Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/12/13 Tape: 306 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, December 13, 1989 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Cannon, Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, and Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Carson - with prior notification STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Leiter, Principal Planners Lee and Pass, Associate Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Frank Herrera-A, Assistant Planner Barbara Reid, Consultant Tony Lettieri, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Tugenberg and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Tu§enberg 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: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-89-1, OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING (Continued from 11-8-89) Associate Planner Griffin requested a continuance of this item to the meeting of January 24, 1990, because of a scheduling conflict of the environmental consultant. MSUC (Shipe/Casillas) 6-0 to continue this item to January 24, 1990. Chairman Tugenber§ then moved to Item No. 5 on the agenda. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-03: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 19.060.030 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AFFECTED BY AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN City Initiated Associate Planner Griffin stated that the City Council had failed to accept a report on this matter and recommended that this item be tabled at this time. Chairman Tugenberg then proceeded with Item No. 2 on the agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- December 13, 1989 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-A-M: PROPOSAL TO REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY ADA/PALOMAR STREETS, MAIN STREET, I-5/FRONTAGE ROAD AND INDUSTRIAL TO THE EAST, FROM ITS CITY-ADOPTED "COUNTY-ZONE" CLASSIFICATIONS TO "CITY-ZONE" CLASSIFICATIONS UTILIZED THROUGHOUT CHULA VISTA - City Initiated Consultant Tony Lettieri stated this was the fifth sub-area under consideration for the implementation of the Montgomery Specific Plan. Using overhead projection, he pointed out the area under consideration. He stated that no area west of Interstate 5 was included, since that is an area designated as white lands for further study on the Montgomery Specific Plan. Mr. Lettieri stated that staff is recommending no change in the area on the northwest corner of Anita and Industrial, that the area be further studied to look at both the existing land use pattern and the zoning pattern so they could go back to the Montgomery Planning Committee in February for a recommendation. There were too many issues associated with that specific area for recommendation at this time. Mr. Lettieri recommended a reclassification for the areas designated Research and Limited Industrial on the Montgomery Specific Plan from County zoning M52 to City zoning I-L-P, which is the closest counterpart to the M52 zone. Mr. Lettieri stated that the recommendations were two-fold: 1) that based on the Initial Study and comments on that Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on both IS-88-4M and IS-88-65 which is Part 3 of the Montgomery Specific Plan; and 2) adopt a motion recommending to the City Council the staff recommendations as well as the recommendations of the Montgomery Planning Committee as depicted in Exhibit A to the staff report, deferring any action on the area zoned C36. Mr. Lettieri stated that on November 15, 1989, the Montgomery Planning Committee considered this recommendation and unanimously recommended approval of staff recommendation. Commissioner Casillas asked what was planned for the area west of I-5. Principal Planner Pass answered that it was a mixed-use area and with no sensible order at the present time. The area encompasses 20 acres of which a large part has become vacant and cleared. Staff feels that the final resolution would be revitalization through the redevelopment process to merge all of the small lots and marshal the territory sufficient to do a major program. Commissioner asked if at the time of the annexation, there was some discussion that redevelopment designation would be withheld for a period of time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- December 13, 1989 Mr. Pass concurred. It was for a period of four years which have passed. The area was annexed on December 31, 1985, and on December 31, 1989, the four years will have passed. Staff feels potential project areas should be established and revitalization started. This would be one of the first areas considered. Chairman Tugenber§ asked if the Commission hadn't previously passed on a recommendation to the City Council for a low-income HUD facility on the north side of Dorothy Street. Mr. Pass said that the land has been sold to the County for that purpose and it has been planned to accommodate some very well designed affordable housing. Commissioner Shipe asked if there was something in mind for the white lands area under comprehensive study. Mr. Pass said that the white lands area, West Fairfield, is proposed for a first-rate mixed-use program, possibly with residential, some commercial, light industrial, and a large allocation of land to office park. Upon query by Commissioner Shipe, Mr. Pass said that the area would remain under study for as long as six months to a year, and .the Planning Commission and City Council would probably be asked to determine if it should be declared a redevelopment area. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) 6-0 (Carson absent) based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-89-65 for the Montgomery Specific Plan. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) 6-0 (Carson out) recommending to the City Council that they adopt an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit '~". 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-16; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A RETAIL DISTRIBUTION CENTER OUTLET AT 3141 MAIN STREET IN THE MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY OF CHULA VISTA Smart & Final Iris Assistant Planner Barbara Reid stated that the request was for a 13,400 sq. ft. retail distribution center on a 1.7 acre parcel. The land is currently vacant and zoned M52 (Limited Impact Industrial). The site is designated as Research and Limited Industrial on the Montgomery Specific Plan. A decision as to the City zoning is yet to be made. Staff recommends I-L-P Limited Industrial with a precise plan, and this use would be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. The Montgomery Planning Committee voted 4-2 to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- December 13, 198~ recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration. They were concerned about the level of service on Main Street. Upon recommendation of the Montgomery Planning Committee, traffic counts were taken on Main Street and it was determined to be LOS C, which is an acceptable level of service. Ms. Reid went on to explain the proposed project and comparison to the description and intent of the I-L-P zone. She stated that the site plan and architectural review would be subject to the Design Review Committee on January 12, 1990. Assistant Planner Reid said that the proposed parking ratio of 1 space for every 280 sq. ft. of floor area is somewhat less than the 1 per 200 required for standard retail use, and well above the wholesale standard of 1 per 1,000. Based on the fact that it is a wholesale and retail nature, and a visit to Smart & Final's National City operation, staff felt comfortable that the proposed parking {48 spaces) would be adequate to serve the use. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, staff recommended that the Planning Commission find the project will have no significant impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-19 and Addendum. Based on the findings contained in Section E of the report, staff requests adoption recommending approval of PCC-90-16. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Tony Bernardini, 2618 E1 Camino Real, Carlsbad 92008, representing Smart & Final Iris Co., gave some background on Smart & Final. He stated they primarily sell groceries, as well as frozen food, deli items, restaurant supplies, janitorial supplies, paper and packaging supplies, office supplies, and other miscellaneous items. Most supplies are in large packages because they are a business-to-business supplier. He explained that there had been a concern regarding traffic, and as staff has shown, their ADTs would not change the level of service on the street. They have agreed to dedicate to the City approximately 3500 sq. ft. of land on both Main Street and Hermosa in order for the street to be widened, along with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. He said they only received approximately three large dry grocery deliveries and two refrigerated deli deliveries per week--a total of five major truck deliveries per week--most of which would probably be during off hours. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Upon Commissioner Casillas' query, Ms. Reid said the landscaping requirements would be worked out at the Design Review stage. The City's Landscape Architect had given it preliminary approval but wanted to get into specifics at the Design Review stage in January. Commissioner Casillas asked if the 20' driveway going back to Hermosa was considered adequate for two-way traffic. Ms. Reid answered it would be one-way. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- December 13, 1989 Discussion ensued regarding the one-way traffic and potential problems. MSUC {Shipe/Fuller) 6-0 (Carson out) Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-19. MSUC {Shipe/Fuller) 6-0 (Carson out) Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the report, adopt a motion approving PCC-90-16. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-21; REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A BOARD AND CARE FACILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MILD MENTAL DISORDERS AT 551 "D" STREET - Yvonne Allison Associate Planner Griffin used the overhead projector to show the site in relation to the surrounding area. The property is a narrow 17,600 sq. ft. R-3 zoned property extending between "D" Street on the south and Casselman Street on the north. The surrounding property is also zoned R-3. He pointed out that the General Plan Update shows the area to the west to be Residential-Medium and the area to the east to be Residential-Low-Medium, so there may be some implications in the future regarding density recognizing the lower density of the area compared to the typical R-3 zoned areas. Mr. Griffin stated the property presently contains a 16-unit apartment building as well as 15 off-street parking spaces. Using slides, he showed the current parking areas in relationship to the building, the building elevation, and the lack of private or common open space presently existing on the site. He then showed the proposed use of the building and site for the board and care of 49 mildly mentally disordered persons, how the units would be converted, and the parking area which would be fenced to provide a common outdoor patio activity area. Mr. Griffin went on to say that it would be a private facility subject to State licensing and regulation; most residents would be veterans referred to the facility and subsidized by the Veterans Administration; residents were described as suffering from thinking or mood disorders which required some degree of daily medication; they are screened to eliminate those with dangerous propensities (according to the applicant) and are all required to attend some form of daily job training, work or social programs; supervision varies from two to six staff; residents must check in and out although it is not a locked facility; no residents would have drivers' licenses so the facility would offer its own van for transportation or public transportation would be used. Mr. Griffin said it was difficult to find an ideal location for this type of use since it was an institutional use as well as a residential use. The proposed project is in the middle of a residential area on a narrow outwardly-oriented site, and staff believes it would present too great a potential for conflict with the surrounding neighborhood, both in terms of the institutional nature of the use as well as the likelihood of a greater concentration of activity in and possibly around the site impacting the surrounding residents. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- December 13, 1989 Staff recommended denial of the request based on the findings listed in the staff report. Mr. Griffin referred to letters in opposition to the request representing seven surrounding property owners, copies of which were given to the Commissioners. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Ray Schwartz, 3030 Aber Street, San Diego 92117, stated that he worked with San Diego Mental Health Service but was at the meeting representing himself, not the County. He said there were approximately ll5 facilities for the adult mentally ill in the County representing 1380 beds--4 of those facilities being in Chula Vista with a total of 17 beds, representing 1-1/3% of the total. He reiterated the fact that the facility would be State licensed and would have to meet those obligations. He also stated it would become an employer; the mentally ill would be accounted for in all ways; one of the greatest problems is trying to convince communities these mentally ill are not dangerous and are less likely to assault and be a problem than the regular public. Dorothy Nisbett, 543 "D" Street, Chula Vista 92010, said she lived very close to the proposed installation and was in favor of it and gratified to see someone trying to help these people. She has lived there 20 years and has seen everything from prostitution, aliens, and dope, and would welcome some constructive work. Commissioner Cannon asked if her property was next to the proposed facility and about the tenants next door. Ms. Nisbett replied that the property was contiguous to hers; the Chula Vista Police come by about three times a day; her daughter was an unwilling witness to a dope bust; she didn't see how this installation could cause anything worse than what was currently there. Yvonne Allison, 736 F, Coronado, Director of Veterans Home Facility, stated that they had held an open forum on December 4, 1989, and invited everyone within 300' of the facility to give them information; only one of the people against the project showed up at the meeting. It was left open so anyone could contact them during the week. Neighbors they personally contacted around the facility did not have a big objection to the facility and are actually in favor. They had checked the police records which indicated there had been drug busts at the current apartment building for the last five years, and in one case for producing drugs. She described the project area and felt this was one of the better places in Chula Vista for this type of project; there would be an enclosed courtyard area; there would be 24-hour supervision; they would be primarily treating veterans. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Fuller commended Ms. Nisbett as a neighbor for taking the time to go to the meeting. She agreed that such a facility could fit in, and if this is the facility some of the neighbors were objecting to as it stands now, with PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- December 13, 1989 some understanding and some continued PR on behalf of staff and the residents of the facility, they could help their neighbors understand that they can be a good part of the neighborhood. She would hope that working with the neighborhood would be a continuing thing. She was in support of the facility. MSUC (Cannon/Carson) 6-0 that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study in the Negative Declaration, find that this project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration PCC-90-25. MSUC (Cannon/Carson) 6-0 upon the findings in the attached report, approve the proposal IS-90-21 and request that the City Council approve that also. OTHER BUSINESS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Leiter recommended that the meeting of January 10, 1990, be cancelled. He also recommended that this meeting be adjourned to the Study Session on January 17, 1990, at 5 p.m. COMMISSION COMMENTS - Merry ChristmasJ ADJOURNMENT AT 7:55 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of January 17, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3. Nahcy Ri~tey, SeCretary Planning Commission WPC 7054P