HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/06/14 Tape: 300
Side: 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, June 14, 1989 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Tugenberg,
Fuller, Grasser, Cannon and Casillas
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Shipe - with prior notification
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner
Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Associate Planner
Griffin, Assistant Planner Herrera, Assistant
Planner Reid, Senior Civil Engineering Daoust,
Deputy City Attorney Fritsch, Rancho del Rey
Consultant Lettieri, EastLake Consultant Gray
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 REMARKS
Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its
responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSC (Cannon/Fuller) Casillas abstained to approve the minutes of 5/10/89 as
corrected to remove the word "McQuade" on page 13, line 25.
MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) to approve the minutes of 5/31/89 as mailed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - none
Planning Commission -2- June 14, 1989
1. 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 MAIN STREET - CAROLE AND JOHN MARQUEZ
Principal Planner Lee requested continuation of this item to the meeting of
June 28, 1989 in order that engineering and planning issues might be resolved.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Casillas) 6-0 to continue the item to June 28, 1989
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-J - PROPOSAL TO REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY "L" STREET ON THE NORTH, BROADWAY ON THE WEST,
ORANGE AVENUE ON THE SOUTH, AND HILLTOP DRIVE ON THE
EAST, FROM ITS CITY ADOPTED (COUNTY-ZONING)
CLASSIFICATIONS TO THE CITY CLASSIFICATIONS UTILIZED
THROUGHOUT CHULA VISTA - CITY INITIATED
(Taken out of sequence - see page 2)
Chairman Carson announced that Item 3 would be taken at this time.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-20 AND PCS-89-8 - CONSIDERATION OF A SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA PLAN AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION )lAP KNOWN AS
WOODCREST SOUTHWESTERN, CHULA VISTA TRACT 89-8, LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN APACHE
DRIVE AND BUENA VISTA WAY WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT
(CONTINUED)
Principal Planner Lee referenced the applicant's written request for
continuation of this item to the meeting of June 28, 1989 for the purpose of
studying a realignment of one of the roads and readjustment of one of the
stub-streets.
Commissioner Cannon said he had a potential conflict of interest in this
matter and would refrain from voting.
MSC (Tugenberg/Fuller) 5-0, Cannon abstained to continue the item to June 28,
1989.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-J - PROPOSAL TO REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY "L" STREET ON THE NORTH, BROADWAY ON THE WEST,
ORANGE AVENUE ON THE SOUTH, AND HILLTOP DRIVE ON THE
EAST, FROM ITS CITY ADOPTED (COUNTY-ZONING)
CLASSIFICATIONS TO THE CITY CLASSIFICATIONS UTILIZED
THROUGHOUT CHULA VISTA - CITY INITIATED
Consultant Lettieri reviewed the reclassifications proposed for the Castle
Park "A" Subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan indicating that the
action would convert the existing County zoning to City zoning classifications
without adversely impacting the development capability of those properties.
Planning Commission -3- June 14, 1989
Mr. Lettieri commented that the project area is almost entirely improved with
a mixture of single-family residential, multi-family residential and
commercial uses along Third Avenue. The San Diego Country Club is included in
the area as well as the two Special Study Areas.
The land use designations recommended in the staff report are those most
consistent with the County land use designation. The zone reclassifications
are primarily proposed to implement the Montgomery Specific Plan adopted by
Council on January 12, 1988. Areas designated High Density Residential (RU-29
and RMH) would be reclassified R-3 and R-3-G respectively. The areas
designated Mercantile and Office Commercial would be designated C-C-P along
Third Avenue and C-T-P along Broadway. Low/Medium Density Residential areas
RS7, RVl5, C36 and RU29 would be reclassified to R-l-7 and R-1-5-P. The San
Diego Country Club is being proposed to a designation in keeping with the
residential character of the adjacent areas and it is the expressed intent of
the Montgomery Specific Plan that the property remain as a golf course. The
Oxford Street Special Study Area and the natural drainage course south of Rice
Elementary School are not recommended for reclassification at this time but
will be handled under a separate proposal before the Commission in the future.
Commissioner Cannon requested clarification about the open space designations
in the Eastern Territories and why such a designation could not be utilized
for the Country Club. Director Krempl replied that although in the General
Plan Update there was an open space designation with a density allocation of
one dwelling unit per l0 acres for purposes of not having adverse
condemnation, there is no open space zoning per se. In most instances in the
Eastern Territories there would be a P-C zone and on its implementation
through the general development plan, it would be designated as open space.
In the case of the County Club, there is no P-C designation.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Ray Medina, 448 Palomar St., CV 92011, representing his mother-in-law, said
this property (2.2 acres east of Palomar School) was initially RVl5 and was
designated by the Montgomery Planning Committee as R-1-5P. They would like
the property designated R-2P so provisions can be made for his parents to live
on the property. Mr. Lettieri said that the Montgomery Planning Committee had
recommended the R-1-SP as a compromise between staff's recommendation of R-l-?
and the R-2P to recognize the location of the Palomar School on the west side
and a major street on the south. The R-1-SP would permit a higher density and
require comprehensive site planning.
Commissioner Casillas asked what was the difference in practical terms between
developing at R-1-5P and at R-2P? Mr. Lettieri replied that based on straight
numbers, not taking into consideration design constraints, the R-2P zone would
permit 27 units while the R-1-5P would permit approximately 19. Staff's
original recommendation of R-l-7 would have permitted 13.
Planning Commission -4- June 14, 1989
MSUC (Fuller/Casillas) 6-0 that based on the Initial Study and comments on the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that this project will have no
significant environmental impacts and readopt the Negative Declaration issued
on IS-88-4M for the Montgomery Specific Plan.
MSUC (Fuller/Casillas) 6-0 to recommend that the City Council enact an
ordinance to change the zones as described in Exhibit "A" attached to the
staff report with the amendment of the parcel directly east of Palomar High
School to R-1-5P as recommended by the Montgomery Planning Committee.
4. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-86-4
Commissioner Grasser indicated a potential conflict of interest and left the
Chambers.
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that a public hearing was held
on the Draft EIR on May 24, 1989; the review period for state agencies
extended beyond that date but no comments were received from state agencies.
The Final EIR has major revisions in three areas: water and sewer, schools,
and the Threshold Policy. The Threshold Policy has been evaluated in a single
section of the EIR; in the draft they were scattered throughout the document.
The school section has been updated to reflect the most current data available
from the schools. The water and sewer section provides a more accurate and
clear evaluation of those impacts.
Mr. Reid advised that due to the scheduling of the EIR and the hearings on the
project, staff was unable to prepare the CEQA findings, overriding
considerations and monitoring program. It is proposed that those be
considered at a later date. It is recommended that the Planning Commission
certify the Final EIR.
Commissioner Cannon expressed his feeling that the overriding considerations
and CEQA findings should be available for Commission consideration before the
project of the SPA plan is considered.
Mr. Reid advised that CEQA guidelines provide that the overriding
considerations may be approved after consideration of the project; this is
especially true if any changes to the project are recommended.
Chairman Carson voiced concern over going ahead with the hearing on the
project until all information concerning its impact has been considered.
After discussion on the legal aspects, it was suggested that the entire
matter, including the Final EIR, be brought back at a future date.
As public hearings were advertised for this date to consider the EastLake SPA
Plan and EastLake Greens subdivision map, Chairman Carson opened the public
hearing to hear testimony on continuing the public hearings.
Planning Commission -5- June 14, 1989
Mr. Robert Santos, EastLake Development Company, stated that while his staff
and the City staff had worked diligently to get the information ready for this
meeting, if the Commission members were not comfortable with taking action on
the EIR, he would like to see the entire matter continued. He asked if it
could be the first time on the agenda if it is continued to a future meeting,
or possibly the only items on the agenda at a special meeting.
MSC (Cannon/Casillas) 5-0-1 abstention, to continue consideration of the Final
EIR and the public hearings on the EastLake project (items 4, 5 and 6 of this
agenda) to a special meeting at 7:00 p.m. on June 21, 1989. Commissioner
Grasser abstained due to possible conflict of interest.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-7 CONSIDERATION OF EASTLAKE II GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, EASTLAKE GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
{SPA) PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES AND FINANCING PLAN -
EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Not considered because no action taken on Item 4.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-88-3 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EASTLAKE GREENS, CHULA VISTA TRACT
88-3 - EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Not considered because no action taken on Item 4.
OTHER BUSINESS - None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Krempl indicated that
- selection of a Planning Commission representative for the Otay Ranch
Interjurisdictional Task Force would be docketed:
the letter from the Planning Commission regarding stipends is part of the
supplemental budget packet for Council consideration.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Cannon noted that a Planning Commission representative for
the Growth Management Oversight Committee {GMOC) would be needed soon as
his term of representation is through.
Commissioner Fuller expressed her disappointment over the "ugly" noise
wall being constructed on "L" Street.
Planning Commission -6- June 14, 1989
Commissioner Casillas requested further discussion of the City
responsibility regarding walls, TV antennas and CC&Rs/Municipal Code.
- Commissioner Tugenberg asked when the visit to Rancho del Rey will be
rescheduled because of the Special Meeting being held on the 21st.
ADJOURNMENT AT 8:12 p.m. to the Special Meeting of June 21, 1989 at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers.
j~PvF~th M. Smith, Secretaryj
Planning Commission
WPC 6705P