HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1975/10/27 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
October 27, 1975
A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California
was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members
present: Chandler, Rudolph, Floto, Starr, Pressutti and Smith. Also present:
Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Assistant City
Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes.
Chairman Chandler led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by a
moment of silent prayer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The minutes of the meeting of October 8, 1975 be
approved as written.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.
The Chairman called for oral communications and none were offered.
Commissioner Smith suggested that in light of the lengthy agenda, consideration
be given to continuing items 5 and 6 to the next meeting.
Director of Planning Peterson reported that he had been informed a representa-
tive of a property owner concerned with item 6 would be at this meeting, and
that if no one is here for item 5 it should not be time consuming. He recom-
mended that the meeting proceed under the order of the agenda for the first
four items and if it seems the meeting is running too long, consideration could
then be given to holding over items 5 and 6.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Request for extension of time on variance ZAV-73-11 for reduction of side
yard from 10' to 5' at 273 D Street, James B. Williams
Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that this variance for reduction of set-
back applies to a single family lot and was first approved in October, 1973,
with a subsequent one year extension granted by the Planning Commission. Ap-
proval of an additional one-year extension is recommended.
MSUC (Rudolph-Floto) The item on the consent calendar be approved.
REGULAR CALENDAR
2. Cons~ +rol Disband
- ~nd Ki ffe
Garrett Avenue~ LO,OD anu
-2- October 27, 1975
Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted that in September the Planning Commission
- gave approval to Spanish style architecture for the Park West Apartments. A
new rendering has been submitted for a three story structure under the recently
approved R-3-H-P zone. The new design follows the same style, using red tile
roof, wrought iron railing around balconies, wing walls of textured stucco,
decorative lights, and trim on exterior panels. This theme is compatible with
the Civic Center architecture. Approval is recommended subject to the condition
that the architectural theme be carried on all exterior elevations of the build-
ing and that consideration be given to planting specimen trees where architec-
tural treatment is minimal and using landscaped mounds to break up the ground
line of the building.
MSUC (Floto-Rudolph) The Commission recommends that the City Council approve
the architectural elevations of Park West Apartments as shown on Exhibit B,
subject to the conditions stated in the staff report to the Commission.
Ashw~ and Norman
nnin Su ervisor Lee reported that prior to development of this com-
Current Pl~onedgpro~erty' the applicant wishes to remove approximately 20,000
mercially
cubic yards of dirt to shape the property for development. He displayed a plat
showing the limits of the borrow area within the l0 acre site. As pointed out
in the Initial Study for this project, the two endangered cactus species exist-
ing on the property are not found within the area to be graded for the borrow
dirt and therefore will not be disturbed.
Commissioner Smith noted that one of the conditions recommended allows 90 days
after completion of the borrow operation for submittal of landscaping and irriga-
tion plans. He questioned the need for this length of time and suggested that
it be changed to 30 days.
Mr. Lee pointed out that since the finished grade of the site will be relatively
level there is no great concern about erosion, and if plans for development are
under way the landscaping should not be necessary.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
julie Pruitt, representing Messrs. Norman and Ashwill, concurred with the con-
ditions as recommended in the report, and pointed out that the proposed grading
would have to be done for feasible development on the site and since an inter-
ested party wishes to acquire the dirt at this time, it is requested that the
conditional use permit for the borrow operation be approved.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Smith recommended that the conditions for approval be amended by
changing the time limit for submission of landscaping and irrigation plans
under item 3 from 90 to 30 days, by adding condition No. 4 to establish a time
limit, stating, "The borrow pit operation shall be completed by December l, 1976;"
-3- October 27, 1975
and adding condition No. 5, to state, "In case of cessation of the operation
for 90 days, condition No. 3 shall be applied even though the grading is in-
complete."
Mr. Lee advised that the staff would have no objection to the added conditions
but feels they are not necessary since a grading permit, as required for this
operation, is only good for 180 days.
MSUC (Smith-Pressutti) The Commission finds that the project under PCC-75-15(a)
would not have any possible significant impact on the environment and certifies
that the Negative Declaration of IS-75-57 is in conformance with CEQA, 1970, as
amended.
MSC (Smith-Floto) Conditional use permit PCC-75-15(a) for operation of a borrow
area for fill dirt on Otay Lakes Road be approved based on findings included in
the staff report subject to conditions 1 and 2 as stated in the staff report,
condition 3 changing 90 days to 30 days, adding condition 4 - time limit - the
entire borrow pit shall be completed by December 1, 1965, and adding condition
5 - In case of cessation of the operation for 90 days, the conditions of item 3
shall be applied even though grading is incomplete.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Smith, Floto, Starr, Rudolph and Chandler
NOES: Commissioner Pressutti
ABSENT: None
A ~~e att enorthwest corner
~nHalecrest Drive and Hale Street) Bonita Builders.
Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted that the zoning ordinance requires approval
of a conditional use permit for construction of any single family structures in
a multiple family zone. In this project the applicant proposes to divide the
property into three lots, each of which would be in excess of the minimum lot
size in the R-1 zone. He called attention to the findings in support of the
request and to the recommendation for approval.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Kenneth Kolk, 4190 Bonita Road, representing the applicant, expressed their
agreement with the staff report and recommendation, and asked for the Commission's
approval of the request.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Starr-Pressutti) The Commission finds that this project under PCC-75-18
will not have any possible significant impact on the environment and certified
that the Negative Declaration for IS-75-64 is in conformance with CEQA, 1970.
MSUC (Starr-Rudolph) Conditional use permit PCC-75-18 for construction of 3
single family houses is approved, with findings as stated in the staff report
to the Commission.
-4- October 27, 1975
Chairman Chandler announced that inasmuch as a representative was present to
speak on item 6, that item would be considered before item 5.
pUBLIC HEWn C~[~h and south
6. I-5 from C-V ~ C-V-P
Director of Planning Peterson noted that this hearing was continued from the
meeting of September lOth, and as directed by the Commission further consideration
was given to rezoning the property on the south side of E Street. As a result of
discussion with Mr. Palmer and his attorney, it is recommended that the northern
portion of his property, containing 1.36 acres, be rezoned to R-3 in conformance
with its use as an extension of the mobile home park located on the adjacent
property to the north. New guidelines for precise plan submittal have been sug-
gested, which give some discretion to the Zoning Administrator to waive the
requirement for a skeletal plan for the entire property in connection with plans
for development of a portion of the property. He called attention to the find-
ings in support of rezoning the northeast quadrant of the interchange area to
C-V-P and R-3, and rezoning the southeast quadrant to C-V-P.
Chairman Chandler reopened the public hearing.
Christopher Neils, member of the law firm which represents the estate that owns
the large parcel of land to the north of E Street, again spoke of their desires
and efforts to sell a portion of the property in order to pay estate taxes and
close the estate. He advised of the interest of a cash buyer for 1~ to 2 acres
of the land, and expressed the feeling that applying the "P" Modifying District
might hinder that sale, since the buyer would not wish to submit plans for the
possible development of the remainder of the property. He also advised of pos-
sible interest from a second purchaser who might wish to acquire about a third
of the property proposed for C-V-P zoning. If those two sales are consummated
the remaining portion of that parcel would not be large enough to accommodate
more than one business service. He felt that the language in the condition
which refers to discretionary power of the Zoning Administrator is not strong
enough assurance that plans for the entire parcel would not be required in con-
nection with the initial development.
Commissioner Rudolph pointed out the concern of the City in coordinating access
to developments to preclude traffic conflicts, coordinating signing and assuring
aesthetic development at the freeway interchanges which are gateways to the City.
Director of Planning Peterson expressed the opinion that if one or more portions
of the property are to be developed relatively soon with separate uses, it is
even more appropriate that some thought be given to an overall plan for the
entire parcel at an early date.
In response to a request from Commissioner Smith, Assistant City Attorney Beam
advised that the skeletal plan as referred to in the conditions would apply to
all of a property held under one ownership. If the property were subdivided,
the City would have the power to determine the same factors through the Sub-
division Map Act process.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Pressutti commented on the City's desire to apply the "P" Modifying
District at all interchanges of the major freeways in order to have some control
-5- October 27, 1975
on the development at those gateways to the City. He felt if the "P" District
is to be applied at this interchange, as it has been at all others on I-5, it
should be done before this property is sold or divided into smaller parcels.
It should be made clear to anyone interested in developing the property what
the City would expect.
MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Commission finds that this project, pCZ-75-F(4),
for the rezoning of property would not have any possible significant impact on
the environment and certifies the Negative Declaration for IS-75-45.
MSC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Commission recommends to the City Council that,
based on the findings as stated in the staff report, properties at the inter-
change of I-5 and E Street be rezoned as follows: In the northeast quadrant,
6 acres from C-V to C-V-P and 1.5 acres from C-V to R-3; along with 1.44 acres
of railroad right-of-way to C-V,P and R-3, as shown on Exhibit D, with develop- ' t
ment of the property zoned C-V-P to be sub2ec to approval of a precise plan
conforming to the guidelines as set forth in the staff report to the Commission;
in the southeast quadrant, 4 parcels, totalling approximately 4 acres, along
with the adjoining railroad right-of-way of 1.5 acres, from C-V to C-V-P, with
development subject to approval of a precise plan conforming to the guidelines
set forth in the staff report.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rudolph, Pressutti, Chandler, Starr and Floto
NOES: Commissioner Smith
ABSENT: None
A recess was called at 8:05 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:12 p.m.
RING' R~aSrt-a~ southeast
5. PUBLIC HEA · -P
Director of Planning Peterson noted that at the meeting of September lOth the
Commission recommended applying the "P" District to two lots on the north side
of H Street and directed the staff to further consider the surrounding area
fronting on H Street and east of I-5. He displayed a plat showing the location
of four additional parcels which are zoned C-V and presently developed with
service stations. While there is no indication that any of these properties
are to be redeveloped, application of the "P" District would give the City
authority to review plans in the event of redevelopment at a future date.
Findings in support of this change of zone to C-V-P are included in the staff
report.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
'- to The Commission finds that this rezoning, pCZ-75-I, will
MSUC (Pressuttl F~o ) - ~ · ' on the environment and certifies the
not have any possible s~gn~flcant impact
Negative Declaration for IS-75-67.
MSUC (Pressutti-Rudolph) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the
Commission recommends to the City Council the rezoning of four parcels, totaling
2.09 acres, as shown on Exhibit A, from C-V to C-V,P, with additions to existing
-6- October 27, 1975
developments, or redevelopment of the properties, to be subject to an approved
precise plan conforming to the guidelines contained in the staff report.
7. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Conditional use permit PCC-75-16 - request to
operate boardin~ house for 18-24 Persons~ 153 Bri~htw~od -
First Baptist Church
Director of Plannin§ Peterson explained that al though this is called a boarding
house on the agenda, the City is aware that the intent is to establish a communal
house. The zoning ordinance does not contain a listing for communal households
as either a permitted or conditional use in any zone. It has been determined
that in terms of zoning ordinance classifications, the use resembles a boarding
house for 7 or more persons, which is a conditional use in the R-3 zone.
He reported that in the past the City Council considered amending the zoning
ordinance to allow communal households in the R-1 zone, and more recently con-
sidered communal households as a principal use in the R-3 zone, which would not
require a conditional use permit. The Council rejected both proposals. The
Council has also directed that the communal households vacate all sites which
they occupy in the R-1 zone by November 27 of this year.
Mr. Peterson pointed out that this hearing is not for the purpose of determining
whether the lifestyle of communal households is good or bad, but whether a
residential use of this intensity is compatible with adjacent land uses.
Mr. Peterson reported that the subject property at the southeast corner of
Bri§htwood and Flower now contains a duplex structure. The applicant @roposes
to retain that structure and add a two-story structure containing six bedrooms
and three bathrooms on the same lot. A two-car garage is proposed, as well as
six open parking spaces, with access from Brightwood.
While this area contains a mixture of single family homes and apartments, Mr.
Peterson felt the use should be compared to what could be expected under the
R-3 zoning on the property. He called attention to that comparison as contained
in the staff report. Under that comparison the intensity of the use proposed is
not much different than would be expected from R-3 development concerning the
number of residents; the usable open space is higher; and the projected traffic
count is lower.
Mr. Peterson acknowledged the receipt of 28 letters, 27 of which expressed
opposition to this use and one in support of communal households in general;
also the receipt of a petition containing 159 signatures of residents in the
vicinity in opposition to this conditional use permit.
He noted that staff was recommending approval of the request, calling attention
to the 10 conditions recommended for inclusion in the approval and asked that
the Commission certify Negative Declaration for the project.
Chairman Chandler declared the public hearing open.
Assistant City Attorney Beam cautioned the Commission that their approval or
denial of the application must be based on the factors set forth in the zoning
-7- October 27, 1975
ordinance. He called attention to the findings presented in the staff report
for the Commission's consideration.
Chairman Chandler asked that testimony be limited to pertinent facts and that
repetition be avoided.
Kenneth Kolk, 4190 Bonita Road, real estate consultant, speaking on behalf of
the applicant, expressed concurrence with the conditions recommended and assured
that the applicant would meet all conditions set forth. He indicated that the
applicant would be in a position to guarantee that the number of vehicles would
not exceed the offstreet parking provided. He further reported that he would
recommend to the applicant the use of turf stone for the parking area which
allows the growth of grass and yet supports automobiles.
Mr. Kolk pointed out that in the Housing Element of the General Plan there are
specific recommendations for land use flexibility. He quoted the provision that
"Chula Vista shall encourage the development of a variety of housing types
within the planning area in order to provide residents a choice of living accom-
modations, to accommodate the housing preference of individual families and
households." He felt this is the first time the Commission has been able to
address the issue of integrating land uses in the area, although the communal
households have been in existence for a number of years with no apparent detriment
to the community.
Mrs. Clarice Owen, 171 Fifth Avenue, expressed the belief that this project would
be compatible to the area, which has apartments, schools, and playgrounds. She
felt the use would not be a detriment to the area.
James and Karen Varey, 1743-C Rios Avenue, former residents of one of the
community households for 15 months, spoke of their own experience during and since
the time of their 15 month residence in one of the households. Mrs. Varey con-
tended that the statement in the staff report that the residence will not cause
harmful effects to anyone living in and around the community, could only be made
by those who are uninformed on communal life. She related that she and her
husband were given no parental authority over their children, or authority over
each other as husband and wife. She related an incident of being required to go
through a complete deliverance wherein she told the head of household and two
others everything she could remember of her past from age 3, and was then told
she had been delivered of the demons. Although this information was supposed to
be confidential it was later used against her more than once.
On her first attempts to leave the house, she was returned against her will. When
she and her husband finally decided to leave the house, spiritual threats were
made to them by the minister.
Mrs. Varey related other incidents to substantiate her statement that the
ministry of these homes is fear and power over those who live in and around them,
and that they should be stopped or other people made aware so they can avoid being
caught in this spiritual and physical prison.
William Van Hoy, 308 East James Street, spoke against the proposed conditional use
permit and in support of previous actions of the City Council in maintaining the
integrity of the zoning laws of the city by not allowing this use. He called
attention of the Commission to a memo from the Director of Planning to the Council
when they were considering changing the classification to allow the households in
the R-3 zone. He indicated that letter did not support the proposed change.
October 27, 197§
Mr. Peterson clarified the intent of the memo mentioned by pointing out that he
had opposed designating communal households as a primary use and recommended that
each application be considered individually under the conditional use pe~it
process.
Sid Morris, 862 Cedar Avenue, advised that he is speaking against allowing boarding
houses in the R-3 zone, since a boarding house is a business and should not be
permitted in a residential zone. He felt such an operation should require a
business license, adherence to health standards relating to the preparation of
· e safet, and other regulations imposed on businesses.
foods, inspection for fir -..~ ..... ~ ...... ~d onen un Chula Vista to the
oval o? this app/l~u~u- wvu, ~ r
He contended that ap? ..... ~ ~+ ~ difficult to build apartments .
boardin house concept, n~g ~n:~.,~ ,~ now ~ ~,~(fh 7' 10' rooms wou)O make
i~all , but that bu~ld~ng bo~[d, ng.hous? ....... -~-+ + R-3 zone.
ec~n? Y' ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ i~ht in ~he c~ty throu~.~u~ ~he
a ~ot of money DU~ Wuu,~ ~ ~ bl =
Hugh Ferguson, 728 Elm Street, maintained that the emotional concerns of the resi-
dents should not be treated lightly. Ne expressed concern about the structure
of these communes in Chula Vista and their leadership and undue influence on the
young people. He urged that the request be denied.
Mrs. Nancy Lawe, 163 Brightwood, owner of the property adjacent to the proposed
location of the new structure, registered strenuous objections to the proposed
establishment of two communal households on that property. She took exception to
material in the report to the Commission on which recommendations favoring that
use were based, and submitted that comparing communes to a boarding house is
seriously misleading. She suggested that if the Chula Vista zoning regulations
do not make provisions for communes, then the regulations should be amended to
cover that particular use instead of relating it to a boarding house. She con-
tended that use of the proposed structures as a true boarding house would reduce
the number of residents to 10 or 12, or approximately one-half the number proposed
for this communal household. She also felt that if an additional structure is
placed on that lot, the existing structure should be required to adhere to the
setback provisions of the ordinance. She contended that concentrating as many
people and vehicles as they propose will be detrimental to the area.
William Rambur, 325 East James Street, pointed out that this type of communal
household is not unique to this city, as othe~exist throughout the country, but
Chula Vista has become a test case. He reported that people from various states
have been studying this particular group and are waiting to see what happens in
, . elt concern should be taken over what happens within the house-
Chula Vista He f .......... ~ ~ the citv. He noted that the ~
holds because this et~ec~s the ~un~ ~'~ld wo~ld indicate that it wou~o
testimony g~ven by a ~ormer res~oen~ u~ ~ -~o~-~ . .
be an undesirable place for any parents to want their children to be. He contended
there is substantial evidence that the operation of these communes is not beneficial
to the City of Chula Vista and this should be taken into consideration.
Assistant City Attorney Beam advised that it was not his intent to limit anyone
with regard to comments they wished to make, but pointed out that the Planning
commission has limited authority on which to make their decision. They cannot
make their decision on the internal structure of the organization; this is a
land use matter only.
Rosette Morris, 862 Cedar Avenue, commented on the finding in the staff report
that this use would be beneficial but it does not indicate to whom it is bene-
ficial. She suggested that the only ones who benefit are the residents who will
live in the house.
-9- October 27, 1975
Mrs. Rogene Smith, owner of the duplex adjacent to the property in question on
the east side, expressed her opposition to this use, which she felt would affect
her property and her tenants.
Roy Winchell, 145 Brightwood, resident directly across the street from the subject
property, expressed opposition to this application which he felt is in conflict
with the zoning regulations of the R-3 zone with regard to setbacks and rear yard
area.
David Mills, 169 Brightwood, spoke of the heavy traffic on this street which is
generated by the church on this block and which will be further increased by the
construction of 22 new apartments in the area. He also questioned the location
of two parking spaces on the proposed plan within the front setback, which he
believed is contrary to regulations. He expressed the opinion the tax base is
being diluted in this case since the taxes on this building would not be as high
as they would be on 7 apartments, although the number of residents would make
demands for additional city services. It will, therefore, require taxes paid by
other residents to pay for such services.
Karen Varey, 1743-C Rios, reported that in searching for a place to live when
she left the communal household, she was told that with four children she must
have a four bedroom dwelling. She asked why this does not apply to the communal
household which has three people per bedroom.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Floto acknowledged his responsibility to substantiate all of the
findings presented in the report. He indicated that he could support findings
2 through 4, but could not make finding No. 1 to the effect that the proposed
use will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-
being of the neighborhood or the community. He could not make such a finding
without first making a judgment on whether the proposed use is a good use or a
bad use. He reported that he cannot support or concur with any group who is in
opposition to the basic unit of life--the family. For that reason he felt he
must oppose the proposal.
Commissioner Rudolph reported that she had some problems with making finding
No. l, but she felt that the meaning of the wording is not that the use must
have some actual, positive concrete effect on the people in the immediate
neighborhood, either good or bad. The intent of that finding is that it will
provide some kind of service for someone. In this instance the finding is that
it will provide housing for a number of people. She felt, however, that the
Commission is not in a position to make the statement that, "It has been said
that the sponsors of this particular proposal provide ministerial and healing
services to residents of the home." She requested that that statement be deleted
from the findings, since, as stated by the AsSistant City Attorney, the Commis-
sion is not equipped to find out whether a use is good or bad. The Commission
does not have the power to make that judgment nor are they required to make that
judgment, but can make their finding only on the land use. She would substitute
instead the statement that "it will provide housing for a number of people."
-10- October 27, 1975
Commissioner Pressutti concurred that the Commission cannot stand as judges
on what may or may not occur within the households. He also emphasized that
the Commission must put aside personal prejudices and feelings. He advised
that in reviewing the code he found that this use does meet the specifications
of a boarding house for more than 6 occupants. It has been shown that the use
meets the requirements for setbaCks, open space, offstreet parking, fencing and
landscaping. He noted that in addition it provides for review after three years
and for possible revocation by the Commission in the event of violation of any
condition or of verified complaints.
Commissioner Smith advised that he could not make finding No. 1 that the pro-
posed use is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community.
Without making that finding as required by ordinance he could not approve the
application.
Commissioner Starr expressed agreement with Commissioner Floto's stand on the
family unit, but pointed out that there are those people who are not fortunate
enough to have a family unit; there are people within the society who need a
group living situation of some type. On that basis he felt this use is a ser-
vice to some members within the community. He supported Commissioner Rudolph's
suggestion that the last sentence in finding No. 1 in the staff report be
deleted.
Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that the statement had been made that the
Council rejected this living concept in the R-1 and R-3 zones; however, the
Council did not reject it in the R-3 zone but determined that it should be
subject to a conditional use permit for each case. She contended that approval
of this application would not in any way indicate a stamp of approval of any
particular group.
MSC (Pressutti-Rudolph) The Commission finds that conditional use permit
PCC-75-16 will not have any possible significant impact on the environment and
certifies the Negative Declaration on Initial Study IS-75-63.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti~, Rudolph, Starr, Chandler and Smith
NOES: Commissioner Floto
ABSENT: None
MSC (Rudolph-Starr) Finding No. 1 as stated in the staff report be changed to
delete the last sentence, and a sentence added to read, "This facility does
provide housing for a number of people."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rudolph, Start, Pressutti and Chandler
NOES: Commissioners Smith and Floto
ABSENT: None
MS (Floto-Smith) Conditional use permit application PCC-75-16 be denied.
-ll- October 27, 1975
The motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Floto and Smith
NOES; Commissioners Chandler, Pressutti, Rudolph and Starr
ABSENT: None
MSC (Rudolph-Pressutti) Based on the findings as amended by the former motion,
the Commission approves conditional use permit PCC-75-16 subject to the con-
ditions enumerated in Section E of the staff report to the Commission which is
incorporated herein.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rudolph, Pressutti, Starr and Chandler
NOES: Commissioners Floto and Smith
ABSENT: None
Assistant City Attorney Beam advised that this decision is appealable to the
City Council within a ten day period.
PUBLIC HEARING: Conditio~ ' Re u~.c~.on~s~tr~.
8. ~~o-'lne station south-
eas rlv~ -
~ell Oil Compan~
Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that a conditional use permit was granted
in 1968 for a service station at this site. After numerous extensions the permit
expired in July of last year when the company did not ask for a further extension.
With the opening of 1-805, which currently carries about 60,000 cars a day, the
applicant has filed a new application for a self-serve station, including a
35 ft. high, 144 sq. ft. identification sign to be located at the south end of
the property.
Mr. Lee advised that the 1-805/Bonita Road interchange is scheduled as the next
area to be studied by the staff under the program considering all freeway inter-
changes. He noted that in addition to some basic zoning questions in the area,
the zone designations for this quadrant are not in conformance with the General
Plan designation of Visitor Commercial land use. It is felt this warrants a
detailed study by the staff which would take considerable time, and for that
reason it is recommended that the Subject application be continued for six months
in order that the study may first be completed.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Ray ?owell, representative of Shell Oil Company, 3511Camino del Rio, San Diego,
read a letter addressed to the Planning Commission in support of their applica-
tion. He also displayed a plat showing the boundaries of the area covered by
the market study discussed in detail of the letter. Based on the increase in
commercial activity, residential growth, and freeway activity, it is their con-
tention there is now a need for this service. He pointed out that their plans
meet all known requirements of Visitor Commercial zoning as designated on the
General Plan and will assure the City the property will be developed to meet
their high standards. He asked that consideration of their application not be
-12- October 27, 1975
delayed for a six months period for completion of a detailed study of the area.
Assistant City Attorney Beam pointed out that the Commission has not received
sufficient information in terms of mandatory findings for approval or disapproval
of this request; it could, however, be continued for a shorter period of time
with direction to the staff to present the findings that apply.
In response to a question from Commissioner Smith, Mr. Powell advised that the
Shell Company has given approval for this project and they have submitted an
application to the Federal Energy Administration, for which they anticipate
approval by November 15, 1975. They are prepared to go ahead with final plans
and implementation of the project after that date. He consented to a four week
continuance, to the meeting of November 24, 1975.
MSUC (Smith-Starr) The public hearing in consideration of PCC-75-19 be con-
tinued to the meeting of November 24, 1975.
9. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-75-17 - Request to split parcel into 2 lots~
one without street f~onta~ei George W. and Margaret ~. Clayton
Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that approval of this application would
permit the creation of a lot without frontage on a public street. While the City
has, in the past, been quite liberal in granting variances for development of
property without street frontage if alternative access is readily obtainable,
in this case it is felt that reasonable use is being made of the property by the
existing residence and the staff could not make findings for granting a variance
to subdivide the property. It was recommended that the application be denied.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
George Clayton, 61Minot Avenue, advised that the variance for division of the
property is requested in order to lower the price of the front portion of the
lot, which is improved and proposed to be sold. He pointed out that the topog-
raphy from the rear portion of the lot is too steep to permit driveway access
from Minot Avenue. He felt that denial of the request restricts the owner from
the full and best use of the property. He suggested that access to the rear
portion of the lot could be obtained via a private easement from D Street and
a City owned easement which borders the subject property.
In discussion the Commission agreed that additional information is needed as
to the status of a road easement located along the easterly edge of the subject
lot, and that the hearing should be continued for that reason.
MSUC (Smith-Floto) The public hearing in consideration of PCV-75-17 be con-
tinued to the meeting of November 10th.
10. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-75-20 - Request to operate
~amily game center in C-N~ ~one at 1458 MelrOse A~enUe~
~6seph A. Vaine
Director of Planning Peterson reported that this application is for a recreational
use to occupy 1500 sq. ft. in the shopping center complex at Orange and Melrose.
-13- October 27, 1975
It is the intent and purpose of the C-N zone to provide commercial uses which
are necessary and compatible with the surrounding residential area. Because
of the proximity of C-N zones to the residential areas they serve, the regula-
tions are quite restrictive, and the proposed use is really contrary to the
purpose of the C-N zone. The use would be more appropriately located in the
C-C zone.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Joseph Vaine, 10467 Roscoe Road, San Diego, described the operation of similar
game centers which he had established in the San Diego area. He contended there
is a need for such centers in this area, pointing out that kids tend to hang
around shopping centers because they do not have any other place to go. Where
game centers have been established, vandalism in the shopping center has been
cut by 50 percent. He reported that the center would be supervised the entire
time and there would be no smoking, eating or drinking on the premises. Any-
one breaking those rules would be restricted from using the facility. He
indicated the hours of operation would be from 12:00 noon to 10:00 p.m. on week
nights and until ll:O0 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. He submitted that
the game center would not create more noise than the stereo center which
previously occupied the proposed site.
Larry Mead, 1450-30 Melrose Avenue, pointed out that former game center in
this area was not successful and it had resulted in a nuisance and disturbance
to the area after closing hours.
Bruce Malch, 1450-35 Melrose, urged denial of the request as he felt it would
result in a congregation of kids outside the facility.
Gordon Sahara, 1450-1~4 Melrose Avenue, spoke of security problems due to rock
throwing and vandalism which he contended was worse when the previous recreation
center was open.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that the C-N zone is the most restrictive of
the commercial zones and is intended to accommodate services closely connected
with the residential uses. She felt the proposed use would not be compatible
in the C-N zone and should be located in a less restrictive zone.
MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Commission has considered Initial Study IS-75-70
and certifies the Negative Declaration of no significant environmental effects
resulting from the proposed project.
MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) Based on the finding that the proposed use is in-
appropriate and cannot be justified as a necessary service or facility in the
C-N zone, the Commission denies conditional use permit application PCC-75-20.
The Chairman advised the applicant of his right of appeal of this decision to
the City Council within a 10 day period.
-14- October 27, 1975
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning peterson indicated he had no report at this time.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Smith noted there has been some recent activity in connection
with Proposition 9 and asked if the City Attorney would present information as
to the effects of that action on the Commission at the next study session.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Mapes
Secretary