HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/05/24 Tape: 299
Side: 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, May 24, 1989 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Cannon, Casillas,
Fuller, Shipe and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Grasser with notification
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Associate Planner
Griffin, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid,
Assistant Planner Reid, General Plan Consultant
Gray, Associate Civil Engineer Thomas, Deputy
City Attorney Fritsch
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.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
1. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV-89-30M PROPOSAL TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING
USE UNDER THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN AND
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 15 FEET IN ORDER TO
CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY ADDITION AT 379 ZENITH
STREET - MANUEL L. LOPEZ
Associate Planner Griffin requested that the item be tabled since the matter
no longer requires action by the Planning Commission.
MSUC ICannon/Fuller) 6-0, to table Item ZAV-89-30M.
Planning Commission -2- May 24, 1989
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-20 AND PCS-89-8 CONSIDERATION OF A
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AND TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP 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 (cont'd)
Commissioner Cannon said that he had a potential conflict of interest on this
item and would therefore abstain from voting.
Associate Planner Griffin stated that the interface issues with an adjoining
property owner have not been resolved as yet and that the applicant is
requesting an additional 3-week continuance which staff supports.
MSC (Fuller/Casillas) 5-0, Cannon abstained, to continue Items PCM-89-20 and
PCS-89-8 to the meeting of June 14, 1989
3. CONSIDERATION OF EXTENSION OF P-79-013 AND PCC-86-34M - A REQUEST FOR A
1-YEAR EXTENSION TO OPERATE AN AUTO RECYCLING YARD AT 3513 AND 3517 MAIN
STREET - CAROLE AND JOHN MARQUEZ
Assistant Planner Reid requested a 2-weeks continuance of this item as a
result of some information made available to the Planning Department today.
MS ITugenberg/Cannon) to continue the item for 2 weeks to the meeting of
June 6, 1989.
Chairman Carson pointed out that continuation for a 2-week period would be to
June 6 which was not a normal meeting day.
Amended Motion
Commissioners Tugenberg and Cannon stating agreement, the motion was amended
to continue consideration of the item to the meeting of June 14, 1989, and was
unanimously approved (6-0).
4. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-89-25 - APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DENYING A HEIGHT
VARIANCE FOR A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT 1303
PRESTON PLACE - LEE DAVIS
Associate Planner Griffin stated the request is to retain an existing
satellite dish antenna, located at the southeast corner of Preston Place and
Palomar Street, at 17-1/2 feet rather than lower it to 12 feet high as
required by City Standards. The Zoning Administrator had initially denied the
request since measurements indicated that the dish could be re-established at
a 12-foot height with no loss of reception at two alternative locations on the
property. The appeal is based on the fact that the antenna was constructed
~-- Planning Commission -3- May 24, 1989
legally under County jurisdiction, its relocation would require removal of a
large, old orange tree, and no objections have been registered by the
neighbors. Staff's response was that although the dish was established
legally under County jurisdiction, City Council had established a 3-year
abatement period for all legal non-conforming dishes and had then extended the
period to a total of 6 years. The removal of the tree or the relocation to
the approximate center of the yard was an adverse physical and visual impact
which should be borne by the property owner and not by adjoining properties or
those on public rights-of-way.
The Montgomery Planning Committed approved the appeal on May 3, 1989 by a vote
of 6-1. Their findings were based on the fact that the relocation would not
materially lessen the visual impact as there were several other dishes in the
areas at least as obtrusive as this one; removal of the tree would actually
increase its visibility to the neighboring property to the south; and that the
dish is essentially and adequately screed by the two-story apartment building
located to the east and the dwelling itself. Mr. Griffin reminded the
Commission that overriding a recommendation of the Montgomery Planning
Committee would require five votes of the Planning Commission.
In reply to Commissioner Carson's inquiry, Mr. Griffin said the locations had
not been itemized but the implications were that they were in the immediate
neighborhood. Both Commissioners Carson and Tugenberg indicated curiosity as
to where the Montgomery Planning Committee developed their findings.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Lee Davis, 1303 Preston Place, CV, stated that if the Commissioners would
drive east on Palomar quite a number of satellite dishes could be viewed
within a three-block area; none are located to the west or north, but there
are a couple to the south. He added that driving around the City of Chula
Vista would reveal a considerable number of satellite dishes more obtrusively
placed than his. He noted that his is the only one in the City which is a
solid, stainless steel dish. The dish is on a 6-foot solid, black steel
platform, lO feet in the ground, and set in concrete for safety. To relocate
it to the City's indicated location would necessitate putting a hole in his
patio and since the dish has to be on a stand, it would be only 2-feet less
than its present height.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cannon said he normally would agree with the Montgomery Planning
Committee but since the problem is City-wide, to piece-meal new variances
throughout the City would undercut the overall abatement plan.
MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) 6-0, to deny the appeal.
Planning Commission -4- May 24, 1989
5. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-86-4
EASTLAKE GREENS
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that the project involved a
1,200- acre site located south of Otay Lakes Road just to the east of the
future SR 125 right-of-way and is comprised of two SPA Areas: EastLake Greens
of about 130 acres, and EastLake Trails with about 398 acres. The entire
EastLake Area is under a Master EIR prepared a number of years ago in which
the Alternatives for the entire project as well as the cumulative impacts of
the project and other projects in the vicinity were discussed. Where
appropriate, the data in this Supplemental EIR has been updated in the areas
of traffic, sewage flow, schools and other issues. There is a need, however,
for some further updating specifically in the area of schools and addition of
a Section on Thresholds. Mr. Reid noted that letters have been received from
E1 Rancho del Rey Partnership, the Baldwin Company, the Otay Water District
and EastLake Development Company since transmittal of the staff report. He
then introduced Jeanne Munoz from ERC to describe the impact of the project.
Jeanne Munoz, ERC {formerly Westec Services), 5510 Morehouse Dr., San Diego,
reported that the issues of land use, transportation and circulation, services
and utilities, visual resources, geology, soils, hydrology, water quality,
paleontology, air quality, biological resources, socio-economic factors, i.e.,
population, housing and employment, fiscal analysis and noise had been
examined in the EIR. Cultural resources were not examined because none were
identified on this particular site according to the 1982 Report.
Ms. Munoz reported that the resources most difficult to mitigate were:
Utilities where most effects can be mitigated, but where, according to the
Otay Water District, there is a potential problem with water supply and a
possibility that the number of units in the Eastern Territories will be
limited by the capacity of Pipeline #3.
Sewer Service presents a potential problem and more detailed information is
needed particularly on peak flow.
Air quality is further complicated by the fact that a portion of the project
was not included in the SANDAG V and VI forecast. The EIR will be updated but
it is possible that findings will show a significant cumulative effect on air
quality even with the implementation of the mitigation measures proposed.
Bob Sergeant, Willdan Associates, 6363 Greenwich Dr., Ste 250, San Diego, said
they had prepared the Traffic Analysis for the project and also the
Transportation Phasing Plan for the Eastern Territories which is part of the
mitigation measures for transportation and will be appended and made a part of
the Facilities Financing Plan for this project. This project will generate
approximately 64,000 daily trips spread out over a number of years. The
impacts of this one project could not be isolated because of the numerous
other projects proposed for the vicinity. The Eastern Territories
Transportation Phasing Plan has been developed to indicate how all projects
Planning Commission -5- May 24, 1989
cumulatively will affect the transportation system and to develop ways to
address the problem. It identifies the street improvements necessary with
various levels of development; is not time specific but estimates in a
geographic relationship how the Eastern Territories will build out so that the
street system can be constructed to levels to maintain the growth management
standards (LOS "C"). If all development in the Eastern Territories goes as
assumed, the beginning portions of the EastLake II Project will be able to
develop with improvements to Telegraph Canyon Road. The final phases of the
project, however, can not be completed until SR 125 or a 4-lane freeway type
facility is constructed between the South Bay Parkway and Telegraph Canyon
Road. Mr. Sergeant noted that the Plan will be reviewed and updated annually
and no adverse transportation impacts offsite to the project are expected.
Commissioner Cannon questioned the difference between the traffic figure at
"H" Street and 1-805 indicated by the Rancho del Rey Supplemental EIR for SPA
II as 51,800 cars and the figure of 38,600 shown in Table 4.3 of the EastLake
Greens EIR. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid replied that the figures in
Table 4.3 were 1988 volumes and those of the ERDR SPA II Supplemental EIR were
based on traffic volumes taken in January or February, 1989 and demonstrated
the volume increase in a one-year period. The ERDR figures indicate a volume
of 56,500 adjacent to the freeway in 1988. As far as the threshold volume of
56,500 is concerned, the point of that reading is to be just east of Ridgeback
Road on East "J" Street. Commissioner Cannon commented that the location
should be shown to avoid confusion.
Commissioner Cannon then referenced the volume on Bonita Road and 1-805 which
is currently lower than the threshold standards; noting that the small,
incremental increases caused by the project will eventually exceed the
threshold standards. He asked how the threshold standards should be applied
when the incremental increases were so small. Coordinator Reid said that
because of the cumulative effect, the Growth Management Oversight Committee
{GMOC) should recommend a moratorium in that area. Director Krempl
interjected that this raised an issue that the GMOC, Council and Planning
Commission would need to consider. Commissioner Cannon added that the GMOC
should take action soon as putting off any decisions on the letter of concern
might jeopardize GMOC's ability to react.
A discussion was held about Pipeline #3, the storage of water for the Otay
Water District by the Metropolitan Water District and the placement of a new
on-site reservoir. Commissioner Tugenberg suggested that attention should be
given to mitigating the visual impact of such an on-site storage tank.
Commissioner Shipe asked how much of a cumulative impact on air quality would
be caused by the project based on the statement that "the development would
still represent growth that was not considered in SANDAG'$ Series V and VI
Growth Forecast". Staff expressed belief (based on similar experience in the
past) that when the figures were incorporated into the SANDAG projections
there would be no significant impact.
Planning Commission -6- May 24, 1989
Commissioner Fuller asked if the letter from the Otay Water District should be
considered as a letter of warning that there is a possibility that growth
might need to be limited because of the possibility of water shortage? The
reply was affirmative.
Commissioner Carson asked when the studies would be completed on the specific
impact of EastLake Trails on the availability of services and utilities.
Staff replied they would be done prior to consideration of the SPA for the
area.
This being the time and the place as advertised the public hearing was opened.
Jim Stevens, 804 Willowbrook Court, 92013, representing the Chula Vista
Resource Conservation Commission presented the resolution resulting from the
unanimous motion made by the RCC as follows:
"Based on the Commission's independent understanding of the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act and because of the lapse of
time between the preparation of the EastLake Master EIR and the EastLake
Greens Draft Supplemental EIR, and in light of the changes which have
taken place in the region in the interim, the Resource Conservation
Commission is of the opinion that the EastLake Greens Supplemental Draft
EIR is inadequate in the following respects:
The document fails to give adequate consideration to the project's
cumulative impact on {1) transportation and circulation; (2) sewer
services; (3) refuse disposal and {4) water availability. Additionally,
the document fails to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the
project that could feasibly attain the project objectives and fails to
evaluate comparative merits of each alternatl e.
When asked for more specific information to clarify the reason for the RCC's
resolution, Mr. Stevens spoke of the concern regarding the lapse of time
between the Master EIR and the Supplemental EIR; the fact that the
Supplemental EIR incorporated a number of assumptions made when the Master EIR
was drafted and the fact that many changes have taken place in the region
since that time. Of particular concern is the Otay Ranch Development and the
cumulative impact of that project in connection with the EastLake Greens
Project will have. The EIR is to provide as much information as possible to
the decision-making body and it is the opinion of the RCC that the
Supplemental Draft EIR is inadequate in that regard.
In reply to questions from the Commission, Mr. Reid replied that the area of
the then United Enterprises Project that was designated for development on the
General Plan was worked into the forecast of the cumulative impact; that,
however, did not include the entire property. He indicated that over half the
area within the City's planning area was designated for future urban or
agricultural uses.
Planning Commission -7- May 24, 1989
Director Krempl said that in terms of environmental documents, the Adopted
General Plan is taken as far as the other projects in the planning area,
associated with the proposed project and a cumulative impact developed. The
Baldwin Company, at the present time, has no formal idea as to what they want
to do on the property.
Commissioner Tugenberg spoke his appreciation of receiving input from the
Resource Conservation Commission and encouraged its repetition.
Commissioner Cannon said that the input submitted by the RCC would be
addressed in the Final EIR which was an excellent reason for the RCC to voice
its concerns about environmental documents and place those concerns on the
record.
James Harter, Vice President and Project Manager of the Baldwin Company, 11975
E1 Camino Real, San Diego, 92130, said he had submitted a letter addressing
the sewer issue that afternoon and would like to address the traffic issue.
He said that Table 4-10, on page 4-51, excluded the Salt Creek Project in the
list of contributing projects to the Telegraph Canyon Road trunk sewer and it
is their belief that the Telegraph Canyon sewer trunk line will be filled to
capacity sooner than anticipated. He expressed the hope that all of the units
using that trunk sewer temporarily will contribute to the final solution of
the Salt Creek trunk line sewer which does not exist today.
Mr. Harter spoke of the Transportation Phasing Plan for the Eastern Chula
Vista Area mentioned in the EIR and the eagerness of his company and other
property owners for its completion. Since no opportunity has been given to
review the Phasing Plan, the mitigation measures proposed are unknown. He
requested that the EIR Consultant indicate the participation of all the units
within that project in the ultimate construction of SR-126 as well as what
happens if that Phasing Plan isn't adopted since that is the mitigation item
for traffic for this project.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) 6-0, to continue this item to June 14, 1989.
Assistant Planner Reid stated that the proposed Palomar Trolley Center
consisted of 12.23 acres on the south side of Palomar Street, east of
Industrial Boulevard and west of Broadway, immediately adjacent to the Palomar
Trolley Station in the Montgomery Community. The actual plan shows four
restaurants, a drug store, five shops and an anchor tenant and a bank. The
development is a proposed community shopping center and requires an amendment
to the Montgomery Specific Plan designation of research and limited industrial
to a designation of mercantile and office commercial. The rezone from M-52
which is the County's limited impact industrial to C-N, Neighborhood
Commercial. The EIR analyzes the environmental consequences of the adoption
of the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan. It focuses on three main
issues - traffic, circulation, socio-economic impacts and the maintenance of
Planning Commission -8- May 24, 1989
adopted threshold standards. The Environmental Consultant is responsible for
the preparation of the project, Phil Henshaw. Ms. Reid will review the
findings from the EIR and he will discuss the suggested mitigation measures.
In transportation access, the proposed Trolley Center will add 6,250 newly
generated ADTs to the surrounding street system. Presently, the street
segments in the project vicinity currently operate at acceptable levels of
service.
Charles Gill, 600 "B" Street, Ste 1100, San Diego, 92101, representing Pacific
Scene, expressed appreciation for Mr. Henshaw's preparation of the EIR. He
expressed concern, however, that the assumption made in the EIR (that coverage
of the industrial development would be approximately 25 percent) was
unrealistic for preparing traffic generation of an industrial development on
the site versus the commercial development being proposed; and (2) with the
traffic generation figures of 8/1,000 square feet of industrial being used.
He requested the EIR recognize that the traffic generated by the site (if
developed with its current designation of light-industrial with the current
zoning) would result in higher figures than currently shown in the EIR. In
response to Commissioner Cannon's inquiry of his estimate of the ADT if the
project were built out with the current zoning, Mr. Gill replied 2,556 trips.
Jim Moore, 1042 Hilltop Drive, CV, 92011, spoke on behalf of the Johovan's
Witnesses who have a Kingdom Hall at 1362 Broadway. He spoke on the storm
drain water in the area expressing the hope that the City in conjunction with
Pacific Scene would make some arrangement for stopping the mosquito
infestation and standing of water after every sizable rain.
Bob Fox, 1466 Lilac Ave., CV 92011, speaking on behalf of the Resource
Conservation Commission recommended certification of the EIR and a
modification to the reduced plan alternative (the elimination of the four
restaurants and the financial institution) that the financial institution not
be coupled with the four restaurants.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) 7-0, to continue this item until the project is returned
for consideration.
OTHER BUSINESS: None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None
COMMISSION COMMENTS.
Commissioner Cannon said he had received a notification from the Mayor's
Office that his 1-year term as the Planning Commission representative on the
Growth Management Oversight Committee will be completed as of June 30, 1989.
He asked that he might remain as the Commission's representative until
completion of the First Annual Report which is in its final stages.
Planning Commission -9- May 24, 1989
Chairman Carson said she had just received a note from Ms. Reid that
consideration of the Final EIR for the Palomar Trolley Center would be on
June 14, 1989.
Chairman Carson also reminded the Commission that tomorrow at 4:00 p.m., in
the City Council Conference Room, there will be a meeting on the Bayfront
Planning Issue and some of the Commissioner might, like to attend. She will be
unable to attend because of a conflict. Commissioner Fuller noted that there
had been comments in the Star New Editorial about the Bayfront Development and
the Commission's comments had been quoted and/or referenced.
ADJOURNMENT AT 8:25 p.m. to the Special Meeting of May 31, 1989 on the General
Plan at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
~.~h M. Smith, Secret~l~ry
Planning Commission
WPC 6660P