HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/02/10 Tape No.: 287
Side 2: 0-1455
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, February 10, 1988 Public Services Buildin9
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Cannon, Casillas,
Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner
Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil
Engineer Daoust, Assistant Planner Schilling,
Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Community
Development Specialist LoBue and Director of
Community Development Desrochers
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 (Fuller/Shipe) to approve the minutes of the meeting of December 2, 1987,
as mailed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-15 CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTERS 6.04 AND 6.08 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO THE NUMBER OF DOGS AND CATS PERMITTED ON
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (CONTINUED)
This item was continued to the Commission from the meeting of January 13,
1988, with direction for staff to consider additional provisions and further
input from the Senior Animal Control Officer. Details of several proposed
revisions to the draft ordinance are still being worked out and, therefore, a
continuance to the meeting of February 24, 1988 is recommended.
MSUC (Cannon/Casillas) to continue PCM-88-15 to the meeting of February 24,
1988.
MINUTES -2- February 10, 1988
2. PUBLIC HEARING: MAJOR USE PERMIT PCC-87-39M - REQUEST TO MAINTAIN AN
EXISTING RV STORAGE LOT NOW OPERATING ILLEGALLY AT
1483 BROADWAY BROADWAY EQUITIES, LTD. (CONTINUED)
Assistant Planner Schilling stated that the item is a request for a major use
permit to allow continuance of an RV storage lot which has been operating
illegally at 1483 Broadway for approximately 3-4 years and is within the
Montgomery Planning Area. After reception of complaints regarding the
property's appearance, investigation revealed the illegal use and the owners
were notified that a major use permit was needed. The site is a
rectangular-shaped, 4-1/2-acre site with utility transmission towers bisecting
the property from east to west. A 6-foot chain link fence with no screening
or landscapin~ surrounds the 373-storage and 35-customer parking spaces. The
customer parking area has A.C. paving and the storage area is graveled. The
applicant has proposed adding wood slats in the existing fence, installation
of public improvements along Broadway adjacent to the property and a
landscaping strip along Broadway.
The property is zoned S-94, Utility Transmission Zone, and the uses permitted
would include raising crops, plant nurseries and tree farms. With a minor use
permit, the use could include parking lots for adjacent uses. Other uses not
involving permanent structures could be approved subject to a major use permit
which requires a finding of conformance with the Montgomery Specific Plan.
The applicant was originally cited by Zoning Enforcement Officials in 1986 and
the major use permit was filed in April, 1987; however, at the time of filing,
work had proceeded on the Montgomery Specific Plan to the point that it
appeared that the RV storage use would be in conflict with its goals to
discourage open storage uses and to support preservation of the easement for
parks, open space uses or other passive uses. The project has been continued
at the request of the applicant since July, 1987 so that Council could
consider the land-use portion of the Montgomery Specific Plan. With adoption
of the Plan in January 1988, the SDG&E easement falls into a special study
area with Parks and Open Space as the underlying use; therefore, the major use
permit application is not consistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan's
Planning and Design Proposals shown on page 20 of Exhibit A.
Staff is recommending denial of this particular application for two reasons:
1. The proposed project on the east side of Broadway does not conform to the
Specific Plan, and
2. The proposed project does not meet City or County Standards for RV storage
lots.
Numerous conditions of approval not proposed by the applicant would need to be
fulfilled including paving, solid fencing, fire hydrants, landscaping,
limitation on height, sign approval and review by the Design Review Committee.
Staff recommends an abatement period of March 31, 1988 and the applicant has
been aware of this date since July, 1987.
MINUTES -3- February 10, 1988
The Commission inquired (1) if any consideration had been given to allowing
this usage to continue until the Specific Plan would be developed and its
implementation in process, and (2) when site improvements could be anticipated
if the use were abated.
Director Krempl replied that the implementation of the Montgomery Specific
Plan and the development of recommendations about the special study area is
scheduled as the next work element; however, no exact time schedule existed as
yet. The actual implementation of the open space would depend upon (a) the
cooperation of the property owners (SDG&E) and their agreement to a Master
Plan, and (b) funding. The Master Plan is anticipated within the next 6 to 9
months.
The Commission asked if the abatement period could be extended and the usage
continued in view of the fact that the space would not be utilized
immediately. Director Krempl pointed out that the abatement period is
flexible; however, the usage is illegal, doesn't meet the City's standards, it
is considered appropriate that it be removed and the issue is within what
time period.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Robert Kolodny, Attorney-at-Law, 2470 Union Street, San Diego, 92101,
representing Broadway Equities, said he had intended to request a continuance
based on City Council's direction that a study of the special areas be made to
determine acceptable uses in the greenbelt area and, in particular, on the
SDG&E properties. On that basis, he requested that the matter be continued
until such time as staff has returned to Council with a determination and
after the meetings with the property owners, particularly SDG&E. He noted
that a representative of SDG&E was present and had concurred with the request
for continuance. He stated for the record that although the applicant had
requested previous continuances, so had the Planning Department because of
heavy scheduling and the Montgomery Specific Plan matters being considered and
that the applicant was not trying "to buy additional time".
Director Krempl noted that he was present at the Council Meeting and did not
receive the impression that Council's direction in terms of the study
addressed the potential for this use.
Chairperson Carson said she would like to hear the information in favor and
against the proposed use and the balance of the Commission indicated agreement.
Mr. Kolodny said he would like to summarize after the other presentations were
completed. He declared that, "There is no question that" the applicant (1)
with SDG&E in 1985; (2) did not proceed with
entered into a license agreement
a permit at that time; (3) was unaware that a permit was required; and (4)
would have received approval from the County for the RV Storage facility at
that time. He added that if the applicant had known of the situation, he
would not have (1) spent between $250,000 to $500,000 to date in grading and
paving some of the site, and (2) entered into a long-term license agreement
MINUTES -4- February 10, 1988
with SDG&E. He indicated that the applicant was the owner of the contiguous
property where the mini-warehouse and auto storage facility is located and, at
the time of this development, there had been an overall plan to develop a
mini-warehouse facility plus an auto and RV storage facility because of what
the applicant believed were needs in the community. Mr. Kolodny added that
the applicant was willing to meet the majority of the conditions stipulated by
staff, but is reluctant to spend additional dollars in case the use is
terminated.
Commissioner Grasser requested more specific details of where the $250,000 had
been spent on improvements. Mr. Kolodny said that Mr. Withall would answer.
Ron Withall, Beatty Development Company, 1431 Stratford Court, Del Mar, a
general partner with Broadway Equities, reiterated that the conditions have
not been met because it was unknown whether or not the applicant could remain
in that location. He had met individually with staff in October; namely, City
Traffic Engineer Glass, Fire Marshal Gove, Plan Checker Wheeler, Senior Civil
Engineer Daoust and Assistant Planner Schilling. Mr. Daoust had stated that
he was not involved with land-use or zoning issues and, therefore, could not
comment on the appropriateness of the RV center. Mr. Wheeler stated that he
also would issue a "no comment" since no permanent structures or those housing
individuals were involved. Captain Dyer, after visiting the site, said it
would be necessary to add two fire hydrants. Mr. Withall said that his
inquiry into the "legitimacy of the site" consisted of these interviews. He
displayed a rendering of the proposed site (which had been shown also to the
Montgomery Planning Committee) and pointed out that the high-tension wires
would be visible but with appropriate landscaping and screening the site could
become an attractive frontage on Broadway. He repeated that the applicant was
willing and prepared to bring the site into conformance; however, a final
decision regarding appropriate land use by Council was awaited before
proceeding.
Patricia Stanfield, 2270 Via Lucia, La Jolla, 92037, representing SDG&E, said
SDG&E had a great concern about the future of the property. One of the
elements of their leases and licenses is the requirement that the tenants
fulfill any permit requirements of the City or Agency. It is SDG&E's belief
that a continuance is appropriate because the area is up for further study of
the type of usage allowed. SDG&E would like to see the area zoned and used in
a manner other that with a Park and Open Space designation. They would like
to work with Planning and develop some uses that would bring revenue back into
the Corporation to offset their customer rates. Ms. Stanfield requested
Commission consideration of a continuance of the item until SDG&E has had an
opportunity to work with staff and develop the aforesaid uses.
Mr. Kolodny returned to the podium and said that it is the position of the
applicant that this particular use is necessary and desirable to provide a
service facility for the general well-being of the public based on (1) the
City of Chula Vista's Ordinance preventing parking of RVs on the street; (2)
the analysis of the various planned residential developments being approved in
the City and the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions on those projects
MINUTES -5- February 10, 1988
which prevent RV storage; and (3) the need for RV storage as evidenced by the
fact that this particular site of 300+ storage spaces is 95 percent full and
has been for the last 2-1/2 to 3 years. He then presented supporting
petitions from several hundred tenants who "have no other place to park their
vehicle". Mr. Kolodny continued that the applicant had indicated that if the
Conditional Use Permit is approved, the request of the Planning Department
would be satisfied including meeting the City Code on the issue of
landscaping, fencing issues and the additional fire hydrants. All conditions
are acceptable except for complete paving of the site which needs to be
explored further. The whole basis for the CUP is the weighing of the equities
and concerns of the Community and that, clearly, 300 people with RVs indicates
a need for this facility. Lastly, Mr. Kolodny stated that it would be very
expensive for someone to work out an arrangement with SDG&E re the usage on
their properties and the Commission would be doing a service to the City to
let this matter be heard after the study is completed.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked how many years ago was the $250,000 spent on the
property The reply was 1985.
In reply to Commissioner Cannon's question if the improvements requested would
be made if the continuance were approved, he replied no, however, an
expenditure of $5-10,000 would be made for landscaping in the front as a show
of good faith. The installation of fire hydrants would cost approximately
$10-15,000 per hydrant; and the balance of the proposed conditions would
equate to $50-75,000. He added that there are no further problems with the
height issue.
Commissioner Casillas referred to Exhibit A, page 20, of the Montgomery
Specific Plan I & II, and said if Council had approved that page as written,
then Council had not asked for a study of that area (the right-of-way of
SDG&E) specifically. Staff replied that Council had approved page 20 as
written; the Plan showed the basic land use to be Parks and Open Space within
the SDG&E right-of-way; however, an overlay on the Plan Diagram calls for a
special study additionally, which Council had acknowledged and considered
appropriate. Director Krempl indicated that the issue involved an illegal use
rather than a "legal use possibly inconsistent with the Montgomery Plan"; if
the Commission is inclined to continue the item or to allow an abatement
period much longer than staff's recommendation, the applicant should comply
with all conditions except the paving of the storage area. The applicant has
already had 2 years of illegal usage without meeting the standard requirements
for screening, landscaping and fire hydrants. The Fire Marshal is concerned
about fire protection to the site with an inadequate water supply. If the use
is to remain, even in an interim period, those improvements should be made.
John Gardner, 432 Stoneridge Court, Bonita, said he was also a SDG&E tenant
with a storage facility in Chula Vista and wanted to point out that there is
an alternate place to park. When he had obtained his Conditional Use Permit,
he had been required to have an 8-foot high, solid fence which effectively cut
off visibility of the site and had watched Broadway Equities, with "their
tremendous visibility", fill up while he sat "in a box". Mr. Gardner
maintained that if one person is required to have an approved surface, either
concrete or asphalt, the requirement should be consistent throughout the City.
MINUTES -6- February 10, 1988
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Tugenberg stated that the applicant has had sufficient time and a
sufficient number of continuances; that an illegal use of the property is
involved as well as a concern by the citizens of Montgomery regarding the need
of open space and an expressed desire that no more business of this type be
"dumped" into the Montgomery Area.
Commissioner Fuller expressed agreement about the Open Space and Parks
referred to by Commissioner Casillas and confirmed that it was adopted as part
of the Specific Plan and stated Montgomery's concern regarding the lack of
open space areas available in Montgomery because of the tremendous build-out.
She continued that it had been made ~lear by the Montgomery Planning Committee
and in all hearings before the Commission that this type of use is not to be
allowed in areas available for open space. The Commission has listened to
SDG&E statements about business that would supposedly make money and offset
the consumer's rates; however, it was her opinion that SDG&E would be willing
to place any kind of business that could be made to conform within the
right-of-way and she did not believe it was their intention to help the
consumer.
MSUC (Fuller/Tugenberg) to find this project will have no significant
environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-56M.
MS (Fuller/Tugenberg) that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the
staff report, to deny the applicant's request to maintain an RV storage lot at
1483 Broadway and set an abatement period for the use to cease operation and
vacate the property effective March 31, 1988.
Mr. Kolodny interrupted to request consideration of the abatement period which
the Commission had not addressed. He was told that the public hearing was
closed and there was a motion on the floor.
Commissioner Cannon said he would vote against the motion because he saw no
purpose in closing down an active business when it was foreseeable that it
would not be permitted to stay longer than several months. He did not favor
the abatement being set for March and this business person should be allowed
to get more out of his investment into the property.
Commissioner Fuller said that is the reason she specified March 31, since if
they remained longer, they would be required to invest more money.
Commissioner Cannon replied that he objected to the March 31 abatement date
since he sees no reason to close down a legitimate business until the property
use has been designated by Council.
Commissioner Grasser declared she would vote against the motion only because
she considered a month-and-a-half insufficient time to abate the property. It
was her opinion that the business went in illegally and knowingly judging by
the testimony given by SDB&E that their contracts stipulate securing
MINUTES -7- February 10, 1988
appropriate property permits and the applicant did not do so. Also, for the
record, if $250,000 were invested and the occupancy demand as high as
reported, the $250,000 was recouped in the first year and the business has
been a substantial profit-making venture for the applicant. She said she
would consider voting for the motion if there was an extended period of time
for the abatement.
Commissioner Tugenberg reiterated that he was for the motion as stated; had
visited the property when it first came before the Commission in 1985 and the
property seems unchanged as of this date. He considers the applicant has had
ample time to improve the property and sees no reason to extend the abatement
period past March 31, 1988.
Commissioner Grasser replied that the hardship would not be so much on the
applicant as on the RV tenants who have to relocate.
Commissioner Casillas said he would vote in favor of the motion and added that
the applicant had received notice in July, 1987 and to further condone an
illegal operation would not please the Montgomery people after all the work
done in developing the Plan. The Plan identified a requirement for this Open
Space and, it was his opinion that Council intended to review the study areas
carefully to ensure Montgomery gets open space. The matter of 31 March is the
way chips fall in business. It is an illegal operation, he took his chances,
that's the way it is and no argument can mitigate that.
AMFNDMENT TO THE MOTION
MS (Grasser/Tugenberg) to amend the abatement period from March 31, 1988 to
April 30, 1988 to provide adequate time for the tenants to relocate. The
amendment passed with Commissioner Cannon voting "no".
The main motion carried with Commissioner Cannon voting "no".
3. PUBLIC HFARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-35M - REQUEST FOR A
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE LOT WITHIN UTILITY
EASEMENT PROPERTY OWNED BY SDG&E LOCATED AT 1450
JAYKEN WAY - TOY STORAGE (CONT)
Assistant Planner Schilling stated that the applicant had met with staff just
prior to the hearing and requests that the Commission file the item as he no
longer has any interest in the property.
MSC (Tugenberg/Shipe) Cannon abstained, to file the item.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-88-23M - REQUEST TO EXPAND
MINI-WAREHOUSE FACILITY LOCATED AT 340 NAPLES STREET -
NAPLES STREET INVESTORS, LTD.
Assistant Planner Schilling noted that a major use permit was being requested
to expand an existing mini-warehouse facility located at 350 Naples Street
MINUTES -8- February 10, 1988
directly behind the proposed expansion area. This would expand a 1.07 acre
facility by demolishing three singl e-family dwellings between the
mini-warehouses and the Naples Street frontage and constructing three 2-story
mini-warehouses, one of which would contain an office and the caretaker's
unit. The structures would be 19 feet high with a 10-foot setback from the
property line and would extend approximately ll6 feet along Naples Street.
The expansion area is zoned C-36 (General Commercial) and permits a wide
variety of uses such as convenience stores, financial, insurance or real
estate offices.
Staff recommends denial based on non-conformance with the Montgomery Specific
Plan as expressed in page 16, the planning and design proposal of the Plan,
which states that there is an over-abundance of mini-warehouses throughout
Montgomery. Staff is of the opinion that (1) the conversion of commercially
zoned property to create additional mini-warehouses would not conform with
those planning and design proposals; (2) the 19-foot high building extending
116 feet along Naples Street adjacent to single-family homes represents an
excessive amount of bulk and scale and is inappropriate for a buffer between
the residential and commercial usages; and (3) no parking is provided for
users of the second-floor spaces. Ms. Schilling reminded the commission that
a 5/7 vote would be needed to overturn the Montgomery Planning Committee's
denial of the application.
In response to Commissioner Casillas' inquiry, Planner Schilling replied that
the height requirements for a commercial building are two-story in new
commercial or industrial major use permits subject to ~esign Review
requirements.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Don Lindberg, Attorney-at-Law, 4201 Bonita road, #246, Bonita, 92002,
representing Laki-Naples Street Investors, Ltd., pointed out that the project
represented the expansion of an existing mini-warehouse in an area which had
manifested a high demand for such facilities because of the nearby apartment
complexes. He contended that there was not an over-abundance of
mini-warehouses to the extent of being a drug on the market; the facility was
compatible with its commercial zoning; related well to the commercial center
and the adjacent residential property; the parking was adequate for all usage;
the substantial landscaping, setback and the fact that it is a passive type
activity made it a desirable usage next to residential and it would not impose
a burden on the Montgomery Area. He noted that the applicant, Mr.
Vassiliadis, and the designer, Mr. Moises, were available for questioning.
Mr. Lindberg summarized that the expansion was less than 50 percent of the
existing mini-warehouse facility and the two-story structure would be made
compatible with the commercial and would not be a usage adverse to the
residential property.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MINUTES -9- February 10, 1988
Commissioner Shipe recommended denial of the major use application noting the
area was comprised of commercial property with the mini-warehouses sandwiched
between large commercial and single-family residential, a mobile home park and
apartment complex across the street and appeared to be an example of urban
blight.
Commissioner Casillas questioned the use of the term "over-abundance" in that
the applicant must see a need for mini-warehouses and expect a financial
return or he would not be building them.
Staff replied that the term "over-abundance" was that of the Montgomery
Planning Committee and was not based on the market forces but on an
over-concentration of mini-warehouses within the Montgomery area which had ll
such facilities already.
Commissioner Cannon remarked that approval of the project would violate the
Montgomery Specific Plan.
MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) to find this project will have no significant
environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-33M.
MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) to recommend denial of the major use application based on
the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, particularly
finding #3, which states that, "the granting of this major use permit will add
additional mini-warehouse facilities to an area which the Montgomery Specific
Plan indicates is already over-burdened with mini-warehouses and other storage
uses and, therefore, the proposed expansion will adversely affect the
Montgomery Specific Plan for the General Plan of the City."
5. REPORT: SELECTION OF AMENDMENT AREA BOUNDARIES FOR THE TOWN CENTRE II
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY
AMENDED TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Commissioner Cannon stated a potential conflict of interest concerning
properties involved in the Agency Plan and requested that the Director's
Report be taken out of sequence.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Krempl noted that the time for the February 17 Workshop
Meeting with the Council had been changed from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. at Council's
request and would not be a dinner meeting. It would be held in the Council
Conference Room.
Chairman Cannon left the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
The Commission recessed at 8:12 p.m. and reconvened at 8:17 p.m.
MINUTES -10- February 10, 1988
5. REPORT: SELECTION OF AMENDMENT AREA BOUNDARIES FOR THE TOWN CENTRE II
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY
AMENDED TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Community Development Specialist LoBue stated that the item was for the
inclusion of additional area within the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project
Area and the Preliminary Plan for the area.
He offered corrections to the staff report and the Preliminary Plan as follows:
Staff report, page 1, paragraph 2, Discussion, and Preliminary Plan, pages
1 and 2 the reference to a total of 75.7 acres under considerations should
be 118.2 acres
Preliminary Plan
- page 2, it is mentioned that all of the sites are developed; however,
the correct statement is that 9 of the sites are developed and 1 is
vacant
there is mention of one park, however, there are actually two City
parks included in the proposed sites
the statement that the 50 acres proposed to be included in the
Amendment Area are to be recycled/redeveloped for commercial and
residential use with the remaining 25.7 acres to stay as public use
should actually be 68.2 acres will remain vacant or as public use.
This adds up to a total acreage of 118.2
Mr. LoBue reviewed the background leading to the proposed Second Amendment to
the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan. With the completion of the First
Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Town Centre II, the Agency has been
able to collect tax increments in the Project Area to provide part of the
City's share of its financial participation in the Project. At the time the
Project was proposed and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for
the Fifth Avenue closure, Centre renovation and expansion, the Sweetwater
Union High School District expressed concern about the closures of Fifth
Avenue and the City's collection of tax increments to which the District would
normally be entitled to share. An a§reement was made that the District would
not oppose the Fifth Avenue closure and would waive their portion of the tax
increments for the Shopping Center if the Agency would proceed with a Second
Plan Amendment including the Sweetwater Union High School District
Administrative Office/Corporate Yard site within the Redevelopment Project
Area. The Agency has purchased property on Third Avenue to lease to the
School District at minimal cost for their Administrative Offices. After the
District relocates, the current site will be free for redevelopment for
private uses. The District, in turn, is planning to provide a place for a
Corporate Yard which could be used by both City and School District, thereby,
freeing the City's Corporate Yard for private redevelopment. Negotiations
were made also with the County of San Diego whereby the County agreed to waive
MINUTES -ll- February 10, 1988
their share of the tax increments for the existing Redevelopment District and
an additional 50 acres of developable land in return for the Agency provision
of a $1.3 million investment in further development of the Superior Court of
Chula Vista. A1 though the Amendment was originally proposed at the request of
the School District, the scope of the Amendment has been expanded to include
the removal of blight and upgrading of some public facilities.
Mr. LoBue listed the areas included in the Amended Project Area and gave a
short description of each. They are:
1. Sweetwater Union School District area offices, located at Fifth Avenue
(6.4 acres)
2. Al's Trailer Park (4.1 acres)
3. National Avenue Associates/Dixieline Site (30.2 acres)
4. Chula Vista Swap Meet (Royal, Ardan) Parcel (9.0 acres)
5. City Corporation Yard (7.0 acres)
6. Northwest corner of Broadway and "E" Street (8.0 acres)
7. Civic Center Complex (15.9 acres)
8. "E" Street Trolley Station/Cabrillo Lanes Site (3.7 acres)
9. Chula Vista Junior High School Site (14.2 acres)
10. Eucalyptus Park (19.7 acres)
Commission questions answered by staff included:
#4 - The First Interstate Bank property will be included in the Redevelopment
District, however, there are no plans for redevelopment or change as the
Amendment is to include territory only. A participation agreement can
be entered into between the Agency and owner to indicate there will be
no move to acquire or alter the property if the current configuration of
the use is in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan objectives.
Property owners within 300 feet of the affected property will be
notified at the time the EIR is prepared. A public hearing is
anticipated in 6 or 7 months.
#5 - No specific site has been selected for the new Corporation Yard as yet.
Even if the area adjacent to the Trolley Station is expected to be
privately redeveloped as part of the development at the Trolley Station,
there is no need to include the whole block in the Redevelopment
District. Also, the Agency is limited to a total of 50 acres of
developable property which is the total of those sites listed in the
staff report. The suggestion to include the whole block can be taken
under consideration however.
MINUTES -12- February 10, 1988
#6 - Regarding the strip-commercial property and the mixed-use project
approved by the Commission in 1987, the apartments at the rear on Flower
Street were denied by Council and the applicant did not 9o forward with
the commercial frontage but is trying to market the total site as one
parcel. One of the capabilities of a redevelopment agency is to marshal
the small and undevelopable parcels of land in redevelopment districts
into larger, more marketable parcels. A large part of this area is
controlled by an owner/developer who may develop plans that are
acceptable to the City. Incorporation of the Fogerty's Trailer Park
into the Redevelopment Plan would be desirable and the trailers could be
relocated to a site in the Sweetwater Valley recently purchased by the
City. This would permit incorporation of the entire block into a major
development. Cornell's Plaza is included but there are no redevelopment
plans for that particular piece of land. Sir George's is also included;
however, the Agency is primarily interested in the vacant portions of
the property and whether or not the remaining properties can be included
depends upon negotiations with the owners. Regarding the question if
the unaffected properties (service station, restaurant, and Cornell's)
could be not be deducted from Site #6, and added to Site #5 and still
remain within the 50-acre limitation, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman
replied that such an arrangement was a possibility that the Commission
might want to consider as part of their recommendation. Director
Desrochers indicated that the primary reason for including the entire
block was to coordinate the access points, views and frontages for the
entire parcel. This would retain the integrity of the entire site even
though several owners might be involved in what appeared to be one major
commercial center. The same consideration is not being given to Site #5
which is more developed.
#8 Regarding the possibility of conflict between one of the proposed
General Plan Scenarios restructuring the area and developing a major
road just east of I-5 to accommodate an area of office buildings,
Director Krempl explained that the Draft General Plan is expected to be
ready about mid-May with consideration of its adoption sometime late
summer. Once the Plan is adopted, additional properties could be
considered and included in the Redevelopment Area. One of the Scenarios
of the Central Chula Vista Area would be in concert with the
Redevelopment Plan because it anticipates additional intensity of
development and possible commercial types of uses by adding in
additional circulation components.
Community Development Director Desrochers commented that the Preliminary Plan
is a first step prior to further work by staff. At one time, consideration
was given to incorporating everything west of Third Avenue (or even Second
Avenue) into the District. The City of Poway and the City of Coronado have
done that for their entire cities. Chula Vista considers that by
incorporating these several parcels there will be consistency with the new
General Plan and its process. Another Amendment including some areas in
Montgomery can be considered in a year or so. The reason other areas along
Broadway have not been suggested (particularly in the northern part) is
MINUTES -13- February 10, 1988
because all deliberations on the General Plan have not been concluded.
Director Desrochers explained that a new State Law decrees that the City must
negotiate with all the taxing agencies regarding the distribution of tax
increments each time the Redevelopment Plan is amended.
MSUC (Shipe/Fuller) to adopt the resolution selecting the boundaries of the
Amendment Area and approve the Preliminary Plan for said area.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Taken out of sequence. See page 9.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Tugenberg remarked on
the traffic at Fourth and "H" being badly impacted on both Fourth and
"H" Street by drivers endeavoring to make a left-hand turn into the
hospital area and other businesses located on Fourth Avenue;
13 trucks outside 467 Second Avenue where the Home Occupation Permit
issued to Mr. Davidson had been revoked. Director Krempl said the
matter would be investigated and a report available at the next meeting;
- consideration being given to the exclusion of RV parking in large
developments being part of the conditions of approval;
- consideration for the provision for a congregate care facility (Shives')
in a high density area of EastLake. Director Krempl said he would
contact both Shives' and EastLake regarding the suggestion,
Commissioner Carson urged Commissioner Casillas to attend the League of
California Citizens Planning Commissioners Institute.
Commissioner Casillas commented that large developers should be required to
provide an RV storage area and possibly mini-warehouse storage.
Commissioner Shipe inquired about the roof-rat study results. Director Krempl
said he would have a City representative contact the Commissioner.
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:11 p.m, to the Study Session Meeting on February 17, 1988, at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room.
Ruth Smith, Secretary
WPC 5047P