HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/12/27 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
December 27, 1976
A 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:
Chandler, Smith, Starr, Pressutti, R. Johnson, G. Johnson and Renneisen. Also
present: Director of Planning Peterson, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid,
and Secretary Mapes.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler, followed by a
moment of silent prayer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (R. Johnson - Smith) The minutes of the meeting of December 13, 1976 be
approved as written, copies having been mailed to the Commissioners.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
A request was made to speak then or under discussion of agenda item 2 concerning
conditional use permit PCC-75-22 for group residence at 456 Casselman Street.
Chairman Chandler advised that since that item is not a public hearing, it would
be at the Commission's discretion if they wished comments from interested parties.
1. Consideration of request for extension of time for conditional use permit
PCC-75-25 for construction of 4 industrial structures in the
I-L-F zone - Dunphy Construction Company
Director of Planning Peterson reported that a conditional use permit was approved
about a year ago to allow construction in the flood plain district; the use proposed
is allowed in the I-L zone. The conditional use permit applied to two separate
locations in the industrial area of Sweetwater Valley. Plans are under preparation
for the proposed development although building permits have not yet been requested.
The same developer has constructed industrial buildings along Trousdale Avenue
under another conditional use permit in a good fashion. It is recommended that the
requested extension of time be granted.
MSUC (Starr-R. Johnson) The Commission approves an extension of time for one year,
extending conditional use permit PCC-75-25 to December 8, 1977.
2. Review of conditional use permit PCC-75-22 for 9roup residence at 456 Casselman
Street
Director of Planning Peterson noted that this conditional use permit was approved
by the Planning Commission in November of last year. That decision was appealed to
the City Council by persons opposed to that particular household. The Council
denied the appeal and upheld the action of the Planning Commission in approving
the conditional use permit, with some modification of conditions. One of the
revised conditions required review of the use in one year rather than at the end
of three years as stipulated by the Commission. This review is to determine whether
or not the residence is operating in accordance with all conditions established
-2- ._ December 27, 1976
by the Commission and Council.
Mr. Peterson advised that this household has been inspected at times during the
year, including a recent inspection when it was determined that the household has,
in fact, complied with all conditions. It is recommended that a finding of
compliance be made and that the household be scheduled for review again in three
years as provided in an amendment to the Municipal Code adopted during the past year.
Commissioner Pressutti asked if that action would preclude earlier review if
complaints were presented.
Mr. Peterson advised it would not preclude such earlier review since that is covered
in the administrative procedures. He further noted that four letters were received
from residents living on Casselman or in the immediate neighborhood, all expressing
support for the continuation of the household and praising the operation of the
household as being a desirable addition to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Renneisen noted that there seems to be some controversy surrounding
this issue and moved that the Commission accept public testimony. Commissioner
Starr seconded the motion with the provision that testimony shall relate only
to the conditions of this particular conditional use permit and not get into the
internal affairs of the church involved~ Commissioner Renneisen agreed with the
modification to the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
William Rambur, 325 East James Street, pointed out that the agenda item refers to
review of the conditional use permit for a group residence, whereas the original
permit was not issued for a group residence but applied to a boarding and lodging
house. He felt that a new permit for a group residence should be applied for
rather than review of the previous permit.
Mr. Peterson advised that would not be necessary. At the time this permit was
applied for and granted the term rooming and boarding house was used to designate
the residenc~ ofanumber of unrelated persons. The Council has since adopted a
definition for group residence and although this use falls under that definition
it is not necessary to apply for a new conditional use permit.
Mr. Rambur contended that the regulations for group residence are different from
any other multiple family use and that it should be determined in a public hearing
if this use conforms tot hose regulations.
Mr. Peterson reported that this point was discussed with the City Attorney and he
thinks it is without merit and that this household has legal standing, having been
approved prior to the new ordinace, and may continue to exist under the conditions
of approval established at that time.
Mr. Rambur asserted that if a conditional use permit is required for a particular
use, the finding must be made that the proposed use will supply a benefit to the
community. He contended that such a finding has not been demonstrated for the
use being reviewed.
Mr. Peterson pointed out that the necessary findings for approval were made by
the Planning Commission based on testimony presented in public hearing a year ago.
Those findings were affirmed by the City Council following the public hearing held
on the appeal.
Mr. Rambur continued to belabor the lack of evidence of the benefit to the community
provided by this use.
-3- December 27, 1976
Commissioner Chandler pointed out that the Commission is not considering the
merits of a particular lifestyle, but is confining their consideration of land use.
Commissioner Renneisen pointed out that the intent of his motion was to hear
testimony concerning compliance with the eight conditions set forth in the
resolution of approval.
Mrs. Martha Rubie, 140 Elder Avenue, contended that the number of residents living
in this household is too high with 13 adults and two children in a five bedroom
house. She felt the residency should be limited to 10 people.
Bill Cannon, 303 Eighth Street, San Diego, attorney for the First Baptist Church,
reported that he personally had visited the household and found the living
conditions very creditable. The residents get along very well. He pointed out
that the conditions regarding parking and installation of sidewalk have been met.
Clay Ford, head of the household at 456 Casselman, pointed out that they have been
there over two years and there have been no complaints from neighboring residents.
None of the people who have expressed opposition live anywhere near.
Bobbie Morris, 862 Cedar, expressed the feeling that the Council had favored this
applicant by reducing the required parking spaces from 6 to 5, by designating one
room as a nursery rather than a bedroom. A nursery is a temporary use since
children do grow into adults.
Commissioner G. Johnson questioned the requirement of one parking space per bedroom,
pointing out that her home has four bedrooms but does not have four offstreet parking
spaces.
Mr. Peterson pointed out that requirement does not apply to single family residences
in the R-1 zone. He further noted that the standards for this particular household
were established by the City Council; their original requirement was for six spaces
but was later modified to five spaces. He also pointed out that the number of
residents in the household is within the number permitted by the conditional use
permit.
Commissioner Pressutti described his own visit to this household, praising the
order and cleanliness of the premises. He pointed out that while he would not
choose such lifestyle as it is reminiscent of a fraternity or army living quarters,
he was in no way disturbed by it, and felt it could well serve the need of those
who prefer that way of living. It is apparent that sleeping arrangements, cooking,
and dining facilities can handle the number of occupants in the house. He noted
there are extreme parking problems in the neighborhood during the evening and night
with cars parked bumper to bumper on both sides of the street. That problem, however,
is not affected by this household since all of their cars are parked off the street.
It was moved by Commissioner Pressutti, seconded by Commissioner G. Johnson, that
the Commission finds that the household at 456 Casselman complies with the conditions
established in conditional use permit PCC-75-22.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, G. Johnson, Starr, Renneisen, R. Johnson & Chandler
NOES: Commissioner Smith
ABSENT: None
-4- December 27, 1976
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Zoning Administrator denial of conditional use
permit PCC-76-24 for the location of six subdivision directional
signs - A1 Wslie's Sign Associates
Director of Planning Peterson noted that Chula Vista has fairly stringent regulations
regarding location of directional signs for subdivisions; they are allowed as deemed
necessary to indicate a change in direction to a subdivision. The Code also restricts
the size to 3½ feet in height and 4½ square feet in area. The applicant applied
for seven signs to be located along L Street. In interpreting the ordinance it was
felt that the only location which could be approved was at Crest Drive and the
other six were denied. The applicant filed an appeal of that denial. The City
does allow onsite subdivision signs of a billboard type, and the staff recommends
that only the direction sign at Crest Drive be allowed.
Mr. Peterson acknowledged that the sign which has been placed at Crest Drive is
hard to see, due to the growth of brush on the undeveloped site. He felt however,
that the problem could be addressed by clearing the brush from the site.
In response to a question from Commissioner Starr, Mr. Peterson advised that the
initial approval of directional signs is for a six months period and two 1-year
extensions may be granted.
Commissioner Smith asked how it is decided where it is necessary to make a change
of direction.
Mr. Peterson indicated it would be a turn from a main thoroughfare, such as
Telegraph Canyon Road, on to a street leading in the direction of the subdivision.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Ed Richardson, representing A1 Wylie's Sign Associates, 4422 Glacier Avenue, San
Diego, advised that the specialty of their firm is directing traffic to new
subdivisions. He suggested that a sign too small may, in fact, be a traffic
hazard since it cannot be read far enough in advance to permit the necessary
lane change or signal to turn. He felt that additional signs giving preliminary
directions to turn on Crest would help. He passed to the Commissioners photos
taken of the existing sign from the road pointing out the difficulty of seeing it
at a distance. If additional signs are not permitted, he would request a larger
sign at the one location. He indicated their preference would be for a 32 sq. ft.
(4' x 8') sign which he feels is a standard real estate sign for directions, but
felt they could live with a 15 sq. ft. (3' x 5') sign which would accommodate the
name of South Bay Villas in readable letters.
Mr. Peterson pointed out that the conditional use permit application has to do
only with the number of signs. If a larger sign is to be considered it should be
a variance application, which he felt should not be granted unless it is followed
up by an amendment to the ordinance to allow that as a normal course.
Commissioner Pressutti suggested all owing four signs, one on each side of Crest
at the intersection, and an additional sign a short distance away to the east
and west indicating the turn at Crest.
-5- December 27, 1976
J. R. Norman, 908 Mission Avenue, noted that one proposed sign location is at
902 Mission, which he felt would only add to the traffic problmes on L Street.
He noted the 35 mile speed limit in that area and felt a smaller sign is all that
is needed.
Commissioners Starr and Renneisen expressed support for som~ additional signs
but not as many as seven.
MSUC (Renneisen-Pressutti) The decision of the Zoning Administrator be modified
to approve four directional signs for South Bay Villas, one on each side of
Crest Drive at the intersection and one each to the east and west a suitable
warning distance from the intersection.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-76-9 for Bonita Village Shopping Center
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that this EIR provides an
analysis of the proposed 30,000 sq. ft. addition to Bonita Village Shopping Center.
The project is consistent with the General Plan and with the zoning. The only
discretion involved in this case lies with the Zoning Administrator and the
Director of Public Works, who will approve site and grading plans.
The main concerns are the location of the property in the flood plain district and
near the La Nacion earthquake fault, anticipated increase in traffic on Bonita Road,
particularly at the intersection near the center, and also the aesthetic impact to
the area relating to the preservation of trees, designation of Bonita Road as a
scenic route, and the general rural appearance of the area. This report has been
processed in accordance with established procedures and the Environmental Control
Commission has recommended its adoption.
Mr. Reid called attention to the proposed revision to the report which relates
to the retention of trees and vegetation on the site, particularly on the slope
on the southern portion of the property.
He noted the staff recommendation for adoption of the report if no response is
required to testimony presented in the hearing. If response is required, adoption
should be scheduled for January 12, 1977.
Chairman Chandler opened the public hearing on the Environmental Impact Report.
Dick Virgilio, owner of a home adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed
project, expressed the concern of home owners in the area concerning the retention
of trees to serve as a sound and sight barrier between the residential use and the
shopping center. He called attention to two pepper trees on the site which are
over 100 years old and urged that every effort be made to retain the trees.
Mr. Reid advised that the development plan provides that most of the trees on the
slope bank at the higher elevations and those near Bonita Road will be retained;
an Olive Tree and a couple of smaller Pepper Trees will be removed.
Mr. Virgilio also expressed concern over the lighting at the back of the buildings.
Mr. Reid noted that the Municipal Code requires shielding of any lights which might
be exposed to residential uses.
Mr. Bill Cannon, 451 Westmont Court, president of the Sweetwater Valley Civic
Association, expressed the concern of the association over the removal of trees
-6- A December 27, 1976
and the possibility of damage to the roots of trees not removed as a result of
cutting into the bank.
Commissioner Starr noted that adoption of the EIR does not indicate approval of
the plan, and expressed concern that if this project does not come before the
Planning Commission or Council, how can they assure protection of the trees.
Director of Planning Peterson acknowledged that EIR's have historically been mainly
informational documents, however, recent court decisions indicate they are supposed
to be used for more than that, and are to be used to formulate conditions of
approval, or even to deny a project, if an undesirable impact is indicated.
Richard Glenn, member of the firm of MSA who prepared the EIR, displayed a grading
plan which showed the extent of cutting and grading proposed. He reaffirmed that the
large eucalpytus trees would not be cut or suffer root damage from the grading.
Chairman Chandler noted that the EIR passed lightly over the drainage problem which
presently exists at the shopping center site and asked if the new project will add
to the problem or provide a solution.
Brian Huster, representing the owner of the property, Dr. Haig Merigan, pointed out
the existing center was built when the property was in the County and drainage was
not a concern. He advised that a sump pump will be installed at the back of the
building to carry away some of the water, also that the entire parking lot will
be resurfaced in an attempt to eliminate the problem of puddles. He added that
the Engineering Division of the City has indicated they will scrutinize that
aspect of the development carefully.
Chairman Chandler also expressed concern over the ability of Bonita Road to handle
the increased volume of traffic attributed to each new development in the area.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Pressutti-Starr) The Commission adopts EIR-76-9 as the City's Environmental
Report for the proposed expansion of Bonita Village Shopping Center subject to the
inclusion of comments from the Environmental Control Commission, testimony presented
during the public hearing, and the inclusion of any further written comments received
from persons unable to attend the public hearing.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Bobbie Morris, 862 Cedar Avenue, raised objection to using the term "group residence"
interchangeably with the "boarding house" designation. She noted that the restrictions
and regulations for the two uses are not the same. She objected particularly to
applying the designation of group residence to the property at 456 Casselman Street
which was originally approved as a boarding house, and was approved with three
deficiencies in the stipulated conditions. She felt this may set a precedent for
the application of future group residence requests.
Mr. Peterson pointed out that approval of a conditional use permit application
in one location does not set a precedent for any other location. The desirability
of each use must be established on its own merits.
-7- --' December 27, 1976
It was affirmed that the conditional use permit in question is being reviewed
with respect to its compliance with the conditions of approval in the resolution
of approval for a boarding house at that location.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Peterson noted that the change in meeting days will be
effective for the first meeting in January, which will be held on January 12,
1977.
No Commission comments were offered.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Mapes
Secretary