HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1994/07/13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m. Public Services Building
Wednesday, July 13, 1994 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Martin, Commissioners Fuller, Moot, Ray
(7:10), Salas, Tarantino, and Tuchscher
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner
Bazzel, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf
MOTION TO EXCUSE - None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Martin led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silence.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chair Martin reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the
format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MSC (Fuller/Tarantino) 6-0 (Commissioner Ray not yet
arrived) to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 8, 1994.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-94-20/PCA-94-02: CONSIDERATION OF
AMENDMENTS TO TIlE CITY LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND ASSOCIATED
AMENDMENTS TO TIlE MUNICIPAL CODE - City Initiated
Assistant Planning Director Lee requested that PCM~94-20/PCA-94-02 be continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of August 10, 1994.
PC Minutes -2- July 13, 1994
MSC (Fuller/Tuchscher) 6-0 to continue PCM-94-20/PCA-94-02 to the Planning Commission
meeting of August 10, 1994.
ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-94-04: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO
SECTION 19.64 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE
REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CONDOMINIUMS WHICH ARE
NONCONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO DENSITY - City Initiated
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the City School District had requested that
PCA-94-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 27, 1994.
MSC (Tuchscher/Salas) 6-0 to continue PCA-94-04 to the Planning Commission meeting of
July 27, 1994.
ITEM 3. REPORT: LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY GPA ISSUE PAPER.
Principal Planner Bazzel noted that the City Council had directed staff to prepare an issue paper
for a General Plan Amendment for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area, after a number of
proposed developments had been presented to the City. Mr. Bazzel, using overhead projection,
showed where the property was located and the proposed land uses being considered for each
parcel, including a Veterans home on 14.25 acres owned by the City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency, a family recreation/fun center, Senior Care Facility, Sweetwater
demineralization plant, park and open space alternatives. Mr. Bazzel proceeded with the history
of the property, the current General Plan designations and the current zoning designations.
He indicated that in 1990 the City issued a draft EIR for a mobilehome relocation park on parcel
D which was never finaled, and the project was dropped. Mr. Bazzel stated that the land uses
would remain the same on parcels A and B on all alternatives. A preliminary traffic analysis
had been done to determine if any of the alternatives would drop levels of services on any of
the area streets to below a level of acceptability--below the Threshold level of service C. Staff
found that with appropriate striping and signalization for Alternatives 4 and 5, and an
intersection at the entrance of the KOA, the level of service would still be acceptable through
build-out of the General Plan.
Principal Planner Bazzel stated that as part of the direction of Council and requests by the
neighborhood, an open space alternative was provided. The issue of funding open space
acquisition and maintenance, with the potential for an assessment district, was considered and,
through a consultant, a preliminary assessment district study was prepared which examined the
potential benefit area for acquisition and maintenance and examined appraisal costs for property
within the area--the current vacant area in particular.
Mr. Bazzel proceeded with an explanation of the General Plan Amendment and zoning
recommended for each of the parcels. He then noted that an Environmental Impact Report had
not been prepared; staff was looking for comments from the Commission in response to the issue
PC Minutes -3- July 13, 1994
paper and any areas of inadequacy in the report or additional alternatives which the Commission
felt should be studied in any General Plan Amendment.
Commissioner Fuller, referring to the assessment district, asked if it covered only Pamel D.
Mr. Bazzel stated the assessment district study addressed Parcel D, and Pamels C, D and E --
the 14.25 acres which was Pamel D, and then 38 acres (which included the 14.25 acres) in
Parcels C, D and E.
Commissioner Fuller noted that Pamel D belonged to the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment
Agency. She asked if that would be included in the assessment district. Mr. Bazzel stated it
would be included. The property was purchased through low- and moderate-income funds for
low- and moderate-income housing. The advice received from legal counsel was that the
property would have to be sold at fair market value if utilized for anything other than low- and
moderate-income housing.
Commissioner Fuller asked if that was the reason Pamel C was designated in the other
alternatives for parkland, and not Parcel D. Mr. Bazzel stated the designation of Parcel C as
park with open space to the east on Pamel D could be reversed; it was only chosen in that
arrangement because of the transition of land uses from the KOA. Staff felt that natural open
space buffering between the KOA and the park facility was not as desirable as having that park
facility closer to the access, and then create a buffer between the park and the demineralization
plant if it was built.
Commissioner Fuller confirmed the City could not declare Parcel D land for a park. It was for
low-income housing only. Mr. Bazzel stated it could not be done under the current funding
arrangement. It would have to be purchased from the Redevelopment Agency.
Commissioner Salas questioned the park inventory west of 1-805, stating there was a deficiency
of public parks in that area. She was concerned that Eucalyptus Park was 1/2 mile away from
the project site. She asked if there was any study in terms of the dispersement of parks within
the City, and where the deficiencies are the greatest. Also, if the budget was directed to
Eucalyptus Park, would that divert funds from monies that would be needed to put a park in
another area of the City.
Principal Planner Bazzel stated that the Issue Paper had discussed potential park acquisition and
development fees that the Council had set aside for acquisition of parkland in the western portion
of Chula Vista. He concurred there was a deficiency in the western portion which is
approximately 1.22 acres per 1,000 residents. The threshold is 3 acres per 1,000. A Park
Implementation Plan and Study is currently in process which looks into facilities and parks in
western Chula Vista. Eucalyptus Park is currently considered at capacity, well used, and that
consideration of another park in the area would require strong scrutiny. There has been no
further direction from Council earmarking funds for this area versus Southwest Chula Vista.
Commissioner Salas asked if that would be a consideration in the EIR. Mr. Bazzel concurred.
PC Minutes -4- July 13, 1994
Commissioner Moot asked if the acquisition costs could be calculated to implement Alternative
3, and if there needed to be an assessment district if the parcel were designated as a park as
opposed to open space, or if the funding became different for maintenance if designated for park
or open space. Mr. Bazzel stated that staff had initially looked at the potential for acquisition
of the land for park purposes through an assessment district. Determination of the assessment
benefit area would be somewhat different, and the maintenance and facility costs would be
tremendous compared to acquisition and maintenance as natural open space. The majority of
the requests from the neighborhood were for natural open space, and not an overwhelming
request for parkland. Direction of Council was to examine the acquisition primarily through an
assessment district, but also to look at park acquisition funds. Staff did not feel the acquisition
of the land as parkland through an assessment district was a feasible alternative given the high
cost.
Commissioner Fuller asked if the proposal for an EIR including all five alternatives was
direction from Council, or if it was the recommendation from staff. Mr. Bazzel answered that
it was a recommendation from staff. Council understood that an EIR would be required, but
had given no weight to any of the proposed land uses other than making a commitment to the
Veterans Home prior to the any knowledge of the proposals. The purpose of the Issue Paper
was to give the Council enough facts to either give staff direction as requested, or narrow the
range of alternatives.
Commissioner Fuller asked what kind of commitment had been given on a Veterans Home. Mr.
Bazzel stated that Council had committed to the Veterans Administration that they would make
every effort to locate a site in Chula Vista; this site had been mentioned in that discussion prior
to any other proposals coming forward. The Veterans Administration was looking at a site by
Sharps Hospital which they also felt was a viable site, but the Veterans had not reached a point
where they would abandon their desire for the Sweetwater site. Council had not taken the
Veterans' proposal out of the range of alternatives and had indicated they would not do so unless
the Veterans Administration had secured another site.
Commissioner Fuller commented the because of the information contained in the packet and the
input by the citizens, unless the Council felt legally bound to spend the time and the money on
an EIR that included all five alternatives, she recommended that the Council listen to the citizens
first before going to the trouble and expense of an EIR that included all five proposals.
Commissioner Tuchscher noted that Commissioner Fuller was speaking of Alternatives 1 through
3. Commissioner Fuller concurred.
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that this was not a public hearing; it was an issue paper.
However, he suggested that they may want to ask questions of staff; they may also want to hear
from a number of residents in attendanCe who were notified, and then comment and provide their
direction to Council as an offer.
PC Minutes -5- July 13, 1994
Chair Martin commented that the greenbelt concept should be given a chance. The concept
should be kept intact; it was a good idea and a good plan, but would be fragmented if the
concept is not kept in mind.
Commissioner Tarantino asked how committed the Sweetwater Authority was in installing a
demineralization plant in the area. Mr. Bazzel stated the Sweetwater Authority had issued a
notice of preparation to begin preparation of an EIR; they had three sites they had identified of
which this site was one. At this point a preferred site had not been indicated.
Commissioner Tarantino questioned what would be proposed for that area if Sweetwater
Authority withdrew. Mr. Bazzel stated for alternatives 1 through 3, open space or a land use
that would be compatible with whatever the approved adjacent land use was.
Conunissioner Ray asked if the funding mechanisms and cost of acquisition affect the available
options. Mr. Bazzel stated it was not the primary mover on the range of alternatives. The
citizen input had weighed heavily on the intensity of proposed alternatives. The proposed land
uses staff was aware of and which had been included in the range of alternatives were those
which had been presented to the City. Any range of alternatives or land uses could be looked
at for that area, but given the significance of input received prior to these proposals, with the
mobilehome relocation park, and with this process, he felt Council's direction had considered
that input heavily.
Commissioner Ray asked if the most vocal and the majority of the people were in the lower
portion, or if it was more in the surrounding area. Commissioner Fuller stated it was in almost
all of the area; they wanted the City to work with them; they were interested in their assessment
district and it was not isolated just to the newer homes.
Commissioner Ray asked what option KOA would prefer. Mr. Bazzel said the general feeling
from KOA was that they wished to continue operating with their current operation and did not
want any land uses to be included that might not afford them protection, both from the
standpoint of noise and traffic.
The Planning Commission Chair opened the meeting for public discussion.
Josephine Payne, 62 Corte Maria Avenue, CV, as a citizen of Rosebank residential
neighborhood, voiced her complaints against the Family Recreation Center coupled with the
Family Fun Center (noise already existing, congestion, and a general disregard for her rights).
John Payne, 62 Corte Maria Avenue, CV, finished Mrs. Payne's presentation by noting the
additional noise which would be added by the Family Recreation Center and Family Fun Center
including laughter, screaming, lights from the ballfields, bicylists, etc.
Roy Shepard, 28 Las Flores Dr., CV, had been involved in several meetings talking about the
proposals. One of their main concerns for the people living in the area was development. The
PC Minutes -6- July 13, 1994
neighborhood never wanted development. Because it had been unzoned, the area was oftenused
for unsightly purposes and the City did not have any authority because there was no zone. The
neighbors wanted it to remain open space because it was a visual gateway to the City; would like
to maintain the greenbelt; did not want to add more density--there already was a big impact to
schools; would like to protect the animal species already there and being eliminated. Once the
open space is gone, it is gone forever. There is already a noise factor, and if the Fun Zone is
there, more noise would be added. The northern part of the City had formed the tax base of the
City from the beginning for the City to expand. They had paid for a lot of the infrastructure
for other parts of the City, particularly to the south and southwest, and a little to the east. They
felt they should be helped in the assessment fees for open space. The neighborhood did not
think the appraisal for the open space was fair--that it was too high. It was landlocked with no
access, and of no value unless there were roads to the area. They also had a problem with the
$15,500/year maintenance cost. They did not understand why it would cost that much money
to maintain the 14.25 acres as open space.
Charles Bradley, 29 Second Avenue, CV, was not in opposition of the project. He was in
favor of the Commission's interpretation of the General Plan. He thanked the Commissioners
who advocated that the citizens of the area be listened to, for pointing out that greenbelts and
parks were important, and that the idea of the greenbelt concept could be eroded. He
underscored that when the trailer park notion came up before, it bad drawn strong resistance
from the residents. Having the area unzoned misleads the developers; leads to unattractive and
unpoliceable uses of the land--consisting of dumpsters, oil rigs, trash, rusted hulks of
automobiles and old tool sheds. He encouraged the Commission to maintain their sensitivity to
the greenbelt concept and encourage that Chula Vista should enjoy the visual gateway to the
community. He also spoke of the noise from the freeways, but also it could be a positive thing
in that the drivers could see an open area. He wanted to support and encourage the Commission
to stand behind the General Plan in designating the area as open space and seeing it as the
backbone of the community as a strong definition of the quality of life that they hope to enjoy
in Chula Vista and not adding to the density of traffic, the intensity of crime, and the over
commercialization and the loss of what could become a beautiful asset to their community.
Alfred R. Welker, 168 N. Del Mar Avenue, CV, did not feel the assessment district should
include such a large area. Seventy-six of the petitioners lived on Las Flores Drive which
adjoined the proposed open space. The rest live on the south end of the proposed space
overlooking it. There were only two names from Second Avenue, and no one from Del Mar
Avenue knew about the proposed open space. They had received only one letter stating there
was to be an informational meeting at Rosebank School about two weeks before regarding the
proposed open space. No mention was made in the letter regarding an assessment district--that
it would cost people money to have this open space. As a result, no one from their
neighborhood went. He stated a lot of people were for open space, but when it came to paying
for it--being assessed $200/year in addition to the regular property taxes--many would not be in
favor of it. He thought it should be very clearly put to the citizens of the area--of the whole
assessment district-4hat they get the information that they would be assessed for the project,
which was possibly several blocks from their home. Mr. Welker did not feel he would get any
PC Minutes -7- July 13, 1994
benefit from it. Regarding the area being a gateway to the City, he felt the City should pay for
it, not the citizens of the small locality. Mr. Welker believed those closer to the benefit area
should pay a larger assessment.
Ted Bell, 111 N. Second Avenue, CV 91910, of Kampgrounds Enterprises Inc. (KOA),
referring to pages in the Issue Paper, noted that page 3, referred to property located in the
floodplain area--where was the property on the priority list for the federal agency to do the
necessary study, and who had to request that. That may be a problem if the property is not left
as open space. Page 5, the mobilehome park relocation and the draft EIR--they would object
to any comments in the Issue Paper regarding the EIR. It was never accepted and the
community found many errors and omissions in it. On page 6, regarding geology, the
community was not asked about this. Them is an enormous filled area with trash, which the
community used for a dump on the 14 acres that the City holds which could be pointed out. On
page 8, the reference using traffic studies from the draft EIR which was flawed. On page 12,
limited recreational use in an open space area. He asked if the City or any agency was going
to consider upzoning the unzoned area that was agriculture to anything other than agriculture,
that they (KOA) be zoned instead of agriculture to Visitor Commercial, which would be more
appropriate. If anything other than Visitor Commercial, KOA had the problem of having to
come back and apply for permits to change, and they may find themselves with a problem going
into a specific plan at an enormous cost. On page 25, KOA had stated prior to the consultant
doing the assessment district planning, that the only fair way of assessing would be that it be
weighted and that those having the most benefit would pay the most, and that was not done.
They had also questioned making the district so large that the benefit to some of those people
would be questionable. The City paid $165,000 for this property; the appraisal was for
$620,000 and the appraisal was flawed. It needed to be adjusted down to a reasonable price.
Regarding the maintenance cost, the area was not a high maintenance area, and he felt this was
an inappropriate estimate for a level, undisturbed area. Regarding access from the Rosehank
area, it would require condemnation of property to which property owners are opposed. Mr.
Bell requested that the Fun Center not operate after 9:30 p.m.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked Mr. Bell which alternative he saw as most beneficial for the
KOA. Mr. Bell stated that Alternative 2 would be most desirable because of the open space.
Answering Cormmissioner Tuchscher, Mr. Bell stated their concern regarding the Fun Center
would be hours of operation and the traffic. They did not see the Veterans Center as a problem;
the IPG Plan would not be a problem other than traffic and taking away some of the open space
and greenbelt area.
Commissioner Tarantino asked, if the land was developed, how people would get on the land.
He understood KOA would be giving part of their land to build a road. Mr. Bell stated there
was a 60' easement across the northerly part of their land for the IPG property only. For Mross
and the City property, they would have to negotiate with IPG and possibly KOA to get access.
There was presently no road; only a driveway being used for heavy equipment to get to the
dumpsters. There was presently a publicly-owned pathway on the dike.
PC Minutes -8- July 13, 1994
Robert L. McCauley, 1987 Bucknell St., CV, representing the Veterans, stated that the State
has an approved bond issue for $24 million to be build a home for the Veterans. He noted that
the Veterans Administration had not decided where to locate another Veterans Home. The
Council had officially identified parcel D and, if the State would accept it, they would build a
Veterans Home there. This meets the requirement for low-income housing. Mr. McCauley said
the State had not indicated whether they would take the land. When the proposal came in for
the commercial fun center, an alternative site was suggested. No action had been taken to
acquire it. Without the City having acquired the alternative site, and until the State indicates
whether or not they would not take the alternative site, the present site should not be given over
to any other use. Mr. McCauley suggested that any funds used to buy the land go back into the
City to be used to offset and find another location that would be acceptable for a Veterans
Home. A Veterans Home would bring jobs to the community. The families visiting the
veterans would be using KOA facilities. The veterans would not be using any resources.
Commissioner Moot asked how the land would be purchased for the Veterans Home. Mr.
McCauley answered that the land was already owned by the City and the City would donate it
to the State. The State would commit $12 million to build the Veterans Home and would
maintain it, operate it, and employ all the State employees to operate it. Commissioner Moot
asked Principal Planner Bazzel if that was consistent with the Redevelopment Agency having
acquired it as low-income housing. Mr. Bazzel said he did not know all the full details. Mr.
McCauley said it was approved by the Redevelopment Agency as a use.
Commissioner Ray asked the location of the alternative site. Mr. Bazzel stated it was adjacent
to Sharp's Hospital off Telegraph Canyon Road. The Sweetwater School District currently owns
it. Commissioner Ray asked if the School District had been approached about selling the
property and if it was a viable option. Mr. Bazzel understood negotiations were in the process.
Commissioner Tuchscher questioned the obligation to hold out a land use of that particular
property for a potential eventuality of a project coming forward. He cautioned the Commission
about making land use decisions to hold out particular uses based on very preliminary
discussions and correspondence.
Chair Martin stated the issue paper gave five alternatives, which staff would be taking to City
Council.
Bill Ayers, 44 E. Mankato St., CV, representing the San Diego County Veterans Advisory
Counsel to the Board of Supervisors, and the State Legislative Committee for the American
Legion, said they had fought for 10 years to get a Southern California Veterans Home. The
City offered that site, specifically, which was accepted in the report by the Governor's
Commission on site selection July 1, 1993, in the formal report to the Legislature, specifically
siting the Sweetwater KOA site. The offer for a possible additional site came up over the
development of the proposal for the fun farm, looking to a land swap between the City, KOA
properties, and the Sweetwater High School District. The City Council made the offer. The
PC Minutes -9- July 13, 1994
community did not know it had been offered. There is a dire need in this County, and it was
the only site in San Diego County that was offered out of 600 sites in San Diego County.
It was there, and they wanted to maintain it.
Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, CV, representing Warner Properties/Pacific Malibu
Development Corporation, asked for 15 minutes for an organized presentation. He stated that
the question that needed to be answered was whether this particular site was a community issue
greater than the immediate neighborhood, or was it strictly a neighborhood issue. Mr. Cox
discussed the acreage to be used as a fun center and the amenities it would include. He
introduced Les and Steve Warner who developed the idea of the fun center. He noted the
deficiency of developed parkland in western Chula Vista. He then showed slides of the proposed
fun center. Mr. Cox stated that the family recreation center was envisioned as a public/private
partnership between the City of Chula Vista and the Warner Properties and their financial
partner. They propose that they would actually develop, operate, and maintain the fields--the
City would put some money into the development, and Warner Properties would put in the
balance, and would take sole obligation and responsibility for the liability insurance, the
maintenance, water, and scheduling for a period of 15 years at which time the recreation center
would be turned back over to the City as a turnkey park. The City would have exclusive use
of the ballfields the equivalent of three days a week; three days it would be available for the
private sector partnership to be available for adult leagues, youth leagues, etc. which would be
on a pay-for-play type of basis. One day would be set aside for the maintenance, watering, and
upkeep of the facilities. Included in the slides shown by Mr. Cox were family fun centers
existing in other cities.
Mr. Cox noted that open space came at a cost--there are maintenance costs. There were
concerns regarding vagrants and rites. The primary beneficiaries of the open space would be
the people who live in the neighborhood. He was concerned that the prices established by the
appraiser were correct. There was a question regarding the City parcel--since it was the original
intent of the City Council for use as low- and moderate-income housing; over $2 million in City
funds had been put into the Sweetwater flood control channel that would enhance the values of
all the properties. Until the property is purchased for whatever purposes, there is no public
access. Mr. Cox thought that perhaps some of the concerns of Mr. Bell would be predicated
on the fact that he had a 60' easement that would have to be provided to provide access to the
IPG property--property which is being used for camp sites which would have to be removed.
There would be an economic impact on the operation of KOA.
Mr. Cox stated there was a great need for youth-serving types of facilities in the City of Chula
Vista. There is a proposal for a senior housing project immediately adjacent to the KOA
campground which would be a good buffering. The school-related problems had always been
associated on residential development; the School Districts had indicated an acceptance of these
types of land uses because they do not involve the generation of new students.
In answer to Commissioner Tarantino, Mr. Cox stated the Fun Center was proposed to be
located on Parcel D on approximately 6 acres. The total parcel was 14 acres. The closest
PC Minutes -10- July 13, 1994
property line would be at least 400' or 450' to 500' away with a severe slope of approximately
180' up to the properties.
At Commissioner Ray's request, Mr. Cox showed the location of the toe of slope.
Commissioner Moot asked if the floodplain was a feasible place to put construction under
FEMA's current guidelines and regulations. Principal Planner Bazzel stated that the FEMA
maps had indicated the area as being in the floodplain; however, with the completion of the
flood chaimel it had come out of the floodplain but had not been formally taken off the FEMA
maps. Technically, it was still included in the floodplain by those maps. The Army Corps of
Engineers studies indicated that the drainage flaps into the flood channel had been sized
adequately to eliminate the flooding potential on that property. There was localized drainage
which came across the property, but the flood gates had been oversized to accommodate the
potential for additional run-off.
Commissioner Salas asked to see the ballfields which would be part of the family recreation
center. Mr. Cox showed the Commissioners a drawing of the ballfields, and stated the concerns
about lighting were legitimate; however, the new Discovery Park had lighted ballfields which
were close to condominiums. The Parks & Recreation Director had received no complaints
regarding the lighting.
Commissioner Salas asked for clarification regarding the City's use of the ballfields. Mr. Cox
reiterated it was subject to negotiation, but the proposal was that the City would have complete
use of the ballfields for an equivalent of three days per week. Three other days would be
operated as a commercial operation; the seventh day would be for maintenance, watering, and
upkeep of the facilities.
Answering Commissioner Salas, Mr. Cox stated the proposal to the City would be that the
parmership would have ultimate ownership of the family fun center; they would develop at their
cost the joint use parking lot which could accommodate up to 280 cars; they would maintain it
and operate it for the 15-year period of lease; they would then assume the responsibility of
maintaining the ballfields. The land would be provided by the City; Mr. McElliott, the owner
of the IPG property has indicated a willingness to dedicate 8 acres of land, for a total of 16 acres
for a family recreation park--the joint public/private partnership--predicated on having the ability
of having the ability to do something with the balance of his property. Mr. McElliott had
suggested a senior care facility.
Commissioner Salas clarified that for 15 years they would share the use of the ballpark facilities
with the City, the City having access for public use for three days. After 15 years, all of it
would go back to the City with the cost and maintenance going to the City as well. Her concern
was that it would not be a public park, and the City has a deficiency in public parks. She felt
a segment of the population would be shut out.
PC Minutes -11- July 13, 1994
Mr. Cox noted the City could provide free play for the three days they would have it, at no cost
to the City for the maintenance.
Commissioner Ray questioned access to the park. Mr. Cox noted that once someone had been
there, they would have no problem finding it. He stated the traffic concerns were legitimate,
but most of the people using the facility would have only one access off North Second Avenue;
they would be willing to work with the residents for an access from the Las Flores cul-de-sac
if desired. Traffic on Second Avenue had dropped significantly since the opening of SR-54.
With this project, it would still be below the 1989 traffic level.
Commissioner Ray asked if the area was zoned in any way which would be incompatible with
Mr. McElliott's ability to use the balance of the parcel, it would preclude use of this parcel for
the family fun center. Mr. Cox noted the parcel could possibly be purchased, and also that Mr.
McElliott had offered 6 acres to be added to the Veterans Home site. If the Veterans Home
were built, it would preclude building the family fun center.
No one else wishing to speak, the public discussion was closed.
In response to Commissioner Moot, Mr. Bazzel stated the City Council was looking for
comments primarily on the Issue Paper and any other reasonable alternatives which were not
addressed in the range of alternatives presented. He noted there were limitations as to the type
of recommendations which the Commission could make given the lack of a CEQA document or
completed environmental analysis.
Chair Martin indicated some references had been made by speakers that the neighborhood should
not be required to pay some kind of assessment fees when they may not be benefitted, and that
everybody should be told they would be assessed for open space if they would be paying for it.
The Planning Commission was concerned about the intensity of the greenbelt. The public had
to be listened to regarding the Veterans Home.
Commissioner Salas supported Commissioner Fuller in that the public should be listened to; they
want the open space preserved; the City of Chula Vista made a commitment to the greenbelt.
On the other hand, while the community wants the open space, the initial studies for the
assessment fees are too stiff. She also agreed that possibly all five alternative should not have
an EIR done--just the first four. She felt Alternative 4 would have a smaller assessment district
with the one park as opposed to assessment with three open spaces.
Commissioner Fuller stated the proposed Veterans Home and the proposed family recreation
center were both proposals which were invited by the current Council for that piece of property.
She felt the Council would not be able to make a decision predicated on only open space; they
would need all the information in front of them. Commissioner Fuller asked if there would be
a thorough EIR on all the environmental impacts or if it would be cursory.
PC Minutes -12- July 13, 1994
Mr. Bazzel replied that it was their recommendation that all five alternatives would be given the
same weight of analysis.
Commissioner Fuller suggested that the alternatives including the assessment district proposals
have many different ways the assessment district could be formed, how the boundaries were
established, what was included, and what assessment value weight was put on the homes closer
to the properties and those further away.
Commissioner Tarantino agreed that the information would be needed to back up the decision
made; he would be in support of staff's recommendation to have an EIR conducted that would
examine all five alternatives.
Commissioner Tuchscher felt it would be a difficult decision; Alternative 2 and Alternative 5
looked good. If the community wanted open space, he felt someone would have to reimburse
the City for that asset; somebody would have to reimburse those property owners. The
alternative would be private sector maximization, highest and best use, which would be
Alternative 5. He did not know if an EIR examining all five alternatives or even those two
would give anybody the comfort level to make that decision.
Commissioner Ray felt the assessment district, even though it was far reaching, excluded Third
and "E". He would like more information from Community Development regarding the
alternative site for the Veterans Home; he would like to hear from Mr. McElliott regarding his
options on Alternatives 4 and 5; leaving parcels as open space seemed like a waste of good real
estate although he could appreciate the neighborhood's concerns; and the value of the parkland
and the need for open space and parks in the western portion of the City.
Chair Martin believed staff should take their recommendations to Council.
Commissioner Tuchscher was concerned about taking testimony from the public without the
meeting being noticed as a public hearing. Principal Planner Bazzel replied that this had been
an ongoing process; the last notice which had gone out to property owners within 1,000 feet also
included the time, date, and place for other commission meetings including the Planning
Commission at which the Issue Paper would be presented. A presentation was given to the RCC
on Monday night; it would be given to the Veterans Committee, the Housing Commission, and
the Parl~s & Recreation Commission, and then to the City Council. It was noticed 1,000 foot
radius; however, during the latter stages of preparation of the Issue Paper, the consultant's draft
feasibility study on the assessment district proposed a benefit area which exceeded the
notification boundary. In terms of the assessment district information, the notification for these
meetings did not extend to the complete proposed boundary. Commissioner Tuchscher was
concerned about notification in general, and if it was noticed in a manner that gave the public
the idea that they would be able to provide input. He was not concerned if no public input was
taken; if some was taken but not all, he had a concern.
PC Minutes -13- July 13, 1994
Commissioner Ray asked how much added cost there would be for adding alternatives on the
site. Mr. Bazzel said there would be a cost factor; he did not have a cost estimate although he
did not see a significant cost difference unless the scope of the land uses was expanded. Most
of the significant impacts would come from the higher, more intense alternatives, and there
would not be much difficulty in analyzing lesser intense uses. Commissioner Ray questioned
if any thought was given to analyzing alternatives 2 and 5 only and reducing the cost, which
would give both extremes. Mr. Bazzel stated that staff did not feel they were in a position to
analyze any one as opposed to all of the alternatives. He concurred that if an EIR analysis
covered a full range and another alternative fell in the middle, the impacts would be generally
covered. The alternatives, however, were so similar, he did not feel there would be a great
expense in analyzing the first three alternatives.
Commissioner Ray questioned the concern by KOA regarding having to obtain permits, etc.
Mr. Bazzel replied that staff felt enough guidelines could be applied to the Specific Plan that the
KOA operation could continue without any threat of acquisition of their property as open space.
Commissioner Ray asked why multiple zoning was not a proposal. Mr. Bazzel stated that
through the specific plan process, all of the land uses on the site could be dealt with in a
cohesive manner in terms of access, setback requirements, strategic landscaping--something that
is unique to this site that might be more restrictive than the current Zoning Ordinance standards.
That type of planning would provide better compatibility for adjoining areas.
Commissioner Moot stated he would like the Issue Paper, either with Alternative 2 or some part
of another alternative, to take a closer look at the incorporation of the area into a greenbelt, the
ability of the City to spread the cost of that on a greater basis than the assessment district
proposed, and the ability to use open space as passive parks.
With Chair Martin's permission, Mr. Bradley returned to the podium to state that the people in
the neighborhood had been to countless meetings on this particular proposal, and they were tired
of bringing up the same point they had voiced loudly and clearly at different times both formally
and informally. Regarding direction to the City Council, the Planning Commission's most
courageous step would be to support the General Plan and recognize the importance of the
greenbelt and submit to the City Council the adherence of that backbone issue of a greenbelt
according to the General Plan would be a simple, straight forward, unequivocal and final
suggestion that the Commission could propose.
Commissioner Ray commented that Commissioner Tuchscher's concerns about the rights of the
private landowners would be a big issue. The City would not be able to afford to buy the
properties back and leave them as open space, and property owners could not afford to let their
properties sit.
PC Minutes -14- July 13, 1994
OTHER BUSINESS
1. CONSIDERATION OF SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES FOR FY 93-94 AND
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
Commissioner Martin noted that the Planning Commissioners had asked for a
stipend in the past; however, they would at least like to have money budgeted for
all Planning Commissioners to be able to go to the Planning Commissioners
Seminar.
Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that would have to be requested at budget
time. It could be included at this time to give the Council notice.
Commissioner Ray felt everyone should go or none of them. Commissioner
Tuchscher pointed out there is not a City in California the size of Chula Vista
where Planning Commissioners are not compensated. He suggested some greater
budget should be allowed where the Planning Commissioners might be more
educated and better able to serve the City by virtue of attending the seminars or
classes which should be available.
· Commissioner Tarantino recommended that the Planning Commission meet with
the City Council on at least a quarterly basis, whether it be a workshop session
or dinner meeting.
Commissioner Tuchscher suggested that the Planning Commission possibly could
join the Council on their tours of property and new projects, and take advantage
of money already being spent by the City.
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that staff had problems in the past in
coordinating meetings between the two groups. He thought there was an
opportunity for the Chair of the Planning Commission and possibly of the Design
Review Committee to meet quarterly with the Mayor and exchange some ideas
and get some feedback through both bodies.
Commissioner Tarantino suggested the format of the Summary be in bullet form rather
than paragraph form to make it easier for Council to read.
2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR FY 94-95
MSUC (Fuller/Tarantino) 7-0 to elect Commissioner Tuchscher as Chair and
Commissioner Ray as Vice Chair for Fiscal Year 1994-95.
PC Minutes -15- July 13, 1994
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Assistant Planning Director Lee informed the Planning Commission that the Council by
unanimous vote had approved the General Plan and rezoning on the Bonita Carwash site.
He also noted that the Planning Commission Workshop would be focused on the update of
sphere activity on the Otay Ranch.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Ray asked for updates on the Conditional Use Permit process and the Design
Review Manual revision. Commissioner Tarantino stated that the Design Review Manual review
had been finished. Commissioner Fuller stated the Committee was still reviewing the conditional
use permit process. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the conditional use permit
process was one of the more cumbersome ones, because it included the entire matrix of the
Code, those uses provided by conditional use permit, which could be modified in terms of
potentially using the Zoning Administrator versus Planning Commission--those that might end
at Planning Commission rather than going on to Council. There are many decisions in the
process, and standards to be developed. He noted it was a very extensive work program.
Commissioner Fuller stated there were a lot of land uses, and a lot of them were worded
differently.
The Commissioners thanked Rich Rudolf, the Assistant City Attorney. He would be working
for the City of Carlsbad as of August 1, 1994.
ADJOURNMENT at 9:40 p.m. to the Dinner Workshop Meeting of Wednesday, July 20, 1994
at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of Wednesday,
July 27, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
NanCy Ril~ey, Sddreta~
Planning Commission