HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/06/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, June 24, 1992 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Casillas,
Decker, Martin, and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tuchscher (excused)
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Le'lter, Assistant Planning
Director Lee, Principal Planner Howard, Senior
Planner Griffin, Environmental Review Coordinator
Reid, Associate Planner Batchelder, Environmental
Consultant Miller, Environmental Consultant
Ponseggi, Contract Planner Gray, Senior Civil
Engineer Ullrich, City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg,
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf, Contract Attorney
Appelbaum
PLED(~E 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.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
Chair Fuller noted that Item 5 would be considered first.
ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-92-12: REQUEST TO REDUCE
REARYARD SETBACK FROM 20' TO 6' - Corazon C. Van Hecke
Senior Planner Griffin recommended that the item be continued to July 8, 1992, and stated that
the applicant had concurred.
PC Minutes -2- June 24, 1992
MSUC (Casillas/Martin) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) to continue ZAV-92-12 to
July 8, 1992.
ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING - DRC-92-31/PCS-92-01: CONSIDERATION OF A
PRECISE PLAN AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR DATE-
PALM VILLAS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-01 - T. David Eyees
Senior Planner Griffin presented the staff report. He stated that on June 8, 1992, the
Montgomery Planning Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project. Mr. Griffin
noted that the Commission had received prior to the meeting a copy of suggested revisions of
the recommendation, condition, and findings which he recommended the Commission include
in its motion. Based upon the conditions and findings as revised, staff recommended approval
of the project.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked what made the project exceptional, that it exceeded the top
range permitted in the General Plan.
Mr. Griffin explained when the Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted, the densities in the area
were often calculated on a neighborhood basis rather than on a typical basis as in other areas.
The resultant zoning often appeared to be beyond what the range would allow, but based upon
the neighborhood-type calculation, it was found to be consistent when the plan was adopted and
the subsequent rezonings took place. The recent evaluation of zoning consistency took place
with the Montgomery rezoning program, and was not based upon pr/or County condition.
Commissioner Casillas noted the project was allowing additional open space and recreational
areas, and asked how much was being given up to that common open space area. Mr. Griffin
said that any area taken out of the private yards was to be taken up in common open space.
Commissioner Decker, referring to the conditions of approval for the precise plan, asked about
the minimum setback for units 5 and 9. Mr. Griffin pointed out the locations of the units on the
overhead.
Commissioner Decker, referring to 4b on page 1-4, asked for inclusion of "and boat trailers."
Mr. Griffin concurred.
Regarding page 6, grading and drainage, Commissioner Decker asked about control during
grading. Mr. Griffin noted that the control is part of the standard grading ordinance and would
be required of any grading activity on the site.
Commissioner Decker asked if the homes fell under the category of low and moderate income.
Mr. Griffin deferred to the applicant.
PC Minutes -3- June 24, 1992
Commissioner Decker, referring to the common area, asked if it would be constructed to allow
fire equipment to access in an emergency. Mr. Griffin said fire access had been considered, and
there would not be the ability to cross the open space areas, but the streets had been designed
to allow the Fire Department access and turn-around. The design had been approved by the Fire
Department.
Referring to page 1-8, Commissioner Martin was concerned about the traffic. Mr. Griffin
discussed some of the surrounding streets and when the traffic count had been done.
Commissioner Martin asked when a traffic light was installed. City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg
explained that traffic activity was monitored as development occurred to determine when the
traffic conditions would warrant the installation. An evaluation would be made and compared
with other traffic candidates throughout the City. A recommendation would be made to the City
Council accordingly.
Commissioner Martin asked if the distance of the traffic light from Hilltop and Main would
make a difference. Mr. Rosenberg said the proximity of adjacent signalized intersections would
have a bearing on their recommendation.
Commissioner Carson, referring to page 1-35, asked what type of tree was being removed from
lot 2. Mr. Griffin did not know what type it was.
Regarding page 1-15, Subdivision Map Act, Commissioner Carson asked for an explanation of
passive or natural cooling opportunities. Mr. Griffin said it was a requirement of the State
Subdivision Map Act. Assistant Planning Director Lee explained it had to do with the
orientation of the homes, but in this instance it would be more through the location of windows
and insulation of the house.
Commissioner Carson questioned the "imaginative play area design rather than a structured play
...area" on page 1-3. Mr. Griffin answered that it related to the following language regarding
the inclusion of boulders and mounds.
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 (Casillas/Carson) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) that based on the Initial
Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration and Addendum thereto,
f'md that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the
Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-01.
PC Minutes -4- June 24, 1992
MS (Casillas/Martin) that based on the f'mdings contained in Section D of the staff report,
reconnnend that the City Council approve the Precise Plan, DRC-92-31, and Tentative
Subdivision Map for Date Palm Villas, Chula Vista Tract 92-01, subject to conditions 1
through 9 of the Precise Plan, and conditions for the Tentative Subdivision Map 1-22, as
amended.
Commissioner Tugenberg stated that he would vote against the project, because it was very over
built, and he did not feel it would benefit the City or the neighborhood.
VOTE: 5-I (Commissioner Tugenberg against; Commissioner Tuchscher absent)
Chair Fuller noted that Commissioner Tuchscher needed to be excused from the meetings of
June 17 and 24 (business conflicts).
MSUC (Decker/Carson) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Tuchscher from the meetings of June
17 and 24.
Assistant Planning Director Lee asked that the next two items be considered together, and
explained the order of presentation.
ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTLAKE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) AMENDMENT/KAISER PERMANENTE CHULA VISTA MEDICAL
CENTER, EIR-92-01
ITEM 3: PCM-92-02, PCC-92-10, DRC-92-48, EIR-92-01: CONSIDERATION OF
EASTLAKE I GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT,
EASTLAKE I SPA PLAN AMENDMENT, EASTLAKE I ACTIVITY
CENTER PRECISE PLAN GUIDELINES, EASTLAKE I PUBLIC
FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN, EASTLAKE I PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT, EASTLAKE I ACTIVITY
CENTER AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN, EASTLAKE I
ACTIVITY CENTER WATER CONSERVATION PLAN, KAISER
MEDICAL CENTER PRECISE PLAN, AND KAISER DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT - EastLake Development Company and Kaiser Permanente
Planning Consultant Gray presented the overall project, using slides to explain the highlights of
the project plan. He explained the necessity of amending the current adopted plans, and showed
the proposed design of the project, indicating the various phases and ultimate build-out.
Environmental Consultant Ponseggi noted the Draft Supplemental EIR for the project had been
presented to the Planning Commission on June 3, and the response to the comments received
at that meeting were contained in the Final EIR. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt
the resolution certifying the Final EIR had been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA
PC Minutes -5- June 24, 1992
Guidelines, and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Ms. Ponseggi
stated the Resource Conservation Commission had voted unanimously to recommend
certification.
Ms. Ponseggi discussed four significant, unmitigatable issues associated with the project: visual
quality; SR-125 impacts; air quality; and housing.
Commissioner Tugenberg, regarding air quality, asked if on a regional basis would it not be an
improvement in air quality. Ms. Ponseggi answered that it was an improvement, based on
reduction of traffic by not having to travel to the Zion facility. Because San Diego County is
in a non-attainment district, cumulatively, any project is a significant unmitigatable impact.
Bruce Mclntyre of Lettieri-Mclntyre, the preparers of the EIR, discussed the Final EIR and
noted the addendum which included designation of the shopping center area as VC-3 and
responding to the changes which occurred, at the request of staff, relating to the design of the
parking structure. Mr. Maxum circulated to the Commission a clarification to the mitigation
measure that the connection between Otay Lakes Road and Fenton Street would not be required
until a building permit is issued for Phase III. He asked that the Commission incorporate the
revised mitigation measure into the record.
Dan Maxum ofJHK & Associates, the traffic consultant, showed slides to summarize the traffic
impacts at the various phases, mitigation measures, and significant unmitigated impacts for the
project. Mr. Marum stated that the analysis reflecting the proposed project resulted in a finding
that the planned level of capacity in the system for the approved project levels of development
is adequate to accommodate the interim level of development from the proposed project for the
EastLake I SPA amendment, which does not include the final phase of the Phase II medical
center. Even though there was an increase in the total daily trip generation from the proposed
project, there was a reduction in the degree of peak hour contribution from this project as
opposed to the previous employment center use. Mr. Maxum proceeded to show the traffic
impacts to certain intersections and alternatives to relieve overloading.
Commissioner Carson, regarding traffic, concluded that all of the other pending and unapproved
projects were not considered in the analysis. Planning Consultant Gray concurred, and explained
that each project has to be analyzed from the same starting point, the Transportation Phasing
Plan. At some point, when the available capacity is allocated by the City Council to projects
above and beyond those identified in the Transportation Phasing Plan, those projects will have
to be conditioned and wait for the provision of the facility necessary to maintain the City's
traffic threshold standard.
Commissioner Carson reiterated that if this project went through, all other projects on line may
not be able to develop because the allocation would be used. She asked that City Traffic
Engineer Rosenberg address this issue.
PC Minutes -6- June 24, 1992
Environmental Consultant Ponseggi noted that CEQA required that the analysis consider projects
in process, but specifically states that speculative projects not be considered.
City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg explained that there was an interim pre-125 analysis which was
based on all of the approved projects to date, but did not include some of the developments
which were not identified in the TPP, such as the Salt Creek Ranch development, Telegraph
Canyon development, or the proposed McMillin development of a power center on "H" Street.
The Kaiser Hospital would use most of the capacity available; however, through agreement with
EastLake, that value would not be exceeded.
Mr. Gray, referring to the development agreement, stated that EastLake Development Company
was agreeing with Kaiser and the City to withhold development in a portion of the EastLake I
area so the Kaiser Medical Center could use those trips for its development, and thereby still
stay within the provisions of the original Transportation Phasing Plan and maintain the threshold
standards.
Mr. Maxum clarified that, in addition, a General Plan amendment would have to be conducted
for the Otay Ranch project, and JHK recommends that when that final plan is approved, another
model run be conducted to reflect all previous projects approved by the City of Chula Vista or
the Board of Supervisors during the planning process of the Otay Ranch so there would be an
updated view of the build-out condition.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) certifying that the Final
EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State of California CEQA
Guidelines, and the environmental review process of the City of Chula Vista, and
incorporating the revised mitigation measure received.
MS (Tugenberg/Carson) to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the attached CEQA
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Planning Consultant Ponseggi noted that it would be appropriate to consider that action after the
public hearing as a part of the project. Commissioners Tugenberg and Carson withdrew the
motion and second.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
S_t~akin~ In Support:
Kent Aden, EastLake Development Company, 900 Lane Avenue, CV, representing the project
applicant, showed slides of the proposed project and noted some of the amenities available.
Commissioner Decker asked if a motel had been considered for relatives and friends of those
hospitalized.
PC Minutes -7- June 24, 1992
Mr. Aden replied that a potential hotel site had been identified in the VC-2 area, at the corner
of EastLake Parkway/Otay Lakes Road.
Chris Crissafulli, Kaiser Permanente, 4647 Zion Avenue, SD 92120, thanked City Manager
Goss and the Planning Department staff for their advice, help, and responsiveness. He
mentioned some of the benefits which would be provided by the project.
Suzanne Lancaster, 632 Port Trinity, CV 91913, resident of EastLake and member of the
recreation committee, noted the need for daycare for infants and toddlers, and also the need for
a boys/girls club or other activities for older children.
Sharon Wallace, Benefits Manager with Sweetwater Union High School District, 441 Nickman
Street, CV 91911, noted that 1750 of their employees are Kaiser members and most live in
South Bay. Sweetwater was anxious to have more accessible health care for their employees and
other employees of South Bay. They believed if accessible hospitals for Kaiser members were
closer, there would be less time lost from work while parents were taldng children to hospital
visits and medical appointments. She applauded Kaiser's continued participation in education
of children and the need for health awareness in the community.
Ptunela Smith, District Manager of Social Security Administration, 380 Third Avenue, CV
91910, and Chair of the C.V. Human Services Council, stated that the Human Services Council
survey had affordable health care prioritized in the top three in every area surveyed. She noted
that in addition to offering jobs, Kaiser was a good neighbor and, through donations, had tried
to help non-profit agencies in Chula Vista solve community problems of domestic violence,
after-school daycare, lateh-key issues.
Gene Napier, 734 Riverlawn Avenue, CV 91910, representing the San Diego Bus Drivers
Union, said that approximately 80% of their employees were members of Kaiser and lived in
the South Bay area and urged support of the project.
Dorothy Munns, 9252 Madison Avenue, La Mesa, Assistant Department Administrator for
Family Practice for Kaiser Permanente in Bonita and EastLake, supported the proposal because
Kaiser had nearly 85,000 members located in the Chula Vista which the Hospital would support.
Rev. Bill Armstrong, 1519 Via Hacienda, CV 91913, Pastor of a new church in process of
purchasing land in EastLake Village Center, stated that their facility would be a multi-purpose
use for worship and community involvement and would welcome youth programs, civic
organizations and senior adult programs, as well as provide an afternoon youth center for latch-
key youth. He urged approval of the EastLake Development plans for the Village Center.
PC Minutes -8- June 24, 1992
Steve Gilles, 1981 Rue Michelle, CV 91913, resident of EastLake and current President of the
EastLake Homeowners Assn., thanked EastLake for their continued interest in their community
and recognizing the needs of the residents as to facilities, and their rapid action. He asked that
potential impact of traffic, by potential Kaiser users, through the neighborhood area be
addressed.
'n in i 'on: None.
No one else wishing to speak, the public heating was closed.
MS (Carson/Tugenberg) to approve the EastLake I General Development Plan Amendment,
the EastLake I SPA Plan Amendment, EastLake I Activity Center Precise Plan Guidelines,
EastLake I Public Facilities Finance Plan, EastLake I Activity Center Air Quality
Improvement Plan, EastLake I Activity Center Water Conservation Plan, Kaiser Medical
Center Precise Plan, Kaiser Medical Center Conditional Use Permit, CEQA Findings,
Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Commissioner Tugenberg indicated his pleasure with the project.
VOTE: 6-0 in favor (Commissioner Tuchscher absent)
MS (Carson/Tugenberg) recommending that the City Council approve an ordinance
approving the EastLake I Planned Community District Regulations amendment, and the
Kaiser Development Agreement.
Commissioner Casillas said he was pleased to see the outstanding summary of the development
agreement which had been provided by the City Manager. He asked that this be communicated
to the City Manager on his behalf. Referring to page 4, paragraph 1.7.4, of the development
agreement, Commissioner Casillas questioned why no language was included to tie the hospitals
to our educational institutions. He believed a cooperative relationship should be formed between
Kaiser and the community educational resources, specifically Southwestern College, to provide
the necessary training for the employees of Kaiser. He asked if the Economic Development
Commission had been approached to possibly provide assistance regarding benefits which could
accrue to the City.
Planning Consultant Gray concurred and indicated it would be appropriate to include that in the
Commission's recommendation. He noted that the Economic Development Commission was
aware of the development, through the Economic Development Coordinator.
Mr. Gray suggested the Commission take action on the recommendation with respect to the
Planned Community District Regulation and make a separate motion reflecting Mr. Casillas'
suggestion.
PC Minutes -9- June 24, 1992
RESTATED MOTION:
That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve an ordinance
approving the EnstLake I Planned Community District Regulations amendment, and the
Kaiser Development Agreement.
VOTE ON MOTION: 6-0 in favor (Commissioner Tuchscher absent)
MS (Casillas/Decker) to direct staff to develop language to be added to the development
agreement to encourage Kaiser to work with local educational institutions to establish and
promote health care job training and education programs.
Chair Fuller asked if someone from Kaiser would like to speak to this motion.
Diane Strum, of Kaiser Permanente, stated that a preliminary meeting had been held with the
MAAC Project on that subject. Kaiser is already committed, and Ms. Strum said the motion
would obligate and give the impetus to the schools to get involved and do their share.
VOTE ON MOTION: 6-0 in favor (Commissioner Tuchscher absent)
Chair Fuller declared a break at 9:00 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:10 p.m.
1TEM4: PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-92-02: CONSIDERATION OF CITY
INITIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTING AND SUPPLEMF~NTING
THE APPROVED COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Associate Planner Batchelder noted a memo had been given to the Commission which included
select pages of the General Plan Amendment and were a result of comments from the County
Hazardous Materials Division. He gave an overview of the amendments and outlined the
contents of the Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if it were not generally accepted that whatever site takes place,
it would be in proximity of the landfill. Mr. Batchelder answered negatively, and said it could
be in any industrially designated area identified on the map of "general areas." He noted that
if future General Plan amendments involved industrial land, that land would be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis to determine whether they should be candidate areas for a potential siting.
In answer to Commissioner Tugenberg, regarding industrial neighborhoods versus landfill
neighborhoods, Mr. Batchelder said there needed to be flexibility so the potential for siting a
facility would not be excessively limited because of the variety uses of hazardous waste facilities
which vary greatly in their inherent public health and environmental risks.
PC Minutes -10- June 24, 1992
Commissioner Tugenberg questioned whether the City's location of the sites would be in
conjunction with the County Engineering staff. Mr. Batchelder answered negatively and
explained the procedure.
Commissioner Tugenberg believed there should be some coordination between the County bodies
and the City. Mr. Batchelder stated there is coordination required through a Local Assessment
Committee.
Commissioner Martin asked for a definition of hazardous waste. Mr. Batchelder replied that
it was a complex subject, and introduced Mr. Chris Gonaver from the County Hazardous
Materials Management Division. Mr. Gonaver said the County uses four basic categories in
determining hazardous waste: corrosive, flammable, toxic, or reactive.
Commissioner Martin asked if the County regulations were concerned with small containers of
oil, etc., which would be used in the home.
Mr. Gonaver answered that the County enforces state and federal regulations, which are
primarily directed toward businesses utilizing hazardous materials in the course of their
businesses. He said there were regulations in place for disposition of household hazardous
waste, and the County had a cooperative program with the cities to dispose of those.
Commissioner Decker asked if the list of hazardous materials changed from time to time, since
new materials were continuously being invented. Mr. Gonaver concurred, and said there were
general guidelines established both in state and federal regulations which were amended from
time to time.
Chair Fuller asked if an educational program would be developed for the general public
regarding how to handle hazardous waste. Associate Planner Batchelder referred to page 3-41
regarding household hazardous waste. He noted, also, that the County had an active public
awareness program including mobile recycling and collection events. The City of Chula Vista,
in addition, has a Household Hazardous Waste Element which has not yet been brought forward
for adoption. This proposes that the cities look into establishing permanent household hazardous
waste collection facilities within their jurisdictions.
Chair Fuller noted that Kaiser would be disposing of their hazardous waste in-house.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wished
to speak.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf noted that a copy of a letter dated June 24, 1992, from
Greenfield Environmental, signed by Tom Vernon, Assistant General Counsel, was received by
the Commission. Someone on behalf of Greenfield Environmental was expected to appear, to
address the Commission with regard to the issue of its jurisdiction to proceed. The letter
challenged the legal validity of the notice given for the hearing and asserted it was invalid.
PC Minutes -11- June 24, 1992
Therefore, the Commission did not have the authority to proceed and that they had been denied
the ability to adequately analyze, respond to, and participate in the hearing. Mr. Rudolf stated
that the notice was adequate and met the State requirements of the Government Code which was
cited in the letter, but suggested--to be cautious--that rather than close the hearing, that the
Commission consider and grant a continuance on this item to no later than Monday, June 29,
to reconvene again and notify the complainant that, at their request, the item had been continued
and provided them with another opportunity to address and comment on the proposed
amendments in the context of a public hearing held by the Planning Commission.
Chair Fuller polled the Commission members regarding the time of the meeting on June 29.
MSIJC (Decker/Martin) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) to continue the public hearing on
GPA-92-02 to June 29, 1992, at 5:00 p.m.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Assistant Planning Director Lee thanked Commissioner Tugenberg for his interest, effort, and
dedication for the past eight years. He said staff would miss him, and applauded him for his
effort. The Commissioners concurred.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chair Fuller noted that in addition to the meeting on Monday, June 29, there would be a special
meeting on July 1 at 5:00 p.m. and the regular meeting on July 8 at 7:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT at 9:40 p.m. to the Continued Business Meeting of June 29, 1992, at 5:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Nancy Ripl~y, Secret~try
/
Planning Commission