HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1979/10/10 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
October 10, 1979
A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California
was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members
present: Smith, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, O'Neill, Pressutti, Stevenson and
Williams. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Environmental Review
Coordinator Reid, Assistant City Attorney Harron and Secretary Mapes.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Smith, followed by a
moment of silent prayer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Stevenson-Williams) The minutes of the meeting of September 26, 1979 be
approved as written, copies having been mailed to the Commission. Commissioner
O'Neill abstained from voting due to his absence from that meeting.
ORAL COHMUNICATIONS
Chairman Smith called for oral communications and none were presented.
1. Consideration of final EIR-79-8 (supplement to Master EIR-78-2)for develop-
ment of 419 acres in Rice Canyon Sectional Plannin~ Area of
E1 Rancho del Re~
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that the public hearing in
consideration of the draft of this environmental impact report was held and
closed on September 12, 1979. Last week copies of the final report, including
all written comments, testimony presented in the public hearing, and response
thereto, were placed in the Chula Vista Library for public review.
Mr. Reid reviewed the major issues raised in the public hearing, including the
connection of the project to Lynwood Drive, potential problem of effluent seepage
in the cut slope abutting Lynwood Hills, and the location of a vernal pool on
the property. These issues are addressed in the final EIR.
Commissioner O'Neill commented that in the responses to the objections raised
in the public hearing, he felt there was a lot of "broken field running." For
instance, when objection was raised to the amount of cut and fill that would be
required for the site of the junior high school, the answer was that this is
the site set forth on the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and it takes that much
cut and fill to provide the necessary pad for the school.
Mr. Reid pointed out that the purpose of the EIR is to determine if there is
going to be a significant impact and how it can be mitigated.
-2- October 10, 1979
Commissioner R. Johnson objected to the three-quarter mile underground drainage
proposed, and advised that he preferred the Sedway/Cooke proposal to leave that
valley floor in a natural state.
Commissioner Williams advised he is particularly concerned about the drainage
and the land form alteration.
Director of Planning Peterson advised that during consideration of the E1 Rancho
del Rey Specific Plan it was pointed out that within this 450 acre area, the
extension of "H" Street would require massive grading. Since that would have
to be done anyway, there should not be so much concern about the amount of dirt
moving, as about the appearance of the area after grading.
With regard to the increased density, Mr. Peterson reported that the adopted
Specific Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey allows approximately 850 dwelling units for
this area, while the proposed plan is for about 1200 units; however, in the
text of the Specific Plan it is indicated that if all the area proposed for
commercial development is not developed commercially that area would be appro-
priate for multiple family development which would increase the residential
density. That is what this developer is planning since he is devoting 30
acres to commercial use rather than 40 acres and is using 10 acres for additional
residential development.
Commissioner O'Neill expressed the belief that there were several alternatives
for the extension of "H" Street through the 450 acre Rice Canyon area and the
one finally selected could require less cut and fill than proposed in this project.
Mr. Peterson advised that Sedway/Cooke had recommended a different alignment for
"H" Street which would have required less cut and fill; however, the Engineering
Department saw tremendous problems with that and recommended against the Sedway/
Cooke alignment, and both the Planning Commission and City Council accepted the
modified alignment as recommended by the city's engineering staff.
Commissioner O'Neill agreed that the problems associated with the project have
been pointed out in the EIR, but he did not think the mitigating measures are
satisfactory. He felt besides the cut and fill, the problem of flood control
is very eminent since the existing structures can't handle the flooding now.
Mr. Reid pointed out that when the Commission considers the project itself it
will be necessary to determine whether measures have been taken to mitigate the
adverse impact, and if that has not been done, the project would have to be denied.
In response to a question of alternatives open to the Commission, Chairman Smith
advised that the Commission may accept the report as written, or if they do not
feel everything is included in the report that needs to be to identify the
environmental impact, additional information may be included in the report.
Commissioner Pressutti suggested that mitigation does not mean elimination, but
amelioration. The report identifies the problems and indicates things which
would soften the impact of the problems, although he felt it would not be possible
for the report to cover everything that could be done to soften the problem. It
is a means of identifying for the developer and the city the problems which must
be considered and dealt with in the development of the project plans. He felt
the final EIR has adequately done that.
-3- October 10, 1979
MS (R. Johnson-Pressutti) The Commission certifies that the EIR has been
prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Environmental Review Policy of the
City of Chula Vista.
Commissioner O'Neill agreed that the problems have been identified, but he felt
the mitigation measures fall far short of what is needed.
Commissioner Williams spoke against the motion, indicating that he felt it is
important to take an overview of the entire project, rather than moving ahead
step by step and merely meeting the criteria required for each step.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners R. Johnson, Pressutti, G. Johnson and Stevenson
NOES: Commissioners ~illiams and O'Neill
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Smith
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Smith advised that he had abstained from voting because he was not
present at the meeting when the public hearing was held, although he has reviewed
all minutes and reports.
Chairman Smith pointed out that there is apparently some feeling that there are
some inadequacies in the proposal which may result in hard sledding when the
specific plan is considered. He felt the developer should have knowledge of
this before he spends a lot of money on plans.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-80-1 - Request to redevelop
e×istin~ church site at 345 Fifth Avenue - Grace Baptist Temple
Director of Planning Peterson indicated the location of the church site fronting on
Fifth Avenue about midway between "F" and "G" Streets. He pointed out that the
site is surrounded on three sides by single family and multiple family development,
with multiple family development also located on Fifth Avenue opposite this site.
He displayed a site plan showing the parking area, existing chapel, classroom
building and nursery, as well as the location of the proposed two-story structures
which would replace the existing classrooms. Under the proposed redevelopment
the nursery would function as a day care center for approximately 50 children
during the school year and up to 100 children during the summer months. A portion
of the parking lot would be devoted to playground. The expanded classroom space
would be used for a parochial elementary school for up to 300 students in kinder-
garten through the sixth grade.
Mr. Peterson advised that the staff is concerned that since this site is just over
one acre and surrounded by single family and multiple family development the
proposed use is very intensive for this property. It is the staff's conclusion
that this use would be disruptive to surrounding uses in terms of noise and
traffic generation, and it is recommended that the church seek a larger site.
In comparing this site with public schools and two other private schools, the
density of student population at this school would be higher than at the others.
The public schools normally expect 52 children per acre; the parochial schools
range from 130 to 220 students per acre. This proposal would accommodate about
-4- October 10, 1979
250 school children per acre, plus the preschoolers. It was, therefore, the
reluctant conclusion of the Planning Department that this site is not suited
for this degree of intensity and that the application should be denied.
In response to a question from Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Peterson advised that
the request has been modified from an original 750 students to 300 students.
In response to a question from Commissioner Williams as to what would be the
point of overloading, Mr. Peterson expressed the opinion that a church site of
this size should not operate an elementary school of any capacity.
Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that on the site plan it appears that the
construction of two additional buildings would eliminate all playground area
except the space near the nursery.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Lee Hauck, representing Grace Baptist Church pointed out that the northeast
corner of the property is used as play area for the existing nursery. He indicated
on the site plan the area of the parking lot that would be barricaded from traffic
to serve as playground for the kindergarten through sixth grade students.
Mr. Hauck advised that in addition to working with the City's environmental
staff, they obtained outside professional help from San Diego Acoustics, and
accepted their recommendation for limiting the number of children on the playground
at one time to 63, in order to not exceed the acceptable 60 decibel noise level
at the property line as determined by the California Department of Health.
The matter of traffic was also addressed in the environmental Initial Study and
found to be of no significant impact.
In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Hauck indicated that the
25 ft. by 50 ft. nursery structure would be limited to 50 children.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Stevenson expressed the opinion that this is a classic case of
overbuilding in the area; he also did not go along with the idea of using the
parking lot as a playground.
Commissioner R. Johnson concurred that this is much too intense usage for this
location, for the neighborhood, and for the children.
MSUC (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) The Commission adopts the Conditional Negative
Declaration on IS-80-1 and finds that this project will have no significant
environmental impact.
MSUC (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) Based on the negative findings stated in the
staff report, the Commission denies the request for a conditional use permit
PCC-80-1.
The applicant was advised of the right to appeal the Commission's decision to
the City Council within ten days.
-5- October 10, 1979
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Peterson called attention to ~he seminar on planning to
be held at Vacation Village on October 12 and 13, Dnd suggested ride sharing
if that is convenient. Five Commissioners expressed their intent to attend
on one or both days of the seminar. ~
Mr. Peterson also advised that next week's meetingiwill be devoted to consideration
of amendments to the General Plan.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner G. Johnson requested that the Fire Marshall comment on the provision
relating to storage in condominiums that allows stprage under stairwells. She
felt this would be very hazardous if people could pot get down the stairs in the
event of a fire in the storage area.
Fire Marshall Monsell advised that in a condomini ~ or apartment complex, the
storage of flammable or combustible materials is )t permitted under an exit
stairway. If it is an enclosed stairway where al the structural members are
protected, certain kinds of storage would be permitted, but nothing in the form
of gasoline or any other highly inflammable or explosive materials. He further
advised that this is controlled by periodic fire ilspections of condominiums the
same as apartment buildings.
Commissioner O'Neill reported that he is required to go to the east coast on
family business this month and will be absent fromlthe meetings of October 17
and October 24.
Commissioner Pressutti asked for a report from Mr.iPeterson on the outcome of
items considered at City Council meetings, particularly with regard to the
conflict of interest code, a policy on attendance ak Boards and Commission meetings,
regulation of stock cooperatives and Council actioN on Cadillac Fairview's request
for a delay on the EIR on the Growth Management Element of the General Plan.
Chairman Smith reported that he appeared at the City Council meeting last week to
speak in opposition to the proposed conflict of interest code, which he felt
makes a very unfair penalty upon anyone with enough interest in his own community
to invest in real estate or create a business there. The penalties proposed for
even failing to report the ownership of a piece of!property can be as high as
three times the value of that piece of property; it is not related to whether
or how much said Commissioner may profit from thatl, it's three times the value
of the property. This applies not only to propert~ within the City of Chula Vista
but also extends two miles beyond any city limit boundary or any piece of land
owned by the City of Chula Vista. On the other hand, a less interested citizen
who lives in the city but has no investments here Other than his own home, his
maximum liability is $10,000. He felt this is completely out of line and if it
is adopted in that framework he would be resigningifrom the Commission, inasmuch
as he has acquired some property--a small portion in Chula Vista, but most of it
within the two mile limit of Chula Vista. He cannot jeopardize his security
to that extent.
Mr. Peterson advised that with regard to the Cadillac Fairview issue relating to
growth management the City Council authorized continuation of that matter for
at least 60 days, since it was discovered that forlthat particular type of amendment
-6- October 10, 1979
to the General Plan, the environmental impact report must be processed not
merely through C.P.O. as with normal EIR's but through the State of California.
This was not done, and since it was a flaw in the processing, it is now necessary
to reissue the EIR, hold a new public hearing by the Planning Commission and
process the report through the State.
On the subject of attendance of Boards and Commission members, Mr. Peterson
reported that some of the Commissions have a problem with attendance and are
sometimes unable to get a quorum. It was felt the Council should give some
direction as to attendance requirements. It was the Council's decision to allow
the individual Boards and Commissions to formulate their own rules and regulations,
which would be reviewed annually by the Council. Attendance has not been a problem
with the Planning Commission and it was not felt necessary to adopt a hard and
fast rule.
With regard to stock cooperatives, Mr. Peterson reported that the State Legislature
has passed a law that treats stock cooperatives the same way as subdivisions and
condominiums; that bill, at the last report, had not been signed by the Governor,
but when and if it is enacted it would preclude the need for an amendment to
our ordinance.
Commissioner O'Neill asked if the status report on housing matters that was
submitted to the Council a few months ago could be distributed to the Planning
Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Mapes
Secretary