Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1980/01/09 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 9, 1980 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: Smith, Pressutti, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, O'Neill, Stevenson and Williams. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Supervisor of Current Planning Lee, City Engineer Lippitt, 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 Commissioner O'Neill requested that the minutes of the meeting of December 12, 1979 be corrected on page 5, fourth paragraph, stating his remarks concerning the provision of low or moderate income housing, to change the word "straight" to "standard." MSUC (O'Neill-Stevenson) The minutes of the meeting of December 12, 1979 be approved with the correction as requested. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Smith called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. Consideration of final EIR-80-5 on Ranchero Sectional Plannin§ Area (El Rancho del ReS Unit 6) a. Update of air quality section of EIR-76-3 b. Supplement to EIR-78-2 for development of Ranchero Sectional Planning Area Environmental Review Coordinator Reid pointed out this composi~Environmental Impact Report includes an update of the air quality section of the Master EIR for E1 Rancho del Rey. No comments were received concerning that portion of the new document; and it is recommended that section of the draft EIR be adopted as written~ The second portion of the draft EIR contains a specific analysis of the proposed development of the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area. Letters and testimony received at the public hearing held on December 12, 1979 have been included as Section 11 of the EIR and a response to those comments is contained in Section 12. With one exception, the impacts of the development can be mitigated as proposed in the EIR. That exception is the destruction of a major portion of biological sensitivity area "B". The staff is working with the developer toward a solution of that impact which can be incorporated into the project. -2- -~ January 9, 1980 Commissioner O'Neill questioned the mitigation of the impact of the significant land form variation that will result from the development. Mr. Reid pointed out that this project, when compared with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, is more sensitive to the retention of open space and land form, specifically in the areas along the south leg of Rice Canyon and along the extension of Paseo Ladera. This plan proposes the retention of more open areas than were shown in the Specific Plan as approved by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council. Commissioner O'Neill also questioned the section dealing with the availability of sewage treatment facilities. City Engineer Lippitt explained that the City of Chula Vista has contracted with Metropolitan Sewer District for 20 million gallons per day capacity and at present is using only 7½ million gallons per day capacity. It is the responsibility of the City of San Diego to provide the full capacity contracted for by Chula Vista and that jurisdiction is working on a solution to the problem which they hope to implement by 1985. MS (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission certifies that EIR-80-5 and the air quality update of EIR-76-3 have been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Environmental Review Policy of the City of Chula Vista, and that the Commission will consider the information in the final EIR as it reaches a decision on the project. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, G. Johnson, Williams, Smith and Stevenson NAY: Commissioner O'Neill ABSENT: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Environmental Impact Report EIR-80-1 on Growth Management Policies Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that this hearing was continued from the meeting of December 12, 1979 at the request of Cadillac Fairview Homes West to afford them an opportunity to clarify some of the points previously made. It is recommended that following any testimony received at this meeting, that the public hearing be closed and consideration of the final EIR be scheduled on January 23, 1980. Chairman Smith declared the public hearing open. Robert L. Santos, representing Cadillac Fairview Homes West and Western Salt Company, presented a series of slides to illustrate and clarify the assertions they previously made regarding the long term and short term impacts that would result from adoption of the policies as proposed, which they contend will concentrate growth in areas of greatest environmental sensitivity, necessitate increased trade-offs between environmental and fiscal goals, and tend to deny the city the ability to encourage large scale land planning programs for all -3- ~ January 9, 1980 of the phases of future development. He suggested that an alternative to the proposed policies would be the adoption of criteria goals by which growth could be managed in phases which would balance environmental and fiscal issues to both the short term and long term advantage of the overall community. Tom Gaines, 947 Ithaca Court, requested the address of the previous speaker, and commented that he had been dazzled by the presentation, but despite listening closely he had been unable to understand what was meant by the presentation. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stevenson asked if any provision has been made for development beyond an undeveloped area if the owner does not choose to develop within a reasonable period of time. Director of Planning Peterson advised that the proper procedure would then be to amend the General Plan to change the phasing as it applies to property further out. He noted that he has told the Cadillac Fairview people that he does not view the need to amend the General Plan as an additional burden on a developer because the Land Use Element of the General Plan presently designates nearly all of the area beyond College Estates as Agriculture and Reserve, so before any development can occur a prospective developer would have to apply for an amendment to the General Plan anyway. While he's at it he could apply for an amendment to the Growth Management Element. Commissioner Williams requested that the Growth Management Policies contain some definition of the percentage of development required in a given area before development can take place beyond that. Mr. Peterson acknowledged that need in the policies and advised that some thought has been given to better defining what is meant by the percentages, and prior to consideration of the actual policies it will be more precisely defined. Commissioner Williams also asked for some rationale of the boundaries of the different phases. Mr. Peterson indicated that can be done in the report addressing the adoption of the policies. He pointed out that the drawing of such boundary lines involves some judgment. Commissioner O'Neill called attention to page 36, paragraph 4.0 of the EIR and suggested that those two paragraphs could be reworded to indicate that it is difficult, in general, to foresee all of the direct and indirect impacts on any specific project within these areas. He asked if it is intended that each site would be subject to an additional environmental analysis prior to development. Mr. Reid advised there would be at least one additional environmental document on any area proposed for development, and on a large area there might be a Master EIR and supplemental reports to that. Commissioner O'Neill suggested that be spelled out more particularly in that paragraph. -4- ~ January 9, 1980 Chairman Smith reported that he did not understand the rationale for selecting the boundary lines of the various phases and did not think the policy being proposed is clear. He pointed out that the environmental impact report does not treat the chaos that might develop if somebody holds 11% of the land for develop- ment so that the other 90% of Bonita and Telegraph Canyon areas can't be developed. He felt that problem should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Reid advised that on January 23rd (if that is the date approved by the Commission) the Commission would have the proposed final Environmental Impact Report and the Growth Management Policies themselves, along with a report on those policies. He felt at that time everyone would have a better understanding. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that phases 1, 2 and 3 seem to deal with relatively manageable size land areas, but all the remaining area is included in phase 4 and he felt it would be more logical to also break that down into additional phases. Mr. Peterson advised that the boundaries of phase 4 are determined on the basis of the presently adopted General Plan and occur where an urban designation stops and an agriculture and reserve designation begins. He indicated this will be discussed in more detail in the staff report on the element itself and if the Commission disagrees with those boundaries they may cause them to be changed. He expressed the opinion that it is difficult for the EIR to deal with specific issues when the element which it relates to is very general. Commissioner G. Johnson asked if there is not some interest on the part of the City Council of reviewing the entire General Plan Land Use Element. Mr. Peterson confirmed that is true although the area of review now being considered would not relate so much to the remote areas in phase 4 as to the closer in areas. MSUC (O'Neill-G. Johnson) Consideration of the final EIR-80-1 on Growth Management Policies be scheduled for January 23, 1980. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental Impact Report EIR-80-6 on East College Sectional Planning Area (The Terrace) Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that this EIR was prepared by Multi Systems Associates under contract with the City, and a draft EIR issued by the Environmental Review Committee for review on November 29, 1979. Comments have been received from the San Diego County Archaeological Society which will require a response. It is recommended that following public testimony at this meeting, the hearing be closed, and consideration of the final EIR be scheduled. Dr. Richard Glenn, speaking for MSA, reviewed the scope of the project which will consist of 22 apartment structures containing 256 units, most of which are 2 bedroom, with 32 one bedroom units. He pointed out that the Environmental Impact Report deals with the impact on traffic, schools, geology, and aesthetics. Dr. Glenn showed slides of the pictures contained in the report which show the existing terrain as viewed from the northern boundary of the project, with the proposed building heights designated to indicate the effect the location of the buildings would have in blocking the views of the existing residents adjacent to the project. -5- ~ January 9, 1980 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. The following persons offered testimony concerning the Environmental Impact Report: Donald Linn, 1744 Ithaca Street; Don Bodie, 1654 Ithaca; John Garrisi, 958 Eton Court; James Fortner, 1732 Ithaca Street; Tom Gaines, 947 Ithaca Court; Andy Picone, 942 Ithaca Court; Shirley Fortner, 1732 Ithaca Street; Richard Turnblatt, 779 Sesame Street, Canyon Park Villas; Don Cousino, 1660 Ithaca Street; John Whelan, 1750 Ithaca Street; and Robert Smith, 1726 Ithaca Street. The main concern expressed was the blocking of views presently enjoyed by those residents. Other issues addressed related to noise, lighting, possible erosion, drainage capacity down- stream from the development, impact on schools and quality of life, and on the value of the existing homes. (A complete transcript of the testimony presented has been incorporated in the Environmental Impact Report.) The meeting recessed for 10 minutes and was reconvened at 9:05 p.m. At the completion of all testimony the public hearing was closed. Mr. Reid advised that due to the volume of testimony presented, it would be advisable to schedule consideration of the final EIR at the first meeting in February, to allow sufficient time for preparation of a response to the issues raised. MSUC (Stevenson-Williams) Consideration of the final EIR-80-6 on East College Sectional Planning Area be scheduled for the meeting of February 13, 1980. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-80-B - Rezoning two parcels on the south side of "D" Street, east of Broadway, from R-3 to C-T - McMillin Development, Inc. Director of Planning Peterson reported this is a proposal to rezone from R-3 to C-T two lots on the south side of "D" Street which are adjacent to the commercial strip along Broadway. These lots are under the same ownership as the adjoining commercial property fronting on Broadway and one of the recommended · conditions of approval is the combining of the lots into one parcel. This is important since some of the existing buildings cross the lot lines; it is also desirable to unify the development to the extent possible. As pointed out in the staff report the property considered for rezoning has been used for the storage of vehicles for about 25 years under a use variance approved by the City. Use variances are no longer legal but the applicant does have a vested right for the use of that property for the storage of vehicles, so the intent of this rezoning is to recognize the use that has existed for the past 25 years, although under the C-T zoning additional uses could be located on the property. It is recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted and a recommendation made to the Council to rezone the property from R-3 to C-T-P, subject to the precise plan guidelines contained in the staff report. It was pointed out by Chairman Smith that the Negative Declaration on this application was not included in the staff report. Assistant City Attorney Harron ruled that the Negative Declaration could be adopted if it is presented orally to the Planning Commission and they are in agreement with the findings. · -6- '~ January 9, 1980 Supervisor of Current Planning Lee went to get a copy of Initial Study IS-80-33 and the Negative Declaration. In his absence the Commission proceeded to agenda item 7. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-80-5 - Consideration of amendment to zoning ordinance relating to alternatives to on-site parking Director of Planning Peterson reported that this amendment to the zoning ordinance would require that any developer of a new commercial development or an addition to an existing commercial building within a parking district would be required to pay a fee in lieu of providing offstreet parking. The amount of the fee would be 1/4 of the value of the land that would otherwise be required for parking, so that the developer of property within a parking district gets a benefit equivalent to 3/4 of the value of the land that would otherwise have to be devoted to parking. This also relieves the developer from improving and landscaping the required parking area. Under the present regulations a developer within the parking district is not required to provide offstreet parking or to pay any fees. This is an increase which is felt to be justified due to the redevelopment of the town center area which is covered by the parking district to the extent that additional parking facilities are required. This ordinance will generate revenue from which public parking lots can be provided. This proposal has been considered by the Town Centre Project Area Committee, and the Third Avenue Business and Professional Group, and those agencies have indicated support for the proposed levying of fees. It is recommended that the Negative Declaration on IS-80-32 be adopted and a recommendation forwarded to the City Council to enact the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance to require a developer of a commercial building within the parking district to make in lieu payments for parking. 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 (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The Commission adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-80-32 and finds that the proposed amendment would not significantly impact the environment. MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Section 19.62.040 of the Municipal Code, and that the statement in the second paragraph of the "In Lieu Parking Fee Policy" be corrected to state the fee shall be one-forth of the fair market value of the land normally required for offstreet parking. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (resumed): PCZ-80-B - Rezoning two parcels on the south side of "D" Street, east of Broadwas, from R-3 to C-t - McMillin Development, Inc. Current Planning Supervisor Lee summarized the Initial Study on the rezoning of the two parcels, which included the project setting and description, and the following identification of environmental effects: - -7- -~ January 9, 1980 "Noise. Due to the orientation of the existing structures which are to be used for auto repair, and the separation from adjacent multiple family units, the problem of increased ambient noise levels appears negligible. The construction of a 6 ft. high zoning wall along the east and south property line and conformance with the Performance Standards outlined in Chapter 19.66 of the Municipal Code should hold noise levels to an acceptable level. "Aesthetics. The applicant proposes providing spot lights for night security. These lights shall be shielded to prevent excess glare on the adjacent street right-of-way and adjacent residential areas." Mr. Lee noted that a Conditioned Negative Declaration was issued which included the following mitigation measures to avoid significant impact: 1. A 6 ft. high zoning wall shall be constructed for the east and south property lines adjacent to the residential zoned property. 2. Exterior security lights shall be shielded to prevent excess glare on the adjacent right-of-way and residential areas. Mr. Lee summarized the findings of insignificant impact, which included: no significant natural resources, consistency with the Gen~eral Plan objectives, and the conditional use permit process to insure conformance with zoning regulations. Commissioner R. Johnson questioned the location of a building adjacent to the east property line as shown on the exhibit in the staff report. Mr. Lee advised that the applicant had previously requested a building permit for this structure to be used as an accessory building which is allowed to be located at the property line in the R-3 zone. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Ken Baumgartner of McMillin Development Company, 30th and B Street, National City expressed essential concurrence with the staff recommendation. He advised that consolidation of the three lots into one parcel, as recommended in the report, has now been accomplished. With reference to the requirement for a zoning wall, he pointed out that the property is presently surrounded on the south, east and north sides by a combination of chainlink and wood fencing. The wood fence on the east was constructed by the adjacent property owner and construction of a block wall would necessitate removal of that fence. He asked for the deletion of the condition requiring construction of a wall on the south and east property lines. In response to a question from Commissioner Pressutti, Mr. Peterson suggested that the condition could be modified to require the zoning wall along the east property line unless the applicant has a letter of agreement from the adjacent property owner concerning its deletion. Joe Rindone, 230 Guava Street, advised that he owns the adjacent property on the east and he would not agree to omission of the zoning wall, because during the past years they have constantly been required to repair the wooden fence due to damage inflicted by cars in the storage yard when the property was owned by Paxton's Garage. He expressed strong support for the requirement of a 6 foot -8- ~ January 9, 1980 concrete zoning wall, along with landscape screening along the east property line. He also felt the chainlink fence along "D" Street should be replaced with a block wall. He also supported the condition that primary access to the site be from Broadway since "D" Street is a residential street. Earl Ehrenberg, 3012 Denver Street, San Diego, owner of the property to the north, on the opposite side of "D" Street, expressed agreement that the block wall and appropriate landscaping should be extended along the "D" Street side of the property inasmuch as the site is being used as an auto repair yard. He reported that the driveway from the subject property to "D" Street is used constantly. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. On questions raised by the Commission, it was confirmed that the existing fence located 4 feet from the north property line was authorized by a variance, which would not be affected by the rezoning of the property (unless the Planning Commission adopts specific requirements under the "P" zone); also that under provisions of the code a street may serve as separation between commercial and residential property and take the place of a zoning wall. Director of Planning Peterson advised that in light of questions and facts brought up in the public hearing, he would recommend that consideration of the rezoning application be continued to the meeting of February 13th to give the staff an opportunity to meet further with the applicant and some of the adjacent property owners. MSUC (O'Neill-R. Johnson) Consideration of the request for rezoning two parcels on the south side of "D" Street east of Broadway be continued to the meeting of February 13, 1980. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCV-80-6 - Request for reduction of lot frontage and increase in density on the west side of Fifth Avenue between "F" Street and Parkway in the R-3 zone - Dean T. Bowden Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that the Planning Commission had approved a similar variance for this site in 1976; however, that variance expired without being used. A new variance application and tentative subdivision map have been submitted for consideration. Mr. Lee noted that in 1961, 128 apartment units were constructed on this 3 acre site which faces Park Way. The .67 acre portion of the site was separated from the development by a drainage channel and has frontage along Fifth Avenue. Taking into consideration the total area of the site, six more units could have been included in the 1961 development. A subsequent change in the zoning ordinance has reduced the allowable density of the site to 99 units. The .67 acre portion of the site does not relate well to the development to be used as additional parking or open space. The application for variance and tentative subdivision map under consideration at this time are the same as approved in 1976, which would allow the creation of four additional lots to be developed with single family dwellings. This division of the property would result in lots comparable to the requirements in the R-1 -9- January 9, 1980 zone for street frontage and area. Development of this property would require improvement of the drainage channel at the rear of the lots to be established. It is recommended that the variance application be approved subject to four conditions relating to improvement of the drainage channel, construction of a 6 foot high solid fence, restriction of the four lots to single family dwelling use only, and approval of a plot plan for lot #1. Mr. Lee also noted that since there was no change in the proposed project from the 1976 application, the Negative Declaration on IS-75-78, which was certified by the Planning Commission on January 26, 1976 may be applied to this project. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Gary Hay of Biggs Engineering, 124 East 30th Street, National City, engineer for the project, expressed concurrence with the recommendation of the staff and his willingness to answer any questions of the Commission. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (R. Johnson-O'Neill) The Commission recertifies the Negative Declaration on IS-75-78 and approves the variance allowing an increase in density on the 2.41 acre parcel from one unit/lO00 sq. ft. to one unit/820 sq. ft., and a reduction in the minimum lot frontage from 65 feet to 60 feet for the four lots proposed on Fifth Avenue, subject to the four conditions enumerated in the staff report. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-80-8 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Parkway Place, Chula Vista Tract 80-8 Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that this subdivision map would implement the development as approved by the previous variance. It is recommended that the map be approved subject to six conditions related to the development and to requir~public improvements. 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-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-8, Parkway Place, subject to the six conditions enumerated in the staff report. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson suggested that the Commission may wish to cancel the study session scheduled for January 16, since staff is not yet ready to discuss several items being worked on and he is not aware of other items which the Planning Commission may wish to discuss. Chairman Smith reported the receipt of a letter from Attorney Sam Blick requesting that at the study session in January the Commission allow him to present a proposal for the expansion of the mini-shop area of the ARCO station -10- January 9, 1980 at Broadway and "E" Street. Mr. Smith felt that such a proposal should be considered at a regular business meeting of the Commission. He suggested that copies of Mr. Blick's letter be distributed to each of the Commissioners prior to the meeting of January 23 so a decision could be made at that time as to how to handle it. Mr. Peterson advised he had talked to Mr. Blick on the phone this afternoon at which time Mr. Blick indicated the January 16th study session would conflict with other obligations which he has, and suggested this matter be considered at the February study session. Mr. Peterson said he had no strong preference as to whether the request is discussed at a study session or a regular business meeting. The Commission concurred with the cancellation of the study session scheduled for January 16. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner O'Neill commented that he had found the December study session very helpful in clarifying the Commission's role as to environmental studies. Mr. O'Neill further commented that the Human Relations Commission has an affordable housing subcommittee which submitted a report on December 12th on changes to the Housing Element. He asked that a copy of that report be furnished to members of the Planning Commission. He also requested that at the next study session someone explain to the Commission the small lot overlay used by the City of San Diego and the County R-B-11 zoning, which is comparable. Mr. O'Neill also expressed his appreciation for copies of articles from zoning magazines such as the one recently sent on infra-structure fees and growth management. Commissioner Williams requested that at the next study session a presentation be included on the problem of houses sliding and whether the stabilizing techniques now proposed will guarantee that Chula Vista will not have problems with houses sliding. The Commission discussed briefly the need and means of updating the General Plan. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secret~ry