Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 1987/10/14Tape No.: 283 Side 2: 0-2025 MINUTES OF A REGULAP. BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, October 14, 1987 Public Services Building eni i cai i COMMISSIOJJERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Casillas Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COFIP1ISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Cannon and Tugenberg STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Planner Schilling, Principal Planner Pass, Contract Senior Planner Heiter, Assistant Planner Herrera, Planning Technician II Batchelder PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTPODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None Cnairman Carson noted that it had been requested that Item 3 be moved to the first position on the Agenda. MSUC (Shipe/Fuller) to move consideration of Item 3, Open Space District #16, to the first position on the agenda. Planning Commission -2- October 14, 1987 REPORT ON PROPOSED OPEN SPACE DISTRICT N0. 16 Principal Planner Lee stated that the tentative map for this project had been approved by Council some 6 years ago. The property is located on Main Street approximately 1/2 mile west of 1-805. The subdivision created 27 residential lots including the common area on the periphery of the subdivision as well as two interior lots. The approved plan calls for landscaping of these areas with the maintenance to be accomplished through a homeowners' association. The developer is moving to record the final map and construct the dwellings. However, prior to such action, the developer is requesting the City form an open space maintenance district to ensure the maintenance of these areas. The formation of the district at a later date would require approval of a majority of the association members and, under staff's proposal, the district would be formed but it would not be activated unless the association fails to maintain the referenced areas. The activation of this district would result in residents paying an estimated $14/month in maintenance fees. Staff requests the Commission recommend Council to form the district. MSUC (Fuller/Casillas) 5-0, to recommend that Council form a proposed Open Space Daintenance District No. 16. MODIFICATION TO CEQA FINDINGS: BONITA LONG CANYON ESTATES EIR-79-2A Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that when the item was before the Commission on September 23rd, the primary consideration was the traffic impact caused by the Bonita Long Canyon Project. Concern was expressed also over the drainage situation in the Central Avenue area. Review of the Environmental Impact Report for the project revealed that the increase in run-off at this particular location is only 8/10th of 1 percent and; therefore, the EIR concluded there would not be a significant impact caused Dy the project but a cumulative impact resulting from increases on a subregional basis. Financial participation in the installation of improvements was required but no specific physical mitigation measures. The Country Public Works Department stated that once the road was widened to its four-lane configuration, two 9x12 culverts would be installed under Central Avenue. Funding would be achieved either by County flood control fees and City fees or by developer-installation and subsequent reimbursement through the same fiscal mechanism. Commissioner Fuller asked if the report answered the concerns expressed by Commissioner Cannon at the last meeting in reference to avoidance of unnecessary condemnation of homes in the area. Coordinator Reid replied that County staff had indicated there is a potential for realignment of Central Avenue's centerline which would reduce the number of homes affected if not eliminate the need for condemnation entirely. Since no specific design has been completed, neither the specific effect of the eventual configuration of Central Avenue, nor the changes in the location and alignment of the eventual drainage culvert system are known and i t woul d be premature to require that type of facility at this time. Planning Commission -3- October 14, 1987 Commissioner Shipe commented that although he was not present at the meeting of September 23rd, he has kept abreast of the agenda item including reading all the relative material and would vote if the attorney expressed no objection. MSUC (Fuller/Casillas) to adopt the attached revisions to the CEQA Findings (EIR-79-2A) on the Bonita Long Canyon Estates project. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Parts One and Two of the Draft Montgomery Specific Plan Principal Planner Pass, in presenting an introduction to the Montgomery Specific Plan, pointed out this is the first specific plan proposed for the City of Chula Yista which covers an entirely built up area. It covers 3.5 square miles with a population between 20,000 and 25,000 people. Its geometry is free form since it relates only to the area annexed to the City in 1985, an area much reduced from the Pontgomery community of the past which extended from the Bayfront to Hilltop and from "L" Street to the river. The area concerned represents the heart of Montgomery and consists of Otay Town, Castle Park, Harborside, Woodlawn Park, Broderick Acres, West Fairfield and East Fairfield. Mr. Pass noted that Part One of the Plan surveys the community in considerable depth as far as its social institutions, past activities, demographics and land use characteristics. This survey finds that despite physical problems Pontgomery is characterized by vitality and viability in its commercial and industrial areas and forward movement in the residential districts. It is the purpose of the plan to stimulate these characteristics. Mr. Pass reported that Part Two is the Policy Plan, and since it deals with an area of integrated land uses, it is an organic plan--one that does not move in spurts but on a gradual basis over a protracted period of time. It is long range, comprehensive and general, and is best described as a blueprint for the progress of the Montgomery community. He stated it is a blueprint for the improvement of the urban fabric, infrastructure and circulation of Montgomery. It recognizes that Montgomery has become a part of Chula Vista and shows how it can be a principal and integral part of the greater Chula Vista area without losing its own identity and the identity of its several subcommunities. The plan is a counterattack against the things that have kept Montgomery from achieving the order its vitality and vigor should have produced. It is a counterattack against very high density residential development and against marginal land uses that are regionally essential but not attractive to the local scene. It promotes lower density characterized by home ownership. Planning Commission -4- October 14, 1987 Mr. Pass advised that the policies contained in Part Two will be implemented by Part Three, the Implementation Plan, which contains design standards, land use standards and circulation standards. The Plan will be implemented by zoning and subdivision regulations and by the City's rehabilitation program, which affects the upgrading and conservation of housing stocks; and also by the Capital Improvement Program, which has already brought improvements of the infrastructure and circulation in the area. Nir. Pass gave credit for the Plan to the Montgomery Planning Committee which spent 18 months in regular monthly sessions and workshops, as well as making contacts with the residents and industrial users, to the Planning Team including Bill Heiter and Frank Herrera, and to the public and private persons who gave input during the Planning Committee sessions. Assistant Planner Herrera addressed the structure of the Montgomery Specific Plan and covered the specifics of Part One, the Planning Study, which generated the survey, evaluation, trends and analysis, and forecasts. The survey consisted of the history, development, planning, zoning, and plan overview. The evaluation analyzes land use and occupancy, availability of land, public facilities and services, such as circulation, drainage, sewer, water and schools. The Plan evaluates the general economic conditions, employment statistics, commercial-industrial analysis, local home and business ownership, and land use patterns. It also addresses environmental concerns and potential land use friction, as well as the basic needs of the community. Senior Planner Heiter addressed Part Two of the Plan, which is comprised of the goals, objectives, policies, and planning and development proposals; these components are based on the planning study covered in Part One. He advised that the goals are the aims or long range aspirations of the community; the objectives are intermediate aims, being time measurable; and the policies are the rules that help interpret the plan as it is implemented. The principles are the fundamental truths upon which the plan is based; and the planning and development proposals are suggestions for the improvement of the pattern of the Montgomery community. In addition, the plan diagram is a very important component of the specific plan; the land use designations and categories and symbols shown on the plan diagram are substantive and represent part of the text of the plan. Mr. Heiter pointed out the various designations on the plan diagram, including residential at ranges of low density, 3-5 dwellings per acre, up to high density at 18-26 dwelling units per acre; the commercial areas along Third Avenue and Broadway; research and limited industrial along Main Street and between Palomar and R1ain; parks and op?n space, the largest being Otay River flood area, and also including SDG&E right-of-way, Lauderbach Center, golf course, and the Telegraph Canyon Creek area. Mr. Heiter reviewed the following proposals which are included in the plan: Planning Commission -5- October 14, 1987 1. Reduce the residential density for Broderick's Otay acres, Castle Park, and Otay Town site. 2. Retain and improve the commercial strips along the Broadway and Third Avenue. 3. Establish or build up the focus of the community at the Oxford Street area, which presently includes the post office, fire station and Lauderbach Community Center. 4. Upgrade the industrial corridor along ~dain Street to establish it as a research and limited industrial center and gradually phase out the heavy industrial uses. Mr. Heiter pointed out three areas where potential redevelopment projects are needed; Faivre Street west of Broadway, portions of Otay Town, and West Fairfield. P4r. Heiter noted a shortage of parks and recreational facilities and pointed out the following areas proposed to be reserved or used for this purpose: SDG&E right-of-way, expansion of Lauderbach Center, library site at Hermosa and Orange, Telegraph Canyon Creek area adjacent to Rice School, and the major area of Otay River. He reported that some areas could not be accommodated in the existing planning study because of environmental situations that exist. One of these is the Otay River, due to the several jurisdictions involved and major problems; another is the West Fairfield area with extreme mixed uses and a condition of decline. These are designated Whitelands on the plan diagram. Other areas that could not be accommodated in the current study but are manageable with further study are the Faivre Street area, Oxford Street focus, Woodlawn Park Community Center, Telegraph Canyon Creek park area, Hermosa-Orange Avenue park area and SDG&E right-of-way. Mr. Heiter stated that the key proposals established in the plan form a bridge between the goals, objectives and policies, and the later implementation program. Nancy Palmer, current chair of the Montgomery Planning Committee introduced the other members of the committee who were present, and addressed the Planning Commission on the areas of concern brought before the Committee at the public hearing on September 2nd. She felt it is interesting that this specific plan is being considered at the centennial of the community; maps were recorded for the area of Otay Town in 1887 and for Rancho de la Nacion in 1888. She pointed out that for 94 years there was no planning, and not too much since. Ms. Palmer advised that one of the areas concern was East Fairfield, where the current zoning is medium to high density, but the actual fabric of the community is predominately single family dwellings and occasional duplexes on Planning Commission -6- October 14. 1987 larger lots. The recommendation of the plan was to lower the density to accentuate the single family dwellings. She expressed the aim of not creating high density development similar to that existing on Woodlawn Avenue, north of "H" Street, in Chula Vista. The second area of concentration was Main Street between Ioodlawn Park and Broderick's Acres. It was felt it could be used for low density residential without having lots fronting on Main Street and without driveways into Main Street. She pointed out the excess of commercial development in the community, which was 200% of the optimum number needed for the residents of the area. Many of the small shopping centers have store spaces that have never been rented. The final focus was the heavy industry along Main Street, in some cases across the street from residential use. It the intent of the plan to upgrade the type of industrial use so that it could cohabit with the residential comfortably and provide a more suitable gateway to the park envisioned along the Otay Valley. Ms. Palmer applauded the efforts of the Committee over the past two years and urged the Planning Commission to approve Parts One and Two and recommend its adoption to the City Council. In response to a question from Chairperson Carson, Ms. Palmer advised that all regular monthly meetings and workshops were open to the public and, in addition, two town meetings were hel d--one i n Woodlawn Park and one i n Otay Community Center--where the communities were invited to come and give their input. Attendance ranged from a few persons to in excess of 100. With regard to the makeup of the Planning Committee, Ms. Palmer reported that four of the present members were elected by Montgomery residents at the time of the annexation and the other three have been appointed to fill vacancies as they have occurred. Ms. Carson questioned the statement in the report concerning the consistency of the Montgomery Plan with the Chula Vista General Plan, inasmuch as the General Plan has not been considered by the Commission. Mr. Pass explained that it is consistent with the existing General Plan, and with all its 16 elements. Some of those elements will not be changed, and when the Land Use Element is considered, it will have to be responsive and sensitive to the ~4ontgomery Plan, as the Montgomery Plan will be as much a part of the General Plan as Central Chula Vista or the Eastern Territories. Director of Planning Krempl advised that it is contemplated to bring the General Plan update to the Planning Commission shortly after the first of the year in a draft final form. Whatever is adopted for Montgomery will be part of that plan, along with plans for Central Chula Vista, Bayfront, Eastern Territories, and the Sweetwater-Bonita area. Planning Commission -7- October 14, 1987 Commissioner Grasser asked if there is an area in the Montgomery Plan for heavy industrial uses. P1r. Pass advised that no new heavy industrial uses would be permitted and it is anticipated that existing uses of that nature would be phased out and replaced with more desirable research and limited industrial activity. In response to questions from Commissioner Shipe, Mr. Pass indicated the length of time for phasing out heavy industrial uses cannot be forecast as much will depend on the market place and other development activity. With respect to the commercial strips, they will be retained and upgraded through infrastructure and circulation, interrelationship between the streets and the land use, and an effort to get more landscaping and higher grade land uses. With regard to the flexibility of the plan, Mr. Pass affirmed that the plan can be changed at any time as required by environmental concerns, economic changes, etc. He indicated that this plan will require an enormous amount of fine tuning, which the Montgomery Planning Committee and this body will undertake after the plan is adopted. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Donja Blokker, 353 Palm Avenue, in the area called Broderick's Otay Acres, advised that she has lived there about a year and a half and has found it to be a very vital and alive community. She favors the proposals to change it back to single family residential since that is the zoning under which it originally developed. The zoning was changed to RV-15 just prior to the annexation to Chula Vista. Barry Isenberg of Isenberg Associates, representing five property owners--Action Auto Dismantlers, J&C Auto Recycling, Standard Auto Recycling and West Auto Wreckers--advised that his clients have no disagreement with the goals and objectives of the Montgomery Specific Plan. They are modern auto dismantling businesses and are concerned with not being distinguished from junk yards, salvage yards or scrap yards. Mr. Isenberg distributed a prepared report to the Commission which points out the distinction between auto dismantlers and other types of wrecking or salvage yards. He pointed out that auto dismantlers provide a vital function, The 20,000 auto dismantlers in th U.S. are a nearly five billion dollars a year industry, providing used salable auto parts. If these modern auto dismantlers are forced to leave an area, the need for parts does not go away, and they are replaced by numerous small operations on vacant lots, backyards or driveways, This presents more environmental problems than a properly operated business under a conditional use permit. He indicated that a parts operation can be designed to be conducted indoors. Bob Fox, 1466 Lilac Avenue, Chula Vista, member of the Montgomery Planning Committee, expressed his own personal views in supporting the plan. He noted that the specific plan is in line with the position papers adopted by the City Planning Commission -8- October 14, 1987 Council in 1985 prior to the annexation. One of the needs addressed is the provision of additional park land; by Chula Vista standards, the Montgomery residents need 100 acres of park land, they currently have 3.9 acres. Mr. Fox supported the designation of the existing industrial area to research and limited industrial, contending that the present industrial uses are not compatible with the adjacent residential area. He urged the Commission to adopt the Plan. Dick Kau, 3404 Bonita Road, expressed support for the plan and the belief that with higher development standards it will improve the conditions that have developed in the past. Arthur Pino, 336 Palm Avenue, in Broderick's Acres, supported the plan for lower density which he feels will improve the quality of life in the area. Don Rose, representing San Diego Oas & Electric, 101 Ash Street, San Diego, concurred with the designation of the electric company's right-of-way for parks and recreation where it passes through a residential area. He reported that this is a fee owned right-of-way and asked that the City consider permitting them to lease portions for parking where it is adjacent to commercial and industrial uses. He advised that revenue from such leasing would go into the rate base and benefit electric users. Paul Kellogg, 660 Telegraph Canyon Road, reported that he obtained the signatures of 15 of the 18 property owners in th 3900 and 4000 block of Main Street requesting a change to light industrial use for that property since the traffic and noise make is unsuitable for residential use. Robert Jenkins, Jr., 131 Alvarado Street, a real estate broker, asked about development in the East Fairfield area prior to the rezoning of the property. He was advised that lots can be split and duplexes constructed in accordance with City standards. Juan Llamos, 210 Date Street, expressed opposition to changing his area from the RV-15 zoning that was granted by the County. The meeting recessed at 9:08 p.m, and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. Ron Withall, 1431 Stratford Court, Del Mar, representing Beaty Development Company, advised that they have operated an RV storage facility in the area designated as a greenbelt since before the annexation. They also operate Broadway Auto Center and Broadway Self Storage in that area. He reported that they have 300 tenants in the RV storage facility, which is about 95% occupancy, and it has been that way since shortly after it opened. He asked for consideration of allowing the facility to remain since it provides a service needed by the community. He applauded the overall plan and expressed an interest in retaining and improving their existing commercial sites. Phil Schuer, 1319 Costa Avenue, contended that the verbiage in the text of the plan is a reiteration of previous studies made for the area in the past ten years. He felt it was neither creative nor specific. He felt there had not Planning Commission -9- October 14. 1987 been enough resident participation in the preparation and discussion of the plan. With reference to the plan diagram, or blueprint for the area, he objected to changing an R-15 area to R-1 after people had worked for years to get the higher density zoning. Rose Duncan, 809 Dorothy Street, advised that she also owns property at 280 and 286 Date in Broderick Acres. She stated that she had her property in the RV-15 zone on the market for sale, but the potential buyer withdrew his offer after learning from the City staff that the area is being considered for a decrease in density, since his plan to purchase included building additional units on tiie property. She contended the area is being infringed upon by industry and higher density development and by the river which occasionally floods. She felt the zoning should be left as it is for now, and in the future possibly changed to industrial or higher density. She asked if it is the intention of the City to pursue the redevelopment of the area identified by creating a redevelopment district. Director of Planning Krempl acknowledged the commitment by the City Council of not having any redevelopment considered in the area for a four-year period. He stated that while the Montgomery Specific Plan has identified study areas and identified redevelopment as one of the tools to be considered in implementing the plan, there has been no endorsement by anyone for establishment of a redevelopment area in any portion of Montgomery. He explained the process of public hearings that would be followed in establishing such a district, if that is desired at a later date. Mr. Krempl pointed out it is the staff's responsibility to advise potential developers of the long range plans for an area as well as informing them of the existing zoning and regulations applicable to the property. Based on the wording in the letter read by Mrs. Duncan, he felt that the staff acted appropriately. Carol Marquez, 3517 Main Street, stated that she is not opposed to the Specific Plan because she believes it is good to improve and clean up the City. She has been in the auto recycling business in this area for 30 years, has worked hard, paid taxes and abided by all the regulations. She felt they should be recognized as a service essential to the area and treated as such. Greg Rowe, 588 "L" Street, chairman of the Chula Vista Resource Conservation Commission, a body charged with advising the Planning Commission on matters of environmental significance, called attention to the Negative Declaration issued for thi s plan. He pointed out that the plan di agram i ncl uded i n the books identifies three areas to be withheld from any immediate action or changes of any type to allow special study to be made with regard to any possible impact, and if these areas are not retained in a special study status the negative declaration would no longer hold. Paul Brown, owner of Paul's South Bay Recycling at 149 Center Street, reported that he recycles between 100 and 200 tons of non-ferrous metal and newspaper in this City every month. He believes this a needed service, as are the auto Planning Commission -10- October 14, 1987 recyclers, in keeping the City clean. He suggested that the Commission think very seriously about the impact if they get rid of the recyclers and dismantlers. Diane Tidey, 279 Palm Avenue, a 15 year resident in the area, addressed problems facing their neighborhood. Some time ago, the County opened trenches for drainage from Otay Valley Road and Main Street to the river, and when they ran out of funds they left the trenches open. This now creates an environmental hazard due to mosquitoes, water bugs, and rodents. There is also a problem with cars going into the trenches at night due to inadequate lighting. The County used to spray for mosquito abatement but this year the residents have not been able to get anything done. She indicated this area is south of Main Street between Hilltop and Melrose and while it was not included in the Montgomery annexation, it was annexed at the same time. Sherry Marquez, 3517 Main Street, asked about the time span for phasing out the auto dismantlers. Mr. Pass pointed out that this is a long range, comprehensive, and general plan that sets the policy pattern, which will signal those who prepare the third part of the plan, the implementation program, to address such matters. It would be impossible to say at this time how long it will be, but probably in excess of a year. He pointed out that after rezoning each business would be considered based on the type of permit under which they were operating at the time of annexation, and whether or not it included a time limit. Ms. t4arquez asked if there is a plan to assist in the relocation. Pir. Pass advised that if it were part of the redevelopment procedure, then there would be relocation funds available, but at this time there is no formal relocation policy. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Shipe expressed the opinion that Montgomery is a hodge-podge created by a disinterested and financially strapped San Diego County, which has resulted in sprawl, economic and industrial obsolescence, urban blight, nuisance and undermanaged land use. For those reasons, Montgomery needs help and he supports the Montgomery Specific Plan. Commissioner Casillas noted that while he is new on the Commission, he is not new to Montgomery. He expressed concern over some of the public testimony, such as the financial impact on property owners in Broderick Acres. He asked if the staff could put together a summary of how the plan will impact every property owner in the area. He also expressed concern about the green space or park area in the SDG&E right-of-way. He felt the electric company should attempt to optimize the use of their property, and there would be some gain from leasing it, but it will have an impact on the total community in terms of depriving them of park land that is in short supply. Planning Commission -11- October 14, 1987 On the matter of phasing out heavy industry, the owners should have definite assurance of how long they may remain. Based on those concerns, Commissioner Casillas moved to continue Consideration of the Specific Plan to the first meeting in tovember. Commissioner Grasser seconded the motion for discussion. Commissioner Fuller acknowledged Mr. Casillas' concerns but pointed out the issues have been studied and discussed over a period of a year and half and anyone interested had an opportunity to attend discussions and hearings and present their views. She pointed out improvements that she has observed in the community within the past two years and feels it is time to move ahead and recommend adoption of this plan to the City Council. The motion to continue consideration of the Montgomery Specific Plan to the meeting of November 4, 1987, carried 4-1 with Commissioner Fuller voting no. 3. REPORT ON PROPOSED OPEN SPACE DISTRICT #16. Taken out of turn - see page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-88-2 - CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE SMALL FAMILY DAY CARE AS A PERMITTED USE IN SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE R-2 ZONE - DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY Principal Planner Lee said staff had recommended the Planning Commission amend the R-2 zone to clearly indicate that small day-care centers would be allowable facilities within a single-family residence in that zone. Small day-care centers are defined as having six children or less. The State has pre-empted the City in this instance from regulating small day-care centers any differently than a single-family dwelling. What we have right now in the R-2 zone is no indication that such a use is allowed in a single-family dwelling. We have previously amended the R-1 zone, but the R-2 zone was not amended. The proposed amendment is for purposes of clarification that such a use is permitted in a single-family dwelling in the R-2 zone. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. P1SUC (Fuller/Shipe) to recommend that the Council amend the Municipal Code to permit small-family day care in single-family dwellings in the R-2 zone as outlined. Planning Commission -12- October 14, 1987 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Director Krempl reminded the Commission that - the regular workshop next Wednesday will be devoted to discussion of the threshold standards proposed by Crossroads and the Coalition. If a Copy is needed, contact the secretary. There will be a representative from the Coalition to provide an overview and explain the rationale of the various thresholds. - Last night, Council extended the subdivision map processing moratorium to December 1, or until such time as the thresholds can be adopted on an interim basis. They have requested input from the Commission specifically. Council has also scheduled a workshop for themselves on Thursday, 10/22/87, at 4:00 p.m. Any comments from the Commission will be reported to them at that workshop. COMMISSION COh1MENTS: - Commissioner Shipe said he would be at the workshop but would be about 1/2 hour late because he was coming from Rancho Bernardo. - Commissioner Grasser said she would not be present at the October 28th meeting, and that the dais was being invaded by ants. - Commissioner Carson thanked the City for making attendance at the League of California Cities Conference possible and would be happy to share the information at a later date. - Commissioner Fuller said she was very proud to be present when Mayor Cox was installed as the President of the League of California Cities. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:18 p.m, to the Study Session Meeting of October 21, 1987, at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 4467P