HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1981/10/07 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
October 7, 1981
An adjourned 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, Green, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, O'Neill,
and Stevenson
Commissioners Absent: Williams (with previous notification)
Staff Present: Director of Planning Peterson, Principal Planner Lee,
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Senior Civil
Engineer Daoust, Assistant Attorney Harron, and
Secretary Mapes.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. to continue with the agenda
items of the meeting of September 30, 1981.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of draft EIR-78-2-A on "H" Street extension
through E1 Rancho del Re_y_
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid advised that this report is a supplement
to the Master E.I.R. for the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. The Specific
Plan includes the alignment for the extension of East "H" Street from 1-805
to the western terminus of the section the street that intersects Otay Lakes
Road. This E.I.R. covers the impact of installing the street improvements
within that alignment. The improvements to be installed at this time include
two travel lanes to be located in the southerly portion of the East "H" Street
right-of-way, with such improvements constructed at the eventual grade and
alignment of the street. This will require the placement of fill at various
locations; fill material would be obtained from a borrow site on the
north side of East "H" Street. The project will result in the removal of
existing native ground cover along the street right-of-way and in the
borrow site. Of particular importance are stands of snake cholla, which can
be transplanted to other areas that are suitable for that species. Mr. Reid
reported that some paleontological resources have been found in the vicinity
and it is recommended that paleontological monitors be present during
grading of the area to insure those resources are maintained. He indicated
that the greatest impact will be the land form alteration since there will
be cuts on ridges of 70 to 80 feet and filling in canyons of a similar nature.
The decision making body will have to make CEQA findings and overriding
considerations to balance the environmental impact with the need to provide
safety services and vehicular circulation throughout the E1 Rancho del Rey
area.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
-2- October 7, 1981
Jerry Valk, 291 Camino Vista Real, asked who is paying for the construction
of this street.
Mr. Reid advised that a certain amount of money has been committed to the
project by the City. Additional monies are being proposed from other sources,
principally land owners of the area that would be served by the extension.
All questions concerning financing have not been resolved at this time.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner O'Neill expressed his concern over the severe land form alteration
and the sedimentation problem that has existed in the past and which he
believes will be exacerbated by this project. He felt the E.I.R. does not
present adequate mitigating measures for this problem and he, therefore,
cannot support it.
Mr. Reid noted that the E.I.R. points out that the drainage from the project
area is diverted to the Ric~ Canyon area just north of East "H" Street,
where a holding basin is being constructed to control the flow downstream
and to collect the sedimentation. That fact mitigates any impact of runoff
from this project because that has been considered in the design of the basin.
MS (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The Commission certifies that EIR-78-2-A has been
prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Environmental Review Procedures of
the City of Chula Vista.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, R. Johnson, Green, Pressutti and G. Johnson
NAY: Commissioner O'Neill
ABSENT: Commissioner Williams
2. Certification of final EIR-S1-5 for development of East "j" Street
Condominiums
Chairman Pressutti took the prerogative of not reopening the public hearing
on the E.I.R. since a great deal of testimony has been presented on this
report, which has been included in the document along with a response to
the issues raised.
MSUC (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) The Commission certifies that EIR-81-5 has
been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
the State EIR guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the
City of Chula Vista and that the Commission will consider the information in
the EIR as they consider the project.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: a. Rezoning application PCZ-81-C for 6 acres at the
northwest quadrant of East "J" Street and 1-805
fr~o~ R-l, R-1-H and P- to R-1-P -- Dr. Harold
Weinberger
b. Consideration of tentative subdivision map for
~-ula Vista Tract 81-3, "J" Street Condominiums
-3- October 7, 1981
c. C~EQA findings regarding potentially significant
environmental impacts and the feasibility of
mitigation measures or alternatives to the
project
Director of Planning Peterson advised that he will address the rezoning
and the tentative map in his presentation and suggested that the public
hearing on both applications be opened simultaneous, with action by the
Commission taken separately.
With regard to the rezoning, he pointed out the 6 acre property presently
carries three different zones, with a little over 4 acres in the P-C
zone, one acre in the R-1-H and a small triangular area at the northern
is in the R-1 zone. He noted that the P-C zoning dates back prior to the
construction of 1-805 and was established as part of the E1 Rancho del Rey
Planned Community zoning. He contended that the Hillside Modifying District
was not intended to be applied to small isolated areas, such as this, but
was geared to be applied to large undeveloped acreage. In 1976 the City
Council declined to apply the "H" District to this property.
Mr. Peterson expressed support for applying the R-1-P zone to the oroperty,
with the R-l establishing the density and the "P" district regulations
permitting the clustering of the units in the area most suited for development.
The applicant's plan is to cluster 29 units on the higher elevation at the
edge of the canyon, leaving 75 to 80 per cent of the canyon as open space.
The overall density of the project is 4.8 units per acre, which conforms with
the General Plan designation of 4-12 units per acre.
Mr. Peterson expressed the belief it is appropriate to look at vacant
properties within the developed portions of the cii~v~ limits and find a
way in which they can be developed compatibly with the neighborhood.
He recommended approval of the R-1-P zoning subject to the guidelines set
forth in the staff report which relate to usable open space, parking,
improvement of the private road and setbacks.
In addressing the tentative map it was noted the proposal is to subdivide the
6 acres into 29 residential lots and one open space lot, which would include
the recreational building. The lots would be grouped so there would be no
more than four units with common walls, and many of the units would
comprise duplex structures.
Since presentation of the original plan as shown on the drawing, the entrance
to the site has been shifted to the western boundary of the site to take
advantage of a flatter grade and allow the private street and houses to be
at a lower elevation, which would have a lesser impact on residents on the
south side of "J" Street and on the view from "j" Street.
Mr. Peterson pointed out that the buildings have been designed to fit the
terrain, by stepping down from the entrance level to form a three-story
structure. The map contemplates the purchase of excess city owned
right-of-way adjacent to "j" Street measuring 300 feet by 35 feet in depth.
Under the revised plan most of the rooftops along "J" Street would extend
only two to three feet above the elevation of "J" Street, thus lessening
the impact on other residents and motorists. On one unit, at the eastern most
-4- October 7, 1981
portion of the site, which is a normal two-story single family house, the
roof would extend 7 feet above the elevation of "J" Street.
Mr. Peterson acknowledged testimony raised during the hearing on the E.I.R.
concerning traffic, however, the additional traffic created by 29 dwelling
units would not be significant compared with the total traffic on "J" Street
and Nacion which those streets are designed to carry.
Mr. Peterson recommended approval of the tentative map subject to the 22
conditions listed in the staff report, with a modification to condition
2.d to delete the words "television and radio" from the prohibition against
outside antennae, as all types of antennae should be prohibited; and revise
condition 20 to include more specific wording regarding the location of
guard rails along East "J" Street. The condition should read: "A guard
rail or other barrier satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Director of
Planning shall be provided along East "J" Street. The barrier shall be
constructed between the east point of the curve on East "J" Street and 20
feet west of the west point of the curve, wherever the difference in
elevation between "J" Street and the private road is lO feet or more."
Under this condition a guard rail would not be constructed along the entire
frontage of the property but only along the curve in "J" Street where the
adjacent slope bank is ten feet or more.
Mr. Peterson acknowledged the receipt of petitions signed by 687 people
expressing opposition to the development. One petition submitted asks that
the site be declared as open space; the other petition asks that it be
declared open space or zoned R-l-H, and raises arguments in opposition to the
project about view blockage, traffic, quality of life, spot zoning, circum-
vention of the Hillside Modifying District.
In response to a question from Commissioner G. Johnson, Mr. Peterson
pointed out on the plan the areas along the private street where parking
could be accommodated. The hearing continued from the meeting of September 30
was opened on the request for rezoning the property to R-1-P and the tentative
subdivision map for the development of 29 units.
Michael Wilkes, project architect, affirmed their efforts in working with
the city staff to redesign the project, providing the entry and landing
platform which does not exceed 2 1/2 per cent and providing satisfactory
sight distance at the entry. They are providing an increased width of
improvements along East "J" Street and have no objection to providing
the guard rail, but would like the opportunity to design a barrier that
would be more aesthetic than the standard metal guard rail. He pointed out
they have redesigned the recreation building, in response to community
comments that the noise from that building would not be compatible with
their own back yards, and the current design has no openings in the building
facing toward "J" Street or toward the adjacent community. He also felt that
the objections concerning loss of view have been mitigated in the revised
plan. He affirmed that all parking will be on the site and they would have
no objection to a "no parking" zone along "J" Street if the community so
desires.
Jackie Payne, 339 East "J" Street, spoke of the two petitions, one containing
201 signatures obtained in June and July, and the second containing 481
-5- October 7, 1981
signatures obtained in September. She reported this represents 99%
of the residents in the area canvased, which included all streets
tributary to East "J" Street. She reiterated the following objects as
set forth in the petition: The proposed plan -- 1) violates the goals
of the Scenic Routes Element of the General Plan; 2) is inconsistent with
existing land uses in the area; 3) unjustly circumvents the Hillside
Modifying ordinance; 4) constitutes "spot zoning", conferring preferential
benefits on the applicant, to the detriment of neighboring property owners;
5) destroys a priceless non-renewable resource enjoyed by over 6,000
residents per day--the view of the San Diego skyline, the Coronado Bridge,
and at night, the panorama of city lights; 6) jeopardizes the safety and
welfare of citizens traversing East "J" Street and surrounding streets;
7) damages the residential character of the neighborhood; and 8) seriously
impairs the quality of life of nearby residents.
Nancy Thompson, resident on Mission Court overlooking the development site,
indicated she did not object to the development of this area since it has
been the basis of many problems in the past. She expressed some concern over
the appearance of a guard rail, but acknowledged the need for some type of
protection for children walking along the street going to school.
Joy Short, 839 Halecrest Drive, expressed the opinion that the proposed
multiple family development, allowed in the R-1-P zone, will have a
detrimental effect on the R-1 neighborhood. She contended this type of
developement does not conform to the purpose of the R-1 zone, that of
providing individual single family lots; and that the proposed development
consisting of 29 postage stamp lots is incompatible with R-1 development.
She suggested that the "P" Modifying District was applied in this case to
accommodate the developer, and that the plan ignores the characteristics of
the existing neighborhood and even lacks the amenities of the R-3 zone,
based on reduced parking requirements, and the lack of active
recreational facilities. She requested that the zoning be changed to
R-1-H which she contended is more appropriate for the site.
George Fedder, 735 Nolan, suggested that noise generated by a high density
development in this location would be real impact. He advocated leaving
the property in open space or zoning it R-1-H.
Fred Whetmore, 334 East "J" Street, advised that his driveway is directly
across the street from the proposed access to this development. Ne thinks
it is not fair to zone property across the street from R-1 zoning to allow
high density development. He suggested that the Commission consider the
wishes of the 500 plus residents who signed the petition rather than the
wish of one developer.
Len Hummelman, 348 East "J" Street, contended that this development is not
compatible with the single family homes that surround it, and will only create
problems for residents of the area if the project is approved.
-6- October 7, 1981
Paul Kinkaid, 715 Nolan Avenue, addressed the problem of traffic safety and
disagreed with the statement that 300 additional trips a day is not
significant. He displayed polaroid pictures showing sight distance and
traffic conditions.
Bob Maxwell, resident on Berland Way, spoke of the growth of this city
during the past 16 years and the need to retain open space and restrict
the construction of high rise condominiums.
Mel Hayden, 709 Nolan, contended that the Planned Community zoning originally
applied to the property would require that it be consistent with the General
Plan and in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. Since the
surrounding neighborhood is R-l, this area should be developed as R-1-H.
William J. Dunn, 374 East "J" Street, advised that he purchased his home 8
years ago believing the canyon would not be developed, and he strongly
opposed this development.
Susan Head, 358 East "J" Street, expressed opposition to zoning the land to
anything over than single family lots similar to the surrounding neighbor-
hood. Allowing 29 residences to be concentrated in a small area will result
in parking problems affecting residents adjacent to this site, as onsite
parking of one-half space per unit is totally unrealistic and inadequate.
She reported on a survey she made of 140 homes in the neighborhood in which
she noted 28 recreational vehicles parked. She felt that prohibiting the
parking of recreational vehicles in this development will result in their
being parked on adjacent streets.
Michael Wilkes, architect, made a brief response to many of the objections
raised, pointing out that the roofs of many of the units will be lower than
the street line and that the view blockage by those extending two or three
feet higher than the street line is minimal. He addressed the matter of
sound, parking spaces, and landscaping, and pointed out this property is
not presently open space but is vacant, privately owned land.
Paul Thompson, 663 Mission Court, expressed support for development of this
site since at present it is a severe fire hazard and a dumping area for
trash. He felt the plan proposed is a little too crowded for the area as it
would not provide a place for children to play, and suggested reducing the
number of units.
Jackie Payne, 339 East "J" Street, summarized and reiterated the concerns
presented earlier.
In response to a question from Commissioner G. Johnson, Mr. Peterson
reported that Planned Unit Development standards require one RV parking
place for each l0 dwelling units. Applying that guideline this project
-7- October 7, 1981
would be obligated to provide three spaces, which he suggested could be
accommodated in parking bays rather than an enclosed storage lot.
Commissioner O'Neill pointed out this is an area where land is a disappearing
resource, and there are housing shortages and rental shortages, and the
Commission is interested in a policy of in-filling the developed areas
where public facilities are already available. He expressed the opinion
this is a good example of geomorphic planning that conforms to the
topography of the land. He felt the number of units proposed is not far
out of line.
Commissioner Stevenson concurred that the property should be developed to
eliminate existing problems but he felt this is a case of too many units in
that kind of area and that R-1-H zoning deserves a lot of consideration.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MS (O'Neill-R. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in the staff report,
the Commission recommends rezoning the subject property from R-l, R-1-H and
P-C to R-l-P, subject to the following precise plan guidelines:
I. If the subject property is developed in a manner other than
conventional single family detached dwellings, the development
shall be subject to the following:
a. Each unit shall have a minimum of 150 sq. ft. of private
usable open space.
b. A parking ratio of two spaces per unit plus 1/2 guest parking
space per unit shall be provided on site.
c. A private road system shall have a minimum right of way width
of 24 feet and a 5.5 foot wide sidewalk on one side. Textured
paving shall be provided in close proximity to the intersection
with the public street and the road shall be clearly identified
as private.
d. The City of Chula Vista shall be made a party to the CC&R's
which shall include prohibition against the conversion of any
carports or garages into living space.
e. No structure shall be located closer than 5 feet from the back
of the sidewalk or inside edge of the curb.
2. Any development shall be subject to Design Review Committee approval.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners O'Neill, R. Johnson, Green, Pressutti and G. Johnson
NAY: Commissioner Stevenson
ABSENT: Commissioner Williams
-8- October 7, 1981
MS (O'Neill-Green) Based on the findings contained in the staff report, the
Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative
subdivision map for "J" Street Condominiums subject to the cQnditions
listed in the report with the following exceptions and additions:
The prohibition against the parking of recreational vehicles be
eliminated. The words "radio and television" be deleted from the
condition prohibiting antennas.
The condition regarding the guard rail be reworded as suggested. Add
a further condition that the number of units be reduced from 29 to 23.
Commissioner O'Neill advised that the number of 23 units was arrived at
by eliminating all units in excess of two per building.
MS (G. Johnson-Green) The motion be amended to include in the CC&R's the
prohibition against the parking of recreation vehicles on the private
street, and add a condition to require an RV storage lot for at least
three recreation vehicles.
The motion for the amendment failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: G. Johnson, Green, and O'Neill
NOES: R. Johnson, Pressutti, and Stevenson
MS (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The original motion be amended to include the
prohibition against the parking of recreational vehicles on the private
street.
The motion for amendment carried by the following vote:
AYES: R. Johnson, G. Johnson, Green, and O'Neill
NOES: Pressutti and Stevenson
MSUC (G. Johnson-Stevenson) Amend the motion to change condition "g" in
the CC&R's to read, "All garages to be equipped with automatic door
openers."
It was moved by Commissioner Stevenson that the motion be amended to reduce
the number of units from 23 to 5. The motion died for lack of a second.
The motion for approval of the tentative map, with the amendments adopted,
carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners O'Neill, Green, G. Johnson and Pressutti
NAYS: Commissioners R. Johnson and Stevenson
ABSENT: Commissioner Williams
MSUC (Green-G. Johnson) The CEQA findings relating to the "J" Street
Condominium project as stated in the staff report be adopted.
MS (G. Johnson-O'Neill) When the City Council considers the tentative map,
they also consider redlining the north curb of "J" Street adjacent to this
project.
-9- October 7, 1981
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, O'Neill, Pressutti, and Green
NAYS: Commissioners R. Johnson and Stevenson
ABSENT: Commissioner Williams
The meeting recessed at 9:30 p.m. and was reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista
Tract 82-1, Woodland Park, northwest corner of Main Street
and Walnut
Principal Planner Lee briefly reviewed the scope of the project as presented
at the September 30 meeting. He reported that the architecture and site
plan was conditionally approved by the Design Review Committee with the
recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the following exceptions
to the underlying zoning and subdivision requirements of the Municipal
Code:
1) Reduction in front yard setback from 15 feet to 1 1/2 feet;
2) Reduction in side yard setback from 5 feet to zero;
3) Reduction in minimum lot width from 65 feet to 40 feet;
4) Reduction in minimum lot frontage for cul-de-sac lots from 35 feet
to 18 feet;
5) Reduction in the minimum lot depth from 90 feet to 71 feet;
6) Reduction in the minimum lot size from 7,000 sq. ft. to 2500 sq. ft.
The Design Review Committee also requested that the Planning Commission give
consideration to requiring that the maintenance of all front yard areas
fronting on the public street be the responsibility of the Homeowners
&ssociation. The staff does not support that recommendation and feel that
after the front yard landscaping has been installed by the developer the
individual home owner should be responsible for maintaining the front yard
in the interest of keeping the Homeowner Association fees as low as possible.
The developer has submitted modifications to the front elevations based on
points discussed at the De'sign Review hearing and it will not be necessary
to refer the project back to the Design Review Committee.
Mr. Lee recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration with the
mitigation measures listed, and approval of the tentative map subject to
23 conditions listed in the report with the add~ition of the word "gutter"
to the public improvements required in condition "L".
Chairman Pressutti declared the continued public hearing opened.
Sid Xinos, of the consulting firm of Schwerin, Xinos and Associates,
expressed concurrence with the staff's recommendation for approval and
with the majority of the conditions, but felt several of the conditions
are burdensome. Those conditions were brought about by the serious problem
in the existing street pattern in the Woodlawn Park area, and the fact that
the street improvements are not located wholly within the right-of-way.
On Lotus Drive the improvements were installed south of the right-of-way
along the entire frontage of this property, which required an additional
-10- October 7, 1981
dedication of 30 feet in some areas.
Mr. Xinos pointed out that conditions "j" and "k" require the acquisition
and dedication of right-of-way for the realignment of Lotus, Spruce, Walnut
and Maple of land not owned by this developer and not within the city
limits of Chula Vista. That situation makes the acquisition very difficult
if not impossible. Condition "n" makes this developer responsible for
constructing offsite improvements on Spruce Road and Maple Drive, which
Mr. Xinos suggested should be accomplished with the development of property
adjacent to those streets which will likely occur in the future. He
requested that conditions "j", "k", and "n" be deleted, leaving this
developer responsible for constructing the realigned intersection of
Lotus Drive, Spruce Drive and Walnut Drive.
Mr. Xinos requested that the map be approved for the 27 lots as designed
since they are losing considerable area through dedication and the project
would not be improved by the deletion of one lot.
Senior Civil Engineer Daoust reported that the concern of the Engineering
Department that prompted the request for dedication and improvement of
additional street is based on the need to make certain that an adequate and
safe access is provided to this project, and the city cannot be sure
development of the adjacent property will occur shortly.
Mr. Paul Buss of Buss, Silvers, Hughes, and Associates, architects for
the project, displayed models of two units to show the spatial relationships.
The models also show the redesigned garage doors in line with suggestions
made at the Design Review Committee hearing.
Paul Green, Sr. 141 Lotus Drive, Commissioner of the Montgomery Fire
Protection District, objected to any consideration of this project by
the City of Chula Vista before annexation of the land has been approved by
LAFCO. He avowed that hearings such as this result in a monetary loss to
him in attending the meetings to represent the interest of the Montgomery
Fire District. He asserted that this developer should be meeting and
working with the Montgomery Community with regard to development of the
property.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Senior Civil Engineer Daoust suggested that in lieu of conditions "j", "k",
and "n" the Commission could substitute a conditiento read:
"Prior to approval of the final map for this project, a public access
route between street "A" and Main Street shall be available. A
roadway having a minimum paved width of 24 feet shall be located
within said access route. The intersection of Lotus Drive, Spruce
Drive, and Walnut Drive shall be approved by the City Engineer."
MSUC (Green-G. Johnson) The Commission finds this project will have no
significant environmental impacts and adopts the Negative Declaration issued
on IS-81-51 with the following mitigation measures:
-ll- October 7, 1981
a. A letter from each school district indicating the adequacy of
school facilities shall be required prior to the issuance of
any building permits.
b. Street improvements may be required offsite to handle traffic
generated by this project between Main Street and the project
site. Design requirements shall be subject to the approval of
the City Engineer.
c. The subdivision should be modified to take advantage of solar
orientation to the extent feasible.
MSUC (Green-O'Neill) Based on the findings stated in the report the
Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision
map for 27 units in Woodland Park, Chula Vista Tract 82-1, subject to the
conditions listed in the report with the following modifications:
Add gutter to the improvements required in conditon "L", delete
conditions "J", "K", and "N" and insert a condition as suggested
by Engineer Daoust.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Peterson called attention to the annual Boards and
Commissions banquet to be held on Thursday, October 15th, at the Country Club.
He also distributed to the Commissioners an invitation from Hartson's Ambulance
Service to their open house next Saturday between lO:O0 and 3:00 at their
new facility at Third Avenue and Whitney Street.
He expressed regret that it was necessary to cancel the field trip to the
EastLake originally scheduled for this date, but the Cadillac Fairview
representative felt two hours would not allow enough time. He asked for
the Commission's concurrence with scheduling the field trip at 3:00 p.m.
on October 21st. The Commission expressed agreement with assembling at
3:00 o'clock on October 21st for the field trip, to be followed by discussion
and dinner.
Mr. Peterson noted that several months ago, the Commission took action
cancelling the two regular meeting dates in November, due to the conflict
with holidays, and scheduling one meeting only during November, which would
be on November 18. He suggested that in order to shorten the length of time
between that meeting and the first meeting in December, the meetings be
scheduled for December 2 and December 16.
After short discussion, Chairman Pressutti declared the consensus of the
Commission with scheduling business meetings on December 2 and December 16
and a study session on December 9th.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner O'Neill advised that he will be out of town on October 14th and
asked to be excused from that meeting.
-12- October 7, 1981
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Pressutti adjourned the meeting at 11:07 p.m. to the regularly
scheduled meeting of October 14, 1981.
Respectfully submitted,