Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/07/26 Tape: 302 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, July 26, 1989 Public Services Buildin~ ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Fuller, Grasser, Cannon, Casillas and Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tugenberg - with prior notification STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Planner Barbara Reid, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Housing Coordinator Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY RE)~RKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None Chairman Carson, after polling the Commission, announced that the following changes would be made to the order of the Agenda. First Item 3 PCS-89-6 - Woodcrest Terra Nova Development Agreement Second Item 4 PCS-88-3 - EastLake Greens Development Third Item 6 Bonita Corporate Center Fourth Item 2 DEIR-89-6 - Salt Creek I Fifth Item 1 DEIR-89-7 - Lower Sweetwater Valley Sixth Item 5 P-79-O13/PCC-86-34~ - Marquez' auto recyling yard PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- July 26, 1989 1. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT EIR-89-7 - LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE RIO VISTA APARTMENTS This item taken out of sequence. See page 6. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-89-6 - SALT CREEK RANCH This item taken out of sequence. See page 5 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-6 - CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WOODCREST TERRA NOVA (TERRA NOVA ASSOCIATES) Director of Planning Krempl indicated that the Planning Commission had approved an amendment to the Rice Canyon Section Planning Area (SPA) Plan and the Woodcrest Terra Nova tentative subdivision map on April 12, 1989. One of the conditions included a development agreement between the City and Developer regarding the terms of the park improvements, obligations, phasing and timing which which the developer would have to comply. The entire project will be considered by the City Council on August 8, 1989 and the Commission's action on the draft development agreement is needed prior to that consideration. Director Krempl continued that the financial consideration involved is $850,000 of additional improvements to the adjoining park in exchange for which, the City would vest density and waive standard park fees. The project is for a single-family R-1 development of 86 lots. In staff's opinion, the project is not expected to pose any problems or difficulties in terms of public facility thresholds, or traffic on Ridgeback or "H" Street, all of which were essentially considered by the Commission when reviewing the SPA Plan Amendment, Tentative Map and Environmental Review Report previously. He concluded that staff would be happy to consider any additional comments that the Commission might wish to make for the record when the item goes before the Council. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Ron Van Daele, 5473 Kearny Villa Road, Ste 210, S.D., 92123, Woodcrest Development, indicated satisfaction with the Development Agreement and willingness to answer questions. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Shipe/Grasser) 6-0 to adopt the Agreement and forward it to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- July 26, 1989 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-6 CONSIDERATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR EASTLAKE GREENS Director of Planning Krempl commented that on July 18, 1989, the City Council had approved the EastLake Greens II General Development Plan (including the Greens and Trails), the SPA Plan for EastLake Greens, the Planned Community District Regulations, Design Guidelines, and the Public Facilities Financing Plan. All the conditions submitted by the Planning Commission including the recommendations on density reduction and that General Plan Policies on density transfer and cluster be referred for further study had been incorporated. The Development Agreement on EastLake Greens is before the commission because it had not been prepared at the time of project consideration. The Development Agreement is intended to ensure adherence to everything included in the project, particularly in the Public Facilities Finance Plan. City benefits include advance funding for certain public facilities and dedication of right-of way for future freeway 125. In exchange for this, the developer will receive benefits from the vesting of land use, an outline and clarification on reimbursement and credit regarding development impact fees, and assurance that if certain transportation facilities are developed beyond current needs, the City would endeavor to reserve capacity for that project. The Director pointed out that the draft before the Commission was still subject to some refinement in Sections 4 and 6 prior to consideration by the Council on August 8, 1989. Council has stated that the Development Agreement will not supersede the Transportation Phasing Plan for the Eastern Territories, the Growth Management Plan or the Growth Management Element of the General Plan. These are scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council at a later date. A discussion ensued in which Commissioner Cannon expressed concern that although it was stated that if the threshold standards were exceeded, no further building permits would be issued and construction would stop until the developer made a commitment to supply the needed facilities, there was no definition regarding the length of time such a "commitment" would take before actual construction was completed. He emphasized that he was most concerned with the completion of, not the commencement of construction within a specified time period. Director Krempl referenced the EastLake I Agreement which stipulated that as long as the developer was constructing the needed facility, he could move on to the next increment and continue to have building permits issued. He also referenced the Rancho del Rey Agreement wherein it was specified that the facility had to be in and operable before occupancy of any additional units within that phase could occur. The Director said such a factor could be addressed in the EastLake Greens document and forwarded to the Council in addition to the Commissioner's request for a better definition of the term "commit" than that contained on page 3, paragraph 2.3. 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) 5-0, Grasser out, to accept the Development Agreement in concept and forward it to the City Council accompanied by Commissioner Cannon's comments. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- July 26, 1989 5. PUBLIC HEARING: EXTENSION OF P-79-013 AND PCC-86-34M REQUEST FOR A 1-YEAR EXTENSION TO OPERATE AN AUTO RECYCLING YARD ATR 3513 AND 3517 MAIN STREET - CAROLE AND JOHN MARQUEZ This item taken out of sequence. See page 6. CONSIDERATION OF THE DESIGN OF THE BONITA CORPORATION CENTER AT 3965 OTAY LAKES ROAD - BOB CRANE AND JEFF PHAIR This item taken out of sequence. See page THIS ITEM WAS TAKEN THIRD 6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE DESIGN OF THE BONITA CORPORATE CENTER AT 3965 OTAY LAKES ROAD BOB CRANE AND JEFF PHAIR Director of Planning Krempl stated that when the Commission considered approval of the rezoning for the commercial office with a precise plan modifier, it indicated some concern with the elevations, building height and design of the structure and asked that it be returned after Design Review Committee consideration. The Design Review Committee expressed some of the same concerns and a considerable amount of time has been spent in modifying the project both by the developer and the Committee. The project presented tonight has received favorable consideration by that body. Commissioner Cannon commented on the colors utilized and expressed concern that a white stucco building with a red tile roof of such magnitude would be out of place in Bonita. Commissioner Casillas asked if any information was availablele regarding the color of the building . Director Krempl not having the information readily available suggested the item be trailed until Mr. Lee returned. Director Krempl said he had received a request from the applicant that Item 2 (Salt Creek Draft EIR) be considered prior to Item 1 (Lower Sweetwater Valley Draft EIR). That is a more substantial item but not as controversial with regard to the public. Commissioner Cannon remarked that he had a potential conflict of interest on Item 1 and that he also would appreciate considering Item 2 first. Chairman Carson volunteered that Commissioner Grasser had a potential conflict of interest on Item 2. The Commissioners being in agreement, the Chair said that the Salt Creek Draft EIR would be considered before the Lower Sweetwater Valley Draft EIR. 7:28 p.m. The Chair requested that Bob Crane come to the podium to clarify the colors used in the design of the Bonita Corporate Center. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- July 26, 1989 Commissioner Cannon asked Mr. Crane to describe the colors and material used in the design of the Bonita Corporate Center. Mr. Crane reported that the color was a soft beige stucco and the roof was made out of the new modern beige or brown color tile, not the deep red. The windows would be Spanish or French with small window panes surrounded by a soft brown wooden trim. THIS ITEM TAKEN FOURTH 2. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-89-6 - SALT CREEK RANCH Commissioner Grasser stated that she had a potential conflict of interest and left the dais and the Chambers. Environmental Coordinator Reid said the EIR involved analysis of a 124-acre site in the EastLake Planned Community, east of the proposed route 1-125, north and south of "H" Street. The Draft on the EIR was issued on June 26, 1989 and the State review period ended on July 26, 1989. No comments have been received. Monday evening, the Resource Conservation Commission voted to recommend (by unanimous vote) that the EIR be certified. Two letters of comments have been included in the packet; one from the School District and the other from the Police Department. The proposed project analyzes several alternatives and the applicant is pursuing one of those alternatives rather than the project described in Section 2 - the Project Description section of the EIR. This alternative was created to avoid the significant impacts created by the original proposal while accomplishing the objectives of the project. Mr. Reid recommended the taking of public testimony and schedule the consideration of the Final EIR for August 9, 1989. He then turned the meeting over to Jeanne Munoz, from ERC Environmental, to present the analysis from the EIR. Jeanne Munoz said that the environmental issue related to the project include the loss of open space and impacts to the biological resources. These impacts resulted from the project proposed as described in Section 2. In working with staff and the applicant's biologist, a solution to these problems has been reached; namely, a redesign aimed at protecting the sensitive Tar Weed and providing a bit more open space. There will, however, be a significant impact to air quality as a result of not being included in the SANDAG Analysis and, hence, not included in the Air Quality Management Plan. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- July 26, 1989 James Harter, 11995 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, representing the Baldwin Company, indicated that the presence and availability of the consultants to answer questions. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC {Cannon/Shipe) 5-0, Grasser out, to continue this item to the meeting of August 9, 1989 for consideration of the Final EIR. THIS ITEM TAKEN FIFTH 1. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT EIR-89-? - LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE RIO VISTA APARTMENTS Commissioner Cannon indicated that he had a potential conflict of interest and left the dais and the Chambers. Chairman Carson expressed her appreciation of the number of persons at tonight's meeting. She explained that the Commission was considering the Environmental Impact Report only, not the actual project and that everyone needed to return when the project itself was considered. That date is set tentatively for either August 23 or September 3. The testimony given tonight needs to be to the environmental issues only. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid indicated that the draft EIR was issued for public review on June 26, 1989 and is currently being circulated through the State Clearinghouse with their review period ending tomorrow afternoon. No comments have been received from any State Agency as of this afternoon. The project involves a series of land use actions including general plan amendments and zoning actions on a 40+-acre parcel east of North Second Avenue and south of State 54 and the flood control channel. There are three separate proposals covered by the EIR: (1) The Rio Vista Apartments; (2) a proposed 150-unit mobilehome park; and (3) some parcels that are not involved in either action but are zoning actions taken to clear up the zoning in this area. In addition to the packet material, an additional 24 individual letters (approximately) have been presented to the Commission this evening. Additionally, a petition with 628 signatures has been received. The petition, however, deals directly with issues of the general plan amendment and the rezoning and does not deal with the EIR; therefore, it will be formally submitted to the Commission at the later hearing on those matters. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- July 26, 1989 The hearing tonight is on the Environmental Impact Report, its adequacy, identification of all the issues involved which could adversely affect the environment, mitigation measures that could be incorporated to avoid those impacts and also alternatives to the project as proposed or alternatives in addition to those described in the EIR to avoid significant environmental impacts. Mr. Reid recommended September 13 for consideration of the Final EIR because of the length of time needed to provide a proper response to the number of letters received. The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) was unable to make a recommendation regarding the Environmental Impact Report but they did make one regarding the General Plan Amendment and that was for denial. Mr. Reid then introduced Paul Anberg and Dan Conaty, from Engineering Science, who prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Anberg stated that the purpose of the Draft EIR is to formulate, analyze and recommend to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts which would impair implementation of the Lower Sweetwater Valley Project. Potentially significant, adverse impacts and mitigation measures associated with the project are summarized in Table 2.1 of the DEIR and discussed in detail in Section 4 of the document. Fourteen major issues discussed in the DEIR include geology, soils and mineral resources, drainage (including run-off from the canyon) and flooding, biology (including terrestrial and aquatic biology of the area), archeology, paleontological and historical resources, air quality, noise, conversion of agricultural lands, aesthetics, land use, community social factors, community tax structure, park and recreation, utility and services, transportation and access. Mr. Anberg indicated that Dan Conaty and the traffic consultant from Barton-Ashman were available for questioning. He said the EIR analysis indicated that the Lower Sweetwater Valley project would not cause any significant, unavoidable impacts and those significant impacts associated with the construction of the project could be mitigated to below a significant level. These major areas of significance included: Il) biological, in which the mitigation measure of a 200-foot wide wetland mitigation zone was proposed which would alter the project somewhat in relocating the access road; (2) noise to the project area which could be mitigated by construction of barrier walls along 1-805 and a detailed acoustical analysis prior to issuance of building permits; and (3) an area that is still being discussed, the impact on the school system. In the DEIR it was considered that financing would handle most of the problems with the school system, however, letters and comments received since then and an evaluation of a higher density of school children has determined further work is needed to mitigate that problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- July 26, 1989 Commissioner Grasser said that the issue of parks and recreation needed to be addressed beyond the statement that the developers of the Rio Vista Apartments and the mobilehome park would be liable for required park fees. A park or open space area for this portion of the City is greatly needed. Mr. Conaty said that both the proximity and the safe access to the park and been considered. Eucalyptus Park cannot be accessed safely via the existing street system. It is felt that the recreational amenities for the proposed project would partially offset the impact generated by the new residents. Also, the extension of the Chula Vista greenbelt and the bike trail extended along North Fourth Avenue would provide safe access to the park. In reply to the Commissioner's question, Mr. Conaty said the greenbelt he referred to was the Sweetwater River area, the proposed greenbelt in the General Plan. Director of Planning Krempl explained that the greenbelt in the General Plan extends along the Sweetwater River to 1-805 and then traverses the southerly part of SR-54 and the flood control channel. It was intended that the greenbelt would extend over to the Bay and then down. The northerly portion of this property would fall into that greenbelt area. It would not be an active recreational park but is a trail system linkage only. Commissioner Fuller asked if further correspondence had been received from the School System since their letter of June 7? Mr. Reid replied that a letter, dated July 25, was among the material distributed prior to the meeting. Commissioner Grasser then referenced the School District's request for "specific mitigation" in the July 25 letter and asked the status of staff's research. Mr. Reid replied that no detailed discussion with the School District has yet been accomplished. However, since the yroject involves a general plan and zoning action, it is possible by egislative action to impose a condition for fees beyond that required by State Law or whatever is necessary to mitigate the impact. Commissioner Casillas said he would like to follow up further on the issue of parks and the fact that the apartments and the mobilehome park would include some recreational amenities. He asked if those amenities would fulfill 100% of the demand for park space for the residents of those new developments or would they also fulfill some of the needs of adjacent neighborhoods for park space requirements? Mr. Conaty said it was his understanding that the park space issue would be completely mitigated with the recreational amenities on-site, the greenbelt, the proposed bike path along North Fourth Avenue and the use of Rosebank School during non-school hours. Chairman Carson asked about the use of the word "probably" in the statement on page 3-6 of the EIR discussion of the mobilehome park; i.e., "probably will contain administration/recreation building for the residents". Mr. Conaty indicated that the administration/recreation building is on the site plans and is considered part of the project and the word "probably" should be eliminated. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9- July 26, 1989 Commissioner Casillas asked for clarification of Mr. Conaty testimony. Would the amenities that would be incorporated in the proposed projects suffice to take care of the needs of all the residents within those projects? Mr. Conaty answered affirmatively. Commissioner Casillas continued that it was h@s understanding of the testimony that no effort was made to accommodate the requirements of the population in the surrounding neighborhoods given the recognition there is a shortage of park space in North Chula Vista. Was it his testimony that the project would take care entirely of the recreational and park space requirements of the folks that would inhabit the project? Mr. Conaty answered that the combination of the existing park facilities and those proposed for the project would. He then described the existing park facilities as Eucalyptus Park, the greenbelt which is not only existing but proposed, which is a bike path that will lead people down to the Bayfront Recreational amenities and the bike path along North Fourth Avenue which provides safe access to Eucalyptus Park. Commissioner Casillas said he was not convinced. Chairman Carson questioned the use of indefinites like "could be", "probably", and "should be" saying when she reads an EIR she prefers more definite statements such as "will be". Mr. Conaty explained the word choice was to indicate recommended mitigation measures that would offset the impact but which are not included as part of the project until an agreement has been reached with the developer. Chairman Carson said that before the public hearing was opened she wished it understood that if more time is requested, that time should have been released by someone else. Not to be repetitive of what has been spoken, and that it is appropriate to come to the podium and state concurrence or agreement with previous speakers or that comments are being withheld until the project itself is before the Commission. Ted Bell, lll North Second Avenue, CV, representing KOA. (Time released by: Christine Chadwick, 46 Vista Way; James Chadwick, 46 Vista Way; Ada Henderson, 54 Minot; Martha W. Aguillard, 138 Minot; Dale Ohlau, 34 Vista Way; Dean Girdner, 37 Doran Ct.; Annabel Baker, 139 Minot Ave.; Mary R. Parman, 79 Minor; Floyd Parman, 79 Minot; Neil A. Chau, 29 Las Flores; Cheryl Chau, 29 Las Flores, Theresa Assunto Vasquez, 140 Marigold Pl.; Gil Vasquez, 140 Marigold Pl.; Evelyn Downs, 187 First Ave.; Mafalda Pennington, 38 Vista Way; Mrs. Ted Bell, 110 No. Second Ave.) Mr. Bell said he had been requested by some of the neighbors to establish legal points in reference to the EIR for comment at a later time or for possible litigation. Mr. Bell then reviewed the EIR in a very comprehensive and detailed manner as quoted verbatim in the Final EIR. Some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Bell included: Failure of the EIR to be complete, factual, accurate or responsive to the impacts; other alternatives are available to meet low-income housing and objectives; the heavy traffic generated by the project at this elevation will create on-going liquification problems because of the groundwater table and valley soil; the impossibility of building berms or structures high enough to provide a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -10- July 26, 1989 sound barrier from 1-805 noise; impact caused by the change from open space to medium-to-high density zoning; proposed park area for the new development use only and fees would be used for parks and open space in other neighborhoods not this one; the statement that imminent completion of the Sweetwater flood control channel is incorrect since the project's priority may be questionable because of the small amount of property now affected between 1-805 and National City Boulevard; screening of the multi-family, two-story ridged property is impossible because of the higher elevation of the neighboring property; fencing to screen the mobilehome site is of no value for the same reason; the project may lower property values of existing R-1 neighborhoods and their way of life and would definitely change the character of KOA; the impact in the form of traffic, noise, loss of facilities and cost to mitigate problems to KOA would be enormous; development of the land into anything other than its historical designation as park land is a breach of faith to the citizens; Eucalyptus Park is already overused; access to City services, shopping centers and the like is very inconvenient; the great need for open space in Old Chula Vista and the Threshold Standards should be used as a guide. Mr. Bell requested that the Commission disapprove the EIR and recommend the development of a park alternative that is stated in the EIR. If such a proposal is not acceptable to the Commission, Mr. Bell requested a recommendation for a delay in decision until the Chula Vista 2000 final report is available in 1991. Harriet Acton, 265 Nixon Place. (Time released by: Betty Bonner, 36 N. Second Ave.) Ms. Acton reviewed the history of the Lower Sweetwater Valley prior to annexation and as part of the County Regional Park system. She recommended the EIR prepared in July, 1977, by the Corps of Engineers, of the area from Gunpowder Point to Bonita Road and cited the availability of her copies for review. Her concerns include the DEIR's apparent support of the developer's proposal and removal of the original concept of a recreation, open space area which would turn the area into a high-density, residential development. Alan Campbell, 43 Corte Maria. (Time released by: Kathleen M. Laswell, 19 "D" St.; Pricilla L. Maloney, 47 Corte Maria; John Norgard, ll9 First Ave.; Karen Collins, 58 Corte Maria.) Mr. Campbell spoke first to administrative concerns; namely, that at the September, 1988 meeting those who had filled out a pink slip had been assured they would be notified of this meeting, he requested that this be done for any subsequent meetings. He requested that the Mobilehome Relocation Park Task Force also be noticed. He emphasized that the petitions referred to by Mr. Reid had been acquired from persons who had read the EIR and had been contacted either at their homes or in neighborhood meetings. Concerns reported by Mr. Campbell included the fact that land use is not included as a significant item although conversion of approximately 65 acres of land is involved; land use designations in the surrounding areas are inaccurately described; only four of the General Plan policies affecting multi-family housing are referenced; possible circumvention of the City's Controlled Growth Initiative Ordinance; acceptance of the plan would remove 55 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -ll- July 26, 1989 of recreation/open space from the area's total of 200; the EIR is inaccurate, misleading, self-serving, and is a slap in the face to the long term residents of Old Chula Vista. Mr. Campbell concluded by asking all who were in agreement with him to stand; approximately 160 persons complied. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, expressed concern regarding disregard for Proposition V; screening of multi-family development project; misstatement regarding flood control of open space area; the only method of traffic analysis being used is the one showing a favorable impression on the project, other methods being disregarded. Barbara Hall, 1675 Pt. Reyes Court, representing the Resource Conservation Commission, noted the Commission had not accepted the EIR and voted a resolution requesting the Planning Commission deny the change in the General Plan because of opposition to the use of park and open space for residential and high-density construction. Mark Hays, 173 "G" Street, representing members, participants, parents and board members of the Chula Vista American Little League. (Time released by: Karen Jenney, 39 Second Ave.; and Connie Mesker, 22 Vista Way.) stated that the existing play areas are inadequate and open space was needed for parks and recreation. Roy Shepard, 66 Teresa Way, owner of 30 Las Flores Drive, a school teacher in Chula Vista, spoke about school overcrowding; the bussing children out of the area; school fees do not alleviate the problem because it takes l0 acres to build a school and no such acreage is available locally; the growth problem for schools is in the west not the east where land has been set aside; the location site is far from commercial facilities except for those in National City. Jo Ann Graves, 69 Flower Street, presented pictures taken from her driveway across from Rosebank School of the traffic congestion and children crossing the street to attend summer school. Carolyn Williams, 134 First Avenue, spoke of the saturation of apartments in North Chula Vista; the overcrowding of schools; the unavailability of classrooms; quoted neighborhood population statistics; noted that the City Council will not put in more than 21 low-income units in any one area to prevent ghettos yet th: project proposes the placing of 115 transients in one area; and questioned the source of funding needed. Lowell Batterton, 209 Nixon Place, said an impact study should show the impact of a new proposal to the original area; the saturation of North Chula Vista with social services; the concentration of racial, ethnic and economic minorities in any one area is in opposition to Chula Vista's General Objective Number 6 of the Draft General Plan; asked who would pay for this subsidized housing; requested that the citizens maintain the quality of life for the City and not make it a ghetto of the future. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -12- July 26, 1989 Sandra McHale-Renk, 45 Corte Maria. (Time released by: Grace Stanczak, 70 "G" Street.) As a teacher at Rosebank Elementary, she spoke to the fact that the addition of classrooms does not add larger playgrounds, teacher facilities, additional playground supervision, larger lunch arbors; the inadvisablity of using school grounds for parks as there are insufficient facilities, and playground equipment, no bathrooms or picnic areas; the EIR notes that because of the low income of those in the proposed mobilehome park it may be necessary to use tax increment financing, an action usually taken to attract developers to blighted areas; the loss of open space will impact Rosebank School. David Llewellyn, 120 North Second Ave, discussed the traffic situation on Second Street, the difficulty of egress onto the street, the heavy traffic from the condominium complex, the further constrictions if 50-passenger school buses are added, possibility of gridlock caused by stacking at the proposed project site driveway; the difficulty of long, large fire engines navigating in a high-density area. He also discussed foot traffic, the remoteness of the proposed site from bus service, government services, employment centers and grocery stores. Jeanine Gliko, 105 First Avenue, spoke of the difficulty of access and egress into the proposed canyon development; the DEIR makes no mention of a study into the usage of First Avenue as an access/egress route yet there still remains an option in the rezoning proposal; the likelihood that the present unimproved road that currently serves as an emergency vehicle access may not be able to handle the increase in calls from 200 additional units; using the overhead projector, Ms. Gliko showed the location of a "very narrow, congested, one lane road" in the area of "D" Avenue which intersects at a "blind, 90-degree angle with First Avenue"; she spoke of the traffic hazards for children attending Rosebank School; and concluded by asking the Commission to pursue the issue of a secondary access and to insist that the EIR complete a review of this traffic area. Phil Milani, 42 Vista Way, said he would save his comments for the next meeting. Milbert L. Thompson, 44 Minot Avenue, voiced his concurrence with what has been said. Leonard Aguillard, 138 Minot Ave., spoke in opposition to the project; expressed concern about persons being forced to live in a river bed below Sweetwater Dam with danger from earthquakes; suggested the low-income residents and homeless be placed throughout Chula Vista rather than concentrated in one area; requested that the Commission not support the EIR; that the area be left as open space or as a recreation park for all citizens. The following persons turned in pink slips to register their opposition: Jerry F. Degenhart, 212 Chula Vista Street; James B. Kelly, 184 Minot Ave.; Jacqueline Kelly, 184 Minot Ave.; R. Lazo, 192 Minot Ave.; Jim and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -13- July 26, 1989 Darlene Spurgeon, 145 Corte Maria; Elayne Campbell, 43 Corte Maria; Jorge Sanchez, 75 D. Street; Harry H. Fickel, 50 Minot Ave.; Eric Carl son, 377 Minor Ave.; Frances G. Petersen, 58 Minot Ave.; Lester P. Petersen, 58 Minot Ave.,; Beth Carlson, 377 Minot Ave.; Candice Hooper, 486 Corte Maria Ave. Robert Scott, 4546 Cresta Verde Lane, Bonita. (Time released by three unidentified persons.) Mr. Scott spoke in favor of the project and acknowledged he had submitted some corrections to the EIR himself; he suggested postponing a decision on the EIR until the inaccuracies are corrected and addressed and the opponents are comfortable that the EIR is as complete and as accurate as the experts can make it. He noted that his property is separate from the City's 14 acres but he is caught in the same kind of planning process because the properties are contiguous. Regarding the proposed greenbelt, he pointed out that 200 feet of his property would require dedication to the greenbelt but access would be provided to the Bayfront, to the Sweetwater Regional Park and it would be a travel arterial to a number of other attractions. He noted that the question is, do you take one person's private property so that other people can enjoy park services? He related the objections expressed by the citizens at Fourth and Orange to a park in their neighborhood and their expressed fear of subsequent troubles with transients and children. Mr. Scott asked what effect the magnet schools had on the number of children being bussed to schools in the area? indicated that the Mello Roos District would generated nearly $600,000 for the School Districts. Mr. Scott emphasized that the proposed apartment complex would not be subsidized housing, is on 18+ acres at a density of ll units per acre which is under the City's definition of medium density residential. Regarding traffic circulation, he pointed out that "there is a 20-foot emergency vehicle access that does come up Las Flores Drive and the 60-foot easement for a 54-foot improved four-lane type City Street; which is approved on the City Street Plan". Ernie Carillos, 17 Las Flores Drive, stated his opposition on behalf of the residents from Las Flores Drive. John Norga, 119 First Avenue, requested that the bussing situation should be examined both ways - into the area and out of the area. Josephine Payne, 62 Corte Maria, said that since one of the reasons for magnet schools is to ensure integration, the study should include how many children are being bussed elsewhere because of this factor. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid suggested that because of the many details to which response is needed, the proposed date for consideration of the Final EIR should be September 27. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -14- July 26, 1989 Commissioner Shipe expressed his appreciation at the involvement of the citizens of Chula Vista in this matter and indicated that when the Final EIR is submitted, he will be very sensitive to the areas of open space, density, noise, air pollution, and to the issue of compatibility with the neighborhood. Commissioner Fuller said she concurred with the Commissioner's statement and that this had been one of the best organized and most overall objective public hearings that she has ever attended. She thanked those who had provided the Commission "with an opportunity to think about more things than any one of us could have thought of when we were actually reading and reviewing the EIR outselves". MSUC (Shipe/Fuller) 5-0, Cannon out, to schedule consideration of the Final EIR for September 27, 1989. Chairman Carson reminded those in attendance that they needed to keep in contact with the Planning Department or their main contact person; that she wished "our Civics classes could see people at action because it was happening tonight." She reminded those in attendance to fill out a slip so they can be noticed for the September 27 meeting. THIS ITEM TAKEN SIXTH 5. PUBLIC HEARING: EXTENSION OF P-79-013 AND PCC-86-34M - REQUEST FOR A 1-YEAR EXTENSION TO OPERATE AN AUTO RECYCLING YARD AT 3513 AND 3517 6~IN STREET - CAROLE AND JOHN MARQUEZ Assistant Planner Barbara Reid stated that a Major Use Permit was granted for a lO-year period by the County of San Diego on May 4, 1979 for auto dismantling and recycling. An extension of the CUP was requested in May, 1989 but could not be scheduled until May 3 for the Montgomery Planning Committee and May 24 for the Planning Commission; dates subsequent to the expiration date of the permit. The Montgomery Planning Committee recommended a 1-year extension at their meeting of May 5, 1989. Certain legal and procedural issues have caused the continuation of this item from the May 24 Commission Meeting to this date. The two major issues within this CUP are (1) extension of the existing CUP and (2) application of conditions relating to the Marquez' adjoining property to the south. The current land use, auto recycling, is a non-conforming use and will be phased out once the zoning is implemented in the Montgomery Specific Plan (approximately 6 months). At that time, the Marquez' will have a maximum of 2 years to relocate or change the present land use. Staff recommends the 1-year extension and, at that time, the applicant could apply for an additional extension for the remainder of time the non-conforming use would be allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -15- July 26, 1989 The 5-acre parcel to the south of the auto wreckers is leased to a company known as Best Soils. The site is used to store and process soils and other material. Since the establishment of the business in 1981 more than 26,000 cubic yards have been illegally deposited on the site forming a pad within the floodway approximately 7 feet above the natural topography of the river. The Marquez' were notified of the illegal condition on November 17, 1986; but the fill has not been removed. Staff recommends a 1-year extension of the permit subject to conditions in the staff report which describe the dates by which action must be commenced (1) to apply for all necessary permits, (2) to commence and (3) to complete the work of removing the illegal fill from the adjoining parcel of their property subject to permit revocation. The City Attorney has suggested a rewording of Condition 4 as follows: 4. In the event that any of the above conditions have not been met within the required time period, the conditional use permit is automatically revoked unless extensions have been granted by mutual consent between the City Engineer and the applicant. Based on the authority contained in Section 19.14.070 of the Municipal Code (detailed in the staff report) staff suggests inclusion of this 5-acre parcel within the conditional use permit. This action and removal of the fill from the floodplain would protect the proposed future Otay River Park outlined in the Montgomery Specific Plan. Regardless of whoever caused this illegal fill situation, the property owner is responsible for its removal. In a broader perspective, since auto recycling yards are being phased out in keeping with the goals of the Montgomery Specific Plan, staff recommends an extension to this permit and to the auto recycling use being tied to the correction of a long-standing problem of significant environmental concern. Commissioner Casillas requested further clarification of Condition 4. Senior Civil Engineer Daoust replied that the most time-consuming part of a grading operation is the preparation and completion of the plans. It is unlikely that a set of grading plans would be completed and approved within 30 days. At the same time, it is unlikely that it should take 6 months. Staff concedes that a reasonable completion of the plan should be flexible but wants to be assured that the applicant's engineers are making a diligent effort toward completion. In answer to Commissioner Carson's further query, Mr. Daoust said that the application consists not only of the plans but of bond estimates and submittals to guarantee work completion. The Commissioner submitted that a more specific date would seem fairer to the applicant. Director of Planning Krempl said that if the issue were totally under control of the City, a firm, absolute time could be set. However, flexibility is needed because authorization is needed al so from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and from Cal Fish and Game. Timing of the issuance of this authorization is beyond the control of either the applicant or the City. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf explained that the change in the condition's wording was because the State and the Federal Government were involved and he wished to avoid forcing the issue back to the Commission or Council for authorization to extend the CUP. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -16- July 26, 1989 Commissioner Fuller asked if these conditions were not met through the applicant's fault, would business cease immediately. Attorney Rudolf said the word "automatically" guaranteed an immediate stoppage. Commissioner Casillas asked what action was taken by the applicant in November of 1986 upon receipt of notification of an illegal fill on the property. A discussion ensued concerning what had occasioned the delay in action being taken on the illegal fill. This included confusion regarding who was the responsible party; contemplation of criminal action against the tenant; legal evidence recently reviewed by the Engineering Department; the various governmental agencies involved; obtaining legal evidence and combining the section of the ordinance with the conditional use permit. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Carol Marquez, 3517 Main Street, J&C Auto Recycling. Ms. Marquez requested the extension saying time was needed to relocate or even to close down the operation. She has agreed to work with the City, the Engineering Department, to remove the fill. She has been contacted by developers interested in improving the property. Regarding her tenant, it is very difficult to evict a tenant. She has given him a notice to move but he has taken no action. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Fuller asked if the City would be providing assistance to Ms. Marquez in obtaining the necessary permits and received an affirmative answer. She then questioned the City's position on the illegal fill issue if Ms. Marquez did get a developer. Attorney Rudolf said there were many alternatives. If the conditions were not met, the CUP would be revoked and the property could not be utilized for that purpose; then instead of using the CUP as a tool to obtain compliance it would be necessary to use straight enforcement either against the new owners (if it was within the time frame of the conditional use permit), or against the tenant directly. One way or another, the problem would be resolved. Commissioner Casillas asked if the property could be burdened with the matter of the 5 acres and the fill so that subsequent owners were burdened by those conditions. Mr. Rudolf answered only through the conditional use permit process. MSUC (Fuller/Casillas) 5-0, Cannon out, that based on the analysis contained in Section D of the staff report, to approve a 1-year extension for P-79-013 and PCC-86-34M from May 5, 1989 to May 5, 1990, provided that conditions 1 through 4, with condition 4 reworded as read into the record, be met. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -17- July 26, 1989 OTHER BUSINESS None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Krempl stated that: - the Special Meeting on Rancho del Rey II Statement of Overriding Conditions will be held on August 2, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. in the Chambers. - Copies of the changes to the General Plan will be available at the next meeting. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Casillas requested a workshop to discuss CC&Rs. Commissioner Carson requested a workshop with the Director of Parks and Recreation on the park and recreation process. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:09 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of August 2, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers ~~. Smith, SecretK~Kry Planning Commission WPC 6836P