewart had asked him to convey to the Commission the following comments and opinions: - That the second bay entrance would become a reality and that consider- ation of decisions should include this consideration. - He felt the 25 ac~es they propose to hold in reserve for marshes, wild- life, etc. may be a~!ittl~ too high, and more realistically it should be closer to 10 or 15~C'~§~' He would not object to putting this in some type of holding zone until it is determined what the future economic needs and future development might indicate would be required in the area. - He concurs in the probable need and use of the area around the marina and the northernmost area immediately adjacent to the Sweetwater River flood control channel for industrial use. He also feels strongly about the need for Tidelands Avenue and the proposed interchanges with State 54 and I-5. It is unrealistic not to realize that even recreational development will generate increased traffic problems and a need for additional access and egress to and from the Tidelands area. - Since plans have been developed by the Army Corps of Engineers to run each half of the freeway down the respective sides of the flood control channel, any changes at this time would only serve to delay the development. Director of Planning Warren added that Chairman Stewart had expressed the feel- ing that any consideration of low density single family residential use was out of the question and irresponsible; it would have to be some form of high density residential and ought to be very limited at that. Member Rudolph commented that she felt the policy concerning pedestrian access should also include bicycle and equestrian trails the full length, and further that the flood control channel should be the natural attractive materials. Concerning transportation, she pointed out there is growing dissatisfaction with the present mode of transportation, and that C.P.O. is conducting a study of candidate transportation systems. She felt that until a transportation system for the area is determined, no major changes should be made and, specifically, if the marshes are to be preserved there should be no major transportation construction over ground. She recommended there should be no major construction like freeway interchanges or thoroughfares until the C.P.O. study is completed and other transportation construction should be minimal; also that land use planning should be designed to take full advantage of alternate systems of transportation. Chairman Pro Tem Rice commented on the existing traffic problems west of the freeway and felt that something must be done to alleviate this, pointing out that any type of development in the area will generate additional traffic. -13- 1/3/72 Member Adams raised a point of procedure contending that this is not the time for discussion of detailed development plans and that consideration should be limited to the broad public policies presented in the report. The Commission concurred and considered the public policies as follows: A - The Sweetwater River Marsh should be preserved in its natural state and all new development, whether roadways, buildings, or other structures, be carefully located and designed to promote this end. The Commission endorses and supports this policy. B - Public use and enjoyment of the shoreline areas should be promoted and protected. Continuous public pedestrian access should be provided along the Bay shoreline and along the edges of the Sweetwater River Marsh. The Commission supports this policy. C - Good pedestrian and vehicular access should be created between the Bay- front and those areas of the City east of the freeway. Chairman Rice felt this should also include access to the north. Member Macevicz concurred and added that there should not be equestrian trails in the harbor area. Ex-officio Member Miller commented that at the presentation of the Regional Sweetwater Park concept they spoke about equestrian trails running the full length of the regional park, and it is designed to extend down into the harbor area. Chairman Rice felt the Commission should make it clear that they want access from the harbor to the north, namely Tidelands Avenue. Member Rudolph objected since it would have to go across the marshlands and create a lot of problems. In clarification, Director of Planning Warren advised that the consultants said what prompted Item C specifically was that they saw in analyzing the overcrossings across Interstate 5 that they provided good vehicular access but didn't provide for the pedestrian or the bicycle and they felt this should be corrected or the harbor area would be cut off. The Commission then concurred with the policy stated in item C. D - Primary uses to be considered for the study area should be limited to public recreation, commercial activities such as hotels, motels and restaurants, and small-scale water related industrial activities which would contribute to waterfront interest and character, such as boat building and repair. The Commission endorsed this policy. -14- 1/3/72 E - Retail development which would be directly competitive with existing or proposed subregional and regional shopping center facilities else- where in Chula Vista should not be permitted within the area. The Commission supports this policy. F - With the possible exception of the northern-most area immediately adjoin- ing the proposed flood control channel, major industrial development should not be promoted. The Commission felt there is some question as to what would be considered major industrial development and whether the policy includes expansion of present industries or is limited to new industry. The Commission concurred, in general, with item F. G - Where not disallowed by State tideland grant provisions, limited residential development should be permitted to afford opportunities for waterfront living and to provide a wider selection of housing types within the San Diego area. Chairman Rice reiterated that residential development should be very limited, and the Commission basically agreed with the policy. Chairman Rice again brought up the question of vehicular access to the north, and in a poll of Commission members the construction of Tidelands Avenue was sup- ported, with Member Rudolph dissenting. Director's Repor_~_t Director of Planning Warren called attention to the announcement by League of California of a Planning Commissioners' conference to be held in San Jose, registration required by February 9th. Mr. Warren also reported that at the LAFCO meeting held on this date they filed the Otay Valley Road annexation on the basis that services are not needed at this time. Miller's Horton Road annexation was continued for one month to see if there is any problem with the fire district. Eischen's annexation of one lot was approved and Whittington's annexation of one lot was continued for a month to see if more property could be included. Commission Comments Chairman Rice commented that in some instances in the past when the Commission had compromised on architectural requirements recommended by the staff, the results had not been too satisfactory. He cited, as an example, the new Jerry Lewis Theater. He felt the Commission should be mere cautious in approving compromises requested by applicants. He also commented on the shoddy construc- tion of the Arthur Treacher Fish and Chips establishment on H Street, and called attention to the continued unsatisfactory maintenance of the parking lot of the shopping center at Hilltop and Naples. He felt some action should be taken to require that this be brought up to standard. -15- 1/3/72 Adjournment Chairman Pro Tem Rice adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. to the meeting of January 17, 1972. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretary