Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1972/11/06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA November 6, 1972 The regular 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: Rice, Macevicz, Chandler, Rudolph, Whitten, Wilson, Swanson and ex- officio member Miller. Also present: Acting Director of Planning Williams, Associate Planner Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Robens and Assistant City Attorney Blick. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Rice, followed by a moment of silent prayer. The Chairman asked for oral communications and none were presented. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of P-C Development Plan of Sports World - Dr. Leonard Bloom Acting Director of Planning Williams noted that this hearing was continued from the meeting of October 30 to permit the staff to continue working with the applicant and consultants in order to provide more detail of the development plans for Commission consideration. He reported that a major problem encoun- tered in considering this development is the amount of traffic which will be generated in this area. The amount projected by the San Diego County study is so excessive the circulation system is inadequate. The County has been asked to rerun the study, separating the various proposed uses. This has not been completed and it is recommended that the hearing be continued to the meeting of November 20, 1972. Chai~nan Rice reported the receipt of a letter from a bond holder for the San Diego Arena which he requested be placed in the file and discussed at the next n~eting. Acting Director Williams suggested that there might be people in the audience who would like to add something for the record and perhaps the Commission would like to receive that testimony at this meeting. The Chairman declared the public hearing reopened. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, expressed the hope that the Commission would continue to show the extreme wisdom in delaying its decision until all the facts are known. He recalled that Dr. Bloom had ~entioned that 1-805 could be completed in 14 months. He then reported that he had called the State Division of Highways himself and talked to the engineer for the project who indicated the section of 1-805 between Sweetwater Valley and "H" Street is scheduled to go to bid late next fall, so that construction might be started in January, 1974, and would take 350 working days to complete. He noted that the engineer's best estimate for completion date of this portion of 1-805 would be December, 1975, which is 37 months from now, not 14 months. He, -2- 11/6/72 therefore, felt approval of such a project as Sports World should not be rushed without thoroughly analyzing all factors. Maurice Brockington of Westminster Realty reported he has a client who is negotiating for a site on which to construct a church within the Sports World complex; however, Dr. Bloom has indicated he cannot negotiate until his devel- opment has been approved in concept. He therefore hoped the Commission could give such approval at this meeting. He felt the problems noted were technical matters which could be resolved after approval of the concept of the development. Chairman Rice reiterated the Commisssion's feeling that no action could be taken until they have more information on which to base their decision. MSUC (Whitten-Chandler) The public hearing for consideration of the P-C development plan of Sports World by Dr. Leonard Bloom be continued to the meeting of November 20, 1972. Member Wilson asked about the possibility of increasing "H" Street to four lanes on each side to carry congested traffic between the freeway and the proposed commercial section. Acting Director Williams advised this is being considered at this time, along with other means of handling the traffic circulation for this develop- ment area. He indicated there are numerous problems in this regard and it is not possible to make a recommendation without further study. Discussion of revisions to Sign Ordinance. proposed by Chamber of Commerce Acting Director of Planning Williams advised that the sign ordinance revisions proposed by the Chamber of Commerce and Broadway Association were presented to the City Council on October 24th, along with the staff comments concerning the proposed changes.. The Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission. Chairman Rice and Members Chandler, Macevicz, Rudolph and Whitten all ex- pressed the opinion that the changes proposed by the Broadway Association were completely unacceptable as they would result in provisions even more lenient than before the sign ordinance was adopted. Member Wilson pointed out that Broadway is a comercial area and the people involved there are naturally business oriented and were understandably con- cerned when they received abatement notices for the removal of signs in which they had invested several thousand dollars. He felt that an effort should be made to work with those people and do everything possible to bring both sides together on the question of sign regulations. Chairman Rice pointed out that abatement procedures were established that would be fair and equitable based on the size and value of the sign. While he sympathized with the investment these people have in their signs, he felt it also affects the whole City of Chula Vista because a proliferation of signs represents visual pollution. -3- 11/6/72 The Commission further discussed the work, numerous workshops and public hearings which had been conducted prior to the adoption of the sign ordinance over a year ago and pointed out the businessmen had ample opportunity at that time to express their views. Niek Slijk, Manager of the Chamber of Commerce, speaking for the Broadway Association, called attention to the fact that the Broadway Association, right from the beginning, did object to the sign ordinance. He indicated they have never accepted the ordinance the way it was presented and had protested the ordinance to the City Council. He felt that a conference should be scheduled in an attempt to work out the differences between the two groups at the present time. Acting Director Williams indicated that with all the major issues facing the Planning Department at this time, it is difficult to schedule a conference right now. He suggested that the staff work on a proposal and then set a conference as soon as possible, probably after the first of December. He requested that if any of the Commissioners had suggestions for changes in the present ordinance, such as Mrs. Rudolph's preference to have rooftop signs eliminated, it would be helpful if these were submitted to the staff. Introduction of New Commissioner Chairman Rice apologized for his oversight in not introducing at the opening of the meeting, the new Commissioner, Mr. Lester Swanson, who has been appointed to fill the unexpired term of former Commissioner Adams. He welcomed Mr. Swanson to the Commission. Discussion of Environmental Impact Statement procedure and Environmental Assessment Form Acting Director of Planning Williams called attention to the proposed Environ- mental Assessment form prepared by the staff, stating that he desired to have Commission input or suggestions to present to the City Council at a public hearing on this matter on the following night. Mr. Williams advised that the proposed procedure is the result of the recent State Supreme Court decision that private as well as public development shall be subject to an Environmental Impact Statement if the impact of the develop- ment will be more than non-trivial. He noted that the basic procedure has been set forth by the enabling legislation and the Federal statutes which started this concern. The intent is to require developers to examine the existing environment during the conceptual stages of a project, which in turn will bring the sensitive portions to the surface. Then the concept of development takes with these sensitivities in mind and does everything possible to mitigate the impact on the sensitive areas of the environment. He indicated that such a statement, when prepared, should have a direct bearing and considerable in- fluence on whether or not an application for development should be approved. Member Whitten raised a question as to who would pay the cost of preparing environmental impact studies and reports. -4- 11/6/72 Mr. Williams indicated the cost may vary widely depending on the scope of the development; consulting firms who have prepared environmental impact state- ments indicate the cost figures have run from $2,000 to $250,000. He reported that the City of San Diego proposed to pass this cost on to the applicant based on the actual man hours spent in the preparation of the statement. Chairman Rice expressed concern over whether this additional work could be handled by the Planning staff without causing serious delay in the revision to the General Plan, sign ordinance, and other projects currently required of the staff. Member Swanson suggested that a set of procedures be established that would be used by all cities and the County of San Diego, rather than having each in- dividual city use their own. Assistant City Attorney Blick advised that he is on a committee with a few of the City Attorneys who are trying to do that but they have not reached agree- ment as yet. It is felt tile Legislature nl~y soon adopt certain procedures to be followed by local governments. Mr. Williams indicated the County Planning Directors are similarly meeting periodically and attempting to do the same thing, but there has been no real measure of success in trying to coordinate these efforts; several cities have either adopted or proposed interim procedures. Mr. Williams spoke about the procedures for processing applications and indicated it may be possible to get this process down to 20 days or so for a final determination. He noted that the form presently being considered is merely for determining whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement would be required for a development, or whether a negative declaration could be approved classifying the development as having trivial environmental impact. ~te indicated there would be an op- portunity for citizens or organizations to voice objections or concern over the effect of any proposed development. Mr. Williams observed he would express to the Council the Commission's con- cern over the staffing and financial aspect of the proposed Environmental Impact procedure. Director's Report Acting Director of Planning Williams recalled an item which has been on a previous agenda two or three times, and removed without discussion, which is a request for consideration of a different type of house on the E1 Rancho del Rey Units 1 and 2 than that originally approved. The Larwin firm proposes to construct the models which they call their "Product Line." Mr. Williams suggested it would be helpful for the Con~ission to take a field trip to view a development in Mira Mesa utilizing the Product Line of homes. After dis- cussion concerning the most desirable time for a trip, the Commission asked that it be scheduled for Thursday afternoon, November 16. Acting Director Williams reminded the Commission that their tentative approval of the Sports World Phase I Annexation for about 300 acres was given with the understanding that such approval could be withdrawn if reports from operating -5- 11/6/7z departments within the city indicated such annexation would be infeasible at this time. Mr. Williams noted that reports from the Fire, Police and En- gineering Departments indicated that normal services could not be provided to the area at this time since there are no roads into the property; practical vehicular access can be provided through construction and/or extension of roadways into and through the property. The report from Engineering, and as noted in the LAFCO questionnaire, lists the services that would be required concurrent with the development of the property; namely, water supply and distribution, sewer service, streets and street lighting. The Commission indicated they did not wish to withdraw the approval of the proposed annexation. Mr. Williams suggested that due to the appointment of a number of new Com- missioners in recent months, meetings to orient the Commissioners with the planning process as it pertains to variance, conditional use permit and zone change applications, the General Plan and how it is used, might be helpful. The Commission concurred and requested that such meetings be scheduled on a group basis in the near future. Commission Comments Chairman Rice questioned the letter sent to Manuel Machado which indicated he could continue his auto body repair and painting operation until the public hearing on his conditional use permit application. He pointed out that a previous conditional use permit was approved for major auto repair, and while it was stated at the hearing that there would be no body work or painting, this was not prohibited by a specific condition in the approving resolution, and a zoning permit was subsequently approved for auto body work at that location. However, since a complaint regarding the operation was received, the owner was notified a new application and public hearing would be required; this hearing is set for December 18, 1972. Chairman Rice reported he had observed that the temporary sign of the Castle Plymouth agency which has been replaced by a permanent sign is now conveniently stored in the rear of the property in such a manner as to serve as additional signage. He requested that arrangements be made to store the sign elsewhere. Member Chandler reported that on a recent vacation trip in Solvang he had observed a very attractive restaurant operated by Kentucky Fried Chicken and noted it had only a small sign, no large barrel or tub in the air, and no stripes on the building. The Commission noted that when companies insist they must have a certain sign to retain their image, they can find a suitable compromise if required to do so. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Whitten-Chandler) The meeting be adjourned at 8:50 p.m. to the workshop session on November 13 and the meetings of November 20 and November 27, 1972. Respectfully submitted, Helen Hapes Secretary