Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1981/02/25 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 25, 1981 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. in the City Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue. Commissioners present: Pressutti, R. Johnson, O'Neill, Smith, Stevenson and Hilliams Commissioners absent: G. Johnson (with previous notification) Staff present: Director of Planning Peterson, 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 Pressutti, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MS (R. Johnson-Williams) The minutes of the meeting of February 11, 1981 be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Smith abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Pressutti called for oral communications and none were offered. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-80-F - Rezonin§ 19 acres on both sides of Brand~a~ine Avenue, north of Otay Valley Road, from R-1-H to I-L - Jimmie Shinohara and Helen Cushman Director of Planning Peterson noted that the General Plan was recently amended to change the land use designation of the subject 19 acres from Medium Density Residential to Research and Limited Industrial. The proposed zone change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. It is recommended that the "P" Modifying District be attached since the property is adjacent to single family residential development, is under more than one ownership, and access to the westerly property is a problem. Four guidelines for precise plan development are included in the report and recommended for approval. Commissioner Smith suggested that the second guideline be revised to require that a building setback be maintained 125 feet on each side of the La Nacion fault, rather than stating 250 feet wide over the fault. -2- February 25, 1981 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Dick Kau, 3404 Bonita Road, representing the owner, expressed concurrence with the four guidelines recommended. He advised that the two westerly parcels would be consolidated prior to development so there would not be an access problem, and that the full improvement of Timber Street would be included in the development plans. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (O'Neill-R. Johnson) Based on the findings as stated in the report to support the application of the "P" Modifying District, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of approximately 19 acres from R-1-N to I-L-P, subject to the following precise plan guidelines. a. Unless jointly subdivided, the two parcels on the west side of Brandy- wine Avenue shall be either consolidated or the common property line between the two parcels adjusted to provide adequate access to the westerly lot. The adequacy of said access shall be determined by the Director of Planning and the Traffic Engineer. b. A 125 foot wide building setback shall be maintained on each side of the center line of the La Nacion fault unless evidence is presented which would indicate that said width may be reduced. c. Contour grading shall be utilized in concert with landscaping and berming to buffer the adjacent residential areas from the industrial uses. Indus- trial building heights shall be limited and set back from the residential area to insure compatibility. d. Timber Street, east of Oleander Avenue, shall be completed with permanent improvements subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-81-D - Prezonin9 15,840 sq. ft. lot at 908 Third Avenue to C-C - Lyle E. Jenkins Director of Planning Peterson pointed out the location of the property south of the intersection of Third Avenue and L Street, adjacent to the service station on the corner. The property has been zoned commercially in the County for a number of years and is presently used as a sales lot for trailers and campers. The applicant proposes to annex the property to Chula Vista and to develop it as an automobile parts store and machine shop. Adjacent properties to the north and to the south are zoned for commercial use, and commercial zoning is consistent with the General Plan. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Lyle Jenkins, 602 Melrose Avenue, the applicant, reported that he is being required to relocate his business which is within the Third Avenue Redevelopment Area and this is the most suitable site he has found available. If the zoning and annexation are approved he plans to construct a new building on the site. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (R. Johnson-O'Neill) The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the request to prezone the parcel at 908 Third Avenue to C-C. -3- February 25, 1981 3. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-81-2 on 7.5 acre residential development of Pepper Tree Estates - ADMA Co. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that the proposed development was the subject of a previous public hearing before the Environmental Review Committee and due to the controversy raised an EIR was required and was prepared by Advance Planning and Research Associates under a contract with the city. The project involves the subdivision of 7½ acres into 15 lots; 14 of which will be about one-third acre in size and will be improved with single family dwellings, the one-half acre lot would contain the existing dwelling unit on the property. One letter has been received, addressed to the Environmental Review Committee, which is before the Commission this evening. Craig Lorenz, of Advanced Planning and Research Associates, reported that the initial review of the project indicated six issues were potentially significant, so the ADMA Co. determined that a full EIR would be beneficial, rather than just a focused EIR as requested by the City's Environmental Review Committee. The issues covered in the EIR include geology, drainage, esthetic concerns, traffic safety and air pollution. There was originally a paleontology concern due to cut slopes in the project, but the project has been redesigned to eliminate the cut slope. It is the finding of the report that all environmental issues addressed can be mitigated to a non-significant impact. Many of the problems discussed in the report would not be created by the project but are due to currently existing conditions which would be improved in conjunction with this development. He discussed the proposed drainage improvements and street improvements. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Richard Grabhorn of Sholders and Sanford, 3585 Fifth Street, San Diego, engineer for the project, discussed their plans for the improvement of Jacaranda to eliminate ponding on a portion of the road as well as on adjacent property. He also indicated the location of a new private street which would connect with Jacaranda and would serve approximately 10 lots. He acknowledged there is a traffic problem on Pepper Tree Drive, despite the posting of a 25 mile speed limit. He suggested that with annexation to the city the road would be more adequately patrolled which should improve the situation. Ben Layton, 430 Jacaranda Drive, read the three page letter which he had submitted in which he protested annexation to the city, the problem of drainage, traffic, and any additional use of Jacaranda Drive which is a private road. Lawrence Lassman, 471 Jacaranda, spoke against the developmen~widening of roads, installation of sidewalks, removal of any trees, additional traffic, lots smaller than one-half acre. He discussed the problem of high school students crossing H Street at other points than the signal crossing, and problems encountered in the nearby area with expansive soil. Joyce Layton, 430 Jacaranda, discussed the issues of automobile accidents, school enrollment, the population increase that is anticipated, transit and air quality, wild life and plant materials, aesthetics, and possible damages. She cited pages in the EIR which covered these issues but she felt the solutions to the problems were not sufficient. -4- February 25, 1981 Martin Altbaum, 35 E1 Rancho Vista, described the Soil and drainage problems that occurred on his lot when the adjacent property was developed. He urged that extreme caution be taken so that such conditions are not repeated as a result of future development. Aaron Mannis, 446 Jacaranda Drive, contended that the projection of additional auto trips as a result of this development is not accurate and that the proposed mitigation is inadequate. From a historical standpoint, he felt the proposed subdivision is a gross violation of the open rural character and atmosphere of the area. He felt it would destroy the esthetic value which the present residents enjoy. *(Statement below added by Planning Commission on March 11.) Jacqueline Lassman, 471 Jacaranda Drive, expressed concern with water runoff since that has been a problem on their property in the past. Evelyn Sevel, 144 Pepper Tree Road, suggested that the increase in population count for the area would be far greater than projected in the report, based on the size of families presently residing in the area, most of whom have three or four teenage children. She also elaborated on the traffic problems on Pepper Tree Drive and Vista Drive and expressed the opinion that most of the added traffic would be using that route to get to the freeway or to a shopping center. Jack Mann, representing the ADMA Co. Inc., spoke to issues raised by opponents of the project with regard to annexation and the proposed mitigation of any potential impact. Mr. Lassman asked if the public would have an opportunity to review the final EIR prior to its adoption, and if so, for how long. Assistant City Attorney Harron described the environmental review process wherein the draft EIR is issued for review, and written and oral testimony is received from anyone desiring to submit it during the public hearing. Such testimony then becomes a part of the EIR, along with the environmental consultant's response to any issues raised. There is a need to reach a conclusion in these matters and the final EIR is not distributed and is not the subject of a hearing. The Planning Commission determines if the final report adequately covers all issues related to the proposed project; if so, it is adopted. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid felt the final report could not be prepared in time for the Planning Commission to consider it at their next meeting, but should schedule that consideration for March 25th. MSUC (O'Neill-R. Johnson) Consideration of the final EIR-81-2 on Pepper Tree Estates be scheduled for March 25, 1981. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson noted that some months ago at a study session the Commission briefly discussed the minutes of Planning Commission meetings and whether they should be more detailed, should be shortened, or are about right. At that time, the Commission concluded that their minutes should be no shorter than they are at present. The Council has again expressed an interest in having * In response to remarks by several speakers, Commissioner O'Neill commented that as a regular practice Con~issioners individually visit property sites which will be discussed at Planning Commission meetings. He assured the audience that such a practice was followed in the case at hand. -5- February 25, 1981 the minutes of all boards and commission shortened, and asked for a review and report on whether the Planning Commission minutes could be reduced in length. Commissioner R. Johnson advised that from attending the meetings and reading the minutes each time, he felt if they were more abbreviated they would not adequately convey the Commission's philosophy in making decisions and recommenda- tions to the City Council. Other Commissioners expressed agreement and Chairman Pressutti noted that it appears to be the unanimous opinion of the Planning Commission that there should be no change in the minutes as they have been written. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner O'Neill reported that he had read recently about problems faced by Supervisor Fordham as a result of meeting with a developer before a project was discussed by the Board. He asked if the City of Chula Vista has a similar regulation. Assistant City Attorney Harron advised that the regulation referred to is a County ordinance, and that the City of San Diego has a similar ordinance, but Chula Vista does not. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Pressutti adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. to the meeting of March 11, 1981, at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes,