HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1978/11/22 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
November 22, 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 newly appointed Commissioner Virgil Stevenson. Also present: Director of
Planning Peterson, Supervisor of Current Planning Lee, City Engineer Lippitt,
Assistant City Attorney Harron and Secretary Mapes.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chaimman Smith, followed by a
moment of silent prayer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (R. Johnson-Pressutti) The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
November 8, 1978 be approved as written. Commissioners Smith and 0 ...... abstained
from voting due to their absence from that meeting. Stevenson (see
correction in
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS minutes of
Dec. 13, 1978)
Winston Caine, Star News reporter, advised the Commission that a photographer
from the Star News is attending the meeting for the purpose of taking close up
photos of the Commissioners during the process of the meeting. He hoped this
would cause no distraction or disruption of the Commission's proceedings.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Precise Plan PCM-79-13 to develop three single family
lots at 89 Quintard Street in R-1-5-P zone - Robert Eldred
Supervisor of Current Planning Lee indicated the location of a one-half acre
parcel with 160 feet of frontage along Quintard Street, which the applicant
proposes to split into three lots for development with single family dwellings.
One existing house on the property will remain and be remodeled to leave a four
foot side yard on the west side. There will be an 11 foot separation between
the houses on the three lots. The design of the houses is similar to the
models for the adjacent single family subdivision under construction to the east
which were designed for 5,000 sq. ft. lots. All three lots under this proposal
are well over 5,000 sq. ft. It is recommended that the Negative Declaration be
adopted and a recommendation for approval of the precise plan be forwarded to the
City Council.
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-O'Neill) The Commission finds that the proposed development will
have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration on
IS-79-27.
MSUC (Pressutti-O'Neill) Based on the finding stated in the staff report, the
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the precise plan for
the development of three residential lots at 89 Quintard Street, subject to two
conditions enumerated in the report.
-2- November 22, 1978
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Precise Plan PCM-79-14 to develop four single family lots at 21Quintard Street in R-1-5-P zone - Robert Eldred
Supervisor of Current Planning Lee advised that this application relates to a
parcel nearly one acre in size which presently has two existing houses fronting
on Quintard Street. It is proposed to divide the rear portion of the parcel into
three additional lots to be served by a 20 foot wide driveway easement extending
from Quintard Street at the east side of the property. Five offstreet parking
spaces are shown on the plan, but the applicant has indicated he may wish to make
some modification in that arrangement. This development is similar to the single
family subdivision to the west in which the residential lots are served by a
private road. The lot which will contain the two existing houses will be in
excess of 16,000 sq. ft. In the preparation of the staff report it was assumed
that lot would also have access to the driveway easement and therefore should be
obligated to share in the cost of maintaining that easement. The applicant has
just advised staff that is not the case and that lot 4 will remain in separate
ownership, therefore, the condition requiring the addition of a two car garage
to one of the existing houses is not appropriate. In approving the precise plan
it is recommended that condition "c" be modified to exclude lot 4 from the
maintenance of the access easement and delete condition "g" to require cohstruction
of a garage.
In response to a question from Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Lee advised that the
formation of a home owners' association for the purpose of maintaining common area
has been successful in a number of small developments during the past five years.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As
no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner G. Johnson suggested that in connection with the condition restricting
the location of accessory buildings, an added restriction prohibiting the use of
metal structures on the lots be included.
MSUC (R. Johnson-O'Neill) The Commission finds that this project will have no
significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-79-28.
MS (R. Johnson-Pressutti) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the
Commission recommends that the City Council approve the precise plan for the
creation of four residential lots at 21 Quintard, subject to the conditions
recommended in the staff report, excluding lot 4 from condition "c" and excluding
condition "g" relating to lot 4.
MS (G. Johnson-O'Neill) The motion be amended to modify condition "f" to state
that no metal structures be added to the lots and any structures would require
Planning Department approval.
Commissioner Pressutti spoke against the proposed amendment to the motion as he
felt that there should be some discretionary power left to the home owners and that
sufficient restraints have already been included in the conditions.
Commissioner O'Neill pointed out that the Commission should be looking toward a
concept of higher density in the already established parts of the city. The
creation of three additional lots on this parcel is looking toward that end
and conditions should be applied to make sure such development is not impacting
on their neighbors.
Chairman Smith pointed out that any permanent accessory structure would require
-3- ~"November 22, 1978
a building permit and even a metal structure would have to be at least ten feet
from any other dwelling.
The amendment to the main motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, O'Neill and Stevenson
NOES: Commissioners Pressutti, Smith, R. Johnson and Williams
ABSENT: None
The motion for approval of the precise plan carried unanimously.
3. PUBLIC HERAING: Consideration of amendment to Municipal Code to repeal
and delete sections relating to the F Flood'Plain Modifying
District
Supervisor of Current Planning Lee reported that based on a history of flood damage
occuring in flood plain areas, the State legislature, in 1966, required that cities
adopt flood plain restrictions. In Chula Vista the regulations adopted required
approval of a conditional use permit for construction within the flood plain area.
Such permits included conditions recommended by the Engineering Division to lessen
the effect of flooding on the proposed construction as well as the impact of the
construction on the flooding of adjacent areas.
In order to participate in the flood insurance program offered by the Federal
government, the City Council was directed to amend the Municipal Code to add a
new section which would regulate construction within the flood plain zone. Such
amendment was enacted earlier this month, and it is no longer necessary to require
a conditional use permit or to retain the "F" Modifying District. It is recommended
that the sections relating to that district be repealed and deleted from the code.
Mr. Lee advised that the City is now in agreement on the boundaries of the flood
plain area established for the federal flood insurance program, and covered
by the new regulations.
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-O'Neill) The Commission recommends that the City Council enact
an ordinance amending Title 19 of the MuniCipal Code by deleting the "F" Modifying
District from Section 19.10.020 and repealing Sections 19.56.050 through 19.56.090.
4. Review of conditional use permit PCC-70-35 for major auto repair at the rear
of 24 Broadway, Frank Debbas
Director of Planning Peterson reported that this same item was before the Commission
on September 13 and September 27 for consideration of whether the conditional use
permit should be revoked due to violation of conditions and regulations. On
September 27 the Commission gave the operator of the auto repair facility thirty
days in which to conform to the regulations and to two additional conditions;
namely, that autos stored outside the building would be complete with no missing
- parts and all work would be done inside the building. The staff has observed the
operation since that time and has noted that the operation has not been brought
into conformance with the required conditions although 60 days have elapsed. It
is now recommended that the conditional use permit be revoked and the owner given
60 days to relocate the business to a suitable site and to clean up this site.
-4- "November 22, 1978
Mr. Peterson passed to the Commission photos showing the present condition of
the lot.
Chairman Smith advised this is not a public hearing but the Commission would
entertain comments from the owner or his representative.
Roland Haddad, 7970 Broadway, Lemon Grove, attorney for Mr. Debbas, reported that
as a result of concern expressed at the previous hearing the screening fence on
the north property line was promptly repainted. He asserted that this is not a
salvage operation, that all work is performed within thebuildin~ and that no
inoperable vehicles are being stored. He reported that Mr. Debbas had disposed
of all junked vehicles and it is their feeling that they have complied with the
conditions set forth. If there has been any violation, it has been unintentional.
Commissioners O'Neill and Stevenson questioned whether Mr. Haddad had recently
observed the lot as today there were probably a dozen vehicles on the lot, many of
which would never run again and work was being done outside of the building.
MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission revokes conditional use permit PCC-70-35
for major or minor auto repair facility at the rear of 24 Broadway and directs
that the owner be informed to cease the operation within the next 60 days, including
a complete clean-up of the site.
5. Consideration of amendment to Municipal Code relating to school facilities
Director of Planning Peterson reported that for the last seven years the City has
had, as part of its General Plan, a requirement that there be adequate school
facilities to serve any new residential development that occurs. To meet this
requirement for educational facilities, it has been the practice of the two school
districts to require that a developer make payments to them in lieu of land or new
building facilities to offset the demand on the school system caused by a new
residential development. That payment has been assessed on a sliding scale depending
upon the type of units and the number of bedrooms in each unit. The scale ranged
up to $300 for four bedroom dwellings.
In January of this year State legislation was passed which authorizes cities
to require residential developers to dedicate land, make in lieu payments, or
otherwise assist in the provision of interim facilities to educate the children
of a proposed development. The cities can do this if the school district provides
clear and convincing evidence that a residential development would overload
existing school facilities. If the City Council concurs that such evidence is
established they can require a developer to provide interim educational facilities
to the satisfaction of the school districts; this could take the form of dedication
of land, in lieu payments, or provision of portable buildings. If the City
Council determines there are overriding considerations, a development could be
approved without requiring a contribution by the developer.
In January, 1978 the City Council adopted an interim ordinance to meet the
requirements of the new State Law. To permanently effectuate the law, the
City Attorney has prepared a new ordinance, which has been reviewed by the
school districts. It appears to be the intent of the school districts to
operate as in the past, requiring the payment of fees to provide for school
~acilities but not requiring the dedication of land although this is up to the
school districts. The major developers in the area were notified of this meeting
to consider an amendment and were invited to attend the meeting and present their
views if they desire to do so. One developer has responded indicating an interest
-5- November 22, 1978
in speaking at this meeting.
Commissioner Williams askedwhatthe experience has been in the past as to the
use of the fees collected and what redress the City has if the fees are not used
as intended.
Mr. Peterson advised that the school districts have provided portable classrooms
or added to existing school facilities to meet increasedenrollment from new
developments. He pointed out that the proposed ordinance includes a provision
for record keeping and reporting on fees paid.
Commissioner Smith indicated he could not support an ordinance which would give
the city or the school districts the power to arbitrarily take a particular
parcel of land.
Assistant City Attorney Harron advised that under this ordinance a City Council
or school district does not have the right to act in an arbitrary manner, as
this could be challenged by the developer. Only reasonable actions will be upheld
by the courts.
Steven Lamprides, representing McMillan Development Company, 30th and B Streets,
National City, expressed the hope that the ordinance could be improved in some
areas. He suggested that "interim facility" should be defined in the ordinace.
He asked if a determination of "over crowdedness" could not be more appropriately
done by some agency other than the school districts who would benefit from such
determination. He noted that a report on the utilization of the fees is contained
in the proposed ordinance, but he felt the language should more clearly require
a reporting of how the fees were used.
Mr. Lamprides suggested that there are other mitigations to solving the problem
of overcrowding the schools and these should be considered. These could include
the redrawing of boundaries, transportation of students from one area to another
where the facilities are not overcrowded, or agreements between school districts
for the education of students. He asserted that 80 per cent of the schools in
California now have declining enrollments; and that 30 schools in the San Diego
Unified School District are operating at less than half of their capacity. He
suggested placing a time limit on this ordinance and that other methods of
financing needed schools be provided.
Mr. Lamprides asked if an environmental statement has been prepared on this
ordinance.
Mr. Peterson advised that the ordinance was determined not to be a project as
defined under the California law. Any development project subject to the
provisions of the ordinance would be required to file an environmental report.
In response to points rised by Mr. Lamprides. Mr. Peterson pointed out that
under Section 17.11.130 the proposed ordinance requires a report from the school
districts on how the fees will be used. He also pointed out that Section
17.11.070 A specifically states the requirement for concurrence in the findings
of conditions of overcrowding by the City Council for each proposed development
project.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
In response to a question from Commissioner Smith, Mr. Peterson advised that the
payment of fees by developers to the school districts is presently a requirement
-6- November 22, 1978
of the General Plan and is also covered by the emergency ordinance adopted by the
City Council in January of this year. It is expected there will be little change
in the procedure for payment after adoption of the permanent ordinance; the main
difference being the requirement for a finding of conditions of overcrowding to
be made for every development project.
Chairman Smith raised objection to the requirement for dedication of land,
pointing out this could be unfair to the developer; he felt it should be limited
to the payment of fees based on the size of the development.
Assistant City Attorney Harron advised that the school districts concur with the
wording of the ordinance and he felt the points raised in discussion at this
meeting are adequately covered in the ordinance.
MS (O'Neill-G. Johnson) The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
enact into ordinance the proposed amendment to Chapter 17.11 of the Municipal Code
relating to the provision of interim school facilities.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners O'Neill, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Pressutti, Stevenson
and Williams
NOES: Commissioner Smith
ABSENT: None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None.
COMMISSION CO~qMENTS
Commissioner O'Neill asked if the city would pay the cost for attendance at the
symposium offered by Sanford Goodkin. Mr. Peterson advised that the City would
not.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,