Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/12/14 Tape: 295 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, December 14, 1988 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, Principal Planner Lee, Associate Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Bazzel, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust and 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Fuller/Casillas) to approve the minutes of November 9, 1988 as mailed. Commissioner Shipe abstained because of absence from the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO TITLES 17 AND 29 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO OFF-SITE ADVERTISING SIGNS Associate Planner Bazzel informed the Commission that the applicant had received a late notice of the hearing because it had been mailed to a previous address. A continuance of the item until the meeting of January ll, 1989, was requested to permit staff to answer issues raised in a letter submitted by the applicant to the Commission at the start of the meeting. MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) 6-0, to continue the item to January ll, 1988. Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 14, 1988 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-89-8M REQUEST TO APPEAL THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF A MINOR USE PERMIT TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A DETACHED GARAGE FROM 12 FEET TO 23 FEET - CORA COOK Principal Planner Lee stated that the applicant had a lot located on the west side of Twin Oaks Avenue. The zoning on all sides is RV-15, residential, one and two family dwellings. Permits were issued to construct a two-car garage for accessory residential parking and to convert an accessory structure within the rear yard to a second dwelling unit. It was discovered that the 12-foot height limitation allowed by the Montgomery zoning regulations had been exceeded and that the garage was 23-feet high. The ordinance under the administrative process authorized the Zoning Administrator or Commission to approve or deny an increase in height. Planner Lee showed slides of the garage under construction and indicated that the 23-foot height was out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. The Montgomery Planning Committee at the meeting of December 7, 1988 voted 6-1 to deny this application and a 5/7 vote of the Planning Commission would be necessary to override the vote. ~r. Lee continued that the applicant had indicated on the application that part of the reason for the requested height would be for storage. Staff, however, is of the opinion that additional buildings can be added to accomplish that. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Lee indicated that the Floor Area Ratio Ordinance did not apply. Concern was expressed by the Commission regarding the allowability of the Sinor's Upholstery Shop next door and the height of the building to the south. Mr. Lee said the matters would be researched and a report returned. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bruce Cook, 1130 Twin Oaks Avenue, Chula Vista, noted that they had made changes to the plans to permit entry of the fire truck; the building next door was the same height; he was not operating an automotive repair facility at the location; the extra size was to provide storage for his grandmother's possessions; although the height is excessive, the building is constructed, is sturdy, has cost him a considerable amount of money and he requested permission to retain the height. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Commission asked how the structure had been permitted to reach this stage of development and if all steps of the plan process had been approved. Principal Planner Lee replied that when the building inspector came to review the process, the building was red-tagged and that the plans submitted by the applicant had referenced the height limitation. MSUC (Shipe/Cannon) 6-0, that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to uphold the decisions of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal. Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 14, 1988 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-3 CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR LADERA VILLAS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 89-3 - LADERA VILLAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Associate Planner Griffin said that the applicant had resubmitted a tentative subdivision map known as Ladera Villas, in order to subdivide 10 acres at the easterly terminus of Paseo Entrada in the P-C Planned Community zone into 29 single-family lots. Earlier, the Commission had denied a 46-1ot -- and the Council an amended 41-lot -- single-family subdivision for the same property. The property is bounded by single-family dwellings to the west, and vacant lands to the north, east and south. It is designated on the ERDR Specific Plan for residential development at 6-8 dwellings units per acre (du/ac). The site is steep and contains a canyon and a knoll. Of the 29 single-family lots, 24 are 7,000 square feet or greater and five lots are between 6,000-6,500 square feet. A 1.75 acre open space lot is proposed along the southerly boundary to supplement the Telegraph Canyon Road open space corridor. The present map is a standard lot development which meets the standards of the R-1 zone. Mr. Griffin compared the previous subdivision application with the present one noting that the present map is a standard lot development which meets the standards of the R-1 zoning instead of the previous small-lot development without common facilities or usable open space, a product type or development package. Mr. Griffin discussed the issues which contributed to the denial of the prior map and their addressment on the resubmittal. a) The present map is a standard lot development meeting the standards of the R-1 zoning, b) The open space provisions and poor interface with the open space corridor in the previous map have been replaced in the new map with an increase in size of the open space and grading contained on the site and the interface has been contoured somewhat. c) This map does not propose the connection of Paseo Entrada with future Paseo Ranchero but will take access only from Paseo Entrada. Construction traffic will be required to use a temporary access to Telegraph Canyon Road to divert construction traffic from the existing neighborhood to the west. d) Also irlcluded is a recommended condition which would have the slopes adjacent to Paseo Ranchero included within a open space maintenance district. This would reduce six of the lots to below 6,000 square feet. e) Suggested also is a reduction in the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet and a FAR exemption for open patio covers for lots of less than 6,000 sq. ft. abutting public open space. Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 14, 1988 f) The total amount of grading has been reduced substantially and concentrated more on the northerly portion of the property. This allows all grading to be contained on-site and a broader and more contoured expansion of the corridor. The Environmental Impact Report, EIR-81-1, utilized with the prior submittal (1980) has been reviewed and resubmitted. The project would result in significant land form alteration and aesthetic impact adjacent to a scenic corridor and the Commission must therefore certify EIR-81-1, and adopt CEQA findings regarding the significant impacts and adopt a statement of Overriding Consideration in order to approve the project. Staff recommends approval based on the findings and subject to the conditions. A written copy of suggested modifications to the conditions was given to the Commission prior to the meeting. The Commission discussed the following: 1. Questions were raised about the circulation pattern since Paseo Entrada has been eliminated as a through street and access cannot be made through Paseo Ranchero. Staff replied that engineering analysis has shown that a safe intersection cannot be made because of the grade and therefore Paseo Entrada has been eliminated as a through street. Also, the extension of "J" Street through the Bennett property will be necessary when McMillin Development comes in for subsequent SPA plans. With regard to Paseo Ranchero, the Ladera Villas Subdivision is being required to prepare a plan for sharing the road construction costs with other developers. It was brought out that during a previous subdivision consideration, residents had expressed great concern about construction traffic from Mission Verde passing through the subdivision, so a temporary access on "J" Street was provided for construction traffic. In this case, the temporary access will be to Telegraph Canyon Road. 2. In reply to Commissioner Cannon's inquiry regarding the effect of the Hillside Ordinance, staff replied that grading was considered on the overall E1 Rancho del Rey Plan and, therefore, this subdivision was not affected. When Council had established the land use and density to the north, it was considered that the open space would provide visual relief. It was pointed out that the proposed grading on the westerly slopes and boundary would be 2:1 and on the south would be more contoured and blended with the terrain. The Commissioner then inquired why a large lot development had not been considered? Then the hillside and open space (to a certain extent) would have been retained and the scenic highway designation would have remained intact with real hillsides rather than graded 2:1 slopes. Mr. Griffin pointed out the modest size of the property; that the area was not the best site for a custom or estate home product because of the access and the primary visual element along Telegraph Canyon Road -- the open space corridor -- would be contoured and consistent with past efforts. He Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 14, 1988 noted that as part of ERDR, the area is designated in the General Plan as 6-8 units and that the proposed project provides a 2.9 unit per gross acre product with contoured grading and a good interface with the Telegraph Canyon Road Corridor. Commissioner Cannon then asked why an addendum had not been prepared on the EIR since EPDR has changed significantly in lO years when EastLake was not even on the boards? Also, had EastLake been taken into account when the environmental report was prepared? Mr. Griffin replied that some of the impacts on the original and proposed project were equally significant and doubtless the Environmental Review Coordinator had considered the relationship and mitigation measures needed. Regarding the 26 percent slope grade on the property, Commissioner Cannon asked if a decision had not been made in the past not to build on slopes over 25 percent? Director Krempl clarified saying that a policy exists establishing a rationale for open space slopes shown in the General Plan and that slopes in excess of 25 percent were, in certain circumstances, included as open space in the General Plan. He added that this was not a blanket statement and that 25 percent slope areas outside the General Plan have been developed. 3. Commissioner Cannon asked how a proper judgment could be made by the Commission when the statistics presented in the EIR (page 15) relative to schools have not been updated since the fall of 19797 Substantial changes have occurred in the area since that time and statistics have no meaning after 10 years. The Bonita schools are critically impacted and are above capacity at the present time (particularly on the high school level); no high school is shown on the map nor is there a junior high in the area; even if there is capacity within the District, there is no money (and none in the budget) to b-~ students from one school to another. He asked why the school situation should not be presented as an environmental issue for consideration by the Commission? Commissioner Tugenberg suggested the possibility that a condition be made obligating developers (in such cases) to notify buyers that children would be bused to another school. Mr. Griffin indicated that the mitigation measures to be taken would remain the same; namely, to require that the developer and the School District reach an agreement to ensure adequate facilities are available. Director Krempl said the grading for the EastLake school would commence in January or February with an opening anticipated for 1991 and would allow some relief through modification of attendance boundaries. 4. Commissioner Tugenberg asked why a certain section on the overhead map was designated open space and was told that a fault trace existed in that area. Commissioner Shipe questioned that the EIP (page 9) says that no faults were observed on the reconnaissance and also referred to a report made in 1977. Principal Planner Lee commented that there was no fault in the general area of the subdivision but was located 1/4 mile to the west. Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 14, 1988 5. Commissioner Fuller expressed interest in the item relating to water storage in the eastern area. Director Krempl said that the Otay Water District is lacking in emergency water storage and has proposed a plan for provision of 50 to 100 million gallons for storage for a 5-day emergency supply. The requirement is a new one and the major developers in the eastern area are coming up with a funding element which would support the construction of that emergency storage. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Don Lindberg, 4201 Bonita Road, Bonita, representing Ladera Villas, stated agreement with the staff report and concurred with the recommendation for approval. He commented that school facilities throughout the whole region were suffering; that State law requires developers and School District coordinate; that a 29-unit subdivision would not significantly impact schools; and hoped that it would not be considered an impediment to the adoption of the map. With regard to a large lot development, the number of lots has already been reduced from 46 to 29; the lot sizes are significantly larger than minimum standards and are in conformity with adjacent developments. The subdivision constituted a reasonable extension of the mode and type of development presently existing. They have endeavored to cooperate with staff and are convinced that the project satisfies all of the environmental and sociological requirements arising through the expansion of housing in the community. Max Stewart, 762 Barbara Avenue, Solana Beach, CA 92075, the applicant, told the Commission that they had gone to great lengths to make the project viable and have had a great deal of input from the community. Everything regarding density, intensity, and access during construction period has been taken care of. He thanked the Rancho del Rey Partnership for their cooperation regarding the alignment of Paseo Ranchero. He pointed out that the slope grade to the east actually lowers the slopes and that if the road were constructed without this project, the slopes would be higher. Charles Pearson, P.O. Box 4187, La Mesa, CA, 92044, planner for the applicant, indicated his availability to answer any questions. George Hartman, 1034 Paseo Entrada, 92010, said his principal concern ~as construction traffic and that concern has been alleviated. His only other concern is the school situation as it relates to the entire area, not that impacted by the subdivision and that he supported the development. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg said he agreed that the location was not suitable for estate lots and was satisfied with the project but found it difficult to certify the EIR. He asked if the item should be continued until more recent data is available from the School District? He also brought up the possibility of a workshop, or the attendance of a representative from the School District when tentative subdivision maps were considered to provide more realistic answers. Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 14, 1988 Director Krempl indicated his willingness to schedule a workshop with the School District and also the possibility of the Attorney's office providing the Commission with some legal information as to what discretion was available regarding schools. Commissioner Cannon said he would like such a legal opinion and expressed disappointment that no supplement had been supplied with such an outdated EIR. He would like to have more current information on schools, water and traffic. He congratulated the developers on their updating of the subdivision map to a more acceptable project and asked how long it would take staff to give a four or five page update to the EIR? Upon being told that this could be done by the meeting of January ll, 1989, the Commissioner spoke in support of continuing the item. Mr. Lindberg apologized for interrupting but pointed out that his client would prefer an adverse recommendation to the Council rather than a continuance because of the consequent financial hardship. MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) to not certify EI~ 81-1. Director Krempl indicated that a vote on the map was requested as well. The Commission expressed reluctance to vote on the map when the EIR had not been certified. Director Krempl explained that unless a motion for denial was made, the map would not proceed to Council and the applicant would be unable to appeal the Commission's decision on the EIR. A oiscussion ensued among the Commissioners and with the applicant. Mr. Stewart expressed his dismay at the unexpected development regarding the EIR, the continuation and financial contingencies. Commissioner Cannon explained that in most cases involving an old EIR where a lesser environmental impact exists on a current project, a report is furnished the Commission indicating it is a lesser impact and what conditions have changed in comparison with the original environmental report. He added that he was of the opinion that the intent of the Commission had not been to deny the project and that the continuation period was only to the next meeting. When staff indicated concern that although the statistics on schools could be updated, it was doubtful if any information on long-term solutions could be made by that date, Commissioner Cannon commented that his concern was about the environmental process not the fact that specific schools were overcrowded. Unless proper ~were provided by the School District outlining the consequences caused by a development, the Commission could not make a decision on what the environmental impact was. Commissioner Fuller commented that apparently the School Districts have adopted a standard reply format for EIRs without concern over whether the project is denied or approved. She brought up the possibility of developers applying pressure regarding the importance of the Districts' reply based on the fact that the homebuyers are the ones who are affected. Further comments by the Commission included: (1) The District will just place more students in the classroom which lowers the quality of education, add more relocatables or bus students. (2) Responses from the School District seem to Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 14, 1988 indicate that the issue will be taken care of but no details are given nor mitigation measures proposed. (3) When does the system respond with enough specifics that the people buying homes know what the impact and quality of education will be for their children? (4) The issue of the inadequacy of an environmental report has been raised before by the public at hearings. Commissioner Casillas spoke in favor of waiting for an updated EIR because of the need for a full report on which to base decisions. He also supported denial of the certification. MS (Tugenberg/Shipe) to deny the Tentative Subdivision Map for Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Tract 89-3. Before taking action on the motion, the Chair asked the applicant to indicate whether he preferred a continuation to the next meeting (January ll) or a denial? In reply to his question about the type of information desired from the School District, Commissioner Carson indicated that this could be a letter stipulating that the District would need to add relocatables, make a junior high into a middle school, add more relocatables to a high school, or putting in grades 9-12 or that no problem was created. Commissioner Tugenberg said he was in favor of the project but experienced discomfort in voting for a project without an EIR. Deputy Attorney Fritsch stated that in light of the problems mentioned it was inadvisable to discuss favoring the project without an EIR. Co~nissioner Tugenberg suggested taking a vote to deny the project but as part of the Minutes indicate a positive attitude toward the project. Ms. Fritsch advised that the options before the Commission were (a) deny the project because of failure to certify the EIR, or (b) return the item for an updated EIR and continue it. The Chair again asked the applicant to indicate his preference. The applicant requested a few more minutes to receive counsel. The Chair conferred with the Commission and granted the time. Because a motion was on the floor, the Commission did not recess but remained in place from 8:20 to 8:25 p.m. Commissioner Tugenberg withdrew his motion, Commissioner Shipe withdrew his second. Mr. Lindberg, representing Mr. Stewart, said that continuance to the meeting of January ll would be acceptable with recognition of the fact that the Commission looked favorably on the project and that regardless of the response from the School District, the Commission would be able to certify the EIR. He maintained that it would not be reasonable to continue the item further or to not certify the EIR if the School District did not supply the information. Commissioner Cannon added that he was not speaking of schools solely, other items in the EIR were l0 years old. Chairman Carson added that questions about water and traffic should also be addressed. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) 6-0 to continue the item to January ll, 1989 for further environmental review. Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 14, 1988 OTHER BUSINESS: None DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None COM~IISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Cannon said he had been quite upset after the meeting of November 30, and had phoned two of the trustees of the Chula Vista School District who both promised to look into the matter. He then read a letter from the School District which embodied the type of information he would like to receive. The letter indicated that the project was in the Rosebank area which is currently overcrowded; the District has added two relocatable classrooms and would add a trailer in September, 1988; the project heavily impacted the District and the current developers' fee may be inadequate; the critical factor associated with public housing is the large number of children; and the District would be willing to discuss the possibility of a Mello Roos as an alternative form of financing. Commissioner Casillas said he had been on a task force several years back to study developers' fees. The task force had been made up of realtors, staff and School District personnel. At that time, the District said they were unable to take in any more students unless resource facilities were provided. The School District has the power to stop developments. The Commissioner suggested that the task force information be researched and a comparison made with the present situation. Commissioner Cannon reminded the Commission that development fees have been in effect since 1976, however the last elementary school built was Tiffany in 1976. He emphasized that the problem lay with the School District not the City staff. Commissioner Casillas added that the utilization of existing facilities is very important; the task force revealed that some facilities were under-utilized; however, the shifting of school boundaries is a highly political issue. ADJOURNNENT AT 8:28 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of January ll, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 5838P