Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2003

Home

I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I z,g, February 25, 2003 --Page 5 then planned to build several tall buildings on the property. ' . Save Our NTC, Inc. sued. 'SONTC claimed the property had to' comply with the coastal height limitations. The court ruled in favor of the city, f'mding the"city did' not have jurisdic- tion over the property when the proposition was passed. . SONTC appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. - The property was not subject to the coastal height restrictions. Local zoning laws were not automatically applicable to surplus base prop- erty transferred by the federal government to state or local entities. The trans- fer of the property did not trigger the application of all existing zoning ordi- nances to the property, but instead only those consistent with the city's reuse plan. The height limitation was not consistent with the reuse plan. The city felt the best use of the site included residences up' to '35 feet high and commercial structures up to 100 feet high. The reuse plan was. based on solicitation and consideration of input from the community. The plan dealt with all issues relating, to base reuse, including environmental considerations, natural resource concerns, and cultural and his- torical requirements. Because the' base was not under city jurisdiction when the law was passed, the property was only subject to those height restrictions consistent with the reuse plan. Citation: Save Our NTC, Inc. v. City of San Diego, Court of Appeal of California, 4th App. Dist.,.Div. ] (2003). see also: Hensler v. City of Glendale, 876 P..2d 1043 (!998). see also: City of Vernon v. Board of Harbor Commissioners, 63 Cal. App.4th 677 (1998). Variance -- Developer wants to build gas station - Neighbors claim property does not create sufficient hardship PENNSYLVANIA (0t/14/03) Wawa Inc. owned pro. perry in the city's C-M office research center district. The district was designated for large-scale inte- grally planned and designed office facilities'. Wawa wanted to build a gas. station and convenience store. The project in- cluded '75 parking spaces, lawns and trees in the front, trash storage inside the facility, and no parking for large trucks. It would be' open 24-hours-per-day. The board found the proposal was less objectionable in terms, of noise, smoke, dust, fumes~ vapors, gas, heat, odor, glare, and vibration than currently existing uses. The project would also h~aprove the appearance of the property. Finally, the proposed use would attract traffic from a passing stream of ve- hicles, making the anticipated traffic, increase negligible. Surrounding uses included major area employers, banks, apartments, a 139