Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1974/04/10 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 10, 1974 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: Macevicz, Chandler, Rice, Rudolph, Floto and Starr. Absent (with previous notifica- tion) Member Wilson. Also present: Assistant Director of Planning Williams, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Director of Public Works Robens, Deputy City Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Chandler-Rudolph) The minutes of the meeting of March 27, 1974 be approved as mailed. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR-74-3 on Telegraph Canyon Commercial Development between Halecrest and Crest Drives. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid advised there has been no additional input to this EIR since the staff report was written. He felt that some of the points addressed in the staff comments should be addressed by the developer or his representative. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Lawrence Herman, 1830 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, member of the firm developing the property, expressed the opinion this is one of the best sites for a community shopping center and pointed out that the property has been zoned for this purpose for a number of years. In response to the Chairman's question on his acceptance of the suggested revisions, Mr. Lawrence reported that he could not furnish definite information on the phasing of the project, other than that it is their intention to develop 6 to 8 acres in the immediate future with a food market and possibly a drug store. The remaining 12 acres will be developed in a later phase at an undetermined time. Mrs. Ann Holton, 592 Douglas Street, asked which portion of the property is entailed in the first phase of development and how it would be graded, whether this will conform to the Hillside Modifying ordinance. It was noted that the first phase of development will be at the west end of the property adjacent to the service station. Mr. Reid advised that the Hillside ordinance designates a slope of 10% or less for other than residential development. This development will conform to that regulation and will be at about the same elevation as Telegraph Canyon Road. 2 4/10/74 As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Consideration of the final EIR for this project be scheduled for April 24, 1974. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR-74-2 concerning the application of the Hillside Development Standards on areas within and to the east of the City of Chula Vista. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid advised that there has been input since the writing of the staff report in the form of a letter from Gersten Construction Company. The major issues raised included a request for a specific economic analysis of development of property in accordance with the proposed standards; how it relates to the housing goals and concerns of urban sprawl. They also requested that the environmental review be addressed in several individual reports rather than one EIR covering the entire project; and questioned the imposition of these standards on the P.U.D. area adjacent to Southwestern College and the Planned Community zone now in effect. In response Mr. Reid pointed out that it is very difficult to have an economic analysis on the project at this stage since the exact nature of development that may occur is not known. He pointed out that Section 4.7.1 of the draft EIR does address some implications of the lowering of density as far as the value of housing and social consequences as a result of this development policy. Mr. Reid suggested there may be a need to draw better conclusions from the information in the report, but basically, all the necessary informa- tion is there. With reference to the request to furnish several smaller EIR's rather than one, Mr. Reid pointed out that both the California Code and the City's ordinance require that when a project or an act is considered, all phases must be covered in one Environmental Impact Report. He pointed out this does not preclude consideration of development EIR's at a later date when application for development is presented. With reference to the P-C zone and the P.U.D. which is partially under implementation, Mr. Reid advised that it is the City's intent to modify the general development plan under the P-c zone to conform to the Hillside Modifying District. Chairman Macevicz concurred with the advisability of considering the impact of development of the entire area, rather than on a piece- meal basis, since it is harder to assess the total impact of a number of small projects as it relates to schools, traffic, pollution, etc. Mr. Reid reported that this EIR was circulated to the various agencies that could be involved and they were generally satisfied with the draft. Commissioner Rudlph asked if the EIR could include some information about the adequacy of the roads, and what effect these standards will have on the need for roads. - 3 - 4/10/74 Mr. Reid noted this could be discussed only in a general way be- fore development plans are submitted. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened, but as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Rudolph suggested that something be included in the mitigating measures relating to the Housing Element and that every effort will be made to broaden the spectrum of housing. Mr. Reid concurred that the report could include a statement that every effort will be made on the part of the City to encourage diversity of housing and economic and social groups. MSUC (Chandler-Rice) Consideration of the final EIR-74-2 be sche- duled for April 24, 1974. 3. Council referral Report on proposed rezonin~ from R-3 to C-O for property at 396 Del Mar Avenue. Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that the Commission's previous denial of this request was appealed to the City Council, and the appeal for C-O zoning was granted by the Council, which requires that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for report. Mr. Lee advised that in light of the neighborhood support for this zone change and the Council's decision to permit the C-O zone for a proposed dental clinic, the staff is recommending that the Commission support a rezoning to C-O-P with the provision that the precise plan would limit development to the dental office and laboratory. It is further recommended that after the proposed office has been in operation for one year, the City's Traffic Engineer would assess the traffic and based on his finding some measures be taken to alleviate any problems which may arise. The Commission discussed the possible problems of congestion due to increased traffic and parking on Del Mar and how effective such a measure as painting the curb red might be in alleviating the problems. It was moved by Commissioner Rudolph that a report be sent to City Council supporting the change of zone from R-3 to C-O-P for the property at 396 Del Mar, subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report. The motion died for lack of a second. Assistant Director of Planning Williams suggested that if the Commission chooses to reaffirm their previous position, they may also wish to recommend the attachment of precise plan conditions in the event the Council enacts the rezoning. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Send a report to the City Council reaffirming the Planning Commission's previous recommendation for denial of the 4 4/10/74 zone chan§e, and the further recommendation that if the zone change that it is to be C-O-P rather than of the precise plan as follows: A. Use of the property shall be limited to two dental offices and a laboratory as shown on the proposed site plan. B. After the clinic has been in operation for a period of one year, or less, the Traffic Engineer shall assess the traffic situation on Del Mar Avenue. Based on the findings of the Traffic Engineer, red curbing along Del Mar Avenue or other measures may be imposed to alleviate identified traffic congestion or safety problems. 4. Consideration of request for waiver of 6' high concrete zoning wall at 1415 Third Avenue, Jennin~s Hom. Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that the applicant has re- quested permission to construct a 6' high solid wood fence along the property line that separates the C-T zone from R-3 property instead of the required concrete block wall. The Zoning Ordinance provides for waiver of a zoning wall if the Planning Commission determines that adjacent areas are sufficiently screened and protected without the wall, but stipulates that if a wall is necessary it shall be constructed of concrete block. Since the applicant has failed to show why no wall should be in- stalled, the staff recommends that the request be denied. Mr. Lee pointed out that there is a grade differential between the two properties of 7 to 10 feet and that there will be a minimum separation of 92 feet between the proposed commercial structure and the nearest apartment. In previous cases where the Planning Commission has waived the requirement for a zoning wall, the commercial area has been located below the residential area with the property line located at the toe of the slope, but in this in- stance the situation is reversed since the commercial use is 7' to 10' above the residential area and the property line is located at the top of the slope. In addition, the commercial area being screened by the wall is the rear of the building where loading activity will be conducted. Frank Phillips, 3942 Horton Road, Bonita, representing Jennings Hom, discussed the site plan, pointing out the proposed landscaping on the banks that separate the commercial development from the R-3 development. He advised that the cost of a concrete wall is about 2 1/2 times that of a wooden fence. He indicated there would be little vehicular traffic in the portion of the commercial property adjacent to the proposed wall. In discussion the Commission expressed sympathy over the cost of the conrete wall but felt that a wooden fence is not substantial or durable enough for a commercial development. - 5 - 4/10/74 MSUC (Rudolph-Starr) Request for a waiver of 6' concrete zoning wall at 1415 Third Avenue be denied. 5. Consideration of request for pole sign at 517 H Street, Dairy Queen Foods, Inc. Current Planning Supervisor Lee displayed a rendering of the pro- posed 30' high pole sign containing the red and white Dairy Queen logo at the top with a reader board installed about halfway down the pole, making the total sign area 81 sq. ft. With 118' of frontage along H Street this property is allowed a freestanding sign if the Commission determines that adequate identification cannot be gained by use of wall signs. In the proposed revisions to the sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance a freestanding sign would be allowed as a matter of right in the C-C zone with this amount of frontage. As pointed out in the staff report, it is staff's opinion that area of the top portion of the sign is not commensurate with the height and the reader board is not designed as an integral part of the sign, also the pole is not covered to blend with the building. It is recommended that a freestanding sign be approved, but the applicant be requested to redesign the sign using the guidelines set forth in the staff report which include placing the Dairy Queen eye within a rectangu- lar or other suitable background area, including the reader board as an integral part of the sign, covering the pole with the material to be used on the building and limiting the height and size to the maximum that would be permitted under the revised sign provisions. Commissioner Floto expressed approval of the Dairy Queen eye portion of the sign but objected to the reader board which, he felt, if not properly maintained could become very shoddy in appearance. Commissioner Starr pointed out that this site is easily visible from both east and west. He asked for clarification of the present and proposed sign reulations for this zone. Mr. Lee explained that under the present ordinance provisions a freestanding sign may be permitted by the Commission in the C-C and C-N zones if it is proven that identification of the business cannot be properly achieved by signs attached to the building. Under the proposed revision of sign regulations in this particular zone, any lot with 100 feet or more of street frontage would be allowed a freestanding sign by right. It was moved by Commissioner Chandler, seconded by Commissioner ice that the request for a freestanding sign at 517 H Street be denied. Fran Burger, Pacific Sign Construction, requested permission to speak concerning this request and the motion for denial was with- - 6 - 4/10/74 drawn. Mr. Burger pointed out that the sign proposed is well below the maximum size permitted; he also indicated they would be willing to lower the sign to approximately 22 feet which would make it more in keeping with the height of the building, and they would cover the pole as suggested by the staff. He advised this identification is used throughout the country by this firm. Mr. Woods, Lemon Grove, President of D.G. Foods, Inc., discussed Dairy Queen's expansion and upgrading of their stores in the past few years. He indicated this building will be remodeled to conform to the Dairy Queen image; this will result in the extension of the roof 4 feet beyond the face of the sign which is to be placed on the front of the building. It is felt that a freestanding sign will be required to be easily visible to motorists on H Street and this would be used instead of having the logo sign on each side of the building. He indicated the reader board portion of the sign would be designed to conform to the architecture of the building and would be red and white as the logo is. He expressed their need for the reader board to post special prices and special events which they sponsor. Commissioner Rudolph expressed the opinion that the reader board is in conflict with the philosophy of Chula Vista's sign ordinance since it is a form of advertising rather than identification. MSC (Rudolph-Rice) Approval of a freestanding sign for Dairy Queen at 517 H Street, and that the sign be redesigned deleting the reader board portion. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Rudolph, Rice, Floto and Chandler NOES: Members Macevicz and Starr ABSENT: Member Wilson The meeting recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m. 6. Consideration of precise plan for industrial development at C Street and Bay Blvd., Dixieline Lumber Company. Current Planning Supervisor Lee presented the plot plan and rendering of the proposed development to be located in the I-P zone in the Bayfront area, and therefore requires architectural approval and sign approval. He pointed out that this area was originally designated in the Bayfront plan for administrative and business office use but during consideration of that plan the Commission determined that the I-P zone would be better suited for the area. Mr. Lee pointed out the location of the structure on the 3.12 acre site on the west side of Bay Boulevard with the required parking located at the front of the building. The main building will be approximately - 7 - 4/10/74 - 28 feet high and will be used for storage; the front portion of the building is 16 feet high and will be devoted to retail sales and office use. The Bayfront plan provides for very restrictive sign allowance, but since this use combines retail sales with industrial activity, the applicant has expressed a need for a freestanding sign. Since the various properties in this area will apparently be de- veloped individually rather than as an industrial park, the staff can see a need for modifying the sign provisions adopted in the Bayfront plan. The applicant has requested signs on the building totaling approximately 170 sq. ft. and a freestanding sign, 20 ft. high, containing 75 sq. ft. The staff recommends approval of 100 sq. ft. of signing on the building and a ground sign of 25 sq. ft., 6 ft. high. Mr. Lee pointed out that additional conditions requested by the Engine- ering Division and not included in the staff report include the con- struction of an 8' sewer through the 375'J north-south length of the property, elimination of three parking stalls near the north end of the property to avoid possible conflicts with incoming traffic and that the driveway openings, both on Bay Boulevard and G Street be non-alley type. Chairman Macevicz called upon the applicant to discuss the precise plan and architecture of the proposed building. Jack Duncan, 3250 Sports Arena Boulevard, Vice President of Dixieline, displayed photos of their facilities on Sports Arena Boulevard and at Escondido to illustrate their architecture and landscaping. He advised that the front portion of the building will be of wood construction and the storage portion of the structure will be enameled steel. The wall south of the building will be a concrete block wall, as will the wall on the westerly boundary which is shown on the plans as chain link with slats. With reference to the landscaping along the west property line, Mr. Duncan expressed concurrence to increasing the width to 10 feet, but pointed out that due to low utility lines the gas and electric company would not allow high growing trees in this landscaping strip. Mr. Duncan expressed the opinion that since the elevation of the property is above thatof the freeway, a sign located on the building would not be visible to freeway traffic, and for that reason a free- standing sign is requested. He pointed out that the 75 sq. ft., 20 ft. high, sign which they are requesting is considerably less than would normally be permitted in the industrial zone. He expressed a willingness to discuss this and consider a compromise. Commissioner Rudolph expressed the opinion that this site plan does not conform to the criteria adopted in the Bayfront plan, and this de- velopment does not constitute a suitable buffer between the heavy industrial use to the south and the proposed residential and recreational uses proposed to the north. - 8 - It was pointed out this area is at the south end of the area con- sidered in the Bayfront plan and is nearest to industrial develop- ment which makes it difficult to adhere strictly to all regulations stipulated in the Bayfront plan. Mr. Williams felt that redevelop- ment as recommended by the Bayfront plan would require consolidation of several properties in this area, and that apparently is not going to occur. Mr. Williams pointed out that the emphasis in the Sedway/ Cooke recommendation was for plenty of landscaping, good architecture and buffering between uses. From that standpoint he felt this is an acceptable plan. Commissioner Rice expressed the opinion that the landscaping re- quired at the front of the property would adequately screen the parking in front of the building. Commissioner Starr expressed the opinion that considering the loca- tion next to the freeway and the length of street frontage, a free- standing sign is warranted since a sign on the building might be misleading and fail to identify the retail store. He felt the freestanding sign as requested would be acceptable. Commissioner Chandler also voiced the opinion that a freestanding sign may be necessary to orient traffic to this facility since freeway crossings are at F Street and H Street. Commissioners Rice, Macevicz and Floto expressed concurrence with the need for a freestanding sign, and that the ground sign recommended by the staff would not be adequate to identify this business site. MSC (Chandler-Rice) The precise plan presented by Dixieline Lumber Company for development of the property at G Street and Bay Boulevard be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The landscaping along the westerly property line shall be in- creased to a minimum width of 10 feet and the spacing of tree plant- ing shall be adequate to screen the site from the adjoining rail lines and transmission towers. 2. The applicant shall be allowed a maximum sign area of 100 sq. ft. to be attached flush on the building. The sign shall be re- stricted to the use of cutout letters stating the name of the establishment. 3. A freestanding sign, not to exceed 75 sq. ft. in area and 20 ft. in height, shall be allowed. 4. Architecture shall be in accordance with the plans submitted. 5. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of an 8" sewer through the full 375'~north-south length of the property. A sewer easement for this line shall be granted to the City of Chula Vista. The sewer lateral(s) to serve the development shall connect to this new line. - 9 - 4/10/74 6. The first three parking stalls from Bay Boulevard located along the northerly property line shall be eliminated. 7. The driveway openings, both on Bay Boulevard and G Street shall be non-alley type (standard opening). The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Chandler, Rice, Macevicz, Floto and Starr NOES: Member Rudolph ABSENT: Member Wilson 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendments to Zoning Ordinance relating to sign provisions. Current Planning Supervisor Lee reviewed the changes recommended for each zone. He indicated there is no major change in the signs allowed in the Agricultural Zone but the ordinance is modified to clarify the signs allowed which relate to public and quasi public uses, directional, warning, real estate and residential identification signs. In the R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones, the ordinance presently allows signs up to 200 sq. ft. for new subdivision tracts; under the proposed revisions signs up to 32 sq. ft. will also be allowed for parcel maps or the conversion of apartments to condominium ownership. In the R-3 zone, it is proposed to relate the area of wall signs to to the building frontage rather than the number of units within the structure. It would also permit use of a freestanding sign in lieu of a wall sign with a maximum sign area of 14 sq. ft. In the C-O zone, the provisions would be liberalized to relate the size of the sign more closely to the building frontage; and would also permit a small freestanding sign of 3 sq~ft, for each business and up to 32 sq. ft. in area if the business is located on a major or collector street. In the Central Business zone a number of changes have been recommended to bring provisions for this zone into keeping with the rest of the ordinance. It is proposed to allow one square foot of sign area per lineal foot of building frontage, but this may be increased up to a maximum of 3 sq. ft. per lineal foot provided the sign does not exceed 50 per cent of the area on which the sign is applied. There is a major change in the provisions for projecting signs, which would allow from 1' to 4' projection from the face of the building depending on the ground clearance; it would not permit projection above the roof or parapet. It is proposed to eliminate freestanding or pole signs in the Central Business zone. - 10 - 4/10/74 In the Neighborhood Commercial Zone it is proposed to allow a free- standing pole sign, in addition to the wall sign, without requiring Planning Commission approval. In the Central Commercial Zone, wall signs will be allowed on a sliding scale of one to 3 square feet per lineal foot of building frontage; a freestanding sign limited to a maximum area of 150 sq. ft. and height of 35 feet, would be allowed without requiring Planning Commission approval. Provision is also made for the inclusion of tenant signs in the sign for a commercial complex. In the Visitor Commercial Zone, wall signs would be allowed on a sliding scale up to 3 sq. ft. per lineal foot of building frontage and a freestanding sign would be allowed for properties having at least 100 feet of street frontage, on the basis of 1 sq.ft, of sign area per lineal foot of lot (maximum 150 sq. ft., 35' high). Wall signs in the Thoroughfare Commercial Zone would also be on a sliding scale of one foot to 3 feet per lineal foot of building frontage, and could be placed on either the wall or marquee. Pro- jecting signs would also be governed by a sliding scale for the amount of projection. Rooftop signs would be restricted to businesses having a minimum of 100 feet of street frontage and a minimum build- ing frontage of 50 feet. Freestanding signs would require a minimum of 50' of lot frontage with the same maximum size as the C-V zone. No change is proposed in the sign regulations in the Industrial Research zone. In the Limited Industrial zone, wall or marquee signs are allowed up to 3 sq. ft. per lineal foot of building frontage and freestanding or ground signs are permitted but projecting and roof- top signs have been eliminated. Mr. Lee reported that the major changes proposed in the Special Pro- visions Section provide that nonconforming signs may remain if they do not exceed the ordinance standards by more than 10 per cent; the limit on the length of time for illumination of signs has been eliminated; signs supports must be free of all external bracing; under the design review requirement, 10 principals of good design have been listed; the allowance for window signs has been increased from 10% to 20% of the window area; also an increase in the area allowed for church signs; provisions for directory signs, both on the building and freestanding; real estate signs are allowed an area of 32 sq. ft.; standards are included for signs on mansard and pitched roofs and on architectural appendages; and provisions for a Planned Signing Program. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. The Chairman asked for comments relating to sign provisions in the Agricultural Zone and none were offered. No comments were offered on any of the residential zones. It was then suggested that general comments be received as they relate to any of the zones or to the special provisions. - 11 - 4/10/74 Jerry Prior, owner of Barbeque Pit, 689 H Street, indicated he was also speaking for several businessmen who are members of the Chamber of Commerce, discussed the philosophy and attitude of the business community toward signing and sign regulations. He felt that to serve the community effectively signs should be used for both identi- fication and advertising; merely identifying the name of the business is not enough in some instances. He also felt the businessman's rights are infringed upon when the design of the sign is controlled by the city. He felt good design is a matter of opinion and should be left to the businessman. Mr. Prior expressed the opinion that establishing an amortization or abatement period is discriminatory and there should be some form of grandfathering, since the existing signs were legal at the time they were installed. Mr. Prior stated that he is in favor of some sign ordinance and some control but not the arbitrary nature of this sign ordinance. Commissioner Rudolph commented on Mr. Prior's philosophy that it is the businessman's right to advertise on signs. She pointed out that in most forms of advertising the citizen has a freedom of choice on whether to see it or avoid it, but if advertising signs line the streets the motorist is a captive audience. This gives undue rights to the businessman to the detriment of the city's appearance. City Attorney Beam pointed out that the City Council did give the Planning Commission a directive to look into the basic philosophy of a sign ordinance and the question of amortization or grandfathering. He felt that any sign ordinance runs into a problem of philosophy as well as a lot of legal issues. He advised that the Attorney's office can take care of the legal issues, but even though a sign ordinance may be drafted or an amortization schedule adopted, which will withstand challenge as to its legality, it does not necessarily mean it is the best situation, it merely means it meets the minimal requirements of the law not to be arbitrary or unconstitutional in its restrictions. He felt the testimony given is the sort of dialogue the Council wanted discussed. He suggested that if the businessmen advocate grandfathering they should try to present some data to the Planning Commission in terms of economics. He felt sure, on the other hand, that from the point of view of planners, grandfathering has a lot of really bad aspects in terms of city planning. He felt the Planning Commission and City Council must determine what competing interest and what values are the most appropriate. Mr. Prior indicated that he and other representatives of the business community present tonight are mainly interested in the Thoroughfare Commercial zone and are not prepared to speak for realtors or resi- dential zones. He felt the details of the ordinance for the C-T zone cannot be hammered out until the overall philosophy is determined. Assistant Director of Planning pointed out that a large share of the effort on the part of the staff had been directed at eliminating dis- cretion between zones. The staff does not support grandfathering and 12 - 4/10/74 felt discussion should center on a fair and equitable amortization schedule. Commissioner Rice pointed out that there appears to be a wide chasm between the City and the business community, since the businessmen appear to be advocating no controls, which the City feels leads to a proliferation of signs with each business trying to outdo the other. He asked for an indication from the businessmen as to which major issues they feel should be discussed and decided. Neik Slijk, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, felt the amortization issue is the number 1 priority, along with dis- retionary powers of staff in approving signs. He felt these two issues should be resolved and then go on to the details of signs allowed in each zone. Dick Callahan, resident and businessman of Chula Vista, expressed the opinion that the latest draft of the sign ordinance rather than being more liberal is more restrictive. He felt the staff should attempt to serve the needs of the community and not dictate to the businessmen. He maintained that discussion on sign issues over the past three years have all been one way and the staff has not attempted to meet the needs of the businessmen. Clint Mathews, 4305 vista Coronado Drive, owner of the Cavalier Motor Hotel on E Street, suggested that restrictions on the size of signs take into consideration the depth of a lot as well as the street frontage, in other words, the sign should be based on the square footage of the property. Chairman Macevicz asked if more meetings between the staff and business representatives could result in a more acceptable proposal for Planning Commission consideration. Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that the staff has endeavored to do this over the past three years and she felt the Commission should now consider the proposed ordinance step by step and forward a recommendation to the City Council. MSUC (Rudolph-Rice) The public hearing for consideration of amend- ments to the sign provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be continued to the meeting of May 8, 1974. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Williams reported that Mr. Himelblau of the F.H.A. office and Mr. Weiss of B.C.A. would make a presentation at the April 17 work- shop meeting on the affirmative fair housing marketing program as it relates to the housing element. Mr. Williams also called attention to a written communication dis- tributed to each Commissioner from Tad Pieknik with reference to his request considered at the previous meeting. - 13 - 4/10/74 COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairman Macevicz requested that the staff provide some information relative to the City of Chula Vista's official position regarding the proposed municipal airport proposed to be located in the vicinity of Brown Field. He felt that location would have adverse affects on Chula Vista due to noise from increased air traffic over the City. He felt the location of a correctional institution in that vicinity would be much preferred to a large airport. Mr. Macevicz also asked if information is available on the possible Navy housing project east of 1-805. The only information the Commission has had to date is from newspaper reports. Commissioner Rudolph expressed the hope that the City would request Sanpat to investigate the possibility of considering alternatives to airplane travel. She felt there are many that are much more amen- able as far as noise is concerned. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Macevicz adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted Helen Mapes Secretary