HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1986/04/09 Tape 269, Side 2
306-1522
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, April 9, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Cannon, Commissioners Carson,
Green, Guiles, Shipe and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: With notification: Commissioner Grasser
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl,
Principal Planner Pass, Assistant City
Attorney Gill, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust,
Associate Planner Liuag, Deputy City
Attorney Moore, Assistant Planner B. Reid
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Cannon and was
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairman Cannon reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its
responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSC (Green/Carson) Shipe abstained - to approve the minutes of the meeting of
February 26, 1986 as mailed with the addition of Commissioner Guiles' name to
the list of attendees
MSUC (Green/Carson) to approve the minutes of March 12, 1986 as mailed
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-86-24 REQUEST TO VARY FROM STANDARD
PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO OPERATE A DANCE HALL
AT 15 FOURTH AVENUE
Director of Planning Krempl stated that the item had been withdrawn and no
further action was required.
Planning Commission Meeting -2- April 9, 1986
2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-86-5 - CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 44 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF THE OTAY RIVER AND IMMEDIATELY WEST OF
1-805 AS "AGRICULTURE AND RESERVE"
Associate Planner Liuag noted the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence had been
approved by LAFCO in 1985. Part of the Sphere included property within the
Otay Valley. As the General Plan stops at the Otay River, a number of
annexations have been initiated. In order to process the annexation, the area
must be General Planned as well as prezoned. The designation of this land by
the City of San Diego Otay Mesa-Nestor Community Plan is "Parks and Open
Space" which is consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment for the
City of Chula Vista. After annexation, and when more tentative plans are
submitted by the developers, additional studies and surveys will be required
to determine the land use and circulation pattern of this area. Staff
recommends approval to facilitate the annexation process.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Ruth J. Schneider, 1042 Piccard Avenue, San Diego, 92154, representing the
Otay Mesa-Nestor Planning Committee, spoke in opposition to the proposed
annexation based on studies of zone changes made to properties annexing to
Chula Vista which appear to indicate possible detrimental effects to the
community which the Committee represents. She expressed the concern of the
Committee that after annexation a Task Force would be appointed which would
remove the present protective zoning and the Committee would be unable to
prevent unwanted zoning changes which would affect them.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC(Tugenberg/Shipe) {6-0) to recommend the City Council adopt a resolution
amending the Plan Diagram of the Land Use Element by designating the
territories shown on Exhibit A as "Agriculture and Reserve".
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-86-C - CONSIDERATION TO PREZONE APPROXIMATELY 98
ACRES OF TERRITORY LOCATED BETWEEN 1-805 AND RIOS
AVENUE AND BETWEEN RANCHO DRIVE AND THE NORTH-FACING
SLOPES OF THE OTAY VALLEY TO AGRICULTURE AND FLOODWAY
ZONES
Associate Planner Liuag pointed out that the area for prezoning covered 98
acres (with the exclusion of two Fenton Lake parcels located at the south end)
and was a prerequisite to annexation. The proposed zoning is essentially a
mirror-image of the present San Diego City zoning; and as there are no
existing facilities to serve the property on the south, additional studies
would be necessitated. Letters of approval have been received from H.G.
Fenton and from Mr. Lake. Mr. Liuag added that the proposed zoning would
function as a holding zone until definitive plans for this area are proposed
by the property owners.
Plannin_~_Commission Meetin~ -3- ~ril 9, 1986
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Ruth J. Schneider, 1042 Piccard Avenue, San Diego 92154, representing the Otay
Mesa-Nestor Planning Committee, stated her organization's opposition to the
change of hands from one municipality to another. In response to her
question, she was informed that the word "facilities" included sewer and water
as well as access to the south side of the property; that because of
topography, a bridge might be considered to provide access to the south side.
Mrs. Schneider commented that the area had been designated as "Open Space"
because of that difficulty of access; and for the reasons she had stated in
the previous agenda item, she was in opposition to the annexation.
Richard W. Neill, 11432 Rolling Hills Drive, E1 Cajon, 92020, representing
Louis M. Lake, TR, also present, said the considered effort being made by
Chula Vista to improve areas within their Sphere of Influence had influenced
their wish to annex; plans for the development of the property have not been
finalized, however, the flood areas cutting across the property will need to
be controlled; a recreation park or fishing area is envisioned for utilization
of the area containing the stand of eucalyptus trees (located adjacent to and
west of 1-805); plus the possibility of single-family units with supportive
commercial development is anticipated; plans for access to the southern side
of the property await further study in conjunction with plans of adjacent
property owners but some sort of structure over the flood channel would be
involved. He concluded saying they intend development of the property to
provide an eye-opening entryway into the City of Chula Vista.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Guiles) (6-0) to recommend that Council enact an ordinance
prezoning the territory A-8 (Agriculture) and F-1 (Floodway) as shown in
Exhibit A attached to the staff report.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: MAJOR USE PERMIT PCC-86-24M - REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO CONTINUE AUTOMOBILE DISMANTLING AND SCRAP
OPERATIONS AT 128 MACE STREET AND 140 CENTER STREET IN
THE MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY OF CHULA VISTA - MARY REED
Chairman Cannon declared he had a potential conflict of interest, turned the
Chairmanship over to Vice Chairman Shipe, and reminded the Commission that a
5/7 vote would be needed to overrule any decisions of the Montgomery Planning
Committee. He then left the dais and the Chambers at 7:28 p.m.
Deputy City Attorney Moore informed the Commission that in view of only five
Commissioners being avail able to vote, the item could also be returned to the
Montgomery Planning Committee or continued to another time.
Planning Director Krempl stated the item was a request for continuation of an
existing use in operation since 1973, which had been investigated in response
to several complaints about the conditions, and the major use permit for one
of the locations had been found to have expired on January 9, 1986; a permit
Plannin9 Commission Meetin9 -4- April 9, 1986
had been filed for a continuance and the Montgomery Planning Committee had
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the major use permit subject to
conditions included in the staff report. Complaints received against 128 Mace
Street included the visibility of large, unsightly scrap piles above the fence
line; abandoned autos and parts littering Britton Street right-of-way; auto
dismantling occurring on adjacent lots; and creation of an aesthetically
displeasing appearance for the area.
Director Krempl reviewed the present situation and location of the sites
pointing out the lack of public improvements, landscaping, completed roads,
fencing conditions and the mitigation measures proposed.
He noted there is no indication at present of the type of long-term land use
designation that will be recommended for this area on the Montgomery Specific
Plan; however, the current land use is compatible with that recommended in the
General Plan. He reviewed the conditions presented to and proposed by the
Montgomery Planning Committee to allow an extension for either a period of 2
years or until 60 days after adoption of the Montgomery Specific Plan by the
Council; those involving aesthetic issues such as repair of the fence, on-site
containment of all operations, access to the property, conformance to the
County noise regulations (including the car-crusher equipment) and the
possible revocation of the major use permit if the conditions are not met;
that landscaping issues would be addressed after the actual land use had been
determined by the Specific Plan; installation and/or completion of street
improvements consistent with City standards (although a deferral for all or
part of those improvements might be requested); and that concerns regarding
the interim dust control provisions suggested by the MPC for Britton Avenue
would be discussed more fully by Senior Civil Engineer Daoust. The Director
concluded by saying that letters of complaint had been received from the Mace
Industrial Center which speak to additional suggested conditions. He pointed
out that the City Attorney had suggested the following modification to the
wording of Finding #2:
"Approval of the proposed use as conditioned will not result in impacts
from noise or aesthetic degradation that will adversely affect humans or
surrounding properties. The conditions of approval of the major use
permit require that the project adhere to performance standards outlined
in the zoning ordinance to control noise impacts, and also require that
the operations be contained within an 8-foot perimeter fence to screen
views of the use from the surrounding areas."
In response to Commission questions, the Director replied that the conditions
expressed in the staff report included those added and approved by the
Montgomery Planning Committee; and a specific time constraint for completion
of the improvements could be added by the Commission if desired.
Senior Civil Engineer Daoust noted that because the cost amortization factor
is dependent on the length of time of the permit duration, there was a
question of whether interim or permanent improvements should be installed. He
suggested that interim street improvements of a 2-inch AC, 20-foot graded and
Plannin9 Commission Meetin9 -5- April 9, 1986
compacted roadway would be most appropriate, at this point in time, with the
permanent improvements (including curb, gutter and sidewalks) provided at a
later date.
Commissioner Green commented that as Condition "e" gives a lot of discretion
to the Engineering Department, it is unnecessary for the Commission to specify
the requirements. Director Krempl pointed out that the 2-inch layer of AC was
suggested by Engineering as an alternative to the decomposed granite and oil
penetration treatment on Britton Avenue suggested by the Planning Department.
R. A. Reynolds, Phillips-Reynolds Engineering, 71 North Fourth Avenue, Chula
Vista, 92010, representing the applicant, Mary Reed, pointed out that the area
had not yet been master planned; many of the existing auto and scrap permits
will not expire for 5 to lO years; if the Specific Plan is developed within
the next 2 years, the applicant's firm would be penalized financially by
having had to construct either half-street or alley improvements at the cost
of $200,000 (unreasonable for a 2-year permit but agreeable for a 10-year
permit) or the interim 2-inch layer of AC at $50,000. He requested issuance
of a permit extension without any conditions of approval attached since the
facility has already been in operation for 10 years and because the type and
weight of traffic used would break up any "interim" improvements.
Mr. Reynolds asked if the statement, "All storage, scrap, or other articles
shall be kept behind and below the fence line..." included the 60-foot boom
and the 20-foot crusher. Director Krempl replied that although the condition
referred to had been suggested by the Montgomery Planning Committee, he was of
the opinion that the two pieces of equipment were excluded from the height
restriction.
In response to Mr. Reynold's statement concerning meeting the noise emission
standards of 80 dbA, Commissioner Guiles pointed out that 80 decibels on an
"A-weighted" scale might be difficult to achieve.
Robert F. Kroeger, 4216 Helix Del Sur, La Mesa, 92041, co-owner of Mace
Industrial Center, spoke in opposition to a possible deferral of the
installation of public improvements saying that at the inception of their own
operation they had been obliged to provide public improvements and anyone
wishing to operate in the area should be required to do their share; the
property would still be there at the end of 2 years time; their letter of
opposition had been directed at the scrap disposal yard because they had been
obliged to police the area of left-over scrap metals fallen from the trucks,
mufflers and gas tanks (both not accepted by the facility) and arrange for
Police removal of the cars abandoned because the owner did not possess a pink
slip. He requested an additional condition of approval be imposed which would
compel the business operators to police the area.
In response to questions by Commissioner Green, Deputy City Attorney Moore
noted there was no mechanism to enforce the operator to clean up the "litter"
unless he had created it (not the previous car owners) but the classification
of "creating a nuisance" might be applied.
Planning_Commission Meeting_ -6- ~ril 9, 1986
Patrick Gay, 3343 South Barcelona Street, Spring Valley, 92077, co-owner of
the Mace Industrial Center, submitted pictures of the Mace Street facility
taken during the period 4/1 through 4/9/86 for the Commission's perusal; he
requested that something be done to improve the appearance of the area in
question since it affects their ability to secure a financial loan; and cited
the hazardous traffic condition created by large trucks blocking the street
while awaiting loading and unloading.
Mr. Reynolds returned to the podium to answer questions from the Commission
and stated his applicant had no objection to an additional condition that they
return to staff with a plan to police the public right-of-way; to create a
through-traffic pattern from Mace Street to Britton by the installation of a
gate at the west end of the Britton Street site; and for trucks to be tied
down on site.
Discussion ensued about the applicant's responsibility for litter caused by
individuals utilizing his services; the extent of the enforcement of
conditions of approval regarding policing the area and the traffic hazards and
public improvements requi red.
Mr. Kroeger returned to the podium to remark on the periodic use of a fork
lift, unlicensed for road use, to move two cars at a time from Bill's Auto
Wrecking facility to the crusher.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Guiles commented regarding Condition "f" (page 2) that some
improvements are obviously needed whether or not there is justification for
permanent improvements; the design details should be left to the Engineering
Department with due consideration given to the size and weight of the vehicles
used by the applicant so no effort is wasted in terms of long-term
consideration and suggested the following rewording:
"f. Interim dust control measures shall be instituted along the Britton
Avenue right-of-way for that period of time prior to installation of
paving and road improvements. Specific design of interim ~asures
shall be determined by the Engineering Department wi th due
consideration being given to accommodate the size and weight of
vehicles being used by the applicant. Plans and schedules for the
installation of temporary improvements are subject to the approval of
the Director of Planning."
Deputy City Attorney Moore suggested that a contract be entered into with the
operator so liability under contract law could be imposed if needed.
MSC (Guiles/Tugenberg) (5-0), Cannon abstained, to find this project will have
no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued
on IS-86-31M.
Plannin9 Commission Meetin9 -7- April 9, 1986
INITIAL MOTION:
MS (Guiles/Tugenberg) that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the
staff report to approve the request PCC-86-24M to continue existing auto
dismantling and scrap operations at 128 Mace Street and 140 Center Street
subject to Conditions "a" through "f" with the change of wording proposed on
Condition and the modification submitted by the Attorney's Office to
Finding #2.
Commissioner Green asked for consideration of an additional condition that the
street right-of-wa~v be policed by the applicant; Commissioner Guiles agreed
but requested a wording from the City Attorney who supplied the following:
AMENDMENT:
"g. That an agreement be entered into between the applicant and the
Director of Planning to the satisfaction of the City Attorney's
office. Said agreement would be for the purpose of reasonable
maintenance of the public street adjoining the project site for the
removal and disposal of abandoned cars and scrap materials. Said
agreement shall require the maintenance occur on a weekly basis. The
agreement shall be entered into within 30 days."
Further discussion ensued about the applicant's obligation to provide for the
disposal of the unacceptable mufflers and gas tanks in view of the benefits he
derives from the operation.
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENTS:
MSC(Guiles/Tugenberg) (5-0 with Cannon abstaining) to approve the Amendments
previously stated by Commissioner Guiles for Condition "f" and adding
Condition "g" as stated by the Assistant City Attorney.
VOTE ON THE INITIAL MOTION:
MSC (Guiles/Tugenberg) (5-0 with Cannon abstaining) to approve the initial
motion including the revision to Condition "f" and adding Condition "g".
At 8:15 p.m., Commissioner Cannon returned to the dais and resumed
Chairmanship of the meeting.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-86-28 REQUEST FOR
PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A CHILD DAYCARE FACILITY
ADJACENT TO THE CHULA VISTA ALLIANCE CHURCH AT THE
NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AND
PASEO DEL REY - KIDS UNLIMITED, INC.
Director of Planning Krempl said the item involved a request to construct a
child daycare facility for 144 children on 1.O1 acres, adjacent to the Chula
Vista Alliance Church on Telegraph Canyon Road and Paseo del Rey. He noted
Plannin9 Commission Meetin9 -8- April 9, 1986
the facility would include a 6,998 square foot one-story building,
approximately ll,O00 square feet of outdoor play area and 26 on-site parking
spaces serving 144 children and a staff of 12. It would expand the level of
childcare service in the community, is located advantageously to major
collector streets, an active commercial center and such potential developments
as EastLake, Union Oil, United Enterprises and E1 Rancho del Rey; that the
potential for adverse noise impacts has been analyzed and found to be in
conformance with City standards, and the site plan and elevations are subject
to DRC approval. He noted there were 14 additional parking spaces for
drop-offs and pick-ups; that the acoustical analysis had revealed the noise
from the play area was partially buffered by the Telegraph Canyon Road noise
and by the existing 38 foot slope on the eastern boundary of the property; and
a fence would be erected along the southern boundary of the property to
mitigate noise impacts from the highway on the facility.
Director Krempl stated that the requirement for the undergrounding of existing
utilities is an ordinance requirement rather than an Engineering condition.
In response to a question about possible oversaturation of the area by daycare
centers, he replied that there had only been two other centers approved to
serve the entire Eastern Territories and it is impossible to predict the
supply and demand for the type of service.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Frank Perl, 4335 Poplar Street, San Diego, 92105, representing Kids Unlimited,
spoke in favor of the project and reported the undergrounding requirement for
utilities had been reviewed with Engineering and a waiver will be requested.
Senior Civil Engineer Daoust stated that the Code provides for such a request
for a waiver or a deferral; it would be a separate action unrelated to
Commission proceedings and the requirement should be removed as a condition
since the application would be made to Council.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) (6-0) to find the project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-35.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Green) (6-0) that based on the findings contained in Section
"E" of the staff report, to approve the request PCC-86-28 to construct a child
daycare facility on 1.O1 acres north of Telegraph Canyon Road and east of
Paseo del Rey subject to the condition, with the deletion of item 2 on page 3,
that the site plan and elevation shall conform to the plan conditionally
approved by the Design Review Committee.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Director Krempl referred to an anonymous letter directed to the Commission
concerning the business-card issue and including a reference to the dwelling
being constructed by Mr. Joseph Raso at 165 Murray, remarking that a variance
had been filed for exceeding the lot coverage and height restriction and the
item would be coming before the Commission on April 23.
Plannin~ Commission Meetin~ -9- April 9, 1986
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Tugenberg referred to an extremely hazardous traffic situation
developing in front of the North Island Credit Union on Bonita Road in which
four or five cars are stacked up in the bicycle lane facing west, and three or
four more are in the median strip attempting to turn left into the property.
Commissioner Cannon supported Mr. Tugenberg's statements adding he has seen as
many as 30 to 40 cars parked in the bike lanes and people attempting to cross
the street from the parking avail able on Glen Abbey's property. He cited the
very dangerous condition created by the blockage of the bike lane which forces
cyclists out into the heavy traffic and maintained that eventually a bicycle
rider will be hurt seriously and there will be a "deep pocket" situation with
the la~ers getting a lot of criticism.
Director Krempl said this situation had been brought to the attention of the
City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer; additional signage had been
installed; an intensive campaign of Police citations initiated; the Credit
Union has acknowledged the problem and is endeavoring to secure more land; and
the Planning Department had arranged contact between the Credit Union and
those responsible for the adjoining land. He asked if, since all that had
been done, the Commission desired a letter be written to Council. Chaiman
Cannon said he would be happy to compose the letter.
Commissioner Cannon expressed his disappointment and concern over Council's
reaction to the business-card letter stating he found the reaction utterly
ludicrous and that the quotation attributed to a Councilperson in the Star
News that "such cards could easily be abused as a badge of authority--6~
commissioners claiming to be on City business" to be incredible, and he was
insulted by the Council's implied lack of trust. Commissioner Shipe agreed.
ADJOURNMENT AT 8:30 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of April 16, 1986 at
5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3.
Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary
WPC 2746P