Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/08/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 26, 1968 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Hyde, York, Stewart, Rice, A~ams, and Guyer. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Gregson. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Planning Draftsman Liua§, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Minutes of the meeting of August 5, 1968 be approved, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING: (Contld) Rezonin9 - Property at northwest corner of Second Palomar Street - R-1 to R-3-B-3 Aardema Director of Planning Warren stated this was twice continued by the applicant pending the outcome of a rezoning of adjacent property in the County. The applicant called the office today and requested that this application be filed as he proposes to submit a new request. MSUC (York-Stewart) The application be filed. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin~ - 503-523 H Street - R-3 to C-1 and reduction of front setback from 15' to 10' - Kin~stoQ, Laswell & Henry The application was read in which a request was made for a change in zone for property located at 503, 507, 513, 517, and 523 "H" Street, from R-3 to C-1. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area requested for rezoning. He cited the adjacent land use and zonings, and indicated that from the existing zoning in the area, it appears that C-1 with the attachment of the "D" zone would be compatible with the adjacent uses in the area. The General Plan designates high density residential for this area, but a commercial trend has clearly been established in the area and subject lots are the only frontage on "H" Street left in a residential zone. Approval of this request would create a logical expansion of the land use in the area. Mr. Warren discussed rezoning the adjacent properties, commenting that the Commission can call a separate hearing on this. He then discussed the improvement of the alley and the traffic that would be generated on it by the approval of this request. The staff recognizes that one-half of the responsibility of improving the alley lies with the property owners to the north. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the zoning ordinance does authorize the imposition of conditions for certain public improvements if such a need were generated by a use resulting fron rezoning. The ordinances in the City are being modified so that the alley, as well as street improvements should be paved, etc., if the improvements are in excess of $5,000. -2- 8/26/68 Mr. Lindberg then discussed deed restrictions, commenting that any deed restrictions which private parties wish to enter into by themselves do not effect this Commission as to their determination of the best use of the land. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Laswell, one of the applicants, submitted renderings of the two proposed buildings to be erected on this site. He explained in detail the floor plan of the proposed office building and the parking layout. Mr. Warren commented that if the "D" zone is attached to this site, the Commission will have to review these plans again at a subsequent meeting. Mr. Lindberg asked the applicant if his plans include using the alley for access. Mr. Laswell said their plans do include the use of this alley as an access way to the rear of the buildings. They accept the condition--they believe the only thing to do is to improve that alley so that there will be no dust, etc. He added that they accept the condition without reservation. The Commission discussed the standards set forth by the Engineering Division as to street and alley paving. Mr. Warren remarked that the matter of improving any public right-of-way is a City Council determination and it would be according to the standards they have adopted. As to the other details, ingress and egress, etc., the staff will work with the applicants on this and submit a recommendation to the Commission at a later date. The staff recommends that the "D" zone be attached. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission concurred that this was a proper zone change to approve. MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 536 the City Council the Change of Zone for Property at 503- 523 "H" Street from R-3 to C-1-D and Reduction of front Setback to 10 Feet. The recommendation of approval is subject to the condition that the alley adjacent to subject property shall be improved (full width) according to Engineering Department standards. Findings be as follows: a. While the General Plan designates the property as very high density residential, all of the "H" Street frontage in the area, with the exception of the subject parcels, are commercially zoned. The General Plan should be revised accordingly, especially in light of the fact that the frontage between Smith and Broadway is entirely improved commercially even though the General Plan also designates these parcels in the same residential category as the subject properties. -3- 8/26/68 b. The large and increasing volume of conm~ercial activity in this area creates an undesirable residential environment. c. Approval of this request would create a logical extension of the City's primary commercial area. d. The type of traffic generated by commercial use would require that tne adjacent alley be paved to eliminate dust and promote the smooth flow of traffic. PUBLIC ttEARING: Rezoning - South side of Telegraph Canson Road east of Hilltop Drive - R-l to R-3 Whittington & Ramm The application was read in which a request was made for a change of zone for the above property from R-1 to R-3. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property, the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant has submitted no plans for the development of this land--the Commission's decision should be based on what is best for the area end ~he density. He noted the drainage channel running along the rear of this property commenting that this water course is a part of one of the City's major drainage ways. The cGeneral Plan places this area in a medium density classification. A few times in the past, requests for rezoning this property to commercial was deniee by the Commission. The staff feels that multiple-family with a low density could be accommodated on this site, and recommends R-3-B-3-D; this could permit 40 dwelling units but because of the site problems, the applicant would probably not be able to accommodate that many. The setbacks should be adjusted to accommodate the development because of the drainage channel in the rear. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Whittington, the applicant, spoke mf the demand for townhouses in this area; the ones he proposes to build will have a floor area of 1400 square feet, two bedroom and one den, which will be larger than most homes. He spoke of the cost of improving this site which he stated would be prohibitive for single-family residential construction. Speaking in opposition were: Frank Meyer, E1 Capitan Drive; Dr. Glanz, 67 E1 Capitan; Jack Meyers, 798 Hilltop Drive; and Grant Conard, 44 E1Capitan Drive. They stated as their objections: (1) the applicant must show a need for this request, and he nas made no comments that he would be harmed in any way by denial of the request; (2) their homes are in a single-family residential area and they wish to keep it this way; (3) Glanz--speaking for 75 families and submitted a petition of protest signed by 62 property owners; (4) families living here felt the neighborhood was secure and stable--there are no apartments in the immediate vicinity; (5) no one out the applicant will benefit from this disruption of their single-family neignberhood; (6) granting of this zone change will be a detriment to the neighbor- hood; (7) they will suffer a loss of their privacies and serenity; (8) it will add to the heavy traffic congestion in the area; (9) the change would constitute "spot zoning." -4- 8/26/68 T~e chairman asked for a show of hands of those in opposition and those in support. Mr. Charles Ral~n, co-applicant, spoke of the three different apartment complexes they built in this city and of the objections from the neighbors on each one of them. However, after they were built, the residents in the area had no objec- tions to them whatsoever. There is a problem with this particular site--the configuration and the topography of the site itself, and he added, the property is approximately 30 feet below the residential area (the people protesting tonight). Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, spoke of the improvements of the drainage channel and of the amount of traffic that would be generated by this construction. He felt the amount would be insignificant as far as the capacity of Telegraph Canyon Road is concerned. The petition of protest was read at this time. There being no further conm~ents, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Director Warren commented that the staff is recommending approval of this zone change; that the only thing lacking here is a clear cut need. However, the need can be associated with a need for a balanced neighborhood. The General Plan calls for medium density for the general area, but that does not mean that there will be only single-family dwelling units in the area. The staff does not feel this would be spot zoning due to the characteristics in the area. Mr. Warren then discussed the aspects of spot zoning and added that where multiple-family use can be accommodated in areas such as this, they should be accommodated. In this case, they can be accommodated on a low-density basis without destroying the character that exists. City Attorney Lindberg discussed spot zoning, indicating that it is not inappro- priate zoning, and it would be invalid to grant to any particular property zoning which would be detrimental to the surrounding area. The Commission should be very careful in its statement relating to this issue of spot zoning. Member York questioned whether the medium density designation on the General Plan precludes zoning that in some instances would permit a higher density. Mr. Lindberg stated that the General Plan takes into consideration the elements imposed by the street system, schools, parks, etc., which designates the property for placement within the zone for medium density. This does not mean that this is R-1 or R-3 but rather what is required in the planning for the public improve- ments in the area, etc. The Commission discussed the topography of the site and concurred that it could not be feasibly developed as single-family residential. They felt that R-3-B-3 would be a good solution to this problem especially with the attachment of the "D" zone. -5- 8/26/68 MSUC (York-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 533 the City Council the Change of Zone for Property on the South Side of Telegraph Canyon Road, East of Hilltop Drive, from R-I to R-3-B-3-D and That Front Setbacks Be Established at 10 Feet The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Normal street improvements, which shall include street lights, shall be constructed along the frontage on both streets as required by the City Code. 2. The drainage channel going through the property shall be improved, as may be required by the City Code, to carry a water of 3,032 cubic feet per second. Such improvements shall be in accordance with adopted City Council policy (Ordinance No. 1032 and Resolution No. 4786). Findings be as follows: a. The fact that such property fronts upon the rear portion of an unsightly school playground and because of the effect of a natural drainage channel across the rear of the property, development for single family homes would be undesirable. b. ~ecause of topographical relationship to adjacent single family use, a low density multiple family development could be accommodated on the site in a manner compatible with such adjacent use. c. While the General Plan places subject site within a medium density residential classification, this should not be interpreted to mean that nowhere in this area could higher density use be accommodated. The density range refers to an average and it should be interpreted to permit a varied range of housing types. Member Hyde abstained from voting because he lives within 300 feet of this property. City Attorney Lindberg explained that this will automatically go to the City Council and all interested parties within 300 feet of this site will be notified of the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin~ - East side of Melrose Avenue, 12U' south of East Rienstra Street - R-1 to R-3 - Saratoga Development Company The application was read in which a request was made for a change of zone for the above property from R-1 to R-3 for the purpose of constructing an apartment building. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property, the adjacent land use and zoning. He explained that the property has 266' of street frontage and 150' of depth and is vacant. The property has a variable height of 7' to 12' above the level of the sidewalk at the front of the parcel and it slopes further upward to the rear property line to additional slopes, the tops of which are approximately 4' to 18' above the level of tile rear property line and which are portions of the R-1 parcels to the rear. The property abuts a shopping center site, and the staff feels that with this criteria; the fact that Melrose will be a collector street, that R-3 units -6- 8/26/68 with a density of I unit per 2000 square feet of land area, can be accommodated on this site and wilt serve a need for a more well-balanced neighborhood and will be compatible with the R-1 use. The staff is recommending a 15' setback be established. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Dennis Wittman, the applicant, discussed the proposed construction and parking layout of this project. He felt it would provide an aesthetic value to the single- family residents adjacent. He spoke of the difference in elevation of the site and commented that the buildings will be two-story. Speaking in opposition were: James Wiggin, Princess Manor Court; Mary Hoffman, 1561 Melrose Avenue; Edward Watson, corner of Marl & Rienstra; Mrs. Lord, 1627 Marl Avenue. They stated as their reasons: (l) there is no need for apart- ment buildings in this area - it is an R-l area; (2) they would prefer to see it zoned with a B-3 density instead of the B-2; (3) do not want a bunch of cheap apartment buildings around their neighborhood; (4) Hoffman: questioned the parking layout, the slope of the lot and whether the people in the area will be notified when the plans come in for approval for this site. Mr. Wittman explained that the driveway will be 35' wide and will be up against the bank~ he also proposes carports behind the units. Director Warren stated that the plans submitted are schematic ones and the residents in the adjacent area should not be promised that these plans will be the ones that will be developed. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the difference in elevation on the site and the height of the proposed construction of the building to that of the residential area and the shopping center. Mr. Wittman maintained that Melrose Avenue is on a down-hill grade, so if they hold the grade at the shopping center level, it would be a variable grade. Member York commented that he would go along with the comments of the staff as this will make a good buffer zone for the R-1 area. Member Rice questioned the use of the area across the street which is now vacant, and asked if the owners of this land will come in and ask for the same thing. He also felt the density here should be B-3 instead of B-2. Member Adams discussed the C-N development which he commented is planned to be compatible with the residential use; it would be desirable to have something like R-3 zoning here to buffer the residential use from the commercial. The commission again discussed the topography and grade differentials on the site and commented on the difficulty in developing this parcel as single-family residential. -7- 8/26/68 MSC (Adams-Stewart) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION No. 534 the City Council the Change of Zone for Property on the East Side of Melrose Avenue, 120 Feet South of East Rienstra Street and That Setbacks be Established at 15 feet. Findings be as follows: a. Because of the relationship to adjacent commercial and residential use, subject property could accommodate some form (R-3-B-2-D, with front setback at 15 feet) of multiple family use in a manner compatible with the adjacent single family use. b. While there may be no defined need for multiple family use in this vicinity, there is an increasing need for more balanced neighborhoods and the provision for multiple family use on subject property would be a step in that direction. The motion passed by the following vo~e, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams, Stewart, Guyer, York, and Hyde NOES: Member Rice ABSENT: Member Gregson Member Hyde suggested that the matter of "spot zoning" be a subject of a workshop meeting. City Attorney Lindberg explained that this rezoning goes to the City Council for a public hearing and all interested parties (within 300 feet) will be notified. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed amendment to the R-2 zone regulations establishing procedure for splittin~ duplexes for individual sale of each unit Director of Planning Warren explained that this item was set for hearing on August 5. He discussed the requests pending for this type of project that would be covered by this proposed amendment, which is the sale of split duplexes as attached single-family dwelling units. This has previously been done in the R-3 zone subject to the granting of variances. The staff felt that if similar requests were to be approved, it should be done with a zoning ordinance amendment. The particular amendment suggests that, subject to the granting of a conditional use permit, a duplex may be split for indiviual sale. The staff believes that in areas appropriately zoned R-2, if offstreet parking can be provided, there is no reason why the duplexes should not be split for individual ownership. Member Hyde discussed the section in the new proposed zoning ordinance which sets up the floor areas for this zone. He suggests this be incorporated into this amendment. City Attorney Lindberg stated there was nothing wrong in incorporating these standards in this proposed amendment. -8- 8/26/68 The Commission discussed the floor areas as proposed in the new ordinance. Chairman Hyde asked if the members agreed to adding this section to this amendment. The Commission agreed it should be added. Member York suggested the statement regarding one side yard "may be reduced to zero feet and no more than one unit shall be allowed on any lot" be clarified to read: "shall be allowed on any such lot." Mrs. Mary Hoffman, 1561 Melrose Avenue, and Mrs. Lord, 1627 Marl Court, asked to have this amendment explained. Director Warren explained the amendment. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented that this procedure was a much better way of handling related projects than by use of a variance. The Commission concurred. MSUC (Stewart-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recomnending RESOLUTION NO. 535 to the City Council the Adoption of an Amendment to Chapter 33 of the Chula Vista Code by Revising Section 33.18 "R-2" Multiple Dwelling Zone, Adding a Section 33.18.1, Use Permitted Subject to a Conditional Use Permit and Establish- ment of Minimum Floor Areas in the R-2 Zone Findings be as follows: a. Subject amendment would permit a ~egree of flexibility yet would preserve the intent of the R-2 zone. b. This procedure will assist toward the provision of housing units to meet the needs of those in the nloderate income levels. c. This procedure will permit the development of a more balanced neighborhood and would contain a wider diversification of dwelling types. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Princess Manor, Unit No. 9 - Request for reduction of minimum floor areas for dwelling units - Princess Park Estates, Inc. The application was read in which the following reduction in house sizes was requested for that area known as Princess Manor Unit No. 9 subdivision: 2 bedroom from 1000 square feet to 900 square feet 3 bedroom from 1200 square feet to 1020 square feet 4 bedroom from 1300 square feet to 1240 square feet Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location as south of Rohr School, west of the westerly terminus of Malta Avenue. No house plans have been submitted and the staff is not sure, at this point, what ratios would be involved. This unit involves 49 homes. -9- 8/26/68 Mr. Warren then discussed the previous variances granted for this same property and adjacent, and commented on the sliding scale which was adopted in an effort to upgrade the homes in the city. He added that the original variance was appropriate, but that it has since expired and it was necessary for the applicant to file a new application. The staff would recommend that the variance be granted as before--the conditions have not changed, and it will be in keeping with the variances granted in the area. It was noted that the staff received two letters of protest from residents livin§ adjacent to this property (in the County). Director Warren declared the Commission should consider the need here and not give just a blanket approval--he would suggest granting this request on a 35% basis. City Attorney Lindberg stated there was a question as to whether or not the petition submitted last year in protest of a similar request could be admitted as evidence in this hearing. He declared that this petition cannot be acceptable as contemporaneous in this matter; however, the Commission can take into consid- eration that a petition was submitted on this subject a year before. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jack Gardner stated that he, with his partner John Morgan, has entered into escrow for the sale of this land. He discussed a few areas in the City whereby the size of the homes are small. He stated there is a demand for homes in this City under the $20,000 bracket. They will sell these homes for between $17,500 and $19,500. Mr. Gardner added that the ratio for these homes should be greater than that recommended by the Planning Director. Those speaking in opposition were: Henry Rienstr~, 1560 Max Avenue, Kenneth Harbau§h, 1559 Malta Avenue, Will Wallace, l~ving in Woodlawn Park area, Mrs. Calvin Ruffort, a resident of Woodlawn Park, Mrs. Mary Hoffman, 1561 Melrose Avenue, Mrs. Lord, 1627 Marl Avenue. They stated as their reasons: (1) Rienstra-- lives near the Woodlawn Park area and has less trouble with the children in this area than those in the City; (2) granting this request for smaller size homes will be detrimental to the Woodlawn Park area; (3) should give these people in the Woodlawn Park area all the help and cooperation you can; (4) it will devaluate their properties and they do not want to be forced to have to sell their homes because of this; (5) Ruffort--not interested in having smaller homes homes built adjacent to the Woodlawn Park area as they are trying to upgrade their community and this approval would be detrimental to their area; (6) these smaller homes will attract the people that will be troublesome; (7) they request that the homes be made larger to attract a better type of person; (8) the type of person buying a house like this will not be staying here--he will be a transient type and move away; (9) it is not going to fit into the architecture of the area at all; (1) they question whether VA and FHA will even finance something like this. Mr. Warren maintained that many of the homes built in the previous units of Princess Manor are undersized and many have been financed by both the VA and FHA. Their standards are lower than the City's, as a matter of fact. He discussed the previous hearings on this same type request held a year and two years ago and claimed that many of the protestants were living in houses that were similarly undersized. Director Warren added that the 35% was no magic figure-- he submitted this rather than have the Commission grant t~em a variance for 100%. Member Stewart remarked that based on the record, every unit has this same ratio or greater, as recommended by the Planning Director. -10- 8/26/68 Director Warren suggested the hearing be continued for one week, and the staff will furnish the Commission and the people at the meeting more evidence of these small size homes. Mr. Gardner stated he would accept the 35% ratio--he is not about to build something that would jeopardize his reputation just for 49 homes. He added he would like a decision from the Commission on this tonight, if possible. There i~ing no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York stated he understands that they cannot submit any house plans at this time since their property is in escrow. He discussed the ratios of house sizes granted in the past and suggested the Commission approve of 17N% of the houses be reduced by 5% and 18% of the houses reduced 10%. This formula would meet that approved in 1967. He added that there is a market for lower cost homes. Member Adams and Guyer suggested they continue this matter until something can be worked out which will be more acceptable to everyone. MS (York-Stewart) The following be approved: of the 49 homes, 17% be reduced by 5%, and 18% be reduced 10% of the floor area. Details to be worked out with the staff. Under discussion, Mr. Warren commented that he feels this is too specific-- that we are imposing restrictions without knowing what the developer proposed in the way of housing design. He indicated that the value of the minimum floor area ordinance was questionable; that he was not sure that its existence by itself has been responsible for the upgrading of tile neighborhood in the past, but that such was a long discussion and should not be undertaken tonight. He once again requested that the matter be continued one week in an effort to resolve differences with the applicant. Member Adams mentioned that the Planning Director has misgivings about what they are proposing to approve and wants more time to work this out. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members York, Stewart and Rice NOES: Members Hyde, Adams and Guyer ABSENT: Member Gregson MSUC (York-Rice) The matter be continued to the meeting of September 4, 1968. MSUC (York-Stewart) Public hearing be reopened at this next meeting. -Il- 8/26/68 PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 370 K Street - Request to use 14 compact-sized parking spaces out of total of 144 required for offstreet parking - Kuebler Director of Planning Warren submitted the building plan showing the proposed parking layout. He commented that out of the 144 spaces required by the Ordinance, the applicant wishes to use 14 of these for compact cars. This request is for the apartment complex presently under construction at 370 K Street. The Commission has recently approved a similar request for the apartment project at 250 Bonita Glen Drive and have also approved a 10% allowance for compact cars in the new zoning ordinance. The staff recommends that the 14 spaces be approved for a measurement of 7~' x 15'. 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. After a brief discussion, the Commission concurred that the request was a feasible one. MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Approval to utilize 14 of the 144 required parking spaces for compact size cars; such spaces to be a minimum of 7~' x 15'. Request by Rohr Corporation for reconsideration of recommendation concerning vacation of "G" Street between Tidelands Avenue and West Bay Boulevard City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission will recall at the last meeting, their recommendation to the City Council the sale of this property for industrial purposes and against the closing of G Street at this time. Rohr Corporation has requested that this body reconsider this matter at this time. MSUC (Stewart-York) The vacation of "G" Street be reconsidered at this time. Member Rice abstained from voting. Mr. Lindberg continued stating that the Commission is aware that this whole matter of recommendation to the City Council is a requirement of the State Planning Act. The Commission should consider this question in terms of good planning and a review of the overall street system, and then determine whether or not the street is needed. Mr. Lindberg commented that he discussed with the applicants whether this street could be held open as an easement; that action of the Council and Commission will be based on the fact that there is no need for this as an access road, that others are available. -12- 8/26/68 Mr. Shepherd, Vice-President of Rohr Corporation, discussed whether G Street is a necessary street or whether there is another means of access. He indicated that the principal access to the Tidelands will be by Tidelands Avenue. He also pointed out various other routes, and the future improvements of "E", "F", and "J" Streets. He said that "G" Street was not even mentioned in these dis- cussions held with the State Division of Highways as it is not contemplated that "G" Street will be any sort of a major street now or in the future. Member Stewart asked if the temporary access through "G" Street was agreed upon by both the City and Rohr. Mr. Shepherd indicated they did and then discussed the improvement of Tidelands Avenue between "G" and "F" Streets which he maintained would be the permanent access to the tidelands. The timing here would depend upon the Port District going through with this and providing the fill to bring Tidelands Avenue up to street level. At present, it is a substandard street. Director Warren then pointed out the circulation plan of the streets for the Tidelands Avenue. He mentioned that a representative of the Port District will be present at the Council hearing to discuss in more detail their ultimate plans for the tidelands. Mr. Warren stated that the staff would advise that the Commission recommend to the City Council the fact that public access across the route of "G" Street be available until such time as adequate access to the Tidelands will be provided by other public streets. City Attorney Lindberg reminded the Commission that this discussion concerns the vacation of "G" Street and the Commission should be looking at the planning aspects of the matter and whether the other roads will adequ~l'y serve the area. The tmmporary access will be adequate as far as the City is concerned, and the determination of this Commission and the City Council must ultimately be that "G" Street is not necessary to provide this access as a dedicated public street. Member Stewart declared that they were considering an area presently under the control of the Port District, because it is geographically in Chula Vista. The Port District should be more concerned than we. Mr. Warren indicated that the Port District wants to be assured of the same thing as the City. Mr. George Bishop, representing San Diego Gas & Electric Company, stated there are a number of details that can be worked out. Their concern now is with the property abutting the railroad. They have a 150' right-of-way and the sub- station property. He questioned whether they would continue to have access to this substation, and if it becomes a dedicated easement would they receive a permit to have this access. City Attorney Lindberg declared that this is a matter that will have to be determined with the City Engineer and the City Council. It will be worked out. -13- 8/26/68 MSUC (York-Adams) The Commission rescinds their previous recommendation and finds that the vacation of "G" Street would not be in conflict with the long- range goals of the General Plan. The Commission believes, however, that the right of public access across the route of "G" Street should be available until such time as a more direct access is provided from West Bay Boulevard to the Tidelands area. In an ultimate plan for development of the waterfront, Tide- lands Avenue will be served by a connecting link to the South Bay Freeway, "E" Street, "F" Street, and "J" Street. The Commission believes that these streets can adequately serve projected traffic from the Tidelands. The Commission requests that the reservation of any required easements and the details of the limits of subject vacation be determined by the Division and City Council before subject vacation is completed. Member Rice abstained from voting. Constl~ration of vacation of segments of East Rienstra Street east of Max Avenue Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the portion of the street requested for vacation by the property owners. At one time this was a cul-de-sac and has now been extended to its present length, and remaining are the portions of the cul-de-sac "bulb" on either side of the street which is the subject of this request. Mr. Warren explained that since the lots were plotted on a cul-de-sac pattern rather than a streight street, the side lot lines are not perpendicular to the street but rather radial to the original cul-de-sac. These become a problem because, if this vacation is approved, the side lot lines would then cross their neighbor's driveways. It may be that the Commission will wish to withhold approval until the property owners agree to the condition of changing these lot lines. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the problems the Comnission is dealing with here: (1) whether or not the street is needed for public use--it is not; (2) it should be recognized, especially under these circumstances, the desire of the City to get rid of the street dedications that are no longer needed. The fact that the lot lines will cross over their neighbor's properties is not a major concern. He would recommend that the Commission consider just the street vacation and inform the Council that they are aware of this tot line problem. If the City cannot resolve this with the adjustment of the lot lines, then the property owners can adjust it with relocation of driveways. Assistant City Engineer Gesley noted that the only problem is with lots 176 and 172. Director Warren remarked that he will bring this problem to the attention of the City Administrative Officer and the City Council. MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Comnission recommends that this street vacation be approved. In making this recommendation, the Commission recognizes the problem concerned with lots 172 and 176 in extending their side lot lines. When two of these are extended to the new right-of-way, the lot lines would cross the adjacent property owner's driveway. This is primarily a problem between the property owners, but is a matter of which the Council should be aware. -14- 8/26/68 Council Referral - Reconsideration of recommendation to rezone property at 70 East "J" Street from R-1 to C-N Director of Planning Warren reviewed the events of this matter whereby the Commission recommended C-N zoning on July 1, 1968, and the Council referred the matter back for reconsideration and report. The Commission also reported to the Council that the addition of the Fire Station facilities would be in conformance wi th the General Plan. The Commission has the alternative of reaffirming its original recommendation or concurring with the decision of the Council on this matter. The staff recommends that the Commission reaffirm their original recommendation. Mr. Norman Seltzer, attorney representing the applicants, stated there was concern on the part of the Council as to the future of the existing grocery store. He is here to inform the Commission that this grocery store will be terminated in a~ event--that the store will be replaced with a similar business and be in conformance to the standards of the C-N zone. The new evidence he has to present to the City Council and Commission is that if any portion of your decision is based on the protection of the present tenant, then this decision has no basis. They would request the Commission to reiterate their former recommendation to the City Council. MSUC (York-Rice) The Commission reaffirms its original recommendation--that this property be rezoned from R-l to C-N (neighborhood commercial) zone in accordance with their Resolution Ilo. 525 dated July l, 1968. The Commission believes that if the property is not to be zoned for commercial use that the present non-conforming use should ultimately be abated. Consideration of proposed sale of City-owned property (Palm Gardens Estates Subdivision) Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the City-owned property as lying north of Shasta Street and west of Claire Avenue. The right-of-way for "H" Street will be taken from the southerly portion of these lots. The staff recommends approval of the sale of these lots as being in conformance with the General Plan. MSUC (Rice-York) Commission finds that the sale of the remaining portions of any of these lots for single-family use would not be in conflict with the Chula Vista General Plan. Chairman and Director's Reports Chairman Hyde discussed the meeting held with the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee; the election of the Chairman, Glen Guerin, and of the Vice-Chairman, John DeBello; the discussion of the Valley boundaries and the talk given by Don Lindberg, the City Attorney, in regard to legally trying to maintain large zonings. Director Warren related recent actions of the City Council upholding Commission actions on variances. -15- 8/26/68 Precise Plans Chairman Hyde asked Mr. Lindberg to submit a report to the Commission regarding his recommendations concerning the use of Precise Plans. The Commission also felt they would be made aware of Port District plans as pess~b~e. ' ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-York) Meeting be adjourned sine die. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /~Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary