Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1984/07/25 Tape 249 Side 2 - 0-1276 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISlA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, July 25, 1984 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman O'Neill, Commissioners Cannon, Green, Guiles, Johnson, Pressutti and Shipe COMMISSIONERS AJ)SENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Assistant Planner Bazzel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT pRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman O'Neill and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman O'Neill made a statement regarding the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meetings. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MUSC (Shipe/Pressutti) - Johnson abstained - to approve the minutes of May 23, 1984, as mailed. MSUC (Pressutti/Cannon) - Green and Guiles abstained - to approve the minutes of July ll, 1984, as n~iled. ORAL COMMUNICAIIONS None 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL FOR ON-PREblISE SIGN - VISTA HILL HOSPITAL Director of Planning Krempl stated that the representative of Vista Hill Hospital was out of town and unable to attend the meeting and had asked for a continuance of this item to the next agenda. Planning Commission -2- July 25, 1984 MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) to continue this item to the meeting of August 8, 19(U$, at the applicant's request. Commissioner Guiles requested answers at the next meeting to: (1) the reason Council did not approve a freestanding sign similar to the Community Hospital sign on Telegraph Canyon Road; and (2) what the economic burden would be on the hospital to meet the design recommendations of the DRC. Director Krempl said he would have the information. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-84-2 AND PCZ-84-D - CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 225 ACRES LOCATED EASTERLY OF BRANDYWINE AVENUE AND NORTHERLY OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD Commissioner Cannon stated he had a potential conflict of interest and left the dais. Principal Planner Pass stated that the Department recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-84-13, approval of GPA-84-2, and a recommendation that Council terminate the City's consideration of PCZ-84-D based on the fact that the proposed amendment would encourage the development of planned industrial parks in accordance with the directives of the Otay Valley Redevelopment Plan and bring growth and development into a closer state of land use and environmental compatibility with the residential projects nearby, He added that the Planning Department no longer recommends rezoning to I-L but proposes that the General Plan of the area be redesignated "Research and Limited Industrial" and that it be implemented by the combination of the I-P Zoning regulations and the land use and urban design standards and guidelines which are currently being formulated for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project area, This would protect the area's periphery, without creating nonconforming uses and the associated marketing problems; and ~ould provide essential land-use. Principal Planner Pass added that the Departments of Planning and Community Development, and the Attorney's office believe this would be consistent with Redevelopment Project's goals and objectives, but that the co~ination would be dependent upon the nature of the adopted standards and guidelines presently being formulated. The Departments involved are requesting sufficient time to work witJ~ all parties in the area, including the residential homeowners and the industrial park property owners in order to achieve goals, objectives and guidelines to protect the interests of all involved. This will be accomplished through "shirt-si eeve workshops." Principal Planner Pass concluded that the Planning Department proposes that land-use applications for the establishment of uses in the area would not be brought before the Commission until the final adoption of the subject guidelines and standards. This would ensure the essential consistency between the General Plan and the implementation plan. Chairman O'Neill asked if that proposal should be a part of the Commission's recommendati on. Planning Commission -3- July 25, 1984 Assistant City Attorney Gill stated that there must be a consistency between the General Plan designation and the zoning, and if the development standards of the Redevelopment Plan do not display that consistency, we might be in violation of Government Code; therefore, it would be an appropriate recommendation to the City Council. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. I. Franco, 3384 Peg Le§ Mine Road, Jamul, CA 92035, property owner, asked to be put on record as being opposed to any change in the rezonin9 of this land from General Industrial as it will affect him financially, He purchased the land because it was General Industrial and wishes it to remain that. He expressed confusion and asked for clarification of whether the zoning was to remain the same. Principal Planner Pass said the zoning would remain the same, therefore, his land would not become a non-conformin§ use, but the General Plan designation would become Research and Limited Industrial, which would prevent Mr, Franco from expanding his use onto other vacant land, Mr. Franco said he would agree to that principle. Mr, Pass continued that Mr. Franco would be prevented from establishing certain other industrial uses if he discontinued his present type of usage. He would be limited to a "Limited Industrial or Research Industrial" type use. His present use, however, would last indefinitely. Mr. Franco pointed out that he had no use at present, a friend was utilizing the land to store supplies and tires; however, he had purchased the land with the intention of putting up an industrial field shop and how would that be affected. Mr. Pass replied that if he wished to put a use that was not permitted in the I-L zone or one that was regarded as not in total conformance with the proposed implementation plan, he could apply for the use, but the application would be reviewed in accordance with the policies of the Redevelopment Plan. Under this, he might very well be able to put the use in on an interim basis (if there were topographical problems, for example), but he would be held to high standards of buffering and landscaping and other developmental amenities which do not exist in the area in which he is located now. The Chair asked when the land-use and urban-design guidelines could be expected and was informed in approximately two months. Director of Planning Krempl pointed out that staff is suggesting a partial solution; zoning will remain Industrial and application for an I-use can be made; however, when the revised design guidelines go into effect, then there will be added restrictions on the development of the property vis-a-vis those guidelines. Those restrictions are unknown at the present time but might impact the type of use or the way that use is to be developed on the Planning Commission -4- july 25, 1984 property. Mr. Franco's question had been answered in terms of rezoning; however, whether or not Mr. Franco will still have some objections to the General Plan Amendment and to the guidelines to be developed, or whether he will simply accept the GPA and reserve the right to object to the design guidelines when they come forward (if he feels they have a negative impact on his property rights) was still unanswered. Mr. Franco reiterated that he had bought General Industrial and all restrictions imposed thereon had been met. He wants General Industrial, and when or if he resells, he wants to resell as such. If this is possible, then he is not opposed to the GPA and will discuss the added limitations when they are resolved. He added that he wanted to have a voice in the formation of the design guidelines. The Chairman assured him he would be consulted when the development of the standards and guidelines are considered. Planning Director Krempl stated further that no matter what action is taken tonight, the fact that this area is now a Redevelopment Area, and the requirements associated with that, has made changes in the situation. All the property owners will be asked to come forward when they wish to develop and enter into a participation agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. Discussion between Commissioners and staff ensued with the following items being covered: (1) implementation of the policies of the Redevelopment Area through land-use and design guidelines; (2) enforcement by the Redevelopment Agency through the Owner Participation Agreements; (3) the General Plan Amendment's consistency with the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan; (4) the GPA's orientation towards new development and the elimination of blight on an incremental basis; (5) the limitations placed under "nonconforming uses" by the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Mitchel Vogt, 1027 Neptune Drive, Chula Vista, working for Merril Lynch Realtors, said he was engaged in the lease and sale of industrial property in the South Bay and commented that the three things affecting property owners are demand, value and salability; that there is a shortage of General Industrial property, and rezoning will reduce demand making the price fall thus limiting the number of potential buyers. He was reminded by the Chairman that staff is not recommending rezoning but a GPA. Mr. Vogt replied that the present zoning allows for a wide variety of uses, the proposed does not. Speaking in support of the proposed GPA were: Henry Kohler, 1547-222 Sonora Drive, President of the California Homeowners' Council, Guy Lichty, 1652 Point Sol Court, Chula Vista; and David Foreman, 1653 Pt. Cabrillo Court, Chula Vista; who remarked that the Commission should utilize as developmental guidelines projects of the use and quality acceptable for La Jolla as Chula Vista will one day be of that caliber; the GPA is consistent with the goals and standards of the Redevelopment Plan; the GPA is a step in the right direction and it is heartening to see group workshops on the issues rather Planning Commission -5- July 25, 1984 than the Commission, or some other body, being the arbitrator; the design standards in place now are not enforceable according to Council remarks, but this would develop a plan with some teeth in it for enforcement. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Shipe/Guiles) - Cannon abstaining to find this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-84-2. MS (Shipe/Guiles) - Cannon abstaining - to recommend Council approve GPA-2. Commissioner Green stated that he does "not believe the package is entirely honest, it is an attempt to get the I-L zoning without saying it, however, (he) had not seen a lot of opposition so will vote for it." Mr. Franco interrupted, asking if the Commission is voting on the rezoning. The Chairman reminded him that the public hearing was over and the voting was for a change to the General Plan not rezoning, Mr, Franco protested that the matter being voted on was Limited-Industrial and requested the Secretary include the Commissioner's verbatim remark in the record, The Commission then voted and the motion was carried. MSC (Shipe/Guiles) Cannon abstaining to recommend that Council terminate the City's consideration of PCZ-84-D. MSC (O'Neill/Shipe) Green "no" and Cannon abstaining - to recommend that development in this area not be brought before the Planning Commission until the adoption of the standards and guidelines are finalized. Commissioner Cannon returned to the dais, 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT EIR-84-6, CHULA VISTA WOODS/ GARDNER INVESllIENT PROPERTIES (Continued) Assistant Planner Bazzel stated that staff recommends the Commission open the public hearing and take testimony relative to the adequacy of the EIR. A response to all written and verbal comments will be prepared by the consultant and incorporated into the Final EIR scheduled for August 8, 1984, He displayed a slide showing the locator map and pointed out that the proposed project involved discretionary acts of a GPA from "Park-Open Space" to "Medium Residential" for the westerly l0 acres of the project; rezoning of 20 acres from R-1-H to R-l-P; precise plan approval; and approval of a tentative subdivision map on 20 acres of vacant property east of Greg Rogers Park and approximately 1400 feet south of East Naples Street. He added that the project will consist of llO manufactureo housing units which are factory constructed offsite and transported to the property where garages are built Planning Commission -6- July 25, 1984 and attached. Access will be via a 1400 foot north/south street adjacent to the easterly boundary of Greg Rogers Elementary School from East Naples to the proposed project. Bruce McInt~e, of Mooney Lettieri and Associates, the consultant who prepared the EIR, reviewed the nine major issues covered by the EIR saying that with the exception of biology, all issues are either non-significant or mitigation measures can be incorporated to prevent significant impacts. The traffic capacity levels for Naples Street and Oleander were discussed with Commissioner Shipe questioning the impact on Naples Street caused by an increase from an almost non-existent level to + llO0 trips per day. He was informed that the street design capacity was f~ under 5,000 trips and while the traffic increase would be noticeable, there would not be a significant impact. Discussion of the San Diego Ambrosia covered the facts that the last plant count was taken 8 months ago; that the Ambrosia did not seem to be as common as indicated by the original plant count taken in 1977; however, the Ambrosia is a perennial plant that goes into fluctuations of its crown and it is believed that the plants are still there. The Commission questioned the number of the plants involved; their possible destruction by RV's; and requestea that this matter be addressed in the final EIR as substantial changes in the developer's plans were being proposed because of plant endangerment, and a closer review of the site and count should be accomplished. The need for an emergency vehicle access in case of a brush fire blocking the single road was raised by Commissioner Guiles. He was informed that the Fire Department was of the opinion that only one entrance would be adequate and further details would have to be referred to the Fire Department. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Thomas Davies, 2550 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, representing Gardner Investment Properties, requested to speak after United Enterprises. He noted that their biologist, Mitchel Beauchamp, was available to discuss the ragweed issue (San Diego Ambrosia). Wendy Longley-Cook, Longley-Cook Engineers, 636 Broadway, Suite 318, San Diego, speaking on behalf of United Enterprises, submitted a document containing comments and concerns and requested it be made part of the record. This was passed to the Commission. Tony Ambrose, HCH and Associates, 4877 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, representing the Gardners in the engineering portion of the project, asked to have the notation addeO to the Final EIR that the possible installation o$ a gravity flow system through Greg Rogers Park was being explored. Mr. Davies remarked that efforts have been unsuccessful since 1977 to acquire the primary access, so he holds little hope for the secondary access as staff members with whom he has discussed the issue see no neeO. Planning Commission -7- July 25, 1984 Mitchel Beauchamp, President of Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc,, representing the Gardners, commented that the site was very deteriorated from the 1977 viewing; however, based on his experience in other projects where onsite preservation of small areas has been attempted, the site is transplantable onsite but not transplantable to another location because of resultant drainage pattern changes, He has witnessed several instances of the San Diego Ambrosia {an aggressive me~er of the ragweed family) surviving transplantation. He contended that the onsite transplantation of this plant is feasible as a mitigating factor, Jack Gardner, 5363 Grace Road, Bonita, the applicant, stressed that purchase of the ingress has been agreed upon; it was their intention to build a complete road to County specifications to be dedicated to the County; bonds have been purchased from the City of Chula Vista for the low-cost houses; he was confident the transplantation could be handled; and he was anxious to proceed with the project. Wendy Longley-Cook affirmed that upon reviewing the documents, changes were noted which were not in compliance with the contract; however, there had been insufficient time to resolve the differences, She added that the project was not being protested but there were previously voiced concerns for which they were awaiting replies. Mr, Gardner stated he would like to review the concerns as it was his intention to enforce the contract through the courts if necessary. Chairman O'Neill requested that staff supply Mr. Gardner with a copy of the document submitted by United Enterprises at the meeting. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed and consideration of the Final EIR set for August 8, 1984, when the General Plan Amendment will be heard. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-84-25 - REQUEST TO INSTALL SELF-SERVICE GAS PUMPS AT 899 BROADWAY SOUTHLAND CORPORAT ION Principal Planner Lese displayed a slide showing the location of the property under discussion. He stated that the applicant is requesting permission to install self-service gas pumps (which will be part of the 7-11 store operation) within an existing commercial complex located at 899 Broadway. The gas pumps will be located at the site originally designed for a drive-thru kiosk and will not interfere with the traffic or parking patterns within the complex. He displayed a slide showing the existing monument sign which will be modified to include the gasoline prices. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Stephen R. Ray, 4215 Spring Street, Suite 215, La Mesa 92041, representing Southland Corporation, the applicant, indicated his availability to answer any questions. Planning Commission -8- July 25, 1984 Don Gardner, 4351 Grace Road, Bonita, neighboring property owner, expressed concern about parking in front of the other stores while construction is underway, as parking in the area is very scarce with no on-street parking available. He was reassured there should be no problem. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (johnson/Green) to find this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-80-O1. MSUC (johnson/Green) that based on findings in Section "E" of the staff report, to approve the request, PCC-84-25, to install self-service gas pumps at 899 Broadway subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. DIRECTOR'S REPORT A continuance will be requested at the next meeting on the EIR on the electric generating plant on the Otay landfill because APCD and the applicant have not yet reached an agreement. There will be a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting to expedite submittal of the Bayfront Plan, probably the last week of August. The Commissioners requested they receive sufficient notice to enable them to study and analyze the material for the Bayfront and al so for the generating pl ant. COMMISSION COMMENT Commissioner johnson will be absent on August 8, 1984; Commissioner Cannon will be absent on 9/12 and 9/26/84. ADJOUR~ENTAT 8:30 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of August 8, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ~th M. Smith, Secreta~ WPC 1210P