HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1972/06/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
June 26, 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: Stewart, Rice, Macevicz, Chandler, Rudolph, Adams, Whitten and
ex-officio member Miller. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Senior
Planner Williams, Associate Planner Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works
Robens and Assistant City Attorney Blick.
The chairman called for oral communications and none were presented.
PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING - East of 619 Broadway (MacDonald's) - ~.pproximatel~
1/2 acre - R-1 to C-T - Morton Stierer
Associate Planner Lee displayed a plat of the area where the applicant is re-
questing a zone change from R-1 to C-T for a parcel measuring 122' X 159',
east of and adjacent to MacDonald's Restaurant, 619 Broadway, in order to
provide additional parking as part of proposed plans to expand their present
facilities. He stated two previous zoning requests on "I" Street have included
this parcel, but with street frontage from the northerly adjacent parcel. Both
were denied on the basis of the orientation of the proposed encroachment of
commercial activity down "I" Street.
Mr. Lee further observed that the present restaurant does a high volume of
business and employs a number of people, which places a burden on the existing
parking. In April of this year the applicant submitted plans for the remodeling
of their present facilities to accommodate interior seating, and the plans were
not approved on the basis of inadequate parking and landscaping requirements.
The plan submitted with this rezoning request provides parking area exceeding
ordinance requirements and will give them complete access from East Park Lane.
The attachment of the Precise Plan Modifying District to the C-T zone would
avoid any conflicts with development of adjacent properties for residential use.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
William Eichberger, La Crescenta, California, representing MacDonald's Corpora-
tion, concurred with Mr. Lee's statements and offered to answer any questions.
Member Macevicz inquired if the vacant lot east of the parking lot were a part
of the same parcel and involved a lot split?
Mr. Eichberger replied they had learned only that day the lot was a part of
the property which they had an option to purchase and was under the same owner-
ship as several adjacent parcels. If the Planning Commission wished, they
could develop that lot also.
Director of Planning Warren observed that rezoning could not be recommended on
that lot at this meeting because it had not been advertised for public hearing.
-2- 6/26/72
Member Rice asked if there were to be a change in the MacDonald's sign.
Mr. Eichberger said no change in the sign is contemplated at this time. There
are a few more years of depreciation allowed under the ordinance, and there
will probably be no change until then.
Member Rice commented that the present sign is garish and represents the type
of image on Broadway the City is attempting to change; it seemed a shame that
an attractive new building should not have its appearance enhanced by a modi-
fication of the present sign and urged that consideration be given to it.
Louis E. Malaska, 627 Ash Avenue, requested denial of the rezoning by the Com-
mission due to the noise and confusion caused by the restaurant's younger
clientele in the parking lot. The light from the arches of the MacDonald's
sign is also annoying to the nearby residences. He believed deepening the
parking lot would cause further disturbance from cars and motorcycles to the
residential area and additional annoyance from lights in the parking facility,
since the lights in the present lot shine directly on the house to the south.
Melie Lee, 641 Ash Avenue, concurred with Mr. Malaska's remarks and added he
felt the zoning wall erected around the parking lot should be higher than six
feet to protect against the noise and the parking lot lights should be directed
away from the residential area. In answer to a question from the chairman, he
stated that the restaurant closes at ll:O0 p.m. but the noise in the parking
lot continues for another half hour four or five nights a week.
Mr. Eichberger declared the plan for remodeling to inside seating is an effort
to upgrade the clientele and remove the noisy objectionable element. The
lights on the arches on top of the building will be removed and replaced with
subtle lighting, reflecting only on the roof. Also, if the speed problems
continue, they will put berms in the parking lot pavement.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Planning Director Warren commented that according to the Zoning Ordinance the
lights in the present parking lot must be designed to direct the light away
from the residential area and he would have the Zoning Enforcement Officer
inspect them. If there is need for a higher zoning wall, it is a condition
which may be imposed by the Commission and City Council.
The Commission ascertained no petitions for denial had been received and
discussed the traffic circulation of the additional parking area, expressing
concern that left turns for both ingress and egress would be hazardous to
Broadway traffic.
MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) Recommend to the City Council that the parcel
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-72-N 122' X 159' located east of and adjacent to 619
Broadway be rezoned from R-1 to C-T-P subject to
precise plan for development of the property as
additional parking facility for the MacDonald's
Restaurant and subject to the following conditions
and guidelines:
-3- 6/26/72
Conditions:
(1) If access from East Park Lane is contemplated, the applicant shall
submit an acceptable driveway design to be worked out with the
Engineering and Planning Departments before approval of the precise
plan.
(2) A parcel map be filed for the consolidation of the lots and the
consolidation of the remaining 8' strip on "I" Street with one or
both properties on each side.
(3) The oak tree located on the adjacent lot to the east be trimmed by
a licensed tree trimmer to allow construction of the zoning wall
along the easterly property line.
Precise Plan Guidelines:
(1) The 3 parking spaces in front of the building on the south side be
deleted and landscaping provided in that area.
(2) Tree wells or landscaping be provided on the south side of the
building.
(3) Landscaping of the entire site be approved by the Landscape Archi-
tect and the planter adjacent to the trash enclosure and any
planter over the sewer easement be planted with materials that will
not cause any stoppage.
Findings:
a. The rezoning of the property will enable expansion of the present
facilities and would eliminate the traffic congestion on the
property and adjacent areas by providing additional parking. The
area adjacent to the property will not be affected by the rezoning
of this parcel and may still be developed as multiple family.
b. The General Plan encourages expansion of strip commercial areas to
increase the efficient use of the property. The expansion does not
encroach down any side streets which result in additional rezoning
requests.
Member Whitten requested that the staff refer the traffic problem on Broadway
to the Safety Commission for study.
PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - 4 East San Miguel~ request for reduction in rear
~ar~,..lO' to 5' - Fr'an'k SCott
Director of Planning Warren reported the receipt of a letter from Mr. Scott
stating he could not be present at the meeting and requesting a continuance
for a week. Mr. Warren affirmed no written objections from neighbors had
been received.
-4- 6/26/72
A poll of the audience by the chairman disclosed no one who wished to appear
either for or against the issue, and as the Commissioners did not anticipate
any questions they wished to ask of Mr. Scott, it was agreed to proceed with
the hearing.
Mr. Warren indicated the 9400 sq. ft. lot at the corner of Hilltop Drive and
East San Miguel Drive where the applicant is requesting approval of a variance
from the 20 foot rear yard setback to permit an encroachment to within 5 feet
of the rear property line for a room addition. Due to the orientation of the
house on a corner lot, with a double front yard setback, there is little room
in the rear yard or side yard for expansion. Until about a year ago a 20 foot
setback was required in all cases; the ordinance was amended to permit one-
story structures to encroach up to l0 feet from the property line if not more
than 30% of the rear yard area is covered. Additions adjacent to side yards
may encroach within 5 feet of a side property line. The R-1 zone permits up
to 40% lot coverage; the present lot coverage is 22% and the room addition
would increase it to 28%.
The Commission discussed the confusion regarding side yard and rear yard
arising from the orientation of the house on the lot.
This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened, and
as no one wished to speak the public hearing was closed.
MSUC 9Whitten-Macevicz) Approval of a variance from the required 20 foot
RESOLUTION NO. PCV-72-11 setback to permit an addition to encroach to
within 5 feet of the rear property line at 4 East
San Miguel.
Findings:
a. The peculiar siting of the house on the property has resulted in
a reversal of the location of the front, side and rear yards from
what the Zoning Ordinance would establish.
b. Other properties in this area would be able to accommodate a rear
yard addition. However, because of the unusual house siting on this
property and the switch in yards, the same property rights would not
be enjoyed by the applicant.
c. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to adjacent
properties as long as the 5 foot setback is maintained and the lot
coverage is kept below the maximum permitted in the R-1 zone.
d. The granting of this variance will not be contrary to the objective
of the General Plan.
-5- 6/26/72
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendment to Zonin~ Ordinance relatin~ to
procedure for uses permitted in Flood Plain Restrictive
District
Associate Planner Lee advised that the staff has been reviewing administrative
procedures for flood plain zoning in Chula Vista and other jurisdictions, and
have concluded that a change in Chula Vista's procedure would be in order.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that a conditional use permit be obtained for uses
of land within the Flood Plain Restrictive Modifying District and F-1 flood way
zone. The issuance of these C.U.P.'s has become a routine matter with standard
conditions attached relative to filling above the lO0 year flood level and
floodproofing of structures. He added that the City of Chula Vista is the only
agency in this area that requires a public hearing or any fees for the issuance
of such a permit. It seems unnecessary to require a full public hearing before
the Planning Commission and some type of administrative review might be more
appropriate. The Zoning Administrator could be empowered to issue these permits.
This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened, and
as no one wished to speak the public hearing was closed.
Discussion by the Commission centered upon the additional work load for the
Zoning Administrator who is also the Director of Planning, and concern that so
many decisions all be placed in the hands of one man.
Planning Director Warren commented that many of these items are of a routine
administrative nature and to appoint a body of seven laymen to take action on
them is wasting their time and the applicant's time and money. Frequently
these decisions are delegated to others in the Department and the decision is
appealable to the Planning Commission. If the administrative procedure is
changed, it is his intent to request that a Zoning Administrator position be
created.
MSUC (Adams-Rudolph) Recommend to the City Council an amendment to the
RESOLUTION NO. PCA-72-3 Zoning Ordinance revising the flood plain procedure
as follows:
Sec. 33.601 Modif~inB Districts; Defined.
A. 4. (a) us~s Befitted. The following uses are permitted
subject to the approval of a conditional use permit as
herein provided, containing such conditions as the
~e~ee~e~ Zonin~ Administrator may specify to protect the
public interests:
(4) All uses authorized in the A Agricultural zone.
(b) ~oo~ ~o~ A~o~. The Zoning Administrator shall
consider conditional use pemits to authorize uses in the
F Flood Plain Modifying District as provided in Sec. 33.1302.
-6- 6/26/72
,_ Icl Conditions for Approval of Conditional Use Permits.
(1) In approving conditional use permits in the F modifying
district, the Zoning Administrator shall be guided by the
standards established in the F-1 zone, except that subsec-
tions 2 (a), 2 (b) and 2 (c) of Section 33.525 C need not be
applicable unless unusual circumstances are found to exist
by the Zoning Administrator.
(2) The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator that all requirements of Article I
of Chapter 29 of the City Code have been met.
(3) No materials, vehicles, or equipment shall be stored
within the F modifying district outside of a building ex-
cept those materials that will not create a hazard to the
health or safety of persons or property in the event the
storage area is inundated.
(d) Repeal. It is intended that this district, supplemental to
the basic underlying land use zone or zones, will be repealed by
the City Council in those areas when, in the opinion of the
Director of Public Works, the flood hazard has been eliminated
by reason of a change of conditions.
(e) Definitions. See definitions set forth in Section 33.525 B.
Sec. 33.1302
B. 1. (d) Where a conditional use permit is required to approve a
proposed use in the F Flood Plain Restrictive District, as
provided in Sec. 33.601 A, paragraph 4.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of revision to General Plan deletin~ specified
school and park site south of East J Street
Planning Director Warren indicated the approximately 40 acres for which Shattuck
Construction Co. has submitted a tentative subdivision map and requested annexa-
tion. The General Plan shows an approximately lO acre elementary school site
and approximately 5 acre neighborhood park site in the vicinity. The Elementary
School District has determined that a more appropriate location to serve this
general area would be to the southeast of this property. The Planning Com-
mission called for a public hearing to amend the General Plan to relocate the
elementary school/park site to a location more acceptable to the Elementary
School District.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Michael Antonovich, 821 Lori Lane, observed that she had attended a meet-
ing at Halecrest School where Dr. Tiffany had stated that property had been
-- approved and that funds were available for purchasing this property. She
expressed concern that the change in school sites would mean that Halecrest
would be overcrowded with overflow from the new subdivision.
-7- 6/26/72
Mr. Warren assured her the situation had been reviewed with Dr. Tiffany and
his staff and Dr. Tiffany had said that when negotiations were conducted for
the purchase of this site it was determined the price was too high and there
were other acceptable alternate sites, that the elementary school age population
is decreasing in the Halecrest School, and with the advent of year-round school
Halecrest would more than take care of the students generated in this area,
including those in the new subdivision, without increasing the number of
students who would be utilizing the school.
Kathryn Moore, 1134 Tobias Drive, representing South Bay Citizens Planning Com-
mittee, remarked that people expect to have open space here and asked what now
happens to the open space that has already been outlined on the development
south of "J" Street.
Mr. Warren said he did not know the answer to that question since no plans
have as yet been approved and the open space location has not been determined.
He did wish to clarify, however, that the question before the Planning Com-
mission was whether they should recommend to the City Council that the elemen-
tary school site designation and neighborhood park site designation be removed
and that a schematic location be placed further to the southeast. The fact
that the school district has confirmed they will not buy a site there makes
it improper to leave it on the General Plan because that precludes the possi-
bility of any other kind of plans.
Chairman Stewart interposed that State law requires that the master plan be
updated as soon as it is known what changes need be made.
Planning Director Warren remarked that the City could, if they cared to, leave
a schematic neighborhood park site in that vicinity, but their policy is to
develop neighborhood park sites wherever possible adjacent to an elementary
school.
Mrs. Moore inquired if that would have any affect on the canyon site shown in
the Shattuck development.
Mr. Warren replied the City has declined to process the subdivision map or
assign prezoning until studies and ordinances are completed on hillside
development standards, whereby a density would be assigned to that property,
and that portion of the canyon that intrudes into this property would be kept
in its natural state.
Dr. Bowers, 833 Lori Lane, observed that there is no park site adjacent to
Halecrest School and voiced his concern regarding the deletion of the park
site and the impact of subdivision development on the school.
Member Rice pointed out that the City has no choice in selection of school
sites; it is a matter strictly for the School Board.
John Bibbo, 805 Lori Lane expressed criticism of the Planning Commission in
their role of changing the General Plan, asked why neighborhood parks have to
be tied in with the school district, and marked his concern about the de-
letion of the park site.
-8- 6/26/72
At Chairman Stewart's request Planning Director Warren again stated the estab-
lished policy of the Planning Commission and the City Council in the location
of neighborhood parks and the limitation of the Planning Commission with
respect to school site selection.
Member Rudolph commented the City does have control of park sites, and if the
school district moves the school it will leave no parks for the people in that
area.
Member Whitten inquired if it would be possible to work out a neighborhood park
site in the Shattuck subdivision.
Mr. Warren agreed that it might be.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Assistant City Attorney Blick reminded those present that the law dictates
that the General Plan be amended from time to time to make necessary changes.
It was moved by Member Chandler and seconded by Member Adams that recommenda-
tion be made to the City Council to modify the General Plan to delete a
specified school and park site south of East "J" Street and that subject area
be placed in the medium density residential category, and indicate a new
school and park site location to the southeast approximately half-way between
East "J" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road and 1/2 the distance from the Hale-
crest Subdivision and the San Diego Gas & Electric Co. easement.
MSC (Rudolph-Macevicz) Amend the motion to include a schematic designation
for a neighborhood park in the vicinity of the present location.
AYES: Members Rudolph, Macevicz, Whitten and Rice
NOES: Members Stewart and Adams
ABSTAIN: Member Chandler
MSUC (Chandler-Adams) That recommendation be made to the City Council
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-72-10 to modify the General Plan to delete a specified
school and park site south of East "J" Street and
that subject area be placed in the medium density
residential category; retain the schematic desig-
nation for a neighborhood park site in the area;
indicate a new school and park site location to
the southeast approximately halfway between East
"J" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road and 1/2 the
distance from the Halecrest Subdivision and the
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. easement.
-9- 6/26/72
Consideration of classification of pawn shops
Director of Planning Warren reminded the Commission that at their meeting of
June 19 they had directed the staff to proceed with an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance placing pawn shop operations as an unclassified use in commercial
zones subject to a conditional use permit. The City Attorney has now made
available an opinion stating that this would be improper; there is no reason
why this should be classified as an unusual use and be made subject to con-
ditional use permit.
Assistant City Attorney Blick in briefly discussing the legal opinion stated
that the issue is: "Can pawn shops logically be placed in that classification
that would require conditional use permits, that is, unclassified uses?" The
law, 13.1303 of the Zoning Ordinance, stipulates: "The granting of a con-
ditional use permit is an administrative act to authorize permitted uses sub-
ject to specific conditions because of (1) unusual characteristics, or (2) need
to give special consideration to the proper location of said uses in relation
to adjacent uses." He further said that pawn shops are not particularly dif-
ficult to classify; they cannot be distinguished from ordinary retail uses
that much. Furthermore, they are not unusual and they do not require special
consideration, at least enough special consideration to classify them in the
same categories with schools, hospitals, cemeteries, amusement parks, etc.
However, this does not limit the Planning Commission to having no control over
the use of pawn shops. Restrictions may be placed on them, stipulating that
whenever a pawn shop is permitted, that type of use must conform to certain
conditions.
MS (Rice-Chandler) That pawn shops be classified as an allowable business
RESOLUTION PCM-72-11 operation in the C-B, C-C and C-T zones with the con-
dition that any such operation shall be restricted to
require 75% of the merchandise in stock shall be new
merchandise in C-B and C-C zones.
It was moved by Member Rudolph and seconded by Member Macevicz to amend the
motion to allow pawn shops only in the C-C and C-T zones. The motion failed
by the following vote:
AYES: Members Rudolph, Macevicz and Whitten
NOES: Members Stewart, Chandler, Rice and Adams
ABSENT: None
The original motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members Stewart, Chandler, Macevicz, Rice, Adams and Whitten
NOES: Member Rudolph
ABSENT: None
-lO- 6/26/72
Request by Frank Kanta for deferral of public improvements at 169 Madrona
Planning Director Warren commented that the applicant has applied for a build-
ing permit for a room addition which would necessitate the installation of
public improvements on the alley at the rear of his property. The require-
ment that the applicant construct one small portion of the alley would seem
impractical since significant additions to other properties in the area is
unlikely.
MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Request for deferral of public improvements at 169
Madrona Street be approved.
The Chairman declared a l0 minute recess from 9:00 to 9:10.
PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of land use alternatives for Chula
Vista Ba~front Study Area as recommended by Sedway/Cooke
Planning Director Warren briefly reviewed the presentation given at the previous
meeting and observed the study had been continued primarily to give the Com-
mission and the general public an opportunity to further consider tile presenta-
tion by Santa Fe and others, also the staff recommendation, and receive fur-
ther testimony on the report prepared by Stanford Research Institute.
Mr. Warren had inquired by telephone of Dr. Gruen, the economic consultant
involved in the Sedway/Cooke Study, his reaction to the report prepared by
S.R.I. and Dr. Gruen stated it would be difficult to react since it did not
relate to the study which he had done. He felt that it merely tried to estab-
lish that industrial use is feasible over the long haul, an assumption ac-
cepted previously with certain qualifications. Dr. Gruen was also of the
opinion that the value placed on the land by S.R.I. was inflated but that if
it weren't it would merely enhance the return from commercial use or other
uses of the property. He will make further formal reaction upon request of
the City Council.
Mr. Warren noted that the staff has made a recommendation that Sedway/Cooke's
proposal be modified by placing the industrial classification on the corner
of what would be Tidelands Avenue and "J" Street, that the amount of land
on the so-called island be reduced from commercial to a greater proportion
of open space along with it, that the golf course be relocated to an area
that is now shown as open space and preservation as marshland since it has
been determined that that is of low ecological value, that some of the resi-
dential and open space category in this vicinity be replaced with commercial,
and the addition of more open space adjacent to the northern area that had
originally been shown as commercial and marina along the flood control
channel.
Mr. Warren urged that the Commission consider taking one of the following
actions at this meeting:
a. Support the previously drawn conclusion that a large industrial park
is not the best use for this waterfront.
-ll- 6/26/72
b. Make a determination that water-related industry should or should not
be accommodated on the northerly 100m acres (residential, marina and
open space is recommended).
c. Reach a concensus otherwise on a land use plan for recommendation to
the City Council.
Member Rice suggested that perhaps the staff should give further consideration
to changing the arrangement of the fill for the second marina, as had been
suggested in previously given testimony.
Planning Director Warren replied that there is apparently a reason for the
northerly extension of the arm for the marina and asked Fred Trull, Director
of Planning for the San Diego Unified Port District, if he wished to comment
on it.
Mr. Trull stated that the consultants have recommended that the marsh area be
exposed to the wave action of the bay, which is the reason for the present
configuration of the fill. He believes it might be wise to get professional
opinions of coastal engineers and those who are more f~iliar with the bay
than well-intentioned casual recreational users before making a definite
decision about the location of the marina.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Richard C. Collins, 566 McIntosh Street, presented to the Commission a paper
listing nine points concerning the valuable asset to the community which the
marshlands represent. He briefly summarized that marshes are part of a vast
physical system far too complex for man to understand; it is mandatory to
maintain control of the watershed; marshes provide nutrients for marine life
and destruction of marshland relates to loss of livelihood for commercial
fishermen. He suggested subsidies for commercial fishermen when marshland
is converted to other use; and, that new marshes be created to equal any
converted to other purposes, or if this is not possible, to provide artificial
reefs or other structures for marine habitat. He suggested also that an air
tour of the area be made by all persons involved in planning the conversion
of the bay front, as that is the only way to see the proper dimensions of the
marshland or its real value. He expressed complete opposition to any change
in the marshes, except for the upgrading of them.
Jack Anthony, Chief Manufacturing Engineer of National Steel & Shipbuilding
Company, National City, pointed out that the S.R.I. study states that an
industrial park development could be extremely attractive, while the Sedway/
Cooke report which appears to favor the recreational-residential-tourist
oriented scheme also states that the heavy industrial option is feasible,
and predicated on the construction of the marine terminal in the area, unless
the City wishes for very slow industrial development. The Sedway/Cooke re-
port was presented April 25. National Steel's letter to the Unified Port
District and the Chula Vista City Council requesting consideration of property
allocation for the possible construction of a new shipyard was dated March 31.
Therefore, the impact of such an industrial complex was probably not con-
sidered by Sedway/Cooke.
-12- 6/26/72
Mr. Anthony estimated the assessed value of a fully developed shipyard to be
approximately 27.5 million dollars based on the 25% assessment ratio now in
force in the State, and the estimated property taxes would be in the area of
2.8 million dollars per year based on 1971 tax rates. It is expected that
about 1.8 million of this figure would flow to Chula Vista, city and schools.
He stressed that modern shipbuilding is a clean environment industry and
enumerated the various control equipment and operating methods which are
effective in all areas of pollution control. He mentioned that Sedway/Cooke
stated the entire 1409-acre bay front area could be developed to total market
value of some 64 million dollars, assessed at 16 million dollars, under option
A; and suggested that one shipyard, occupying the relatively small area of the
approximately 100 acres adjacent to National Steel Marine Terminal and the
proposed flood control channel, could exceed that and provide the advantages
of reduced expenditures of public funds while creating considerable new employ-
ment opportunities. He urged the Commission to direct the consultants,
Sedway/Cooke & Gruen + Gruen, to reappraise the industrial position using
information presented in the S.R.I. study and considering the effect of National
Steel's proposed facilities, offering to discuss the details with Sedway/Cooke
to assist their reappraisal.
Mr. Anthony stated National Steel is fully prepared at this time to commence
negotiations with the parties concerned for an option on the site.
B. F. Coggan, President of the Economic Development Corporation of San Diego
County, observed that his organization has tried to objectively assist with
- background information, etc. in both the Sedway/Cooke and S.R.I. studies. They
are vitally interested in all San Diego County areas and in any project which
will generate employment, and are intrigued with the desire of National Steel
to expand in the South Bay. He believes the property under discussion to be
one of the most significant in the whole San Diego-South Bay complex and what
is done here will in many ways set the stage for other things that are going
to happen.
He pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of both recreational and
industrial development, referring specifically to the future opening of a
south bay entrance and deep dredging of the bay from end to end for military
reasons, if not for commercial reasons. The area will be directly in the
path of a great deal of co~ercial traffic as well as recreational traffic.
He mentioned the difference in economics, particularly the tax base, if the
property were developed into a beautiful marina, such as Marina del Rey, with
a large recreational and residential area, versus that of industrial devel-
opment. He recognized the various alternate uses, and urged that the basic
job generation capacity of the situation and what it means to the community
not be overlooked. He thought it might be worthwhile to have additional
evaluation made by Sedway/Cooke to include the porposal made by National
Steel.
Member Rudolph observed that it was her impression that the demand for goods
determines the traffic and did not believe that a second bay entrance would
have much effect on that.
-13- 6/26/72
Mr. Coggan replied that the Unified Port District is in the process of obtain-
ing new mechanized equipment for containerized ships, and there is a very con-
scientious effort going on to expand the export-import trade out of San Diego
Bay. Also, a south bay entrance would be a convenience for large freighters,
and it would certainly generate more military traffic.
Member Rudolph questioned him regarding details of the work his Corporation
performs for the City of San Diego, and asked if he foresees a shortage of
industrial lands.
Mr. Coggan answered that there is no shortage in the northern sections of the
County, but there is in this area. National City has used practically all
available industrial land, and if there is to be industry here a place must
be provided for it.
Mrs. Ada Thompson, 1060 Las Bancas Court, agreed with Mr. Coggan's statements
regarding the former pollution problems and unsightliness of Mission Bay and
the impressive sight it presents today. She would like to see our bay front
look like that. She hopes that option A of the Sedway/Cooke study is the one
which will be decided on and believes that there are other areas for industry
to be located.
Jim Johnson, 639 Windsor Circle, expressed his preference for the recreational
residential development, indicating his concern for the preservation of the
marshland and opposition to industrial construction.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
The Commission, after deliberation, concurred that the industrial complex
might be accommodated elsewhere and favored the development outlined in the
Sedway/Cooke option A. Member Rudolph expressed her belief that the marshland
should be preseved and wish that there could be more park land.
MSUC (Whitten-Rice) Recommend to the City Council that Sedway/Cooke option A,
as modified by the Planning staff, be approved.
Council Referral (Cont.): Consideration of revision of pavin~ standards for
concrete driveways for single fam~l~ dwellings, and duplexes
Planning Director Warren reviewed for the Commission their discussion of this
item at the June 19 meeting, at which time it was agreed to defer decision
in order that guidelines regarding the installation of asphalt paving might be
submitted for consideration.
MSUC (Adams-Rudolph) Revise paving standards for concrete driveways for
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-72-9 single family dwellings and duplexes by adding the
following wording after the current standards for
permanent use:
"Driveways for all single-family, single-family attached and duplex residences
shall be paved with a minimum of four inches (4") of concrete of a five sack
mix. The Director of Planning may authorize the use of other 'permanent pave-
ment,' as specified above, when it can be determined that concrete paving would
-14- 6/26/72
be unnecessary or impractical. Guidelines for such variance would be:
1. In an area where asphalt drives are used exclusively.
2. Where lots are large or unusually deep setbacks prevail, the cost of
using concrete may be unreasonable.
3. Driveways with sufficient slope to permit good run-off, but less
than 12%."
Staff report on 1-805/Tele~raph Ca.n~on Road rezonin9 study
Planning Director Warren noted that the City Council approximately a year ago
had directed that a study of this area be made. It is related to a concern
that they have had for a number of years about the zoning and possible land
use pattern that might occur at the interchange of 1-805 and Telegraph Canyon
Road. A meeting of the property owners was called last week; they received a
copy of the report and it was discussed with them. He stated that Senior
Planner Williams would make the report before the Commission; that several of
the property owners were in attendance, since they had been notified the report
was on the agenda, and they might have some input for consideration although
the report had not been advertised for public hearing.
Assistant City Attorney Blick affirmed it would be fitting to hear from the
interested people present; however, remarks should probably be limited and
more extensive comments made when the item is set for public hearing.
Senior Planner Williams reported that the staff has done a thorough stuc~ of
the area, has established a need for a community shopping center, and are
recommending that rezoning be done to permit one between Halecrest Drive and
Crest Drive north of Telegraph Canyon Road. He presented exhibits showing the
various suggested changes in zoning and noted that the net result of the
staff recommendation would be a reduction of the commercial zoning in the
vicinity of the interchange from 23.5 acres to 14.4 acres, and on one large
parcel on which a community shopping center can be built. He also discussed
some of the major traffic circulation problems, with the recommendation that
the Engineering Division attempt to solve them with the State Division of
Highways.
Chairman Stewart announced the Commission would be pleased to hear from any
interested property owners, reminding them that a public hearing would be
scheduled for a later date.
Allan Glick, 8835 Balboa Avenue, San Diego, Vice President of Saratoga Devel-
opment Corp., opposed the rezoning of their 17 acres on the southeast quadrant
as recommended by the staff. He stated the property will be surrounded on
the north by a six-lane street and on the west by a major freeway and believes
it should be zoned for commercial use. He remarked also they had a grading
permit which expired last December and they are not running a fill dirt sales
operation, as has been suggested, but plan to have the dirt removed by the
Highway Department when work is started on the southern part of 1-805.
-15- 6/26/72
Ted Hotsey, Orange, California, R.E. Representative of Humble Oil Co., ex-
plained he had been unable to attend the meeting of property owners because
the notification had been received late. He said a letter was in the mail
to the Commission outlining their opposition to the down zoning of their
property, which had been purchased for a specific use and the proper zoning
had been obtained.
Sandy Shulman, Pacific Bay Development Corp., 1830 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles,
representing the owners of the northeast side of the street, complimented the
staff on the intensive study made of a very small area and all the factual data
gathered, and requested that the Commission set a date for a hearing.
Senior Planner Williams advised that a letter was on file from the Gersten
Company protesting the rezoning of their C-V-P piece of 7 acres on the west
side of 1-805.
The Commission complimented the staff on the fine job they had done on the
report.
MSUC (Rice-Chandler) A public hearing on the 1-805/Telegraph Canyon Road
rezoning be set for July 17, 1972.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Whitten-Macevicz) The meeting be adjourned at ll:O0 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
--[eoda Scholl
Acting Secretary