HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1984/10/24 Tape 253 - Side 1
0-1829
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, October 24, 1984 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Green, Commissioners Cannon,
Carson, Guiles, O'Neill, Shipe and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal
Planner Lee, Principal Planner Pass, City
Attorney Harron, Senior Civil Engineer
Daoust, Environmental Review Coordinator
Reid, Director of Community Development
Desrochers, and Transit Coordinator Gustafson
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 REd, ARKS
Chairman Green complimented former Chairman O'Neill on the amount of
gentle manliness and courtesy he had shown during his tenure. He and the other
members wished Commissioner O'Neill a happy birthday. Chairman Green then
reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and
the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT EIR-84-8, BAYFRONT/"E" STREET
TROLLEY STAIION
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid informed the Commission that the project
is a joint effort with the MTDB, the County and the City of Chula Vista. The
County prepared the EIR and the City is acting as the lead agency responsible
for providing needed notification and processing the document. The draft EIR
was issued on September 21, 1984, subject to a 30-davy review period. Comments
received from CalTrans will be reviewed with the Engineering Department and
response will be made; comments from MTDB will easily be incorporated into the
Final EIR. Mr. Reid suggested that the public hearing be opened for testimony
relevant to the adequacy of the EIR and then closed with the Final EIR to be
returned at a date uncertain.
_ City Planning Commission -2- October 24, 1984
He pointed out that the project is located on the south side of "E" Street
just east of the existing trolley line and Interstate 5; the plan shown is
very schematic in nature and may change before completion. The latest plans
indicate that autos will access and egress from both Woodlawn and "E" Streets
with buses utilizing Woodlawn Street only. After evaluating the traffic
circulation, land use/zoning, noise and air quality issues, the report
concluded that no impacts significant in nature were discovered and no
mitigation measures are recommended.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
2. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR A ONE-YFJ~R EXTENSION OF THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR
WOODLAND PARK, CHULA VISTA TRACT 82-1
Principal Planner Lee informed the Commission that the project was approved in
November 1981; involves a 27-unit project located at the northwest corner of
Walnut Drive and Main Street which has been repossessed under a default
action; and the owner is requesting a 1-year extension of the tentative map.
Staff recommends approval of the extension; however, a letter protesting the
action was received by the Planning Department on October 24, 1984, from the
resident at 141 Lotus Street.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. Chairman Green acknowledged a written request by Mr. Paul Green to
speak on this item; however, Mr. Green was not present at the meeting.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC {Cannon/O'Neill) to approve the 1-year extension of the tentative map
known as Woodland Park, Chula Vista Tract 82-1; the map to expire on
November 3, 1985.
3. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-84-5, OTAY VALLEY ROAD SOUTH GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, PREZONING AND ANNEXATION
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that this EIR was the subject of
a public hearing on October lO. Written comments have been received but no
verbal testimony was given at the hearing. All written comments have been
incorporated into the final EIR and responses provided in Section ll. The
report concludes that all of the project-related impacts can be mitigated;
however, as there is no precise development plan at this time, findings that
the significant impacts have indeed been mitigated cannot be made. Mr. Reid
said that staff recommends the Final EIR be certified and presented Mr. Tom
Larkin, PRC Engineering, as available for any questions.
Commissioner O'Neill declared that he was not present at the meeting of
October 10, but as no verbal testimony was given and he has read all the
-- written reports, he would like a legal opinion on his ability to vote on this
issue. City Attorney Harron declared that, as there was only a verbal summary
given of the written staff report and no other evidence was presented, he
might vote.
City Planning Commission -3- October 24, 1984
MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) to certify that EIR-84-5 was prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and
the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and further,
that the Planning Commission considered the information in that document as
they considered the discretionary actions for the project.
4a. PUBLIC HEARING GPA-84-3, PROPOSED REDESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY lO0
ACRES OF TERRITORY, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE O~
OTAY VALLEY ROAD, OPPOSITE BRANDYWINE AVENUE, FROM
AGRICULTURE & RESERVE AND PARKS & PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TO
RESEARCH & LIMITED INDUS1RIAL, ON THE PLAN DIAGRA~I OP
THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN
4b. PUBLIC HEARING PCZ 84-J - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE AND PRE-ZONE 233.55
ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD
FROM 1-805 FREEWAY TO APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES EAST,
FROM A-8, A-72 (Co.) AND C-37 (Co.) TO I-L-P AND F-1
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
4c. CONSIDERATION OF "CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS" FOR THE PROPOSED OTAY VALLEY
ROAD SOUTH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PREZONE/REZONE
Principal Planner Pass stated that the three items are companion cases but
- although they primarily affect the same land, they are not coterminus in
territory since, in the matter of zoning, there is some land outside the
purview of the General Plan Amendment. Approval of the General Plan Amendment
would add 100 acres to Chula Vista's industrial land-use inventory; increase
the industrial employment opportunites in the South Bay; improve the economic
potential of the Otay Valley Road project area; enable Chula Vista to foster
the extension of public utilities and facilities to the project area; reduce
the planning area's inventory of potential open space by less than 1 percent
and would not substantially increase its flood hazards. He concluded that the
proposed amendment would promote the industrial development of the project
area without substantially affecting the planning area's amenity, townscape-
planning, environmental quality or safety. Using an overhead projection,
Principal Planner Pass pointed out that the area is about 97.45 acres located
between the Otay Valley Road and the lO0-year flood plain of 58.15 acres and
that the 39.36 acre area between the flood plain and the flood-way line (which
is the river proper) would be subject to reclamation when the final channel
design is determined.
In reply to Commissioner O'Neill's questions, Principal Planner Pass stated
that the General Plan Amendment affects only lO0 acres and the remaining
acreage would continue as Agriculture & Reserve and Parks & Public Open Space.
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid explained that the CEQA Findings sent to
the Commissioners in their packets had been superceded by the Revised CEQA
Findings distributed before the Planning Commission meeting. The major
revisions are found {a) at the bottom of page 1 - the reference to several
feasi bi 1 i ty and marketing studies previously conducted regarding the
City Planning Commission -4- October 24, 1984
absorption rate of industrial land in Chula Vista which provides background
information in support of the physical and economic feasibility of the project
and the infeasibility of the alternatives listed in the EIR; (b} on page 2 -
the land uses have been expanded to show that the area adjacent to Otay Valley
Road is not suitable for residential land use and that commercial development
would have a more significant impact insofar as traffic impact is concerned;
and (c) at the bottom of page 2 - the statement of overriding consideration
has not been changed since the draft in the packets. He added that the basic
conclusion was the impacts identified in the EIR can be mitigated but it is
impossible to make that finding until after review of the precise development
plans and tentative subdivision maps; and the conclusion was that the proposed
project is environmentally superior to other alternative discussed in the EIR.
Commissioner Guiles stated he had a problem with the wording of paragraph 1 in
the Recommendations and that a rewording to indicate probability such as
"which should adequately mitigate impacts" would be more appropriate than the
present w--~F~ing of "which adequately mitigate impacts." Environmental
Coordinator Reid agreed with the qualification.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
a.) MSUC (Shipe/Cannon) to adopt a motion to approve GPA-84-3.
b.) MSUC (Shipe/Guiles) that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the
staff report, to recommend the City Council enact an ordinance to rezone
and prezone the properties to I-L-P and F-1 as shown on Exhibit "A"
attached to the staff report and subject to the procedures, provisions and
development standards set forth in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan
upon its adoption.
MS (Shipe/Cannon for discussion purposes) to adopt a motion certifying that
the:
1. Planning Conlni ssi on having reviewed and considered the information
contained in EIR-84-5, finds that measures have been incorporated
into the project as identified in the final EIR which adequately
mitigate impacts to: land use (3.1), geology (3.2), soils (3.3),
groundwater {3.4), drainage pattern (3.5), land form alteration
(3.6), water quality (3.7), mobile and stationary noise (3.8 and
3.9), biology (3.10), archaeology (3.11), aesthetics {3.12), fire and
police (3.13), transportation (3.14), sewer availability (3.15), and
air quality (3.16).
2. The Planning Commission finds that in accordance with the attached
"Candidate CEQA Findings" and that although potential impacts of the
project can be mitigated, there are specific economic, social, or
other considerations which make infeasible project alternatives
identified in the EIR (Section 6.0).
City Planning Commission -5- October 24, 1984
3. Planning Commission adopts the attached statement of overriding
considerations which warrant approval of the project and therefore,
override environmental considerations identified in EIR-84-5.
A motion was made by Guiles and seconded by Cannon to withdraw the original
motion and substitute a second motion with the following changes: In
paragraph 1, third line, to add the phrase "we believe will" between the words
"which" and "adequately"; paragraph 2, first line, to add the word "revised"
between the word "the" and "attached"; paragraph 3, first line, to add the
word "revised" between the word "the" and "attached." The motion was carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Shipe agreed to withdraw the original motion, and Co~issioner
Cannon agreed to withdraw his second to the original motion.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION
MSUC (Guiles/Cannon) to adopt a motion certifying that the:
1. Planning Commission having reviewed and considered the information
contained in EIR-84-5, finds that measures have been incorporated
into the project as identified in the final EIR which we believe will
adequately mitigate impacts to: land use (3.1), geology (3.2), soils
(3.3), groundwater (3.4), drainage pattern (3.5), land form
alteration (3.6), water quality (3.7), mobile and stationary noise
(3.8 and 3.9), biology (3.10), archaeology (3.11), aesthetics (3.12),
fire and police (3.13), transportation (3.14), sewer availability
(3.15), and air quality (3.16).
2. The Planning Commission finds that in accordance with the revised
attached "Candidate CEQA Findings" and that although potential
impacts of the project can be mitigated, there are specific economic,
social, or other considerations which make infeasible project
alternatives identified in the EIR (Section 6.0).
3. Planning Commission adopts the revised attached statement of
overridin9 considerations which warrant approval of the project and
therefore, override environmental considerations identified in
EIR-84-5.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-85-4; REQUEST TO MOVE THE
GREG ROGERS HOUSE ONTO THE PROPERTY AT 614 S£CON~
AVENUE - LEE AND SONNIE BURCH
Director of Planning Krempl stated that this request for a conditional use
permit to move the Greg Rogers House onto the property located at 614 Second
Avenue is required by the R-1 zoning. The property is currently developed
with a single-family residence; contains approximately 29,380 square feet; has
a frontage of approximately 70 feet with a depth of approximately 291 feet and
is located about 127 feet south of "I" Street. Director Krempl displayed
City Planning Commission -6- October 24, 1984
slides showing the existing house on the front of the property, the driveway
access, the Greg Rogers House and the proposed site plan for the location of
the Greg Rogers House at the rear of the property. He stated that parking,
setbacks and access to the property are all satisfactory and if the house were
located in a subdivision, the panhandle lot provision of the ordinance would
permit its placement, without a CUP and a public hearing being required.
However, with the lot remaining in single ownership and present configuration,
a CUP is needed, and as three letters of opposition have been received, the
matter is being considered by the Commission instead of the Zoning
Administrator. Director Krempl stated the site meets all conditions of the
ordinance under the "dwelling group" standards; would enable the applicant to
move a structure of historical significance onto the property; and is in
keeping with the General Plan and medium density residential established for
this area.
Commissioner Green asked if the applicant had the right to subdivide that
property and if that were done, the additional right to move the house onto
the property. He was answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Cannon asked if the house would be open to the public. Director
of Community Development Desrochers replied that the Council had acce~ted that
in exchange for a Community Development Block Grant loan to rehabilitate the
house, that the Burches would arrange for interior tours of the house at least
twice yearly. The rest of the year, the house will be a private residence
with perhaps storage of memorabilia by the Historical Society; however, there
is no intention to use it as a City museum.
Commissioner Tugenberg commented favorably on the proposed site as a fitting
location for the Greg Rogers House in terms of the neighboring architecture.
Commissioner Carson expressed concern over traffic problems created during the
time the house is open for the public viewing.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Lee Burch, 614 Second Avenue, the applicant, said that 380 people were bussed
to his home during the recent tour with no problem created for the neighbors.
He affirmed his willingness to take out a ~5,000 bond as a guarantee plus a
crew of 12 men who would remove and replace the neighbor's fence immediately
if she would grant permission for an easement.
Those speaking in favor of the requested conditional use permit were: Judy
Barney, 613 Second Avenue; Helen Stokes, President of the Chula Vista Women's
Club; Harry Griffin, 692 East "J" Street, representing the Historical Site
Board of the Resource Conservation Commission, and the Historic Society (as
requested by John Rojas); and Correne McCall, 644 Second Avenue. Their
remarks included approval of the restoration by the Burchs of their present
home; the asset that the Greg Rogers House will be and its probable effect on
raising property values; the interest of Chula Vista citizens in the historic
houses as illustrated by the recent tour; the value of historic homes in
cultural identification; and the need to find a "home" for the Greg Rogers
House before it collapses of its own weight.
City Plannin~ Commission -7- October 24, 1984
Speaking in opposition was Mr. Richard Saffer, 244 "I" Street, who objected to
the invasion of his privacy and cited his concern over a full year of noise
from the work site disturbing his rest and privacy and that of his children
until lO:O0 at night; the loss of open space which had attracted him to the
neighborhood and possible property devaluation.
Also speaking in opposition was Mrs. Marjorie Sprouce, 622 Second Avenue, who
said the remodeling of the Burch's present home had required work crews 6 to 7
days per week from 7:00 a.m. to ll:O0 p.m. on occasions; the many trucks in
the area created noise and difficulty in using the driveway access; she would
not permit removal of her fence; and her dread of another year of noise,
inconsideration and inconvenience. Upon being asked by Commissioner Cannon if
she was saying that under no circumstance would she allow the Greg Rogers
House to go through her yard, Mrs. Sprouce replied, "I am saying that fence is
not going to be torn down."
Sonnie Burch, 614 Second Avenue, co-applicant, stated that she was certain the
renovation of the Greg Rogers House would turn out well; expressed regret over
the problem of the fence; and requested that our history and value system be
considered. She stated that the fence was on the property line and as half
the fence is falling down, they are entitled to replace it; and the
possibility of craning the house to the back of the property.
Lee Butch, 614 Second Avenue, said there are three approaches that can be
considered {1) a crane - the property can be encroached on legally by air;
(2) using semi-end dumps and a loader to put in about 3,000 yards of fill
material and go over the house; and (3) if worse comes to worst, moving the
front house to the rear and locate the Greg Rogers House in the front.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner O'Neill declared that the project was worthwhile, an asset to the
community, and the problem of moving should be left to the applicant.
Conmissioner Guiles expressed agreement and suggested a condition limiting
construction hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
City Attorney Harron upon being consulted said that such a limitation was an
appropriate condition for a conditional use permit.
MSUC (Cannon/Carson) that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the
staff report, to approve the request, PCC-85-4, to move a second dwelling
unit, the Greg Rogers House, onto the property located at 614 Second Avenue,
subject to the further condition that any construction on that house after its
move not begin prior to 7:00 a.m. nor extend beyond 6:00 p.m.
._ City Planning Commission -8- October 24, 1984
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-85-2; CONSIDERATION OF ~4ENDMENT TO THE BONITA
GLEN SPECIFIC PLAN TO INCREASE THF HEIGHT LIMITATION
FOR BUILDINGS AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES - LA QUINT~
MOTOR INN
P-85-3 SPECIFIC PLAN FOR LA QUINTA MOTOR INNS,
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF BONITA ROAD AND 1-805, WITHIN
THE BONITA GLEN SPtCI~IC PLAN AREA
Principal Planner Lee stated that when the Bonita Glen Specific Plan was
adopted 9 years ago, it was intended to foster a coordinated development of
the 9 acres of property located at the southwest quadrant of 1-805 and Bonita
Road which had a multiplicity of owners and property lines.
Two projects in that area have been approved to date; one is Denny's
Restaurant (a one-story building) and the other is a two-story office building
which has not yet started construction. The applicant for La Quinta Motor Inn
is requesting an amendment to the Bonita Glen Specific Plan to increase the
height limitation for the building from two to three stories (30 feet to 38
feet) and from 45 feet to 50 feet for the bell tower. Using an overhead
projection of a topo map, Principal Planner Lee indicated the changes in
elevation of the area and the existing and planned construction thereon;
stated that the increased height would not be detrimental to the area; and
recommended approval of the amendment to the height regulations excluding the
property on the south side of Bonita Glen Drive or to development within 100
feet of Vista Drive.
Mr. Lee explained that the second part of the hearing is a request for
approval of the 142-unit motel, three stories in height, on approximately
2-1/2 acres to the rear of Denny's. He indicated that the proposed plans
would have Denny's and the motel sharing parking and access with a secondary
access to the south at a yet unnamed road; and that 17 per cent of the 145
parking spaces on site were compact. Using an overhead projection of the
elevation, and passing around photos, Principal Planner Lee pointed out that
the building would be of slump block with gabled red-tile roofing and a bell
tower in the eastern part of the property. The height of the bell tower and
the Denny's sign at the southeast corner conflict and the applicant is
considering moving the bell tower to avoid that conflict. Some refinement of
the plans is needed regarding additional parking spaces, landscaping, and
possibly the number of units, plus clarification of the proposed sign policy
to conform with the sign policy for the Bonita Glen Specific Plan.
Principal Planner Lee concluded that the basic site plan and land use are in
conformance with the Bonita Glen Specific Plan which gives approval to the
Planning Con~ni ssi on for this area because the Design Review Comnittee had not
been formed at that time. He added that when the project had been viewed by
the DRC for input, the height conflict between the bell tower and Denny's sign
had been noted as well as the need for some modification in the southwest
corner to allow travellers an exit to the west to Bonita Glen Drive and a free
flow of traffic. He recommended that the Commission delegate review of the
site plan and architecture to the DRC, as outlined in the staff report, and
limit the Commission's action to the land use.
City Planning Commission -9- October 24, 1984
In reply to Commissioner Cannon's question about how reliance on obtaining the
easement across the western property could be a consideration based on Mr.
Ferriera's strongly expressed refusal at a previous meeting, Principal Planner
Lee replied that staff recommendation would be to condition development of the
southern property contingent with granting of the easement; however, with La
Quinta, exit would be from the unnamed cul de sac using Bonita Glen Drive.
City Attorney Harron confirmed that a workable transportation plan is a
logical aspect of any specific plan, and if an easement is the only solution
it can be made a condition of the specific plan.
Commissioner Cannon expressed concern that the specific plan so carefully
constructed was being butchered to permit another property owner an increased
density and to allow traffic access.
Commissioner Green agreed asserting that the condition might exist for a year
or more and that when the service station was considered the issue of a wider
or shared access had been a matter of concern.
Mr. Lee stated that the criteria for being a suitable access had been proven
by the environmental process and an increase in height did not automatically
mean an increase in density.
Planning Director Krempl reminded the Commission that (1) they would not be
considering Item 7 if the DRC had been formed prior to the inception of the
Bonita Glen Specific Plan; (2) it was possible to go forward with the
amendment to the Specific Plan in terms of the La Quinta site only although
that was not staff's reconmnendation; and (3) if traffic increase and problems
resulted, based on a proposal being submitted for the southerly property, it
was quite possible that staff would not recommend a Negative Declaration, but
a supplement to the EIR.
Further discussion between staff and the Commission included the installation
of the median and of stop lights in the immediate area, with the resultant
left turn capability; the use by travellers of a backroad instead of a main
road, the normal traffic pattern for travellers coming from 1-805 and
proceeding onward the next day; and the fact that people using the secondary
access would be mostly those who wished to go west.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Norman Williams, Planning Consultant, 3404 Bonita Road, Chula Vista 92010,
representing the applicant, stated that they are in agreement wi th the
mitigation measures proposed in the Negative Declaration. He said La Quinta
Motor Inns and Denny's Restaurants are often affiliated with each other. The
access as now proposed is workable, and La Quinta would also be willing to
grant access easement to the owners to the south. The bell tower will be
moved 5 feet to prevent obstruction of the single-family residents.
_ City Planning Commission -10- October 24, 1984
Frank Ferreira, 270 Bonita Glen Drive, Chula Vista, affirmed that he owned the
property to the south and the west and has his own plans for its development.
Motel plans to the south are anticipated to be submitted within 15 to 30
days. He objected to the Commission imposing a requirement for him to grant
joint access to the property. Mr. Ferreira said that his sole reason for
coming forward was to go on record at Commission level and again at Council
level that "at no time will this property ever share access with the property
or be coerced to it"; there are deed restrictions that follow on through to
his heirs. Mr. Ferreira then outlined briefly his proposed development which
would be a 3-phase multi-usage development ranging from 124 to 301 units, with
certain units being used as apartments and then converted to motels as demand
dictates. Mr. Ferreira stated he did not believe any Court would uphold a
condition to development as that proposed; he retained an all-purpose easement
on the service station property; and Shell Oil had abandoned their project
because of this stipulation.
Principal Planner Lee informed the Commission that he had contacted Shell Oil
two months ago and they had stated they had internal problems and were
delaying the project. He then read from the Bonita Glen Specific Plan the
regulations regarding mutual access easements.
Gene York, 160 Broadway, Chula Vista, owner of 805 properties, declared that
the traffic and enforcement of mutual access is one of the reasons the
- Specific Plan was adopted; that traffic lights will be synchronized and will
improve present traffic conditions; a traffic study made for a previously
proposed development at the site indicated the traffic generated for an
office-retail development which met the requirements of the ordinance were the
same as that of the La Quinta Motor Inn.
Others speaking in opposition to the project were Mrs. Jacqueline Lassman, 471
Jacaranda Drive, Chula Vista; Mr. Lawrence Lassman, 471 Jacaranda Drive, Chula
Vista; and Evelyn Sebel, 144 Pepper Tree Road, Chula Vista. Their concerns
included traffic generated by the proposed development added to that of the
numerous developments located in close proximity would result in the design
capacity of Bonita Road being exceeded; it is the duty of the Conmission to
protect the City's residents present and future environment; the influx of
traffic into Pepper Tree Road would result in traffic accidents caused by the
blind spots in that area; the figures quoted in the staff report for the
number of units is incorrect and should be 196 instead of 142; check-in time
at other motels does not substantiate La Quinta's statement that they can
share parking without conflict; and the signal lights will, according to
CalTrans, only temporarily alleviate the traffic situation and ~ll be
outdated within a year.
Mr. Williams answered the concerns by saying that there is a difference
between check-in time and peak-parking time which is during sleeping time; the
route that will be followed by travellers is the same as many other motels
located near a freeway.
- No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
City Planning Commission -ll- October 24, 1984
Commissioner Cannon stated that he could not support a motion to adopt a
Negative Declaration; that the Commission should address the problem of
traffic on Bonita Road and until the entire Bonita Glen Specific Plan has a
firm traffic circulation route which does not include traffic going straight
onto Bonita Road, he would not support any project being built on that
property. The solution proposed will only exascerbate an already existing
problem; a huge amount of trips are being generated per day. The Negative
Declaration does not address this but glosses over it by indicating no
significant impact from this project on Bonita Road.
MSUC (Cannon/Carson) (7-0) to not adopt the Negative Declaration and to
require an EIR.
A RECESS WAS CALLED FROM 9:20 to 9:26
8. REVIEW OF DRAFT CHULA VISTA SPHERE-OF-INFLUENCE PLAN
Director of Planning Krempl stated that Council wanted the Commission's
comments before the Sphere-of-Influence Study was forwarded to the San Diego
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for their review and action. He
pointed out that the City of Chula Vista had agreed to prepare and present the
draft Study and LAFCO will be responsible for the environmental analysis and
the public hearings on the Study. Director Krempl then introduced Tony
Lettieri, Consultant, of Mooney-Lettieri and Associates.
Mr. Lettieri reviewed the parameters of the Sphere-of-Influence and the
rationale behind this firm's recommendations. Using two maps, one showing the
Sphere-of-Influence superimposed on a map of the City and its environs, and
the other depicting the established communities within the City limits, Mr.
Lettieri noted the Sphere is not an annexation plan, but a plan for the
ultimate physical boundaries of the City based on guidelines developed by
LAFCO, modified by Chula Vista, and utilizing outstanding physical features
man-made or natural - or ownership situations as delineation factors.
He added that other factors taken into consideration included locations
indicated in the City's General Plan for urban development, Growth Management
Plan objectives, areas where specific plans have been adopted, and the
Planning Department's "vision" of the City (particularly the eastern portion).
The six communities recognized within the Sphere-of-Influence were: {1)
Central Chula Vista/Bayfront; (2) Montgomery/Otay; (3) Bonita; {4) Sunnyside;
(5) Telegraph Canyon/Lakes; and (6) Eastern Territories.
Central Chula Vista/Ba~front - Consists of all urban development within City
limits, unincorporated areas to the east of the central community, with State
Route 54 and the flood control channel designated as the northern limit. It
was the firm's opinion that, in a planning sense, the freeway itself is a
demarcation factor since the channel and freeway will be 1,700 feet wi de in
some areas thereby providing a strong physical separation from National City.
City Planning Commission -12- October 24, 1984
Munt~omer~/Ota~ Area - Half of the area is already within the incorporated
port~on of the City of Chula Vista and LAFCO has already adopted a partial
Sphere of the Montgomery area. Some property located within the local
community but belonging to either National City (Western Salt) or San Diego
(L&G tanks) should be included in the City ls Sphere-of-Influence for logical
reasons for service and identity. The bluff line just south of the Otay
Valley provides a sphere boundary which (if ever annexed) will give Chula
Vista more control over developments in the flood plain.
Bonita and Sunnyside Communities - Both of these communities should be kept
intact and included within one sphere.
Telegraph Canyon/Lakes - The lakes are included because of the prior approval
of EastLake I and the planning for circulation and land use already completed
with EastLake I and II.
The Eastern Territories Because of the strong physical identity with the
City and the delination of "reserve" on the Chula Vista Plan, areas such as
the United Enterprises' property, the upper and lower Otay reservoir, the Otay
Municipal Water District land holdings, and the areas of the Moreland
Development Company which fall within the planning area of the City have been
included within the Sphere-of-Influence.
John McTighe, Public Affairs Consultant, reviewed the fiscal analysis prepared
by his finn, PRC, predicated on the assumptions that Federal, State and local
policies regarding revenue sources remain unchanged and that the proposed
annexations would occur during the current fiscal year. The overall
projection is that the City will experience a net positive fiscal effect
although two of the planning areas, Bonita and Sunnyside, are not of
themselves positive in their fiscal impact. Bonita would continue to exert a
negative fiscal impact through the year 2000 since most of the planning area
is already developed and the City will receive responsibility for providing
services but little in property tax. Sunnyside, after a period of 3-5 years,
will have a positive impact. All other planning areas are projected to have a
positive effect on the City's fiscal situation from an operating costs'
standpoint. From a capital costs' standpoint, however, a great deal of
unquantified expense will be required to raise the standards of street
lighting, drainage and other infrastructure to the level of Chula Vista's
requirements.
Commissioner O'Neill complimented Mooney-Lettieri on the quality of the Sphere
Study stating it was the finest he has reviewed during his 7 years on the
Commission. He asked (1) why any of Sweetwater Lake should be excluded from
the Sphere; (2) about projected Route 125; and (3) why no information is
available on the road conditions in several areas of the County property. He
was answered that (1) the area is in the Valle del Oro sector of the County,
and that physically and accesswise, our orientation is to the north rather
than west, plus the face of the dam separates that area from the rest of
Bonita; (2) projected Route 125 will become a major separation as it bends to
the northwest and will be used as another agency at that point; (3) many roads
in the unincorporated parts of the County are listed as uninventoried and
would require physical site inspection to supply information for the Study.
~- City Planning Commission -13- October 24, 1984
In reply to further questions by Commissioners Shipe and Tugenberg about
(1) the location of the southerly boundary line of the flood plain and (2) why
the line of the Otay River flood channel was not continued to include the east
side of lower Otay, Mr. Lettieri replied that (1) the boundary line is
established at the flood plain edge of the bluff line; and (2) the area is
owned by the City of San Diego.
MSUC (O'Neill/Shipe) to recommend that Council accept the Draft Chula Vista
Sphere-of-Influence Report and forward the Plan to LAFCO.
Both Commissioner Shipe and Director of Planning Krempl extended their
compliments to Mooney-Lettieri on the quality of the Sphere-of-Influence
Re port.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Krempl suggested that the December meeting schedules be
changed to Regular Business meetings on the 5th and 19th, thus avoiding
Christmas week meetings. The Commission agreed.
Director Krempl stated that items for consideration will include the
(1) EastLake Development Proposal on the SPA Plan public financing;
(2) development agreement on certification of the EIR; and (3) implementation
of the Bayfront Specific Plan.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Tugenberg requested a workshop on landscaping and water
re qu i reme htS.
Planning Director Krempl agreed and indicated another workshop will be on
usable open space wi th apartment developments.
Commissioner O'Neill requested a map outlining the territories delineated
in the Sphere-of-Influence. Director Krempl said they would be requested
of Mooney-Lettieri.
ADJOURhl4ENT at lO:O0 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of November 8, 1984,
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary
WPC 1496P