Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1974/12/18 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA December 18, 1974 A special business 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, Rice, Floto, Starr, Pressutti and Smith. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Assistant Director of Planning Williams, Assistant Director of Public Works Robens, 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler announced that oral communications would be heard on any subject not included on the agenda. Peter Watry asked on a point of procedure if he would be allowed to speak during consideration of the agenda item. Chairman Chandler explained the item was not a public hearing so there would be no opportunity for testimony. There would be a presentation by the Planning staff on the Council's referral and request for recommendation; the Planning Commission would ask questions and get answers, then make a decision on a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Watry reported that he had factual information concerning one of the eight findings which the Commission is required to make in order to approve develop- ment in the P-C district. Assistant City Attorney Beam affirmed that public testimony is not to be taken; the Commissioners would be able to ask questions of anyone whom they felt had information which they should consider. Esther Lassman called attention to the first amendment to the Constitution which guarantees the right of freedom of speech and raised strong objection to the fact that she was notified by phone that public testimony would not be taken at this meeting. She considered this a denial of her right. Director of Planning Peterson advised that those persons who had previously contacted the office concerning the item on the agenda were telephoned to let them know in advance of the attorney's directive that no public testimony be taken since the item had not been advertised as a public hearing and was in response to a request from the City Council for a report. Eugene York, representing DLB, expressed his desire to speak to the recommended conditions proposed for adoption. Director of Planning Peterson reported that the proposed development was first considered by the Planning Commission on September 11, 1974, at which time a - 3-3 vote for approving a scaled-down version of the plan amounted to a failure to approve, which constituted a denial. The applicant appealed that action to the City Council. -2- Dec. 18, 1974 Mr. Peterson noted that following about five nights of public hearings on the request in October, the Council adopted a motion indicating that the regional shopping center should be limited to a size of 750,000 square feet, that an additional 20 acres of recreational commercial area outside the ring road to the south of H Street would be appropriate, that within the regional shopping center site itself 20 acres of the area should be devoted to landscaped open space, that the number of dwelling units within the 450 acres should be limited to 1000, and that essentially everything outside of what is called the residential village should be single family and should reflect the spirit of the Hillside Ordinance. Mr. Peterson reported that since the Council action was different than the previous Commission action, it is required that the item be referred back to the Commission for review and report. He noted that the Commission has wide latitude in the action they may take, which may be approval of the course of action the Council suggested, a recommendation for denial of the plan, or any modification between those two extremes. At the Council's direction the applicant submitted a revised General Development Plan, consisting of a text and a map; the map, labelled Exhibit B, is on display for the Commission's consideration. After reviewing that revised plan and text, the Planning Department staff has suggested modifications which they think are required to bring it into conformanc~ with the Council's direction and with good planning principles. Mr. Peterson advised that the revised plan was processed through the Environ- mental Review Committee and that Committee determined that the new plan would have no adverse environmental effects that had not already been reported in the previous EIR. tlr. Peterson called attention to the findings which are required to be made in connection with approval of a plan in the Planned Community District. With reference to the first finding, he felt it is clearly evident that the proposed plan conforms with the General Plan which does designate a regional shopping center on the south side of H Street, high density residential on the north side of H Street in that vicinity, and lower density residential for the balance of the area under consideration. He pointed out that finding 3 relates to the environmental quality that would result from the implementation of the residential portion of the plan and that the recommended conditions of approval with regard to residential densities, architectural review and conformance with the spirit of the Hillside Ordinance will assure a positive finding in this regard. He also noted that the proposed relocation of the school and park conforms with City policy and the size of the park meets the requirements of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. Mr. Peterson also discussed finding 5 which pertains to the suitability of commercial uses and recreational uses in the subject location. He pointed out that the proposed recreational commercial area is separated from residential uses by the freeway and by the topography, that it will be located adjacent to a major city street, and centrally located with regard to the total city area and, therefore, well suited to the uses proposed. -3- Dec. 18, 1974 Mr. Peterson called attention to the large number of conditions as recommended in the staff report. He discussed the proposed changes with regard to street improvements which were designed to assure easy access into the shopping center and to minimize the conflict with traffic on H Street. He pointed out that the street formerly proposed to connect Plaza del Rey with Telegraph Canyon Road has been eliminated as an exchange for the improvement of H Street from 805 freeway out to where it now ends in the Larwin Encore tract with city participa- tion to the extent of two lanes and half of the median. He pointed out that some of the conditions proposed are of a general nature and leave points which must be resolved in the Planned Development Permit stage. He discussed the residential densities proposed for the various areas and the required amount of open space to adhere to the spirit of the Hillside Ordinance as directed by City Council. Assistant City Attorney Beam called attention to the letter from the City Attorney concerning procedural matters. Mr. Beam read the letter for the benefit of those persons who had not had an opportunity to know of its contents. The letter noted that this consideration by the Planning Commission is in response to a request from the City Council for a report from the Commission on the action previously taken by the Council. He pointed out that the Commission has wide latitude in the report and recommendation which they make to the Council. It stressed, however, that at this point the proposed development is not subject to a public hearing and no hearing was advertised in connection with this review. Mr. Beam advised that in seeking clarification of the items discussed in the staff report, the Commission could pose questions to the applicant's representa- tives or to anyone whom they felt could supply the information desired in order to make a report to the City Council. In response to a question from Commissioner Pressutti, Mr. Roberts discussed methods by which the City could control the traffic and be assured of maintenance of the south loop road if it is installed as a private street rather than a dedicated public street. Chairman Chandler asked for comments from the applicant's representative with regard to the acceptability of the findings and proposed conditions. Gene York, 72 Sandalwood Drive, representing DLB Corporation, advised that they are generally in accord with the conditions as outlined in the staff report, although there had not been ample time for review by the engineer and consultant to determine the impact of all of the conditions. He questioned the amount and configuration of open space designated in the residential areas. He also felt that some of the conditions may be a little too specific for the General Develop- ment Plan stage and should be considered as guidelines, with specific require- ments to be resolved between the applicant and staff, to the Council's satisfac- tion, prior to actual development. With reference to obtaining right of way for offsite improvements through condemnation, Mr. York felt it should stipulate prior to occupancy, rather than prior to the issuance of building permits. -4- Dec. 18, 1974 Concerning the restriction against signs oriented towards 1-805, Mr. York felt this should not preclude the location of a sign on a building within the center which might be visible from the freeway. Mr. York objected to the requirement of preparing preliminary offsite subdivision plans for areas adjacent to the various residential development sites. He preferred that the wording state that plans shall indicate how adjacent areas can be developed in a coordinated manner with the subject property. With reference to phasing and scheduling, Mr. York expressed the opinion that offsite improve- ments, particular with reference to H Street, should be permitted in increments during the course of the total development, and not required to be completed during the first phase of development. Mr. Peterson reaffirmed that it is necessary to reach a determination on a number of these requirements at the General Development Plan stage. He added that if alternate solutions can be worked out at the precise plan stage that are equally acceptable, the staff would not hesitate to recommend that. Commissioner Pressutti questioned the amount of flexibility permitted in the installation of H Street, including the time frame for completion. Mr. Robens advised that the requirements as enumerated in the staff report are specific. Commissioner Rudolph asked for Mr. Watry's comments with regard to the required findings. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, expressed the opinion that finding No. 2, as required by ordinance, relates to the financial capability of the applicant to carry out the development plans for which approval is sought. He then cited numerous lawsuits and legal actions, some of them involving the Rice Canyon property, which he contended are evidence that Dr. Bloom does not have the financial capability to carry out the proposed development. Commissioner Rice expressed the opinion that the Commission's concern is with the suitability of the proposed land use, and who will carry out the approved plans is irrelevant to that question. Mr. Peterson questioned whether finding No. 2 is intended to concern the financial capability of an applicant. He felt it related more to existing physical circum- stances that might prohibit a developer from going ahead within a two year period. Those might relate to the availability of sewer service and utilities and other physical aspects. Attorney Beam expressed concurrence with the statement of the Planning Director that the basis for finding No. 2 is one of land usage rather than financial capability. Commissioner Pressutti pointed out that unless a developer initiates actual construction on the site which conforms to the plans as approved, such plans become null and void and the land is again considered open space. -5- Dec. 18, 1974 Commissioner Pressutti also raised a question regarding the time frame, which in some cases, is tied to the issuance of a building permit, and the applicant is requesting that it be changed to occupancy of the structures. He asked if this type of requirement is negotiable between the staff and the applicant or at the time of approval of precise plans for portions of the total development. Mr. Peterson advised that he would view timing as recommended in the conditions as specific and not flexible. Mr. Pressutti expressed particular concern over the time required for obtaining right of way through condemnation proceedings. Mr. Beam advised that in a condemnation action the condemning authority, depending on the type of land and for what purpose, has the right, without going through all the condemnation proceedings involved, after having deposited security, to take possession of the land immediately. Commissioner Rudolph expressed an interest in exploring additional conditions with reference to the proposed development. She expressed the opinion that the conditions recommended by the staff were very good and if followed would make a better development than without them. She called particular attention to the paragraph under "General Policy" related to the high density residential village wherein it stated, "and, if practicable, shall address the Chula Vista Planning Area's need to provide decent housing for all economic segments of its population." She suggested that the words "if practicable" be stricken from this sentence, to make it incumbent upon the city and the developer at this stage to really explore the possibility of what can be done to provide the housing. She suggested that 150 to 300 units be provided which would be'affordable by moderate income families as defined in CPO's housing plan and program, both rental and purchase, and in all bedroom sizes." And further, that "If housing subsidy programs in force at the time are related to dwelling units rather than individual families a portion of these units will be made available for these programs. In conjunction with the above, the city and developer shall explore all available techniques for accomplishing this requirement, with review of the plans by the Planning Commission and the City Council." Mrs. Rudolph pointed out the need for moderate priced housing using a purchase price of 2 and 1/2 times the annual income or a rental of 25% of monthly income. She noted that the median income in Chula Vista is around $10,000. A family earning that income could afford to purchase a $25,000 house and pay maximum rental of $208. In the downward range, a family earning $4,160, which is the minimum wage, could afford a $10,440 house or maximum rental of $87. She felt the city should address the need of provinding housing within the city so people can afford to live here. Mrs. Rudolph also suggested that with regard to energy conservation, an enclosed mall is not a necessity in this climate and does use energy which it is not necessary to use. She felt the developer should be required to consider other energy saving methods, such as those contained in the Rand report, as far as insulation, electrical ignition rather than pilot lights, orientation of buildings with regard to wind and sun. She also pointed out the benefit of providing services within walking distance of residents since this helps to reduce auto trips. Mrs. Rudolph suggested that two transit concepts be explored: One within the Plaza del Rey area itself, such as an automated, demand actuated, personal transit system. She felt this could be explored through the manufacturers, the U. S. Dept. of Transportation, Cal Trans, and CPO, possibly as a demonstration project. She -6- Dec. 18, 1974 pointed out that such a plan would fit the CPO plan which calls for mass rapid transit lines coupled with feeder systems. The second proposal for transit would be to have a shuttle bus that would connect the Chula Vista center, the central business district, Plaza del Rey and, when it's built, the mass transit system stop, wherever that is in the city. Mrs. Rudolph commented on the location of the school which she felt was excellent since it is centralized within the residential area. She asked about providing separate pedestrian access to the school ground from the village by an underpass. She also suggested that consideration be given to locating a small branch library within this center. Commissioner Starr commented that most of the discussion on this project has related to size and shape. He pointed out that the shape, or configuration of lots, land use, and public improvements depends on the topography, which is a basic element to this project. He felt that a three dimension model showing the topography would have been helpful to the decision making bodies in reviewing the proposed development. It was moved by Commissioner Pressutti, seconded by Commissioner Rudolph, to recommend that the City Council amend the E1 Rancho del Rey General Development Plan by adopting the Plaza del Rey Plan for the subject 450 acres located on the easterly side of 1-805 and northerly and southerly side of H Street, extended, subject to the conditions listed in paragraph VII (of the staff report) and adopting the findings as presented to the Commission. In discussion of the motion COmmissioner Rudolph asked to have some consideration given to the suggestions which she made, either by continuing this to another time when comments from the staff may be available, or send the suggestions on to the City Council. Commissioner Starr commented that the suggestions presented were well and good and deal with problems which the city should be undertaking. He felt, however, that if they are just included in the report as "will you consider" type items they really don't mean anything in the recommendation. He pointed out that economics will still determine, to some extent, the outcome of the project. Chairman Chandler expressed the opinion that a shopping center of approximately 600,000 square feet would be more compatible and suitable for the area, noting that there will be an additional 20 acres of recreational commercial use. Commissioner Starr expressed agreement that 600,000 sq. ft. is a more realistic size. Commissioner Smith asked for clarification as to voting procedure; whether he would be qualified to vote on this item since he was not on the Commission during the earlier part of the study. After questioning Mr. Smith, Attorney Beam advised that he should refrain from voting on this particular matter since he indicated he had not read the Environ- mental Impact Report on the project in its entirety. -7- Dec. 18, 1974 The motion failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Rice, Pressutti, Floto NOES: Commissioners Chandler, Rudolph, Starr ABSTAIN: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: None It was moved by Commissioner Rudolph that the Commission approve the petition of the DLB Corporation to amend the General Development Plan and Schedule of the 450 acre Plaza del Rey component of E1 Rancho del Rey Community District located on the easterly side of 1-805 and on the northerly and southerly sides of H Street, extended, according to the findings and recommendations of the staff and also that finding No. 2 be explored in more depth at the Council level and that the suggestions previously enumerated by Commissioner Rudolph be included as a recommendation to the City Council. The motion died for lack of a second. It was moved by Commissioner Rudolph that the Commission defer consideration of this petition until a date certain in January, to be determined by the Planning Director, and that in the meantime the recommendations suggested by Commissioner Rudolph be considered by the staff and the staff present a report on them. The motion died for lack of a second. It was moved by Commissioner Starr, seconded by Commissioner Rudolph, to recommend to the City Council approval of an amendment to the E1 Rancho del Rey General Development Plan by adopting the Plaza del Rey plan for the subject 450 acres located on the east side of 1-805 and the northerly and southerly sides of H Street, extended, subject to the conditions listed in paragraph VII, amended to limit the regional shopping center to 600,000 feet instead of 760,000 feet, also amending condition D 1 by deleting the words "if practicable,,, and adopting the findings as contained in the written staff report and supplementary oral report to the Planning Commission of December 18, 1974. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Starr, Rudolph, Floto, Chandler, Rice NOES: Commissioner Pressutti ABSTAIN: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: None Commissioner Rudolph asked if it is possible for her to make a minority report to the City Council concerning her position and suggestions on this proposed development. Attorney Beam advised her it is possible to make such a report and to request that it be entered into the record. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Peterson reminded the Commission there will be no more meetings this month due to the holiday and wished all Commissioners a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. He noted that the next meeting will be January 8, 1975. -8- Dec. 18, 1974 COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Pressutti expressed the opinion that the Commission should commend the Planning Director and the staff for a tremendous job in working on this horrendous project and he expressed the hope that the culmination of these efforts is near. Commission Smith noted that the comment was made that the Commission should look into the financial capability of a developer. He advised that he did not recall such a requirement in the ordinance and asked for a report on this question from the City Attorney's office at a later date. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Chandler adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Secretary