Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/02/28 . . . ". f \ Tape: 307 Si de: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, February 28, 1990 Council Chambers Public Services Building ROLL CALL CO~~ISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Casillas, Fuller, and Grasser COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Shipe - with notification STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Leiter, Principal Planners Lee and Pass, Associ ate Pl anner Herrera-A, Environmental Coordinator Doug Reid, Assistant Planner Barbara Reid, Contract Planner Robin Keightley, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Traffic Engineer Rosenberg, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf, Planning Consultant Lettieri 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 RE~~RKS Chai rman Tugenberg revi ewed the compositi on of the Pl anni ng Commi ssi on, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of January 17, 1990 MSUC (Full er/Carson) 5-0-1 (Grasser abstai ned; Shi pe absent) to approve the minutes of January 17, 1990, as mailed. ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-J: CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 0.10 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 800 FT. EAST OF PASEO DEL REY, FROM R-l-P-4 TO C-O-P - Tel egraph Canyon Office Partnership Principal Planner Lee asked that Item 1 be filed, since that property was already zoned commercial and the developer had been contacted, and that PCS-90-0S be continued to March 14, 1990. MSUC (Casi 11 as/Cannon) 6-0 (Shipe absent) to fi 1 ePCZ-90-J and to conti nue PCS-90-0S to r~arch 14, 1990. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- February 28, 1990 ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-0S: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION ~mp FOR VILLA DEL REY CONDOMINIUMS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-05, LOCATED AT 1190-1192 FIFTH AVENUE - John and Yolanda Po110rena (Above motion included this item.) ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-90-07: REQUEST TO CONSIDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN P1 anni ng Consultant Tony Lettieri gave an overvi ew of the Growth Management Element focusing on the policies and action programs. Mr. Lettieri stated the Growth Management Element was the second portion of the entire General Plan. Update. The Growth Management Element was not included in that update and should be inserted in the General Plan itself. Approximately a year ago, the Council authorized the preparation of the Growth Management E1 ement and indi cated in an Issues Report that there were two spec Hi c areas that the Counci 1 wanted to have addressed more than others in that Element including a Public Facilities Based Program and Planning and Environmental Standards. Si x spec Hi c issues were focused i nc1 udi ng: Pub1 i c Faci1 iti es and Services, Healthy Economy, Affordab1 e Housing, Communi ty Character and Identity, Open Space and Natural Resources, and Regional Growth Management. From this was developed a generic quality of life goal rather than stating a series of goals for growth management to direct and coordinate growth and development policies in ways that may not just maintain but consistently endeavor to improve the quality of life for current and future residents. f4r. Lettieri said staff had attempted, under Public Facilities and Services, to gear the pol icies to the Phase II Program that was authorized by the Council. Not mentioned in the Phase II Program was the development of a City water plan in conjunction with the San Diego County Water Authority. Under the policy area "Healthy Economy," Mr. Lettieri said there was good reason to pay much attention to the area east of I-80S, but the City has to maintain and enhance growth and development between the Bayfront and I-80S, speci fically Central Chu1 a Vi sta, Montgomery, and the Bayfront. The Ci ty should actively pursue revita1 ization programs in those areas to enhance the quality of life of people who live in those communities. He said there should be conducted a periodic economic assessment for the City as a whole to make sure that not only portions of the City are functioning well, but that the entire City can function effectively on an economic level. Under "Local and Regional Fair Share Housing Needs," Mr. Lettieri discussed private development, master p1 anned communiti es reserve, and housing for low and moderate income individuals and families. ii' . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- February 28, 1990 Pol icy area "Community Character and' Identity" was focused on master planned communities: 1) that architectural landscaped design standards be developed and pursued to preserve significant natural features consistent with the General Plan and environmental resources while providing a sense of place within that development; 2) that the City begin to implement the Greenbelt concept which has been defined in the General Plan, but that it be defined and implemented in the Master Plan development since most of the Eastern Territories are owned by a few property owners rather than many and there is an opportunity there; and that the City develop a Pub 1 i c Faci 1 iti es Pl an and Financing Program for the construction and upgrading of public facilities not only east of I-80S, but also west of I-80S. "Open Space and Natural Resources" - Mr. Letti eri sai done recommendati on was that large-scale master planned communities, in addition to showing the relationship between open space and development, be required to prepare a comprehensive resource conservation plan so not only will open space be maintained, but that open space could be monitored. If there is a flnancial need, that coul d al so be an i ngredi ent in the proj ect impl ementati on for either maintenance or preservation. He also said there should be an allocated porti on of Communi ty Development Block Grant money for development of parks and recreati on facil iti es in the urban area in additi on to the area east of I-80S. . "Regional Growth Management" - Mr. Lettieri stated the City should support establ ishment of a regionally represented body to oversee regional planning and parti ci pate in the Regi onal Growth Management Revi ew Board at the County level; support regional efforts through SANDAG to develop a Transportation Demand Management Program which could be superseded by Proposition 111 on the June ballot; and expand use of Memorandums of Understanding in joint planning efforts such as the Otay Ranch in the Chula Vista Planning Area. . Mr. Lettieri then summarized the five action program areas. Under "Regional Growth Management" he focused on the following: Series 7 Forecast _ continue to endorse the 5-year popul ati on growth' proj ecti on based on Seri es 7, whi ch Mr. Letti eri bel i eved coul d be more effecti ve if done on a communi ty-wi de basis and possibly implemented in the Phase II Growth Management Program with SANDAG assistance. The Series 7 projections could be utilized for both short- and long-term pl anni ng for growth and publ i c faci 1 ity requi rements in thei r phasing. Under "Pub 1 i c Faci 1 i ti es and Servi ces," Mr. Letti eri recommended that Part II of the Growth Management Program be completed, consisting of data collection, infrastructure inventory and phasing analysis, financing and program implementation. That included refining the Transportation Phasing Plan, the TPP, and the development of a permanent development impact fee program. Mr. Lettieri recommended that the Growth Management Oversight Committee develop measurable techniques to assess the City's performance in the areas of affordable housing, open space resources, regional growth management and phasing of development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- February 28, 1990 The major recommendation under "Resource Protection Pol icy" was to prepare a resource protecti on pol icy, as recently adopted by ordi nance by the City and County of San Diego. Regarding the action program deal ing with "Water," Mr. Lettieri recommended that the City aggressively take the leadership position in preparing a plan in conjunction with the I~ater Authority, the County, the City, and Otay and Sweetwater that would ensure the adequate provision of water facilities within the planning area. Commissioner Carson asked how many loans had been issued or had been requested for the Community Housing Improvement Program in the Montgomery Area through the revitalization. Planning Director Leiter answered that he would check with Community Development and report back. In answer to Chairman Tugenberg's query, Mr. Lettieri said there had been no change in the Growth Management Element since the joint meeting with the City Council. Planning Director Leiter added that the Growth Management Oversight Committee had reviewed the Element at their last meeting, and the one additional suggestion they had made was that they felt it was important in monitoring impacts on schools to look not only at the Eastern Territory but also the Central Chul a Vi sta Area, and recommended that that be emphasi zed in the policy regarding the school thresholds. Staff would carry that forward to the Ci ty Counci 1. Thi s bei ng the time and the p1 ace adverti sed, the pub1 i c heari ng was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Fuller/Tugenberg) 6-0 (Shipe absent) that based on the Initial Study, IS-90-31, find that the project will have' no significant impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on the Initial Study. MSUC (Fuller/Casillas) 6-0 (Shipe absent) to recommend that the City Council adopt the Draft Growth Management Element, of the Chula Vista General Plan, dated November 17, 1989. ITEM 4. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-89-4M WITH ADDENDUM Assistant Planner Barbara Reid stated the Draft EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on July 12, 1989. On July 19 and August 2, the Montgomery P1 anning Committee pub1 ic1y reviewed the environmental document and sent it back to staff for revisions and responses to their concerns. The 110ntgomery Planning Committee at their January 31, 1990 meeting voted 5-2 to recommend that the Final EIR be certified in compliance with CEQA. Ms. Reid asked that wi thi n the context of thei r consi derati on of the General P1 an Amendment that the Planning Commission pass a resolution that they had "considered" EIR-89-4t1 and its Addendum during the review of the project. : r . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- February 28, 1990 This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Charles Gill, 600 "B" Street, Suite 1100, San Diego, representing Pacific Scene, concurred with the process the ErR has gone through, and commented it had been a learning process for the applicant, for City staff, and for Montgomery. Since there had been a considerable length of time since the Planning Commission had last seen the EIR he thought it was good to have had the two weeks to refresh the applicant's memory, as well as the Commission's. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made on this item following the presentation of GPA-88-2t1. ITEM 5. GPA-88-2M, REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDME~IT FOR 12.22 ACRES FROM INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL USE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEASTERL Y QUADRANT OF AN UNNAMED STREET AND PALOMAR STREET _ Pacific Scene Development (continued from 2/14/90) Principal Pl anner Pass presented a synoptic report with the recommendation that the Commission adopt a motion to deny GPA-88-2M. He stated the rationale for their recommendation was that the proposed amendment would increase Montgomery's land use and balance. Montgomery has about four times the commercial zone at the present as is recommended by city planners and city planning writers. Mr. Pass stated that commercial overzoning produces both commercial center redundancy and antiquation from which the community is a 1 ready sufferi ng. The Montgomery commerci al areas and strips refl ect the decline which is associated with commercial overzoning, the symptoms being poor tenant mixes, poor land management, and poor townscape planning. Principal Planner Pass said the Montgomery Specific Plan prescribes a balanced urban settlement of residential, recreational, institutional, commercial and i ndustri a 1 uses. The proposed amendment woul d adversely affect that bal ance and coul d set a precedent whi ch woul d pl ace the order and amenity of the settlement in substantial jeopardy. He stated the proposed project called for the development of four fast-food restaurant sites along the frontage of the property; Montgomery is gl utted wi th fast-food restaurants and its further growth picture did not support the substantial increase in number. Regarding large retail service centers, approaching 10 acres, in lieu of those exi sti ng in Montgomery, Mr. Pass sai d the communi ty' s 25,000 resi dents were currently served well by five medium-sized centers with an aggregate area of 45 acres. The cost-benefit ratio assumes that the 12.22 acre parcel if it remained industrial could not be used for some retail uses. Mr. Pass did not agree with that assumption, stating it could accommodate through the conditional use permit process retail distribution centers, manufacturer's outlets, mass sales, department and specialty stores, as well as farmers markets, and furniture stores. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- February 28, 1990 Principal Planner Pass said it was staff's conclusion that the proposed amendment would increase the overcommercialization and commercial center redundancy of the Montgomery Community and would refute the planned industrialization of South Chula Vista. He stated it would also constitute a precedent for the commercialization of other industrial lands in Montgomery. r~r. Pass concl uded that the proposed general the Montgomery's community's townscape planning. Commi ssi oner Casill as asked if a percentage of the 1 and coul d be used for commercial, even if the land was zoned industrial. Mr. Pass answered there was no specific percentage under the City's ordinance. Much of it could be developed to a commercial,. but not the type of commercial found in the City's retail strips. He distributed to the Commissioners a 1 ist of the uses that could be established there. amendment woul d adversely affect in order, pl easantness, and overall Chairman Tugenberg queried Mr. Pass as to the location of the SDG&E easement, which Mr. Pass pointed out was at the southern boundary of the property which separated it from the rest of the industrial area. This being the time and the place, the public hearing was opened. Lee Wheeland, 1630 Walnut Drive, Chula Vista 92011, Chairman of the Montgomery Planning Committee, focused on the traffic problem in the area of Palomar between I -5 and Broadway/Orange Avenue. She di sagreed wi th the concept of making Broadway a six-lane street and the relocation of the traffic signal now located at the trolley station. She said Montgomery didn't need the froblems that would come as a result of the proposed rezone. More commercial and was not needed, nor were fast food places and massive traffic problems. She concluded that the Montgomery area needed to keep a balanced urban settlement, and asked the support of the Montgomery Planning Committee's denial. Charles Gill, 600 "B" Street, Suite 1100, San Diego, representing Pacific Scene, said the issue before the Commission was the change in General Plan designation. He noted the specifics as to the development of the site would be a requirement of either a site plan or further review by design review. He stated the environmental impact report determined there woul d be no si gni fi cant envi ronmenta1 effect based on. soci a 1 economi c impacts. He believed the site was unique to Montgomery because of its size and dimensions, and the buil dings being proposed by Pacific Scene were of the type that couldn't physically locate in strip commercial. Mr. Gill also said the ErR i dentifi es that there are no si gnifi cant adverse envi ronmental impacts whi ch cou1 d not be mi ti gated, and the project woul d have si gnifi cant on-site and off-site traffic improvement requirements. Rich Miller, Project Design Consultants, 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 2100, San Diego, 92101, representing Paci'fic Scene, stated the EIR, which had been prepared for the City by an independent consultant, concluded that the project would not cause extended periods of vacancy and would not lead to the -,1. 01 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- February 28, 1990 neighborhood blight. He discussed' the positive aspects of the proposed project which, instead of causing community deterioration, could increase the importance of the Palomar/Broadway area lis a commercial node or shopping area. Mr. Miller said the type of uses that go into planned centers, such as the proposed project, are different from strip commercial since national companies would go into the planned centers but would not go into strip centers. In terms of compatibility, Mr. Miller stated this would be a gateway into the Montgomery area and wou1 d be better used as a commerci a1 center, taking advantage of the link with the trolley stop. Mr. Miller's conclusion was that the project would not create substantial economic problems and physical deterioration of Montgomery, and that it was an appropriate land use. Jim Moxham, 3900 Harney Street, San Diego, representing Pacific Scene, said Montgomery was opposed to the plan amendment with a narrow margin of 4-3. Mr. Moxham said the EIR stated that in a retail district with over 1.6 million square feet of occupied space, the area has been undersupp1 ied with grocery and drug stores. He asked the Commi ssion' s support of the project and the opportunity to bring the project to completion. Commissioner Carson asked for clarification as to the type of store Mega Foods was (one of the national companies to be in the project). Mr. Moxham replied it was a cross between a do-it-yourself and a full service store, similar to an Advantage store but on a smaller scale. Chairman Tugenberg asked that Mr. Moxham show the Commission and the attendees the renderings of the center, which included a site plan and an elevation map. Nancy Palmer, 971 Fourth Avenue, Chu1a Vista 92011, representing the Montgomery Planning Committee, said the conclusions drawn in the EIR were ill ogi cal, contradi ctory, and suspect. Ms. Palmer remi nded the Commi ssi on that by many of today's parameters, Montgomery may be seen as having developed in less than a desirable manner, but historically r.10ntgomery has exhibited a rare amount of stability and vitality, part of which could be directly attributed to the interrelatedness and sustainabi1ity of its commercial community. She requested the Commission sustain the vote of the Montgomery Planning Committee and adopt the motion to deny. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Fuller asked that staff review some of the planned proposals for the improvements of the traffic there if there was no project at all. Traffi c Engi neer Hal Rosenberg responded there woul d be improvements to I-5 and Palomar. In fact, staff is presently working with CalTrans to provide traffic signals at the ramp connection to that interchange and to prepare a project study report to determine what the ul timate configuration of the interchange should be to serve ultimate traffic. Staff is also requiring as a condition of development, for properties that are developing in the area, improvements of Broadway and Palomar. A site on the northeast corner in the process of developing will be required to provide dedication of approximately 13 ft., and widening of Palomar to provide better operating service in the area between Broadway and Orange intersection. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- February 28, 1990 Mr. Rosenberg conti nued by describi ng a project staff is recommending for approval by Ci ty Counci 1 whi ch woul d i ncl ude improvements of Broadway from Main Street north to around "L" Street. Thi s project woul d repair the roadway in a section which is four lanes and would provide for. improvements including a widening at other sections where the road does not have a left-turn lane in the center. Commi ssi oner Full er asked staff about the objecti ons of MTDB regarding the change from industrial to commercial. Principal Planner Pass answered that ~ITDB's protest was that the type of uses woul d not promote or foster the use of mass transi t. If it were devoted to office use or industrial use, or a combination of uses including industrial and office, people would take the MTDB line to their place of business. With commercial, people would not normally travel MTDB. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) 6-0 (Shipe absent) to certify EIR-B9-4M, with the Addendum. MS (Cannon/Fuller) to deny GPA-88-2M. Commissioner Cannon stated he felt staff's report was well thought out and that it was well presented; the ideas and comments in the report were appropriate and to the point on that particular project. He said the area was full of commercial, just like the commercial Pacific Scene was proposing. The traffic would not be improved by a commercial usage, only by a lesser intensive use. The proposed project would be a high-traffic density and should not be approved for that area. Commissioner Cannon said he thoroughly supported Montgomery Pl anni ng Committee's vote on that issue, and that their vote was not a "close call." Commissioner Casillas said he believed a denial of the project would send a message that the Ci ty is seri ous about. adheri ng to some of the promi ses that were made to the resi dents of Montgomery that there woul d be good-fai th efforts made to clean up the many years of neglect on the part of the County. He also complimented staff on their report. Commi ssi oner Carson concurred and sai d future reports on city-wi de economi c assessments should be patterned after the report. Commissioner Carson agreed with the developer that this should be a gateway to Montgomery; she would like to see it not be a Research-Limited Industrial, Office Industrial, or anything except to use some grant money and make it a nice area for a park or green space. Chairman Tugenberg said he wasn't really concerned with the antiquation of the strip commercial presently in Montgomery by erecting additional commercial, even though he felt there was ample commercial existing in the area. He agreed that the traffic was horrendous in that area, but the City of Chula Vista and the Montgomery Community had a golden opportunity to facilitate the ,r. . I . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9- February 28, 1990 reduction of automobile traffic generally in California and, specifically, in Chu1 a Vi sta. He wou1 d 1 i ke to see the property used as a mi xed use or multiple use, but stressing high-rise re~identia1 adjacent to the trolley facility, to bring residential down to the trolley station. VOTE ON MOTION - 6-0 (Shipe absent) to deny GPA-88-2M. ITEM 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-J-M: REQUEST TO REZONE 12.22 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY QUAORANT OF AN UNNAMED STREET AND PALOMAR STREET FROM THE CITY ADOPTED COUNTY "M-52" ZONE (LHlITED INDUSTRIAL) TO "C-C" (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) - Pacific Scene Development (continued from 2/14/90) Assistant Planner Barbara Reid said that since the Commission voted to deny the General Plan Amendment, staff recommended that the Commission deny the rezoning to C-C-P on the basis that such zoning would be inconsistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan designation of "Research & Limited Industrial." This being the time and the place advertised, the pub1 ic hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Fuller/Carson) 6-0 (Shipe absent) to deny the rezoning to C-C-P on the basis that such zoning would be inconsistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan designation of "Research & Limited Industrial" referring to PCZ-88-J-M. DIRECTOR'S REPORT P1 anning Di rector Lei ter stated there was a workshop meeti ng schedu1 ed for March 21 and asked if the Commission had any specific topics they would 1 ike to discuss. He said they could be given updates on four major projects including Otay Ranch, auto park, Bayfront, and Olympic Training Center, but wou1 d 1 i ke to know if there were any other issues or projects on whi ch they would like updates. . Commissioner Casillas asked if that was the date the Planning Institute began. Commi ssi oner Grasser sai d she wou1 d be out of town. I twas deci ded the workshop would be rescheduled. Chairman Tugenberg asked for an updated schedule of meetings for the next couple of months. cm1MI SSI ON CO~1MENTS - None ADJOURNr~ENT AT 8:30 p.m. to the Regular Business r~eeting of March 14, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. '_/__C_-.1- -) c / --- ':---~~,,>.-~: ..,....-.- ~ \.-1:.';"1r-r__ ,___"'r-" ~ _ ~-__$ ,;J Nancy Rl p I ey, Secretary, / Planning Commission WPC 7363P