PUBLIC MEETING ITEMS:
PH1. P23-0284 – Smoke Shop – OTC SS Vista LLC
The applicant, OTC SS Vista LLC, is requesting a Special Use Permit Amendment to establish a smoke shop in an existing commercial building at 1745 E. Vista Way, Suites 3-4. The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental document pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines because the proposed project will result in only minor alterations to an existing private structure.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Resolution 2023- , granting a Special Use Permit to establish a smoke shop at 1745 E. Vista Way
Acting Director of Community Development/City Planner Patsy Chow provided the staff presentation.
Planning Commission questions:
• What prompted Council to request a dedicated entrance? o Traffic concerns.
• Has there been any code enforcement violations regarding trash on/around the property?
o No, code enforcement has gone to the site regarding unpermitted signage and unpermitted food caterers.
Chair Rosaler opened the public hearing.
SPEAKERS:
• Sherry Spears (Neutral)
• Austin Perez (Neutral)
Chair Rosaler closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission discussion:
• A recommendation was made that after the warning violation is given, the applicant will have to pay a fine.
o Staff will confirm with Code Enforcement.
CMNR. SAVAGE MOTIONS TO ADOPT RESOLUTION, SECONDED BY CMNR.
LOONEY.
11/14/2023 PH2 250 of 261
Planning Commission - Minutes
October 17, 2023
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2023-20, GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A SMOKE SHOP AT 1745 E. VISTA WAY.
MOTION CARRIED: Vote 3-1
PH2. P23-0316 – General Plan Amendment – Correction to Circulation Element Plan Exhibit
A proposed amendment to the Vista General Plan 2030 Circulation Element to correct a graphical error on the “Circulation Plan” map exhibit (Figure CE-2). The proposed amendment to the Circulation Plan map exhibit would correct a graphical error in the designation of the roadway segment of S. Emerald Drive/Sunset Drive between Hacienda Drive and Sky Haven Lane. This segment of roadway was planned to be designated as a “2-Lane Collector (w/ Two-Way Left-Turn Lane),” however, a graphical error occurred in the map production that represented the segment as a “4-Lane Major.” The proposed amendment would correct the street segment on the map to reflect the correct road designation, “2-Lane Collector (w/ Two-Way Left-Turn Lane),” as analyzed in the SANDAG transportation model that was employed for the Vista General Plan 2030 horizon year traffic analysis.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Resolution 2023- , recommending City Council approval of an amendment to the Vista General Plan 2030 “Circulation Plan” (Figure CE -2) to correct the depiction of the roadway segment of S. Emerald Drive/Sunset Drive between Hacienda Drive and Sky Haven Lane as a “2-Lane Collector (w/ Two- Way Left-Turn Lane)”
Planning Commission Discussion:
• None.
CMNR. GRIM MOTIONS TO ADOPT RESOLUTION, SECONDED BY CMNR.
SAVAGE.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2023-21, APPROVING OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE VISTA GENERAL PLAN 2030 “CIRCULATION PLAN” (FIGURE CE-2) TO CORRECT THE DEPICTION OF THE ROADWAY SEGMENT OF S.
EMERALD DRIVE/SUNSET DRIVE BETWEEN HACIENDA DRIVE AND SKY HAVEN LANE AS A “2 LANE COLLECTOR (W/ TWO- WAY LEFT-TURN LANE)”
MOTION CARRIED: Vote 4-0
PH3. P22-0182 – Sunset Drive Townhomes – Legacy Partners The project applicant, Legacy Partners, is requesting approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, 11/14/2023 PH2 251 of 261
Planning Commission - Minutes
October 17, 2023
Zone Change, Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Plan, and Condominium Housing Permit to allow for the construction of 38 condominium residences and associated site improvements on a 4.3-acre site located at 2112 Sunset Drive (APNs 166-450-39, 166-450-40, and 166-751-44).
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Resolution 2023- , recommending City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sunset Drive Townhomes project, Planning Case No. P22-0182
2. Adopt Resolution 2023- , recommending City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Plan, and Condominium Housing Permit to allow for the construction of 38 condominium residences and associated site improvements on a 4.3 -acre site located at 2112 Sunset Drive (APNs 166-450-39, 166-450-40, and 166-751-44)
Senior Planner Chris Winters provided the staff presentation .
David Pinto provided the Applicant’s presentation.
SPEAKERS:
• David Pinto (Applicant)
• Mike Schwitzer
Planning Commission questions:
• Will the units be leased or sold?
o The units will be sold.
• If someone were to buy Plan 1, the two bedrooms plus loft, what are the odds of being able to convert the loft into a bedroom?
o No permit would be issued. The project is conditioned to comply with the floor plan that the Planning Commission or the City Council approves. • The commission is concerned that with the number of lofts and possible conversions there would be a parking issue.
o The applicant believes that people would appreciate that space and use it the way it’s intended as an upstairs living room. The applicant suggested writing it into the conditions or CC&R’s.
• Discussed revising the first plan to make the loft a bedroom and adjusting the parking.
• Are the power lines that go through the Northern property being undergrounded or will they remain overhead?
o The transmission lines will stay the same and the distribution lines will be underground.
• Comment regarding potential front setback encroachment and unidentified lines on sheets 2 and 3 the lines on the site plan along Emerald and Sunset. Can the applicant clarify?
11/14/2023 PH2 252 of 261
Planning Commission - Minutes
October 17, 2023
o The lines that are being referred are from the setback from the previous right- of-way, prior to the street vacation which narrowed the road. • Did engineering look at the possibility of relocating the entrance to the southern parcel, further away from the entrance to the mobile home park? o This did not come up in any of the design review comments or discussions. • On the subdivision map is the west wall designated as either a fence or a wall? o The walls are conditioned that any final materials, color, and height must be approved by the Planning Division, City Planner or designated staff for final design.
o Wood fencing and precision block would not be accepted for this project. • There are concerns regarding the driveway into the mobile home park and the construction. Is the applicant installing sidewalks, ADA ramps and curbs onto that street?
o As of now the applicant does not intend on going into their driveway. o The commission suggests discussing with their contractors on timing and if they will be taking care of those at the same time.
o Northen and southern parcels would be grated at the same time. • What are the setbacks for the properties?
o 20 ft. from the street in the front and 15 ft on the side s. • The plans show building 24 at 12 ft from property line, building 17 is 17 ft and building 10 is just under 17 ft from the property line. o Staff verified the front setbacks and confirmed that Unit 24 needs to be corrected, there was an inconsistency on a couple plan sheets. It’s displayed as 11 ft or 11.8 ft and must be adjusted to 15ft.
• The civil drawings include several lines; it would have been helpful if they could have been identified more clearly.
Chair Rosaler opened the public hearing.
SPEAKERS:
• Steven Harvey (In Opposition)
• Joe Frischmann (In Opposition)
• Jack Erickson (Neutral)
• Francis Dweller (In Opposition)
• Stephanie Jackel (In Opposition)
• Jessica Bedrovic (In Opposition)
Chair Rosaler closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission discussion:
• There was a required geotechnic report as part of the MND did it find any problems that can’t be mitigated?
o It did not.
• Does the sidewalk connect with the commercial project all around Sky Haven? 11/14/2023 PH2 253 of 261
Planning Commission - Minutes
October 17, 2023
o The sidewalk connects to the north where it comes down from the commercial plaza.
o The project would be responsible for connecting the sidewalk south to the bisecting driveway and past that to the project’s southern boundary. o The project is not responsible for development of City of Oceanside’s property. • The boundary of Vista and Oceanside goes up that that strip on Sky Haven .
Everything up Sunset is the county.
• The traffic study found that all the conditions could be mitigated with the additional turning pocket and turning lane between the two projects. o When a project creates less than 500 average daily trips it’s exempted from being viewed as a project under CEQA, the City still looks at level of service out of own interests in operation of that intersection and potential congestion. o The City’s traffic engineer reviewed the report that was prepared by LLG and agreed with their data and conclusions.
o It would not impact city standards and the project includes frontage improvements to the benefit of the city and residents.
• The commission doesn’t have the freedom as a governing board to regulate projects like they did before.
• The commission believes that the commercial area is going to be residential and is a big benefit with to the neighborhood.
• Parking will be an issue; it typically is with these types of projects. • Unsure if it would be better to get ahead of the loft conversions and prohibit it in the conditions now or wait until future owners propose it. • A biofiltration basin on the north side of the property has been done. • The commission would appreciate more details when it comes to the plans they’re submitting.
• Concerns regarding the bedroom unit to parking space ratio. o On the south side of the property there are 10 open guest parking spaces. • What is the possibility of installing a fence at the entrance or Green Valley Mobile Park to prevent Sunset residents from parking at their entrance? o The applicant has reached out to the property and has received no feedback. o Hasn’t had an opportunity to further these discussions. • Concerns regarding the gate.
o Traffic buildup
o People climbing over the fence and getting injured.
o A gate won’t prevent people from jumping over.
• The management plan shall be submitted and receive approval by the City Planner prior to occupancy.
o Upon purchasing a house, purchasers must sign an agreement stating that parking is restricted and that they understand this.
o Parking is limited and residents will need to use their garages as parking spaces and not storage.
• Recommendation not to allow vinyl fencing along the west side, as well as the side walls adjacent to the entrance to the mobile home park. 11/14/2023 PH2 254 of 261
Planning Commission - Minutes
October 17, 2023
• Safety concerns regarding the gate and it being the only entrance and exit into Green Valley Mobile.
o 157 homes with many seniors, some being disabled.
• Green Valley’s management recommended looking at an alternative egress from their park in case of an emergency.
• Strengthen the wording in the CC&R’s for parking restrictions. • There is currently 12-14 street parking spaces on east Sunset Dr. o Based on the preliminary conceptual plan, the road widening, two-way left lane, bicycle lane and sidewalk improvements will reduce parking to about 6 street parking spaces.
• First condition, the second floor of Unit Plan 1 (the 14 two-bedroom townhomes) shall be redesigned to eliminate the “FAMILY RM” (loft area), and to create instead a dual-master-bedroom (i.e., 2 master bedrooms) second floor. • Second condition, the project’s perimeter walls adjacent to neighboring properties, the public right-of-way, and facing off-site locations, shall be constructed of decorative CMU block.
• Make it a requirement for unit plan 1 to be designated as a four bedroom. o That would create a parking issue.
o Either make it a true 3 bedroom or make it a 4-bedroom unit and require 7 more parking spaces
• The 10 spaces on the southern lot aren’t the best design. o This may create a challenge for Sunset residents parking in Green Valley’s parking area.
▪ The Planning Commission cannot regulate this, it may need to be regulated by the management company.
• The applicant proposed to make the upstairs bedrooms into dual masters.
CMNR. GRIM MOTIONS TO ADOPT RESOLUTION, SECONDED BY CMNR.
SAVAGE.
1. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2023-22, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
SUNSET DRIVE TOWNHOMES PROJECT, PLANNING CASE NO. P22-
0182
2. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2023-23, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE,
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND
CONDOMINIUM HOUSING PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 38 CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCES AND
ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVMENTS ON A 4.3-ACRE SITE LOCATED
AT 2112 SUNSET DRIVE (APNs 166-450-39, 166-450-40, AND 166-751- 44)
1. THE SECOND FLOOR OF UNIT PLAN 1(THE 14 TWO-BEDROOM
TOWNHOMES) SHALL BE REDESIGNED TO ELIMINATE THE
11/14/2023 PH2 255 of 261
Planning Commission - Minutes
October 17, 2023
“FAMILY RM” (LOFT AREA), AND TO CREATE INSTEAD A DUAL-
MASTER-BEDROOM (I.E., 2 MASTER BEDROOMS) SECOND
FLOOR.
2. THE PROJECT’S PERMITER WALLS ADJACENT TO
NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND
FACING OFF-SITE LOCATIONS, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF
DECORATIVE CMU BLOCK.
MOTION CARRIED: Vote 4-0
EARLY DESIGN REVIEW
EDR1. P23-0266 – Santa Fe Ave Development – Victor Morillo Early Design Review for a proposed Site Development Plan to construct 33 apartment units on a .53-acre site located at 1570 N. Santa Fe Avenue (APN 161-051-04-00). The proposed apartment building would be four stories in height including a ground level parking garage. The project proposes a contemporary-style exterior design with stucco finish and metal enhancements. The plan includes common open space, guest parking, and associated site improvements.
Acting Director of Community Development/City Planner Patsy Chow provided the staff presentation.
SPEAKERS:
• Collin Lowry (In favor)
Planning Commission Discussion
• Trash concerns
o Asked if applicant has contacted EDCO for a plan of action. o Trash bins will need to be wheeled out on trash day.
▪ Applicant will provide trash chute for the residents. • Is there a way to organize the layout where the trash can is outside and can be directly accessed by EDCO?
o There is only one street access, and the trash can would essentially be in the front yard.
o There wouldn’t be space for a trash chute.
o The architect will investigate how the layout can be adjusted. o Concerns regarding the trash pickup impeding traffic, and not having dumpsters located in the front yard.
• Fire concerns
o The commission recommends speaking with the Fire Department regarding the layout.
o If there is a fire, a fire truck cannot get under or around the building. • A comment was made that the building is very tall compared to the surrounding single - story homes/mobile homes and this may be an issue later in the process. 11/14/2023 PH2 256 of 261
Planning Commission - Minutes
October 17, 2023
• Is a normal curb cut proposed for the driveway entrance? o An alley return was recommended so there is a curb radius that comes into the project.
▪ There will be no need to slow down when entering and no need to speed up when existing.
• Will any improvements be made to Watson Circle?
o No, it’s private property.
• The commission would like to see square footage of the units. o The studio units are between 450-560.
o The one-bedroom units are between 565 and 670.
• What is envisioned for the co-workspace?
o A work from home space
o Since the units are small, they would like to give tenants extra space. o There will be a small deck and kitchenet.
• Is there a locker for each resident.
o Yes.
o It was recommended there be enough lockers for each unit. • Will there be a trash chute on the roof deck?
o Yes, needs to be confirmed.
• The architecture is unique. The applicant has complied with the commission’s objective standards in their housing element.
• It is highly recommended that the finishes stay the same throughout the project. • A landscaping project has not been submitted.
• An activity space in the front yard building overhang it would be beneficial for the community.
o There is a small dog run in the northwest corner but due to space it’s limited. o Although there is limited space, they have two rooftop spaces. • There should be more facilities or activities in the two rooftop spaces. • What kind of landscaping is planned?
o There is no landscaping plan yet, to be determined.
o Trees are recommended for shade and environment.
EDR 2. P23-0019 – Vista Apartments (13 Units) – Atabak Youssefzadeh The project applicant, Atabak Youssefzadeh, has submitted a revised preliminary proposal to construct 13 apartment units on a 1.37-acre vacant site located at 1877 E. Vista Way (APN 171-250-35). The proposed apartments would be two-stories in height consisting of three- bedroom units with attached two-car or three-car enclosed garages. The project proposes a Spanish-style exterior design with stucco finish and terracotta tile roofs. The plan includes common and private open space, guest parking, and associated site improvements.
Senior Planner Christopher Winters provided the staff presentation.
SPEAKERS:
• Atabak Youssefzadeh (In favor)
11/14/2023 PH2 257 of 261
Planning Commission - Minutes
October 17, 2023
Planning Commission Discussion
• Concerns regarding traffic and damage this project may cause. o If there’s any damage, the applicant will make the repair. • The changes on the side of the building are nice.
• The owner does not plan on selling the property.
• Are the utilities coming from?
o The applicant believes it’s coming from Vista.
• The site line hasn’t been reviewed. A clearance back is needed. • Do the walls need to stay under a certain elevation?
o Unsure if the city will be reviewing because it’s a private drive. o Will review the site plan proposed structures, monuments or that might obstruct the view.
o Make sure that fencing, plants, or walls are not obscuring drivers views. • There is an issue with grading. They should have a civil engineer draft the plans, as was previously requested.
o As seen on sheet A1 the elevations are off. There needs to be some consistency between the topography lines on the site plan and the exterior. • The applicant is encouraged to resolve any easement concerns with Larkhill Drive ahead of time to prevent any legal problems later.
o The applicant will ensure their civil engineer reviews that. • There is a small slope between building A and building B, there is concern regarding the design.
o Possibly design with a retaining wall and planter.
• Cross-sections (longitudinal) would be helpful.
• Some architectural improvements have been made, but some of the improvements don’t fit the project.
• There are issues with the roof designs related to the floor levels and grading. • Building C wall is flat, there aren’t any offsets, popouts, or finishes. • Building A that faces onto E. Vista Way should have offsets and fenestration to create shadows.
• The applicant commented on the simplicity of Spanish style architecture. • The west elevations facing E. Vista Way need enhancement. o The applicant was advised to take go over the design standards and the objective standards in the housing element.
o The façade is too plain.
o The dormers are not in keeping with the Spanish style architecture. • The landscaping in front of E. Vista Way and Larkhill will enhance the project along the frontage.
• Consider another species other than the Bottle Brush tree.
REPORTS/COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS
• What’s the status of a project south of the first EDR? o Staff has not heard back from that project.
11/14/2023 PH2 258 of 261
Planning Commission - Minutes
October 17, 2023
o It has gone through a public hearing. There hasn’t been a submittal of construction documents.
Acting Community Development Director/City Planner Patsy Chow • Staff plans on taking the Kensho project to City Council on October 24, 2023. • A Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for November 7, 2023, and/or November 21, 2023.
• If there is only one item on November 7, 2023, the meeting may get pushed to November 21, 2023.
• What’s happening with the Community Church on Park Avenue? o It’s under review with engineering/building. Not much has happened since demolition took place.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Rosaler adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
______________________________________
SECRETARY
11/14/2023 PH2 259 of 261
EXHIBIT 5: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Project
Location
11/14/2023 PH2 260 of 261
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 6: PROJECT PLANS
FULL SIZE (LIMITED DISTRIBUTION)
11/14/2023 PH2 261 of 261
EXHIBIT 6
From:Joe Houde
To:Public Comments
Subject:10/14/23 Public Comments
Date:Sunday, November 12, 2023 8:27:36 AM
Attachments:Vista 11-14-23- D1.docx
Vista 11-14-23 PH1.docx
Hi,
Comments on D1 and PH2 at 11/14/23.
Thanks,
Joe Houde
ADD TO PACKET
PH2
Vista – 11-14-23 PH2 Sunset Drive Townhomes Project
Let’s make this a “Climate-Safe Showcase” demonstration project.
Proposed design requirements
a. Require that all tenants can participate in an on-site community microgrid and VPP
b. Ask developer to save money by not including
heating and cooling systems. Rather, mandate
superior efficiency measures such as passive
house-style insulation.
c. Require all-electric units. Mandate no gas hookups
anywhere on the project
d. Require substantial green space and tree cover
using the Miyawaki method for planting trees
e. Require 8 or more deed-restricted units for low-
income renters
f. Prohibit any parking spaces. We must encourage
public transit and plan to reduce VMT. Preventing
parking will make more green space available,
possibly allow for more units, reduce our
obsession with paving over natural spaces, and
save money. Parking spaces are very costly!
g. This is not magic. It is paying attention to the
design ecology of our homes!
h. These actions will advance urgent efforts to
implement 15-minute neighborhoods.
i. Engage Amory Lovins or his colleagues as design
review consultants. Amory lives in the Rockies
where temperature ranges from -60°F to 80°F. He
has no heating or cooling systems in his home.
Let’s make Vista a nature-friendly city
;pttz
July 25, 2023
Attention: Mr. Chris Winters, Senior Planner, City of Vista and Vista Planning Commission My comments are directed to you regarding the potential project identified as P22-0182, Sunset Drive Town homes. I find it amusing that this notice of intent is described as a "Mitigated Negative Declaration". That simply means that this project is a bad idea, will have probable negative impact on the environment, but the City of Vista will go ahead and approve it based on one factor, an increase in tax revenues.
The residents of Green Valley Mobile Home Park already know the City's stance on the environment in this area. We live adjacent to Buena Vista Creek which is an environmental disaster. The Buena Vista Creek has been unmaintained since I move into the Park in October of 1999. It's overgrown, polluted, a fire hazard, and frequented by the homeless. It's living testimony to the City's lack of environmental concern. Most likely you do not realize that the residents in this Park paid the land taxes for this property. The owner, Rutherford Investments gets the credit, but we pay the bill passed on to each resident in "pass th roughs" added to our monthly rent. This October that amount is 57+ dollars a month for all 155 residents. That should make our collective voices of more concern to the City.
There are a multitude of reasons why this potential project is a very bad idea. I will briefly point out the obvious ones that the City should already be aware of if you as Senior Planner did your homework. It is quite apparent that the HUMAN impact is of little concern to the City and the Developer legacy Partners because there is NO mention of that concern in this notice.
First, this project will be built next to a 55+ community of seniors that purchased here for the opportunity to enjoy a quiet existence. We do not have a secure entrance which would detour children living in these Town homes from becoming a nuisance in our Park. The terrain would entice children on bikes and skateboards to roam around disturbing the peace and quiet we all moved here to enjoy. Our residents must observe Park rules that prohibit our visiting grandchildren from partaking in these unacceptable privileges.
Second, there are multiple geological issues impacting this entire area. Most current is the sinkhole that occurred in March. This event caused a number of residents to be displaced from their homes for several months. Two residents lost their homes entirely due to there collapse and are still being charged space rent even though they cannot live in them. litigation with the City of Oceanside and the Park owner will take awhile to resolve and meanwhile they are paying you tax revenue for property they cannot live on right now. The portion of the land that is to the south created days of drainage that washed into our Park and across our newly repaired entrance. It also runs across the Park entrance into the property on the north side and floods the land for days at a time. The source of the water comes from the parcel of ground south of the intersection of Sunset Dr. and Sky Haven lane. It is truly an environment disaster. But then
you know that because in order to build the Emerald Ridge Town home project, Oceanside has had to ask the City of Vista to rebuild Sunset Drive on Vista property. Did you read the Geological report for this project? You should have made note that the two ancient landslides located on this property may be retriggered in an effort to secure the hillside. Oceanside is making the claim that the sinkhole in March was cause by an ancient landslide. Why do you think it's a good idea to build either project on ground that is clearly still unstable? Oh, that right both City's need to increase their tax revenues.
Thirdly, Legacy's and your claim that street improvements will be beneficial to the in and out access to our Park is inaccurate. All an improve and wider street will do is bring more traffic from College Avenue via Sky Haven Lane and Melrose Drive via Sunset Drive. There are times when Park residents cannot exit because traffic is backed up waiting for signal changes on Hacienda and Sunset. A bigger safety issue is the speed at which traffic flows. We are located at the bottom of the land coming from both north and south. Look at the traffic report on file and you will see that traffic speeds are excessive due to the topography of the area. The only way to slow traffic would be to install multiple stop lights or signs making the traffic flow very stop and go. Drivers will ignore flashing lights that tell them they are driving too fast. There is NO sure way to protect the residents exiting the Park from increased opportunities to be a victim of a traffic accident.
Disruptions during the building of both projects will interfere with the serenity and health needs of all GVMHP residents. The combination of two separate project being constructed will prolong those disruptions for a long period of time. We have frequent visits from emergency personnel that often provide life saving measures for our residents. Our only entrance and exit will be severely impacted by both new road construction and the building of Town homes on both sides of that entrance. Lives may well be lost because of delays this project will create.
Does the City of Vista want the responsibility of explaining to families that their family member died because access to the Park was not possible due to construction? There are additional issues that the limited space in this message can provide. When you hold that public meeting to consider rezoning the north side of this proposed project, know that the tax paying residents of GVMHP will remind you of the responsibility you must take full credit for by proceeding with this project.
Sincerely,
Steven Harvey, Space 33, GVMHP