HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1975/07/09 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
July 9, 1975
A 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: Chandler, Floto, Smith, Starr and ex-officio member Meredith Roeder.
Absent (with previous notification): Commissioners Pressutti, Rice and Rudolph.
Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee,
Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Senior Civil Engineer Harshman,
Landscape Planner Davis, Assistant City Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Starr, seconded by Commissioner Floto, that the
minutes of the meeting of June ll, 1975 be approved as mailed. Commissioner
Smith abstained from voting on the motion since he did not attend that meeting;
this did not leave the necessary four votes to approve the motion and Director
of Planning Peterson requested that approval of the minutes be held over until
the next meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented.
1. Consideration of request for extension of conditional use permit PCC-72-14
for construction in Flood Plain District and location of a
service station at the northwest quadrant of 1-805 and
Bonita Road, Commercial Ventures, Inc.
Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that this request for extension of time
is for a conditional use permit originally granted to Bond, Ltd, on this
property. Plans for development are being formulated for development of the
property but are not ready for submittal. The Department recommends that a
one year extension be approved.
MSUC (Floto-Smith) Conditional Use Permit PCC-72-14 be extended to July 9, 1976,
subject to all conditions of the original approval.
2. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Conditional Use Permit PCC-75-9 to construct and
operate packaged feed store and hay shelter in A-D zone
3956 Otay Lakes Road, Carl and Lillian Berg
Director of Planning Peterson noted that Commissioner Smith was not present at
the meeting when this application was previously considered, and asked if he
would be eligible to discuss and act on the request at this meeting. In response
to questions from Attorney Beam, Commissioner Smith affirmed that he has read
the staff report on this item for both meetings and the Attorney ruled that
since the public hearing has not been closed and Mr. Smith can raise any questions
which he has, therefore he is qualified to take part in the action. Mr, Beam
-2- July 9, 1975
pointed out that since the City Charter requires a majority vote of the total
members on the Commission, all items on tonight's agenda will require unanimous
vote of the four Commissioners present.
Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that this hearing was continued from
the meeting of June llth so the applicant could further discuss with the
Engineering Division the requirements for public improvements. Although it is
not certain that all issues have been resolved at this time, the findings for
approval of a conditional use permit can be made irregardless of the public
improvements which are required by the Code. A request for deferral or waiver
of the installation of improvements should be considered under separate action
after the conditional use permit has been approved.
Mr. Lee called attention to the proposed revision of the condition relating to
street and drainage improvements and the recommendation that the application
be approved subject to the conditions previously set forth with this one revision.
Commissioner Smith asked for an explanation of Sec. 12.24.060 of the Municipal
Code which relates to the waiving of public improvements.
Mr. Beam advised that the Ci~x Code provides that public improvements may be
deferred to a future time if their installation at the time of property
development is untimely. Public improvements may be waived if it is deter,
mined they are not needed or that they may be installed as a program of the
City and not imposed upon a particular applicant.
Director of Planning Peterson reaffirmed that action on deferral or waiver of
public improvements is taken by the City Council after receiving a recommendation
from the Planning Commission. He urged that the Commission make a determination
as to whether the proposed operation is an appropriate use for the property and
the applicant can then pursue the matter of public improvements through the
proper procedure.
Chairman Chandler declared the public hearing reopened.
Robert Onley, 1444 Hermosa Avenue, speaking on behalf of the applicant, reported
that they have discussed the matter of public improvements with the Engineering
Division, and at this time they would request approval of the conditional use
permit application with the conditions as recommended in the staff report.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Floto-Smith) Based on the findings as set forth in the staff report of
June ll, 1975, the Commission certifies the Initial Study and Negative Declara-
tion and approves the conditional use permit PCC-75-9 subject to the following
conditions:
1. Unless a grant deed describing the property, recorded prior to November 26,
1971, can be produced, a parcel map will be required prior to the issuance of
any permits.
2. The site plan shall be revised as follows:
a. Provide 8 parking spaces with 24 ft. aisles.
-3- July 9, 1975
b. Provide a separate 25 ft. wide driveway direct to Otay Lakes Road.
c. Submit design of proposed signs for staff approval.
3. The applicant shall construct various street and drainage improvements as
may be required by the Director of Public Works.
4. The applicant shall dedicate a 20 foot strip for the widening of the right-
of-way of Otay Lakes Road and such drainage easements as are necessary to
accommodate required public improvements.
5. Plans on file in the Engineering Division indicate a possible conflict in
grades between a sewer lateral serving the site and the drainage facilities to
be constructed. It is the applicant,s responsibility to contact the Engineering
Division to resolve such conflicts prior to the preparation of improvement plans.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use ~ermit ?CC-75~10 to construct a ten court
racquetball faci/its at Willow Street and Bonita Road~
Clark~ Hartles & Crane Associateq
Director of Planning Peterson advised that a commercial recreational facility is
an unclassified use and requires a conditional use permit for location in any
zone. In addition, this property is within the F Modifying District; however,
the property has already been graded so that the building sites are above the
flood plain level. In addition to the racquetball court, the applicant is pro-
posing a restaurant and retail sales area; those are principal uses in the C-C
zone and do not require Commission action. The portion of the building used
for the racquetball courts would be two stories in height, with the remainder
of the building constructed as single story. The access is proposed as a 24 ft.
driveway from Bonita Road, shown parallel to the driveway on the plan approved
for the Kaiser Clinic. The Kaiser plan was approved two years ago and no con-
struction has occurred. If an extension is requested for the Kaiser proposal,
it is hoped that a joint access driveway can be established to serve both
projects.
Mr. Peterson expressed support for the racquetball court as appropriate at this
location and noted the findings for approval and the conditions recommended.
Mr. Peterson reported the receipt of a letter from the Sweetwater Valley Civic
Association which endorsed the use and recommended approval of the application.
The letter also discussed the architectural treatment, which is not before the
Commission at this time, but will be considered by the staff.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Dan Hartley, 333 Orange Avenue, Coronado, spokesman for the applicant, advised
that he had noting further to add, but would answer any questions which the
Commission has. He expressed concurrence with the recommended conditions.
Commissioner Floto asked if they have concern that development of the adjacent
properties will screen their building from Bonita Road and from Willow Street.
-4- July 9, 1975
Mr. Hartley advised that it is their feeling that the type of enterprises pro-
posed do not require extensive visibility from the road and that the sight
corridors between the other uses will afford sufficient exposure.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Chandler.reoor~ed that as a resident of the Valley, he is not anxious
~o see~ ~!~e~ ~a~ley take place, but felt this proposed use would
De good for this particular site.
MSUC (Starr-Smith) The Commission certifies the Negative Declaration that the
construction of a racquetball facility and other commercial uses at 3901 Bonita
Road will not have any possible significant impact on the environment.
MSUC (Starr-Floto) Based on the findings set forth in the staff report, the
Commission approves conditional use permit PCC-75-10, subject to the'following
conditions:
1. Development of the property shall comply with the conditions attached to
Parcel Map #18-73.
2. Development of the property is subject to site plan and architectural
approval. The architectural style of the building shall be subject to the
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
3. The site plan shall include a landscaping and irrigation plan. The
following landscaping features shall be shown:
a. Heavy screening of parking areas on the north and west boundaries
of the site.
b. Landscaping strip on the west side of the entrance driveway.
4. The parking and circulation plan shall meet the requirements of the
zoning provisions of the Municipal Code.
5. Fire protection:
a. One fire hydrant with two 2~" outlets and one 4" outlet shall be
located at the southeast corner of the parking area south of the building.
b. Fire hydrant and water supplies shall be installed in operable con-
dition prior to the start of combustible construction. Flow shall be
1500 GPM.
6. Engineering requirements:
a. Public improvements, including method of sewering, will be required,
either in conjunction with the approval of a parcel map or with the
issuance of a building permit. Improvements would include, but not be
limited to, the construction of pavement, sidewalks, curb and gutter,
street lights and drainage facilities.
b. The building is shown too close to the top of the slope at the
northwest corner (minimum setback, 5 feet, reference Standard Drawing
No. 601-A).
-5- July 9, 1975
4. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of amendment to zonin9 text
relatin9 to regulation of HAM Antennas
Director of Planning Peterson reported that this hearing was continued from
the meeting of April 9, 1975 to allow time for a citizens committee to review
the previous staff recommendation and any new recommendation the committee
felt appropriate. The committee met and formed the opinion that no regula-
tion was necessary, but if the City wished to go aheaJ despite that recom,.
mendation, the committee suggested a height limit of 65 feet and that setbacks
to the antenna structure be the same as the setback for a building in the
particular area or zone, rather than 20 feet as previously recommended by
the staff.
In conjunction with the deliberations of the citizens committee and after
further study of the problem, the staff formulated a new regulation which
they feel is the minimal requirement for regulating HAM antennas. Under this
proposal the vast majority of antennas in use in the city would not require a
conditional use permit, but such permit would be required in two situations:
1. Where there is to be more than one tower, mast, or supporting structure
of the type that requires a building permit for erection on one lot.
2. An antenna array of the cubical quad or delta loop type, designed to
operate at the 15 meter wavelength or a lower radio frequency.
Mr. Peterson noted that the yagi type antenna, the most commonly used antenna
in the city, would not require a conditional use permit. He advised that the
distinction between the yagi and the quad or loop type is drawn on the basis
of the visual prominence of the antenna types.
He pointed out that additional minor amendments are suggested to clarify the
regulation of commercial radio or television stations or transmitting towers
and antennas, and to include private television and radio receiving antennas
with structures not subject to height limitation.
Mr. Peterson c~lled attention to the findings in support of the proposed
amendments and recommended their adoption.
The meeting recessed at 8:45 p.m. for a change of tape on the recorder and
reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
A1Hendrickson, 457 Elm, asked if the proposed regulations would apply to
Citizens Band antennas or only to HAM antennas. It was noted they would
apply to both.
The Chairman declared the continued hearing reopened.
Cy Huvar, 105 Jamul Avenue, advised that he is an elected official of the
American Radio Relay League. He furnished a copy of that organization's pub-
lication to each of the Commissioners. Mr. Huvar quoted from the regulation
established by the Federal Communications Commission which applies to amateur
radio service and states that, "The basis and purpose of the amateur radio
service is the recognition and enhancement of the value of amateur radio
service to the public, as a voluntary, noncommercial, communication service,
particularly with respect to providing emergency communications," and further,
"an extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement
of the radio art .. ."
Mr. Huvar contended that the proposed regulation discriminates against the
amateur and citizens band transmitting towers since shortwave receivers and
other communication services are not included. He also pointed out that cubical
quad or delta loop antennas are covered, but no provision made for antennas of
other names, such as "figure 8" or "log periodic," or "bov~ tie" or "Adcock"
type antenna.
Mr. Huvar further stressed that many of the structures presently listed in the
code as not subject to height limitations account for much greater visual
clutter than amateur radio transmitting antenna.
He suggested that instead of adopting the proposed amendments, the recommenda-
tions set forth by the citizens committee be adopted. He pointed out that the
committee did not volunteer to handle complaints between citizens and did not
wish to be involved in neighborhood disputes. He felt they should be handled
by due process of the law.
Mr. Huvar urged the Commission not to adopt the amendment as proposed by the
Planning Department.
Leonard Bavin, 734 Monterey, reported that on May 3rd, he and another amateur,
licensed to practice by the F.C.C. and Broadcast Engineers, examined the radio
amateur WA6 DDD, and through extensive testing on his equipment, they found it
to be satisfactory, in fact, far beyond the requirements of amateur regulations.
He has so testified before the F.C.C.
He contended that the requirement for a conditional use permit in order to
erect two or more towers on a let would be a hardship on the young people in
the city who are experimenting as novice amateur radio operators, He con~
tended that the requirement relating to operation at 15 meter wavelength or
lo¥~er radio frequency would not be enforceable, since the city has no way of
measuring radio wave length. He urged disapproval of the staff recommendation.
Bernard Bernes, 935 Club View Terrace, pointed out that the proposed resolution
would not resolve the problem over which a complaint had been filed, since the
operator could merely disconnect the outside set of wires and be within his
rights. He suggested that antennas could be regulated by dimensions but not
by wavelength.
Jolene K. MacPherson, 427 Corte Maria, expressed the opinion that the rights
of the neighbors of HAM operators should also be considered, if it can be
determined where to draw the line. She felt the $85 fee for a conditional
use permit is not excessive, since it was necessary for her to spend over
$200 to modify her receiving equipment because of interference from the trans-
mitting antenna in the neighborhood. She indicated she would not object to
the erection of a monster antenna for the purpose of testing its capabilities,
if it would then be removed after a reasonable length of time, but her view
should not be obstructed by such a structure 365 days a year.
-7- July 9, 1975
Ms. MacPherson submitted a petition signed by 16 of her neighbors endorsing
some type of regulation over a proliferation of unsightly and oversized
antennas.
Dr. Salganick expressed sympathy and understanding of Ms. MacPherson~s problem
as it deals with living in an environment which she doesn't like. He felt,
however, that a single incident is not sufficient grounds for adopting regulations
which affect the large number of people who have this hobby. He felt instead
that the individual problem should be solved on a personal basis.
Steven Spencer, 414 Corte Maria, expressed agreement that the antenna in his
neighborhood is unsightly and reported that in the past it had caused inter-
ference to his equipment, but when it was proved that that particular antenna
was causing interference, the cause was remedied. He expressed the opinion
that there should be a limit placed on the number of antennas that can be
erected on an individual property, and he hoped this would be two, or three
at the very limit. He also acknowledged that everyone should be entitled to
pursue their hobby but this should be done with consideration toward their
neighbors.
Melvin Wood, 435 Corte Maria, reported that he, too~ has put up with the problem
created by the HAM operator in that neighborhood for the past 5 or 6 years and
it has been annoying to have a newscast or special program.interrupted by the
shortwave broadcasting. He indicated he had spent $50 or $60 in an attempt to
eliminate the problem but it still isn't licked.
Assistant City Attorney Beam reported that the City has no authority to regulate
radio frequency interference of the nature Mr. Wood and Ms. MacPherson have
reported. The City can consider possible regulation of antenna height, size
and configuration, and any comments on that aspect of regulation would be
appreciated.
James Baker, 427 Corte Maria~ advised that he was the lone non,HAM or C.B.
member of the citizens advisory committee and learned what it's like to be
steamrollered, which was his reason for submitting a minority report. He
reported that it was brought out by Mr. Bavin at the committee meeting that
!n August, 1968 a HAM publication recommended that before any operator
installed a cubical quad antenna he should first get his neighbors' approval
since they are considered to be monsters. He also raised a question as to
the structural stability and safety of Mr. Massey~s antenna. He felt the
City should be able to regulate that aspect of the structure, if not the
electronic emission. Ne expressed the desire that an ordinance could be
adopted which would not affect the vast majority of HAM or C,B. operators
in the City, but would prohibit antenna farms. Since the HAMs have admitted
they have no enforcement powers, he felt an ordinance should be adopted to
protect a citizen's rights without going through the courts.
Otto Chose, 445 Casselman, a HAM operator, pointed out that he uses a four
element beam, 35 feet high, whereas his neighbor has a 28 element TV antenna,
60 feet high. He felt the neighbor contributes as much to the visual clutter
as he, himself.
Clayton Bullen, radio amateur, pointed out that of the approximately 225 amateur
operators in the City only 15 to 20 percent have towers, and the balance merely
-8- July 9, 1975
use antenna systems. He noted that probably 90% of the homes in the City have
a TV antenna on the roof. He also reported that real estate agents have
indicated that the existence of transmitting antennas have no effect on the
price or salability of homes in a neighborhood.
Wyatt L. Clark, 1014 Hilltop Drive, reported that he purchased a house here in
1958, and one of the considerations in returning to Chula Vista upon his
retirement was to be able to enjoy his hobby of shortwave broadcasting. He
pointed out that in many new areas no power poles, utility lines or antennas
may be erected. If a person chooses to buy property in an area where such
restrictions are in force, he has knowledge of them, but since this area has
allowed the erection of antennas in the past, it is unfair to enact regulations
that would make them illegal.
Ernest L. Robbins, 488 Elm Avenue, speaking for the South Bay Citizens Band
Radio Committee, concurred with other speakers that no ordinance should be
adopted. He pointed out that HAM operators are easily identified by the F.C.C.
in case they are creating a problem, but C.B,ers are a little more difficult
to locate due to their mode of operation, and the South Bay Citizens Band Radio
Association has volunteered their assistance in locating any operator who is
creating a problem and attempt to resolve it.
Mr. Bavin raised a question with regard to radiating masts mounted on the ground
without a supporting structure and asked if the City is not preempted by the
F.C.C. in regulating such masts.
Attorney Beam expressed the opinion that a radiating mast could be controlled
by a height regulation or setback limitation. He suggested that if a regulating
ordinance is adopted, additional work will be required on the definition of
masts, towers and antennas, due to the complexity of the many types of structures.
Commissioner Smith asked about abatement proceedings in the event an ordinance
is adopted.
Mr. Beam advised it would be necessary to set up an abatement schedule allowing
a reasonable period of time for use of the equipment based on its cost.
Dr. Salganick contended that the proposed ordinance regulations would do little
to solve the problem of antennas since it has been indicated it would not
restrict the number of antennas placed on a rooftop, but only those mounted on
a tower that requires a building permit; and while the second part of the
regulation addresses two specific types of antennas, it has been indicated by
the testimony that there are many other types which would not be regulated.
He also noted that the ordinance excludes from any height limitation many
structures which are far more offensive than antennas. For these reasons he
felt the proposed ordinance is not necessary.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed?
Director of Planning Peterson acknowledged that there are many variations on
the so-called standard types of antennas demonstrated, and it would not be pos-
sible to draft a regulation that identifies all of these variations and any,
thing that might be developed in the future. He expressed uncertainty as to
-9- July 9, 1975
whether the Council is prepared to adopt an ordinance at this time but hoped
that the Commission could reach some decision in order to forward a recommenda-
tion to the City Council, rather than to again continue the item.
Commissioner Starr expressed his sympathy for the group that has complained
about the physical appearance and interference, but he felt there are too many
technical questions unanswered as well as a number of legal questions.
Ms. Roeder, member of the Environmental Control Commlssion~ reported that that
Commission had looked at everything that could be considered a nuisance, many of
which are extremely difficult to regulate. She felt antennas come under that
category, and she felt that something should be done to control it while the
number is still small, before the problem becomes acute. She felt, however,
the proposed ordinance would not provide the necessary control.
Commissioner Smith pointed out that the report from the Citizens Advisory
Committee indicated this neighborhood dispute should be resolved by the parties
under existing process of law. He asked the Attorney if there is any existing
process of law that can be utilized to solve this problem.
Mr. Beam expressed the opinion that there would be a possibility for it but it
would be extremely difficult based on several factors. The first being that
the law of California is that one does not acquire by long usage any prescriptive
right to light and air, or view. As a nuisance factor, it might be possible to
eliminate interference to radio or TV reception, While the Federal government
regulates the transmission they do not fully protect the citizens who may be
affected by that transmission. He felt it would be extremely difficult for a
private citizen to seek recourse by law, but that doesn't make it any easier for
the City of Chula Vista to attempt to regulate this, since the City is faced with
the same restrictions against regulating in this particular area.
MSC (Floto-Starr) The Commission recommends to the City Council that the
ordinance as proposed in the staff report not be adopted.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Floto, Starr, Smith
NOES: Commissioner Chandler
ABSENT: Commissioners Rice, Rudolph, and Pressutti
Chairman Chandler explained his "no" vote on the motlon, since he felt the
proposed ordinance was a start toward establishing minimal control, and if necessary,
it could have been amended in the future.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of adopting Landscape Manual~ PCM~~5-8
Landscape Planner Davis reported that the proposed revised Landscape Manual was
written because of omissions in the original manual which have been noted during
the six years since its adoption. The revision was formulated through the combined
efforts of a landscape consultant, the City's Landscape Planner, staff members of
the Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments, and other public agencies.
· Mr. Davis briefly described the changes which have been incorporated, including
a description of the plan review process, measures for erosion control and soil
stability, and detail drawings and performance standards for irrigation systems.
-10- July 9, 1975
Mr. Davis then presented a number of slides which showed methods of slope grading
and landscaping thereon, examples of both good and poor quality of maintenance,
and landscape screening of parking areas.
In response to a question raised by Commissioner Smith, Mr. Davis explained that
in one illustration the root ball of a shrub is shown 1" to 2" above level to
allow for settling in the plant bed if it has not been properly puddled during
the planting. This prevents the plant from being suffocated by settling below
ground level.
Commissioner Smith called attention to a discrepancy in the type of material to
be used in irrigation systems as shown on the sample drawings. Mr. Davis noted
the error and advised that it would be corrected before the Landscape Manual is
submitted to Council for approval.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened, but as
no one wished to speak, the hearing was declared closed.
MSUC (Smith-Starr) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative
Declaration EA-73-69, the proposed revisions to the Landscape Manual will not
have any possible significant impact on the environment, and certifies that the
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA 1970, as amended.
MSUC (Smith-Floto) The Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of
the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual, Revised June 1975.
MSUC (Smith-Floto) The staff be directed to coordinate the sample drawings with
the standard drawings in the Landscape Manual.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendment to Planned Unit Development
Policy relating to landscapln~ ?CM~75.9
Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted that the Planne? Unit Development Policy
adopted some time ago included standards for landscaping. With the adoption of a
revised Landscape Manual, it is recommended that the PUD Policy be amended to
eliminate any, discrepancy between the two. Also included in the revision is an
increase in the percentage of specimen trees, for the instant effect, and a
decrease in the percentage of 1~" caliper, or 15 gallon container size, trees,
thus increasing the percentage of smaller, or 5 gallon size, trees, since it has
been shown that the smaller trees have a better growth rate over a 4-5 year
period. This change would result in a lower cost fo the developer.
On a question from Commissioner Smith, it was noted that the caliper of a tree
is the diameter of the trunk, measured by a caliper, 6" above ground level.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened, and
as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Floto-Starr) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of an amendment
to the PUD Policy adopted by Resolution #7077, to read as follows;
-ll- July 9, 1975
"6. Landscaping
a. Level areas (5% grade or less) shall be predominantly covered with a
ground cover such as grass to promote recreational use.
b. A minimum of two trees per dwelling are required in addition to those
designated for slope and street tree planting. These trees may be
installed anywhere as required to effect a good design.
c. At least 15 percent of the trees shall have a minimum caliper of 3"
if standards and 2" if multiple trunks, unless otherwise approved by the
City Landscape Architect.
d. At least 25 percent of the trees shall be a minimum of l~" caliper
if standards and l" if multiple trunks.
e. The balance (60 percent maximum) shall be 6 gallon size, unless
otherwise approved by the City Landscape Architect.
f. Additional trees shall be required in open space areas; they shall be
a minimum of 5 gal. unless otherwise approved by the City Landscape Archi-
tect. A variety of trees shall be utilized to effect interest: columnar,
wide and medium spreading, etc. Additional 5 gal. shrubs and trees shall
be used throughout the project in adequate number to accent open areas,
buildings and screen parking areas.
g. Additional specimen materials shall be utilized near the entrance to
the project and along dedicated streets. Street trees shall be a minimum
of 15 gal. container size and shall be a minimum of 6 feet tall with a
1~" caliper when planted.
h. A preliminary landscape plan is required at the time of filing the
tentative subdivision map and a final landscape plan is required at the
time of submitting a grading plan.
i. For complete planting and irrigation requirements, see City of Chula
Vista Landscape Manual."
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Since three Commission members are presently vacationing, Director of Planning
Peterson asked for an expression from the Commission with regard to a study
session regularly scheduled for July 16th, suggesting that if it is their
desire that meeting could be cancelled and the next study session held on
August 20.
Chairman Chandler expressed agreement with cancelling the July study session
and the other Commissioners concurred.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
- Commissioner Smith raised a question concerning the Subdivision Map Act as
-12- July 9, 1975
addressed by the City Attorney at the previous meeting, and asked for Mr. Beam's
comment on it. After discussing the provisions of the Map Act, Mr. Beam con-
curred that the Attorney General's opinion is confusing and he feels it may be
challenged in court, or that an amendment to the Map Act may be offered at the
legislature through the League of California Cities.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Heleh'Mape~ ' '
Secretary