Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1978/05/10 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 10, 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 Commissioners present: Chandler, Smith, R. Johnson, Pressutti, G. Johnson, O'Neill and Renneisen. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Assistant City Attorney Harron, acting secretary Eglinger and Young. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (O'Neill-Smith) The minutes of the meetings of April 19, 1978 and April 26, 1978 be approved - as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Commissioner Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented. l. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map PCS-78-4 for Chula Vista Terrace 174 Fourth Avenue - Frank & Carolyn Won9 and Edwin & Delores Schlehuber Director of Planning Peterson stated that this is a proposal to convert a 19-unit apartment building now under construction and not yet occupied to a condominium. He stated that since the building is unoccupied, the same kind of problems did not exist as experienced by the Planning Commission two weeks ago with the Touch of Spain conversion - that being the tenants worrying about the ability to purchase. Mr. Peterson explained that if the subdivision meets our own ordinances which at this time are minimal, and State law, the staff is obligated to recommend approval. Terry Dillman, representing the applicants, Frank & Carolyn Wong and Edwin & Delores Schlehuber, 3434 4th Avenue, San Diego, stated that he approved the staff recommendations and said he was here to answer any questions. Commissioner O'Neill questioned Dillman about his client's motives to convert from an apartment house to a condominium. Dillman answered that in this type of a project it is strictly economic - based on land and construction costs. If the owners or the developer were to keep this as an apartment house, they would lose anywhere between $10K .- $12,000 a year in cash flow, unless rents were $350 a month or more. -2- May 10, 1978 MSUC (Pressutti/R. Johnson) Based on the findings contained in Section D of this report recommended that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map PCS-78-4 for the Chula Vista Terrace. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Precise Plan PCM-78-20 for industrial building to store, package and distribute petro-chemical products at 1888 Nirvana Avenue, Otas Industrial Park in I-P zone - A. L. Currie Current Planning Supervisor Lee described the property layout including the building. Commissioner Pressutti asked about the term "petro-chemical." Staff noted that there are a variety of petroleum products that are processed through various firms. The Fire Department has looked into the operations - they are recommending an on-site hydrant. Commissioner G. Johnson asked how the Commission could encourage the City to upgrade the landscaping, and asked if there was some way we could include in the report a desire to upgrade this landscaping. Current Planning Supervisor Lee stated that this was again a case where the area outside the fence was to be handled by the owners of the park. The city is con- tacting the owners with regard to upgrading the area outside of the fence area. Individual developers are responsible for the area inside of the property. Commissioner O'Neill stated that there had been quite a problem in that general area with the Omar Rendering Company. Asked what would be the nature of the ~missicn~ lo the atmosphere. emissions (correction to minutes on June 14) Environmental Coordinator Doug Reid stated that the omissions handling of the retroactive hydro-carbons are clearly in compliance with the APCD regulations, in fact their current operation which is near the Coronado Bay Bridge was used as the example to prepare those regulations. Fred Kaslo, the architect on the project, stated he agreed with everything presented, and it was his client's intention to enhance the whole area with more trees and proper lighting. Commissioner Pressutti posed a question regarding the safety of delivery of petro-chemicals. Director of Planning Peterson stated that obviously they can't be delivered to the site by rail and expected that they would be delivered to some point in SD and then delivered by truck to the site, however, he really didn't know. He said that this was the kind of thing that is monitored pretty closely by the Fire Department as well as certain State agencies. He shares the concern over transportation of petro-chemicals but thinks it goes beyond the Planning Commission's responsibility. Said that it might be more appropriate if applied to handling of chemicals right on-site. The Fire Department has been satisfied in that respect. -3- May 10, 1978 MSUC (G. Johnson/R. Johnson) The Commission finds in accordance with the negative declaration on IS-78-63 and the findings stated herein. This project will have no significant adverse environmental impact and certifies the negative declaration. MSUC (G. Johnson/Renneisen) Based on findings as stated in staff report, recommended that the City Council approve the precise plan PCM-78-20 for the development of an industrial complex for petro-chemical products at 1888 Nirvana Avenue subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. 3. Consideration of EIR-78-10 - Plaza Valle Verde Community Shopping Center on south side of Otay Valley Road, east of Melrose Avenue Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that this EIR was before the Planning Commission at the April 26th meeting and consideration of the Final Report was set for this evening. Transcript from that hearing has been provided and will become Section 11 of the Final Report and Section 12 is a response to that testimony. The issues raised during that hearing were basically the same as were raised in the EIR: - the crucial impact between residential and commercial developments, the traffic increase that may result in the requirement for traffic signals at inter- section of Melrose Ave. and Otay River Road, and the retention of the existing Eucalyptus Grove on the site. These impacts can be mitigated to an insignificant level and should be considered when the Planning Commission considers the precise plan on the project. MSUC: (R. Johnson/Pressutti) The Planning Commission adopts EIR-78-10 with the inclusion of the testimony presented in the Public Hearing as the final environ- mental impact report for the development of commercial property on the south side of Otay Valley Rd., east of Melrose. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of General Plan Amendment GPA-78-2 to change 7.18 acres at the southeast corner of Otay Valley Road and Melrose from Visitor Commercial to Retail Commercial Director of Planning Peterson stated that this is a proposal to amend the General Plan for the same area as the previous EIR. The property is located west of 805 and south of Otay Valley Road. The existing General Plan designation is Visitor Commercial. However, staff has felt for some time that the amount of Visitor Commercial designation in this area, which is about 10 acres, is really more than warranted. Director of Planning Peterson noted the various locations of Visitor Commercial along 805, pointing out the amount of land lying vacant. He cited the over- abundance of Visitor Commercial zoning, stating it was more appropriate to change to Retail Commercial, pointing out that while we are expanding the amount of Retail Commercial on the east side of Melrose Avenue we would be reducing the amount of commercial on the west side of Melrose. -4- May 1 O, 1978 Commissioner Pressutti stated he wanted to make sure that this has nothing to do with approving any construction. Director of Planning Peterson responded that an application to rezone the property and also a precise plan for the development of that property would likely follow. Walter Schwerin, Schwerin, Xinos & Associates, representing applicant DAWAT, stated they were in favor of the proposed change, noting the over-abundance of Visitor Commerical property in the General Plan and citing the need for a well-designed community center in this area. Will Hagenbuch, 315-D Rancho Drive, Chula Vista, questioned what kind of a wall would be built in front of his front window. Director of Planning Peterson answered by saying that it would depend on the Council action in amending the General Plan, changing the zoning, and the applicant would be obligated to bring in his development plan which would have all the detail, including walls and anything associated with it. Mr. Hagenbuch would of course be notified of that hearing. A problem occurred two weeks ago at a hearing where apparently some of the Assessor's records still reflect the developer as the owner of the property, thus the homeowners were not notified. This problem occurs due to a lag time between the time of the purchase of the property and the time the Assessor's records are updated and forwarded to the city. MSUC: (Renneisen/G. Johnson) Based on the findings in the staff report the Commission recommends to the City Council that the General Plan diagram be amended from Visitor Commercial to Retail Commercial for approximately 7 acres located at the southeast corner of Melrose Avenue and Otay Valley Road as shown on Exhibit A Staff Report. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of precise plan PCM-78-19 for motel and restaurant at southwest quadrant of 1-805 and Otas Valles Road in C-V-P zone - 5 Fla~s Limited - (Carl Salatino) Director of Planning Peterson stated that the hearing on the EIR was held at the last meeting and certified at that time - thus tonight's hearing is the precise development plan. Director Peterson described the project's location and site details, pointing out that staff had worked closely with Mr. Salatino, the developer, trying to work out the details on his project as well as the prospective developer of the adjoining shopping center site. The shopping center site plan, he pointed out, is pretty schematic in nature and represents the best idea of a developer at this time, noting that the plan for the center was not before the Planning Commission at this time. He stressed the desirability of making some vehicular connection between the motel site and the shopping center. Commissioner Pressutti asked if it was not correct that either Visitor Commercial or Retail Commercial would experience the same problems of noise and traffic. Director of Planning Peterson answered that it would be correct; however, the potential for noise would be greater in a shopping center than in a Visitor Commercial type of use, but it could be handled in a satisfactory manner due to the size of the site. -5- May 10, 1978 Carl Salatino, representing the Developers, addressed himself to only one paragraph in the recommendation, concerning the common entrance to the adjacent development, stating they were not adverse to allowing adjacent property owners to come across their property for use as a common entrance; however, there is a problem in making it a condition of the approval. He noted that at the present time the developer for the shopping center is not the owner, whereas he is the owner-in-fee of the L-shaped portion. The present owner is really not in a position to negotiate for a driveway location because he cannot be assured where the building will ultimately be. He stated that the opening would be to their advantage when it is developed as a shopping center; however, he preferred not to be tied up with something so tight that it couldn't be changed in the future. Mr. Salatino said he was willing to allow the driveway but urged that Commission recommend approval of this site plan to City Council without the condition of the driveway opening being mandatory. In response to Commissioner Renneisen, Mr. Salatino said he was in agreement with the rest of the conditions posed by the Staff. Commissioner Smith questioned the opening being desirable at all as it would tend to increase the traffic past the entrance to the restuarant which might not cause interference but rather create an in-and-out driveway for those buildings at the easterly end of the shopping center and thereby increase the traffic problems considerably. Salatino said that it could, however, he hoped that the Planning Staff would see to it that a major driveway opening was designed into the shopping center develop- ment which would be more attractive for ingress and egress for people using the shopping center. Director of Planning Peterson stated that it would be very defi'nitely in the common interest and thinks that the driveway on Mr. Salatino's property would not be extensively used by anybody patronizing that center. He advised that it would be possible to make the main driveway off Otay Valley Road attractive enough and direct enough and pointing more directly towards the super-market which is a big draw. A joint agreement would not be necessary until such time as the shopping center is developed and the layout is known. Commissioner Gayle Johnson suggested that another consideration would be a pedes- trian walk-thru of some type for the motel customers who would use the services. Salatino advised that they want to develop the entire site as though it were being developed by one developer so that it would all look compatible, and would provide free access to pedestrians. Mr. Salatino proposed that the language requiring the joint access be changed to something less mandate, stating that it would be very beneficial to them if there was free access because their restaurant will be attracting people to the shopping center. -6- May 10, 1978 Commissioner O'Neill advised that if we do make this a continued item, then we have the obligation to follow thru when we approve the precise plan and the other property would have a similar requirement. Director of Planning Peterson suggested that the wording be left as is, working with the developer of the shopping center and coming back to the Planning Commission and recommending some modifications of language if necessary. Mr. Salatino concurred with Mr. Peterson and stated that the driveway, as the shopping center is laid out now, should go straight in - the problem being that they are not sure if the development will ever formulate. He stated that the biggest problem is the legalities of maintenance. He asked that some consideration be given to allow for joint maintenance, etc., liability insurance, etc. Planning Director Peterson stated that it could be addressed at the time the precise plan for the shopping center was before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Renneisen stated that he thought this could be remedied by simply adding a phrase before the beginning of Condition No. 12 which reads to the effect that at the time the adjacent parcel is developed, the parking stalls, etc. etc, .... and then in the last sentence where it says - "Owners of both properties are urged to draw up a joint access agreement to accomplish this condition." Walter Schwerin, representing DAWAT Properties, stated that he would have to concur with Mr. Peterson very strongly that there is a need for joint access between both properties. He is in full accord with the need for mutual access and in full accord with the orderly development of both properties. Mr. Salatino, as has been pointed out, is further ahead in his plans at this point in time than DAWAT Corporation is. He said they are still negotiating for their major tenant and some other tenants and, with that in mind, there needs to be a certain amount of flexibility involved and that access will probably have to be worked out. He indicated the need to have the wording allow for a certain amount of flexibility at a later date but, in general, they are in full accord and in full support of the Staff recommendations in develop- ing the project. MSUC (Renneisen/O'Neill) Based on the findings contained in Section E of the Staff Report the Commission recommends to City Council that Council approve the precise plan PCM-78-19 for the construction of a motel and restaurant complex at the southwest corner of 1-805 and Otay Valley Road, subject to the conditions in the staff report modified as follows: Condition 12 be changed to read - "At the time of development of the adjacent parcel of land, the parking stalls and plan located south of the entrance drive extending in from Otay Valley Road shall be removed to provide joint access between this development and future development plans to the south and west. Said access shall remain open at all times allowing for free flow of traffic between both areas. Owners of both properties are urged to draw up a joint access, liability and maintenance agreement to accomplish this condition." -7- May 10, 1978 6. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-78-12 for Vista de OatS Condominium - National Properties Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that this EIR was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on April 6, 1978. The project itself called for the construction of 52 dwelling units near the southwest corner of Melrose and Otay Valley Road. The report also anticipates the development of a little over an acre of neighborhood commercial property immediately adjacent to Otay Valley Road. The southern approximately three acres are now proposed to be developed with about 50 dwelling units - a reduction of 2 units from the time the EIR was prepared. Forty-eight (48) of the units would be in fourplex struc- tures and two in a duplex unit. Parking would be accommodated in carports and open parking. Open space would be provided in the form of landscaped areas within the project, partial completion of the landscaped swale to the west of the project and each unit would have its own private patio. It was noted that potential traffic impact had been previously discussed and a problem exists at the intersection of Otay Valley Road and Melrose Ave. Schools from this project and others in the area could produce a cumulatively significant impact on schools in the area, however, they are experiencing declining enrollment so they can probably, over a period of time, take care of the students from this project. Mr. Reid noted that the same thing can be said of park facilities - there are none in the immed- iate area, however, the project would be required to pay park fees and would have its own private recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact problems of any significance are anticipate. He stated that the EIR Environmental Control Com- mission has reviewed the reports and identified several problems which are in the background section of the Staff Report. Paul Buss, Architect, representing the developer, National Properties, stated they were in agreement with the EIR and said the only comment they had was to note that they were talking about carports rather than garages. MSUC (R. Johnson/Pressutti) The Planning Commission adopts EIR-78-12 noting that it has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Environmental Review Policy. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: a. Conditional use permit PCC-78-29 for multiple family development in C-N-P zone - National Properties b. Precise plan PCM-78-23 for 50 unit condominium development at 1700 block of Melrose Avenue c. Tentative subdivision map PCS-78-6 for Vista de Otay Director of Planning Peterson stated that he would make comments on all three items and action be taken on each item separately. Mr. Peterson stated that the basic question on Item 7a Use Permit is a question as to whether or not this type of land use is acceptable in this C-N zone. He stated that staff thinks that it is an appropriate use of land in this area - and is very compatible in structure type and unit makeup with the Rancho Rios area to the south. He concluded that it is an acceptable use in this location and recommended approval of Use Permit. -8- May 10, 1978 Mr. Peterson described the units in detail and stated that when staff first looked at the site plan there was some concern about the angles of the buildings and their placement on the lots - but the more the site was studied the more excited staff became. It is felt that the site can be a very interesting de- velopment. The parking consists of two driveways - one at the north edge of the property and one at the south edge, not connected but each providing for a turn-around at the westerly edge. Mr. Peterson noted that the density was higher than Pl aymore to the south but considers it appropriate as commercial develop- ment approaches a major thoroughfare. Mr. Peterson stated there was a requirement for a zoning wall separating a commercial development from a residential development. Elevations were very attractive, being similar to the Playmore development to the south. Will Hagenbuch said he was representing Rancho Rios as there didn't seem to be very many people present. He stated it was a beautiful plan but it didn't show the external sides, and talked about garages up against the commercial site or the carports or whatever they will be, but he wanted to call attention to the south side. He noted that there were houses 25 feet away from the carports with their picture windows in the living room facing that area. He voiced his concern about this type of arrangement being placed in front of his front window. Paul Buss, Architect representing the developer, stated he understood the concern but noted their intent relative to the carports is to utilize a six foot wood fence there which would give about as good a character as possible. Will Hagenbuch asked him to consider the aesthetic appeal to the neighborhood. Mary Fox, 245-D Rancho Drive, commented that the first thing that occurred to her was that there are units immediately to the south - seven buildings in Rancho Rios oldest section. First she wanted to know if those people were notified by mail of the hearing. Two weeks ago they found out that eight people on the other side of Melrose were not notified of the proposed change in the General Plan commercial area. Secondly, she was concerned about the fact that there will be 50 dwelling units in that small area in 3 bedroom units which would tend to bring in families, and since she had a family herself, she has found since moving to Rancho Rios that there is relatively no place for children to play. Mrs. Fox said that Rancho Rios had only one pool and that the new development would have only one pool. She further stated that you can't expect children under school age to play in a pool area. She said she would like to see more park area. Director of Planning Peterson stated that he didn't know the names of the two Cul-de-Sacs Mrs. Fox was discussing but notification was sent to a number of property owners listed on Rancho Court and Rancho Drive. He noted that perhaps some of these were rental units. Chairman Chandler asked about open space or play areas for children. Mr. Peterson advised that there was no designated play area, but that there were open areas. -9- May 10, 1978 Paul Buss stated that relative to the shake shingles, they wanted to retain the same warm tone of materials, but obviously they would like to have some of their own identity plus, due to some maintenance factors, they have con- sidered using tile. Relative to the play equipment, they are obviously trying to provide these things and also trying to work out arrangements relative to landscaping for some of the area to the west which they think would help the neighborhood. Commissioner O'Neill asked about using the open space to the west side of the project. Planning Director Peterson advised that it was part of a drainage area that doubles as a green belt for the Playmore development. MSUC (Pressutti/R. Johnson) 7a. Based on the findings as stated in the Staff Report, the Planning Commission approves PCC-78-29 to construct the 50-condominium development on the 3.04 acres parcel this side of Melrose, 150 ft. south of Otay Valley Road in the C-N-P zone. MSUC (Renneisen/Pressutti) 7b. Based on the findings in Section E of the Staff Report, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the precise plan (PCM-78-23) for the development of a 50-unit condominium project on the west side of Melrose Ave., south of Otay Valley Road, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report amended as follows: Condition 2, where it reads "garages" should be changed to read "carports." MSUC (Renneisen/Pressutti) 7b. The Commission moves that the conditions in the previous motion be amended to include one that has words to the effect that shake shingles or an acceptable substitute be used for the roofs. MSUC (G. Johnson/Renneisen) 7c. The Commission recommends to the City Council that they approve the tentative subdivision map PCS-78-6 for Vista De Otay, subject to the requirements listed in the Staff Report. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-78-11 for Melrose Condominium - American Building Arts Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that this EIR was also issued by the Review Committee on April 6. It is supplemental to a report that was previously certified by the Planning Commission. This revised project involves about 116 dwelling units on a little over 10 acres, at a density of about 10.5 dwelling units per acre. Over 230 parking spaces would also be provided, along with the recreation room, swimming pool, and other facilities. To implement the project, about 60,000 cu. yds. of grading would be required and about 10,000 cu. yds. would have to be exported from the site, location has not been determined at this point. This would result in an irreversible land form change on the property; however, it has been partially graded at this point and disturbed by other uses. Land- scaping of the site would mitigate any long term effects due to aesthetic impact, errosion siltation from runoff. It is subject to acoustical impact; however, this is a multiple family project and therefore has to meet code re- quirements as far as noise insulation is provided. -10- May 10, 1978 Commissioner O'Neill questioned that it was very difficult to visualize the area and wondered what the topography is going to look like when they start building. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid answered that the steep slopes are already there but he didn't believe that they were going to have the type of errosion and slope area problems that has resulted in the Los Angeles area because our regulations on compaction and soil testing, and even in the L.A. area the newer slopes were developed with regulations which are now part of our code and have been stable during the rather adverse weather conditions. Gary Lipska, Toups Corporation, 2223 Avenida de la Playa, La Jolla, stated that they have reviewed Environmental Impact Report and it seems to be complete. They have no other items to bring forward. Scott MacLeod, 285-B Rancho Drive, Playmore, stated that their development, plus the new unit of 50 dwellings, Hilltop Manor and others are all high density units, and the nearest park is north of Orange and it is impossible for the children to get up there. Would like to know where in the General Plan there are any parks in the vicinity of Melrose and Otay Valley Road, or plans for such. Director of Planning Peterson, in answer to Mr. MacLeod, advised that the near- est park shown on the General Plan is the Larkhaven Park in the American Housing Guild area and agrees that it is pretty remote from this area. He noted that the entire Otay River Valley is shown on the General Plan as permanent open space and at some point perhaps portions of that would be developed but at least the people in the Plab~nore development can look forward to not being surrounded by the development on the south. MSUC (Renneisen/R. Johnson) The Planning Commission adopts EIR 78-11 as the final EIR and certifies that this EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Environmental Review policy, and that the Planning Commission has reviewed the information in the EIR. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of request to amend precise plan ~uidelines for propertS at 910 Industrial Boulevard in I-L-P zone PHd Corp. Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that the applicant proposes to utilize an existing site at the southwest corner of Land Industrial Blvd. for a truck rental operation wherein the site is presently being used for boat sales and service. As part of the operation, the applicant would like to remove a 28 ft. high sign which contains about 48 sq. ft. presently located on Industrial Blvd., and there are also two signs that are considered wall signs on either side of the imitation chimney that was part of the architectural structure on the site. In removing these existing signs, the applicant is proposing to construct a new 28 ft. high 130 sq. ft. sign advertising the truck rental and also noting that diesel fuel is available. The subject property as well as adjoining land -ll- May 10, 1978 to the south of course had the P-Modifying District attached to it as well as several entry ways to the city along the Freeway~about two years ago by the City Council. At that time, there were precise guideliness attached to these areas which for the most part limited signing to ground monument signs. This particular property was not in effect at that time because it had an existing sign (freestanding) on Industrial Blvd. The City Council was concerned about the image of the City in terms of signing as people pass by the Freeway to enter the city itself. The only sign that has been placed along the Freeway in recent years is the sign for Anthony's Restaurant which is limited to a 7-year period. Mr. Lee noted that, for the most part, freeway-oriented signs have been effective- ly curtailed by the City. In this particular instance, staff tried to analyze the importance of the sign, noting that as you head in a southerly direction the sign is really obscured by the bridge at "L" Street. If you are heading in a northerly direction, the off-ramp is located a quarter of a mile away from the sign - and it seems to staff that the sign would simply add to the clutter of the freeway and would set a precedent for other requests along the freeway. Commissioner Roy Johnson stated that it was true that there were very few signs along I-5 and asked about the sign for Lawless Diesel. Current Planning Supervisor Lee answered that Lawless Diesel is in the redevelop- ment area and is not under the control of the Planning Department. He noted that the Redevelopment Agency has been contacted since the sign is not in conformance with the redevelopment standards for the Bay Front area. The sign has not been removed because a consultant was called in to study the sign regulations in the redevelopment area and we are pending the result of that study before having the sign removed. Commissioner Jack O'Neill asked what sort of a sign would be legal to advertise a business. Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that signs can be placed on the building in accordance with the I zone. The main concern of staff is with the freestanding signs and those signs that would relate to the freeway itself, the guidelines specifically relate to providing identification on Industrial Blvd., and not towards the Freeway. There are signs on certain structures themselves which are not freestanding signs, but rather signs on the buildings which are exposed to the freeway. Dick Jankowsky, Vice President of PHd Corporation, 4285 Camino Del Rio South, San Diego, CA., briefed those present on the history of the PHd Corp., stating they lease vehicles to large corporations and provide certain services such as providing fuel, substitute vehicles for casualties on the road, and providing mechanics for repairs. He noted that the specific site itself is the gateway to Chula Vista, and he feels PHd will be a great improvement over the boat works. They plan to invest $1,000,000 in equipment and totally clean up the site. Their long range goal is to make this a regional service center for PHd. They have one in Escondido and one in Mission Valley, and it is their intention to have this as their South Bay operation. Mr. Jankowsky cited the need for -12- MaS lO~ 1978 freeway exposure in placing a sign adjacent to I-5. He stated that Leaseway Transportation Corp. publishes a book that is given to all corporations involved in the operation and listing the sites that can service them. He indicated that if they are unable to get the sign they would have no choice but to vacate the property and move further south or a little bit to the north. Commissioner Renneisen asked whether the lack of a sign on this property effectively prohibits them from doing business there. Mr. Jankowsky indicated that was correct, in fact they have similar free-standing signs in Escondido and Mission Valley. MS (Rennesisen/W. Smith) Moved for approval of the request. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Smith, R. Johnson, Pressutti, O'Neill, and Renneisen (correction to minutes made on June 14) NOES: Chandler, Gayle Johnson, ~nd R. R~nncis~n ABSENT: None Planning Director Peterson addressed the chair, stating that he wished to point out that the guidelines were established by Resolution of the Council so the action tonight will be forwarded to them with the Commission's recommendation that it be approved. Commissioner Pressutti expressed concern over the compatibility of the truck rental with the nearby amusement area. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-78-9 for Bonita Haciendas Subdivision - V & V Development Co. Environmental Coordinator Reid advised that this project involves 30 acres of land north of Bonita Vista High School just to the east of Otay Lakes Road. The southerly 20 acres are within the city of Chula Vista and the northerly 10 acres are in the county and will be subject to annexation, therefore the local agency formation com- mission is a responsible agency in this action. The project involves a subdivision of the property into 57 single family dwelling lots and four open space lots for a total in open space of about 3.83 acres. Implementation of the project would require about 90,000 cu. yds of grading. The site does contain the endangered species of coast barrel cactus found thruout this area and also contains a light scatter of archeological tools. Mr. Reid indicated that the impacts could likely be mitigated thru relocating the barrel cactus and the surface collection of the archeological resources. Soil conditions on the site include some clay strips that will require special grade techniques to insure that the foundations of the structures will be safe. Sewer service to the site on a short term basis will have to be provided by a lift station to Otay Lakes Road. On a long term basis, it is possible to provide a gravity sewer to the north along the Long Canyon drainage basin. Most of the schools in this area are currently overcrowded and the additional students from this project will exacerbate that problem. The developer is proposing to make cash payments to the school districts to provide temporary facilities. He stated that the impacts of the project can be mitigated, noting that the ECC has reviewed this EIR and found it satisfactory. There were about four concerns that were noted in the background of the report. -13- May 10, 1978 Walter Schwerin, V & V Development Corp., representing the developer, complimented Doug Reid on his EIR report stating that he thought it was very thorough. He felt that there were three possible elements of concern as far as the EIR is concerned, that perhaps the commission may or may not consider, but would like to address them as follows: One is whether or not the development is appropriate at this time, and the second one is the problem of traffic generation to the south, and third, the school issue. Mr. Schwerin stated that in his opinion the development is very appropriate at this time due to the proximity of schools even though they are overcrowded they are within easy walking distance. Utilities are not over-extended in this area, and the scale of the project is not over-powering since they propose 57 units on 30 acres. He pointed out that there is residential development to the south and there is condominium development to the north and that the density of the project is less than any of the surrounding densities. The traffic generated from this development would generally be going to the north thru Bonita Road and utilizing the shopping facilities there. He noted that the schools are existing and as the neighborhood matures there will be an increasing demand for developments to feed the schools that are already in existence rather than going to a rural area and then create a total need for schools. Mr. Schwerin indicated that they have conducted an economic feasibility study regarding the construction of a sewer pump station versus construc- tion of a sewer through Gersten's property. The cost for sewer construction would be slightly in excess of $100,000, whereas the cost for the sewer lift station would be approximately $40,000 including the cost of the force main; therefore he felt it would be appropriate to build the lift station at this time. He noted that there would be a homeowners' association created within this development and the homeowners' association would take care of the maintenance of the sewage lift station. Mr. Schwerin also pointed out that they are also being required to pay an assess- ment on the Long Canyon sewage facilities for that area based on approximate lineal footage of the run thru their project. Commissioner Gayle Johnson asked what amount the Homeowners' Association would be taxed for a lift station, and questioned whether or not people would be informed of this when they buy the houses. Mr. Schwerin stated that most definitely they would be informed. State law requires that they prepare a budget because so many homeowners' associations in the past have been inaccurate. Commissioner R. Johnson asked what would happen when lift stations being run by electric pumps are shut down by a power shortage, as happened this past winter. Mr. Schwerin asnswered that the sewage pump stations consist of a wet well which actuates at such time as it gets to a certain level of sewage effluent, and during a power shortage the secondary wet well would accommodate the excess of the amount held in the primary well. The system is probably capable of handling approximately two days effluent from the subdivision. -14- May 10, 1978 MSUC (Renneisen/G. Johnson) The Planning Commission adopts EIR-78-9 and certifies that the EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the California Administrative Code in the Environmental Review Policy and the Commission has reviewed the information in the EIR. ll.a PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-78-G Rezonin~ and prezonin§ 30 acres~ east of OtaS Lakes Road, north of Bonita Vista High School, from R-E and L-C (Counts) to R-I-15-P V & V Development Company Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that there are 20 acres which are located in the city and presently zoned R-E which is requested for rezoning to R-I-15-P and the prezoning of the 10 acres which is the northerly past of the project located in the county and zoned with the L-C designation. The L-C is a limited control and has a minimum lot size requirement of 2-1/2 acres. The closest resi- dential development in the area is R-1 property to the northwest which has about 42 dwelling units on roughly 10 acres, with about 4 units per acre. Mr. Lee went on to describe the other adjoining land uses and zones adjacent to the site. He ex- plained that approximately five (5) acres of the site are located in the gas and electric easement so there are about 25 acres in the site that are developable. In the staff's analysis, it was pointed out, if the entire 30 acres were zoned R-E residential estates, the yield would be about 42 to 43 lots, therefore the proposed zoning to the R-l-15 will result in an increased yield for the applicant by about 33%, whereas if the property were placed in the hillside modifying district, the property would yield about 56 lots which is approximately what the applicant is proposing in this development. The only change is that the Hillside Ordinance itself would restrict the grading to about 50% of the site whereas essentially this is a 100% grading operation. The proposed zoning then would allow approxi- mately the same yield as the R-1-H. The P Modifying District that is being re- quested here will allow the applicant to reduce lot sizes. The square footage of each lot is under the 15,000 sq. ft. and will essentially be put into common open space, with the largest majority being usable. Staff weighed the fact that the average slope in this case is 22-1/2% offering substantial slope conditions to retain against grading the site and decided to support the grading of the site and get the developable lots out of the site rather than going to the application of hillside ordinance which would essentially retain the center canyon that bisects the property. The staff, therefore, concluded that the R-l-15 would allow for the property to develop in a more conventional fashion and would be the best approach. Commissioner Gayle Johnson asked what staff meant by saying that at least 60% of the open space must be usable and developed for active recreational use. Current Planning Supervisor Lee answered that the definition of usable open space is a grade of 5% or less, and in this case the open space will be maintained by a Homeowners' Association. MSUC (Pressutti/Smith) Based on the findings in Section E of this report, recommends that the City Council approve the request PCZ-78-G to rezone and prezone 30 acres shown as Exhibit A from R-E and L-C to R-I-15-P, subject to precise plan guidelines listed -15- May 10, 1978 ll.b. PUBLIC HEARING; Tentative subdivision map pCS-78-2 for Bonita Haciendas Current Planning Supervisor Lee explained that the map was fairly self-explanatory. There is an access road coming in from Otay Lakes Road identified as Ridgeback which will continue to the north and serve part of the Otay Land Company develop- ment when that property is developed to the north. The basic circulation pattern is simply a loop system with a cul-de-sac street that is proposed to be stubbed out to the east and will also tie into future development in that direction. All of the lots have frontage on a dedicated street with the exception of four lots. There is an easement proposed that would come up to serve those properties as well as an adjoining parcel. An additional condition was placed on the property that would involve stubbing a street out to the north to a knoll area which would again require crossing the easement. The applicant proposed to retain the Gas and Electric ease- ment in its present topographic condition. He explained that a 1/2 acre open space lot is being created on the west side of the entry which would be a landscaped feature coming into the development, and maintained by the Homeowners' Association. In addition, there is a larger one and one-half acre, centrally located, park that would be developed and maintained by the Association. Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted there were some 28 conditions outlined in the report to be considered. Commissioner Gayla Johnson questioned if there were any requirements for Equestrian trails. Mr. Lee responded that there were none in the subdivision, noting that an equestrian route comes in from the west and follows the gas and electric easement until it intersects with Ridgeback and then it crosses Ridgeback at some point south of the easement and follows along a line which allows for horses to cross at the signalized intersection proposed for "H" Street and Ridgeback. While all of the details have not been worked out, there is no intention of going through this development. Walter Schwerin representing the developer, complimented the city on having an ordinance with flexibility enough to allow for the freedom of coming up with minimum pad sizes as dictated by the Planning Department which are below the min- imum from the basic zoning. This zoning allows the property to develop with visual access into the open space lots. They are also developing some split level units in coming down with the reduction in pad size which will help reduce the visual impact of the slopes adjacent to Ridgeback Street going down into the north. Commissioner Smith asked about condition 10 which requires a residential street to be extended to the northerly boundary of the subdivision all the way across the S.D.G&E easement. Assistant Director of Public Works, John Lippitt, explained that according to the Subdivision Map Act the developer is to install all streets to the subdivision boundary, for future streets, which in this case is on the other side of the easement. -16- May 10, 1978 Commissioner Smith questioned this practice and thought it was excessive. Mr. Lippitt pointed out that a reimbursement district could be established to pay for a certain amount of that improvement, and he also felt that all of the conditions were appropriate. Mr. Schwerin commented that he thought that the street was to go to the southerly side of the easement. He stated that they would be agreeable to extending the full street improvements to the limits of the SDG&E easement and to dedicate fee title across the SDG&E easement to the City of Chula Vista, and they would be agreeable to not objecting in signing the conditions that they would not object to a 1911 act if the owners (Gersten) would want to connect to that street. He felt that the plan was premature at this time as Gersten had no plan as to street layout yet - stating again that they were willing to dedicate fee title across the easement. Mr. Lippitt replied that he thought there might be some difficulties with SDG&E in regard to power line location and where they may want to put future towers, etc. He indicated that there is some time between now and when this item goes to Council to reevaluate this as to the exact amount of street that the developer would put in and how the future would be handled. Discussion ensued regarding subdivision boundaries, and the subdivision of property. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern regarding the grading in this area. MSC (Pressutti/Renneisen) The Commission finds that based on the findings con- tained in Section "E" of the report, recommends to the City Council that they approve the tentative subdivision map for Bonita Haciendas and accept the tenta- tive map as the precise plan subject to the conditions enumerated in the staff report with the exception of Condition 10, to be reexamined and a suitable recom- mendation made when it is presented to the Council. AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Renneisen, Chandler, Smith, R. Johnson, G. Johnson NOES: O'Neill ABSENT: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None were presented. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson reported that next week E1 Rancho del Ray and Palace Gardens Mobile Home Park Rezoning would be on the agenda. -17- May 10, 1978 Mr. Peterson also informed the Commission that the Booz, Allen report was out and that copies may be available to the Commissioners. He stated that the Council has scheduled a Council Conference for May 25th to discuss the report, if anyone was interested in attending the meeting. MSUC (Renneisen/O'Neill) It was moved and unanimously carried to formally request that the Booz, Aloen report on the Planning Department be sent to all the Planning Commissioners. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner O'Neill commented that it might be appropriate for the Planning Commission to review the General Plan as it relates to park space and higher density. Mr. Peterson responded by stating that he wished he could state that staff was reviewing the General Plan on a systematic on-going basis, but staff was not able to do as much as staff would like to. Commissioner Pressutti asked for some guidance in regard to condominium conversions from the Council. Mr. Peterson stated that he thought this would be forthcoming before too long. Commissioner Gayle Johnson asked for comments from staff regarding the building codes in regard to condominiums vs. apartments - she understood them to be the same, and wonders why the need for double walls, or special insulation since there were a lot of developers submitting plans for apartments, and then before anyone moves, applying for conversion to condominiums. Mr. Peterson replied that staff would look at that problem. The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. Respectful ly submitted, Louise Egl fhger, 'Acting Secretary