HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1979/12/12 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
December 12, 1979
A regular business 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: Smiths Pressutti, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, O'Neill, Stevenson
and Williams. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning
Supervisor Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Senior Civil Engineer
Daoust, 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 (R. Johnson-Stevenson) The minutes of the meeting of November 28, 1979 be
approved as written, copies having been mailed to the Commission.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Smith called for oral communications and none were presented.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of development plan for restaurant/motel and
R-V park at the northwest quadrant of I-5 and "E" Street,
Bay Boulevard Corporation
Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that a major development, consisting of
a motel, restaurant and R-V park, is proposed for the north side of "E" Street,
west of I-5. Plans for a similar development were approved in 1975, but that plan
was not implemented.
The applicant of the present plan signed an owner participation agreement with
the City a year ago which included authorization to encroach into Bay Boulevard;
this increases the area for development to approximately 8½ acres. The develop-
ment plan includes a restaurant over 17,000 sq. ft. in area, a 198 room motel and
a recreation vehicle park to accommodate 72 vehicles at the north end of the
project. The project received approval from the Regional Coastal Commission in
September of this year.
Mr. Lee noted that the guidelines in the Bayfront Plan limit the signing for any
enterprise to a 32 sq. ft. area. Since this plan includes three different businesses
it is felt they should be allowed 32 sq. ft. for each, or a total of 96 sq. ft.
total in the monument sign. The guidelines also indicate that buildings should
be adjacent to Bay Boulevard with parking near the freeway. This plan reverses
that arrangement, which provides better access into the project since the driveways
are farther from the freeway offramp. The staff does not feel the guideline is
valid or that it would result in as desirable a development plan.
-2- December 12, 1979
The Bayfront guidelines also require screen planting on all sides of the
property. In discussing this with the applicant, he agreed to screen the
development on all but the west side, citing their need to retain the view
to the west towards the bay. They have requested that instead of providing a
solid screen they would plant scattered trees to provide relief in the parking
area, but still retain the view to the west from the restaurant and motel.
Mr. Lee passed to the Commission a colored rendering of the proposed structures.
He discussed the proposed color scheme and the minor modifications recommended
by the staff.
Mr. Lee noted the list of ten conditions recommended by the staff for approval
of the project. He pointed out that the limitation of the seating capacity of
the restaurant/cocktail lounge to 300 persons is higher than the ratio of seating
capacity to parking spaces established in the Municipal Code. It is felt, however,
that this is justified since there will be an overlap of patrons at the motel and
the restaurant. The applicant has expressed the feeling that more consideration
should be given to the overlap and that the seating capacity should be increased
to 350. Without some evidence to justify this increase, the staff cannot support
the request. With the vacation of Bay Boulevard and with no parking available on
"E" Street, offsite parking is very limited so there is no place for an overflow
of cars.
Mr. Lee recommended that condition 4-a be modified to provide that landscaping
along the west property line shall utilize tree planting to provide relief for
the parking area; also that condition 4-b be changed to state, "The applicant may
utilize compact parking spaces," rather than "shall utilize." He also pointed out
a typographical error in condition 9, and that it should state, "The 12 sq. ft.
directional sign," rather than "120 ft."
With those changes in the conditions he recommended that the plan be approved.
Commissioner O'Neill questioned whether condition 3, which requires verification
that the proposed drainage into the Sweetwater Marsh has been approved by the
Coastal Commission can be met.
Mr. Lee advised that the plans were submitted to the Coastal Commission showing
drainage would flow in that direction, and those plans were approved by the Coastal
Commission; however, there is some specific language in the approval by the Coastal
Commission that requires additional justification and figures to show how the
drainage is being handled.
Commissioner Smith questioned whether that verification had to be "prior to
application for a grading permit," or if it could be "prior to issuance of a grading
permit."
Senior Civil Engineer Daoust indicated the change in wording suggested by Mr. Smith
would be acceptable.
In a discussion of the sign guidelines Mr. Lee advised that in addition to the
freeway oriented sign identifying the Bayfront Area, each business is entitled to
a 32 sq. ft. monument sign, plus directional signs as necessary. The sign
requested for this development is not freeway oriented although it may be possible
to see it from the freeway.
-3- December 12, 1979
In response to questions concerning compact parking spaces, Mr. Lee pointed out
that compact spaces are 7½ ft. wide and 15 ft. long, which allows 4 ft. of area
to provide a tree well as opposed to the standard 19 ft. long space. Allowing
some compact spaces improves the aesthetics of the parking lot without reducing
the number of spaces. Experience has shown that many standard cars can be
parked in compact spaces, also that compact cars frequently use standard parking
spaces. It is therefore recommended that the number of compact spaces be limited
to 20% of the total required parking.
Chairman Smith opened the public hearing. As no one wished to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
MSUC (R. Johnson-O'Neill) The Commission recommends that the Redevelopment Agency
approve the proposed development for the Ramada Inn, restaurant, R-V park, subject
to the conditions recommended in the staff report, with the modification to
conditions 4-a and 4-b as suggested by Mr. Lee, changing the word "application"
to "issuance" in condition 3, and correcting condition 9 to read "12 sq. ft.
directional sign."
2. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Environmental impact report EIR-80-1 on Growth
Management Policies
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that this hearing was continued from
the previous meeting awaiting comments from the State Clearinghouse. Those
comments have just been received but staff has not had an opportunity to prepare
a response to those comments for inclusion in the EIR. It is recommended that the
public hearing be continued to the meeting of January 9, 1980.
Commissioner O'Neill commented that the comments from the State indicate that any
development which would occur under this amendment'tO the General Plan would be
subject to approval by the State.
Mr. Reid pointed out that the City has not responded to that comment from the State;
and while there are certain areas in which the State would have certain respon-
sibilities, such as, the wetlands area next to the lakes, he felt the State's
comment is a rather broad statement and in a response the City can focus them into
their real area of concern.
MSUC (Stevenson-G. Johnson) The public hearing in consideration of environmental
impact report EIR-80-1 on Growth Management Policies shall be continued to the
meeting of January 8, 1980.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental impact report EIR-80-5, Ranchero SPA
(El Rancho del ReS Unit 6)
a. Update of air qualitS section of EIR-76-3
b. Supplement to EIR-78-2 for development o~ Ranchero SPA
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that this composit draft EIR was
issued by the Environmental Review Committee on November 8th and comments have
been received from: Environmental Control Commission, including comments on the
project itself; Otay Municipal Water District; County of San Diego Environmental
-4- December 12, 1979
Analysis Division, commenting on biological impacts and mitigation of those
impacts, and potential archeological impacts. No comments have been received
relating to the air quality analysis. This has been discussed with the Air
Pollution Control District and they seem satisfied with that portion of the
document.
Mr. Reid reported that he had discussed with the County of San Diego the letter
which they submitted in an attempt to better define their concerns. They indicated
that the statement in their letter that .... "the mitigation for this project
is inadequate," referred to the design of the project and not to the environmental
impact report.
Mr. Reid advised that the draft £IR was prepared by Advance Planning and Research
and a representative of that firm would present the contents of the report.
Commissioner O'Neill raised a question as to why the onsite photosynthetic pattern
is always automatically treated as a factor which degrades air quality, when
actually it may result in upgrading the air quality through the installation of
lawns, trees and shrubs, as opposed to the natural existing fauna. He felt in
some instances development could upgrade the air quality.
Mr. Reid indicated this is speculation, since development includes streets, paving,
roofs and patios. He advised that the photosynthesis that takes place with
vegetation after development depends on the density of the development, and that
a density of 4.5 or higher, as typical in development areas of this portion of
E1 Rancho del Rey, will result in a lowering of the photosynthesis process.
Craig Lorenz of Advance Planning and Research, reviewed the EIR, including a
description of the project and the alternative use of the 45-50 acre high school
site in the event the site is not required by the school district. He pointed out
the street improvements required to serve the development, although not actually
within the development. He pointed out that the purpose of the subject EIR is
to investigate and evaluate specific environmental issues related to the proposed
Ranchero Sectional Planning Area, which were not previously addressed in the
Master EIR for the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. The issues addressed in this
EIR include: land use, zoning and planning; geology; land form; air quality;
noise; biology; schools; fire stations; utilities; sewer; water; transportation,
community social factors and community tax structure. A number of alternatives
were addressed in the EIR; however, all were rejected as being infeasible at this
time with the exception of the alternative for developing additional units if the
Sweetwater Union High School does not acquire the site designated for a school.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
James Fairman, Project Design Consultants, 610 "A" Street, San Diego, which firm
represents E1 Rancho del Rey, commented on the biologically sensitive area,
identified as area B. He pointed out that roughly 20 per cent of that canyon
would be preserved in its natural state, and while it could be said that the
remaining 80 per cent contains the best stands of cholla, he suggested the mitigation
of that impact by transplanting the endangered species to the area to be preserved
in natural state either in this project or in the vast area of E1 Rancho del Rey.
He pointed out that preserving all of that area would result in some awkward
cul-de-sacs and some potential drainage and sewage problems. It would also
increase development costs and the cost of housing in the area. He further pointed
out that other developments have been permitted to transplant endangered species,
so this project would not be setting a precedent but would be following one which
has already been set.
-5- December 12, 1979
Mr. Fairman also commented on the letter from the County which suggests that
area "A" should be preserved in toto and that Paseo del Rey should not be
developed. He pointed out that Paseo del Rey was not on the original proposal
of E1 Rancho del Rey but was required by the City to be added as a link between
"H" Street and "J" Street.
As no one else wished to speak the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (G. Johnson-Stevenson) Consideration of the final EIR-80-5 be set for
January 9, 1980.
Commissioner O~Neill remarked that on page 66 of the report it is stated that this
project will probably not provide any low or moderate income housing, and refers
to the next project which will be coming along and will be far better suited to
do this. He felt this is the same straight cop-out contained in all EIR's, and
he wondered which area they are referring to that will be suitable for low and
moderate income housing.
Mr. Reid advised that insofar as E1 Rancho del Rey is concerned, the staff is
currently working with the developers of the Rice Canyon Sectional Area Plan,
South College, and East College for meeting this goal.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendment to Zonin9 Ordinance to allow plant nurseries in the C-O zone as a conditional use
Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that while amendments to the zoning
ordinance are normally considered first by the Planning Commission and a recommenda-
tion forwarded to the City Council concerning adoption of the amendment, in some
cases the Council can adopt an amendment to the zoning ordinance on either an
emergency basis or interim basis, then it must be referred to the Planning Commission
to follow the normal hearing process. That is what happened in this case; the
Council adopted an interim ordinance that is valid for 90 days listing nurseries
and related hardware sales as conditional uses in the C-O zone. While that may not
totally fit the purpose of the C-O zone, it is felt that a nursery would not be an
incompatible use in the C-O zone, particularly if required to be on the periphery
of a C-O zone and if they are subject to a conditional use permit, which would
allow additional control. He recommended that the proposed amendment be recommended
for adoption as a permanent ordinance.
Chairman Smith reported that in the definition section of the zoning ordinance he
did not find a definition of a plant nursery, and suggested that such definition
be added.
Mr. Peterson agreed that might be advisable if it were listed as principal permitted
use, but since each proposed site will require a conditional use permit application,
the Commission can determine whether the extent of the project proposed would be
compatible in the particular location.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no
one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Stevenson-O'Neill) The Commission finds that the proposed amendment to the
Municipal Code will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the
Negative Declaration on IS-80-30.
-6- December 12, 1979
MSUC (Stevenson-O'Neill) The Commission recommends that the City Council adopt
an amendment to Section 19.30.040 of the Municipal Code, adding a new subsection
"H", as worded in the staff report, and redesignating subsection "H" to subsection
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Peterson reported that next week's study session is scheduled
for 5:00 p.m. to be followed by dinner. The meeting will include a presentation
about the EIR process and the relation between the consideration of the EIR and
consideration of the project itself; also draft proposals of standards for private
schools and day care centers.
Chairman Smith suggested that discussion of the EIR process also include a discussion
of having financial impacts included in EIR's to help the Commission make a decision
on the desirability of a project.
Commission O'Neill asked if the meeting could also provide some information on the
argument between CPO and the County on air quality control.
Chairman Williams asked if the meeting could also include an update om where the
City stands on some of the larger area planning factors, such as sewage capacity,
power generation, water consumption, and whether there is any information from the
school districts regarding their projected capital building program.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner R. Johnson commented that earlier in the year when the budget was
considered mention was made of conferences available to Planning Commissioners,
specifically, the Monterey conference. He attended that last year and would be
interested in going again if no one else can go.
Mr. Peterson advised that particular conference is held in February and for this
year the conference has been changed to San Diego. More information will be made
available to the Commission when it is received.
In response to a question from Commissioner Stevenson, Mr. Peterson advised that
the report made to the City Council on condominium conversions was the same as the
report submitted to the Planning Commission earlier. This is scheduled for
discussion at a Council conference on December 13. The Council has previously
decided not to get involved in the social aspects of condominium conversions, but
they may have different feelings in that regard at this time.
Chairman Smith reported that about five years ago considerable study was conducted
by a Telegraph Canyon Creek Flood Control Committee on which he served as chairman.
That project has come back to life and the Corps of Engineers is proposing the
construction of a concrete channel to control the lower portion of Telegraph Canyon
Creek, from about Fourth Avenue down to I-5, with some additional construction on
the west side of I-5 out to the marshy area. Their proposal entails the creation
of a hydraulic jump to raise the channel about 17 feet above grade in certain areas
which would necessitate a high concrete wall. Mr. Smith indicated he did not
support that proposal and he may ask for a Council conference to discuss it.
-7- December 12, 1979
Mr. Peterson advised that he, too, felt concern about the construction of the wall
when he first learned of it, but after viewing the area where the wall will be
the highest, it eased his concern since it would not be visible from any public
right of ways
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Mapes, ecrq~ary