HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/01/24
,t . I
.
.
.
Tape: 307
Side: 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, January 24, 1990
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners,
Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, and Shipe
Carson,
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
Commissioner Cannon - with prior notification
STAFF PRESENT:
Director of Planning Leiter, Principal Planner
Lee, Assistant Planner Barbara Reid,
Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid,
Senior Civil Engineer Bill Ullrich, Senior Civil
Engineer Steve Thomas, Principal Community
Development Specialist Robin Putnam, Assistant
City Attorney Rich Rudolf, Consultant Manuel Nunes
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Tugenberg and was
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chai rman Tugenberg revi ewed the compositi on of the P1 anni ng Commi ssi on, its
responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Carson/Casillas) 6-0 (Cannon absent) to approve the Minutes of June 28,
1989, with the following change: page 6, should read "Otay River Valley
Regional Park" instead of "one of the subcommittees for Chu1a Vista 2000."
MSUC (Carson/Grasser) 6-0 (Cannon absent) that the Mi nutes of November 29,
1989, be approved.
MSC (Full er/Casi 11 as) 5-0-1 (Cannon absent) to approve the Mi nutes of December
13, 1989, with the following changes: page 3, should read "Carson absent";
and "Carson absent" instead of "Carson out"; and on page 7, two moti ons
seconded by "Carson" should have been seconded by "Fuller".
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
1. (a) PUBLIC HEARING:
(b) PUBLIC HEARING:
(c) PUBLIC HEARING:
Assistant Planner Barbara
March 22, 1990, in order
Committee.
-2-
January 24, 1990
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-1M: REQUEST TO
ALLOW VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT,
OFFICE STORAGE AND A TEMPORARY OFFICE AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BEYER AND FAIVRE STREETS - H.
G. Fenton Company
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-2M: REQUEST TO
ALLOW VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT,
OFFICE STORAGE AND A TEMPORARY OFFICE ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF FAIVRE STREET AT JACQUA - H. G.
Fenton Company
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-3M: REQUEST TO
ALLOW VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT
AND OFFICE STORAGE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
MACE STREET - H. G. Fenton Company
Rei d asked that l( a), (b), and (c) be conti nued to
to take thi s i tern back to the Montgomery Pl anning
Shipe/Fuller 6-0 (Cannon absent) to continue to March 22, 1990.
AMENDED MOTION
Shipe/Fuller 6-0 (Cannon absent) to continue this item until March 28, 1990.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-89-l, OTAY VALLEY
ROAD WIDENING (Continued from 12-13-89)
Community Development Specialist Robin Putnam provided a review of the project
showing Otay Valley Road as it presently exists. She stated that the proposed
project entailed widening Otay Valley Road to the south to provide a six-lane
roadway with 128' ri ght-of-way. She used the overhead projector to show the
typical cross section which included a 16' wide median, six 12' driving lanes,
two 8' emergency parking lanes, 12' behind each curb for sidewalks,
1 andscapi ng, and util iti es. The project al so incl uded the undergrounding of
all overhead utilities (electrical, cable t.v., and telephone). Ms. Putnam
said that the purpose of this hearing was to take testimony on the adequacy of
the Draft EIR. She then introduced Christine Keller from Keller Environmental
to make a Presentation.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there was going to be a benefit district for
the construction of the road.
~.1s. Putnam answered that the City was almost ready to issue a Request for
Proposal to hire an assessment engineer for the purpose of forming an
assessment district in anticipation that part of the financing would come from
a Redevelopment Agency CIP and the balance of the funding would come from the
property owners based on what the assessment engineer felt they could afford.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-3-
January 24, 1990
Chris Keller of Keller Environmental briefly reviewed the findings of the EIR
contained in Table 1-1 of the Executive Summary. She said there were no
significant unmitigable impacts identified for the project. Adequate
mitigation measures were determined for any environmental impacts found.
Ms. Keller said the issues for which impacts did require mitigation included
geology and soils, drainage and surface water, biology, land use, traffic,
archeology and paleontology, air quality, and noise.
a) Geology and Soils, and Drainage and Surface Water - Soil impacts relate to
the removal of unstable river-wash soils and compressible soils and the
repl acement wi th properly compacted soi 1 s. Approximately 27,000 cubi c
yards of cut would be required and 190 cubic yards of fill. Regarding
drainage and water surface, the runoff and the slopes for the roadway in
the eastern end which infringe upon the 100-year floodplain would be taken
care of as part of the engineering design.
b) Bi 01 ogy - Woul d result in the long-term loss of approximately 3 acres of
wetland. A wetlands mitigation plan was being prepared for a 2:1
repl acement; 6 acres of wetl ands woul d be repl aced and enhanced for the
project. There were also some short-term construction-related impacts: a
20-ft. construction area, and after construction was completed, the native
vegetati on areas and wetl and areas woul d be restored to thei r ori gi nal
condition. There was also a need to create a buffer between the
peop1 e-access and the bi 01 ogi cal resources whi ch coul d be mi ti gated by
installing a temporary fence in conjunction with some thorny vegetation.
c) Land Use - Impacts to the Animal Shelter were being mitigated through the
redesign of the parking lot, administration area, and the work room to the
southern end of the property.
d) Traffic - The project in itself would not create new traffic; however, at
build-out signals would be required at Oleander, Brandywine, Maxwell, and
Nirvana, as the traffic volumes require it.
e) Archeology and Pal eontol ogy - Three archeol ogi cal si tes were i denti fi ed
which do not contain any research value, and no additional mitigation is
necessary. The area contai ns formati ons where pal eonto1 ogi ca1 resources
may be present. Keller Environmental recommended a paleontologist be
present initially at the beginning of the construction of the project to
meet with the contractors and be called on site should they run into any
evidence of paleontological remains.
f) Air Quality - Relates to the construction impacts and contain fairly
standard construction methods such as watering down the construction areas
and limiting the construction time period to after 7 a.m. and before 4 p.m.
g) Noise - Residences are located very close to the road at the western end
of the project. The noi se 1 evel s are presently very close to the City I s
threshold of 65 decibels and with the road afterwards, it would be
exceeded. They recommended that a perimeter noise wall be constructed at
the base of those houses.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-4-
January 24, 1990
Ms. Keller then turned the presentation back to Robin Putnam. Ms. Putnam
stated that there had been a meeting with CalTrans to discuss their comments.
She said they agreed with CalTrans that the project did not involve
improvements under the bridge, and that the City would be initiating
discussions with CalTrans for the design of the roadway under the bridge.
This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Donald R. Heye, 1685 Brandywine Avenue, C.V. 92011, Chairman of the Otay
Valley Road Project Area Committee, informed the Commissioners that the
COlllllittee had met and were unanimously recommending approval of the EIR, and
were anxious to have the project initiated.
In response to Chairman Tugenberg's query, Mr. Heye said that the impact of
Otay Mesa was hard to determine; there was a lot of traffic, but several new
businesses had moved into the area, as well as an increase in the rock/cement
activity. He said there was a very critical condition at the intersection of
Otay Valley Road and I-80S, and signalization was included in the project.
Nancy Palmer, 971 Fourth Avenue, #42, Chula Vista 92011, said she was troubled
by the traffic study contained in the technical appendices for the ErR. She
said the report was based on a 1987 traffic count. There was a JHK traffic
study received by the Planning COlllllission and City Council in November 1989,
which was not the basis for the assessment of this impact report. Ms. Palmer
said that the H.G. Fenton project, which was continued, represents_ an
aggregate of nearly 500 truck trips daily along Main from the area between 1-5
and I-80S and would further negatively impact the Montgomery Section of Main.
She said they would store their trucks in Montgomery to repair the road to the
Eastern Territories. The traffic thresholds were not addressed in the Growth
Management Oversight Report to the Council because the JHK traffic study was
not compl eted, and the threshol ds as stated had not been tested. She asked
that the Commission seriously look at the impact of this project on Montgomery
and the portion of Main that goes through Montgomery in view of the H.G.
Fenton project and the updated data from the JHK.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Carson asked Ms. Putnam when the Final EIR and project
consideration would be scheduled for hearing. Ms. Putnam repl ied that the
hearing on the final EIR and project approval would most likely be in April or
May 1990.
Chairman Tugenberg stated that a vote was not required on this item.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-7, CONSIDERATION OF SU~IBOW II SPA PLAN, PUBLIC
FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN, AND PC REGULATIONS; RANCHO DEL SUR PARTNERSHIP
Commissioner Fuller asked to be excused because of a possible confl ict of
interest due to the fact her business firm received more than $250
reimbursement from the project during the last 12 months.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-5-
January 24, 1990
Commissioner Grasser said she also had a conflict of interest due to the fact
she owns a substantial amount of Great American stock.
Chairman Tugenberg made the applicant aware there were only four Commissioners
left on the podium, and anything less than a vote of four would be a no-vote.
He said the applicant could proceed, or ask for a continuance.
.
The applicant wished to proceed with the public hearing.
Consultant Manuel Nunes said the Planning Commission had approved the General
Development Plan prezoned to the Planned Community District and certified the
Draft EIR on October 25, 1989. On December 5, 1989, the City Council approved
the General Development Plan prezone and certified the Final EIR. On January
8, 1990, LAFCO approved the annexati on of the 602 acres of Sunbow II to the
Ci ty. The SPA P1 an had been revi ewed by the City Environmental Coordi nator
which had determined that the certified environmental data for the Sunbow
General Development Plan adequately covered all SPA issues and that no
supplemental study would be required. He then proceeded to recap the project
location by using overhead projection, pointing out the residential areas, the
village center and cOl1l11unity recreation center, and the street circu1 ation
system. He sai d the Tab1 e of Land Uses of the approved General Development
P1 an showed 602 acres wi th total dwell i ngs of 1946, with 1061 1 ow/medi um
density units, 885 medium density units, a 10-acre village center, a 10-acre
community recreation center, 46-acre industrial park, and just over 176 acres
of permanent open space.
The Table of Land Uses of the SPA Plan showed 602 acres, 1946 dwelling units,
1128 low/medium density units which is more than the General Development Plan,
and 818 medium-density units. He said that the design guidelines were
intended to be preliminary and would be resubmitted to the Planning Commission
in final form incorporating any input from the Commission.
Consultant Nunes stated that the Pub1 ic Faci1 ities Financing document
i dentifi ed all pub1 i c facil iti es, i nc1 udi ng transportati on, water, flood
control, sewage disposal, school and parks, required to support the
development of Sunbow II. The summary of the report identified facilities and
fi nanci ng methods us i ng City general funds, ~'ell o-Roos fi nanci ng for school s,
assessment districts, Federal financing, dedication and subdivision exactions,
exi sti ng fees, and reimbursement agreements. The costs represented in the
report were estimates based on best available information at the time and
could vary. Mr. Nunes said this would be monitored by an annual fiscal impact
analysis which would have to be made to coincide with an annual monitoring
process for the whole development. If cumulative fiscal impact analyses
indicate a positive cash flow and all other development requirements have been
satisfied, the development may continue. If the analyses indicate a negative
cash flow, Sunbow will contribute an amount necessary to cover the shortfall
before the project can continue.
.
Mr. Nunes said the project had been eva1 uated in the Addendum to EI R-88-1
(Attachment 2). It was the conclusion of this evaluation that the project
wou1 d not result in any new si gni fi cant envi ronmenta1 effects and that no
further environmental review was necessary.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-6-
January 24, 1990
The recommendations of staff were:
1. Based upon the findings attached to the report (Attachment 1), adopt a
motion to approve the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan,
subject to the conditions listed in the report; and
2. Adopt a motion to approve the Public Facilities Financing Plan; and
3. Adopt a motion to approve the PC Development Regulations.
Mr. Nunes pointed out suggested revisions to conditions no. 3, 4, & 5 by the
applicant which the Commission received before the meeting. Staff had
reviewed the revisions with the developer prior to the meeting and recommended
that the alterations be accepted as recommended.
Mr. Nunes said that staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the
project as presented.
Commissioner Shipe asked what the impact would be on Sunbow II if SR 125 did
not become a reality. Mr. Nunes answered if SR 125 is not constructed, Sunbow
will have to halt in the area of 1300 units out of the total of 1946.
Commissioner Shipe, referencing the Threshold Analysis under Item 8: Water,
asked what would happen if there was not enough water allocated for Sunbow
II. Mr. Nunes said it was his understanding that Sunbow had entered into an
agreement with the Otay Di stri ct for additi onal reservoi r storage facil iti es
for about 54 million gallons in a new reservoir. If there is no water to go
into the reservoir, Sunbow cannot obtain water meters and could not receive
water supply. In that case, they could not build.
Commissioner Casillas referred to page 8, paragraph c, regarding a reclamation
system being constructed in accordance with the master plan being developed by
the Water District. He asked for an estimate as to when that system might be
in place. Mr. Nunes said there were plans to build a pipeline for reclaimed
water on Telegraph Canyon Road, and off this, the Sunbow development would be
required to have its own secondary piping system. He did not have information
regarding when reclaimed water would be available from the source.
Commissioner Casill as referenced page 9, paragraph H, regarding the master
plan item dealing with the expansion of the Civic Center, and the $478 being
charged to each dwelling unit for this purpose. He wanted to know the method
used to determine the $478. Mr. Nunes said this was based on the Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee program the City has initiated which
identifies all the new dwellings being proposed which would be assessed their
fair share of costs for the Civic Center expansion.
Mr. Casillas wanted to know if the fee is paid at the time the building permit
is issued. Mr. Nunes answered in the affirmative.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-7-
January 24, 1990
Commi ssi oner Carson, referenci ng page 8: School s, wanted to know where the
195 junior high school students and the 370 high school students would be
attending. Mr. Nunes said they initially would be attending Bonita and
Hilltop even though those schools are near capacity at this time. Sweetwater
Uni on Hi gh School Di stri ct sai d they woul d be usi ng temporary portabl es to
accommodate students if those students are generated prior to the School
District constructing new schools. The developer had entered into a
Mello-Roos agreement with the School District.
Commissioner Carson was concerned that Bonita and Hilltop
crowded. Teachers will have 37 to 40 students in each class.
need to look at the impact on the education system.
Mr. Nunes referred the Commission to page 16 of the Public Facilities
Financing document where the total costs needed for the new school s were
listed. It is understood the developer has been negotiating with the School
District for a long time and have come to an agreement.
are already
She sai d we
Commissioner Carson said she hoped the developer would insist that the School
District would put the schools in place at the same time as the development.
Commi ssi oner Carson asked if Mr. Nunes fel t the attachment provi ded by the
developer was acceptable on conditions 3, 4, and 5. Mr. Nunes answered in the
affirmative. Commissioner Carson said she was disturbed by condition no. 4
which deals with the 60-child daycare center, and the fact that the
requi rement coul d be wai ved by the Di rector of Parks and Recreati on, if
evi dence show that such requi rements result in an unacceptabl e reducti on of
space for other recreational facilities. Commissioner Carson said that Chula
Vista 2000 Task Force-Daycare had given the figure of approximately 3,900
daycare students that need a place to have a facil ity to be taken care of.
She was concerned that 500+ elementary school children would be generated from
the project, and some of those would be younger than elementary and would need
daycare.
Mr. Nunes answered there would be a potential for daycare fadl ities to be
located in the Village said itself. Even though it would be called a
community recreational facility, there would be enough room to house daycare
if a daycare program was formul ated in the City, whether or not it was
privately operated. The developer would be required to design a daycare
center into hi s pl an. If for any reason the Ci ty feel s a daycare center
should not be in this location, it can waive this requirement. If the City
wishes to have a daycare center and the whole facility, regardless of what it
is, exceeds the amount budgeted in the Pub 1 i c Fad 1 iti es Fi nanci ng Pl an, the
City would have as its option to find other funding mechanisms to augment any
shortfall in costs to have daycare, etc. to be included in the facility. Mr.
Nunes said the Commission had the prerogative to say that the daycare center
should stay regardless of anything else.
Commissioner Carson said that based upon Mr. Nunes' explanation, she felt that
paragraph 4 should staff as it was. She had no problem with the Parks &
Recreation Director making the decision, but disagreed with the statement
"unacceptable reduction of space for the recreational facilities."
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-8-
January 24, 1990
Chairman Tugenberg asked if there was any intention to have the Medical Center
have access to Paseo Ladera other than by going down to Palomar first and then
back.
Mr. Nunes sai d there was that potenti al. There had been internal studi es
regardi ng thi s area and there coul d be a connecti on of Medi cal Center Court
out to Paseo Ladera.
Chairman Tugenberg asked if there were any further questions of staff.
Oirector of Planning Leiter stated he would like to have the Engineering staff
bri efly overvi ew the mi nor changes to the Public Faci 1 i ti es Pl an that were
previously mentioned by Manuel Nunes.
Bill Ullrich, Senior Engineer, referring to page 7, item 5, requested the
elimination of the word "just after "EastLake Phase II," changing it to read
"EastLake Phase II east of Paseo Ladera." In the Comments section, it should
be revised to say "revised DIF Project No.3, improvements on north side only
including medians between Paseo Del Rey to just west of Paseo Ladera. The
remaining section to the east requires widening both sides plus improving the
median." On page 8, item 7, the facility is a six-lane prime, not a six-lane
major. On item 8, staff would like to include after "ROW for a sixth lane"
the word "prime" arterial.
This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Tim Kruer, 2445 Fifth, San Diego, representing Rancho del Sur, developers of
Sunbow, requested approval as recommended by City staff of the Sunbow II SPA
Pl an and the Publ i c Faci 1 iti es Fi nanci ng Pl an. He sai d the SPA Pl an is
consi stent with the approved General Development Pl an and the City's new
General Plan Update. He asked for approval of the revisions in the staff
conditions of approval as set forth in Rancho del Sur's letter received by the
Commission before the meeting. He thanked staff for working with them in
creating the Sunbow II SPA Plan and Finance Plan.
Commissioner Shipe asked how Sunbow informed prospective buyers regarding
their responsibilities involving the Mello-Roos assessment.
Mr. Kruer said there was a disclosure statement that had to go to each of the
buyers.
Mr. Kruer then commented on the daycare center condition. He said the way it
was written didn't leave the option open, and they were trying to clarify it.
Since the first concept, the costs over and above the park fees have grown to
close to $2-1/2 million. He said they would put anything the City wanted in
that building, but would like to have some limit on their exposure in terms of
the $2.1 mi 11 i on for that faci 1 ity. He sai d they wanted the faci 1 ity to be
the most it could possibly be.
Chairman Tugenberg asked if there would be a master homeowners association.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-9-
January 24, 1990
Mr. Kruer said he didn't believe so. There would be homeowners associations
on all of the medium density, on all the R-Ms, the R-Cs, and probably the
R-P. In the R-S zone, it was thei r intenti on not to have a homeowners
associ ati on. It woul d be a 1 andscape mai ntenance di stri ct for those areas
that needed to be maintained.
Chairman Tugenberg asked if the CC&Rs would address the storage of RV vehicles.
Mr. Kruer said they would, as well as the architectural guidelines. The first
phase was very strenuous, but they intend to make them even more complete in
the second phase.
Chairman Tugenberg suggested that when Sunbow gets down to Phase III in the
Industrial Park, it might be advisable to offer storage facilities for RVs to
the people of the community.
Mr. Kruer said that would be a natural place for it.
Chai rman Tugenberg, referri ng to the gradi ng faci ng Tel egraph Canyon Road,
said he trusted the grading would be more sensitive toward the natural
contours.
.
Mr. Kruer said they had met with the City's Landscape Architect on the issue
of the entry into Paseo Ladera whi ch woul d be the slope on Tel egraph Canyon.
They are proposing to keep most of that natural and undulate the rest. They
have buil t a model and will bring it back for the Commission with the
tentative map. The grading that is taking place along the northerly edge of
Poggi Canyon has been pull ed back more than the General Development Pl an at
the request of staff, to preserve the area, as well as the northeast corner
which abuts with the Baldwin property.
.
Commissioner Casillas said it seemed that the enforceability of CC&Rs rests
with whether or not the City is made a party to the CC&Rs. The answer seems
to be if there is a homeowners association and the City is a party to it, they
can be enforced by the Ci ty. I f that is the case, woul d Sunbow do somethi ng
to bring the City in as a party, so that in fact the CC&Rs can be enforced.
Mr. Kruer said if it would help in enforcement to bring the City in, they
woul d have no probl em with that. He sai d they shared the Ci ty I S concern on
this issue and other issues. It is important that what they leave behind
would be preserved and protected.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Shipe/Casillas) 4-0 (Fuller, Grasser - conflict of interest) (Cannon
absent) Based upon the findings attached to thi s report, that a motion be
adopted recommending that the City Council approve the Sunbow II Sectional
Planning Area Plan subject to the conditions of approval listed in the report;
and
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-10-
January 24, 1990
Recommend approval of the Public Facilities Financing Plan;
and, in addition,
Recommend approval of the PC Development Regulations and direct staff to
continue the review of the preliminary design guidelines and resubmit to the
Commission for consideration in conjunction with the tentative subdivision
maps for Sunbow II SPA Plan.
Mr. Tugenberg asked if the corrections as stated by the Engineer were to be
included in the motion. Mr. Shipe said they were to be included.
Commissioner Carson asked if the Attachment 1 provided by the developer was to
be included. Commissioner Shipe answered it was not.
VOTE ON MOTION: 4-0 to adopt. (Full er and Grasser - confl i ct of interest)
(Cannon absent)
Di rector of Pl anni ng Leiter asked for a clarifi cati on. None of the changes
that were included in the letter from Sunbow were included in that motion.
Chairman Tugenberg said that was correct; it did not include it.
Chairman Tugenberg then announced that Item 5 would be considered before Item
4.
ITEM 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-25M: REQUEST FOR RV
STORAGE AT 1375 BROADWAY - BROADWAY EQUITIES LTD.
Assi stant Pl anner Barbara Rei d gave an overvi ew of the background of the
project. She stated that Broadway Equities originally established an RV
storage lot without a major use permit from the County about 5 years a~o.
They applied for a conditional use permit when the owners were contacted wlth
the information that the operation was illegal. Their original application
went to the Montgomery Planning Committee on August 5, 1987, and to the
Planning Commission on February 10, 1988. Both bodies recommended denial of
the major use permit initially because of conflicts with the Montgomery
Specific Plan. This was appealed at Council in July 1988, who allowed the
storage facility to remain for 18 months, or until a special study was
compl eted, whi chever came fi rst, provi ded 7 conditi ons were met withi n a
3-month period of time: the storage area paved, adequate solid fencing
installed on all sides of the lot, installation of 3 fire hydrants,
1 andscapi ng along the Broadway frontage consi stent with the City Landscape
Manual, adherence to a limitation on the height of storage items, a sign
install ed, and publ i c improvements. Fourteen months after the project had
been approved by Council, none of the conditions had been completed. Staff
adverti sed a heari ng for revocati on on September 27, 1989. The appl i cant
responded with a letter asking for additional time to complete the work until
October 1989. At that time, the work was still incomplete but some
improvements had been made. Staff recommended at the October 25, 1989 meeting
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-11-
January 24, 1990
that the permit be allowed to run its course, since it would expire on January
10, 1990. The Pl anni ng Commi ssi on voted for revocati on of the permit. The
appl icant filed an appeal to the revocation. Despite several attempts by
staff to determine whether the applicant wanted to proceed with the appeal,
Broadway Equities had not informed staff of a decision as of the date of the
current meeting.
.
Assi stant Pl anner Barbara Rei d conti nued to say that a new appl i cati on had
gone to the Montgomery Planning Committee on January 3, 1990. The Montgomery
Pl anning Committee unanimously voted against the proposal. She referred to
page 3 of the staff report, pointing out the reasons for the vote: the length
of time the applicant had taken to provide the improvements, the history of
both the Montgomery Pl anni ng Committee and Pl anning Commi ssi ons recol!l11endi ng
revocation of the permit, the fact that SDG&E had suggested approval of the
project woul d reduce util ity rates which has not occurred, the fact that the
use is not seen as a pleasant addition to the community, and the project is
viewed as a "NIMBY" (not in my back yard). The Montgomery Planning Committee
also cited the majority of users were other than Chula Vista residents and the
granting of the CUP would not remove Chula Vista RV vehicles from the street.
Finally, they felt that approval of the CUP may encourage the applicant to put
in more improvements or apply for an extension. They wanted to discourage
both actions. Ms. Reid said the staff report had recommended approval, but
after further site checks, discovered there were 100 over-height vehicles in
the park, the fencing was finally slatted the day of the Commission meeting,
and the sign was put up. In reviewing this, staff felt there had been
entirely too much time with the applicant getting all the improvements put in
and that there were still over-height vehicles. She said they had put in
landscaping, sidewalk, curb and gutter, street light and fire hydrants. Staff
questioned the fact they had spent so much time on this project, with the
approval of the CUP, woul d they have to spend as much time on the new CUP.
Staff recommended denial of the CUP.
.
Commissioner Fuller asked if all the space renters were notified that they
would have a certain time in which to remain at that location.
Assistant Planner Reid said that the recommendation initially was that the
owner notify the people who had vehicles there. If the Commission decided to
deny the CUP, it could be included in their motion.
Chairman Tugenberg, referring to page 3 of the staff report, asked about the
statement that the majority of the users were other than Chula Vista residents
and the granting of the CUP would not remove Chula Vista RV vehicles from the
street. He asked if the petitions received before the meeting were in
addition to the ones in the Commission packet. Ms. Reid said the petitions in
the packet had gone to the Montgomery Pl anning Committee as well as the
Commission. The ones received that night had arrived just before the
meeting. Chairman Tugenberg said he had looked at the ones he had received
earlier, and almost half of the petitioners were Chula Vista residents, so
actually it did take RVs off the street.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-12-
January 24, 1990
Commissioner Fuller said she had also counted the original petitions and had
29 "other outside of Chu1a Vista", 18 residents, and 7 businesses located in
the area. Regarding notification of the tenants, if the action taken by
Counci 1 on July 12, 1988, why were they not noti fi ed if they had 18 months
only to remain at that location. Ms. Reid said that was the City Clerk's
responsibi1 ity.
Assistant Planner Reid also stated that staff did not review the petitions
which had just come in before the meeting. Staff did not know for sure if
there were duplications between the ones received in the packets and the ones
received before the meeting that night.
This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Vicki Wyatt, 638 "1" Street, Chula Vista 92010, representing Beaty Development
Company, General Partner to Broadway Equities, Ltd. She said Beaty
Development Company was the managing general partner and she had been directly
involved with the project for approximately the last 11 months. She is also a
resident of Chu1a Vista. She apologized for the lateness in which the project
was completed. She said the sign had been installed that day and the slats
had been completed that day. She said the RV storage was to originally be
installed in conjunction with the auto center and mini storage they own next
door to the RV lot. With the RV storage next to the mini storage, it made it
more convenient to monitor, keep c1 ean, and manage by thei r mi ni storage
personnel. She said they had many comments regarding the beauty of - the
landscaping: they have landscape maintenance once a week, plus the managers
clean it every morning. Regarding the height limitation, Ms. Wyatt said she
had been to the P1 anni ng Department after the meeti ng wi th the Montgomery
P1 anni ng Commi ttee to find out what the 1 imi tati on was. She sai d the hei ght
of the fence cou1 d only be 6' tall and the deci si on was to make the hei ght
limitation 2' over the fence line. Most motor homes are 10' tall, which makes
it 2' over the hei ght 1 imi tati on they had been gi ven. Any motor home bei ng
stored in an RV storage lot would be over the height limitation. That would
mean the owners of the motor homes wou1 d not have anywhere to park thei r
vehicles. They tried to keep all the unsightly motor homes toward the back,
and maintain nice looking vehicles toward the front. Montgomery also had a
concern that the major renters in their facility were not from the Montgomery
area. At that time they were discounting Chu1a Vista addresses that were not
within the boundary. She said there were many outside the Montgomery area.
There are also businesses within the Montgomery area that rent there. Ms.
Wyatt said the facility was well lit and safe, and they were able to monitor
it very closely because of the close proximity of their resident manager of
the mini storage. She said they felt the improvements they had made according
to the Ci ty' s condi ti ons were benefi ci a1 to that stri p along Broadway, and
have added to the beauty of that area. They requested approval of the
application for the new CUP.
Tom Beaty, President of Beaty Development Company, Managing General Partner to
Broadway Equities, Ltd., 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego 92130. He said he
was embarrassed and apologetic for having to be there again on the issue. He
."
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-13-
January 24, 1990
said it had been a long process in trying to obtain the necessary approval s.
The conditions imposed by the Council had been completed as of the date of the
meeting. He said he represented a group of investors in Broadway Equities,
Ltd. who collectively have invested in excess of $10 million in the City of
Chula Vista for the Broadway Auto Center and Self Storage Facility, including
in excess of $350,000 for improvements to the Broadway RV Storage facility.
The additional improvements required by the City Council put an additional
financial burden on them which also contributed to the delay in getting those
improvements completed. He said that the City of Chula Vista would benefit
from the improvements along with the resi dents and busi nesses in the area.
Mr. Beaty said it was never their understanding that the 18 month period was a
finite date; it was 18 months or until a special study was completed. He said
it was not cl ear in the record and di d not state in the record that it was
whichever came first. He said that as far as they knew, the special study was
not compl ete and there was no confl i ct wi th the General Pl an of the Ci ty of
Chul a Vi sta for thei r use of the property. He requested that the Condi ti onal
Use Permit be approved, or at the minimum, they be allowed at least two years
to maintain the facility to try to recoup some of their investment in the
improvements which would benefit the City of Chula Vista for many years.
Commissioner Grasser asked Mr. Beaty what the figure of the cost of
improvements put in within the last year.
. Mr. Beaty said it amounted to approximately $140,000.
Commissioner Grasser asked what they charged for space rents.
Mr. 8eaty said the spaces varied in price from approximately $25. He didn't
know the exact price.
Commissioner Fuller asked at the time the Broadway Auto Center was built, if
it was their intention to use the adjacent storage for the use of those
businesses in the Auto Center.
Mr. Beaty said they felt that once they started construction of the auto
center and the mini storage facility that the land to the north, the SDG&E
property, woul d be of great benefi t to the auto center as well as the mi ni
storage facil ity, because in an auto center you can never provide enough
parking, since vehicles have to be left for a week or so waiting for repair
work to be done. He sai d it was a real benefit for thei r tenants to have
secure-type storage next door to the faci 1 ity so they di dn' t have a lot of
break-ins with cars sitting out over night. It al so made the auto center a
much better looking facility by not having the cars, RVs, etc. sitting in the
parking lot for days waiting for repairs to be done.
.
Commi ssi oner Full er asked if the auto center was not compl eted duri ng the
period of time when the issue came up with the RV storage center after the
Montgomery annexation and the fact that there was a time limitation placed on
the CUP.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-14-
January 24, 1990
Mr. Beaty sai d the auto center had been there 5 or 6 years. He felt that
because of what had been invested and because of the need, they should be
allowed to stay in and operate the facility. They had finally met all the
conditions imposed upon them, and there was a definite need.
Commissioner Casillas asked about the timetable for completing the special
study. At the time of annexati on, thi s was thought to be part of the open
space or park area. This was discussed at the time of the submission of the
last request for the extension or the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit.
He had heard nothing more about a special study.
Director of Planning Leiter said this was part of the overall Montgomery Plan
Implementation Program and involved the Specific Plan, the Rezoning Program,
and also certain special studies. He understood the progression had been from
the Specific Plan to the rezoning hearings, and that was the current status.
The rezoning hearings are expected to be completed by September 1990. The
special studies generally will follow that program and the two-year timeframe
is about accurate for completing those special studies. The issue of
electromagnetic radiation would be looked at in this particular area, but was
not the reason it wou1 d take two years. There are other 1 and use issues,
etc. That is the last phase of the Montgomery Plan implementation as he
understood it.
Bob Greenwald, Greenwald's Auto Repair, 1409 Broadway, Suite #103, Chu1a Vista
92011. Mr. Greenwa1 d sai d he rents spaces in the storage area to secure
customers' cars at night so they wouldn't be vandalized. Vehicles left out in
front of the Auto Center are frequently vandal ized, windows broken, stereos
stolen, etc. He said quite a few shops in the Auto Center rent spaces to
accommodate the problem to have a secure area for customers' vehicle in the
evening. He said they really needed the facility there to accommodate their
businesses.
Fred Covert, Coverts Body Shop & Auto Sales, 521 Orange, Suite 109, Chu1a
Vi sta 92010. He had done busi ness at 1655 Broadway for 32 years and had to
move when new bui 1 di ngs were bui It. He sai d he defi nite1y needed storage
spaces to secure his customers' cars because he didn't want to leave them out
to be vandalized. He said they were very happy with the way it was working
out.
Erik Larsson, 1485 Broadway, Chu1a Vista 92011, resident manager of Broadway
Palomar Self Storage and Broadway Palomar RV Storage for 3 years. He pointed
out that during the 3 years he had been there, he had received many calls for
RV storage from people who live in Chu1a Vista. He felt the RV storage they
have provides a lot of parking for people who can't leave their motor homes,
etc. in front of their homes. He stated the Planning Commission said we had
many petiti ons from peop1 e who di dn' t 1 i ve in Chu1 a Vi sta. ~~any peop1 e who
need storage are goi ng out of town or move into a different p1 ace, so many
times Broadway RV Storage is gi ven a forwardi ng address or an address where
they will be while they are away from Chu1a Vista. There are also many
military personnel who rent from them and need a place to put their vehicles.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-15-
January 24, 1990
A lot of young men go overseas on WestPac, go out for 3 months, and they need
a place to put their cars, boats, etc. He said the prices were very
reasonable; the average price is $25, and could go up to $30 or a little
higher, but is still mostly under $1 a day, which is very economical for
people in the area. The City will not let many people park their RVs on the
street and they need somewhere to park them. He urged that they be permitted
to keep their permit and keep providing low-cost self storage to the people of
Chula Vista.
Commissioner Grasser asked where else would the people be able to park these
types of vehicles.
Mr. Larsson sai d he coul dn' t answer that; he knew they were not allowed to
park them outside their homes; apartment buildings won't let them keep boats,
small trailers, or mobilehomes outside.
Commissioner Grasser wanted to know who their competition was.
Mr. Larsson said their competition would probably be Toy Storage; a lot of the
storage places were pretty well occupied, and that shows a need for storage.
From driving by those places, everybody seems pretty full.
Robert Kolodny, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego 92130, Attorney for Broadway
Equities Ltd. Mr. Kolodny stated he was at the Council meeting in July 1988
when the City Council approved on a temporary basis the Conditional. Use
Permit. It was after 1 :00 in the morning after much discussion that this
matter was approved. It was his understanding, as it was Mr. Beaty's, that
staff told the City Council it would take them an estimate of approximately 18
months to submi t thei r speci al study. The Counci 1 fel t unti 1 they had that
special study, it was appropriate for this use to continue. On that basis,
Beaty Development Company and the applicant proceeded. There was no
understanding by his client that the matter was going to be revoked
automatically at the end of 18 months. He disagreed with Mr. Rudolf and Ms.
Reid's position that the City Council made that determination. He said he
felt the revocati on acti on was i nappropri ate because he di d not feel the
timeframe to revoke had elapsed. He also said he had relied upon the original
staff report recommending approval at least for two years, and that he had not
been informed of the change in staff's position. Mr. Kolodny said that
contiguous to their property, there was a Conditional Use Permit for the same
type use, and had Beaty Development Company not delegated their responsibility
and submitted an application when they built the facility on a 25-year license
from SDG&E, a Conditi ona 1 Use Permi t woul d have been granted. He sai d he
found it interesting that there is a use that is approved next door, and at
this time without a special study and without any determination as to what is
the best use for that property, that it is appropriate to not approve that use
until that decision is made.
Mr. Kolodny said that his client had spent over $9 million in developing the
property next door. They clearly obtained the necessary permits to do so;
they woul d not have invested several hundred thousand doll ars to improve the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-16-
January 24, 1990
auto storage facility had they believed they were doing it illegally at that
time or without a permit, when all they had to do was submit a permit--an
appli cati on--and they wou1 d have been granted a Conditi ona1 Use Permi t based
upon the laws that were applicable at that time. He said it seemed that at
the very least what was appropriate was that the Conditional Use Permit should
be granted, or in the a1 ternati ve, it shou1 d be granted on a temporary basi s
until such time as the special study report comes back and a determination is
made as to what is the appropriate use. If that did not happen, they believe
they will have over 360 renters who don't have an alternative place or they
would find one to store their RVs, boats, and other facilities. He
respectfully requested that the CUP be approved, or in the alternative that it
be approved on a temporary basis until such time as the special study is
completed as was the intention of the City Council and a determination be made
as to what is an appropri ate use under those power 1 i nes in 1 i ght of the
circumstances.
Chairman Tugenberg asked Assistant Planner Reid if she cared to respond.
Assi stant P1 anner Rei d stated she had a copy of the Counci 1 mi nutes of July
12, 1988, before her. The motion that was passed was "to allow the storage
facility to remain for 18 months or until the special study is completed,
whichever comes first, on the condition that the requirements (the conditions
she had listed) with the exception of the paving, be completed within 60 days
and that all recreational vehicle space renters be notified that they have 18
months to remain at this location." She said the City's attorney informed.her
that, specifically, that requirement for the notification does not apply to
our clerk; it applies to the applicant, because the clerk would have no
know1 edge of who the renters wou1 d be. Further in the moti on, the mi nutes
stated "Assistant City Attorney Rudolf explained that Council procedurally
granted a Conditional Use Permit for a special time, and if the plan results
come back and are positive for the applicant (and she interpreted this to mean
if the conditions had been met within the period of time requested) or if the
special study shows that this could remain, to modify the Conditional Use
Permit and take the 18 months off it." Ms. Reid said she would interpret that
to mean if that finding occurred, it would be up to the applicant at that time
to come back and ask that the Conditional Use Permit be modified. Then
further, "There would not be a continuation of this hearing but some new
process of modification."
Assistant Planner Reid said she wanted to address one other point Mr. Kolodny
brought up. When she spoke to the project manager the morning of the meeting
about the changed staff position, she asked the project manager to take the
necessary steps to inform the other people including the attorney. The
project manager mentioned to Ms. Reid at the time that she would be meeting
with the attorney in the afternoon.
Nancy Palmer, 971 Fourth Avenue, Chu1a Vista, thanked the Commission for their
support of the r~ontgomery P1 anni ng Area the previ ous time the item had come
before them. She sai d the Montgomery P1 anni ng Committee at their meeti ng in
January received 59 petitions just before the meeting. Thirty-eight of those
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-17-
January 24, 1990
accepted at face value had Chu1a Vista addresses, and the remaining 31 did
not. She sai d she had some concerns about some of those peti ti ons they had
received under the current restrictions which indicates that auto repairs, a
marine boat sales, and Coverts Auto Body and Sales are using these storage
lots for their conducting of business. She said in her opinion a lot of the
prob1 ems that Montgomery area I s experi ence with the RV storage is that SDG&E
had decided that the tension lines that go through Montgomery will be vehicle
storage, not open space, and that this stand by them (referring to the 25-year
lease to Broadway RV) has been the reason that these lessees feel they do not
need to abide by the City's restrictions or conditions. She pointed out that
this was an illegal operation to begin with, and by their own admission that
had just come into compliance that day. The Montgomery Planning Committee had
been trying in excess of two years to have that use abated. Ms. Palmer said
she was devastated when she found out in July 1988 that the Ci ty Counci 1 had
put a number of very expensive restrictions and allowed them to stay. She
asked that the Pl anning Commission support the Montgomery Pl anning Committee
and abate the use.
Commissioner Fuller asked if the CUP was denied and there was nothing in that
piece of property for the next two-year period, would that be acceptable to
the Montgomery Pl anni ng Commi ttee. Woul d it be another two years before
having some actual results of the special study?
Ms. Palmer said that Montgomery Planning Committee was committed to open
space, and the special study area came about solely because when the attempt
was made to work on the park area on either side of Fourth Avenue and Orange,
a portion of which is SDG&E right-of-way, that SDG&E and the mobilehome owners
mobi1 ized together and brought forward the radiation and the carcinogenic
problems, and at that point rather than to impede any further the park on the
east side of Orange, the remainder of the area was put into a special study
area. She felt very strongly this was SDG&E's attempt to get what they wanted
on their property as opposed to what would suit the community. She d,d think
the study would take two years.
Commi ssi oner Casi 11 as asked if duri ng the early di scussi ons pri or to the
annexation was not the issue of open space a very significant item of
discussion, and wasn't it also true that the City Council then promised the
Montgomery District that specific area as open space but delivered some strong
language in that direction. Commissioner Casillas said that he had spoken
with people of the Montgomery area, and they see it as a moral commitment on
the part of the City to give them that area as open space and park area, not
only that area but the area west of Broadway, as well, towards the troll ey
tracks.
Ms. Fuller said there was a very strongly worded position paper delivered by
the City to the residents of Montgomery with a strongly worded commitment to
open space. She sai d her tenure took up a month after the Commi ttee was
instituted, and from that poi nt on, she had never heard anythi ng but a
commitment to make the enti re SDG&E ri ght-of-way, as it cuts across the
community of t10ntgomery, into open space. SDG&E has also consistently said
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-18-
January 24, 1990
they wanted RV storage or some other money-making proposition for them,
because they feel they commit enough of thei r ri ght-of-way to open space
because of the portion of their right-of-way that is parklands and open space
in the Lorna Verde area.
Chai rman Tugenberg asked if there was anyone el se who cared to speak to the
COlll1lission.
Lee Wheeland, 1630 Walnut Drive, representing the Montgomery Planning
COlll1li ttee, sai d she woul d 1 ike to go on record as the Montgomery Pl anni ng
Committee did turn this down over and over again. The presentation by staff
was very accurate. The Montgomery Planning Committee had been working on this
project for approximately 3 years. She said it was interesting that she and
staff could find mention of conditions and time limits of 60 days the
conditions had to be met in their paper work, but the applicants couldn't seem
to find it. She said she al so found it interesting that the Montgomery
Pl anni ng Commi ttee and the Pl anni ng Commi ssi on have these peti ti ons at the
last minute with no way of checking on them. She said they have a real
problem in Montgomery trying to clean up the area, and she considered places
like this project a blight on the area. She also strongly objected to the
fact this had been dragging on for three years and was illegal to begin with.
She said all they got was excuses, and she felt the Montgomery area has enough
of "other people's junk," and has very serious problems. Hopefully by keeping
on track with the Planning Commission and the City Council, these problems can
be solved together. She asked that the CUP be denied. She felt enough time
and effort had been put into the project, and didn't feel it deserved it,
after their dragging their feet and not getting the conditions met.
Florence Barrett, 1404 Broadway, Chula Vista 92011, said she lived next to the
SDG&E open space, west of Broadway and north of thei r property, whi ch is a
dump. She said there were illegal buildings on that property with street
people living in them--in their shacks made of van and storage boxes. She
said they were putting up with drunks, street people, and people sleeping in
their fields next door to them. She said the RV park is fenced in, policed,
and looked nice. She didn't see anything wrong with that. She urged that the
RV park be left there until something nice could be done with the property.
She asked that the west si de be observed by the Commi ssi on. She sai d if the
property was cleaned up of the 1 itter and trash, her family did it on the
weekends.
Commi ssi oner Full er asked if Ms. Barrett had contact SDG&E regardi ng the
situation. Ms. Barrett said she had contacted them many times and had been
given the run-around.
Commi ssi oner Shi pe sai d he 1 i ved next door to an SDG&E easement, open space
property, and there was a problem getting SDG&E to clean up their property.
Ms. Barrett sai d it was much better to have somethi ng n; ce 1 i ke the RV park
there than to have open space which is not cared for.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-19-
January 24, 1990
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSC (Grasser/Carson) 5-1 (Casi 11 as "no") (Cannon absent) that the Chul a Vi sta
Planning Commission re-adopt the Negative Declaration IS-87-56M to include the
amendment and find that the proposed project will have no significant
environmental impact.
Commissioner Grasser said she felt the applicant had shown a lot of disrespect
for the City and the citizens and had been totally irresponsible in handling
the situation. She thought if they hadn't been so irresponsible, she might
feel different in this situation.
MOTION (Grasser/Carson) to deny PCC-90-25 based on staff findings 1 through 4.
Commi ssi oner Full er sai d she was supporting the moti on only because of the
history of the project and the concern she had that strong support should be
given to the Montgomery area and the planning that had gone on so long. She
di d have a concern because she thought the area had recently shown a marked
improvement. She said she was impressed with the landscaping. She had driven
by the project that morni ng, and there was no si gn at the time she went by.
She had a concern for the businesses using the Broadway Auto Center. She felt
the appl icant should be commended for putting together a project that is
really an asset to the communi ty, be it for Montgomery or Chul a Vi sta as a
whole. She felt it was an asset, and those businesses need secured spaces.
Chairman Tugenberg said he believed that in the past he had voted against-the
continuation of this operation consistently. He found the improvements in the
project very nice and believed there was a need for that kind of facility. He
said he thought the height requirement was unreasonable because most RVs
exceed 8 ft., so to require nothing over 8 ft. was unreasonable. He noted
that EastLake had a mini storage facil ity with an RV storage in back of the
building, so the RVs are not visible from the street. He said he thought that
should be taken into consideration in future requirements for RV lots.
Chairman Tugenberg said he was not supporting the motion because he felt there
was definitely a need; that Chula Vista needed every RV storage facility it
could possibly have at this time.
Commissioner Carson said she was going to support the motion because she felt
it was a disservice to the individual to keep stalling them because of a
special study report. She said there was a problem with the fact that there
is the special study area, and felt sorry for the business people who would
have to relocate. The Commission needs to tie into their motion a time factor
as to how long they have to vacate.
Commissioner Grasser said she felt 90 days would be adequate, but she felt
they would not comply and the City would have to use the legal process.
MOTION RESTATED:
MSC (Grasser/Casill as) 5-1 (Tugenberg "no," Cannon absent) to deny PCC-90-25t1
based on staff findings 1 through 4, and the applicant has 90 days in which to
vacate the property and should at this time notify all their tenants.
Chairman Tugenberg then returned to Item 4.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-20-
January 24, 1990
PCA-90-03: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION
19.060.030 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS AFFECTED BY AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN -
Ci ty Ini ti ated
Mr. Casillas asked to be excused because of a potential conflict of interest,
since he is involved in a project in that area.
4. PUBLIC HEARING:
Director of Plannin9 Bob Leiter reviewed the history of the project by stating
that in July 1989 the City Council adopted the General Plan Update which
included a number of changes in the Central Chula Vista area. In September
1989, the Council enacted an ordinance restricting the process of development
projects on properti es where zoni ng is inconsi stent wi th the new General
Pl an. It al so allowed certai n projects to move forward if they had fil ed
applications for design review or made other specific progress. Following
that adopti on, the Council became aware that there were a 1 imi ted number of
additional projects that had begun processing their development plans through
desi gn revi ew but had not made formal appl icati on for desi gn revi ew, and had
not been notified of the changes in their General Plan designations until late
in the process. Staff was then directed to prepare a draft ordinance
amendment that would allow certain projects of that nature to move forward and
to be reviewed. Based on that, on January 9, 1990, Council approved a concept
that had been presented by staff and referred it to the Planni ng Conmi ssi on
for a public hearing.
Mr. Leiter said that as it was drafted, the ordinance would allow projects
that had come in for preliminary design review during a specified period of
time to proceed with formal review and approval process. However, one of the
requirements would be that approval would be given by the Zoning Administrator
that the proposed project would not interfere with the overall General Plan
objectives.
Mr. Leiter said that staff felt this approach would allow fair consideration
of a limited number of projects in that area and recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the proposed amendment.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Max Lercher, 3044 Granada Avenue, San Di ego 92104, representi ng Angel Barba
(232 Del Mar, CV 92010). Mr. Lercher said that Mr. Barba was proposing to
build four units and is in the pipeline. He had submitted plans for design
review and would qualify for processing under the draft amendment. On behalf
of Mr. Barba, Mr. Lercher asked the Planning Commission to approve the
amendment and approve Mr. Barba for processing under the draft amendment.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Grasser asked if there was a mechanism for an owner if they have
a hard time getting insurance or financing if their property no longer
complies with the zoning.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-21-
January 24, 1990
Planning Director Leiter said there was a study going on which would identify
areas where down zoning or rezoning a property would occur, and in those cases
the existing development or improvements would be grand fathered in and given
1 egal non-conformi ng status. They coul d conti nue to exi st indefinitely, and
the Planning Department would be willing to provide a letter to that effect to
any potenti al 1 ender. A rezoni ng acti on woul d apply to new uses of property
rather than to existing uses of property.
MSUC (GRASSER/FULLER) 5-0 (Cannon absent; Casi 11 as - confl i ct of interest)
that based on the Initial Study, IS-90-28, find that this project will have no
si gni fi cant envi ronmental impact and adopt a Negati ve Declarati on issued on
the Initial Study.
MSUC (GRASSER/FULLER) 5-0 (Cannon absent; Casillas - conflict of interest) to
recommend that the Ci ty Counci 1 enact an ordi nance approvi ng an amendment to
Section 19.06.030 of the Municipal Code as shown attached Exhibit B.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT - None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Carson requested that SPA Plans be delivered to the Commissioners
earlier than Friday afternoon so they would have more time to review.
Commissioner Carson also recommended that a policy be drafted to have a _set
time determined to have information in to the Commission, so information would
not be given to them just prior to a meeting when they did not have an
opportunity to review it.
Planning Director Leiter replied that staff could get the SPA Plans to them
prior to the Friday before.
Regarding the problem with SOG&E, Commissioner Carson said she had a friend
who had a problem with SDG&E; the friend contacted the City's Code Enforcement
and the problem was corrected. She suggested that Ms. Barrett contact Carole
Stinnett or Mike Fox of Code Enforcement.
Commissioner Carson also asked that Code Enforcement check on Third & "I"
filling station, who were parking 15 or 16 cars a night and had cars with "for
sale" signs. She believed they were operating an illegal business.
Chairman Tugenberg concurred with Commissioner Carson regarding the
i nformati on submitted just pri or to meetings. He sai d he di dn I t feel it was
fair to the applicants, since the Commissioners didn't have a chance to digest
the information.
Pl anni ng
dra fted.
meeting.
Director Leiter said it would be helpful to staff if a policy were
The Commission directed that a draft be brought back at the next
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-22-
January 24, 1990
Chai rman Tugenberg commented that the hei ght of RV or truck storage was
unreasonable.
Pl anning Di rector Leiter cl ari fi ed that staff was quoti ng 2' above the fence
line; however, staff would have accepted an 8' fence in this particular case
(referring to Broadway Equities) since it was an industrial-type use which
would have allowed up to a 10' height limit. They chose to install a 6'
fence, and in that case 4' above that was a si gnifi cant vi ew impact. There
were a number of units, also, that were higher than even the 10'.
Commissioner Fuller requested a report regarding electro-magnetic fields.
Planning Director Leiter answered it was a real issue and that some serious
evaluation was being done. Staff would give the Commission a status report.
Commissioner Fuller asked that the Commission reconsider the invitation by Mr.
Barkett. The Commission had previously voted to reply negatively to the
invitation. The Commissioners were not interested. Commissioner Fuller said
she would attend with the Volunteers of the Nature Center.
ADJOURNMENT at 9:40 p.m. to the Regular Meeting to be held February 14, 1990.
~ey,~~t
Planning Commission
WPC 7325P