Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/10/18 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA October 18, 1976 A special 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, Pressutti, R. Johnson and G. Johnson. Absent (with previous notification): Commissioner Starr. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Assistant Director of Planning Williams, Community Development Director Desrochers, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Senior Planner Pass, Assistant City Attorney Beam 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 Director of Planning Peterson advised the minutes of September 27, 1976 were in error on page 5 with regard to the motion on consideration of rezoning property at the westerly terminus of Seavale, north of Third Avenue Extension. Two motions were made, the second motion was omitted and the vote on the second motion erroneously applied to the first motion. Upon correction the minutes shall read: "MS (Smith-Starr) The Commission reaf~rmstheir previous recommendation that the zoning not be changed and the property remain R-3. The motion failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Smith, Starr and Chandler NOES: Commissioners R. Johnson, G. Johnson and Pressutti MS (Pressutti-G. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the zoning be changed to R-1. The motion failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, G. Johnson and R. Johnson NOES: Commissioners Smith, Starr and Chandler Commissioner Smith expressed the opinion that the owners of the property should petition for the zone they want." MSUC (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) The minutes of the meeting of September 27 be approved with the correction as noted, and the minutes of October 4 be approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented. -2- October 18, 1976 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Draft Design Manual of the Chula Vista Town Center Redevelopment Project Director of Planning Peterson introduced Paul Desrochers, Community Development Director, who, with Senior Planner Pass, prepared the manual. Community Development Director Desrochers noted that six months ago the preliminary plan for the redevelopment project was approved by the Commission. He reported that the project has moved more quickly than expected and they are negotiating with a developer that will put the project about 5 to 10 years ahead of its time. He advised that the Design Manual is for a 25 year plan for the improvement of the area, but if a new shopping center is located in the area, redevelopment will occur much faster. He complimented Mr. Pass on the preparation of the Design Manual and indicated that it places the Planning Commission in the position of being custodian of the project. Senior Planner Pass read into the record two communications relating to the Design Manual. The first from the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce expressed the support of the Chula Vista Town Centre Business and Professional Association and their recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval and adoption of the Design Manual. The second letter, from the Parking Place Commission, also urged adoption of the Design Manual. Mr. Pass pointed out that, when adopted, the Town Centre Design Manual, will be the official statement of the Redevelopment Agency. It is an urban design plan for the comprehensive improvement of the townscape or urban design of the Town Centre Project, which addresses three dimensional spatial relationships, the arrangement of land uses and structures, circulation and transportation, amenities and urban beautification. He advised that when the Manual is adopted, zoning will no longer be controlling, except in certain circumstances, such as signs and parking in subareas 2 and 3. All development in the 145 acre Redevelopment Area is now controlled by the Redevelopment Plan, and subsequent to the adoption of the Manual, which is incorporated by reference in the Plan, development will also be in accordance with that. Mr. Pass noted that the Manual contains land use, bulk and height preannounced standards, criteria and suggestions, which is called the zoning triumvirate, which is found throughout the draft Manual. It also contains parking, landscaping and sign requirements and even works of art. Mr. Pass pointed out that the Design Manual proposes the redevelopment of the project area on an evolutionary basis, which is coterminus wi th the Redevelopment Plan which is 25 years; the reestablishment of the Town Centre as the economic, social and cultural hub of the City of Chula Vista, the Planning Area consisting of 60 square miles, and the several communities in the South Bay Region. Mr. Pass noted that soon after the founding of the City in 1911, the Town Center held this position and this status endured until after World War II. It is the hope, endeavor and goal of the Redevelopment Plan to once again establish this status for the downtown area. This redevelopment is proposed through public and private cooperation--the Manual asks for private leadership. The Plan endeavors to attain a substantial increase in the mercantile activitY, especially in specialty shop trade, in the Town Centre. Mr. Pass noted that the Gruen, Gruen & Associates report, the Chula Vista General Plan, and even a casual look at the downtown area indicate that its future, its growth and its main purpose lie in the specialty trade market. The Design Manual and the Plan places special emphasis on mercantile activity because without that all the social, civic and cultural activity downtown would be for nought. -3- October 18, 1976 Mr. Pass advised that the goal of the Plan is for the improvement of the order, convenience and aesthetic quality of the entire urban core of Chula Vista. In line with that an attempt was made to look I0, 20 or 25 years into the future to see what the Manual would produce. In this effort, the following points were noted: 1. Many specialty shops and service establishments. 2. Residential uses, mixed adroitly with commercial and service uses. 3. Malls, promenades, arcades and plazas, statuary, fountains, urban street furniture, artistic graphics, textured walks and alleys, tree lined, landscaped walks and streets, ample off-street parking, adequate transit. 4. Sidewalk and outdoor cafes, theaters, art galleries and outdoor exhibitions, and finally, a viable, physical interrelationship between the Municipal Civic Center, the Town Centre, Memorial Park and the South County Center. Mr. Pass displayed slides showing the plan diagram of the 145 acres under consideration, pointing out that subarea 1, north of G Street, is the central business district. This area is primarily subdivided into central commercial uses, park use, and some residential or mixed residential/commercial. He pointed out the existing quasi- public uses, including churches, and parks. The Design Manual and Redevelopment Plan call for the enlargement of Memorial Park through the acquisition of a trian- gular parcel at the corner of Madrona and Third Avenue, and by the extension of Memorial Park to the north, via a panhandle so there would be a physical and visual connection between the new library, expanded civic center, the spine of the townsite, Memorial Park and the redeveloped area. The Plan calls for the beautification of the City's first park, the median strip in the center of Third Avenue. The Plan also provides for the redevelopment of subarea 2, which is the core connector between subareas 1 and 3, with businesses and some residential. Subarea 3, which is the southern end of the Redevelopment Area, will be the South Bay Courts and Administration Center fronted by commercial use along Third Avenue. Mr. Pass displayed the conceptual plan for the townsite, comprising 18 acres located north of Memorial Park. This is the area which Mr. Desrochers indicated is under negotiation with the developers and the Griffith Company, as designers. The proposed diagram includes an increase in public parking from 350 spaces to 985 spaces, plus 1,000 spaces on the townsite. He pointed out how this parking would be provided through the closure of Davidson Street and the provision of a promenade to the library. The third slide presented, depicted the City's request to the Griffith Company for the provision of 1,O00 off-street parking spaces for the downtown area. Commissioner Pressutti expressed concern that language in the document may be too technical for the average citizen to understand. He suggested that a vocabulary or glossary would be helpful. Mr. Pass pointed out there is a glossary at the back of the Design Manual and that glossary may be expanded from time to time. - Commissioner Smith called attention to a statement in the first paragraph on page 5 which states, "Complacency, external competition and the mobility of local shoppers have adversely affected the economic prowess of subarea 1, and have resultantly created the need for the Third Avenue Redevelopment Project." He felt this should be further explained by noting that the Broadway Hale group developed another -4- October 18, 1976 shopping center about a mile away. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Draft Town Centre Design Manual, upon the condition that the first paragraph of page 5 be revised to read: "Subarea 1 of the Project Area has traditionally functioned as the Central Business District of Chula Vista, and the principal activity center thereof. Its one and two-story shops and offices along Third Avenue met the mercantile and service needs of Chula Vista for several decades. Complacency, external competition--especially from the Chula Vista Shopping Center--and the mobility of local shoppers have adversely affected the economic prowess of Subarea 1, and have resultantly created the need for the Third Avenue Redevelopment Project." The Motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner R. Johnson, G. Johnson, Pressutti and Chandler NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Starr Chairman Chandler asked the staff to review the Manual on a continuing basis, a~d to propose amendments to the Manual's text and Glossary where such amendments would facilitate public understanding and acceptance. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-76-3 - Approximately 14 acres located in the southwest quadrant of Bonita Road and 1-805, from Visitor Commercial to Retail Commercial Senior Planner Pass displayed a plat of the area pointing out the numerous owner- ships and the variety of zone designations, including C-C-D, R-3-D, R-1 and E-1 in the County. He pointed out that the area is served by Vista Drive, Bonita Glen Drive, Bonita Road and an unnamed cul-de-sac off of Vista Drive. In considering various development proposals which have been submitted on portions of the property, the Council expressed concern over the mixture of zoning and referred the matter to the Planning Department. It was suggested to the Council that the Specific Plan process, as an alternative to zoning, be tried. Before such plan could be implemented, it is important to establish the General Plan designation most suitable for the area. It is the recommendation of the staff that the Retail Commercial designation is the most responsive to the goals and desires of the owners of the properties. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Frank Ferreira pointed out that he is the owner of the largest segment of the property in question and that for years he had advocated that the proper use for the property was something more than visitor commercial. However, after having been opposed by the City for years he decided to develop the property as tourist commercial. He is working on plans for a 150 unit motel, which is one of the uses permitted under the C-V zoning. He expressed his preference to have this change delayed until their plans have been submitted to see if they are acceptable to the City. He wished to go on record as opposing this change. -5- October 18, 1976 Gene York, 160 Brightwood, owner of three parcels within the area, expressed support for the General Plan amendment and the the Specific Plan as suggested by the staff, as he understood such plan could combine uses permitted in both the central commercial and visitor commercial zones. He urged the Planning Commission to recommend adoption of the General Plan Amendment as proposed. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pressutti questioned whether visitor commercial uses would be permitted under the retail commercial designation on the General Plan. Mr. Pass explained that under a Specific Plan various uses may be spelled out. It would be his opinion that one or two visitor commercial uses would be acceptable, but if the entire area were to be developed as visitor commercial it would not be consistent with the proposed new General Plan designation. Commissioner G. Johnson expressed the opinion that due to the nearness of the County Regional Park, the General Plan designation should remain visitor commercial. Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that the size of the property at this quadrant is such that there is more land than the market could absorb for either retail commercial or visitor commercial and it is advisable to find a way to allow both types of uses. This can be accomplished through the use of a Specific Plan. Commissioner Smith moved that this proposed change be laid over and brought back at a later meeting. Mr. Pass pointed out that the first step must be the proper designation of the General Plan, and further that General Plan changes are considered only three times a year, so there would be a time lag. He advised that to combine various uses in the area it is necessary to have the broadest General Plan designation and that is retail commercial. Commissioner Smith's motion died for lack of a second. MSC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the findings stated in Negative Declaration on IS-76-53 that the proposed General Plan Amendment will not have any significant impact on the environment, and certifies that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, Chandler and G. Johnson NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Starr MSC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends to the City Council that the General Plan diagram be amended from "Visitor Commercial" to "Retail Commercial"for approximately 14 acres located at 1-805/Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, Chandler and G. Johnson NOES: Commissioner Smi th ABSENT: Commissioner Starr -6- October 18, 1976 3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-76-4 - Approximately 33 acres located in the northeast quadrant of Bonita Road and 1-805, from Visitor Commercial to Parks and Public Open Space Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that this area is at the same freeway interchange and is across Bonita Road from the previously considered area. It is in the County, has been designated for and is now being acquired by the County for regional park use. It is recommended that the General Plan be changed to be in conformance with the County General Plan. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Tel Bell, 70 Vallecito Way, advised that he has been working with the County Park representatives in this area. He reported that the County plans to lease out a portion of the area to concessionaires, such as restaurants, possibly a motel and riding stables. He asked if this would be consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan. Mr. Peterson reported that he had no knowledge that the County was planning to lease for uses as intensive as restaurants and motel. He expressed the intent to bring the Chula Vista General Plan into conformance with the County General Plan, and wi th their reported plans for use of the property. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (G. Johnson-Pressutti) The Commission finds that in accordance with the findings stated in the Negative Declaration on IS-76-67 that the proposed General Plan Amend- ment will not have any significant impact on the environment and certifies that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Pressutti, R. Johnson and Chandler NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Starr MSUC (G. Johnson-Pressutti) The Commission recommends to the City Council that the General Plan diagram be amended from "Visitor Commercial" to "Parks and Public Open Space" for approximately 33 acres located at the northeast quadrant of 1-805 and Bonita Road. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Pressutti, R. Johnson and Chandler NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Starr 4. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-76-5 - Approximately 30 acres located on the north side of Main Street between Hilltop Drive and Melrose Avenue, from Research & Limited Industrial to Medium Density Residential - (4-12 DU/Acre) Assistant Director of Planning Williams noted that this area is the southerly portion of Woodlawn Park in the County. The City General Plan currently designates it for Research & Limited Industrial use; the existing use consists of a mixture of single -7- -- October 18, 1976 family and two-family dwellings, with a number of vacant lots. Due to the various lot sizes and topography of the area, it is not well suited for industrial park use. Considering the existing use and street patterns, it is the staff's recommendation that the area be designated on the General Plan for Medium Density Residential. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Paul L. Green, Sr., 141 Lotus Drive, read a letter written by himself, addressed to the Planning Commission, in which he pointed out that-through a rezoning process conducted by the County, this area has now been rezoned R-1-B. He requested that the City's General Plan be updated to reflect that zoning designation. MSUC (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the findings stated in the Negative Declaration on IS-76-61 this General Plan amendment will not have any significant impact on the environment , and certifies that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. MSUC (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) The Commissions recommends to the City Council that the General Plan diagram be amended from "Research & Limited Industrial" to "Medium Density Residential" for approximately 30 acres located on the north side of Main Street between Hilltop Drive and Melrose Avenue. Manual Silva, speaking for his father, asked if this new General Plan designation would ban all commercial or light industrial development in the area. Mr. Williams advised that this General Plan designation would affect the property if it were annexed to the City of Chula Vista. It is presently in the County and development is therefore subject to the County zoning designation for the property. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-76-6 - Approximately 0.75 acre located at the northwest corner of Halecrest Drive and Ha~Street, from High Density Residential (13-25 DU/acre) to Medium Density Residential ~4-12 DU/acre_~_ Assistant Director of Planning Williams pointed out that this small parcel of land was designated on the General Plan for High Density Residential, but has subsequently been developed with three single family homes. It is recommended that the General Plan be amended to conform to the existing use. It was pointed out that prior to development of the property, an Initial Study of environmental impact was conducted and the Negative Declaration on that project was certified by the Planning Commission on October 27, 1975. No further action in that regard is required by the Commission. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) The Commission recommends to the City Council that the General Plan be amended from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for approximately three-quarters of an acre on the northwest corner of Halecrest - Drive and Hale Street. -8- ~ October 18, 1976 6. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-76-7 - Approximately 30 acres located south of Telegraph Canyon ROad on Dora Lane, from Public and quasi Public with Hospital to Professional and Administrative Commercial with Hospital Director of Planning Peterson reported that in addition to the designation on the General Plan map, the text of the General Plan indicates that this area is suitable for hospital and related medical facilities. A hospital has been constructed on the site. More recently, plans have been submitted for related medical offices, and in studying this proposed amendment to designate Professional and Administrative Commercial, it was the conclusion of the staff that such designation should apply only to the area required for such related facilities. It was feared that designating the entire 30 acres to Professional and Administrative Commercial might permit the instrusion into the area of other commercial uses not related to the hospital facility. For that reason the staff recommendation is for a change in approximately 5 acres of the site to the commercial designation, leaving the balance in the "Public and Quasi Public with Hospital" category. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened~ as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Pressutti-G. Johnson) The Commission recommends to the City Council that approximately 5 acres of the area on Dora Lane designated as Public and Quasi-Public with Hospital be changed to "Professional and Administrative Commercial." 7. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-76-8 - Add Brandywine Avenue, from Otay Valley Road to Telegraph Canyon Road, as a collector to the Circulation Diagram, and realign East Naples and East Palomar Streets to intersect the proposed addition Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that three sections of Brandywine Avenue have been constructed to collector road standards and it is now appropriate to designate this collector road on the Circulation Element showing the approximate alignment of the connecting segments and the intersections with East Naples and East Palomar Streets. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Paul L. Greene, Sr., 141 Lotus Drive, questioned the recommendation that there would be no significant environmental impact, and asked for an explanation of that. Mr. Peterson explained that State Law sets forth two kinds of environmental review; development which is determined to possibly have a significant impact requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, which is taken into consideration in approving or disapproving the proposed project. In cases where there is doubt as to whether the environmental impact would be significant, an Initial Study may be prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report, and that Initial Study, which evaluates the possibility of an impact, is reviewed by the City's Environmental Review Committee. If that Committee determines that the impact would not be significant they then issue a draft Negative Declaration on the basis of information contained in the Initial Study and that draft Negative Declaration is then forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and certification, and to the City Council if that body acts on the proposed project. It was suggested that if Mr. Greene would come in to the Planning Department office, the staff would be happy to go over these requirements and attempt to give him an understanding of the State Law -9- ~ October 18, 1976 As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed, MSUC (G. Johnson-R, Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the findings stated in the Nagatiye Declaration on IS-76-56, the proposed amendment will not have any significant l~mpact on the environment, and certifies that the Negative Declaration has been prepared tn accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council amend the General Plan Circulation Element diagram by designating Brandywine Avenue as a Collector Road and realigning East Naples Street and East Palomar Street to intersect therewith. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-76-9 - Change the designation of Route 125 (San Mi~uel Freewas) from Freewas status to Major Road status Assistant Director of Planning Williams reported that in June, 1976 the California Highway Commission acted to rescind Route 125 as an adopted freeway route between Route 54 and Route 75. This removes the commitment of the State of California for right-of-way acquisition and freeway construction. It is recommended that this route be redesignated as a Major Road to protect the City's right of acquiring right-of-way in the event of development in the area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Pressutti~R. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the findings in the Negative Declaration on IS-76-62 this amendment will not have any significant impact on the environment, and certifies that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, Chandler and G. Johnson NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Starr MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends to the City Council that the General Plan text and diagram be amended to designate the San Miguel Freeway as a Major Road and delete it from the Chula Vista freeway network. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, Chandler and G. Johnson NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Starr -10- October 18, 1976 9. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA~76-1Q - Realign approximately 0.66 miles of Lynwood Drive Assistant D(rector of Planning Williams reported that the new alignment would use the existing Lynwood Drive wheme it intersects Bonita Road but as it approaches "H" Street, the street will be straightened and realigned to better serve property in the area of Rice Canyon. The former designation for Lynwood Drive was to the east of the existing road. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Harlan Skinner, 4234 Lynwood Drive, reported that he owns one of the four houses located on the portion of Lynwood Drive affected. This is a two lane, winding road and Mr. Skinner expressed opposition to widening it to serve as a collector road. He could not understand the purpose of this action since they are in the county. Randall Case, 4324 Lynwood Drive, voiced agreement with Mr. Skinner's remarks and added that 52 homes in the Lynwood area would be affected by this change and requested that no action be taken until all the people in the area can be advised of the plan and obtain information on the proposed change. Director of Planning Peterson advised there is no urgency associated with this proposed change since the City has just retained a consultant to study the Rice Canyon area and that the study should include recommendations regarding access roads. He suggested that the matter may be tabled and readvertised at a later time when more information from the consultant is available. The Chairman closed the public hearing. MSUC (R. Johnson-Pressutti) The proposed realignment of Lynwood Drive be tabled for further study. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-76-11- Add Corral Canyon Road as a collector road and delete Acacia Avenue and a portion of an unnamed collector road Assistant Director of Planning Williams pointed out that Acacia Avenue was formerly designated on the General Plan as a collector road between Central Avenue and Otay Lakes Road. A traffic projection study which evaluated current and future development in the east Bonita community indioates that the major development will occur farther to the east than originally foreseen and that Corral Canyon Road rather than Acacia Avenue will best serve as the north- south collector road for the area. This road would then tie into Rutgers Avenue to connect to Otay Lakes Road. He explained that this deletion from the map does not mean that Acacia Avenue would be removed, only that it - would not be widened to serve as a collector road. -ll- October 18, 1976 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Pressutti-G. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the findings in the Negative Declaration on I8-76-55 this amendment will not have any significant impact on the environment , and certifies that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. MSUC (Pressutti-G. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council amend the General Plan Circulation Element by deleting Acacia Avenue, adding Corral Canyon Road as a "collector road", and deleting a portion of and realigning an unnamed collector road. The meeting was recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. ll. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-76-12 - Approximately l0 acres located on the east and west sides of Second Avenue, north of "C" Street, from Public & quasi-Public and Research & Limited" Industrial to High Density Residential Director of Planning Peterson advised that although the public hearing was advertised to cover 10 acres on both sides of Edgemere Avenue, in preparing the staff report it was deemed advisable to consider only the portion west of Edgemere at this time. He pointed out the location of approximately 3½ acres, presently zoned R-3, which will be considered for a General Plan Change. Mr. Peterson pointed out that at the time the Environmental Impact Report covering the proposed development of a 106 unit apartment complex was con- sidered by the Planning Commission, residents of the area expressed concern about the appropriateness of the zoning. They also expressed that concern at a City Council meeting and the Council referred it to the Planning Commission to consider the appropriateness of the R-3 zone. This is one of the few remaining areas where there is a conflict between the zoning and the General Plan designation and the hearing was therefore set to consider the proper designation. A hearing was also advertised to consider a possible zone change so the Commission would have the option of changing either the General Plan or the zoning to bring the two into conformance. -12- -- October 18, 1976 Mr. Peterson reviewed three alternatives with respect to the General Plan: (a) Make no chan§e in the General Plan and initiate a rezoning to I-L-P with access to the site from Edgemere Avenue; (b) the same as (a), but with access required to be taken from Press Lane; (c) amend the General Plan from "Research and Limited Industrial" to "Residential, 13-26 DU/Acre" and set a hearing to consider rezonlng the property from R-3 to R-3-P-17. He expressed the opinion that the best alternative is to retain the industrial designation, poining out that the site is isolated from the residential area to the south by topography and is physically oriented toward the industrial area. It is not convenient to schools, parks or shopping facilities. Assistant City Attorney Beam pointed out that this particular issue presented~a number of complex procedural problems for the City and for the Planning Commission. He explained that the General Plan is not as specific as zoning. The various General Plan designations which the City utilizes allow various activities. He pointed out, however, that in this instance the General Plan designation of this property must have substantial influence on the disposition of the zoning to be considered under the next agenda item, since the State Law requires a consistency between the two. If the Commission determines that the General Plan designation of Industrial should remain, they could not at this meeting recommend a change of zoning to industrial since that was not specified in the public hearing notice. Such consideration would require an Environmental Impact Report and a readvertised public hearing. The Commission could initiate such action. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Peter Watry~ 81 Second Avenue, spoke against changing the General Plan designation to a residential category. He quoted from various reports issued by the Research and Consultation Division of Coldwell Banker Management Corporation relating to the characteristics and necessary amenities for a successful multiple family development; he contended that this site does not meet any of the criteria recommended in those reports. He made reference to a presentation before the Council by a Mr. Nevin, consultant for the proponents of R-3 development, which had pointed out a shortage in Chula Vista of multiple family housing, particularly for the accommodation of elderly and military personnel. Mr. Watry contended that, assuming that such shortage exists, the subject site is not suitable for such housing due to its inaccessability to schools, shopping facilities and public transportation. Mr. Watry also read from the Housing Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, noting that one of the goals is the provision of decent housing in well planned neighborhoods for persons of all economic levels; that residential environment should be enhanced by internal and adjacent open space; and that low income families are entitled to the same residential and environmental amenities as those which are standar~ to other families. The General Plan also points out that h~gh density residential -l~ October 18, 1976 should be located at points of greatest accessibility. He contended that the subject site does not meet the criteria for suitable residential development and should remain designated for industrial use, He pointed out that the General Plan also points to the need to improve the industrial base of the city. Ted Bell, 70 Vallecito Way, operator of Kampgrounds of America to the east, concurred with the presentation made by Mr, Watry and asked that the Commission accept that report. George Ronis also endorsed Mr. Watry's presentation and expressed concern for placing a high density project as is being contemplated in a relatively isolated area. Walter Schwerin of Schwerin, Xinos and Associates, representing V & V Development Company, asserted that the alignment and gradient proposed for Edgemere Avenue south from this site is not suitable for the type of traffic required by industrial development. He made reference to comments concerning the lack of sidewalks on Edgemere Drive, pointing out that the proposed construction of Edgemere includes a 10 ft. wide strip outside of the road for sidewalk and bicycle path. Sidewalks would be required with the development of any property fronting on that street. Mr. Schwerin discussed the design of industrial parks, pointing out the need for a level site and for direct truck and vehicular access from major thoroughfares. He contended the site on Edgemere is not suited for industrial development. He felt the issue to be settled is the proper density of residential development for this site. With reference to school facilities, Mr. Schwerin advised that provision has been made to compensate the schools for future expansion based on the number of students that would be generated by.this development. Concerning the availability of parks and open space, Mr. Schwerin contended that this site is within walking distance of the Sweetwater Flood Control Area, one of the largest open space areas in the community. He reported that at the Council's request, Mr. Nevin had addressed the vacancy factor of residential units in the City, which points to a need for additional multiple family development. He also advised that he has in excess of 200 names of persons who would like to see this residential project developed. Dean Dunphy, president of Dunphy Construction Company, owner of the contiguous property to the west, presented slides taken from various angles showing the slope of the site under consideration. He agreed that it is a difficult site to develop regardless of its use; he felt, however, it is not a good location for residential use due to the adjacency of the industrial park. He indicated it would be difficult to use the entire 3½ acres for industrial purposes. Monique Richie, 3422 Edgemere Avenue, owner of the adjacent parcel to the north, expressed concern if a General Plan amendment would change the property to a residential designation, if it would apply to her property as well. R. L. Bannerton, 209 Nixon Place, expressed support for the City's right to set its own standards. He contended high density population in that area would be detrimental to the inhabitants of the site and to the surrounding residents. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed, MSUC (G. Johnson-Pressutti) The Commission finds that in accordance with the October 18, 1976 findings stated in the draft Negative Declaration on IS-76-55 this General Plan amendment would not have any significant impact on the environment, and certifies that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, MSC (G. Johnson-Chandler) The Commission recommends to the City Council that the General Plan designation of the 3~ acre parcel of land located on the westerly side of Edgemere Avenue and north of C Street remain "Research and Limited Industrial." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Chandler, R. Johnson and Smith NOES: Commissioner Pressutti ABSENT: Commissioner Starr MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The Commission continues consideration of amending the General Plan for the area east of Edgemere Avenue to April, 1977, with direction to readvertise the public hearing again at that time. Commissioner Chandler asked for direction from the Assistant City Attorney prior to consideration of the next agenda item. Mr. Beam indicated that the Commission cannot recommend that Council rezone the area to an industrial category, as that action must be preceded by an appropriate environmental review and a noticed public hearing to consider rezoning from R-3 to I-L-F. The Commission can deny the proposed zone change, or can recommend a rezoning to R-3-G or can recommend no change in the zoning al though the latter two alternatives would be subject to question as to conformance with the General Plan. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-76-O - Rezonin9 3½ acres on the west side of Ed~emere, from R-3 & R-3-F to R-3-G Director of Planning Peterson advised that in view of the action taken on agenda item ll, the proper action after holding the public hearing, unless the hearing turns up some new evidence, would be a motion to deny the rezoning as advertised and direct the staff to set a public hearing to consider rezoning the property to an industrial category. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, urged the Commission to make their intentions clear to eventually rezone the property at a later hearing to I-L-P. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pressutti commented that some consideration should be shown for the applicant who has worked on development plans based on the R-3 zoning. He also pointed out that in addressing the housing needs of the citizens, while conserving the resources that are left, density must be increased some place. He expressed the need to stop the creeping spread of single family subdivisions. It was moved by Commissioner G. Johnson, seconded by Commissioner R. Johnson, that the Commission denies zone change PCZ-76-O and directs that rezoning action be initiated on the 3½ acres on the west side of Edgemere to I-L-P. -15- October 18, 1976 It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pressutti, that the _ former motion be amended to con~l'der the first portion of it separately from the second portion; the f~rst portion being denial of the proposed rezoning to R-3-G. The motion for amendment passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Smith, Pressutti and Chandler NOES: R. Johnson and G. Johnson The motion to deny the change of zone from R-3 and R-3-F to R-3-G passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners R. Johnson, Smith, Chandler and Pressutti NOES: Commissioner G. Johnson ABSENT: Commissioner Start It was moved by Commissioner G. Johnson, seconded by Commissioner R. Johnson, that rezoning action be initiated on 3~ acres on the west side of Edgemere to I-L-P. Assistant City Attorney Beam pointed out that initiating the rezoning process would necessarily direct that the environmental review be undertaken. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Pressutti~and Chandler NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Starr Mr. Beam advised the applicant, and any others in the audience, if they were not happy with the decision made in this case they have a right of appeal to the City Council of the decision made within a ten day period. Commissioner Smith commented that this situation of inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning designations on the property points to the need to review the entire city to eliminate all inconsistencies. It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner R. Johnson, that the Planning staff be directed to accomplish a proposed change of zoning consistent with those General Plan changes acted upon tonight, and to follow that with an examination of the entire city for other inconsistencies, either of zoning with General Plan or inconsistencies of zoning and/or General Plan with good practice. The motion carried unanimously. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson reminded the Commission that the next regular meeting is one week from tonight. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secreta~