Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/04/13 Tape No.: 288 Side 2 : 455-1659 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, April 13, 1988 Public Services Buildin~ ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson,Commissioners Cannon, Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Associate Planner Griffin, Assistant Planner Schilling, Principal Planner Pass, Senior Contract Planner Heiter PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-88-38M REQUEST TO CONTINUE AN EXISTING AUTO DISMANTLING YARD AT 2365 MAIN STREET - DAN AND RUTH STREET Assistant Planner Schilling stated that the auto dismantling yard was purchased recently by new owners who inadvertently allowed the major use permit {1977-1987) to expire. The applicants are requesting a new major use permit in order to continue auto dismantling and participate in the gradual abatement of the operation afforded to other open storage uses with valid major use permits under the auspices of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The operating yard is on a 3-acre parcel with a 2,820 square-foot office and 18-space landscaped parking lot. The remainder is for storage which is MINUTES -2- April 13, 1988 enclosed with an 8-foot solid aluminum fence on three sides and a 8-foot solid wood fence in the front. No complaints have been received regarding this operation which appears to be in compliance with all operating regulations. Staff recommends approval subject to the original conditions of approval for 2-year period on a non-renewable basis. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Michael Green, Attorney-at-Law, 535 "H" Street, Chula Vista, representing the applicant, stated that the operation had originally been located on the Bayfront and had moved to the present site. The owners wish to keep the business operational at the present site but the Specific Plan poses difficulties. Without any certainty for future continuation of the operation, they hesitate to improve the yard by gradually putting a large part of the storage inside. Mr. Green pointed out that when he was on the Commission, the opinion did not appear to be to eliminate all recycling yards from the Montgomery Area but to improve the area. It ~been his belief during the annexation period, that Council's intent was not to change or foreclose any use and that there was a commitment that the existing businesses could continue. Mr. Green commented that staff's recommendation of non-renewability seemed harsh and he was requesting some sort of language to permit his return in the next 6 months with a proposal to change this from an outdoor storage to an indoor storage operation and to request at extension of the use. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. In response to the Commission, Planner Schilling said the that of the other yards with a vested major use permit, the longest period would be for an expiration date in 1994. All the major use permits for the auto dismantling yards have a set time period so none are operating under a grandfather clause leaving an open-ended period of time. There are no yards in the area presently operating with a non-renewable permit that were precluded by the language of the permit itself from returning and requesting an extension. Staff replied that a permit for a yard operating on Center Street had language that stated "2 years or 60 days after the Montgomery Specific Plan, whichever came first" but the non-renewable language was not included. In that case, the Montgomery Specific Plan had not been adopted as yet and the intent was for interim approval pending adoption of the Plan. With this particular yard, the Montgomery Specific Plan has been adopted although the implementation portion has yet to be effected and staff anticipated that as rezones took place, that would be part of the abatement program. The applicant had expressed an intent to enclose a portion of the yard at the Montgomery Planning Committee Meeting. Ms. Schilling stated that if the recommended final abatement period were applied and the applicant returned with a plan for a different type of auto dismantling business; namely, more enclosed, they would not be precluded from requesting a conditional use permit. The open storage portion of the auto dismantling business is what is discouraged by the Montgomery Specific Plan. MINUTES -3- April 13, 1988 In response to a question regarding what would be the maximum time the current operation could remain in effect, Director Krempl replied that until the phased zoning schedule is determined it is unknown when Main Street would be considered and the time factor could be a year or more. MSUC(Cannon/Fuller) to find this project will have no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-48M. MSUC(Cannon/Fuller) that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to approve the request, PCC-88-38M, to allow continuation of the existing auto dismantling yard at 2365 Main Street subject to conditions "a" and "b" with a modification to the time period to be for a period of 2 years or as may be extended by a further application through City channels. Commissioner Casillas asked for clarification if the applicant would be free to return to the Commission at a later date and request an extension to continue the business essentially as currently operated. Commissioner Cannon replied that such a condition did not bind the Commission to approve or deny the request but left the door open. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-88-6 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 19 (ZONING) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE PERMITS The City Council requested staff to return with a redrafted ordinance for large family day care homes adding traffic as a consideration to grant or deny a permit for use. The County standards applicable to Montgomery permit large family daycare homes as an accessory use subject to the issuance of an administrative permit, but do not impose traffic control standards in the conditions for granting the permit. Spacing regulations appear deficient also in that large family daycare homes could be clustered on one street or directly adjacent to each other as long as the homes are owned, operated, managed or leased by separate individuals; which could result in cumulative noise and traffic impacts. Staff is recommending that the regulations for large family daycare homes required by Title 19 be amended to incorporate traffic control standards and applied Citywide. In addition, the requirement for a conditional use permit would be replaced with a requirement for a large family daycare permit process similar in nature to the administrative permit used by the County. This would be granted by the Zoning Administrator with an appeal process to the Planning Commission and City Council. The findings, however, would be different in scope simply affirming that the application complies with the standards required by the City for large family daycare homes as well as all other applicable regulations specified in the Municipal Code for that use, and that the application complies with all requirements mandated by the State Health and Safety Code governing licensing of daycare facilities. MINUTES -4- April 13, 1988 The difference in the ordinance between Montgomery and the balance of the City would be in the labels for the single-family zone; basically, in Montgomery, they would be permitted with a large family daycare permit within the R-S Zone and in the balance of the City within the R-E and R-1 zone. Within P-C Zones, they would be within the R-S and R-E designated areas which permit only single-family dwellings. The second important change to the Ordinance would be to create a separate large family daycare permit rather than using the conditional use permit process. Since local jurisdictions must grant the permit if the application meets certain standards laid out by the City, the findings for approval for a discretionary permit (like a CUP) are no longer appropriate. Most of the discretion has been removed from the permit. A large family daycare permit, under the suggested change, would be granted by the Zoning Administrator and then have appeal rights to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Large family daycare homes for a single-family dwelling within a multiple-family zone would still be subject to the conditional use process as they are protected by the State mandate and it is staff's belief that there are potential land-use conflicts possible with parking and noise impacts because of the different densities involved. As there are approximately 24 licensed large family daycare homes within Chula Vista and only three appear to have permits, staff's intention is to review the list received from Daycare Licensing and inform those thereon of the requirements of a permit. Some of those homes may be grandfathered in because that they received their daycare license during the years when the State precluded local governments from requiring approval of any sort of permit. There was a small period of time also in which these permits were permitted but the regulations within the City were not in place. In response to an inquiry regarding the one dissenting vote by the Montgomery Planning Committee, Ms. Schilling replied that the objection was that regulations could not be included regarding swimming pools in single-family dwellings as those were under the licensing procedures of the State and the Fire Marshal under the County Health Requirements. The City is precluded from dealing with that issue as other regulations cover the situation. Her objection was to the constraint placed upon the City relative to the swimming pool issue. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Shipe/Grasser) to recommend that City Council enact an ordinance to amend Title 19 of the Municipal Code to consider traffic issues when evaluating large family daycare homes as contained in Exhibit A attached and made a part thereto. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-22M CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL CONSIDERATION OF INTERIM ORDINANCE PROPOSED FOR THE PROCESSING OF LAND USE PROPOSALS WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH PART TWO OF THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN MINUTES -5- April 13, 1988 Principal Planner Pass stated that several of Montgomery's zonal districts were taken intact into the Chula Vista Municipal Code. As a result of the new Specific Plan some of these zones are in conflict and inconsistent with the Specific Plan and consequently the General Plan. Council was of the opinion that some property owners having territory within the zones which are inconsistent might submit proposals contrary to what the General Plan sets forth. The Council, therefore, asked the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning Commission to propose interim regulations which would protect the Plan from these inconsistent proposals. The proposed interim ordinance says that any proposed land use that is inconsistent with the Specific Plan would have to be accompanied by a proposed amendment to the Specific Plan. This interim ordinance would have a 90-day time frame and then could be amended for a year. One advantage of the interim ordinance over a moratorium is there is no delay except the processing matter. The Specific Plan can be amended as many times as thought proper while a General Plan can be amended only four times yearly. There is some doubt whether a moratorium if extended too long might not be regarded by the Courts as a "taking." Therefore the City Attorney advises this approach of coupling the proposal and the Specific Plan to that of a moratorium. The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of April 6, 1988 recommended approval. Commissioner Casillas asked what time frame is being considered in extending the processing time by adding this requirement that the amendment come before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Principal Planner Pass replied that depending upon the environmental status the time frame could be from 6-9 months with the cost to the developer ranging between $2,500-$3,000 additionally and the exact number of applications is not known. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Anne Collins, 5942 San Miguel Road, P.O. Box 753, Bonita, 92002, spoke in opposition to the ordinance on the basis that it implements downzoning without specific notice to affected non-resident owners; the Montgomery Specific Plan study might delay any use of the property for months; it was a blanket implementation without review of individual property; and she did not receive a notice regarding the hearing. She requested land gave a written copy of the request to the Secretary) that if the ordinance were passed, that she be permitted to retain the "existing lO0 percent C-36 zoning which has been consistent with the General Plan and also within each parcel". Ms. Collins stated that if the ordinance were approved, each parcel would have "split-zoning on it and be hung up in a study" and that she objected to 273 of it "getting this park-type study on it". Principal Planner Pass noted that her land has not been zoned for open space since to do so would be tantamount to eminent domain. He said he had endeavored to explain to Ms. Collins that there is some high ground to the rear of her property that goes down into a drainage area and appears to be a good park site and a notation had been placed there for open space. If Ms. Collins filed an application utilizing the entire parcel, then the City would need to determine whether it wished to purchase the land from her. She was not being placed in an Open Space Zone nor was the interim ordinance injurious to her interests. MINUTES -6- April 13, 1988 Mr. A. Lee Estep, 2257 Front Street, San Diego, Attorney-at-Law representing Castle Park Investment Group, noted that all of Third Avenue is commercial except the small stretch of property owned by his client at Third and Orange, and that there had been discussion at the time of the adoption of Phase 2 of the Montgomery Specific Plan whether this parcel was to remain in a proposed medium-density residential zone. He maintained that the proposed interim ordinance is in reality a moratorium that forces the land owner to go through a complete rezoning process prior to development of property. He declared that the referenced property is in escrow and its value has dropped $640,000 because the proposed medium density is not considered realistic in an otherwise completely commercial area; that Council, rather than waiting for implementation of the Montgomery Plan, and allowing all parties to speak at a full hearing on its implementation, is presenting a way to avoid what they consider inconsistencies that now exist in the area, which is, in his estimation, unconstitutional, a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and is taking property without due process of law; that adoption of the proposed ordinance constitutes downzoning of the property necessitating requesting what amounts to a change in zoning through the Montgomery Planning Committee, City Planning Commission and the Council; and that to try to enact the interim ordinance is a disservice to the Community. Mr. O.E. Underwood, 46 Minot Street, 9201D, commented that it had taken him 20 years to get his Quintard Street property (across from where Fedmart was located) from R-P to C-Zone (Heavy Commercial) and he was shocked to discover (on looking at the map displayed) that it now shows apartment zoning. He had been out of State; however, his tax bills had reached him so the address was known, but he had never received any notices regarding this subject. He objected very much to the City of Chula Vista back-zoning his property from Heavy Commercial to Multiple-Family Zoning. Mr. Underwood emphasized that there should be some sort of relief for people who are out of State and who are not receiving notice that their property is being downgraded or downzoned. He expressed a wish to speak with Mr. Pass regarding the situation and was advised to contact the Planning Department the next day. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. In reply to Commissioner Cannon's request for a statement referencing Mr. Estep's comments on potential problems the City may confront in passing the ordinance, Deputy City Attorney Moore stated that the City Attorney had reviewed the ordinance favorably; that it is not a moratorium which freezes development but is a requirement for a Specific Plan Amendment prior to development proceedings in those areas where zoning ordinances differ from the Specific Plan; and that the City can change zoning within the City without it being a "taking" which is basically when a government entity takes away all reasonable use of property, which is not the case. Commissioner Casillas expressed concern about the zoning issue presented by Mr. Estep based on his belief that long-range plans usually preceded commercial ventures and that the ordinance puts an onerous burden on those property owners for an unspecified period of time and he would vote against the ordinance. MINUTES -7- April 13, 1988 Commissioner Fuller also expressed concern saying that she had felt uncomfortable about that portion of the Plan during the public hearing process but had considered that the actual implementation of the Plan would permit discussion on the zoning of this portion of Third Avenue which was not commercial. In reply to her concern, Principal Planner Pass stated that this was one of the areas identified as potentially appropriate for accommodating mixed-use commercial with medium-density residential and was so indicated in the text. However, the land is now in escrow and discussion includes bowling alleys and high-intensified commercial uses. He indicated the location of the ~arcel on the map pointing out that for all intensive purposes the parcel on hird Avenue, south of Orange, is the frontage to the mobile home area and presents a linear problem between residential and a commercial area. Both the persons residing next to the area and the property owners must be considered and further study is planned under Part 3 of the Specific Plan (the implementation portion) as well as under the rezoning portion. Commissioner Fuller then said that because of the time and thoroughness already manifested in the preparation of the Montgomery Specific Plan, she would concur in the need for the ordinance as it does continue the planning process and is still following the due process already in place. MS (Cannon/Casillas) to move to not approve the proposed interim ordinance. Commissioner Cannon stated that he feels a moral obligation to the City property owners to ensure a public hearing specifically addressing individual properties. He expressed a belief that implementation of the Specific Plan will exceed a year's time; that time is money in commercial ventures; that high-intensity commercial uses in the areas will normally be placed in previously commercialized zones rather than residential; and that he did not like doing things in a backdoor fashion. Commissioner Tugenberg said his belief included a moral responsibility to the entire Community of Montgomery, not just this piece of property. He agrees ~ Commissioner Fuller regarding the amount of organization involved in the Montgomery Plan and that there will be recourse for these persons in the future; that his responsibility was to the entire Plan and, therefore, he could not agree with Commissioner Cannon. The motion to not approve the interim ordinance passed by the following vote: Ayes: Grasser, Cannon, Casillas, Shipe Noes: Fuller, Tugenberg and Carson Abstain: None Some confusion ensued over whether the motion had passed or not and the motion was made by Commissioner Tugenberg and seconded by Commissioner Fuller to approve the attached interim ordinance and recommend the City Council adopt such. The Deputy City Attorney, however, interposed and pointed out that a 5/7 vote was needed to override the Montgomery Planning Committee only when the subject involved conditional use permits or variances and that the vote to not approve the interim ordinance had passed by a vote of four to three. MINUTES -8- April 13, 1988 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-88-4 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR LAS FLORES NO. 2, CHULA VISTA TRACT 88-4 - ROY AND JUDY SHEPARD Associate Planner Griffin commented that the 1.17 acre, R-l, property is located on the west side of Las Flores Drive, involves the creation of five single-family lots, three with frontage on Las Flores Drive and two panhandle lots receiving access via a 20-foot wide common drive. The street is presently under construction funded by an assessment district. The area to the west of the development has single-family dwellings above the site; the KOA Kampground is to the north, and the other properties abutting both sides are currently vacant. The rear of the property has a substantial slope and will require a good deal of grading plus retaining walls. The dwelling units would be split level to reduce the necessity for a large slope between the front and rear lots. The split level homes would take up most of the slope on the pad. One of staff's concerns is high retaining walls to the rear. One of the conditions of approval recommends that portions of these retaining walls along the southerly property line and in and around the end of the common drive be treated in an enhanced manner. An additional condition for decorative fencing along this common drive is included. Since the project is consistent with the zoning regulations and the General Plan, staff recommends approval. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Roy Shepard, 366 Teresa Way, Chula Vista, the applicant, noted that he had one concern regarding condition "m" which requires an automatic residential sprinkler system on lots 4 and 5 and would like to discuss it further with the Fire Marshal so the condition can be removed before the item goes to Council. James Algert, 428 Broadway, Chula Vista, the engineer, said the grading amounts to about 1,800 yards, a little over 300 yards per lot, and does not seem excessive to them. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. In answer to a question staff explained that the sprinkler system was required on lots 4 and 5 because there is insufficient room for fire equipment to turn around at that location and the sprinkler system is an alternate protection. MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) that based on the Initial Study and Comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-54. MSUC(Tugenberg/Shipe) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report to recommend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Las Flores No. 2, Chula Vista Tract 88-4, subject to conditions "a" through "o". MINUTES -9- April 13, 1988 Commissioner Tu§enber§ drew attention of the Planning staff to the a potential traffic situation at the intersection of Second Avenue and "D" Street wherein it is already difficult to make a left-hand turn onto Second Avenue and will be considerably more impacted when the development is completed. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-88-5 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR MOUNTAIN VISTA, CHULA VISTA TRACT 88-5 MASCOT REALTY Commissioner Cannon declared he had a potential conflict of interest and left the dais and the Chambers. Associate Planner Griffin indicated that the tentative subdivision map proposed subdividing 20.6 acres located at the northerly terminus of Las Flores Drive into ll single-family residential lots and one future development lot. Eight of the lots would front on Las Flores and the remaining three panhandle lots would receive access via a 26-foot wide common driveway between lots 2 and 3. An extension has been provided at the end of Las Flores to cover the eventuality of development of single-family homes. This would allow those homes to be served by Las Flores. The future development area is presently being studied by the City in conjunction with the General Plan update for appropriate plan designation and zoning. A development which has occurred since the staff report was prepared concerns some minor conflicts between the map topography and actuality; the site has been graded somewhat directing some of the drainage into other property and, as a result, the following conditions are being added: 1. The topography shall be correctly depicted prior to Council consideration of the tentative map. 2. The developer shall provide drainage facilities within Lot 12 to convey storm run-off from Las Flores Drive to the Sweetwater River Flood Control channel to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Said facility shall have sufficient capacity to contain the runoff from a 50-year design storm. Mr. Griffin said it was his understanding that the applicant had no objections to these conditions; that with these additions, the map meets requirements of the underlying zoning and the subdivision ordinance and staff, therefore, recommends approval. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Robert Scott, P.O. Box 847, Bonita, 92001, owner of Mascot Realty, Inc., said he was in the assessment district with great reluctance; was of the same opinion as Commissioner Tugenberg regarding the heavy traffic that will be occurring on Las Flores Drive and the difficulty of exiting onto Second Avenue; had not originally designed three flag lots but without them a jog was created in the zoning line with residential abutting whatever evolved after the General Plan Review. Mr. Scott discussed the drainage situation from the MINUTES -10- April 13, 198~ end of the cul de sac on Las Flores Drive and the final decision to create a dirt-lined channel to help direct the water runoff another 1000 feet north to the channel; also, the need to provide a sprinkler system on the three back lots in lieu of a turn-around for the Fire Department. He pointed out that the originally designed 20-foot access to Las Flores Drive had been removed so there will be no access from Lot 12 onto Las Flores Drive available. Mr. Scott remarked that he and Mr. Underwood, the owner of the adjacent property, would be working together to improve Mr. Underwood's access and solve the drainage problem on Minot Avenue. The solution will require 5 additional feet to Mr. Underwood which may move the lot lines slightly on lots l, 2, and 3. Mr. Scott requested that condition "a" requiring full public improvements on Second Avenue be postponed until such time as Lot 12 is developed. He pointed out that the frontage of 69 feet is located at the guard rail and cliff junction above the KOA Kampgrounds, and is 1/8 mile from the ll lots being developed and would involve costly engineering particularly in view of the facts that his ll lots are 60-feet below grade. At the time of the development of Lot 12, the hillside would be addressed and the improvements could be undertaken. In response to questions by the Commission, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust said the City, upon application from Mascot Realty and Mr. Scott's former partner, had vacated a 14-foot wide, 175-foot long strip and processed the adjustment plot creating the two small lots in August, 1987. It was anticipated that when those two lots were developed the entire frontage of the two lots and the tail end of Lot 12 would be improved. The Engineering Department now has two individual lots being processed separately with building permit applications on file. It is their opinion that the most reasonable time to put in these improvements would be all at once; that although the improvements are remote from the lower ll lots, they are also remote for the remainder of Lot 12; some improvements on either side of that parcel will be made shortly in connection with the building permit being processed and are already installed south of that location. O. E. Underwood, 46 Minot Avenue, Chula Vista, said he was not in opposition to Mr. Scott's project, however, he and his neighbors, Mr. Fickles, Mr. Thompson and A1 Bayer overlook the area under discussion. He would like to know what the future zoning of the lot specified as future development would be, how the projected unzoned area is to be developed, and expressed a desire to speak with the Director regarding future plans. Director Krempl replied that the City is going through a General Plan update which includes Central Chula Vista and would be happy to notify him when the Plan goes to a public hearing and certainly if more zoning were entered to be changed on that property. MINUTES -ll- April 13, 1988 Michael Bell, lll North Second Avenue, representing KOA Kampgrounds, stated that as a neighboring property owner he would be affected by the drainage situation and if the proposed solution were included in the conditions of approval, he had no opposition to the project. He did agree with Mr. Scott that to have to improve the frontage on Second Avenue would be an onerous financial burden at this time and that a later date would be better. James Algert, 428 Broadway, Chula Vista, 92010, the engineer, said he would like to clarify that the proposal to adjust the tentative map would necessitate further work with the Planning Department; however, the 5 feet could be removed from the north side of the driveway, would not involve narrowing those southerly lots but would decrease the driveway width 20-25 feet which is within City requirements. He also noted that on the last slide displayed, the R-1 shown did not refer to the property but to the arrow on the plan. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Casillas) Cannon out, that based on the Initial Study and comments, if any, on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-32. MSUC ITugenberg/Casillas) Cannon out, that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to recommend that City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Mountain Vista, Chula Vista Tract 88-5, subject to conditions "a" through "l" plus the two additional conditions read into the record by staff. In reply to a question from the Chair, Commissioner Tugenberg said that he wished condition "a" to remain in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Cannon then returned to the Chambers and the dais. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-K CONSIDERATION OF PREZONE THE PROPOSED BONITA-SUNNYSIDE ANNEXATION AREA TO EXISTING COUNTY ZONING-CITY INITIATED Director of Planning Krempl stated that the annexation of the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District Area would be on the November, 1988 ballot. It will be considered by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) the latter part of May. One of the prerequisites for LAFCO is the appropriate prezoning of the property. The intent of the City, as with Montgomery, is to simply prezone the property consistent with the existing County zoning regulations. The County's Animal Regulations, an important component of this equestrian-orientated Community will remain in effect. The County is working with the Sweetwater Planning Committee to update the Community Plan for the Bonita Area. The City of Chula Vista has been participating and monitoring some of those meetings and it is the City's intent to list the results of that study and incorporate them into the City's General Plan. The City's General Plan is expected to be consistent with the County's updated Community Plan. MINUTES -12- April 13, 1988 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) to recommend that City Council enact the ordinance attached to the staff report as Exhibit A. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Krempl informed the Commission that Ann Moore would be leaving the City at the end of the month to accept a position with a private law firm. In behalf of the Planning Department and the Commission he extended his thanks and acknowledgment of her assistance and cooperation in addressing legal problems and wished her good fortune. Commissioner Carson al so extended her thanks and her congratulations for all the efforts made on the Commission's behalf. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Tugenberg commended highly the "Recommended Trends, Patterns and Causes of Growth in the San Diego Region" prepared by the Growth Subcommittee chaired by Mr. Krempl and included in the packet material and recommended that it should be read by all developers and realtors. Director Krempl referenced the initiatives on Sensitive Lands and Limited Growth also included in the packet and said that additional reports developed by the County on the Fiscal Analysis and Evaluation of the Existing County Growth Management Program, including the building caps, would be forwarded to the Commission. Chairman Carson referred to a notice she had received that an appeal from the Commission's decision on the Naples Street mini-warehouse would be considered by Council on May 3, 1988. Commissioner Fuller spoke appreciation of the fact that the Design Review Committee had taken some of the suggestions of the Planning Commission; namely, who follows through on a planning issues. She asked what happened to the suggestions made by the DRC. Director Krempl replied they had been considered by Council and returned to staff for preparation of a detailed analysis and would be a subject of one of the Commission's workshops. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:55 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting on April 27, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 WPC 51 OOP Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission