Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1972/12/11 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURI~ED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA " December 11, 1972 The regular adjourned 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, Macevicz, Chandler, Rudolph, Whitten, Wilson and Swanson. Ex-officio member Miller had notified the secretary that he could not attend the meeting due to a conflict in time with tile meeting of the Environmental Control Commission of which he is a regular member. Also present: Acting Director of Planning Williams, Assistant Planner Lettieri, Assistant Director of Public Works Robens and Assistant City Attorney Blick. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Rice, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Rice reported that in the minutes of November 27, 1972, page 13, a statement ~.~as made that the Commission agreed they would not question the archi- tectural and aesthetic judgment of an architect of Mr. Wulff's stature, and he felt that statement was misleading in that it implies they would not question anything Mr. Wulff proposes, which was not their intent. He suggested that a more accurate report would be that the Cormlission agreed that although the style of architecture was somewhat different that the prevalent style in Bonita, they recognize that there is more than one style out there and that the particu- lar style of architecture proposed here is compatible with what is existing in the area. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) The minutes of November 27, 1972 be approved with the above noted correction. Member Swanson noted that in the minutes of the meeting of December 4, 1972, at the bottom of page 2, Member Whitten's name is listed twice under the aye votes on a motion and Member Swanson's name is omitted. He requested that the minutes be corrected to indicate he voted aye on the motion for approval of architecture and site plans submitted by Larwin-San Diego, Inc. for the development of E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 1. MSUC (Whitten-Macevicz) The minutes of the meeting of December 4, 1972 be approved as corrected. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Kathryn Moore requested permission to speak at this time on a matter concerning one of the public hearings in order that she might leave to attend the Environ- mental Control Commission meeting. Assistant City Attorney Blick indicated that since there is a conflict in the meeting time of the two commissions, the request should be granted. Kathryn Moore, Chairman of South Bay Citizens Planning Committee, 1134 Tobias Drive, reported that she felt Dr. Bloom had not produced factual information · as requested for consideration of Sports World, relating to an environmental report. Mrs. Moore also reported briefly on a conference she recently attended -2- 12/11/72 at the Methodist Church, Camino del Rio South, concerning the environmental hazards of the present way of life, noting diseases brought about or aggravated by air pollution which results from a congestion of automobiles. She also quoted from Dr. Billy Graham concerning the need to seek other values in life than money making pursuits. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of P-C Development Plan of Sports World - Dr. Leonard Bloom Acting Director of Planning Williams noted that the staff had previously reco- mmended that the Sports World plan be revie~ed in two phases. He reiterated that Phase I is to include: 1o Analysis of the financial viability of the arena recreation commercial complex. 2. Analysis of the fiscal impact of the total Sports World development on the City's tax rate. 3. An Environmental Impact Report. 4. A solution to traffic problems on H Street in the vicinity of the recreational commercial complex and the shopping center. 5. The development of acceptable temporary access to the arena and shopping center area until the freeway is completed. 6. The development of a routing proposal for construction equipment into the site prior to completion of the temporary access. With regard to the first item, Mr. Williams reported a letter has been received from Mr. Robert Kent, Arena Consultant of Atlanta, Georgia in which he expressed the opinion the Sports World arena will be financially successful. Chairman Rice felt this letter did not include factual information. Member Rudolph also raised a number of questions she felt should be answered in establishing whether there is a need for a second arena in tile San Diego region, and what the result would be if the arena did not prove to be finan- cially viable. She felt an economist should provide answers to such questions before a decision is made. Acting Director Williams indicated it would also be necessary to consider what alternative land uses could be substituted if it is determined any one portion of the plan would not be practical. He noted the alternatives would be quite limited for the area proposed for the sports arena. Chairman Rice brought up the question of traffic problems v~hich may result from this development. Getting back to the six items listed for consideration, Mr. Williams indicated no information has been received on the fiscal impact of the development on the City's tax rate. -3- 12/11/72 He reported that an Environmental Impact Report was submitted by Dr. Bloom's consultants too late to be analyzed by the staff, and he felt a great deal more work would be required on that report before it can be considered adequate. Mr. Williams further indicated that the traffic problems have not been resolved as they relate to the completed project or to the temporary access prior to completion of the freeway. Mr. Williams indicated these unresolved problems have resulted in his recommendation for preliminary approval of the plan submitted with the following conditions: (1) The completion of an environmental impact report and approval of that report by the City before the issuance of any permits for any type of construction or grading. (2) The completion of a detailed General Development Plan and Schedule as required by the P-C zone provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. He pointed out such approval would be an indication of the City's interest in the construction of an arena, but that if during the normal planning process the City feels that any element of the plan does not work to its satisfaction, Or is not in the best interests of the City, that element or proposal will be deleted from the plan. Chairman Rice indicated he felt the applicant has still not supplied the factual data or information necessary for the Commission to grant even conceptual approval. Acting Director of Planning Williams pointed out that the City Council has scheduled a public hearing for consideration of this project or December 19 and it is felt that the Planning Commission should forward some recommendation to the Council prior to that date. Assistant City Attorney Blick concurred that the Planning Commission should make some decision on the information that is available and submit their recommendation to the City Council. Acting Director of Planning Williams indicated that in making his recommendation for preliminary approval he took into consideration the additional tax revenue that would result from the development and the fact that the open space as pro- posed in the residential area is more in line with what the Planning Department is striving for in hillside development and his recommendation merely indicates a willingness to give further consideration to the proposed plan. If the Commission does not wish to give further consideration, they may wish to make the decision as to whether or not they are interested in having an arena. Member Wilson requested information on the traffic flow from the arena itself, and not from the shopping center and proposed residential development. Assistant Director of Public Works Robens pointed out that when an event at the arena ends 6,000 to 7,000 cars will be attempting to leave the area at one time, and certainly consideration must be given as to how to handle such traffic prior to construction of the freeway. Engineering recommends that there be two accesses: one to Bonita Road, and the second via J Street. The Commission discussed the proposed routes and it was felt that construction of the arena prior to the opening of 1-805 would be premature. Mr. Williams suggested the applicant may have answers to some of the questions raised. -4- - 12/11/72 Chairman Rice declared the public hearing reopened. Robert Caplan, 3003 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, attorney for Dr. Bloom, pointed out a P-C Plan has already been approved on this property and their application was for an amendment to that plan and the major change was the inclusion of the sports arena and the relocation of the shopping center from south of H Street to north of H Street. He felt these changes did not present a problem of the magnitude the Commission is discussing. He reiterated they are not seeking approval of a plan for the entire area of the P-C zone, but only for that area which they desire to have annexed to the City at this time, which involves 300 to 400 acres. They were asked instead to submit plans for 1500 acres, and by doing so, planning problems have been raised which will come up in the next 5, 10 or 15 years, and they are asked to resolve all of those problems at the present time. He further commented that the indication he has heard is that no matter what Dr. Bloom comes up with, he is not going to get approval,and if that is the position of the Commission, he felt Dr. Bloom should know it. Member Chandler commented that he is not opposed to a sports arena, but feels it is premature at this time, due to the lack of an adequate transportation system in the area. He felt the proposed development should be related to when the freeway is completed, which is anticipated in the middle of 1975 and not next fall. Mr. Caplan commented that what they are asking is whether the goals which Dr. Bloom has for construction of a sports arena are the same as the City's goals and they have not received that indication. Member Whitten suggested that Dr. Bloom's goals would change if he were told the City's goals for development of the area is not until 1975 when the free- way is complete, since Dr. Bloom insists he needs the sports arena by October of next year. Mr. Caplan maintained the timing of the development is not the issue before the Commission, but the issue is the plan and whether or not the Commission approves the plan. They are at this time, seeking an expression from the Commission as to whether or not they want a sports arena. Member Macevicz asked if the attorney felt Dr. Bloom would accept the two conditions stipulated by the Acting Director of Planning for preliminary approval. Mr. Caplan advised that Dr. Bloom understands those requirements and would view such preliminary approval as a favorable step. Ed Vaden, 1672 Elmhurst, spoke in support of the proposed arena, noting it is a logical approach to getting a larger tax base. He felt the technical prob- lems could be worked out by the City. Member Macevicz pointed out they must also consider the amount of services that will be required by this development, which may offset the revenue from the additional tax base. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, spoke as an interested citizen who has attended the hearings on the Sports World proposal and has become convinced it would be very detrimental to Chula Vista and its residents. He felt that neither the -5- 12/11/72 proposed sports arena, nor the proposed regional shopping center should be approved even in concept. With reference to the sports arena, Mr. Watry contended it has a high proba- bility of being a "white elephant", which would mean that the citizens of Chula Vista would be asked to subsidize the arena or to buy it outright, or to have it go bankrupt and become a deteriorating eyesore. He quoted a sports editor and a sports writer who indicate there is no need for a second arena in the San Diego area. He pointed out that even if Dr. Bloom has the number of events he claims, there is no evidence that they will be supported. The crucial factor is the amount of revenue the arena generates, not the number of events held. If the San Diego area cannot support two arenas, one would have to go broke. Mr. Watry went on to comment if his above thinking is wrong, and the arena is a success that would be even worse for Chula Vista, since a sports arena is a highly polluting industry. Mr. Watry then displayed numerous charts indicating the amount of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen which could be anticipated to pollute the air from the traffic generated by 250 events per year attended by an average of 4,000 cars per event. He also compared the amount of air pollution to be anticipated from sports arena traffic with that generated by other stationary industrial sources in the area, noting that it would be many times that of most industries. Mr. Watry stated that contrary to Dr. Bloom's indication that the traffic prob- lems have been solved, approval of the arena will create an undesirable traffic problem which Chula Vista cannot solve without a major restructuring of the whole road system. With reference to the proposed regional shopping center, Mr. Watry pointed out that the development of such centers prior to their need leads to the deteriora- tion of the established commercial centers due to loss of business. He felt the City should follow a conservative policy governing future commercial zoning and development, to protect and increase the potential of existing commercial centers. He pointed out, further, that the location seems rather premature, since it would be built on an extreme edge of the population rather than some- what in the center of population. He cited the slowing down in population growth and contended it will be some time into the future before the area is populated enough to require this be generated when this center is fully developed. With regard to taxes and tax bases, Mr. Watry maintained there have been no calculations presented to show the City will make a profit off of the development; he therefore believes this is not the case, but that the Sports World complex will add less in additional taxes that it will cost the City to provide the necessary services. Mr. Watry then summarized his arguments as to why the Sports World commercial complex should not be approved, even in concept, at this time. Cary Wright, 242 East J Street, spoke of the traffic that would be forced on to the local residential streets if this center is constructed prior to the opening of 1-805 freeway. This would probably necessitate the widening of such streets as East J. He commented on the time it takes to get away from the -6- 12/11/72 San Diego Statium after attending a game there, and felt that is not what the people of Chula Vista want here. He hoped the Commission would be aware that the citizens are happy with Chula Vista the way it is and felt future development should be carefully considered in order not to create a lot of problems the City doesn't need. Mr. Eugene Coleman, 1670 Gotham Street, felt it is the obligation of the Commission to protect the city by not approving this proposed development. He pointed out there are three private arenas being operated in major cities in the United States today. Two are successful, the third is in the process of failing financially. The one in Philadelphia had until recently operated successfully, but is now beginning to fail. Madison Square Garden is succeeding to the point that it had to be rebuilt, but it draws from a population of approxi- mately 11 million people. The Forum in Los Angeles is succeeding because the man who built it owns the franchise for the Los Angeles Lakers and the Los Angeles Kings, both major league teams. He has a virtual monopoly in Los Angeles in this field. While the Forum is succeeding, the Los Angeles Arena, a municipally owned arena, is now failing and does not have enough revenue to pay for maintenance and interest on the bonds since the second arena was built. Mr. Coleman felt the Con~nission is being pressured at this point to make a premature decision. C. Napier, 666 Gilbert Street, expressed the opinion that even approval in concept or entertaining the idea of an arena makes the city liable. He indi- cated he does not like the arena, the shopping center would be tolerable, and he does not like the housing. He felt the units were being crowded too close together. He felt that growth should be slow and this area developed only as the need arises. The meeting recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. Member Whitten indicated that some answers have been brought out by the testi- mony given at this meeting. He felt two things are relevant here; one, that the sports arena does not appear to be in keeping with the general character of Chula Vista. It is not the type of industry, or type of tax base, which he wants. Even if it were, it appears it is premature because there is no way access can be gained to the property without drastically affecting the residential environment now enjoyed in Chula Vista. Until 1-805 is completed, it is out of the question to consider a development of this magnitude. Although he recognizes the need for tax base, he felt the Con~ission still needs to make a decision for orderly and correct planning and to follow what they consider to be sound land use ideals. Member Chandler indicated he also feels that consideration of the sports arena is premature and it hasn't been proven that the need exists, and it would result in nothing but traffic problems until there is some means to handle a great volume of traffic. Member Rudolph reported that she does not feel it is just the details that need to be resolved, and the basic consideration of whether a sports arena is bene- ficial to the city has not been resolved. In spite of what the attorney says, she feels if the Commission approves it, they have made a commitment which would be very difficult to go back and change. She indicated she could not vote for the arena at this time. -7- 12/11/72 Member Wilson commented the Commission should bring this item to a head which he has felt is desirable. Obviously there are very many problems attendant to this project; 1,000+ acres cannot be developed without having problems. The problems of traffic are very important and can't be minimized, but the issue before the Commission is whether or not the planned community development as generally outlined by Dr. Bloom and his attorney is consistent and in keeping with the desires of the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Wilson advised he cannot speak against the plan as he feels the area is going to be developed in one way or another. There are indications that the preliminary dwelling activity is more desirable than what was previously proposed, and the community shopping center is comparable to what was proposed before. The new item before the Commission is the arena. He expressed his support for the arena and maintained it is in- cumbent upon this body to give some indication to Dr. Bloom as to whether he may proceed with this project. It is indicated this will be a 200 million dollar development in the City of Chula Vista, ~hich will spread the tax base a long way. It will lend attrativeness to other light industrial development that could accrue to the area. He noted there are many problems, but Dr. Bloom has expressed that he has been working with the staff and will continue to work with the staff to build something that will be a credit to the community. Member Macevicz acknowledged that this area is going to be developed because the property belongs to somebody. He felt the regional shopping center is the best part of the program, but he has serious doubts about the arena. He did not think Chula Vista can or will support it. He further felt that the services which this proposed 200 million dollar complex would require would far exceed the tax revenue. TherefOre, he could not support the arena. Member Swanson commented that not all problems could be foreseen, but he felt one which should be considered is the development of some form of public trans- portation. He felt there will eventually be a fuel shortage, in which case the city will be confronted with the need for some kind of transportation system other than private autos. Expressing the feeling that Dr. Bloom deserves some kind of an answer, Member Swanson moved that the Commission accept the recommendation of the Planning Director and proceed from there. Chairman Rice noted that the public hearing has not been closed and the motion was withdra~n. He then asked if the Commission wished to close the hearing and send a recommendation to the Council. Member Wilson expressed the opinion that it is imperative for this body to act. He felt that courtesy demands that they advise this developer where he stands with the City of Chula Vista. The Chairman asked if there is any more testimony from the audience. Josephine Napier, 666 Gilbert, reported they purchased their home just above this canyon three years ago, and she felt the city offered plenty of shopping facilities. She felt an industry, such as the arena, should not be located in the heart of a residential area. She felt the area should be developed with housing in keeping with the surrounding area. She expressed admiration for the Commission's thoroughness and urged a no vote on the arena. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was declared closed. -8- 12/11/72 MS (Swanson-Wilson) The Commission accept the recommendation of the Planning Director for preliminary approval. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members Swanson and Wilson NOES: Members Macevicz, Chandler, Rice, Rudolph and Whitten ABSENT: None MSC (Whitten-Chandler) A recommendation be forwarded to the City Council con- cerning the P-C development plan for Sports ~orld, Dr. Leonard Bloom, that it be denied since it is premature. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Whitten, Chandler, Rudolph, Rice and Macevicz NOES: Members Swanson and Wilson ABSENT: None Chairman Rice announced that this matter will be considered by the City Council at a public hearing on December 19th. Attorney Caplan asked for clarification of the action taken by the Commission noting that a P-C plan covering this property had been previously adopted. He asked if this action indicates the Commission prefers the previous plan to this one or that they do not like either of the plans, or think the property ought not to be developed at all. Acting Director of Planning Williams suggested that the motion be clarified to indicate if the Commission recommends denial only of the sports arena as being premature, and whether or not they like the other two elements of the shopping center and residential development. Chairman Rice advised that he felt the commercial aspects are premature without a highway network to support them, so they are talking about the total commercial complex including the arena. Member Rudolph felt what the Commission wants is a plan with a lot more informa- tion and to go along regular channels so they know what they are doing. Acting Director of Planning Williams suggested that the Commission is saying they recommend denial of the arena; they recommend that the commercial develop- ment is somewhat premature due to the freeway timing, but in terms of the residential and open space area shown on this plan, the Commission would basically be in favor of those. MSC (Whitten-Chandler) The previous motion be amended to state: The arena is not desirable; the commercial development is premature without the incorporation of a completed highway network; and it appears that the general concepts and preliminary ideas of housing development and open space are consistent with the ideas of the Planning Commission. -9- 12/11/72 The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Whitten, Chandler, Rudolph, Rice and Macevicz NOES: Members Wilson and Swanson ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of various changes in the General Plan Map Acting Director of Planning Williams reported this hearing was continued to determine if other changes would be required following the hearing for zone changes, which is the next agenda item. He suggested that hearing be held prior to taking action on these changes to the General Plan. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of various zone changes to bring zoning into conformance with the General Plan Map Assistant Planner Lettieri indicated the location of each of the following pro- posed zone changes: Approximately 23 acres located 370 feet east of National Avenue to North Fifth Avenue, north of State 54 to the city boundary, from C-C-F to I-L-F. The public hearing was opened; no one wished to speak; the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Macevicz-Whitten) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION PCZ-72-R-(1) approximately 23 acres located 370 feet east of National Avenue to North Fifth Avenue, north of State 54 Freeway to city boundary, from C-C-F to I-L-F. Two small parcels located each of North Fourth and Highland Avenue, adjacent to State 54 on and off ramps from C-T-F to I-L-F. Also, property located south of 30th Street, west of Edgemere Avenue, from C-C and C-C-F to I-L and I-L-F. Acting Director of Planning Williams reported a letter received from the National City Planning Department expresses their preference that the property adjacent to 30th Street remain in a commercial zone rather than an industrial zone. Mr. Williams suggested further study on this proposal would be undertaken by the staff if so directed by the Commission. The public hearing for consideration of zone changes for the above areas was opened and as no one wished to speak the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Macevicz-Whitten) Rezoning of the property located south of 30th Street, west of Edgemere Avenue be referred to the staff for further study. MSUC (Chandler-Rudolph) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-72-R-(2) for two small parcels located each of North Fourth and Highland Avenue, adjacent to State 54 on and off ramps from C-T-F to I-L-F -lO- 12/11/72 Mr. Lettieri advised that although a change of zone for property each of North Second and Edgemere, north of C Street, was advertised, it is now recommended that no zone change be enacted for this property and the General Plan be modi- fied to conform to the existing zoning. MSUC (Whitten-Macevicz) No zone changes be recommended for the parcel east of North Second and Edgemere, north of C Street. Mr. Lettieri pointed out a small sliver of land 100' north of Third Avenue, south of C Street, which, due to an incorrect dimension on a previous rezoning, was left in a different residential category. It is recommended this be re- zoned from R-3 to R-3-G-D. The public hearing was opened and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Whitten-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION PCZ-72-R-(3) a small sliver of land 100 feet north of Third Avenue, south of C Street from R-3 to R-3-G-D Mr. Lettieri indicated the location of 1-1/2 acres on the south side of D Street west of Garrett Avenue, and 2 acres on the north side of D Street, between Glover Court and Fourth Avenue, presently zoned R-1 and recommended for rezoning to R-3, since the General Plan designates the area as high density residential. He noted a portion of the property is used as a parking lot for the adjacent church and there are 10 single family dwellings included in the lots. The Commission discussed the church parking and noted that development plans are uncertain. MSUC (Whitten-Chandler) The public hearing to consider rezoning of property on the north and south sides of D Street, west of Garrett Avenue, be continued until the staff can complete a study on its logical use. Assistant Planner Lettieri pointed out 24.18 acres located south of D Street from Second to Third Avenue, which is presently improved with Fredricka Manor. A zone change from R-3 to R-3-H is recommended to conform to the General Plan classification of very high density residential. It was pointed out this is one of the few properties in the city large enough to accommodate the setbacks required for high rise structures. The public hearing was opened, and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Rudolph-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION PCZ-72-R-(4) 24.18 acres located south of D Street from Second Avenue to Third Avenue from R-3 to R-3-H Mr. Lettieri indicated the location of 7 lots at the southeast corner of Davidson and Garrett for which rezoning from R-3-D to C-O-D is proposed. The General Plan designates the area for administrative and professional office use and the D indicates the civic center design control district. The public hearing was opened and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. -ll- 12/11/72 MSUC (Chandler-Whitten) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION PCZ-72-R-(5) 7 lots located at the southeast corner of Davidson Street and Garrett Avenue from R-3-D to C-O-D Assistant Planner Lettieri noted miscellaneous lots located south of G Street, north of H Street, between Fifth Avenue and Broadway, which are recommended for rezoning from R-2 to R-3-P. He reported the General Plan is proposed to be revised from very high density residential to high density residential, due to the relatively small lot sizes in the area. The public hearing was opened and as no one wished to speak the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Macevicz-Rudolph) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION PCZ-72-R-(6) miscellaneous lots located south of G Street, north of H Street, between Fifth Avenue and Broadway, from R-2 to R-3-P, with the following guidelines for approval of a Precise Plan: 1. The Precise Plan shall encourage total redevelopment of each lot with removal of existing residences. 2. Access for offstreet parking shall be primarily from alleys. 3. When redevelopment occurs adjacent to single family dwellings, care shall be taken in the development of a Precise Plan to protect the residential development. 4. Consolidation of lots for redevelopment shall be encouraged. Assistant Planner Lettieri indicated the location of a lot on the south side of G Street, 115 feet east of Broadway, which it is proposed to rezone from C-T to C-O. It is felt the C-O zoning would serve as a buffer between the residential use to the east and the thoroughfare co~ercial use along Broadway. The property is presently developed with a two-story commercial building which accommodates an attorney's office, publishing office, auto leasing, trophy sales, and account- ant's office. Of these uses, only the trophy sales ~¢ould be nonconforming under the proposed C-O zone. The public hearing was opened and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Rudolph-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION PCZ-72-R-(7) the 100' X 125' lot located on the south side of G Street, 115 feet east of Broadway, from C-T to C-O. Mr. Lettieri pointed out the property at the southwest corner of Kearney and Church Street recommended for rezoning from R-3-D to R-1. He reported that a zone change to R-3-D was granted in July, 1963 to permit a convalescent hospital on the subject property and the commercial property adjacent to Third Avenue. That project was not carried out and the area is currently being used for park- ing. Development of the property for multiple family use would be an intrusion into a stable single family area. The public hearing was opened, and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. -12- 12/11/72 Acting Director of Planning Williams recommended that further study on this proposed change be conducted by the staff before the Commission takes action. MSUC (Whitten-Chandler) Rezoning of the property at the southwest corner of Kearney and Church Street be referred to the staff for further study. Assistant Planner Lettieri indicated the location of the property to the east of I-5 Freeway, both north and south of Moss Street, which is recommended for rezoning from I to I-L to conform to the Research and Limited Industrial designa- tion on the General Plan. He reported the property is presently improved with residential use and with agricultural use south of Moss. The public hearing was opened. James Yamate, 724 Moss, advised that the only residences on this property are his own and his mother's, and the land is in agricultural use. He expressed concern over changing to the I-L zone since that zone does not permit motels and as the property is adjacent to an offramp of the freeway and he felt there might be a need for a tourist oriented use for the property. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Acting Director of Planning Williams suggested that this rezoning be deferred for further study by the staff. Assistant Planner Lettieri indicated the location of property west of I-5, north of Palomar Street and south of L Street on and off ramps which is proposed for rezoning from I to I-L to conform with the General Plan designation of Research and Limited Industrial. Acting Director of Planning Williams reported that a letter has been received from Jeremy Berg, owner of the property, in which he requests that the property remain in the I - General Industrial zone, since the property is adjacent to general industrial development. Mr. Williams indicated this would require a change in the General Plan, but he could see no objections to following that procedure. MSUC (Chandler-Whitten) The proposal for change of zone from I to I-L for property west of I-5, north of Palomar Street and south of L Street on and off ramps be filed and the General Plan amended to conform to the existing zoning. Mr. Lettieri reported that the property on the west side of Walnut, adjacent to SDG&E right of way was discussed at the public hearing on December 4, and the Commission directed that a new public hearing be set to consider rezoning additional property along with this property. Assistant Planner Lettieri pointed out the location of approximately 1/2 acre on the north side of L Street, approximately 150 feet east of Third Avenue. He noted that this area is on the border between Retail Commercial use on Third Avenue and medium density residential (R-1 zone) to the east. The property is vacant and has a rather substantial drainage channel running through the property and along the L Street frontage. The staff recommends that from the center line of the drainage channel west, the property be re- zoned to C-C-P, and from the center line of the drainage channel to the east, it be rezoned R-1. -13~ 12/11/72 Chairman Rice expressed the opinion it would be more logical to rezone the entire parcel to C-C-P with guidelines for development to handle the drainage. The public hearing was opened and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Macevicz-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION PCZ-72-R-(8) approximately 1/2 acre located on the north side of L Street, approximately 150' east of Third Avenue from R-3 to C-C-P, subject to the Precise Plan guidelines that development shall take place only when coordinated with access to the property to the west and no access provided to L Street for that portion of the property west of the drainage channel, and from R-3 to R-1 for the portion of the lot to the east of the drainage channel. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Macevicz, Chandler, Rice, Rudolph, Swanson ~nd Whitten NOES: Member Wilson ABSENT: None Assistant Planner Lettieri indicated the area located 140 feet north of Palomar, 310 feet east of Third Avenue, containing approximately 2 acres, proposed for rezoning from R-1 to R-3-G-P with Precise Plan guidelines to demonstrate ade- quate access to the property and to provide separation from the commercial property to the west. The public hearing was opened and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION PCZ-72-R-(9) two lots measuring 480' X 165', located 140 feet north of Palomar and 310 feet east of Third Avenue, from R-1 to R-3-G-P, subject to the following Precise Plan guidelines: 1. The Precise Plan shall demonstrate adequate access to the property. 2. Adequate protection and separation from the commercial property to the west shall be provided. Assistant Planner Lettieri pointed out the location of 4.49 acres on the north side of Bonita Road, opposite Sandalwood Drive proposed for rezoning from R-I-15-F to R-3-G-F, to conform to the General Plan Designation of high density residential. The property is presently improved with a church. The public hearing was opened and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Macevicz-Whitten) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION PCZ-72-R-(lO) 4.49 acres on the north side of Bonita Road, opposite Sandalwood Drive, from R-1 to R-3-G-F. -14- 12/11/72 Assistant Planner Lettieri noted two lots at the southwest corner of Bonita Road and Sandalwood Drive proposed for rezoning from R-3-D to conform with a proposed change in the General Plan from low density residential to medium density residential. He noted that the southerly lot is vacant while the one to the north is improved with a single family residence. Acting Director of Planning reported this property had been part of a larger rezoning to R-3. He felt it might properly be rezoned to R-3-G to serve as a buffer between the commercial and single family development, but the two lots are not large enough to accommodate straight R-3 development. The public hearing was opened. Frank Ferreira, 250 Bonita Glen Drive, expressed his opposition to the proposed change of zone. He indicated the property was prezoned R-3 many years ago prior to annexation of the property. He noted that the two lots combined total about 20,000 square feet which he felt is adequate for multiple family development. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Acting Director of Planning Williams advised he would not disagree with a designa- tion of high density residential on the General Plan, but would recommend that the property be rezoned to R-3-G. As Mr. Ferreira indicated a desire to speak again, the public hearing was reopened on a motion by Macevicz, seconded by Wilson. Mr. Ferreira stated the recommenda- tion for R-3-G zoning would not be acceptable to them because they would be forced to develop both parcels at the same time, whereas R-3 zoning would~rmit develop- ment of the southerly parcel by itself. The public hearing was again closed. MSC (Whitten-Rudolph) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION PCZ-72-R-(ll) 2 lots at the southwest corner of Bonita Road and Sandalwood, from R-3-D to R-3-G-P The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Whitten, Rudolph, Rice, Chandler and Macevicz NOES: Members Wilson and Swanson ABSENT: None Assistant Lettieri noted the location of property on the south side of Bonita Road, east of Bonita Glen Drive, which is proposed for rezoning from R-3-D, R-1 and C-C-D to C-V-P for the entire parcel. Since a portion of the property is within the 100 year flood plain, the F district designation should be attached to the zoning for that portion. The General Plan designates this area adjacent to the freeway as visitor commercial. The proposed change would bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan and because of the various parcels involved, the Precise Plan would be required to insure coordinated development. The public hearing was opened. -15- 12/11/72 Frank Ferreira, 250 Bonita Glen Drive, reported that the existing zoning was a prezoning prior to annexation. He felt that zoning should be retained. Develop- ment has not occurred because they had gone on record that they would not develop until the freeway is ready to open. The City had requested as a condition of the prezoning that the owner dedicate drainage channels and street right of ways and this has been done. He reported they had refused to accept C-V zoning at the time they annexed to the City, and had stated they would not annex under C-V zoning, but required C-1. Assistant City Attorney Blick recommended that this rezoning proposal be deferred in order that previous actions by the City may be reviewed, and a meeting held with the owner. MSUC (Chandler-Whitten) Consideration of rezoning of the property south of Bonita Road, east of Bonita Glen Drive be deferred for further study by the staff. Assistant Planner Lettieri pointed out approximately 18 acres located west of 1-805, 500 feet south of Otay Valley Road, which it is proposed to rezone from R-3-G and R-3-G-F to R-2 and R-2-F. Development plans for most of this property have been approved as a continuation of the Rancho Rios projects. Those plans are in conformance with the proposed zoning. The public hearing was opened and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Rudolph-Macevicz) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION PCZ-72-R-(12) approximately 18 acres located west of 1-805, south of Otay Valley Road, from R-3-G and R-3-G-F to R-2 and R-2-F. Assistant Planner Lettieri indicated approximately 200 acres located north of Otay Valley Road, 600 feet east of Brandywine Avenue, proposed for rezoning from A-8 to I-P to implement a proposed revision to the General Plan. Mr. Lettieri noted the topography is essentially level adjacent to Otay Valley and rises steeply adjacent to the residential areas on the north. Since the property has good access to 1-805 to the west, and the large parcels within the area would encourage good site design, it is felt industrial development would be suitable. The public hearing was opened and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Chandler-Whitten) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION pCZ-72-R-(13) 200 acres located 600 feet east of Brandywine, on the north side of Otay Valley Road and extending approxi- mately 1320 feet to the north, from A-8 to I-P. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Chandler, Whitten, Swanson, Rudolph, Rice and Macevicz NOES: Member Wilson ABSENT: None Assistant Planner Lettieri pointed out a lot containing 2.04 acres located on the west side of Otay Lakes Road, 500 feet south of Bonita Road, recommended for rezoning from A-D to R-E-40 to be in conformance with the General Plan -16- 12/11/72 designation of low density residential use. The public hearing was opened and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION PCZ-72-R-(14) 2.04 acres located on the west side of Otay Lakes Road, 500 feet south of Bonita Road from A-D to R-3-40. Acting Director of Planning Williams suggested that the public hearing for consideration of changes to the General Plan Map be closed and the Commission's recommendation forwarded to the City Council. MSUC (Whitten-Macevicz) The public hearing for consideration of changes to the General Plan map be closed, and that the changes recommended by the staff and by the Commission during the hearing be forwarded to the City Council. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Acting Director of Planning Williams suggested that the Commission set a date for a special meeting in the early part of January since the holidays on December 25, 1972 and January 1, 1973, will preclude the meetings regularly scheduled for those dates. MSUC (Whitten-Chandler) A meeting of the City Planning Commission be scheduled for January 8, 1973 for the purpose of holding public hearings as desired. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~qel en Mapes '~ Secretary