Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1973/07/18 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA July 18, 1973 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Macevicz, Chandler, Rice, Rudolph, Swanson and Wilson. Absent (with previous notification): Member Whitten. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Assistant Planner Quinney, Junior Planner Carrington, Senior Civil Engineer Harshman, City Attorney Lindberg, and Secretary Helen Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Macevicz, followed by a moment of silent prayer. The Chairman called for oral communications and none were offered. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendment to the Zonin~ Ordinance establishing "H" Hillside Modifyin~ District and adoption of Hillside Development Policy - PCA-73-3 Director of Planning reported that~meetings have been held with deYe~opers and interested citizens which have resulted in the changes in the modified draft of the ordinance and policy now under consideration. He noted the most significant change is in the hillside development graph where instead of one density column used previously, it has been expanded to allow for densities in a number of zone designations. He indicated it is the intent to continue to use the R-1 district column as the basic method of determining the overall density but if an applicant can demonstrate a need in a suitable location for an increase in density, such as a small area adjacent to a neighborhood shopping center, then the higher densi- ties as shown in columns 7 and 8 might be used. If, on the other hand, the topography is unusually severe, or for other valid reasons, it is felt the density should be lower, then columns 3, 4, or 5 would apply. Mr. Peterson reported the only significant change in the Hillside Development Policy is on the last page of the document which covers procedural matters. Paragraph "a" of this section recounts the ability of the applicant, if he thinks the "H" Modifying District should not apply to his property, to apply for re- zoning. It is further indicated that in such cases, it shall be the policy of the City to require the applicant to prepare a detailed plan to demonstrate that the proposed development will satisfy the purposes of this Policy and the Hill- side Modifying District. Such plan would be subject to review by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Peterson pointed out that paragraph"b"indicates the intent generally to use the R-1 district, or column 6 on the graph in determining the density allowed and the burden would be on the applicant to show that in any specific location a different column should be used. Mr. Peterson also noted a change in section (a) (2) relating to the method of - computing average natural slope, which now reads: "Using a scale and contour interval deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall show the boundaries of his site, proposed land uses . " -2- 7/18/73 Commissioner Wilson asked about the possibility of applying the PUD to a hillside district and it was indicated this is possible and the Commission and City Council have control of the standards of such development. Commissioner Wilson questioned the effect this policy would have on development costs and it was noted that development in rough topography is always more cost- ly than in flat land and development at lower density results in higher development cost per lot. Chairman Macevicz declared the continued public hearing reopened. Carmen Pasquale, representing Otay Land Company, contended that the adoption of this ordinance and policy would encourage land owners outside of the city boundaries not to annex their property to the city. He maintained this would be a mass down zoning of property which might be considered for annexation. He expressed the opinion that 10% slope would be a more reasonable point at which to apply density control than 5% as indicated by the graph. He agreed there should be guidelines for development, and that the steeper slopes should remain ungraded, but felt the total number of units allowed should not be reduced on the gross acreage. James Hutchison, Wilsey and Ham, 1400 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, expressed the opinion that the minimum slope, 5% vs 10%, deserves additional study. He also felt the lowest density stipulated for the steeper slopes should be 1/2 unit per acre. He asked if this ordinance could be withheld from enactment until a map is drawn up indicating the area to be covered by the ordinance. He pointed out this ordinance and policy would require a revision of other ordinances, such as the requirement that lot lines be perpendicular to the street, side yards, and rear yards. He suggested that such revisions should be enacted at the same time as the Hillside Ordinance. George Reinhart, associate in Charles W. Christensen, 233 A Street, San Diego, commented it is his understanding that the intent of the City is not merely to preserve the natural areas of the hillsides and the esthetics associated there- with, but it is the intention to limit the density, which, in effect, is a down zoning of property. This ordinance would not only limit the area which may be graded, but will limit the number of units which can be built on the graded land. He asserted this would create a situation which would force development of a much larger area in order to meet the needs of the growing population. He felt it would be more feasible to limit the amount of grading without reducing the number of units permitted per acre. Gene Coleman, 1670 Gotham Street, made reference to a report recently released by C.P.O. which contains the statement that this area is well on the way to becoming another Los Angeles with wall to wall people. Mr. Coleman felt the proposed ordinance is a means of preventing what C.P.O. predicts from happening. He noted the changing trend in land use concepts with the requirement of green belts or open space to break up solid residential development. Mr. Coleman urged that careful consideration be given to adopting this ordinance which has been a long time in the making. Jeanette Krueger, 3859 Avenida Palo Verde, Bonita, representing the South Bay League of Women Voters, indicated their support of measures that will help preserve the physical characteristics of the area. They feel development should be limited to the amount which can be accommodated without changing the existing -3- 7/18/73 topography. It can be argued that since applicants do not compensate the City for up zoning, they have no right to expect the City to compensate for down zoning. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. City Attorney Lindberg spoke on the legal aspect of down zoning or up zoning of property, and the buying and selling of zoning which has been advocated by some academicians. He indicated this has not been ~accepted by the courts. He felt that zoning is a police power to protect the health and general welfare of the residents of the total community. Chairman Macevicz asked about a map which would indicate the area to which the Hillside Modifying District would apply. Director of Planning Peterson indicated that such a map is being studied. It is not unusual to adopt a new zoning district to be placed in the zoning ordinance without specifying in words where it would be applied--this is normally done in map form. He indicated he thought that, generally speaking, all the incorporated areas east of Interstate 805 should be within the "H" Modifying District, and those areas outside the corporate limits should be prezoned to the "H" District. He indicated that certain properties west of 1-805 are also being considered for the "H" Modifying District. Technically, the ordimnce could be applied to the entire city because it is based on average natural slope so that even flat areas could be rezoned to "H". In such a case, the ordinance would apply to the property but would have no effect on grading or density, so it would place no additional constraint on development of the property. Commissioner Swanson asked if property al ready approved for development would be included in this district and Mr. Peterson indicated it would be, but that consider- ation would be given where development plans were well along if application of these regulations would result in considerable change from what was anticipated. In response to a question from the Commission, relative to establishing limits on 5% vs. 10% slope, Director Peterson pointed out that considerable grading is required in an area with a constant 5% slope. He felt that 10% slopes represent substantial development difficulties as compared to flat areas, and that the 5% is a defensible figure. Commissioner Rudolph raised a question as to whether this ordinance would work in opposite directions to the City's goal of providing some low income housing. Mr. Peterson confirmed the adoption of this ordinance would increase the cost of housing in the areas which have steeper slopes. He indicated it is not reasonable to expect low cost housing in the hill areas due to the high cost of developing such areas. He expressed the opinion that low cost housing needs can really be met only with massive aid from the Federal government and right now, unfortunately, things at the Federal level seem to be moving in the other direction. MSUC (Wilson-Rudolph) Approval of Hillside Development Policy as presented RESOLUTION PCM-73-18 and recommendation to City ~uncil of its adoption. -4- 7/18/73 MSC (Chandler-Rudolph) Recommend to City Council the adoption of an amend- RESOLUTION NO. PCA-73-3 ment to the Zoning Ordinance establishing the "H" Hillside Modifying District The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Chandler, Rudolph, Swanson, Rice and Macevicz NOES: Member Wilson ABSENT: Member Whitten 2. Discussion of preliminary draft of Environmental Impact Report EIR-73-3 for Bayfront Plan Program Director of Planning Peterson advised that the preliminary draft EIR on the Bay Front area is presented for Commission comments in order that the report may go into the posting period. At the end of that time a public hearing will be held to consider adoption of the EIR. It is hoped the EIR can be presented for adoption on September 19, which must precede any change in the General Plan for that area. Mr. Peterson suggested that the Commission's action should be to endorse or reject the Bay Front Plan as presented by the consultant and to offer comments on the preliminary draft of the EIR. Both of these matters will require public hearings for final adoption but Commission comments are asked for at this time. It was noted the Bay Front Plan still contains alternative methods of development for some areas. Assistant Director Williams pointed out that implementation of the Bayfront Plan would require rezoning of the property and revision to the General Plan. Commissioner Wilson noted that the EIR contains the statement that a few minor earthquakes have been reported but there has been little or no damage. He felt that if there has been no known damage, the report should so state. Commissioner Wilson pointed out that if marine oriented development is to occur on the Bayfront area it will be necessary that the bay be dredged in order to provide deep water for vessels to come in and out of the area. If the second entrance is cut through it could open up this portion of the bay to tremendous marine aquatic facilities. He expressed the opinion that the proposed plan fragments the area. He suggested that all industrial development be located south of G Street, or between Rohr Industries and the gas company, and the area north of G Street should be limited to commercial and residential marine oriented facilities. Mr. Wilson felt the J Street Marina is not a good location for recreational development and that area should be used for industrial development, such as National Steel Shipbuilding. He suggested that the area of Gunpowder Point could be developed as a marina. He recommended eliminating the marina pro- posal for the northern end of the Bay Front area. In answer to a question from the Commission, Junior Planner Carrington confirmed that a report issued a year and a half ago indicates there is no danger to the Chula Vista area from the Rose Canyon fault. This is the same fault som~tmes referred to as the Tiajuana fault. -5- 7/18/73 Commissioners Swanson and Chandler expressed the opinion that high rise residential use should not be located near the water front since this would obstruct the view of the bay. It was suggested this use be moved toward the east. Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that a few slim high rise buildings might be preferable to a long wall of two-story apartments. Commissioner Rice felt that since there is very little land in the South Bay area available to the public, as much of the area as possible should be devoted to park and recreational purposes. Assistant Director Williams discussed the possibility of obtaining assistance in financing such development through a Redevelopment Program. Commissioner Rudolph expressed the opinion the consultant had done an excellent job, and felt the plan should be adopted as presented by the consultant. Chairman Macevicz asked for comments from anyone in the audience who might wish to speak on the plan. Kenneth Wood, attorney for National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, advised they do wish to make a presentation prior to the adoption of the Bay Front Plan. He felt no specific direction should be given to the Planning Director prior to a public hearing. Director of Planning Peterson suggested that the Commission may wish to devote a portion of their August 15 workshop meeting to a public hearing on the Bay Front Study. The Commission concurred with setting a public hearing for that date on the basic study and on the EIR report. In answer to a Commission question, Mr. Wood affirmed that they have indicated preference for a location on the northwest corner of the study area because that area is dredged to a depth of 30 feet which is sufficient for their purpose. He indicated a location at the J Street Marina site does present a problem due to the need for dredging. Reva Lynch, 626 Date Avenue, spoke as a member of the League of Women Voters, reported that while dredging was a factor at the time the City Council considered the request from National Steel for a site, the most important factor was the lack of any concrete plan or specifications for their development. Mrs. Lynch further noted that the League has previously expressed their support of park land and she noted llO acres of park land i~ inq~ded in .the,~onsultant.'S report. Robert McGinnis, attorney with the firm of Luce, Forward, Hamilton and Scripps, San Diego, speaking on behalf of the Santa Fe Land Improvement Company~ indicated they would look forward to making a presentation at the public hearing to con- sider the Bay Front Plan. it was confirmed this public hearing will be set for August 15th. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson announced that at the City Council meeting on the previous night, Commissioner Rice and Cemmissioner S~anson ~ere.re~ppointed ~or four year terms on the Planning Commission. -6- 7/18/73 ADJOURMENT MSUC (Chandler-Rice) The meeting be adjourned to the meeting of July 25, 1973. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Secretary