Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/11/12 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:15 p.m. Public Services Building Wedtnesday. November 12. 1992 276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Martin, Tuchscher, and Ray COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Howard, Associate Planner Herrera-A, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Environmental Facilitator Richardson, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller welcomed John Moot and Frank Tarantino who had been appointed to serve on the Planning Commission and who were in the audience. They were to be sworn in at the next Council meeting. She then reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Carson/Ray) 4-0-1 (Fuller abstained, but had read the material and listened to the tapes) to accept the minutes of September 23, 1992, with the following addition: page 14, add comments by Commissioners Martin and Decker regarding excessive density in area 3. MSIJC (Carson/Martin) 5-0 to accept the minutes of October 19, 1992. MSC (Carson/Ray) 4-0-1 (Tuchscher abstained) (Commissioner Carson had read the material and listened to the tapes) to accept the minutes of September 30, 1992, with a word change to PC Minutes -2- November 12, 1992 page 4, second paragraph, from "designation" to "does not preserve it as open space as designated on the General Plan." ORAL COMMUNICATIONS James Mayberry, 987 l.,oma View, Chula Vista, referring to the Otay Ranch workshops, suggested that the Commissioners, if and when they reach a conclusion about a particular part of the project, should state that in the workshop. To avoid the implication that they were biased or prejudiced, the Commissioners should state their position and let others disagree with them. Through that process, the idea that the Commissioners were not being objective would be dispelled. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf, at Commissioner Carson's request, explained that the concern from the legal perspective was that when there was a extended public heating process culminating in a decision that the Commissioners did not close their mind to the evidence given to them in future meetings by making a decision early. While it is useful to express their views and opinions and have that interchange among themselves and the public, it needed to be from the point of view where they reserve the right to make their decision at the end of the process. It would be preferable for the Commissioners to express their concerns during the process. ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-92-01 AND PCZ-92-B: PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN/CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AND REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1/3 ACRE LOCATED IN SOUTHWESTERLY QUADRANT OF WEST MAIN STREET AND DEL MONTE AVENUE, FROM "LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" AND R-1-6-P TO "RESEARCH AND LIMITED INDUSTRIAL" AND I-L-P - Margarita Romero, Applicant Principal Planner Howard presented the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the resolution recommending that the Council adopt the General Plan Amendment and the Montgomery Specific Plan Amendment and make the zoning changes in the ordinance. In reply to Commissioner Carson, Mr. Howard stated the Montgomery Planning Committee had met the previous night and voted 4-0 to adopt the Negative Declaration and recommend approval of the project. Commissioner Ray asked if there was any consideration given to requiring the hazardous waste assessment prior to the rezone to determine before rezoning for any other use whether there were any hazardous toxins in the ground that would have to be taken out at the owner's expense. Principal Planner Howard answered that it had been discussed with the owner, and the conclusion was that since there was no specific project at this time and the precise plan would require that a specific project be brought forward and studied, that would be the appropriate time PC Minutes -3- November 12, 1992 to see if there was any problem with hazardous materials on the site. There was no evidence of a specific problem at the site, but there had been enough problems in the Montgomery area to warrant the condition on any new development which would require grading to have a Phase I hazardous waste assessment. There was no apparent immediate danger there. Commissioner Ray's concern was by including the condition, a liability would be created for the City if something happened later. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf explained there was no factual information to indicate there was any problem in the area; however, if there was knowledge that there were significant environmental problems, it would be better not to approve it and require the assessment before consideration. In reply to Commissioner Ray, Principal Planner Howard stated that any site in the Montgomery area which had been used for anything other than a residential purpose would include the condition. Commissioner Ray, regarding the 6' high wall, asked if there was a potential for a 10' bay for deliveries on the back of the facility which would cause a noise problem. Associate Planner Herrera-A said the siting of any door would be to the rear of the property on Main Street which would be facing away from residential or any of the areas that would be impacted. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the 6' wall might be higher or lower depending on the proposal. Mr. Howard answered that the 6' was from the Zoning Ordinance for the I-L-P zone requirements; however, staff could require a minimum 6' wall, which would give them more discretion when the Precise Plan came forward. Commissioners Ray and Tuchscher agreed that would be satisfactory. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Margarita Romero, 144 Teena Drive, Chula Vista 91911, the owner of the property, said she had not been able to comply with the City requirements to keep the property clean. She wished to rezone the property to comply with surrounding uses. Chair Fuller asked Ms. Romero if she had received any objections from any of the neighbors. Ms. Romero answered negatively. Roy Ferriero, 2221 Prospect St., National City, said he was a general building contractor. He wished to expand to Chula Vista, and was trying to buy the property from Mrs. Romero to use as an office and storage area if it was the correct zoning. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Martin/Tuehscher) 5-0 to approve Resolution GPA-92-01/PCZ-92-B recormnending that the City Council approve the attached draft City Council resolution. PC Minutes -4- November 12, 1992 2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-93-03 AND PCZ-93-C: PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN/MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN AND REZONE APPROXIMATELY 13.48 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF BROADWAY, BETWEEN MAIN STREET ON THE SOUTH AND ANITA STREET ON THE NORTH; AREAS "A & B" FROM "RESEARCH AND LIMITED INDUSTRIAL" AND "I-L-P" TO "RETAIL COMMERCIAL"/"MERCANTILE & OFFICE COMMERCIAL" AND "C-C-P"; AREA "C" FROM "RESEARCH AND LIMITED INDUSTRIAL" AND "I-L-P" TO "MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" AND "R-2-P." - City Initiated/Sam Sepehri Principal Planner Howard presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Howard noted that Mr. Luecht, the owner of the Farmhouse Trailer Park, requested that his property be left as an industrial designation. Mr. Luecht had indicated at the Montgomery Planning Committee the previous evening that he had problems with his existing residential development in proximity to the Sommerset Commercial Center to the east; he felt long-term residential uses on that site were inappropriate, and requested that the existing industrial designation remain. The Montgomery Planning Committee voted 3-1 to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which constituted no action; therefore, they could take no action on the project. Three of the members indicated general support of the project; the fourth had some concerns about traffic in the area and the intensification of uses adjacent to the seniors in the mobilehome parks to the north and west. They were also generally favorable to Mr. Luecht's request to keep his property designated industrial. Chair Fuller asked if staff was using old figures when stating the enrollment for schools. Mr. Howard answered that they used the most recent figures from the School District which had been obtained as part of the Growth Management Oversight process. He had spoken with Kate Shurson of the School District who felt any change from industrial to residential, regardless of the existing uses of the site, should require mitigation even though there was only a minor increase over the existing uses. Even if there were not an additional 10 units, she said the School District would still object to not requiring full mitigation. Answering Chair Fuller, Mr. Howard said the Montgomery Planning Committee orally indicated agreement with Mr. Luecht that he should be allowed to retain his existing condition. Commissioner Martin asked if there could be 10 additional dwelling units. Mr. Howard answered that the site had a portion of the Grenada Estates Mobilehome Park which had 11 trailers; the Farmhouse Trailer Park had 27. Those were essentially at the maximum density which would be allowed under the proposed designation of 11 units per acre. Commissioner Martin commented that the Twin Palms Trailer Park had at one time generated students. Commissioner Carson, regarding traffic, asked why in the mitigation it was not stated that the applicant needed to dedicate the half-width right-of-way, develop and install curbs, gutters, or pay the standard signal fees, or if it was understood. Environmental Facilitator Richardson answered that the signal fees were the mitigation for the cumulative impacts to the intersection. PC Minutes -5- November 12, 1992 The other requirements for improvement was a standard condition placed on the project, and not a mitigation for that particular impact. Commissioner Ray asked who monitors the mitigation and now often it is rechecked. Ms. Richardson answered that the Environmental Review Coordinator was responsible for implementing the monitoring program, and it is checked as often as required as development proceeds. Commissioner Ray was concerned about mitigation and enforcement in future years. Ms. Richardson said the only way the City would have knowledge of mitigation problems would be by complaints. The City's responsibility did not extend beyond what is required by the mitigation measure. Assistant Planning Director Lee said the monitoring of a mitigation varied, depending upon the mitigation measure, as to whether it would be monitored for a certain length of time. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Sara Sepehri, the applicant, said he and his consultant were available for questions. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Martin/Carson) to approve Resolution GPA-93-03/PCZ-93-C reconunending approval of the attached draft City Council resolution. Commissioner Ray was concerned about Mr. Luecht's opposition. He asked that the item be trailed and that Mr. Luecht be specifically notified again or that someone from staff once again speak with him and specifically let him know the Planning Commission's actions. Principal Planner Howard expressed his surprise that Mr. Luecht was not in attendance; he had attended the Montgomery Planning Committee meeting the previous evening and had strongly opposed the action. Commissioner Ray asked that the motion be revised to exclude Mr. Luecht's portion of Subarea 3. Assistant Planning Director Lee said he would be notified of the item as it goes before the City Council, and also of the Planning Commission's action. He noted that because of the configuration- of the property and the adjacency to the residential area, it did not make good planning sense to leave the property as industrial. Chair Fuller viewed the area as being very unique, and agreed with staff that it should be looked at as a total package. Commissioner Ray withdrew his request, and asked staff about other residential areas adjacent to industrial zoning. The Assistant Planning Director agreed that was an overall problem. There was a specific application in this area, and although this property had originally been zoned as one parcel, the property had been developed separately and two pieces were rather isolated and facing a residential street. Commissioner Tuchscher believed it was appropriate to change the zoning on the industrial area; he thought it became an island that would present serious concerns from a planning standpoint in the future. He commented that the Abode Plaza site plan concerned him. He was comfortable with the land use question, but was not comfortable with the building proposal. Mr. Howard noted the project would be going before the Design Review Committee who would review the project and amend it as part of their hearing process. Chair Fuller said she wished to put the applicant and the Design Review Committee on notice that she did not want another project to emulate the Genesis Square project. VOTE: $-0 to approve the General Plan Amendment, including staff recommendation on all of Sub-Area 3. OTHER BUSINESS FISCAL YEAR 93-94 BUDGET PROCESS - Dawn Herring, Budget Manager Budget Manager Dawn Herring brought the Commissioners up to date on the City's budget, where the City stood for this fiscal year, and the prognosis for the next fiscal year. She asked the Commissioners what their concerns were and what was most important to them. She noted that all Commissions were being asked to voluntarily turn back a minimum of 2% of their budget for the year. Ms. Herring noted that the Planning Department would be preparing the Commission's budget for the coming fiscal year and would be preparing 2%, 5%, and 10% cut lists, and it would be helpful if the Commissioners could give any input. Chair Fuller noted that it was important to protect the travel expense, so the new Commissioners would be able to go to the annual I~,~ague of Cities Planning Conference. Although there was currently only enough budget to send one Commissioner, Chair Fuller would like at some time in the future for all the Commissioners to be able to go simultaneously. Commissioner Martin stated that the City is the largest city in California which does not pay their Commissioners. Commissioner Tuchscher, relating to communications, thought the Commission needed some letterhead. Commissioner Carson suggested copying everything back to back, and reducing the number of meetings. Commissioner Ray asked if a rather significant shortfall from what was anticipated in the State budget is not an emergency, what is? To relieve any portion of that budget deficit, has the City and can the City look at leasing property as a leasing agency and collect funds from that on an ongoing basis? PC Minutes -7- November 12, 1992 In answer to the first question, Budget Manager Herring explained that after considering all revenues to the City, how much could be carried forward, and how big the cut was from the State, staff may recommend that a portion of the emergency fund be used. However, several options would be presented to Council as to different ways to approach such a cut. Answering Assistant City Attorney Rudolf, Commissioner Ray suggested that the City could lease any surplus City-owned property, even at a lower rate, and get a reasonable return from a piece of vacant land which is not producing any income. Commissioner Tuchscher suggested that the City might sell some of its buildings and leasing back the same space on a long-term basis. DIRECTOR'S REPORT - None COMMISSION COMMENTS 1. Commissioner Tuchscher asked that the Planning Commission send a memorandum to the GMOC to ask if they had considered in their analysis of traffic and average drive times using a shorter base time. Rather than do an average drive time over one hour, had they considered doing that over a period of a period of one-half hour and every six months. Commissioner Ray added that it depended on which hour or half hour it was being done, as well. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that staff was planning to have a traffic workshop for the Commission. Chair Fuller clarified that this suggestion should be forwarded to the GMOC but, if accepted, they would refer that portion of their study to City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg. Commissioner Tuchscher was concerned with the cost of the analysis, but felt this method would be more accurate. He believed a one-page memo to GMOC would suffice, and asked staff to follow through. 2. Commissioner Ray recommended to staff that they take a look at contacting Southwestern College, San Diego state, UCSD, and any other local colleges or community colleges to provide an internship which would cost the City nothing to set up a formal review of the current zoning that exists in the City to look at mismatches, and list outstanding CUPs, etc. Chair Fuller commented that it would be a rather ambitious project and would take a lot of staff time, even though interns would be used. Commissioner Ray thought it could be implemented over several years. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that interns had been used extensively over the years, but it does involve quite a bit of staff time. In terms of conditional use permits, staff used to monitor them on a yearly basis, but a PC Minutes -8- November 12, 1992 limited amount of violations were found. With the limited budget, that has been discontinued unless a complaint is filed with the Zoning Enforcement Division which is then checked out. 3. Commissioner Ray asked that staff research the response of City Manager Goss to the RCC regarding monitoring of conditional use permits, and provide a copy for him. 4. Chair Fuller asked if after landscaping has been established, there was any mechanism or enforcement to see that a business property maintains the landscaping that they were required to put in initially. Mr. Lee answered that staff had gone out periodically with a member of the Chamber of Commerce and traveled the major streets in town and cite the areas not being maintained. Beyond that, there was no set program. Staff receives affidavits from the owners specifying that they understand that they are to maintain the landscaping. 5. Commissioner Ray was concerned about the Eucalyptus Grove complex and the retail center to the east of the project which he understood, from an adjacent property owner, was supposed to have a permanent fixed wail, but a temporary wooden wall was installed. Commissioner Ray asked that this be researched also and let him know what the mitigation was for a barrier between the two projects, so he could notify the property owner. 6. Commissioner Carson thanked staff for getting the materials to her early for the meeting. ADJOURNMENT at 8:55 p.m. to the Special Business Meeting of November 18, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. N~ncy Ripl~y, Secreta~'y Planning Commission (l~l 1-12.mln)