HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1972/08/07 %2f~' ~ ..... 1 on the above date beg~nnh-~g st ?:00 p.m
th~s , 9]2ow]t}r~, ,,. ,~1--~-.~:.,-~ present: rrfacev~ez, Adaras, Chand]er,
an:.~ ex-,),fzcza menber rq.]2~r'.. , Also pt~'~~t.' Asa~stant
~.': pledge oF :~]]o,r',arl-ao_ ~ ~,,'-' the flag was led by Vice Chairman
}:acev]~'~.. rio]lowed by. a ..... n. o¢ eh!: prayer,
? - (M~am-C uct~dlor) Re :'olutJ on commcmdh~L~ [4R. x.:ewarL for
......... . ..... ,--1' h':~s years of serv~c~ on the Plar:nlrg
Corniness:ion be ad:,,p~ed and a copy pre-
sent. ed te Mr. fqt~wap~.
P'V~T T~ 'r ~A~T~ C · 70NDITZONAT, ,,~m n~ q ,mn I;
' , ....... ),~, PER?,'rIT - .h]h3 Bonita R)~d
to con~truct residential care facility - Sa. roue]
Associate Planner Lee advh~e~ that ?omc pr,>b]ems with the ,!cve]opmen'[
~ ~,.m.. apparettt amd the :~ta. Ff recommended a continuance .:)f
the pub] ~c hesr~n,Z for 'two weeks )m order thc:I: the plan:~ may be
v~ed: the app]i~eant eoneurre~ with !:h~z reenmmendation.
~?'m. :,,,, (~damo-.m. mdl.r,~ . ~ m~ = ~ The pub]~,.~ hearing For con.~decatio-n' ' of a
cond~t~ona~ use permit to enn~truet a residential ca:ce Cacti:[By
;]~,n,~, ?on~ta Pon. 2 be continued to the 'neet~ng cC ~'
~u~ mt.9~ ]972
~'~ ~ ' (Cont.) ~ ~' ' '
· l:~I, NEARING · off
· ,.on.~zder~t~on amendment to Zoning Or,,
di. nance relating t;o -o~+~ oF po] ~tica] ~'~
i::~oe];~t¢ PJ~pmer Lee advised tha't fo]'lov,'ir~ "or, sidr~r~.k~on ~F the
~,'lr. I~e rez,(r~oc~ t,t~,. [lqe City al,] ~ou~ky of ':r~, Dieg)
,~dq"P, .... '~tT. Tr,,-d.~n"¢'t. ~%~)0,'., t.¢ ] {'rtl. ~uh'O :,'~::,' &!'l~ ~F~, ] -.~'i'~':,. t,a~ ."
!{e advised that r~o j~_~r~r~d]ct[on ha',; adopted ~ perm~; or bond~ng
procedure to a~;sure compliance with the regu]a-t;[ons and removal
of the s~gm~ . The staff feels the 10 day removal per~o,~ is rer~-
sortable and that ]t]s ~oss~ble to have a permit or ~,ond]ng
cass to ~nsurance compliance w~th t~e ordinance: ~+. ~s s~ggested
that the req~rem~,nt for a deposit or bond t} cover th~ cost of
s~g~ removal should be ar~ f]ex~b!e a,s pass~b]e anc~ that a candidate
i~]ann~ng o~ly a few ?~Snz should not have to ~nc~r
depos~ or bond.
[~]r. Lee reviewed the ~taff's recommendation to ]~m[t
m ~:[gm 1:o 4 cq. f~. where located in a residential ?c, ne ~nd 1o ]2
cq. ft. ]m an Zn~ustrJa] or commercial zone, and to ]~mit the
t~me nor d~spqay~ng po]~l;~cal s~gns to 30 days pr~or to an elecl'io~
with r'emova] vq~h[n lO ,'~sys after the e]ect~on.
A~si~tarzt C~to~ .~flarney El]ck d[scu:zzed the ]egality or ~lgp contr)]
and r~gges~,d t?~ ~ prph~b]ting pol~t~ca] s]~ms entirely might
a v[olatio of the firs~ amendment ef the con?~t[~:]~t~on which guaran-
tees freedw ,h~ :~l~eech.
V~ep-Cha]rtw~h ~.?~.r:ev]ez r]er:]ared the public hearing
Kathcyn ?,%-'me, '~', Tobias Drive, a~ked in the event the 4 sq, {t,.
~ ]mltation !r~ a]epked what would be done with the la~ger signs
already in ',.-s~s':~e~'ce. It was sugge~t~ed these co~]d b~ used
the zones "fore ?2 sq. ~'t. signs are permitted. &s no cna else
wished to ,~.-~, uh'~ p"~b,}c hear[n~ w~ declared closed.
c~ss[on th~ ~omm{-: ]on fe]t the size and 'time limita~lor~s were
reasonable ~] tlc procedure For approval and enforcmnent of the
prov]s~ons ~- necessary.
~,~ZIJq (~]ttcn-Pw~o]pb) Recommer:~ to the City Council amendment
REqOLUTTON ~q~-?2-4 to Section 33.950 of the Zoning Crd]-
mance ]]mitlng the area of political
signs to 4 sq. ft. in any residential
zone and to 12 sq. ~t. ~n the [nd~strlal
a~d commercial ~ones~ establ.lshlng a
time limit of 30 days [mmedia~e]y there-
aFter~ and esk~b][shimg the procedure
for apErova] of political signs.
PUBIIC ![EARING: a. Consideration of chan~{e lin Gener~] Plan for
IO0 acres on the south side o~ O~a~ Va!le[~
Road between I-aO~ amd Rios Avenue
b. Conslderstion of Planned Unit Development -
Rancho R~os Unitso, ~ ~ and 8
~ ~ ~ , for Rancho
c. .ono~oerat~on of Tentative ~!ap
Rios Un[ts 6, 7, and ~
~ssoc~ate Planner i,ee ~dv[,sed that only the proposed change in the
General Plan wouId be d~scussed at .h~s hear[ng since the applicant
has requested a continuance of the consideration ofthe Pl~mr~ed
Unit Development and tentative map fcr Rancho Rios Unfts 6, v, and
t,lr. Lee displayed a plat noting the designation on the .enezam Plan
o[ nndustr~a] l~ndm use on both sides N[a[n ~tre.t and Otay Valley
Road from ?b:~rd Avenue east to Interstate 80~. ~[e noted the locatzo~
of approx~.ma~ely ]00 acres south of Otay Valley Road extendfmg to
~a~ t to 1-805, ne pointed out ~he existing zon[ng
'th~ river bed, ed~ ,e~
of thl.~ property includes ~-2, R-3-G, C-N and ~ ~ At the time the
rezomlng of th~s area for residential use was considered, it was
felt thz~ would take 3dvanta=e oftbe p~mamen,, opera space JN the Otay
R'kver bed amd that ~t_ open space should not be cut off from res~
de~.,a_ ~oe b~: ~ndu .... l~l develommen?. !t wa~ a~.~ _ o, a,, even
v,[tb" influx'trial ',,o~,'¢~,~:~ ~ the County for some t~me' there ham
no ~n.q ~'.,hr_al; ae~v ty _.~n the area. ~,fr. I,ee eonf~rmed that devetso-
mant plans Pcr residential ,~se have been appro~;ed on the wester~
portlop of the area under comsiderat~on.
Thi~; being the time and place a~ advertised, (he public hearing
~, oc for consideration of a
op_n~] only -.~ ~e in the Genera! Plan for
100 acres on the south side of Otay Va]Icy Road. As no ovn
~ h~a~ho was closed.
..... o ~ for or against, the public ~ ~'
~.~n.~ ,- to the
i!ember a~t,~_n expresse~ reluctance to approve ~= "~'
fienera] P]sr' can a p2ecemeal basis at the developer's request.
.. ~. , n~ .... h~.~' or Plann]ns till~a.~:~ aga]~ po '_ '~ff:,',~ ou~ that at
,,ne time the ]~nt major ~'~' ~;:] to the ,,,~ne ~. ],. .... a,~ appro~ec
there had been no sUbStanf~al change in the land use proposed for
n~,~ozed For thi:;a,~.~.,~n h,t,,~ ~ shortly after that ~ .... ~d.~+la]~ _. ~ ....... dew~-
lopment plans were ~-,~n .... ~ith ~ub~aq,~nt anmexat;Lon to the City.
' ' ~ ....... t,~at '~ is not the staff's des]re to revise
[no General Plan on a p~ecemea! oa~s b:t r~cenS]y adopted ztate
].,"~]:-:]ation raake;~ t~]s a necessity bt some tnsta~ces. He noted that
the staff,~a.~t". ~ to make sure there~ i.:z ~ complete stm]y and 'rev]..'~*~..
of the n~.~e~a-~ ] Plan as soon as possible.
~o,~hn~ ........ Al%m~ ~ and Rudolph_ concurred w~th tho .... . , adoptl~!S
t;,,]:~ nhan(~e ho gae~lJhate the proposed development of the property.
Ex-o~' '~lc~o ~emb~,r'~ ~ W~ll~r .... commented that the reference ~o the open
~, -,~, and nat~ra] dra nage ares. po]nts ~p Tae '
~v~o~m~,~le] '~'~'~e ~tudy ~'~ ]~e made in connection with proposed
deve] onmer'~ plans.
%/7/72
~'iSUC (Chandler-Rudolph) Recommet~,i ~o ~he ~,~ Com-,eil
R,,O, ,TI(L: PC!',{-72-1~ of a movLs]on oF th] General Plan to
~h~no~ the land qse designer!Lin ~or
proximately ]o0~ a~ren on the sm;tN .,~'n~
et Otay Valley Road, west ,~ I-:b..p from
r_,,e~..c,, and ]~m~tedzna,,,' ' ~, '~a t) reed'urn
de~tty resfd~mtfa] and retell ~nd v~-
d~splayed.
,.~..~ ,,,,udo~th-,ff~t~eh, The pub!~c hearing f)r oons:~deratzon oz a
,n~_t Development and tentative map ?ct Rancho R~os TM ' -
7 apa ~ be co~t:~nuer] to the mee~hk~ a~ August 2~
~., ' ;,~ at jO0 Third Avenue ~
Req~est for approval ,~ freestandznS
C-C zcme Tewaco,
~.. a..e Planner d~.;played a plat ~,f the prop?rl:y at the so~thwest
corner : fl Third Aven'~e and "!{" ]~'t-ee~' ~ ~ot]r~' the ]o~al,~..n'~ ~o of thc
1. ~'~.~o s end t,, proposed
freez~andins ~,~m~, r~ pol.nted out that adjacent development
'a ~u ~d,,~ make ~.t dtff~cu]t to obtain adequate
the ;etback of tn:. ~ '~ : ' '
~loa~l~,n l~y khe we of a wall or marqn.:~ s~gn. ~{e reviewed the
cond]t[)ns~,r~omh_g:~,, ' ~ by the :staFf ~or approval of thc pale ~.gu'
, ~ ] [)f~b~ pruper'ky a~ the < f~-~,.~ ~-~*',~--r,,-f-: ,
and "~T" 'If:Peet :n~bj,~ct ta the ~,("~]o~,,ng'"
conditi,)ns:
] ~'h~ two exlsl:[ns~ pnle ,,",'-; and '~ ~n .... ~ ,
..~ The poln si~-P,~, 8}~,1],~ ....have ~ ~ax~mum he~.gl]L }f 17. ~h ~.,. r~d a
Jl. ?he ,.'~m~ lo., ':h~] 1, ~..~ proje~!:' ~,o r r,,~, ,,h :~,~m than rfve, ~,-', ": -,ad th ,
Ne..~'~st For approval of free::~tandzn,~I ~r, ~ 72n "U" 9treet
C-V ~ .' a - .
zob~ Texaoo~
the izul]dlng, a:: e;ci~:a ~r,~ 18 fo,~t, z ~., ~..
oo,. h:~gh free*,'/ay-cr~emte4 pole.~,or., It is F~'nP'~'~n Io
the rnnf t'~[: s[eT',· ~nd reeway-orlerte']. .~ ]~.~,n at -the expiration o~
~ ~n~ V~'~'~r,.. ~hjectad ~o perm[ttlng three :~i~ns. o~ ~ proDerty
arwt imc]]oa[c.l bo.. t':o: ltl ,'. .m-,ort~ the ~nropo~a] ¢.n]y ]f the
pole ~ .:. ~ rao~ toD~ ~. ~ are removed now ~r~or~ Lo the
of the propo~r~ new po3e s~.gn,
~.~ ' ~ ~ ~5 Appr(w] of a freestanding sign
a~ 730 ,,w,, .tr., t ~ubject to%e :z..~.]..
?he ap?~: ~-t ~ha]! sign a b]nd~nZ ~reeuent, acceptable to the
umty Att::~rney, wh~::h shall req~,~re t:~e removal of ~he
cenflor ~]r:~ freev.'ay-or]ented~no]e ~'r..,.,~ at the expiratfon o~ tho
~'- batem~::,-~-, l)er] od, t~ay l, 1779, This agreement shal.] be
, ~ppt oreo pole
prior to~rnnt~,~r.~ ;~r:v., permit for ~'~ ' ' '
~o~: ?~m-vr, d nr'~r t ~:he gray,ting "~., a~,y .D rmzt for the ~ev.'
o. ~he no]e r]ri~ shall have a max~m~m h~ight cf e~ feet and r~
m~ ~ono 7~?t ~h~]l t~e located it~ the ex~sting planter area
r~r ~ mO Pl~]V .tilt! the land~ea~]n~ ,~nd ~ ~'
~, ~he~z' '<n :;hall project no Fur ;h¢~r U*~.. rive fleet beyond thc:' front
pr'oT, erty ~ ina.
,o~ deferral of improvement ~t 102 "D" 2 ~- -
Re~ue~% ~ ~' _tre~t Fidel A. Range].
' . ~- ' '~ ed , ,-q-~'. m which a deferment
,~tsoc~ate Plnrnor ~-~e ]nd~,at. the ~... ~.]on~or
of' the ~n~ta!]~tlon of curb, gutter anti ~jdev'n]k has been
requesked. He advised that the Division of ~tn~ine¢.r~n~:o ..... . ~s t-ev:tew-
--- the grade and a]~gnment of ~zrst Avenue and the grade for
. ~ ,tr.,.,, mu=,t be correlated with the r ~
Avor~ue de~n. ~ ts reoomrended 't,h~t the request he approv~fi.
_,.~ .... t v ~]1 be required [:o be
fir%, z~:< :~.~nth'. to two yesrs before the al~gnmon[ is de,ermined,
~,~ (Chari!er-?~tt;en) The re?~e~t For ~,r~rra] of ~ -.:~e im-
pr:,ve~,tnts a't: 102 "D' S{reet'be approved.
~ , , 'p~ ,,,'~ i~ .. 'ndic~ted the location
~'q acres aflj~cent Lo the Ci~y arid :~x'ro~r~ded by the O't;~
~ompany Pq~lr;~led ,qomrnu~]ty 8lud d]~e to an ,~v~rs]ght ~et~on on the
~recuest for annexation was net taken at the t~mo prez,,=ning of the
property v~?~ considered. The annexai;[<< n~r~ now beem approved
by !,A?CO.
H-~C (~udo!pb- Chandler) Recommen~ tothe City Counc~!
AP ~X.~
of +b~ ._ ;::c.~fl~-rme.-,o~ ~ ~ East "~",., qireet n~ ~+'
mom'=~deration of Worka. blc Pr,.r~m Recer'l:~f~.cat~.o~
A,~¢"~'~ ....... t n',r. ector of P],~n.~n~'~ ~' ~ V~,~11~'~ ..... ~,,~, ted that Chula Vis;ta.'s
f3rst =~-~ ~ certifi cai: ion was atta3ned in ]q6q.
i{ in neces~;o, ry to obiain a recertlflcatlon iR order ~or %he e~ty
to be in a pesi. tlon b-, apply fop var~ol~s mederel Fiends, if de:sir'ed,
The 9p~ O~<er ,/!,,,tl, o~ ~ ' , ..... ~pp]}estiom~ ' I.rol,,.~, _, the fol]c,~;,~5' _.
pre'-~eNt a~:q ~l't~Fe hour~ing r~eed~ vll. t.h~_T] ~he ~hLll,1 %-~ arc~
~.nc=rtl'~-..-+'~ ~n n-
.... t,,;tt.t.n-,,dd , ph, Recommend t.3the . y C~um.]~ ~)rov~._ ~f
'. · ,--- , p ~.~ ,-~ I.-:~ ~'r~'~ that Checker
n., ~."*'~., w~]] not b~' i. nrmittcd to ~, eLe.} ,'- '' the checkered d
,re,, I ~ ' -- r~e also ::~Sg~',t~ th ~:"t ~'"'~'
' - ~ + '' "~ :~m=] r hs.r.r~rdo~<: i.,t .... chl. on.
...... l, ~,, ,11 · 't;:~l<'<! hhl',3 ~:8th~ r tip ,t=, '' '
Au'.~;ta~t City A%torr]ey lllek 1]~c~]ssed this pz'ob]em vdth the
2omm]s;~o~. It was 'qo~'~d th~'t State r,_,g~ations preempt th~
with regar~ t:, motor vehi. clesl al~o the d~ffi, cu~l:y in e~forc~r~g
~ha regulations; and ~.n determining w'ne%~ec the offFe~dlng mu~f]ers
were factory lnzta]]ed o:c have b~en n~dif[ed ~r becom8 faculty.
[(ember ~Ta~tte ~ raiser] n quest~ma as totbe er~force~b]]]ty of AB 1301.
V~r. Y]~ck re?orted that some of the large e~.t~es, for example,
Angeles, are [gnor~g it as it ~s too complex to e~force.
AD:OU
]t%~;C (Chand!er-?,%~tte:,) q~he meeting be adjo~rr~ed +o the meeting
~,.~g',u:;t 2], ]972. ehe meeting adjourned ~t 2:0~ p.m.
Re:;peotful]y submitted,
?{ele~ ?.~ape:~, Secfe'ta~,