Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1978/02/22 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 22, 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, G. Johnson, Pressutti, Renneisen and O'Neill. Absent (with previous notification) R. Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Assistant Director of Planning Willia~ls, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Acting Fire Chief Longerbone, Community Development Director Desrochers, 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 MSUC (Pressutti-O'Neill) The minutes of the meetings of February 1 and February 8, 1978 be approved as mailed. Commissioner Renneisen abstained from voting on the motion due to his absence from the meeting of February 8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. Reconsideration of Resolution establishing boundaries for Town Centre Redevelopment Project #2 Director of Planning Peterson reported that when this request was considered by the Planning Commission on February 1, the Commission modified the language in the proposed resolution to indicate the establishment of tentative boundaries. Upon reviewing the resolution as adopted, Mr. Cliff Reed, legal counsel for the Redevelopment Agency, found defects in the wording and felt it was important that the Commission adopt the resolution as originally recommended to establish the boundaries. Mr. Reed will address the Commission on this subject. Mr. Cliff Reed advised that his concern with the resolutions formerly adopted by the Commission is based on the process of the redevelopment law. That process requires that the boundaries of a redevelopment project be established by the Planning Commission. Mr. Reed felt that the Commission's failure to firmly establish the boundaries was due to their technical questions which were not adequately answered. He explained that along with the resolution establishing the boundaries, the Commission may submit any comments regarding their reservations or concerns to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Reed further explained that after adopting a resolution which establishes the boundaries, the Commission must recommend to the Redevelopment Agency the adoption of a Preliminary Redevelopment Plan to provide the legal mechanism for the preparation of a redevelopment plan. The Preliminary Plan sets forth the issues which must be addressed in preparing the Redewlopment Plan. The city staff then prepares! a Redevelopment Plan which is presented to the City Council and referred back to the Planning Commission for review and their report -2- -' February 22, 1978 to the Redevelopment Agency. Public hearings, which are duly advertised in accordance with the redevelopment process law, are held before the Redevelopment Agency. The Planning Commission's report to the Redevelopment Agency may range from criticism of minute details, all the way to a recommendation for denial of any redevelopment whatsoever. That recommendation is not binding on the Agency, although it would be considered by the Agency. The Commission plays an advisory role rather than a legislative role on redevelopment projects. In response to a question from the Commission as to the consequences if they do not establish project boundaries, Mr. Reed advised that he would ask the Council to bring a writ of mandate through the court to require the Commission to fulfill ~his obligation. Commissioner Renneisen pointed out that the resolution as presented for adoption by the Commission states that the City Council directed this Commission to consider boundaries; he felt that should be changed to read, "to establish boundaries," if that is the requirement. Mr. Reed concurred with changing the word "consider" to "establish" in the resolution to be adopted by the Planning Commission. In response to a question from Commissioner Renneisen as to the reason for establishing this project, Mr. Paul Desrochers, Community Development Director, explained the need for the City to retain a strong source of sales tax revenue. To this end, the City Council desires to provide a means for the expansion of the Chula Vista Shopping Center, which is constantly in competition with other centers established outside of the City of Chula Vista. Such expansion could result in traffic and parking problems which can best be handled through the formation of a redevelopment project. It was moved by Commissioner O'Neill, seconded by Commissioner Pressutti, that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution presented with a modification to change the word "consider" in the second line to the word "establish". The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners O'Neill, Pressutti, Chandl~er, G. Johnson & Renneisen NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson 2. Reconsideration of Resolution approving Preliminary Plan for Town Centre Redevelopment Project #2 This resolution was referred back to the Planning Commission to indicate a recommendation for approval of the Preliminary Plan, rather than a study of the project area. This was discussed under the previous item. Commissioner O'Neill reported that he had concern about including Madison Avenue in the redevelopment plan. Cliff Reed, legal counsel for the Redevelopment Agency, advised that following adoption of the resolution, the Commission may request that Madison Avenue be studied very closely with regard to the redevelopment project. It was moved by Commissioner O'Neill, seconded by Commissioner Pressutti, that the Commission approve the revised resolution to recommend adoption of a Preliminary -3- February 22, 1978 Plan for Town Centre Redevelopment Project No. 2, changing the word "consider" to "establish." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners O'Neill, Pressutti, Chandler, G. Johnson and Renneisen NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson 3. Consideration of conformit~ to Chula Vista General Plan of Offices for Welfare Department South Ba~ Neighborhood Service Center, 23 Naples Street Director of Planning Peterson reported that state law requires that land to be used for public purposes within the corporate limits of a city requires a finding by the City's Planning Commission that the use is in conformity with the City's General Plan. A public or quasi-public use is permitted in the C-N zone subject to a conditional use permit. The requested use in a C=N zone is therefore in conformance with the General Plan. Mr. Peterson advised the Commission that the finding of conformance with the General Plan does not constitute approval of the use which will be considered upon the filing of a conditional use permit application. Although details of the proposed use have not been submitted by the County, it is believed this location would contain the offices of field workers for the Welfare Department. MSUC (Renneisen-G. Johnson) The Commission finds that the location, purpose and extent of the propos2d acquisition of a leasehold for the accommodation of a Welfare Neighborhood Service Center at 23 Naples Street conforms to the Chula Vista General Plan, and directs that the County be so advised. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Conditional Use Permit PCC-78-22 - Request to locate storage ~ard in flood plain area, west of North Fifth Avenue, north of "C" Street in the I-L-F zone - Dixieline Lumber Co. Director of Planning Peterson reported that this hearing was continued from previous meetings to wait for National City to act on an E.I.R. and request for construction of a building on the adjacent'property in that city. The proposed use in Chula Vista is for outdoor storage of lumber products. The conditional use permit is required due to the location of the site in the flood plain area. It has been determined thatthe~ City would not be liable for any damage in the event of a storm, and based upon information received from National City it is recommended that the request be approved subject to the five conditions enumerated in the report. Chairman Chandler reopened the public hearing. Jack Duncan, director of real estate operations for Dixieline Lumber Company, 3250 Sports Arena Boulevard, San Diego, expressed concurrence with the conditions as recommended and a willingness to answer any questions the Commission may have. He felt there is little danger of a damaging flood in that area, but in such event their trucks would remove all floatable material. Vivian Sherrill, 716 Second Avenue, advised that she and her husband own the small pie- shaped property adjacent to the Dixieline Lumber Yard. She indicated they have -4- February 22, 1978 no objection to the storage facility but wished assurance that they would have access to their property in the future. Mr. Peterson affirmed that this is assured by the condition requiring the dedication of 40 feet 6f right of way for the westerly half of Fifth Avenue back to the Sherrill property. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MUSC (G. Johnson-Renneisen) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-78-43 and the findings stated therein, this project will have no significant adverse environmental impact, and certifies the Negative Declaration. It was moved by Commissioner G. Johnson that based upon the findings contained in the staff report, the Commission approves the conditional use permit, PCC-78-22, to locate a lumber storage yard within the Sweetwater Valley Flood Plain, subject to the five conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Renneisen seconded the motion with the suggestion that the wording in the last condition be modified to read, "The applicant shall further agree to make a reasonable effort to remove all floatable material..." The maker of the motion agreed to the modification of the last condition, and the motion, as amended, carried unanimously. 5. Consideration of final environmental impact report EIR-78-6 for Fire Fighters' Training FacilitS and expansion of Greg Ro~ers Park Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that after the public hearing held on the previous meeting, the Fire Department has decided not to pursue that location for their training facility. This had been the most controversial element of the project and the EIR will be amended to delete that facility from the project description. It is recommended that the final EIR as it relates to the expansion of Greg Rogers Park be certified. MSUC (Pressutti-Renneisen) The Commission certifies that EIR-78-6 has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Administrative Code and the Environmental ~eview Policy, and that the Commission has reviewed the information in the final EIR. 6. Consideration of final environmental impact report EIR-78-2 on General Development Plan of E1 Rancho del ReS Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that the public hearing on this report was held on February 1. The final report which is now presented for adoption contains the revised pages which resulted from the testimony offered at the hearing and the response to that testimony. The items covered include the provision of bike routes, the availability of water, location and size of school sites, value of the retail centers and mitigation measures of the geological impact and the designation of Lynwood Drive as a secondary access only and not a major road in the circulation system. This link to Bonita Road may be deleted in the final design of the project. Mr. Reid recommended that the final EIR be certified by the Planning Commission. -5- February 22, 1978 Commissioner Smith questioned the point raised during the public hearing by Mitchell Beauchamp with regard to the success of transplanting endangered plants. Mr. Reid reported that the County has met with some success in this regard through the use of recently improved methods. Some transplanting will occur with the development of Casa del Rey and the City will observe the effect of that trans- planting. MSUC (Renneisen-Pressutti) The Commission certifies that EIR-78-2 on the revised General Development Plan of E1 Rancho del Rey has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Administrative Code, and the Environmental Review Policy of the City of Chula Vista, and that the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to its consideration of the project. 7. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of proposed amendments to the General Development Plan and Schedule of E1 Rancho del ReS Planned Community Zone Director of Planning Peterson advised that the legal counsel for the major property owner of this area had indicated his intent to request a further continuance of the public hearing to the meeting of March 22. The staff concurs with that request but feels a report should be made at this time on the changes which have been made in the plan since the previous hearing. Mr. Peterson posted a plan diagram of the 450 acres of Rice Canyon and pointed out the recommended realignment of "H" Street and the relocation of the intersection of Ridgeback Road with "H" Street. These changes result in the changed configura- tion of the proposed commercial area south of "H" Street and the area designated for high density residential development north of "H" Street. A change in the text of the General Development provides for the location of churches and other public and quasi-public uses in any area subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Another change relates to the rules for transferring density within any given Sectional Planning Area. Formerly such transfer was to be permitted only between areas of the same designation; that privilege has not been expanded to include transfer to an area of a different designation within the same Sectional Planning Area. Mr. Peterson pointed out that Lynwood Drive is not now shown as a collector or major street, although it may remain as a secondary access to Bonita Road from this development. Chairman Chandler reopened the public hearing. Gary McCabe, 2160 Fletcher Parkway, E1Cajon, representing the MCS Watts group, the major developer for the 450 acres, asked for clarification of the provision for the transfer of density units from a high density area to a lower density area. It was affirmed such transfer may be made subject to approval of the Planning Commission and City Council so long as the total number of units within the Sectional Planning Area does not exceed the total approved on the plan. Mr. McCabe pointed out that the yield of the plan and the number of dwelling -6- February 22, 1978 units speaks to the maximum number under the density range allowed. He contended that if the criteria in the Sedway/Cooke report is applied to these parcels, it would not be possible to achieve the maximum density range. He pointed out that if the areas designated on the map as open space remain undeveloped, then development criteria which further restricts the attainment of the maximum yield under the density range would be a hardship. Gilbert Dreyfus, 333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, reported that he is one of the owners of approximately 15 acres shown as open space on the proposed plan; they own no other property within the planning area. He contended that adoption of the proposed plan would be the taking of their property for the benefit of the City or the adjoining land owners. He felt that would probably be inverse condemnation. He reported they have held this property for some 18 or 19 years envisioning its development when H Street was constructed to provide a means of access. He advised that a plan for development of that property was prepared and submitted to the Planning Department. He requested that the Commission instruct the Director of Planning to consider the feasibility of that plan since he felt they should be allowed to develop their property. He further contended that the R-1-H zoning applied to the property in 1974 is not realistic. Mr. Peterson reiterated the staff position that the Dreyfuss property is undevelopable due to its extreme topography and lack of access. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Peterson indicated he had no further report at this meeting. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Smith questioned whether the statement of financial disclosure is to be filed with the City Clerk or the County Clerk. It was affirmed this state- ment is filed with the City Clerk. Commissioner Renneisen commented that after listening to the attorney for the Redevelopment Agency instruct the Commission of their legal duties, he felt they have been met. However, he is not so sure the Redevelopment Agency has made adequate or proper use of the Planning Commission in this case--in the preliminary stages. He suggested that it might have gone down a little easier, and the Commission could have provided more advice to the Agency if they had first met with some- thing other than a firm definition of the boundary to be established-- perhaps a request for comments or a study. If the other Commissioners are in agreement, he suggested that the staff be asked to draft a communication to the Redevelopment Agency informing them of the Commissioners feelings in this type of thing, with the suggestion that the Commission could provide a better service if they were used as an advisory body. Other Commissioners expressed concurrence. It was moved by Commissioner Renneisen, seconded by Commissioner Pressutti and unanimously carried, that the staff prepare for Commission acceptance a communica- tion to the Redevelopment Agency expressing the feelings of the Commission as voiced tonight. Commission O'Neill raised a question concerning condominium conversions, as to whether they require subdivision maps. Mr. Peterson advised that such conversions are processed as parcel maps by the -7- February 22, 1978 Planning Department staff. Commissioner Pressutti asked about getting copies of the California Chamber of Commerce analysis of the Jarvis Gann initiative. Mr. Peterson advised that the copy received was not legible enough to be reproduced but he would have it retyped for the Commission. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Secretary