Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/01/04 M~NUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 4, 1967 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, with the following members present: Stewart, Rice, Adams, Guyer, York, Hyde, Gregson. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, C~ty Attorney Lindberg, City Engineer Cole and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Rice-Adams) Minutes of December 19, 1966, be approved as mailed. NEW MEMBER WELCOMED Chairman Stewart introduced and weicomed the new member to the Commissilo~, Mr. W~ll T. Hyde. PUBLIC HEARING: Prezoning - Poggi Canyon Annexation No. 2 - R-1 Director of Planning Warren noted the location of the area as a rectangular-shaped vacant 20-acre parcel of unzoned land located east of the proposed inland Freeway, south of Greg Rogers Park, and abutting the northeast boundary of the recently approved Flair Subdivision. He stated that the northerly lO acres will be purchased for an elementary school site, and the southerly In acres will be developed with singleIfam[ly lots. This being the ~me ann place as advertised:, the public hearing was opened. There being no commect, e~her for or agains~ Lhe hearing was decJa~cd closed. The Commission discussed the request, and Member Adams commented That the prezon~ng was appropriate for this area as it relates to exls:ing and proposed development. RESOLUTION NO. 4~! Resolu~ior, of the City Planning Commission Recommending to MSUC (Adams-Guyer) the City Council the Prezoning to R-] of t~e Pogg~ Car¥on A~nexat~o~ No. 2 The Commission requests that it b~ adopted w~th an emergency ordinance. Findings are as Fo~!ow~: 1. The northerly lO acre parcel is being reserved for an elementary school site while single-family residential development is contemplated for the southerly 10 acres. 2. The General Plan designates this area as medium density residential. 3. The Planning Commlssion~ City Council, and Local Agency Formation Commission recently approved the annexation of this property to the City and such prezonlng is necessary to prevent the annexation of unzoned property. PUBLIC HEARING: Prezonlng - West Side Vista Drive~ South of Bonita Road - Frank Ferrei - Ei1 to C-2 ' The appllcatlon was read in which a request was made to prezone to C-2 property fronting on the west side of V~sta Drive approxlmately 330 feet south oF Bonita Road, Director oF Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and explaining that it is presently County-zoned E-1 (slngle-Family resldentlal~ one acre lots) and is unimproved. Mr. Warren then noted the topography of the site° and the proposed 805 Freeway and Interchange. He explained that this would be, according to the General Plan, the first entrance to the City of Chula Vista and tour~st-orlented commercial development should be capitalized upon here; however, it was felt that this wou!d be restaurants, motels, and other allied uses. Although the alignment for the freeway has been pretty well established, no right-of-way has been purchesed so there is no assurance that the Freeway will be constructed as projected. Chalrman Stewart noted that the area between this parcel and 8onlta Road is in the County. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing ~=s opened° Mr. Frank E. Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita~ commented ~ha~ !~ his calk w?th the Director of P]anning, he was informed that the staff felt th~s request was premature. He explained his reasons for the request stating that he would like to sta,~ now and master plan the whole development. A portion of the area south of this parcel wi!l be purchased by the State and since the rest of it will become landlocked~ the State wil] have to purchase the entire s~te. The C-2 zoning would be we~l-ioca~ed in this area as it would serve as a buffer between the Freeway and the Ri3 zoned property to the west. Mr. Ferreira then noted on the General Plan Map the area in questlo~ ~d ~ndicated that the only shopping facilities projected to serve !e'~dent~ ~i' '~)' area four miles apart; the commercial area here would serkzf~ ire loo~k~il~ ~r~d ~il ao~acer~t areas. It takes a great deal of money to master-pier, ~,r~ o? ~ especially if it is going to be planned Jn an order'~y fac~i~¢o ~l tha~ ~o engage an architect and engineering firm would take thousd,,~ of d,3!i,~'~ Q, eaL deaI of time .- something that cannot be done this year, or next yea!~ but would pclh~ps ~eke two to three years. Mr. Ferrelra added that he doesn't war:[ to p,~[ our '-. S20,000 to $40,000 as a retainer to initiate this plan ~f he mig,[ ~'o~ ~ r ~, i zu: There being no further comment, either for or against~ the ~earing w).- decl?ed closed. Member York questioned the area to the south ,of rh~< p~C(~o ~, ' " = ~taTed the area will be Jand!ocked because of the tight-oi-~v~, ~,;~, ~ :md sequently, the State will purchase the entire site. ~e discussed this with the State and they indicated they would negotiate with him for the area in exchange for the land he will be losing when putting in the frontage road. If he gets th~s area from the State, he will have a total of 22 acres and he plans to master-plan the entire site. He added that it was predicated on his being able to get the C-2 zoning. Member York asked if there was any emergency about this other than wanting to get the project started. Mr. Ferrelra stated he is in escrow at the present time w~ich was supposed to close the end of last month. Member York then questioned the access that the southerly landlocked lots would have; Mr. Ferrelra stated that ultlmate]y ~t would be through his property although currently they all have access by driveway to Road. Chairman Stewart questioned whether any right-of-way was purchased by the State for th~s area. Mr. Warren stated that to h~s knowledge, none had been purchased. Mr;Stewart fe~t ~t was not ~n the public interest to prezone this area to C~2 since no freeway alignment has been definitely established and no r~ght-of-way purchased, and there is a real good chance, because of the economy sltuation~ that the construction of this freeway will be ~urther away than contemplated. Mr. Stewart declared that the Commission shouid take into consideration the whole surrounding area of the ~nterchange and not ~'spot zone" a p!ot of land here and there - that they could have as much as 30 acres zoned commer~ cially in this area. He remarked that the Commission would find themselves in the ~ame position as w~en they approved the zoning for the Halecrest ShoppJng Center, which ]and is stili vacant and the pressure ~s on for rezonlng adjacent to Jto He added that he is not in favor of rezoning this property until the State purchases some r~ght-ofiway. Member Guyer questioned whether the County notified anyone of this request. Director Warren explained that they do not do this~ dnless it is specifically their hearing. Member Guyer felt the people in this area that llve in the County should have been notified if they i~,/e within 300 feet of this area. Chairman Stewart referred to the report from the County stating that they feei this prezonlng would be an intrusion ~nto the ]-acre residential lots there now, and that they also feel it would be premature to prezo;~c this unr~! such time as construction begins oh the freeway. Member Adams declared that he agrees 1on % with the comments made by the Chairman, adding that C'-2 zoning would be the last type of zoning they would want for this area - that itshould be C-V when an ordinance ~s adopted. If it is zoned C-2~ it would displace the C-'V zoning that should be there. Mr. Adams added that it is preI mature, and would be spot zoning in a residential area. Member York said he disagreed- that it was not to be considered spot zoning because of the amount of acreage involved; in order [o get an orderly development, you have to make a long-range plan and the deveJopers must know which way they are going far out in the futdre ¢~ order to be able to make these plans. The large retailers, such as the drug stores, supermarkets, etch, are always planning ~hree to f~ve years in advance of any population. They go ~n[o these areas kr~owlng what the population is and lose money for three or four years while they are getting estab!ishedo Mr. York cited the Broadway Store as such an example indicating that they have yet to realize a profit~ even though the City has realized a good deal of money from them° Good piannin9 dictates that you go from residential :o high ~'esldentlal to commercial and the best use For property nex~ to a freeway fnterchange is commercial. Mr. york added that: although C-V zone may be contemplated for ibis property¢ ~t is not on the books~ and in hi~ es*imatlon, commercial zoning ~s needed for this area° Mr, York further fdoed LhaL he lives withir~ one'-nail ,4,e ur this aite and would welcome a grocery and drug store in this location° He declared that the developer was in a much better position to state whether his request was premature or not. Chairman Stewart said he disagreed - that he believed the people charged with the responsibility of doing the planning for the City should have a voice in determining whether or not such zoning is premature. He added that they have no knowledge whether the State plans to buy rlght~-of-way this year, next year, or ten years from now. He reiterated that a study must be made of this area after they know where the freeway is definitely going, and reminded the Commission that they adop[ed the General Plan which calls for C-V zonlng in this area° -3- Member York declared that he did not agree with th~s theory, but that if it was the freeway that makes this zoning feasJble~ then the Director's remarks that the align- ment has been established assures the fact that the freeway will go in. However~ if the freeway never goes in Bonita Road Js a heavily-traveled arterial which calls for some commercial development. The freeway would just Jntenslfy this and act as a buffer~ and !f the freeway never went through~ commercial would abut the large one-acre res~dentlal !ocs. Mr. York declared that whether or not the freeway did go through~ Bonita Road~ somewhere along this l!ne~ is in need of commercial zoning, and [f the Commission did not approve zoning prior to some need~ theq he would question how they expect to get an organized development here° Member Guyer asked Jf the applicant was aware of the two conditions the staff proposed~ D~rector Warren read these condltJonsz one to prezone the area to R-1 temporarily, and the other to ask for a detailed master development plan of the entire area. He commented that the ~earest C-2 zoning to th~s area wouid be that on Church and "E" Street. Mr. Ferreira asked if he could comment on these conditions# Chairman Stewart noted that the public hearing was closed. Member ~ork asked the appi~cant to comment on the D~rector~s statements and also to ~nd~cate what uses he plans to put ~nto this area under the C~2 zoning that he could ~ot put ]n under the C~! zon~ngo Mr. Ferreira stated he was reldctant to spend $20~000 or $30,000 to do this preliminary plan for the whole area if he does not get the zoning he requested. As to the uses~ he has two or three super'market chains interested in the area, and they would bring in banks~ drug stores~ eton Member York noted that the uses mentioned were all allowed under the C-1 zone. The Commission then discussed the uses allowed under both zones and Member York suggested that the area be zoned C-1-D~ which zoning has already been establ'iShed in this area~ across the szreeto The "D" zone wo~!d allow the Commission to control the development. He added that he would Jike to see this area master-planned and what:ever the can do to get this plan~ they should do so. Member R~ce asked the applicant if ne were agreeable to the C-I-D zoning~ Mr° Ferreira stated he was. Member Adams Jndlcated that the applicant is driving for a major retait commercial development and stated that th[~ was not the place for it - that it should be zoned either C-V or C~N that he was definitely opposed to C-2 or C-1 zoning here. The Commission discussed the need for a study and appJyJng C-V zoning here until such t:!me as the S~ate purchases rJghts-of'wavi: Member Adams noted ~hat this may be as much Member York pointed out that it m~ght take five years to plan this development. He felt this was a problem for the developer and the prospective tenants and that the Commiss~on owes it to the developer to zone this area now, if they have any intention of ever zoning this commercial in the future~ that they should give the developer' something to work with. He reiterated that Bonita Road is on the verge of becoming a major thoroughfare~ Chairman Stewart ]ndicated that at present this sit:e has no access to Bonita Road and not on a major thoroughfare - that ~t was on a local residential road. Member York commented that th[s zoning was requested for this parcel because it is in the County and that it is contiguous to another large parcel which has frontage on ~ Bonita Road, and that the applicant plans to master-plan this entire area. Chairman Stewart declared that the application does not state this. Member Guyer observed that [n view of the fact that theCounty Planning Department has recommended against its he wodld !ike to see the matter contJnued for 30 days so that the staff and the applJcant~ can get together on it. Director Warren asked for the Commission's specific direction on the matter, if they agree to the continuance. Member Stewart felt the people ~n this area should be notified of the proposed shopping center - that the fact that they are [n the County does not relieve this obligation° mhe Commission concurred. Mr. Ferreira asked if ]t was wJth~ the rights of the City to notify these County residents. City Attorney Lindberg stated ~ha~ under the present zoning procedures~ it requires notJticetJo~ ~o everyone within 300:~ of ~he subject property; that the ordinance does ~ot ~pecify Coa~ry or City? a~d the purpose of notification ~s to provide an adequate knowledge of - pub!ir hear[ng to tho~e property owners that wou!d be affected. Member York commented that if this were true, ~he public hearing tonight would be of no use or affect~ because those people [n the County were not notified. City Attorney Lindberg asked Jf any notification was se~t to the County residents. .-~ Director Warren affirmed that notices were se~t to the City residents only within 300~ of this area. Member Guyer sa ~ tha~i~ ]~ v~ew of this situat~on~ he would be in favor of a postponement° City Attorney L~d~erg ~ated he would like [o speak further on this point. The fact ~s that the City .~y zone property w~rh~ the C~¥ without regard to ~hat complaints may be recelvcd ¢~ ~ te~ ~n the County:, without regard ~o whethe~ complaints or objections may be '~g~t~ed by those in the CJty~ but since the notice requirement exists to give this knowiedge adjacer~t to the seDjec~ property~ he feels tha~ those not~ces would go ~o those in the Cour~zy as well as the City i in a!] fairness to the property owners concerted. !n this part!co!ar case~ the property is sr~! Jn the County and property [k be~q prezoned so thai efFect~ve as of the date of annexation, the property will become permanent ly zoned~ and i[ mdy very ~ell be that the adjacent property owners may never know about this until construction of the project starts there. Certain]y, Mr. Lindber9 added, the w~hes and desires of all uhese adjacent property owners should be cons;dered as a part 9f the total evidence the £ommission we~g~; in making the;r declsio o binector Warren stated that unless the revised ordinance ~s in effect, that it isn't a requirement - there's nothing to prevent it, however. Mr. L~ndberg asserted that this was right- that the revised ordinance becomes effective the 6th of January° _ Director Warren read the prov~slon in the Zon!ng Ordinance relatlng to the sending out of these public notices. City Attorney Lindberg agreed that, as of this hearing, was not: a requirement to notify the Codnty res]dentso Member Adams questioned whether th~s was proh~bltedo Mr. Lindberg stated ~t was not - that a not~ce to any person ~$ not prohibited. The whole purpose of establishing the 300~ l~mitat~on and legal notices ~s to rather arbitrarily but reallst~cally llm~t the responsibility oF the Planning staff. In many instances, it would be totally ~mpractlca: to extend not~ce beyond the 300~ in densely populated areas~ so at some point, ~t must stop because of the pract~ca!~t~es of the matter. The Courts have accepted this 300~ I~m~tat!on as being a realistic and responsible area for not~ce to be given, but if not~ce were g~ven to every property owner ~n the C~ty, th~s would certainly not take away from the ]urlsdiction of the Commlss~on or Council ~n dec~d~ng matters; as a matter of fact, it would only enhance ~t by bringing to the attention of more interested parties the action contemp!ated by the Council or the Commission. Mr. L~ndberg noted there were several hearings before both the £omm~ss~on and Council where persons far removed from the subiecr ~te could testify, and that there is nothing to preclude them from doing so. There is ~o[h~ng to preclude a County resident from coming before the Commission or Council and making their feelings known- ~t may g~ve less weight to their testimony because they are not taxpayers of the C~ty,, but the Comm~sslon could not refuse to hear their testimOqyo Member Adams commented that if th~s hearing were continued~ the Commission would want to hear from the County residents; however, he feels Lhere ]s nothing to be gained by contlnu!ng Lhe hearing. Mr. ~erre]ra asked that a decision be made ~onight, because of his escrow closing. Chairman Stewart ~e[terated that the General Plan was recommended by the Planning Commission to the Council for adoption, and ]t calls for an equal amount of tourist- commercial zoning [n three different locations around that interchange. He again asserted that a study should be made of this entire area - that rushing in and zoning this plot was premature; that it doesnt even touch any of these major thoroughfare~ out there I it doesn't touch Bonita Road~ nor is ~t involved with the approach road. If this is The caae~ he continued~ ~ study should be made of the entlre area because (1) theCommlssion wili be making a change to t~e General Plan and (2) they w]!l be zoning an a~ea before ~and Js bei0g acquired for a freeway, and no one knows how long ;t wi!! be before the freeway ~;J~ be constructeOo Member York q~e~r~o~ed the lega!~ty of the Commission recommending a C-I-D zoning for the s;te ~.~k~r~g whether Jt could be predicated on the overall development of ~n conjunctio~ w~th the other proper~y ffont!r~g o~ Bonita Road° He added that he would not agree to commercial zoning for thJ~ ~i~e ~f ~t Js to be an isolated area fronting on Vista Orive rather that Bonita City Attorney , ~rdberg stated that as the few oroinance indicates, and ~t is a genera] ]aw that you c~rlnot condition zon~ng~ except in the manner prescribed in the ordinance as to required ~mD'ovements &~d ded;c~*~o,s *hat would go along with the increased density or ~: r~'~ Comm!%~,)~ !mpo,,e- v particular zonicg~ that Property owner is free tu use tn=[ property for any purpose w;thouL any condition reiatJve to adjacent development or anything e!se. RESOLUTION NO. 442 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to MSC (Adams-Guyer) City Council the PrezonJng to R-I for that Property on the West Side of ?ista Drive, South of Bonita Road and Setbacks to be E~tabl;~,hed at 25 feet F~ndings be as follows: lo The request for commercial zoning in th~s area Js premature. While the Inland Freeway will be located near the subject property and the realignment of Vista Drive probably traverse it, there Js no justification for the C[t:y to prezone this property commercially un~l such time as it can reasonably be expected to be developed or until the Freeway ~s constructed or the rights-of-way purchased, 2. Heavy commercial dses ~n t:h~s area are ~nfeasible since it is entirely within a rural-res[dent[a~ area with frontage on a local street, an area which bears little relationship to a logical location for a commercial center of this type at this time. 3. The General Plan designates th!s area as visitor-commercial in coincidence with the proposed ir:erchange. Since there Js neither this interchange nor, at present~ a VJsitor-Commerc~el zor~!ng ordi~a~ce~ the Commission recommends the area be prezoned RiJ and when the proper time for development occurs, other alternatlves can be con- sideredo 4. A more comprehe~slve plan for the interchange area should be developed before any more general co~ercia! zoning !s granted. ~he mo~:ior~ carried bv the fo!!owing vote~ to-wit: AYES: Members Adam:~ Gu~e~ ~d~. Gregso~ Stewart, and Rice NOES: Mem~r ~ork ABSENT: No~e PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Joseph N. Wilson - 1542 Marl Avenue - Reduction in Sideyard Setbac:N 5 to 3" The applicat~o~ .~a~ read ir which a request was made for a reduction of side yard setback from 5~ [o 3~ for [he construction of a covered patio. Director of PIannlng Wa:ten submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property~ photos ~rid ~ ~la[ ol t~e c~r!~r~ct~~,. M~ explained that the applicant needs the side yard red~jcr~or~ De ~c-e o$ tP~e ~.dppc~rt~ ng poles to his patio which are presently located 3 :~ :, , ~ pcope~ !i~ ~ th~ o~dina~ce requires a minimum distance o~ 5 feet. The ~ ,,y o~e: ~qm 2 teet- r~ ~[~ case, the roof overhangs 3½I. The Member Fork ~)~: ~, ~ :' ' ,~, ,~:d f,~quire the app![cant to move the poles back Member R~¢e : ~ ~, !:~ d~ ~ance wc,u]d ~e [rom the ho~e to the p~oper[y I~ne if the app~?c-~:~ ,. ~:~d ~ ~ *~ o~di~,~nce. M~. Warren noted that it would be !2 feet~ and th~,~ ~ne ' , ' c~ ov~'~ ~g to ~ith~n 3 ~eet of the property line. Th~$ be!~,q '~ d ~ ~ as adve~ ~ ~ed~ the public ~ear ing was opened. Mr, ~oseph w~n~ ~ne app~[cdn[~ m~nc~ned that he had a retaining wall cut back into the bank which adds 2½' to the yard area, and so, if the roof was brought back to the 5 foot setback~ there would be 2 feet of the retaining wall out in the open and the roof would drain out into the pat~o area. Cha~rma~ Stewart discussed tfe requi~'ed setback and what would have to be done by the applicant to comply. Membe~ ~uyer asked if t~ere would be any problem to move the poles back. Mr~ Wii~on sa~d [h!~ ~as a minor problem - his chief concern is the There be~ng :o l,~rther comment~ e~ner for or aga[nst~ the hearing was declared closed° Member Adams said his reaction was that this could very easily be brought into conI formance to the ordlnance~ and that theComm~sslon should require that it be done. Member Guyer remarked that in order to grant a varlance~ they have to find exceptional c~rcumstances and he raj ls to see any Jn this case. Member York commented that this is another case of construction going ahead without a permit, and the Commission asked to grant a variance to "bale him out." He felt it was setting a bad precedent to grant this. Chairman Stewart indicated that there was plenty of room to comply with the ordlnance~ and that ~t was an unfortunate situatJor. Member Gregson ~elt that as long as there was no problem in setting the poles back, the Commission should require that th~s be done. Mr. Wilson stated that the two corner poles are on brackets and there is a center support beam mounted on the block wa11~ he wondered ~f it would be practical to move th~s back. C~a~man Stewar~ Felt the app!!cant may have to put in another po!e, but asked him to check with the Building ~epartmen~ on MSUC (Guyer~Rice) Denial of the va~amc~ request based on t~e followlng: No exceptional circumstances could be found to justify granting the request. !f the s~deyard setback o~d~nance ~s valid, it should be uphe!d, 2. [here !s~o preservation of a substantial property right s~nce the applicant's need for the variance was self-~mposedo 3. Granting this variance would be a detriment to the area since a precedent would be e~tab]ished t)r encroac?~ent into s~deyard setbacks. PUBLIC ~iEA~iNG: V~rjar, ce - ~e~ry F. ,;~ c38 ~rd i02 Mi,~ot Avenue - Reduction in Rear Yard Setback !:3 r,) 7 ~" ~nd Create a Parce~ Wh[ch WouJd Contain Two Ex~st~ng Dwe~; ir j~ The applJcat~.z~t~ was reao in w~Jch a r~qu~t~;~ made for a redact or, of the rear yard setback from ~5 feez to 7 feet 2 ~nches and perm/ ~o~ to ma~nta~r~ [~.~ ex)~t;ng dwellings or~ or~e pa~ce~ a portion of ~tc~ ~'- zoo:ed '~-~". Director of Pia~ng Warren submitted a F o~ p]a~ notch9 the locipro~ of the request. Two lots a~e ~nvolved he~e, ai~ unde~ one )wnersh~p, amd it becomes a question as to what t~e rear y~rd setback should be ~nce there 15 both R-2 a'~d a rear yard. mecause of the sp~t zoning, the appJ~cant has ~ncluOed in h~s request to allow the two buildings on one lot. The staff reco~ends approva~ of th~s ~equest subject to the condition that the pr~erty required for street widening requested by the Eng[neerlng Division shall start at M~not Street amd extend west to include Parcels ~1, ~2, ~3, amd t~e easterly 50~ of Parcel ~4. Mr. Warren then introduced the new Assistant C~ty Engineer, Mr. Howard Ges]ey, and asked him to cogent on the recomme nda t ~ ohs. Mr. Howard Gesley~ Assistant C~ty Engineer, reviewed the conditions of the Emg;meer:mg D~v[s[on stating that the condition for an add~tlonal 3 feet along "D" Street for street purposes was ~mportant ~n that ~t would take care of the street w~den~g and parking on the street for future developmento The second condition of getting 2½ feet adjacent to the rJghtiof-wa¥ for a general utility easement is also important and would not affect the app!icant too much. Mr. Geslev said he spoke to the applicant brief!y before the meeting about the conditions and the applicant was not too pleased with having to have ~o grant a 10 foot tree planting easement nor with having To post a bond of $2,750. for' street improvements. Mr. Gesley felt these !asr two condltion~ were not too ~mpor~ant as far as the City was concerned~ at present. Member Adams asked how, in Mr. Geslay~s opln~on~ the C~ty would be able to get these improvements if the condition of posting the bond was not imposed. D(rector Warren exFlair~ed that ~f, in each case, development were to take place on these lots they would be required to put the improvements ~n; however, any developed !ct mat: would remain status quo wouldn't be ~mproFed ur~less it: were under the 19i! Block Act. Mr. Ges!ey noted the ways to get the ~mprovements: (1} voluntary; (2) 'i911 Act; or ~f an expenditure in excess of $5000 ~s made for a building permit, the owner would be required to put in the improvemantso Member Adams noted that for the lots yet to be developed, the City would be assured of the improvements; the only question involved the lots that are aiready deve:opedo He asked ~f it would be Mr. Gesley;s opi'c .r that these lots could be taken care of by the 19'1 Act. He noted that: there were no houses on the other slde of the street. Director Warren Felt th~s could be done., provided the other lots were deve!oped. C~ty Att:orney Lindberg sa~d he doubt:ed whether the City would resort to the 191i Act ~n this case~ They would either obtain the improvements upon the request For bu~/ding permit in excess o~ $5~0OO or resort to the ~911B!ock Act i¢ more than 50 % of the b!ock were !mp~gv~d, Membe: Ad;~'-_ _ ked tha~ thi~ wa:~ ex_~t,~ar wk?~ ~e meant by ~he 191" Ac~, ~e added that there ~ -~ .' ~e !a~ge to~ that ~s improved w!~h a ho~e~ ard 'they haYe ~o way of being sdre o? ~i ~,'~q r~e p,.~l[c imp~),.'~ ,:~t: ~or Member fOrk : )~' ,,~:~ed that ~he mopey could be put up by a bona comp~r:¢. ~r. u!ndber9 !;ndlcated th4,: '%: £~Ly c,:¢!d even accept a i!~e- or: the p,oper~y. (.ha~rm¢', Stewart felt r:h~:: m ghr c ]cud t:he t t,!(:. Mr. t!r~dber? -tared it would be suhordieate to any othe¢ tru:t ¢¢~ 'Pa prope¢~yo ~e added ~h¢~? fbe ( !ty does u!e the ]eo device ir] wai~ing !mpr,~,,~ ,~rlt~ or de~e~'~r~g ~mpcc~emer'~ ~vne~e the period of t~me !$ so (ndef~nite t~, ~he cosz become': prohibitive to m¢ioz¢iR a bo~d over a ')ng per~od of Member ~yde asked if the tree pl~nt~ng easement app!ies to "DH Street or s~mply Minor Street° Director Warren stated ~t could be e~ther, but there are trees on ~here Th~s bei~ the ~;me and p!ace as adve~'tised, the public hearing wa~ opened. Mr. ~enry Jahn~ the appl~c:ant~ stated tha~ he and his wife have applied for the Peace Corps which i~ the reason they are se,i,¢ng tr:is property. They have a buyer For th~s one place w~th the two houses on it:; that they couldn't se'!i the whole parce,. When they filed the lot spl]t~ they were told that the side now became a back~ and thus the reason for the 7 2" setback being requested at this meeting. He added that at 4 o~clock th~s afternoon~ he was astounded to discover that he had to glve up 3 feet for r~ght-,of-way~ pius posting $2750. for a bond, plus giving a l0 foot easement for tree plant:lng just to get the setback arrangement so that he could sell his house° First of ali~ Mr. Jahn declared~ he would be 9~ving up almost 1500 square feet for the 3 feet easement for dedication. As to the $2750° bond:, the street up on Minot is paved and they plan to improve as they develop that property according to the City's ordinance. These two conditions are unfair and unreasonable, Mr. Jahn dec!ared. Minor Street: !s only a 40 foot dedicated street and "D" Street Js not used very often. He added that he could not get the C~ty to make any improvements on "D~" Street - he had to haui d!rt and bring gravel!n on h]s own in order to get down to his litt!e house. There i~ no use for ~ny of that land down there except to maintain the pumping station. The propert~ is now ~n escrow and ~t is problematlcal that the buyer would agree to these terms:' ;t would certainly prove an obstacle ~n selling the house if they agreed to the~e changes. City Attorney Lindberg a$~eo if they cou!d have a two-week cant!nuance on the matte~, Mr. ,;ahn said !t wou!d make t~ttie d!ffe, ence to him but questioned what would be gained by ir. M~o [indberg stated he wished to look at the conditions and perhaps work out s ome~h!mg more amenable. Mr. Jahn cla~med that he discussed zhis same :izluat[on with the Commission three yea~ ago~ and th~: he f[]ed ~his p~rt~cular appi]c~t~on on the lath of December and wouta not like a delay. He added he ~s not changing anyth!ng- one house has been there For over 60 years and the other is ]0 years old; the .equest is just a technicality. Chairman Stewart declared th~s calls for a variance and not a technica!~tyo Me added the house would be non-'conforming, Cha:rman Stewart further remarked tn~t because of the lot split, Lo~: No. 2 becomes non'-conFormlng to the ordinance. It becomes c]o~er to the rear lot !]ne, and he feels there i~ good and justifiable reason for granting the variance. Mr. Jahn questioned ~he pos~ibiiity of cutting 3 feet off the front of the property. They are presently 15 feet from t~e front property line, and the road curves at this point - the road is dedicated and !s 40 feet. Member Hyde questioned ~hether the Pubilic Works Department plans on w(dening th~s street to ~6 :e~ . Director Wa-ran e~p!a~ned that if ~mproved, they would want it improved the m!n~.um w~dth to take care of all the ~mprovements o~ the rlght.-of-way. Th~s would accommodate a normal~ local~ read,dent(a! s~reet~ ~n t~e event that the rest of the prope-ty ~ the area ?s developed, Member Rit* ! :*bout the front ~c'~b6ck and q,.~ ;~,ned wh~ , t, :~ wash ', also set forth here too. Director Warren indicated the f~ont setback was 25 feet. City Attorney Lindberg felt the Commission should be considering a setback variance For "D" Street ~f that becomes the front of the lot, Mr. Jahn cia:reed liD'l Street was too steep a street to park cars and it was rather supe~iuOus to n$ist on a 3 foot r[ght"of-~ay~ Mr. Paul Miller speaking fo~ the app;!cant; c]a~med there could be but four other houses built opposite this s[te~ it is a very ~solated and dead-end type of street:, He remarked that the conditions being considered by the Comm[ssJon would be a real hardship to Mr. dahn~ and stated that until the State passed a :!aw about 60-90 days ago~ the Comm~sslon wouldn't have had any control on this at all, because each one of those lots have a 60 foot frontage and they could have been divided and no one wou~d have known the difference. Chairman Stewart explalned that the applicant wasn't before the Commlss~on because of the lot spilt, but rather because of the setbacks caused by this lot split. Mr. Jahn declared he was three months getting this parcel map because of the new State provls~on. Director Warren explained that if the applicant had split the parcel into 3 lots~ he wouldn't have to appear before the Commission, but because it is split ~nto 4 lots, in the manner proposed~ the original sideyard setback becomes the rear yard setback. Mro Miller declared the house has been there for a great number of years, and that Mr. Jahn is a good citlze~ who shou!dn~t be penalized because of the situation he finds h~mselF in now. Chairman Stewart explained the app!icant~s reason for being before the Commlss~on. He needs the reduction fron! !5 feet to 7 feet 2 inches for the rear yard and now they discover the front yard, which was the side yard before, also doesn"t have adequate front yard setback, if there was reason to come in for the reduction to 7~ 2" for the rear setback, the same reasoning applles to the front house because ~t is too close to the street. Mr. Miller commented that the sltuat~on won't change if the Commission decides on a postponement. Chairman Stewart commented that the Commission just wants to comply with the law and give the applicant what he needs as possible. Mr. Lindberg asked if a two-week postponement would cause a hardship. Mr. Jahn remarked that the house under discussion had always faced "D" Street - that it was built that way. it was actually there before the road was put in. The people they bought ~ home from gave the dcdlcation to the City so that they could go down and put the sewer atl the end of the street. Member York reviewed the request indlcat~ng that th~ second house was not non-. conforming, since it is on 6 lot facing Minot Street and ~ot '~OTM Street. Because of this lot sp!it~ ~t wil! be on a different iot; therefore, the side yard becomes the back yard and non-conforming. Chairman S~ewa¢~ ~oted that the front of the front house would be considered non= conforming but not the rear of the rear house. Member' York asked iF it would be legal to split this lot without making the street improvements ~]~ 'mi~ side of the street. Si~¥ Attorney Liridberg stated that on the parcel map provisions, there ~s c~rtain improvement requirements~ which in this case, he doesn't know whether they have been met or not. Member Adams felt there was enough uncerta!nty about the matter to cause a post- ponement. Member York indicated there wou!dn:t be any uncertainty if the applicant was wil!ing to dedicate the amount of righti'of-way, and if the Commission could be assured that, when and if the lots are developed, the street will be improved. Member Adams stated the lots would get the street improvements when they were developed, however, the Commission should r~quire these improvements on the lot already developed. The Commission discussed the condlt~o~s and Chairman Stewart commented that he felt 40 feet was enough of a width for th~s street, and the $2750 bond creates a hardship. Mt. Gesley pointed out that the bond was for the improvements on one-half of the street from the north-half of "D" Street to the driveway of the second house. Chairman Stewart noted that the applicant would have to post a bond for two vacant lots and he felt this was an imposition. Member York discussed this, commenting that if the Commission doesn't require the improvements on the second lot ' the lot with the house on it - and then the tst and 3rd lots are developed, they would be faced with a street that widens and then narrows~ etc. He would llke to see s c~oe provision made whereby if improvements are made on LOt 3, then improvements on Lot 2 would have to be made. MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Continue this public hearing to the meeting of January 16 to allow the staff to further coordinate a solution with Mr. Jahn. PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont~d): Ordinance-, Adoption of CliV (V;sltor-Commerclal) Zone and Establishing Site Plan Contro! ~n Commercial Zones D~rect:or of Planning Warren stated th~s m~tter was continued from a previous hearing. He discussed the need for a C-V zone at the ;nterchange of Bonita Road and Interstate 805 which ~s called out on the General P!an. Mr. Warren then summarized the contents of the proposed C~V ordinance and the Site Plan Control. Since the last hearing, the following permitted uses have been added: theaters, incidental uses not speclf~cally permitted in the zone but which shall be operated in the same building and in conI junction with the permitted use to which they are ~ncldental, and w~th a condltlona! use permit - the keeping of horses for hire° Mr. Warren indicated tha~ this does take care of ~ome of the questions that were raised at the last hearing, but not alt of them. City Attorne~ t;ndberg ~e!t he wou!d llke to reserve h~s comments until he finds out what, subseq.~t!~, the people wa~t in t~e ordi:~'~e. He felt there m~ght be some changes in wording, but not in substance. 7h~s being the time and piace as advertisedl the pub!~c hearing was re-opened. Mr. Frank Eo Ferre~ra~ 37!5 Putter 9rive, Bo~t~ ~[a~ed h~s f~rst complaint was that he could get ~o i-for.~t~on from the Planni,~g Depar*men~ u~il just before a meeting; however, in view o~ t~e ~act that the g~rector of Planni~9 was out of town this past week, he can perhaps undursr*~d this. Re,err!nc :o the General Plae~ Mr. Ferreira said he could see bu* o~- ~ed witnin the ci-v 'f~: whe-e the C-V zone would be appllcabie, u¢!:e they a-,~ talk!~g 20 .ear~ r-. c ' ~qd this wo~¢d be the intersection of Bonita Road and 805 Freeway. He stated that they are being Purdened down in this c~ty with something that went on in the Roosevelt administration - "the alphabet soup." There ~s a C-V and an I-R zone, and so many new ~nes that as a local business man, he feels th~s thing is getting out of hand. He declared that there is no reason for a C-V zone ~n t:h~s c~ty at this time, although the General Plan calls for it, he stil! can see no other area other than Interstate 805 and Bonita Road that would be concerned with it. He added that the C-V zone ~s premature -. more so, as a matter of fact~ than his request for C-2 zoning (~tem 3 on this agen~a) o Mr. Char!es E. Brown, co-owner of the Cavaiier Motor ~otelo agreed that this C-? zoning Js premature and that there i~ no need for th~s zoning° He Fe!t very !Jttle time was given to t:h[~ proposed ordinance by the staff since the !asr meeting~ ~n view of their report submitted tonight. He said the objections of the people appearing before the Commission have been taken lightly and furthermore, he objects strongly to this type of "pulling" from the general ordinance of Chula Vista - there is no emergency in- volved in this "piece-meal pulling" of ordinances. He remarked that the Commlss~on should be cognizant of the proposed general ordinance as a whole, but that none of the citizens are~ and it was unfair to take these ordinances out and pass them. The people do not know where it fits in to the "jig saw puzzle." He added that the Commission is treating this as a metropolitan city, but that it was a suburb. Mr. Brown discussed a new proposal he heard about - that there will be a 25 foot setback established for Broadway. He asked the Commission to consider the people living here today, next year, five years from now, and that 25 foot setback for Broadway m~ght be appropos for the year 1990 or 1980. He further added that he has been living here for the past 20 years and that they developed a good little town without all this "high-falutin~ fantastic planning." Mr. Brown asserted that certain guide lines are necessary, but ~t ~s fast becoming a point that one cannot come into Chula Vista, chose a location to do a certain thing~ and under a certain section of the ordinance, get a set of plan~ drawn up and walk into the Build~ng Department and get a permit. He further added that there are a few places left in town whereby one can do th~s~ however, when ~!~e new proposed ordinance is passed, it will be impossible to do this. Mr. Brown declared a General Plan was necessary but a spec~flc plan ~s not necessary. Mr. Dennis Wittman, representing Saratoga Development Company~ stated this company has considerable holdings in Chula Vista and although he has no spec~flc objections to the C-V zone~ his oompany has areas they are considering for corn~ercial development in the future, and he is concerned about the restrictions that might be placed on these areas. He discussed the proposed C-V zone whereby it would only be used at freeway interchanges, and felt that every interchange ~hould not be placed under the position whereby it had to have motels, restaurants, and the llke, They have 2 or 3 sites that will be on freeway interchanges, and they may want to expand the uses at these sites beyond that permitted by the C-V zone. Mr. W[ttman claimed he has been negligent, up to now, in not reviewing this ordinance~ and therefore~ felt he should make his views known at this time, since he fee!s this very th~g may happen at the~e interchanges if this ordinance were passed. He discussed ~he oeed for a General Plan and the need to follow it to a certain degree~ bu~ declared !t s~o,~ld not be followed specifically because things change - universities and such may come ~to a c!~y, etc.~ that change the whol~ picture. Mr. Paul Miller, 350 E Street, stated he has b~en in the real es~at~ buslness for 20 years, and felt concerned about the trend that is developing in C~.~la V~sta ~bout gett|ng approval of everything one wants or plans to build. He ¢l~med the new proposed ordinance should not be passed until a real emergent? ~r i~ ex~st~. T~e City should have certain zones whereby you can do certai~ th!ng~ ~;~c let ever~o~e know what the guldel~nes ahd rules are. He added th~ this ;s ~ ~,~r~ous ma~ter and the Commission should stop and take a long look at it. Mr. Ferreira asked if, within the past year or 18 months, there has been a p~ece of commercial, high density, residential or industrial zone that has been pas~ed w~tho~t some sort of restriction on it. Director Warren indicated there were some parcel~ but he did not know precisely where without doing some research on ~t. Chairman Stewart asked the staff's feeling on a continuation. Director Warren stated the staff has no objection to continuing this to any time necessary ~n order to get ~ good ordinance. Mr. Warren then discussed the new proposed ordinance indicating that the staff did give this considerable thought since the last meet~ng¢ a~d ~t was the staff's conclusion that they were considering a C-V zone and that a determination ha~ has to be made as to whether or not they want this zone. If this zone is necessary and if al! those uses are to be included or elimlnate~all of the control that have been suggested, there would not be a visitor-commercial zone - there would be slmp!y the commercial zones as presently exist. Mr. Warren added he doesn't believe they could carry out the goals of the General Plan with the present ordinance. He dis- cussed the fact that the Comm~sslon has been working on a new comprehensive zoning ordinance and commented that it was unfortunate that they haven't been able to release it to the public; but due to the changeover in Commlss]oners, and other reasons, they haven't been aDie to do so. However, they hope to do so in the near future. He added that everyone agrees that theCity should have a General Plan but that he cannot understand how they can use it without a modern zoning ordinaoce~ and one that is comparab]e with more progressive c!t~es. The fact that the:e proposed ordinances are lifted from the proposed general ordJnance is because there was a need for them. As for this particular proposed ordinance, the staff Js willing to study any further changes the Commission feels are necessary, after holding th~s pub]it hea~ing. City Attorney Lindberg stated that there are numerous zones- some mod!fJcations of existing zones and some new zones - which most planners feel are necessary to ~mplement tke goals of tFe General Piano ;t has been necessary for some of these zones to have e3rller p~::sage, such as the existing C-'N zone. This proposed zone seems to be another such zone that might f]nd favor for those wishing to go into this type of operation- the same holds 'rue with the I-R zone. These zones were designated for a spec!f~c p!ece of property; the ~-R zone was lifted because it was deemed to be more desirable in an area where it would be more compatible with the residential development. Mr. Lindberg added that he hopes they can get more comments as to the substance of this ordinance - they want to hear whether thJs is a necessary ordinance or if the people believe that the present commercial zones would take care of this - whether there should be more uniformity of standards - more regulations should be spe!ied out so that the developers would have more guidelines, etc., -' all these things are desirable. It is not the purpose of the ordinance to leave anyone "up in the air" when they come in with a set of plans. Mr. Lindberg favored a continuance, indicating there was no great rush for this proposed ordinance. Mr. Brow!! commer~ed that the Commission and Council went to great !engths to bring in the Gener3i Pidn and h~d the help c.f the Citizens' Committees. He added that volunteer help ;s difficult to get, Dut if you go out and ask people to help, they wi]i. Mr. drown remarked that this p:iece-mea! adoption of th~s general ordinance is u~fair to im~ ~b~CI ~r~ are a group o~ specific th]r:gs ~n this ordinance which should be gi~e~', more considerat~or~: the ~ite plan and architectural site plan control. This is [hE ~¢~.* ~h~r~g they are trying to avoid -, chase a~e the two riders attached to this p~o~,~sed ordinance. Ne added that this is a tremendous load to be adding to the Planmi~9 ~taff. Mr. Brown further added that they are interested in this ordinance~ for obvious reds,)~ ar':d would like [o help out in any way they can so that they can City Attorney Lindberg suggested the hearing be continued for 4 weeks in order to give all these gentlemen more time to go over this proposed ordinance. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Public hearing be continued until the meeting of February 6, 1967. ,PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance -Adoption of !-R (Research-lndustr~ai) Zone Director of Planning Warren explained the contents of this propo6ed zone indicating that it would be a restrictive industrial zone° Several months ago, the Commission received a request for permanent zoning to M-] for the southern part of the Princess Manor subdivlsJon~ Objections were heard from the adjacent resident]al property owners by both theiCommission and the Council. The Council suggested we bring out this proposed I-R zone since they felt it would be more compatlble with the res~denr~a! neighborhood. This ordinance will eventually set up performance standards For industrial use instead of trying to go through and llst every industrla~ use. Mro Warren suggeated that perhaps this hearing should also be continued and a wider dlstr~bution made of this proposed ordinance. It was originally p~t on th~s agenda in order To meet a dead- line which was set by the City Council; howevers ~f it was continued to t~e ~ex~ meet!ng this deadline could probably still be met. T'h[s being the time and place as advertised~ the public hearing was opened. Mr. Charles Brown, co-owner of the Cavalier Motor Hotel, "E'~ Street. a~ked what the difference was between this proposed ordinance and the present M-l, arid aiso whet ot~er zones were planned in conjunction with this one. Director Warren indicated it was difficult to compare it with tke prese'~[ M-1 zone because it would be replacing it. It would be restrictive ~n t~s s~rise: in the uses allowed; control of signs; control over site development; ~nter!or storage. Mr. Warre~ declared that he would have a more comprehensive comparison be*~ee¢ ~r6 z,~ ~, :t 'he next meeting. Chairman Stewart de!~neated the uses that wou~d be aiicwed ~r!d~r that the uses allowed would be less objectionable to adjace,~t res!deC, rs the present M-I zone. Mr. Stewart explained the need fo, t';* zone was before the Commlss;on. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the Council did not want to b6 pu~ i.'~ the in~le×~be position of saying they wished to deny industrial use for th~s are~, ~ becau~ o~ t~e adjacent res~dentlal development, they did not want to open it up to zone with the few restrictions we have. The whole point of the ne~ zoning is to provide greater flexibility. Mr. Frank Fer~'eira read an e~:pt ~rom the ~e~era~ pi~r~, need and the goals of the Piano He fel~ that if ii, ere ~ere ~ ~ particular site~ iL could be solved with the ~upp~mert~t '~13 use permit:. Mr. Warren commented that t~e [OdnC~! con,!dared th~ M-~-O Z~)F:C, the second reading on the matter, decided to concinue ~t ~or 12~ 90 days to try this ~-'R zone. Member York spoke of the apprehension on the Da~t of the peo~!~ ~e particular zones are being lifted from the o~dlnanceo ~e exn~:},~:'' ~:v ~e to give the Commission and the Council t~e too!s to gr~r!t zoni~ ,,~ they would prob3b~v h,~ve tO deny the type of zoning ' '~ , understood by dJi Lha[ the Commission and LOdnCii =;~ ;i~ o¢~ ..... h- .... ~ driy ored at the present time into any of these zones. Mr. York reiterated intent at the present time to do any rezoning on the initiation of t~e Commission the Council - it would be on the initiation of the developer. 6hairman Stewart discussed the small attendance at the public hea;ngs held for the General Plan; he noted that these same Consultants that drew up the i3eneral Pi~r are responsible for this new proposed zoning ordinance. He fait ~his gere-at ordima'ce would be even less restrictive than the General Plan anticipat:es. M.ro St6wart commented that within the next few months, public hearings should start on ~hts new proposed zoning ordinance. Mr~ Ferreira questioned why the restrictions of th~s zone couldn't just be attached to the present zone (M-1 or Mi2i. Mr. Warren explained that the present M~I zone would -~ be ultimately e~iminated. Mr. Ferrelra d~scussed the fact that because of the tight money situation, the Loan Associations more or less dictate today what the developers have to have. He has seen many examples i.~ here where they have lost months end months trying to coordinate the requirements of the lender - who is the dictator - and satisfying the City. He cited as an example of this, his high-rise project on Fourth Avenue.. Chairman Stewart explaJned the delays caused on th]s project, indicating the Commission was trying to meet the requJrements of the ordinance. Member Adams remarked that the proposed new zoning ordinance Js much more favorable and if this ord]~nce had been on the books at the time Mtn FerreJra was planning his pro-: ject, the Commission couid have been more favorable. The Commission then held a general discussion on the new proposed I-R zone and cited the need for comments from those in the audJenceo They concurred that this matter should be continued. MSUC (Hyde-RJce) Continue the public hearir~g to the meeting of January 16. Recommendation - Request for Vacation of Senna Way Director of Planning Warren stated that this involves a paper street in the Princess Manor Subdlv[sion. The street was proposed to serve the adjacent property, but the School Distr~ct bought this for an elementary school site. There is now a request to vacate this street. The report from the Engineering Division indicates that the utility companies have been requested to indicate their desires regarding th~s vacation. Mr. Warren added that there would be no work Jn physically closing it. 'The Commission d~scussed who would acqdlre the property, if vacated, Mr. Warren declared it would go to the property owners on e~ther s~de of this street. Mr. Ralph Spa~d ~ndlcated tha~ rme School Distr~ct u!timat:el¥ pJa¢~s to use the entire width for access to the proposed Valle L;ndo scrool MSUC (Guyer-Gre9son) Recommend to the City Councl ~he vacation of Senna Way, SUBDIVISION - ~'inal Map ~ Flair Umlt No. ~ Director of Pl~o~in9 Warren submitted t~e map, notln9 that this was the first unit o~ the Flair Subdivision° This urir conta~r:~ 53 lo~s and is !pcated on the west side of the subdlv~s!on: ~ w~l~ invo've an extension of Oleande~ Avenue, Th!s subdivision is the one that is subjecE to ~C~e variance allow~h9 them smal!er lo~ sizes to ~!low preserv~tio~ of part of the canyon. Mr. Warren then noted the staff's recommendations for approval. The staff has received a revised tentative map of the subdivision but it would not change this particular unit, Director Warren discussed the reasons for the developer not bein9 able to dedicate to the City the entire portion of the canyon now- because of financial reasons, they wish to do it in se9ments. An acceptable agreement can be worked out that wlll 9uarantee the City recelvln9 the whole portion of t~e canyon, MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Approval of the ~inal map of the Flair Subdlvlslon~ Unit No. 1 subjec~ to the followln9 conditions: io The flna! map sha!l not be submitted for Counci! action until alinecessary bonds, deeds, slope rights a~d easements as required by the City Englneer have been delivered to the City. 2. Prior to subm~sslon of this map for City Council consideration, the applicant shall enter ~nto a written agreement acceptable to the City Attorney which will establish the method and schedule by which the open space shown on the revised tentative map dated !2-29-'66 shall be dedicated to the C~ty for park purposes. 3. Prior to submission of th~s map to the Counc~l~ an irrigation system acceptable to the staff shal! be designed for the rear of those lots adjacent to the canyon. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Meeting be adjouroed to January 16, 1967o Meeting adjourned at I0 p.m. Respectfully submitted, [~x Jennie Mo Fulasz Secretary