Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1975/02/05 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 5, 1975 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, Rudolph, Floto, Pressutti, Smith, and Starr. Absent, with previous notification, due to illness: Commissioner Rice. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Assistant Director of Planning Williams, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Harshman, Director of Parks and Recreation Hall, City Attorney Lindberg 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 Commissioner Rudolph asked that a correction be made to the minutes of the meeting of January 22, 1975, on page 6, paragraph 4, to show that in her remarks concerning the "Design Criteria for Hillside Development," she had requested that a cost impact report accompany such regulations. She felt it is necessary that government have knowledge of the results of its actions. She had been told that the Housing Element would deal with this question. That element has now been prepared and is ready for presentation and she wished to know what the element had to say about this problem of the cost impact of hillside development. MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The minutes of the meeting of January 22, 1975 be approved as corrected by Commissioner Rudolph. Commissioner Starr abstained from voting on the motion for approval of the minutes due to his absence from that meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Chairman called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. Presentation by CPO on Regional Transportation Plan Director of Planning Peterson introduced Mr. Walter Jaconski and Mr. Stuart Shaffer of CPO. Mr. Jaconski briefly summarized the elements which make up the total proposed Regional Transportation Plan for San Diego. This plan, which is the result of many months of study, brings together all forms of transportation and deals with anticipated transportation needs for the next 20 years. The two main elements of the plan are the Freeway and Expressway Plan and the Regional Transit Plan. Mr. Jaconski displayed and discussed a map showing the proposed freeway and expressway routes to be constructed by the year 1995, and differentiated between existing freeways and proposed routes. It was noted that the major portion of the system has already been constructed. Mr. Jaconski pointed out that the proposed new routes are periphery routes which will help reduce traffic congestion in the metropolitan center. Most of the existing freeways lead into the metropolitan area. -2- Feb. 5, 1975 City Attorney Lindberg asked what position CPO has taken with regard to Interstate 252. Mr. Jaconski advised that the board, itself, has not taken a position on that, although the staff has conducted a study on various alternatives for providing a connection between I-5 and 1-805. On a further question from Mr. Lindberg, Mr. Stuart Shaffer advised that CPO would take no official position at the San Diego City Council meeting concerning Interstate 252 on the following day, but the CPO staff would be there to answer questions regarding the studies which were made. Mr. Lindberg asked if, aside from the question of facilitating the transportation needs in the area, CPO has given any thought to the land use problems that would be created by the abandonment of 252, and what would be done with the freeway right of way that has already been acquired. Mr. Shaffer advised that there are several possibilities, including turning the property back to the original owners, or continuing to hold the land in public ownership and use it for park and open space. Commissioner Rudolph asked if the impact of 252 on the adjacent neighborhood has been discussed. Mr. Shaffer reported that was included in the Environmental Impact Report prepared by Cal Trans. That report was evaluated by CPO and it was Mr. Shaffer's opinion that Cal Trans did a good job in trying to assess what problems would be created by building the road. Commissioner Pressutti asked if there is a criterion difference between freeways and expressways. Mr. Shaffer advised that the most obvious distinction would be that freeways have all controlled access and all grade separated interchanges; whereas, expressways could have some intersections controlled by traffic lights. Mr. Jaconski then displayed a map depicting the proposed Regional Transit Plan. He explained that after evaluating and testing the various alternatives for a transit system the CPO Board has adopted some basic policies that call for some form of fixed guideway transit system serving the southern part of the greater San Diego metropolitan area. It was felt that the transportation needs of the North County area would be adequately served by an express bus system operating on the freeways. It was deemed necessary to install a fixed guideway transit system to connect the metropolitan San Diego area with National City and Chula Vista, and also with La Mesa and E1 Cajon by the middle 1980's. The map displayed showed the location of a 2 mile wide corridor in which the transit route would be located. It is recommended that the first phase of this system would begin at Palomar Street in Chula Vista, run through National City and the downtown San Diego area and extend up to Friars Road in Mission Valley. The remaining corridors would be staged between 1985 and 1995. CPO studies have determined that the cost of such a system would be comparable to the amount raised by a 1¢ increase in sales tax. -3- Feb. 5, 1975 Mr. Jaconski advised that the CPO board will be holding public hearings on the proposed Regional Transportation Plan later this month, with the one nearest to this area being held on February 20th in the Community Concourse, San Diego. In response to a question from Commissioner Rudolph, Mr. Jaconski reported that 60% of the projected population by the year 1985 would be within 1/4 mile of a bus stop and within 1/2 mile of a transit station. He also indicated that the type of fixed transit has not been decided; that is, whether it would be a surface system or underground. The cost and the amount of disruption caused during construction and by operation of the system are factors to be considered in determining the exact location and type of installation. In response to a question from Commissioner Floto, Mr. Jaconski acknowledged that a new travel forecast would be required if an International Airport at the Brown Field site became a reality. 2. Consideration of final EIR-74-11 for proposed Chula Vista Public Library Director of Planning Peterson noted that a public hearing was held on this Environmental Impact Report on January 22nd and no public input was offered during that hearing. Written input was received from Commissioner Rudolph and from a member of the Environmental Control Commission and those comments were incorporated into the report along with the staff comments on them. It was recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the EIR and forward it to the City Council for certification. Commissioner Rudolph pointed out two minor discrepancies in the report in referring to specific section numbers. This was noted and will be corrected in the report. Mrs. Rudolph also requested that changes be made in the input which she submitted to reference section numbers in the report rather than page numbers. MSUC (Rudolph-Floto) The final EIR-74-11 for the proposed Chula Vista Library be adopted and forwarded to the City Council for certification. 3. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): VAriance PCV-74-14 for freestanding ground sign at H Street entrance of Bay General Hospital and Medical Center, Chula Vista Group Properties Director of Planning Peterson pointed out this variance application is a request to install a ground monument sign, 10' high and 78 sq. ft. in area. The Zoning Ordinance regulations for the C-O zone allow either a ground sign 6' high and 25 sq. ft. in area or a freestanding sign 16' high and 32 sq. ft. in area. The sign requested by the applicant is similar in size and design to the sign approved for the Chula Vista Medical Center on Fourth Avenue under the C-O-P zone. In evaluating this application the staff could find no physical hardship peculiar to the property that would justify treating it any differently than any other property in the same zone or vicinity. Staff noted that the property could be adequately identified within the regulations provided by the ordinance. The staff recommended denial of the application based on the findings stated in the report to the Commission for the meeting of December 11, 1974, when the application was first scheduled for hearing. -4- Feb. 5, 1975 The Chaiman declared the public hearing open. Dr. James Norton, member of the Executive Committee of Chula Vista Group Properties, advised that Bay General Hospital and Chula Vista Medical Center are owned by the same group and it is their desire to use the same sign with the exception of the name. Bill Glanz, of Pacific Sign Construction, advised that this sign was designed at the time the Medical Center was completed and a sign erected at the Fourth Avenue entrance to the property. He expressed the opinion that this larger sign is now needed at the H Street entrance due to the increased amount of traffic on H Street. Fran Burger, Pacific Sign Construction, contended that the existing sign of Bay General Hospital is entirely inadequate and that a sign identical in design to that of the Medical Center should be used to identify the H Street hospital entrance for the convenience and safety of motorists seeking that facility. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In discussion the Commission concurred with the need for a sign more readily visible than the existing Bay General Hospital sign and agreed that the Medical Center s~gn is an attractive one. It was pointed out that the same design could be carried forth within the size and height constraints of the present ordinance which would provide adequate identification for the hospital. The Commission also concurred that no hardship had been demonstrated to justify the granting of the variance as requested. MSUC (Floto-Pressutti) Variance PCV-74-14 for a ground sign be denied based on the findings contained in the staff report. Chairman Chandler advised the applicant this action may be appeal ed to the City Council within l0 days. Commissioner Starr asked if the present ordinance would prevent the hospital from installing a red, well lit "emergency" sign at the driveway entrance. Mr. Peterson advised that would be considered a directional sign which is permitted by ordinance. Commissioner Smith commented on the problem he had observed of drivers coming from the east on H Street, making the turn into the rather narrow driveway entrance. He suggested that the island separating the ingress and egress lanes of the driveway be moved to the west to permit a larger turning radius for ingress. Mr. Peterson indicated this problem would be brought to the attention of the City's Traffic Engineer to explore a possible solution. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-75-1 for parking lot in R-3 zone, 289 Del Mar Avenue, Casey/Hills Director of Planning Peterson reported that this proposal is for a temporary parking lot in the R-3 zone to serve medical and dental offices to the west of this location. Due to the temporary nature of the installation it is recommended that a surface of decomposed granite and oil be permitted, and that landscape screening be installed adjacent to Del Mar Avenue. He called attention to the four conditions recommended in the staff report and suggested the addition of a -5- Feb. 5, 1975 fifth condition, to read, "The existing wood fence along the north property line shall be repaired or replaced and continued out to the front property line; said fence to be the same height as the existing fence to a point even with the west side of the existing dwelling, then be reduced to a height of 3 feet for the remainder of the extension to the front property line." Commissioner Smith called attention to the poor condition of the sidewalk near the driveway of this lot and asked if consideration was given to requiring repair of the sidewalk as a condition of approval. Mr. Peterson advised this was considered, but it was felt this temporary use for one year should not be subjected to the expense of repairing the sidewalk. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Georgine Hills, one of the partners in this applicatiOn, advised that they own this lot and the adjacent property which contains two dwellings. She reported that people have been parking illegally on this dirt lot since the previous house burned down two years ago, and they have been approached about improving the lot for parking on a temporary basis. She indicated that, if approved, the lot would probably be leased for a one year period to the staff of a particular clinic. She asked about the possibility of eliminating the fence between this parking lot and the two dwelling structures to the north. Mr. Peterson expressed the opinion this fence should be retained and repaired to provide a separation between the parking area and the adjoining residences. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. ~SUC (Starr-Floto) Approval of variance request PCC-75-1 for a temporary parking lot at 289 Del Mar Avenue subject to the four conditions contained in the staff report and the fifth condition as recommended by the Director of Planning; approval to be based upon the findings set forth in the staff report. 5. Consideration of appeal of required sideyard setback for a patio in a PUD, Thomas Mattingly, 1580-99 Mendocino Drive Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that about 10 months ago a building permit was issued to cover the construction of a patio cover for this condominium unit at Brandywine Unit 1. The policy governing such additions provides that all supporting structures shall observe a 3' setback from all adjoining common property lines, and that the screening roof material may project into 40% of that setback. This would result in a clearance of 1'10" from the patio cover to the property line. In this case the owner extended the patio cover to the property line, thus violating the approved policy. A check of the area revealed that other patio covers have observed the required setback. Since there is no apparent reason for amending the policy it is recommended that the applicant be directed to reduce the patio cover to conform to the setback requirement. Although not a public hearing, Chairman Chandler gave the applicant an opportunity to be heard. -6- Feb. 5, 1975 Mr. Thomas Mattingly pointed out that the end units are of a different design than the interior units and that the large glass window extends to within about a foot of the common fence. In order to shade this window it is necessary to extend the patio cover to the property line. Commissioners Starr and Rudolph expressed understanding of the problem but felt that where the units are so crowded it is important to have standards and to make sure they are complied with. HSUC (Rudolph-Starr) Reaffirm the policy adopted by Resolution PCM-73-25 concerning the setback for supporting structures and patio covers and direct the appellant to reduce the size of his patio cover to conform to that policy. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Bicycle Route Element of the General Plan Assistant Director of Planning Williams reported that the City Council previously adopted a bicycle plan, which was implemented in September, 1971. This was not considered as a General Plan amendment at that time but was more in the line of a capital improvement program to facilitate the construction of some bicycle facilities. It resulted in the striping of bicycle lanes on certain streets and the posting of bicycle route signs. Since that time money has become available through the local transportation fund from sales tax revenues; 2 per cent of that money is available for the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. During the past year amendments were passed by the State Legislature to control the way that money is disbursed and CPO is the local agency that will be disbursing those funds. Last year the funds were simply set aside on a per capita basis for each city, but starting this year the State Law requires that the money be disbursed on a project by project basis, and the projects of various cities will have to compete for the money. CPO has been in the process of developing some criteria to use to evaluate projects that request funding from this source. The first requirement is that the project be part of an adopted plan and if a project abuts an adjacent jurisdiction there must be a showing that there is a coordinated project and continuity between the jurisdictions. All projects must follow the Cal Trnas bike route standards which have been refer- enced in this element. Mr. Williams noted that this bike routes plan has been a cooperative effort between the Parks and Recreation Department, Public Works, and Planning. It has been submitted for environmental review and a negative declaration was issued and became final on February 3rd. He pointed out that adopting this element is the first step in the total bicycle planning program for Chula Vista; the second step is the basic capital improvements programming and the submission of project proposals to CPO to secure funding. Mr. Williams pointed out that the bicycle routes map included in the element is a basic framework of bicycle routes, containing some 40 miles. He noted that as much of the scenic highways as possible have been included in these routes, and a number of areas will be served by actual bicycle paths off of the travelway of the road. Some areas will utilize a bike lane, which is striped in the street, and other areas will use a shared route, which is simply a signed bicycle route. In the latter case the bicycle travels in the road along with motor vehicles and has all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a motor vehicle. Mr. Williams recommended that the Commission approve the Bicycle Routes Element Feb. 5, 1975 and recommend that the Council adopt it as an element of the General Plan. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rudolph commented that she would have preferred to discuss this element at a workshop prior to the public hearing. She also questioned the safety aspect of the bicycle routes and noted that the City has not been repainting the existing bike lanes in the streets. Director of Parks and Recreation Hall advised that since the original bike route system in Chula Vista was implemented, the State has adopted certain standards and the green paint used for striping the streets in Chula Vista is not the specified color. When the new program is implemented, most of those lines will be eradicated. He pointed out that on a shared route the street is not lined except at an intersection to show the direction of the route or a crossing that might be dangerous. Where it is possible to widen the street to provide for a bicycle lane outside of the traffic lane, that will be striped. Commissioner Rudolph again commented on the dangers of bike riding on busy streets, particularly for children. She felt the City should not designate a street as a bike route unless the standards to be followed can assure its safety. She suggested that for a street to qualify as a shared route, the average daily traffic on the street should be below a specified maximum, and that maximum should be comparable to a local residential street. Assistant Director of Planning Williams advised that it has been necessary to include certain streets, such as Second Avenue, on the plan in order to maintain continuity with the regional system. He reported that in the implementation phase of the plan, studies will be made to determine the best type of route to serve certain segments of the plan. He suggested that it may be possible to implement only about 50% of the total plan in the near future, but a plan must first be adopted in order to submit projects for approval. Commissioner Smith asked about the possibility of using a portion of the railroad right of way for a bicycle path. Mr. Williams advised this has been explored previously without much success but it will be pursued further since there has been more pressure for bicycle use, and more concern, even at the State level, about bicycles. Commissioner Smith suggested that the greatest emphasis should be placed on routes within the City, to accommodate travel "to the library, to the school, to the store, to the park, to the job," and not worry too much about providing long distance routes. Mr. Williams assured the Commission that the bulk of the improvements would be for internal routes. He pointed out on the map that portions of the route shown are the County's regional plan. He again emphasized that the proposed plan lays out the basic framework and some changes may be necessary in the implementation phase. He felt it is the City's goal to provide facilities for both transporta- tion and recreation riding. MSC (Smith-Pressutti) The Bicycle Routes Element be approved and submitted to the City Council with a recommendation for its adoption as an element of the General Plan. Feb. 5, 1975 -8- The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Smi~, Pressutti, Chandler, Floto and Starr NOES: Commissioner Rudolph ABSENT: Commissioner Rice 7. PUBLIC HEARING: ~on~idera~ion of amendment t? Zoning Ordinance concernin~ Precise-~]an ~~ Current Planning Supervisor Lee pointed out that since the "P" Precise Plan Modifying District was adopted it has become apparent that the present ordinance provisions have not provided the controls which were hoped for; it does not restrict the land uses which are allowed in the underlying zone, does not limit the density, has not provided a clearcut case for sign modification or for precise plans. /ne oroln~,~ v have been required for the revie~ of · ral submittal, and no fees _ ' ~ d finitions and requirements archltectu ........ e ~resently ~ontalnv _e for both precise plans and site plans which has led to some confusion. Mr. Lee noted that the proposed revision eliminateS reference to site plans and refers only to precise plans. The proposed modifications would permit density control, review of architecture and consideration of signs as an element of the precise plan, and would require a filing fee of $100. It also provides that action shall be taken by both the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval of a precise plan. . Mr. Lee reported that in late discussion with the City Attorney's office ~t was determined that some changes in language relating to findings might be appro- priate. It was requested that the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment, but grant the staff the authority to make those modifications before forwarding the ordinance to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Lee felt these changes would be minor and should not hold up approval by the Commission. Commissioner Starr raised questions concerning the type of control that might ,, ,, '... e also felt that providing architectural be exerted under the P Distr~c~ H _. terial, and so on, might details, such as building elevations, colun, type of ma be premature at the time approval of a pricise plan is sought. Commissioner Smith expressed support of Commissioner Staff's concern about this amendment being very involved and complicated, and possibly needing more study by the Planning Commission before action is taken. He also felt the City Attorney's comments should be presented to the Commission, and since the City Attorney left the meeting earlier, he suggested a continuance of this hearing. Chairman Chandler opened the public hearing, as advertised, and asked for a motion for a continuance to a specific date. MSUC (Smith-Floto) The public hearing to consider amendment of Precise Plan requirements be continued to the meeting of March 12, 1975. Chairman Chandler requested that this proposed amendment be included on the agenda for the study session of February 19th. Feb. 5, 1975 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Peterson reminded the Commission that the next meeting will be the study session of February 19. It is planned to discuss the draft Housing Element and the Precise Plan amendment at that meeting. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Smith requested that if there is a possibility of discussion of staff procedures with regard to applications, that a copy of the application forms and fees charged be sent to the Commission for review prior to the meeting. ADJOURNMEN~ Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secr ~ry