Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1974/11/13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA November 13, 1974 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, Rice, Starr and Smith. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Harshman, Assistant City Attorney Bean, and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler, followed by a moment of silent prayer. Chairman Chandler introduced and welcomed Mr. Wayne Smith, newly appointed Planning Commissioner. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Floto-Rudolph) The minutes of October 23 and October 30, 1974 be approved as mailed. Commissioner Smith abstained from voting on the motion as he had not taken part in the meetings. Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Request for extension of time on variance ZAV-73-11 for reduction of side yard from 10' to 5' at 273 D Street, James B. Williams The staff recommended a one year extension of time on variance ZAV-73-11. 2. a. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of rezoning approximately 40 acres on north side of Telegraph Canyon Road from R-1 to R-1-5 PUD, PCZ-74-M, Dale Construction Company b. Consideration of Planned Unit Development PUD-73-1, Hilltop Terrace, Gersten Companies c. Consideration of tentative map of Hilltop Terrace, PCS-74-7 - Dale Construction Company Pursuant to a request from the applicant, the staff recommends continuance of the rezoning application, PUD application and tentative map to the meeting of December 11, 1974. 3. Consideration of request for deferral of public improvements for future extension of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero The staff recommended approving a deferral of the public improvements, subject -2- November 13, 1974 to the conditions requested by the Public Works Department. MSUC (Rudolph-Rice) The recommendations contained in the staff report be adopted on each of the consent calendar items. 4. Review of conditional use permit PCC-73-17 for residential care facility, 1169 Frontage Road Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that in approving the subject con- ditional use permit in September, 1973, the Commission had stipulated a number of conditions for the improvement and upgrading of the property with a time schedule for their completion. Although plans for the improvements were submitted and approved, none of the work has been accomplished to date. Since the conditions of approval have not been complied with the staff recommends setting a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider revocation of the conditional use permit. MSUC (Rice-Rudolph) A public hearing be set on December 11 1974 to review conditional use permit PCC-73-17. ' 5. Consideration of establishing Open Space Maintenance District No. 5, ~.indsor Park and Hilltop Panorama Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that the estimated assessment rate for this small maintenance district composed of 12 lots has given rise to some doubt as to whether the petitioners wish to pursue this approach. It is recommended that consideration be continued to the meeting of November 27. MSUC (Rice-Starr) Consideration of establishing Open Space Maintenance Dis- trict No. 5 be continued to the meeting of November 27, 1974. 6. Consideration of tentative map of Zenith III PCS-74-8~ American Housing Guild ' Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of 4~ acres at the northwest corner of Palomar Street and Oleander Avenue, which is bordered on two sides by the approved Zenith II subdivision. American Housing Guild is proposing to develop the property with 16 single family lots. Mr. Lee reported that the property, with an average natural slope of 15%, was originally intended for park development as part of the Greg Rogers Park. Since this segment of the park will be bisected by Oleander Avenue and Palomar Street, it was the City Council's decision to sell this area and utilize the funds for development of Gre9 Rogers Park. Mr. Lee pointed out that one of the problems in developing this property is the fact that the lots will back up to Palomar Street; however, they are elevated 10 to 20 feet above Palomar, which offers buffering from the noise, but results _ in slope areas adjacent to the street which will require maintenance. Formation of an Open Space Maintenance District to maintain the slope area has been -3- November 13, 1974 discussed with the developer, who agreed with the advisability of establishing such a district and requested that Zenith Unit II also be included in the dis- trict since that area also has some problems related to slope maintenance of public areas. Mr. Lee called attention to the conditions recommended by the Planning Depart- ment and Public Works Department as enumerated in the staff report. Commissioner Smith asked if it would be necessary to review the General Plan before the proposed subdivision map is filed. Assistant City Attorney Beam reported that both the Government Code and the State Map Act require conformance between zoning and the General Plan, or between a subdivision map and the General Plan. He advised that in the case of a rezonin§ action which would place the land at odds with the General Plan, the Government Code requires that the General Plan be amended within a reason- able time. In the case of the Subdivision Map Act there is no specific pro- vision which states that the General Plan shall be amended following the approval of a subdivision. It is the interpretation of the City Attorney's office that that requirement is written into the law by legislative intent. It is the attorney's opinion that the General Plan need only be amended within a reasonable time after the map is submitted. The Chairman called upon the developer for comments with regard to the staff's recommendation of conditions to be applied to approval of the map. Jerry Linton, American Housing Guild, pointed out that they are the potential owners of the property since the purchase of the property from the City is still in escrow. He expressed agreement with the recommendation to form an Open Space Maintenance District, but asked that the gas and electric easement not be specifically included in the district but be noted as a possible inclusion. He advised that they are discussing with San Diego Gas and Electric Company the possible transfer of fee ownership of that easement with the provision that the Gas and Electric Company would be responsible for its maintenance. Mr. Linton also discussed discord with the engineering requirement for handling major drainage in the area. He especially objected to the requirement to install a storm drain pipe angling across the intersection of Palomar and Oleander; also, the requirement that the developer construct temporary upstream and downstream head walls and end walls, wing walls and rock slope protection which may be required to protect the embankment. The proposed condition states that if the cost of constructing a portion of the major storm drain exceeds 25% of the cost for the ultimate storm drain to be constructed when East Palomar Street and Oleander Avenue are fully improved, the developer may request a reimbursement from the City for the difference in cost. Mr. Linton felt this condition places an unfair burden on the developer since the proposed project will contribute little to the need for this structure. He contended that the natural flow of water is offsite from the proposed installation of storm drain facilities. Senior Engineer Harshman expressed the opinion that the wording of the condition is a matter of interpretation and suggested that perhaps a bond could be furnished by this developer to cover a proportionate share of installing the necessary drainage facility at a future date. -4- November 13, 1974 Mr. Beam suggested that the Commission direct the staff and subdivider to meet and attempt to arrive at an equitable method of fulfilling this condition. Commissioner Smith asked if the 5 foot wall required at the rear of lots adjacent to Palomar Street would present a problem for residents who desired to install a swimming pool in the rear yard, and whether that wall would fulfill fence height requirements for a pool. Mr. Lee affirmed that it would meet the requirements. MSUC (Rudolph-Floto) Recommend to the City Council the approval of the ten- tative map for Zenith III, PCS-74-8, subject to the conditions enumerated in the staff report, with the exception that the San Diego Gas and Electric easement may be excluded from the Open Space Maintenance District if fee ownership is obtained by SDG&E and that firm assumes responsibility for main- tenance of the easement and further that developer and City Engineer shall attempt to arrive at a fair and equitable agreement for installation of storm drain facilities. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan Director of Planning Peterson reported this is the next to the last mandatory element to the General Plan as required by the State; the other is the Housing Element. This element was specifically designed to fulfill the requirements of the State law. In preparing the element the City staff did not do seismic or geological field studies but compiled information from other studies, including Environmental Impact Reports, studies conducted by the Comprehensive Planning Organization and also United States Geological Sur- vey information. Mr. Peterson pointed out the Chula Vista area is affected by five faults-- Otay Valley fault, San Diego Bay fault, the Telegraph Canyon fault (which has been found only in the bay), the Sweetwater fault and the La Nacion fault system. The Seismic Safety Element discussed each of those faults. It has been noted that there is a lack of agreement among experts as to whether each of these faults are active, inactive or potentially active, but the consensus seems to be that they are potentially active faults. An active fault is defined as one which has moved during the last ll,O00 years. Mr. Peterson pointed out that until the late 1960's the fault which was responsible for the recent San Fernando earthquake was considered an inactive fault. Mr. Peterson advised that adoption of the element will not require developers or property owners to do much new since good information is presently being furnished on soil conditions and geologic conditions in Environmental Impact Reports and soils reports required for subdivisions. Mr. Peterson expressed the opinion that existing procedures adequately provide this information and there is no need to change those procedures by virtue of adoption of the Seismic Safety Element. Commissioner Starr commented that this is an excellent compilation of the materials available in the area. He noted that a significant fact is the lack -5- November 13, 1974 of agreement on the activity classification of the faults. He pointed out that the La Nacion fault has a possible magnitude of 6.8 with 4/lOth of one gravity force. He felt other faults outside of this district could also have an effect on the area, such as the Elsinore fault, which is reported to have as high a force as 20 percent gravity. He pointed out that the present building codes cover up to 13 percent. He concurred with Mr. Peterson's statement that the present codes are adequate to cover potential seismic problems. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jim Hutchison, Wilsey and Ham, 1400 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, representing E1 Rancho del Rey, expressed agreement that the report was well done and speaks to a number of complicated issues. He commented on the identification and appraisal of local geologic hazards, specifically the La Nacion fault, as an active fault and the requirement for a 250 foot wide fault zone. He reported that in reviewing the Woodward-Gizienski report with Mr. Pinckney, their chief geologist, he indicated that the La Nacion fault should be classified as potentially active rather than active. This would conform with City of San Diego's seismic safety element and the draft seismic element of the County of San Diego. He also pointed out that the 250 ft. wide zone was suggested as a preliminary planning dimension in the March, 1972 study of the area because of the limited number of borings taken for the study. It has since been noted that some portions of the La Nacion fault are less than lO0 feet in width and the fault is generally less than 150 feet. He suggested that the sentence referred to be modified by adding the word "potentially" before active, and "preliminary planning" before fault zone. He felt this would not change the intent but would clarify the facts. Mr. Peterson felt the wording in the element should reflect the actual fact contained in the Woodward-Gizienski report referred to. Mr. Hutchison confirmed that in 1972 Woodward-Gizienski discussed whether or not this is an active fault based on the last date of recorded movement, but since that time in various studies for the San Diego area, the term "potentially active" has been brought for~ard. He pointed out that both the City of San Diego and the County's seismic elements indicate there are no active faults in the area. Mr. Peterson suggested that the wording referring to the Woodward-Gizienski report not be changed, but that a sentence be added at the end of the paragraph indicating that for purposes of the City of Chula Vista's Seismic Safety Element the La Nacion fault will be considered to be potentially active. He also concurred with the addition of the words "preliminary planning" before "fault zone." As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith commented that the pages of the element which identify and describe the faults and kind of damage which can occur due to earthquakes or settlement are a good approach; however, he felt the evidence of this danger is not definite enough to support all of the statements of policy included in the element. He called particular attention to policy statement 6 which states that "no lands shall be subdivided, developed or filled within the City of -6- November 13, 1974 Chula Vista in the absence of supportable, professional evidence that the pro- posed subdivision, development or land fill would be geologically safe." He pointed out that the report indicates it is not possible to make a definite determination in this regard. He also noted that policy statement 7 states that "wherever feasible, land uses and buildings which are determined to be unsafe from geologic hazards shall be discontinued, removed or relocated." He felt this sets up the problem of who determines if a building is unsafe and who pays for its removal or relocation. Mr. Smith advised that he would be unable to support adoption of the element if it contains these statements. Mr. Peterson advised that professional evidence that the area is geologically safe is presently supplied by consultants who work on behalf of developers, and this would not present an additional burden. He also pointed out that policy statement 7 requires the removal or relocation of buildings which are determined to be unsafe only when this is feasible. He felt adoption of the element in its present form would not give the City any new authority concerning the removal of buildings. The City now has an Unsafe Structure Ordinance which adequately addresses this matter. MSC (Starr-Pressutti) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of the Seismic Safety Element with the added statement that the La Nacion fault will be con- sidered to be potentially active, and modifying the statement referred to on page 2 of the report to state that a 250 foot wide preliminary planning fault zone be established. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Starr, Pressutti, Floto, Rudolph, Chandler and Rice NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson reminded the Commission of the study session scheduled for November 20th starting at 5:00 p.m., with adjournment at 7:00 p.m. for dinner at the Stag and Hound. All seven commissioners indicated they would be present for this study session and dinner. A recess was called at 7:50 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:00 p.m. for a presentation by Assistant City Attorney Beam. Mr. Beam discussed the need for adoption by the Commission of procedural guide- lines to cover Commission meetings. He suggested adoption of a policy similar to the Council policy. Mr. Beam indicated he would be mailing documents for the commissioners to consider: One, the Council's procedural ordinance, and the other a proposed draft for Planning Commission procedures and policies. This would relate to establishing the meeting time, the method of setting items for consideration, the order of business, consent items, powers of the presiding officer and the specific authority to determine points of order, and the method of electing the presiding officer. He asked that the commissioners examine the material which he sends out and be prepared to discuss it prior to adoption. Mr. beam also pointed out the need to verse the Commission on the Subdivision Map Act. He noted that certain elements of subdivision design are within the -7- November 13, 1974 control of the Planning Commission and City Council. He advised that a section of the Map Act provides the circumstances under which a division of land can be recommended for denial. This is not a legislative act but more in terms of a quasi judicial act. He pointed out that if the Commission is not happy with a proposed division of land, they have a mandated duty to identify the things which they are not happy with, and those aspects would have to be something which is permitted under the Subdivision Map Act as grounds for denial. Particular elements to be considered are that the map has to be consistent with the General and specific plan. He felt the Commission should consider the General Plan in the light of a particular development. He cited an instance of a recent court case in which a developer sued the City for designating a particular area as proposed park land on the contention that this represented a condemnation of the land and prohibited his sale of the property for development. The court ruled that designation of the land for park purposes on the General Plan did not constitute condemnation, but if the City had failed to issue a building permit for improvements on the property that would be condemnation of the property. Mr. Beam pointed out that another area of valid concern to the Commission is that of design and improvements. If the Commission feels these are not within the standards of the General Plan, then the map may be subject to denial. However, rather than denying the map, an attempt should be made to apply mitigating con- ditions to upgrade the plan to City standards. Such design may relate to street alignments, grades, widths, easements, right-of-ways and any design that is necessary to implement the General Plan or a specific plan goal. Improvements refer to drainage structures and utility structures or facilities. There is also the question of adverse environmental impacts in terms of layout, such as disruption of the natural terrain, either in obtaining access to a development site or in the actual building of it, and it is within the prerog- ative of the Planning Commission to address those. Commissioner Smith asked if the attorney was citing requirements from the 1974 law, which he understood enacted some fairly extensive changes. Mr. Beam indicated he does not as yet have the 1974 law, but will review it as soon as possible and report to the Commission. Mr. Peterson advised that the new map act does not become effective until March, 1975. The Chairman asked for Commission comments and none were offered. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~elen Mapes, SecretawS>