Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1997/06/11MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:08 p.m. Wednesday, June 11, 1997 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Aguilar, O'Neill, Ray, Thomas, and Willett Commissioner Davis (excused) Assistant Planning Director Lee, Acting Associate Planner Nevins, Planning Technician Steichen, Assistant City Attorney Moore PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tarantino led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. MOTION TO EXCUSE MSUC (Willett/Aguilar) 5-0 to excuse Commissioner Davis, who was out of town on business. Commissioner Ray had not yet arrived. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tarantino reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. Commissioner Ray arrived at this time (7:10 p.m.). APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Thomas/Ray) 5-0-1 (Davis excused; Willett abstained) to approve the minutes of May 21, 1997, with the following amendments: page 5, paragraph 3, change "stated" to "requested confirmation"; page 6, first paragraph, change I-5 to 1-805; page 12, paragraph 2, third line, add "and" this project in particular; page 18, third paragraph; "Tarantino" voted for instead of Ray. Ray abstained, as shown. PC Minutes -2- June 11, 1997 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING; CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING SUPS-96-06; REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONTINUE OPERATING A TRUCK TERMINAL/TRAILER STORAGE YARD AT 2451 FAIVRE STREET - California Multi-Modal, Inc. and H. G. Fenton Material Company Vista (to be continued to meeting of July 23, 1997) Assistant Planning Director Lee asked that SUPS-96-06 be continued to the public hearing to July 23, 1997. The surrounding residents had been notified of the request. MSC (Willett/Ray) 5-0-1 (Davis excused; O'Neill abstained pending clarification of a possible conflict of interest) to continue SUPS-96-06 to the Planning Commission meeting of July 23, 1997. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING; PCA-97-05; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 19.22.170 AND 19.64.180 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW BUILDING ADDITIONS ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS CONTAINING AN EXISTING RESIDENCE TO MAINTAIN EXISTING SIDEYARD SETBACKS - City Initiated Assistant Planner Steichen presented the staff report, noting that the proposed amendment would only apply to residential lots which were 60 feet wide as measured from the front setback line. There had been numerous occasions where property owners wishing to add a building addition to the existing residence was not allowed to place the addition in line with the plane of the existing residence, since it did not meet the required side yard setbacks, and the only procedure the applicant could take was to request a variance. At the present time, variances relating to side yard setback reductions which are consistent with the proposed amendment are routinely approved by the department, thus an ordinance amendment would eliminate the need for variance requests. Because of the increased frequency of these occurrences, cost, and time for the applicant and staff time to process the variance application, staff recommended approval of the proposed text amendment. Commissioner Willett complimented staff on the report. Commissioner Thomas questioned the number of projects that would be impacted during a year. Mr. Lee replied that it averaged between four and six projects a year. It was not astronomical, but still substantial, and a burden not only on the applicant but also on staff. He noted that when there were variances that were frequently granted, it was time to examine the ordinance and see if it needed updating. Commissioner Aguilar was glad to see that the City assessed policies and requirements from time to time to see if they were still appropriate. PC Minutes -3- June 11, 1997 Commissioner Ray asked if the amendment only applied to existing property and not to new development and if there would still be 10 feet between dwellings. Mr. Steichen answered affirmatively to both. 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 (Thomas/Willett) 6-0 (Davis excused) to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend Sections 19.22.170 of the Municipal Code relating to required side yard setbacks for additions to existing residences. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING; PCM-94-04; CONSIDERATION OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM EAST ORANGE AVENUE TO OLYMPIC PARKWAY, BETWEEN 1-805 AND WUESTE ROAD - City Initiated Acting Associate Planner Nevins reviewed the staff report and recommended that the entire roadway segment between 1-805 and Wueste Road be renamed. This would be the first phase. Other portions would be re-signed as they were built. She noted that Public Works had applied for a federal grant for construction. Staff recommended approval of the renaming of Orange Avenue to Olympic Parkway, subject to the phasing indicated in the draft resolution. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Faith Triggs, Associate Director for the ARCO Training Center, said that she was there to oversee the proceedings and to just observe. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Willett/Thomas) 6-0 (Davis excused) to approve staff's recommendation for the Olympic Parkway. Commissioner Willett asked that staff look at the new Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce map. There was a slight error in it with reference to the Olympic Center, and he wished to draw staff's attention to that. Mr. Lee asked that the Chamber send Planning staff a copy of the map. ITEM 4. REPORT: PCM-96-24; NOTICING PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS - City Initiated Acting Associate Planning Nevins stated this report was in response to a Council referral. She reviewed the two most significant issues, which involved the radius used for noticing and the practice of noticing tenant residents in addition to property owners. She noted that depending on the project, staff may notice up to a 1000 foot radius for projects up to 5 acres or more, based on the current Council policy. Normally, the Planning Commission items with less than 5 acres are noticed to a 500 foot radius, and Zoning Administrator actions and Design Review PC Minutes -4- June 11, 1997 are noticed to 300 feet. It had been staff's experience that what little additional response drawn from the 1000 foot boundary was probably not proportionate to the cost involved. She compared an actual project with noticing with the 1000, 500, and 300 foot radii for the same project showing the number of labels, total cost of postage, and overhead costs actually incurred by the City and billed to an applicant on a deposit account through an overhead factor but not directly recovered. This took into account both owners and tenants. Ms. Nevins stated that it was not simply the cost to the developer, but also the amount of staff time involved. The second issue was regarding tenant noticing. Ms. Nevins reported that staff members felt the response from tenant noticing was low, if at all, in most cases. Because of the low response coupled with the large number of tenant notices returned unopened, undeliverable, and with the relative cost of accomplishing the noticing, staff recommended that the practice of tenant noticing be ceased. Ms. Nevins summarized that there were five issues relative to noticing: the extended boundary-- recommended to be reduced to 500' maximum; tenant noticing--elimination of tenant resident noticing; use of public forums--continue the informal use; alternative methods of noticing in addition to mailed notices; content of public noticing--providing a more readable format and including a paragraph in Spanish that would direct Spanish speakers to a bilingual staff person. Commissioner Thomas agreed that it was discouraging to hold public hearings where very few people attend. He did not feel changing from 300' to 500' would make a significant difference. Ms. Nevins replied that items going to the Planning Commission and/or Council for consideration were deemed to have more impact, and staff recommended the 500' because of that. Commissioner Ray asked if the applicant paid for the noticing. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated the applicant paid when it was a deposit account. The City operated on two different systems--a deposit system and a flat fee system. With items that were consistent in processing, there was a flat fee; with items that were inconsistent, a deposit fee was more equitable. Mr. Lee noted that regarding the consideration for the 300', all of the cities in the County utilized the 300' with one exception. Since Chula Vista had been using 1,000 feet, they did not consider dropping back to 300'. Commissioner Willett said the Planning Commission needed to take into consideration the fact that with industrial units, the 300' did not take into consideration the residential. He supported staff's recommendation. He gave some examples of large mailings with small mm-out. Commissioner Willett was interested in the number of notices that could be on the Web-Page. Ms. Nevins stated the Internet was suggested as an alternative. Commissioner Willett suggested trying it to see what the response would be. Commissioner Aguilar congratulated Ms. Nevins on her report, and the City for establishing a policy and then requesting that it be assessed at some point as to its effect. Commissioner Aguilar questioned what would be done in a large area, such as the Otay Ranch, regarding PC Minutes -5- June 11, 1997 noticing. Ms. Nevins replied that staff uses the outer perimeter of the project and draws the radius from that point. Commissioner Aguilar agreed with Commissioner Thomas that the noticing should be from 300 feet. There did not seem to be any reason not to do that. Regarding alternative methods of noticing, she asked if signs were not currently posted at project signs. Ms. Nevins replied negatively, and she stated that information from other jurisdictions showed that they may be knocked down, and if they were down and staff was not aware of it, no notice would be given at all. Commissioner Aguilar said she would be comfortable with going to 300 feet with the addition of one of the alternative methods--posting of signs or Internet. Commissioner O'Neill endorsed the reduction in the radius to 300 feet for the basic notice. He felt staff should have some flexibility to expand it to 500 feet or 1,000 feet, if the project was large enough to have an impact and would effect a larger area. Chair Tarantino stated that even with noticing at 1,000 feet, the largest complaint the Planning Commissioner hears is "Why didn't we hear about it?" Regarding the tenant noticing, the amount of returned mail, he agreed with discontinuing it because of the extra expense. He did not agree to noticing only to 300 feet. He would like to see it go to 500 feet, see how it worked for a while, and then go to 300 feet if there were no problems. Regarding the Spanish, he was not comfortable with the generic statement that someone would help them. He would like to see the first paragraph given in Spanish so that the people would know what was happening, and then if they had concerns, they could call. He felt with just the generic statement, a staff person would be tied up on the phone with a lot of calls that were unnecessary. Commissioner O'Neill felt the document should not he printed in a second language. He felt if it was printed partly in Spanish that it would be unfair to the other groups who did not speak English or Spanish. He felt the notification giving the number to call would be okay, but he did not feel the first paragraph should be in Spanish. Commissioner Thomas agreed with not reproducing any of the documents in any language except English. He supported staff's proposal regarding the sentence at the end of the document showing the contact person for additional information. He supported going to 300 feet for noticing, but did not feel comfortable with allowing staff to make the decisions as to whether to go up to 500 feet. He felt there would be problems; that there should be more continuity. For the amount of money involved, he did not feel any advantage of going over the State guidelines. There would always be complaints that someone was not noticed. Chair Tarantino agreed, but felt it was good public relations. At Chair Tarantino's suggestion, the Commissioners agreed that the points should be considered one at a time. PC Minutes -6- June 11, 1997 Ms. Nevins stated that the first issue was the noticing boundary. MS (Thomas/O'Neill) to notify at 300 feet for all applications. Commissioner Ray stated that he could either go with the 300 feet or 500 feet. He asked if there had been any thought given to the applicant providing the labels. There could be a savings averaging between $500 and $600 if the applicant was charged for the labels plus secretarial time. Ms. Nevins replied that it would definitely save money if the applicant provided mailing labels, envelopes, postage, etc., it would save money. The experience of other cities was that staff spent so much time checking it, that they might as well have done it themselves. Regarding tenant noticing, it goes out to the resident. The GIS system selects those and provides the labels. Commissioner Ray asked if the bulk rate was used. Ms. Nevins informed him that they were mailed first class. Commissioner Ray was concerned about the cost rather than who was informed. He felt the costs other than for mailing could be passed on to the applicant. Commissioner Aguilar thought the 300 foot noticing should be combined with some other methods. She favored posting of signs so the people who lived in the area would be made aware of it. She suggested that posting of signs be tried for a year and then assessed to see how it worked. She would be uncomfortable with going to 300 feet without any other alternative method. Commissioner Thomas said he had previous experience with posting signs and there had been no response. He did not think this would be a viable thing to do. Commissioner Ray asked if an item was classified as far as impact on the community. Assistant Planning Director Lee replied that staff looked at the size of the project and the issues. The environmental issues would be discussed with the environmental section, which largely determined whether there would be a public forum. The forums were effective in getting the word out, even though they may not be well attended. It is a call by staff. Commissioner Aguilar asked for a comment from the City Attorney regarding the issue of giving staff flexibility. She did not want to expose staff to any liability. She agreed to the 300 feet and giving staff flexibility to expand the radius to 500 feet or 1,000 feet based on their judgment. Attorney Moore stated that at minimum there should be a 300 foot requirement. If the language was specific enough, it could be increased to 500 feet in perhaps projects that are specifically described in the policy. It should be clearly stated as much as possible the types of projects that would be increased to 500 feet. Chair Tarantino asked how that would impact staff's time. Would it be quick to evaluate? Mr. Lee replied that if the Planning Commission was looking at the two options of having any item that was going on to City Council at 500 feet, that probably solidified it a little better. He felt PC Minutes -7- June 11, 1997 staff would be more comfortable with something like that, that would not be confusing to administer. Ms. Nevins stated that staff's recommendation was for 300 foot noticing with 500 foot noticing specified for the Planning Commission and Council. Attorney Moore concurred. Commissioner Willett felt comfortable with staying with the Council Policy of 500 feet, with staff extending it to 1,000 feet if necessary. MOTION RESCINDED by Commissioner Thomas; Commissioner O'Neill concurred. MSC (Thomas/Willett) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) to accept staff's proposal on the noticing boundaries. Ms. Nevins stated that the second issue was whether to discontinue the use of tenant noticing except for adjacent tenants. Staff's recommendation, because of the cost of publication and the haziness of the issue of posting, would be to eliminate tenant noticing except for adjacent tenants, which staff would continue not only for environmental but for other projects as well. Commissioner Ray felt someone who resided in a rental unit deserved as much of a right as someone who owned the property. He felt the tenant notification should be continued. Commissioner Willett concurred in part with Commissioner Ray, but it had been his experience that the majority of the tenants were very mobile. He thought staff should be allowed the exception, in the case of a project with a lot of noise or dust, etc., to expand the notification to tenant notification. However, regarding notifying the tenants across the board, he would go along with the other cities and only notify them in cases of CEQA. Commissioner Thomas agreed with Commissioner Ray that the tenant should have a vote, but if factoring in the transient percentages, he would not want a major decision to be based upon transient votes, but upon the vote of the homeowner. MSC (Willett/Thomas) 5-1 (Commissioner Davis excused; Commissioner Ray opposed) to not notify the tenants except in cases of CEQA. Regarding the third issue, Ms. Nevins stated that staff recommended the use of public forums. They were currently used as an informal method, at staff's discretion. MSC (Aguilar/Willett) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) to accept staff's recommendation to continue the use of public forums on an as-needed basis. Regarding alternative methods of noticing, Ms. Nevins asked if the Planning Commission would like certain additional methods of noticing tested or simply incorporated into the policy. PC Minutes -8- June 11, 1997 Commissioner Aguilar said she would still like to give signage a try for some period of time and then get a report on whether or not it worked. She felt it was a good way to inform everyone in the area including tenants. Chair Tarantino asked if there had to be a minimum size of sign, and if there would be certain requirements as to space between signs, etc. Mr. Lee thought if the Planning Commission was in favor of requiring signage as part of the policy, staff would work on the details. Other cities that incorporated posting of properties did have minimum sizes. They required the applicant to post the property, take a picture of it, and provide it back to the cities for their files. The sign would have to be posted in advance and information that would let the people know what was happening. The applicant would pay for the sign. Commissioner O'Neill stated that he had just had experience with another city which required posting of an 1 lx17 sign, one in the front and one in the back. Some could be seen and some could not. If people get used to the signs, it is effective. It puts them on notice that something is going on. If they care, they look at them and proceed further. It was a relatively low cost. Commissioner Willett asked if staff had received any comments on the signage for public forums. Mr. Lee answered negatively, but stated it depended on what the notices were directed for. Mr. O'Neill was including all types of public notices relating to land use issues. Commissioner O'Neill stated he was referring to a variance on a residential product, not a larger scale, something small and localized. Chair Tarantino asked if they were only looking at signs as an alternative method and discounting other alternatives. Commissioner O'Neill felt that use of the Internet could not be relied on because a large segment of the population would not be on-line and may not be computer literate. He thought it would be a nice thing to do, but the sign would be more certain. MSC (Aguilar/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they direct staff to implement posting of signs at project sites as an alternative method of providing public notice, with the signs to be designed by staff, and that this be implemented for one year with an assessment report back to the Commission and Council at the end of the year. Commissioner Ray said that something like a variance on a daycare facility would have a small paper window sign, and something like the Otay Ranch would have a 10'x12' banner sign-- something appropriate for the site. Commissioner Thomas asked if staff was comfortable with a trial of one year. Mr. Lee felt that would be appropriate. PC Minutes -9- June 11, 1997 The next issue was divided into two sections. The first part was the formatting of the notice, and whether it would be a more simple format to read. MSC (Thomas/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) to accept the revised format. The second part of this issue was whether and how to use Spanish in the notice. Commissioner Thomas felt it should remain the same with no part produced in Spanish. English was the main language. He would support keeping the line in Spanish regarding calling ahead. In response to Chair Tarantino, Mr. Lee stated that the notices were not currently in Spanish; however, the Community Development Department had on occasion reproduced the full notice in Spanish for certain parts of South Bay when they were going through redevelopment plans, etc. By approving staff's recommendation, if a number of phone calls were received, staff could expand the notice to include more information if it was deemed feasible. Commissioner Thomas suggested that one copy of the report be made in Spanish and posted in the Library. Mr. Lee felt that would be inconvenient for people. Commissioner Thomas was not in favor of reproducing it in Spanish. Chair Tarantino felt people needed to know what they were calling for. He would feel comfortable, however, that if staff felt they were getting a lot of phone calls, something more would be reproduced in Spanish. Commissioner Ray felt the Voice Mail could be used to direct people to press certain numbers for certain information. Mr. Lee hesitated to do this until staff found out if people were being reached or if there were a number of concerns. There would be a point person to receive calls. Commissioner O'Neill stated that in most cases the children were already English-speaking and were already translating for their parents. He felt if there was a concern, the people would call. Again, he felt if it was printed in Spanish, it should be for other languages. Mr. Lee commented that staff was suggesting the Spanish because there was a high population of Spanish in Chula Vista. MSC (Thomas/WilieR) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) to accept staff's proposal as presented. ITEM 5. PUBLIC HEARING; PCA-97-04; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE DEFINITIONS OF SMALL AND LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES AND FAMILY DAY CARE - City Initiated PC Minutes -10- June 11, 1997 Acting Associate Planner Nevins stated that recent changes in State law had changed the definition of small family daycare and large family daycare. These amendments were to clean up the Municipal Code to reflect those changes. Commissioner Willett asked if the resolution should refer to SB 265, which was the bill which changed the rules, and became effective January 1. In addition, no references were made to AB 1695 or AB 1980. He recommended those be included in the resolution. Ms. Nevins concurred. Commissioner Aguilar asked if the Planning Commission adopted this ordinance, if all the language in the State's ordinance automatically included. She read a portion of the bill which had not been included in the ordinance. Ms. Nevins replied that the verbiage was not automatically included in the ordinance; however, the State enforced those. Attorney Moore stated they were requirements with respect to the license that the family daycare received from the State. Commissioner Aguilar concluded that it would not have to be included in the City's resolution; it would happen automatically. Ms. Moore stated it was regulated by the State. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Willett/O'Neill) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) to accept staff's recommendation with the condition that the resolution included the numbers SB 265, AB 1695, and AB 1980. ITEM 6. UPDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Lee reported that the City Council endorsed the Planning Commission's recommendations relating to the 290-acre McMillin project, agreeing to retain the park and that the maintenance of the parkways was very crucial and required that that be placed in the open space district. Council agreed to remove the fixed percentage on the Hollywood driveways, allowing them to do a model and relate it to market forces. Staff was going back to Council to clarify an issue regarding the Hollywood driveway. Discussion followed regarding the Hollywood driveway and the percentage to be built. Regarding the homeowners association versus the open space district, Council had left it up to the developer. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that there were no items on the agenda for the next regular meeting scheduled for June 25, 1997, and asked that they cancel that meeting. He noted a workshop was set for Wednesday, June 18. Food would be brought in at 5:30 p.m. and the PC Minutes -11- June 11, 1997 meeting would start at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3. The topic for the workshop would be the transportation effort for all the new communities. Duane Bazzel and Ed Batchelder would make the presentation. All of the Conunissioners indicated they would be able to attend. ITEM 7. ELECTION OF CHAIR/VICE CHAIR Chair Tarantino felt it was important that all the Commissioners be present for the election of Chair and Vice Chair, and asked that this item be rescheduled for the workshop the next week. MSC (Tarantino/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) to postpone the election of Chair/Vice Chair to the workshop meeting of June 18, and to cancel the meeting of June 25, 1997. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Thomas asked for an update on the Broadway Business Homes. Mr. Lee did not have an update, but said he would check with Chris Salomone of Community Development. Commissioner Aguilar noted it would be useful to have a workshop on the Bayfront. Mr. Lee replied that there had been a fairly extensive workshop recently with the City Council to give them a complete update. There had been a coordinated effort with Port staff. He would talk with Chris Salomone and possibly have a workshop in July to bring the Commission up to date. Commissioner Ray noted that Jake's had been sold to the former owners of the Chart House and would change the name in about a month. Chair Tarantino stated it had been a great year as Chair, and he thanked the Commission and staff for their support. ADJOURNMENT at 8:50 p.m. to the Dinner Workshop of June 18, 1997, at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3 and thence to the Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 9, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy l~ipley, §ecre{ary Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc97mln\pc6-11, min)