Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/06/28 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 28, 1976 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, Starr, Floto, Pressutti, Johnson. Commissioner Smith was absent with previous notification. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Assistant City attorney Beam, and Acting Secretary Friedrich. Chairman Chandler led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Johnson/Starr) The minutes of the meeting of June 14, 1976, be approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were offered. 1. Request of extension of time on conditional use permit PCC-75-9 - Carl Berg Current Planning Supervisor Lee stated that one year ago the applicant was granted approval of a conditional use permit for the construction and operation of a packaged feed store with an adjoining hay shelter, the permit will expire on July 9, 1976. The applicant has had delays in getting started with the project and requests an extension of one year. The Planning Department has noted that there have been no significant changes in the vicinity and therefore recommends an extension of one year. MSUC (Johnson/Floto) The Commission approves the extension of PCC-75-9 - Carl Berg, for one year to expire on July 9, 1977. 2. Request for one year extension of time for tentative ~ap ~CS-73-6) - Bonita Ridge Estates Units 2, 3, and Director of Planning Peterson noted that this map had been approved a little over two years ago, that this is an active tract, the contractor is building in this area, therefore the Planning Department recommends an extension of one year, until August 5, 1977. MSUC (Starr/Floto) The Commission approves the extension of one year on the tentative map PCS-73-6, to expire on August 5, 1977. -2- June 28, 1976 3. Resolution to allow plant nurseries as a permitted use in the I-L zone Director of Planning Peterson stated that the I-L zone is not specifically limited to manufacturing uses, that under subsection P, Section 19.44.020 of the Municipal Code the I-L zone also permits uses such as storage yards, building material sales yards, truck, trailer, boat and farm equipment sales, and minor auto repair. Mr. Peterson indicated that he didn't anticipate a rash of proposals for nurseries in the I-L zone but a proposal is now being discussed for one in the I-L zone on the north side of "C" Street between 5th Avenue and Broadway. That land is now subject to flooding and the nursery would be a good interim use for this property. The staff report had recommended that this use should be considered as a conditional use, but after consultation with the City Attorney the Director decided that the use would be appropriate as a principal permitted use in the I-L zone. Chairman Chandler opened the Public Hearing. Dick Kau, 4203 Acacia, Bonita, representing the owners of the property, stated that they agreed with the staff recommendations on this item. Commissioner Start asked if insecticides could be a problem at this location. Mr. Peterson thought that that would be no problem as the property was large enough although, he felt that some care might be needed in spraying. Commissioner Starr inquired about requiring a buffer between the residential zones and industrial zones. Mr. Peterson stated that industrial and residential areas are typically separated in some fashion. In the case of the site Mr. Kau is considering for a nursery operation the industrial property is separated from the residential area by a major street. MSUC (Starr/Johnson) The Commission adopted a resolution approving plant nurseries as a principal permitted use in the I-L zone. 4. Resolution to allow appliance sales, service and rental as a permitted use in the C-N zone Director of Planning Peterson stated that the applicant wishes to sell, service and rent applicances in the C-N zone, with the primary business consisting of appliance service. He stated that this type of service is usually found in the C-B, C-C and C-T zones, however this use is compatible with other uses allowed in the C-N zone as a principal use, subject to the condition that the floor area not exceed 2000 sq. ft. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern regarding outside sales. Mr. Peterson informed Mr. Johnson that all uses in the C-N zone are required to be inside except for service stations. MSUC (Pressutti/Starr) The Commission approves the request to allow appliance sales, service and rental as a permitted use in the C-N zone providing the gross floor area does not exceed 2000 sq. ft. -3- -~ June 28, 1976 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map PCS-76-5, Zenith IV Current Planning Supervisor Lee explained that the applicant proposed to subdivide 3.8 acres into 12 single family residential lots and one open space lot, for a total of 13 lots. The proposed subdivision is located at the southwest quadrant of East Palomar Street and Oleander Avenue. Two of the residential lots are less than 7,000 sq. ft., - 6400 sq. ft. and 6700 sq. ft. respectively. All other lots are over 7,000 sq. ft. except for the open space lot. Mr. Lee called attention to the list of conditions recommended in approving the tentative map and stated that it was the Planning Departments recommendation to adopt a motion finding that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-75-15 and the findings stated therein, that this project will have no significant adverse environmental impacts and certify the Negative Declaration. Also to adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Subdivision Map PCS-76-5, subject to the conditions enumerated in the staff report. The only change that the staff had discussed with the applicant was in Section 2c relating to the maintenance of the landscaping adjacent to the park, under the ownership of the City. The Planning Department is recommending that the City accept a two year maintenance period by the applicant rather than a dollar figure given to the City with the City taking over the maintenance. In answer to questions by Commissioners, Mr. Lee explained the ordinance requirements for lot sizes, and configuration, school fees by the developer, also decorative walls required to insure privacy and noise protection. 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 (Floto/Johnson) The Commission adopts a motion recommending that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-75-15 and the findings stated therein, that the project will have no significant adverse environmental impacts, and certifies the Negative Declaration. MSUC (Floto/Johnson) The Commission adopted a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative map PCS-76-5, subject to the conditions enumerated in the staff report with the only change being that the City accept a two year maintenance period by the applicant rather than dollar figure as stated in condition 2c of the staff report in regard to lot 13 and those slopes located on City park land, (including the area east of Oleander). 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-76~8 - Request to create two lots, one without street frontage, 629 Gretchen - Patricia Gove Director of Planning Peterson stated that the applicant is requesting permission to divide an existing 25,000 sq. ft. lot into two lots, one without street frontage. Mr. Peterson discussed previous cases which involved the creation of lots which did not have street frontage, but did possess access to a major street. In this case, the property fronts on a minor residential street. He went on to state that the size of the lot does not justify the granting of a variance creating a new lot which does not have frontage on the street and that staff could not make the man- datory findings required by the Zoning Ordinance to grant a variance. -4- - June 28, 1976 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Frank Phillips, 71 North Fourth Ave., Chula Vista, representing the applicant, noted the lot sizes in the area average nearly 11,000 sq. ft. with this particular lot totaling over two times the average lot in the area. He cited previous lot splits in the area where properties developed on East "J" Street require that the cars entering the street enter in a backing situation, whereas this lot would provide an area where cars could turn around and head out into traffic. He noted that although the slope on the lot was 15%, that it can be developed with only minor grading and the proposed access road is wider than the ordinance requires. Harvey M. Clewell, 627 Gretchen Road, stated that he was opposed to the lot split as he was opposed to more houses in the neighborhood and it would cut down the views and privacy of the homes already in the neighborhood. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Starr said that he felt that this was an unusual situation and agreed with the Planning Department in part, but stated that since the property is separated by the height of the slope there is a degree of privacy and that there would be no density problem in the area. Commissioner Pressutti asked Mr. Peterson what constraints there would be on access to the property in the rear. Mr. Peterson advised that the City has controls so that the size of the driveway would meet city standards in all respects. He stated that the maximum steepness for driveways allowed by the Fire Department was not more than 16% grade and the staff could address the grade problem prior to issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Johnson expressed his concern over the development of the similar lots in the neighborhood. He commented that his concern was with the neighbor next to this property who would have the access road next to his property. The Commissioners discussed the number of lots which might be involved in lot splits in this area in the future. Staff noted that at least a half dozen other lots within the tract possessed similar characteristics to that of the subject property. MSC (Floto/Johnson) The Commission denies Variance PCV-76-8 based on the facts presented in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Floto, Johnson, Chandler, Pressutti NOES: Commissioner Starr ABSENT: Commissioner Smith 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-76-5 - Interim Facilities for Department of Public Welfare - 280-290 Trousdale Drive - Dunph~ Construction Company. Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that the applicant is requesting permission to locate interim facilities for the County Department of Public Welfare in two existing industrial buildings on Trousdale Drive. -5- -' June 28, 1976 Mr. Lee pointed out that the present Department of Public Welfare office is located in National City and their lease on the property will soon expire so they are seeking interim facilities until such time as a permanent building can be constructed. He stated the County requires the following criteria as necessary for the facility: a five year lease with option to extend; 22,000 sq. ft. of floor area; a minimum of 185 parking spaces; access to public transportation and air conditioning. There- fore the applicant is seeking approval of the City before proceeding on to the County. Mr. Lee pointed out that the 200 employees would require 130 parking spaces based on the City's standards for this zone. However, approximately 25% of the employees will be in the field during the day with their own cars, therefore nearly 100 parking spaces would be available for the clients coming to the facility. In addition, public transportation is available within walking distance. He stated that the Planning Department is therefore recommending that the Planning Commission certify the Negative Declaration and approve the applicants request subject to two conditions. Commissioner Pressutti inquired if this was to be an interim facility. Mr. Lee informed the Commission that it was the Planning Departments understanding that this was to be an interim facility but to look at this proposal as possibly being permanent. Commissioner Starr asked how many clients would be coming to this facility via public transportation. Mr. Lee stated that they would be coming to the facility by both public transportation and private car. Commissioner Starr commented that there were no sidewalks along portions of Trousdale . This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dean Dunphy, 3407 Larga Circle, San Diego, President of Dunphy Construction Co. and owner of the property involved, concurred with the staff's analysis adding that he was engaging the services of a parking consultant to help with the parking layout. He noted that there are sidewalks on Trousdale up to North Glover, with a rolled curb easterly of that point. Gene Coleman, Gotham Street, questioned staff in regard to the construction date of the proposed flood channel for this area. Mr. Peterson said that it was unknown at this time as to when it was to be built. Mr. Coleman then wanted to know if such an intense use should then be permitted in the flood plain. Chairman Chandler explained to Mr. Coleman that the buildings were already existing and that this proposal was only in regard to the use in the buildings. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. -6- June 28, 1976 MSUC (Starr/Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-76-38 and the findings stated therein, that this project will have no significant adverse environmental impacts and certifies the Negative Declaration. MSUC (Starr/Johnson) The Commission approves the conditional use permit PCC-76-5 to locate facilities for the County Department of Public Welfare at 280-290 Trousdale Drive subject to the conditions enumerated in the staff report. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental Impact Report EIR-76-4 - Bonita Shoppin~ Center Environmental Review Coordinator Reid informed the Commission that this is a project involving l0 acres, located on the southwest corner of Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road. He stated that the primary impact of this project would be due to the increased traffic on Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road causing problems in regard to traffic loads and turning movements. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Henry Grafton Chapman, Allen School Road, stated that her property abuts the proposed shopping center and commented on several factors of the EIR as being misleading in regard to trees, roadways, and equestrian trails which were located on her property. Royce Riggan, RICON, stated that they had no intention of disturbing Mrs. Chapman's property whatsoever, that the items mentioned were informational only to provide the information regarding the setting of this project. He stated that all proposed access roads would be built on Bonita Center property. Mr. Riggan pointed out that peak hour traffic of the shopping center would not coincide with peak hour traffic on the streets and therefore should not create any problem. Mr. Chandler asked about the 4800 trips in regard to the shopping center. Mr. Riggan pointed out that most of the trips generated would not be new trips but rather existing trips which people now take to buy goods. The center would foreshorten those trips. As no one else wished to speak the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Pressutti/Starr) The Commission adopts EIR-76-4 as the City's final Environmental Impact Report and certifies that it has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, as amended. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of EIR-76-1A - Green Project Environmental Review Coordinator Reid explained that this is a supplemental EIR to EIR-76-1, specifically, because of a substitution of a 14 unit apartment project on an area previously occupied by 3 duplex structures. He stated that the conclusion was that the basic analysis remained the same, the numbers have changed in regard to population and sewer generation but the adverse impacts remain substantially the same. Mr. Reid noted that the Environmental Control Commission recommended adoption of the EIR, with two abstentions. -7- ~ June 28, 1976 As this was the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Woodbury, owner of the property at 18 Plymouth Court, stated that she was opposed to the project because of numerous problems that the project may cause in the area,such as vandalism, sewer problems and aesthetic qualities that would be impaired. Mr. Clay Morud, 32 Plymouth Court, questioned the Commission in regard to addressing the problems of this area now, rather than when the project itself comes before the Commission. Mr. Morud referred to the Planning Commission meeting of two weeks ago regarding EIR-76-1, at which time he had been advised that this was not the time to appear before the Planning Commission opposing the project but rather that he should appear when the precise plan is before the Planning Commission. Chairman Chandler explained that the EIR is only an informational document covering the environmental aspects of the project. He also explained that when a developer comes to the City with a request to approve a plan, the EIR is part of what is considered along with the plan. Mr. Morud quoted from the Environmental Review Policy section 33.610 paragraph G, regarding CEQA, as to adoption of the EIR. Mr. Morud stated that it sould have been made clear that an EIR can be adopted with conditions. Mr. Morud was also concerned that all comments would not be included in the EIR. He stated that the biggest concern of the people in the area was that the environ- mental concerns would not be included in consideration of the project itself if opposition was not voiced now when the EIR is before the Planning Commission. Chairman Chandler assured Mr. Morud that all aspects of the project would be considered, including environmental aspects, when the project comes before the Planning Commission in the future. He also stated that environmental concerns can be brought up at the time when the project is before the Planning Commission. Assistant City Attorney Beam also explained that the Planning Commission is required by law to consider all aspects of a project, and that the EIR must cover all impacts of the project. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pressutti inquired as to whether Mr. Morud knew that comments were attached in the EIR. Mr. Morud said be did but they were not the comments he wanted included. Both Commissioners Pressutti and Starr noted that they thought the EIR had covered every possible environmental aspect of the proposal. Commissioner Starr advised that the EIR is a summary of the environmental impacts of a project and what mitigation is possible to alleviate the problems, and when the project is before the Commission they will be able to see all the environmental factors involved with the project. MSUC (Pressutti/Floto) The Commission adopts EIR-76-1A as the final EIR and certifies that it has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, as amended. -8- -' June 28, 1976 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental Impact Report EIR-76-3 - E1 Rancho del Re~ Environmental Review Coordinator Reid commented on several of the major environmental issues of the proposed project along with a description of the proposed developments proposed within its boundaries. He stated that comments had been received from several governmental agencies and that the Environmental Control Commission had met and had recommended, by unanimous vote, to adopt the EIR. Chairman Chandler asked Mr. Reid if this EIR was to be considered as a Master EIR for the 950 acres. Mr. Reid stated that this was the Master EIR, that it also covered the first two phases of the project, and that supplemental reports would have to be submitted as development progressed, in regard to school capacities, road capacities, details of grading plans and site layouts and access points onto major roads. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Peter Watry, 81 Second Ave., Chula Vista, stated that he thought the EIR was inadequate in that it did not speak to the mitigation of issues such as sewage, drainage, schools, land uses, cost/revenue impacts, roadways, and that it did not conform to the Housing Element of the City. He opposes the adoption of this EIR until, he feels, a comprehensive and correct EIR is submitted. Mr. Jim Bennett, 981 Telegraph Canyon Road, property owner of one of the outparcels within the boundaries of this proposed project, wanted to know, if his property was shown as open space, would he be compensated for it. Mr. Chandler assured Mr. Bennett that no one could take his property for open space without his due compensation. Mr. Bennett stated that he had seen maps that indicated his property as part of a high school site, open space, and with "J" Street running through it. His property would be divided into several pieces leaving him with only three acres of land. Mr. Beam explained that he did not have to be compensated for a planning designation shown on a plan. He noted that it would depend on the circumstances in the future whether or not his property would need to be acquired. He stated that no decision could be made until the final planning stages of the area. Mr. Peterson informed the Commissioners that Mr. Bennett's property had not been included in this EIR, and the map Mr. Bennett referred to, is a "study map" it has not been adopted by the Commission or Council, and that there would probably be many changes to the overall plan before it's adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council. Howard Moore, 1251 Calle Candelaro, noted that multi-family designation next to his home which is zoned R-l, he called attention to the proposed shopping center which would be located on a 1 acre site which he thought was too small. He also noted that the equestrian homes are next to the multi-family units which were next to the development he's located in, and he was opposed to this type of land use arrangement. Joy Sherish, wanted to know if students in the area were to be bussed since the plan did not call for schools in the area until Phase III of the proposed project. She stated that the schools in the area were overcrowded and that students were being bussed now. -9- -' June 28, 1976 Mr. Carl Sirles, 1243 Calle Candelaro, objected to the proposed project and wanted _ to know where the money was coming from for the development of "H" Street. He wanted the Commission to know that he preferred the area to remain single family dwellings. Chairman Chandler stated that since there was a field trip tomorrow to this area and in view of the testimony that the Commission should not make a decision on the EIR as yet. Mr. Reid noted that he would have to respond to the input and suggested that the public hearing be continued until the meeting of July 26, 1976. MSUC (Pressutti/Johnson) The public hearing in consideration of EIR-76-3 be continued until the meeting of July 26, 1976. Mr. Pressutti asked for clarification of the difference between a Master EIR and a final EIR. Mr. Reid explained that a Master EIR covers the broader issues within the area, and that detailed supplemental reports would be required for specific projects within the area. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None were offered. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson reminded the Commission of the field trip tomorrow and the luncheon afterwards at the Glen Restaurant. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m. Respectful ly submitted, ~im ~ri~drich, Acting Secretary