Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/02/14 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, February 14, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-88-2M: Request for a proposed Montgomery Specific Plan Amendment for 12.22 acres from Industrial to Commercial use located on the southeasterly quadrant of an unnamed street and Palomar Street - Pacific Scene Development 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-J-M: Request to rezone 12.22 acres located on the southeasterly quadrant of an unnamed street and Palomar Street from the City adopted County "M-52" zone (Limited Industrial) to "C-C" (Central Commercial) - Pacific Scene Development 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-12: Consideration to change the name of Hermosa Avenue to Fourth Avenue between Orange Avenue and Beyer Way - City Initiated OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT Policy regarding submittal of correspondence to Commission regarding public hearings CHAIRMAN'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of February 21, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 14, 1990 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-88-2M, Proposal to amend the Montgomery Specific Plan by the redesignation of a certain 12.22 acre parcel of land, located on the southerly side of Palomar Street between Broadway and Industrial Boulevard, from "Research and Limited Industrial" to "Mercantile and Office Commercial," on the plan diagram of the Montgomery Specific Plan A. BACKGROUND The subject request is a component of a joint application from Pacific Scene, Inc., for redesignation of a certain 12.22 acre site, located on the southerly side of Palomar Street between Broadway and Industrial Boulevard, from "Research & Limited Industrial" to "Mercantile & Office Commercial," and the rezoning of the said site from "M52" to "C-C". The approval of the redesignation request (General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan), which is the subject matter of this report, is prerequisite to the consideration of the proposed rezoning, PCZ-88-J(M). B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Certify EIR-89-4M, and consider its contents during the review of the substantive project, GPA-88-2M. 2. Adopt a motion to deny GPA-88-2M. MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopted a motion to certify EIR-89-4M. 2. Adopt a motion to deny GPA-88-2M. C. DISCUSSION 1. Existing Site Characteristics The subject site is vacant, generally rectangular in shape, and contains approximately 12.22 acres. It is bounded by the SDG&E right-of-way on the south side, the MTDB right-of-way on the west, and Palomar Street on the north, which provides the site with approximately 1,347 feet of street frontage. Until recently, the site has been seasonally used for vegetable farming. 2. Adjacent General Plan designations (please see Exhibit A). The Plan diagram of the Montgomery Specific Plan/General Plan designates the project site as Research & Limited Industrial. The adjacent designations are as follows: North: Retail Commercial South: Parks & Open Space East: Mercantile & Office Commercial West: Institutional (Trolley station) City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 14, 1990 Page 2 3. Adjacent zoning and land use (please see Exhibit B). North: C-C-P Retail Commercial South: S94 SDG&E Right-of-way East: C36 Retail Commercial West: S94 SDG&E Right-of-way/Trolley station Portion of the southeasterly quadrant of East Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard, includes the MTDB Trolley Station as well as the SDG&E right-of-way. D. ANALYSIS The Planning Department has completed its review of the proposed amendment, and its survey of the lands in question. The following findings are predicated upon this review and survey. 1. The proposed amendment would increase the allocation of Montgomery territory to commercial use by about 6%, and would thereby augment the Community's substantial land-use imbalance. According to the rule-of-thumb generally applied by city planners, Montgomery's 25,000 people should be served by about 50 acres of commercially-zoned land. It is presently served by nearly four times this acreage. {Please see attached Exhibit C, a revised excerpt of page 24, Part One (The Survey), Montgomery Specific Plan), and attached Exhibit D, entitled "Profile of Commercially-Zoned Territory in the Montgomery Community." 2. Commercial overzoning produces major urban problems, such as commercial-center antiquation and redundancy. This production is very noticeable in Montgomery, where the large modern centers have flourished, but the older, narrower strips along Broadway and Third Avenue have declined. Actually, the newer commercial strips of Montgomery share the economic problems associated with the older commercial areas, and present a general picture of lack-luster trade and vacant stores. 3. While commercial overzoning creates marginal uneconomic commercial uses, it does much more. It stimulates a general decline in the urban form, and reduces the overall quality of townscape planning. Of even greater significance, overcommercialization consumes land which should be allocated to other uses--residential, industrial, recreational, or civic. 4. The Community's need for the mercantile-commercial project proposed for the southerly side of Palomar Street has not been established by the applicant. The new mercantile-commercial center on the northerly side of Palomar Street, at Broadway, and the nearby mercantile centers amply meet the commercial needs of local Chula Vista residents. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 14, 1990 Page 3 5. As a general rule the price of commercial land is substantially higher than that of industrial territory. This circumstance has led to a Statewide effort on the part of developers and land owners to rezone industrial property to commercial. Commercial overzoning and a shortage of good industrial land have resulted. The Montgomery Community, recently planned as a balanced urban settlement, cannot afford this disorder. The City of Chula Vista's need to promote local employment through industrial development is fully supported by the recently-adopted Chula Vista General Plan, and is, therefore, fundamental policy of this municipality. The General Plan is based upon original surveys and research, but its conclusions and proposals are congruous with those of the Montgomery Specific Plan. 6. The proposed land-use plan, submitted by the applicant, also raises concern. It calls for the allocation of several sites to "fast food" restaurants. These establishments abound in Montgomery, and, while undoubtedly popular and economic, they have not generally improved the quality of land use and townscape planning in adjacent areas. Planning in the 1980's has been confronted by the over-development of fast food restaurants, as planning in prior decades was confronted by a superfluity of service stations. These commercial trends do not traditionally produce order, amenity, or environmental quality. 7. Palomar Street, between I-5 and Broadway, has a serious peak-hour traffic problem. The nearby "T" junction of Orange Avenue and Palomar Street is also characterized by traffic difficulties. The commercialization of the 12 acres in question would complicate as well as increase traffic in these areas. E. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment would increase the overcommercialization and commercial-center redundancy of the Montgomery Community, and would refute the planned industrialization of the South Chula Vista Area. It would also constitute a precedent for the commercialization of other industrial lands in Montgomery. The said amendment, furthermore, would increase the traffic problems at Palomar Street and I-5, and Palomar Street and Orange Avenue. WPC 7201 P ANITA MED. DENS. RES.(6-11 da/ac) CHANGE FROM 'RESEARCH & LIMITED HIGH DENS. RES.(13-26 da/sc) INDUSTRIAL' TO 'MERCANTILE & HIGH DENS. RES.(1e-27 da/ac) OFFICE COMMERCIAL" MERCANTILE & OFF. COMM. ~'~ THUROUGHFARECOMM. A ~ 100200 RETA,LCOMM. .ARKS& OPEN m m EXHIBIT A SPACE 0 400 RESEARCH & LIMITED IND. City of Chula Vista-Planning Dept.-12/2/88 C-C I-L-P " Ret. Comm. RU2 Palomar ,erce Center C36 Commercial Center Trolley Square :_p Comm. JECT AREA C-T-P Truck Crop8 I Truck Crep~ ,' ,' afd/Ind. SDG & E (truck crops) 4 RV15 C36 MARSAT C'~ M54 RMF 10 ANITA STREET Existing Zoning GPA-88-2M and CHANGE FROM 'RESEARCH & LIMITED Land Use INDUSTRIAL" TO 'MERCANTILE & OFFICE COMMERCIAL" m EXHIBIT 40O City of Chula Vista-Planning Del)t.-12/2/88 EXHIBIT C Table 7. Comparative Commercial Zoning Analysis City of Chula Vista/Montgomery Chula Vista lexcluding r~ontgomery) Montgomery Acres % Acres % A. Total Commercial Classified Territory 729 100% 195 100% B. Territory Developed with Commercial Uses 461 63% 137 71% C. Territory Developed with Non-Commercial Uses 159 22% 50 25% D. Vacant Commercial Territory 109 15% 8 4% (Acreages are rounded) E. Conclusion: 35% of the commercially-zoned territory of the City of Chula Vista, including Montgomery, or 323 acres, are either vacant or devoted to the accommodation of non-commercial uses. F. The city planner's traditional rule-of- thumb calls for the allocation of 1.5 to 2.0 acres of land to the commercial service of 1,000 population. At this rate, the estimated 120,000 population of Chula Vista should be served by 180 to 240 acres of commercially-zoned territory in lieu of the existing 924 acres.* *Standards of the rule-of-thumb: Neighborhood Commercial 0.5 acres/1,O00 capita Community Commercial 0.5 acres/1,000 capita Regional Commercial 0.4 acres/1,O00 capita Office, Highway, Visitor, Heavy Commercial 0.1 to 0.6 acres/1,O00 capita Certain planning authorities have addressed the matter of the acreage required to provide combined neighborhood and community level commercial goods and services to 1,000 persons and have developed the following formulae: Gallion & Eisner, The Urban Pattern, 3rd ed. 1.00 Ac./1,O00 persons William H. Claire, Handbook on Urban Planning 0.92 Ac./1,O00 persons F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., Urban Land Use Plannin9 0.75 Ac./1,O00 persons Urban Land Institute, Shopping Center Development Handbook 1.08 Ac./1,O00 persons De China & Koppelman, Planning Design Criteria 1.05 Ac. to 1.10 Ac./l,O00 persons WPC 6143P EXHIBIT D August 7, 1989 Profile of Commercially-Zoned Territory in the Montgomery Community 1. Gross Area of Community 2,240 acres 2. Net Area of Community 1,792 acres 3. 5% of Net Acreage (City Planner's rule-of-thumb 90 acres for the maximum allocation of territory to con~nercial use) 4. Commercially-zoned Acreage 195 acres 5. Percentage of Community Zoned for Commercial Use 10.9% 6. Industrially-zoned Acreage 432 acres 7. Vacant Industrially-zoned Acreage 79 acres WPC 6596P McDoN~,_LD, HECI-IT ~c SOLBEi~G OAV,D~'C"A~DN. ~uG.sc ...... February 7, 1990 PERSONAL DELIVERY Chairman Robert Tugenberg and Planning Commission Members City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92110 Re: Palomar Trolley General Plan Amendment (Meeting of February_ 14, 1990) Dear Chairman Tugenberg and Commission Members: This firm represents Pacific Scene, the developer of the proposed Palomar Trolley Center ("Project") located in Montgomery. Pacific Scene has applied for a General Plan Amendment to redesignate 12.2 acres from "Limited Industrial to Mercantile and Office Commercial". Pacific Scene proposes to construct a commercial center, anchored by a major grocery store, on the property. Staff recommends denial of the proposed redesignation due a concern that Montgomery is commercially "overzoned". We believe that adequate evidence exists to support the redesignation of this property to commercial based upon appropriate planning principals, demand for commercial services and the benefits which will be derived by the City. Montgomery is a community with a significant amount of "strip commercial". Strip commercial zoning was a result of planning decisions made by the County of San Diego many years prior to the annexation of the area into the City. The position of staff that Montgomery has too much commercial fails to recognize the lack of commercial parcels of ten acres or more in size with adequate dimensions to support the construction of a grocery store or other major "anchor tenant". The marketing policies of many national retailers require that their stores be located in centers with such major anchor tenants. These Chairman Robert Tugenberg and Planning Commission Members February 7, 1990 Page 2 national retailers do not have stores in Montgomery. Accordingly, the amount of commercial acreage in Montgomery should not be the issue but rather the size and availability of parcels of land large enough to attract major anchor tenants with other retail uses. We suggest that the property should be designated commercial due to its frontage on Palomar Street, its location as a "gateway" to the community and the surrounding land uses. You will note from the staff report, commercial uses abutt the property to the north and east with the trolley station directly to the west. To the south, separated by a green belt is property zoned M52 and M54 which will take its primary access from Anita Street and Jayken Way. We suggest that the orientation of this industrial land, to the south of the SDG&E right-of-way, should not be used as a reason to create more industrial land which will be oriented to the north towards the existing commercial uses on Palomar Street. Furthermore, the activities of the trolley station are people oriented and more appropriate adjacent to retail commercial uses rather than an industrial park with the resulting truck traffic, warehousing and other industrial activities. The "green belt" created by the SDG&E easement to the south acts as a natural buffer between commercial and industrial development and should be recognized and preserved by the City as opposed to allowing encroachment of industrial uses into an established commercial node. As noted in the Environmental Impact Report, the development of the Project may create a synergy which will act as a regional draw for the Montgomery commercial area. We suggest that such a redesignation of the property is consistent with the existing land uses regardless of the use proposed by Pacific Scene. As stated in the Montgomery Specific Plan, retail uses are the largest employers in the community. The development of the commercial center will provide a significant number of new jobs for the community and provide sales taxes which would not otherwise be received by the City. We recognize that your Commission is not necessarily concerned about the need of the City to generate revenues, however, we believe that Montgomery has a significant amount of existing industrial land which is appropriate for industrial uses. In addition, the City, through its Redevelopment Agency, has attempted to direct new industrial development to the Otay Valley area in an effort to redevelop that region. We suggest that the additional benefits provided to Chairman Robert Tugenberg and Planning Commission Members February 7, 1990 Page 3 the City by a commercial designation of the property and the recognition that existing industrial land in Otay Valley or Montgomery will meet the industrial needs of the City, that this property should be redesignated for a commercial use. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss these issues with your Commission. Should you or any member of your staff have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, Charles R. Gill McDONAI.D, HECHT & SOLBERG CRG/mq cc: Thomas J. Harron, City Attorney Robert Leiter, Planning Director Sid Morris, Assistant to City Manager Mr. Dan Pass Ms. Barbara Reid Mr. Jim Moxham Mr. Mark Rowson Mr. Richard Miller City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 14, 1990 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-J(M); Consideration to rezone 12.22 acres from County M-52 to City C-C-P - Pacific Scene A. BACKGROUND This item involves a request to rezone 12.22 acres from County M-52 (Limited Industrial) to City C-C-P (Central Commercial/Precise Plan). The property is located on the southerly side of Palomar Street, between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway. A companion request, GPA-88-2M, to amend the Montgomery Specific Plan from "Research and Limited Industrial" to "Mercantile and Office Commercial" is the preceding item on the agenda. The Draft Environmental Impact Report on the proposals, EIR-89-4M was certified by the Planning Commission on July 12, 1989. Subsequent to that time, on July 19, 1989, and August 2, 1989, the Montgomery Planning Committee publicly reviewed the DEIR and FEIR. The Montgomery Planning Committee voted not to certify the FEIR and sent it back to staff for: corrections, responses to their comments, questions and concerns. As a result of the incorrect information in the FEIR and the need to respond to the comments by the Montgomery Planning Committee, staff requ3red CIC Research, Inc. (the research firm in charge of socio-economic impact analysis) and A.D. Hinshaw and Associates to make the required changes and responses. An overview of the changes that were made to EIR-89-4M in the form of an Addendum to EIR-89-4M are included in the staff report to the Montgomery Planning Committee which is attached. At the January 31, 1990 meeting of the Montgomery Planning Committee the Committee voted (5-2) to recommend that the Final EIR be certified as being in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and that the Montgomery Planning Committee has reviewed and considered the information in the report. The Addendum is also attached for your information. The Montgomery Planning Committee also voted (4-3) to deny the rezoning from M-52 to C-C-P. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. If the Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposed amendment to the Montgomery Specific Plan, GPA-88-2M, it is recommended that you deny the rezoning to C-C-P on this basis that such zoning would be inconsistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan designation of "Research & Limited Industrial." 2. If the Planning Commission supports the amendment from "Research and Limited Industrial" to "Mercantile and Office Commercial", it would be appropriate to adopt a motion recommending that Council either: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 14, 1990 Page 2 a. Approve PCZ-88-J(M) rezoning 12.22 acres from M-52 to C-C-P, or b. Defer action on the rezoning until consideration of Harborside B, Part II, of which this property is a part. This area is scheduled for a subcommunity forum on May 30, 1990, and public hearing before the Committee on July 18, 1990. C. DISCUSSION The discussion and analysis contained in the companion staff report on the proposal to amend the Montgomery Specific Plan GPA-88-2M, is incorporated herein by reference. In summary, the Planning Department found that the proposed amendment and rezoning would increase the overcommercialization and commercial-center redundancy of the Montgomery Community, and would refute the planned industrialization of the South Chula Vista Area. It would also constitute a precedent for the commercialization of other industrial lands in Montgomery. Furthermore, it would increase the traffic problems at Palomar Street and I-5, and Palomar Street and Orange Avenue. If the Planning Commission chooses to support the proposal to amend the Montgomery Specific Plan from "Research and Limited Industrial" to "Mercantile and Office Commercial", we have offered two alternative recommendations on the rezoning for the Committee's consideration. The first would address the rezoning immediately, while the second would defer action until it could be considered in conjunction with the balance of Harborside B, Part II, in July of this year. WPC 7217P Montgomery Planning Committee Agenda Item for Meeting of January 31, 1990 Page 1 3a. Consideration of Addendum to Final EIR-89-4M - Palomar Trolley Center A. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission, on June 14, 1989, conducted a public hearing for the draft environmental impact report for Palomar Trolley Center, a 12.23 acre proposed community shopping center located south of Palomar Street and east of the Palomar Trolley Station in the Montgomery Specific Plan area of the City of Chula Vista. At the close of the public review, comments had been received from two state agencies as well as from the City Engineers and observations were made by the Planning Commission and representatives of the Resource Conservation Committee during the public hearing. On July t2, 1989, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR-89-4M and certified the document adopting the recommended CEQA Findings and mitigation monitoring program. This Final EIR was referred to the Montgomery Planning Committee for consideration. The Montgomery Planning Committee publicly reviewed the DEIR and considered the FEIR at meetings in on July 19, 1989 and August 2, 1989. The Montgomery Planning Committee voted not to certify the FEIR and sent it back to staff for: corrections, responses to their comments, questions, and concerns. As a result of the incorrect information in the FEIR and the need to respond to the comments by the Montgomery Planning Committee, staff required CIC Research, Inc. (the research firm in charge of socio-economic impact analysis) and A.D. Hinshaw and Associates to make the required changes and responses. This information is in the form of an Addendum to EIR-89-4M and is attached to this staff report. B. RECOFI~IENDATION Certify that the Final EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and that the Montgomery Planning Committee has reviewed and considered the information in the report, and adopt the recommended CEQA Findings and mitigation monitoring program. C. DISCUSSION Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act, which sets the requirements as to when an Addendum to an EIR is to be prepared specifically states "The Lead Agency (in this case, the City of Chula Vista) shall prepare an addendum to an EIR" if: Montgomery Planning Committee Agenda Items for Meeting of January 3~ 1990 Page 2 None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; {a) Section 15162 discusses subsequent changes proposed in the project showing new significant environmental impacts not previously considered, {b) substantial changes occurring with respect to circumstances under which the project is undertaken, {c) or new information about the project becomes available which shows impacts previously identified are more significant than previously thought. As none of the conditions listed above apply and, therefore, an Addendum to Final EIR-89-4M has been prepared. Concerns raised by members of the Montgomery Planning Committee regarding EIR-89-4M that have been addressed in the Addendum fall into three major areas: (1) Inaccuracies and/or incorrect data; (2) Methodology - lack of clarity and/or inconsistencies in socio-economic research; and {3) Incomplete information. Specific actions taken to deal with and correct these are as follows: {1) Inaccuracies and/or incorrect data Specific examples of inaccuracies and/or incorrect data in FEIR-89-4M sited by members of the Montgomery Planning Committee at their meetings of July 19, 1989 and August 2, 1989 included: maps and tables that indicated the wrong locations, incorrect addresses and/or incorrect names for various retail centers, maps that did not have a scale and did not indicate "no scale," an incomplete list of persons contacted within the City of Chula Vista staff that were contacted to obtain information in EIR process. Pacific Scene, in a letter to the Planning Department dated November 3, 1989, also stated that in several places in the Final EIR "estimated retail sales information" was based on 1993 projections rather than 1991 projections and that their proposal was to complete the project by 1991. As a result the "estimated retail sales information was corrected to reflect 1991 projections. All of the Montgomery Planning Committee's and Pacific Scene's specific comments regarding inaccuracies and incorrect data were forwarded to A. D. Hinshaw and Associates {as the primary consultant). These have been corrected in either the form of correction pages, response to comments or in the text of the new socio-economic survey. (2) Methodology: Lack of Clarity or Inconsistencies in Socio-Economic Research Specific comments of Montgomery Planning Committee members regarding the l~ethodology used by CIC Research included such concerns as: the methodology should have included re~ail uses permitted by conditional use permits such as those in Palomar Commerce Center, and Bayview Business Center. These uses are comparable, ano therefore, the methodology appeared contradictory and confusing. Montgomery Planning Committee Agenda Items for Meeting of January 31, 1990 Page 3 Planning staff took the following steps: i. Requested an in-depth review of the methodology and findings by the Director of Finance. This has occurred, changes as he required have been made to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Finance. ii. Requested removal of information extenuous to a clear, understandable methodology which has occurred. {Technical explanation of methodology is included in appendices.) iii. Required amplification and clarification of the purpose of the socio-economic impact which is "to evaluate current market conditions and identify any socio-economic impacts that may result in physical deterioration of nearby commercial centers/buildings due to an oversupply of retail commercial space caused by development of the subject property. iv. Undertook some in-house data field checks and computer runs of businesses included in the survey to verify that businesses included in the survey were legal businesses. v. City required expanded methodology section elaborating and detailing procedures used and steps taken in obtaining information and reasoning. vi. Retail uses that occurred under the conditional use permit process were included within the Montgomery Specific Plan area and retail uses that occurred under CUP's outside of the Montgomery Area were included. {3) Incomplete Information Montgomery Planning Committee members requested complete responses to comments, which did not occur at the public hearing. The "response to comments section" has been expanded to more fully respond to concerns that were raised during the comment/hearing period. WPC 7164P I-L-P , -, I~et. Comm. RU2' Palomar Center C36 Commercial Center Trolley Square BJECT AREA C-T-P Truck Cropa Truck ! : T.~ck Cro,. M52 Cro,. ? sfcl/lnd. r I SDG & E (truck crops) 4 i !nv15 , C36 RU-29 ~,, M54 RM~ 10 ~ I I STREET Existing Zoning and CHANGE FROM "RESEARCH & LIMITED Land Use INDUSTRIAL" TO ~MERCANTILE & OFFICE COMMERCIAL" = ~ EXHIBIT 0 City of Chula Vista-Planning DeDt.-12/2/88 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT T'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS ILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING ON AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Khour¥ Enterprises, a California Limited Partnership Pacific Scene, Inc. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Ka~rl~ Iwa~hita RoyShiqeru Iwashita Lily Iwashita Mariko I. Sato ~. Minoru C. Iwashita Toshiko Asakawa 2. If any person identified pursuant to l) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. All ownership in Item 1 is by ' ~ ......... trusts for the benefit of Tawfiq N. Khoury and his immediate family. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (]) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member oF C)ty staff, Boards, Commissions, Co~ittees and Counci! within the past twelve months? Yes No X If yes, please indicate person(s)~ Person is defined as: "Any ~a~ social club, fraternal organizatio~'~o'r~'J~t~ar~~_L~ P , s~a~e, !iust, receiver, syndicatei~ thi? .and any other county, city and county, city, munici al,t r~n~i~!!,~-- pol,t,cal subdivision, or any other group or combination actin~ as 'unq Sr'ct or other (NOTE: Attach additional pages as -- necessary. ) AP;kCIFI~SCENE, INC. Si Ja nt--~dat e WPC 0701P A-I]0 ~ ames Moxham ~rint 0r type name of'applicant MINUTES OF THE MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE, CHULA VISTA, CA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, January 31, 1990 Public Services Buildin~ ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe A. Berlanga, Tony Castro, Fred Creveling, George R. Roberts, Nancy Palmer, Lee Wheeland, and A.S. McFarlin MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Department Daniel M. Pass, Principal Planner; Frank J. Herrera-A, Associate Planner; Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner; Robin Keightley, Assistant Planner; Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None. 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. 3. OLD BUSINESS - None. 4A. PUBLIC HEARING EIR-89-4M: Addendum to final focused Environmental Impact Report for the Palomar Trolley Center (continued from 1/17/90) Assistant Planner, Barbara Reid presented the staff report as previously circulated. She explained that the Addendum is a clarification of the matters that the Montgomery Planning Committee addressed at their previous meetings regarding this case. Committee Member Creveling questioned the Draft Candidate CEQA Findings, page 2, second paragraph and asked if this means that there will be no significant impacts, less impact, or the potential impact will be able to be reduced by mitigation. Committee Member Palmer stated that paragraph also states the City Council approved the EIR; only the Planning Commission approved it. Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid explained that these are findings that will be presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council at the time they adopt the Final EIR by resolution. An addendum evaluates the previous EIR and either substantiates or makes other findings - this addendum does neither. It concludes that the findings of Montgomery Planning Committee -2- January 31, 1990 the EIR are basically correct and there is no need to change the CEQA findings. He added that the language that the State requires is sometimes hard to understand. Committee Member Castro asked if page l, #2 of the same document meant that the bottleneck at the I-5 entrance is not to be considered by the City because it is a CALTRANS issue. Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid stated that the Committee may deny this for specific reasons such as this or they may attach conditions to the approval. The Committee has the same options here just as in any other case. PUBLIC HEARING - OPEN. Charles Gill, 600 "B" Street, Suite llO0, San Diego stated that he is a representative of Pacific Scene and he recognizes the concerns of the Committee that were brought out at the previous meetings regarding this matter; the Addendum addresses and clarifies these concerns. After the Committee's and the Planning Commission's input, it will be certified by the City Council. Committee Member Castro asked if any hydrology studies have been done to address run-off. Dan Sullivan, lOlO Second Avenue, San Diego, Project Manager, stated that the run-off flows to the low area to the south, underneath the trolley tracks to the west; the normal flows go in that direction. Committee Member Berlanga asked if the church would remain? Charles Gill said that it would remain. Jim Bryant, 1255 Imperial Avenue, San Diego, representative of MTDB, stated that he is concerned about the traffic impact on Palomar Street; he asked if it was appropriate to address the EIR at this time. Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid stated that technically the time for the review period has already expired, but if the Committee wants to hear comments they can. He added that it is important to keep in mind that EIR issues are different from Planning issues. Jim Bryant stated that the question is whether or not the EIR addresses compliance with the General Plan, the General Plan specifically addresses mass transit, in particular the Circulation Element, an objective of this is to encourage the use of mass transit. This proposed use does not take advantage of the trolley station, the proposal should be more in line with the maximum use in relation to the trolley. MTDB would advocate a use more in conformance with the General Plan; a mixed use, for both trips of origination and destination. Montgomery Planning Committee -3- January 31, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSED. Committee Member Berlanga said that the addendum addressed his concerns about the track crossing improvements and the I-5 entrance improvements. Assistant Planner Barbara Reid stated that the Department had received correspondence from Jim Bryant and William Leiberman and the issues that were addressed were General Plan Amendment zoning issues, not issues relating to the EIR. MSC {McFarlin/Castro) 5-2, (Opposed, Palmer, Wheeland) to certify the the final EIR-89-4M has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA guidelines and the environmental review procedure of the City of Chula Vista. Committee Member Palmer stated that she is voting "no" because the findings do not reflect the input of the addendum. Assistant Planner Barbara Reid stated that this case has three parts: the Committee can certify the EIR at this time and after the public hearing on the next two cases, the Committee can make a decision on the CEQA Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. B. GPA-88-2M Palomar Trolley Center; Request by applicant for a proposed Montgomery Specific Plan amendment of 12.22 acres from Industrial to Commercial use - Pacific Scene Development (continued from 1/17/90) Principal Planner Daniel Pass stated that the staff recommends that the Committee deny GPA-88-2M; the staff report was summarized: 1. Montgomery already has about 4 times the commercial zoning recommended by the City Planning Department. 2. Commercial overzoning produces both commercial center redundancy and antiquation. 3. Commercial overzoning consumes land that should be zoned for other uses, in this case, industrial zoning. 4. Montgomery commercial areas are already experiencing an urban decline in association with commercial overzoning; contributing factors are poor tenant mix, poor land management, and poor townscape planning. 5. The applicant has not established a patented community need for the proposed mercantile center; it will duplicate nearby uses. Montgomery Plannin9 Committee -4- January 31, 1990 6. The Montgomery Specific Plan prescribes balanced urban settlement of residential, institutional, recreational, commercial and industrial, uses. The proposed amendment would affect this balance. 7. The fact that commercial land is hi~her priced than industrial land has led to a shortage of industrial lands. 8. This development proposes four "fast-food" sites which already bounds in Montgomery. Montgomery has a stable population and an increase in "fast-food" establishments will not be supported. In conclusion, he added that this proposal will increase the over-commercialization and the redundancy of commercial uses and refute industrial uses; this proposal, if accepted, could set a precedent for other industrial lands. Committee Member Castro asked if there is a rule of thumb as to what percentage of land in a community should be zoned industrial. Principal Planner Daniel Pass stated that the percentage is individual for every community, but the amount of industrial land use is a basis for an economic factor. Committee Member Castro asked if there would be a problem with locating industrial adjacent to an open space area. Principal Planner Daniel Pass stated that the percentage is individual for every community, but the amount of industrial land use is a basis for an economic indicator. Principal Planner Daniel Pass stated that this has been done successfully in other communities. Some uses would not be compatible, but many uses would be compatible if planned properly. Industrial uses are very compatible with mass transit. PUBLIC HEARING - OPEN Charles Gill, Pacific Scene representative, 600 "B" Street, Suite llO0, San Diego, stated that he recognizes the concerns of the staff, but the Montgomery area's economic problems will exist regardless of what happens with this site. The proposed traffic improvements will bring the traffic impact below what would be considered a significant impact. Rich Miller, 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 2100, San Diego, 92101, Project Design Consultants, stated that he contacted the Urban Land Institute regarding the Rule of Thumb or standards for percentages of industrial land within a city. The gentleman he contacted at the institute said that he is uncomfortable with applying this percentage standard. He cautioned that these standards are not absolute. The marketing consultant hired by Montgomery Plannin9 Committee -5- January 31, 1990 the City for the EIR concluded that this project would not cause extensive periods of vacancies and would not lead to the physical deterioration that is suggested. Some strip centers in Montgomery will have vacancies due to poor design, poor location or poor promotion. The uses in this proposed center will be different than the uses in the usual strip center; a center such as this will improve the commercial node on Palomar and benefit the community. Jim Moxham, representative of Pacific Scene, 3900 Harney, San Diego, stated that since the project first came before the Montgomery Planning Committee in January 1988, the company has worked hard to bring a first quality shopping center to the community. They will use Flocke and Avoyer as leasing agents and James Leary Architects who have designed other centers, such as Tri-City Crossroads, Bonita Pointe Plaza, Terra Nova Plaza, and EastLake's new shopping center. Mega Foods will anchor the center and will occupy 43% of the center's square footage and is the low price leader in Phoenix. Other interested firms are Pier I Imports, Sav-On Drugs, Thrifty Drugs, Marshalls and National Lumber. These are major tenants that are not interested in strip locations and they will not fill the vacancies along Broadway. He agrees that there is an over-supply of strip retail, but strip retail and a neighborhood shopping center are very different and Broadway cannot have strip retail from one end to the other and not have problems. Regarding the issue of industrial, this site is not large enough for an industrial use and there is no demand for industrial lands, there is significant other acreage zoned industrial. In addition, only 3 of the district's 20 major employers were industrial, most of the balance were retail. Jim Bryant, 1255 Imperial Avenue, San Diego, representative of MTDB, stated that this proposal does not comply with the General Plan. This sort of project can be placed in any location, because it has no distinction to the trolley center. The MTDB sees that a more appropriate use would be one that fills the trolley with people going in both directions, be it residential or an employment center that would relieve traffic on the freeways during the peak travel times. Properties in close proximity to a trolley station should be developed along with the General Plan with uses that would complement the community and promote mass transit. Committee Member Castro asked if any of the uses listed on the hand-out from Mr. Pass, such as mass sales department stores, furniture stores, or a large sporting goods outlet would ameliorate Mr. Bryant's fears. Jim Bryant said he would suggest pedestrian dependent uses rather than automobile oriented uses; supplemental uses such as dry cleaners, day care, and possibly a restaurant, but these uses should be in keeping with a mixed use patterns. Montgomery Plannl~ Co~mitt~ -6-~ January 31, 1990 Principal Planner Daniel ~,ss stated that Mr. I~ryant's report is similar to the correspondence from Mr. t~1berman of ~)'DB ara asked if this is the official position of MTDB. Jim Bryant stated that it was both he and Mr. Leiberman's position and it is in agreement with MTDB's position. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. MSC (Palmer/McFarlin), 4-3 {opposed the denial - Roberts, Creveling, Castro) to accept the motion to recommend a denial of GPA-88-2. Committee Member Palmer stated that the previous meetings held on this matter were informational and a vote was not taken, nor was there any sense of accord or encouragement on the part of the Committee. She added that none of the commercial centers enumerated by Mr. Moxham give her any personal comfort; particularly Terra Nova and Palomar Square are poor examples of design. She feels that Flocke and Avoyer, the rental agents, have enunciated their contempt for the Montgomery community with the signs that they display. Committee Member Castro asked about the City's parking ratio as compared to the County's parking ratio. Principal Planner, Daniel Pass stated that the County and City regulations differ only in commercial zones; the County has stronger regulations for parking areas. This was considered when the Montgomery Specific Plan was discussed, but for the sake of uniformity they kept the same City regulations. If this remains industrial, each commercial use would require a Conditional Use Permit which could address this issue, but as commercial, the uses would not require Conditional Use Permits. Committee Member Castro asked if Palomar would be widened to the same size with industrial development as it would with commercial development. Principal Planner Daniel Pass stated that the street would have to be widened to General Plan standards regardless of whether the development is commercial or industrial. Committee Member Castro asked if Mr. Pass believes that the uses listed in the hand out would ameliorate the concerns of MTDB. Principal Planner Dan Pass stated that the I-L-P is tied to industrial uses and commercial uses would need a Conditional Use Permit and would be allowed only as supportive uses, but only two or three of these uses would be allowed on a 12-acre site. Montgomery Plannin9 Committee -7- January 31, 1990 City Traffic Engineer Hal Rosenberg stated that he agrees with Mr. Pass that Palomar will be widened, whether this develops commercially or industrially, to the level proposed - 6 lanes. Committee Member McFarlin stated that there are traffic problems at Palomar and I-5 and asked what will be improved. City Traffic Engineer Hal Rosenberg stated that CALTRANS has a 1990-91 program to improve this interchange, but the design is not decided as of yet. Charles Gill began to address the Committee and was told the public hearing was closed. Committee Member Castro stated that the program may be approved, but will the funding be available? City Traffic Engineer Hal Rosenberg stated that the City could fund something like this and then get paid back from CALTRANS. Committee Member Castro stated that the I-5 bottleneck should be a condition of denial. Committee Member Berlanga asked if the entrance to I-5 could be two lanes. City Traffic Engineer Hal Rosenberg stated that the proposed improvement by CALTRANS would widen the ramp to a dual lane, which would allow for more vehicular capacity and reduce the confusion. Committee Member McFarlin stated that she feels that the presentation is sound without substance. It did not spell out specifically how jobs would brought to the community or any other specific benefits this project would bring to the Montgomery community. Committee Member Creveling stated that he cannot support the motion on the floor because he does not find that the adjacent zoning is not incompatible with this request; this site is an island of industrial. He added that competition is good for the community and it has benefitted other communities. The Montgomery area has been mentioned as a dumping ground, but there have changes in Montgomery; this project could be good for the community and be a tax benefit to the community. Chairperson Wheeland stated that the staff brought up very good points and she supports the motion; Montgomery does not need a development such as this and the Montgomery Specific Plan should be upheld. C. PCZ-88-J-M: Request to rezone 12.22 acres located on the southeasterly quadrant of an unnamed street and Palomar Street from the City adopted County "M-52" zone (Limited Industrial) to "C-C" (Central Commercial) Pacific Scene Development (continued from 1/17/90) Montgomer~ Planning Committee -8- January 31, 1990 Assistant Planner Barbara Reid stated that since the Committee recommended a denial of the GPA case, they should deny this case. Committee Member Planner asked if action should be deferred until Harborside, Part 2 is considered for City zoning. Assistant Planner Barbara Reid said that the Committee should act on this specific application; but the Committee does not have to address the ultimate zone at this time. Committee Member McFarlin stated that taking action to defer is taking action. Associate Planner Steve Griffin stated that the Committee is not required to take action, because the General Plan Amendment was denied, but they can reaffirm the decision to deny the amendment by a denial of the zoning. PUBLIC HEARING - OPEN. NO COMMENTS. PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSED. MSC (Palmer/Berlanga) 4-3, {opposed the denial Roberts, Creveling, Castro) to accept the motion to recommend a denial at PCZ-88-J-M. 5. OTHER BUSINESS The Committee asked staff to notify them of any other meetings concerning the case. Assistant Planner Barbara Reid stated that this case will be heard on February 14, 1990 by the Planning Commission and February 27, 1990 by the City Council. 6. CHAIRMAN's REPORT - None. 7 COMMITTEE COMMENTS Chairperson Wheeland asked if they could get a copy of the statement that the Planning Commission reads at the beginning of every meeting and have it revised for the Montgomery Planning Committee. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:15 P.M. to the Regular Business Meeting of Wednesday, February 7, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. in the Lauderbach Community Center. Recorder WPC 7227P City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 14, 1990 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-12: Consideration to change the name of Hermosa Avenue to Fourth Avenue between Orange Avenue and Beyer Way A. BACKGROUND Fourth Avenue, which currently extends from SR-54, south through Chula Vista to Orange Avenue, is one of Chula Vista's oldest streets. Subsequent to the dedication of Fourth Avenue, the name of "Hermosa Avenue" was given to the four lane collector between Anita and Main Street. This segment was later extended north to intersect with Orange Avenue and the intersection created by this extension, roughly aligned with the southern terminus of Fourth Avenue at Orange.~ ~ In 1973, Hermosa Avenue was extended from Main Street, south to Beyer Way. Around the same time period, the intersection of Hermosa and Fourth at Orange Avenue was improved to provide better alignment and resulted in Hermosa Avenue being an extension of Fourth Avenue. Because the major ~ortion of this north/south running street through Chula Vista is known as Fourth Avenue," it is confusing to people unfamiliar with the area to encounter a street name change unexpectedly and for no apparent reason. This confusion could also potentially affect the response time for emergency vehicles. A report on changing Hermosa Avenue to Fourth Avenue was submitted to the Montgomery Planning Committee at their October 4, 1989 meeting. The Committee voted 6-0 to approve the report. The property owners affected by this proposed street name change have been notified by mail. Currently, there are six residents and two businesses addressed off of Hermosa Avenue. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council change the name of Hermosa Avenue to Fourth Avenue. WPC 7185P AFFECTED AREA · r .... : °~-~11 II Jlll~°J T.E.O.T '----U ~ I-HIJ III II Illllll H ltl "' J_lt!l I IIII '~ " MONTGOMERY .... : ...... ~l Iii tllll-"[i t1111 ltl I~llJil II IIIII1=-i'11111 IIIlll.~E .IJJ II !llJl."l l I IIIlIl~ I Il!Ill lXL t II1111~ r._.T_. ~__r__, ZENITH T HERMOSA AVE. NAME CHANGE O FOURTH AVE. (PROPOSED) February 6, 1990 To: Chairman and Members of the Chula Vista Planning Commission From: Bob Leiter, Planning Director~ Subject: Establishment of Policy to Provide Adequate Lead Time for Planning Commission Review of Agenda Items At the Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 1990, members of the Commission expressed concern over the relatively short time periods members were being given to review complicated and/or extensive documents, such as SPAs and EIRs, in conjunction with the actual hearing date. In addition, certain written materials were being received and placed in front of the Commissioners simultaneously with hearings being conducted on the subject matter. As a result, the Commission has requested that staff draft a policy concerning the submittal of written information to the Commission. The attached draft policy provides that all staff reports and other reports of major significance involving large-scale projects and/or EIRs will be mailed out 10 days prior to the hearing or hand delivered to the Planning Commission one week in advance of the hearing. In addition, staff is proposing that any written communication relating to amendments or modifications of conditions cited in reports shall be in the hands of the Planning Commission a minimum of 24 hours prior to the hearing. In considering the adoption of this policy, it should be noted that it is the Planning Department's intent to adjust time schedules for the mail-out of Planning Commission reports on Monday, a week and a half in advance of a Planning Commission hearing or hand deliver packets one week in advance of the hearing date. This schedule would also allow the applicant adequate time to address any concerns regarding written conditions well in advance of the meeting. We will provide the applicants with a deadline to have any written responses to the staff no later than Friday preceding the Wednesday hearing date. This, in turn, will afford staff adequate time to provide a written response to the Planning Commission 24 hours in advance of the meeting. While specific conditions and changes may be agreed upon after oral discussion and following the public hearing, it is hoped that the policy drafted regarding written communications will provide the Planning Commission with more realistic lead times in which to evaluate Planning Commission packets. As a matter of practice the Planning Department will attempt to provide information of a complex nature to the Planning Commission at the earliest possible date with the necessary cover letter in advance of a specific staff report. Because of specified processing times now established in the Chula Vista Municipal Code, this policy document will require amendments to the Code for processing certain applications, such as rezonings and conditional use permits, to give the staff adequate time to prepare reports consistent with the new policy. If this draft policy is acceptable to the members of the Commission, it will be set as an agenda item for your official consideration at the next available meeting. Attachment WPC 7218P RESOLUTION NO. PCM-90- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A POLICY OF MINIMUM TIME FRAMES FOR CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE CONSIDERED FOR ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft policy language that would provide the Commission with adequate time to review various written documents and correspondence under consideration by the Commission; and WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that projects of major significance, complex issues, or lengthy documents must be in Commissioners' hands a minimum of one week prior to requested action; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission packets are normally assembled in a single mailing format requiring a consistent mailing date for all items; and WHEREAS, any written communication must be in the Commissioners' possession a minimum of 24 hours in advance of a scheduled hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT from facts presented at the Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 1990, that the Planning Commission adopts the following policy and recommends that staff set for hearing any changes required in the Minicipal Code to effectuate this policy. Chula Vista Planning Commission policy regarding receipt of written reports and correspondence shall be as follows: 1) All projects and/or reports under consideration by the Planning Commission shall be received by the Planning Commission no later than one (1) week prior to the requested action. 2) All written communications including requested modifications or additions to conditions of approval must be received by the Planning Commission no later than 24 hours prior to requested action. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this __ day of , 1990, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Robert E. Tugenberg, Chairman ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary Planning Commission