HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1987/05/13 Tape No : 276
Side: l: 500-1848
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, May 13, 1987 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Shipe, Commissioners Cannon, Carson,
Fuller, Grasser (late), Green and Tu§enberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal
Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore,
Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Associate
Planner Griffin, Environmental Review
Coordinator Reid
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Shipe and was
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairman Shipe reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its
responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
Chairman Shipe announced that Item 6 would be taken out of sequence and
considered first.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-17 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR DECISION CONDITIONALLY REVOKING THE HOME
OCCUPATION PERMIT AT 467 SECOND AVENUE - CARL R.
DAVIDSON
The applicant has requested 2 weeks continuation in order to gather material
in support of the appeal. Staff has no objection.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) (5-0) to continue the item to the meeting of May 27,
1987.
Planning Commission -2- May 13, 1987
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSC (Fuller/Carson) {5-0) Shipe abstained because of absence from the meeting,
to approve the minutes of 4/22/87 as mailed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
Commissioner Grasser arrived at 7:05 p.m.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT EIR-87-3 - RANCHO DEL SUR
Environmental Coordinator Reid stated that this EIR was issued for public and
agency review on April 1, 1987. The State review period ended at 5:00 p.m. on
May 13, 1987. The State Clearinghouse has informed staff that a comment has
been submitted; this, however, has not yet been received by the Department
therefore it will be necessary to have the public hearing but refrain from
certification until the meeting of May 27th. The Resource Conservation
Commission has reviewed the document and found it in compliance with CEQA and
recommends certification. Mr. Reid then introduced Betty Dehoney, the
consultant.
Betty Dehoney, WESTEC Services, Inc., 5510 Moorehouse Drive, S.D., 92121,
indicated that the Rancho del Sur project site is located approximately 3
miles east of downtown Chula Vista and 5.5 miles north of the Border.
Annexation of the County-owned portion (108.3 acres) has been completed. The
project involves 302 single-family dwelling units and 220 multiple-family. A
small portion of the site, east of Medical Center Drive and south of the
proposed extension of East Naples Street, is designated for future
development. Additional environmental review will be required of this area at
that time.
Ms. Dehoney reviewed briefly the EIR analysis of the following:
Land Use - The proposed land-use issue is compatible with the existing land
uses in the vicinity and no significant impacts are evident. The helipad,
located southeast of the site, does not have a flight pattern in conflict with
the project site.
Traffic - The project is expected to add approximately 4,400 ADT to the street
system in the area. The acceptable level of service (LOS) for each
intersection will not be exceeded with the exception of the intersection of
northbound 1-805 off- and on-ramps at Telegraph Canyon Road where the drop in
LOS is caused by the eastbound approach volumes. The intersection of Oleander
and East Naples will be placed at near capacity which might result in
signalization being needed; however, mitigation measures including a change in
lane assignments on the eastbound 1-805 to allow double left turns are
expected to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. It is
recommended also that the developer be required to contribute a proportionate
share to a fund for roadway improvements.
Planning Commission -3- May 13, 1987
Parks - the parkland allocations are not considered sufficient to meet City
requirements. Additional parkland dedication, in-lieu fees and off-site
improve- ments have been suggested to mitigate the impact to a level of
insignificance.
Schools - the project would incrementally affect the schools in the Districts
by a cumulative impact resulting from this project and other proposed
developments. Revenues generated by the project and the school fees are
expected to offset the cost and mitigate the impact to a level of
insignificance.
Water - There are no significant impacts to the water supply nor to the energy
supply caused by the project.
Noise - the noise from the helipad located south and east of the hospital does
not contribute significantly to the noise level. The traffic-generated noise
levels, however, adjacent to portions of Medical Center Drive and East Naples
Street would exceed 65 dB(A). A 3- to 4-foot noise wall would reduce the
volume to a level of insignificance. No site plans have been submitted for
the multi-family area and this area might be subject to noise volume over 65
dB(A). A future noise analysis of this multi-family area is recommended.
Other issues - Biological resources, ground water,drainage, landform
alteration and visual quality will have no significant impacts with mitigation
measures.
Certification of the Draft EIR is recommended.
Commissioner Tugenberg inquired why no alternatives were included on the basis
of the City's land-use designation and density instead of just "no project
whatsoever"; in other words, an alternative based on 4 du/ac instead of 7.2
du/ac. He considered a "project/no-project" to be an unrealistic
alternative. On being informed that the noise analysis had not considered the
number of ambulances that traverse Medical Center Drive and the future Naples,
he suggested that such a traffic analysis should be made and expressed concern
that the 3- or 4-foot wall would be inadequate mitigation of ambulance noise
in the second-story structures. He asked further what uses were referred to
in the statement found on page 4.1.2, "The residential uses proposed for
Rancho del Sur project site are compatible with the existing planned
residential uses in the vicinity of the project". Ms. Dehoney replied that it
was understood that the proposed residential development would occur in the
undeveloped portion surrounding the proposed project site and the existing
would be the single-family residences currently built out.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
John Oschner, Great American Development, 600 "B" Street, San Diego, the
developer and project proponent, indicated the project planner, Tom Davis of
Tierra Planning, and the traffic engineers, BDI, were present to provide any
-- Planning Commission -4- May 13, 1987
technical information desired by the Commission. He noted that they were in
agreement with the statements in the EIR. With respect to traffic generation
and the LOS at the intersection of 1-805 and Telegraph Canyon Road, Mr.
Oschner remarked that the engineering conditions of approval specified that
the developer must join the facilities benefit district. The developer is
presently working with the major land owners to the east, including United
Enterprise, to alleviate not only the intersection but also the traffic
capacities on the entire length of Telegraph Canyon Road.
According to Bob Hanson, the Executive Director of the Chula Vista Conmnunity
Hospital, the helipad is used for LIFE FLIGHT purposes only, limited to one or
two flights per month, and the flight path is not over Phase I.
With regard to the acoustic concerns about noise levels at the second-floor
level, normally the developer would utilize double-glazing or reinforce the
insulation of the outside walls to minimize the sound. Preferentially such a
decision would be made at the building permit process level since no specific
designs have yet been developed for the multi-family buildings.
Concerning the planned uses area, Mr. Oschner remarked that the project
situation was unusual in that Phase I falls within the Sphere of Influence of
Chula Vista, however, the remaining 600 acres of the project have necessarily
been processed along a different route through LAFCO and no formal plans are
available to present to the Commission. The plans are in harmony, however,
with the Chula Vista General Plan's designation of the entire area as a
planned residential development (4 to 12 du/ac) across the property.
Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, stated he was not speaking in
opposition to the project but had two concerns regarding the EIR. He noted
several references in the EIR to the compatibility of the project with others
in the vicinity, with Fox Hill Run being mentioned specifically several
times. He drew attention to the fact that Fox Hill Run is an unusual
development with substandard streets, sidewalks, setbacks and lot sizes. He
requested that the EIR include a description that will inform the general
reader of the exceptional characteristics of the Fox Hill Run development so
that the reader will understand the meaning of the phrase, "...compatible with
land uses and projects in the vicinity".
Mr. Watry al so expressed concern that the pace of private development
outstrips school and road construction. The schools to be attended by
children in the project have not been determined; the closest, Greg Rogers, is
already impacted. The EIR indicates that the LOS at the 1-805 off- and
on-ramps will be unacceptable even without the addition of this project. This
development is located in the Otay Municipal Water District which utilizes
water that is 100 percent imported from Colorado and will be at the end of the
pipeline after Arizona takes its share. These current problems will be
further exacerbated by the addition of this project and it will create
additional problems of insufficient neighborhood parklands and further traffic
congestion at Naples and Oleander.
Planning Commission -5- May 13, 1987
Mr. Watry contended that the proposed development exceeds the proper zoning of
the land; and in comparing the proposed zoning with that of the SANDAG
forecast, the 522 proposed dwelling units are 21 percent over the 432 which
SANDAG would have proposed. He expressed interest in what the environmental
impact of the project would be on traffic, schools, water and so forth if the
current zoning and other City standards were met. Mr. Watry requested that
two additional alternatives be examined in the EIR: one with a density and
characteristics in conformance with present zoning laws and a second one with
a 21 percent less density the the present zoning laws. He expressed concern
that the EIR had not adequately shown all the alternatives; including the
weight and significance of the different impacts.
Mr. Oschner returned to the podium at this time to answer some of the concerns
mentioned. He stated that there are three elementary schools near the
project, Greg Rogers, Park View and Kellogg. The High School District is
currently considering sale of the 38-acre site within the project area because
of lack of need. Also, one to three elementary schools are being provided by
the developer at the direction of the School District. Regarding parklands,
comments received from the Park Department indicated that fees would be
preferred to neighborhood park sites because of maintenance difficulties. The
developer, however, is providing lighted tennis court facilities as park
dedication, making the improvements and expressed hope that some of the cost
might be reimbursed through the City fee program. He indicated that traffic
generation has been run with the Series 6 SANDAG model as representing
up-do-date information. The Series 7 projection, recently released by SANDAG,
was unavailable at an earlier date, however, they consider their projections
to be in line with SANDAG's forecast of the future growth of the area.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Fuller commented that she shared some of the concerns expressed
by Mr. Watry; agreed that an insufficient number of alternatives had been
presented in the EIR; and questioned whether it was a City policy not to
support the neighborhood parks' concept. Director Krempl replied that Mr.
Mollinedo may have expressed a personal preference in this case, however, the
remark did not reflect City policy.
Commissioner Cannon stated that some of the proposed mitigation measures do
not seem sufficient to him; the change from a LOS E to LOS F which will occur
because of the project requires specific mitigation measures and he wishes to
see those specifics called out in detail in the EIR. He wanted to know in
greater detail the specifics of the discussion between Great American Federal
and CalTrans, and Great American Federal and other developers referenced by
Mr. Oschner. He wants to know the specific mitigation measures propounded
because, according to the EIR, the traffic levels are unacceptable. He would
like to see the capacity of the elementary schools in relation to the current
enrollment for comparison purposes.
He noted that the EIR indicated 34 students could be added to Bonita Vista
High, but it is already at capacity; and Bonita Vista Junior High is 40 above
capacity. These two schools will receive the brunt of the input from
Planning Con~nission -6- May 13, 1987
EastLake; yet, the EIR seems to indicate bussing students from this project to
the same schools. The Commissioner expressed great concern that "projects are
being put ahead of the infrastructure", school capacity is insufficent at the
present time, the parents are tired of overcrowding, and "...it's time to draw
the line. It's time to say, 'No." We should not "guess" at the fact that
schools will be built sometime in the future.
He questioned why, according to the EIR, we are permitting projects that do
not provide sufficient parklands per City standards; advocated putting in the
parks and placing some of the burden of the construction and maintenance of
the parks onto the residents of the area being constructed, particularly in
the case of a planned unit residential development. Mr. Cannon referred
briefly to the continuing degradation of the air quality and emphasized that
EIRs should be more than just meaningless words on paper that say impacts can
be mitigated but propose mitigation measures that, "...make no sense to a
person of average intelligence."
Commissioner Green noted that he had a great deal of respect for the developer
and the blame must be shared by the City which had accepted general statements
i.e., "...the traffic can be mitigated, or the parkland issue worked out with
staff..." for too long and had not demanded specifics. He remarked that a
great deal had been learned from EastLake and agreed with Commissioner Green
that an environmental impact report that deals with mitigation measures more
specifically is needed.
Commissioner Grasser requested that when the EIR returns to the Commission it
have a proposal more consistent with the overall general standards of Chula
Vista, not just the Fox Hill Run development.
Commissioner Carson requested additional alternatives on supplementary water
sources.
MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) to continue this item to the meeting of May 27, 1987 for
consideration of the Final EIR.
Commissioner Cannon added for clarification purposes that his comments were
not directed at the project but at the environmental impact report in the
hopes of receiving further input to minimize confusion.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-32 - CONSIDERATION OF AN
APPEAL OF THE CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION
DISAPPROVING OFF-SITE SUBDIVISION DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
FOR THE BRANDYWINE TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT PACIFIC
COAST ADVERTISING GRAPHICS (CONTINUED)
Associate Planner Griffin noted that the item was an appeal from the decision
of the Zoning Administrator to disapprove off-site subdivision directional
signs for the Brandywine Townhomes Development located at the easterly
terminus of Orange Avenue. The Municipal Code allows the Zoning Administrator
to approve the number of off-site signs to indicate the direction to a site
Planning Commission -7- May 13, 1987
undergoing a sales program. These signs are intended to supplement
advertising material when the route is complicated or long. The original
request consisted of nine locations, including three on East "H" Street;
however, since the project is located on a major street intersecting with
1-805 and the site is 1/3 mile to the west, the Zoning Administrator was
unable to find any of the proposed off-site sign locations necessary for
directional purposes. The applicant has since amended the request to delete
the three East "H" Street locations and one location at the southwest corner
of Palomar and Orange and to add an additional west face to a sign location on
Hilltop and Orange. The request at this time is for seven locations. Staff
believes these two new requests will assist potential buyers by directing them
from I-5; therefore, it is recommended that the Commission uphold the decision
of the Zoning Administrator regarding the original request and approve the two
new signs subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Commissioner Grasser referenced an inquiry made previously about the kiosk
sign program utilized in Carlsbad and was informed by Director Krempl that
utilization of kiosk signs would require a text amendment; he had directed
staff to conduct a study and that, hopefully, information would be available
within 6 months.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC {Green/Grasser) to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and
thereby deny the request for off-site subdivision directional signs at
locations 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and the north face of sign number 6.
MSC (Green/Grasser){6-1), Cannon no, to adopt a motion to approve the
request for sign location number 1 and the west face of sign number 6 based on
the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report and subject to the
conditions included therein.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-16 - RECONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE CITY
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION DISAPPROVING A
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
BROADWAY AND FLOWER - APPEL DEVELOPMENT
Associate Planner Griffin indicated the site is on the southwest corner of
Broadway and Flower Street in the C-T zone and involved the development of a
retail center on the portion of the lot fronting Broadway. The Commission
considered this item originally on May 8, 1987 with a resultant 3-3 denial.
The Commission later granted the applicant's appeal for reconsideration.
Based on the ruling of the City Attorney's office the item is not appealable
to the City Council and is final at the Planning Commission level. The Zoning
Administrator found that the orientation of the structure on the project site
would make the C-T property to the west unusable for commercial purposes
because of lack of visual and vehicular access to Broadway, thereby
necessitating the use of residential streets for access purposes.
-- Planning Commission -8- May 13, 1987
The applicant has based his appeal on (1) the incompatibility of the adjoining
area for C-T development; {2) previous approval of the tentative map; and (3)
an overly-broad interpretation of the principles for site plan and
architectural approval by staff.
Mr. Griffin noted that two of the items were legal issues which the City
Attorney had found not persuasive and they would limit themselves to the
planning issue. He recommended upholding the decision of the Zoning
Administrator and denying the appeal since based on the present zoning
pattern, the site in question should provide access to Broadway for the
adjoining commercial property. As an alternative, it was suggested that the
item be continued to the meeting of June 27, 1987 when the applicant's
requested General Plan Amendment and rezoning for the adjoining property would
be considered by the Commission.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Charles Gill, Attorney at Law, McDonald, Hecht-Solberg, 600 "B" Street, San
Diego, 92101, noted that a letter, dated May 6, 1987, had been submitted to
the Commission and all issues had been addressed either by staff or in the
letter. He commented that it was unreasonable to expect access from Broadway
for this property in the rear. He was of the opinion that the Commission's
decision did not preclude any commercial or secondary usage of the property
{such as hotels) which would not require direct access from Broadway, nor
preclusion of a decision by the City Council on the General Plan amendment and
rezoning.
He noted the critical issue of timing and the cost involved by a delay to June
27 and requested the Commission consider the economic factors involved. Mr.
Gill indicated that Ron Barefield, the project manager, and Tony Ambrose were
available for questioning by the Commission.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Green noted that his opinion regarding the site on the rear
portion has not changed; moreover, he considered the item to be a land-use
issue which should not be decided in this particular framework and if the
Commission overruled the previous action of the Zoning Administrator, Council
might not be in agreement.
Commissioner Cannon remarked that the delay was not unreasonable, the item had
been returned by Council once and he also would like to see the land-use
decision made in a different format; however, the development appeared to be
appropriate for the area and he saw no reason to delay further.
In reply to Commissioner Fuller's request for clarification of whether
upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator indicated the property was
not considered appropriate for commercial development, Commissioner Cannon
said that he did not consider commercial use of the property inappropriate but
Commissioner Green did. Commissioner Green interjected that Council might not
wish to maintain a commercial development in this location and he would like
Council to have the opportunity to decide on the land use.
Planning Commission -9- May 13, 1987
MSC (Cannon/Tugenberg) {4-3) to grant the appeal. Commissioners Grasser,
Green and Carson voted no.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-86-6 CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP FOR JASMINE PLACE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 86-6 LOCATED
AT 367 ROOSEVELT STREET - T & S DEVELOPMENT
Associate Planner Griffin commented that DRC had approved the project and the
purpose of the item is to divide the air space in order that the units may be
sold.
He noted that staff recommends approval of the tentative map subject to the
conditions in the staff report with the exclusion of conditions l, 2, and 4
which had been erroneously included.
Concern was expressed by Commissioner Green regarding parking in the light of
the parking problems in that area. Mr. Griffin replied that the project had
been approved before amendment of the Code to stipulate on-site guest parking.
Principal Planner Lee noted that the Vance Street frontage would be affected
by the off-street parking from the project.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Principal Planner Lee noted that the City has removed the parking on the north
side of Roosevelt Street in lieu of widening the street and the situation is
satisfactory.
Commissioner Fuller commented that replacement of some of the declining homes
in the area by apartments would be beneficial visually and add to the quality
of the downtown area.
MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of
the staff report to recommend that Council approve the tentative subdivision
map for Jasmine Place, Chula Vista Tract 86-6, subject to conditions 3 and 5
and deleting conditions l, 2 and 4.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: (A) PCS-87-9 - CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR VISTA CORTINA, CHULA VISTA TRACT
87-9 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAKESHORE
DRIVE AND EASTLAKE DRIVE-BREHM COMMUNITIES
(B) P-87-10 - CONSIDERATION OF PRECISE PLAN AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR VISTA CORTINA, CHULA VISTA
TRACT 87-9
(C) PCZ-87-O CONSIDERATION TO REDESIGNATE 22.42
ACRES FROM RP-13 TO RP-8 IN EASTLAKE SHORES - VISTA
CORTINA
Principal Planner Lee indicated that the proposal involved a tentative
subdivision map, precise plan and change in land use district for the
Planning Commission -lO- May 13, 1987
development of 162 detached units on a 22-acre site. The request to change
the RP-13 to RP-8 is to bring the land use district more in keeping with the
applicant's plans.
The subdivision of the property involves the creation of 162 lots with 10 lots
served by private drives. Because of the narrow lot width, the on-street
parking is more limited; however, the applicant has laid out the housing to
provide for 150 on-site parking spaces on a l:l ratio including the two-car
driveways. The applicant is planning a single-floor development on 22 of the
lots and two-story dwellings for the balance. The architecture is
Mediterranean with a tiled roof and popouts. A usable rear yard area of 600
square feet will be provided. Open patio construction is provided and any
addition to the project is precluded. Staff has two concerns: (1) In the
cul-de-sac (Street D), there are approximately 10 lots with on-street parking
for seven cars provided. While two vehicles could be parked in the panhandle
at the east, the adjacent driveway would be impacted. This combination of lot
width and five panhandle lots contributes to the problem of on-street
parking. Deletion of one unit has been suggested to allow additional
parking. (2) Fencing is not a critical item; however, the perimeters in the
rear lots are proposed with 3-1/2 foot high wrought iron fencing with bars at
6-inch centers, and based on the practicality and the desire for security and
privacy by the homeowners, it is considered that the fence height should be
increased to 5 feet. There is no intent to minimize the view of the lake, but
staff is of the opinion that the 5-foot fence with 4-inch spacing would be
more suitable. Pilasters have been added to the wrought iron fencing at 20
feet on center instead of the 40 feet proposed. In the corner lots, it is
felt that the use of a stucco wall provides a needed continuity
architecturally. It is also recommended that the applicant provide stucco
walls between the houses since this element becomes more critical in small lot
subdivisions. Staff recommends certification of the EIR and approval of the
application with the notation that conditions "c" and "d" are precise plan
conditions not subdivision conditions.
In response to Commissioner Green's question if there was additional space for
on-street parking, Mr. Lee replied there was only the loop road; however, no
safety factor was involved because of the neighboring streets. Commissioner
Green noted that omitting one unit would only gain a single parking place and
it would be necessary to delete several units to make an appreciable
difference in the on-street parking. Mr. Lee answered that traditionally a
single-family lot has the room to park two or three vehicles in front, but
that staff is comfortable with the ratio proposed in the project {1:1 basis).
Commissioner Cannon asked if there were any deviations from the Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) ordinance. A discussion was held about the application of the FAR
ordinance to single-family homes and planned community zones. It was pointed
out that special standards are developed for the individual planned community
projects subject to site plan review by the Commission. The Commission
objected that the FAR ordinance was designed to prevent enormous houses
located on small lots and should be considered Citywide. Director Krempl
interjected that EastLake was an exception to the FAR ordinance in that it had
Planning Commission -ll- May 13, 1987
its own development standards agreed to by Council. The Commission requested
an opinion from the City Attorney before proceeding with a vote. Deputy City
Attorney Moore said she would need to study the particulars of the regulations
and review the minutes from the meetings and would return with an opinion at
the next meeting. Commissioner Carson expressed concern for needed on-street
parking spaces to accommodate additional family cars as children mature and
become drivers. Mr. Lee said none of the traditional standards are applicable
to this development including the FAR ordinance since it was a planned unit
development. Commissioner Green inquired if the open patio covers were
included in the FAR standards and Mr. Lee replied that the specific patio
standards set forth in this development allows only for an open roof; but the
FAR ordinance did include patio covers, even open ones.
Samuel F. Safino, 3615 Kearny Villa Road, San Diego, 92123, representing
SB&O/Brehm Communities, noted they would like to have the ability, if
necessary, to exchange a single-story dwelling for a two-story one with a
greater setback. He reviewed the recommendations for parking and commented
that the design of the project was planned for below-average sales cost but
the City had insisted on public versus private streets; he enumerated the
parking spaces available and their location equating to a ratio of 5:1, and
claimed the City did not count nine of the spaces available in the cul-de-sac
because staff's count started halfway down the cul-de-sac, otherwise, the
ratio would be 8:7 which is slightly less than the rest of the development.
If one lot were dropped, per staff's recommendation, only one space would be
gained unless the lot line was changed.
William Hoover, Vice President of Brehm Communities, 2835 Camino del Rio
South, San Diego, 92108, pointed out that the fencing is spaced to emphasize
the view and requested that they be allowed to work with staff on an
acceptable balance of the pilasters; expressed disagreement with staff
regardin~ the fencing between houses and that a solid masonry wall would be
too costly.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Grasser/Cannon) (6-0) to certify that EIR-81-3 and EIR-84-1 have been
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,
and that the Planning Commission has reviewed the information contained in
each EIR prior to making a decision on the project.
MSUC (Grasser/Cannon) (6-0) that based on the findings contained in Section E
of the staff report to recommend that Council approve PCS-87-9, P-87-10 and
PCZ-87-O subject to the conditions contained in the staff report with the
following revisions to Condition 2:
2(c)(1) - A2 and C shall be raised to 5 feet in height.
(2) - A1 shall be raised to 5 feet high with masonry pilasters at
either 20 feet or 40 feet on center; or, in the alternative,
fence design C as revised may be used at all A1 locations.
Planning Commission -12- May 13, 1987
(3) - To be deleted.
(4) - B2 and B3 shall have wrought iron at 5 feet above grade. This
design shall be carried across the rear of lots 27-30.
(5) - Revised designs and details shall be subject to staff review and
approval.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-17 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR DECISION CONDITIONALLY REVOKING THE HOME
OCCUPATION PERMIT AT 467 SECOND AVENUE CARL R.
DAVIDSON
Continued to meeting of 5/27/87 - See page 1, first item.
7. DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Director of Planning Krempl reported that:
- the FAR Ordinance requires a 1-year follow-up report to Council. It
will also be brought back to the Planning Commission for any comments.
- The Workshop Meeting on 5/20/87 will feature the PRC alternatives for
the central Chula Vista area.
- Inquired about the Commission's wish to have the Dinner Workshop in
May or in June. The secretary will poll the Commission. Chairman
Shipe noted that he would be late for the Workshop Meeting but would
be there.
Distributed the draft resolution regarding development on the Otay
Mesa for review. It will be on the 5/27/87 agenda.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: None
NOTE: Commissioner Fuller notified the secretary that she will be absent for
the 5/20/87 Workshop and the 5/27/87 Business Meeting. She will attend
the Council Conference on the 28th.
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:20 to the Workshop Meeting of May 20, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. in
Conference Rooms 2 & 3 and to the Regular Business Meeting of May 13, 1987 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Ruth M. Smith, Secretary
Planning Commission
WPC 3936P