Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/08/12 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:08 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, August 12, 1992 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Casillas, Commissioners Carson, Decker, Fuller, Martin, and Ray COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tuchscher STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Griffin, Environmental Review Coordinator Miller, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Fritsch PLEDGE OF AI.I.EGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Casillas and was followed by a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Casillas reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL ¢0MMUNICATIONS - None MSUC (Fuller/Decker) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Tuchscher who was out of town on business. ITEM1: CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR EIR-91-05, TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES SUBDIVISION - The Baldwin Company Environmental Review Coordinator Miller noted that the Draft EIR-92-05 for Telegraph Canyon Estates Subdivision had been circulated to the public and the responses to comments received during the period, including comments from the RCC, Planning Commission, and from the public testimony received at the July 22 public hearing were included in the Final EIR. The Final EIR also contained responses to comments received from the two local citizens who attended the Planning Commission hearing on the draft, Norm Ross and Veronica Sissons. Due PC Minutes -2- August 12, 1992 to information obtained during the public review period and in preparation for the Final EIR, changes had been made to the level of significance determinations for biology and water availability. Ms. Miller stated that biology had been changed from "significant but mitigable" to "significant and unmitigated" since there was no off-site mitigation specific site which could be referred to at that time for a no-net-loss of wetland resources. It was being deemed significant and unmitigated; however, if a site was identified, the impact could be reduced to below a level of significance. The project applicant was working toward identifying a mitigation site. Ms. Miller said, also, that water availability impacts had been changed from "significant but mitigable" to "significant and unmitigated" on a regionwide basis, because there was no guarantee at the present time that reclaimed water would be available to the project site. If reclaimed water became available to the site, this could also be reduced below significance. Staff was requiring adoption of a statement of overriding considerations as a precaution. Commissioner Decker asked if the two unmitigated areas were included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, would they have to be mitigated later? Ms. Miller answered that it was anticipated that the applicant would be mitigating those impacts; however, to comply with CEQA, the issues needed to be taken at face value, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations needed to be adopted. If, in the future, those impact areas were reduced, it would not be a concern. Commissioner Decker, referring to page 23 of the Final EIR, Site Seismicity, asked the potential impact to surrounding homes if the water tank is ruptured during seismic activity. He felt that should be included in the EIR. Ms. Miller answered that it was not required to be analyzed under CEQA, because it already existed. Those issues should have been analyzed at the time the water facility was being considered. Commissioner Decker was concerned with the impact to surrounding homes if the water tank burst. Marsha Gross, AFFINIS, the environmental consultant for the project, stated that the engineering standards for steel tank reservoirs were designed so those types of facilities were able to withstand earthquakes of a certain magnitude and adverse weather conditions. She believed that would have been analyzed when the Otay Water District proposed to install water facilities in that area, regardless of whether the area was developed at that time. Commissioner Decker referred to a tank located in the desert which had broken recently, and was concerned with the possibility of flooding homes downhill from this tank. Commissioner Decker also asked how the .9 acres for wetlands evolved, and if it was an overflow from the EastLake development. The consultant said it met the Federal definition of a wetland, which includes wetland areas which have formed as a result of nuisance runoff. The biological value of this particular wetland was low; however, because it met the Federal definition, it had to comply. Commissioner Decker was curious as to how it could be a wetland if it didn't exist before the lake was installed at EastLake. PC Minutes -3- August 12, 1992 Commissioner Decker asked about the open space area and if the ratio was usually included. Senior Planner Griffin said the scenic corridor was required by the General Plan, and the easements couldn't be constructed upon. The easements count for the total open space for the project even though they are required by planning documents or easements. The gross project density would include those areas. Regarding transportation, Commissioner Decker disagreed with the conclusion that traffic was mitigable. He felt the cumulative effects made it significant and unmitigable. He asked staff to explain their rationale. Environmental Review Coordinator Miller explained that the traffic report determined that although certain segments and intersections would be lowered in the level of service, it was not deemed to be significant. Looking at the future traffic improvements anticipated in the area-- although now there could be an impact--given the probability that improvements would be made in the area, it is determined insignificant based on certain assumptions. Senior Planner Griffin added that one of the conditions of approval was that the Telegraph Canyon Estates project would be subject to an allocation program which would result from a study that was underway on the SR-125 corridor. Projects currently in the pipeline are cumulatively more than the system can handle without the SR-125 corridor. The allocation program would be initiated and no building permits or tentative maps could be approved for this project until the study is complete. This project would have to comply with that allocation program. Commissioner Decker wished for the City Council to be aware of the cumulative impacts, and the fact that they were not mitigable now or in the near future. SR-125 would not be built soon, and the Council needed to say they could live with that, and vote for the Statement of Overriding Considerations on that basis. MSC (Decker/Carson) 5-1 (Commissioner Ray voted against; Commissioner Tucbseher absent) that the Planniug Conunlssion adopt a resolution certifying the Final EIR, exeinding the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental procedures of the City of Chula Vista. MSC (Decker/F~iler) $-1 (Commissioner Ray voted against; Commissioner Tuehseher absent) to certify that the Planning Commission has considered the information contained in the EIR prior to reaching a decision on the project. Commissioner Ray stated he had voted "no" on the recommendation to certify the Final EIR, because he had voted against certification when he had sat on the Resource Conservation Commission. He wished to maintain that consistency. He had an ongoing concern with the cumulative impact of any of the EIRs. PC Minutes -4- August 12, 1992 ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-92-A AND PCM-91-07: CONSIDERATION OF PREZONING, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND P-C REGULATION AMENDMENTS, SPA PLAN AND PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN FOR TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES - Baldwin Vista Associates Senior Planner Griffin showed some exhibits of the project area, and described the project and the surrounding land uses. The proposal was for a maximum of 350 detached single-family lots with three dwelling-unit types. Mr. Griffin noted that the project called for private streets and was a gate-guarded community. He explained the contouring of the grading, the slope variation and the 30' maximum height of the internal slopes and noted that a two-story dwelling would practically obscure them from the public view from both Telegraph Canyon Road and the internal street system. Mr. Griffin explained the buffering and separation from the adjoining homes, and the landscaping of the area. Staff preferred public streets and recommended that 1) if the Commission accepted staff's request to require public streets, the main spine street be cul-de-saced and any through traffic use another, more circuitous, route to slow traffic going downhill; and 2) that the community purpose facility sites be combined into one site and either moved to the project entry or adjacent to the common open space area in the center of the project; or preferably locate a community purpose facility off-site south of Telegraph Canyon Road in the first phase of Otay Ranch, assuming an agreement could be reached with the City to provide that site in the Otay Ranch. If not, it would go back to one of the on-site alternatives which moved it away from the existing residents and into the project itself. Senior Planner Griffin noted an amendment to the traffic study showed that a public street system would not generate any adverse impacts on the surrounding street network. Also included in the recommendations was adoption of the water conservation and air quality plans, which are required in conjunction with the SPA Plan. Based on the findings in the report, and an amendment adding one finding to the Planned Community findings, staff recommended approval of the project. Commissioner Decker asked if the streets as planned would be adequate for public streets, as well as private. Senior Planner Griffin concurred. He noted that the central spine street additionally provided for a parkway between the curb and sidewalk and a wider sidewalk on the westerly side to provide a trail connection through the project. The proposal was to allow the trail to be used by the public. Even though vehicles could not use the street system, pedestrians and bicyclists would be able to use the spine street under the private street scenario. Commissioner Ray asked if there was any provision for drainage of runoff from the BastLake property. Mr. Griffin noted the applicant had answered affirmatively. Commissioner Carson asked when the water offset policy would be available. Assistant Planning Director Lee said it was still under development by the Environmental Resources Manager. PC Minutes -5- August 12, 1992 In answer to Commissioner Carson, Mr. Griffin said the applicant was subject to the full park fees. Private facilities are not credited against the public needs. Commissioner Carson questioned the finding regarding private recreation sites and common open space contributing to long-term liveability. Commissioner Carson, regarding the fourth finding, did not feel a private recreation area would supplement the public. Senior Planner Griffin said they were not replacing the public park facilities but were supplementing the private yard spaces. Commissioner Carson also asked from what adverse impacts were the surrounding areas being protected. Mr. Griffin answered it would be from the noise and activity associated with the recreation areas if they were located adjacent to the adjoining homes. Commissioner Carson asked if the community facilities district for Salt Creek Ranch had been established. Environmental Coordinator Miller answered that it was CFD//7, and was in the process of being established. Commissioner Carson was concerned with the finding. Mr. Griffin assured her that the project proponent was working with the school districts to form the district to include both projects at once up front. The Telegraph Canyon Estates project would not come up later; it was being formed to include both projects at this point. Commissioner Carson felt the facility would take place anyway, because the project had been approved. The formation would already take place with the Salt Creek Ranch project. She felt the wording for this finding was wrong. It was explained that the formation of the district with both projects was preferable from the District's point of view. Commissioner Carson, referring to 1-20, under Community Tax Structure, asked the rate of vacancies of newly constructed homes in the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Griffin did not know the rate, but based on financing constraints, most of the new developments were being constructed in small increments based on commitments. He did not feel there were many vacant units, although the market was slow. Commissioner Carson was concerned with the number of homes being built. Commissioner Carson asked if the Health Department monitored the area for mosquitos. Ms. Miller said the burden would be on the homeowners to complain to the appropriate agency. Anytime there is standing water, it would be attracting potential vectors and it could become a nuisance to the homeowners in the area. Commissioner Carson, regarding input of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides into the drainage asked who would be dumping this. Senior Planner Griffin answered that the common recreation areas would probably be replaced by private lots. There wouldn't be private facilities, so there may be more use of household-type pesticides and fertilizers that would be adjacent to the central swale area. Questioning page 15 of the engineering report and discussion of landscape maintenance on page 2-41 of the General Development Plan, Commissioner Carson asked if the homeowners association could specify certain types of drought-resistant plants or irrigation on private lots. PC Minutes -6- August 12, 1992 Mr. Griffin said it would be feasible and the Commission could include that as a recommendation; however, the implementation and enforcement by the homeowners group may be difficult. Commissioner Carson was concerned with outside water usage and felt the Commission needed to take a stand. Assistant Planning Director Lee suggested two possibilities: 1) that there may be a specific limitation of water for each homeowner citywide, with the choice being the homeowner's as to how to use it; and 2) the City may adopt a standard on a citywide basis relating to landscaping. He felt that would be easier than trying to impose limitations on certain areas. Commissioner Casillas noted that was the intent of developing a proposal to develop the comprehensive plan in coordination with the Metropolitan Water District. It didn't seem to be a priority with the elected officials; Commissioner Casillas thought the Commission's concern should be reiterated. Commissioner Casillas concurred with Commissioner Carson that education of the people regarding water usage was very important. Assistant Planning Director Lee assured the Commission that staff is still working with the water policy issue, plus working with the developers to provide education to the homebuyers. Commissioner Fuller asked what the City's role was in the negotiation with the applicant regarding a community purpose site off-site. Senior Planner Griffin said it would be a mutual agreement between the City and the developer that the site is appropriate for a community purpose facility. It would take place in the first phase of Otay Ranch, so it could be brought on line as soon as possible. There would have to be some assurances that the property would be coming into the City and it would be available within a certain time. Mr. Griffin stated that the applicant had indicated compliance with that condition, as written, so if the agreement couldn't be reached before this project was built out, the CPF site would need to be provided on site in one of the two alternate locations. Commissioner Fuller asked if an alternate off-site location were found, would the entire project have to be redesigned. Senior Planner Griffin answered that those areas could be parceled into some additional single-family lots. Commissioner Fuller questioned the possible reduction in density; when the reduction could be made. Mr. Griffin said there may be a minor adjustment in the basic yield for grading and interface and compatibility during review and consideration of the tentative map. The lower density alternative was an exercise through CEQA which had to be included in the document, but no specific design proposal had been made for a lower density project. Any reduction in the number of lots would be done at the tentative map stage; however, the Commission could condition the approval of the SPA with any specific direction, it could be considered when working with the applicant at the tentative map stage. Senior Planner Griffin pointed out that condition 38, page 2-5, provided that approval of the SPA Plan was not necessarily approving a certain yield, and it could change with the tentative map. PC Minutes -7- August 12, 1992 Commissioner Fuller said she would feel more comfortable with 280 units rather than 350. She was uncomfortable with the density of EastLake and continuing that trend east. Assistant Planning Director Lee pointed out that the lot sizes were either equal to or greater than the lots generally in the area and were consistent with the development in the area. Commissioner Decker asked the total number of lots in the plan, exclusive of the CFD lots. Mr. Griffin answered there were approximately 341; with the replacement of the CFD sites with lots, a maximum of eight lots could be placed there, which would keep the total below 350. There was a condition included which would keep the maximum at 350. Commissioner Decker, referring to page 5 of the mitigation conditions, #34, asked why 3' wide solid base for fences. Mr. Griffin said it was a requirement of the Parks & Recreation Department for walls or fencing which fronts upon open space maintenance districts. Without the solid base, there was a problem of maintenance--demarcation between the open space district and private yards. Commissioner Decker asked what would happen to the overflow of water from EastLake. Mr. Griffin explained that it would be taken underground through the primary north/south spine street system down to the channel. Commissioner Ray, regarding public versus private streets, was concerned about the impact to the residents in regard to children crossing the road, and additional traffic coming from the College Estates and potentially from EastLake. Would more street lights or signs be required in the project itself?. Mr. Griffin stated the traffic consultant had considered that and did not feel there would be any adverse impacts in the sense of facilities, thresholds, or service. There would be a signal at Telegraph Canyon Road, and opportunity for pedestrians to cross the street with the signal. Also, the internal system would be reconfigured to slow through traffic. Commissioner Ray asked if the gated community would significantly reduce traffic. He was concerned with the safety of children accessing the park across the street rather than the threshold standard. Senior Planner Griffin said there would be some additional traffic with public streets and a potential safety factor, but not considered significant by the experts. There was general discussion by the Commissioners regarding the conditions relating to public versus private streets. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public heating was opened. Steve Doyle, representing Baldwin Company, 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, 92130, said he was impressed with the Commission's attention to detail. He gave some background of the project, and described the procedure used to develop the current property. Mr. Doyle said they were proposing a private, gate-guarded community. They wanted to have an identity, something different, which would create a reason for homebuyers to look at the project. Mr. Doyle felt PC Minutes -8- August 12, 1992 through traffic by automobiles would be restricted by a gate-guarded community, but they were encouraging pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Mr. Doyle agreed that was not a good place for the community purpose facility sites, but as a gate-guarded community, there were no good CPF sites in the project since they needed public access. They would be working with staff to come to an agreement to relocate those facilities to the first phase of Otay Ranch. Regarding the cumulative impact on water availability, Baldwin was proposing and was conditioned to dual pipe the project, providing reclaimed water piping for the project by hooking up to the EastLake project when it is constructed. If it is not hooked to EastLake, it will be hooked into the Otay Ranch project during its first phase of construction. Baldwin would also provide .9 acre off-site mitigation for the biological impacts regarding wetlands. There would be underground piping from the bottom of the slope to the drainage channel in front of the project to handle the drainage from EastLake. Mr. Doyle stated the project added traffic to the project, but it did not go over the level of service thresholds which were required to be met by the Growth Management Plan. Cumulatively, there is an excess of traffic; City staff is working with a consultant to develop an allocation program; the project could not get an approved tentative map or pull a building permit until that allocation program is decided. Regarding CFD I/7, Mr. Doyle said it had been announced by the Elementary School District that the application had been accepted to create CFD #7. One CFD with the two projects is a better mechanism to provide the facilities for the School District. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Doyle if the private streets would increase the fees of the homeowners. Mr. Doyle said there was an estimated monthly homeowners association fee of $125 to $150 per month, with a private gate-guarded community including the maintenance of the streets according to City standards, swimming pool, spa, tennis courts. There would be a Mello-Roos for school facilities; there would not be an assessment district or any other type of financing district for the public facilities because they were local-serving only. Commissioner Ray asked if the maintenance of the streets included chip-seal. Mr. Doyle replied affirmatively. Commissioner Casillas asked if there was a provision for parking RVs. Mr. Doyle said there had been discussion with San Diego Gas & Electric who has an easement which runs along the easterly property line and had agreed to allow parking for the tennis courts and a certain number of RV spaces. Commissioner Decker questioned how the gated section would be handled if the northwestern lots were included in the project, rather than as CFD lots. Using overhead projection, Mr. Doyle showed examples of how that would be done. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes -9- August 12, 1992 Chair Casillas asked Senior Planner Griffin to summarize the recommendation of s~aff and the options to amend the recommendations. Mr. Griffin stated that the primary unresolved issue between staff and the applicant was the public versus private street issue. By accepting the staff recommendation, as submitted to the Commission, a public street system would be required rather than a private. If the Commission preferred a private street system, the Commission should exclude condition no. 11. By adopting the conditions as proposed, the Commission would also be providing the applicant with the alternative of providing the CPF site off the property. If agreement could not be accomplished between staff and the applicant regarding the CPF site, it would be relocated from the northerly boundary at another more appropriate location on the property. Commissioner Fuller, regarding public versus private streets, asked if private streets would lend more safety for children and access to EastLa~e Park. Commissioner Ray said he was concerned with the additional danger in the project area by going to a public road system rather than the private. Commissioner Fuller concluded that the concern was with additional through traffic for people wanting to access the EastLake project by entering this project. Commissioner Ray added that those accessing the eastern portion of the College Estates area may go through this project. Senior Planner Griffin explained that if the option was to adopt the staff recommendation for public streets, another condition would require that the spine street would be col~de-saced and through traffic would be rerouted. This would require a more circuitous route and slow through traffic. Commissioner Decker suggested that the Commission vote in two parts in order to segregate the issue of the street system. MS (Fuller/Martin) that based on the f'mding contained in Section D of the staff report, that the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve PCZ-92-A and PCM-91-07; Consideration of Prezonlng, General Development Plan and P-C District Regulation Amendments, SPA Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan for Telegraph Canyon Estates, subject to Conditions 1 through 10, and 16 through 39, including the f'mding that the proposed prezoning is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan. Assistant Planning Director Lee suggested that the Commission may wish to add a condition which indicated that full park fees would be required of this project which would be used to pay for and develop other parks in the area. This had been a concern of Commissioner Carson. Commissioner Carson stated she felt it should be included. PC Minutes -10- August 12, 1992 Commissioner Decker asked if the Commission voted to make this project public, would that portion of the development which is parkland reduce the park fee. Mr. Lee answered negatively. They would still be private parks. Commissioner Carson said that based on Condition 38, since the Planning Commission would have an opportunity to look at the number of dwellings that would be there, she had some suggestions regarding reduction in density. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) MS (Fuller/Ray) that the project be allowed to contain private streets. Commissioner Decker asked if it would not be better to vote on items 11 through 15 in one package. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION: Commissioner Fuller made a motion that conditions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 be deleted. Senior Planner Griffin stated that item 15 was related to walls and could stand on its own. Commissioner Ray clarified that approval of any or all of items 11 through 15 would still be subject to tentative map approval for configuration of the street and roadways. There was discussion regarding which conditions should remain for the project to go ahead with private streets. Commissioner Carson asked staff if conditions 12, 13, and 14 should be considered. Senior Planner Griffin said if it was the desire of the Commission to go with private streets, would there also be a desire to have the street network reconfigured. If the Commissioners voted to accept the private street system, the conditions would be adjusted accordingly. Commissioner Fuller clarified that the motion should incorporate private streets, the design of which should be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Senior Planner Griffin concurred. PC Minutes -11- August 12, 1992 RESTATEMF~NT OF MOTION: MS (FullerfRay) that the project should incorporate private streets, the design of which would be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Commissioner Carson said she would vote 'no' because she felt they should be public streets. Because of prior experience, she felt the project would come back for the City to take over maintenance of the streets. Assistant Planning Director Lee said that situation had occurred where streets met structural street standards but not necessarily the street width. This project met all City standards; there was on the part of staff, however, a concern that homeowners generally are not equipped to handle street maintenance. If it is not taken care of in a systematic fashion, the streets start to deteriorate before they realize the expense which would be involved in maintaining the streets. He said it was a concern of staff that the people would come back to the City for maintenance. In this case, there would be a homeowners association because of the private amenities and there would be more communication; also, there would be an effect on the overall circulation with a large gated community. Commissioner Decker asked how many miles of street were in the project. Mr. Lee answered there were approximately 3 miles. Commissioner Carson noted that she would vote for the public street system. Commissioner Ray asked if the City could be contracted to maintain the roads on a regular basis paid for through the homeowners fees, so they could maintain their gated community but still be required to maintain it at a regular interval using the same contractor. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich answered that the main reason was the liability which the City would incur by maintaining it and having equipment there. There was a possibility of suit if there was a problem. The City preferred not to. The streets should be totally public or totally private. The Chairman had temporarily left the meeting, so Vice-Chair Decker declared a 3-minute recess at 9:20 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:23 p.m. MOTION WITHDRAWN: Commissioner Fuller, after further consideration, withdrew her motion. MSUC (Decker/Carson) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) to accept Conditions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 as stated. PC Minutes -12- August 12, 1992 ITEM 3: ADOPTION OF CEQA FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS -TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES SUBDIVISION, EIR-91-05 MS (Decker/Martin) that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the attached CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Commissioner Carson asked for change of wording to No. 5 of the statement of Overriding Considerations as follows: "Approval of the project will enhance formation of new Community Facilities Districts (CFD) for city schools." The maker of the motion and the second accepted the modification. RESTATED MOTION: That the Plannlng Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the attached CEQA F'mdings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, with the change in language incorporated. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchseher absent) Commissioner Carson commented that she would like to see the density reduced by 50, with a maximum of 300 or 280 units. ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-93-A: CONSIDERATION TO PREZONE 3.59 ACRES NORTH OF OTAY LAKES ROAD, EAST OF LEHIGH AVENUE TO R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - City Initiated Senior Planner Griffin explained that with the annexation of Telegraph Canyon Estates, this site would become a County island. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requires that before property can be annexed, it must be prezoned. The intent of this prezone is to annex this property along with the Telegraph Canyon Estates property, so as not to create a County island. Staff recommended approval based on the findings stated in the staff report. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Fuller/Carson) 6-0 (Coromi~sioner Tuchscher absent) that based on the findings that the proposed prezoning is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, that the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending that the City Council prezone 3.5 acres to R-l, as shown in Exhibit A. PC Minu~es -13- August 12, 1992 ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-92-37: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A FULL SERVICE CAR WASH WITH AUTOMOTIVE DETAIL SERVICES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOURTH AVENUE AND 'E' STREET - Donald Macek/Billy Shields Senior Planner Griffin located the property by using overhead projection, and noted the surrounding uses and zoning. He stated that staff believed this project was a creative site plan solution. It abutted two very heavily travelled streets, however, staff felt the traffic problems were resolved by this plan. The remaining issue was noise. In conjunction with the Initial Study, an independent noise analysis was made, and it was determined that by placing 7-1/2' high noise walls near the apartments, the proposal would meet the City's performance standards for noise. Based on the conditions and findings listed in the staff report, and amendments to the conditions of approval given to the Commission prior to the meeting, staff recommended approval of the project. Commissioner Martin asked how many cars travelled "E" Street between I-5 and 1-805. While Mr. Griffin was searching for that information, Commissioner Martin, referring to page 5-59 in the Noise Technical Report, noted a discrepancy in the time the carwash would be open; how late at night would the carwash be open? Mr. Griffin answered that the applicant's proposal stated it would be open from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The longer period to 10:00 p.m. was the City's performance standards. Staff felt it was appropriate to base the conditions on the City's performance standards. In answer to Commissioner Martin, Mr. Griffin said a carwash had been approved at the northeast quadrant of 1-5 and "E" Street, although it had not yet been constructed. There is also a carwash near 1-805 on "E" Street. Commissioner Martin questioned the right-in, right-out access on Fourth Avenue. He was concerned about traffic entering the street from the AM/PM across the street. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich assured Mr. Martin that the median on Fourth Avenue would be extended 65 feet to the north to keep people from driving to the north. Commissioner Fuller asked where the apartments were located in relation to the carwash blowers. Mr. Griffin said they were on the north side of the alley. He indicated the placement of the noise wall, and stated it would protect all of the units from excessive noise. Commissioner Fuller asked how far it was from the end of the tunnel to the wall. Mr. Griffin said it was 29' with another 20' of alley. He noted there is a requirement in the Code as well for a zoning wall. Commissioner Fuller asked about the noise level at the second-floor level of Chula Vista Inn; the noise level would be reduced as long as they kept their windows closed? She understood the report indicated that in order for the noise reduction to be achieved, their windows had to be kept closed. She was concerned with the project because of the noise level at that location. Senior Planner Griffin said the report was not necessarily saying the noise level would be exceeded with the window open, but it was not excluding it. PC Minutes -14- August 12, 1992 While Mr. Griffin was doing research on the question, Commissioner Fuller commented that there were other parts of the project which raised a red flag. She commented on a letter the Commissioners had received which she had found offensive, which spoke of the types of employees of the carwash. Commissioner Casillas commented that the buffering would not benefit the third floor residents of the Chula Vista Inn. He thought he had read that the 60 dBA level would not be exceeded. Senior Planner Griffin said, regarding the second story windows, that one of the requirements for carwashes in the Code was that the noise level not exceed the ambiance noise level which was in addition to the standard requirement that it not exceed the City performance standard. The noise study was stating that with the second story window open, it would exceed that special noise standard for carwashes--which said it would not exceed the ambient noise level--but it would be below the City's normal performance standard for any other use. There should have been a special exception that the Commission could grant to exceed the ambient noise level for the second story units, although it would be within the City's performance standards. If the Commission desired, they could consider that. If they were uncomfortable considering it without an analysis, it might be appropriate to continue the item and consider it at a future hearing along with the project. Commissioner Martin suggested the carwash may be turned around on the lot, so the noise from the tunnel would come out on "E" Street and would be further away from the buildings. Mr. Griffin did not feel there would be a significant difference because of both ends of the tunnel being open, and would create a problem with the stacking. Mr. Griffin said it was a possibility. Commissioner Decker asked how many employees would be on site at one time, and where would they park. Mr. Griffin deferred to the applicant, who said there would be an average of 8 to 10. Mr. Griffin indicated where the parking would be provided for the employees. Discussion followed regarding parking area for detailing and customer parking. Commissioner Decker commented that if the opening of the building was over 7.5 feet in height, a 7.5 foot wall would be lower than the opening of the carwash and the sound would go over the top of the wall. He felt the environmental study was inadequate. Mr. Griffin indicated that on page 5-66, there were some exhibits which the noise consultant had generated which showed the wash tunnel at l0 feet high, the source point at 6 feet high, and the relationship of a proposed 6 foot wall which was found inadequate and the recommended 7.5 foot wall. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich spoke to the issue of traffic on "E" Street between I-5 and 1-805, saying it varied significantly in the area going from 17,000 to 27,000 trips. In front of the project was 18,410 trips, as of a 1991 count. PC Minutes -15- August 12, 1992 Commissioner Fuller noted there was no on-street parking on either Fourth Avenue north of "E" Street or on "E" Street on either side of the street. Senior Planner Griffin concurred that there was no parking adjacent to the site. Commissioner Fuller commented the concern of the people living in the area was congestion for on-street parking south of "E" Street on Fourth Avenue. The problem, however, was already there whether or not this project was built. Commissioner Carson, referring to Condition H, asked about the type of water damage to public improvements. Mr. Griffin said it related to a problem which had occurred at another carwash where cars were going offsite, dripping water onto the pavement which deteriorated very rapidly. Commissioner Carson questioned whether the area would eventually be in a lighting district, if they would have to change a street light; would they have an additional fee for changing a light? Senior Civil Engineer lJllrich said it was in a lighting district area. The applicant was aware of it, and the requirement could possibly be reduced when the building permit is approved. Commissioner Ray asked how it is proved which damage is caused by normal wear and tear versus the carwash, since the carwash would use 80% reclaimed water. He didn't think there would be a lot of water dripping on the street itself. Mr. Griffin concurred, and stated that the newer processes blow the car dry and take most of the water off the car; therefore, there is not a tendency to carry it offsite and damage the street. A problem was not expected but, if one developed, this protected the City from repairing streets at City expense which resulted from this particular operation. Commissioner Ray asked if there was any type of depression into the project itself to allow residue water to drain back into the project for reclamation. Mr. Griffin said there was an on- site drainage system. Commissioner Ray, referring to page 5-5, was concerned about construction of a median on "E" when there was no access to the project from "E" Street. Senior Civil Engineer Llllrich said he would consider that when the conditions were written up on the building permit. Commissioner Ray felt it would be an unfair cost to the applicant, considering the configuration of the proposed project. Commissioner Decker, referring to page 5-8, questioned the size of the sign which was 112 sq. ft. He asked if there was not a limit of 100 sq. ft. on signage. Mr. Griffin answered that in the C-T zone, it was based on the frontage of the site which was 1 sq. ft. per lineage foot of frontage up to a maximum of 150 sq. ft. This project had 118 feet of frontage, so the sign met the standard. Senior Planner Griffin stated it was a concern to him that the noise study showed that the project did not meet the noise standard for carwashes. Perhaps if the Commission was favorable to the PC Minutes -16- August 12, 1992 balance of the project, rather than continuing it, the Commission could add an additional condition that the earwasb will meet that standard by way of further refinements to the equipment or orientation of the tunnel. This would give an opportunity for staff and the applicant to deal with the issue without going througl~ another hearing. Chair Casillas s~ated that the bottom line was that the residents to the north would suffer additional noise. T~e ambient dBA would be exceeded by some unknown number. Mr. Griffin stated that, according to the report, the ambient noise from the existing traffic on "E" and Fourth the carwash-4with the sound wall--would not be exceeded. Commissioner Fuller reported that some of her family members lived near the area, and during most of the traffic hours, the front door had to be kept closed in order to enjoy living in that This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. B~lly Shields, 3812 Herman Avenue, San Diego, 92104, the applicant, said they felt they bad met the City standards for parldng. Very few of their employees drive; some carpeol, but most ride the bus. They did not feel there would be a problem with parking. The parking along the norfiaerly property line would be for the employees; customer parking would be concentrated in the detail area. The opening to the tunnel is 10 feet; the height could be reduced to 8 feet if it would help the noise issue. They would extend the height of the wall if it would help mitigate the noise problem. He asked the Commission for guidelines as to bow to address the problem. Mr. Shields commented that he had questioned the justification for the medians; they had already relinquished about 15% of the property through dedication for the street right-of-way and incorporated additional landscaping and exceed the City standards, in addition to other requirements of the project. He felt the project had an excessive number of requests upon it, and be would lille the Commission to consider the request as to whether the project should burden of the costs of the development as well as the fees of the Building Department. Commissioner Martin asked how much would be charged for a car to be washed. Mr. Shields said it averaged $3.50 to $4.00. Commissioner Martin did not feel the project would make much of a profit with 200 cars per day. Senior Civil Engineer Llllrich noted the Engineering conditions would be put on the building permit; the applicant could talk to staff if he felt they were excessive and they would consider that before the conditions were put on the building permit. It was not considered as part of the conditional use permit. Frances Finner~y, 139 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, said she lived at the Cl~ula Vista Townhouse and she was the opposition to this project. She felt the water problem was probably solved througla recycling, but the traffic problem had not been resolved and would not be. She noted that SR-54 bad brought more traffic to the area. She noted the problem elderly people PC Minutes -17- August 12, 1992 have crossing the street; a carwash on the corner would mean a constant flow of traffic entering and leaving, creating even more traffic. Ruth Pazzoni, 139 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, speaking for Roxanne Stoner, referred to the letter the Commission had received and said Ms. Stoner had written the letter because of a problem she had with another carwash. Ms. Stoner was very concerned because they were having trouble getting and keeping tenants because of the cost. If the tenants were not able to walk to the library or to get exercise, there would be more of a problem getting and keeping tenants. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Carson/Ray) that based on the Initial Study and conunents on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, f'md this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-40. Commissioner Decker said he felt the sound study by RECON was highly inadequate. It did not address several issues. He believed parking would be a problem. On page 5-18, it referred to cumulative effects in an area--by adopting this, the Commission would be saying the cumulative effects did not make a difference. He felt the cumulative effects did make a difference; that 200 cars a day was a lot of traffic and that it was a moderate amount; he believed it was an inappropriate use for the land. He would vote against the motion. Chair Casillas commented that the adjoining property was zoned R-3. He felt it was inappropriate to put commercial zoning next to it. This was not a creative use for this corner. There was a carwash at Bonita Road, with one approved at the freeway; how many more of these automobile pollution-generating activities should we support? There is a group of citizens living nearby across the street whose quality of life is being degraded. He could not support it. Senior Planner Griffin responded that this use required a conditional use permit because it needed to be looked at individually. The C-T zone allows heavier commercial uses; it was zoned C-T earlier; the site had previously occupied a service station; many of the proposals staff had seen for the site had been much less acceptable than the carwash. With the quality of the site improvements and the proposed building design, and the fact that the applicant was willing to work closely with staff, it was the opinion of staff that the project was supportable. Commissioner Martin stated that the real problem was with noise. He felt the rest could be worked out, but it was unfair to the senior citizens to have the blowers going. There should be some way to have a blower without having all the noise. He could not approve the project as it is. VOTE: 0-6 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) - MOTION FAILED. PC Minutes -18- August 12, 1992 Assistant Planning Director Lee asked the Commissioners to briefly go through the findings, and make the findings for the denial. Mr. Lee stated the first finding was that, in the opinion of the Commission, this was not a desirable or necessary facility in this location. The Commissioners concurred. Secondly, there were other carwash facilities in the area which the Commission felt were adequately serving. Commissioner Martin said there were 17,000 cars, so he was not sure he would agree that a carwash would be something that shouldn't be there; it was a former gas station which generated noise when the retirement center was built. He thought there may be a "quiet" carwash there. Commissioner Decker felt that as the neighborhood had changed over the years, he did not feel there had been an increase to a great amount in automobiles in the area. Over the years, there would be more apartments with less automobiles in the area and more people using surface transportation. Those using the carwash would be transitory. The carwash would generate more trips rather than less. He felt the site was too small; and it was an inappropriate use for the process. Senior Planner Griffin felt it would be appropriate to make a motion on the project itself. MS (Martin/Ray) that based on the f'mdlngs contained in Section "E" of the staff report, adopt a motion to approve PCC-92-37, subject to conditions a through k, subject to amendment. Commissioner Ray asked the Commission if, provided the noise levels could be mitigated to satisfy the Commissioners and the residents immediately to the north, is there another major concern other than the noise and the potential traffic increase? He felt only half of the increased traffic would make a trip just to go to the carwash. The Commission had no other concerns. Assistant City Attorney Fritsch interjected that having just voted unanimously to deny the approval of the Initial Study, the Commission had no other choice than to deny the project. As for findings, the Commission had made it very clear from their discussion what the basis for their findings would be. Senior Planner Griffin said if the Commission wanted to consider approval on the project, they would have to reconsider their vote on the Initial Study. COMMISSIONER MARTIN WITHDREW HIS MOTION. MSUC (Carson/Fuller) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) that based upon the prior discussion of the Commission, the project be DENIED. Chair Casillas asked if the applicant would be notified that he could appeal and the appeal process. Mr. Griffin concurred. PC Minutes -19- August 12, 1992 ITEM 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-92-01: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES TO EXPEDITE PROCESSING OF SIGN PERMITS AND TO ALLOW FOR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGNS - City Initiated Senior Planner Griffin stated this item involved two separate amendment proposals, both resulting from Council direction. The first proposal was to amend the Code to require the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Committee to act on sign permits within certain limited timeframes and, if the sign permit was denied, it required that the applicant be informed in writing why the sign was denied and what would need to be done to have an approved sign. These procedures were designed to accelerate the process, making it more objective for the applicant to know how to correct an unacceptable situation. Staff recommended approval of the amendment. The second portion of the proposal was to allow electronic message board signs in certain limited redevelopment areas and only in certain zones. Using overhead projection, Mr. Griffin indicated the areas in which the message boards could be allowed and discussed the procedures and limitations. Mr. Griffin noted the Town Centre Project Area Committee had voted 7-0 recommending against adopting the amendments citing reasons of aesthetics, fairness in allowing a 1/2 mile monopoly to one party, and that this amendment could lead to other requests for similar opportunities in other zones and other areas. Staff, however, recommended approval of the amendments shown in Exhibit A. Commissioner Decker asked who determines whether the messages were commercial or non- commercial. Mr. Griffin answered that it would be determined on a case-by-case basis; the Director of Community Development would be required to approve the signs, determine whether or not it was a public service message, and was the ultimate appeal authority. Commissioner Decker asked if the Community Development Director would also take complaints as to the appropriateness of the message. Mr. Griffin concurred. Assistant Planning Director Lee added that being in a redevelopment area, they have disposition and development agreements. With Council acting as the Agency, they can require that of any development. Commissioner Ray asked about the use of the sign during non-business hours. He asked that language indicate that the public service announcement would have to be in operation 30% within each hour of operation. Mr. Griffin agreed to this change. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mateo R. Camarillo, President, Radio Station KURS, 296 "H" Street, Chula Vista, said they had approached the City over a year ago with this proposal, and would like to commend the City for its accessibility. He believed the proposals were appropriate and supported staff's recommendation. They would be the first Spanish language radio station licensed in the City of San Diego, and the format would be bilingual. PC Minutes -20- August 12, 1992 Chair Casillas asked if Mr. Camadllo agreed to the 30% of every hour being non-commercial. Mr. Camarillo concurred. MSUC {Decker/Fuller) 6-0 (Commksioner Tuchscher absent) that based on the Initial Study and the comments in the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration, find that this proposal will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-44. Commissioner Ray questioned if there was any concern regarding 1/2 mile monopoly. Would the inability of someone else obtaining the same type of sign prohibit growth in the business sector? Commissioner Decker felt that even though the limit was 1/2 mile, there was the possibility that it could be modified. MS {Decker/Fuller) to recommend that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit A as attached to the staff report, and as modified. Commissioner Carson stated she was originally in favor of the amendment, but after talking with people in the community, she felt electronic message boards should be on the inside of the building instead of the outside. She would vote against. VOTE: 5-1-1 (Commissioner Carson against; Commissioner Tuchseher absent). DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee reminded the Commissioners of the scheduled joint workshop with the County to be held on 8/19 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss Otay Ranch, and then a 6:00 p.m. workshop regarding Rancho del Rey. On 8/26 at 5:00 p.m., there would be a joint workshop with GMOC. Mr. Lee noted the Commissioners would be given an updated meeting schedule the next Wednesday, showing the joint meetings with the County as well as the regular meetings. Commissioner Martin asked how many meetings were being scheduled between now and the end of the year. Mr. Lee said September and October, as now tentatively scheduled, would be very busy. There would be no normal workshop sessions, because of major projects coming up which would need to meet on Wednesday. There were some proposed Friday meetings, as well. Some of those would be option, mtber than a specific meeting. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Commissioner Decker requested that at some future workshop the Commissioners have a briefing on the Series 7 Growth Forecast and Regional Air Quality Plan when it is available. Chair Casillas welcomed new Commissioner John Ray on behalf of the Commission and staff. PC Minutes -21- August 12, 1992 ADJOURNMENT at 10:55 p.m. to the Joint Planning Commission/County Commission Workshop at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 19, 1992 in the Council Chambers; and, to the Planning Commission Dinner Workshop Meeting at 5:00 p.m., Conference Room 2/3. N~cy Ripl~y, Sec~tary Planning Commission