HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2000/07/26July 26, 2000
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday,
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:
Staff Present:
Chair Thomas, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Willett, Cortes, and
O'Neill
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
Klm Vander Bie, Associate Planner
Luis Hernandez, Senior Planner
Stan Dorm, Temporary Expert Professional
Michael Meacham, Conservation Resource Manager
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Willett
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
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/Sprinl PCS
Background: Klm Vander Bie, Associate Planner reported that Cox/Sprint PCS is requesting a
conditional use permit to construct and operate an unmanned cellular communications facility at
3554 Main Street, the site of the Otay Recreation Center. The project consists of a fenced off
equipment area measuring approximately 300 sf and a 65-foot high monopole supporting a GPS
antenna and 9 panel antennas.
The portion of the pole below the recreation center's roofline would be painted red to match the
building and the upper portion of the pole would rise 20 ft. above the building and would be
painted gray to blend in with the sky. Telephone, electrical and radio equipment would be
placed in cabinets near the base of the monopole and a chainlink fence with redwood slats to
match the building's exterior color scheme would be installed to screen the equipment.
The City encourages applicants of wireless communications facilities to co-locate with other
companies. The applicant investigated several site on or near Main Street including the SDG&E
substation, where there are several tall utility poles. SDG&E does not allow antennas within the
fenced area of the substation, but possible outside the fenced area approximately 75 feet away.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - July 26, 2000
The applicant chose the recreation center building because it is the tallest building in that vicinity
so that more than 2/3rds of the monopole could be hidden or blended into the building. A
monopalm was not considered because it would rise considerable higher than the existing palm
trees.
Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-00-59
recommending that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit based on the conditions
and findings contained in the resolution.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Hall inquired if Cox/Sprint would pay a fee for the usage of the building and, if so,
how much is that fee and where does it go.
Michael Meacham, Conservation Resource Manager, responded that the City Council approved a
Master Lease Agreement with Cox/Sprint PCS for sites on City facilities which range in monthly
payments from $1,400 to $1,600 per month, and the money is typically General Fund revenue.
However, there have been exceptions when it made sense from a construction stand point to
build in a benefit to the existing or adjacent site. For example; there is a proposal to install a
communications antenna on the light pole of an existing park site and there is a field adjacent to
this park that has no light poles. Staff recommended that the monies be paid upfront in order to
pay for the installation of light poles in the adjacent field in lieu of monthly payments, therefore
the residents would reap the benefits of having a lit field.
Commissioner Hall inquired if it would be possible to redirect a portion, if not all, of these
monthly rental fees back into the recreation center.
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney responded that the Planning Commission could not make
this a condition of approval, however, staff could include it as a recommendation from the
Planning Commission to the City Council.
Chair Thomas asked if there was anything the City could do, i.e., conditioning a CUP stating, "If
approached by another company, co-location will be accepted."
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the Commission's jurisdiction within the
Condition Use Permit would be to condition it to encourage the applicant to work with other
companies, however, it would be very difficult to make it a requirement because previous
testimony from other applicants has revealed that when they looked into co-locating, it was not
feasible because of physical constraints, not a lack of interest from either party.
Mr. Meacham further stated that co-location is a common practice when it is technologically and
geographically feasible. The incentive to the companies is that by sub-leasing with another
company they can help defray some of the costs.
Commissioner Willett reminded the Commission that the Planning Department is currently
working on a study that will identify the location and type of cellular antenna facility that is
currently in the City,
Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - July 26, 2000
Commissioner Cortes stated that he is encouraged to hear that staff is working on a
comprehensive plan and hopes it will include guidelines that can assist the Commission in
making a more informed decision.
Ms. Hull stated that the City can establish guidelines for a Citywide policy for the overall
placement of facilities.
Public Hearing Opened 6.'36
Michael Sloop, Sprint, 9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 320, San Diego, stated they looked at
various locations in the surrounding area of Third and Main Street in an attempt to find an
optimal location to get good coverage for that area of the City. The only feasible location that
was found, because of the building height, was the recreation center.
Mr. Sloop reaffirmed that co-location is desirable when optimal physical conditions exist, and as
long as the competitor's equipment does not hinder or adversely affect an existing facility, it is
economically desirable because sub-leasing helps defray some of the costs.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that at a previous Planning Commission meeting when a similar
request was being made, the applicant submitted renderings of different innovative designs that
can be integrated into with the architecture of the building, and was wondering if the applicant
had looked into other designs.
Mr. Sloop responded that they did look into such possibilities, however, the unique sloping of the
recreation center roof-line precluded the use of an alternative design. Additionally, the
monopalm was also considered, but was rejected because even at maturity, the existing palm
trees that are part of the landscaping at the rec center, would be considerable shorter than the 65
feet, which is the height of the monopole.
Cmr. Castaneda stated that a tremendous amount of time, effort and money was expended to
bring to fruition the recreation center, which has brought a sense of pride and ownership to the
surrounding community, and he is reluctant in making a hasty decision that could diminish the
aesthetics of this building.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that he supports the project at this location and is encouraged that
the City or the rec center will reap the benefits of the revenue it produces.
Commissioner Hall stated that although he shares some of Cmr. Castaneda's concerns with the
diminished aesthetics of the building, he would support approving the proposal with a
recommendation to the City Council that the revenues it would generate would be diverted back
into the recreation center.
Chair l'homas stated that regardless of the revenue this facility would generate, he is not
convinced that this is the best location for it because of the previously stated comments on the
building aesthetics.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - July 26, 2000
Commissioner Willett inquired about the scope of information that the comprehensive plan will
contain.
Beverly Blessent, Senior Planner, responded it would contain the name of the provider, what
type of facility it is, i.e. monopole/monopalm, or a stealth facility.
Cmr. Willett recommended that the range and frequency of each of these locations be included
in the plan as well as the elevation above sea level and the topography.
Public Hearing Re-Opened 7:40.
Commissioner Hall inquired of the applicant if he had any information that he could share with
the Commission with respect to future technological advances in this industry that would render
this type of facility obsolete.
Mr. Sloop responded that the technology would be satellite personal communication and in his
opinion, it would take a quantum leap in technology before satellites can handle the total
number of phone calls. This is what makes cellular systems work, the fact that you can
decentralize the antennas and repeat the use of either frequencies or codes.
Public Hearing Closed 7:45.
Commissioner Hall stated that since public hearing notices can oftentimes be overlooked as junk-
mail, and the apparent lack of community participation at tonight's hearing would indicate that
perhaps the community is not fully aware of what is being proposed and conceivable there
could be a negative community response once the facility is built. Cmr. Hall asked how
extensive was the noticing effort.
Director Sandoval responded that a 10 day notice was placed in the newspaper and the mail
noticing radius is 500 ft. to the surrounding neighbors.
Commissioner Castaneda stated he concurs with Cmr. Hall's previous comments and as stated
earlier, "a picture is worth a thousand words", therefore, he would make the following motion:
MSC (Castaneda/Thomas) (5-1-0-0) that this item be continued to the August 9th Planning
Commission meeting and direct staff to re-notice along with a copy of the simulated
photograph that was presented to the Commission tonight and that the notice and photograph
be posted at various locations at the recreation center. Motion carried with Commissioner
O'Neill voting against.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - July 26, 2000
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC-00-43; Consideration of a Conditional use Permit to construct
and operate: 1) a Drug Store with pharmacy drive-thru, sales of beer,
wine and liquor, and 24-hour operation; 3) Two freestanding, drive-
thru restaurants; and 4) a 24ohour gas station with an automatic car
wash and convenience store with sales of beer and wine as part of an
approximate 101,703 sf neighborhood ommercial center
development at the northeast corner of East Palomar Street and
Medical Center Drive. Kitchell Develol~ment Company.
Background: Stan Donn, Temporary Expert Professional, reported that for the commission's
consideration is a Master Conditional Use Permit for uses proposed within a commercial center
development with the Sunbow II Planned Community Village Center known as Plaza Sunbow
and located south of Telegraph Canyon Road just north of future Olympic Parkway and east of 1-
805; primary access to Sunbow II is Medical Center Drive. The 12.3 acre site is located at the
northeast corner of Medical Center Drive and East Palomar Street. Existing surrounding
developments include a senior housing project and an apartment complex that is under
construction north of the subject site. Single family residential to the west of Medical Center
Drive and south of East Palomar Street and a 10 acre park site is located to the east.
On June 7, 2000 the Commission considered a request to amend the Sunbow SPA Plan and
Design Guidelines for the Village Center. The original Village Center was envisioned as a
pedestrian-oriented mixed use plan consisting of two story elevations with ground-floor retail and
residential uses on the top. However, due to the limitations of the mixed-use concept envisioned
for the Village Center, the applicant requested an amendment to change the original design
concept to be able to accommodate a more contemporary shopping center. The original
California Spanish theme and pedestrian orientation are proposed to remain.
The Planning Commission recommended that approval of the amendments be subject to certain
conditions and also recommended that the pedestrian component of the original design be
preserved as much as possible, and on June 20, 2000 the City Council approved the proposed
amendments to the Village Center Design Guidelines.
On July 17, 2000 the Design Review Committee conditionally approved the site plan and
architecture featuring an efficient internal circulation system, a centralized parking plaza,
enhanced pedestrian walk-ways, landscaping and building design.
The requested Conditional Use Permits are as follows:
Grocery Store and Drug Store
24-hr. 7 days/week operation
· sale of beer, wine and liquor for offsite consumption
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
· Liquor license be obtained from the ABC and Chula Vista Police Department
· Loading dock walls will be constructed at the rear to block noise from delivery trucks
and loading operations.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - July 26~ 2000
To further reduce potential noise impacts, truck deliveries are limited to one per hour
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
DruR Store
· Limited drive-thru pharmacy for drop-off and pick-up of prescription drugs
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
· A three-car stacking lane shall be provided to serve an expected 5-10 vehicles per hour.
· Security cameras will be installed to record all transactions of the drive-thru pharmacy
Pad B and E drive-thru restaurants
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
A minimum 8-car stacking lane located outside the ingress and egress points will be
provided.
· Speakers will be turned to the lowest audible volume after 8:00 p.m.
Pad F - Gas Station/Carwash/Convenience Store
· 24 hr 7 days/week operation for gas station
· Carwash
· Sale of beer and wine for offsite consumption
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
To minimize traffic hazards or undue congestion from offsite circulation, a deceleration
lane is required to be constructed on East Palomar Street approaching the main
entrance.
Additional security will be provided to the commercial center as a result of the 24-hour
gas station operation
To minimize disturbance to the residents to the south, the operation of the carwash and
sales of beer and wine are limited to hours between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.
A liquor license shall be obtained from ABC and Chula Vista Police Depart.
A minimum of 6 car stacking will be provided for the car wash
To further circulation, no hand-drying will be allowed
Circulation will be counter clock-wise and "Entrance" and "Exit" signs will be posted to
facilitate safe circulation
A Noise Reduction Package will be installed in the dryer units
Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-00-43 approving
Conditional Use Permit for various land uses subject to conditions contained therein.
Planning Commission Minutes - ? - July 26, 2000
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner O'Neill stated that the City does not have a noise ordinance within commercial
center as it relates to hours of operation and expressed concern with noise impacts produced by
the grocery and drug-store loading docks. The noise reduction as a result of the sound wall at
pavement level of the grocery store is negligible because there is an ascending bank with
residences at the top. The sound wall would need to be at the top of the slope in order for it to
be effective.
Stan Donn, TEP, responded that to help minimize the noise, a condition is included that limits
the delivery of one truck per hour.
Chair Thomas asked what authority the City has to ensure that the landscaping is maintained and
foliage is not allowed to overgrow to the point of inhibiting sight distance.
Director Sandoval responded that a landscape plan is reviewed by a City Landscape Planner to
ensure that it complies with City standards and the project can be conditioned to require its
maintenance, which if not complied with, the City has enforcement authority.
Public Hearing Opened 8:00
Larry Tidball, RHL Design Group/Chevron, 1201 S. Beach Blvd. #207, La Habra, CA, 90631
stated that 6 cars of stacking is available at the southerly entry leading into the car wash, which is
in excess of what would typically be needed for a site like this. The car washes take between 4
to 5 minutes a piece. Most of the wash water is filtered and recycled and with the exception of
approximately 200 gallons a day of water that is not recyclable because it becomes too
concentrated with dirt is discharged into the sewer system and goes out for sewage treatment.
The long driveway exiting the car wash would incorporate a trench drain which would capture
minor drips that would be coming off of the car after they have gone through the air blower so
that there would be no excess water running off of the site.
Mr. Tidball asked for a correction to Condition #17 of the resolution where it states
"Handwashing, drying, and vacuuming shall not be allowed." To read, "Handwashing and drying
shall not be allowed." Unforturnately the exhibit prepared for the entire shopping center did not
show the vacuum locations and staff took that to read that there was to be no vacuums. The
vacuum units are proposed to be placed along the western portion of the parking away from the
car wash entrance and exit so that customers can either vacuum before or after their wash and
there would be no circulation impact issues.
Additionally, they would like to request that the language on Condition #15 be changed to read
"Hours of operation for the car wash and sale of beer and wine within the convenience store
shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m." The intent has always been to have a 24-hour
Convenience Store, and the restriction on the hours of operation would solely be for the sale of
liquor and the operation of the car wash.
Chair Thomas asked what the anticipated sales volume of gas will be.
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - July 26, 2000
Gabriel Ortega, 9320 Chesapeake Drive in San Diego, stated that the proposed site would be
virtually identical to the site on East H Street next to Jerome's and the vol ume is anticipated to be
approximately 250,000 gallons per month which will be [ess in the beginning, but after about
three years wi[[ peak out.
Don Glatthorn, Kitchell Development Company addressed the comments made on noise and its
affect to the adjacent apartments to the north and discussion on a potential sound wall at the top
of the slope.
Mr. Gatthorn stated that the noise issue was extensively discussed with staff and there was some
discussion as to whether or not there was going to be a threshold estab]ished because a Citywide
threshold may or may not exist. In the studies that were performed it was indicated that with the
barrier that would be constructed at the loading docks, the noise level would be below 60
decibels and the height of the wall will be determined at the point of final design.
Another complication with putting the sound wall at the top of the slope, is that the applicant
does not own the property at the top of the slope. The location of the proposed sound wall at the
bottom of the slope represents the general vicinity of the applicant's property line. They will be
required to maintain the landscaping on the slope through a landscape maintenance agreement
with the adjoining property owner. Additional the adjacent property owner was concerned with
having multiple tiered retaining walls located at the top of the slope throughout the project area.
Public Hearing Closed 8:35.
MSC (O'Neill/Willett) (6-0-0-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-00-43
approving conditional use permit for various land uses within the Neighborhood Commercial
center with the following modifications to the resolution:
1. If a noise complaint is made, the City may require the applicant to conduct a noise
analysis (to be paid for by applicant). If based on the results of the noise analysis, the
Planning and Building Department Director determines that the projects violates City
Municipal Code noise standards, the applicant shall provide the necessary mitigations.
The determination of appropriate mitigation will be the sole responsibility of the Planning
and Building Director.
2. That the language to Condition 15 be changed to read "Hours of operation for the car
wash and the sale of beer and wine within the convenience store shall be limited to 7:00
a.m. to 11:00 p.m.", and
3. That the language to Condition 17 be changed to read, "Handwashlng and drying shall
not be allowed."
Motion carried.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - July 26~ 2000
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Director Sandoval reviewed the upcoming calendar schedule and stated that the new
Commissioner,
Director Sandoval introduced John McCann, the new Planning Commissioner and stated
that Cmr. McCann had a prior commitment and would not be attending the August 9th
meeting, but would be available thereafter.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT at 9:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 2000.
Diana Vargas, Secretary¥o Planning Commission