HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/09/28 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, September 28, 1988 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Cannon, Casillas,
Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Fuller, with notification
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner
Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Environmental Review
Coordinator Reid, Associate Planner Griffin,
Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, City Traffic
Engineer Hal Rosenberg 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
MSUC (Shipe/Casillas) to approve the minutes of August 10, 1988 as mailed
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-2 - CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PRECISE PLAN
WITHIN THE IL-P ZONE FOR OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK - OTAY
RIO BUSINESS PARK
Principal Planner Lee stated that a request for continuance had been received
from the applicant late today and asked the Commission if they wished to
continue the item to the meeting of October 12 for which six public hearings
have been scheduled, or, since the item should have very little public input,
to continue the item to the 26th at 5:00 p.m. and to consider only the one
item the Otay Rio Business Park.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Cannon) 6-0, to continue the item to October 26 at 5:00 p.m.
MINUTES -2- September 28, 198~
2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-89-2 - CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-INITIATED PROPOSAL
TO AMEND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN BY THE
REDESIGNATION OF CERTAIN LANDS, WITH A TOTAL AREA OF
APPROXIMATELY 60 ACRES, AND LOCATED TO THE EAST OF
SECOND AVENUE, AND TO THE SOUTH OF THE SWEETWATER
FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, FROM "PARKS AND PUBLIC OPEN
SPACE" TO "PARKS AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE" AND "MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" {4-12 DWELLING UNITS/GROSS ACRE)
ON THE PLAN DIAGRAM OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
Commissioner Cannon stated that he had a conflict of interest on items 2 and 3
because one of his legal clients was involved with the property. He then left
the dais and the meeting.
Principal Planner Pass stated that the recommendation of the Planning
Department would be to adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve
GPA-89-2. He reviewed the rationale for this decision as shown in the staff
report in Section E, Analysis, concluding that the proposed amendment would
enable the City to better meet its housing needs without adversely affecting
the establishment of public open space or protecting the order, amenity and
stability of the existing residential areas.
In response to a request, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reviewed the
process whereby it was determined whether a project required a Negative
Declaration or an Environmental Review Report {EIR).
Commissioner Shipe asked for further clarification of Item 5, (page 3) of the
staff report wherein it was indicated that an adequate circulatory system
running easterly from North Second Avenue could preclude the project's traffic
generation of 2,600 trips per average week day from overburdening adjacent
residential districts. Principal Planner Pass noted that it might be
necessary to have Second Avenue extended to the north to provide ancillary
service to a bank of lots; however, it would not be extended to connect with a
potential collector street running to the east of North Second. Responding
further, Mr. Pass noted it would be necessary for the collector street to come
in off North Second Avenue and go east to serve the subject 60 acres. He
alluded to the possibility of First Avenue being extended (although no studies
have yet been made) but not Las Flores Drive, Minot Avenue or Corte Madera.
He pointed out that opening off Las Flores Drive into the new development was
prohibitive since Las Flores was already cul-de-sac'd, additional land would
need to be procured, and the result would be additional traffic being routed
through a residential area. He assured the Commission that every attempt had
been made to keep traffic off the streets that either stub-in or are in
adjacency to the parcel. He noted further that when Route 54 is opened in 3
to 4 years, the existing interchange between Second Avenue and Route 54 will
be removed thereby reducing traffic substantially.
Commissioner Casillas commented that the subject land by being "substantially
isolated through topography" seems to be a natural location for park land. He
added that the traffic on North Second Avenue appeared to create more problems
MINUTES -3- September 28, 1988
for people living from "E" Street to Sweetwater Road than the completion of
SR-54would be able to ameliorate. Principal Planner Pass replied that a
collector road is designed to take an excess of 9,000 ADT and the anticipated
traffic volume is only 2,600 ADT. Commissioner Carson asked why a more
detailed traffic report had not been included in the Commission's material as
she did not feel she had sufficient information with which to make a decision
and why an EIR had not been submitted. Mr. Pass explained that probably a
generalized traffic study had been submitted because a General Plan Amendment
Iwhich Item 2 was) handled most of the issues generically, was not site
specific and called for significant stretches of open space. A greater amount
of specificity would be be included in the zonin§ changes and far more as the
project plans were submitted and the proposed density and land use pattern
known.
City Traffic Engineer Rosenber§ stated that the direction of the 3,000 trips
generated by the project was unknown at present. The assumption is that of
the trips emanating from the project, 60 percent would be northbound and 40
percent south. For that reason, the actual loading on North Second Avenue
would not be a total of 3,000 added to the existing volume to the south of the
project but probably around 1,500. When SR-54 is extended there will no
longer be a connection between North Second Avenue and the freeway. The
traffic will be transferred to Fourth Avenue thereby reducing the traffic flow
on North Second Avenue. With 54 extended, the reduction of traffic on North
Second Avenue will exceed that which the project would add 1+2,000 to 3,000
ADT). Mr. Rosenberg concluded that the net effect would be-a lessening of
volume when SR-54 is constructed and the project becomes occupied.
Commissioner Carson expressed concern that based on past experience,
acceptance of traffic projections often results in having to live with the
consequences; that she wanted to believe the traffic would drop down but, if
in 3 years it doesn't drop down, those who live within and travel that area
are going to have to contend with it. Mr. Rosenberg replied that a traffic
forecast, making some assumptions on the future land uses in the area and the
cumulative effect of other developments foreseen beyond this project,
indicated that the traffic volume on North Second Avenue would still be within
a comfortable range that can be handled at an acceptable level of service.
The Commissioner retorted that, in her opinion, the traffic was not
comfortable now and a problem existed on Second Avenue.
Commissioner Grasser commented that the "substantially isolated" description
seemed to indicate a good location for lighted ball fields. She questioned
the need for medium density within Central Chula Vista saying we have such
projects (as she knows from her realty business), the proposed project
appeared to be a very dense development and that a future slum could be
developed because of such density. Principal Planner Pass explained that what
was lacking in Central Chula Vista was medium-density, affordable housing; and
noted that a large amount of open space was included in the proposed medium
density land use.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
MINUTES -4- September 28, 1988
The Chair noted that 40 slips had been submitted by persons wishing to
register their opposition to the project and 16 more by those who wish to
speak in opposition. She requested cooperation by allowing everyone to
express his/her opinion, no applause, not to be repetitive of other speakers,
and expressed appreciation for the large turnout.
The following persons submitted slips indicating opposition but did not speak:
Dorothy Richardson, 65 Corte Maria, CV 92010; Ms T. Bell, lll N. Second Ave.,
CV 92010; Constance Meker, 22 Vista Way, 92010; Sally Krosky, 71 Corte Maria
Ave., 92010; Vera K. Shipman, 66 Corte Maria, 92010; Neil Bonner, 36 N.
Second Ave., 92010; M. Evelyn Lloyd, 67 Carrelman Pl., 92010; Harold Lloyd, 67
Carrelman P1, 92010; Karen Bitterle Gerad, 47 Minot Ave., 92010; Dale Ohlau,
34 Vista, Way, 92010; Rebecca Ohlau, 34 Vista Way, 92010; Ronald Hudson, 85 D
St, 92010; Anthony-Pauline Valone, 135 No. Del Mar Ave, 92010; Robert S.
Becerra, 87 D St, 92010; Carol S. Smith, 275 Sea Vale St, 92010; Prescilla
Malaney, 47 Corte Maria, 92010; Lee West, 75 Las Flores, 92010; Clifford
Steagall, 208 Nixon P1, 92010; Kathleen Laswell, 19 D St, 92010; Earl E.
Hopkins, Sr., 124 Corte Maria Ave, 92010; Louise Hopkins, 124 Corte Maria,
92010; Terry R. Henderson, 54 Minot Ave., 92010; Ada Henderson, 54 Minot,
92010; Jesus Zuni§a, 193 First Ave, 92010; A. Galecki, 89 Corte Maria, 92010;
Edward Butikofen, 260 Shirley St., 92010; C. Laurie Mott, 170 Minot, 92010;
Ted Garcia, 99 D, 92010; Doug Salmon, 97 D St, 92010; Phyllis Norris, 135
Minot, 92010; Edward Krosky, 71 Corte Maria, 92010; Mary R. Parman, 79 Minot,
92010; Jo Ann Graves, 69 Flower St, 92010; Jack T. Graves, 69 Flower St.,
92010; Lester P. Petersen, 58 Minor Ave., 92010; Ernest E. Jindra, 155 Minot
Ave., 92010; Lowell Batterton, 209 Nixon P1, 92010; El ayne Campbell, 43 Corte
Maria, 92010; Anacleta Milani, 42 Vista Way, 92010;
The following persons surrendered their speaking time to the person
indicated: Mike Bell, lll N. Second Ave., 92010; Mrs. Ted Bell, lll No.
Second Ave., 92010; and Neil and Noel Bonner to Ted Bell. Carolyn Williams,
134 First Ave., 92010 and Ms. Luzzaro, 95 D St., ~T2-Ol-O to Frank Luzzaro.
Patti Phair, 37 Corte Maria, 92010 to Alan Campbell.
The following persons spoke in opposition:
(1) Michael S. Hussey, 130 First Ave., 92010; (2) Ted Bell, lll North Second
Ave., 92010, repr KOA; (3) Ginger Fast, llO North Second Ave., 92010; (4)
Howard Carter, 6353 Clyde Ave., San Diego, 92139; 15) Peter Watry, 81 Second
Ave., 92010 - requesting Ne§ Decl be considered first; (6) James B. Acton, 265
Nixon Place, 92010; (7) Harriet F. Acton, 265 Nixon Place, 92010; 18) Phillip
B. Lopez, 164 Second Ave., 92010; (9) Jorge A. Sanchez, 75 D St, 92010; (10)
Frank Luzzaro, 95 D St., 92010; (ll) Gil Sheppard, 49 Corte Maria, 92010; (12)
Sandra McHale-Renka, 45 Corte Maria, 92010; (13) Jeanine Gliko, 105 First
Ave., 92010; (14) Sydnee Lahr Reyna, 64 Minot, 92010; (15) Leonard Aguillard,
138 Minot, 92010; (16) Alan R. Campbell, 43 Corte Maria, 92010.
MINUTES -5- September 28, 1988
(1) Michael Hussey said the original proposal for the area had been for 36
homes, now there were 306 apartment units with the same EIR none. The
project would result in the loss of 1/3 of his property. The map accompanying
the public hearing notice did not show the streets or proposed projections;
half of the open space shown was the river; and First Avenue is shown
incorrectly as continuing through.
(2) Ted Ball, representing Kampgrounds of America (KOA), requested the
Commission vote against the project and return it for further study. He
reviewed the history of the property and area noting that at one time the
Mascot Realty property and his were one parcel. An easement was retained at
the time the County Park Department purchased the land for extension of their
regional park system. The County Park Department had informed him that {a)
KOA's development was compatible and could continue on no more than 24 acres
of the total 44-acre parcel; (b) the balance of the valley was designated as
neighborhood park; {c) there would be no access to Second Avenue as this was a
low-use park for the neighborhood and the County intended to "condemn their
way out" to First Avenue. The County abandoned the plans for the park and
ultimately the City of Chula Vista purchased the land as a possible relocation
mobilehome park. Other uses such as a low-income housing project for large
families as well as the Security Pacific/St. Vincent de Paul plan for the
homeless/joint relocation park have been suggested. The density in the past
2-1/2 years has gone from R-1 to R-3 for that portion of the valley. The
overlying objectives seem to favor the property owner (the City) regardless of
what is good for the neighborhood and the property. KOA's written response to
the Initial Study had referenced the negative impact of traffic noise, general
noise, people management and security problems occasioned by the placement of
medium-density residential south and east of KOA and 2,600 vehicle trips daily
on the north side. Property devaluation would occur because of increased
traffic and access from the City's and the Mross' land-locked acres to Second
Avenue through the property of Mr. Scott, his immediate neighbor, and KOA and
raises the question of property rights. Mr. Bell concluded that these issues
have not really been addressed and the proposal is not ready for Commission
consideration.
(3) Ginger Fast recommended that the property not exceed a R-1 density because
of the traffic congestion and its accompanying hazards. She reviewed the
configuration of Second Avenue, the traffic volume and sight hazards present
thereon; cited the bad traffic jams during rush hours and the difficulties
that residents have entering or leaving their homes; and noted that
single-family residential would result in less traffic.
(4) Howard Carter said he was in opposition to the project and asked for an
explanation of conflict-of-interest. Deputy City Attorney Fritsch explained.
(5) Peter Watry asserted that no EIR was submitted because one of the items on
the November 8 ballot is Proposition V (the Cumming's Initiative) which
prohibits up-zoning more than one step at a time. The EIR process with its
hearings could not have been completed prior to Election Day. He pointed out
that if the Commission does not accept the Negative Declaration tonight, no
MINUTES -6- September 28, 1988
other action can be taken. Mr. Watry stated opposition to the Negative
Declaration on the basis that la) Second Avenue is a 40-foot residential
collector with a present volume of 16,740 ADT - more than three times the
design capacity called out in the Design Manual. The proposed changes will add
some 2,500 to 3,000 additional trips and will approach 20,000 ADT - more than
four times the design capacity of a residential collector. Such a measurement
deserves an EIR. lb) The two main generators in the area, Safeway and GemCo
are closed at present, lc) The statement in the staff report that when SR 54
is completed the ADT will be reduced to 9,000 cannot be challenged without an
EIR process nor can other studies be submitted. The Traffic Flow Manual
reveals that the traffic count in this area has increased from 6,300 to 16,000
ADT in 1-1/2 years. (d) It takes frequently up to 5 minutes to back out of a
driveway on Second Avenue. The service is definitely not Level of Service C.
le) The traffic generated by these three properties all exit at one point onto
Second Avenue. That point is the "apex" of a convex curve in Second Avenue,
is the entrance to the KOA Kamp§round and is directly across the street from a
77-unit condo complex which utilizes a great deal of on-street parking. Mr.
Watry contended that no mitigation measures are possible since the two-lane
bridge cannot be widened and the curve cannot be straightened out because the
bridge is at one angle and Second Avenue at another. Without an EIR, there is
no way to explore for any mitigating measures.
Mr. Watry noted that Councilman Malcolm was anxious to have this transaction
completed before November 8 since Security Pacific Bank had agreed to donate
about lO0 repossessed mobilehomes for use by the homeless under the auspices
of the St. Vincent de Paul Association. Also, the owner of the 17-acre
property adjacent to that is anxious to have his property rezoned from R-1 to
R-3 before the 8th. He concluded by saying that the declaration of a Negative
Declaration was not fair to those concerned and requested that the Commission
not accept the Negative Declaration.
(6) James Acton said he would speak about traffic, air and noise pollution as
it affected the other side of Second Avenue. He declared that the proposal
could not be co--red in isolation because Council had "tabled" another
proposal for a very low-cost, affordable housing development on the other side
of the hill on Second Avenue because of traffic congestion and
quality-of-life. This project is "on hold" and if it goes forward, will
compound the impact on the neighborhood. He identified the area as just across
from Motor Vehicles behind the trailer park with a City-owned access off "C"
Street. According to a City study, dated July 15, 1988, traffic on North
Second Avenue between "C" and the Valley was ll,060 ADT and has increased (per
Mr. Watry) to 16,000 already. At that time, 3,360 vehicles went down "C"
Street whose maximum allowance is 4,000. The ll4-unit development referred to
would have generated 750 ADT. Using that ratio to the proposed 491-unit
development would be not 2,600 ADT but 4,400 ADT additional cars all passing
KOA. Staff has indicated a reduction to 9,000 ADT following the opening of
SR-54. However, if the development goes in on the extension of Third Avenue,
there will still be 970 additional vehicles on "C" Street. The impact is a
possible parking lot at rush hour. The Traffic Engineer says an all-way stop
is not required at the intersection of Second and "C"; however, with this
MINUTES -7- September 28, 1988
volume of traffic (and Route 54 not completed for 2 years) an all-way stop
will be necessary which will cause traffic to back up all the way across the
bridge and block KOA. Regarding air pollution, Mr. Acton pointed out that
although the prevailing winds are generally to the east, the surrounding areas
will receive the pollution. The noise pollution includes the sound of 1-805
starting up at 4:00 a.m. and that of the trucking industry below. In summary,
he requested that the item be denied or deferred until an EIR is presented on
the proposed project.
(7) Harriet Acton reminded the Commission of the public facilities crisis
existing in Chula Vista and asked if the proposed development is sufficient
from a public facilities standpoint; namely, transportation, schools, stores
and churches. If the Valley area is to have the developments allowed by
rezoning, many services will have to be pre-installed. Will these new vital
services strain the City budget? Will the developers be required to post
bonds and to submit advance deposits to ensure the quality of life, or will
the present residents be taxed for some or all? Will an assessment district
be created to pay for all the amenities needed? Such a large influx would
surely tax the already over-taxed services and the quality of life. Noting
that volunteers are an endangered species, Mrs. Acton thanked the Commission
for volunteering their time to serve the City and them.
18) Phillip Lopez expressed concern about his home and his desire to live
peacefully. He challenged the traffic count noting that often he has counted
12 to 15 cars passing before he was able to exit his driveway. He noted that
a single-family house located in front of his home has five cars, one
motorcycle and one tractor parked in front on Second Avenue. Cars are parked
on Second Avenue day and night, some of them without current license plates.
A left-hand turn at Second and "E" sometimes requires three and four light
changes and there are many accidents. He asked the Commission to consider the
"dire circumstances" existing between "E" and "D".
(9) Jorge Sanchez said that the proposed change in the map might have a
significant impact on the special character of Chula Vista and it is the
Commission's responsibility to maintain this character. One of the reasons he
moved to this area was because he wanted to live in a neighborhood with a
sense of community where neighbors were ready to help each other. He
challenged staff's statement that the major consideration was the need for
housing claiming that the first need for the community infrastructure is what
is necessary to maintain the character of the City. Not only traffic problems
need consideration but for new generations to have a good school environment
not an overcrowded classroom. There is a golden opportunity to use the land
to ensure good recreational opportunities. He recommended that the Commission
either postpone the decision or vote no on the amendment to the General Plan.
(9) Frank Luzzaro declared that "in cities across the U.S., findings show that
amassing large areas for low-income housing only creates slums and breeding
grounds for drugs, gangs, unemployment, prostitution and crime. In those
cities that mix small populations of low-income with larger populations of
middle and higher income, the residents integrate and improve their social
MINUTES -8- September 28, 1988
status by keeping their property maintained and the children in school rise
above their base level in all sociological indicators." He stressed the
importance of placing a person in a depressed economic and social situation in
physical surroundings that reflect a positive influence to allow them to reach
their highest potential. He asked "how can we place persons working their way
into the main stream in a 65-acre, low-rent, high-density, river flood control
channel and with a straight face say, 'Hope you can make it.'"? He asked what
would be done with the children of the proposed development when Rosebank is
already busing the existing children to other schools? Regarding open space,
Mr. Luzzaro commented that is a development that once had been a eucalyptus
grove and now there are condos called Eucalyptus Grove which has created a
traffic gridlock as well as noise, visual and air pollution. He noted that at
a meeting on Monday, many of those present had voted that they wanted open
space. If the Commission and the Council act in a democratic fashion, they
will accept the will of the people - the choice is listening to the residents
or to real estate people who want to make money.
BREAK - 8:28-8:33
(ll) Gil Shepard said that rezoning the area would have a definite, negative
impact on the people who live in this quiet part of town through increased
population which decreases the quality of life and by an increase in crime and
congestion. They would like to continue living together safely and
harmoniously. The neighborhood appreciates the quality of life as it now
exists and shows it by the nearly 300 signatures opposing the rezoning. He
concluded by asking, "When will our local government listen to the voices of
many as proposed in our democratic society, not just to the loud voices of a
few intent on change for capital gain?".
(12) Sandra McHale-Renka indicated that she was a teacher at Rosebank School
and that there was not room at either Rosebank or Feaster for the children
from this development. Speaking about the traffic and its effect on the
children, she said that children have to be driven from their homes on Second
Avenue because of the danger from cars. If First Avenue is opened, a freeway
will be created in front of the school and up "E" Street so that could not be
utilized by the children either. At present, her children can ride bikes from
Corte Maria over to Flower safely, but would be confined only to Corte Maria
if First Avenue were opened. The area is at gridlock already. The noise from
491 units would impact them greatly. She noted that there is a great need for
parks and for playing fields as there is no other park than General Roca.
More people will require more parks and there are still no parks for the
existing residents.
{13) Jeanine Gliko spoke on the traffic implications on First Avenue, "D"
Street and Flower Street. She noted that the City's Traffic Report on Second
Avenue, dated September 16, 1988, declared it was desirable to have a
secondary access from First Avenue which would negate the need for a traffic
signal at North Second Avenue and the project access and serve as an alternate
emergency route. She reviewed the layout of First Avenue pointing out that
the section of First Avenue from the proposed project to "D" is presently a
MINUTES -9- September 28, 1988
dirt road with no improvements. From the corner of First and "D" up to the Y
intersection at First and Flower there is an undeveloped road with a constant
river of water caused by water drainage overflow from small, inadequate
lines. A major storm drain and sewer line replacement operation would be
necessary prior to any development in this area. She questioned what agency
would be responsible for the cost or if there would be an assessment of the
homeowners in the area. She pointed out that upon completion, the access
route would intersect Flower Street at a blind, 90-degree angle at the corner
of Rosebank Elementary School, already impacted greatly by the traffic from
the Eucalyptus Grove condo complex. This traffic would also impact the Bonita
Road/"E" Street/805 exit. An alternative to exiting the property and canyon
via First and Flower utilizing "D" Street as a crossover would be impractical
because the on-street parking makes "D" Street a one-lane street in several
areas. She asked if an easement would be requested from the homeowners on "D"
Street and First Avenue to alleviate this situation. Ms. Gliko continued that
the logical route from the property to the City would be First Avenue and
pointed out that the corner of First and "D" is a one-way turn off a hill in
both directions. The Y at Flower and First is also a sharp turn off a hill.
Lastly, she pointed out an apparent contradiction between the statement in the
September 16 Traffic Report that a secondary access from First Avenue was
desirable, with page 4 of the rezoning proposal which states that "From a
land-use point of view, we believe it would be undesirable to direct traffic
from the project area back through the single-family area to the south
(First). As a result, we have recommended the inclusion of a condition which
would require the preparation of an internal traffic circulation masterplan
prior to the approval of any development on the involved property." Ms. Gliko
interpreted this to mean that "the office of environmental review recognizes
the need for a First Avenue access but is saying that it will not be studied
until after the rezoning is approved." She concluded that, "It would be
irresponsible and premature to allow for any of the proposed rezoning until
the traffic studies are complete and not just referred to or put off until the
future."
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there was an overlay of the adjoining areas
for a reference check on some of the streets mentioned. In reply to his
question if there was a house on the south end of First Avenue and what its
disposition would be if the street were extended, Mr. Lee replied that the
section marked First Avenue is a 40-foot area owned by the City not a
dedicated street and does not connect with "D" Street. If the street were to
be extended to the land owned by the City, it would be necessary to condemn a
parcel.
(14) Ms. Sydney Reyas challenged the Negative Declaration on its accuracy and
sufficiency with respect to traffic, safety, noise, biological data and the
integrity of the neighborhood. She declared that "enough is enough" for that
small area of Chula Vista which has very few parks but a tremendous number of
services available for the entire community. They have psychiatric
facilities, affordable housing, low-income housing for the elderly, a
convalescent home, a convalescent hospital, and many apartments including
Eucalyptus Grove. They are being asked unfairly to absorb another large
apartment complex. She asked that the Commission not recommend changing the
General Plan and to drive through the area and see what the effect would be.
MINUTES -10- September 28, 1988
(15) Leonard Aguillard spoke against moving long-time mobilehome residents
from Broadway with adjacent shopping, transportation and entertainment to
"dump them in a Sweetwater River bed" He asked if the recently dredged river
bed could handle the wall of water descending from Sweetwater Reservoir if a
major earthquake were to cause the dam to burst? He noted that the area west
of 1-805 had 125 acres of parks and open space while there were over-400 acres
on the less-populated east side, yet staff was recommending rezoning
designated public open space west of 805 to medium/high density buildout. He
asked about the safety of t~ school children in the very hostile traffic
environment to which the recommended rezoning would contribute an additional
3,500 ADT impact. Mr. Aguillard noted that Council and staff had stated
repeatedly that Las Flores Drive would be a cul-de-sac when completed, yet the
proposed plans calls for an emergency easement onto Las Flores. Although
staff, the Fire Marshall and Council have taken a firm stand prohibiting the
use of emergency vehicle break-a-ways, they are recommended for Las Flores.
He asked how staff could state that the introduction of 2,000 additional
people generating 3,500 ADT would not have an adverse effect on the residents'
enjoyment of environmental quality of life? He concluded saying that Chula
Vista west of 805 needs more parks and public open space as well as slow
growth for quality planning and requested in his own name and that of over 260
petition signers that the Commission vote no to the rezonin9.
(16) Alan Campbell requested that the Commission not only reject both
proposals but that they request a full EIR. He said that the direction given
by Council on July 12 included alternative land uses, and alternatives sites
for mobilehome parks. There was no request for a General Plan Amendment and
rezoning. The real environmental effects were those on the existing
neighborhoods and citizens not on the proposed newcomers. Enough evid~
been presented at the meeting to demand a full EIR. Samples of creative
planning included use of this land for ballfields, boys' clubs, 4-H, gardens,
and farms where some of the homeless could work. He pointed out that the +300
signatures on the petition represented educated signatures collated
door-to-door with discussion and also at an open neighborhood meeting attended
by 130 people at which the staff report was discussed and input taken from
those attending.
The Chair asked if anyone else wished to speak and a lady in the audience
stood and said a map was available on the back table showing the apartment
buildings in the neighborhood.
Robert Scott, owner of Mascot Realty, identified his property as being just
east of KOA and west of the City's property. He purchased the property 2-3
years ago from Mr. de Graff, the owner since 1930. He had been forced to join
the improvement district for Las Flores Drive under threat of condemnation of
his land and was told the area would be single-family residential. When he
completed lots 1-11 on the east side at the dead end of Las Flores cul-de-sac,
provisions were made for access. He has been working on these plans for over
2 years and a large investment is involved. When the City made a decision
regarding their property, he asked that his land be considered at the same
time. The Mross property was included by City initiative. He will not be
MINUTES -ll- September 28, 1988
using Las Flores Drive because his access request was denied by the City; not
only use-access but emergency-access also. The only access he has is a
60-foot easement through the KOA Kampgrounds. Mr. Bell granted him that
easement at the time of purchase from Mr. de Graff. City standards for
residential streets indicate 56 feet of ri9ht-of-way and the 60-foot easement
is very capable of handling the density under discussion.
Mr. Scott indicated that his project is zoned R-3, precise Plan, at 11
dwelling units per acre (11 du/ac) and consists of roughly 198 apartment units
- not low-income housing. He wishes to develop at 10.9 du/ac and pointed out
that Eucalyptus Grove is developed at 29 du/ac. Possible alternatives to this
development could be (a) and on- and off-ramp from the freeway to create an
auto park (like Carlsbad Car Country); or (2) an industrial park.
Mr. Scott continued that the reason the area north of the center line
extension is not "general planned" is because the City annexed that property
to the center of the channel once they knew the channel would be built. The
property that was "general planned" was medium density residential. He added
that he did not know what the City's access plans had been.
Mr. Scott declared that he had retained Mr. Cannon on legal business during
the last 1-1/2 years with the monetary amount for such services probably less
than $3,000. Mr. Cannon considered, however, that it would be improper for
him to participate as a Commissioner during the hearing and was, therefore,
absent from the meeting. Approximately 1-1/2 years ago, Mr. Malcolm and Mr.
Scott had attempted to purchase a marina in San Diego. The purchase was never
completed and one of the reasons no partnership was formed was the possibility
of Mr. Scott being involved in land development in Chula Vista. He and Mr.
Malcolm have never been partners and he wished to make that clear. Mr. Scott
concluded his presentation saying that the next lower density to R-1 is R-3
with a precise plan and that he had endeavored to design a plan which included
a great deal of open space in an area that really isn't suited for R-1
residential development.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Grasser, Mr. Scott said the property
was zoned R-1 at the time of purchase. The area south of the "C" Street
extension was R-1 at that time and remains R-1 today. The unzoned piece of
land to the north of the "C" Street extension was annexed to the City just
prior to that because the City did not think it appropriate to leave just that
little eyebrow. There had been no prezoning nor prezoning application filed,
it was just annexed.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Tugenber9 said he had been proceeding on the assumption that the
City owned the easement and had intended to utilize it for access to its
property. He wanted it known that he had driven every single street in the
neighborhood including all the dirt lanes and the top of the channel. He
asserted that the description of where the easement would intersect with
Second Avenue and the cut-out was rather loose. He asked if lots #115 and
MINUTES -12- September 28, 1988
#119 would be vacated for access to Second Avenue. Mr. Lee replied that at
this time there were no plans for the property. They were separate ownerships
and therefore had not been included in the rezoning consideration. In reply
to further questions, Mr. Lee said he did not have the exact location of the
60-foot easement but believed it was the present access serving KOA along the
north side accessing onto Second Avenue. Mr. Scott interposed that the
easement runs from the toe of the slope 60 feet slightly southwest and is
basically the main entrance to KOA. The entrance goes parallel to lot #115
and then the 60-foot easement starts and is directly adjacent to the channel.
He noted that some campsites, part of the playground area, the swimming pool
and other items have been developed along the easement which will have to be
removed. That will be a major expense to Mr. Bell. He confirmed that the
butane tank is also located in the easement.
Director Krempl said that in the testimony given it had been implied that the
City had been expediting the processing on the application in an under-handed
fashion. At the July 12 meeting, Council had concluded that the land use
issue on this property was not before them in a proper form and had directed
staff to return with the environmental review, the general plan and rezoning
process in as expeditious a fashion as legal requirements would permit. It
was also staff's understanding that a general plan application and rezone were
to be brought forward to permit a mobilehome relocation park if approved.
Council desired an application before them which would allow them to consider
that particular opportunity.
Secondly, if the City Traffic Engineer or Environmental Review Coordinator had
recommended an Environmental Impact Review document, that would have been
acted upon regardless of the November 8 election deadline.
Director Krempl outlined the options currently available to the Commission:
(a) act upon the Negative Declaration and then either approve or deny the
project;
(b) deny the Negative Declaration and deny the project;
(c) indicate it has reviewed the Negative Declaration and then taken an action
on the project either affirmatively or negatively; and
(d) direct that an EIR be prepared and, basically, taken no action on the
project.
Mr. Krempl said staff would like to have a recommendation from the Commission
on Item 3 (the rezoning) so the affirmative or negative action of the
Commission will be before the Council at the same time. He brought attention
to the fact that the public hearing on the rezoning had not been opened and
when Item 3 was considered, this would have to be done and the audience
instructed to be brief and direct in any comments submitted regarding the
rezoning. As most of the speakers had intermixed the two items, staff would
probably defer their report pending the Commission's disposition on the
General Plan Amendment.
MINUTES -13- September 28, 1988
He pointed out that if the Commission were to approve or deny the project, the
earliest date for Council consideration would be October 26. Everyone who has
spoken in interest would be notified as well as by the normal legal
advertisements. Others who wish to ascertain the date may contact the
Planning Department. For the information of the people in attendance, he
pointed out that a report would be going also to Council reporting on
alternatives sites within the City that might be considered for a potential
mobilehome relocation park. Council has indicated their support of this idea
and asked for feedback and recommendations from City staff.
Commissioner Grasser asked when Council consideration might be expected if the
Commission requested an EIR. Environmental Coordinator Reid said that if an
EIR were to be required, funding would have to be obtained from Council, a
consultant would be retained resulting in a much longer time period before
Council consideration. He noted that there existed, however, a potential for
the requirement for an EIR to be appealed to the Council.
Commissioner Tu§enberg moved and Commissioner Shipe seconded to deny the
Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-18 and require that the Plannning
Department supply the Commission with an EIR.
The Chair requested that two separate motions be made.
MSUC (Tu§enberg/Shipe) to deny the Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Tugenberg commented that he was taking this position because he
did not feel confident that he had enough information regarding the
circulation, traffic and alternate uses which are usually contained in an EIR.
Commissioner Shipe said he neeaed the information in an EIR to resolve his
doubts whether some of the issues discussed were mitigable particularly
regarding the widening of Second Avenue and for that reason would support the
motion.
Commissioner Carson agreed that more information was needed.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Grasser) (5-0) to request the Planning Department to prepare
an EIR on GPA-89-2.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the Commission was still required to take
action on Item 3 of the Agenda. Director Krempl replied that the Commission
should indicate action on Item 3 because of the possibility that Council might
request the item be brought forward to them on appeal. The only action that
could be taken place at this point would be to deny the zoning but a motion on
the General Plan was also requested.
MSUC (Grasser/Shipe) (5-0) Cannon out, to disapprove GPA-89-2.
MINUTES -13- September 28, 1988
He pointed out that if the Commission were to approve or deny the project, the
earliest date for Council consideration would be October 26. Everyone who has
spoken in interest would be notified as well as by the normal legal
advertisements. Others who wish to ascertain the date may contact the
Planning Department. For the information of the people in attendance, he
pointed out that a report would be going also to Council reporting on
alternatives sites within the City that might be considered for a potential
mobilehome relocation park. Council has indicated their support of this idea
and asked for feedback and recommendations from City staff.
Commissioner Grasser asked when Council consideration might be expected if the
Commission requested an EIR. Environmental Coordinator Reid said that if an
EIR were to be required, funding would have to be obtained from Council, a
consultant would be retained resulting in a much longer time period before
Council consideration. He noted that there existed, however, a potential for
the requirement for an EIR to be appealed to the Council.
Commissioner Tugenberg moved and Commissioner Shipe seconded to deny the
Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-18 and require that the Plannnin§
Department supply the Commission with an EIR.
The Chair requested that two separate motions be made.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) to deny the Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Tugenberg commented that he was taking this position because he
did not feel confident that he had enough information regarding the
circulation, traffic and alternate uses which are usually contained in an EIR.
Commissioner Shipe said he needed the information in an EIR to resolve his
doubts whether some of the issues discussed were mitigable particularly
regarding the widening of Second Avenue and for that reason would support the
motion.
Commissioner Carson agreed that more information was needed.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Grasser) (5-0) to request the Planning Department to prepare
an EIR on GPA-89-2.
Commissioner Tugenber§ asked if the Commission was still required to take
action on Item 3 of the Agenda. Director Krempl replied that the Commission
should indicate action on Item 3 because of the possibility that Council might
request the item be brought forward to them on appeal. The only action that
could be taken at this point would be to deny the zoning but a motion on the
General Plan was also requested.
MSUC IGrasser/Shipe) (5-0) Cannon out, to disapprove GPA-89-2.
MINUTES -14- September 28, 1988
Commissioner Grasser inquired if, since the Commission was requesting an EIR,
Item 3 could be postponed at the Commission's request. Director Krempl said
that the Commission could continue the zoning, he had simply indicated that he
was of the opinion that the Council would like to have the zoning matter
before them as a package with the other item.
Chairman Carson indicated that the speaking requests she had received had
indicated Items 2 and 3 and it was difficult for her, as the Chair, to divorce
what they were discussing.
Commissioner Grasser contended that in order to make a prudent decision, it
would be to the Commission's benefit to have the information contained in the
EIR before the public hearing was opened and testimony submitted.
Commissioner Tugenberg noted that it would be impossible to vote on Item 3
without a great deal more precise detail on the circulation and traffic.
Commissioner Shipe added that he could only vote to deny both items.
Commissioner Tugenberg attempted a motion to deny PCZ-89-A but it was pointed
out that a public hearing would have to be held first.
MSUC (Grasser/Shipe) (5-0) to postpone Item 3, PC-89-A and PCZ-89-B, until
after an EIR is received.
The Chair thanked all in attendance for their cooperation and testimony.
OTHER BUSINESS: None
DIRECTOR'S BUSINESS:
- B/C/C/ Absentee Policy Director Krempl said the information had been
presented for the Commission's information.
- League of California Cities Conference - the Director noted that money had
been budgeted for one of the Commissioners to attend if desired. Also
more than one Commissioner could share the registration. He asked that
the Secretary be contacted within the week by those interested.
COMMISSIONERS REPORT:
Commissioner Casillas asked what were the ramifications of postponing
Items 2 and 3. Director Krempl replied that since the items were
continued, Council is precluded from taking action toward any rezoning of
that property at this time. All Council can consider is the General Plan
Amendment and the environmental report.
Commissioner Tugenberg requested that staff approach the Council again
about use of appropriate business cards for identification of Commission
members.
MINUTES -15- September 28, 1988
The Director replied that staff had little influence in that regard and
suggested either written communication to the Council, informal
discussions with Council or an appearance under the ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
portion of the Council meeting.
- Commissioner Carson inquired about the petition referred to by speakers.
Principal Planner Lee replied that it was to have been presented to the
Commission as part of the zoning report.
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:40 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of October 12, 1988,
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
Ruth M. Smith, Secretary
Planning Commission
WPC 5654P