Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1983/06/22 Tape 235, Side 1 0-2522 Tape 236, Side 1 0-592 MINUTES OF REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Wednesday, June 22, 1983 Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Buildin9 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman R. Johnson, Commissioners Cannon, Green, G. Johnson, O'Neill, Pressutti, and Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Gray, Principal Planner Lee, Associate Planner Griffin, Assistant City Attorney Harron, Housing Coordinator Gustafson, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Traffic Engineer Glass, Director of Parks and Recreation Pfister, Secretary Ruth Smith PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Johnson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (O'Neill/Shipe) to approve the minutes of May 25, 1983 as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES (continued from 5/25/83 meeting) Planning Director Gray reminded the Commission that this item was continued from the meeting of May 25, 1983, in order to provide the Commission the opportunity to review State legislation and selected accessory unit ordinances adopted by other jurisdictions, plus a summation of the major provisions adopted in San Diego County. He outlined the two changes from the previous meeting which are now included in the draft amendments; (1) that the conditional use permit be recorded separately from the deed to prevent clouding the title to the affected property, and (2) the inclusion in the ordinance of one-year sunset clause so ~ Plannin9 Commission - 2 - June 22, 1983 that the provisions will be formally reviewed or automatically expire. Director Gray affirmed that the recordation of the CUP is a common practice with several cities. In reply to Commissioner Green's question, he answered that no title companies have been contacted about resultant problems from this action. The Commissioner then expressed concern about recommending the action without more knowledge of the possible results. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Rose Gleave, 1136 Vista Way, Chula Vista, made a personal appeal on behalf of the units citing the financial considerations of their pension, cost of "resthomes" and nearness of family. In reply to a question about parking, she responded that they would not be driving. Irene Maxwell, 473 Berland Way, Chula Vista, objected to the lack of on-site parking and the risk to children who will have no backyard to play in. Maggie Helton, 162 Mankato Street, Chula Vista, as a member of the California Commission on Aging, Chula Vista Commission on Aging and the AAA Council on Aging, spoke in favor of the accessory units which are a result of the White House Conference on Aging. She added that these units are common on the East Coast, do not change the look of the neighborhood and even involve pre-fabs in some areas. She emphasized that the original intent was to permit the elderly to remain in their home environment. In response to a question by the Commission, she replied that few of the occupants drove. Eric Money-Penny, 731 "G" Street, A-14, Chula Vista, read a letter from Marcie MacLeod, California State Director of the Elder Cottage Coalition, in which she conveyed the appreciation of Senator Mellow, author of Senate Bills 1160 and 1534, for the draft ordinance prepared by the City; contradicted a statement made at the May 25 meeting by asserting that Wadie Deddeh not only voted for SB 1534 but discussed its merits with her prior to the bill's approval. Congressman Duncan Hunter also supported the concept. Ms. MacLeod stated that the Chula Vista draft ordinance is being presented as the Elder Cottage Coalition Model Ordinance at the July 6 Second Unit Conference in Oakland sponsored by the Bay Area Council of Governments. She added a word of caution about the inclusion of a "sunset" clause which, based on the experience of Los Angeles County and spokespersons for Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, has inhibited securing loans at a reasonable rate and recommended an automatic reconsideration of the ordinance instead. Additional speakers in favor of the accessory units were: Robert Wright, 1548 Olive Avenue, Chula Vista Anne Fabrick, 500 Anita Street, Space 2, Chula Vista, Senior Advisor, AAA Advisory Council Wilma Leif, 695 Sea Vale Street, #5E, Chula Vista Paul Clark, 1507 Howard, San Ysidro Speaking against the accessory units were: Plannin9 Commission - 3 - June 22, 1983 J. R. Norman, 990 Mission Avenue, Chula Vista, who requested the Commission ask the Legislature to repeal Senate Bills 1160 and 1534. He expressed concern that the units will become rental units and not be restricted to adults because of theUnruhCivil Rights Act. Bob Maxwell, 473 Berland Way, Chula Vista, who stated that "this pits neighbor against neighbor." Pat Barajas, 375 "J" Street, Chula Vista, who also expressed concern about the units becoming rental units after the demise of the tenant for whom they were built. The following persons offered additional comments: W. D. Pocklington, 656 Glover, Chula Vista Bess Pocklington, 656 Glover, Chula Vista Clay Collicott, 827 Woodlawn, Chula Vista - the need to preserve the R-1 zone - an attached unit does not destroy the neighborhood appearance - off-street parking is needed - age would not be legally defensible - enforcement problems in general occupants should be related to owners - if property subsequently rented, it should be subject to public review. Upon being asked by Commissioner O'Neill about the legality of the age restriction, Assistant City Attorney replied that the reference has been to the Wilson case which prohibited children from condos and also affected some citizens in mobile homes. He was of the opinion that the age restriction would be valid. There being no further speakers, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner O'Neill stated that the ordinance appears to be a way of providing affordable units without public subsidy. He did not favor the off-street parking as it would defeat the purpose of the ordinance. The Commissioner said he personally favored an attached unit, but would vote as the staff proposes. Commissioner Cannon commented that after considerable review of the ordinances he sees a need for this type of housing in the community although he cannot support the staff in toto. His main complaint was the possible violation to the integrity of the R-1 zone in allowing a detached unit. The granny flat, when attached, adds only a kitchen and does not impair the architecture. Therefore, he would support the ordinance for an attached unit which becomes part of the same unit on the premises. The Commissioner stated he would like to see problems other than the elderly be addressed including those caused by dissolution of marriages and financial hardship. - Planning Commission - 4 - June 22, 1983 Commissioner Pressutti commented that configurations of the lot and the existing buildings would preclude many changes, however, a separate building could be built unobtrusive to the street. The option should be left to the builders. Commissioner Shipe declared the success of the future results in accepting change - of which the granny flat is an example. He stated he would support the recommendation for either attached or detached units. Commissioner G. Johnson declared herself in favor of the ordinance but would like to have the addition reviewed by the Design Review Committee. She favored off-street parking. A discussion ensued about off-street parking in which Commissioner Cannon stipulated that an off-street parking requirement would not be appropriate for an attached unit. However, if a detached unit is involved and family members are allowed, problems will result with the secondary owner. Also discussed was a need for a design review, not only by staff as part of the CUP, but also by the Design Review Board. Director Gray suggested that the newly combined DRC and Downtown Design Review Board be solicited with respect to the Commission's suggestion that they review alt cases of accessory units. MSC (Pressutti/Green) to recommend City Council adopt the proposed accessory dwelling unit amendments contained in Exhibit "B" and recommend the implementing ordinance required be reconsidered automatically after one year. In reply to Commissioner O'Neill's request for clarification, Commissioner Pressutti said he was adopting Exhibit "B" without any change not family members, not off-street parking - only the automatic review at the end of the year. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: MS (G. Johnson/O'Neill) to amend the main motion to vote that the unit would have to be attached. The motion failed by the following votes: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, O'Neill, Cannon NOES: Commissioners Green, R. Johnson, Pressutti, Shipe ABSENT: None The motion to recommend Council adopt the proposed accessory dwelling unit amendments contained in Exhibit "B" and recommend the implementing ordinance required be reconsidered automatically after one year carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Green, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, O'Neill, Pressutti, and Shipe NOES: Commissoner Cannon ABSENT: None (The meeting was recessed at 8:29 p.m. and reconvened at 8:44 p.m.) Plannin9 Commission - 5 - June 22, 1983 2. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-83-20; REQUEST TO ADD TWO LIGHTED SOFTBALL FIELDS AT 4370 SWEETWATER ROAD (SWEETWATER REGIONAL PARK) - COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Principal Planner Lee informed the Commission that the County of San Diego Parks and Recreation Department is proposing to add two lighted ballfields on the south side of Sweetwater Road immediately west of Rohr Park and north of the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. A privately owned concession stand is also proposed. This expansion of the ballfields from two to four, will increase parking by 82 spaces and extend the hours of operation from 8:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. The adjacent City park will continue to close at approximately 8:00 p.m. Park and Recreation Director Pfister has voiced concern over possible problems resulting from the County charging parking fees while the adjacent City park does not. Construction of a six-foot high chain link fence to provide a physical separation and to discourage parking in the City lot by users of the County park is planned. Letters from the adjacent residents have been received opposing the proposed ballfields, citing increase in traffic, noise, litter, the glare of lights, loss of rural character of the area and parking problems as reasons for disapproving the request. The City has specified that the lighting shall be designed to: 1) minimize glare on nearby residential areas, 2) provide adequate safety lighting at the Sweetwater Road entrance, and 3) the County's lease with the concessionare shall include a provision requiring litter control. Staff recommends the Commission adopt the Negative Declaration and based on findings contained in Section E, approve the request to add two lighted softball fields and concession stand subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Principal Planner Lee introduced Robert A. Downer, District Park Manager for San Diego County, 5201 Ruffin Road, San Diego, as available to answer questions regarding the proposed construction. Mr. Downer was asked by Commissioner Shipe if any work had begun on the project and what would be the action of the County if the City failed to grant approval. He replied that some preliminary work had been done on balling the trees, and the County had a policy of cooperating with the City. In response to additional questions from the Commission, Mr. Downer replied the lighting consultants are assured that the glare from the new lights would be minimal; the cost of maintaining the facilities would be borne by the concessionaire; the type of ballgame played - slow pitch - does not draw noisy crowds; and staff would be available at times of operation to control any trouble. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission - 6 - June 22, 1983 Steve Riller, 6530 E1 Cajon Blvd., San Diego, representing the U. S. Slo-pitch Softball Association spoke in favor of the baseball fields stating the need for playing fields was so great that teams are drawing lotteries to play the game. He said lights are a necessity as the games take place between 6:00 and lO:O0 at night. John W. Mattick, 4359 Grace Road, Bonita, spoke against the ballfields citing light pollution, traffic saturation, parking problems, and noise starting at 6:30 in the morning. He stated that this used to be a family picnic park and now it was a game park. Ernest G. Sheppard, 1621 Columbia, Chula Vista, speaking for the Girls Softball Federation, stated they have 60 traveling teams from ages 8 through 18 and over. No fields are available. Anne Erebout, 4324 Grace Road, Bonita, stated that the tree roots were cut on Monday, June 6, five days before the notice for the meeting had been received and 16 days before the meeting, and the number of trees cut were 64, not 24. Ms. Erebout voiced an objection to the fact that the work on the trees started prior to the public hearing and prior to the citizens being notified. Ms. Erebout continued that she had been informed by Don Davis, San Diego City Planner, that portable restrooms would be used, and that parking provisions would not be installed at present as there was money sufficient only for the ballfields. She expressed concern that this would lead to parking on Sweetwater Road. Gary Labulk, 113 Stephanie Lane, E1 Cajon, speaking for Leisure Pro, Inc. who will be operating the park, spoke in favor of the ballfields as a program that was badly needed. Questioned by Commissioner Shipe about noise magnification caused by the echo effect because of the area being located in the valley, he affirmed that the noise would increase, however, the natural barrier of the trees would inhibit much of it. The trees on the south side would not be removed and more trees would be added. Commissioner Cannon reminded Mr. Labulk that operation of the park during the wintertime will extend the use of the park about five hours, also extending the noise. He pointed out that the grandstands and the lights are facing the south. Mr. Labulk contended that there was a natural barrier of 40 or 50 trees and the noise would not be excessive. John D. Brink, 3595 Desert Inn Way, Bonita, spoke against the ballfields stating the trees referred to are only about lO feet tall and leaves fall off. He also voiced his concerns about security after the ranger leaves. John Purvis, 807 Auburn Avenue, Chula Vista, representing the Bonita Valley Girls Softball Association, stated that the girls on his teams range in age from 7 to 13, and that excessive noise is not generated by the little leaguers, but from the pickup leagues. Patricia Porter, 418 "I" Street, Chula Vista, cited the following reasons against the ballfields: noise travels more at night, drinking in the park, and good facilities presently available for toddlers will be lost. Planning Commission - 7 - June 22, 1983 Dr. John A. Ciccone, 4541 Alice Street, San Diego, participant and sponsor of teams, spoke in favor of the ballfields. Gerry Donovan, 4070 Bermuda Drive, Bonita, expressed regret that Chula Vista did not in the past annex these 22 acres to Chula Vista. Roger Lichtenberger, 3601 Bonita Verde Drive, Chula Vista, voiced his concerns over the excessive noise generated during the past six months since the playing of organized ball started. He stated that people arrive at 6:00 in the morning. He voiced his objections to the concession stand, the video games that would probably be at the concession stand, and asked if a study had ever been made of the number of vacant ballfields that were available. Shirley Grasser, 1036 Calle Mesita, Chula Vista, remarked on the following: noise from Rohr Park, trees will not act as a buffer to noise or lights, parking proposed but needed now, parking will take place on private streets, accidents. Mary Mattick, 4359 Grace Road, Bonita, asked if the City would incur a liability for people leaving the lighted area to go their cars. She also objected to the noise stating four ballfields instead of two will double the noise. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Principal Planner Lee, in response to remarks made at the public hearing, stated that trees at maturity would help reduce the glare but their effect on noise would be negligible. Conditions to be considered if the Commission approves the project are: 1) provisions for increased parking as shown on the plans should be concurrent with the construction of the ballfields and, 2) the sale of alcoholic beverages can be restricted by the concessionaire or prohibited within the park. Assistant City Attorney Harron was asked by Commissioner Cannon to clarify the authority possessed by the Planning Commission with regard to the conditional use permit. Attorney Harron replied that the County is not required to get a conditional use permit from the City. They are immune to City Ordinances. The request for a conditional use permit is a token of courtesy to the City rather than a legal requirement. The conditional use permit is reviewed and may be revoked at the end of the year. When the applicant accepts the use of the conditional use permit with that condition, they are bound by it as though it were a contract and put in improvements at their own risk. If they were to challenge revokation a year later, the basis for their challenge would be that the action of the Commission was unreasonable not that the Commission doesn't have the right to take action under reasonable circumstances. Commissioner Cannon stated his concern that no mitigating measures are proposed for this project although there are numerous environmental issues which the negative declaration recommends be addressed during the consideration of the conditional use permit. He drew attention to the fact Plannin~ Commission - 8 - June 22, 1983 that the existing residential structures antedate the park construction and the owners have been infringed upon by noise, trash, traffic and other somewhat obnoxious activities in the park during daylight hours and are now being asked to have this continued after dark as well. Commissioner Cannon added he sees problems with regard to community safety and police patrols. MSC (Cannon/G. Johnson) to not certify Negative Declaration IS-83-27 and require an Environmental Impact Report on this project. R. Johnson voted "no." Commission discussion followed wherein Commissioner Greene expressed great concern over the following: 1. Being told that noise would not be a problem when it will be. 2. The insensitivity shown regarding the real issue which is whether it was more important for people from all over San Diego to come here to play softball and disturb the residents or to have a use that the residents can live with. 3. The argument that the young girls softball team would be able to utilize the playing fields was not valid as the time would undoubtedly be preempted for paying customers. The Commissioner stated that he personally favored use of the park for family picnics and he would vote for Mr. Cannon's motion. Commissioner Shipe commented: 1. That the proposal for a commercially operated ballfield would not be compatible with the neighbodhood, the golf course, and the homes in the area. 2. That the proponents of the issue were from outside the Chula Vista area while the opponents of the issue were from the Chula Vista area. 3. The project is a good idea, but would be better located somewhere else. MSC (Cannon/G. Johnson) to deny the conditional use permit to add two lighted softball fields and concession stand at 4370 Sweetwater Road (Sweetwater Regional Park). Commissioner R. Johnson voted "no." 3. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF REZONING APPROXIMATELY 9.3 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF OTAY LAKES ROAD AND EAST "H" STREET FROM P-C AND R-1 TO C-C-P - WILLIAM LEE AND CITY OF CHULA VISTA Principal Planner Lee stated that this item involves the rezoning of approximately 9.3 acres located at the northwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street owned by William Lee, and two adjacent parcels totalling approximately 0.8 acres owned by Southwestern College. The rezoning was requested to establish a consistent zoning pattern and a logical zone boundary because of a proposed shopping center development. ~ Plannin9 Commission - 9 - June 22, 1983 A slide presentation of the proposed development was shown. A precise plan for this project will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee on July 7, 1983. The two parcels owned by Southwestern College are not included in the plan but the sale or lease of these parcels to enable the shopping center to gain access to "H" Street has been the subject of discussion between the applicant and the District. The lack of "H" Street frontage is caused by the location of one of the parcels belonging to Southwestern College - a 0.53 acre triangular sliver of excess right-of-way which tapers from approximately 77 feet at the west end to less than a foot at the east end across the frontage. The other parcel is a 15,000~ square foot corner lot located at the northwest intersection, having access to both Otay Lakes Road and "H" Street, but encumbered by a continuous right turn lane located immediately adjacent to the easterly property line. The City Attorney has indicated that the development of the triangular parcel at the corner cannot be tied to the development of the "sliver" or vice-versa. If access to "H" Street is determined through traffic analysis to be vital and necessary to provide proper traffic circulation for the area, it may become necessary for the City to use its powers of eminent domain and condemn the corner property. The Planning Department is recommending that the Negative Declaration be adopted and the rezoning be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) the owner of the shopping center property grant ingress and egress to the corner parcel; 2) the corner parcel be restricted so far as development for commercial uses unless plans are approved which include a joint access agreement between the parcel and the shopping center, which would include providing access to "H" Street; and 3) the triangular sliver of land not be considered developable unless combined or included with additional property of sufficient size. Commissioner Cannon asked about the small grove of eucalyptus trees on the triangular parcel and was informed that no plans have been filed on that site so the problem has not been addressed. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. William Lee, 591 Camino de la Reina, #410, San Diego, the applicant, stated that they supported all of the recommendations made in the staff report except that 2a stipulates that the shopping center shall grant access across their land but 2b, which stipulates a mutual access shall be granted to the shopping center, is conditioned by the commercial development of the corner triangular parcel. If that parcel is not developed, the shopping center does not receive access to "H" Street. The applicant suggested that Recommendation 2b be altered to reflect that the condition of the shopping center providing access across their property be conditioned with a life of 30-45 days during which time the owner of the corner parcel shall respond to their desire to access across the shopping center land and, at that time, shall grant access to "H" Street. An alternative way this might be worded is that the owners of the shopping center property shall grant access across the center's property to "H" Street. Since the owner of the corner triangle is also the owner of the sliver, the shopping center provides access for the corner parcel to "H" ~ Plannin9 Commission - l0 - June 22, 1983 Street. The applicant pointed out that the shopping center would be giving up rights to the shopping center property for the corner parcel and, at the same time, the corner property owners would pass through the shopping center property, then on their own property to "H" Street. That right would be given in reverse also. Mr. William Lee expressed concern about the inequitability of requiring the shopping center to give up rights without something in return. Discussion ensued between the Commission, staff and the applicant regarding the need for access to "H" Street, the removal of conditions 2a and 2b, the status of negotiations between the District and the applicant for the sale or lease of the property, the possibility of requesting Council to use its powers of eminent domain depending upon results of the traffic study, the needs of the City at this location, and the need for a time restriction on the institution of the joint access agreement. City Attorney Harron advised the Commission that eminent domain can be recommended but zoning cannot be conditioned nor can Council's administration of eminent domain. John Wilson, Director of Business and Operations, Southwestern College, 5400 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, informed the Commission that the District and the applicant have been unable to come to an agreement regarding the property. The District wishes to sell both parcels, the applicant wants to buy only the sliver. There being no further speakers, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Green/Cannon) to find that the project will have no significant environmental impact and to adopt Negative Declaration issued on IS-83-25. MSC (Green/Cannon) that based on the findings contained in Section "D" of the staff report, to recommend that City Council enact an ordinance approving the rezoning of 9.3+ acres located at the northwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street from P-C and R-1 to C-C-P (PCZ-83-E) subject to only precise plan development standards "c", and further recommend that unless the parties agree to some kind of mutual access across their mutual properties, that Council use its powers of eminent domain to give the shopping area access to "H" Street, which access would also provide access for the corner property to "H" Street. Commissioners R. Johnson, O'Neill and Pressutti voted "no." 4. PUBLIC HEARING PCA-82-2 - CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AMUSEMENT FACILITIES AND GAMES Principal Planner Lee stated the purpose of the proposed amendments is to estabish a clear definition of amusement games as accessory uses and to establish standards for amusement centers. The Planning Department recommends that three machines be considered as the maximum for accessory use and has outlined standards that are essentially in keeping with those established for _ recently approved game centers. At the present time, there are a number of establishments which have more than three machines. Mr. Lee suggested that the Planning Commission might wish to establish some time period for the Planning Commission ll June 22, 1983 compliance of those establishments having more than the allowable number of machines to either remove the excess machines or request a conditional use permit. The Chamber of Commerce has submitted a letter indicating the standards covered in Section 4a through 4e of Exhibit "B" should apply to the accessory defined machines as well as the large enterprises. The Planning Department would not be in favor or such an amendment because various users might have up to three machines as an accessory use and they would not comply with the criteria and the establishment would have to request a waiver before the Planning Commission. The Planning Department is asking that the Commission adopt the Negative Declaration and recommend City Council to enact the ordinance as submitted on Exhibit "A" and "B". In response to a question from Commissioner Cannon, Principal Planner Lee answered that there are at least six facilities that have more than four licensed machines (based on Finance Department's records) other than locations that are bona fide amusement facilities such as Fun-4-All. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Clint D. Sadler, 47 Palomar Drive, Chula Vista, one of the owers of Fun-4-All Amusement Center, located at "L" and 1-805, stated that he operated under a conditional use permit and also as an accessory use. Because he serves pre-packaged food which is heated in the microwave, he must observe all of the health rules and provisions demanded of a large restaurant. He stated that those establishments wishing to have machines on the premises should be required to apply for a conditional use permit and meet the same requirements as the amusement centers. Three machines in an establishment multiplied by 100 establishments equals 300 competing machines. He asked that all be bound by the same rules and regulations. Richard Dent, 1025 Rippey, E1 Cajon, representing Sears, stated that all of Sears' machines are licensed, but they were not operating under a conditional use permit. However, they maintain security guards and provide supervision. Commissioner Green stated he felt that accessory users should be controlled by regulations. He approved Exhibit "B" with the following modifications: 4c should indicate a rack for three bicycles instead of ten, and 4d should include the statement "excluding convenience stores." MSUC (O'Neill/Shipe) that based on the lateness of the hour, the public hearing be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None Planning Commission - 12 - June 22, 1983 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner O'Neill commended staff (Steve Griffin) on the excellent work done on Granny Flats project. ADJOURNMENT at 11:36 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of July 13, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 0418P