Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1978/12/27 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA December 27, 1978 A regular 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: Smith, Pressutti, R. Johnson, G. Johnson, O'Neill, Williams and Stevenson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Supervisor of Current Planning Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant City Attorney Harron, and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Smith, followed by a moment of silent prayer. Chairman Smith reported that agenda items 5 and 6 are to be continued to the next meeting, and suggested that those items be moved to the top of the agenda for that action. 5. Consideration of vacation of portion of four streets within To~nsite Focus Area 6. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 79-14, residehtial development in Town Centre Project Area MSUC (O'Neill-Stevenson) Consideration of vacation of portion of streets, and the public hearing to consider the tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 79-14 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 10, 1979. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Stevenson-O'Neill) The minutes of the meeting of December 10, 1978 be approved as mailed. Commissioner G. Johnson abstained from voting on the motion due to her absence from that meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Smith called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of EIR-79-6 for BaS Boulevard Redevelopment Project Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that this EIR, which was prepared by Westec, Inc., covers three projects within the Bay Front Redevelopment area. The first project will be located north of "E" Street and consist of a restaurant, two story motel and recreational vehicle park. The second project will be south of Anthony's restaurant, between Bay Boulevard and I-5 and will include a motel and three restaurants. The final element of the project is the public improvements to Bay Boulevard and landscaping along the west side of Bay Boulevard. Mr. Reid called attention to written comments received from various public agencies which were forwarded with the staff report, and an additional communication just received from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Response to all communications will be included in the final EIR. A request has also been received from the Air -2- December 27, 1978 Pollution Control District for the opportunity to review the appendices to the report involving air quality analysis. If comments are received from that juris- diction they will be included in the final report. Mr. Reid advised that Ed Dilginis of Westec, Inc. is present to address the findings contained in the report. He suggested that the public hearing be opened to receive all testimony, and that the hearing then be closed and con- sideration of the final EIR be scheduled for January 10, 1979. Chairman Smith noted that the letter from the Department of Fish and Game makes reference to sedimentation basins. He asked Mr. Reid what that refers to. Mr. Reid reported that on one of the illustrations of the Bay Front Development Area some sedimentation basins were shown in a different part of the area. These are catch basins to collect trash and soil carried by run-off water. It was not intended that such basins would be included in this project. Such basins would be nearer to the marsh area. Chairman Smith pointed out that the report indicates that the existing Bay Boulevard north of "E" Street will primarily be used for parking. He asked whether the vegetable grower presently uses that road for access. Mr. Reid advised that access to the fields is mainly at the foot of "E" Street. Chairman Smith also questioned the 10 million gallon figure stated as the capacity for Sweetwater Reservoir, and suggested it should be l0 billion gallon since it is 25,000 acre feet. He pointed out that the City of Chula Vista would use 10 million gallons in about two days. Commissioner O'Neill asked if the City has met with the Department of Fish and Game representative as suggested in their recent letter. Mr. Reid advised there has been no meeting since receipt of the letter but a representative of the Con~nunity Development Department has contacted them by phone. Chairman Smith opened the public hearing on the Environmental Impact Report. Craig Walker, 10068 Dunbar Lane, E1 Cajon, one of the attorneys for Santa Fe Financial Corporation, reported they are interested in seeing this property developed. He noted that they do not have a final agreement with the proposed developer for the R-V park, but that would not affect the findings in the environmental impact report and they favor approval of this report. The Commission asked for a discussion of the findings by a representative of Westec, Inc. Edward Dilginis, 17388 Veranza Drive, San Diego, project manager in the prepara- tion of this environmental impact report, reviewed the highlights of their analysis. One of the concerns expressed at the beginning of the study was the freeway noise impact on the proposed motels. Because the freeway, along the entire length of the project, is below the grade level of the project site, this will attenuate -3- De ~ber 27, 1978 the noise problems. They have recommended that on the southern site where the motel buildings will be adjacent to the freeway, no windows be placed on the side facing the freeway. With this action it is felt there will be no noise problems in the motel. They have also suggested that on the northern site, if windows are placed on the east side of the motel or restaurant, a Title 25 noise inspect- ion will be required. With regard to impact of this project on rare or endangered species, the report indicates there are two species found in the Sweetwater Marsh, however, the nesting area is to the north of this project site and should not be impacted by this development. The report indicates that while there will be additional human pressures on the marsh from the R-V park, the development should lessen the impact of offroad vehicles through the marsh area by screening the area with dense land- scaping. In terms of archaeology, it was noted that a badly disturbed prehistoris site was found on the northern part of the project site. Therefore, to mitigate construction on the site, an archaeological testing and salvage program will have to be carried out. Mr. Dilginis reported that the only real significant impact is one of traffic. Due to the already heavy volume of traffic going to and from Rohr Industries in the morning and evening, there may be some conflict with motel traffic getting to the site. He advised that since the traffic analysis was done, a portion of Tidelands Avenue has been closed between "F" and "G" Streets and this has reduced the volume of traffic going north on Bay Boulevard. Under these circumstances, the traffic analysis in the EIR should be considered as the worst possible condition. In response to a question from Commissioner R. Johnson, Mr. Dilginis pointed out that the Sweetwater Marsh area encompasses a very large area, beginning just north of this project site. Commissioner G. Johnson questioned the statement in the report concerning sewer usage and capacity which says no additional mitigation measures are necessary, in light of the letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board which indicates the potential impact of the increased flow of sewage should be carefully consider- ed before approval. Mr. Dilginis advised that the report was based on a contact with persons at the sewage treatment plant, who indicated there would be no problem as a result of this development. He suggested that any impact from this project would be of an incre- mental nature and would not result in the sudden overtaxing of sewer capacity. Commissioner Williams commented that many impacts are passed off as being incre- mental. He expressed concern over the traffic issue, and asked what mitigating action may be necessary for future phases of development in the bay front. Mr. Dilginis pointed out that this EIR dealt only with the three projects as men- tioned and before any additional development occurs, other EIR's will be required. He also pointed out that a master EIR on the total Bay Front development had been adopted, and it was his belief that report had indicated the extension of Tidelands Avenue through the marsh was a key element. Mr. Reid confirmed the statement that the extension of Tidelands Avenue through the marsh would greatly relieve the impact of traffic at the intersection of "E" Street and Tidelands Avenue. He added that the plan includes a mini transit system to provide for circulation within the project itself, which should lower the traffic generated from the various uses. -4- December 27, 1978 Commissioner Williams explained that his concern is whether this development would leave enough flexibility for any street widening that might be necessary due to later development in the Bay Front. Mr. Reid advised that the master EIR indicated that sufficient travel lanes have been provided to care for future traffic demands, although it may require signali- zation at some intersections. Commissioner O'Neill noted that both Federal and State agencies have expressed concern about vehicular traffic on the Sweetwater Marsh. Mr. Dilginis pointed out that at the present time vehicles going north from the end of Bay Boulevard enter into the marsh area. Commisssioner O'Neill agreed that the barricade at the end of the street stops no one. Mr. Reid advised that the City has requested a proposal for some type of fencing along the northern property line of this project. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) Consideration of the final EIR-79-6 for Bay Boulevard Redevelopment Project be scheduled for January 10, 1979. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-79-D - Rezoning 6 ft. wide strip in the 500 block,north side of Moss Street, from C-T to R-3 - Mabie & Mintz Director of Planning Peterson advised that this rezoning amounts to a zone boundary line adjustment to coincide with a future property line to be established by the filing of a proposed parcel map. The zone boundary line would be moved 6 feet to the west of the present line. This would make the R-3 property more developable and would not hinder development of the C-T property which has ample depth from the frontage on Broadway. He recommended approval of the zone change in accord- ance with the written report. 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-Williams) The Commission finds that the proposed zone change will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-79-30. MSUC (Pressutti-Williams) The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the zone boundary adjustment from C-T to R-3 as shown on the plat accompanying the report. -5- December 27, 1978 3. PUBLIC HEARING! a. Conditional~se permit PCC-79-10 for construction of two-~tory classroom building on church site at 456 Fifi~h Avenue - Church of God b. Variance PCV-79-4 - request for reduction of side yard from 20 feet to 6 feet for building construction at 456 Fift~ Avenue - Church of God Supervisor of Current Planning Lee reviewed the past development of this church site and noted the location proposed for a new two-story building for classroom use. Any church construction or expansion requires approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed construction will not affect the number of parking spaces required to serve the church since that is based on seating capacity of the sanctuary. The parking lot is paved but contains no landscaping; it is recommended that a condition of approval of the conditional use permit include a provision to landscape the parking lot in conformance with the Landscape Manual. It is further recommended that the architecture of the proposed build- ing be modified to include the use of a similar roof design as the other existing buildings on the site. With reference to the variance request for reduction in side yard setback, Mr. Lee pointed out it is a code requirement that church structures be placed at least 20 feet from the property line. This is to provide protection for adjoining residential uses. In this case the adjoining use is the elementary school play- ground and a smaller setback would not have an adverse effect. It is recommended that the setback be reduced to 10 feet, rather than the 6 feet requested, in order to allow sufficient area for landscaping between the two-story building and the property line. A 10 foot setback would still leave a 38 foot separation between the proposed classroom building and the existing Sunday School building. The staff recommends approval of both applications subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Alton Chew, 1370 Blue Falls Drive, representative of the Church of God, advised, in response to a question raised by Commissioner Stevenson, that the building must have two stairways to provide exit from the second story. He also expressed concurrence with the use of a sloped roof and with the 10 foot side yard. He raised a question as to the necessity of installing landscaping in the parking lot since that lot receives access from an alley and is not visible from the public street. Mr. Lee expressed a desire to work with the applicant on a plan for reasonable landscaping, which he indicated would be mainly trees planted in tree wells, to provide relief in the expanse of blacktop paving. He concurred that normal planter boxes in this area would be an unnecessary expense. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The Commission finds that the proposed building construction will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-79-31. -6- December 27, 1978 MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the Commission approves the conditional use permit PCC-79-10 for construction of a two-story classroom - building at 456 Fifth Avenue, subject to the two con- ditions recommended in the staff report. MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The commission directs that the two parcels comprising the church site be consolidated into one lot. MSUC (R. Johnson-O'Neill) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the Commission approves a variance for reduction in the side yard requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet for construction of a classroom building on the church site at 456 Fifth Avenue. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE PCV-79-3, request for reduction of front yard from 25 feet to 15 feet, and reduction of exterior side yard from 50 feet to 10 feet, for construction of a condominium project at 256 "I" Street in the R-3 zone - Firstwest Devco. Director of Planning Peterson reported that this is a request to vary from the setback requirements established by the Building Line Map for property at the southwest corner of Del Mar and "I" Street. The map requires a 50 foot setback along Del Mar which the applicant is requesting be reduced to 10 feet, and a 25 foot setback along "I" Street, which the applicant requests be reduced to 15 feet. The proposed development of the site would be a two story, II unit condominium. Mr. Peterson pointed out that with the setbacks required by the building line map, together with the rear yard and interior side yard setbacks required by the zoning ordinance, the property would be restricted to 38% lot coverage by a building. The normal allowable coverage in the R-3 zone is 50%. On that basis the staff felt that some setback relief in the form of a variance would be justified for this property. The large setbacks established by the Building Line Map do not seem justifiable for R-3 development. It was noted that a two-story apartment building located on this corner would represent something of an instrusion into a single family area. It was the staff's conclusion that the most defensible position would involve a two step setback requirement allowing the single story portion of buildings to be 15 feet from both property lines and the second story to set back 25 feet. Chairman Smith questioned the suitability of R-3 zoning for this area. Supervisor of Current Planning Lee advised that in 1969 or early 1970 the City Council rezoned the lots on the north side of "I" Street in this block to R-l, but left R-3 zoning on the south side of the street, due to the larger lot sizes which are more suitable for multiple family development. Commissioner G. Johnson pointed out that the property to the south of the subject site is zoned R-l-15, and asked if the homes there are built to that density. Mr. Peterson advised that most of the lots on the west side of Del Mar are larger than 15,000 sq. ft. -7- December 27, 1978 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Curt Holder, 3696 Midway Drive, San Diego, architect and part owner of the project, reported that they were trying to achieve normal R-3 development, and the setbacks requested are the normal requirement for the R-3 zone. He concurs with the recommendation for 15 foot setback along "I" Street. He reported that the adjacent property owners on "I" Street have no objection to the project and a letter has been filed to that effect. He expressed belief that some houses along Del Mar are set back only 30 feet. This~development, as proposed, would set back 10 feet. He felt they should be permitted to develop the property in accordance with the R-3 zoning. He felt that as it is designed, the project offers less bulk due to the separation between the build- ings than would be the case if they are required to maintain a larger setback along Del Mar. He pointed out that the trees growing along Del Mar tend to limit the vista beyond the trees, and that their project would, in a sense, be the same way, buffered by trees but a bit more massive behind the trees. Everett Ingerson, 243 "I" Street, expressed objection to any building being placed closer to the street than the existing structures. He asked what pro- vision would be made for parking if an apartment type structure is built on the corner lot. Mr. Peterson reported that the project meets the offstreet parking requirements for such development. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stevenson reported that in driving around this area he noted that single family homes are the general nature of the area. He felt that if this development is approved, additional lots down Del Mar, although presently zoned R-l, will make requests for multiple family development. He indicated he would prefer to rezone this property to R-1 and therefore would not be in favor of doing anything to enhance the proposed development. MS (Pressutti-G. Johnson) The Commission finds that the proposed project will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-79-26. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, G. Johnson, O'Neill and Williams NOES: Commissioners Smith, R. Johnson and Stevenson ABSENT: None It was moved by Commissioner Pressutti that the Commission adopt a motion approving the reduction in front and side yard setbacks to 15 feet for a single story portion of a building and 25 feet for the second story portion. The motion died for lack of a second. MS (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) Variance application PCV-79-3 be denied. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Smith, Stevenson and Williams NOES: Commissioners Pressutti and O'Neill. Assistant City Attorney Harron advised the applicant of the right of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council within ten days from this date. -8- December 27, 1978 Agenda Items 5 and 6 were considered at the beginning of the meeting. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-79-8 - Amendment to Municipal Code relating to offstreet parking for offices and banks Supervisor of Current Planning Lee reported that at the request of the Planning Commission, the staff reviewed the parking needs of medical and dental office buildings and banks. This study included traffic counts, interviews with people working at or using the various buildings and also by comparing Chula Vista standards with those of other jurisdictions. As indicated in the table included in the staff report, Chula Vista's requirements are about mid-range. It was observed that many businesses have recognized that the offstreet parking as required by the code is inadequate and have provided more parking than stipulated in the code. A number of businesses and offices also require their employees to park off of their own site, which impacts the adjoining residential areas. Based on the parking needs at various sites in the City, as reported in Table II in the staff report, it was the conclusion of the staff that a ratio of one parking space for each 200 sq. ft. of floor area would best serve the needs of professional offices and also banks or savings and loan establishments. The present require- ment is one space for 300 sq. ft. It is, therefore, recommended that an amend- ment to the code to establish the new requirement be adopted. This requirement would be applicable only to new business sites as they were developed; existing offices would not be required to meet that standard. Mr. Lee pointed out that the proposed amendment would delete post offices from the standards set forth for other types of offices, since it is a unique type of operation. In response to a question from Commissioner G. Johnson, Mr. Lee advised that if a bank or existing office expands their floor area, they would be required to furnish additional parking spaces at the new ratio for the amount of expanded floor area. Chairman Smith questioned whether the same parking requirements are applicable to banks and office buildings. He felt that many offices would not require as much parking, based on floor area, as banks. Mr. Lee advised that a separate analysis made of the parking needs of various office sites led to the conclusion that one space per 200 sq. ft. was needed. Chairman Smith pointed out that this is a serious economic consideration since increasing the required parking will necessarily require larger sites and there- fore, add to the cost of rent for the offices served. He pointed out that since land is a valuable resource it should be used very carefully. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. David Smith, 334 Camino Elevado, Bonita, general partner in the office building at 815 Third Avenue, reported that he had issued 90 parking permits to supply all tenants and their employees for the use of 70 spaces marked for permit parking, leaving 10 spaces for customer parking. Their survey shows that the 70 spaces are used to 80% capacity. He felt the present ratio of one space for 300 sq. ft. is adequate. -9- December 27, 1978 As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner G. Johnson reported that her main concern has been with the parking needs of dental and medical buildings and banks, many of which are located close to residential areas, and it is very apparent that parking for such uses spills on to other sites or to residential streets, frequently causing a hardship on the residents in getting in or out of their driveways. She also felt it would be hard to differentiate between business and professional offices since uses may change after the buildings are constructed. MS (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The Commission finds that the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-79-33. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, R. Johnson, O'Neill, Pressutti, Stevenson and Williams NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: None MS (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council enact an ordinance to amend Section 19.62.050 to require that parking for banks, busi- ness and professional offices be on the ratio of one space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area; minimum of 5 spaces; and that parking for medical and dental offices or clinics also be on the ratio of one space for each 200 sq. ft. of floor area; minimum of 5 spaces. The mot~n carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, R. Johnson, O'Neill, Pressutti, Stevenson and Williams NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: None 8. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-79-10, Amendment to the Municipal Code relating to the P-C zone and Specific Plan procedures Director of Planning Peterson reported that at the time the Specific Plan for the E1 Rancho del Rey area was approved by the City Council, they also adopted two interim ordinances to provide for implementation of the plan. The first interim ordinance established the Specific Plan as the land use policy in Planned Community zones, while the second ordinance dealt with the relationship between the General Plan, the Specific Plan and the plan of record of a given area. Inasmuch as those were interim ordinances to remain in effect for 90 days only, it is now necessary to adopt permanent ordinances dealing with Specific Plan procedures. The proposed ordinances are set forth in Exhibits "A" and "B" included in the staff report. Mr. Peterson pointed out that under the proposed amendments a Specific Plan does not constitute a zoning plan, but represents land use policy for a given area. -10- December 27, 1978 Under the proposed ordinance there are two ways of implementing a Specific Plan. One is for the property owner to register his concurrence with the land use shown on a Specific Plan. Upon such concurrence he could then prepare development plans to be processed through the regular procedures. If the property owner does not concur with the Specific Plan for a given area in the P-C zone, then he has the option of applying for rezoning from P-C to a standard zone. Commissioner O'Neill questioned the value of a land use policy if a developer has the option of doing something else rather than conforming to that policy. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the General Plan is a policy statement with respect to land use, and a Specific Plan is simply a refinement of that plan. He felt that the alternative of applying for standard zoning would probably not be attractive to a developer because the density allowed by the Specific Plan would then have to be applied to all of the area, whether it was shown as open space or not, which would reduce the amount of density allowed on more level areas. 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 (Stevenson-Williams) The Commission finds that the proposed amendments will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-79-32. MSUC (Stevenson-Williams) The Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the following amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code: a. Amend the last sentence of Section 19.12.030 which sets forth the application fee for a zone change to read as follows: "Each application shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set forth by the Master Fee Schedule of the City of Chula Vista." b. Amend Chapter 19.06 which pertains to the General Plan and add a new Chapter 19.07 regarding specific plan procedures as set forth by the attached Exhibit "A". c. Repeal Sections 19.14.270 through 19.14.320, which establish the administrative procedures for the P-C Planned Community Zone and which were incorporated into Chapter 19.48. d. Amend Chapter 19.48 which establishes the P-C Planned Community as set forth by attached Exhibit "B". MSUC (Stevenson-Williams) The Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule by adding thereto the following fees: a. General Development Plan - The applicant shall pay a deposit of $1,000.00 plus $5.00 per gross acre of the project to cover costs in reviewing and processing the General Development Plan. If actual costs exceed this amount, the applicant shall pay all additional costs. If actual costs are less than the amount of the deposit, the balance will be refunded to the applicant. -ll- December 27, 1978 b. General Development Plan modification - One-half the filing fee for a General Development Plan, and subject to the same provision for projects exceeding the original costs. c. Sectional Planning Area Plan - Same as for a General Development Plan. d. Sectional Planning Area Plan modification - Same as for a modification to a General Development Plan. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None were presented. DIRECTOR'S REPORT None. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Pressutti advised that he wished to include in the record a position statement concerning his negative vote on the motion for denial of the variance requested under Agenda Item 4. He expressed his concern that the Commission gives lip service to two things: one, a need for housing to satisfy those in moderate and lower income, and the other is a need to establish a proper mix of housing. He felt that the application considered under Item 4 was an excellent example and a place where the Commission could have experimented by permitting condo- miniums adjacent to single family homes and provide housing at a cost which is affordable. And yet, the Commission stood with arms akimbo and said, "They shall not pass." Commissioner Pressutti contended that the City must provide housing for medium and lower income families and expressed his firm conviction that the Commission must establish a greater mix of housing and not have tracts and tracts of R-1 development without any comingling of other forms of habitat. Commissioner O'Neill commented that he, in essence, agreed with the remarks of Commissioner Pressutti. He had been pleased to see a project start out as a condominium, rather than getting approval as apartment construction and then requesting conversion to condominiums. Commissioner Stevenson noted that the Commission action did not stop the owner from building condominiums; the Commission merely did not grant reduced setbacks as requested. Chairman Smith expressed the hope that next year a meeting in the middle of the holiday week can be avoided, by not scheduling hearings for a meeting on December 26, 1979. -12- December 27, 1978 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Secretary