Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1985/12/18 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, December 18, 1985 - 5:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-85-9: Requests permission to establish a trolley station at the southeast quadrant of 'E' Street and Interstate I-5 - County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-86-11: Consideration of possible amendments to nine (9) out parcels of land located within the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Area OTHER BUSINESS: Draft Report on fee rebates relating to appeals by developers/residents that are upheld by the City Council and/or Planning Commission DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of January 8, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers To: City Planning Commission From: George Krempl, Director of Planning Subject: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of December 18, 1985 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-85-9; request to establish a trolley station at Street and I-5 (southeast quadrant) - County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves a request by the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista to establish a trolley station at the southeast quadrant of "E" Street and Interstate 5 in the C-V-P zone. The Commission was originally scheduled to consider the project on December 5, 1984, but the item was "filed" at the request of the County pending the completion of design studies. 2. An Environmental Impact Report, EIR-84-8, was certified by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1984. A copy of the project summary from EIR-84-8 is attached for the Commission's information. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-85-9, to establish a trolley station at the southeast quadrant of "E" Street and the Interstate 5 subject to the condition that the design of the site and facilities shall comply with the plan approved by the Design Review Committee (reference P-86-10). C. DISCUSSION 1. History At the request of the City Council, MTDB conducted a study and subsequently supported the location of an additional trolley station at "E" Street in Chula Vista. As a result of this decision, further studies were conducted of possible sites and design alternatives for the project--which would include the trolley station as well as the Chula Vista Visitor Information Center. On December 5, 1985, the Bayfront Trolley Station Project Steering Committee (Councilman Moore and Supervisor Bilbray) chose the alternative plan now before the Commission (Alternative #4). 2. Adjacent zoning and land use. North C-V-P Service station and commercial South I-L Public Works Yard (City of Chula Vista) East C-V Motel West Various Interstate 5 and Bayfront Specific Plan PCC-85-9 Page 2 3. Existing site characteristics. The project site consists of five parcels (or portion thereof) with a combined area of 4.2 acres and is located at the southeast quadrant of "E" Street and Interstate 5. The largest parcel (2.89 acres) is presently developed with a bowling alley (Cabrillo Lanes). Other uses include a self-serve gas station, tourist information building and a vacant parcel. The northerly 50 feet of the Public Works Yard is also included in the project. 4. Proposed use. The trolley station proposal would be completed in two phases. The initial phase would have the trolley station and visitor information center share the site with the bowling alley; while the final phase would replace the bowling alley structure with additional parking when the total demand for parking exceeds the supply. The plan would have the visitor information center located in the north-central portion of the site, with the main trolley shelter directly to the west adjacent to the tracks. A plaza would be located between these two main structures, and a minor trolley shelter would be located on the westerly side of the tracks directly across from the main shelter. In the initial phase, the site would contain 160 parking spaces to the north, east and south of the visitor information center. An additional 131 parking spaces would be available when the bowling alley is removed. Bicycle lockers and all designated spaces (kiss and ride, cab stands, handicap and tourist parking) would be located in the northerly parking area adjacent to the two main structures. There would be three access points to the site--two for automobiles off "E" Street, and one point of access for buses off Woodlawn Avenue along the 50' strip obtained from the Public Works Yard. Total costs for the project, including site acquisition and development, would approximate $4 million and would be funded in equal shares by the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. The cost of maintenance will be shared in a like manner, with the exception of the shelters and tracks which would be maintained by MTDB. D. ANALYSIS This request is for the purpose of approving the basic land use of trolley station/visitor information center for the site in question. The specifics of site planning and design will be considered preliminarily by the Design Review Committee on December 19 and again in February when additional details will be settled. The City of Chula Vista has actively pursued a second station in the City and will be participating financially on the project. There are a number of reasons for a trolley station at this location. Such as: PCC-85-9 Page 3 1. "E" Street carries a high volume of traffic; 2. The location is on a "gateway" into the City as well as the Bayfront Redevelopment area; 3. There is a high number of commercial establishments in the area such as motels and restaurants which will be served by the station; 4. A second station in the City will foster ridership and impetus toward greater usage of mass transit; and 5. The station is located on the route of surface transit systems. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the co~unity. Approval of this request will allow the establishment of a second trolley station in an area that is a major entrance into the City as well as the Bayfront. 2. That such-use will not under the ci~umstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general ~lfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvenmnts in the vicinity. The station will have direct access to Woodlawn Avenue which should alleviate any traffic congestion on "EII Street. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. There are no specific standards established for such use. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The granting of this request will not affect the General Plan which encourages the use of public transportation. WPC 2377P ~ LOCATOR · PCC-85-9 Interstate Freeway 5 I~"E"Street I. Project S~,mmary This project involves the acquisition of land and the construction and operation of a new station for the San Diego Trolley line, to be located on the south side of "E" Street in Chula Vista. Site improvements will include construction of a station, parking forl50* vehicles at Phase I, 250 vehicles at Phase II, and for 380 vehicles at Phase III, and associated landscaping. A tourist information center, a "kiss and ride" area, and space for bus bays will all be provided at the Bayfront Station. The station will compliment services being provided at the existing '~" Street station for anticipated transit development needs in the South Bay region. Four environmental issues are addressed in this document: land use/zoning, traffic circulation, noise, and air quality. None of these issues were found to result in any significant impacts upon the environment. The only mitigation necessary is for existing property owners who will have to relocate due to implementation of this project. They will receive fair market value for their properties and relocation compensation as necessary. No other impacts have been identified. Effects found not to be significant include geology, hydrology, cultural resources, and biology. The fact that the project site is located in a developed urban setting makes further discussion of their impacts unnecessary. No cultural or biological resources are anticipated under paved parking lots and buildings. Geology and hydrology impacts are being adequately handled by,existing storm drain systems which carry runoff away from the project site. 1 *This number of parking spaces is approximate and is subject to the final design of the facility. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 18, 1985 Page 1 2. PUBLI'C HEARING: PCM-86-11; Amendments to Out-Parcels Located Within E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan - City Council Initiated A. BACKGROUND The subjects of this hearing are the nine out-parcels associated with the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. On November 5, 1985, the City Council approved amendments to the specific plan including the out-parcels. In a previous action, the Council initiated a new hearing to consider separately these nine parcels. B. RECO~4ENDATION Based on the discussion below, staff recommends that your Commission recommend that the City Council reiterate their decision of November 5, 1985, regarding these parcels and thus make no further amendments to the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. C. DISCUSSION In spite of the fact that the Council has established new land uses on the out-parcels, they felt that, because of the enormity of the Gersten property and the many issues associated with the specific plan amendment, insufficient attention had been focused on the out-parcels. Because of this situation, this hearing was set to give the owners of the nine parcels the opportunity to present arguments for amendments to the land use designations for their properties. Staff wrote the property owners letters informing them of the land use designation assigned their parcels by the Council and invited them to request different categories if they were dissatisfied with the Council decision. At the time this report was written, only the owners of one parcel had replied. Their responses are included in the discussion below. D. ANALYSIS In analyzing these parcels, staff considered the following criteria in order to make its recommendations: 1. Land use designations on adjacent properties 2. Existing land uses on adjacent properties 3. Site topography 4. Access to parcels City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 18, 1985 Page 2 The following paragraphs discuss each parcel and staff rationale for its recommendations. No. l, APN 594-120-02: Residential 4-6 du/ac approved by the City ~1. This parcel is located adjacent to the west side of Bonita Vista Junior High School in a north-south Rice Canyon tributary. The southwest corner of the property has frontage on ERDR's loop street. The property is nearly surrounded by areas designated Residential 4-6 du/ac. Based primarily on the designation of the surrounding properties which are predominantly identical to the land use category presently assigned to this parcel, no change is recommended. No change has been requested by the property owners. No. 2, APN 642-010-39: PF Public Facilities approved by the City l~-6-~-~T1. This parcel is located on the north side of East "H" Street just west of its intersection of Buena Vista Way. The property is owned by the Pilgrim Evangelical Lutheran Church, which has filed a conditional use permit for a church and related activities, thus no land use change is proposed by the property owner or by the staff. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request on November 13, 1985. City Council action is pending. No. 3, APN 642-010-03: Residential 4-6 du/ac approved by the City l~-6-~-~T1. This parcel is located on the southeast corner of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero {extended). The property is owned by the Roman Catholic Church but it is not known what the Church plans for the property. This parcel is bounded on two sides by land designated Residential 4-6 du/ac, a third side by property developed at approximately 4 du/ac, and the fourth side by a major street. Based primarily on its adjacent land use categories which conform to the parcel's assigned land use designation, no change is recommended. No change has been requested by the property owner. No. 4, APN 640-090-01: Residential 2-4 du/ac approved by the City ~l. This parcel is located on the north side of East "J" Street {extended) just east of the developed portion of that street. Except for a small tip at the southwest corner of the property through which East "J" Street would be extended, this land is surrounded by property designated for residential uses at 2-4 du/ac. A considerable amount of landform modification will have to be accomplished in order for development to occur on this site. Based on topography and surrounding land use categories which conform to that already assigned to the property, no change is recommended. No change has been requested by the property owner. No. 5, APN 640-090-05: Residential 8-12 du/ac approved by the City ~l. This parcel is located at the northwest corner of the future extension of Paseo Ranchero and East "J" Street. While the land surrounding this property is planned for residential uses at considerably lower densities, a plan for the development of 102 units on these 10 acres was approved by the City Council in 1982 and a time extension granted to June, 1988. Because of the active status of this project, no change is recommended. No change has been requested by the property owner. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 18, 1985 Page 3 No. 6, APN 640-090-06: School is the designation approved by the City ~l. This parcel is located at the southwest corner of the future extensions of Paseo Ranchero and East "J" Street and is owned by the Chula Vista City Elementary School District whose tentative plans indicate a school for that location. The District has surplus sites in the area. Should the District determine in the future that this parcel is inappropriate for a school site, Section V(D)2 of the Specific Plan authorizes "residential uses of a type and density compatible with adjacent property." Based on the foregoing, no change is recommended. No change has been requested by the District. No. 7, APN 640-090-07: Residential 2-4 du/ac approved by the City ~l. This parcel is located on the west side of Paseo Ranchero directly south of parcel no. 6 and about 500 feet north of Telegraph Canyon Road. The topography of the site ranges from gently sloping to slopes of l-l/2 and 2 to 1 and ranges in elevation from 360 feet on the south end to 485 feet on the north end. The property is transected by one draw extending northerly near the westerly property line and a portion of a second draw at the easterly property line. The property is bounded on two sides by school sites, a third by open space between the parcel and Telegraph Canyon Road and the fourth by an area designated Residential 2-4 du/ac and improved with a partially completed single family subdivision. While school sites have been reserved along two sides of this parcel, both school districts are reassessing their facilities requirements in this area, thus it is not known if either site will actually be used. The specific plan authorizes residential uses similar to surrounding densities for these parcels should either or both be deemed inappropriate as school sites. Present access to the subject property is via Paseo Entrada which traverses the aforementioned adjacent subdivision. Future access will also be from Paseo Ranchero. To accomplish a development plan for this property, a considerable amount of landform modification would have to occur. The draw would have to be filled with dirt graded from the higher ground. The result would be the siting of buildings at a topographical elevation considerably lower than the adjacent subdivision which would overlook any development proposed for the subject property. The most appropriate method of development would be through the planned unit development process with clustering on the more developable portions of the property to minimize grading and provide natural open space to supplement the open space provided along the Telegraph Canyon Road open space corridor. For this reason, staff believes that any such development for this parcel should be compatible with the property to the west. Chula Vista Tract 80-10, a subdivision of 26 lots on these lO acres, was approved by the City in 1980 and subsequently extended to November, 1986. The owners indicate that they do not intend to record the map and have requested an amendment to the specific plan to Residential 8-12 or 12-20. The rationale for their request is outlined in their attached letter. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 18, 1985 Page 4 Based on the site's topography and its neighboring land uses, both existing and proposed, no change is recommended. No. 8, APN 642-040-15: Residential 4-6 du/ac approved by the City C~-~l. This l0 acre parcel is located on the north side of the future extension of East "J" Street about ?00 feet east of Paseo Ranchero {extended). The property slopes gently from south to north with the southerly half relatively level. The property is bounded on three sides by areas designated Residential 4-6 du/ac while the area along the fourth side is planned for 6-8 du/ac. Prior to his recent death, the co-property owner had requested the Residential 6-8 du/ac category for this parcel. At the time this report was prepared, no new application was made, but under the circumstances, staff thought it appropriate to advertise the previous request. Based on the land use category assigned to property abutting on three sides, no change is recommended. No. 9, APN 641-040-01: Open Space approved by the City Council. This parc-~ is located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road about 600 feet east of its future intersection with Paseo Ranchero. This 2.6 acre triangular-shaped parcel is bounded on two sides by property designated Open Space or School and the third by a major road. Property in this category is permitted to develop at a density not to exceed two dwelling units per acre by the Zoning Ordinance. Telegraph Canyon Road is a scenic highway with an open space corridor, a portion of which includes the subject property. Based on the Scenic Highways and Open Space Elements of the General Plan, no change is recommended. WPC 2358P DRAFT REPORT COUNCIL AGENDA STATEI4ENT Item Meeting Date ITEM TITLE: Report on fee rebates relating to appeals by developers/ residents that are upheld by the City Council and/or Planning Commission SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning (4/Sths Vote: Yes X No ) REVIEWED BY: City Manager On November 19, 198§, the City Council requested a report discussing the idea of rebating appeal fees on discretionary planning applications when the appeal is granted by the appellant body. RECOMMENDATION: File the report. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOIqqENDATION: DISCUSSION: This item came up following a refund request by residents on Minot Avenue concerning a parcel map appeal. The Council refunded the appeal fee. In this instance the appeal was denied by the staff and the Commission. Subsequently, however, Councilman Malcolm stated that perhaps appeal fees should be rebated when an appeal is granted and an apparent correct decision reached. Where "flat" fees are collected for an application and its appeal, then the cost of processing the particular appeal to Planning Commission and/or Council would be lost. Appeal fees and costs now range between $125.00 (min) to full cost recovery depending upon the nature of the request. Rebating fees when an appeal is granted invokes certain "win" and "lose" incentives and value judgments as to whether or not fees should be returned because granting the appeal m~ans that a "bad" decision was overturned. Staff's view is that equal access under equal terms is the most important factor, not whether the appeal is granted or not. In some instances, the Planning Commission grants an appeal and the decision is reversed by the City Council. In other instances, an appeal, by an applicant of a Zoning Administrator decision, might be overturned by the Planning Commission. Finally, both the Zoning Administrator and Commission actions might be consistent but with an overrule by Council. The likelihood of frivolous appeals of firm supportable lower level decisions would likely be increased in either a) or b) options above under the prospects of recouping a paid fee. Page 2, Item Meeting Oate-~l-~-/)~-/1~5 A number of alternatives exist in the matter of how to handle appeal fees: l) Have No Appeal Fees In this instance all items would be processed directly to Council automatically or upon the filing of a written appeal. This would lengthen the processing time of such items as parcel maps, variances, one lot condominiums, tentative subdivision maps and conditional use permits by 3-4 weeks. It could also significantly increase the number of Council agenda items and required actions. Conceivably, 30-40 hearings would be added to Council's yearly calendar. 2) Rebate Appeal Fees When An Appeal Is Granted a) Rebate Appeal Fees To All Parties Including the Applicant This alternative would remove any financial responsibility by an applicant as to an appeal and work contrary to the City's cost/recovery philosophy. Many such applications are now on a "deposit" fee system where the applicant is charged the actual processing and administrative costs for the completion of his application. This is an attempt to have private development pay its way and not put additional strain on the General Fund of the City. b) Rebate Appeal Fees To Resident (Citizen Appeals) If a deposit fee were in effect and the total costs associated with the processing assigned to the applicant, then no revenue loss would occur as the applicant would end up subsidizing the rebate. There would, though, be an equity question as to why the applicant should pay for a resident appeal question. 3) Require Appeal Fees For All Parties While certain parties may be aggrieved by the fee payment depending upon the outcome of an action, staff supports the status quo. Frivolous appeals tend to be discouraged. Cost recovery goals can be achieved. Most importantly, the City Council, upon written request, can still look at each appeal case on its merits, and based on any hardship circumstances perceived, act to rebate appeal fees to any parties. This has worked successfully in past cases as well, even when an appeal has been denied, as in the case of Minot Avenue. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. WPC 2365P