Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2000/08/096:00 p.m. Wednesday, August 9, 2000 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Chair Thomas, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Willett, Cortes, and O'Neill Absent: Commissioner McCann Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Steve Power, Associate Planner Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager Rich Whipple, Associate Planner Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Thomas APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 26, 2000 MSC (Willet'dCastaneda) (6-0) to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-00-59;Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and maintain a 65-foot high monopole, supporting nine panel antennas; and an associated equipment area at 3554 Main Street - Cox/Sprint PCS. Background: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner reported that on July 26, 2000 after the Commission's review of the proposed unmanned cellular facility at the Otay Recreation Center located at 3554 Main Street, the Planning Commission continued this item for the following reasons: 1. To expand the noticing radius to include residents to the north 2. Notification of the public hearing would include a photo simulation of the proposed monopole, and 3. A copy of the public notice with a photo simulation would be posted at the Otay Recreation Center. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - August 9, 2000 Ms. Vander Bie stated that the Planning Commission favored the monopalm design as being more aesthetically appropriate, and provided photo simulations of what a monopalm would look like. Presently there is a row of natural palm trees measuring approximately 20 feet high behind the building where the monopole is proposed. According to the City Landscape Planner, palm trees grow approximately 1 foot per year and at that rate, it would take approximately 45 years before the trees would be as high as the 65 foot monopalm, and 25 years before the trees would rise above the roofline. It is, therefore, staff's opinion that until the existing palm trees grow several more feet, a monopalm would appear to be standing alone, rather than in a cluster of trees. Staff is recommending that public testimony be taken tonight and that this item be continued to allow staff time to review in more detail some of the issues. Staff Recommendaiton: That the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Special Use Permit based on the draft Redevelopment Agency resolution and the conditions and findings contained therein. Chair Thomas read into the record the names of people who oppose staff's recommendation, but support the project with a monopalm design; they are: Yolanda Ramos Steve Palma submitted a letter with 30 signatures of individuals who also support the monopalm design Mr. & Mrs. Walter Roberts Peter Ponte Silas Pectal Public Hearing Ol~ened 6:20. Mike Sloop, 9665 Chesapeake Road, San Diego, representing Sprint stated he was there to answer any questions from the Commission and present also at the hearing is a Radio Engineer. Mr. Sloop further stated that since the consensus is leaning toward the monopalm design, he has no problem going with either the monopole or monopalm, and therefore urged the Commission to move forward and make a recommendation tonight. Commissioner Castaneda asked for further clarification on the reason staff is recommending a continuation of this item. Director Sandoval stated that the reason for the continuance was simply to allow staff ti me to sift through some administrative details and go over the comments and concerns that have been received, however, if the Commission feels comfortable with the project, action could be taken tonight. Public hearing closed 6:25 Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - August 9, 2000 MSC (Castaneda/Willett) (6-0-1-0) thal the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Special Use Permit based on the draft Redevelopment Agency resolution and the conditions and findings contained therein with an amendment to the resolution to approve a monopalm instead of a monopole and direct staff to make all of the appropriate changes to reflect that change. Motion carried. MSC (Castaneda/Hall) (5-2-1-0) recommend that the City Council consider using the funds generated from this facility to augment existing revenues that are used to fund and staff the Otay Recreation Center. Motion carried with Commissioners O'Neill and Willett voting against it. Commissioner O'Neill stated that whatever revenue this project generates will go into the Genera[ Fund or Parks & Recreation budget, and in his opinion, staff is in a better position to know where these funds should go; perhaps to buy equipment or staff time in another recreation center that needs it more. Therefore, he does not support the second motion. Commissioner Willett concurs with Cmr. O'Neill's comment. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV-O0-14; An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a variance request to maintain a fence with a maximum height of 6/6" within the front yard setback. A maximum fence height of 3/6" is permitted in the front yard setback. The site is located in the R-1 Zone, with a General Plan designation of Residential. Background: Steve Power, Associate Planner reported that the applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a variance request to maintain a fence that exceeds the allowable 3' 6" in height for a front yard fence. The Zoning Administrator denied the variance request based upon the findings that there are no special circumstances or hardships applicable to the property. Fence pilasters ranging in height from 5'8" to 6'6" have been constructed with a Iow block wall ranging in height from 2' to 3'4" which sits between the pilasters. A wrought iron fence would be placed between the pilasters and on top of the Iow block wall. One of the two sections in the Municipal Code that applies to this project is Section 12.12.130 which states that any wall or dense vegetation within 5 ft. of a driveway or 5 ft. from the front property line cannot exceed 2'6" high. Anything over 2'6" high would have to be at least 50% open and not more than 8" in width. It should be noted that Section 12.12 is part of the Sidewalks and Streets Section of Municipal Code and therefore, a variance cannot be obtained. The other code section that applies is 19.58.150 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that no fence can be over 3'6" high within a front yard setback. This variance request was denied by the Zoning Administrator because no applicable special Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - August 9, 2000 circumstances or hardships were found for this property with regard to size, shape, or topography, which are the standard reasons for a variance. This property is over the minimum lot size and has more than the required street frontage and there are no special circumstances that would dictate a variance. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrators decision to deny the variance by denying the appeal. Public Hearing Opened 6:50 Augie Bareno, California Land Use Consultant, representing the applicant stated that although the Moreno-Jennings family may not have gone through the proper channels with the City in acquiring all of the standards and permits for constructing the fence, their intent was to improve their home, thereby improving their neighborhood and increasing property values by designing an aesthetically pleasing fence. They also desired to provide a safe environment for their children to be able to play inside an enclosed front yard. Mr. Bareno further stated that the applicant is willing to work with the City and hoped they would be able to reach a common ground. Commissioner Hall asked if the applicant had any indication of what type of modifications could be made to bring this project in to compliance without having to remove the fence completely. Mr. Bareno responded that he did not feel comfortable making any recommendation at this time and would first need to consult with his client, therefore, he requested that this item be continued to the next Planning Commission to allow them time to confer. Public Hearing Closed 7:00. Commission Discussion: Commissioner O'Neill stated he empathizes with the applicant for the predicament they find themselves in as a result of a complaint-driven code enforcement program. On the one hand, he doubted that any reasonable person walking the streets of that neighborhood would find the subject fence to be a visual blight. Furthermore, in a nearby neighborhood, once known as the S ilverado Estates, there are fences that have pilaster that are much taller and wider than the fence in question, and these fences make up the character and composition of the neighborhood. It would be hard to conceive that those fences could also be required to come down. Cmr. O'Neill further stated that the tougher issue is a safety matter, which involves sight lines at a driveway; one could argue that street trees create the same effect. MSC (Willett/Castaneda) (6-0-0-1) that this public hearing be continued to the September 13, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried. Mr. Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director, stated that staff is more than willing to work with the applicant, however, the discretion that staff has is what the code allows. If the applicant can Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - August 9, 2000 come up with something that is innovative, that would in essence, negate the need for a variance, then that wou Id be the best way to go. If the applicant is able to do that, then the best staff would be able to do is to clearly define and convey to the Commission what the applicant is proposing. However, and unless staff can make the same findings that the Commission would, with regard to special circumstances, staff will not be able to recommend approval of the project. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-00-14; Request to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan to move the high school site in Village Two to a location in Village Two acceptable to the Sweetwater Union High School District. Background: Rich Whipple, Asssociate Planner, reported that the application implements the Otay Ranch SPA 1 conditions in Phase 7 Tentative Map Conditions requiring the Otay Ranch Company to deliver a high school site acceptable to the Sweetwater Union High School District in a timely manner. The Otay Ranch SPA 1 Plan was amended over a year ago to add a high school site to the SPA 1 Plan, which is technically located in Village 2. The school district indicated an earlier need for the high school site than previously anticipated. The GDP was amended a year earlier based on the school district's needs to deliver a high school site based on the growth projections in the eastern territories. Subsequently, the Phase 7 Tentative Map located in Village 1 was adopted by the City Council. That Tentative Map included conditions to deliver the site to the High School District in a timely manner and also included a "borrow" site to the south of Olympic Parkway which included fill material that would be needed for the construction of Olympic Parkway. The school district saw the opportunity, along with the applicant and the City to deliver the site located in the "borrow" site. There are conditions in the SPA Plan and the Tentative Map that allows the District to require an earlier delivery of the site. Based on the District's need to apply for State funding at this time, they decided to make the request. The proposal tonight would be to revise map exhibits in the SPA Plan, which would move the high school site to the "borrow" site that is currently being graded at Olympic Parkway. The Environmental Review Coordinator determined that an addendum to the SPA Plan EIR was appropriate. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 00-14 recommending the City Council approve the amendment MSC (Thomas/Cortes) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 00-14 recommending the City Council approve the amendment to move the high school site in Village 2 to a site acceptable to the Sweetwater Union High School District. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - August 9, 2000 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the following application files by PG&E Dispersed Generation, LLC for 3497 Main Street - Special Use Permit to allow a Peak Load Power Plant. Background: Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager, reported that the applicant has submitted an application for a Special Use Permit to allow the siting of a Peak Load Power Plant at 3497 Main Street, a site located 800 feet south of Main Street adjacent to the Otay River. The project consists of one natural gas twinpak combustion turbine, gas compressor, electrical generator, and associated equipment. Along the eastern boundary is an access road, which would contain an underground gas pipeline that would connect to the existing gas pipeline on Main Street. No fuel would be stored on site and the site is not proposed to be paved. The entire property would be surrounded by a 10 foot high chain link fence with opaque screening slats and landscaping on the outside. An air-cooled gas turbine would be contained within an enclosed structure and the turbine would be fitted with air pollution control equipment, noise suppression devices and an exhaust stack. The height of the exhaust stack is 45 feet and although the height Ii mit for this zone is 45 ft., there is no height limit per the Municipal Code for electrical power plants. There is an electrical substation that is located to the north of the generator that would convert the electrical output to 69,000 volts and would tap into the existing 69,000 volt line that runs along the eastern edge of the site and goes back up to Main Street. The site would be unmanned and would be remotely operated. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Special Use Permit in accordance with the Redevelopment Agency Resolution based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commission Discussion: Chair Thomas asked if street improvements could be incorporated as a condition to the project. Mr. Hunter responded that it is not a street, but rather, an access easement. A condition has been included which addresses what will happen in the future if there is a need for a dedication, as determined by the City Engineer. The access easement will be improved to the requirements of the Fire Department in that it will be an all-weather, 20 foot wide access road. Commissioner Castaneda inquired if a condition could be made directing the applicant to incorporate landscaping improvements on the northerly property that abuts Main Street. Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney responded that staff could take that under advisement and will look into it before this item goes to the Redevelopment Agency, and if possible and appropriate, will include a condition to that effect. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - August 9, 2000 Public Hearing Opened 7:45 Dale Mesley, 100 Pine Street, San Francisco, representing PG&E National Energy Group, stated that the purpose of this facility is to generate electricity to meet peak load periods during the summer. It is anticipated that it will operate a maximum of 16 hours a day from June through October. The other reason for the facility is to support the transmission and distribution system. With an increase in electric use, the transmission lines become over-loaded and to alleviate that, you either need to add more transmission lines, or you can add localized generation to offset that need, which is what this facility is intended for. It is also intended to provide voltage support to the system because when the system becomes overloaded, the voltage starts to diminish and can actually cause brown-outs. The criteria for siting these facilities are that it be located inside the load center as close to a substation as possible and as close to a high pressure natural gas line, which are met for this proposal. All regulatory requirements must be met, and this project requires an Air Pollution Control authorization to construct, which has been issued by the APCD. This facility is not required to be licensed by the Energy Commission as their threshold is 50 megawatts and above; this facility will be approximately 44 megawatts. Noise and run-off water are the two major environmental issues that have been identified. The river basin supports several sensitive species and the OVRP Plan contains guidelines indicating that noise levels shall not exceed 60 dba at the property line. The applicant intends to fully adhere to these standards. As it relates to air emissions, the facility would utilize state-of-the-art technology known as Best Available Control Technology. This facility will be the cleanest plant of its type in the State of California. As previously stated, this will be an unmanned facility and they will have inspector s going from site to site inspecting other facilities throughout San Diego County to ensure that everything is working properly. During the peak season, the inspections take place every day; during the off- season they occur 2 to 3 times per week. As it relates to storm run-off, the site is sloped to the south and currently drains into the river bottom. This is proposed to continue, with grading directing run-off into a catch basin at the southwest corner, which will go through a filtering system. The transformer contains approximately 15,000 gallons of transformer oil, which could potentially leak or break if an earthquake were to occur, therefore, the containment area is design to contain 150% of the oil with a back-up containment basin. If there is oil or contamination within the containment, a pump truck would be called in and it would be cleaned out according to DEH procedures. When there is a rainstorm and the containment area is filled with rain water that is released into the catch basins, the procedures from DEH are that it be inspected and if it is clear, it can then be released, but if you are releasing to the river bottom you need to take a sample and have it tested. They plan to modify the design so that the secondary containment go into the sewer system. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - August 9, 2000 Public Hearing Closed 8:05. MSC (Willett/O'Neill) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Special Use Permit in accordance with the Redevelopment Agency Resolution based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions contained therein. Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-00-03; Tentative Subdivision Map knows as Eastlake Trails North Chula Vista Tract 00-03 for a 207 lot subdivision on 30.6 acres at the southeast corner of Otay Lakes Road and Hunte Parkway. Eastlake Company. Background: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner reported that the applicant submitted a request for approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map within the Eastlake Trails Master Planned Community. The project site is 30.6 acres and is located at the southeast corner of Otay Lakes Road and Hunte Parkway. The proposal is to subdivide the site into 207 single family and 4 open space lots. To the north, across Otay Lakes Road is the future site of Eastlake Woods, which is part of the Eastlake Ill development currently being planned. To the west, across Hunte Parkway is the existing Eastlake Greens development. 1'o the south and east, is the remaining portion of Eastlake Trails, most of which was recently developed. On May 4, 1999, the City Council approved the Master Tentative Map for the entire Eastlake Trails development. This Map created 749 individual single family lots as well as 4 super lots. The 4 super lots will add an additional 394 units for a total of 1,143 units. The first of the two super lots (TS-7 and TN-?) will be developed with multi-family products. TS-7 is currently being developed for 96 condominium unts and TN-7 will accommodate 90 future multi-family units. The remaining two super lots are identified as parcels as TN-5 and TN-6. These two parcels together constitutes the project site earmarked for a total of 207 of the 394 additional units anticipated by the Master Tentative Map. The Site Utilization Plan for Eastlake Trails identifies the area in proximity to the project as Parcel R-4. This entire parcel is targeted to accommodate 533 units. The project site is a portion of Parcel R-4 and it proposes 207 units, which when added to the 325 units previous approved, adds up to just 1 less than the 533 target units, thus the proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the Site Utilization Plan. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCS-00-03 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Subdivision Map Chula Vista Tract 00-03 in accordance with the City Council Resolution. MSC (Willett]Thomas) (6-0-1-0) That the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCS-00-03 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Subdivision Map Chula Vista Tract 00~ 03 in accordance with the City Council Resolution. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - August 9, 2000 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-01-01; Proposal to amend the Municipal Code (Title 19) regarding Design Review Committee membership, scope of responsibilities and procedures. City initiated. Background: Steve Power, Associate Planner reported that on January 20, 2000 the City Council conducted a workshop on the Design Review Committee/process and directed staff to return with a proposal for a design review process without a Design Review Committee, as well as a proposal to revamp and improve upon the existing design review process. On June 13, 2000 the City Council reviewed staff's analysis of DRC activities over the past two years, options for a process without a formal committee, as well as options for improvement to the existing process. After consideration of the various options, Council directed staff to make improvements to the existing process and to amend portions of the Municipal Code to reflect the changes to the process. The changes to the Municipal Code address the purpose, role and scope of responsibility of the Committee, what constitutes membership, and the appeals and continuance process. Mr. Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director stated the recommended changes are as a result of a collective effort between the Design Review Committee, the Building Industry Association, and the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Sandoval further stated that although the proposal addresses responsibilities under the purview of the Design Review Committee, State law requires that amendments to the Municipal Code require an advisory vote from the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve the resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance in order to modify Sections 19.14.581, 19.14.582, 19.14.583, 19.14.584, and 19.14.587 of the Municipal Code and add Section 19.41.591 to the Municipal Code regarding Design Review. Commission Discussion: Commissioner O'Neill inquired if the residency requirement had been removed. Ms. Hull, Deputy City Attorney stated that presently there still is the residency requirement, however, Council has directed staff to place on the November ballot a proposal to remove the residency requirement only for those boards and commissions that have regional impact, i.e., the Nature Interpretive Center Board and the Library Board of Trustees. Commissioner Cortes asked for clarification on the proposed language under the Design Review Committee Appeal Process and the reasoning behind giving the applicant a choice to file an appeal directly to the Planning Commission or the City Council. Mr. Sandoval responded that presently an applicant can appeal a DRC decision to the Planning Commission, and then they can appeal the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The building community felt that in some cases they would rather eliminate a double appeal and Planning Commission Minutes - 10 - August 9, 2000 be able to go directly to the City Council. Chair Thomas asked why, then, would an applicant want to go to the Planning Commission instead of directly to the City Council. Mr. Sandoval responded that depending on the nature of the project, the applicant may choose to appeal to the Planning Commission because of the Commission's expertise in land use issues and experience in reviewing master planned projects. MSC (Willett/O'Neill) (6-0-0-0) that the Planning Commission approve the resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance in order to modify Sections 19.14.581, 19.14.582, 19.14.583, 19.14.584, and 19.14.587 of the Municipal Code and add Section 19.41.591 to the Municipal Code regarding Design Review. Motion carried. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Update on upcoming meeting schedule. COMMISSION ERS COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT at 9:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2000. Di~~ning Commission