Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/03/22 Tape: 297 Side 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chamber Wednesday, March 22, 1989 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson; Commissioners Cannon, Casillas, Fuller and Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Grasser and Tugenberg STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Associate Planner Griffin, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust and Deputy City Attorney Fritsch PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SILENT PRAYER The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was lead by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Fuller/Cannon) to approve the Minutes of the Meeting of March 8, 1989. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Carson remarked on the membership of the Planning Commission, the schedule of meetings, the items considered by the Commission, the attendance at the meetings by department staff, and the format. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-34; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 24-HOUR CONVENIENCE STORE WITH SELF-SERVE GAS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HILLTOP DRIVE AND NAPLES STREET THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION ~-- Planning Commission - 2 - March 22, 1989 Associate Planner Griffin reported the Conditional Use Permit was approved last year for a 2500' convenience store plus 17 off-street parking spaces and a self serve gas island. The process was delayed because of the previous owners obligation to decontaminate the soil. The work has been completed and the building permit will be issued in the near future. It is recommended a one-year extension be approved. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) to approve a one year extension of PCC-88-34. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-89-42; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT THREE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE HILLSIDE MODIFYING DISTRICT AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF EAST "J" STREET AND THE 1-805 FREEWAY - George Cunradi Associate Planner Griffin displayed the location on a visual and reported the project totals 1.62 acres which is part of undeveloped canyon area. Single family homes surround the project with 1-805 to the east. It was reported that the property has been the subject of several rezoning actions; the hillside district applied in 1976 and the parcel map approved in 1977. It was suggested the Commission determine if this development project meets the Precise Plan Guidelines as well as finding whether it meets the provisions of the District and design criteria for hillside terrain. In answer to Commissioner Cannon's questions, it was confirmed the owner has decided t~ ~o forward only on the subject three lots of his property and J Street is not proposed to be widened. Commissioner Cannon referred to the last paragraph of. page 4 of the Addendum of EIR 75-4 which reports "any increase in students is a significant impact" and the responsibility for payment by the developer since the project is not within a Mello-Roos District. Deputy City Attorney Fritsch reported the legislation which allows $1.53 per square foot and which overrides that part of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on which cities normally rely. If the subject is a rezoning it could be denied but denial can not be made for this reason on a development project. Commissioner Cannon stated his concern with approval of the EIR in this case because there are no overriding factors and the finding is significant. Attorney Fritsch reminded there is not enough case history on which to base an opinion nor is this particular case broad enough to question, but a clarification could be requested. Commissioner Casillas pointed out this issue is a matter of principle since the possibility exists for an enhanced number of students; it would be advisable to ask the Attorney General for clarification of the legislation at this time. Planning Commission 3 March 22, 1989 MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) to direct the City Attorney obtain an Attorney General's opinion as to which rules: the Government Code Section dictating that developers are required to pay $1.53 per square foot to provide for schools, or whether or not the Environmental Quality Act overrides the Government Code when there is a significant impact on schools due to developments. Attorney Fritsch reminded the Commissioners that a possibility exists an opinion would not be given since case law is scarce; the Attorney General's opinion is just that and not necessarily binding. This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened. Rod McPherson, 10680 Porto Court, San Diego, 92124, Managing Partner for Chula Vista 3 Venture, to which the owner has transferred his ownership of the three lots, stated that it is his understanding Mr. Cunradi has no plans for the remaining acreage. The Hillcrest Elementary School has zone transfers into the school and, hence, room exists. The Venture Partnership has tried to minimize loss of views and has kept the two homes single story for this reason; the third is a two story home. The owners have met many of the neighbors to answer questions. Len Hummelman, 348 East "J" Street, reminded that several children most likely will be in these homes because of the multi-bedrooms which exist; another open space area of the City will be lost with this development; a history of the acreage in question was reported with his concerns for the future to fill the entire canyon with future development; and read criteria of Ordinance 2013 which lists guidelines he feels are not being complied with to assure protection of views and traffic safeguards. William Dunn, 374 East "J" Street across from the development, spoke also for his neighbors and reported his concerns with the loss of view and the trees and plants that are being proposed. Rick Bockelman, 677 Mission Court on the canyon rim above the proposed project, stated his concern that "stilt" construction is not being proposed for these homes. He is also concerned about the proposed egress out of the canyon and the open space that was designated for future paleontological research. Susan Head, 358 East "J" Street, also reported the history of this project and pointed out statistically that, for the owner's donation of one acre of "worthless land," the City has allowed three houses at this time with the ability to later build more. Ms. Head suggested Council condition the proposed project to state five houses be limited to this area. -- Planning Commission 4 - March 22, 1989 Jackie McQuade, 339 East "j" Street, summarized her concerns that she is not totally opposed to the project but the Environmental Impact Report is incomplete on ten major points, three houses on 3/5 of an acre is falsely construed to put more on the adjacent acreage, and the destruction of the view of East "J" Street designated as a "Scenic Route". (Mrs. McQuade illustrated with slides and asked that her typed presentation be included in the record.) Kathleen Dunn, 374 East "J" Street, questioned the parking on East "J" Street which is "quite busy", recognized that the owner should be allowed to develop his property but requested the project brought down to not obstruct the view. There being no others to speak either for or against this issue the public hearing was closed. ' Commission Cannon stated his concerns relative to the required 25' setback and the preservation of views as stated in Ordinance 2013 and the possibility a rezone would occur. Principal Planner Lee reminded that when the ordinance was addressed the standards were based on the 6+ acres and the project to the west; Council was not looking at the right of way for this property. His concerns relative to the unit which projects above street level was discussed; the project will be reviewed by Design Review and submitted to Council for approval. Attorney Fritsch offered that what is gained by the elevation is saving the degradation of the slope which was a concern to Council and, consistent with the owner's right to develop, it is the best staff could do. His final concern was with the Ordinance passed in 1982 which certified an EIR of 1975 and that there is nothing in the update certifying the specific issue of the 25' setback, although when the zoning was changed in 1982 certain guidelines were inserted for development; certification at this time of EIR-75-4 would be contrary to the guidelines set by Council. Commissioner Fuller referred to the issues raised of the traffic on East "J" and the egress from the development is a valid concern with the problem on the egress point on to East "J" street which does allow parking on both sides. Planner Griffin confirmed the intent of the developer to provide a level area on the driveway to avoid an egress problem. She also questioned why the one home is proposed to be set at a higher elevation; the reason given was to assure that section of driveway does not have to be excessively steep. Another question centered on the "stilt" design which is one way to offer the least intrusion into a hillside area; not radical, one of the suggested techniques; the subject proposed dwellin§s are split level. It was confirmed that conditions cannot now be placed on total dwellings within the canyon since it is a separate parcel; the calculations reveal the slope would allow two units under the existing zoning on the adjoining 4.66 acre. Commissioner Fuller stated her belief that the project as Planning Commission 5 March 22, 1989 proposed will conform to the Hillside Modifier, but she agreed with the problem of certifying the EIR and Addendum as discussed. Further, she addressed the advisability of preservation of the canyon below the project. Commissioner Casillas pointed out that paragraph 1 of Ordinance 2013 speaks to the preservation of the view and it is his feeling that Council intended "no obstruction of the view" and he could not support unless the view was maintained. Commissioner Cannon complimented the developer on the proposed plans and addressed the fact that no one has a right to someone else's property for light, air and open space. He stated if Council did guarantee to the residents of the area no abrogation of the view, the EIR will have to address those sections and, then, a blockage could be addressed; other concerns are the subject of the 25' setback required and the need for discussion of the amended EIR where it addresses significant impact on schools. MSUC (Cannon/Casillas) to not certify EIR-75-4 with Addendum. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) to continue the subject to a date uncertain as advertised by staff in the future. 3. PUBLIC HEARING PCA-89-1 CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONES - City initiated Principal Planner Lee reported the last Annual Report to Council of the Design Review Committee, contained a number of concerns in development procedures relating to the design review process. Council asked for a report and hearings will be set to consider amendments, many of which areas will require more study. Five changes to the Code are recommended for approval: 1. A time limit is proposed for Design Review actions on variances and conditional use permits. 2. Transfer of open space the present requirement for 5' side yards and a 15' rear yard is often not in the best location for the project; it is recommended the Committee have the discretion to allow the building to be located nearer the rear property line to better utilize the open space in the project. 3. Present standards are set for 45' and 3 1/2 stories allowed in the R-3; it is proposed to allow a maximum of 28' and 2 1/2 stories, with the Design Review Committee having the ability to increase to the 3 1/2 stories if the developer could show good design sense. - Planning Commission 6 March 22, 1989 4. The Design Review now meets twice monthly and there is a need to streamline the process and allow the Zoning Administrator to approve a limited number of projects, such as certain signs, buildings on a limited basis, residential additions of two units or less, all of which are appealable. 5. A reduction in sign area is already occurring. In consideration by Design Review, the Committee may alter the design of the sign and this change solidifies the action into ordinance form. Answering Commissioner Cannon's question, Planner Lee reported the general sign regulations are City wide and because the City develops specific standards for the Precise Zone areas, the underlying regulations apply. MSUC (Shipe/Cannon) that, based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-59. MSUC (Shipe/Cannon) to recommend that the City Council enact the amendments contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. OTHER BUSINESS BAYFRONT DISCUSSIONS Director of Planning Krempl reported the conceptual plans for the Bayfront Development and proposals; a copy of the Midbayfront Planning Program, a discussion outline of planning issues and comparative information with this proposal the adopted Local Coastal Plan have been provided to the Commission. The time line is such that, before anything can be adopted, the LDC will be coming to the Commission for formal action. The Agency will be holding a Meeting on Tuesday, April 6, at 7:00 p.m. Minute action or transcribed minutes can be provided to the Agency or a Commissioner may desire to attend. Commissioner Fuller reported that Councilwoman McCandliss indicated there would be a Joint Meeting of Council with the Planning Commission at a subsequent date. At 8:39 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed and reconvened at 8:43 p.m. Commissioner Fuller: The goals of the Chula Vista Bayfront are not addressed in this project. As an example, the following are noted: 1. Coastal access/identification. No strong access connection or inter-relationship exists between this project and the Nature Interpretive Center. The Nature Interpretive Center is Planning Commission 7 March 22, 1989 referenced only in passing. In addition, there is a lack of adequate identification with the adjacent National Wildlife Refuge. It's simply not recognized as a part of this project. The identification and signage and entry to the bayfront should make note and interrelate the project with both of those entities. 2. Visual access. Visual access has also been inadequately addressed between the project and the adjacent wetlands and wildlife refuge area. A minimal buffer has been provided. Everything west of Marina Parkway should be considered as open space. Then an appropriate transition and buffer would exist. 3. I question the use of potable water in the proposed lagoon. Water is a scarce resource and an extravagance for this project when we face water shortages elsewhere. Reclaimed water should be utilized. Commissioner Cannon: Philosophically the concept of high-rise goes against the grain. I feel that the present planned proposal does not address sufficiently the usage for people who are currently here. Council should look at the Bayfront as the only and last area that Chula Vista residents can use for recreational purposes. This project shuts that off and solely addresses tourists' needs for the community. I'm not sure that means a total preclusion of high-rise but a substantial reduction in development intensity so that people will be attracted to it. What are some of the examples which support this concern? They are as follows: 1. As one moves down "F" Street toward the development, buildings block views of the bay, not high-rise buildings, but lower-rise, four, six, and eight-story buildings. 2. Fifteen-story structures are not conducive for residential. View corridors are blocked by combination of those structures and the smaller buildings. The plan doesn't address the recreational needs of the Chula Vista population. 3. I like the center section of the plan (should be mandatory that reclaimed water be utilized). 4. It is difficult to address the question of height. Is it bad? Simply have as a basis of comparison what's in the area. Some of the ugliest structures are the towers on Coronado Shores. It's not the structures themselves, but the structures in their location where nothing around it approaches that height. Would this do the same thing? I don't know. I think 26 stories is excessive. However, I am not adverse to the concept of some high-rise. Planning Commission - 8 - March 22, 1989 5. Overall, let's use the core for the convention center, the hotel, and the retail uses. That's not bad. That's a good idea. However, let's scale down the exterior toward the Bayfront for the residents of Chula Vista. Overall maybe this project is too big and an area of compromise is needed for something in between. Commissioner Shipe: I agree with the comments by Commissioner Cannon. I support the overall concept. There has to be some way for people of Chula Vista though to enjoy the Bayfront and feel like they belong in that area and are not being chased out. Commissioner Casillas: The public park area doesn't set out the parking areas. The area of the parks including parking may not be sufficient. What is the length of the western part of the lagoon? I don't know, but it appears that area is completely withdrawn from use from the public. I would also ask whether this plan has presented and received adequate review by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, and whether or not they would support this concept. The applicant responded that the plan had been presented to various environmental groups and that in some cases they had conflicting interests and that numerous changes had been incorporated into the plan as a result of that discussion. Commissioner Carson: Overall, the concept is awesome, overpowering. I immediately fell in love with the concept of the lagoon. Some of the density needs to be reduced in the height of buildings. I agree with the comments made by Commissioner Cannon. I am concerned about public use. We want a place where all the families in Chula Vista are comfortable in going and using as well as bringing guests to. Commissioner Fuller: As a final comment, a lot of access integration is needed, especially at the end of "E" Street. Matt Peterson, Peterson & Price, representative of Chula Vista Investors, expressed his thanks for commenting on the project and requested a copy of the Minutes or list of comments. An analysis of the Midbayfront Program is available in the City's Planning Department, a City Council Subcommittee Meeting will occur on March 23 at 5:30 p.m. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planner Griffin reported the Eucalyptus trees on Otay Lakes Road had been examined and stated to be "third generation stump growth," which is dangerous and not aesthetic. It is planned to remove and replace them. Commissioner Cannon suggested there Planning Commission 9 March 22, 1989 should be a program for "older trees" within the City of Chula Vista; and Planner Lee stated it is the City's goal to preserve trees but agreed a more formal ordinance might be adopted. Associate Planner Griffin, relative to the monitoring of low and moderate income units, the Housing Coordinator related monthly reports are received on the status, family size income and vacancies; the reports can be audited if questioned. He also answered Commissioner Casillas' question of set-aside housing at the Eucalyptus Grove development; the units are 100% occupied with only an occasional turnover. COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT AT 9:21 p.m., to the Regular Business Meeting of April 12, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Fortune, CMC ~DEPUTY CITY CLERK