HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1974/04/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
April 24, 1974
The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California
was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members
present: Macevicz, Chandler, Rice, Rudolph, Wilson, Floto, Starr, and ex-officio
member Thomas Mitchell. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current
Planning Supervisor Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant
Director of Public Works Robens, Deputy City Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Macevicz followed by
a moment of silent prayer.
Chairman Macevicz introduced Thomas Mitchell, member of the Environmental Control
Commission who is serving as ex-officio member of the Planning Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Chandler-Rudolph) The minutes of the meeting of April 10, 1974 be approved
as mailed.
1. Consideration of request for freestanding sign for Express Lane Food Store,
Third and Palomar
Current Planning Supervisor Lee indicated the location of a parcel, 176' x 187',
within the Handyman site, which has been leased for construction of a new building
for an Express Lane Food Store and two additional tennants. As this location is
in the C-C-P zone Planning Commission approval is required for a freestanding
sign. The Handyman store has a freestanding sign adjacent to Third Avenue and a
directional sign at the Palomar Street frontage. Since the Express Lane Food
Store will have excellent exposure to Palomar Street, the staff could not support
the request for a freestanding sign unless it included identification of the two
additional tenants who will be located in the northern half of the building
without exposure to Palomar. The staff therefore recommends that three conditions
be attached to approval of the sign, which would limit the size to 82 sq. ft. and
the height to 21 ft., with the sign designed to provide identification of the
three tenants of the building allowing the major tenant a maximum of 60% of the
total sign area.
Peter McCarter, California Neon Products, representing the applicant, advised
that they are willing to accept the staff's recommendation for tenant identifica-
tion. He felt that a freestanding sign is necessary to alert motorists to the
location on this busy street.
MSUC (Wilson-Rudolph) Approval of a freestanding sign for the Express Lane Food
Store at 251 Palomar Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. The sign shall be limited to 82 sq. ft. in area and 21 ft. in height.
2. The design for tenant identification shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for staff approval.
3. The major tenant shall be allowed a maximum of 60% of the total sign area
not to exceed 50 sq. ft. total area. '
-2- 4/24/74
2. Consideration of request for approval of home occupation of dump truck
operation at 2640 Bonita Road, Ralph C. Rudy
Director of Planning Peterson explained the request to operate two dump trucks
from a residential lot which would be used for overnight parking. The applicant
has indicated the trucks would leave each week day between 6:30 and 8:30 a.m.
and return between 3:30 and 5:30 p.m., with no activity on Saturdays and Sundays.
He displayed a plat showing the lot, which is bordered quite closely on three
sides by other homes. He reported that the trucks have been operating from this
location for the past several weeks, and the investigation of one complaint had
led to this request for approval of the home occupation. After reviewing the
anticipated noise level that would be generated by starting the truck motors,
the staff is of the opinion this use would not be compatible in the R-1 zone and
recommend that the request be denied.
Ralph Rudy, applicant for the license, advised that he wishes to park only two
1970 White diesel engine dump trucks at this address. He further explained that
he had previously parked a third truck there, which had generated considerably
more noise and which he felt was the cause of the complaint; he has now secured
another parking place for that truck.
Mr. Rudy passed to the Planning Commission photos which show that the trucks are
not visible from the street due to landscape screening. He also reported that an
inoperable truck, previously parked in the back yard, has now been removed from
the site. He indicated that only minimal maintenance, such as lubrication with
a hand operated grease gun, would be performed at the site; tire changing and
mechanical repair will be performed at commercial lots.
Danny Cashen, resident of adjacent property on the east, advised that although his
bedroom is only about 6 feet from the hedge separating the two properties at the
area where the trucks are parked, the noise of their starting does not awaken him.
He felt that the noise of motorcycles climbing the nearby hill and of traffic
on Bonita Road is considerably louder than the trucks in question.
Joe Hutchins, owner and resident of the property on the west side of Mr. Rudy, also
confirmed that there is far more noise from traffic and other sources than results
from the operation of the trucks. He asserted that Mr. and Mrs. Rudy are good
neighbors that he welcomes to the area.
Larry Antinone, 39 Sandalwood, owner and resident of one of the lots at the rear
of the Rudy's property, contended this is not the type of operation provided for
in the ordinance as a home occupation. He felt that granting permission for the
trucks to park at that location would lead to maintenance activity, such as
cleaning, washing, sanding, painting, and possibly engine repair. He also felt
there would be an incentive to stockpike parts which would be stored in the rear
portion of the lot and result in an unsightly appearance from his own property.
He reported the trucks are visible from his home which is at a higher elevation
and there is nothing to buffer the noise coming toward his residence. He passed
to the Planning Commission pictures taken from his yard of the trucks. He asked
that the request be denied.
James May, 47 Sandalwood Drive, resident of the property directly to the south
of the Rudy's, felt this operation is objectionable, not so much from the noise
of starting the engines as from the maintenance which has been performed on the
trucks, including sanding, painting and welding.
-3- 4/24/74
Commissioner Rudolph expressed the opinion that the home occupation license
was not intended to cover this kind of occupation and that it would be inappro-
priate in a residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Wilson asked if permission might be given just for parking the
trucks at this location and that no maintenance work be allowed.
Director of Planning Peterson felt that granting permission to park the trucks
at this location would make it the base of operations for a small trucking firm
which is a heavier use than intended in the residential zone under a home occupa-
tion license. He also confirmed that noise standards as contained in the Zoning
Ordinance would apply to this operation.
Commissioner Rice expressed the opinion that the combination of noise and fumes
from the trucks and the necessary maintenance work on the equipment make this
operation unsuited as a home occupation use.
MSUC (Rudolph-Rice) The request for a home occupation license for the operation
of dump trucks at 2640 Bonita Road be denied.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-74-6 - Reduction in rear yard from 25' to 0
at Garrett Avenue and E Street - Facilities Development Co.
Current Planning Supervisor Lee indicated the location of the lot with 125 feet
of frontage along E Street and approximately 65 feet in depth, pointing out that
the Zoning Ordinance presently requires a 25 foot setback on commercial property
abutting a residential area as this property does. The building line map has
established a 0 setback along E Street and 5 ft. setback along Garrett Avenue
for this property. The applicant is proposing a building of 3,000 sq. ft. which
could be constructed across the front of the property with parking provided at the
rear adjacent to the residential area without requiring a variance. An existing
10 ft. high wall located on the rear property line has been used in recent years
as a sign board by car dealers who used the lot for sales and storage. The
proposed plan for development under the variance would locate the building on the
eastern half of the lot with customer parking on the western half adjacent to the
alley. The staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the submission
of site plan and architectural elevations for review by the staff.
Mr. Lee reported the receipt of a petition signed by eight property owners along
Garrett Avenue opposed to the reduction in setback.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Helmut Kiffmann, Facilities Development Company, advised they are proposing to
construct a building for the Foreign Auto Supply business presently located on the
other side of E Street as they desire a location with offstreet parking for customers.
The proposed building would be 40' x 75', fronting on E Street, with the front
portion used for retail sales and the rear half for storage. He advised that the
typical activity of this facility would require about three outside deliveries
per week, and the use of their own pickup truck for making deliveries and picking
up parts from their main store in San Diego.
-4- 4/24/74
Harry Freelove, 207 Garrett Avenue, speaking in behalf of the eight property
owners who signed the petition, indicated they are opposed to the loading and
unloading on Garrett Avenue when there is a service alley on the other side of
the building. He pointed out that Garrett Avenue is quite narrow and having
trucks parked there for deliveries would cause real problems. He also felt
that having the building constructed so close to Garrett Avenue would create a
blind corner.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
The Commission discussed the site plan of the proposed development and it was
pointed out that the question under consideration is whether or not to permit
placement of the building on the rear property line. Such matters as traffic
congestion on Garrett Avenue would be reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer
when a building permit is requested. The proposed land use is suitable for
this location.
MSC (Wilson-Rice) Approval of variance PCV-74-6 for reduction of rear yard
setback from 25 feet to 0 at the southwest corner of Garrett Avenue and E Street
subject to the folloiwng conditions:
t. The applicant shall submit a site plan and architectural rendering for
review by the City staff in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance Sections
33.901 B paragraph 30, and 33.1313.
2. The applicant shall cause to be made an engineering test of the structural
conformance of the 10' freestanding wall with the 1970 Uniform Building
Code. If the wall is found not be up to code, it shall be removed and a
6' solid masonry wall shall be constructed to maintain the barrier between
the site and the residential uses to the south. Provided the 1970 Uniform
Building Code regarding firewall specifications is met, the rear wall of
the new building can be used as part of the zoning wall.
Findings are as follows:
a. A hardship exists in that the dimensions of the parcel make it difficult to
place a structure of any significant size allowed in the C-T zone, plus necessary
parking and landscaping, unless the rear 25' of the property is built upon.
b. This proposal will grant a property right enjoyed by others since a 10' wall
of a previous building is existing on the property line and it is evident that the
right to build to a 0 rear yard setback was previously authorized.
c. There will be no detriment to adjacent property owners since the activity area
of the structure will be oriented towards E Street. The site will be buffered from
the residential areas by the existing 10' wall or a replacement wall. Operation
will not involve the use of machinery or noise producing equipment. Access to and
from the site is directed away from the residential areas.
d. The General Plan designation for this site shows Thoroughfare COmmercial use
and the zoning is C-T; therefore, the granting of the variance, which does not
authorize a change in zoning or land use, will not adversely affect the General
Plan of Chula Vista.
-5- 4/24/74
The motion carried by the following vote:~
AYES: Members Wilson, Rice, Chandler, Rudolph, Starr and Floto
NOES: Member Macevicz
ABSENT: None
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR-74-4 on development of Community Shopping Center,
Otay Lakes Road and East H Street
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid advised that this draft EIR deals with the
development of a community shopping center of 81,000 sq. ft. The site was previously
graded with Units 1 and 2 of E1 Rancho del Rey. He called attention to the staff's
concerns as noted in the staff report and suggested that additional information be
obtained from the applicant with regard to the cost/revenue analysis and the air
quality analysis.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Ray Johnson of Neste, Brudin and Stone, Consulting Engineers, advised that revenue
to be derived by the City in connection with this shopping center was based on
property taxes that the proposed project would provide. The basic property tax
was proportioned into the budget items of the City as provided in the environ-
mental guidelines for the City of Chula Vista. Since it was felt that a shopping
center might require service in some of the items more than ordinary property of
the same valuation, for items such as public safety a factor of 1.25 was used.
This figure was derived from discussions with public officials of the City of
Riverside regarding the level of service required by shopping centers from the
Fire and Police Departments. Since other departments, such as library and schools,
would not be required to furnish any service to this project, their costs were not
figured in.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rudolph commented that she thought the last sentence on page 85 of
the draft EIR may not be appropriate in an EIR.
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that a statement similar to this is
frequently found in draft EIR's but is omitted in the final EIR.
Commissioner Rudolph suggested that one alternative might be to locate the
shopping center at a more centralized point within the E1 Rancho del Rey develop-
ment so that more people could walk to the center.
Ex-officio member Mitchell asked if the vehicle miles travelled, as contained in
the report, is based on the assumption that the people living in the general area
will shop at Chat center as opposed to where they have been shopping in the past.
It was affirmed this is the assumption.
Chairman Macevicz felt that does not always hold true since many people shop where
prices are most attractive.
MSUC (Chandler-Rudolph) Consideration of the final EIR-74-4 on development of a
Community Shopping Center at Otay Lakes Road and East H Street be scheduled for
May 8, 1974.
-6- 4/24/74
5. Consideration of~ or EiR_74_3 on Tele~n Commercial
Devel_~j2m~nt between Ha-~est and Crest D-F~es--'
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that in a quick discussion with
the applicant's representative, he had indicated their willingness to work with
the staff concerning the guidelines on traffic circulation as recommended in the
staff report.
MSUC (Rudolph-Chandler) The final Environmental Impact Report EIR-74-3 on Telegraph
Canyon Commercial Development be adopted, including the recommendation for
implementation of the precise plan guidelines on traffic circulation.
6. Consideration of ad_~.~tion of EIR-74-2 concerninq the a li a '
Hill'sid--" ~- ~ ~ne app ? tion. o~the
--~e-~~s~o~areas within a -
east of the_C_it~, nd to the
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that a letter has been received
from the San Diego Environmental Quality Department of the City of San Diego which
will be included in the input section of the report. That letter indicates the
draft report is adequate.
Mr. Reid also called attention to the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
in particular, to the revision of the second adverse finding which relates to the
retention of natural vegetation.
He recommended that the final EIR be adopted and that the Statement of Overriding
Considerations be recommended for adoption by the City Council.
Commissioner Rudolph noted that she had previously expressed concern that the
Hillside Ordinance would make it difficult to provide any low or moderate income
housing in a vast area of Chula Vista. She suggested the following mitigating
measures be included in the Environmental Impact Report:
1. Implementation of this ordinance should be in full compliance with the
Housing Element of the City of Chula Vista.
2. Development standards of the City, many of them designed to regulate
development on flat land, can be reviewed as to their relationship to
development in hilly areas.
3. Since transportation is one of the most limiting factors in hillside
development, special attention should be given to innovative solutions.
4. Exceptions to the density standards may be considered, at the request of
the developer, or the City, where it has been demonstrated, through special
design, such densities will have no different impact on the environment than
the densities required in the ordinance, and that such exceptions will help
to fill a need for low and moderate income housing.
5. The City, by exploring innovative financing and ownership concepts, may
make feasible some low or moderate income housing.
Each of the suggested measures was discussed by the Planning Commission as to its
suitability for inclusion in the report, with particular emphasis on density
and transportation as they will be affected by the Hillside Ordinance.
Mr. Reid advised he could see no harm in including those Suggestions in the
-7- 4/24/74
mitigating measures section of the EIR; he suggested they be added to the end
of Section 5.7 on page 47 of the report.
MSC (Rudolph-Wilson) The five items suggested be included in the mitigating
measures section of the EIR.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members Rudolph, Wilson, Rice, Macevicz and Floto
NOES: Members Chandler and Starr
ABSENT: None
MSC (Rudolph-Rice) The Environmental Impact Report EIR-74-2 concerning the
application of the Hillside Development Standards be adopted.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members Rudolph, Rice, Macevicz, Floto, Starr and Wilson
NOES: Member Chandler
MSC (Chandler-Rudolph) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of the
Statement of Overriding Considerations in Adoption of the Hillside Development
Standards.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members Chandler, Rudolph, Rice, Macevicz, Starr and Floto
NOES: Member Wilson
ABSENT: None
7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-74-A, rezoning various parcels east of 1-805 by changing
the underlying zone (in some cases) and adding the "H" Hillside
and "P" Precise Plan Modifying Districts
Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that the Hillside Modifying District
regulations were adopted by the City Council in December of last year and the
Council has indicated their desire to have these regulations applied to the proper-
ties east of 1-805. This required the adoption of an Environmental Impact Report
which was the previous item accomplished at this meeting. He advised that in
this particular consideration of rezoning it is not recommended that the E1 Rancho
del Rey property be included at this time with the exception of one relatively
small area within the P-C zone. It is the intent of the Planning Department to
implement the Hillside Modifying Standards in the E1 Rancho del Rey Planned Community
by amending the general development plan for that area. He indicated the areas
which are being recommended for rezoning are presently zoned R-1 or A-8 and do not
have tentative map approval for development. In some cases it is recommended that
the underlying zone be changed to R-l-lO, along with the attachment of the "H"
and/or "P" Modifying Districts to the zoning of each parcel.
He briefly enumerated each of the changes being proposed as follows:
a. Parcel l, a 14 acre parcel on the north side of East J Street, overlooking
the old Sports Arena area, is recon~ended for rezoning from R-1 to R-1-H-P.
b. Parcel 2 is a 40 acre property on the east side of the termination of East J
-8-
4/24/74
Street, presently zoned A-8, to be rezoned to R-I-H.
c. Parcel 3 contains 9 acres located east of Mariposa Circle, south of Telegraph
Canyon Road, present site of Elks Lodge, zoned R-l-D, to be rezoned to R-I-H.
d. Parcel 4, 2~ acres, north of Telegraph Canyon Road, 1/2 mile east of [-805,
is to be rezoned from R-1 to R-I-H.
e. Parcel 5, l~ acres in size, north of Telegraph Canyon Road and north of the
Archway Inn, is to be rezoned from R-1 to R-I-H.
f. Parcel 6, a 20 acre parcel known as Windsor Views, was recommended in the
staff report for rezoning from R-1 to R-l-II; however, the owner has just filed
a rezoning application for a PUD and it is recommended that he be allowed
to process that application for consideration. A 2 acre portion of that
property 'located on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road should be rezoned
to R-I-H.
g. Parcel 7, containing 9.7 acres south of Telegraph Canyon Road, directly
opposite the Windsor Views site, is to be rezoned from R-1 to R-I-H.
h. Parcel 8, 30 acres in size, south of Telegraph Canyon Road, on the east side
of the newly constructed Brandywine Avenue, is to be rezoned from R-1 to R-I-H.
i. Parcel 9, also containing 30 acres, on the south side of Telegraph Canyon
Road, includes the site of the new Community Hospital and is recommended for
rezoning from R-1 to R-1-H.
J. Parcel 10, l0 acres in size, south of Telegraph Canyon Road, west of Brandywine
Avenue, to be rezoned from R-1 to R-1-H.
k. Parcel ll, l0 acres in size, adjacent to the west of the previous parcel,
also to be rezoned from R-1 to R-1-H.
1. Parcel 12, also l0 acres, south of Telegraph Canyon Road, just east of Greg
Rogers Park, partially encumbered by SDG&E easement, to be rezoned from
R-1 to R-1-H.
m. Parcel 13, 20 acres in size, south of the extension of Orange Avenue, east
of Oleander just north of Valle Lindo School, to be rezoned from R-1 to
R-l-lO-H-p, and to include the following conditions:
(1) Plans shall show ultimate drainage improvements.
(2) Plans to be contingent on determination of responsibility for
improvement of Orange and Brandywine Avenue.
n. Parcel 14, 12 acres in size, east of Brandywine Avenue, opposite Brandywine
Unit No. 1 and included in the original Brandywine P-C ZOne, to be rezoned to
R-I-IO-H.
o. Parcel 15, containing 6 acres, on the east side of Brandywine Avenue, north
of the industrial district on the north side of Otay Valley Road, to be
rezoned from R-1 to R-1-H.
P- Parcel 16, 3.4 acres on the west side of Brandywine Avenue south of Brandywine
-9- 4/24/74
Unit l, to be rezoned from R-1 to R-1-H.
q. Parcel 17, 9.8 acres, west of Brandywine Avenue and also south of Brandywine
Unit No. l, to be rezoned from R-1 to R-1-H.
r. Parcel 18, 10 acres lying east of Otay Lakes Road, across the street and
slightly north of Bonita Vista Junior High School, to be rezoned from
R-l-lO to R-I-IO-H-P.
s. Parcel 19, 15 acres in area, located east of Southwest College Estates and
at the extension of Rutgers Avenue, to be rezoned from R-1 to R-1-H.
t. Parcel 20, 31 acres in area, located at the northeast corner of Otay Lakes
Road and Telegraph Canyon Road, part of the original E1 Rancho del Rey
Planned Community, under which plan it was designated for a density of 15 -
units per acre, to be rezoned from P-C to R-1-H-P.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
It was suggested that testimony be taken on each separate parcel in the order
listed, and then action be taken on the whole, or as many parcels as the Commis-
sion wished to recommend for adoption.
Lawrence Herman, 1830 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, reported he is one
of tile owners of the 14.5 acre piece listed as Parcel 1. He advised this is the
remainder of the San Simeon development, and going back further it is the remainder
of a 160 acre development. He noted it is presently inaccessible from a dedicated
street and it has been their plan to await development until H Street is constructed
or development occurs in Rice Canyon. He protested the proposed rezoning as
amounting to confiscation of property. He felt the property would be difficult
enough to develop without the restrictions of the tl and P Modifying Districts.
He contended that under the Hillside Development Standards housing can only be
afforded by the rich, and further, that these standards result in increased urban
sprawl.
Chairman Macevicz called for testimony on each parcel, 2 through 19, with no
response.
Don Worley, attorney with Seltzer, Caplan, Wilkins and McMahon, representing
Otay Land Company, spoke with regard to the 31.6 acres listed as Parcel 20. He
contended that to say this is a hillside rezoning is somewhat of a misnomer in
this particular case, since it is not only a proposal to apply the H Modifying
District to the property but also a downzoning to R-1 residential density. He
pointed out that this property was approved under the E1 Rancho del Rey plan for
15 dwelling units per acre and designated for apartment or multi-family use. It
has been indicated that the average natural slope of the property is 19.9% which
would allow, under the R-1-H-P zone, a density of 2.6 dwellings per acre, or a
reduction to one-sixth of the density previously approved for this property.
Mr. Worley expressed the opinion that the inevitable effect of the ltillside
Development Ordinance will be to dramatically increase the cost of homes in the
entire easterly section of Chula Vista. He felt this would foreclose not only low
income housing, but moderate income housing as well. He commended Commissioners
Rudolph and Wilson for having expressed their concern in this regard.
-10- 4/24/74
Speaking of specific planning factors for the 31 acre parcel, Mr. Worley pointed
out it is located at the intersection of two major arteries through the area,
which, in the original plans, was the area designated for higher density residential
use while the low density housing was to be located nearer the center of the
project. He felt the only way to restrain urban sprawl is to retain high
density use near the major arteries, shopping centers and community facilities.
He also pointed out that although this property is bounded on the north and east
by single family housing, the City has rejected any access from that housing area
into this particular area. He asserted this was done because the subject property
was zoned for multi-family use and that it should remain in that category. He
maintained that in order to minimize grading, this property must be developed in
some type of cluster development, which could not be accomplished at a density of
2.6 dwelling units per acre. He contended there is nothing unique or interesting
in this particular parcel of land to warrant preserving it in the natural topography.
He urged the Commission to reject the recommendation of the staff and to recommend
to the Council that this property remain as is, with an approved density of 15
dwelling units per acre.
Dick Marasso, resident at the end of Ithaca Court overlooking the subject property,
expressed the opinion that the total proposal of the liillside Ordinance is appro-
priate since it uses natural constraints to put a ceiling on the total population
of the region. He felt consideration must be given to the number of people a
region will support in terms of environmetal impact--air pollution, amenities, etc.
He pointed out that the City has expressed concern over preserving the hillsides
and in adopting the Hillside Ordinance they have enacted a means of doing this,
but it must be applied to undeveloped property.
Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, addressed himself to the Hillside gevelopment
Ordinance in general, expressing support of the application of that ordinance to
the areas to the east of Chula Vista which are characterized by significant slopes.
He expressed the belief that the overall well being of Chula Vista citizens will,
in the long run, be better served by having future development conform to the
natural topography rather than changing the topography to conform to some short
run development purpose. He noted it has been stated this action would virtually
rule out low cost housing, which he concurred with, but he further pointed out
that homes built in areas of significant slopes are always more expensive than
homes built on flat land, whether the hills are leveled or the homes constructed
to conform to the hills. He agreed that Chula Vista should have a balance of homes
for all income levels but pointed out that without subsidized housing, newly
constructed homes cannot be provided for low income families. He contended that
as Chula Vista develops out of its present rather flat area to the hilly area to
the east, the new homes will necessarily be more expensive and these homes will
be occupied by the highter income people who may be present residents in the
older sections of the city or may be newly arrived residents. As this movement
takes place the homes in the older, flatter areas of Chula Vista then become the
lower cost housing for lower income people. He asserted that the long run well
being of Chula Vista demands that development be continued in a way so as not to
destroy those things that make living in Chula Vista especially nice, including
the natural surroundings. Fie felt the ordinance will allow everyone to benefit
some rather than having a few benefit a great deal at the expense of many.
Mr. Watry agreed that higher density development must take place in some areas,
but that compensating open space must be provided to offset this type of develop-
ment. He felt the Hillside Ordinance will help to achieve this by concentrating
housing in those areas that can be developed without extensive grading and leaving
the slope areas open.
-Il- 4/24/74
the slope areas open.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
In discussion the Commission expressed concern over the points raised by
Mr. Worley and asked if the staff would reconsider this particular parcel.
Director of Planning Peterson advised he would have no objection to leaving that
particular parcel in the P-C zone. He pointed out that the Council has expressed
their desire to apply the Hillside Development Standards to the entire E1 Rancho
del Rey plan. This study and report will be undertaken in the future.
Commissioner Rudolph asked how this parcel, adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road,
would be affected by the Scenic Highway Element since that road has been suggested
as one of the scenic routes.
Director of Planning Peterson advised that the developer would be required to
provide some treatment along the portion of Telegraph Canyon Road on which the
property has frontage. This might require additional landscaping in certain areas.
The Commission discussed the extremely rough topography of the property listed as
Parcel 1. Under the "H" Modifying District this property would be allowed .46
dwelling units per acre or a total of 7 dwellings on the 14 acres.
Director of Planning Peterson reported that prior to the adoption of the
Hillside ordinance and shortly thereafter, a number of subdivisions submitted
and approved which were not subject to those restrictions have come very close to
complying with the regulations of that ordinance with regard to the number of units
proposed.
MSC (Rudolph-Rice) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of zone changes
for Parcels 1 through 19 as enumerated in the staff report and during this meeting.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members Rudolph, Rice, Chandler, Macevicz, Starr and Floto
NOES: Member Wilson
ABSENT: None
MSUC (Chandler-Starr) No action be taken on rezoning Parcel 20 and it be left
in the P-C zone pending further study of the entire E1 Rancho del Rey Planned
Community.
8. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of Scenic Highway Element of the
General Plan
Director of Planning Peterson noted that this hearing was continued from the
meeting of March 13, 1974 at the request of Otay Land Company. Since that time
the staff has met with representatives of Otay Land Company and cleared up their
question as to the type of treatment that would be required in connection with
development along designated scenic routes, which is not the same as that required
by designated State Scenic Highways. Mr. Peterson pointed out that two significant
aspects of this Element are the requirement of some beautification along the
designated routes in connection with residential development, and in non-residential
areas the attachment of the "P" Precise Plan District so that the Planning
-12- 4/24/74
Commission could review the proposed development plans.
Mr. Peterson pointed out that several changes have been made in the wording of
the text of this element in order to avoid confusing this plan with a State
Scenic Highway plan. The designated streets are now referred to as Scenic Routes;
also certain streets have been added to the plan, such as Otay Lakes Road from
the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road out to Otay Lake in order to have
continuity throughout the planning area, as well as Orange Avenue, H Street
from Otay Lakes Road to the upper Otay Lake, and the Bonita-San Miguel Road
from Central Avenue eastward through the planning area.
Chairman Iqacevicz declared the public hearing reopened, but as no one wished to
speak the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rudolph asked about the depth of the scenic routes, whether it would
extend beyond the right of way of the road.
Mr. Peterson indicated that in some cases where interesting aspects of the topog-
raphy were desired to be retained, the scenic route might be widened to provide
for the additional open space.
Commissioner Rudolph suggested that the retention of scenic vistas visible from
certain routes should be included in this element. She felt the siting and design
of parking lots should also be considered. She also asked if bike paths along
the scenic routes could be included as one of the policies. She pointed out that
the gateway to the City from 1-54 should be included for some treatment; this
would include Fourth, C Street and Third Avenue, which lead to downtown Chula
Vista. She also suggested that a scenic bikeway be designated along F Street
connecting the Bayfront to Hilltop Drive and over to Telegraph Canyon Road.
MSUC (Rice-Rudolph) The Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan be forwarded
to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Peterson asked for a clarification of the last motion, as to
whether it included changes in the element as suggested by Commissioner Rudolph.
It was confirmed that the motion did not include a revision to include those
suggestions; they may be considered as a future amendment to this element of the
General Plan.
COM~tISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Rudolph offered two suggestions regarding public signs in the area;
first, the directional sign at the terminus of Route 54 is directing southbound
traffic on to Edgemere and Second Avenue. This has been generating an unnecessarily
heavy amount of traffic through this residential area. She felt this traffic
should be directed down to Fourth Avenue or Broadway for entrance into the City. -
!qr. Peterson indicated the State Division of Highways could be contacted in this
regard.
Chairman Macevicz felt this is a temporary situation pending development of the
flood control channel.
-13- 4/24/74
Commissioner Rudolph also pointed out that the new directional signs for I-5
freeway at E Street have completely blocked the view of the bay by motorists
travelling west on E Street through Chula Vista. She suggested that a smaller
sign be placed to one side of the street so that this view is not completely blocked.
Deputy City Attorney Beam reported that he would like to prepare a report for the
Commission on what factors should be taken into consideration with regard to
various applications before the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Macevicz declared the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ttelen Mapes
Secretary