HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/09/07 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
September 7, 1966
The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held at 7 p.m. on the above
date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, with the following members present:
Stewart, York, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: (with previous notification) Member
Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli,
City Attorney Lindberg, City Engineer Cole, and Planning Draftsman Irish.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Minutes of the meeting of August 15, 1966, be approved as mailed.
PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Proposed Ordinance Establishing Flood Plain Zoning
Director of Planning Warren reviewed the matter whereby he stated this was continued
from the last meeting because there was some concern on the part of the public
present about the actual application of the F-1 or F-2 zones on their lands.
Mr. Warren pointed out that the consideration before the Commission is the text of the
ordinance and not the precise application of the particular zones involved. At the
last meeting, it was pointed out the approximate applications of the F-1 and F-2
zones as related to the proposed flood control channel. The Commission, however,
asked that the matter be continued and that the staff prepare maps showing the
precise location of the proposed new zones. At the last meeting, Mr. Narshman,
Principal Engineer, pointed out that it would be unlikely that this could be
accomplished prior to this meeting since it involved considerable work on the part
of the County Flood Control office, and our own staff. As it happened, the County
has been unable to complete this work, and so there is no way at this time that
the staff could delineate the application of these zones. Mr. Warren added that
the Commission has two choices tonight: (1) continue the matter until such time as
maps will be available, or (2) further discuss the text of the ordinance and hear
comments from the audience. The Planning staff has no suggested changes in the
text of the ordinance; however, the City Attorney and City Engineer'have.
Chairman Stewart questioned the need for a map when the ordinance is merely to get
the mechanics on the books and not to apply these zones to any land.
Mr. Warren answered that it was difficult for a property owner to confine his interests
to just the wording of the ordinance when he doesn't know specifically how it is
going to relate to his property.
Chairman Stewart declared that the Commission couldn't make any determination on
this until the ordinance is adopted and then they would decide which of the lands
it should be applied to.
Mr. Warren remarked that it was the feeling of the property owners that any type of
flood plain zoning would tend to devaluate their property and would put some form
of cloud on it; perhaps one reason for wanting to see a map would be that they might
own some property that would be split by the F-1 and F-2 zones, and they would want
to comment on the restrictions of these zones.
City Attorney Lindberg commented on the regulations of the ordinance itself. He
noted the F-2 zone would prohibit any residential structures from being built in this
zone. He said he discussed this with the people in San Diego who have a similar
-1-
ordinance under consideration and was told by them that they relaxed that provision
to the extent that any of the permitted uses in the underlying zone in the F-2 area
would be allowed, with all of the restrictions applicable under the conditional use
permit. Mr. Lindberg declared that this would not be applied today or in the near
future to the upper Sweetwater Valley, but this provision could be considered for
this area where residential use is desirable.
Member Adams felt this would be a good idea if it would reduce the opposition to
the ordinance - that there is a good example of residences built in this proposed
F-2 zones where the level of the land was raised one-foot above the 50 year flood
level.
Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, referred to a clause of the ordinance (page 2) under
"designated floodway" and more precisely: "which would adequately accommodate
serious floods to be expected at frequent ~ntervals in periods of heavy rainfall..."
Putting all this together, Mr. Cole commented, there could be quite a number of
interpretations of this clause. He added he is presently working with the City
Attorney on this to come up with something that will be both reasonable and
acceptable.
Member Guyer asked if this should be held over. City Attorney Lindberg stated that
in view of what the City Engineer said and his own questions on the F-2 zone, there
probably should be a more thorough study made of this new proposed zone. Mr. Lindberg
added that there are time limitations on this ordinance, but that these limitations
are fc~ing them to other alternatives; that if the Commission cares to first hear
the comments of interested parties in the audience, they can then continue the
matter to the next meeting.
This being the t~me and place as advertised, the continued public hearing was opened.
Mr. Ferdinand Fletcher, Attorney, representing the Home Federal Savings and Loan
Association of San Diego, stated they own considerable amount of land in the Sweet-
water Valley, in the area of the location of Handyman, etc.; and their investment is
in excess of $1,500,000. This area is affected by this proposed new ordinance.
Because of their large investment, on the east side of Highland Avenue, in the
middle of Sweetwater Valley, they do not object to the flood control ordinance,
whether it involved cooperation by the State or Federal government; being an in-
strumentality of the Federal government, they feel they are entitled to equal con-
sideration with the Corps of Engineers. He stated that this land was acquired by
Home Federal when it was industrially zoned, paid for on that basis and improved
on that basis by the 1911 Act. He remarked that they do not have any quarrel with
the propriety of a flood control channel or a highway going through their property
either one of which they understand will take about 70 % of their property - all they
intend to fight for is that they get fair market value based on the highest and best
use that this property can be put. Therefore, they are vitally concerned with any
change of zone on this property that might change the highest and bes~bse that this
property can be put and that might tempt the imposing agencies to say they are imposed
with a blight on this property, and then they will value it imposed with that blight
and not on its reasonable fair market value. Mr. Fletcher further declared that
they will not put any improvements on this property - they will keep it status quo -
pending a resolution on which is the best way to go, so that they will not be
enhancing value or increasing problems for the condemning authorities. He further
added that they realize the problems of the City on this, but feel there are other
solutions to this. He then discussed the proposed ordinance of San Diego County and
thought the City could work out something in this line. He would also recommend that
this matter be continued in the hope and expectation that in the interim, the County
-2-
of San D~ego will find acceptance with the State of California of its solution
to the problem; namely, a restriction of building permits, rather than zoning,
which will enable the City of Chula Vista to accomplish its purpose and meet its
requirements with the State of California without adversely affecting any property
owners that have bought or acquired property in reliance of the market value based
on the uses to which that property can be put.
MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Public hearing be continued to the meeting of September 19, 1966.
PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning - C. W. Carlstrom & Victor Builders, Inc. - 329/333 H Street -
R-3_~_.~_~_~? Reduct!~_~__~ ~[~_~tbac~ fro_m 25' ~o 5'
Director of Planning Warren referred to a letter received from Victor T. Wiglesworth,
Engineer, representing the applicants, asking for a continuance on the matter to
the meeting of September 19, 1966. Chairman Stewart asked those present if there
were any objections to a continuance - there were none.
MSUC (York-Guyer) Matter be continued to the meeting of September 19, 1966.
_P~!~._H~.ING: (Cg~[!~..]..~_u_a..~ ¥]!.!.~lobos - 653 F Street - Request to
City Attorney Lindberg stated at this time that in view of the fact that there were
only four Commissioners present, and it would take a unanimous vote to approve or
disapprove any variance before them tonight, anyone wishing to have his request
continued to the next meeting so that their request would be heard by a full
Commission, may do so. It was noted that no one wished to have his request continued.
The application on the variance request was read in which permission was sought to
build an additional dwelling on a 15 foot easement, an R-3 use on property zoned C-2.
Oirector of Planning Warren reviewed the matter whereby it was continued from the
last meeting in order that questions raised as to sewer hook-up and the right to
use an easement adjacent on the east would be answered. The applicant plans to
build another single-family residence attached to his, thus making it a duplex.
The staff has been unable to determine whether or not the applicant has the legal
right to use the easement--this must be done through a title search, and the City
Engineer will answer the question of the sewer availability.
Member Guyer asked if the applicant was in the audience. It was noted that he was
not. Member York commented that the applicant was fully aware of the continuance
of this matter to this meeting, and he could see no need to continue it further.
The Commission concurred.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Adams declared he was not in favor of granting this request, because of the
question of the sewer, the easement, and the construction of a new building in the
middle of all the depreciated buildings - this makes it undesirable to grant the
variance.
Member York said he agreed and added another reason - that of the comments made at
the previous meeting by the owner of the trailer court regarding the legality of any use
of the 25 foot paved easement going toward this property, and also the 15 foot depth
-3-
of this parcel which has not been approved and probably w~ll not be. The area
is zoned commercial and the highest and best use for this property someday would be
perhaps some commercial building or other redevelopment.
MSUC (Adams-York) Denial of variance request based on the fact that no exceptional
circumstances can be found to justify granting the variance, also denial is based
on the legality of the use of the easement going to the applicant's property, the
narrow depth of the property, the question of the sewer installation, and the
undesirabill, ty of constructing a new residential building in this area surrounded
by depreciated buildings in a C-2 zone.
PU~LI~ HEARING: Variance - William Brown - 361 Nova Place - Request for Reduction
Director of P]annin9 explained the need for this second hearin9 - notices for the
previous hearin9 contained an error in the hearin9 date; therefore, it was necessary
to reschedu]e another hearin9 for the applicant. At the previous meeting, the
Commission denied the variance.
The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in front yard
setback from ]0I to 6' for the purpose of constructln9 a fence. It was noted that
a petition was received signed by 23 property owners favoring the request.
Director of Planning W~rren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the
property. This is a corner lot - corner of No]an Way and Nova Place. Mr. Warren
then submitted a plot plan notin9 the location of the fence which he stated has
already been constructed. He then referred to letters sent by the applicant to
Mr. Niek Slijk, Chamber of Commerce, and to the Mayor, in which the applicant
pointed out d~fferences in our zoning ordinance with those regulations of the State
Housing Law. In these letters, Mr. Brown inferred that the City's interpretation
of the side and front yard was erroneous. Mr. Warren then explained our regulations
which he said was adopted both by Commission and City Councll and would be the ones
to which Mr. Brown would have to comply.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
William Brown, the applicant, stated he was Minister of the Church of Christ,
residing at 361 Nova Place. He said he gathered his information for the letters
from the City zoning ordinance, pages 3 and 7 under "definitions" and the State
Housing Law which he may have interpreted incorrectly. Ne referred to a petition
which he circulated around his neighborhood and the number of property owners who
signed the petition favoring this request. Rev. Brown explained that he paid for
the permit but due to some slip-up, the company that put the fence in neglected to
obtain this permit. Ne then circulated some snapshots of the fence among the
Commissioners. Rev. Brown discussed the text of the new proposed zoning ordinance,
indicating that he was told that h~s fence would be allowed under this ordinance.
Member York explained that the applicant was not being penalized because he didn't
obtain a permit. If Sears (the Company that installed the fence) had applied for
a permit, they would also have had to apply for a variance in order to get this
permit and erect the fence where they did. The applicant does have two alternatives:
cutting the fence down to 42" and moving it back to the 10' setback line.
The Commission discussed with the applicant the requirements of the Welfare Depart-
ment pertaining to the number of children he may keep and the height of the fence.
Rev. Brown stated the Department is happy with the 5' high fence and wouldn't want
him to have a 42" fence here. As to the number of children, he hasn't looked into
that, but feels 4 children is all he will care for.
Mr. Ray Scott, member of thE: Church of Christ, stated the church owns this property,
and that they wish to conform to all the City's regulations. He asked how the
determination was made as to a corner lot concerning the side and front yards~
Director Warren explained that setbacks are established at the time a tentative
subdivision map is submitted and this ~s recorded on the building line map; in this
case, it is 10 feet ~nd no structure higher than 42" can be built within this 10 foot
setback.
City Attorney Lindberg clarified the fact that the front yard is on Nova Place and
side yards would be the areas between the front and back yard, but on a corner lot,
the setback being established by map at 10 feet on the side yard and 15 feet on the
front must still maintain the same regulations ~n regard to any obstructions placed
within the setback. The purpose of any setback as contrasted to the side yard
requirement itself is the distance it must be maintained between the property lin~:
and the dwelling place in the side yard. In this case, it doesn't matter whether
in this case, it's a front yard or side yard, the setback is the same consideration
on both.
Mr. Herbert J. Hodges, 348 Roman Way, and Mr. John Hoel, 972 Nolan Way, spoke in
favor of the request and asked that it be granted.
There being no further comment, either for or against, ':he hearing was closed.
Member York commented that he spoke up strongly against the F~,~ce at the previous
meeting; that he cannot see any compelling reason to grant the request. The City
has a good ordinance and it should be maintained. He declared that: if the Commission
is constantly going to be granting variances, then the ordinance should be changed.
If the ordi~,~,;~ is a good one, it should be maintained and they should draw the
line somewhere. Member York then discussed the question of hardship and questioned
who would be hurt - the applicant or the company that constructed the fence.
Member York then discussed the proposed new zoning ordinance which would allow this
fence to be constructed. He noted a similarity between this item and that of
item #5 on the agenda and asked if decision on this could be postponed until after
the public hearing on item #5.
City Attorney Lindberg said it would be inadvisable since each variance should be
determined on its own merits. Granting a variance is a matter of grace and
privilege, not of right, and there could be in the minds of most of the Commissioners
a great many intangibles where the fact situations may be similar, but they would
still have to be decided in a different manner.
Director Warren discussed the new zoning ordinance and the section pertaining to
this item. He said the staff and Consultants have suggested that at the top of
slope, whether it is in the setback or whatever, if it is greater than 3' in height,
that fences be allowed up to 6' within the setback area. This doesn't, however,
cover the level site which confronts us in some cases as in item #5 just referred to.
The staff is considering drafting an ordinance which would allow fences of this
sort; at this point, the\' haven't found the answer or know what would be the best
solution, but there may be some reason, by ordinance to establish a setback for a
dwelling or building and approve some form of fence out to a certain point within
the setback. This is particularly a problem along major and collector streets where
it restricts full use of the lot. The biggest problem, of course, is when there is
a slope such as this.
Chairman Stewart commented that he can sympathize with the applicant in that in
good trust, he relied on someone else to obtain his building permit for him, and it
wasn't carried out. He added that whether a grade is up or down, it does constitute
-5-
a hardship on the applicant, and thereby the property owner would be denied privacy
if he built the fence on his setback line. Mr. Stewart added further that he would
like to see these matters handled by the staff as suggested in the new ordinance
then have them come before the Commission.
City Attorney Lindberg stated that this type of variance which is a relatively
minor difference from the basic regulations of the zone is often accomplished as
an administrative matter in many cities where there is no real adverse effect on
the surrounding area.
Chairman Stewart suggested this be written into the City ordinance.
Member Adams remarked that he has taken a second look at this and feels a little
more sympathetic on this because the applicant's rear yard is very small and the re
is some justification to have the fence take up some of the setback area. Also,
there will be some provision for this in the new zoning ordinance, and the Commission
has set precedents for it.
MSUC (Guyer-York) Variance be granted. Findings be as follows:
1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of
Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the
provisions of said ordinance. So stated as delineated below.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone. The fence will be located at the
top of slope which is the most logical location for proper maintenance. In
view of the fact that this is a corner lot, and with the steep slope in the rear
of the house, it affords the applicant a small area for his back yard.
3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial
property right of the applicant. Unless variance is granted,slope area with the
top of bank would be hard to maintain outside of fenced area~ applicant would
be deprived of full use of the property.
4. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said
property is located.
There will be no obstruction at the intersection and the existing property is
already about 3' above the sidewalk. The intent of ~e ordinance requirements
will be observed.
,P~BLIC HEARING - Variance - Jafro, I.p_c. - 0__ran~E~enue_~Et_~e in Ho liday__~
Subdivision, Unit #1 - Reduction in Front Yard Setback from 10' to
. O' for Fence Construction
It was noted the applicant was not present in the audience, and that there were
questions which could not be answered.
MSUC (Adams-York) Hearing be continued to the meeting of September 19, 1966.
The application was read in which a request was made for reduction of side yard
setback from 9' to 7' for the purpose of constructing a patio cover on the east side
of the residence.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent
land use. Th~s house sets 10 feet from the property line and the house to the east
sets 3' from the property line. There is a provision in the zoning ordinance which,
with a subdivision, permits one side yard 3' from the property line, provided a
minimum of 12' is maintained between the two houses. This was initiated sometime ago
to allow rear yard access for various vehicles, such as boats, tra~lers, etc. The
applicants have constructed a planter which precludes their access for any vehicle
to the rear yard. They propose to erect their supports 9' from the property line
and the roof would overhang 2' to within 7' from the property line. The Commission
discussed the grade differential between the two lots, noting it was about 3 feet.
Th~s being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Eugene Coleman, the applicant, stated they have gone to considerable expense
pouring slab in this location unaware of this restriction. He stated they have no
desire to move anything into the rear yard, and consequently have blocked this
access. Under the present ordinance, the roof that could be built would be so
narrow as to be impractical, ~f they stayed within the setback. The window level
of the house next door, Mr. Coleman added, was about 6 feet from his window level;
the lot level is 3 feet.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Chairman Stewart commented that they do lose privacy without the roof due to the
difference in elevation.
Member York remarked that even after the patio is constructed, the setback will be
what is normally the distance between houses. Th~s would be in order, he added,
assuming it is not intended to be a closed patio, and ultimately becomes another
room for the house.
MSUC (York-Guyer) Variance be granted. Findings be as follows:
1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning
of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance of
the provisions of said ordinance. So stated as delineated below.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone. The minimum setback along one side
was established at 9' to provide access to the rear. Due to construction of the
existing planter and the proposed patio, it is not possible or practical to do so.
3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial
property right of the applicant. The proposed patio roof would not be of
sufficient size unless the variance is granted.
4. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which
said property is located. Ten feet will be maintained between the patio and
the adjacent house.
,PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Cavalier Motor Hotel - 710 E Street - Reduction in Rear
Yard Setback from 15' to 0~
The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in rear yard
setback from 15 feet to zero for the purpose of constructing additional motel units.
-7-
Director of Planning submitted a plot plan noting the location, zonings, and
adjacent land uses. On this parcel, this section constitutes the rear yard and
the zoning ordinance requires 15 feet; they are allowed to build to the property
line on the side yards. The request is to allow construction up to the property
line with no setback. This rear lot line is the side yard line of the adjacent
parcel.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared opened.
Mr. Charles Brown, co-owner of the motel, discussed the ingress and egress of the
development, which will be one entrance on E Street; this is primarily for control.
Presently, they have 47 units and plan to add 50 or 52 units; they will also add
in the recreation area what they feel a lO0-unit m~tel should have, such as sauna
bath, etc. They are adding additional palm trees, and more landscaping along the
westerly side where the pool is; however, some of the landscaping on the west side
of the motel will have to be moved.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
The Commission discussed the request and concurred they had no objections.
MSUC (Adams-York) Variance be granted. Findings be as follows:
1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning
of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance of
the provisions of said ordinance. So stated as delineated below.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone.
The rear yard of the applicants' property parallels the side yard of the
Corporation Yard since this is a corner lot. The side yard in commercial and
industrial zones is zero.
3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial
property right of the applicant. Without the variance, applicants are
essentially denied privilege granted adjacent property owners. If these were
corresponding "rear'l yards, no inequity would exist.
4. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said
property is located, because of the explained relationship to adjacent property.
The intent of the ordinance will be observed.
Request for Deferral of Public improvements - Southeast Corner of C Street and ThiEf.
Avenue Extension
Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, submitted a plot plan noting the location of the
request. He stated he discussed this proposal with the property owner and recom-
mended that a parcel map be submitted on th~s Lot 2; the applicant is now proceeding
with that which will divide the westerly 125 feet from the remainder of his property.
There is an existing house and a proposed guest house which will be constructed
providing the R-3 zoning now in process is consummated. If all these things come
about, then the deferral of improvements would be only on the 125 feet rather than
the 600 feet that presently exists as street frontage.
The property owner indicated that he will be improving the property to the west of
-8-
the existing house within a reasonable period of time; therefore, they are recommending
that the deferral be for a 6-month period and the amount of the lien be $1050 for the
125 feet of street frontage.
Member York questioned whether the guest house would be built on the same lot as the
existing house. Mr. Cole stated this was his understanding. He added that the reason
for the deferral is to provide for better connection with the improvements which are
expected to occur within th~s 6 month period.
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Approval of the deferral of public improvements for a period of
6 months. Deferment ~s granted for Lot 2 or that portion on which the dwelling will
front when a parcel map is submitted. The amount of the lien to be $1050.
Request for Approval of Sign - Hook and Slice Miniature Golf - 410 F Street
Director of Planning Warren submitted a sketch of the proposed sigr~ to be erected
at 410 F Street. The sign measures 4' x 8~ and it ~s the "D" zone, therefore, requiring
Commission approval. The sign, as proposed, would have an animated panel at the top
which would be small white lights that would flash on and off. This sign would set
on a 12' high pole, a 5 inch diameter pole. Mr. Warren added that this is an area
that lends special attention to review of signs and architecture, and therefore, the
staff would recommend that th~s animation be prohibited. ~n the near future, a
provision will be initiated which would prohibit new moving or flashing signs anywhere
in the City. Another factor is the brightness of this sign - unfortunately, the staff
has no definite recommendation on this since even in the new zoning ordinance, it is
not clear as to how to measure light intensity. This will require considerable study.
Mr. Glen Marstella, Pacific Sign Construction, submitted a picture of the sign which
he indicated has already been built, and explained the animation as being 25 watt
bulbs flashing on and off, and will give the appearance of a golf ball. He submitted
his application for a building permit three weeks ago, and stated it was just found
yesterday by the Building Department.
Member Adams felt the 12 foot high elevation would be incompatible in this area.
Director Warren stated this was a commercial zone and height limitation on signs ~n
other commercial zones was 20 feet; however, whether th~s particular sign is
appropriate for this area remains to be seen. The Commission should be very careful
as to the type of s~gn they approve. Certainly, the property owner is permitted to
have a lighted sign, but flashing and moving signs have been prohibited even in
service stations and would be out of place in this area.
The Commission discussed the size of the sign. Director Warren noted it was a
double-faced s~gn and even though it is 32 square feet on one sign, it would not be
considered as 64 square feet. In this "D" zone, the, are allowed up to 50 square
feet of visible surface.
City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Traffic Engineer some weeks ago brought to his
office the question of prohibiting any of these moving, animated signs because of
d~fficulty of traffic s~gnals and the d~version they cause drivers.
Member Guyer indicated there was nothing wrong w~th the sign itself, but the moving
and flashing should be eliminated.
Mr. Marstella declared that if his application was taken care of at the time he~
submitted it to the Building Department, the sign would not have been built.
Member York commented that this man sold his clients a sign that would be moving, but
he sold them a bill of goods that he cannot dellver~ as a business man, Mr. York added,
-9-
he shouldn't have been so naive to construct a sign prior to the granting of a
building permit regardless of the length of the time the application might have
been in.
MSUC (Guyer-York) Approval of sign according to plan submitted w~th the condition
that there will be no animation of I~ghts at the top of the sign.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Proposed Vacation of K Street across San Dieg9
Arizona and Eastern Railroad R~g~ ............
City Engineer Lane Cole submitted a p~at noting the location of the K Street railroad
crossing. The reason for this suggested closing is (1) the cost of the improvement
is estimated at $12,200 for whi~¢h the City be~r~ one-half and would be eligible for
help from the Public Utilities Commission (final cost for the City would be one-fourth
of the $12,200); (2) when the Freeway is completed in the next 2 - 3 years, this
crossing will be eliminated, so it would be pretty hard to amortize the $12,200 over
that short period of time for this inter~ction. The amount of traffic using this
intersection ~s not so great that it would be an inconvenience to the traveling
public. Number of vehicles using this crossing each day is 2800; the hourly
volumes are relatively light with the exception of the peak hours. Mr. Cole
indicated his staff made an arbitrary assignment that if this section were closed
and the traffic were moved to the L Street Industrial Boulevard section, (and
discussed this proposal with the Police Department since these sections are
controlled by the patrolmen during the peak hours), and it was the opinion of all
concerned that it would not cause any problem in handling the traffic. For instance,
at the peak hour - 3:30 to 4:30 ~ m. - the number of vehicles using the L Street
intersection is 1228 and with the closing of K Street, it would increase to 1550.
Mr. Cole then discussed a P.U.C. meeting he and the City Attorney attended, and
after presenting all these facts to that Commission, they didn't seem at all
impressed and recommended that these closing gates be installed. This order was
issued on April 5 effective on April 25, giving the railroad 6 months to make this
installation which would have to be done by October 25. The Rail.-road has indicated
that they couldn't get the materials and probably wouldn't make th~s deadline.
Mr. Cole added that they are now at the point where they must now vacate this
section of the street. The recommendation of the Commission will go to the Council
and they will have to set this for public hearing.
The Commission discussed the justification of the closing and concurred that it
should be done as suggested by the City Engineer.
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Recommend to the City Council the closing of the westerly
prolongation of "K" Street, west~ t-~]~ San Diego Arizona and Eastern Rai~ad
right-of-way.
Report of Findings - Appeal of Union Oil Company of Planning Commission Action
D.~._~_.y.!~__Var !_~n-~'~_i~]~_~N~_o~h[~- ~r~'n~i]~]~e]'~'~~ ~d_ Orange Ayenges
Director of Plannin9 explained the report of findin9s as mailed to the Commissioners.
The motion for the variance request for the union Oil Company was for approval;
however, because the vote was 3 to 1, it failed to carry. The ordinance specifies
that it takes a majority vote of the Commission which in this case is 4 votes.
City Attorney Lindber9 stated the findings upon which the majority of the Commissioners
approved the variance should be noted in the report.
Director ~arren stated this would be done.
MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Findings be approved and forwarded to the City Council.
Letters of Resignation - Commissioners Vaden and Roberts
The Commission accepted with regret the resignations of the two Members.
RESOLUTION NO. 422 Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of
MSUC (Guyer - Adams) Chula Vista Commending Edgar L. Vaden
RESOLUTION NO. 423 Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of
MSUC (Guyer - Adams) Chula Vista Commending dames C. Roberts
~RAL COMMUNICATIONS
Member York said he felt the time the Commission devoted to the study of applications
and overall planning, and the ordinance and its concepts in the City, was inadequate.
He would suggest that perhaps a weekly meeting be set up for the Commission; it
needn't be a formal meeting such as the one tonight, but more of a workshop meeting
whereby they could all get together and more carefully review some of the applications.
The Commission discussed this in great detail and it was suggested that the matter
again be discussed after the appointment of the two new Commissioners and at the
time of the adoption of the new zoning ordinance.
_ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of September 19, 1966.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary