Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1978/07/12 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA July 12, 1978 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, Smith, R. Johnson, Pressutti, Renneisen and O'Neill. Absent (with previous notification) Commissioner G. Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Community Development Director Desrochers, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Fire Marshall Monsell, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Assistant City Attorney Harron, 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 Commissioner O'Neill requested that the minutes of the meeting of June 21 be corrected on page 8, fifth paragraph, with reference to a suggested density bonus, to change the figure of 1500-1600 units to 1200 units. MSUC (Renneisen-R. Johnson) The minutes of the meeting of June 21 be approved with the correction requested by Commissioner O'Neill, and the minutes of the meeting of June 28 be approved as written. OP~qL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were offered. 1. Consideration of EIR-78-13 on Redevelopment Plan for Town Centre Project II Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that a transcript of testimony presented at the public hearing held on June 28 has been added to the Environ- mental Impact Report along with a response to that testimony. He noted that the primary issue raised during the hearing concerned the volume of traffic and the cumulative impact on traffic due to other developments which may occur in the future. One of the concerns expressed was over the shift of traffic on to two-lane residential streets if Fifth Avenue is closed. The Traffic Engineer has indicated that it would not be possible to estimate the amount of traffic that would be shifted to any specific street, but it is not believed that in terms of street capacity this would be a substantial problem. MS (R. Johnson-Renneisen) The Commission certifies that the final EIR-78-13 has been prepared in accordance with the Environmental Review Policy, the State EIR Guidelines and CEQA of 1970. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners R. Johnson, Renneisen, O'Neill, Chandler and Pressutti NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner G. Johnson Commissioner Smith reported that he did not feel the analysis of the impact of traffic on the side streets has been adequately treated in the EIR and he, therefore, voted against the motion. -2- July 12, 1978 2. Consideration of draft Redevelopment Plan for Town Centre Project II Community Development Director Desrochers advised that State Law asks that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation and comments on any redevelopment plan to be considered by the Redevelopment Agency. He pointed out that this project is different from the Bayfront and Town Centre I projects previously adopted since tax increment financing is not proposed. The main purpose of this redevelopment project is to strengthen the existing commercial center and the plan, therefore, includes all major intersections and the commercially zoned property in the area, but not residentially zoned property. He concurred that it would be appropriate to delete Madison Avenue from the redevelopment plan, as well as the parcel at the corner of Fig Avenue and "I" Street. Commissioner O'Neill questioned the statement in the plan that where conflicts with zoning regulations occur the Redevelopment Plan will take precedence. Assistant City Attorney Harron advised that where zoning law and redevelopment law conflict the redevelopment law takes precedence because it is State law whereas zoning is local law. Commissioner O'Neill pointed out that the Plan discusses the bonding issue and he asked if the Redevelopment Agency can issue bonds to finance this plan with- out voter approval. Mr. Desrochers advised that the Agency could issue lease-revenue type bonds, which might apply to parking areas, or there could be an assessment bond. Commissioner Pressutti noted that the major problem appears to be the inter- face of the commercial part of the plan with the residential area. He asked if the plan would contemplate the removal of any existing residential use. Mr. Desrochers pointed out that the boundaries of the plan were drawn to exclude areas in the residential zone, although some residential uses do exist in the commercial zone and are included in the redevelopment area. William Moore, attorney representing Jack Hillier, asked about the possibility of deleting Mr. Hillier's property, located north of "H" Street, east of Fourth avenue, from the boundaries of the plan. Mr. Desrochers indicated he would like to see that property remain in the project area as he felt it would probably be redeveloped privately in the foreseeable future. R. K. Wootters, 620 Guava Avenue, asked the basis for determining this redevel- opment area to be blighted. Mr. Desrochers advised that it qualifies as economic blight under the Calif- ornia Law due to the eroding tax base. He pointed out that Chula Vista has experienced a slow but steady sales tax increase every year, but the increase has not been proportionate to the increase in population. In order to compete with more recently developed centers and future centers , every effort must be made to revitalize this center to bring more shoppers into the area. He expressed the hope that this redevelopment plan would result in additional sales at the center of 18 million dollars a year, which would produce $180,000 additional sales tax revenue. -3- July 12, 1978 MSUC (R. Johnson-Pressutti) The Commission certifies that they have reviewed the contents of the Master Environmental Impact Report on the Chula Vista Town Centre II Plan (EIR-78-13) before considering said plan and its state of conformity and consistency with the Chula Vista General Plan. MS (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission transmits a resolution to the Redevelopment Agency which includes the finding that the draft Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan conforms to, and is consistent with, the Chula Vista General Plan and its several parts and elements, the finding that the draft Redevelop- ment Plan is designed to promote the orderly revitalization of the Chula Vista Town Centre II Project Area and the general welfare of the City of Chula Vista, and a recommendation that the City Council enact the said plan into ordinance subject to the condition that Madison Avenue extending north from "I" Street and the lot on the northwest corner if Fig and "I" Street be removed from the Plan. Commissioner Smith advised that he cannot support a motion that finds this project promotes the general welfare of the City of Chula Vista, and that he feels this belongs in the domain of private enterprise and that public funds should not be used for the benefit of a private property owner. Commissioner Renneisen expressed his understanding of the plan as being one which provides a means whereby the private sector can find more encouragement from the City to redevelop the area, rather than an actual redevelopment by the City. Commissioner Smith pointed out that the owners of the property in the private sector have not appeared before the Commission to indicate their interest. He also noted that the plan includes several pages about condemning private property of those who do not care to conform to the redevelopment plan. He contended this is not the provence of the City to condemn private property for development as other private property, as opposed to the right to condemn property for needed roads, sewers or water projects. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, Chandler and O'Neill NOES: Commissioners Smith and Renneisen ABSENT: Commissioner G. Johnson 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-78-J - Prezonin~ approximatelS 21 acres at the northwest corner of "C" Street and North Second Avenue, MORGA island annexation territors, from R-2 (Counts) to R-1 Director of Planning Peterson reported that this area is one of three annexa- tions initiated by the City under the new State legislation which became effective on January 1 of this year, and which allows for the annexation of inhabited areas without an election under certain conditions. This area fulfills those conditions. -4- July 12, 1978 This public hearing does not deal with the annexation of the property but with the customary practice of prezoning an area when it is contemplated it may be annexed to the city. This enables the property owners to know what the zoning will be, should the annexation go through. Mr. Peterson reported that the staff did not feel the R-2 zoning in the County is appropriate since the predominate use in the area is single family homes in a good state of repair. This appears to be a healthy single family area which should be preserved as such. He pointed out that on the City's General Plan the property on the east side of Del Mar is designated for low density residen- tial, but the area west of Del Mar could be construed as a higher density use. Although Third Avenue is indicated on the map, it is not a developed street, and there is no indication that it will be developed. Accordingly, any develop- ment occurring on the west side of Del Mar Avenue would have to take access from Del Mar. For this reason R-1 zoning is appropriate. Mr. Peterson recommended certification of the Negative Declaration on IS-78-77 relating to the rezoning and a recon~endation that the Council adopt R-1 pre- zoning for the property. Commissioner O'Neill called attention to the statement in the Initial Study and in the staff report that a portion of the property is at a lower elevation which falls within the Sweetwater Flood Plain. He suggested that the "F" Modifying District be applied to that portion. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, recounted the efforts of himself and other residents in the past to maintain the single family residential character of this neighborhood, and expressed his support for R-1 zoning for this county area. Carol Smith, 275 Sea Vale Street, voiced her support for R-1 zoning for this area which is largely vacant and will likely be developed in the future. Robert Vetrecin, 1474 Jade Court, spoke on behalf of his parents, who own the largest parcel in the area west of Del Mar Avenue. He expressed the opinion that the proposed zoning would not be in conformance with the designation on the General Plan which was established some years ago. He reported that the property had been zoned R-2 in the County for the forty years his parents have owned it and he objected to a change which would limit future development of the site. Sybil Yacuzzo, owner of the second largest piece of vacant property to the west of Del Mar, reported that plans which she has for that property cannot come to pass if the zoning is R-1. She contended R-1 zoning would not be in the best interest of the City considering the tax base and considering the need for additional housing near the downtown redevelopment area. Alfred Welker, resident in the area concerned, asked about the possible vacation of Third Avenue and whether they would have an opportunity to be heard on that issue prior to the final decision on the vacation. -5- July 12, 1978 Mitchell Angus, a property owner in Chula Vista, reported that he has agreements to acquire the parcels on the west side of Del Mar for development, He felt the zoning should be in conformance with the General Plan designation of high density. He felt the development costs would be too high to make single family development feasible. He also contended that the adjacent industrial use and R-3 development make R-1 zoning for this property inappropriate. He urged that in the interest of providing some middle income housing a higher density zone be adopted. Judy Clavadetscher, 14 North Second Avenue, advised that she has owned the property for 13 months and the notice of this hearing was addressed to the former owner. She objected that she had not received more information on this proposal. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed, Commissioner O'Neill asked the Assistant City Attorney about the city's legal obligation to honor the zoning which has existed under the County for a number of years if development plans or contractual obligations have been made under that zoning. Commissioner Renneisen pointed out that in this case there are three things to be considered: the existing county zoning, the density shown on the General Plan, and the proposed prezoning. Assistant City Attorney Harron advised that this is an often litigated question and the law is pretty clear. It has been ruled that an owner gets invested rights in zoning only when he draws building permits and begins to develop the land. As long as development plans have not been presented and approved the zone may be changed without fear of inverse condemnation. Commissioner Smith asked if this property has been historically zoned R-2 in the County. Mr. Peterson expressed the belief that it has been for 7 or 8 years and that prior to that time it was either agriculture or a very low density. Commissioner Smith asked if this were zoned R-1 or R~2 would the long parcels be eligible for development under the provisions for dwelling groups, Mr. Peterson affirmed they would be. Commissioner Smith suggested the possibility of establishing a zoning boundary line approximately 150 feet west of Del Mar Avenue with R-1 zoning to the east and higher density to the west. Mr. Peterson advised that might be acceptable if there were a potential for extending Third Avenue north from "C" Street, but since that seems unlikely and the properties will require access from Del Mar Avenue, the R-1 zoning is more appropriate. -6- July 12, 1978 MSUC (Pressutti-Renneisen) The Commission finds that in accordance with the findings in the Negative Declaration on Initial Study IS-78-77 this prezoning will have no significant adverse environmental impact, and certifies the Nega- tive Declaration. MS (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the area be prezoned R-1 as shown on Exhibit "A" with the F Modifying District attached as appro- priate. The motion failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson and Chandler NOES: Commissioners O'Neill, Renneisen and Smith ABSENT: Commissioner G. Johnson MS (O'Neill-Renneisen) The proposal for prezoning the area be referred back to the staff for further study. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners O'Neill, Renneisen, Chandler and Pressutti NOES: Commissioners R. Johnson and Smith ABSENT: Commissioner G. Johnson 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of precise plan for 7-Eleven Food Stor~ at the southwest corner of Melrose Avenue and Otay Valley Road in C-N-P zone Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location at the southwest corner of Otay Valley Road and Rancho Drive which joins Melrose Avenue. He recalled the recent approval for restaurant and motel development in the C-V zone to the east of Rancho Drive, and more recently the 50 unit condominium project located directly south of the subject property. The 7-Eleven store would occupy the eastern portion of the remaining C-N zoned property. Mr. Lee stressed the need for an access agreement with the owner of the western portion. He called attention to the recommended conditions relating to signage, fencing and land- scaping. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mark Ochs, construction coordinator for 7-Eleven, reported that they have verbally discussed the required joint access agreement with the owner of the property to the west and the paperwork for that agreement is currently in process. He advised that they have no objection to any of the conditions recommended in the staff report. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Pressutti-Renneisen) Based on the findings as stated in the staff report - the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the precise plan for the 7-Eleven store, subject to the conditions enumerated in the report. -7- July 12, 1978 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-78-8 - Tentative subdivision map for conversion of La Bonita Apartments into condominiums, 4075-4201 Bonita Road Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of the property consisting of about six acres on the north side of Bonita Road and abutting the Chula Vista Golf Course. The property was developed some years ago with 116 apart- ment units and 167 parking spaces, with about one-half located in carports. A subdivision map has been filed to permit conversion to condominiums. Mr. Lee called attention to the ordinance requirements which must be met in connection with the conversion to condominiums, and also the conditions recommended in the approval which include installation of street lights and undergrounding utilities on the site and in Bonita Road. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Alan Nevin, 4022 Gresham Street, San Diego, representing the owners and converters of La Bonita, expressed concurrence with the conditions as recommended. Harry Wootters, 4201 Bonita Road, asked who comprises La Bonita Condominium Investors, Inc. Mr. Nevin advised that it is himself and Marvin Carroll and that incorpoation papers are being processed and will be completed before the final subdivision map is filed. Mr. Wootters asked why the tenants or residents of an apartment project are not given the opportunity to voice their approval or disapproval of converting the project into condominiums. Director of Planning Peterson advised that such an opportunity is available at this public hearing and in the public hearing that will be held before the City Council. He pointed out that the property is privately owned and the owner has the right to file for subdividing the property. It was also pointed out that the City Council has expressed an interest in considering placing some limitation on condominium conversions and a Council Conference on the subject has been set for August. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Renneisen-Pressutti) Based on the findings contained in the staff report, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for La Bonita, PCS-78-8, subject to the conditions enumerated in the report. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Renneisen, Pressutti, Chandler, R. Johnson and Smith NOES: Commissioner O'Neill ABSENT: Commissioner G. Johnson -8- July 12, 1978 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-78,5 - Tentative subdivision ma~ to convert Stratford Arms, 69 apartment units, to cOndominiums, 250 Kennedy Street, Alton Beauchamp Chairman Chandler advised of the receipt of a letter from the applicant requesting a 60 day continuance of this public hearing. MSUC (Pressutti-Renneisen) The public hearing in consideration of tentative subdivision map PCS-78-5 for the conversion of Stratford Arms to condominiums shall be continued to the meeting of September 13, 1978. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Winston Caine, reporter for the Star News, pointed out that Mr. Desrochers had indicated an 18 million dollar increase in sales tax revenue as a result of the proposed Town Centre II Redevelopment Project, whereas this should be $180,000. It was noted that Mr. Desrochers had later corrected himself. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson reported that the study session for July 19th has been scheduled for 5:00 p.m. in the administrative conference room with adjourn- ment for dinner at 7:00 p.m. Included in that study session will be a report by a representative of the County on the development of Sweetwater Regional Park, as well as several items for Commission discussion. Mr. Peterson reported that no applications requiring public hearing have been filed for the meeting of July 26. It would be possible to cancel that business meeting if it is the Commission's desire. MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The regular Planning Commission meeting for July 26, 1978, shall be cancelled. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Renneisen expressed strong disappointment that the proposal for E1 Rancho del Rey development was sent to the City Council without a recommen- dation from the Planning Commission. He asserted that if the Commission could not reach an agreement on supporting either the staff's plan or the applicant's request, they should have tried to arrive at a compromise. He felt the Commis- sion has an obligation to explore alternatives, and that the staff, instead of taking an immovable position, should have presented other alternatives which the Commission could consider and pointed out the impact of such alternatives. Mr. Peterson advised that in his opinion if a number of alternatives are dis- cussed the staff report becomes very lengthy and may be confusing. He suggested that could be a topic for discussion at a study session if the Commission desires. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Smith moved that the meeting be adjourned. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secret~ry