HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/07/08 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
7:04 p.m. Public Services Building
Wednesday, July 8, 1992
COMMISSIONERS pRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Casillas,
Decker, Martin, and Tuchscher
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner
Griffin, Associate Planner Reid, Senior Civil
Engineer Ullrich, 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 reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the
format of the meeting. She explained that the term of Mr. Tugenberg had expired at the last
meeting; therefore, the Commission only had six members until the Council decided to appoint
the seventh member.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of Iune 17, June 24, June 29 and July 1, 1992
MSC (Carson/Decker) 5-0-1 (Tuchscher abstained) to approve the minutes of June 17, 1992, as
submitted.
MSC (Carson/Decker) 5-0-1 (Tuchscher abstained) to approve the minutes of June 24, 1992, as
submitted.
MSUC (Carson/Decker) 6-0 to approve the minutes of June 29, 1992, as submitted.
MSC (Carson/Tuchscher) 4-0-2 (Martin and Decker abstained) to approve the minutes of July 1,
1992, as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
-2- July 8, 1992
PC Minutes
ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-92-C: CONSIDERATION OF ZONING
WESTERN SHORE OF LOWER OTAY LAKE TO A-100 - City of Chula
Vista
Senior Planner Griffin said that the property includes 100 acres between Wueste Road and the
shoreline of Lower Otay Lake, south of Otay Lakes Road. When LAFCO approved the OTC
annexation, the boundary was extended to the shoreline of the Lake to create logical service
boundaries. It was not included in the SPA Plan for the OTC and, therefore, was left without
zoning. The zoning proposed for this land is the Agricultural zone which is the most restrictive
that Chula Vista has and is consistent with the General Plan designation for the property which
is open space. Zoning is being proposed at this time to allow consideration of the OTC
Boathouse which is the next item on the Agenda. Staff recommends approval of the zoning.
Commissioner Martin asked if this land was within the City of San Diego? Mr. Griffin replied
that it is owned by San Diego but is in the corporate limits of Chula Vista.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
George Hanson, 12598 Portada Place, San Diego, 92130, said he wished to reserve the right
to bring suit against the City of Chula Vista on this issue. This property has been unzoned for
two years and there is no special reason for zoning at this time. The rationale for zoning is to
allow construction of the OTC Boathouse which he opposed. The A-100 is for agricultural uses,
limited recreational uses. Those descriptions do not fit the Boathouse. The zoning is completely
inappropriate. Providing zoning of this kind is completely prejudicial to the City of San Diego
who may wish to develop the shoreline in the future.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Casillas/Decker) 6-0 to recomraend that the City Council zone approximately 100
acres to A-100 as shown on Exhibit A.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf pointed out that findings needed to be included before
Commission approval. He asked that the maker and second of the motion clarify for the pu. rpose
of the record that the Commission had made the Finding that public necessity, convenience,
general welfare or good zoning practice supported the proposed recommendation.
CLARIFICATION OF MOTION:
MSUC (Casillas/Decker) 6-0 that based on the Finding that public necessity, convenience,
general weffare or good zoning practice supports the proposed recommendation, the
Planning Commission reconunends that City Council zone approximately 100 acres to A-100
as shown on Exhibit A.
PC Minutes -3- July 8, 1992
Chair Fuller announced that there would be a change in the order of items on the Agenda. Item
3 would be taken second, followed by Item 2.
ITEM3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-92-04:
REQUEST TO ESTABLISH OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER
BOATHOUSE ON WESTERLY SHORE OF LOWER OTAY LAKE - San
Diego National Sports Training Foundation
Senior Planner Griffin using the overhead projector pointed out the sites involved. The site
totals 3.7 land acres and .7 water acres on the westerly shore of Lower Otay Lake and would
provide year-round training of international class American athletes in canoeing, kayaking and
rowing. The project site and the areas immediately adjacent are presently vacant open space.
The Boathouse facility would consist of 13,500 sq. ft. of building area in three separate
structures and 18,000 sq. ft. of deck area. It would include a 3,000 sq. ft. floating dock and
ramp. Access would be provided off Wueste Road. parking would be located along the access
drive to avoid parking lot conditions. The buildings would contain storage for canoes, kayaks
and boats as well as showers, lockers and office space.
Training would be provided for about 60 athletes on a 2,000 meter training course. A facilities
management plan, parking plan and mitigation monitoring plan contain such parameters and
criteria that minimize conflicts with other activities on the Lake. These have been made
conditions of project approval. A memo, dated July 8, 1992 was distributed to the
Commissioners and provides the amended conditions of approval for this item. The memo is
directed to the form of the conditions rather than the substance. With these amended conditions
of approval and with the Findings in the staff report, approval is recommended.
As an update to the schedule of actions and approvals listed in the body of the staff report, on
July 1, 1992, the Commission voted unanimously to certify the Final EIR. On Monday, July
6, the San Diego City Council voted unanimously to certify the E1R and approve the project
lease, CEQA Findings and overrides. The following item on the Agenda will be the
Commission consideration of the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
provided that the conditional use permit is approved by the Commission.
Commissioner Decker asked for clarification of the status of the Olympic Training Center or of
the Committee itself. He asked if it was a private organization? Is it exclusive or can anyone
become an Olympian?
Mr. Griffin said he would defer to the applicant.
David Nielsen, Executive Vice President of the San Diego Sports Training Association,
answered affirmatively. Any American citizen, youngster or athlete can become an Olympian.
Skill is the only discrimination.
PC Minutes -4- July 8, 1992
Commissioner Casillas said that in the staff report, page 3-35, there was a statement that LISOC
has a general policy regarding community use of the facilities; namely, "...If the City of San
Diego expresses an interest, the LISOC is willing to work with the City to explore providing
community use at the boathouse." He asked why the City of Chula Vista is not mentioned? Mr.
Nielsen replied that the three Cities should be referenced, however, the reference was to the City
of San Diego who, as the owner of the land and water, would have the fight of veto based on
that ownership. San Diego has already attached conditions to the lease concerning public use
and access. In reply to the Commissioner's inquiry if this would include citizens of Chula Vista,
Mr. Nielsen answered affirmatively.
Commissioner Decker raised the issue of the Mitigation Monitoring Program and drew attention
to the lack of a statement regarding the responsibility of the OTC to provide some sort of a
security or safety process during meets that are not exclusively for the use of the OTC.
Clarifying his statement, the Commissioner said he understood that some days would be set aside
for the exclusive use of the OTC. There also may be competitive events of lesser magnitude
on dual-use days on which all the lanes would be used. Would it not then be the responsibility
of the OTC to provide some sort of interface or safety buffer between the other users of the
Lake at that time? Mr. Nielsen said the OTC would be responsible for policing and safety of
all users of the reservoir on those days. Commissioner Decker said he had some wording he
would like included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program to cover that contingency and he
would bring them up as a motion.
Commissioner Decker said he was also interested in the use of exclusive days. The Mitigation
Monitoring Program allows OTC the exclusive use of the area if a certain amount of notification
is provided. It would seem that such a stipulation would allow the OTC an unlimited number
of days. It seems it might be worthwhile to set some limit, thereby setting the minds of the
other users of the Lake at ease. Mr. Nielsen said that issue had been discussed with the San
Diego staff and at the various levels of review. There is language in the lease document (Section
1.5) which is summarized in the handout given the Commissioners. "The public reservoir
recreation programs shall have priority over the lessee s act~wt~es. The City may require lessee
to cease and desist from any activities which the manager determines to be in conflict with the
public use of the reservoir. ~ In several sections of the lease there is overriding language that
would force the OTC to acknowledge that the priority is the existing recreational users. OTC
has agreed to that language. Commissioner Decker expressed appreciation saying he had not
been privy to the lease but had seen only the mitigation monitoring program.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said that was the most appropriate place for that language since
the City's jurisdiction ends at the water and the City of San Diego's jurisdiction begins at the
water.
Commissioner Carson referenced page 3-62 and asked when a developer is non-compliant; what
is the usual resort? Mr. Griffin said that in his experience in enforcing CLIPs, the normal course
of events is to revoke or review the permit. If it is an imminent threat to public safety, an
PC Minutes -5- July 8, 1992
immediate "cease and desist" c~ be invoked. The Commissioner suggested that as everyone
needs money, fines and penalties might be acceptable.
The Commissioner continued that the same paragraph says, "Decisions regarding actions...are
the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista." She asked who would be responsible, the
Attorney, the planning Department, a staff member? Mr. Griffin said the Planning Department
in consultation with the City Attorney's office, and, perhaps, the Building Department would
be involved. Attorney Rudolf said all those agencies would be involved in the process.
On page 3-65, second insert under item 8 says, "If this mitigation measure is pursued, funding
for the radio station will be determined at a later date." She asked where the funding would
come from? Associate Planner Reid said that was unknown at the present time.
On page 3-66, third insert under 11 regarding educating the public. She asked if the rules will
be given verbally only or also in writing? Some people have to see the written word to
comprehend. Ms. Reid replied there are several ways the plan could be posted. Renting a boat
will require a written statement of rules and will be signed. There is also the public information
system similar to that found in national parks with a radio broadcast of the rules and regulations.
The athletes, themselves, would be given the rules. Commissioner Carson responded that if it
were not known where the funding for the radio station would be obtained, it would be
important that there be some way that users be verbally informed. She pointed out that
frequently people are so eager to get on with their activity, that they sign without reading and
are often the first to violate the rules.
Attorney Rudolf commented on the matter of enforcement mentioned on page 3-62. Until
recently there was no provision in the Code for a procedure for a hearing for revocation of a
CUP. That has now been provided and does have a procedure for imposition of administrative
fines.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
George Hanson, 12598 Portada Place, San Diego, 92130, said he wished to reserve the right
to bring suit against the City of Chula Vista on this issue. He objected specifically to the
following items concerning the approval process. (1) Rezoning the property is completely
inappropriate. He challenged (2) the validity and completeness of the facility's management plan
and (3) the validity of the EIR and had submitted a 9-page document on that issue. (4) The
Disclosure Statement filled out by the applicant is not responsive to the questions. It is an
incomplete document. He challenged (5) the Mitigating Monitoring process as completely
inadequate and (6) the Findings as not credible. (7) The discussion of posting of rules included
where the funding was coming from. He maintained that the current plan is to have the City
of San Diego pay for this, which is completely inappropriate. (8) The fact that it will be
necessary to notify Lake users of new rules to be imposed raises the question of recreational
compatibility, an issue that is unfairly dismissed in the EIR. For all those reasons, he is of the
opinion that the City of Chula Vista is opening itself to Court challenge.
PC Minutes -6- July 8, 1992
Mr. Griffin interjected that the position taken that the rezoning is inappropriate on the property
because of what might be allowed there under that zoning is misleading. Right now, the
property is unzoned and leaving it unzoned would present more of a hazard than zoning it to
A-100.
Matt Peterson, 530 B St.,//2300, San Diego, 92101, said he was of the law firm of Peterson
and Price and represented the San Diego National Sports Training Foundation. He said they had
an organized presentation with Dave Nielsen, Laurie McKinley and he would conclude with
some brief remarks about the Findings of Approval.
Mr. David C. Nielsen said planning for the OTC began in 1986. After two years, Chula Vista
was selected as the site for the third Olympic Training Center in the United States.
One of the primary reasons that Chula Vista was chosen was the opportunity presented to train
rowing, canoeing and kayak athletes at Lower Otay Reservoir. Those sports are among the least
served in the United States. The Boathouse Proposal before the Commission is the result of
more than two years of work with staff, the Design Review Committee, the City of San Diego
Lakes' Committee, the Facilities Committee and the City of San Diego. During this time,
numerous accommodations have been made to the concerns raised and are summarized in the
handout before the Commission. Five different designs have been considered. Significant
mitigation measures have been designed into the EIR and the lease to protect the current
recreational users. The Commission is one of eight heating bodies through which the project
must pass. To date approval has been received from the City of San Diego Facilities Committee
and the Council. The Lakes' Committee has opposed construction from the very beginning. The
EIR has been recommended for certification by the Resource Conservation Commission and by
the Planning Commission itself. The OTC are confident they will be good neighbors and will
not displace a single current user.
Laurie McKinley, 416 University Ave., San Diego, 92103, representing the San Diego National
Sports Training Foundation reviewed the five designs that have been proposed for the Boathouse.
The original request from the USOC asked for a 24,000 sq. ft. building. The current design
incorporates 13,500 sq. ft. of building. The first design was a two-story building, 32 feet high,
located on the water's edge. The current site plan is at a different location, one that has had
disturbance in the past, and is back away from the water eliminating the need for rip-rap at the
deck edge. The deck is located quite a way from the water and is reached by a 30 ft. wide sand
path. This provides minimal impact to the habitat. The mass of the building has been broken
up into several uses. The smaller building at the top is storage for canoe/kayak and
multi-purpose space. The larger to the bottom is storage space for rowing, for the shells, and
a repair bay. The center building provides the showers and lockers. Originally there was
loading provided on both sides of the building, but to soften the effect from Wueste Road, one
was removed reducing the deck's square footage considerably and increasing the landscaping by
approximately 1/2 acre.
PC Minutes -7- July 8, 1992
The curved wall coming from the top building is reminiscent of the curved Visitors Bureau on
the main site. There is a trellised entryway between the buildings. It is the same as is being
used throughout the campus. A pyramidal copper roof on the center building refiects the
pyramidal form used on the residential projects. Building materials were changed from stucco
to redwood with only the curved wall remaining as stucco.
Mr. Peterson referenced the Findings on page 5, saying in addition to the wording of Finding
#1 in the staff report, the project when approved will also fulfill other economic, social and
other considerations of benefit to Chula Vista. These would include but not be limited to the
creation of construction jobs, the addition of a Boathouse and Launch Facility allowing for
year-round water sports training in an OTC support environment. The location of the OTC and
proposed Boathouse have been carefully selected to fulfill the goals and objectives of the OTC
and the City. It is felt that when this facility is operational it will instill pride in the spirit of
the Olympics to the youth of the Community. In addition to the wording of Finding//2, an
extensive mitigation program has been prepared that is complete and thorough. Only one impact
which was not able to be mitigated to a level less than significant and that is visual. This would
be the case with any project built along the shoreline. Findings #3 and #4 are self evident.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Decker said he would like to discuss something in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program which would require modification before acceptance of the CUP. His motion goes
along with the OTC responsibility of providing on-water safety monitoring during events in
which they are not the sole user of the Lake. This could be done by a volunteer group such as
the Coast Guard Auxiliary.
The Commissioner said he would submit a motion to add to page 7 of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program under Item 6, Special Events, that it shall be the responsibility of the OTC to provide
on-water safety monitoring vessels if competitive events are scheduled during dual-use periods.
Commissioner Tuchscher said that any such event would require a special use permit which
would have a provision adequate to cover that particular issue. Any mitigation would have to
be approved during that process and that the suggestion made by Commissioner Decker is not
necessary.
Associate Planner Reid said as a point of clarification that the CUP and the EIR deal with events
where there are up to 100 competitors. In the possibility for 100 competitors, they do have the
option of returning to the Commission and asking consideration of that. Individual
environmental analysis would be required at that particular competition.
Commissioner Decker said a permit was not required for less than 100 people yet for dual use
events to provide some form of control to ensure that their part of the Lake is being utilized.
It is not the responsibility of the other users of the Lake to stay out of the race, it is the
PC Minutes -8- July 8, 1992
responsibility for the OTC to monitor that process so there is no conflict. The Commissioner
said he would like to ask the lessor if there is such a wording in the lease?
The City Attorney referenced page 3-64 and said the other measure that is referred to appears
to be different from the conditions 4 and 5 of the revised conditions provided by staff tonight.
Condition 4 speaks to special events expected to attract more than 100 spectators and #5 deals
with minor special events expected to attract less than 100 spectators but more than on-site
parking will accommodate. This item refers to special events and says that "no special
events/competitions of over 100 people shall be allowed at the OTC boathouse or lake under this
approval." It is speaking to the number of participants as opposed to spectators. First, we need
some clarification as what the motion is directed to with regard to number of participants or
spectators and has the concern already been addressed by conditions #4 and #5. Then there is
a technical problem since the last time this was heard, the EIR was certified and adopted the
Mitigation Monitoring Program. He expressed concern about modifying the program tonight
as opposed to dealing with the conditions of the CUP. He did not feel that it belongs as a
modification.
Mr. Griffin said it would not be too late to include Commissioner Decker's proposed condition
as a condition of approval of the CUP.
Attorney Rudolf said that is why there is different language in condition #3 than there was in
the staff report. There needs to be a single document that incorporates the final conditions that
are imposed. All the conditions in the Mitigation Monitoring Program are also conditions of
approval. What is called for is an updating of the Facilities Plan and the Parking Plan in the
final version.
Commissioner Decker commented that judging by what the City Attorney says we are in a
Catch-22 situation. We still don't solve the problem that in regattas it is historically the
responsibility of the person putting on the regatta to provide any form of safety. If we don't
have some words that conditions this, we leave ourselves open for pecuniary liability.
Assistant Planning Director Lee suggested that the City's jurisdiction stops at the water in the
terms of the lease agreement, to add that to the responsibility of the applicant.
Commissioner Tuchscher said maybe the applicant can add some perspective with regard to the
numbers.
Mr. Nielsen said there is no language in the lease that specifically says the OTC is responsible
to police the events. It is their intent to do so. If there is any way the condition can be made,
the OTC would gladly comply with it. Perhaps, the best way would be to express the
Commission's concern to San Diego.
Commissioner Casillas said as a practical matter, the applicant would want to police, provide
the security and do all those things. If the applicant did not want to do that, surely his insurer
PC Minutes -9- July 8, 1992
would want it. He said that no detailed or finite language was needed. The OTC has the
ultimate responsibility to provide the safety, education called for, and that appears to be
adequate. He would not support the motion.
Commissioner Decker said he would withdraw the motion.
MSUC (Martin/Casillas) 6-0 that based on the Findings contained in Section E of the staff
report adopt a motion recommending that City Council approve PCC-92-04 subject to
conditions 1 through 7 as revised.
Mr. Griffin stated that for the record the concern that Mr. Hanson brought up about filling out
the Disclosure form. The applicant has now amended thc form and checked the box "no". Mr.
Nielsen stated his concurrence.
MSC (Decker/Carson) 5-1, Casillas voting "no", to direct staff to prepare a letter for the
Chair to sign to the City of San Diego on the appropriateness of some form of on-water
safety monitoring process during competitive events during dual-use events.
ITEM 2. CONSIDERATION OF CEQA FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR EIR-90-12 - FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OLYMPIC TRAINING
CENTER BOATHOUSE
Associate Planner Reid said that staff had not planned to make a presentation on this item in
view of the other two items which had preceded it.
MSUC (Casiilas/Carson) 6-0 to adopt and recommend that the City Council adopt the
attached CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE
REQUIREMENT TO INSTALL A STREET LIGHT AT 245 'E' STREET
Chair Fuller asked to be excused from this item because her business firm receives in excess of
$250 worth of business with the applicant. She turned the gavel over to Vice-Chair Casillas.
Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich explained that the street light installation came about as a
requirement for the building permit issued for the property. The value of the remodel was
$30,000. In accordance with the Municipal Code, if the value of the building permit is over
$10,000 the City is allowed to require the installation of missing or sub-standard improvements.
As a result, the Engineering Department included the requirement to install the street light. The
applicant applied for a waiver stating that the existing lights in the area were adequate and that
PC Minutes -10- July 8, 1992
the new light was unnecessary; the cost of the street light was disproportionate with the cost of
the remodel; he felt he should not have to pay for the entire cost of the street light.
Mr. Llllrich continued with an explanation of the project, the reasons for the installation of the
street light, and Council's policy regarding participation in street light installations for individual
properties. He stated that staff's recommendation was that the Planning Commission deny the
waiver request.
Commissioner Decker asked what the actual fractional cost of the installation would be to the
applicant. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich answered that it would be the entire $3,000.
Commissioner Martin applauded staff for sticking to the regulations, but said the building was
almost blighted and he felt the spirit and intent was missing. He noted the other lights in the
area, and he was uncomfortable in asking the applicant to add for the betterment of the City to
the expense of rebuilding. He asked if the only options were to either grant or deny the waiver.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said the waiver could only be granted if the Commission found
that the requirements of the Ordinance had been met, to justify the granting of the waiver. If
the waiver was denied, the Commission would find that the requirements in the Ordinance to
grant a waiver were not met. Otherwise, the Commission could make recommending action to
the Council.
Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich noted that if the Commission were to deny the waiver, the
applicant had the option to appeal to the City Council.
Vice-Chair Casillas clarified that the City had been consistent with this policy, and it had only
been waived in one instance where it was residential and had been waived by Council action.
Mr. Llllrich said that one other had been deferred, which allows the applicant to put money in
an interest-beating account, and at such time the area is improved the deferral could be called
in and the money used.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked if staff had any idea what the total fees for the project would
be, including impact fees, permit fees, school fees, etc. Mr. Ullrich deferred to the applicant.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
BUD WILSON, 249 mE" Street, CV, said he operated an insurance business at 249 "E" Street
and owned the property at 245 ~E" Street. In reading the City Code, Mr. Wilson interpreted
the phrase ~the City may require the installation" to be permissive, and means also that it may
not require installation. He was, therefore, seeking the waiver. He felt adequate improvements
of the nature and type already existed in the area, and he was being required to put a light
between two commercial buildings. The only other lights on "E" Street in a similar situation
were located in front of large apartment complexes. People were going in and out of those
PC Minutes -11- July 8, 1992
complexes ail night. His businesses operated from 8-5 with no more people going there than
before the renovation, with no one going in and out of the premises after 5 p.m. Trip
generation would not be increased. It would not be an economic hardship; but with today's
economy, he felt that the number of lights aiready there was consistent with the other blocks in
the area. Unless there was some safety factor involved that he didn't recognize, he asked that
the Planning Commission waive the requirement. He suggested, however, if safety was an
issue, that a light be put across the street at Twin Oaks where people were going in and out.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked Mr. Wilson to speak to the fees. Mr. Wilson said $2500 had
been paid to begin the process; it was considerably more than $30,000 to finaily meet ail the
requirements on the property.
Mr. Ullrich said the street light they were requesting was considered a safety light for the
intersection of Del Mar and "EM Street. It would replace the SDG&E pole.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated it was consistent with the requirements of Ordinance
Section 12.24.040, which required in addition to other public improvements that the applicant,
if over the $10,000 threshold, shall install the other public improvements including necessary
drainage facilities and lighting structure. He noted that according to the staff report, it was
necessary from a safety perspective as a lighting structure.
Commissioner Martin commented that most of the pedestrian traffic after 5 p.m. was down the
street at the apartment complexes on Del Mar. He did not understand the logic of the
requirement for the light at this location. Mr. Ullrich said the concern was for the safety of the
people using the intersection, not just the ones working in the area.
Commissioner Tuchscher commented that 18% of the cost of this project was paid in fees. He
did not feel it was equitable to require the applicant to pay the full cost of the street light. He
was concerned that the smaller developers were being required to carry more of the burden than
the larger developers.
Commissioner Carson asked staff if option 2, regarding the deferral agreement, would be made
to anyone. Mr. Ullrich concurred, and said that anyone who would be required to install
improvements as a condition of a permit had the option under the Code to apply for a deferral
if they met certain circumstances. Commissioner Carson asked if there was a chance that this
light would not go in with the undergrounding district. Mr. Ullrich answered negatively.
Answering Commissioner Carson, Mr. Ullrich said the undergrounding district was in the
1992-93 CIP project.
Commissioner Carson concurred with Commissioner Tuchscher regarding the requirements of
the smailer developer, and acquiescence to the larger developer. She wished to forward this
item on to the City Council, so a precedence would not be set for other business people coming
in, and ailow the City Council to realize that they needed to take a look and help the smail
PC Minutes -12- July 8, 1992
business person to continue in Chula Vista. The smaller businesses needed to be able to stay
in Chula Vista.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked if it would be possible to enact a deferral until the
undergrounding district was set up. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich said the applicant would have
to agree to the deferral; there was a deferral agreement which had been set up for that
circumstance. Commissioner Tuchscher concluded that if the applicant agreed to the deferral,
he would be responsible for his proportionate share and would have to place a cash bond. Mr.
Ullrich said if the Planning Commission so directed, it could be included in a deferral
agreement.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf disagreed. Referring to Municipal Code Section 12.24.060, the
applicant had the ability to appeal to the Planning Commission for a complete waiver of the
requirement to install--not pay an in-lieu fee--the public improvement, which would cost $3,000.
The other option, on the grounds that adequate improvements of the nature and type required
already exists, would be for the applicant to apply to the City Engineer or the Director of Public
Works under Section 12.24.070 for the deferral. In the event the deferral was granted by the
Director or City Engineer, the estimated cost of the improvements as approved by the City
Engineer plus 10% of the cost, or in lieu thereof, a bond in that amount approved by the City
Attorney shall be posted. Mr. Rudolf understood from Engineering that the applicant had been
informed of the opportunity to request the deferral and had chosen not to do so.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the applicant were to agree to the deferral, would any action
be required of the Commission? Attorney Rudolf said the item could be continued until an
application had been filed and acted upon. If denied, it could be brought back.
Mr. Wilson was asked to comment. He had not realized that the light was being taken from
across the street and put in front of his office. He noted that the waiver could be granted where
adequate improvements of the nature and type already exist. He felt they already existed, and
the burden was being shifted to him.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf believed that Mr. Wilson would have a difficult time making the
f~nding that adequate improvements of the nature and type already exist. The nature and type
required are for the standard pole, not the wooden pole.
Commissioner Martin asked why it was being taken from across the street where there is foot
traffic in the evening and put in an area where there was nobody. He felt an unsafe condition
was being made by installing a light where there were businesses which were closed and no
intersection.
Vice-Chair Casillas clarified that the proposed light was an improved light over the existing.
Mr. Ullrich concurred; the existing light was attached to a wood pole--s~ndard poles are
concrete--wooden poles are considered sub-standard. Vice-Chair Casillas, following up on
PC Minutes -13- July 8, 1992
Council's discussion, stated the existing pole and light would not meet the definition that this
was an adequate improvement.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked Mr. Wilson, if he were required to pay his proportionate fair
share of a future re-lighting that would occur on "E" Street--that a bond be placed for his
proportionate share immediately and within a year the undergrounding district would be put forth
and ail the wood poled lights would be replaced--if that would be equitable--S1,000 for his fair
share. Mr. Ullrich clarified that Mr. Wilson's fair share would be $3,000; staff is willing to
go with a proportionate amount of $1,000 as a reduction as a way to give him some relief. Mr.
Wilson said he would be happy to pay the fair share; he was not sure of what that was. Would
only business people be required to pay, or would those owning dwellings aiso be required?
Commissioner Decker stated that if a waiver was granted to Mr. Wilson, there still would be
an undergrounding district and everyone would still have to pay into the undergrounding district.
The lights would still be installed as an adjunct to the undergrounding. No matter what
happened, the lights would still get installed. It was a matter of whether this one light was
installed now, or whether it happened when all the other lights were installed with the
undergrounding district.
Commissioner Tuchscher said the difference was that at that time everybody would be paying
only their fair share of the lighting proportionate to their ownership on that street, and Mr.
Wilson would be paying for one entire light. He felt the underground district may be an
equitable solution that staff should investigate with the applicant.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf interpreted staff option B to suggest aiternative ways to deal with
the issue, and was a hypothetical argument that could be made by the occupant--not that the staff
agreed with that argument. Staff does not agree with the argument and, in fact, thinks that the
fair share is the full amount as required by the ordinance.
Commissioner Tuchscber felt that option B, coupled with option 2 to defer, offered the best
solution. He would like to trail the item until there could be some solution, or allow the
applicant to take it to Council.
Mr. Wilson asked the cost to replace the light, and how many would be replaced in the
underground district. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich estimated $3,000, and said he was not sure
of the number; they would be replaced along "E" Street from Broadway to the top of the hill
just west of 1-805.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf suggested that the item be continued and that staff attempt to
work with the applicant and examine the other alternatives more closely.
MS (Carson/Decker) to continue the item for further discussion to allow the staff to work
with the applicant to work something out, and to be brought back to the Cormnission at a
later date if needed.
PC Minutes -14- July 8, 1992
Commissioner Decker pointed out that if Mr. Wilson's request for waiver was granted, the
justification would be that a lighting district was being formed in the near future, which
would in fact resolve this problem by ail the people aiong the street. Therefore, that burden
should not be placed on Mr. Wilson by himself.
Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich said that if the applicant wished to post a bond, he could put cash
in an interest-bearing account, the deferral could be considered, and his occupancy could be
released.
VOTE ON MOTION: 5-0 (Commi~ioner Fuller - conflict of interest) to continue the item.
Vice-Chair Casillas declared at break at 8:49 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:55 with
Commissioner Fuller as Chair.
ITEM 5: pUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-92-40- A
RF_~UEST TO CONSTRUCT INTERIM FIRE STATION NO. 6 - City of
Chula Vista, Applicant
Senior Planner Griffin said Interim Fire Station No. 6 would be located at the southeast corner
of Fenton Street and Lane Avenue as indicated on the overhead projection. It would consist of
two structures totaling approximately 23,340 square feet on the northeast portion of the site.
Access to the site is off Fenton. Work on construction of this building had stopped until the
outcome of this public hearing.
Construction of an interim facility was made a condition of approval of the EastLake Project
which is providing the funding. It had received design approval by the City and the EastLake
Design Review Board.
The interim facility would be replaced eventually by a permanent fire station in the Salt Creek
Ranch Project. The Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Map is currently being processed through the
City and will be completed soon.
The facility is needed in order for the City to maintain its Threshold Standard for t-~re response
time in this eastern area. Based on the t-mdings and conditions outlined in the staff report,
approval of this use at this location is recommended.
The item was double-noticed to the Planning Commission and on to the Council on July 21 to
minimize any delay on construction of the project if approved. Action by Council, however,
would require an appeal. The Commission's decision would be final unless an appeal is l-lied.
Commissioner Decker asked if beyond the perimeter but still on the property is the City's
responsibility? Does the City own or lease the property? Will the City be responsible for
beautil~tcation of the area? At the present, there is only bare ground beyond where the trees used
to be.
PC Minutes -15- July 8, 1992
City Fire Chief Lopez replied that the City is leasing the whole parcel; that prior to construction
the lot was empUf and the City plans to landscape the area adjacent to the facility only.
Commissioner Decker expressed curiosity about the buildings, asking if they were modular
buildings that would be utilized elsewhere when no longer needed. The Chief replied
affirmatively saying there was a possibility of utilizing them in the Otay Ranch area.
The Commissioner also asked about provisions made for the handicapped in the bathroom
facilities. The Chief replied that, per the American Disabilities Act, all new buildings, even
temporary, must have access for the handicapped.
Chair Fuller referenced the project location shown on the locator map in the packet, and asked
what use is planned for the rest of the property closest to Otay Lakes Road? Staff replied that
they knew of no plans but Mr. Stevenson from EastLake was present and could answer further
if needed.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked why the whole site was not being landscaped? Mr. Griffin
replied that all the lots had been graded and there was no interim landscaping on any of the
vacant lots, therefore, his assumption was that it was considered unnecessary.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public heating was opened.
Jerome E. Eggers, 350 W. Ash, San Diego, 92101, an attorney for California Land Associates,
stated that his client owns an office building to the immediate right of the proposed project. The
box-like, windowless equipment storage building abuts his client's property line. From both
aesthetic and business purposes the location is a disastrous one. He congratulated the City on
"red-ragging" its own project when it was realized that the neighbors had not been able to speak
to its presence. He said staff acknowledges that, although the building is termed "interim~, it
will be there for quite a long time. There are numerous other sites available, not on comers and
not at the landmark entrance to the commercial park.
His client opposes the interim facility on aesthetic grounds and because of its drastic negative
effect on the atmosphere of the business park and the property values in the area. He urged the
Commission to deny the application. Mr. Eggers sa~d there would be no opposition to a fire
station if it were a permanent facility and met the architectural standards of the community.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Assistant Planning Director Lee pointed out that the testimony had focused on the architectural
aspect of the building, however, the issue before the Commission was if this was an appropriate
location for the fire station. It is important that the station be located on Lane Avenue, a main
connector road. It is an interim facility although the exact time frame is unknown. EastLake's
offices are located direcfly across the street and there are other buildings in and around the site
location.
PC Minutes -16- July 8, 1992
Chair Fuller asked if other sites had been available to the Fire Departmentg. Mr. Lee replied
that other sites had been discussed and this site was chosen by the Fire Department considering
response times, being on a major north-south connector and in close proximity to Telegraph
Canyon Road.
To accommodate someone who wished to speak, the public hearing was reopened.
Gordon Dunfee, Caiifomia Loan Associates, an adjacent property owner, said his objection was
to the lack of design of the facility and its location. He asked why another location had not been
chosen9. He said it was his understanding that no other feasible sites were available and asked
if EastLake would speak to that.
Mr. Lee interjected that he had not meant to imply that there were no other feasible sites.
Chief Lopez said they had chosen what, in their opinion, was the best site to serve the whole
area. It is a main artery access into the EastLake Greens area which will be one of their
primary concerns during the month of September. It is stated in the EastLake Agreement that
once the Otay Ranch Plan is approved by the City, within five years a permanent site will be
chosen for a permanent station. It is not known how many stations will be needed in Otay
Ranch. Depending on circumstances involving Salt Creek Ranch, the permanent station may be
located at this site. It is being constructed, therefore, so that building can take place on the site
and the fire station still be operational. Construction of a permanent station costs over $1/2
million and if it had to be vacated, would be a great financial loss.
Chair Fuller asked if it had been necessary to choose a permanent site at this time, would this
location have been chosen? Chief Lopez answered that with what development is now and if
it never grew any more, this is an ideal location and is the preferred site of the ones offered.
The EastLake representative indicated his willingness to answer any questions the Commission
might have.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Decker read aloud Finding//2 in the staff report regarding the temporary basis
of the subject site. He commented that something will be decided within five years as compared
to the Otay Ranch time projection of 50 years. Chief Lopez interjected that a determination
would probably be made by the end of the year and it would be built within five years.
MSUC (Carson/Casillas) 6-0 that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff
report, the Planning Comrai.e_sion approves the request, PCC-92-40, to construct an interhn
fwe station at the southeast coruer of Lane Avenue and Fenton Street, subject to conditions
1 through 5.
-17- July 8, 1992
PC Minutes
Commissioner Tuchscher said he could understand the feelings of the adjacent property owners
regarding the design of the interim building. He wanted to register his concern regarding what
he sees as substandard for City and public facilities.
Commissioner Casillas commented that the City is facing financial problems and the availability
of funds had to be a concern of both staff and City Council during the design. If the City can
do without so much "gold-plating", the benefit would accrue to the whole community. He
appreciated Mr. Eggers' concerns but the City does not have excessive funds and does the best
with what it has. Hopefully, the landscaping will improve the visual impact.
Commissioner Tuchscher said he was in agreement and would vote in support of the site
selection. He also pointed out that financial constraints are not accepted with regard to the
private sector projects.
Mr. Griffin reiterated for the benefit of the persons speaking in opposition that the Commission
action is final unless an appeal is filed. Those persons speaking in opposition would be notified
by mail that they could file an appeal within 10 days. A fee is required.
ITEM 6: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-92-12: REQUEST TO REDUCE
REARYARD SETBACK AT 671 CRESCENT DRIVE - Corazon C. Van
Hecke
Senior Planner Griffin stated that the request was to legalize an existing sunroom at the rear of
the single-family dwelling at 671 Crescent Drive. He noted the sunroom was 6' from the rear
property line, wherein the standards for that area required a 20' rearyard setback. Mr. Griffin
said the applicant argued that removal of the sunroom would cause a financial loss which was
not the applicant's fault. The construction contract for the sunroom called for all required
permits to be obtained; they were not; the contractor was now out of business. The applicant
did not feel she should suffer the financial loss brought about by the negligence of the
contractor. Mr. Griffin noted that the Code specifically excludes personal or financial loss as
a hardship which would justify a variance. Staff recommended denial of the request based upon
the findings listed in the staff report. Mr. Griffin noted the applicant had submitted a petition
which had been signed by neighbors who, it appeared, would not object to the proposal.
Chair Fuller asked if the back of the property abutted East Naples. Mr. Griffin concurred.
Answering Chair Fuller's query, Senior Planner Griffin said the sunroom was highly visible
from the street and had been noticed by City staff as being very close to the rear property line.
Commissioner Decker verified that the original contractor was out of business. Senior Planner
Griffin said that staff was not aware of that relationship, but that was the applicant's statement.
-18- July 8, 1992
PC Minutes
Commissioner Carson asked if the Planning Commission decision would be final. Mr. Griffin
said it would be final unless appealed.
Commissioner Casillas commented that this particular dwelling had 2900 ft. with a FAR of 53 %,
it would appear that the enclosed sunroom would be excessive. It was regrettable that the
contractor did not obtain the proper permits, but if this were approved, it would set a precedent.
He would support the staff recommendation.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing
to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chair Fuller echoed Commissioner Casillas' comments and reminded the consumer that it was
a consumer-beware condition that when any construction is done, it should be checked
thoroughly. It is the consumer's responsibility to make sure that any work done on their home
is done to Code and properly.
MSUC (Carson/Martin) 6-0 to deny ZAV-92-12.
Chair Fuller reminded the applicant that she had the right to appeal to the City Council within
10 days of notice from the Planning Department.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS/APPOINTMENT OF ITF REPRESENTATIVE
MSUC (Fuller/Tuchscher) 6-0 to elect Commissioner Casillas as Chair and Commi~ioner
Decker as Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission.
MSUC (Carson/Casillas) 6-0 to elect Connnissioner Fuller as the Planning Conunission
representative on the Otay Ranch Interjurisdictlonal Task Force.
D_DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Assistant Planning Director Lee asked that the Commissioners contact staff if there were any
questions regarding the meeting dates scheduled. There was general discussion regarding some
of the future meetings and items to be considered.
Commissioner Carson asked, since the Planning Commission had been meeting often with the
County Planning Commission regarding Otay Ranch, had the City Council had the same kind
of meetings and getting information and input. Mr. ~ said they had not, although Mr. Lettieri
had held several workshops and two Council members serve on the Interjurisdictional Task
Force. Mr. Lettieri interfaces continually with Deputy City Manager Krempl and City Manager
Goss, who pass on certain information to Council.
-19- July 8, 1992
PC Minutes '-
Commissioner Carson asked if the joint meeting with the Growth Management Oversight
Commission and Montgomery Planning Committee would be at 7 p.m. Mr. lee said it would
probably be at 5 p.m. Commissioner Carson did not feel the GMOC presentation would be
long, since it would be an overview. Mr. Lee said that it may be combined into the first part
of the regular meeting. Chair Fuller suggested that it be done earlier in a conference room
session.
~OMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
Commissioner Decker commented on the BIA Building, page 15, and asked that the City
Attorney consider briefing the Commission on the new Disability Act which became effective
in January 1992, so they would understand the broad ramifications of the Act as it applies to
buildings the Commission would be considering. If it is done as a workshop, Mr. Decker
suggested that the Design Review Committee be invited to the same workshop.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said he would work with Mr. Lee to determine a date and
recommended that Assistant Director of Building & Housing Remp give a presentation.
Commissioner Tuchscher noted he had recently had a meeting with some attorneys regarding the
ADA, and there was a lot of grey area. It would be a while before the physical issues would
be sorted out.
Commissioner Casillas asked that someone look at 722 Hilltop Drive. The entire front yard is
cemented. Assistant Planning Director Lee said there was nothing to preclude someone from
doing that; there are provisions limiting the amount of area which could be utilized for parking,
but not for landscaping or paved area. If used for parking, it can be enforced. Commissioner
Casillas asked for feedback on 722 Hilltop Drive.
Commissioner Decker asked if a person is allowed to park a boat on the street anywhere in
Chula Vista. Mr. Lee said there were limitations on the time a vehicle could be parked on the
street, unless parking is prohibited. Most of the new subdivisions have separate CC&Rs which
preclude parking of those types of vehicles anywhere in the development.
ADJOURNMENT at 9:53 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of July 22, 1992, at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers.
iNqancy Ril~ey, Secre{ary
planning Commission