HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/09/20 - ORIGINAL
MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
September 20, 1965
The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista was
held on the above date at 7 P.M., in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center with
the following members present: Stewart, Johnson, Vaden and Adams. Absent: Members
Stevenson and Guyer. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Terrell,
City Attorney Lindberg and Principal Engineer Harshman.
In the absence of Chairman Stevenson, Vice-Chairman Stewart presided over the
meeting.
STATEMENT
The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of
adjournment, as provided by law, the order of the Commission for the adjourned
meeting of September 8, 1965.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Adams-Vaden) Minutes of September 8, 1965, be approved as mailed.
REZONING - PUBLIC HEARING: Southwest Corner Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road -
Interim C-1 to C-1-D and Establishment of 10' Setback
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed
rezoning, the adjacent land use and zoning. The area encompasses 8.34 acres and
is zoned interim C-l, as it was brought in from the County. A hearing was held to
consider permanent R~3 zoning two meetings ago; however, the Commission voted to
schedule a new hearing on it to consider C-1-D zoning. The proposed setbacks would
be 10 feet along Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. L4oyd Lee, owner of the property, stated this was taken into the City as C-l,
the same zoning he enjoyed in the County, and that he did not know it was interim-
zoned until he was so notified about two months ago. He stated the City repre-
sentatives had promised it would remain C-1.
There being no further comment, e~ther for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Vaden declared the Commission should speak out and state what their feelings
are on the rezoning, that they should not let any personal feelings guide them, but
only that use as designated on the General Plan and good zoning principles.
Member Johnson declared there were no people objecting to this portion of the General
Plan at the hearings held. He real~zed commitments may have been made by a Committee
meeting with these people in the Valley reassuring them that their property would
be annexed to the City with the same zone they presently have in the County; how-
ever, he felt the Commission should now take into consideration whether there is a
need for additional C-1 zoning in this area.
Member Adams agreed adding that the interest of the community should be considered
abov~ that of any one individual, and that they should recommend the zoning they
-1-
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Johnson noted the Fo]]owlng changes in the m~nutes: In re9ard to the public
hearln9 for permanent zonin9 thai property at Bonita Road and Otay Lai<es Road,
Member Johnson stated he voted "No" for this continuance off the hearln9. On page 4,
Member Johnson seconded the motion approvln9 the conditional use permit, not Member
Comstocl< as stated. Member dohnson then noted a separa[e motion which he asked to
be inserted:
MSUC (dohnson-Vaden) Recormlend to City Council that all plans for any future C~ty
bul]din9 sites be originated with the City Piannin9 Comniission before the sight is
selected.
MSUg (Johnson-Adams) Minutes of September 20, 1965, be approved, as corrected,
feel is appropriate today. He suggested the corner be permanently zoned ¢-1 or C-2
and the remainder of the area R-3 with whatever density the Commission determines
is appropriate.
Vice-Chairman Stewart stated he had two or three elements he wished to review: that
there was a meeting between the people in the Valley and the Committee and they
made a gentlemen's agreement with the people (nothing was done in writing) to bring
in their property as they had it presently zoned. There is now commercially zoned
property in the area, but since this proposed area was annexed, the City has brought
in approximately 18 to 20 acres of land which they zoned for commercial use, knowing
that this particular area already had a commercial classification. Mr. Stewart felt
that in all honesty and honoring the commitment made to this property owner, his
land should be left in the same zoning. He added they shouldn't deviate from the
General Plan unless there is good reason, and he felt this was good reason.
Member Vaden questioned whether it was necessary to take it out of the interim zoning.
Director Warren stated the property has been in this interim zoning much longer than
it should have been. Ordinarily, when any land is annexed to the City, it comes in
with an interim-R-1 zoning; however, in this case, this particular parcel was pre-
zoned C-1. This was done at the request of the property owners at the time of
annexation.
Member Adams remarked he had no desire to "railroad" this through; that there are
two members absent tonight, and in order to give this a fair chance, perhaps it
should be continued until the next meeting when there will be a full Commission.
Member Johnson questioned whether this~me theory would apply to the other items
on the agenda. Member Adams said if they were controversial, then they should also
be continued.
City Attorney Lindberg stated this should be done only at the request of the
applicants. He then explained the procedure on the variances, statlng the Commission
had final action on these applications; that action would require a unanimous vote
by those present, but that the applicants had the right of appeal, if their appli-
cations were denied. He added it was the applicants' decision whether or not they
wished their hearings postponed until such time as there would be a full Commission.
Mr. Lloyd Lee, the applicant, stated he wished to have his hearing continued until
the next meeting, when there will be a full Commission.
MSUC (Adams-Vaden) Public hearing be continued until the meeting of October 4, 1965.
Report of Staff Study - Zoning Pattern East of Broadway between "K" Street and
Sierra Way
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed
rezoning, and adjacent land use. At the previous meeting, a request was considered
to zone a portion of this block (825 Broadway) from R-1 to C-2. Following the hearing,
the Commission tabled action until the meeting of October 4, and asked the staff to
study a more reasonable zoning pattern for the entire block, after which a new hearing
would be called for October 4. Mr. Warren continued stating the staff has met with
the property owners and the representatives involved, and discussed several different
zoning patterns. A plastic was then shown delineating four different zoning patterns
for the block.
Mr;' Warren discussed each pattern, stating the staff would recommend the first
pattern which incorporates C-2 zoning for that area requested at the last meeting,
also for the adjacent nursery - this would run to a depth of 620 feet. Also on
this block, that property immediately south of "K" Street would be rezoned to C-2
to a depth of 370 feet and the remainder of the parcel to R-3. The staff feels this
would allow the best utilization of the land, as a density control could be exercised
and the "D" could be attached.
Vice-Chairman Stewart cautioned agalnst setting an arbitrary depth of commercial
zoning. He added that if the highest zoning is set for public hearing, less can be
granted.
Director Warren reminded the Commission that action will be taken also on October 4
on the request at 825 Broadway, held over from the last meeting.
Member Adams felt that action should not be taken on the nursery property - this
should be held until such time in the future when the best use for it can be deter-
mined. Director Warren commented that this sounds logical, because the use as a
nursery (C-2) can continue as long as it wants to; however, the staff has received
a letter requesting their property be rezoned to C-2 and that a formal application
will follow if not considered at this time.
RESOLUTION NO. 377 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Stating Their
MSUC (Johnson-Adams) Intent to Set for Public Hearing on October 4, 1965 to
Consider Rezoning and Establishment of New Setbacks for
the East Side of Broadway Between "K" Street and Sierra Way
CONDITIOHAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING: Calvary Baptist Church of Chula Vista -
- 2703 Bonita Road - Addition to Existing Church in R-1 Zone
The application was read in which a request was made to construct an addition to
the present church building at 2703 Bonita Road. The addition will contain approxi-
mately 1800 square feet and will be used for classrooms. The staff would recommend
that the parking area be paved and spaces marked and that some form of landscaping
be done, such to be approved by the Director of Planning.
Member Johnson discussed a traffic accident at this location which resulted in a
death over a year ago, and wondered whether any consideration was given to the added
traffic this construction will generate. Director Warren stated a study was not made
concerning this particular case, and that it was certainly an area of concern in that
it was at the extension of "E" Street and will be close to the interchange. The
accident was probably not caused by any design problems of the area, however.
Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, related how Bonita Road was widened up to a
portion of this frontage, then it narrows down, and this perhaps might have been con-
tributory to that accident. Only until such time as Bonita Road is widened to four
lanes will it be safer than it is now. Mr. Harshman added that when this is done,
however, there will be a certain amount of conflict because the church will be lower
than the road. He felt the grade should be coordinated with the road.
Vice-Chairman commented that many churches provide traffic control during the time of
services.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared opened.
Mr. Guy Bradley, Pastor of the Church, stated the accident under discussion happened
two years ago and prior to the widening of the road. He discussed a proposed parking
-3-
layout they are contemplating which would have the ingress on the east side of
the church and possible egress on the west side. This would have to be worked out.
Director Warren suggested the Commission leave this to the staff for approval.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Adams declared there was no difficulty with this at all - it is routine, and
the Commission should leave the parking to be worked out with the Engineering and
Planning Staffs.
MSUC (Vaden-Comstock) Conditional Use Permit be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the building area and parking lot be landscaped and that detailed land-
scape plans be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval.
2. That the parking lot and access to Bonita Road be coordinated with the Engineering
and Planning Departments prior to construction.
Findings be as follows:
1. That granting this conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare. The only factor involved would be the volume
of traffic, and the site fronts on a major street, and because of its proximity to
the proposed freeway and adjacent uses, whatever increase in the volume of traffic
might result, should in no way affect the use of Bonita Road. The addition is also
one which should cause no significant increase.
2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types
of use permitted in the surrounding areas. Its proximity to the interchange and
the R-3 zoning across the street substantiate this, and it would be an expansion
taking place on an existing church property.
Request for Deferral of Public Improvements - Calvary Baptist Church - 2703 Bonita Rd.
A letter was read from the Calvary Baptist Church requesting a deferral of public
improvements.
A letter from the Division of Engineering was read in which they recommended the
deferral since installation was considered impractical at this time in that the
design of the 805 Freeway and its interchange with Bonita Road has not been com-
pleted. They requested that a bond be posted to guarantee installation.
MSUC (Adams-Comstock) Approval of request for deferral of public improvements,
subject to the following:
1. That a lien, bond, or cash deposit in the amount of $4,550.00 be posted at the
time the building permit is issued to guarantee installation in the future of curb
and gutter, sidewalk, driveway approaches and shoulder paving as generally shown on
Dwg. No. 63-35L on file in the office of the City Engineer.
2. That installation of improvements will begin thirty (30) days following receipt
of written notice from the City Engineering Department.
-4-
VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Safeway Stores~ Inc.~ - South Side of Palomer Street~ East of
Third Avenue~ - Reduction of Setback in C-2 Zone
The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in front yard
setback from 25 feet to zero for the purpose of erecting a sign tower on Third
Avenue, south of Palomar Street, and a sign on Palomar Street, east of Third Avenue.
Mr. Warren showed pictures of the proposed sign tower which will in section, approx-
imate 245 square feet.
Mr. Warren remarked that the City has now, under study, a new zoning ordinance
which will set up various development standards for commercial property, not now
required. It will require landscaping, site plan review, etc. Regarding this
site, he stated he discussed with the architects some form of landscaping for this
development and that the architects agreed to this. The staff would like to see
a planter around the base of the sign, and they should also be encouraged to put
in a five foot landscaped strip along the Third Avenue and Palomar Street frontages.
At this time, Vice-Chairman Stewart again cautioned any applicant in the audience
that the Commission was short three members, and anyone desiring that this hearing
be postponed until there is a full Commission has the right to request it now.
City Attorney Lindberg stated they also have the right to appeal the decision to
the Council.
Mr. Berenson, representing Chula Vista Center, 360 "F" Street, asked that his
variance be postponed until the next meeting.
MSUC (Vaden-Adams) Item (c) Variance - Dr. Albert Klug, C. V. Center, 360 "F"
Street, be postponed until the meeting of October 4, 1965.
This being the time and place as advertised for the hearing regarding Safeway
Stores, Inc., the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Alan Sapp, representing Safeway Stores, Inc., discussed the proposed signs
stating the one for Palomar Street would be much smaller than the one for Third
Avenue; it will simply state: "Free Parking While Shopping at Safeway", and it will
be double-faced. As to the landscaping, Mr. Sapp stated they will agree to put in
the landscaping around the signs; however, as to the five-foot strip along the
parking areas, he said he couldn't answer that as it might be taking away some of
the parking spaces. There is a slope there, and in all probability, there will be
some landscaping on this. Mr. Sapp asked that this condition not be imposed if it
would delay construction of the store, or a major revision of the site plan.
Director Warren declared that there would be no reason to delay construction of the
store; that this could be worked out with the staff and the parking could be revised,
if necessary, with no problem. He added that the staff would certainly work to eliminate
any requirement that would have to move the building or even eliminate some of the
parking spaces. In talking recently with the architect of the project, he assured
the staff that there was ample room on the area for adequate landscaping.
Member Vaden questioned the plans for the rear of the property that adjoins the R-3
development. Mr. Sapp stated he did not have the answer to this but presumed there
would be a fence or wall there. Director Warren commented that the City does not
have a site control ordinance; however, there is one in the new zoning ordinance.
Member Johnson questioned whether there would be any additional identification signs.
Mr. Sapp stated there will be two on the store front with the "S" insignia ~ similar
to the one on the Third Avenue store. The store building will be set back approxi-
mately 200 feet.
Director Warren remarked that the adjacent service station will not be allowed moving
or flashing signs, and they would make the same recommendation for this store.
Mr. Sapp commented that there is a revolving "S" on the top of the sign. Director
Warren explained that one moving sign is not significant by itself; however, a
combination of moving or flashing signs becomes objectionable and such a situation
could develop along this street.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Member Adams suggested they not allow the zero setback but that they recommend 5 feet
and to specify that no part of the sign be allowed to overhang the right-of-way.
This applies to both signs. Member Johnson pointed out the landscaping condition.
MSUC (Vaden-Adams) Approval of conditional use permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. The reduction of setback be approved from 25 feet to 5 feet for the base of the
signs.
2. The base of the proposed signs to be placed in a planter with some form of
attractive landscaping with no overhang beyond the property line.
3. That a five foot (5') planting strip be placed along the Third Avenue and
Palomar Street frontages between the parking bays and sidewalk; a detailed landscape
plan to be approved by the Planning Director.
Findings be as follows:
1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of
Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the
provisions of said ordinance.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property
or class of uses in the same zone. Historically, setbacks in commercial zones have
not restricted the placing of signs beyond them, but instead have been provided
primarily to keep buildings back from the sidewalk. Most properties along Third
Avenue allow signs either on or near the property line.
3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial
property right of the applicant. Without the variance, the applicant is deprived
of a manner of advertising found all along Third Avenue, and since the building is
placed w~ll back from the street, it is necessary to have some identifying features
near the street.
4. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said
property is located, since this entire stretch along Third Avenue will be developed
-6-
commercially, and the sign would in no way interfere with public and motor vehicle
safety or right-of-way use.
PUBLIC HEARING: S. Muraoka - 115 W. Qulntard Street - M-1 Use in R-3 Zone
Application was read in which a request was made to use the existing non-conforming
packing shed located at Il5 W. Quintard Street for warehouse facilities, an M-1 use
on property zoned R-3.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent
land use. He stated the packing shed has not been used for anything for the past
two years according to the applicant, and that now the applicant has a specific use
in mind for leasing this building.
Director Warren then discussed the adjacent land use; trailer park to the west, the
Junior High School to the north, and the residential zoning to the east.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Saburo Muraoka, the applicant, stated the packing shed was built in 1951 and
~n 1960, they made the addition. The mobile trailer park was developed in 1963.
He added that he has been a resident for 50 years and is giving up farming and
going into business. He then introduced the proposed lessee of the packing shed,
stating they would like to have the variance approved for a period of five years.
Mr. John Wittingham, representing Chevron Chemical Company, declared he would be
the one leasing the property; that he has had the same business at 360 Center Street
fQr the last three years, and have had no problems there. The merchandise consists
of fertilizers, and liquids used for gardening purposes; there are no odors con-
nected with this merchandise. Trucks will be delivering items from this warehouse
to local farms. They plan to employ two persons. Occasionally, there will be a
customer or two who will come to the warehouse to buy some of this merchandise.
The distribution of inflammable items would be limited by the Fire Department.
Mr. Roy Muraoka, son of the applicant, stated he felt the use would be the best for
the area, in comparison to the former use - processing of vegetables, which they
could resume anytime. Vice-Chairman Stewart informed Mr. Muraoka that this couldn't
be done, since the shed was now non-conforming and the use it discontinued for over
a year, and in order to use it again, they would have to apply for a variance.
Mr. Stewart also questioned whether the area around the shed would be cleaned-up;
that there was now a mass of debris and weeds there. Mr. Muraoka stated they probably
will clean it up.
Mr. Wittingham declared there would be trucks coming in once a week, or once a month,
depending on the need, delivering chemical fertilizers; this is the same type of
material that one can buy in any garden shop.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
The Commission dlscussed the proposed business, and Member Adams felt it would be
poor planning to permit this industrial use to go into this particular area; that the
shed has been abandoned for a similar type of use and it would be unwise to permit the
use to go in again. Member Johnson agreed adding that its close proximity to the
mobile home park was another factor against it.
-7-
MSUC (Johnson-Vaden) Request be denied based on the fact that the proposed use
(as stated by the Chevron Chemical Company representative) would create additional
traffic foreign to residential areas; the shed is now non-conforming and should be
eliminated; the proposed use would not be compatible with the surrounding residential
area.
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Proposed Ordinance Establish
.i.n9 Architectural Review
Director of Planning Warren stated this was continued from the last meeting because
the Commission desired to hold a workshop meeting to discuss proposed changes and
previous comments; this workshop meeting was held on September 15, 1965. Following
this workshop session, it was the general concensus that there were further changes
the Commission wanted to consider and felt that this public hearing should once again
be continued and another workshop session held.
This being the time and place as advertised, the continued hearing was declared open.
Mr. Robert Miles, owner of Miles Construction Company, stated he has an office on
"E" Street, has been there for 15 years, and a builder for 20 years. He declared
the proposed ordinance was a "slap" at the builders who have built fine homes in
the City, and it was instigated by a few "bad apples". He served on the Mayor's
Committee, and after holding numerous meetings, they concluded that there really was
no feasible way of administering architectural control. They feel they have more
than enough restrictions now with the F.H.A, V.A., lenders, etc., and that further
restraint is not justified. Mr. Miles discussed the lender's part in a development
- that the builder must build a better house and not especially one for the high-
income bracket. The Committee felt that they would like to see some form of
voluntary architectural control, but nothing as comprehensive as this proposed
ordinance.
Member Adams commented that Mr. Dalseth presented this proposal to the City Council
as a recommendation from this committee. Mr. Miles remarked this was a mis=
understanding; that their report did not suggest what this ordinance proposes.
Director Warren clarified that the Committee's report recommended that an Architectural
Board of Review be established; that this ordinance was prepared at the direction of
the City Council.
Member Johnson, referring to the Master Plan, noted a citizen's committee recom-
mendation that an architectural board be established.
Mr. Miles declared the proposed ordinance was not the answer. He felt that the goal
should be compatibility of housing types and design within any given area. City
Attorney Lindberg pointed out the City is not looking for $50,000 homes next to an
area where $10,000 homes are built. Mr. Miles further commented that times are such
that a builder cannot build a substandard home; if they do this, they are out of
business. Referring to the Board, he wondered how far the City proposes to go and
where would it all end?
Member Vaden questioned Mr. Miles about the "D" zone as presently administered.
Mr. Miles said he was not in favor of it; felt it was too restrictive in many areas.
He added that this proposed ordinance was premature; that they are coming to the
situation where they may have to organize a more positive approach to this problem
and until such time, it should be left to solve itself.
-8-
Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that if, as Mr. Miles suggested, the situation should
be left to the voluntary control of individuals, how would he prevent a recurrence
of some of the things that have happened.
Director Warren remarked that a builder such as Mr. Miles should have nothing to
fear from this proposed ordinance; that at best, it will be something to cause a
developer to think and put more preparation into his building plans, and that the
Board would probably not reject the plans of a conscientious builder.
Mr. Miles then discussed this control over the lower-priced subdivisions stating that
under normal circumstances, these subdivisions would have proved themselves out with-
out this control; that architectural control would not have prevented the problems of
this development; that the Commission should think of this in comparison to the
economy.
Mr. Myron Dalseth, 114 Guava Avenue, stated he was chairman of this Mayor's Com-
mittee. He stated the substance of the Committee as a whole was pin-pointed to
one or two subdivisions in the City, and this is the reason why the Committee
recommended an architectural board of review; they felt it would help eliminate
this type of subdivision. However, the proposed ordinance that was presented
does not represent their recommendation at all; it is "far and beyond" what the
Committee initially proposed to the City Council.
Mr. George Warwick, 661 Myra, Creaser Realtors, and developer of Hilltop Heights
subdivision, stated that, as he sees it, it is the Board who will have the final
choice - the builder will be only "guessing" when he makes his plans. Mr. Warwick
spoke of not being able to build an inexpensive home today, because of the FHA
standards, the lender's standards, etc., that a builder would just not be able to
get any financing for it. He discussed the "D" zone and stated that in another
municipality, he had trouble with this restriction. He had to redesign his plans
eight times before it was accepted by the Board; this also took 8 months. With
this "D" zone, you have to have f~nal drawings and plans, and then it could be
changed by the Board, and this could be quite expensive.
The Commission discussed the qualifications of the people sitting on this Board;
Member Johnson felt they should be very well qualified people; Member Vaden sug-
gested they not be members of the Planning Commission, and Member Adams stated it
would be very desirable to have one or two members of the Planning Commission sitting
on this Board.
A date for the workshop session was discussed, and it was concluded that a date be set
up as soon as possible, early next week, since this ordinance has been pending for
a long time.
Request for Approval of Sign - Bonita Plaza Shopping Center in C-1-D Zone - Yavorsk¥
.~.ealty
Director of Planning Warren stated this concerns one of the signs that will be in-
stalled in the Bonita Plaza Shopping Center in Bonita. The sign measures 4' x 6'
and it appears that it will extend above the parapet. The staff has received no
information as to the material or how it will be lighted.
Mr. John Yavorsky, the applicant, declared his proposed sign is a plastic sign, will
be interior lighted, and will fit flush on the parapet. The parapet is a little over
4 feet, so the sign will not extend beyond it; the sign will be 9" deep.
Director Warren stated the ordinance provides that the Commission may approve up to 50
square feet per business establishment. Mr. Warren remarked that he discussed this
with Mr. Helmuth, and that he had questioned whether any thought was given to uniform
signs for the Center. Mr. Helmuth said they had not; however, he felt Mr. Yavorsky's
sign should be redesigned and planned to discuss it with him. Mr. Warren added that
this building is in the "D" zone, which gives the Commission site plan review,
architectural review, landscaping, etc. The style of the building has been made to
conform with that of the adjacent commercial center, and the Commission should give
some thought to compatibility of signs.
Vice-Chairman Stewart declared the signs in this Center should be coordinated through
the developer in order to contain some similarity without having a "hodge-podge".
Member Adams felt no sign in this Center should be 4 feet high if it is to be located
on the parapet; the maximum should be about 2½ feet in order to have a good propor-
tion.
Director Warren commented that it was unfortunate that the architect did not design
signs for the Center, because if signs are applied without discretion, it will
detract from style established. It is very important that the developer decide
what he wants or he will be having trouble from now on.
MSUC (Adams-Johnson) Commission not take action on this request; staff is directed
to get together with the developer to try to reach some agreement concerning the
proportion and design for the signs to be used in the Center. This matter to be
brought before the Planning Commission meeting of October 4, 1965.
P. lannln~ Commission Recommendation - Proposal to Acquire Site for New Police Station
.... Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the pro-
posed site, which encompasses 3.6 acres and is east of Third Avenue between "K"
and "L" Streets. He remarked that the Police Department and Administration have
been studying sites now for at least a year or longer and have consulted with the
Planning staff and have concluded that this site is the most appropriate for their
needs. It is zoned C-2 and lies vacant. The City Council has given its informal
approval of this site, and referred it to the Planning Commission for recommendation.
The Police Department has been seeking a site that will be centrally located and
still be related to the heart of the City and accessible to the residential areas,
and "L" Street will be a prime arterial. The Planning staff feels that this particular
site has shortcomings, but before elaborating on this, Mr. Warren asked that Chief
Winters expound upon the reasons why they chose this site.
Chief William Winters explained that they investigated 8 sites and this particular
site was felt to be the best for their needs. There are disadvantages, he admitted,
in separating the Police Department from the Civic Center, but mainly this is one of
communications. It should be removed from the congested Civic Center area and
better serve the public if it is.
Member Vaden questioned the Chief about any proposed substations. Chief Winters
declared these were expensive and not necessary in his opinion, in many major
cities: Fort Worth, Dallas and Oakland, for instance, they have but one sub-station;
in Chicago, they have closed a number of their substations in the last 5 years.
Capt. Virgil Seiveno, discussed a few of the sites under selection, one of which was
the Mayfalr site on Third Avenue. This was discounted because of its close proximity
to the church and school; it was felt it would be a traffic hazard.
-10-
Member Vaden questioned whether the economic factor entered into their decision.
Capt. Seiveno declared not as a major item; however, it wes still considered.
From the very first, he added, this particular site was recommended by them. It
provides them with the best possible access, and as the City developes in accordance
with the General Plan, this will improve. They will not utilize Sierra Way, as there
is a gulley there. The planned construction for the station will be within five
years, according to the City Administrative Officer.
Director Warren indicated that as he pointed out before, it is a matter that has
been studied for sometime by the Police Department, end they have approached it
from a different aspect than Planners would. The site has been approved by the
City Council aEd the Chief Administrative Officer.
Vice-Chairman Stewart noted that because of the adjacent residential development,
the "D" zone should be imposed in order to give the Commission a chance to approve
the plans. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission, by State law, has
the privilege of reviewing the plans.
Member Adams declared that if the City Council wants the Commission to make a
recommendation, a study should first have been made by the Commission. He felt a
site closer to the Civic Center complex would be more feasible. Member Johnson
agreed, however, he added the desires of the Police Department should possibly
take preference over the recommendations of the Commission.
Capt. Seiveno related how the Department made a thorough study of the situation,
contacting other Police agencies throughout the State, and on one occasion, visited
the Los Angeles Police station. Here they discussed parking facilities with the
Deputy and were told they were razing an adjacent $400,000 building in order to
give this Department the parking area they need. Capt. Seiveno stated that three-
quarters of the site will be utilized for parking; therefore, the building will be
a multi-story one.
Vice-Chairman Stewart reminded the Commission that they had not been asked to choose
a site, only for a recommendation on the proposed site.
Following discussion, Director Warren commented that if the process of referral, as
delineated in the State Planning laws and General Plan is to be effective, then the
City Council should refer s~ch matters to the Commission for study and recommenda-
tion early in the game.
MSUC (Johnson-Vaden) Approval of site with the request that plans for the develop-
ment be coordinated with Planning and other related City staffs, and that such
plans be submitted for Commission review prior to any construction.
Transit Study
Member Vaden discussed the transit study stating this is a Planning Matter as well as
anything else, and that he felt the Planning Commission and staff should be advised
of what is going on. They should be involved in the formation of such a District.
MSUC (Vaden-Johnson) Recommend to City Council that the transit study should be re-
ferred to the Planning Commission for study.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Johnson-Vaden) Meeting adjourn sine die with a recommendation that a workshop
session be set up for the early part of next we~k.
./~ctfully submitted,
~//dennie M. Fulasz, Secretary ~