HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1971/06/07 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
June 7, 1971
The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California
was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m., with the following members
present: Rice, Stewart, Adams, Macevicz, Chandler, James and Hillson. Also
present: Director of Planning Warren, Senior Planner Williams, Associate Planner
Lee, City Engineer Gesley and City Attorney Lindberg.
PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - 539 Hibiscus Court - Reduction of rear yard, 20' to
10' - Jos. W. Sessions
Associate Planner Lee indicated the location of the property at the end of a cul-
de-sac, and advised that the applicant wishes to construct an addition to his
home which will encroach to within 10' of the rear property line. The total area
to be covered by the addition is 12% of the required rear yard, whereas the ordin-
ance allows up to 30% coverage by detached structures.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Joseph W. Sessions explained why this is the most economical location in which
to add an addition to the house inasmuch as it will utilize an existing sliding
glass door and not require making another opening. He pointed out that since a
city owned park is adjacent to the rear property line, no other dwelling is near
this addition.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Adams-James) Approval of the variance request for reduction of
RESOLUTION NO. PCV-71-13 rear yard to tO' at 539 Hibiscus Court.
Findings are as follows:
a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists.
Because of the minimal lot size and location of the house, the owner would
be able to expand only by encroaching into the rear yard setback.
b. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of sub-
stantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone and in
the vicinity of the subject property.
The Commission has in the past approved similar reductions in rear yard
setback due to lot size and the fact that no adjoining structures could be
built within 20' of the rear lot line.
c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of the Ordinance
or the public interest.
-2- 6/7/71
The addition will cover just over 10% of the required rear yard area,
whereas an accessory structure could cover up to 30%. The Planning
Commission has drafted an ordinance which would allow single story
structures to extend within 10' of the rear property line; subject
ordinance is pending before the City Council. Because there will be no
structures on the adjacent canyon property and because of the difference
in elevation of topography there will be no reduction of needed light and air.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of
the General Plan.
The General Plan is not affected.
PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - 2 Sandalwood Drive - Create 3 lots with no street
frontage - Bart Corporation
Director of Planning Warren reported that a letter was received on this date from
an agent for the applicant requesting that the hearing be continued to the meeting
of June 28. The reason for the request was not stated but the City Attorney has
in the past advised that if there is a valid reason for a continuance that it should
be granted one time.
Chairman Rice called upon the applicant concerning the reason for the request.
James Lister, Vice President of Bart Corporation, 122 North Second Avenue, advised
that postponement of the hearing is requested because they were not aware until
this morning that there was opposition to the plan. He stated that in dividing
this lot they will take care of a serious drainage problem and wished an opportunity
to explain this to nearby residents as they felt this would overcome their opposition.
City Attorney Lindberg confirmed that it is not unreasonable for an applicant to
request a single continuance in such matters.
Marion Hunt, 205 Rogan Road, expressed the opinion that the existence of those
opposed to a request is not a reason for a continuance.
MSUC (James-Chandler) The public hearing concerning the variance request by
Bart Corporation be continued to the meeting of June 28, 1971.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 345 Fifth Avenue - Expansion of church
facilities - Grace Baptist Temple
Director of Planning Warren displayed a plot showing the location of the property
pointing out that the surrounding uses are multiple and single family residential.
He also displayed a plan showing the existing buildings and the proposed additions.
With the additions it is proposed to improve the parking lot and add additional
parking spaces. The staff recommends approval of the request subject to conditions
covering landscaping, construction of a zoning wall along the south property line,
and limiting functions at the church during the evening hours to no later than
10 p.m.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
-3- 6/7/71
Kenneth Johnson, Pastor of Grace Baptist Temple, expressed concurrence with the
conditions as enumerated by the Planning Director and their desire to make this
church as convenient and pleasurable to everyone as possible.
Glen Hansen, 357 Hedgeway, stated that with the conditions enumerated this is
agreeable with them. Their complaint before concerned the noise level and they
feel that the requirement for sealing the windows would improve this problem.
Esther Courtney, 351 Hedgeway, stated they have no oppoistion to the church and
ask only that the noise be controlled; she felt that activities like youth
rallies should be held in public parks.
Larry Fitzpatrick commented that he is the owner of property adjacent to the
church. He raised a question concerning the drainage ditch at the north side
of the property stating that it has caused erosion of his property. He had been
told a box culvert would be installed but he had heard nothing of that at this
hearing. He requested confirmation from the city in this regard.
City Engineer Gesley confirmed that a representative of the church has submitted
plans for a drainage structure to the Engineering Division and this structure
would be adequate.
Robert Dickens, 7477 Guthrie Way, San Diego, stated that he is a member of
Grace Baptist Temple and part of their youth group. He reported that the youth
rallies are divided up among the fellowship of churches and a youth rally comes
to this church about once every six months. If such a rally were held in a
public park it would not remain Christ-centered which is the purpose of the group.
As no one else wished to speak, for or against, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Approval of the conditional use permit for expansion
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-71-12 of church facilities at 345 Fifth Avenue, subject
to the following conditions:
1. All areas of landscaping within or adjacent to the parking area shall be
irrigated by a sprinkler system, and shall be in complete conformance with
the Landscape Manual with exact materials, spacing and standards to be
approved by the city's Landscape Architect.
2. A zoning wall (6' high, masonry) shall be constructed along the eastern and
southern property lines as shown on the attached plat.
3. The evening operating hours shall be limited, with no functions continuing
later than 10:00 p.m.
4. The applicant shall investigate, to the satisfaction of the Zoning Adminis-
trator, the pOssibility of sealing all windows along the southern and eastern
sides of the building with the installation of air conditioning if necessary.
5. The applicant shall work with the staff to determine whether or not planting
the setback area between the building and the southern and eastern property
line with dense landscaping would effectively act as an acoustical control.
-4- 6/7/71
Findings are as follows:
a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable
to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being
of the neighborhood or the community.
Due to the easy access to the city's circulation system, this site is well
located to serve the whole community.
b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
Subject to the conditions herein stated and the improvements to be installed,
compatibility with the adjacent residential uses will be improved.
c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions speci-
fied in the Code for such use.
All regulations and conditions will be complied with.
d. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect
the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any govern-
mental agency.
The General Plan will not be affected.
PUBLIC HEARING: CHANGE OF SETBACK - North and south sides of Inkopah Street
between Melrose and Monserate, 20' to 10' - Warren J. Anson
Director of Planning Warren advised that this application was accompanied by a
petition signed by all property owners involved. He indicated Inkopah Street
has a 60 foot right-of-way whereas present standards require a 51 foot right-
of-way. The setback in this block is 27 feet from the sidewalk. If the setback
were reduced to 10 feet from the right-of-way, there would still be a 17 foot
dimension in back of the walk. This is comparable to other streets, and the
staff recommends approval of this request.
The public hearing was opened and Mr. Warren Anson requested that the recommenda-
tions of the Planning Department be approved.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Adams-James~ Recommend to the City Council the change of setback
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-71-I from 20' to 10' on the north and south sides of
Inkopah Street between Monserate and Melrose Avenues
based on the following findings:
a. The right-of-way width of I~kopah Street is wider than the present Engineering
standards and the property line is located further back behind the walk than
in new developments, leaving an open area in the front yard comparable to
present standards.
b. The area remaining is in conformance with present standards of open areas
for single family developments.
-5- 6/7/71
PUBLIC HEARING: a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 335 Church Ave. - Construct new
sanctuary and fellowship hall and parkin§ facilities - First
Southern Baptist Church
b. VARIANCE , Reduction in front and one side yard setback from
20' to 9'; reduction in offstreet parkin~ requirements;
waiver of lO' wide landscapin~ at side of parkin~ lot -
First Southern Baptist Church
Associate Planner Lee pointed out the location of the property, the location of
the church structure on the lot, and the location of two lots on the west side
of Church Avenue proposed to be used for additional parking. The surrounding
zoning and land use are residential with commercial use on Third Avenue. Mr. Lee
reviewed the plans for removing the old church structure and replacing it with a
new and more functional structure, and encompassing into its architecture the
educational building. This will require utilizing a 9' setback on Church Avenue
and a lO' setback on Center Street. Mr. Lee enumerated the conditions recommended
by the staff for curbing, sidewalks, and landscaping.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
James Halls, 2724 West Main Street, Alhambra, reported that he is representing
the church as the designer of the building. He confirmed they are replacing a
very old building with a new one in the same location but since the new building
will have a porch at the corner next to Church Avenue and Center Street it will
afford a better view from the street. He reported that the property owner
adjacent to the north side of the proposed parking lot has requested that they use
chain link fencing rather than a concrete wall on that property line due to the
nearness of her dwelling and they are in agreement with the requested change.
Mrs. Hibert,342 Church Avenue, owner and resident of the property north of the
proposed parking lot commented that her house is 42" from the property line,
and that a 6' high solid wall would shut out air and light, and she would prefer
a chain link fence.
John Madsen, 270 Madrona Street, called to the attention of the Commission the
location of a City parking lot behind the repair garage at the corner of Third
and Madrona. He felt this should be used by the members of the church rather
than constructing additional parking facilities on the west side of Church Avenue,
since this would be removing two residential lots from the tax roles.
City Attorney Lindberg pointed out that since the church is not located within
the parking district the public parking lot cannot be used to satisfy the
requirements for parking for the church.
Rev. Dan Cheak, Pastor of the church, observed that they desire to build a new
sanctuary with the same seating capacity as their present building, and they have
purchased the two additional lots in an effort to meet the parking requirements of
the ordinance. He requested that the Commission consider Mrs. Hibert's request
concerning the fence between the parking lot and her property.
Frank White, 258 Madrona, also voiced his objection to the use of the two lots
for parking facilities, again pointing out the loss of revenue in taxes.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
-6- 6/7/71
The Commission discussed the question of a chain link fence in lieu of concrete
wall and Member Stewart pointed out that since the adjacent property is in the
C-O zone, it may be redeveloped in the future to other than residential use and
he felt the chain link fence would not be objectionable.
MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Approval of the conditional use permit for construction
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-71-14 of a new sanctuary/fellowship hall and parking facilities
for First Southern Baptist Church subject to the
following conditions:
1. The curbing on Center Street and the curb return shall be replaced. The curb
return to be a 20 foot radius or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
2. The sidewalk on Center Street shall be replaced with a 6 foot monolithic walk
and the sidewalk on Church Avenue shall be replaced with a 5 foot monolithic
walk up to the driveway leading into the parking area south of the educational
building.
3. The parkways adjacent to driveways on Church Avenue shall be landscaped.
4. A 6' high chain link fence shall be constructed on the north property
line of the parking lot at 348-350 Church Avenue; a 6' high masonry wall
shall be constructed on the south property line of 348-350 Church Avenue and
on the south property line of 335 Church Avenue. Fence and wall shall be
reduced to 3~' in height at the 15' setback line.
Findings are as follows:
a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to
previde a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of
the neighborhood or the community.
A church now exists on the site and has served the community in this location
for many years. Additional offstreet parking will be provided by allowing the
use of the two parcels for parking which will eliminate some congestion during
hours of operation.
b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The demoli~onof the existing structure and replacing it with a new building
will improve the general appearance of the area.
c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified
in the Code for such use.
The proposed uses will comply with the regulations and conditions as required.
d. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental
agency.
The General Plan will not be affected by the granting of this request.
-7- 6/7/71
MSUC (Macevicz-James) Approval of the variance request for reduction of
RESOLUTION NO. PCV-71-15 front setback, reduction in offstreet parking
requirements, and waiver of 10' wide landscaping at
side of parking lot, based on the following findings:
a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists.
The existing structure now maintains the requested setbacks and enjoys a
seating capacity for 400 persons. Reduction of the seating capacity to
accommodate additional parking and setbacks would preclude redevelopment of
the property.
b. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substan-
tial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone and in the
vicinity of the subject property.
The setbacks established in the immediate area adjacent to the site have
setbacks equal to or less than required on the applicant's property. The
property lies on the boundary of the Parking District.
c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of the Ordinance
or the public interest.
There would be no change in the conditions that exist and therefore would
not be detrimental to adjacent properties. The increase in parking as
proposed by the applicant would eliminate some traffic congestion which
presently exists.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of
the General Plan.
The General Plan is not affected.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - West side of Glover, north of Trousdale-
Locate lumber and buildin9 materials sales in I-L-F zone -
Doyle Lovell
Associate Planner Lee pointed out this is an application to move an existing
business out of the F-1 Floodway Zone and into the "F" Flood Plain Modifying
District in the I-L zone. This represents an improvement in the flood hazard
condition in the area. Mr. Lee discussed the proposed improvement plans for which
the staff recommends approval.
The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Gene York, 280 K Street, was present to
represent the applicant. He had no further information to add and the Commission
had no questions concerning the proposal.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
-8- 6/7/71
MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Approval of a conditional use permit for the location
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-71-13 of a lumber and building materials sales operation in
the I-L-F zone on the west side of Glover, north of
Trousdale, based on the following findings:
a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable
to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being
of the neighborhood or the community.
This facility is being moved to a less hazardous location; it will therefore
contribute to the general well-being of the community.
b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvemets in the vicinity.
The new location for the facility will be out of the Floodway Zone and
therefore be less detrimental to the property or improvements in the area.
c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified
in the Code for such use.
All conditions in the Code, including the Landscape Manual, shall be met.
d. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental
agency.
The General Plan is not affected.
PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING - Phase IV, Cits Rezoning Plan
Associate Planner Lee commented that this final phase in the City Rezoning Plan
covers property in six distinct and separate areas which are not related. It is
the staff's recommendation that the presentation, testimony, discussion and
Commission action be taken on each area separately.
Area #1 - North of C Street, between Broadwas and Third Avenue Extension
The property at the northeast and northwest corners of C Street and 5th Avenue
is presently zoned C-T and proposed for rezoning to I-L (Limited Industrial); the
present use is a building materials yard. The property at the northeast and
northwest corners of C Street and Fourth Avenue is zoned C-T and proposed for
C-C (Central Commercial); the present use includes retail stores and a car wash
with approximately 9 acres of vacant land located to the rear of the existing stores--
these uses are allowed in the C-C zone. The property at the northeast corner of
C Street and North Glover is zoned C-T and is proposed for R-3 since it is
developed with a mobile home park and should be rezoned to a residential category.
-9- 6/7/71
The public hearing was opened. Edward Wittick, co-owner and manager of the mobile
home park at 345 C Street, asked if their present conditional use permit for this
use would no longer be valid.
Mr. Lee advised that the conditional use permit would be valid and would continue
in force in the R-3 zoning proposed for the property. He further pointed out that
mobile home parks are no longer permitted in commercial zones, and this park is
presently nonconforming.
MSUC (James-Macevicz) Recommend to the City Council a change of zone
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-71-M-(1) for property located north of C Street, between
Broadway and Third Avenue Extension, to I-L, C-C,
and R-3 as delineated on the map displayed
Area #2 - North of C Street, bisected by Edgemere Avenue
A small vacant area on the west side of Edgemere which abuts residential zoning
on two sides is presently zoned I-L although it is not part of the adjoining
industrial park. It is recommended this be changed to R-3. The property on
the east side of Edgemere is improved with a sanitarium and the present C-T
zoning is not appropriate; this also is recommended to be changed to R-3.
The public hearing was opened and no testimony was offered, for or against, so
the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Recommend to the City Council that property north
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-71-M-(2) of C Street, bisected by Edgemere Avenue, be
rezoned from I-L and C-T to R-3, as delineated on
the map displayed.
Area #3 - East of Third Avenue, between Palomar and Quintard Streets
This entire area of 12½ acres was designed and built as a shopping complex.
Therefore, the existing C-T zoning is not appropriate and it is recommended that
it be changed to C-C (Central Commercial).
The public hearing was opened.
Jacob Overlease, 5282 Countryside Drive, San Diego, an employee of Fedmart,
pointed out that the proposed zone change would result in more sign restrictions
for the shopping center than the present C-T zone. He also pointed out that the
property on the west side of Third Avenue, being in the County, is zoned "C''
under which there is no restriction on the size or number of signs and pole signs
are limited only to 35' in height. He requested that the zone change for this
area be held in abeyance until such time as the City annexes the property to the
west and it is controlled by the same ordinance.
Lyle Butler, 1635 Rosecrans Street, one of the owners of the shopping center
directly north of Fedmart, pointed out that this property was developed three
years ago in conformance with the zoning ordinance at that time. If the proposed
zone change is adopted it will make this center nonconforming as far as signs are
concerned. He also asked that this rezoning be postponed until the County adopts
similar ordinances on signs.
-10- 6/7/71
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Director of Planning Warren acknowledged the validity of the remarks of Mr. Butler
and Mr. Overlease. He pointed out, however, that the City of Chula Vista seems
to be setting the trend for sign regulations for a rather large area. The City
and County of San Diego are in the process of adopting more restrictive sign
ordinances, and he would hope to bring about changes in signs over a fair amortiza-
tion period.
MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-71-M-(3) property on the east side of Third Avenue between
Palomar and Quintard Streets, from C-T to C-C.
Area #4 - Property at 70 East J Street
This one-acre site in the R-1 zone has been developed with a market for many years.
In 1968 the Planning Commission recommended a change of zone to C-N for this
property, but the rezoning action was denied by the City Council. The staff contends
that the City will have much better control over the development and maintenance
of the site with C-N zoning than leaving it nonconforming in an R-1 zone; therefore,
this change is recommended.
The public hearing was opened, and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
MSUC (Chandler-James Recommend to the City Council the change of zone
RESOLUTION NO. PCA-71-M-(4) for property at 70 East J Street from R-1 to C-N
Area #5 - Northwest corner of Melrose Avenue and Otay VAlley Road
This property was included in an annexation of over 400 acres of land near the
southeast corner of the City in 1963. The majority of this property was developed
with single family dwellings, but a small area at the northwest corner of Melrose
Avenue and Otay Valley Road was prezoned C-1-D (later converted to C-C-D) in the
hopes of attracting a neighborhood market to serve that section; but such a market
was never built. A large residential area has recently been approved south of
Otay Lakes Road with a 5 acre neighborhood community center planned, which will
serve the needs of people within a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius. The staff contends that
the small area at the northwest corner of Melrose and Otay VAlley Road is not
needed for commercial development and should be rezoned to R-1.
Director of Planning Warren stated a letter has been received from Earl Cohen,
general counsel for Princess Park Estates, in which they protest this change and
state that it does not conform to the General Plan. Mr. Warren pointed out that
the revision in the General Plan adopted last year eliminated this as a commercial
site.
The public hearing was opened.
-ll- 6/7/71
William Griffen, 2030 State Street, San Diego, Vice President of Princess Park
Estates, commented on the physical aspect of this property, pointing out that
at the present time this property is a high bank of dirt and its best use could
only result after a grading operation that would bring it to the level of Otay
Valley Road. It is their intention to do this grading at a future time when the
material can be used elsewhere and they feel the property would then not be best
suited for R-1 development. He felt that traffic factors should be considered
and that this parcel should not be rezoned from its present commercial category.
Chairman Rice discussed the question of grading this property and its possible
use for R-1 development with Mr. Griffen.
Director of Planning Warren commented that while this is not the most desirable
location for a single family home, the present C-C zoning has no relation to
the existing need or adjacent land use. If the planning of the undeveloped area
to the east reveals that some other land use would be more appropriate that
should be considered, but until plans are presented which show there is a validity
or need for commercial zoning, it should be rezoned to the same category as the
land adjacent to it, which is R-1.
Mr. Griffen concurred with this and asked that action be withheld until they could
submit plans for development which they are prepared to do and can do in a short
period of time.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Member Hillson spoke in favor of leaving this property zoned C-C at this time,
pointing out that a service station would require a conditional use permit and
this need not be granted if it was not the appropriate use.
Member Stewart felt that the neighborhood center already zoned across the street
would be adequate to meet the needs of this area and that the property in question
should be zoned R-1 as a holding zone until development plans are presented.
MSC (Stewart-James) Recommend to City Council the change of zone for
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-71-M-(5) property at the northwest corner of Melrose Avenue
and Otay Valley Road from C-C-D to R-I
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members Stewart, James, Adams, Rice, Chandler and Macevicz
NOES: Member Hillson
ABSENT: None
Area #6 - West side of Halecrest DRive, north and south of Hale STreet
This property was included in a larger annexation in 1958, the surrounding
properties on the north and west have been developed with single family residences
on 7,000 sq. ft. lots. C-C zoning exists to the south and east with only the
service station sites developed. The property in question is vacant and under the
existing zoning of R-3 could be developed with a total of 27 units. It is proposed
that this zoning be changed to R-3-G which would limit construction to a total of
14 units, which the staff finds would be more compatible with the surrounding
single family dwellings.
-12- 6/7/71
Director of Planning Warren pointed out that the existing zoning was assigned
many years ago when R-3 was the only multiple family zoning available. He reported
that a letter received from Dr. John Gels, owner of the property at the southwest
corner of Halecrest Drive and Hale STreet, objected to the proposed change as they
purchased the property to develop a combination of professional office and apart-
ment complex. Mr. Warren pointed out that under the present zoning ordinance
professional office use would not be possible unless the property was rezoned C-O.
The public hearing was opened.
Dr. John Geis, 3885 Hill Road, Bonita, commented that his intention when he
purchased the property was to build an apartment complex connected with a professional
complex. The change proposed by the staff would reduce the density for this parcel
from 10 units to 5 units which would make the property much less valuable than the
amount paid for it. He pointed out that there are only two R-1 lots between his
property and the freeway right-of-way, and when the freeway is completed the owners
of those lots will likely wish to upgrade the zoning. He felt that the residential
development in the area and across Telegraph Canyon Road has established the need
for professional office use, such as a medical-dental center. He requested that
the zone not be changed at this time.
Lawrence Herman. 1830 West Olympic, Los Angeles, commented that he was involved
in the original annexation of this land 12 years ago. His interpretation of the
Master Plan, which this rezoning is supposed to reflect, is that this is shown as
commercial, and he would request that the present zone remain in effect until
Dr. Geis is ready to develop. He also contended that 17 u~ts on the northwest
corner of Halecrest Drive and Hale Street is not too heavy use for that land.
R. W. Farmer, 63 L Street, voiced his opposition to the proposed change of zoning,
contending it is not justified due to the nearness of the freeway.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Member Adams recalled that he had advocated C-O zoning for the property at the
corner of Halecrest Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road, but this has been developed
with a service station, and he feels there is no need for additional commercial
zoning in that vicinity.
Member Stewart agreed, adding that the residential development in the area is
recent and that R-3-G zoning is compatible and such development would upgrade the
area.
MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Recommend to City Council the change of zone for
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-71-M-(6) property at the northwest and southwest corners of
Halecrest Drive and Hale STreet from R-3 to R-3-G.
Chairman Rice advised that public hearings will be conducted at the City Council
level on each of the proposed zone changes.
-13- 6/7/71
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Northwest corner of Broadwas and H -
Service station and automatic car wash in C-T-D zone - Gulf Oil Co.
Associate Planner Lee displayed a plat indicating the location of the property and
also a plan showing the development proposed for this site. He discussed the
attempts being made through remodeling to insure architectural compatibility in
the area. He felt that one serious problem in the proposed redevelopment is the
lack of back up space for cars waiting for the car wash. He pointed out there
are five curb cuts on this site, and any operation that would back traffic up on
Broadway would be a definite hazard. The staff recommends either denial of the
application or redesign of the site to eliminate curb cuts near the intersection,
provide better circulation, maximize the waiting area for the car wash and develop
an area for drying cars.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Clyde Carpenter, Consulting Engineer, pointed out there is a service station on
the property at the present time and it is Gulf's desire to upgrade the property.
The existing service station fronts Broadway, but as pointed out, traffic is
very bad on that street and Gulf has reoriented the gasoline facilities to utilize
the H Street frontage. The car wash rack being proposed is one being used as an
added incentive to get gas customers and the only people who use it are those who
buy gas. This is a mini-car wash, which is between the do-it-yourself facility
and a full blown commercial car wash.
Bob James, LaMirada, an employee of Gulf Oil Corporation, presented information
that the closest station utilizing a similar facility is the one at Federal and
College in San Diego, and that it is for the purpose of selling gas.
Director of Planning Warren commented there is a question whether this is the
proper site for such a use. He suggested that the hearing might be continued if
the Commission wished the staff to observe a similar facility and the impact it
has on traffic.
Clyde Carpenter spoke in favor of continuing the hearing to the next convenient
meeting date.
MSUC (Stewart-Hillson) The public hearing for a conditional use permit application
for a service station and automatic car wash in the C-T-D zone at the northwest
corner of Broadway and H be continued to the meeting of June 28, 1971.
PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Polics for Public Facilities
Senior Planner Williams commented that the proposed policy is basically the same
as the one the City of San Diego currently uses in requiring developers to make
some arrangements for accommodation of public facility needs with the school
districts. He pointed out this merely requires that when development plans are
filed it will be necessary to furnish comment from the school districts as to the
necessity for additional classrooms, and if additional school facilities are
necessary the applicant must submit with his request detailed proposals acceptable
to the school districts on the measures that will be taken to provide the necessary
schools.
-14- 6/7/71
The staff feels this policy is an interim measure and is asking the Commission
to recommend to the City Council:
1. Adopt the attached policy as an interim solution to the problem of providing public facilities concurrent with development.
2. The Council support the passage of Assembly Bill 1032 in the State
Legislature which would permit dedication of land for school purposes as
a condition of approval of final subdivision map.
3. Recommend some change in the state policy concerning the availability of
construction funds for schools.
4. Direct the staff to begin work with the school districts on the adoption
of a comprehensive school plan as an element of the General Plan.
City Attorney Lindberg commented it should be understood this is a consideration
of a policy statement, not a requirement of dedication of land, and secondly,
securing the necessary enabling legislation from the State if such dedication is~
to be required.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Kathryn Moore, 1134 Tobias Drive, speaking for the South Bay Citizens Planning
Committee, supported the adoption of the proposed policy.
Gene York, 280 K Street, representing South Bay Improvement Association, expressed
strong resentment over the inadequate time allowed for the review of important
matters such as this. He reported he had not had an opportunity to meet with the
members of the Association and could only express his own opinion. He maintained
that the draft as written is more far reaching than just to schools, as is the one
which San Diego has which relates to all public facilities.
Mr. York questio~e~ the statement in the policy which states:
"That the subdivision or rezoning be consistent with the General Plan and
any other specific plans for the area which have been reviewed by the
Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council."
He contended this says the General Plan becomes the ordinance, while it has been
his understanding that the General Plan was intended as a guide.
City Attorney Lindberg suggested that the language could be amended to include
the phrase, "not in conflict with the General Plan, or specific or precise plans
that have been adopted." He also felt it is a grave error to use the statement
that the General Plan is merely a guide as though it did not have any great meaning.
He stated that the General Plan has considerable to do with the allowable use, and
it should not be treated ~lightly. While it is not incumbent upon the Commission
or City Council to precisely follow the requirements set forth in the General Plan,
as circumstances may have changed since the time the plan was adopted, the General
Plan should be regarded as the plan the City is attempting to implement in the
approval of subdivision maps, zonings and precise plans throughout the entire
planning area.
-15- 6/7/71
Director of Planning Warren expressed concurrence with the City Attorney's
recommended wording.
Mr. York then referred to the second statement in the policy:
"That the development plan for the property in question shall include an
implementation section which sets forth in detail measures which will be
taken to insure that needed public services are provided concurrent with the
need generated by the development."
He again objected that this is not limited to schools.
Mr. Warren stated this does not mean that the developer will be required to
construct the public facilities, but it is incumbent upon the developer to work
with all agencies in determining what facilities will be needed to service the
area he is developing.
Mr. York expressed the feeling that the draft of the policy should be more
specific. He felt after the policy is adopted the city will decide on the
interpretation to put on it. He contended it is getting more and more difficult
for developers, not only in Chula Vista but as a nationwide problem.
Mr. Williams commented on the urgency of developing a comprehensive school plan
so that the developer can anticipate where the need will be.
Mr. York again objected that the proposed policy does not refer only to schools
nor does it indicate that it is an interim measure. He asserted that the draft
says so little that it can be interpreted in any way and it leaves so much to the
discretion of whoever is in power.
City Attorney Lindberg contended that this policy should be interpreted in light
of the existing subdivision map act which makes provision as to how school sites
will be set aside and how they will be procured. This policy could not require
dedication and development at all; that is not within the authority of cities.
It would require state legislation to impose that type of requirement.
Mr. York continued to object to the wording in the proposed policy and requested
that further time be allowed on this far reaching proposal.
City Attorney Lindberg asked that the hearing be continued if Mr. York wishes
to submit written comments on the provisions contained in this policy.
MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) The public hearing concerning the recommendation for
a Council Policy on provision of public facilities be continued to the meeting
of June 28, 1971.
Review of proposed construction of Boat Launch Facility in Tidelands Zone
Director of Planning Warren reported this is the first phase of development
proposed for the J Street Marina. He pointed out there is presently a land use
study under way by a consulting firm and there has been some talk about moving
this marina further north, but there are no recommendations at this point and
the City Council has agreed to go ahead with the first phase.
-16- 6/7/71
This phase would include a boat launching ramp, parking, landscaping and
a comfort station. He felt the plan as proposed would function well and
pointed out there has been no architectural theme established for the area.
The only structure in this phase, the comfort station, utilizes a modern,
rough board formed concrete wall, rounded corners and a flat roof. It is not
unattractive, but is nondescript and Mr. Warren hoped it would not set the
architectural theme for the area. He would suggest that a Spanish theme be
adopted for the area.
The staff requests that the Commission recommend approval of this facility
and transmit to the City Council their recommendation as to whether an archi-
tectural theme more closely associated with Chula Vista be established here.
Member Stewart expressed the opinion that the restroom facility be similar in
architecture to those in the Spanish Landing Park in San Diego.
MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council approval of the construc-
tion of the boat launch facilities and that the comfort station be designed in a
Spanish architecture comparable to that used in the Spanish Landing Park in San
Diego.
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. to the meeting of June 21, 1971.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Mapes, Secretary