HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1986/11/19 Tape No.: 275
Side: $00-1849
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
?:00 p.m. Public Services Building
Wednesday, November 19, 1986
ROLL CAL~ Cannon,
CO~AISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Shipe, Con~nissioners
Carson, Grasser, Green and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney
STAFF PRESENT: Moore, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust,
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid,
Associate Planner Griffin, Assistant
Director of Community Development Gustafson
and Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Shipe and was
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
the Planning Commission, its
Chairman Shipe reviewed the composition of
responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSC (Green/Cannon} to approve the minutes of the meeting of October 8, 1986 as
mailed. Carson and Shipe abstained because of absence on October 8, 1986.
ORAL COMI~UNICATIONS
None
Commissioner Green announced he had a potential conflict of interest with
Items l, 2, 3 and 4 and left the dais and the Chambers at 7:05 p.m.
Plannin9 Commission -2- November 19, 1986
Principal Planner Lee informed the Chairman and the Commission that with
regard to Items 6 and 7, staff has received a request to withdraw Item 6 and
to continue Item ? to the meeting of December 3 or December 17. The applicant
has agreed to a December 17 continuation. The Attorney's office has advised
that Item 6 be filed.
MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) Green out, to continue Item ? to the meeting of
December 17, 1986.
1 PUBLIC HEARING: MAJOR USE PERMIT PCC-87-SM REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN
· ' EXISTING CLUBHOUSE AND BUILD A NEW FACILITY AT 88 'L'
STREET - SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB
Principal Planner Lee stated that the applicant, the San Diego Country Club,
is requesting a major use permit to demolish the existing 23,000 square foot
clubhouse and construct a new facility. When the Planning Commission
considered the final EIR for this project, they determined that because of the
would be no
many modifications to the structure over the years there
significant impact and a Negative Declaration should be prepared.
The City Attorney'S Office, after reviewing the record, has recommended
certification of the final EIR by the Planning Commission rather than adoption
of a Negative Declaration. This is based on the Chamberlin v. City of Palo
Alto decision indicating the question before the Planning Commission is not
whether or not the Commissioners believe a significant environmental effect
exists, but rather whether evidence indicates a fair argument may be made that
there is a significant environmental impact· If the evidence exists, an EIR
is required. Until the environmental issues relative to the project are
finally resolved, the major use permit cannot be heard.
The Board of the San Diego County Club has consented to perform a structural
and architectural survey based upon the Historical Building Code in order to
determine the feasibility of renovating the existing structure.
Staff recommends: (1/ that the EIR-86-2 be certified; (2) continue both
adoption of Findings For EIR-86-2 and a statement of overriding considerations
pending submittal of a structural and architectural analysis of the present
clubhouse using the 1985 Historical Building Code; and (3) continue the public
hearing for consideration of the major use permit request for an indefinite
period of time pending completion of Final EIR-86-2.
Commissioner Cannon asked if the action taken at the past meeting was
considered legal. Deputy City Attorney Moore replied that it was; however,
enough evidence had been submitted to indicate a fair argument might be made
nlficant environmental impact was involved and, based on the
that a si,~ ~ ....... ~n it is recommended that the final EIR be
Chamberlin/ui~Y o~ vano ~/~u u:~,o,~ ,
certified by the Commission. In reply to questions, Ms. Moore answered that
this was not the Final Decision of the Supreme Court nor had the appeal time
expired.
Plannin~g_Commission -3- November 19, 1986
Commissioner Cannon declared that it was not known therefore if the Supreme
· ' ned re arding the Chamberlin/Palo Alto decision; he
Court is being petltlO ..~ g _ r,. .... h~h he was unable to make the
certlT a. ~n v. ---~
remained unwilling to Y ...... - .......- but an in-house problem for
findings; the item is not a matter OT cu.~.uw-~J
the CoUntry Club; no testimony has been received from any expert investigating
the building in its present condition except for one statement attesting that
the architectural perfection once existing had been removed. He maintained
that a fair argument may exist that the Clubhouse is a historic building and,
if so, an EIR should be written that is supportable. Commissioner Carson
supported Mr. Cannon's statement.
Principal Planner Lee requested that if the Commission were directing staff to
return with a Negative Declaration, they indicate continuation to a date
certain.
MSUC (Cannon/Carson) Green out, to continue the item to the meeting of
January 14, 1987.
Commissioner Cannon stated he had a potential conflict of interest with Item 2
and left the dais and the Chambers at 7:17 p.m.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: pCZ-87-A(M) ADJUST ZONE BOUNDARY AT THE SOUTHWEST
- CORNER OF THIRD AVENUE AND ORANGE AVENUE, BETWEEN C-36
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND RU-29 (RESIDENTIAL) BOB
SPRIGGS
Associate Planner Griffin stated that this item involves a request to adjust
the zone boundary presently dividing a 4.43 acre parcel located at the
southwest corner of Third and Orange Avenues into commercial and residential
zones to coincide with the property line between the two parcels.
The property is located in the Montgomery area and upon annexation to the City
of Chula Vista and the filing of a tentative parcel map to separate the
property into two lots (so that commercial uses could be pursued on the C-36
portion), it was discovered that the zone boundary separating the RU-29 and
C-36 zones was located 242 feet from the centerline of Third Avenue, not 230
feet as originally thought. The adjustment is minor in nature, would move the
property 12 feet to align with the proposed property line separating the two
with the existing as-built location of the complex, will
arcels, will confor~ .... rtment com lex, is compa~ble
~ot encroach i~t~.t,e e?stl~_~ldentlal ~?nf ad~ stm~nt for thorougntare
with the General P/an which dusmu.otes the a ....... u
commercial uses, and is, therefore, recommended by staff.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) Cannon and Green out, to find that this project will
have no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-87-11M.
~lanning Commission -4- November 19, 1986
MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) Cannon and Green out, to recommend that City Council
adjust the zone boundary between the existing C-36 and RU-29 zone for the 4.43
acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and Orange Avenue
to the location coinciding with the property line approved as part of
Tentative Parcel Map 86-19 as shown in Exhibit A of the staff report.
Commissioner Cannon returned to the Chambers and the dais at 7:20 p.m.
Commissioner Carson stated that she had a potential conflict of interest and
left the Chambers and the dais at 7:20 p.m.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-87-10 - REQUEST TO INCREASE FLOOR AREA
· RATIO AT 59 'K' STREET - JACK AND MARIA KUTA
(continued)
Associate Planner Griffin noted that this item was continued from the meeting
of November 5, 1956 because of lack of a quorum. Since the continuance, the
is ori inal request by reducing the size of the
licant has amended h _.. g . ~ ~^n.~ for an increase in floor
app -~ ~^~d naraoe. /nls reouces ~-~ -~T--t ...... ~ ~ to add a first
proposuu ucw~.,~ : ~ .... ~^~ nf 54%. /ne requ:~
area ratio from 46% to bZ~ ~ns~:~ ~
floor family room, extend the second floor master bedroom plus other minor
modifications that would add 543 square feet of floor area to the dwelling.
The new garage would be constructed on the rear of the lot and would replace
the existing one. The subject 8,000 square foot lot exceeds the City's 7,000
square foot standard for R-1 lots by 1,O00 square feet and is no smaller than
five other lots in the same block. It is staff's conclusion that there is
nothing unique about the subject parcel that presents a hardship or prevents a
reasonable use of the property under the R-1 zone FAR restriction; therefore,
granting the variance would represent a special privilege not enjoyed by other
· · , e and vicinity. For that reason, staff recommends
~ro~e~t~s~ t~.~:~ z~ continued that a petition ~,
oenla/ oT un: -~ -' --~^' in the area nao
57 residents representing Jb
· · nnon s question if the covered porch on the front
response to Commss~oner ~a ............ ~ hv way of the house footprint, he
had-been included in the to~a) )u~ ~u-:--s~ -J
replied yes.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Jack Kuta, 59 'K' Street, owner, stated that the subject property was built in
1980 with the exception of the garage. He was requesting a variance
essentially to enclose an existing second-floor balcony and porch area; took
issue with the front porch area being included in the FAR as it was not a
liveable area since it was open on three sides, represents 232 square feet or
3 percent of the FAR; considered that such situations need to be addressed in
the FAR Ordinance which was enacted because of two overpowering structures
erected in Chula Vista during the year; his neighbors on either side and
across the street were supportive of the project; a great deal of the lot,
which is 60 x 150, is left untouched. He asked the Commission'S consideration
'n reco nizing that the Kutas are only enclosing a structure that already
~ . g ..... ~- bein- down-sized and being made to accommodate vehicles
exists, tne gar~9~ ,~
-5- November 19, 1986
Planning Commission
more easily; that longer roof overhangs are computed at full face value in the
FAR ~hich is understandable if the sides were enclosed - but they are not. In
response to a question, the Commission was informed that if the porch were
excluded, the FAR would be 49 percent and if it were included, the FAR would
be 52 percent, a
Ben Aginiga, 66 Millan Court. identified himself as the owner of he · cent and 'to the north of the proposed structure;
sin le-family home ad~a .... ~_~ .... h~d submitted the petition of 57
~!~d himself, family ana ?,~,u~,o,.~L-~^ ~-~ e from 46 percent to
representing 35 properties opposing ~-: ,- .... s
52 percent of the FAR and the request to increase the allowable rear yard
setback coverage for construction of a garage, work room, bath and patio close
to the rear property line; he contended that the FAR would be exceeded, the
structure would not be compatible with adjacent residences; the size and
location of the existing structures would not conform with the light, air,
privacy and open space standards of the area; it would remove the openness and
distance between houses; the privacy of his patio would be diminished; and
there was a possibility of drainage or flood damage since his property was at
a lower elevation. He also inquired about the disposition of the large tree
located in the proposed garage construction vicinity.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Tugenberg said he would uphold the denial as the present
structure is overpowering in size; and because he could not make findings of
"hardship" with regard to the land.
Commissioner Cannon stated he would also support the denial since he was
unable to make the findings necessary to permit a variance; that the owners
have problems similar to those on other two-story houses.
Commissioner Shipe said that he would also support the denial as the item does
not meet the variance criteria and he views the house as a "Junior Raso" house.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Cannon) - Green and Carson out - to deny the variance.
Commissioner Carson returned to the Chambers and the dais at 7:47 p.m.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-87-5M CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
FOR ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK, CHULA VISTA TRACT
87-5 ACQUISITION ASSOCIATION FOR ORANGE TREE
MOBILENOME PARK
Principal Planner Lee noted that the applicant has submitted a tentative
subdivision map known as Orange Tree Mobilehome Park to convert an existing
155-space mobilehome park from a rental park to resident ownership. The site
occupies two parcels totaling 17.25 acres between Orange Avenue and Anita
Street in the Montgomery area. No changes are otherwise proposed in the use
of the site or in the internal design of the park. The residentS, 33% of whom
are now low_and-moderate-income renters, will have the opportunity to purchase
Planning Commission -6- November 19, 1986
their space, owning the park jointly with other tenants as airspace
condominiums. Funding for the conversion is being provided by the City of
Chula Vista through assistance programs for low-and-moderate-income housing.
The tentative map proposes the subdivision of the property into three lots.
Many conditions that might normally be required of new park developments where
spaces are owned under a condominium arrangement are not being enforced
because the park is existing and was approved under major use permits in 1967
and 1968.
Mr. Lee reported that the Montgomery Planning Committee had approved the
proposed conversion subject to the conditions but had deferred to the judgment
of the Fire Marshal regarding conditions "a" and "b" based on the development
of a long-range fire safety program. He added that the applicants have filed
a letter requesting retention of an existing dwelling in Lot 3 for a period of
3 years and have objected to the required undergrounding program along Orange
Avenue.
Principal Planner Lee remarked that the proposed change to resident ownership
will provide long-term housing opportunities for low.and-moderate-income
residents and that staff recommended approval of the tentative map subject to
the conditions listed in the staff report.
Questions asked by the Commission included: (1) what special requirements
were stipulated for conversion from an ordinary mobilehome park to a
condominium use; (2) what conditions required of a new mobilehome park were
not being required of this conversion; (3~ what does the long-range program
· of' and (4) how was the $4 million land purchase
r ire hydrants consist , ~ i first instance of a
fo f . · · : (1) th.- _s the .
price established. Re,lies ln¢]~..e_~ ..... a-e and the mobilehome park policy
mobilehome conve[slon ~ .~. n~rkinQ requirements and density
regarding setbacK~,..~oa~o~-~":~ ~ development not a conversion,
have all been es%ao~sn~u -~y .._~ ~-d the rear and front yard setbacks
· d setbacks De,ween ~n~ un~ ~,,
spacing an . r or a new mobilehome park development.
are not up to C~ty standa_ds f
· d'ammer Circle, City Fire Marshal, spoke to the long-range
Carole Gove, 306 Win 2 ..... ~ n~+,~ ~emuires the installation of
fire safety upgrading program s~l~§_~^ ~'~e' ~re none currently in the
nine hydrants over a 5 y. P .... , ,~ ~.~ ~n:~ links have never been used
~v -The present stand-pipes w~n ~-~-,-~ ...... ~ ~. ~ hark Hydrants
in the %nree s~,~ . - .~- ~^~ ~-~ one on Fifth and urange haw
located outside the park on Anl~m ~-::
utilized.
Dave Gustafson, Assistant Director of Community Development, said that the
$4 million was the purchase price offered by the Acquisition Association of
the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park and accepted by the seller.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
David J. Sommers, 7970 Convoy Court, San Diego, 92111 representing
Continental Associates for Acquisition Association of Orange Tree Mobilehome
-7- November 19, 1986
Planning Commission
Park, said that the residents now own the park as an Acquisition Association
and had two choices in converting from mass ownership: (1) Conversion to a
cooperative form of a mobilehome park including the issuance of shares which
is similar to the present situation; or (2) conversion to a condominium
ferred to language in the staff report, page 3,
mobilehome park. Mr. Summer lared that "many conditions that might normally
Section D (ANALYSIS), which d~ " He
be required of new park developments...would not apply in this case.
maintained that the approval condition requiring fire hydrants located every
400 feet along with fire main lines (no existing main can support fire
hydrants) is contrary to that statement. If the mobilehome park had not been
purchased, or if the residents had chosen a cooperative form of ownership (SB
246), no such upgrading of the fire system would have been necessary; that
installation of a fire system up to today's standards, even over a 5-year
period, would be cost-prohibitive and subvert the low_and-moderate-income
subsidy provided by the City; and that none of the three fires (during the
last 15 years) had impacted a neighboring home. He pointed out that only the
condominium mobilehome park type of conversion is considered by the Planning
Commission and the City Council; that under any other type of ownership,the
upgrading would not be required.
Referring to the existing structure on Lot 3, Mr. Summer said the residents
were requesting a 3-year period before its removal in order to utilize the
$6,000/year income to assist them during the first crucial years of their
development situation. He suggested that the Planning Commission consider (in
· t-to- rotest to the creation of an assessment
the CC&Rs) a waiver of .r~gh __~P~ .... ~en the house is finally re~ove~. ~.~
district to pay for the ~mpro ......... ~od undergrounding o~ exls~ln~
noted that the project is exemp~ Trum -:~-q ~ ^~ ~nn ~mt of effective
utilities on the outside boundaries because cT ~ac~ ~- ......
frontage; and therefore, to remove the present temporary, effective lights in
'th more aesthetically attractive standards is an
order to replace the~ _~. u~ Summer noted that SDG&E had ~en con~
unnecessary exp?~. ~a>~t'n of 4.5 to 5 feet for. ~u~u[~
about the conol~?n~u._~'~ +he~ would accept an easemen% an~ nu~ -:~,-~
undergrounding anO na~ lnu~e~:~ ~
a dedication.
Mr. Summer concluded saying that the residents had purchased the park to
maintain their current standard of living and that imposing the conditions of
the fire upgrading system would increase their costs and impair their standard
of living. He reminded the Commission again that these expenses would not be
· rm of ownership. In reply to questions from the
· d under any other fo . n fixed incomes; that
~q-~u~ion he said that all t~.res3de.nt~ w~[~^.n~t ~,,ear neriod involving
rough estimate of th~__~t t~ ]~[~^ ~ost of opening/closing t~e. stree~
h,~nt~ (at $2500-$~uuu) p/u~ ~nnn +~ ~nn 000 which wou~O impac~
?~LZZ-;~ -i-e would be between >~u,~u~ ~ ~., ........ w~ an additional
/ayl~ ~-:.v.~ .... at the very limit of a~oroao~]~.-v ~ ..... for their
resioen:s ~wno w~u: ....... m,~: would reverse the en%~re
$20-$25/month; ano sucn a pr~: ....
purchase.
Fire Marshal Gove, returning to the podium at the Commission's request, said
that she estimated the entire cost for the 9 hydrants and the 6-inch line
Planning Commission -8- November 19, 1986
would be approximately $100,000; or an overall cost of $650 each, breakinq
down to $55 for 1 year, or $11 for a 5-year period. She urged the upqrading
of the fire system very strongly noting that mobilehome fires are common and
that most of the residents were senior citizens.
Testimony was offered by the following persons: Michael J. Oliva, 521 Orange
Avenue, Space #53; Martin Greisiger, Sp. #19; Sidney Christiansen, Sp. #31;
William E. Claycomb, Sp. #118; George W. Loxterman, Sp #17, President, Board
of Directors, Acquisition Association for Orange Tree Mobilehome Owners;
Patrick O'Carroll, Sp #60; Ken Bodily, Sp #67; Their comments included: If we
are required to upgrade, will the other parks and single-family dwellings be
required to do so also; the City doesn't have to spend any money on
maintenance or upkeep of the park, let them put in the fire improvements if
they want them; if the park is out of Code, then the entire Montgomery area is
out of Code; it is not right; it is too much money including payments on our
mobilehome; the Fire Department never comes in the park, they just attach to
hydrants outside and use a hose, it wouldn't matter if we had four, nine or
100 hydrants, they don't use them; the mobilehome in the adjacent park is
8-feet away, will they be required to install fire hydrants and upgrade; the
type of fire that occurs in a mobilehome is contained within it because the
home is metal, the adjacent homes are metal and it is located on cement and
collapses in on itself rather than spreads; if this becomes too costly, we
will be forced to convert to some other type of ownership and we don't want to
do that; we are having to pay more for our rent than we did, if we have to pay
additional money for these improvements, it will hurt a lot of people; it is
important that we stay clear of any more expenses; a pumper coming in would
have more than enough water to put out a fire; we have lived under these
conditions for 19 years, in time we will want to upgrade the park, however, it
is too costly to do so in the next 4 to 5 years; in a few years, the Planning
Commission and the City Council will be proud of this park.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
The Commission asked if there was some way that the City could help the
residents financially with the upgrading of the fire system. Staff replied
that ultimately Council would make a decision as to whether there was any
money available for funding.
Discussion between the Commission and staff involved consideration of means of
assistance to the residents with the funding problems involved in upgrading
the fire system; concern for the safety and protection of the residents; the
potential liability of either the City or the individuals if suit were brought
on the basis of a substandard fire system being permitted.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Grasser) Green out, that based on the findings contained in
Section "E" of the staff report, to adopt a motion recommending that Council
approve the tentative subdivision map for Orange Tree Mobilehome Park, Chula
Vista Tract 87-5, subject to conditions "a" through "i".
Commissioner Green returned to the Chambers and the dais at 8:37 p.m.
Plan~ing Commission -9- November 19, 1986
5. PUBLIC HEARING: (A) pCZ-87-F CONSIDERATION TO REZONE lO.1 ACRES
- KNOWN AS CORONA VISTA, LOCATED NORTHEAST OF OTAY LAKES
ROAD AT THE SOUTHEAST TERMINUS OF CAMINO ELEVADO FRO~
R-I-IO-H-P TO R-l-lO-P - DEMENGE-CERUTTI
(BI PCS-87-1 - CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISIO~ MAP FOR CONONA VISTA, CHULA VISTA TRACT
87-1, LOCATED NORTHEAST OF OTA¥ LAKES ROAD AT THE
SOUTHEAST TERMINUS OF CAMINO ELEVADO - DEMENGE-CERUTTI
(C) P-87-6 CONSIDERATION OF PRECISE PLAN ADOPTING
PLANS AND STANDARDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND/OR
MAINTENANCE OF THE LOTS AND COMMON AREAS WITHIN THIS
PROJECT - DE~ENGE-CERUTTI
indicated that the proposals involve a request for a
Principal Planne[ Lee ......... ~,~ nrecise olan for the develop~ent_o~
rezoning, tentative ~UOO171Sl~o~JA ~J~on onen ~oace on lO-1 acres )oca~eo
14 single-family residential mu~ ~- .......
northeast of Otay Lakes Road at the southeast terminus of Camino Elevado. The
proposed project would create 14 single-family lots served by a 20-foot wide
community would be gated with access off Camino Elevado
private street. The the northwesterly boundary. The project area is a lO.1
which terminates at
acre parcel and slopes steeply down on the northeast and southwest with a
knoll and low ridge running from the northwest to southeast representing the
developable portion of the property. The "H" Modifier has been removed
of the severity of the limitations when
qradually from properties because
~pplied to small holdings involving steep terrain, along with the ability to
control density and grading through the "P" Precise Plan requirements. The
proposal for 14 units on lO.1 acres equates to a gross density of 1.2
dwellings units per acre, which is well below the 4-12 range authorized under
the General Plan. The grading and density are consistent with the development
of estate-type homes and compatible with homes to the west on Camino Elevado.
The steeper slopes on the southerly and northeasterly portions of the property
are proposed as natural open space areas.
The planned custom homes are described as Early California Ranch with stucco
arth tones, and brick accents with a 2-car garage.
and wood, tl!e roofs ln_e .... ~d in ~arking bays, which is a ll.ttl~ ov~ a
Some 16 guest spac~ . ~ ............ +o minimize earth WORK, o~.tn~y
1-1 ratio.. Th? private ~ .,, ~ --~v-telv maintained and not accesslo)e to
are in a h~llslde area ano w~,~ u: v-. ~ ~
the general public.
· that development standards were submitted establishing the
Mr. Lee sa~d ~ -,-~ .... +h~cks architectural style, materials, lot
landscaping program, ?u __ ~ - · ~ other words, the applicant s own
coverage, future grading and fencing, .n
of standards. In staff's recommendation for approval are listed some 22
conditions that relate to the Association maintenance question and the
establishment of an open space maintenance district should there be some lack
in that particular operation; a revision in the development standards to
comply with present City regulations in terms of limiting the FAR to .45,
Planning Commission -10- November 19,
buildinq height to 28 feet, and lot coverage to 40 percent; a decorative wall
applied to those lots exposed to the Otay Lakes area; and that the City be a
party to the CC&Rs involving only the landscaping, wall and road maintenance.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Rita DiPastina, 3634 Third Avenue, San Diego, representing Safino Butcher and
said they are in agreement with all conditions
Ormander, Civil Engineers,
except they are requesting approval of a modified cul-de-sac with a shorter
radius length than City Standards at the end of Camino Elevado. A standard
size cul-de-sac would prevent some of the lot layouts; for example, denial of
street access to Lot 12 and would also require having two entrances instead of
one.
Roger Douast, Senior Civil Engineer, said that one of the conditions
stipulated approval by the City Engineer of the final design of the cul-de-sac
and its viability.
Ed Buchanan, 523 Camino Elevado, Bonita 92002, expressed concern about the
guest-parking situation and its possible overflow onto the residential streets
nearby. Principal Planner Lee replied that the development was providing
1 guest space ~er unit, plus there are curvilinear driveways which will permit
more parking in addition to the fact that the cul-de-sac has no houses
fronting on it.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Cannon/Green) to find that the project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-24.
MSUC (Cannon/Carson) that based on the findings contained in Section E of the
staff report, to recommend that the City Council approve PCZ-8?-F, PCS-8?-I
and P-87-6 subject to conditions "a" through "v".
6. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-87-9M REQUEST TO REDUCE REQUIRED
PARKING ON SITE FROM 138 TO 42 SPACES AND A REDUCTION
IN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO ZERO
AT 1773 BROADWAY - DESERET INDUSTRIES
The applicant has withdrawn their application for a zoning variance and no
longer wish to pursue their original proposal; the item is therefore filed at
the advice of the City Attorney.
7(A) PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-86-6 - PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE PLAN DIAGRAM OF THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN BY
THE REDESIGNATION OF TWO ADJOINING PARCELS OF LAND,
WHICH HAVE AN AGGREGATE AREA OF ABOUT 4.32 ACRES, AND
ARE LOCATED IN THE sOUTHEASTERLY QUADPJkNT OF EAST 'H
STREET AND OTAY LAKES ROAD, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL" TO "RETAIL COMMERCIAL"
-ll- ~
Planning Commission
(B) pCZ-86-E - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 4.3 ACRES LOCATED
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OTAY LAKES ROAD AND EAST
~' STREET FROM R-1 TO C-C-P - KELTON TITLE CORPORATION
MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) Cannon out to continue to December 17, 1986 per
applicant's request.
DIRECTOR' S REPORT
Principal Planner Lee reminded the Commission about the workshop that had been
reinstated on December 10, 1986 at 5:00 in Conference Rooms 2 and 3, and about
the Boards and Commission Banquet to be held on the 20th at the Country Club
OTHER BUSINESS
The Commission decided to await the appointment of the missing Commission
member before electing a Vice Chairman.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT AT 8:55 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of December 3, 1986
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
~. Smith, S~etary
Planning Commission
WPC 3405P/3407P