Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/07/22 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, July 22, 1992 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS pRESENT: Chair Casillas, Commissioners Carson, Decker, Fuller, Martin, and Tuchscher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Griffin, Environmental Review Coordinator Miller, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Associate Civil Engineer Oaudah, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 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 COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-92-01 - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ~CIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES TO EXPEDITE PROCESSING OF SIGN PERMITS AND TO ALLOW FOR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGNS - City Initiated Senior Planner Griffin recommended that the item be continued to the meeting of August 12, 1992, in order for additional work to be done. MSUC (Decker/Carson) 6-0 to continue PCA-92-01 to the meeting of August 12, 1992. PC Minutes -2- July 22, 1992 ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-91-05; TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES SUBDIVISION - The Baldwin Company Environmental Review Coordinator Miller presented the project. Ms. Miller stated that the EIR had been circulated through the State Clearinghouse for the required 45-day review, and comments had been received from the Office of Planning and Research, CalTrans, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the Department of Fish & Game, a local resident, the Sweetwater Union High School District, the Chula Vista Elementary School District, the Chula Vista City Attorney's office, Engineering Department, and Fire Department, and from the project applicant. A public forum was held by the applicant on June 18 with approximately 12 attending. The EIR was reviewed by the Resource Conservation Commission on June 22, who recommended that the EIR be certified. Marcia Gross, of AFFINIS, the preparer of the EIR document, reviewed the project environmental impacts. She noted that potentially significant impacts were identified for geology, paleontology, hydrology, water quality ground water, landform alteration, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, transportation, noise, parks and recreation, and public services and utilities. Mitigation measures were presented to reduce all of the impacts to below a level of significance except for cumulative air quality impacts which remain significant and unmitigated since the area is a non-attainment area for ozone and particulate matter. Commissioner Fuller commended Ms. Gross and her staff for a well-done EIR. She commented on several areas in particular: In the introduction, first paragraph, she felt the information on the background of the Growth Management Program for the City was very good; the sections on air quality was extremely readable; the section on noise and the accompanying charts were very good where it defined areas throughout the City. Commissioner Fuller commented on the section on Community Tax Structure, page 123. She felt the presentation was excellent and a first in an EIR, where it showed the various governmental agencies, revenues and expenditures, and how each related to the project revenue generated. Ms. Fuller noted that even as the quality of life thresholds are monitored on each project, this showed the importance of looking at the cause and effect on other agencies. Commissioner Fuller was concerned about the statement on page 130 regarding the impact on the Chula Vista School District--that they would be operating on a $5,000 per year loss. The statement that this represented 1.5% of the projected total revenues and did not constitute a significant net fiscal impact needed to be addressed in the Final EIR. It may not be a significant impact on the total project, but it indicates a problem. Commissioner Fuller noted that the section on cumulative impacts was good. Table 7.1, page 200, showed that Salt Creek Ranch, Salt Creek I, and Sunbow 1 and 2 were all with unmitigable water impacts. Because of their projected use of reclaimed water for irrigation, the Telegraph PC Minutes -3- July 22, 1992 Canyon project had been approved for water service availability from the Otay Water District. The others were apparently waiting on line. Commissioner Fuller asked for staff's comment. Marcia Gross asked that it be answered in the Final EIR. Commissioner Fuller commented on the letter in the appendices referring to a biological resources study done for the Otay Ranch Project and the reference to the EIR for the Ranch being very sketchy. She asked if they were referring to just the study done by RECON. Ms. Gross believed the letter from the Audubon Society was directed toward the background study which had been done for the Otay Ranch project earlier. AFFINIS had done a site-specific survey and study for the Telegraph Canyon site to address site-specific concerns. Commissioner Fuller asked about the area to be used for the community purpose facility, and the proposed extension of Creekwood Drive. She had been to the site, and did not believe there would be enough room for the street and the two public facility lots. Ms. Gross concluded that she would look at the proposed tentative map and try to get the scale and see how it translates to the ground. It would be answered in the Final EIR. Commissioner Decker also congratulated Ms. Gross on the EIR document. He asked if the park would have a wall or sound barrier separating it from SR-125. Ms. Gross answered that there was an exhibit in the Noise Section which showed the noise wail extending along that whole side. Commissioner Decker, referring to page 9 of the agenda package, asked for an explanation of the "Will Serve" letter which would be required from the Otay Water District. Environmental Review Coordinator Miller stated that it was a letter from the Water District specifying that water service availability would be provided for the project site. Staff already had a letter from the Water District stating that they believed water was available; but once they see a final map, they can provide more details on the availability of water to the project site. Commissioner Decker, regarding the Department of Fish & Game letter, asked if the wetland problem was not resolved soon, a ratio of 3:1 would be required. Ms. Gross said the wetland issue was not completely resolved. It was being pursued with the Department of Fish & Game, and the information would be included in the Final EIR. Commissioner Decker was curious as to when the ratio changes from 1:1 to 3:1. Commissioner Carson, referring to page 2-2 of the agenda item, asked how many property owners were noticed all together. Ms. Miller stated that notices were sent to all property owners within a 1,000 foot radius of the project site, and possibly more because cul-de-sacs were taken into consideration. Approximately 1,206 notices were sent. Commissioner Carson, noting S-1 in the EIR, asked for clarification of 350 single-family dwellings and 82 acres of a ll2.4-acre site. On page 7, second paragraph, it showed a maximum of 35 single-family dwelling units, 2 private park areas, 1 community purpose facility PC Minutes -4- July 22, 1992 on approximately 83 acres. Ms. Gross noted that there were some discrepancies in numbers which would be cleaned up for the Final. Commissioner Carson noted the 103 acres in the next paragraph down, and roughly 20 of the remaining 103 (or 30? or 112.4?)--what number of acres were being discussed--on page 7, third paragraph down, fourth line in. Ms. Miller said the 103 acres should be 112--it would be cleaned up for the Final. The total acreage would not change. Commissioner Carson, referring to S-4, first paragraph regarding affordable housing, asked if any discussion had taken place as to where the 10% affordable housing would be provided off site. Senior Planner Griffin answered that the applicant, as well as the Planning staff, were discussing certain alternatives with the Community Development Department and several possibilities were under consideration but had not been totally resolved. Commissioner Carson, referring to S-5, next to last paragraph regarding the Police Department, asked what would happen if the City Council decided to cut back on the budget. Ms. Miller said the wording would be modified in the Final EIR. There was no way to ensure the employment of additional personnel. They could only require that the applicant contribute through the development impact fee process their fair share with regard to police personnel. She thought additional information could be provided regarding the budget at the time of the Final EIR. Senior Planner Griffin stated that a Public Facilities and Financing Plan had been prepared for the project, and once the State budget crisis became apparent, the Director of Finance had been asked to review the Plan to see if there would be any effect from a reduction in revenues from that source. His best estimate was that there would not be any effect on this particular project. Commissioner Carson, regarding page 14, last paragraph discussing manufactured slopes, commented that she hoped the manufactured slopes would look natural in its form. On page 17, second paragraph, Commissioner Carson asked if the proposed density for Otay Ranch was also 4.3. Senior Planner Griffin answered that there were still a few alternatives under consideration, and they did not know exactly what the density would be to the south of the project. On page 139, referring back to S-4, Commissioner Carson was confused regarding the two private recreation areas totaling .6 acres, and asked if that figure still stood. Ms. Miller said the figure was too low; the two private recreational areas total 5.3 acres. Commissioner Carson's comment would be noted and corrected in the Final. Regarding page 140, Commissioner Carson pointed out the private recreation center was .6, the private multi-purpose courts was 1.3, the private view park was .5. Would that total 5? Ms. Miller noted the comment and stated it would be cleaned up. Referring to page 189, Commissioner Carson asked why Alternative A did not have the difference in dollars. Since in Alternative B, there was a difference of $800,000 versus $400,000, she would like to see in the EIR the dollar figure for Alternative A also. Alternative A had less density, and she felt to look at the big picture, they needed to look at figures given PC Minutes -5- July 22, 1992 for all alternatives. Ms. Gross answered that the reason there was a dollar figure given for Alternative B was because Alternative B was identical to the proposed project except it differed on public versus private streets. The difference in the numbers, reflected that distinction. Alternative A would also have private streets as the proposed project. At Commissioner Carson's request that the figures for Alternative A be included, Ms. Miller said it may be outside the scope of the EIR and would require amendments. Commissioner Carson asked that it not be shown for Alternative B in that case. Senior Planner Griffin stated that the private street issue was identified very early as a significant one for staff, the Commission, and the Council to consider, so that was perhaps why that was more defined than some of the other alternatives. The Public Facilities Finance Plan consultant was specifically requested to run the figures out for that, thinking that the project might end up with a public street system. Senior Planner Griffin said they would prefer to keep that information available to the advisory and decision-making bodies. Commissioner Carson asked that the advantage or disadvantage of private vs. public be included. Senior Planner Griff~n said he believed that would be appropriate for the report on the project, which the Commission would consider on August 12. That issue would definitely be discussed in that format. Commissioner Carson, referring to page 198, second paragraph, asked if Rancho San Miguel had been included in the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan. Associate Civil Engineer Oaudah said it was an error. Chair Casillas asked, for clarification, which projects were not included. Mr. Oaudah answered that, as of the latest TPP, Rancho San Miguel, Salt Creek Ranch, all of EastLake beyond EastLake Greens and EastLake I, Otay Ranch. Commissioner Tuchscher also felt the EIR was extremely well written. He was concerned that the community purpose facilities ordinance did not work properly; on this specific project he would like to see an alternative solution. If that was not possible, he would like staff to look at the ordinance to make it more flexible. He felt a lot of land was being allocated to this purpose which would not be utilized. There had to be better solution to get some churches and community purpose facilities built than just dedicating land that is not located properly for that use. Assistant Planning Director Lee said that staff still had concerns regarding these particular locations, and he echoed Mr. Tuchscher's concern about trying to find an adequate site on this particular project. On smaller projects, it was particularly difficult. Commissioner Tuchscher said that in certain circumstances, alternatives should be looked at--in lieu fees going into a fund or off-site location of those types of facilities. Commissioner Decker drew attention to S-4, noting that the total park area did not satisfy the required ratio; therefore, the applicant had chosen to pay in-lieu fees. Mr. Decker asked if the residents of Telegraph Canyon Estates would have to use other park areas in the City, how would residents in other parts of the City use Telegraph Canyon Estates parks if it was a private gated facility. In that case, he did not feel it should be called a public park. He did not feel it answered the requirement in the ordinance that a certain number of acres of public park be set aside. PC Minutes -6- July 22, 1992 Ms. Miller said the wording regarding park land dedication was old, and, as a result of additional input from the Parks & Recreation Department, the only requirement that could be made with this project was payment of the park area dedication fee. The wording to which Commissioner Decker was referring would be deleted from the Final EIR. Senior Planner Griffin noted that the original proposal by the applicant was to receive 50% credit for the park requirement by the provision of private parks which would serve the residents living in this project. The City policy is to not allow any credit for private parks; therefore, there will be no credit for the private parks given, and the applicant will be responsible for payment of the full park acquisition and development fees. Chair Casillas, referring to page 7, paragraph 11, asked if the figure of $878,000 was cumulative. Staff concurred. Chair Casillas, regarding the La Nation Fault, asked if there had been any experience of any significant movement. Ms. Miller answered that the La Nacion Fault was potentially active. In geological terms, it was potentially an impact which had to be identified and the applicant had to comply with certain geotechnical recommendations for actually constructing the homes on the site. Ms. Gross, in answer to Chair Casillas, stated the geotechnical consultant did not identify anything peculiar to this site that would make it more hazardous than other sites in the same proximity. Chair Casillas concurred with Commissioner Carson regarding natural looking slopes. Commissioner Fuller noted that since the project was geared to mesh and fit in with EastLake, she felt that type of manufactured slope was what would be seen, unless it was altered. The area she had seen near Creekwood Way was unsightly. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Norm Ross, 380 Park Way, CV, a member of the City of Chula Vista Sports Council and past president of the Chula Vista New Soccer League, was concerned about the lack of soccer fields. He felt the project should be required to build play areas for the children rather than pay into an in-lieu fund. Veronica Sissons, 813 Creekwood Way, CV, said her home would be directly impacted by any community use that would involve a lot of traffic. She had sent a letter regarding the EIR, but had no acknowledgment and didn't know where feedback was to come from. She thought the community use facility--a church or play center--would be wrong; the only possible use would be a dog run. She concurred that there were no soccer fields, and noted there was nowhere for residents to exercise their dogs. She believed the City was remiss in not allowing someplace to take big working dogs for exercise; the owners would police the area and keep it clean. She felt if Baldwin couldn't be instructed to provide such a place, then perhaps Chula Vista ought to. PC Minutes -7- July 22, 1992 Commissioner Fuller responded that her letter had been received and would be responded to in the Environmental Impact Report. Because of Ms. Sissons' letter, she had gone to look at the site. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that he had also paid particular attention to her letter and had it highlighted; he assured her that the Commissioners did read it and they appreciated her time and effort to get involved and go to the meeting. Senior Planner Griffin explained that the issue of the location and the compatibility of the CPF sites would be discussed with the project on August 12, and would be discussed within the staff report. Although it had been acknowledged with the EIR, it would definitely be a point of discussion when the project itself goes to public hearing. Ms. Gross added that it would also be included with the Final Environmental Impact Report as a public comment and would be responded to in the EIR point by point. Everyone who submitted a written comment during the public review period on the adequacy of the EIR would be responded to. Assistant Director of Planning Lee, in response to Mr. Ross, said the applicant's obligation basically is 3.4 acres. The minimum park size the City accepts for a neighborhood park is 7 acres to 10 acres, depending on its relationship to an elementary school. The area that this development was going into was essentially set by Telegraph Canyon Road, 125 future to the east, Otay Lakes Road, and "H" Street. The area is completely developed except for this piece. There is a park at Tiffany which offers no opportunity for expansion. In some cases the City is not able to meet all the park requirements as far as acreage within a given neighborhood or planned area. Hopefully, if monies are collected, it can be used in the immediate vicinity. EastLake Community Park, although not ideally situated for this development because of the necessity of crossing Telegraph Canyon Road, is in the general vicinity, adjacent to the high school, and is large enough for the possibility of a number of soccer fields at that site. Mr. Lee felt there were some trade-offs and, in this case, the City had to take the money. He said it was not practical to put in another neighborhood park of substandard size. No one else wishing to speak, the public heating was closed. ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-92-03 CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN THE C-N ZONE - City Initiated Senior Planner Griffin stated that in response to the City Council's request, staff was proposing an ordinance which would require a Zoning Administrator conditional use permit with public hearings for all such facilities. In addition to the normal findings required for a conditional use permit, the ordinance would also require the Zoning Administrator to find that any additional PC Minutes -8- July 22, 1992 facility would not result in an over concentration of alcohol sales in a particular area. The ordinance would allow the Zoning Administrator's decision to be appealed directly to the City Council. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission endorse the ordinance as shown in Exhibit A to the staff report. Commissioner Decker asked if a decision of the Zoning Administrator could be appealed to the Planning Commission if desired by the applicant. Senior Planner answered that the intent was to have the appeal process go directly from the Zoning Administrator to the City Council. It would not be an option of the applicant to appeal to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Decker asked that the wording on page 3-7 of the ordinance be changed from "may" to "shall". Assistant City Attorney Rudolf explained that the applicant was not being required to appeal; it was the intent of the ordinance for the decision of the Zoning Administrator to be final unless appealed to the Council. Commissioner Decker concluded then that the applicant could appeal to the Planning Commission if desired. Assistant Attorney Rudolf stated that the intent was to not allow an appeal directly to the Planning Commission and give a double review. Senior Planner Griffin concurred that the language caused it to appear optional, and it could be clarified if the Commission wished. Commissioner Martin, referencing page 3-6, was concerned with the paragraph stating "there was no discernable connection between the concurrent sale of alcohol and gasoline and the incidents of driving under the influence...." At a Planning Commissioners' meeting in Monterey, they had been told the opposite. Commissioner Martin was interested in how the Police Department had been asked about this. Mr. Griffin answered that the Police Department and ABC's point was that there was no connection between the fact that alcohol was available at a mini-market which also sold gasoline and the incidents of driving under the influence. Commissioner Martin was concerned with that logic. In answer to Mr. Martin's query, Mr. Griffin said the question and issue was discussed very directly with the Police Department, and they said there was no connection. Chair Casillas said he, too, was concerned with that language and had met with the Chief of Police and two Lieutenants. After a discussion with them, he was satisfied that the Police Department would review applications for licenses thoroughly, the statistics in the area, and the concentration of licenses in a particular area. He supported the proposal. Commissioner Tuchscber felt the ABC was doing a good job, and this was redundant. He saw a real bottleneck in the system in that before the ABC would investigate whether a license would be allowed, the applicant would have to have a CUP in hand. That would mean a considerable amount of time and money spent in going through the process of getting a CUP before even applying to the ABC. He felt a tremendous amount of time would be added to the process, and another layer of bureaucracy. He did not support the ordinance. PC Minutes -9- July 22, 1992 Chair Casillas explained that the process the Police Department would go through was essentially the process the ABC would go through. If the Police Department of the City felt it may not be appropriate for the ABC to grant the license, they would register their comment. Chair Casillas felt that in ail likelihood the ABC would not grant the license. Commissioner Fuller asked if that was not part of the ABC process--they work with the Police Department in this. She reiterated the options listed in the staff report, one of which was to continue to rely on the ABC process. Commissioner Tuchscher noted that the staff report stated the ABC process involved notice and opportunity for input/objection from the surrounding neighbors as well as the City Council and Police Department. He hoped they would do that, and felt very comfortable that the ABC would listen to the City and, if there was an objection, to not grant the license. Senior Planner Griffin clarified that the report referred to was background information which had previously been sent to Council. It was Council's direction to prepare an ordinance, and staff's recommendation at this time was to adopt an ordinance as shown in Exhibit A. Mr. Griffin believed Council's feeling was that the Zoning Administrator process with the public hearing would allow a locally based hearing for the surrounding residents which would be more personal, more customized. Chair Casillas felt the ABC could use any assistance the community could give them, since they were cutting back in personnel. Commissioner Tuchscher said he understood it was taking the ABC as much as six months to issue a license and the applicant is in a holding pattern. If we required a CUP process prior to that, Mr. Tuchscher felt there would be another three or four months added. Senior Planner Griffin said the Zoning Administrator process would probably be finalized within one month. If it was appealed on, it could add an additional three weeks to a month. If the Zoning Administrator's decision was not appealed, it would be about a one- month process. Commissioner Tuchscher did not feel the ordinance was necessary; he felt input was important; that if the Council was not currently noticed with regard to ABC applicant, they should be; that the Police Department should take the notices seriously. He did not feel the system needed more layers. Commissioner Martin believed it was not smart to sell alcohol and gasoline at the same time. He did not have a problem with the layers of bureaucracy. In response to Commissioner Decker's previous question, beginning with "The decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed," Assistant City Attorney Rudolf suggested the following (as underlined): "The decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed._ Such appeal shall be directly to the City Council rather than to the Planning Commission, and must be filed within 10 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk." Mr. Rudolf felt that would clarify the ambiguity Mr. Decker found. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. PC Minutes -10- July 22, 1992 Norm Ross, 380 Parkway, Chula Vista 91910 said he had been through the process of applying for a beer and wine license. He concurred with Commissioner Tuchscher that it took six to nine months to get a license of any type, and that the ABC does a thorough job. Mr. Ross said that if he understood the proposed ordinance correctly, everyone would need a conditional use permit to sell liquor in a C-N zone, including restaurants, etc. that did not sell gasoline. He felt that would be unfair. He suggested the Commission simply state that liquor and gasoline could not be sold at the same time. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Decker/Fuller) 4-2 (Commissioners Carson and Tuchscher voted against) to recommend that the City Council accept the amendment to the Municipal Code as published in Exhibit A, and as amended by the City Attorney. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Assistant Planning Director Lee reminded the Commissioners of the joint meeting with the County Planning Commission to be held Friday, July 31, at the County. CQMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: Commissioner Carson requested that at the joint meeting the approval of minutes be done later in the meeting. She would be arriving late; if there is not a quorum, it would be beneficial to have the approval of minutes close to the middle or end of the meeting to allow members of either Commission to arrive. Chair Casillas concurred. ADJOURNMENT at 8:21 p.m. to the Joint Planning Commission/County Commission Workshop at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, July 31, 1992 at the County Department of Planning and Land Use Room; and to the Regular Business Meeting of August 12, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ' N{ncy Ripl6y, Secr/etary Planning Commission (PL~7-22.min)