Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/04/11 . . . . . Tape: 308 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, Apri 1 11, 1990 Council Chambers Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Fuller, and Grasser Cannon, COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioner Shipe Director of Planning Leiter, Principal Planners Lee and Pass, Associ ate Pl anner Herrera-A, Assistant Planner Barbara Reid, Contract Planner Robin Keightley, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rich Rudolf, Community Development Specialist Abbott, Planning Consultants Gray and Lettieri PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pl edge of all egi ance to the fl ag was 1 ed by Cha i rman Tugenberg and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Tugenberg reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of February 28 and March 14, 1990 MSUC (Carson/Fuller) 6-0 (Shipe absent) to approve the minutes of February 28, 1990, with a correction to page 8, paragraph 8, Commissioner "Carson" should be changed to Commissioner "Fuller." MSUC (Carson/Fuller) 4-0-2 (Commissioners Grasser and Cannon abstained; Commissioner Shipe absent) to approve the minutes of March 14, 1990, as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-K-M: CITY-INITIATED PROPOSAL TO REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MAIN STREET, RIOS AVENUE, THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS ADJACENT TO THE OTAY RIVER VALLEY, AND A LINE 310 FEET WEST OF DATE STREET FROM ITS CITY-ADOPTED COUNTY ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS TO CITY CLASSIFICATIONS UTILIZED THROUGHOUT CHULA VISTA PC /11 NUTES -2- April 11, 1990 THE PROPOSED REZONINGS ARE CONFI NED TO THE BRODERICK I S OTAY ACRES SUBCOMMUNITY OF MONTGOMERY, AND ARE GOVERNED BY THE MONTGOt1ERY SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 12, 1988, AND ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1988. SHORT FORM OF TITLE OF PROPOSAL: BRODERICK'S OTAY ACRES Planning Consultant Tony Lettieri stated this was the eighth area going through the City's Zoning Implementation Program for Montgomery. Using overhead projecti on, he i dentifi ed the area located south of Mai n Street between Main Street on the north and the Otay River on the south. He said the whole area comprised approximately 72 acres. He went on to say the entire area except for the Special Comprehensive Study Area is designated low/medium residential which is 3-6 dwelling units per acre. The area just south of that which is designated White1ands on the Montgomery Specific Plan is' the Otay River and is proposed for a special comprehensive study. Mr. Lettieri said the existing County zoning is RV15 which is 14-1/2 dwelling units per acre. Staff recommended the R-1-5-P zone (1 du/5,OOO sq. ft. with a precise plan modifying district). On March 7, 1990, the Montgomery Planning Committee considered this area and unanimously voted for the R-1-5-P zone. Mr. Lettieri said at that meeting, staff had originally recommended the R-2-P zone, but after hearing public testimony and some of the concerns regarding traffic and future development in the area, staff concurred with the Montgomery Planning Committee for the R-1-5-P zone after looking at the development capability. He listed the following reasons for staff's recommendation: 1. The Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in January 1988, and the recommended zone classifications were primarily proposed to implement that Specific Plan. The R-1-5-P zone directly implements the low/medium density designation of 3-6 du's per acre. 2. The rezonings proposed for the residential areas will continue to allow the same type of single-family and duplex developments that exist in the area. Of the 190 lots within the area, 148 (or 73%) of the lots are developed with single-family units. Twelve lots (or 13%) are developed with duplex units. 3. No changes were being recolll11ended for the Special Comprehensive Study Area, the IWhite1ands". This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. T. David Eyres, 3427 Bonita Woods Dr., Bonita 92002 (382 Palm Avenue and buyi ng 259/261 Date St.) sai d that as a property owner in the area under discussion, he was opposed to rezoning to R-1-5-P. He stated that at the March 7 meeting of the Montgomery Planning Committee, he was told City staff had recommended R-2-P, no change, and it was a shock to see that the issue was addressed as City-initiated. He wanted to know who had made that change. He continued to say that downzoning of the property would have substantial financial impact on him. . . . PC m NUTES -3- April 11, 1990 Mr. Eyres then read a letter from property owner Millie Chessman, 2633 Wi ndmil1 Vi ew, E1 Cajon, 92020, who owned property at 232 Pa 1 m Avenue. who urged the Commission not to down zone the property to R-1-5. Bill H. Harter, 1104 He1 ix, Chula Vista 92012, owner of property at 234-248 Date Street, said he had been assured by staff the zoning intended for this area was dupl ex zoni ng at the time he had contacted P1 anni ng regardi ng the specific plan. He said there had been a petition circulated then objecting to the hi gher density by a few peopl e, and they had come back with over 200 signatures from those 190 lots objecting to the single-family zoning, which was previously submitted to City Council. He disagreed with staff regarding the percentage of single-family housing. Mr. Harter said he agreed with the R-2-P zoni ng whi ch margi na lly gave a chance to make a profi t when tryi ng to make improvements to the neighborhood. He said the current requirements through the City require a substantial financial expenditure in order to do any development. By reducing the zoning to R-l, he said it made it prohibitively expensive. He said he had received a public informational meeting notice in the mail in January which said R-V-15 to R-2-P which was okay. He missed a meeting on March 7, and had not received notification of the current meeting. He had pi cked up a copy of the agenda packet from the Pl anni ng Department and found the area was to be zoned R-l-P. He was sure there would be more people objecting if they knew. He asked that the Planning Commi ss i on recons i der and go back to staff's ori gi na 1 recommendati on. He agreed with Mr. Eyres that there were very few lots that could even be developed. He went on to say the City was in dire need of affordable housing. Commissioner Cannon queried Consultant Lettieri regarding the change from R-2-P to R-1-5-P. Consultant Letti eri sa i d sta ff had a recommendati on of R-2-P at the Montgomery Planning Committee and, as stated in the staff presentation, testimony was received verbally at the meeting which made the Montgomery Pl anni ng Commi ttee recOlrmend that the R-1-5-P zone, not the R-2-P zone, be the actual recommendati on to the Pl anni ng Commi ss i on. He sai d that after heari ng the testimony and the comments from the Pl anni ng Commi ttee, staff amended their recommendation at that point. Commissioner Cannon asked what testimony specifically altered staff's opinion, and what comment did the Montgomery Committee make. Mr. Lettieri said that in 1985 before was annexed, the zone was RS-7 (single-family 6,000 sq. ft. minimum zone in the County). Just before annexation this area was changed to the R-V-15 zone (14-1/2 du's per acre). Commissioner Cannon asked how the area got all the non-conforming uses from the standpoint of having all the duplexes, or if they were all built since 1985. Consultant Lettieri turned to Principal Planner Pass who said the area was originally zoned R-l-A, then to the new County zoning on the eve of annexation. Prior to that, it was zoned R-S-6 and then RV15. He said the main methods under which they had gotten the higher density was through the shoestring subdivisions which characterize the area. He said it was almost PC t~I NUTES -4- April 11, 1990 completely subdivided except for 10% of the old .99 acre parcels. The uses would have come in through special consideration through the subdivision ann the application of their RS6 zone. Commissioner Cannon concluded that the County would allow a duplex instead of a single-family home through a variance, even though the zoning was for single-family zoning. Principal Planner Pass said he believed there was some administrative methodology by which that could be done, possibly a minor use permit rather than a variance. Commissioner Cannon asked if Mr. Pass was privy to the thinking of the County in 1985 in changing this to duplex zoning RV15. Mr. Pass said it was not recommended by the County staff, and he thought Mr. Harter wou1 d probably the most know1 edgeab1 e person to ask si nce he 1 ed the group that championed the higher densities. He said that staff had found throughout the areas substantial increases in density and zoning intensity on the eve of their departure from the County. Commissioner Cannon said that apparently staff was satisfied with the R-2-P zoni ng since it was recommended to the r~ontgomery P1 anni ng Committee. He wanted to know why it was recommended in the first place, and why the change in recommendation. Principal Planner Pass said staff had done a study of the area and it was found that under the Specific Plan, which is the General Plan of Montgomery, the low/medium density of 3-6 dwelling units per acre would be most appropriate under the land use pattern that exists. That allowed a high of 7.2 du's per net acre. He went on to explain the methodology used to allow a maximum of 12 du's per net acre, while the yield under the R-2-P would be about the same. Staff's recommendation was in order to protect the interest of the people and still scale the zoning down from 14.5 to 12 and get some open space and live within the Specific Plan that the R-2-P could be utilized. He said that even before it was recommended, at the forums that precede the heari ngs of the Montgomery P1 anni ng Committee and the P1 anni ng C0I1I11ission, people were coming in the office and asserting they did not want their areas to go duplex; that they wanted the chance once again to reassert the single-family dwelling characteristics of the area. Staff's recommendation was that they woul d continue with the R-2-P until they were sure that an appreciable amount of the owners and residents of the area wanted the R-1-5-P. At the forum and at the subsequent hearing before the Montgomery Planning Committee, that evidence was furnished. Several people with petitions came forward and asked for the R-l. Thi s persuaded the Montgomery Planning Committee to unanimously recommend to the Planning Commission the use of the R-1-5-P. Mr. Pass said that in staff's opinion, both the R-2-P and the R-1-5-P are consistent with the Specific Plan, but it was staff's opinion that the R-1-5-P was the superior mechanism. He said the net yield under the R-l is 6 du's per acre; under the R-1-5-P, 9 du's per acre (net yield); and under . . . PC ~mJUTES -5- April 11, 1990 the R-2-P, 12 du's per acre. The difference between the R-1-5-P and the R-2-P is 3 du's per acre. He went on to explain the differences between the requirements of the panhandle subdivisions (under which most subdivisions are being developed) serving duplexes and those serving single-family dwellings, and the resulting open space. Another reason for the recommendation for the R-1-5-P was because it is easier to get good developments and the decrease in density is about 3 du's per net acre. Jerry r~alies, 10 Sandpiper St., Coronado 92118, said he was a builder in San Di ego and offered to purchase one of the properti es. He had gone to the Planning Department and was under the impression there was a hearing coming up in March and the recOlrmendation was going to be R-2 on those properties. He said he had found out that wasn't the case after he had expended a great deal of time and money on the properties. He strongly recommended that the zoning remain R-2. Bonni e Goodman, 678 Th i rd Avenue, CV 92010 representi ng Century 21 May-West Real ty and the owners of 256 Palm Avenue. She stated that up until about March 14 she had this property in escrow with a very motivated buyer, Mr. Malies, who was planning to build duplexes. She sald it was through Mr. Malies' efforts they discovered there was proposed downzoning of the Broderick's Otay Acres. She said the area was in various stages of decline and decay, with a few fairly well maintained properties surrounded by partially vacant lots covered with junk cars, trash, etc. She said by dOlmzoning the area, the value of the property would decrease. She stated they were strongly opposed to the downzoning of the community and urged the Commission to allow the R-2-P zoning. Patrick Masi, 4001 Valley, Chula Vista 92011 stated the R-1-5-P was probably denser than the residents wanted to see. He said that upzoning the property would lower the property value for them. He noted that Mr. Mal ies, '1r. Eyres, nor Mr. Harter 1 i ved in Broderi ck 's Otay Acres and woul dn' t have to put up with the consequences of the dense zoni ng. He sai d the majority of the residences in the area were single-family, and they didn't want duplexes. He said that if the area was left alone, it would gradually build up. He noted the traffic count would go up when those places were filled with duplexes. He went on to discuss the drug dealing which had gone on in the area in years past, and which he thought would be starting up again. Arthur Pino, 336 Palomar, Chula Vista 92011, stated he had lived in the area since 1956 and had just recently built a home there. He said the area would increase in crime; there are drug dealers in the area who are working together, and the Police are manpower short. With densification, the area will become a slum. He said he was willing to compromise with the R-1-5-P, but the others who were against the downzoning coul d care 1 ess about what happens to the neighborhood. Commissioner Fuller asked if Mr. Pino was in attendance at the March 7 meeting of the Montgomery Planning Committee and if he spoke to them. He replied that he was and coul d concur that there was a majority of the speakers at that meeting who were in favor of the R-l rather than the R-1-5-P. PC MINUTES -6- April 11, 1990 Bertha Llamas, 211 Date Street, Chula Vista, said she had been a resident at 211 Date Street for 30 years and has invested money in her mother's property and divided the land into four parcels. She said she was against the downzoning and was in the process of dividing the front lot. Bill Harter requested a few minutes for rebuttal. Chairman Tugenberg allowed him to speak briefly. He said that prior to the County rezoning to R-V-15, it was RS-7, and that the majority of development took place before the RS-7 zoning, when it was not zoned. The County was out of compliance between their zoning and their community plan, so they held a hearing to recommend the R-l-A. At that hearing there were about six people who spoke against the R-l-A. The County then recommended the R-V-l5. He stated he was one of the 1 andl ords; he 1 i ved a mil e north in Chul a Vi sta; had 1 ived previ ously in Castle Park for over 10 years; and had been a part of Montgomery. He said he had recently evi cted a tenant because he thought they mi ght be i nvol ved in drugs. Chairman Tugenberg read a petition stating that the signatories were residents and homeowners of Broderi ck Acres and were petiti oni ng the Chul a Vi sta City Council to zone their area R-l to limit the destruction upzoning had caused in their neighborhood. The petition was signed by nine (9) people. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commi ss i oner Carson noted she di dn' t have the Montgomery Pl anning Committee minutes in her packet, and felt frustrated that she didn't have it in light of the controversy. Commissioner Fuller referred to the problems of old cars and blight in the area, and said that Code enforcement was being done in that area so that those kinds of problems would be taken care of in another way other than development. Principal Planner Pass concurred, and said that there is presently a nei ghborhood revital izati on program which woul d eventually cover every subcommunity in Montgomery. Commissioner Fuller said she was in concurrence with the recommendation that the Montgomery Planning Committee made regarding the area. The majority of the people who protested the annexation of the entire area were people who had supported that change to increase the zoni ng. She sai d she understood the emotion, but she also understood a lot of the concern the Montgomery Planning Committee had in trying to make the area revital ize itself and come back to life. She felt they should take into consideration the wishes of the majority who live and own property there, and that it should remain single-family dwell i ng. Commissioner Casillas asked if the people affected had notice of the change in the staff recommendation after going to the Montgomery Planning Committee. He suggested the item be 1 eft open for more peopl e who are impacted by the downzoning to have an opportunity to present their case. . . . PC MINUTES -7 - April 11, 1990 Chai rman Tugenberg asked if there was another noti ce sent out. r~r. Pass sai d it had been double-noticed and the people were not noticed the second time that it was being proposed R-1-5-P. Chairman Tugenberg recommended that the item be continued; Commissioner Cannon concurred. MSUC (Cannon/Carson) 4-2 (Tugenberg and Full er voted no; Shi pe absent) to continue the item for four weeks to May 9. ITE~I 2. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER SPA PLAN SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-89-11 AND ADDENDUM Assistant Planner Barbara Reid stated that during their consideration of the Draft EIR, the Planning Commission had asked for computer graphics showing grading contours at eye level. She then introduced Bud Gray, contract planner, who gave a brief presentation on the proposed grading. Commi ss i oner Cas i 11 as asked how the natural vegetati on woul d be integrated. Mr. Gray answered that it would be part of the master landscape plan that would be submitted which calls for extensive use of natural plant materials. Assistant Planner Barbara Reid continued by stating that the Planning Commission had conducted a public hearing for the Draft OTC SPA Plan Supplemental EIR for the 150-acre Olympic Training SPA on March 14. Comments had been received from the Planning Department of the City of San Diego and Katy Wri ght, Project r~anager at Eas tLake, as well as the comments from the Planning Commission on the grading. She directed the Commission's attention to the Response to Comments Section which deal t with the comments received. She noted there were changes made to the Final EIR as well. Ms. Reid stated that staff's recommendation was that the Planning Commission certify that the Fi nal Suppl emental and Addendum has been prepared in compl i ance wi th State CEQA gui del i nes and the envi ronmenta 1 revi ew procedures of the Ci ty of Chul a Vista and that the Commission adopt the recommended CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Commissioner Carson, referring to page 2 of the Mitigating Monitoring PrograM, asked how many people would comprise this committee. She was answered that it depended on what the actions were. and the City would hire consultants on an as-needed basis, paid for by the applicant. Conti nui ng on page 5, second paragraph from the bottom, Commi ssi oner Carson asked if "stop-work orders" coul d be gi ven as a preference. She was assured she could be given such a preference. On Page 3, third line, of the Candidate CEQA Findings, Water Supply, "upon full build-out the Olympic Training Center is expected to require approximately 0.65 million gallons of water per day of the Otay Water District ul timate water demand." She wanted staff to compare that to an equal area that would be using the same amount of water. PC MINUTES -8- April 11, 1990 On Page 9, regardi ng traffi c, Commi ss i oner Carson asked if Sunbow di dn I t go through, would OTC be required to take care of those items listed. The consultant answered that the measures were there to be looked at in case Sunbow didn't go through. Page 10, Part "C", Commissioner Carson suggested that the study area intersections should be monitored more frequently than "annually," perhaps every four to six months. Regarding the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Commissioner Carson referred to item 1 which stated the OTC would bring significant national and i nternati ona 1 recogniti on to the Ci ty. She noted it woul d bri ng presti ge to San Diego, not Chula Vista. In point 3, she referenced the word "incubator" and wanted that explained. Commissioner Carson asked how many permanent jobs would be created, #4. And what kind of businesses. She asked that the sal es revenue be compared to another area in the City she was familiar with. Staff deferred to the applicant for answers to some of the above questions. Dave Niel sen, representing the San Diego National Sports Training Foundation, answered the questions asked by Commissioner Carson, as follows: Regarding recognition for the City of Chula Vista, Mr. Nielsen said Chula Vi sta woul d be recogni zed as the home of the Olympi c Trai ni ng Center by the by-lines for stories that go out over the wires from events, conferences, and training activities. Regarding the fiscal impact, the best athletes in the world will be training in Chula Vista on a continuous basis with state of the art testing of those athletes. Companies interested in doing research and development products would be interested in locating here because of the activities taking place, in the areas of sports equipment, sports medicine, perhaps film production, etc. He suggested that the word "i ncubator" woul d i ndi cate that sports-rel ated businesses would be attracted and would choose to locate here instead of other places. Mr. Nielsen stated there would be a full-time paid staff of 125 people. The U. S. Olympic Committee felt it would cost them about $5 million a year to operate the facil ity, and much of the money woul d stay here in the local economy. Regarding sales tax revenue, the level of commercial activity would be increased because of the Center. . . . PC MINUTES -9- April 11,1990 Commissioner Casillas asked Mr. Nielsen about minority ownership or management of some of the commercial activities. Did they have an affirmative action plan? r~r. Ni e 1 sen answered they di d not have a defi ned plan, but woul d be look i ng into it and try to a fford every opportuni ty they coul d to 1 oca 1 minority owners. Chairman Tugenberg asked about the completion of 1-125 and the present status of permi ts issued for homes. Sta ff answered that 8,000 more uni ts coul d be built east of 1-805 before 1-125 had to go in a five to six year program. MSUC (Fuller/Casillas) 6-0 (Shipe absent) to certify that the Final Supplemental EIR and Addendum has been prepared in compl iance with CEQA, the State CEQA guidel ines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista and adopt the recommended CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-05; CONSIDERATION OF OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER (OTC) SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) AND PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN (PFFP); SAN DIEGO NATIONAL SPORTS TRAINING FOUNDATION Pl anni ng Consultant Bud Gray hi ghl i ghted where the properti es were located using overhead projection, and told where the various activities would take place. He said the first phase would involve a gymnasium to accommodate team handball and volleyball, in addition to soccer fields, field hockey, baseball, and other playing fields. He went on to explain other facilities that would be included in the first phase. Mr. Gray noted that Wueste Road would be considered a special road that would remain basically in its present configuration with two lanes of traffic, no curb, gutters or sidewalks but with the addition of an 8-foot graded shoulder for emergency parking. He said staff was recommending that a pedestrian jogging path, together with a concrete bike path, separate from the road and landscaped be included within the greenbelt area. He noted that the staff report answers some of the major issues of concern. He referred to the protection of Lower Otay Reservoir from any contaminants or runoff. The grading of the site drains toward Salt Creek away from Lower Otay Reservoir, except for a few small areas along Wueste Road. He stated staff wanted to make sure the City of San Diego, who owns the Lower Otay Reservoir, was satisfied with the conditions of approval which consist of an Urban Protection Run-Off Pl an for the entire Lower Otay Reservoir; the City of San Diego Water Utilities staff formula for assessing the value of "lost water," which will be applied to the project; and ongoing maintenance responsibility by the OTC. Regarding fire and police, the U.S. Olympic Committee would have their on-site fi re protecti on service, whi ch woul d be certifi ed by the Ci ty, and woul d require agreements. The police service would be handled in the same manner. Staff recommended that the SPA Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan he approved subject to the 27 conditions contained in the report. PC MINUTES -10- April 11, 1990 t~r. Gray referred to a letter received from the County the day of the meeting regarding the proposed use of roads in the unincorporated area for long distance bicycle usage, and the liability of the County. Through contact with the County, meetings will be scheduled to be held before the Council meeting regarding the SPA Plan to work out details. Mr. Gray noted there was an additional condition of approval regarding off-street parking. He brought the Commissioners' attention to minor changes in conditions no. 5, 9, 10, and 20. Commi ssi oner Cannon asked the Assi stant City Attorney if it woul d be more appropriate to require the OTC to hold the City harmless from any and all 1 i abil i ty that may accrue due to the fact that non-City personnel may have some probl ems that woul d cause a 1 awsui t to occur; woul dn' t it al so be appropri ate to have the OTC hol d the City harml ess from any sui ts ari si ng against the City of Chula Vista for failure to provide those services (Condition #20). Assistant Attorney Rudolf said that was addressed on page 9 of the report, under item 18. This being the time and place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Laurie McKinley, McKinley Group, 309 Laurel Street, San Diego 92101 asked for support of the Planning Commission for the Olympic Training Center. She introduced David Nielsen, the Executive Vice President of the Sports Training Foundation who provided history and some perspective on the center; Larry McCollum, the National Director of the Training Centers for the United States Olympic Committee who gave background in the training operations and how it fits in with the USOC; and Ken Wei sman, the Project Manager and Associ ate Partner with Skidmore, Owens & Merrill who discussed the planning and architectural philosophy on which the Center design was based. During his part of the organized presentation, Mr. McCollum referred to Mr. Gray's presentation and the usage of the word "special." He said a United States Olympic Training Center is clearly a very "special" place where dreams are not only born but many are fulfi 11 ed. He sai d the faci 1 iti es woul d be made available to community activities for young people and others in the community to have access and experience training opportunities at the facil ity. He presented the Commi ssi oner wi th pi ns beari ng the logo of the U.S. Olympic Training Center. Maura Grimes, 9995 Red Rock Ct., San Diego 92131, Olympic athlete competing in 1976 in the luge. She said they trained in makeshift facilities with no coaches and inferior equipment. She also stated she had been in Colorado Springs at the Olympic Training Center which was a converted army barrack and was ugly. Despite its being ugly, she had a great feeling having been a part of the Olympics. She encouraged the Commissioners to approve the plan. Jesse Valdez, 2290 Sherwood, Lemon Grove-an Olympic athlete in the 1964, 1968, and 1972 Olympics in boxing and a bronze medal winner. He emphasized the importance of the Olympi c Trai ni ng Center in the City for the chil dren who . . . PC MINUTES -11- April 11, 1990 need models. He said when he was growing up he was in a gang, but fortunately had inspiration to make something of himself. He said the Training Center wi 11 be an "i ncubator" for humans, devel opi ng them to represent our Country. Kelly Rickon, 3120 Goldsmith St., San Diego 92106, Director of the San Diego Olympians who works for the San Diego National Sports Training Foundation, and who won a silver medal in the 1984 Olympics. She said she was really excited and thankful to the City of Chula Vista for their help. Laura DeSnoo, 5885 El Cajon Blvd., SO 92115, a 1984 Olympian, works at Morris Hi gh School whi ch is a hi gh crime, hi gh drug, hi gh gang popul ati on __ not necessarily at the high school but in the area. She coaches track and field events and is an athletic trainer for their football team. She said she gets harassed when she doesn't wear her Olympic stuff, because as a security agent there said, she is a role model. Besides offering the young people role models, the Olympic Training Center will make part-time jobs available for young people. She urged support of the Training Center by the Commissioners. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) 6-0 (Shipe absent) that based on the findings attached to the staff report (Attachment l), recommend that the City Council approve the Olympic Training Center Sectional Planning Area Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the report. Commissioner Cannon corrmented that this was about the most exciting project they had done in the eight years he had been on the Commission, and he looked forward to its opening and having the athletes training in our community and participating in our community events. He said they were nothing but a positive role model for Chula Vista. Chai rman Tugenberg sa i d he was thrill ed to have the chance to vote on thi s, and he coul dn' t see anythi ng but a pos i ti ve effect on our community, Chul a Vista. At 8:35 p.m., Chairman Tugenberg declared a break, with the Commission returning at 8:45 p.m. ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-90-09; REQUEST TO INCREASE FLOOR AREA RATIO AND REDUCTION OF SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS AT 688 GARRETT STREET - Richard Zogob Principal Planner Lee explained that applicant had a 7,000 sq. ft. lot located on the west side of Garrett with adjacent land uses being single-family homes. Using overhead projection, he gave an overview of the proposed construction, which added approximately 1100 sq. ft. on the second floor and provided a stairwell which would encroach approximately 6 ft. into the sideyard on the north property line. The extent of the proposed addition necessitated a variance request to encroach into the sideyard setback, as well as a request to increase the allowable floor area ratio from .45 to .55. The PC MINUTES -12- April 11, 1990 inclusion of the .45 FAR which the City now utilizes 9ives a maximum building area of 3150 sq. ft. on a typical 7,000 sq. ft. lot. Mr. Lee went on to explain that Mr. Zogob is within 65 sq. ft. of reaching the maximum square footage on the first floor, and, therefore, would be allowed approximately 415 sq. ft. in total floor space to reach the City's FAR of .45. The request is to allow approximately 1130 sq. ft. to his existing house. The companion request to allow one corner of the house to encroach 6' into the required 10' sideyard, Mr. Lee reported, is not as significant since the existing portions of the house are already located within 5 of the property line. The nearest dwell i ng is 20' from the property 1 i ne. Staff's recommendati on was to deny the request. Planning had received one letter of protest from the owner of 673 Fourth Avenue, which is not in the immediate vicinity. This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Richard Zogob, 688 Garrett Avenue, Chu1a Vista, 92010 said his request was not out of necessity, but was because he wanted to stay in the same neighborhood he had lived in for 26 years. He said he had a choice as to where he wanted to live and wanted to stay in Chu1a Vista. Mr. Zogob said he had contacted hi s nei ghbors and had concurrence by them. He requested the vari ance be approved. Pat Barajas, 375 "J" Street, Chu1a Vista - a neighbor of Mr. Zogob, said he couldn't ask for a better neighbor. He urged that the Commission approve the request. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Casillas stated it was a beautiful home and the plan was beautiful. He asked staff if they had tried to compromise. Mr. Lee said the applicant was free to add a little over 400 sq. ft. to the house to come up to the allowance in the Code. Beyond that, staff has no authorization. Commissioner Cannon said he thought that was one of the nicest comp1 iments from a neighbor he had ever heard, and knew Mr. Zogob appreciated it. Mr. Cannon went on to explain that the Commission had to make certain findings in order to pass a vari ance request, and in thi s case cou1 dn' t back up the findings necessary to allow for that size of development; and it does set a precedent. MSUC (Cannon/Carson) 6-0 (Shipe absent) to deny ZAV-90-09. ITEM 5: WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Community Development Specialist Lance Abbott explained this was an information session for the Planning Commission. He went on to explain the process of the selection of the areas to be redeveloped, the goals for the redevelopment plan, and tax increment financing. Chairman Tugenberg asked if the Agency took the revenues and put it back into the community it came from to improve the streets ... . . . . . PC MINUTES -13- April 11, 1990 Mr. Abbott answered that by law the money had to be spent within the project ar~a and could not be spent outside. The exception to that is that 20% of all the revenues generated by the project have to be spent for the improvement or increase in the stock of low and moderate income housing. Those revenues can be spent outside the project area if that's necessary. Eighty (80%) percent of the revenues do have to be spent directly in the project area. After a short di scussi on regarding revenues, presentation over to Susan Griffin from RSG, Inc. who implementing one of the redevelopment areas. At the conclusion of Ms. Griffin's presentation, Community Development Specialist Abbott pointed out the redevelopment areas, and the Commissioners discussed some of the areas to be excluded. Mr. Abbott turned the discussed the process of DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Leiter reminded the Commissioners of a dinner workshop to be held on May 18, 1990. Dinner would be at Jake's Restaurant. COMMISSION COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 10:45 p.m to the Study Session Meeting of April 18, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3. 1~ ~<~ /,~ {I"~ Nan y Ri ey, ecr,J!tary Planning Commission WPC 7747P