Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1994/08/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:05 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, August 24, 1994 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Ray, Commissioners Salas, and Tarantino COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Fuller and Tuchscher (excused), and Moot STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Batchelder, Community Development Specialist Martinez, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Contract Attorney Basil MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Tarantino/Martin) 4-0 to excuse Commissioner Tuchscher who was out of town. It was noted that Commissioner Fuller had been excused at a previous meeting. Vice Chair Ray acted as Chair in the absence of Commissioner Tuchscher. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair Ray led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Vice Chair Ray reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None As requested, the Commission considered Item 2 before Item 1. PC Minutes -2- August 24, 1994 ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-90-9(A): CONSIDERATION OF STATE- MANDATED REVISIONS REGARDING THE 1991 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY GENERAL PLAN--CHAPTER 1451, STATUES OF 1989, RELATING TO THE PRESERVATION OF SUBSIDIZED HOUSING AT RISK OF CONVERSION Associate Planner Batchelder presented the staff report, noting that these are City-initiated amendments to portions of the Housing Element that were previously approved by the Commission in February 1992. There were changes in State law which required revisions to the "at-risk housing analysis" portion of the Housing Element. Commissioner Salas asked if the projects in question could be taken over by community groups, and if the community groups mentioned in the staff report were working on taking over the projects or if they had expressed an interest. Mr. Batchelder stated that those individuals had expressed interest. They are all non-profit organizations, and the State law indicates that non-profit organizations and/or the City be given first right of opportunity to take over the complex if the owners propose to convert it from non low-income use. Community Development Specialist Martinez added that two of the complexes out of the 386 units, which represent four apartment complexes, are currently in negotiation with the City and with South Bay Community Services to keep the units affordable. They were not near any conclusions regarding price or terms. Commissioner Salas asked if South Bay Community Services, at this point, was the only non- profit organization which had expressed interest, and which projects. Mr. Martinez noted the projects were Oxford Terrace and Palomar Apartments. Commissioner Salas clarified that there was not a large risk of the projects being taken out of the low-income housing market at this point in time. Mr. Martinez concurred. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Martin/Salas) that the Planning Commissioners considered the Negative Declaration (IS-92-08) and Addendum thereto (IS-92-08A), and adopt Resolution GPA-90-09(A) recommending that the City Council approve and adopt the proposed amendments to the Housing Element of 1991 in accordance with the draft City Council resolution and the findings contained therein. PC Minutes -3- August 24, 1994 Vice Chair Ray asked if, upon an application to convert from the prior designation as it was built, they would still be required to go through all the same normal procedures. Mr. Batchelder concurred. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Fuller, Moot, and Tuchscher absent) ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-94-05: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 19.58.225 AND 19.60.600 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW FREEWAY-ORIENTED ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGNS TO BE ESTABLISHED "OFFSITE" AT SELECTED LOCATIONS - City Initiated Principal Planner Griffin stated that when the City originally negotiated with the auto dealers, specifically Fuller Ford and South Bay Chevrolet, regarding the Auto Center on Otay Valley Road, one of the agreements reached was that the City would assist the dealers in either obtaining a message board-type sign on the freeway or changing the name of Otay Valley Road. The decision was not to pursue a name change on Otay Valley Road, but to pursue an amendment to the Code to allow off-site message board signs. This is a new concept, coupled with the electronic message board amendment which was made approximately two years previously which would allow message boards in the Town Centre and Otay Road Redevelopment Areas. Mr. Griffin noted that the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee had considered this item on Monday and requested that four areas of interest be transmitted to the Commission and Council: 1) they felt this was a selective amendment that was favoring the Auto Center and thought other businesses should have the opportunity to establish this type of sign, as well; 2) concerned about the provision which would prohibit secondary advertising on the sign; 3) felt the City should make an attempt to notify the residents once a particular sign design came in--those residents close to the freeway would have to look at the sign, 4) felt it was important that the sign be well designed, sensitively designed, because it would reflect on the image of the City. Mr. Griffin noted that the City Attorney's office and the Planning Department had been working on a legal question regarding proposed item (0 in the resolution. He asked that the Commissioners consider an additional paragraph being distributed to them which would formally indicate that the Commission recognizes that there was work continuing on that item and it may be changed prior to going to the City Council. Commissioner Martin stated this would not be a flashing sign with a big arrow; it would be a sign tastefully done with information running across it to be seen by the public. There would not be a lot of light coming from the sign. He felt that particular phase of the lighting program should have no impact on the residents living on the side of the hill, and asked if the residents' concerns had been addressed. Mr. Griffin answered that there was no specific design; the conceptual designs limit the size of the message board part of the sign to text. He did not think it would be type of sign which would be large with dramatic light effects. If, in fact, that was proposed the residents would be informed and they would have an opportunity to comment. PC Minutes -4- August 24, 1994 Commissioner Martin asked who would own the sign and who would pay the light bill. Mr. Griffin said the Auto Center dealers would lease the land from the owner of the property and construct the sign at their expense and maintain it at their expense. Commissioner Martin asked if there were others interested in advertising on it. Mr. Griff'm said that was an unknown--there potentially could be. Mr. Griffin commented that this amendment had been incorporated into the electronic message board guidelines already in place, which required a minimum 30% public service-type messages each hour that the sign was in use. Commissioner Salas asked if the sign was similar to the one in National City west of 1-5. Mr. Griffin said the electronic message board part would be similar in size to the ones in the National City signs; he did not know whether or not there would be multiple sign faces in that same arrangement or encasements. Commissioner Tarantino had envisioned something along the lines of the signs of the Mile of Cars and not the size of the sign announcing Plaza Bonita. Referring to the additional verbiage given to the Commission during the staff presentation, Commissioner Tarantino asked if it was the intent that the four concerns of the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee would be resolved in terms of the favorite son status of the Auto Park only--no secondary advertising. Mr. Griffin said that the continuing work on item 'f' was more related to legal concerns as opposed to the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee concerns. They were independent and should be judged independently. Commissioner Ray was concerned that if the amendment was adopted with Section 19.58.225, it would preclude Exhibit A from being modified--only Section 19.60.600. Mr. Griffin answered that it would not prohibit it--Council would take the Planning Commission recommendation and amend it substantially on their own and adopt it in a different form. It was staff's intent to make the Commission totally aware that 19.60.600(f) was still being revised and not find out later that it had been changed after the Commission's recommendation without consulting them. They were asking the Commission to go forward with it with a degree of trust that staff was not going to change the intent, but only looking at the legality of it and trying to word it appropriately. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Lise Strandgaard, of Construction Management & Development, 5469 Kearny Villa Road, #305, San Diego 92123, representing the auto dealers, stated there was not a specific sign design before the Planning Commission because they were trying to work with staff. There were different types of reader boards, but they wanted to move forward with the amendment. Ms. Strandgaard noted the dealers' surprise that there was a 30% requirement for public service messages. The dealers would rather have a 15% requirement. She thanked staff for their effort and moving it forward; they supported the changes to the amendment but recommended that item (b) be modified to perhaps a 10% requirement. They had no problem limiting commercial advertisement, but felt 30% for public notices was excessive when they were trying to advertise to increase car sales. PC Minutes -5- August 24, 1994 Comanissioner Martin noted that 30% was 18 minutes. The public notices would be bullets; he liked the idea of the community having a vehicle for communication. He did not think 18 minutes out of an hour was a lot. Ms. Strandgaard disagreed, because the automobiles go by the sign so quickly that it might hurt business, not just give public notice. She did not know where staff got the percentage. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated it was part of the existing ordinance, which was originally crafted to address the downtown area on Third and "H". The percentage was set by Community Development in part in looking at trying to provide a public service percent. For it to be broken down by zones would require additional review by Planning and Community Development, readvertising and another public hearing. If the auto dealers wanted this to move forward, it would have to move forward as it stood. The item could be continued or they could come back and revisit this issue under a separate amendment. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Salas noted that Mr. Lee had brought up options for the car dealership, and she wanted to know what Ms. Strandgaard thought about the options. Vice Chair Ray reopened the public hearing and Ms. Strandgaard reapproached the podium. Ms. Strandgaard asked that the Commission proceed with the amendment, and if they want to go back and readvertise, they would have to do so. They wanted to proceed with the existing requested amendment and supported staff's recommendations, and they would work with staff regarding the 30% requirement. Vice Chair Ray asked if the Commission approved the amendment, item "b" would be have to be approved "as is" or if another item could be added that would include negotiations between the applicant and the City. Assistant Planning Director Lee thought it could be done if the options were left open as the item moved forward to City Council, making sure that the advertisement for the hearing before the City Council. Staff would want to make it clear to the Council what issues were discussed with the Commission. Ms. Strandgaard stated that, at this point, even though the item had not yet been carried forward to Design Review, they were trying to get a reader board out as soon as possible with the opening of the auto mall happening in the next month. They did not want to slow the approval up; they could install a reader board advertising the 30% and still try to work with Council at a later time. Mr. Lee felt that would work best from a timing perspective. Commissioner Martin noted that it was still the auto park providing the community with the service. Mr. Lee stated that it had not been discussed with Community Development or the applicant; there should be further discussion and brought back before the Commission later. Vice Chair Ray then closed the public hearing. PC Minutes -6- August 24, 1994 MS (Martin/Salas) 4-0 to adopt Resolution PCA-94-05 recommending that the City Council amend Sections 19.58.225 and 19.60.600 of the Municipal Code in accordance with the draft City Council ordinance and the findings contained therein, and to recommend for further approval of said amendments is in recognition that proposed Section 19.60.600(0 may be modified in consultation with the City Attorney's office prior to final approval and adoption by the City Council. Vice Chair Ray was concerned that the Commission was approving Section 19.60.600(0 open but approving 19.58.225. He asked for assurance that there was not a conflict, and received that assurance from staff. VOTE: 4-0 to approve. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee commented that regarding the last item, staff could come back to the Commission depending on when Council takes their action, either before the second reading or before the ordinance becomes effective at the end of the 30 days, to give the Commission the final language. If there were any concerns on the part of the Commission, that would be carried before the Council. Vice Chair Ray stated he would feel more comfortable with that. Mr. Lee distributed the proposed Commission calendar, and reminded the Commission that a decision would be needed prior to November as to the meeting preceding Thanksgiving. There were five Wednesdays that month, and the Commission could possibly have a meeting on November 30. Mr. Lee noted a dinner workshop was scheduled for September 21. Referring to a memo from the Mayor delivered to the Commission that evening, Mr. Lee stated the Mayor would like for the Commissioners to review the attached SANDAG report regarding the projected growth. The Mayor wished to have the Commissioners' input; SANDAG would be providing the Commissioners with a presentation at the workshop on September 21, which was planned at that time to be a joint session with the RCC members. Mr. Lee noted a projected growth of 1.3 million by 2015, 52% was natural increase in the area--not people moving into the area. Recommendations needed to be back to City Council by November. Mr. Lee noted the workshop topics to be held in future monks, and stated that ~e next Commission meeting would be held September 14, 1994. He again reminded the Commissioners of a workshop scheduled for Saturday, September 10, and to contact the secretary if they wished to attend. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - None PC Minutes -7- August 24, 1994 ADJOURNMENT at 7:45 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of September 14, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ~pley~ Planning Commission (8-24-94.min)