HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2003/12/03
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. Public Services Building
Wednesday,December3,2003 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALU MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present: Castaneda, Madrid, O'Neill, Cortes, Hom, Felber
Absent: Hall
Staff Present: Luis Hernandez, Deputy Planning Director
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Lynette Tessitore-Lopez, Associate Planner
Michael Walker, Associate Planner
Dave Hanson, Deputy City Attorney I
MSC (O'Neill/Cortes) to excuse Commissioner Hall. Motion carried.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Castaneda
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 12, 2003
Continued to December 101h due to lack of a quorum.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 04-08; Conditional Use Permit to construct
and operate an unmanned wireless
telecommunications facility at 2376 Clubhouse
Drive. Applicant: AT&T Wireless.
Background: Michael Walker, Associate Planner reported that AT&T Wireless
proposes to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility at the
Eastlake Country Club Golf Course consisting of a 50-foot monopine with six panel
antennas and four equipment cabinets. The facility is designed to be compatible and
blend in with surrounding vegetation. There is an existing Cingular Wireless facility
located approximately 290 feet to the west from the proposed A T& T facility.
Mr. Walker stated he placed on the dais two letters he received from a resident who
expressed concern with health hazards associated with the facility, and the other
resident expressing concern with the location of the cell site.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - December 3, 2003
Mr. Walker further stated that the project was reviewed by the Environmental Review
Coordinator and determined that there were no environmental impacts associated
with the project. He further pointed out a couple of changes on the conditions of
approval as follows:
Q Condition #1 to read, "Construct and maintain the project as shown in conceptual
plans dated October 7,2003.
Q Condition #14 to read, "This permit shall expire 5 years after the date of its approval
by the Planning Commission. After this period, the Zoning Administrator shall
review this conditional use permit for compliance with conditions of approval and
shall determine in consultation with the applicant whether the project shall be
modified from its original approvaL"
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC 04-
08 approving the proposed wireless telecommunications facility subject to conditions
contained therein.
Commission Discussion:
Cmr. Madrid expressed concern with the language in the Planning Commission
Resolution Findings #2, which reads that, "...the facility is not detrimental to the
health, safety or general welfare of persons....". Cmr. Madrid stated that, in her
opinion, although the Environmental Review Coordinator has made this determination
based on CEQA criteria, this statement appears like its actually coming from the
Planning Commission instead, which makes her a little uncomfortable.
Dave Hanson stated that the Federal Communications Commission sets the threshold
standards for EMF emissions and proper environmental analysis was conducted,
therefore, as long as the standards are met, the project cannot be disapproved for
this reason.
Public Hearing Opened 6:25.
Mark Brunnett, AT&T Wireless, asked for clarification on how the CUP would be
extended after the five year expiration.
Mr. Hanson explained that as long as all of the conditions are being complied with, no
new circumstances have risen within the neighborhood, and no new condition needs
to be added, then the Zoning Administrator can administratively extend the permit.
Public Hearing Closed 6:30.
MSC (O'Neill/Felber) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - December 3, 2003
PCC 04-08 approving the proposed wireless telecommunications facility subject
to conditions contained therein, including the amendments to Conditions #1
and #14 as proposed by staff. Motion carried.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV 04-06; Consideration of a zone variance application
requesting an increase in maximum floor area for
accessory dwelling units from 650 sf to 850 sf at 194 Date
Street. Applicant Alfonso Gastellum.
Background: Ms. Lopez report that the existing 1,544 sf primary single-family home
is located on a 15,681 sf level lot located in the R-1-5P zone, along with two, 2-car
garages. The proposal to increase the permitted floor area from 650 to 850 sf is to
allow the applicant to move on an existing 850 sf accessory second dwelling unit that
the applicant purchased in 2002, behind the existing single-family home. The already
existing accessory second unit is a gray stucco house with a gray composition shingle
roof. The existing house will be remodeled to match the accessory unit and the 666
sf addition that was added to the existing house earlier this year. Ms. Lopez also
noted a correction to the staff report, which reads, "A 6-foot high masonry wall bounds
the property on each side." The correction should read, "A 6-foot high chain link
fence....".
Ms. Lopez further stated that the applicant proposes to provide landscaping
throughout the site, which will include grass, shade trees, flowering plants and shrubs.
Access to the proposed dwelling unit will be provided via a 20-foot access easement
located along the northern boundary of the adjacent parcel to the south. A formal
reciprocal access agreement has been entered into with all affected parties, and has
been recorded.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution ZAV 04-
06 approving the increase in floor area based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
Commission Discussion:
Chair Castaneda stated that when an applicant is requesting a deviation from Code
requirements, in this case a Variance, in his opinion, its not unreasonable to request
that a more complete packet that includes such things as landscaping elevations be
submitted to give the Commission a better understanding of the proposal.
Public Hearing Opened and Closed 6:40.
Cmr. O'Neill commented that no mention was made stating that the access
easement would be improved, and looking at the Power Point presentation, the
Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - December 3, 2003
easement could use some repair.
Ms. Lopez responded that the Fire Department also reviewed this proposal and the
project met all of their standards for access and paving conditions, and because this
is a private road it is left up to the applicant whether to improve it or not. Furthermore,
the Engineering Department didn't have any further requirements.
Mr. Hernandez, further elaborated that although the width of the access easement
meets Fire and Engineering standards, the Commission could condition the project to
include improvements to the easement.
Cmr. O'Neill stated he too shares Commissioner Castaneda's sentiments when
considering variances; that in exchange, the standards should be reasonably raised
and, in his opinion, requiring that the easement be improved is not unreasonable.
Furthermore, Cmr. O'Neill would like the project to be conditioned to include a
remotely-operated gate.
Cmr. Castaneda stated that although a 20-foot wide easement meets fire
requirements, having cars parked along the easement, thereby reduce the width to 11
or 12 feet would pose a danger to having clear access in to any of the lots. He asked
if there were any means by which the project could be conditioned to ensure that no
parking is allowed on the easement.
Mr. Hernandez explained that this type of condition would not be regulated by the City
because this is not a condominium setting and there are no CC&R's. There will be an
agreement, which stipulates the maintenance and usage, however, the City is not a
third-party to this agreement, therefore, to impose such a requirement on private
property would be asking the applicant to create CC&R's where the City would
become a third-party to it.
Public Hearing re-opened 6:50.
Alfonso Gastellum, 194 Date Street, Chula Vista, CA stated that there is a verbal
agreement amongst the residents that there is no parking allowed on the easement,
which to date, has been complied with.
Joaquin Castro, General Contractor, 555 Saturn Blvd., San Diego, CA clarified
some issues regarding access into lot #5 and #2.
Public Hearing closed 6:55.
Cmr. Felber stated that once construction gets underway, there's going to be a lot of
traffic on this road and inquired if there was any requirement to restore the road back
to its original condition or better, once the project is completed.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - December 3, 2003
MSC (Felber/Cortes) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
ZAV 04-06 approving the increase in floor area based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein, include the following two new
conditions:
Q that the road be restored back to its pre-existing condition prior to the
improvements, or better, at the end of the construction, and;
Q that a remotely-operated gate be installed at the entrance of the access
easement.
Motion carried.
3. REPORT: Presentation on the Evaluation of Historic Preservation in
Chula Vista.
Background: Ms. Lopez gave an overview of the report as submitted. She also
reported that the Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Committee was formed in 2002 to
review the existing historic preservation effort and to develop recommendations on
what the City of Chula Vista Historic Preservation Program should be. The
Committee was comprised of one member from each of the following
committees/commissions: Resource Conservation Commission, Design Review
Committee, Planning Commission (Commissioner Castaneda was the rep), The
Heritage Museum, and the Town Centre Committee. On September 30, 2003, the
City Council accepted the City of Chula Vista Evaluation of Historic Preservation.
The committee developed a mission statement, which identified objectives, goals, and
tasks that would complement the overall vision for the City of Chula Vista. This
enabled the committee members to focus on the needs of the City and develop a
preservation program that would benefit the history of Chula Vista and its resources.
The committee reviewed the current programs and terminology for historic resources
in order to establish a foundation for evaluation of its current program. This included:
Q National Historic Preservation Act
Q National Register of Historic Places
Q California Register of Historic Resources
Q Certified Local Government
Q The Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,
and
Q California Historical Building Code.
The City's designation process was reviewed with an in depth look at its current
-----~..__..-
Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - December 3, 2003
properties listed on the local register. It was determined that the current designation
process as outlined in the Municipal Code did not provide for a consistent historic
review process. Issues such as "historic context" and "integrity" were discussed in
detail.
The committee also developed an action plan that would address issues raised
regarding the historic preservation program. The action plan included the following:
Q Develop a preservation program based on the Certified Local Government criteria
Q Provide a predictable and consistent historic review process
Q Establish an adequate and qualified historic preservation review board
Q Provide a set of standards or principles to guide the Board/Commission with
regards to historic preservation issues
Q Provide incentives for historic preservation, and
Q Provide adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program.
Commission Discussion:
Cmr. O'Neill inquired why there would be a formal appeal process if participation in
the program is discretionary.
Cmr. Castaneda responded that the Ad Hoc Committee was very specific that the
report state that a historic designation could not be bestowed on a house if the
property owner was unwilling.
Ms. Lopez further elaborated that the appeal process should still be in place just in
case a situation arises where, for example, there is a monument or a site that has
more impact and is a resource that is significant to overall Chula Vista or the State.
Cmr. Felber pointed out a clarification in the wording of the Commission
"Composition" paragraph on page 27. It reads, "... .it is recommended that the seven
(7) members be nominated by the City Council and appointed by the Mayor. The
three (3) members of the Board/Commission shall... .". He recommended that it read,
" Three (3) of the seven (7) members shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's
Qualification ....". Furthermore, he inquired what would happen in the event that
there aren't three interested people that are willing and able to participate. He
indicated that perhaps it should state that the City will make its best effort find three
such qualified individuals, but not limit it such as the board cannot operate without
them.
Cmr. Castaneda explained that they expanded the definition to include architects and
historians and the committee felt that this definition was inclusive enough to where it
would not be a problem in finding individuals that would be interested and qualified to
serve.
Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - December 3, 2003
The Planning Commission accepted the report and took no further action.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Deputy Planning Director Hernandez reviewed the upcoming Planning Commission
calendar.
ADJOURNMENT at 8:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of December 10,
2003.
~
- Diana Vargas, Secretary t~g Commission