HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1985/08/14 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, August 14, 1985 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Green; Commissioners Cannon, Guiles,
Shipe, and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: With notification: Commissioners Carson and
O'Neill
STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Lee, Assistant City Attorney
Gill, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, and Associate
Planner Griffin
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Green and was
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairman Green reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its
responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) PUD-85-1: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT
TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW THL
CONSTRUCTION OF A 48-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATED AT
1665-1667 BRANDYWINE AVENUE - DONALD AND JACQUELINE
GOSS
Commissioner Cannon announced that he had a potential conflict of interest and
left the dais and the Chambers.
Principal Planner Lee presented slides of the site plan and elevation and
noted that two main issues to be considered were: (1) the expansion of the
multi-family usage with increased density, and (2) the elimination of the RV
yard. He commented that the CC&Rs of Point Robinhood prohibit on-site storage
and the RV lot had not been used for some years because of its location and
history of vandalism; most of the RV owners have apparently made private
arrangements for vehicle storage. He noted that the adjacent residential
- 2 - August 14, 1985
Planning Commission
developments do not have RVs stored on site either. Mr. Lee pointed out that
the density is not in conflict with the original General Development plan;
that since the staff report was written, modifications have been made for the
relocation of the most southerly building to create more open space which
meets the intent of the ordinance. Staff has recommended adoption of the
Negative Declaration and approval of the project based on the findings.
Commissioner Guiles asked if Item 2.b of the Recommendations should be changed
to indicate that review by the DRC is mandatory and the provision for tenants
having access to Point Robinhood's recreation courts be deleted. He was
answered in the affirmative.
In response to questions, Mr. Lee replied that there is sufficient residential
parking on site. He mentioned the concern of the Traffic Engineer regarding
the counting of on-street parking for guest purposes in the event of street-
widening needs at a future time; however, at the present time, guest parking
is allowed on-street by the ordinance; that RVs can be parked on Brandywine
for a period no longer than 72 hours.
Guy C. Lichty II, 1652 Point Set Court, speaking for himself, requested
conformance with the original density or close to it; and, as part of the
recommendations to City Council, that the Traffic Engineer be requested to
install a 4-w~ stop sign and to plan for traffic signal installation as soon
as possible at the intersection of Brandywine and Sequoia.
A.W. Hall, 1675 Point Reyes Court, representing self, asked for clarification
of the use of Point Robinhood Homes' recreation facilities by the applicant
and was informed such a suggestion had been put forward as an option and
although the applicant has modified his plans, staff does not preclude any
such agreement between the applicant and the Homeowners Association. Mr. Hall
commented that, in his opinion, such an agreement would be an infringement on
the rights of the homeowners.
With regard to the parking question, Mr. Hall stated the Planning Commission
should consider the lack of turnaround space provided at the south end of the
project, especially when needed for the use of emergency vehicles; and that
the parking abutting Point Robinhood Homes' area should be defined by a wall
or open fencing to restrict traffic from this common area. He declared that
the density factor for the proposed project of 23+ units per acre is
unsatisfactory when compared with the following densities - (a) Point
Robinhood Homes, 2.7; (b) the area across from Point Robinhood homes, 6.8;
the Brandywine Mendocino area, ?.4; and (d) the fact that the General Plan
calls for 4 to 12.
Barbara Hall, 1675 Point Reyes Court, representing self, also spoke against
use of the Robinhood recreation facilities by the applicant; she asked if the
project would be under their CC&Rs and was informed they would not.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Planning Commission - 3 - August 14, 1985
Bud Gray, 8324 Allison Avenue, La Mesa, representing the applicant, stated
that RVs will be prohibited in the apartment project; that the applicant had
attended the Board Meeting of Point Robinhood Homeowners Association and
presented the project to over 30 homeowners in a 1-1/2 hour discussion. The
homeowners' concerns were: (1) lack of stop signs and pedestrian crossings at
Brandywine and Sequoia; the applicant will support any efforts in securing
stop sign and crossings even to the extent of helping defray the cost; (2) a
possible fire hazard on the slope bank to the east of the site; applicant will
develop a firebreak to eliminate any such fire hazard and is willing to take
the proposal to the homeowners. Mr. Gray pointed out the advantages of the
project; namely, the elimination of the eyesore of a RV park; the design of
the project has been planned to coincide with the architectural design of
Robinhood Homes area; the density is reasonable and consistent with the
Robinhood Homes development and the smaller neighborhood adjacent to the site;
Brandywine is destined to become a major street (where apartments belong); and
there are no significant environmental issues.
Bill Hedenkamp, Hedenkamp and Associates, 1331 India Street, San Diego,
reviewed the architectural design of the project and its compliance with DRC
guidelines. He pointed out that the parking has been located away from
Brandywine; the slope bank has been retained with the young, mature trees and
extra landscaping is planned; the 4-6 foot embankment will be handled with a
retaining wall; and traffic conditions are being discussed by the homeowners
and the applicant.
Assistant City Attorney Gill stated that any use of the Homeowners
Association's facilities would require a separate agreement between the two
interested parties and would not involve the City of Chula Vista.
Jack Kuta, 272 Church Avenue #4, Chula Vista, representing the Paul Miller
Company, spoke about the improvement in the area that will be made by the new
project by eliminating the "blighted" appearance caused by the RV park;
breaking up the mono-chromatic look and impression of the area; and that
quality apartment buildings will attract quality households. He noted that
the applicant is supportive of a 4-way stop sign being put in at Brandywine
and Sequoia.
Others speaking in opposition to the project were Joyce Haas, 1535 Point
Hueneme Court: David Jordan, 2550 Point Dune Court; Hugh Winthrop, 2564 Diablo
Point Court; Lawrence Buhold, P.O. Box 534, Del Mar, representing Willard
Ducharme; and Nancy Baker-Gamble, 1507 Oleander Avenue, representing Mendocino
(Brandywine) Condominiums. Their objections included parking: lack of safety
for children because of parking obstructing the view of traffic; 80 percent of
the traffic will be heading north impacting the roads instead of splitting
north and south as illustrated by the applicant; Brandywine will be a major
road with heavy traffic including trucks; the project is a high-density,
high-quality apartment complex designed for low-income small families; if the
apartments could be restricted to senior citizens and there were no children
it would be perfect; the parking lot is designed for children to be run over;
the Board is not legally authorized to sell the property; there are still
Planning Commission - 4 - August 14, 1985
unresolved environmental requirements regarding the major fault in the area
and further study is needed on the potential effects of the fault; crime is a
problem in the neighborhood which will be compounded with 48 more units and
the same number of police and fire personnel available.
Richard Taylor, 705 Anza Way, proprietor of Brandywine Liquor and Deli,
representing self, spoke in favor of the project and also Mr. Lichty's
~j~o~ a 4-way stop sign and traffic signal for the Brandywine/Sequoia
his store's location permits him to observe traffic crossing the
intersection in apparent excess of 50-60 MPH while six or seven busloads of
children are in the area: and the project will eliminate one of the havens for
undocumented aliens.
Bill McBreen, 1650 Point Sal Court, President of Point Robinhood Homeowners
Association, and speaking for the Board of Directors, stated that (1} the
Point Robinhood Homes' homeowners were notified by a bulletin, dated August 5,
1985, of the Board meeting on the 12th; the Board did not support the use of
Robinhood Homes' facilities by people in the proposed project because there is
a large public park 200 feet close by; he countered previously stated
opposition to the fact that the units will be rented by saying that renters
are frequently more controllable than homeowners; the density issue he would
leave to the City, however, Point Robinhood has a very low density because
there is a lot of unusable space: and (3} the Board is concerned with the sale
of the property and desires an attractive development which they consider
Mr. Goss' project to be based on appearance by replacement of the RV lot with
a pleasing looking project: by ecology, provision of a buffer zone against
future developments and aliens; and by economics, in that the land sale will
provide funds to improve Point Robinhood Development.
Mr. Gray stated that he wanted it made part of the record that it is not the
intent of the developer to use or permit the project's tenants to use any of
the Point Robinhood facilities.
Bill Hedenkamp, noted that the use of the emergency vehicle access had been
discussed with the Fire Marshal and meets with the City's requirements.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Principal Planner Lee reminded the residents that the site plan issues will be
heard before the Design Review Committee and if the Commission wished to give
any specific directions regarding turnaround space and parking, it would be
appropriate; that the Traffic Engineer is aware of the interest on the part of
the residents for the stop sign; that the proposed 48-unit project appreciably
adds to these traffic numbers; however, additional study by the Traffic
Division and input to Council may be required; and the Planning staff did not
wish to make approval of the project conditioned upon a stop sign. He
explained that the unit sizes of the previous 14-unit project were about 1400
square feet each in area and comparison with the building coverage on this
plan indicates a similar coverage plan since openness and density appear much
alike because of the smaller units now proposed. The use of the Robinhood
recreation facilities was simply an option offered by staff and not a proposal
or a requirement.
Plannin~ Commission - 5 - August 14, 1985
Commissioner Green said he was of the opinion that the Traffic Engineer and
the Safety Commission should review the situation at Brandywine and Sequoia.
Mr. Lee explained that the Traffic Engineer was unable to be present for the
Planning Commission meeting because of a conflict with another meeting.
Commissioner Guiles referred to page 3, paragraph 4 of the staff report and
asked if the applicant's modification mentioned during the presentation had
resolved the issue of a deficit in open space. He was answered in the
affirmative.
Commissioner Tugenberg expressed concern over the lack of play space for
children and was informed that concerns on that matter could be directed to
the DRC and incorporated into the open space as an amenity.
Commissioner Green pointed out that his remarks earlier in the year about the
need for play areas also contained a proviso that if a public park were
nearby, such play area need not be provided.
Commissioner Guiles asked about the previously referenced adjoining boundaries
of the proposed project and the Point Robinhood Homes' development and was
informed that a copy of the layout of the recreation area was not available,
however, the areas were so close that unless there was a barrier such as a
fence, there might be traffic between developments and further noted that such
an issue would be a valid recommendation for the DRC.
MSC (Tugenberg/Guiles) Cannon abstained - to find that this project will have
no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued
on IS-85-48.
Commissioner Guiles remarked that from an overall standpoint he favored the
project and considered the comments from the audience appropriate; the
concerns he wished the DRC to consider included (1) the emergency vehicle
access (even though the Fi re Department was satisfied, he was not); 12) the
turnaround on the southeasterly portion of the parking lot: (3) the safety of
individuals, particularly children, who might be accessing the park facility;
(4) the stop sign situation; and (5) that there should be no tie-in between
the proposed project and the Homeowners Association at all.
MS (Guiles/Shipe) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the
staff report, to recommend that City Council approve PUD-85-1 subject to the
conditions listed with instructions that the Design Review Committee, pay
particular attention to the issues of parking; safe travel of pedestrian
accessing Brandywine and Sequoia, particularly the park areas; emergency
vehicle access/turnaround within the park area; provision of some sort of
boundary or separation between the recreation facility and the Homeowners
Association property; and approval by the DRC of the overall project.
Chairman Green asked if the Commissioner wished to amend the motion to omit
the last part of 2.b (under Recommendations) regarding the use of the
Robinhood Homes recreational facilities.
Planning Commission - 6 - August 14, 1985
Assistant City Attorney Gill noted that consideration of the access to
Brandywine and Sequoia was beyond the scope of the DRC and should be omitted
from the motion.
AMENDED MOTION:
MS (Guiles/Shipe) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the
staff report, to recommend that City Council approve PUD-85-1 subject to the
the conditions listed with the modification of 2.b to read "The project shall
be required to provide a common open space area with appropriate amenities per
the approval of the Design Review Committee", and with instructions that the
Design Review Committee pay particular attention to the issues of parking;
emergency vehicle access/turnaround within the park area; provision of some
sort of boundary or separation between the recreation facility and the
Homeowners Association property; and approval by the DRC of the overall
project.
Commissioner Tugenberg commented that he would not support the project as
parking is a problem and the density is not satisfactory; that the area in
question is part of the community of Point Robinhood Homes development not
part of the industrial park and should be treated with commensurate density;
and the Board could find another, more suitable use for the property.
Commissioner Green declared that he considered the project appropriate for the
location and a good project.
The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Guiles, Shipe, Green
NOES: Tugenberg
ABSTAIN: Cannon
ABSENT: Carson and O'Neill
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-85-22: REQUEST TO RELOCATE
AN EXISTING CARDROOM FROM ll THIRD AVENUE TO 631 "H"
STREET - VEGAS CLUB, INC.
Principal Planner Lee stated that this item involves a request to relocate an
existing three-table cardroom from ll Third Avenue to 631 "H" Street with an
increase to six tables of eight players each. Staff is recommending denial
based on the premise that: (1) this is not just a relocation, but an expansion
which could perpetuate the use of cardrooms while a study is underway to
consider more restrictive uses or possible amortization of cardrooms in the
City; (2) there is a possibility of adverse noise impacts on the adjoining
mobile home park residents; and (3) the cardroom will need a parking variance
in a center wherein there is already an existing variance.
Commissioner Shipe interrupted the presentation to state he had a potential
conflict of interest and left the dais and the Chambers at 8:45 p.m.
Planning Commission - 7 - August 14, 1985
Principal Planner Lee presented slides of the proposed cardroom location, the
adjoining mobile home park, cocktail lounge and parking area. Mr. Lee pointed
out that of the 99 spaces available, the parking variance granted the lounge
and the parking needed for the cardroom would result in a deficit of 56
parking spaces. An analysis of parking indicates 95 spaces in use during peak
hours which could preclude other retail uses from locating within the center
in case of a future vacancy; and the hours of operation and specific use mixes
makes enforcement difficult.
In reply to Commissioner Tugenberg, Mr. Lee said no complaints regarding noise
from the cocktail bar had been received; and the City had notified Mr. Burger
to reduce the number of tables in his previous location based upon the
resubdivision of the lot and the construction of a senior citizen facility on
a portion of the previously-occupied parking area.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Robert O. Vicars, llO West "C" St., San Diego, Attorney at law representing
the Vegas Club Cardroom, stated that the cardroom was moving from its 5-year
location because the owner divided the property using a portion for a senior
citizen complex which forced curtailment of the number of tables allowed. Mr.
Vicars contended that adequate parking was available for the new site and
submitted a parking analysis; he questioned the suggested parking ratio of 1
space for every 1.5 seats; noted that a consent fom signed by other tenants
in the center had been submitted; and advised there would be no occasion for
any cardroom patrons to use the rear door of the facility next to the mobile
home park. He cited Mr. Burger's availability for questioning and urged
approval of the conditional use permit.
In response to questions from the Commission, Assistant City Attorney Gill
noted that an opinion on the cardroom parking study would be presented to
Council at the August 20th meeting.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Principal Planner Lee explained that the number of parking spaces required for
a cardroom had been 1:2.5 seats Isimilar to that of a restaurant); however,
Council had requested that staff investigate this ratio and upon conclusion of
that investigation, recommendation came forth to increase the parking
requirement ratio to 1 space for 1.5 seats, Council accepted the
recommendation. This information was transmitted to the Commission and given
to Mr. Burger as the appropriate parking ratio for cardrooms. It is staff's
opinion that the this adjustment should be required.
MSC (Cannon/Guiles) Shipe abstained, to find that this project will have no
significant impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-85-44.
MS (Cannon/Guiles) to approve the conditional use permit based on the findings
as follows: (1) the proposed location is necessary and desirable for added
service of the facility and is merely a relocation of an existing use and will
Planning Commission - 8 - August 14, 1985
not degrade the neighborhood; (2) the use under the circumstances that have
been portrayed by the staff report for the number of parking places will not
be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing
or working, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity; (3)
the use will comply with regulations and conditions specified in the Municipal
Code with regard to cardrooms; and finally, (4) the conditional use permit
will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plans of
government agencies.
Commissioner Cannon put forth his reasons as follows: (1) the time of most
usage would be the evening hours for the cardroom and bar, but 99 spaces will
not be utilized; (2) this is a situation of trying to anticipate Council's
wishes which is not within the purview of the Planning Commission which must
look to the guidelines and the report; and (3) he sees no legitimate planning
reason to deny the CUP.
Commissioner Guiles concurred. He then requested that in the event Mr. Vicars
again addressed the Commission, he not submit a written detailed analysis
immediately prior to the meeting.
Commissioner Tugenberg stated that a cardroom located on a primary entryway of
the City gives a bad impression and he considered land use a purview of the
Commission.
Commissioner Green declared the location was not appropriate.
The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Cannon, Guiles
NOES: Tugenberg, Green
ABSTAIN: Shipe
ABSENT: Carson, O'Neill
Commissioner Shipe returned to the dais at 9:08 p.m.
Chairman Green reminded the Commissioners that no motion had been made
regarding a traffic study at Brandywine and Sequoia.
Assistant City Attorney Gill objected that with the public hearing closed, the
participants departed, that it was not the time to make a motion on that item.
Chairman Green replied that the motion was not in conjunction with Item l, but
for a traffic study.
Commissioner Green asked and was advised that he did not have a conflict on a
motion for the traffic study.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Guiles) that the Traffic Engineer should make a study of the
Brandywine/Sequoia intersection.
Planning Commission - 9 - August 14, 1985
Principal Planner Lee noted that the Traffic Engineer would be present at the
Commission workshop and asked if the Commission wished to delay until after
discussion with the Traffic Engineer.
Commissioner Guiles emphasized that the fact that a park is at that
intersection should be an overriding consideration of the study.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-85-23: REQUESTS PERMISSION
TO LOCATE A THRIFT STORE AT 345 "E" STREET AMVEI~
~-~RIFT STORE
Principal Planner Lee pointed out that a store selling used clothing in a C-T
zone requires a use permit because of the possible impact of that particular
land use on adjacent businesses. Mr. Lee noted that the proposed location is
on a primary entry way of the City and in close proximity to the Town Centre
where the sale of second-hand merchandise is prohibited. Staff is of the
opinion that the proposed business would be counterproductive to the primary
goal of the Redevelopment Area which is to attract new, quality business and
upgrade existing businesses. For that reason, staff recommends denial. Two
letters of opposition have been filed, one from the Chamber of Commerce and
the other from the Director of Community Development.
In response to a question by Commissioner Cannon, Assistant City Attorney Gill
replied that according to the Chula Vista Municipal Code, a used-clothing
store requires a use permit be issued prior to the start-up of operations. If
findings can be made, based on the requirements of the Municipal Code, that
this facility is selling used clothing, then it will need a conditional use
permit.
Commissioner Tugenberg questioned the amount of parking available and the lack
of a turn-around area. He was informed by staff that the boundaries of the
Parking District and the Redevelopment Area do not coincide; that this
particular property was in the Parking District and, therefore, given credit
for street frontage as well as on-site parking; and that enlargement of the
parking lot would be impossible without tearing down part of the building.
Bud Gray, 8324 Allison Ave., La Mesa, representing Bill and George Burnett and
Bob Benchoff, stated the property had been operated for many years as
Burnett's Furniture Store but has been vacant a year. Mr. Gray pointed out
that AMVETS is dedicated to serving the needs of service men and women; all
funds are used to support veterans and community programs; and all the stores
are professionally managed. He noted that, as indicated in the staff report,
parking is no longer an issue with staff as the parking analysis reveals more
than enough space to meet the needs of peak hour business. In reference to
staff's concern with "image", he explained that an existing facility of this
size is not suitable for many kinds of business; itemized the many C-T types
of uses beginning at the west end of "E" Street and the compatibility of a
thrift store. Referring to the letter from Community Development, Mr. Gray
remarked that the location is outside the Redevelopment Area and the General
Planning Commission - lO - August 14, 1985
Plan designates this area for C-T which is the proper zoning for a thrift
shop; therefore, the issue before the Commission is whether or not the AMVETS
is a reasonable use of the property. He explained that the exterior
appearance would not change except for new signage which will be submitted to
staff for approval.
In response to a question regarding provisions for turning around in the
parking area, Mr. Gray said the lot was developed in 1953 with different
standards and to change its configuration would necessitate tearing down the
building.
Jeff Hill, 1727 Isabella Court, Ventura, CA 93004, M&M Management Company,
commented that his firm manages all the AMVETS stores in California plus 25
thrift stores in seven states. They are a modern state-of-the-art management
company which closely supervises the stores, updates all fixtures, lighting,
facilities and trucks; they represent the upper echelon of thrift stores; are
responsible for the appearance of the building; will repave and restripe the
parking lot; provide a 6-foot block wall and increase the existing landscaping.
He cited the amount of increased business resulting from the location of their
stores in several areas and stated it was a fallacy that thrift stores
belonged only in "blighted" areas. In response to questions, Mr. Hill
declared that approximately 10 people would be employed during the week and
half of that on Saturday; parking is not affected because most of the
employees are women who are driven to work by their husbands; this was the
only viable site they had located in the City; and, if rejected, they would
seek another site.
Stan Gerson, 4980 Academy Street, San Diego, CA 92109, a commercial
real-estate broker, presented a demographic study of a 1- and 3-mile radius of
Third and "E" Street which revealed that this is a localized community as
follows:
Within 1 mile Within 3 miles
26% are senior citizens
64% are renters 52% are renters
41% earn $15,00 or less 37% earn $15,000 or less
62% have 0 to one vehicle 51% have 0 to one vehicle
In the Redevelopn~nt Area there are no second-hand stores; therefore, this
site is an asset because it provides goods to the people of the area. Most of
the businesses are owned by those who work in them. The demographics are not
right for another furniture store; and the size of the building precludes most
uses. AMVETS Stores have increased business by 20 percent for stores within a
two-block radius.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission - ll August 14, 1985
Commissioner Shipe stated that he was a Marine Corps veteran who has supported
the veterans but he is not comfortable with the project based on the parking,
the image, and that the location of AMVETS is not compatible with the
neighborhood; therefore, he would not support the proposal.
Commissioner Green remarked that he considered the location good; that whether
occupied by an AMVETS or a furniture store, parking availability would be the
same; Mr. Gerson's figures demonstrate a need for this type of facility;
however, the project should be reviewed by the Design Review Committee to
ensure the store's appearance is suitable for the area.
Commissioner Tugenberg commented that his children are habitues of thrift
stores and he has had great trouble finding parking available. He added that
because of the parking he would not support the project.
Commissioner Cannon remarked that if the minimal parking is the predominant
concern, the building is condemned to a constant state of vacancy; that the
reason for putting in the downtown parking area was to provide space for the
business uses along this street; that as the same parking area has been
utilized for 30 years and there is no way to increase its size, there is no
rational basis to say the parking is insufficient for the building. The
Commissioner noted that the project is before the Commission only because the
sale of used clothing requires a use permit, while a high density use could be
established without the need for Commission approval. He maintained the image
is not negative and could be controlled with DRC review plus certain
restrictions on window displays; an empty building, however, shows poor
business and presents the worst kind of image. Commissioner Cannon reminded
the Commission that efforts to secure another furniture store had failed; the
Commission's function was not to make a determination as to who can lease
space under certain circumstances, but to try to ascertain that the land use
is legitimate to the area and conforms to the area. He concluded saying he
was unable to see any drawback to the type of use being considered for the
location.
MSUC (Shipe/Guiles) to find that this project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-85-46.
MS (Shipe/Tugenberg) to adopt a motion to deny PCC-85-23 Motion failed by
the following vote:
AYES: Shipe, Tugenberg
NOES: Green, Guiles, Cannon
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: O'Neill and Carson
MSC (Cannon/Guiles) Tugenberg/no to approve PCC-85-23 subject to findings
which Commissioner Cannon will state into the record if the motion passes.
Planning Commission - 12 - August 14, 1985
1. The proposed use at this location is necessary, desirable and beneficial
to the neighborhood and that the facility will contribute to the
well-being of the neighborhood and the community and is in no way
detrimental thereto.
2. This use will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing
or working wi thin the vicinity, nor will it be injurious to property or
improvements within the vicinity.
3. The use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the
Code for the usage of a thrift store or used-clothing store.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect
the General Plan of the City or any adopted plan of any government agency.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-84-11 CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PEPJqIT FOR CHURCH AND DAY SCHOOL FACILITY AT EAST "H" STREE~
AND BUENA VISTA WAY - TOM BUSHFIELD
Principal Planner Lee stated that the applicant is proposing to develop a
project consisting of a church suitable for seating 435, a school building for
700 students, a ~Lvmnasium, and various miscellaneous structures including
living quarters. The intent is to build the facility in four phases as
outlined in the staff report. This plan requires coordination for grading.
land use and circulation in conjunction with the revised E1 Rancho del Rey
Plan which is to be considered by Council next week. The conditions contained
in the staff report are sufficient to enable staff to recommend approval of
the application.
The Commission expressed concern with the type of construction anticipated
around the area; the effect of noise on possible residential areas; the amount
of grading involved; the traffic situation along East "H" Street; the
inadequacy of the original EIR and the addendum to the EIR in considering the
issues of noise and traffic, the lack of City standards applying to private
schools, particularly wi th respect to the contrast between a requirement that
public elementary schools provide l0 acres for 600 students and the proposed
use of 9-1/2 acres incorporating a church, parking lot, living quarters, other
miscellaneous buildings, and an elementary and junior high school with an
estimated 700 students.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Steve Schoenherr, 3845 Just St., San Diego, 92154, Chairman of the
congregation for Pilgrim Church, stated that the CUP was applied for 1-1/2
years ago; property owners on all sides of the site agree there is no problem;
they have worked with the Gersten Company for l-l/2 years and solved all
grading problems there; are working with City staff; appreciated the
Commission's comments; and would be willing to cooperate fully with the
Commission when the Commission is certain of what it wants.
Planning Commission - 13 - August 14, 198§
In a reply to an inquiry by Commissioner Tugenber§, Principal Planner Lee
noted that the grade variance appeared to be between 30-35 feet based on a
typical 2:1 slope condition. Retention of the slope bank would remain unknown
until the proposed grading, separations, etc., for the first phase was
reviewed by the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Green said he felt uncomfortable with 700 students proposed for a
9-1/2 acre lot; that the Commission is the only body which had an opportunity
to regulate the size; and he would like to see a study made of the
requirements for private schools prior to approval.
Commissioner Cannon stated that concern has been exPressed about the traffic
generated by E1 Rancho del Rey and if the Commission approves uses that may
not be exactly the uses proposed for the site, the traffic figures submitted
by ERDR may be changed, thereby exacerbating an already grim traffic
situation; and that he was not willing to approve the project without an EIR.
Also, the Commission had been instructed to wait until phasing was completed
and that specific EIRs would deal with specific projects; however, he did not
consider the two-page report submitted with this project provided sufficient
information; and he would like to see consideration given to noise with
relationship to a possible residential neighborhood.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Principal Planner Lee noted that the applicant had had the opportunity to move
ahead if they wished to file a SPA Plan before the Gersten Plan proceeded;
however, they had placed the project on hold, and it had not been worked on
until the reactivation had been requested.
Commissioner Cannon asked how long it would take for staff to prepare
appropriate documentation taking into consideration the comments about (1) the
adequacy of the initial EIR re specific projects and (2) the inadequacy of the
proposed recertification documents.
Mr. Lee replied that if the request included preparation of the private school
standards, the item should be continued to at least the September 11, 1985
meeting.
Discussion between staff and Commission included the need for a workshop study
of the proposed private school standards prior to the hearing; lack of input
from the Council regarding policy; the importance of the Commission's
recommendation to Council that such a study be made; the possibilities of
having the request limited to using part of the site for a church, part
for a preschool and considering the school issue at a later time; the need to
address the overall problem regarding the EIR; the possible necessity of
readvertising the item; the possibility of the applicant withdrawing
consideration of the school issue at this meeting; the dislike of
piece-mealing or delaying the issue beyond the necessary limits; and the
possibility of continuing the item to September ll, 1985 with a further
continuation to a date certain (if needed).
Planning Commission - 14 - August 14, 1985
MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) to continue the item to the meeting of September ll, 1985.
Commissioner Tugenberg remarked that since the project to construct the church
and school was just beginning rather than being an added construction to an
existing church, this would be a golden opportunity to establish a model for
future reference.
Chairman Green advised the applicant to contact Planning staff and discuss
with them the concerns voiced this evening and that the Commission would look
forward to viewing the item at a later date.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-85-24: REQUEST TO UTILIZE
CHURCH PARKING AT 61U PASEO DEL REY FOR PARK-AND-RIDE
USE
Assistant Planner Griffin noted that the project site is located on the
property of the Chula Vista Alliance Church at the northeast corner of
Telegraph Canyon Road and Paseo del Rey. This property presently contains a
church building, a small home and the parking area. The rest of the site is
vacant. The project involves a proposal by CalTrans to construct and utilize
24 parking spaces on the northerly boundary for a "park-and-ride" facility
during the weekdays. The location of these spaces was approved as part of the
church's master plan. Staff believes that because of the limited number of
spaces involved, there will be no traffic impaction although there is a
possibility of some noise impacts in the morning. The elevation of the
single-family homes in the area minimizes the noise impact and a condition of
approval requires that the CUP be reviewed if any complaints are received
regarding noise. Staff recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration and
approval of the project.
Commissioner Green asked if the parking could be revoked in case of a later
need and expressed concern that the parking lot is the only play area for the
existing facility as well as the future classrooms and nursery.
Staff replied that no conflict is anticipated because of the hours of
operation; that the lease is for 5 years; and a condition of approval could be
placed that the conditions be reviewed in 5 years.
This being the time and the place the public hearing was opened.
Allen Gore, 656 Del Rey Pt., and Nick Besker, 660 Del Rey Place, homeowners,
spoke in opposition to the project questioning the location which is not close
to nor adjacent to a freeway or major artery; the traffic conditions on
Telegraph Canyon Road make travel in that area difficult; the traffic hazards
for children crossing to get to Greg Rogers School; the difficulties the
increased number of cars will cause for participants of the neighborhood watch
program; the lighting situation; the maintenance situation; noise at 6:30 in
the morning; the "suspected" alien refuge in the wooded area which would be
uncontrollable because of the park-and-ride participants; noise of children
Planning Commission - 15 - August 14, 1985
playing in the parking area already easily heard let alone engines starting;
nearby condos which have no place to park overflow traffic will utilize the
park-and-ride for their RVs; the neighborhood has enough trouble now without
24 uncontrolled parking places.
Douglas Sherburn, 120 Taylor Street, San Diego, representing CalTrans and
Commuter/Computer, stated that Commuter/Computer has been in business lO
years; maintains 48 park-and-rides with approximately 12 of those on other
than State right-of-way. They have found compatibility with churches which
have activities basically on the weekends. In this case. the church needs
additional parking for their master plan, and the 24 spaces CalTrans would
build would be in addition to the 50 spaces in existence. Park-and-ride
accommodates people in the neighborhood. The typical P&R is 20-40 spaces not
immediately adjacent to the freeway. The people who park are concerned about
security also and the church with people coming and going daily provides some
protection for these cars. The current usage of a park-and-ride is
approximately 50 percent which would mean l0 to 12 cars. CalTrans maintains
the facilities, keeps them clean, provides lighting if the church requests it,
has periodic inspections, and {with permission) place a sign in the entryway
indicating park-and-ride.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Cannon) to find this project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt Negative Declaration issued on IS-85-49.
MS {Tugenberg/Cannon) that based on findings contained in Section E of the
staff report, to approve the request, PCC-85-24, to utilize church parking at
610 Paseo del Rey for park-and-ride used subject to the conditions contained
in the staff report.
Commissioner Green stated he did not consider the location appropriate.
Commissioner Cannon said he did consider the location appropriate and that he
did not consider the location would be detrimental to the community; there
will be 24 parking places there eventually; and the fact that cars parked in
that location by day would create an increase in crime does not correlate as
he agrees with Mr. Sherburn that the likelihood of vandalism is lessened by
the proximity of the church. He concluded that he did not think the location
was one that people would use, but, from a planning standpoint, he could see
no objection.
Commissioner Tugenberg agreed with Mr. Cannon and said he would prefer parking
in the church parking lot to a shopping center.
Commissioner Guiles remarked that he felt the location was not right and in
reading the analysis it indicated that if there were future complaints by
residents, the issue would be taken up with staff. In his opinion, the
Commission had just received complaints. Therefore, he was not in favor of
the project.
Planning Commission - 16 - August 14, 1985
The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Tugenberg, Cannon. Shipe
NOES: Green, Guiles
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Carson and O'Neill
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
- Principal Planner Lee reminded the Commission of the dinner workshop on
the 21st with the Finance Director speaking on Mello Roos and Montgomery
and with the Traffic Engineer and Safety Commission discussing the letter
to Council re parking space ratio.
COMMISSION CO~ENTS:
- Commissioner Cannon remarked that meetings when two persons are absent can
be a waste of time particularly if a conflict-of-interest prevents having
a quorum.
Assistant City Attorney Gill reminded the Commissioners that when a
conflict-of-interest is involved, the member should state the reason.
ADJOURNMENT AT ll:O0 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of August 21, 1985 at
5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3.
~uth M. Smith, Secre~ary
WPC 2140P