HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/11/21 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
November 21, 1966
The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above
date with the following members present: Stewart, York, Gregson, Adams, Rice, and
Guyer. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli,
Junior Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg, C~ty Engineer Cole, and County Flood
Control Engineer B. H. Hoffmaster.
STATEMENT
The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she d~d post within 24 hours of
ad]ournment, as provided by law, the order for the adjourned meeting of November 7, 1966.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Adams stated he did not receive a copy of the minutes of the last meeting.
MSUC (Gregson-Adams) That approval of the m~nutes be withheld until the meeting
of December 5, 1966.
Request for Approval of Home Occupation Permit - Locksmith - 109 Alvarado Street
Director of Planning Warren stated a letter was received from Mr. Richard M. Reed,
109 Alvarado Street, requesting the approval of a Locksmith business as a Home
Occupation Permit. Because he will be using mechanical equipment not ordinarily
found in a home, the Commission must determine whether this equipment would be
perm~ssable.
Member Guyer questioned the parking. Mr. Warren declared there weuld be none.
Mr. Reed, the applicant, explained that he will be relying on retail trade for his
business and will be going out of h~s home to solicit th~s business. There will
be no direct sales from his home.
Member Adams commented that he had no objection as long as the mechanical equipment
used would not interfere w~th radio and T.V.
Chairman Stewart noted that it would not, since the machine he will be using could be
compared to that of a kitchen mixer.
MSUC (Adams-R~ce) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Approving
RESOLUTION NO. 434 Equipment for Use With a Home Occupation - Locksmith
Findings are as follows:
The Commission finds that the use of one small key cutting machine powered by a
1 1/16th H.P. motor will not be objectionable by means of emission of odor, dust,
smoke, no~se, gas fumes or vibration.
PUBLIC HEARING - Prezonin9 - Southwest Corner Hilltop Drive and Quintard Street - R-1-B to R-3
The application was read in which a request was made for prezoning that property
located at the southwest coraer of Hilltop Drive and Quintard Street from R-1-B
~o R-'3.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent
!and use. ~e noted that at the previous meeting, the Commission considered pre-
zoning to R-3 approximately 5 acre~ to the north; after the public hearing, the
Commiss!on voted to recommend prezoning to R-1. The staff recommends against R-3
zoning in th!s area beca~;se they believe that :such zoning will set a trend contrary
to the Ge~erai Plan and there have been no Facts presented indicating that single-
family use i~ i~appropr]ate,
Thi~ being the t~me and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
There being no comment, either For or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Adams stated he agrees w~th the recommendation of the Planning staff - that
~t should be prezoned R-I; that it is the same type of case the Commission considered
for that parcel directly across the street.
Member 6uyer said ne fe!t it ¢.ou]d be developed R-1.
Chairman Stewart noted that there is a great deal of remaining property to the east
and south with slmllar' to;)ograpny. He added that the City has enough R-3 zoned
land for' ~t2 immediate use, bared on the General Plan studies.
Director Warren asked that ~he Commission establish setbacks at 25 feet until such
time as a ~ubdiv~s!on mac, ?s filed.
MSUC (6uyer'-6~egs~) gecommend th~ this area h6 prezoned R-1 and setbacks be
established at 25 feet for the f:o!~owing reasons:
~. The Ge~e~'~i P!a~ d~sigm~te~ :his area as medium density residential which generally
correspono~ t: t~ ~.:!
2. The dev~op~:~:~ ~re:ld i~ the area is for single,-family dwellings - a 42 unit
2ubd~v~n~ ~:~ i¢ p:~;,~;e::t~¥ being p!anned for property within 375~ of this parcel.
3. A spot zoqe ,~ould be ~:rea~ed s~nc~ no R-3 exist; within 700~ of the property.
4. Fha ap[*!~ '~*,~ ~¢ ~*~; ~?:?t t~¢* p~operry wou~d be v~ry difficult to subdivide be-
c:a;:::e of: se'¢-- ~ ~,,, m,': ?;e %opc:g~ap~¢ is no different than much of that
PUBLIC HEARING - Fioad Plain Zoning ~. Lo'~er Sweetwater Valley
C~ty Attcrhey L. indberg exp!alned thct the flood plain ordinance is now ready for
application for certain specific areas ~nere engineering studies have been completed.
There are two zones: F'-I and F-2. T~e F-.] zone is the most restrictive zone whereby
structcres are problb~ted and use~ ale designated which would not be materially
affected by Flood condltian:; ~uch as recreational uses, circuses, loading and ~-
unloading areas, storage yards, agrlcu~ture uses, and similar uses that would not
mater~a!ly be damaged ~ the event of f~ooding cond~u~ons which would be expected
to be heaviest in ~he F'-i zone.
In the F-2 zone, the basic uses permitted by The underlying zones would continue to
be authorized subject to the condition:? established by conditional use permit. These
would be standards that would proh!bJt flood structures that would not stand flood
,--. pressures, and ~t would designate the type of fil! and other protective devices
required to protect any uses in that: zone. Mr. Lindberg then referred to the map which
he stated was prepared after ]ntensive scud!es by the City engineers, the Army Corps
of Englneers~ and the County Flood ControTM E~g!neers. He declared that the public
hearing tonight was for the ~urpose of app!ying this zoning within the City of Chula
Vista from Bon[ta Mesa Road to the San Diego Bray. The area proposed for the F-1 zone
is that area proposed for the flood chan~eq it~e/f~ and the remaining area wJth the
100 year flood level outlined on the map would be the F-2 zone. Mr. Lindberg noted
that this hear[ng is different from tho~:e held ~n the past, because questions wi1! be
those of a technical nature re!~Jng zo the engineering problems of trying to define
for the purpose of protection of public health, safety, and we!fare~ those areas
that are probably going to be affected by flood water~ rather than the regular questions
of zoning practices. He stated ~L t~e pr~cedure should be to first of all allow the
City Engineer to point out the Lype~ of >t~d!e~ that have been made, his own recom-
mendations, and then call upon the other ~,itr~e~se~ present from tho~e agencies
mentioned before, relative to matter~ of er~g]r~eering requirements. Mr. Lindberg
f~r~her added that anyone in the audience m~¥ ~e able to raise questions or cross-
examine the engineers present toqight.
This being the tJme and place as adve~t!~ed> the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Lane Cole, City Englneer~ stated Zhat he h~ asked Mr. Hoffmas~er, the County
Flood Control Engineer, to be present ton~gh~ ~o help in the discussion ]n order that
the Commission and the audience might be better informed about how they arrived at
the extent of the expected flood plain. Mr. Cole noted that the map does not show
~_. continuity because of the ~rregularlty o~ The City boundary in the Sweetwater Valley-
only those portions which are under The jur]sdlct:]on of the City are shown. Mr. Cole
then pointed out on the map the ~outherr~ e:x~:remity !~ne of the flood plain area which
would be caused by a storm of lO0~year Jn~er!~:i~v. ArrivJng at the llne which
delineates the flood plain zone~ he o~ctar~d~ ~ the work of agencie~ better staffed
and people more capable of doing thi> ~:~dy tk~ the l[mlted staff Jn the City. The
maps were secured from the office of Mr. Moffma~t~r.
Mr. B. ~. Hoffmaster, County Flood Cor~rol Ertg!neer~ stated that the Cour~ty of San
Diego in i962 petitioned the Board .~f ~e:~>~rch ir~ ~he State of California to prepare
flood plain information studies. ~'r~e Co.~r~:v0 Jr the contract w[~h 'the State Department
of Water Resources would pay one'-half the ¢:o?z ~nd the State the ozher one-half. In
these studies, they were to take m~jo- ;I~o~ p!~Jr~ areas in the County and delineate
the potential flood hazard area~ ~- or~e of ~ihe~e: ~,as ~:he Sweetwater River basi~. These
oa~lines were to be with reservo!r~ ~f f~lJ~ re:~ervolrs ful , and where there was a
2 % probabJllty of 50-year food, o~ i ~} Dr'ob~]l[~y of lOOiy~ar flood. The map on
dlsplay, Mr. ~offmaster continued; ~.~! r'~e ~i~h ~h~ i % probability of the lO0~year
flood. !n the County studie~, ~he¥ c ?~' ~::~r ~k~' 'e~ervoJrs as fu!l, because they are
County reservoirs and there is no cor~t:ro! device to relesse the waters and regulate
the flood flow during flood situation~, ffowever, in the Sweetwater River~ even with
the half-full reservoirs, the flood !ine~ [~ e::~sentJai]y the same - the 50I~ear level
is very close to these figures, a!~o. T'he b.~ for all ~hJs information, Mr. Hoff-
master declared, was the historic.~l ~loo~:' of record throughout the County of San
Diego.
An analys~s was made by the Depar~mer~ of W~ter Resources reviewed by the National
Geological Survey and themselves, i've fl~:,~ flow [n this area was estimated at 55,000
cubic feet per second. They ~hen dsed ~opograpn~c maps, field survey, flood con-
struct[on design and drawings of z:he bridge ~trbctures that are there Jn the rlver,
and field [nvescigatlon of these structures to compute the backwater effect of all
these structures, as welt as the flood flow as it moves down the Valley. The estimates
for floods are as the Valley existed in !963 - any changes that have taken place since
that time will only aggravate the condition which then existed. Mr. Hoffmaster
further stated that in 1950, the Army Corps of Engineers was petitioned by the City
oF Chu!a VJsta for a flood control project on this river; it was 1960 when the study
was ~nJtlated and completed th~s last year. ~t is now in W~hington, D. C., waiting
for the Bureau of Budget's approval. They also reviewed the flood project and their
line ~s essentially the sa~ as the one shown here tonight.
C~ty Attorney L~ndber9 asked Mr. Hoffmaster if he examined the maps on the board and
whether ~t was his op~on that the zones designated in red and blue conforms to what
~s designated as the restrictive zone (F-l) and the F-2 zones in the City's ordinance,
~nd whether he ~as familiar w~th Chu]a V~sta~s ordinance in this ~tter.
Mr. Hoffmaster stated ~e was ~amil[ar w~th the City:s ordinance and that the areas
designated as F-I and F-2 o~ the map are ~n conformance.
Mr. Paul Yeager~ hi~ ] Street~ quest [oned the ]O0-year study flood i he asked when the
~ghest flood le,~e! was - when the dam was b.,~lt or when it broke.
Mr. Hoffmaster stated from th~ report~ her~.~'-', the peak discharge was probably at
the t~me of the bre'ak oF the dam.
Mr. Yeager questioned tha~ if the lO0-year flood level was at the time the dam broke,
d,~es this revert bsck to whoever buiit the ~am for the cause of the damage of the
lO0-year ~lood ~ev~.
Cha~rma~ Ste*~,~'~r~ ~.~ked the C~t~ Att'~r~ey to r'd~e On th~s question.
Mr. L~ndber9 s~t~d ~n~ quetzal-: ,~,~.: outside the prov~nce of the inquiry tonight.
~_ ~ ...... ~ q~e;s:on e:~'K~ng t~t if the dam was not there, what would be
the,r~.O Fe~ ~oo~ ~e, ~. M:'. -o*fmastc: ~t'~ted it would be that area outlined in red
o:n tFe maD - ~h~t: h,: ~: ~,~: verv ~i~fie reduc~on ~n the lO0-year flood due to the
dam:s bein9 *here a~: ~ pu eo by the [a!~sc,rn~a Department of Water Resources.
Mr. Yeager m~Tnr~,~d ~h~': i~ the~:e comput~tloms o~ the height of the flood level,
she eeg~eer-: d;d -}s "~<e ~co conside ~Ti-;n the least amount of water comin9 d~n
i3 ~.:~ ~,~m ~ tb~ev {z,m:Lu'~ed qbe E~mou~qt of ,,~eter held b~ck between the Sweetwater dam
,'~'~ the ct~,er e~m ~h~ch Ts dp ~gher. ~{ bo~h the:~e dams broke and the water was let
ru~ Free w ~Nou~ ,~nv .b e~ ~o~., thaT: ~hme ]00 foot level would not be what it is
,'~o~. Mr. ~eager el~,r~f~e~ h~:~ c~mmerts by staten9 that the f~gure computed was the
one a' ~?e ~? ':, h~c ~,d ," the flg~r'e ~:~:~ ~n the norma~ rainfall over a
CLa~rmar~ Stewart ~mked iF the repor~ ?pec~flca]ly reported these figures - that of
the Oam bre~ki~9. M~. Yeage~r declared thee ~t did.
Mr. Hoffmaster clar~*~eo ~h!~ n~catlr~9 that the report that defines the flood plain
has ~o re~erence *o tee , ~ow that were i~ the Valley after the dam broke. These are
(';;m~te~ flows, from Fi~to:~ca':i ~iood~ [hroughout the County based upo~ actual measured
t o,,~ ~t vat,o? st~t~' ~d ~. ,~ composi*e o~ what would happen if a lO0-year
flood ¥~as put or~ t~:? ~s:'~.'. .'he. o~tf~ow? ~re tP:ro~gh and over the dam and has no
rel,~t~onshlp t'~ tha dam bre~9,
City Attorney Lindberg stated that the studies made for the map take into consldera-
t~on the existence of the dams and what would happen to flood conditions if the dam
stood.
Mr. Yeager explained his point: he said there was a small parcel of property in the
Valley that, as Far as llvlng conditions are concerned, will hav~ no residences built
upon ~t. They very strongly feel that this one small section - ~f it was flooded -
that the way "the finger sticks out ~n the channel and everything" that anything in
this area would not hinder the f~ow of the water whatsoever. It would wash out against
the bank and would probably dam up some of the water going down into the lower
lands and doing the worst flood. The engineer's know the exact area he is talking
about, Mr. Yeager added. He further avowed that the lO0-year flood level was not when
the dam broke.
Mr. Hoffmas~er declared that the estimated peak when the dam broke was greater than
the lO0-year Flood level.
Mr. Yeager asked what would be the Figure in gallons of the water coming down this
area, over a lO0-year period.
Mr. Hoffmaster ~tated he does not have this figure in gallons; it was 55,000 cubic
feet per ~econd. This is an average f~gure; for ~nstance, if you take a long look
at it for 1000 years, you'll have ten of these flgure~. The statistical aspect of
this is that there may be one this year, next year, the following year, and then
perhaps not another one for several hundred years.
Mr'. Yeager stated he put the 50,000 figure into his compute~ and came up with a
lower figure.
C~ty Attorney Lindberg explained M,. Hoffmaster's statement that this is not a flood
that occu~ every !00 years, b~t a level that has been reached based upon an
averaging aF ~!oods that occur over a prolonged per~od of time.
Mr. HofFmaster ~tated they have about 55 years of records in San Diego County. There
are h~storica! in~ormatlon relating to the fact that there were tremendous floods
~n 1882, 1862~ and around 1825.
Mr. V~ncen~ Detuc~a~ 1930 Granger Avenue~ National City, asked ~F the changing
weather pa~tern was considered ~n the rec~ord.
Mr. Hoffmastcr indicated that the expert~ do not: have this prediction as to whether
this went~er pattern !s changing or not.
City E~g]neer Co~e pointed out that thc design flood was 55,000 cubic: feet per
water ]'~ ~ '~;~ervoir by o~ffe~e~t ~taging. Ti~e first stage would be by means
of siphons- these wi!l discharge 18,000 cubic feet per second, and then there is a
south-channel spillway which will discharge an addltlonal 22,000 cubic feet per
second. Between these two, it would be ~0~000 cubic feet per ~econd which will leave
only 15,000 :ub~c feet iF this situation occ~'s. It ~s easy to imagine these waters
generated below the dam from Ric:e Canyon and some of these other tributary areas.
Mr. Cole further stated that the dam does ~ot have to break to pass sufficient
quantities oF water' to flood the Vailey.
Member York commented that ]t was his understanding that these figures did not
relate to any flood that happened but to stzt~stical computations based upon what
th6 ~lood might have been in the Valley based on various floods in the San Diego areas.
Mr'. Hoffmaster affirmed this adding ,.mat there are 21 streams Jr, volved in the study
includin9 Sweetwater River and Descanso that were used ]m the prediction of the
st:at ~stical analysis.
Member York reiterated that th~s is not based no amy specific flood except where such
flood might have been considered only as a part: of the statistical computation.
Chairman Stewart said ]c was ~s oF.!m!o~ that this ~ag related ~'o ail of them, not
any specific one. Mr. ~offmast:er st~ted ~h~s was correct.
Member Guyer asked whetFer National C~y has passed ~helr flood plain ordinance.
City Attorney Lindberg stated they are s~! ~ ~Me p-ocess of adopting ~heir ordinance,
and that their two zones shod~d correspond ~o those o~ Chula Vista.
Mr. P~ke Hodge, a farmer in the Swee~water Va!]ey~ said he wanted to congratulate
everyone on "the good show." He re'It ho~e',,'er, ~ha~ ~t wouid have been just as
effective if they based ~he~r studies o~ a !O0-year t~dal wave, earthquake, or other
act of God. This only te~d~; ~o ~eva~ua~e ~he !and .~o that condemnation of the freeway
can be a lot easier. In or0er [o expia~o ~h~s whole s~tdation a lot easier to a
layman like hlmself~ Mr. P~ke remdrked~ you c,uld s'Jy that yod would deal him a
poker hand and every~ime he gents a Full house~ ~h~s whe~ you !~ave a flood. He is
definitely opposed ~o th~s zonlog, as a ma~ter oF f~cT~ he's been opposed to a 9reat
many things that Chula Vis, ta n~s done ~n the pa~t~ and rathe.' surprised at some of the
things. He questioned whether a ~incere object~o~ ~ould mean a~y[hing or whether to
sit back, relax and enjoy the i~e~able'. Mr. P~ke Lhen rela~ed some instances that
happened ~n the Valley concera~ng ~he C~ty. Membe~ Adams chal]epged the testimony
stating it had nothin9 whatsoever to do w~th ~he matter on hand.
Mr. Pike asked if the acqu s~t~on of the ~and had anything to do with this zoning.
Chairman Stewart declared ~t w~; n~t ~ f~r ~ ~s Comm~ss~or~ we~ concerned, and
further alleged ~hat Mr. P~e ~emar~:; had r:o p~ace ~n a meet~p9 of this sort. He
a~ked Mr. Pike to s~ate h~ ~ o~:, ~,'/ oo3ec~ ~g ~qd to keep his personal reasons
out of the ~estimony.
Mr. P~ke stated ~h~s was dit~cb]~ o d~. He o~:scus~.ed M~s own property in ~he
~alley which he said was a~:essud ~ SIO.09C a~a acre. T'ne ta~es on it are $800 per
acre per year. Now. wher~ r~~ go~ ~o b~d 'some[h?~g on [ to pay ~hese ~axes, he
can't do it, because of th~s zor, ing. He added ~haT last year~ he paid $28,000
taxes op that property, and ~r~af ther~ hg.~.~ ~ beer` a year Chat he owned th~s dairy
~ha[ it has earned that md(h. Mr. P~ke (e~'~'s~ed h~s objection to the proposed
zoq~og and other activ~tie~ by ~e C~fv.
Mr. Robert King remark<ed ~b~~ ~ '~-' '~; .~aer ~ :.~ og t~ha~ ~he f~ood ch~onel was
designed to eliminaLe ~h~s t .ooo~rg p~oblem +or ~he Vailey. Mr. Cole sta~ed that when
the flood control channel ~s corstrdcted, it wod~d eliminate the possibility of
flooding in the lower regions F,om Bonita Me~a ~oad co the Bay. At this time, the
f]ood zone will be lifted.
Vincent DeLucia stated he owns 9 ~cre~ :~f ~h~s f~ood plain and objected ~o the Council
or any other leg~s~atlve body taking a~.sy a per-.)~ s property rights to develop his
property in any way that he ~ees F~t. ~ ~s ~:~cr f~c~ng one's rights. He agrees that
there is a flood situation [here, aqd ~t E~s bee-~ the policy of ~he Zoning Department
a~d other agencies to wr~te on ~T '~ub)ec~ ~ [ounda~:iooH on [he deuelopment map.
T'his seems to be ample warn;rig *o any :~d~,,~d~a~ ths~ ;~ go~ng ~o develop the proper~y.
However~ Mr. DeLucia co~nued~ *o come r'~ght ob~ and deprive ~he person of his right
to develop the property by reason of an ordi~nce that has a certain stigma attached
to it, seems to be stretching a point too far. He can see no reason whatsoever why
a zoning ordinance of this nature has to be brought in at this time, especially since
~I~he flood channel is in the process of being developed - they have already indicated
chat the money is going to be appropriated in the next year or so - why jump to the
conclusion that we have to have something like this? It seems to be, like Mr. Pike
says, to deprive a person of a reasonable return for the property he has been paying
taxes on these many years. Mr. DeLucia added that this is unconstitutional.
Mr. Paul Yeager commented that since the cross-examination is over with, he has one
que:~tion of the City Attorney. He stated that it was approximately four weeks ago
that this ordinance was passed here for the reason that the City received a letter from
the State stating this zoning had to be adopted in order for the city of Chula Vista to
receive its money for the flood control channel.
City Attorney L~ndberg stated the motives are not ~mportant I the fact is there is a
need for the Council and Commission to provide for adequate flood control conditions.
This is possib!y long-overdue in the proper regulation of Sweetwater Valley in the
interests and protection of public health, safety, and welfare. It is true that the
city of Chula Vista, National City, and the County have been informed that they would
be required to impose these regulations within a certain period of time of notification
by the State Department of Natural Resources ~n order to qualify for reimbursement from
the Federal Government through the State funds for the acqu[sitlon of the flood control
channel. The Department of Natural Resources has informed the City that the time
!imltations that have previously been established need no longer be adhered to since the
matter has not been properly processed to date through Congress; therefore, there is
no immediate necessity for establishing these regulations in order to qualify for that
Federal assistance.
n the order!y course of events, however, Mr. Lindberg continued, we have undertaken
here, several hearings on the basic ordinance which was approved by the Planning
Commission and the City Council and it has now reached the point of application to
those areas where studies have been completed. Mr. L[ndberg added that it might be
well for the Commission and the audience to note that in the absence of the develop-
ment of the channel, the need for these regulations become more pressing because
these regulation~ are intended to protect persons developing within that area. If and
when that chaonel ~s constructed, the regulations are no longer necessary.
Mr. Yeager remarked that in actuality, the City was more or less "pushed" into adopting
this ordinance through the bureaucratic government we have today. In other words, he
contended, they cou!d say it was a "pretty map, a nice meeting, and prolong the matter
another six months and nothing would be said about it from the Federal government."
We Questioned wmether it would not be proper, at this time, since there is no time
l~m~t, and they "bulldozed" the City ~nto getting this basic ordinance, why the need
for the extra zoning. Mr. Yeager asserted that he cannot go down to a bank, a loan
company~ or enyone to borrow money on this are~ without informing them that the land
about to be developed an be flooded. You cannot buy flood insurance on the land -
anyone that ~nvests any money in this F-2 zone - there is no way in which they can be
covered or recover for any flooding whatsoever. All this tends to do to the developer
~s to "tie his hands behind his back." The Commission should look at the picture from
their side instead of what is good for the City, since about 99 % of the City would not
be affected, or perhaps it would be 2 % of the people that would be hurt by a flood. It
has been proven, Mr. Yeager declared, that if you build something, and it floods, and
~.~zour property washes down, you are responsible for it:. The F-2 zoning will stop some
evelopment~ and some of these areas are the only areas that we have in the City that is
close by to the heart of the City and the ~reeways where some business can be built.
Mr. Yeager said he fee!s very strongly about this F'-2 zoning, but that he would feel
-7=
better if the Planning Department would have a set of plans ssy~ng "your construction
b=,s~s must be this; your buildings must be built so-and-so, and have a 1 the facts and
figures on whet is to be constructed in that area." !n this way, perhaps the people
ouildlng in this area would look at: this and th~nk they may have a chance here. Mr.
~eager further maintained that anyone constructing a building in th~s area estimated
at $50,000 would need to spend an additional $25:,000 to withstand the floods. This
i,~d!vldual is now hindered from starting construction. Mr'. ¥'eager maintained that the
City should gamble here and allow development of the property - they w!ll be gambling
with their own money. Mr. Yeager reiterated stating the people who own land in this
fiood plaln should be permit:ted to develop the property in any way they want to.
£ha~rman Stewart asked Mr. Yeager to try no, to repeat: himself in his testimony·
Mr'. Yeager emphasized that he was just trying to get h~s point across and that to do
so requ!res repetition· He declared that a number of t;he c~t~zens of Chula Vista have
::rood before the Commission and fought [his flood zonir]g every inch of the way; he has
heard of no one outside of the County Engineer and a City employee who stated they
"r~eeded" this zoning. The State and Federal agencies state the C;ty must heve it,
but the citizens protests that they don"t want: it. Mr. Yeager a:;ked who the Commission
represents - if they represent the c tlzen,, then they should give them what they ask
for ·
Member Guyer asked where Mr. Yeager ~s property was in the
Mr'. Yeager refused to say, stating that he newt mentioned that he owned property in the
Valley - only that he lived at /+14 d Street and wes ~ citizen of Chula Vista that this
was an open meeting, and he dld not heve to re'late where his property was or enything
else for that matter.
There being no further comments, either for or against:, the hearing was declared closed. ~'~
Member York indiceted he was disappointed in t:he te~.timonies tonight -. nothing new was
brought in. They oniy heard ob'ec~io~j , ro the zorl~ng as such, and reiteration of
the previous arguments; no one has' contested the app!i'c~tion of the zone which is the
mar. ret being heard tonight, 6nd the method o¢ e~,tab!~shing these zone*. ~e added that
mo~t:,, or all, of the t:est~mony heard to;,~g~,~ has not been appurten~nf to the matter
under consideration tonight.
£hairman Stewart discussed one testimony whereby 't w~¢ tared that the Cfty was forced
~nro th~s action. He noted a subd v s~on rom ng into the Valley about 4 o¢ 5 years ago,
~)qd they had to build on pads which had to be b,oughf dp '.0 the 50~y6er flood level.
At that time, the need for a f*ood zoning w¢~ d','scussed for the Sweetv,~:-~t:er Valley to
control this sort of th~ng. Mr'. SLewert felt th6 pads built to with~;tand the 50-year
flood level were inadequate, but: it: we~ ~: :ompro~,i*e between th~ de~eloper and the
Lammis~ion. At that time, ~he ~:rgf* ~,a: ~,, r,, t~:d,, 3~ ~,,~ lJ E~ tr~e ii ,¥ Engineer, to
be'g~n studies of flood control i~* ~he Va]
Member York noted that the Commission has e re:~porFsJb~!it~ to citizens, outside of the
present property owners in the Val!ey t:o protect any area From flood. Another miscon-
ception, Member York pointed out, wes that: this stops bui Iding in the Valley - it does
not: the zoning has not been changed, and buildlng can continue in the E-2 zones with
certain restrictions that have been placed on it for safer:y, etc. Rather than being
:'oo soon with this, the City ~s perhaps too ]are) because the more eor~structlon you get
down there, the more aggravated the problem wi ii be when there ~s a Flood.
Mr. Yeager asked if he could question Member for'k. Chairman Stewar~ informed him that
t~e. hearing wes closed.
-8-
Member Adams declared that in view of what they had been through, that action on the
matter be deferred until the next meeting so that the Commission can compose themselves
and th~nk carefully about the testimony and the entire matter.
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Continue discussion on the matter to the meeting of December 5.
Mr. Pike apologized for s~ne of his previous actions at the meeting.
Member Guyer requested that the Planning Director gather any concrete information on the
F-2 zone - whether it affects any particular building. Chairman Stewart dec, red it
wouldn't ~ they would need a conditional use permit.
City Attorney Lindberg stated it should be understood that even under the F-2, there
will be variables as far as the effect of flooding. Conditional use permits permit
a flexibility of a more lenient application of the requirements depending upon the
circumstances. When applying for a permit in the F-2 zone, it would be expected that
the applicant would have to get together with the Engineer and the Planning Department
to determine what the situation is regarding his property. He would not proceed with
the development blindly, which is the same procedure used in any conditional use permit.
There is not intent here to reduce the value of property or to impose such burdens upon
the developers in this F-2 area to make development impossible.
Chairman Stewart discussed the testimony whereby it was stated there would be no
loans granted for these areas. Mr. Stewart claimed that as long as permitted land use
wasn't changed, there should be no difficulty in obtaining loans.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - John C. Mabee - Southwest Corner of Bonita Road and Allen
School Road - Reduction in Number of Required Parking Spaces
The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in the number of
required parking spaces for a proposed supermarket which will be located at the
southwest corner of Bonita Road and Allen School Road, a C-1-D zoned parcel. Director
of Plannln§ Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area, and adjacent land use. He
discussed the topography in the area, and said he had met with the developers and asked
t~em to try to retain the natural features in the area; the developer had indicated
that that was his desire. Mr. Warren then noted the building plans and recommended
approval as related to requirements of the "D" zone. In discussing the retaining wall,
he indicated that if it were built along the southerly property line, nothing would be
gained since it would have to be high and would probably create an engineering problem
and would not properly facilitate additional parking spaces.
Mr. Warren then outlined the proposed landscaping and the building elevation noting they
would have one entrance on Bonita Road and two on Allen School Road. He declared the
Commission should give consideration to the p!ot plan and the site control so that
the the applicant does not have to come back for this. Mr. Warren noted there were no
signs proposed at this time but discussed a possible sign on the facade of the store.
The conditions of approval were then outlined and discussed. Director Warren said these
were discussed with the applicant and the applicant stated they were acceptable.
Th~s being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Member Adams commented that he does not like to see the parking requirements reduced -
the requirements now are too iow for the standards of the future. He feels that the
businessmen are doing themselves a disservice ~n not providing adequate parking now.
However, in this particular case, Mr. Adams added, the features of the site - topo-
graphy, and the amount of land that has to be dedicated for street purposes - is
sufficient reason to give the applicant reasonable consideration of his request.
Mr. John Mabee, the applicant stated he will have eight employees, and they could park
e~ther on the premises or on the street. He discussed the required parking spaces
noting that in other areas where they have constructed similar markets, the ratio is
I to 3~ and even on the bus~est days:~ they find they have empty spaces~ that 2 to 1 ratio
for parking is adequate. Mr. Mabee indicated that: even if they cut the f!oor area by
!000 feet, they would not signlflcantly reduce the parking spaces required.
Member York asked Jf any consideration was given to a second story for' certain uses
in the building - that this would enable the app!icant to gain more spaces.
Mr. Mabee stated it wou!d have to be for office space only and under the present plans,
The office will be 6~ x 8~ and even with the rest rooms~ the total area needed would
be less than 200 feet making the second floor add!tion infeaslble.
Member Guyer asked the applicant ~f the conditions outlined by the Director of Planning
were acceptable. Mr. Mabee stated they were, but ~uestioned the proposed relocation
of the trash receptacle enclosure.
Mr. Warren explained this condition was put on before the revised p!an was in - it
was felt that the area outllned for trash was not large enough to serve their needs;
however, this was flexible as far as the s~:aff was concerned.
Member Gregson asked if more parking spaces cou!d be provided ~n the rear. Mr. Mabee
noted this would be impossible since the delivery trucks had to go in and out here.
There being no further comment, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Guyer noted that in this particular case, t~ere is a high bank~ the building
will set on th~ west property line and in view of the nice layout- compatible with
other structures in the area- he is in favor of the request.
MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Approval of variance subject to the fo!!ow~ng condlt~ons:
I. The trash area shal~ be relocated and e~!arged ~s shown on the s~af~ ~udy of the
plot pla~.
2. The east wall o~ ~he building sba1! be constructed of siump b!ock.
3. Parking on the south side of the properly ~ha!l be as Sho~n on the staff study.
4. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted to ~he Director of Planning for approval.
5o ~he fo~ street trees shown on ~he plan sha!l be subject to st~f~ approval and 25
gallons in size.
6. Planters shall be as shown on the eleven!ohs ~ ~ mi~mum of three courses of slump
blocks above the level of the pavement.
7. A 30-1nch high slump block wall as shown o~ the staf~ study shal! be erected at the
southeast corner of the property to separate the landscaping and parking areas.
8. Signs for the proposed building to be approved by the Director of Planning.
~inding~ be as fo!!ows~
!o That ~here are practica! differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning o~
O~d~nance No. 398 as amended whlc~ would resul~ in ~he s~r~ct compliance of ~he provisions
of s~id ordinance. So stated as dellnea~ed below.
2. ]'hat there are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
he~e~n involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property
or class of uses in the same zone. The irregular configuration of the lot and the
~-- presence of the slope at the southerly end of the parcel makes it difficult to accom-
modate a building such as that proposed with adequate loading areas and still provide
the required parking. This plan retains some of the natural character of this area.
This character and the mature Eucalyptus trees which would remain on the property
would have to be sacrificed to gain the additional spaces.
3. That granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial
property right of the applicant. The City is requiring that the applicant dedicate 10~
on both streets. If it were not for this dedlcation~ two additional spaces could be
provided on the northwest end of the property and four more spaces could be worked
in by changing from parallel to angle parking on the southeast end of the parcel.
4. the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property improveme~s in the zone or district in which
said property is located. The 10 % increase in the floor area of t~ building would
make no difference in the number of cars using the parking lot so no detrimental
effect would occur.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Frank J. McKenna ~- 40 Third Avenue - Increase in Number and
.~(~o~ ~.~.~ in "D" Zone
The application was read in which a request was made for permission to retain an existing
3"x15' freestanding sign at 40 Third Avenue which was erected in violation of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location. He also showed
a few picture~ taken of the site noting the existin9 signs. Mr. Warren declared that
the Comm~ss;on approved the freestanding sign of 50 square feet which the ordinance
allows ~n th~s zone. He then delineated the remainder of the signs on the site and
their sizes.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr'. Hubert Davies~ 309 Sea Vale, owner of the building housing a florist shop across
the street:, objected to the request stating there will be more signs than building
here, and that i~ does not add anything to the area.
Mr. Robert Norton, 321 Kimball Terrace, owner of property which runs through to Third
Avenue~ declared there was no need for any more s~gns in this vicinity - that with
the existing signs for the other numerous stores in the area, they have sufficient
d!:strac~ion
Mr. Frank Mc~enna, the applicant, stated he is leasing the buildlng, and that the
person who built the sign for thim told him there would be no objection to this sign
as long as they kept it under 6 feet ~n height. This particular sign provides 80 %
of: the business.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
,..D~rector Warren, for clarification purposes, indicated that the only sign approved by
the: Commission was the frees'tanding sign[ the variance is requested for the existing
~.ign on the front, and the signs painted on the building have not been approved.
~The Commission discussed the applicant's existing signs; Member York stating that it
was his understanding that the applicant was al'lowed 50 square feet of sign area, and
now he has all these other slons which is a clear example of the need for controlling
signs in Chula Vista. Mr. York declared that if the Commission doesn't start with this
particular site, t~y may as well forget about trying to regulate signs elsewhere.
Member Adams agreed, stating the applicant should bring his sig~s in conformance with
the ordinance.
C~alrman Stewart noted the staff's comments in that the advertising sign on the east
wa)l shall be removed or get a variance to retain those. He added that in view of these
comments and the fact that other signs in the area are non-conforming, he will go
along with the staff's recommendation that the requested sign be permitted up to a
period of six months.
Member Guyer maintained there were no exceptional circumstances in thls case. He is
directly across the street from t~ Department of Motor Vehicles from which he gets
most of his trade. He feels 50 square feet of sign area is sufficient.
Member York declared that granting this variance is opening the door to allow sign
manufacturers to tel! purchasers anything - true or not~ he can see no reason to grant
this particu!ar variance.
MSUC (York-Adams) Variance request be denied based on the fact that no exceptional
circumstances, as delineated in the Ordinance, could be found that would justify
granting the variance.
Chairman Stewart reminded the applicant that he has I0 days in which to appeal to
The City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Les Chateaux i Flair and Flair Annex Subdivision - Reduction in House Size from !300 Square Peet to 1213 Square Feet
~'he application was read in which a request was made fo- a reduction ~n house s~ze from
1300 square feet to 1213 square feet for an unspecified ~umber nE three-bedroom houses
in the 76 acre development north of Rienstra Street and west o~ Princess Manor Unit #]
and also the proposed Flair subd~vislon east of Interstate 805.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the inca,!on of the request.
Ne referred to a petition of protest submitted to the staff containing the signatures
of pine property owners. Mr. Warren then noted the app!icant's three different building
p!aps indicating that they did not specify any set number of these homes they propose
to build.
~h~s being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Richard Heady, representing the applicant, d~scussed the three proposed building
plans explaining the layout of each room and the size of each. he stated this
particular house was a best seller in many areas selling as high as $20,000 in areas
where they are next to homes sel]in9 for $27,500, and in the Mission Village area,
they are selling for $17,500. Mr. Heady declared he could see no place nor need to
add an additional 75 square feet which the ordinance requires. At the request of
Member York, Mr. Heady indicated the size of t~ bedrooms were 10½x9½, 9½x!2~ and
9xi]. The living room was 13½x17 and the family room ll½xl3½.
Mr. James Lovejoy, 290 E. Rienstra Street, stated he did not sign the petition of
protest because he was not at home when it was circulated. He declared that this would
be a "cracker-box" type of home which Chula Vista does not need~ and granting this
variance would start the precedent for such; it would be detrimenta! ~o the progress
of Chu!a VisTa; adjacent property would be subject to depreciation; and it is not in
the best interests of the City to grant this request.
~-~Member York questioned the size of the houses south of this area. Mr. Lovejoy
!ndicated the house sizes were approximately 1500 square feet - his particular home
contains 1575 square feet.
Director Warren noted that there have been variances granted for smaller Princess
Manor units - that some people? perhaps here tonight, may be living in these houses
approved by variance.
Mr. Ronald Sufana, 1435 Melrose, indicated that he was told to get signatures of only
those people living within 100 feet of the proposed variance request. He stated there
were many people living outside this area that oppose this request. Mr. Sufana added
that his home contains 1585 square feet, is two-.story, and that the applicant is planning
to build 68 of these small homes which will all be one-story. Princess Manor has tried
to eliminate this monotony by intermixing one and two story homes.
Mr. Heady declared the quality of their homes was "100 %" with F.R.A. In their entire
development, they will have !3 different elevations, up to a 4 bedroom home having
two stories and 1773 square feet. They definitely intend to upgrade this area.
Mr. Heady indicated that they will put in fireplaces in all the homes they de not
pre-sell, since this seems to be a good selling point.
T'here being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Rice remarked that he is concerned with the appearance of the homes in this
area; however~ he does not feel the architecture of the homes is the fact to be con-
sidered ~- the question before [hem is the size of the homes. If the square footage
as delineated in the ordinance is good, they should live with it, Mr. Rice declared;
iF it is no~, then the ordinance should be changed. He added that he felt this
variance ~hould not be granted.
Member Guyer noted that there were no exceptional circumstances.
Member ?ork stated there was no control whatsoever over the total number of these
homes chis applicant can build. The Commission established a criteria of 1300 square
feet for homes ~ith this many rooms.
Member Adams stated he agreed with all the comments - they should not allow any more
undersized houses than what the City now has. Ne added that there will be a total of
286 houses in part of this project, and as requested~ the entire project could be
undersized houses.
Mr. Heady s~:a~d *hat conforming to the ordinance was a technical point. They could
conform t:o ~he ~!~ding scale by cutting out the family room and calling it an
accessory room.
Director ~arren stated the ordinance reads that 1200 square feet is required for each
dwelling having 3 bedrooms or 2 bedrooms and den, family room or any other such room
designated ~or mlscellaneous purposes and 1300 square feet: for four bedrooms, or three
bedrooms and den, family room, etc. This falls under the intent: of the ordinance.
H~. Heaay claimed the ordinance should be re-w~tten - ~t was too vague.
NS~£ (Rice~'Adams) Variance request be den?ed based on the following:
!. There does not appear that any exceptional circumstances exist to justify the
granting of this request.
2. The variances approved for Princess Park Estates were granted on the grounds that
the area at that time was a dlfficu~t one to develop because of the abundance of
relatively small homes in the area, the deteriorated condition of some adjacent areas
and remoteness of the site. Now that th~s area has developed into a fairly substantial
community~ the need for th~s type of variance ~n the area no longer exists.
3. While the Flair Annex abuts Princess Manor Units I and 7 (both of which contain
undersized units) conditions which prompted the variance approva~ h~ve changed since
th~s area has had a great deal of development and has been upgraded to the point where
the need for further variances of this type have been negated.
4. Approval of this variance for the Flair Subdivision would set a precedent in this
area which would be most difficult to counteract. This is especially true in light of
the fact that this is the tract for which the C~ty approved a variance to reduce the
lot sizes in exchange for a portion of Pogg~ Canyon to be used for open space purposes.
The City expects to grant further variances of this type ~n order to obtain other
port~ons of th~s canyon, but if the subject variance ~s granted, de~/e!opers subdividing
this area would justifiably expect exceptions For howe size reductions as well as
reductions in lot size.
Chairman Stewart reminded the applicant that he has the right to appea! this decision
to the City Counci~ within 10 days~ if it ~s his desire.
PUBLIC HEARING: Specific Plan Lines - Tidelands Avenue and "E" Street, West: of
Interstate #5 ~
Chairman Stewart stated he received a telephone ca!l today from someone who asked that
this matter be continued for either 120 or 90 daysl that there were some negotiations
being discussed for this area which he couldn't reveal at this time '- even his name.
City Attorney Lindberg declared the matter could be continued for a reasonable length
of time; however, 90 days is a long period without having to re-advertise it.
Mr. Mitch Koteff, Attorney for Rohr Corporation, stated his corporation has been
working with both the Engineering Division and the Railroad to attempt To alleviate
the congested traffic condition at the offramps arid side streets west o¢ the freeway,
both for their purpose and the community. Par~ of this so!ut~on is the use oF Tidelands
Avenue. They do not have any strong objections to ~he continuance, but they do urge
the Commission not to delay the matter too long.
City A~torney L~ndberg suggested the mat~e~ be continued until the nex~ meeting, and
in the interim, check the matter out more thoroughly,
Chairman Stewart asked if a continuance of action for 90 days would interfere with
temporary means of getting from the present G Street alignment across ~:o F Street.
City Engineer Cole stated that in his opinlon, the continuance would not affect the
proposed construction schedule of the route between F and G Streets; that it: was
pretty well established. As far as the alignment from there on, which is the subject
of this hearing, it would have to start from where we intersect with this improvement:. ~'~
Soil tests indicate that the subterranean material is useless and wi11 not support a
street and the cost wll be almost double from what was inltial!y cons!deredo Mr, Cole
added that they are working for a temporary interim improvement that would aileviate
the problem immediately. Mr. Cole then pointed out on the map the proposed alignement
reiterating that the line from G to F Street is well established and from F Street on
to the mean high tide llne is the area under consideration tonight. The Port District
has indicated their approval of this alignment Mr. Cole indicated that if need be,
this Specific Plan Line could be amended with another public hearing.
Member Adams questioned whether there would be any danger of a 90 day postponement
interfering with the road. Mr. Cole said there was no way to know this.
Mr. Stewart contended that his phone call was from a reliable citizen and he indicated
what he had in mind was to the benefit of the City, but would necessitate a delay unt|l
February.
Mr. Cole remarked that this particular person who called obv]ously has something in
mind, and if someone is going to build a structure on the alignment, the City has the
option to hold up the building permit and make a determination of whether they want
to purchase the rJght-of-way. Th~ City cannot prevent them from building otherwise.
Director Warren indicated that it was conceivable that if th[s were approved by the
Commission tonight, the same plea could be made to the Council, and the Council could
then hold it up, if they so desire.
Member Gregson noted that if the alignment could be changed later on, he could see no
reason to hold this up.
Member Rice stated, as a matter of ethics, that he works for Rohr Corporation - that
he dldn't know whether the alignment of Tidelands was enough to have him abstain from
the motion. City Attorney Lindberg stated it was not.
~-~ 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.
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) The alignment of Tidelands Avenue and £ Street, west of Interstate
#5, as designated on Exhibit "A" be approved and recommended for adoption.
PUBLIC HEARING - Ordinance - Adoption of C-V (Visitor-Commercial) Zone and Establishing
__S i~te~P I an ~t ~?]~.._ ~m_m~ c_!.~ ~Z o~n~__
Director of Plannln9 Warren reviewed the proposed ordinance noting that certain areas
designated on the General Plan at freeway interchanges lend themselves to tourist-
commercial because of their location. For the past one and one-half years, the
Comm~sslon has been preparing a new zoning ordinance that follows the suggestions of
the General Plan and one of the zones is the C-V district. The Commission directed
the staff to take this particular section ouL of the new proposed ordinance and prepare
it for adoption. After several workshop meetings, the staff has come up with this
proposed ordinance.
Hr, Warren then delineated a few areas whereby this zone would be imposed. He declared
~hat what the ordinance does is to provide for areas in appropriate locations for the
construction of hotels, motels, restaurants, etc., - businesses that lend themselves
to the tourist trade. Director Warren then read parts of t~ proposed ordinance that
deal with the restrictions that would be imposed~ such as: landscaping, site control,
etc.
Fh~s being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
M~. Charles Brown, co-owner of the Cavalier Motel, 710 E Street, stated this was the
first time he was able to see this proposed ordinance, and asked fora continuance until
the next meeting so that he would have a chance to study it more thoroughly. He Ps ~-~
particularly concerned over the sign restrictions, and can't see why the City Ps so
restrictive Jn this matter. He, declared there were many places that need larger signs in
order to attract peop!e off the highway. Mr. Brown asked if his property on E Street
would be affected by this new ordinance.
Chairman Stewart ~ndlcated that he couJd not tell him, at this time, since most of the
problems encountered thus far have been those areas at the freeway interchanges. Me
added that there will be a public hearing preceding the actua! appiication of the zone.
Director Warren commented that Mr. Brown's property would be one that would probably
be considered for this new proposed C-V zone.
Mw. Brown asked that the new zoning ordinance define more clearly a motel, hotel~ and
ant:~que shop. He al~o asked how far in the future the new proposed zoning ordinance
would be ready. Chairman Stewart indicated it would be in the near future.
Mr. James McCormack, 789 E S/reet, declared this ordinance would put him out of business.
He Js in the auto-wrecking business. Chairman Stewart noted that this gentleman's
business was west of the freeway and it: would not app!y to him.
Director Warren explained that: Mr. Harding Campbell, who owns an auto-wrecking business
near this gentlemen's, had expressed ;nterest in tourist development and as a matter of
policy, the staff sent both gentlemen a copy of the notice.
MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Public hearing be continued until the meeting of December 5~ 1966.
SUBDIVISION - Final Map of Dalseth Hills, Unit #6
Pau! Manganelli~ A~oc~ate Planner, submitted ~he ~nal map of the ~ubdivi~ion noting
the location as the easterly terminus of M;llan S~reet, south of ,J Street, and west
of the proposed inland Freeway. The subdlv[sion w~ll contain 20 single-family lots and
is in generai conformance with the previously approved tentative map. He noted the
recommendations of the EngJneering Division0 and stated the staff recommends approval
based on these recommendations.
MSUC (Gregson-Rice) Recommend approval of final map o~ DaJse~h Hi!Is, Unit #6~ subject
to the following conditions:
i. l'he final map shall not be submitted for CounciJ action until all fees are paid and
all necessary bonds, deeds, slope rights and easements as required by the C~ty
Engineer have been deJ!vered to ~he CJcy.
2. The subdivider shall provide written evidence of having entered in~o an agreement
with Californla-Amer[can Water Company to provide wa~er within the subdiv[slon
prior to submission of the map for Council consideration.
REPORT OF FINDINGS - Appeal by M. Lassman, C. Larson, and W. Shaw of Commission Action
Granting Request for Setback Reduction to Sentlne! Savines and
Loan - Lo~ 3 - Ro~an H!!ls
Associate Planner Manganell~ expialned that an appeal has been fi!ed of the Commlss~on
approval of the ~etb~ck reduct:ions in Rogan H~lIs for the construction o{ a dwe!l~ng.
The report of findings was read.
MSUC (Gbyer-Adams) Approval of the repor't of findings to be forwarded to the City
Council.
RESOLUTION - Commending Bruce Johnson for Services as Planning Commissioner
RESOLUT'~ON NO. 433 Reco!ut~on of the Plann;ng Commission of the City of Chula
MSUC (Guyer-Cregson) V~sta Commending Bruce A. Johnson for Services on the
Planning Commissio~
Work:shop Meeting
A%3c~ate P!anner Mangane!i[ noted the next workshop meet:ing wi11 be held on Monday,
November 28, !966. Mr. Sydney Williams wi~i be down and the meeti~ will start at
3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., r'eo~nvenJng at 7 p.m.
ADJOURNMENt
MSUC (York-Rice) Meeting adjouro to the workshop meeting of November 28, 1966 at 3 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at t0:30 p.m.
Respect:fully submitted,
· Fdlssz~
Secretary