HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1980/02/13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
February 13, 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, O'Neill, Stevenson, R. Johnson,
and Williams. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson,
Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Assistant City
Attorney Harron, and Secretary Anderson.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Smith, followed by a
moment of silent prayer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSC (O'Neill/Stevenson) The minutes of the meeting of January 23, 1980 be
approved as written, copies having been mailed to the Commission.
The vote was as follows, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners O'Neill, Stevenson, Williams, Pressutti, G. Johnson
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners R. Johnson, Smith
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Smith called for oral communications and none were presented.
1. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): PCZ-80-B - Rezoninq two parcels on south side of
"D" Street, east of Broadway, from R-3 to C-T - McMillin
Development, Inc.
Current Planning Supervisor Lee pointed out that this was a continued item from
the meeting of January 9, 1980. He noted that this is a request to rezone
approximately .6 acres consisting of two parcels located on the south side of
D Street, 90 feet east of Broadway, from R-3 to C-T. He went on to explain that
certain portions of the existing commercial structures on one parcel encroach
into the R-3 parcel which is due to the fact that the property was used in the
past as part of an automobile towing and storage operation, and that the City
approved a variance some 25 years ago authorizing the R-3 area to be used for
commercial vehicle storage. Mr. Lee informed the Commission that the City
recently approved a building permit for two accessory structures on the site
and these structures are allowed on the property line but they are restricted
to use as private vehicle storage areas. He stated that if the property is rezoned
to C-T the structures could be put to commercial use but their use for repair of
vehicles would not be allowed unless the Commission approves a conditional use
permit for such use. He mentioned the buildings are being constructed to standards
which would enable them to be used for commercial purposes.
-2- ~ February 13, 1980
He advised the Commission that staff has concluded that the depth of the
C-T zone along Broadway in this area is inadequate for today's standards,
and that the primary concern is to insure that development is oriented toward
Broadway in order to avoid adversely affecting adjoining residential areas.
Staff has recommended approval of the rezoning with the attachment of the
zone to assure review of any future buildings or any activity which could be
detrimental to adjoining residents. In addition staff is recommending several
conditions in the staff report which should alleviate any problems that may occur.
In reply to questions, Mr. Lee assured the Commission that the property would
be properly screened from adjacent properties, and that staff would attempt to
orient development towards Broadway and that repair of vehicles by the applicant
on this site would be subject to a conditional use permit.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Ken Baumgartner, of McMillin Development Co., stated he concurred with the staff
recommendations and conditions.
During the ensuing discussion, Mr. McMillin clarified that the entire area would
be paved and used for the storage of vehicles.
Earl Ehrenberg, 591 D Street, asked if the block wall would be extended along
the entire "D" Street frontage.
Mr. Lee stated that it would be except for the gates.
Joe Rindon, 230 Guava, owner of the apartment house to the east, concurred with
the staff recommendations.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (StevensonrR. Johnson) The Commission adopts the Negative Declaration on
IS-80-33 and finds that the proposed project will have no significant environ-
mental impact.
MSUC (Stevenson-R. Johnson) Based on the findings as stated in the staff report,
the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council enact an ordinance
rezoning the subject property from R-3 to C-T-P and establish precise plan guide-
lines as enumerated in the staff report.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: a. PCZ-80-D - Rezone approximatels 4100 sq. ft. at northwest
corner of Third Avenue Extension and Sea Vale Street from
R-1 to C-O - Peter's Home and Garden Center
b. PCC-80-12 - Conditional use permit application to relocate
plant nursery in C-O zone at northwest corner of Third
Avenue Extension and Sea Vale Street
c. PCV-80-8 - Variance application for reduction of front
yard and rear ~ard setbacks for development of plant
nursery at the northwest corner of Third Avenue Extension
and Sea Vale Street
-3 February 13, 1980
Mr. Lee declared that this item involves a request to rezone approximately
3700 sq. ft. of property located immediately to the south of 315 Sea Vale Street
from R-1 to C-O. The applicant is also requesting approval of a conditional use
permit to locate and operate a plant nursery with related hardware items at the
northwesterly corner of the property and also a variance to reduce the front and
rear yard setback requirements in order to construct a 6 ft. high fence, 5 ft.
from the front property line and to locate a commercial structure 3 ft. from the
rear property line.
Mr. Lee summarized the three applications stating that the rezoning involves
approximately 3700 sq. ft. of an 11,947 sq. ft. parcel, leaving 8251 sq. ft. of
lot area zoned R-1 thus exceeding the minimum lot size for the R-1 zone. He
explained this rezoning would result in a more effective use of the existing
commercial property since the depth would be increased to 110 ft. and that the
proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
Mr. Lee stated that the request for a conditional use permit is to operate a
plant nursery in the C-O zone. The applicant proposes to construct a 8050 sq. ft.
commercial structure with approximately 2850 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to
storage, a 250 sq. ft. office and 4950 sq. ft. devoted to retail sales. He
explained the outdoor nursery area will be located on the south and east sides
of the building and will be enclosed by a 6 ft. high combination wall and wrought
iron fence. Off-street parking for 23 cars with two 24 ft. driveways will be
provided. Mr. Lee noted that there is a problem with the sign which will have to
be redesigned in accordance with the design standards set forth in the Municipal
Sign Ordinance.
Staff feels that this is a good use for a difficult site and has recommended
approval of the conditional use permit with conditions enumerated in the staff
report.
Mr. Lee discussed the variance application stating the applicant has requested
a reduction of the rear and front yard setback requirements. He commented that
because of the shallow depth of the lot and the slopes along the north side, the
proposed 8050 sq. ft. building will be set into the slopes through the use of
retaining walls. He stated that the Code requires a 15 ft. rear yard setback
in the C-O zone adjacent to residential areas and the maximum height of a fence
in the 10 ft. front yard setback in the C-O zone is 3 1/2 ft. The applicant has
requested the variance to maintain a 3 ft. rear yard setback and to construct a
6 ft. high open fence within the front yard setback.
Mr. Lee advised the staff has recommended approval of the variance as the single
family residence adjoining the property is located 44 ft. from the common property
line and 20 ft. higher in elevation and should not be adversely affected. In
moving the building toward the rear property line it would allow the applicant to
use the rear wall of the building as a retaining wall and thus freeing the area
in front for display of plants which coincides with the applicant's request to
place a 6 ft. wrought iron fence 5 ft. from the property line.
Mr. Lee stated that staff has recommended approval of the rezoning from R-1 to
C-O, the conditional use permit subject to conditions enumerated in the staff
report and the variance subject to the approval of the design and materials by
the Director of Planning.
-4- - February 13, 1980
Commissioner G. Johnson expressed concern regarding the sale and possible repair
of lawnmowers and the residential area being so close to this type of use.
Mr. Lee informed the Commission that this had been discussed with the applicant.
He explained that the applicant is planning a very limited amount of repair and
has designed the structure with a soundproof room in the center of the building
to prevent any problems with noise.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Ernest Harris, 8348 Center Drive, San Diego, applicant's architect, concurred
with staff recommendations on all three items.
Ray Yoder, 296 Sea Vale, representating the applicant, concurred with staff
recommendations.
James Johnson, 315 Sea Vale, concurred with the proposal; his only concern is
fencing between the commercial and residential property.
Mr. Lee advised the applicant has not shown a fence separating the C-O zone from
the R-l, however the zoning ordinance does require fencing unless specifically
waived by the Commission. If the Commission approved the plan as submitted they
would be waiving the requirement for a zoning wall. There is no need for the
wall because of the change in elevation between the commercial and adjoining
residential dwelling. He went on to explain that typically in the case of
neighborhood commercial developments adjoining residential areas, the staff has
recommended waiver of the wall in every case with this type of topography
differences and the staff would adhere to the same recommendation here.
Mr. Johnson was concerned with the slope and the drainage of the runoff during
a rainy season.
Mr. Harris reassured Mr. Johnson the drainage would be adequately addressed and
a retaining wall would be constructed at the base of the slope.
In answer to a question by Commissioner G. Johnson he stated that landscaping
would be installed on the slope.
Mr. Johnson stated that he is satisfied with the design of the building and
drainage as explained by Mr. Harris.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (G. Johnson-O'Neill) The Commission adopts the Negative Declaration on
IS-80-30 and finds that the proposed project w~ll have no significant environmental
impact.
MSUC (G. Johnson-O'Neill) The Commission recommends that the City Council approve
PCZ-80-D, rezoning approximately 3700 sq. ft. from R-1 to C-O.
MSUC (G. Johnson-O'Neill) Based on the findings contained in Section E of the
staff report, the Planning Commission adopts a resolution approving PCC-80-12
subject to the conditions enumerated in the staff report.
.... 5- -~ February 13, 1980
MSUC (G. Johnson-O'Neill) Based on the findings contained in Section E of the
staff report, the Planning Commission adopts a resolution approving PCV-80-8,
subject to approval of the design and materials by the Director of Planning.
3. Consideration of final EIR-80-6 on East College Sectional Planning Area ' (¥he Terrace)
Director of Planning Peterson advised that the public hearing for this EIR was
held on January 9, 1980. At that time testimony was taken on items such as
drainage, traffic, noise, blockage of views, lighting, school capacities all of
which are listed on page 72 of the EIR. He stated staff has responded to this
testimony on pages 73 through 76 and the verbatim testimony has also been
included in the final EIR. Staff feels that the report is complete and ready
for certification by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern regarding the geotechnical report and
when it was to be completed.
Dr. R. Glenn, of MSA, Inc. consultant on the project, stated that the report had
been completed and there were no new findings regarding geologic conditions other
than what was in the EIR already.
Chairman Smith commented that this information should be incorporated into the
final EIR.
Commissioner Williams asserted that in regards to aesthetics, that the buildings
(specifically #1 and 10) would be rather intrusive on the single family dwellings,
due to pad levels, and he considered this as a significant environmental impact.
In the ensuing discussion it was determined that view blockage was not an
environmental impact and could be discussed at the time that the project was
before the Commission.
Mr. Peterson stated that staff will ask the applicant to flag the specific lots
where the heights of the buildings would be most obtrusive and that the Commission
would go on a special field trip to view the site to get an idea of the height
of the buildings and view blockage.
Dick Brown, representing the Gersten Company, was concerned with inclusion of
testimony into the EIR without opening the public hearing.
Chairman Smith informed Mr. Brown that this was not a public hearing and that it
was possible to add items to the EIR.
There was more discussion on the economic impact on the community, although
technically this impact is not considered environmental impact, it is usually
mentioned as an element to consider during deliberation on the project.
MSC (Pressutti-Stevenson) The Commission certifies the EIR-80-6 has been
prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Environmental Review Policy of the
City of Chula Vista, and that the Planning Commission will consider the information
in the final EIR as it reaches a decision on the project.
6- ~ February 13, 1980
The vote was as follows, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Stevenson, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Smith and
O'Neill
NOES: Commissioner Williams
ABSENT: None
4. Consideration of final EIR-80-1 on Growth Management Policies
Director of Planning Peterson commented that the original public hearing was
held on September 1979 and continued several times and on January 9, 1980 additional
testimony was taken and the public hearing was closed and consideration of the
final EIR was then scheduled for January 23, 1980. Several changes were made
in the policy in that period and for that reason it was continued again tonight.
He stated that the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the changes and
determined that there were no new environmental impacts not already reported
upon in the EIR.
He remarked that the EIR has taken a very cautious approach in saying that the
adoption of the growth management policy would have an adverse effect on the
land form alternations, and that he could not envision that land form alternations
would be different in E1 Rancho del Rey or in any other area as a result of the
adoption of the Growth Management Policy. However it had been raised as in the
timing of grading in various areas and for that reason staff is recommending
the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations.
Staff feels that the EIR is ready for certification by the Planning Commission
and recommends that the Commission find that the environmental impact is potentially
significant and that those impacts which cannot be mitigated or avoided as discussed
in the body of the EIR are addressed in the statement of overriding considerations.
He recommends that the Planning Commission certify the EIR as being prepared in
compliance with CEQA.
Commissioner O'Neill questioned the responsibility of the City towards certain
impacts within the jurisdiction of other agencies, such as water quality and
sewers, and if this City should identify mitigating measures regarding these
impacts. He was of the opinion that the City should propose mitigation measures
to other agencies. (See additional statements by Commissioners 0 Neill and Smith
made as correction to these minutes on February 27, 1980.)
Mr. Peterson stated that the City does not know what the impacts will be until
the various projects are evaluated as they are proposed and at that time the
City would be in a better position to evaluate the impact that would result from
a particular development project.
It was clarified during discussion that when development projects come in for
consideration another EIR would be prepared at that time on that particular project
for the Commission's consideration.
Craig Beam, 225 Broadway, asked if there would be a recommendation of the Planning
Commission or a final determination discharging the requirements under CEQA,
regarding the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Mr. Peterson assured Mr. Beam that the Planning Commission would make a recommenda-
tion only to City Council.
-7- -'- February 13, 1980
The Commission then discussed the possible problems of water service in
west to east development of the area, the necessity of CEQA findings, grading
of the area, and the lack of economic analysis which is not a requirement in
an environmental impact report.
In reply to a question, Mr. Peterson stated that upon adoption of the Growth
Management Policies by Council the City would try to get the County Board of
Supervisors to honor our growth management policies.
MSC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission certifies that the EIR-80-1 has been
prepared in compliance with CEQA, and that the Commission has reviewed and
considered the information in the document as it reaches a decision on the project.
The vote was as follows, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, G. Johnson, Williams, Stevenson
NOES: Commissioners Smith, O'Neill
ABSENT: None
5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of proposed Growth Management Policies
Director of Planning Peterson advised that this was initiated after Council
adopted the west to east policy in E1 Rancho del Rey and it was thought advisable
to apply it throughout the Chula Vista Planning area. Me went on to explain the
rationale for the different phased areas, and that some changes had been made
since the Commission had last considered the proposal. One change requires that
development in each phase be 80% complete before development in the next phase
is allowed in lieu of the higher percentages in the earlier draft. Secondly, the
staff has included an additional paragraph which allows the Council to approve
certain out-of-phase developments when they can make the appropriate findings
that such a development would be needed by the existing community and would be
more economically beneficial to the City or provide needed public services to the
existing residents as well as to the developing areas.
Mr. Peterson then read a prepared statement which would clarify how it would be
determined when a phase had been 80% developed. He stated that this paragraph
would be added as #7 in Exhibit A which would go on to Council.
As this was the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
David Kune, Vice President Cadillac Fairview Homes West, agreed with the City's
goal and objectives of the Growth Management Policies; his only concern was with
the techniques in obtaining those objectives.
Robert Santos, Cadillac Fairview Homes West, said they have one remaining concern
which relates to the division of Phase 4 into two different phases now designated
4 and 5. They would like to see the areas of Phase 4 and Phase 5 reversed, or
reconsideration to combine both 4 and 5 into Phase 4.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner O'Neill asked Mr. Peterson to reply to the possiblity and reaction
of staff to Mr. Santos' request.
-8- -~ February 13, 1980
Mr. Peterson stated that staff would be opposed to this proposal, as portions
of Phase 4 as designated in the recommended policy were already next to developed
areas and should be developed before areas near Otay Reservoir are developed.
It was clarified in discussion that perhaps some time in the future after Phase 3
had been developed that Phase 4 and 5 could be changed depending on circumstances
at that time. Mr. Peterson indicated that staff would evaluate this General
Management Policy each year and that future events may justify some changes in
the policy.
MSC (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) The Commission adopts a resolution approving the
proposed Phased Growth Policies recited in Exhibit A and graphically depicted
on Exhibit B with the new paragraph regarding the definition of "80% developed"
included as paragraph 6 and paragraph renumbered as paragraph 7 and recommended
that the City Council adopt such an addendum to the Chula Vista General Plan.
(Commissioners Smith and Stevenson voted "NO"; the other five voted "AYE".)
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-80-7 - Consideration of proposed amendments to the
Municipal Code relat~n9 to bicycle storage facilities,
off-street parking, rideshare parking and~edestrian ways.
Mr. Peterson informed the Commission that the San Diego region is under some
pressure by both State and Federal authorities to develop tactics to clean up
our air quality to meet air quality standards. He stated that failure to do this
could result in the possibility of loss of federal grants or aid for any capital
facilities including sewer facilities, roadways, or freeways, therefore CPO has
developed a series of Revised Regional Air Quality Strategy (R-RAQS) which have
been presented to various cities. He mentioned that many cities have endorsed
those strategies and now Chula Vista has been asked to implement them also. He
advised that staff has proposed several zoning text amendments which are enumerated
in the staff report. He stated that the requirements are not retroactive and
would only apply to new construction. Basically, the Zoning Text Amendments
encourage bicycle riding by requiring major employers to provide a certain number
of secure bicycle storage facilities and they encourage ride sharing (carpooling)
by requiring the most convenient parking spaces to be reserved for carpooling
employees.
Commissioner Pressutti expressed concern that the implementation of these zone
text changes would be far reaching and there has been no input from anyone, and
he would like to have input from businesses and schools before acting on this item.
Commissioner G. Johnson commented she was concerned about the implementation of
these policies, and she would also like to have input from large businesses such
as Rohr Industries.
As this was the time and place advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Commissioner Smith would like clarified if the amendment would cover shopping
centers in which each business might not have 250 parking spaces but all of the
businesses combined would have a total of 250 parking spaces or more. He stated
that he would like to see the Type 1 and 2 bicycle storage lockers area changed
so they would not be wider than a parking stall.
MSUC (Pressutti-G. Johnson) The Commission continued the public hearing to the
meeting of April 9, 1980.
-9- -~ February 13, 1980
7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-80-6 Proposed Amendment to Zoning Procedure for
Redevelopment Plans
Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that staff is recommending that the
Code be amended to clarify and place into the ordinance, language which would
specify that redevelopment plans would supersede zoning requirements regarding
permitted uses and in those cases where the redevelopment plan might be silent
such as parking standards or set backs, then the underlying zoning would take
effect.
As this was the time and place advertised, the public hearing was opened.
As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Stevenson-O'Neill) The Commission recommends that the City Council enact
an ordinance amending Chapter 19.12 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code adding a
new Section 19.12.150 Adopted Redevelopment Plans.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None were presented.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Peterson commented that at the study session next week
staff will discuss procedures and ordinances which are designed to minimize the
chances of earth slides occurring. Also small lot zoning will be discussed, and
staff will try to set up a presentation on the video system which the Council
is considering to aid in viewing displays in the Council Chambers.
Commissioner G. Johnson asked Mr. Peterson about the private school study which
was to be prepared for the Commission. Mr. Peterson replied that some work had
been done but it would not be before the Commission next Wednesday.
He also noted that ARCO may give a presentation on mini stations which would
make the study session quite full.
Mr. Peterson then mentioned that the Ray Watt development of over 400 acres at
1-805 and H Street would probably take more than one public hearing session to
hear testimony and deliberate on before making a recommendation to Council.
Accordingly it is staff's intent to present the Commission with as much information
as is available at the February 27, 1980 meeting but the recommendation will be
to continue the public hearing to the meeting of March 19, 1980 which would
normally be a study session. It is staff's intent to have a full staff report
at that time. Staff is also recommending that the Commission cancel the regular
business meeting of March 12 and have the study session meeting the 19th as the
regular business meeting to give staff time to prepare the complete report which
will enable the Planning Commission to take action.
MSUC (O'Neill-Williams) The Commission cancelled the regular business meeting
of March 12, 1980 and have the meeting on March 19, 1980.
-10- - February 13, 1980
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner O'Neill asked how Council received the request for a new position
in the Planning Department. Mr. Peterson replied they did not make any commitment
at all, but indicated that it would be considered at budget time. Mr. O'Neill
asked if there was anything the Commission could do to emphasize the need for
the new position. He was informed that they could make direct contact with the
Mayor or other members of the Council, or the Commission could direct staff to
prepare a resolution for adoption. It was decided they would discuss this at
the study session.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Anderson, Secretary