Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/09/26 , > '. . Tape: 313 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Wednesday. SeDtember 26. 1990 Council Chambers Public Services Buildinq ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Cha i r Grasser Horton, Cartmi 11 , Cas ill as, Tugenberg Commi ss i oners Carson, Decker, Fuller, and Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: None The pledge of all egi ance to the fl ag was I ed by Chair Grasser Horton and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Grasser Horton reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of July 11, July 25 and August 22, 1990 MSC (Carson/Fuller) 5-0-2 (Commissioners Cartmill and Decker abstained) to approve the minutes of July 11, 1990. MSC (Carson/Fuller) 4-0-3 (Commissioners Cartmill, Decker and Horton abstained) to approve the minutes of July 25, 1990. MSC (Fuller/Casillas) 5-0-2 (Commissioners Carson and Cartmill abstained) to approve the minutes of August 22, 1990. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None . ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-9I-B: REQUEST TO REZONE 0.15 ACRES LOCATED AT 245 "E" STREET TO C-O - David F. Wilson and Ronald D. Cox (continued from 9-12-90) MINUTES -2- September 26. 1990 Commissioner Fuller asked to be excused because of a conflict of interest. Assistant Planning Director Lee gave the background of the project and stated that the request had been continued from the last meeting with the direction that staff return with findings and any suggested conditions for the Commi ssion' s consideration to approve the project. Staff recommended that should the Planning Commission desire to approve the project, the "Po modifying district be attached to the property and the guidelines listed in the staff report be considered, including a consolidation of the three lots involved. Mr. Lee noted the applicant was concerned over the requirement of the coordinated landscaping plan; staff had revisited the site and had the City's Landscape Division review the proposal. He stated staff was not looking for an image of the landscaping occurring immediately to the west, but a coordinated effort between the two plans. He discussed the limitations as to future building on the site, setback, and FAR. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bud Wilson, 249 "E" Street, Chula Vista, the applicant, stated he was agreeable to coordinate egress and ingress, and to making certain the plan was coordinated and the parcel would not be sold independently. He also was agreeable to not building a two-story building on the property. He stated he was agreeable to the 15' setbacks, and the "Po modifying district, but didn't understand the necess ity of the FAR. Mr. Wi 1 son said he was concerned with the landscaping plan, with the coordination, and landscaping down the side and across the back brick wall to be installed. He was al so concerned with the sewer hook-up fee which the Engineering Department was imposing. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Tugenberg/Casillas) that based on the Findings in Attachment #1 and the Cond it ions and Reasons as stated in the staff report, that the Commi ss i on recommend that the City Council approve rezone PCZ-91-B from R-l to CoO-Po Assistant Planning Director Lee, responding to Mr. Wilson's concern, stated staff would have no objection to the Commission modifying Condition #4 to read "landscape element" instead of "landscape buffer." Staff would work with the applicant and the City Landscape Architect to develop a program. Commissioner Cartmill asked if that could be added to the motion. Upon Cha i r Grasser Horton's query, both the maker and second to the mot i on concurred. MOTION RESTATED: MSUC (Tugenberg/Casillas) 6-0 (Commissioner Fuller had left the dais because of a conflict of interest) that based on the Findings in Attachment #1 and the Condit ions and Reasons as stated in the staff report, that the Commi ss i on recommend that the City Council approve rezone PCZ-91-B from R-l to C-O-P, with a modi fi cat i on of Condit ion #4 from "1 andscape buffer" to "1 andscape element." . MINUTES -3- September 26. 1990 ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-P-M: CITY-INITIATED PROPOSAL TO REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MAIN STREET TO THE NORTH, THE SOUTHERN CITY BOUNDARY TO THE SOUTH, A LINE APPROXIMATELY 310 FEET WEST OF DATE STREET TO THE EAST, AND FOURTH AVENUE TO THE WEST FROM THEIR CITY-ADOPTED COUNTY ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS TO CITY CLASSIFICATIONS UTILIZED THROUGHOUT CHULA VISTA Cant ract PI anner Lett i eri, us i ng Exhi bit A, i nd i cated the areas recommended for rezon i ng. He noted the proposed zone amendments i nc I uded rezon i ng from County zones M52, M54, and M58 to City I-L-P zoning which was consistent with the goals and intent of the Montgomery Specific Plan of preserving the area as a corridor for research and light industrial. Staff proposed no change in the special study area zoned A70 because of the special study area designation. Mr. Lettieri stated that the Montgomery Planning Committee had reviewed staff recommendations on August 1, and unanimously recommended those depicted on Exhibit A. Commissioner Fuller asked if the 24 months allowed for the phasing out of the non-conforming scrap and open storage was started at the time the Commission effected the change, or when would the time start. . Mr. Lettieri answered it would be 24 months from City Council action. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Maria Montion, 8214 Water View Court, Spring Valley, speaking for her mother and father-in-law who live at 230 Zenith, was concerned with what would happen to the people who I ive in the area. Mrs. Montion was assured this rezoning would not affect the area in question. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Fuller/Carson) 7-0 that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-BB-4M and IS-88-65M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. MSUC (Fuller/Carson) 7-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A". ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-B9-B, MID-BAYFRONT LCP RESUBMITTAL #8 AMENDMENT . Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that substantial written testimony had been received regarding the EIR and would be responded to in the final document. Staff had recently become aware of a press conference whi ch had been held the previous day in which Chula Vista Investors presented a modified plan in accordance with the data sheet provided to the Commissioners. Mr. Lee MINUTES -4- September 26. 1990 stated the modified plan had not been included or evaluated in the EIR document; however, based on the data provided, the project impacts appeared to be approximately at mid-point between the proposed project submitted by Chula Vista Investors and Alternate 3 which was in the EIR document. Mr. Lee then introduced Principal Community Development Specialist Robin Putnam. Ms. Putnam commented that in lieu of directing staff to prepare a final EIR at the close of the pub 1 i c heari ng, staff woul d request that the Commi ss i on direct them to review proposed project changes and come back to the Planning Commission with an evaluation of whether the existing Draft EIR is adequate to address the impacts of the project as changed. Ms. Putnam stated the economic analysis had not yet been received from the economic consultant but the draft copy was expected to be received during that week. Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam reported that at their meeting of September 20, 1990, the Parks & Recreation Commission requested that the Chul a Vi sta 2000 Bayfront Subcommittee recommendations be forwarded to the Planning Commission. In summary, the Subcommittee recommended that the area at the foot of "F" Street which is now property owned by the Redevelopment Agency--the Shangri -La and the Rayne Water PI ant- -be set aside as public parks. In addition, the Parks & Recreation Commission requested that their concerns regarding the need to 1 imit surface parking within the bayfront park be relayed to the PI anni ng Commi ss i on. The purpose of that would be to avoid using valuable bayfront park land for parking purposes. The Resource Conservat ion Commi ss i on met on September 24, 1990, and recommended that the Draft EIR on the proposed LCP resubmittal is adequate. Ms. Putnam introduced Ms. Diana Richardson from Keller Environmental who presented an overview of the draft EIR on the LCP resubmittal. Ms. Richardson noted the EIR evaluated the proposed resubmittal project, six on-site alternatives, and the ultimate development that would be allowed by each alternative, as well as six off-site alternatives. The proposed project is the resubmittal of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). She noted two major changes woul d occur with approval of the proposed project: I) all City plans for the "0" Street fill in Gunpowder Point would be redesignated to open space; 2) the Mid-Bayfront Subarea would be changed to permit a variety of new of more intensive uses than the current LCP allows. Ms. Richardson noted the proposed land uses and project plan. She stated the proposed project would require approximately 20 years for construction from 1991 to the year 2011, with a five-phase program. Ms. Richardson then compared the alternatives, the land uses, and the impacts. Ms. Richardson stated that the analysis indicated that of the proposed project and each of the alternatives analyzed, alternative 7 had the least number of unmitigable significant environmental impacts and was considered the environmentally preferred alternative. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there was going to be an economic analysis of each of the alternatives. Community Development Special ist Putnam answered that there would be with the exception of alternatives 3 and 4 which were very . MINUTES -5- September 26, 1990 similar to one another. They would only be analyzing one of those, since they both have the same number of units and the same amount of square footage of commercial uses. Commissioner Tugenberg asked for alternatives in case the altering of the geometries at the bridge on "E" Street and Highway 5 was insufficient to mitigate the traffic. Ms. Putnam answered that modifications to the bridge were not analyzed in the traffic study which had been done, and if modifications to the bridge were decided to be necessary at a later date by the City, the City would fund those modifications. Upon Commissioner Tugenberg's query, Ms. Putnam answered it was a CalTrans bridge. Commissioner Casillas asked for an explanation of "quasi public Assistant Planning Director Lee answered that typically areas which to the publ ic in general but not necessarily under publ ic ownership "quasi public." If a park is dedicated and under the City's control, be considered a public park. parks." are open woul d be it would Commissioner Casillas wanted to know where in the planning process that would be covered, so the citizens of Chula Vista would know what they would be entitled to use. Assistant Planning Director answered it would be in the plan itself and development agreement. . Commi ss i oner Decker asked if the EastLake 1 ake was pub 1 i c or quas i pub 1 i c. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered it was closer to private since it was open only to members of that community. Commissioner Decker was concerned with how to mitigate on-site flooding. Ms. Richardson noted the calculations used were not the City's required calculations for run-off, but the difference would not change the conclusions. Commissroner Fuller was curious as to why a more in-depth study was not done regarding direct intake of water from the San Diego Bay. Ms. Putnam answered this would be looked at as an alternative at the project level. When a specific development proposal is presented to the City, an additional environmental impact report will be prepared--this would be at the project 1 eve 1. Commissioner Decker asked how the applicant intended to keep the water in the lagoon clean. Ms. Putnam answered the water would be recirculated. Commissioner Carson requested that staff include schools and bussing, and a school site. She said there would be a great impact, and the School District had a real concern about overcrowding. Ms. Putnam stated the Draft EIR identified school transportation costs as a significant adverse impact that wasn't mitigated. In preparing the Final EIR, a school site would be taken very seriously. . Commissioner Carson noted that was also in the growth management program. Planning Director Leiter concurred that it was included in the Growth Management Oversight Committee's statements of concern which went forward to Council. MINUTES -6- Seotember 26. 1990 Commissioner Decker asked about the effect of longer trolleys and more cars, how It would affect the level of service at the Intersections. City Traffl c Eng I neer Rosenberg noted at the present t I me the trolley gates are down for approxl mate ly 7 ml nutes out of the hour. MTDB is mod I fyl ng the gate operation to Improve the down time to approximately 5 minutes out of the hour. However, I f the number of tra I ns I s I ncreased from 8 to 10 I n the future, the amount of time the traffic will be stopped on "E" Street will be I ncreased somewhat, but not to the 1 eve 1 that exl sts today. Mr. Rosenberg stated that MTDB had Informed him they were limited to the number of trains they could operate without major reconstruction. Commissioner Tugenberg wanted to know who was going to do the analysis of room occupancy and the tax revenues generated. Commun ity Development Spec i all st Putnam answered the name of the firm was Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc. out of Irvine. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, speaking on behalf of CROSSROADS, complimented staff on the preparation of the EIR. He emphasized the following items of concern: elimination of views, the visual impact; traffic increase; violation of health standards; intensity of urban land use Incompatibility with the unique and protected open space uses of the adjacent wildlife refuge and Interpretive Center; the delay of building the majority of public parks parking until the year 2009 and 2011. Mr. Watry went on to state the reasons they were impressed with Alternative 7 which would result In significantly reduced impacts to bays ide views and community character, provide greater on-site opportunities to enjoy the aesthetic amenities of the bayside, provide more public park lands, and would not contrast significantly in urban scale or community character with other bayside developments In South San Diego metropol itan area. Mr. Watry was concerned with water availability and the Impact of the project. He said the EIR should analyze the impact of this development on the City of Chula Vista. Laura Hunter represent i ng Envi ronmenta 1 Health Coal it i on, 1844 Th I rd Avenue, Chula Vista, stated there were some very serious omissions from the EIR. Those are as follows: effects of dewatering; intake from San Diego Bay; a distinction should be made about what should be addressed at the plan level and at the project level; if dewatering, what happens to the contamination In the groundwater already; thi s project may not be feas i b 1 e for th is site without significant design or project relocation; state in the EIR that while in theory some of the effects might be mltigable, in practice even one failure of controls or monitoring could cause irreversible and devastating harm to an area. . MINUTES -7- September 26. 1990 Carl Worthington, architect for the Jerde Partnership, stated they had evaluated the various alternatives and tried to take from those elements they felt were reasonable to make adjustments within their concept plan. He highlighted the modifications to the plan to try to conform to the issues expressed in the EIR, including passive and active parks, visual impacts, density, parking, and traffic impact. Mr. Worthington noted that through the water conservation program they were presenting in terms of using native plant materials, he believed they could achieve a model of water conservation. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the reduction suggested might reduce the "critical mass" to the point where the critical mass was no longer achieved. Mr. Worthington answered that it had been diminished somewhat, and continued with an explanation of "critical mass." Matt Peterson, Peterson & Pri ce, 530 B Street, Su i te 2300, San Di ego, 1 ega 1 representatives for the applicant, urged the Commission to direct that the EIR be completed as soon as possible. . William Claycomb, 457 Delaware Street, Imperial Beach, representing Save Our Bay Incorporated (in the process of formation), read a prepared speech noting the proposed act i on impacted natural and bi 01 og i ca 1 resources of San Di ego Bay. He suggested the impact should be considered in conjunction with 13 other proposals for the San Diego Bayfront. Judith Collins, P. O. Box 231, Coronado, representing Bay Users Group of San Diego and Citizens Coordinate for Century 3, stated they would 1 ike to see a master plan amendment to the San Diego Master Plan 1 isting all the projects now on the books, particularly the projects in the South Bay which are 1 isted in the current consultant study for the South Bay Aquatics Center. She asked that the EIR include by some mechanism an assessment of all the projects that would be before the Commission in the next year. Martin Candy, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, distributed copies of their comments to the Commissioners. He said the greatest concern they had was the building height issue. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg concurred with Ms. Collins that other projects that are being proposed along with this one should be taken into consideration as it impacts not only Chula Vista, but the entire Bayfront area. Chair Grasser Horton noted she had a problem with the last recommendation whi ch was to provi de a secondary schoo 1 site with i n the project area. She felt this was a prime piece of property not only for Chula Vista, but for San Diego as a whole, and it would not be the highest and best use of the property to put a school site on the project site. . Cha i r Grasser Horton then directed staff to revi ew the i nformat i on given on the new proposal and evaluate that and come back to the Commi ss i on if there were significant changes. MINUTES -8- September 26. 1990 Commissioner Tugenberg stated he would also like to see the Final EIR address how the project is going to impact the existing Chula Vista Community regarding water. OTHER BUSINESS: None DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None COMMISSION COMMENTS: None ADJOURNMENT AT 9: 10 p. m. to the Study Sess i on meet i ng of October 17, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3. r----_._ . '-;" )~Al ~'~"1 ~.t2 &~,.. Nancy RipleY, SecretarY' Planning Commission WPC 8443 P