HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1993/10/27 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, October 27, 1993 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Fuller, Moot
(7:06), Ray, Salas, Tarantino, and Tuchscber
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner
Griffin, Associate Planner Miller, Associate Planner
Reid, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City
Attorney Rudolf
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Martin, followed by a moment of
silence.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairman Martin reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and
the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Fuller/Ray) 7-0 to accept the minutes of October 13, 1993, as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
Commissioner Fuller asked that she be excused from consideration of Item 1 because of a
conflict of interest. She had at least $250 business with the Country Club during a year.
PC Minutes -2- October 27, 1993
ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: REPORT ON GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY OF
PROPOSED VACATION OF MOSS STREET BETWEEN ALPINE AVENUE
AND NAPLES STREET - San Diego Country Club and Country Club Villa
Estates Partnership
Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report and recommended that the Commission report
to the City Council that the proposal was consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan. He
noted that several letters of concern and objection were received, and copies of a petition which
had been submitted that day had been given to the Commissioners. Mr. Griff'm stated that he
had reviewed all of the materials and the issues focused on some of the more finite vacation
issues rather than the General Plan issues.
Commissioner Salas stated that she did not see any findings of fact that would support that the
safety issue had been resolved. How could it be determined that it is consistent with the General
Plan. She was concerned with the potential stacking problem off Moss Street to Naples. She
conceded the existing angle presented a safety problem, but felt it was not logical to have the
short distance with three stops.
Principal Planner Griffin replied that Commissioner Salas' concerns should be considered in
relation to the street vacation, but even if there were a finding that they were creating a negative
safety impact, it would not be a General Plan level issue. It would be more specifically related
to a detail regarding the installation of additional signaling devices, warning signs, or different
approaches to moving the traffic around. He did not believe the possibility of stacking would
present the same sort of safety concern as the angle at which Moss now intersects with Naples.
Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich agreed. He stated that the average daily traffic at that intersection
was 6790, with eastbound trips of 3370. There would be approximately 337 trips during the
peak hour in the eastbound direction, about 6 per minute. There would be some stacking during
peak hour.
Commissioner Salas concluded that at this point the Commission was not to consider any
alternative to what had been proposed. Mr. Ullrich answered affirmatively, noting it was only
to make a finding to determine whether it was consistent with the General Plan. The Safety
Commission had considered five alternatives, and had proposed the alternative before the
Commission.
Commissioner Tarantino was concerned that the letters and testimony that would be presented
would most likely deal with the peripheral issues, and how the Commission would deal with it.
Mr. Griffin stated the residents had been noticed and encouraged to attend to get their concerns
on the record, and it would also help staff to prepare for the Council hearing. He suggested that
their testimony be taken.
PC Minutes -3- October 27, 1993
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf commented that it was within the discretion of the Commission
whether to take the testimony. There were a number of issues regarding this item, but the
Commission was only charged with making a finding of General Plan consistency.
Commissioner Tuchscher was concerned about what was proposed on the property, what would
be next, and what might be coming down the road.
Principal Planner Griffin explained how the parcel was now zoned and the potential for the
property if the street were vacated. He noted if the parcel were split, the applicant would apply
for a parcel map for four or less parcels; for five or more parcels, it would be a subdivision
map. Mr. Griffin explained the procedures for a pamel map, noting that the neighbors are
noticed and could comment. If objections were received, an administrative hearing would be
held and any decision could be appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council. If the
applicant wished to pursue a multiple family zone, they would need to apply for a General Plan
amendment and rezoning of the property which would require public hearings before the
Planning Commission and the City Council and the neighbors would be noticed. Environmental
review would also be included in any higher density usage. Staff was not aware of any
particular proposal on the part of the applicant for the property beyond the vacation.
The Commissioners were concerned that the item was not part of a plan or proposed
development for that particular area and why it was not being considered as part of a broader
plan or solution of a problem. The applicant may have their own reasons for processing the
project in this manner and they would be in the best position to address this issue. Mr. Griffin
replied, however, that it was being taken at face value, as a vacation. The applicant was
probably asking for a threshold decision on the vacation before getting into the expense of a
parcel map or some other process.
Commissioner Ray was concerned with the level of service on both Moss and Naples and the
LOS differential impact on the neighborhood. He believed the LOS would increase on Moss and
would decrease on Naples. Mr. Ullrich did not expect a decrease or increase in LOS. The
basic traffic would be the same. The intersection would only be realigned.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked what would happen if the parcel was split into lots which would
have substantial value. What would happen when these properties are vacated. Would there be
any compensation to the City. Mr. Ullrich said that would be included in the agenda statement
to the City Council. In this case, there could be some compensation relative to loss of land.
Compensation would be a City Council decision.
Commissioner Tuchscher concluded that it was consistently a policy of the Council to determine
some valuation to the City for that property. The property would be appraised, and seek
remuneration would be sought for the sale of the property. Mr. Ullrich said it depended on the
circumstance under which the property had been vacated.
PC Minutes -4- October 27, 1993
Commissioner Ray again asked why the item was before the Planning Commission if it was
currently zoned and consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Griffin explained that the text in the
staff report to which Mr. Ray was referring was to the General Plan Land Use Element. The
General Plan contained both the Land Use Element and Circulation Element which addressed
the issues before the Commission. Mr. Ray concluded that the Commission was not discussing
the usage of the property, but if the property were developed, what the potential impact could
mean.
Commissioner Salas said she had not read anything in her packet that satisfied her that the
Circulation Element had been met. She could not find the facts that supported that the
recommendation would meet the General Plan.
Assistant Planning Director Lee explained it was staff's conclusion that both the existing and
proposed realignments were consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which
showed the connection between Moss and Naples. The issue of where the connection should be
and the safety issues were addressed as a recommendation from the Safety Commission going
on to the City Council. It is a requirement of the State that the Planning Commission make such
a finding. Staff had tried to make it clear to the residents that the Safety Commission was
dealing with the safety issues and were making the recommendation to the Council relating to
the General Plan consistency. To invite the people to provide testimony also provides feedback
to the City Council prior to their public hearing. This was not a required hearing before the
Planning Commission. It was advertised as a public hearing to give people the opportunity to
speak on the matter.
Principal Planner Griff'm, referring to Commissioner Salas' concern, said that when it was
mentioned in the report that the proposal meets the General Plan street standards, it specifically
referred to the fact that this was a Class 2 residential collector in accordance with the General
Plan which required a 52' width travelway. Moss and the section of Alpine as conditioned
would provide that General Plan level travelway width. Also, the level of service would remain
at 'A'. The resolution could be amended to refer to those specifics if the Commission desired.
Chairman Martin concluded that the Commission was to determine whether this was consistent
with the General Plan, but some of the Commissioners had serious questions about that corner.
He felt it was important to get input from as many people as possible.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that the staff report discussed the land use portion of the
General Plan, but the portion dealing with the requirements for maintenance of level of service
did not give factual information. His understanding was that staff had given those facts and
could provide that information. It had been stated for the record, and for the Commission and
the public so it could be made a part of the decisionmaking process.
Commissioner Ray asked again, if this was consistent with the General Plan and the facts before
staff bore that out, why this was coming before the Planning Commission as opposed to being
an administrative approval. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated it was a statutory requirement.
PC Minutes -5- October 27, 1993
The California Government Code provision required that the Planning Commission make a
recommendation in a report to the City Council with regard to General Plan consistency for all
street vacations.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
The following were in favor of the project and gave a 15-minutes organized presentation:
Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, Chula Vista, CA 91910, representing Country Club
Villa Estates, agreed with the staff report with the exception to preclusion of access to Alpine.
Mr. Cox stated the street was an easement provided by the two adjoining property owners, and
discussed the existing traffic cimulation. The street would be widened, parking would be
allowed on both sides of the street, curbs and gutters would be installed at the intersection along
with a three-way stop, and it would clear up an existing acknowledged dangerous intersection
that is a potential liability problem for the City. Regarding the concerns of the Commissioners,
if there was not a street vacation, it would be useless to go through a parcel map process and
other things that would be necessary, lengthy, and expensive. The obligation to put in the curbs,
gutters, street lights, and missing pavement would be picked up by the applicant and the owner
of the triangular parcel. The installation of those improvements would be a benefit to the City
and to the Country Club. A noise study had been done, which would be introduced at the
Council meeting, which indicated that it would be below the noise standards of 65db. He urged
approval by the Commission, and asked to reserve a short time at the end to respond to
comments or questions raised during the public hearing.
Commissioner Ray asked if there was any kind of conceptual map of the potential 4-5 dwelling
units that could be built. He was concerned about access.
Mr. Cox said there had not been any conceptual maps. By precluding access on Alpine Avenue,
it would make it a more difficult site to develop. He did not know what the alternative would
be. They would request that there not be a total preclusion of access onto Alpine and that they
be given the opportunity to come back with a plan accessing the back portion of Alpine.
Commissioner Ray asked the specific reason for preclusion to access to Alpine. Mr. Cox said
he thought it was probably the proximity to Naples. Commissioner Ray felt it would be an
improvement over the existing alignment. Mr. Cox said that dirt tracks go through the middle
of the parcel presently, because a number of people cut through.
Commissioner Moot would be more comfortable considering the proposed development for the
area at the same time as the vacation. Many times at this level, problems the residents seem to
have are resolved in the context of designing a particular project. Piecemealing must have some
type of financial advantage to the proposed developer, but makes it more difficult for the
Commissioners to make a decision.
PC Minutes -6- October 27, 1993
Mr. Cox replied that if there were any other land use to be considered other than R-l, it would
be back before the Commission for their consideration, and for the Council's, with full notice
to the residems. At this point, there had been no plans for anything other than the R-1.
Commissioner Tuchscher thought that regardless of the cost involved relative to preparing for
filing, he would be happy if they had some exhibits showing examples of what the site plan or
subdivision map might look like that might be filed at a later date. It would give him a comfort
level of how access would be derived, how the site would be laid out, and give the residents a
comfort level as well. He was uncomfortable in voting without a total picture of what the future
implications might be.
Russell Froemming, 150 Moss St., CV 91911, had deferred his time to Mr. Cox.
Arthur Erber, 142 Moss St., CV 91911, passed.
The following were against the project:
Nancy Coughlan, 1094 Alpine Avenue, CV 91911, gave a group presentation representing the
following: Raul Castoreno, Claudia Castorena, Al Cabella, Corenne A. Cobella, Jo Marim,
Charlotte LeSage, George Alcantera, Robert Gans, Jerry Caughlan. She read the petition
previously submitted to the Commission, which consisted of 73 residents against the vacation
of Moss. Their concerns consisted of: increased traffic and high rate of speed, stacking of
traffic on Alpine going onto Naples, air quality, safety of children going to school, residents'
view, closing off Moss Street at Alpine would create a dog leg of 90 degrees which would be
dangerous. Mrs. Coughlan said the intersection of Moss/Naples was the safest corner on that
section of Naples. The residents suggested the City buy the property and make it into a park
or a greenbelt area with the neighbors volunteering to maintain and use it. If that was not a
viable option, the residents recommended that the new portion of Alpine Avenue be aligned with
the 1100 block of Alpine Avenue south of Naples, making a four-way intersection instead of two
T's. They also recommended a thorough study of the traffic pattern in the area, and the cost
to the City of widening Alpine and installing the necessary stop signs at Alpine and Naples
before any approval was given to the closing of Moss Street between Alpine and First. They
felt that if the vacation was approved by the City Council, the Country Club Villa Estates would
file for a rezoning of the property and the adjacent lot to accommodate condominiums rather
than the single-home sites the applicant said may be built. They did not understand why the
Country Club did not have to install curbs, gutters, and sidewalks when they built their new
clubhouse. What compensation would the San Diego Country Club and the Country Club Villa
Estates plan to pay for the 30,000 sq. ft. piece of prime real estate overlooking the Country
Club?
Jenene Boyd, 115 Naples St., CV 91911, said they would like the streets to remain as they
were; there were no accidents at the Moss/Naples/First intersection. She did not want to give
Chula Vista property away--"dedication" meant "free". She did not want to dedicate it to two
private individuals for their gain. They knew the existing road conditions. It was not causing
PC Minutes -7- October 27, 1993
the neighborhood trouble. This did not become an issue with the General Plan until Mr. Fererra
and Mr. Cox decided they had some agenda for the property. The residents objected; and asked
that the Commission consider that the General Plan should be the General Plan of the people and
not for some unknown nondescript entity.
John Krabacher, 147 Naples St., CV 91911, asked if the existing intersection conformed to
the General Plan.
Assistant Planning Director Lee said only in the respect that the Circulation Element diagram
shows Moss Street coming into Naples. In terms of the alignment, the Safety Commission, the
City Traffic Engineer, and staff agree that the acute angle is not a safe intersection. Part of the
concern was to leave it in that condition opened the City up for potential liability issues.
Mr. Krabacher rebutted the Safety Commission's agenda statement which discussed the actual
accidents that occurred in the immediate area of the intersection. He discussed the various
accidents from 1990 to present, and stated that the angled intersection had nothing to do with
the accidents. Speed and irresponsible driving habits were getting worse. Reconfiguration of
the street would increase the traffic on Naples and lead to more problems.
Charles W. Mitchell, 161 Naples St., CV 91911, deferred his time to Mr. Krabacher.
R. MacNear, 121 Naples St., CV 91911, suggested running the street across from Alpine
directly to Moss, leaving Moss Street a two-way street with a traffic light at Moss and First
Avenue. He did not understand how the City could not afford the improvements, but could give
the land away. He had no objection to building on the lot. The shift in traffic to Naples Street
would cause problems. He presently had problems getting out of his driveway onto Naples; the
increased traffic flow would exacerbate the problem. He was concerned that the new homes
would have access onto Moss Street rather than Naples Street and the present residents would
not. Mr. MacNear showed some pictures he had taken indicating where people had driven
across the land from Alpine to Moss Street instead of going to the intersection. He said after
being used for a certain number of years, it was considered public domain. This should be
public access road and there was no way it could be stopped. The only alternative was to hire
a lawyer to stop it.
Chairman Martin asked Mr. Cox if he wished to respond to any of the issues raised.
Mr. Cox said there were presently no improvements on the south side of Naples and this project
would not address that problem. It would put curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on the entire
frontage of the parcel and would clean up the lack of improvements on Moss going back to
Third Avenue. While they were suggesting that Council waive the sidewalks, it was still a
significant improvement and would provide a more defined road. He did not feel the property
owners would stand in the way of the City buying the property to be used as a park; likewise
if the City wanted to buy the property to realign Alpine with the existing Alpine, it was an
option that was available to the City. This proposal, at no cost to the City, cleaned up a number
PC Minutes -8- October 27, 1993
of problems. The City would not currently design the type of intersection that existed at Moss
and Naples. He emphasized that the portion that was being requested for vacation was an
easement and not an ownership of the City. He noted that an easement reverts back to the
adjoining property owners, and the Council normally required compensation if was a fee
ownership, or an easement. Mr. Cox hoped the Council would consider the improvements to
be a more than fair offer. He agreed there was a problem with the speed of traffic, but the
three-way stop sign would require traffic to slow down. With the stop signs, it would provide
some normal breaks in the flow of traffic for the residents to pull out in a safer manner. The
LOS would still be A. The applicant asked, however, for consideration of allowing staff to
consider access to Alpine predicated on a design that would be safe and that would meet design
standards.
Commissioner Moot asked Mr. Cox if there was an overall development proposal for the whole
area of vacant land, including some vacant property belonging to the Country Club and the area
proposed for vacation. Mr. Cox was not aware of any. It was under the control of the Country
Club.
John Krabacher returned to the podium to ask about the sidewalk that Mr. Cox said would be
put in for the children, and what would be done when they reached the end of the easement.
The safety of the children was first. They had to cross at Second Avenue so they could walk
down the street to the school. Also, there were no traffic accidents that were related to Moss
Street. No one came eastbound on Moss, looked back, pulled out in front of someone and got
hit.
Charles Mitchell, 161 Naples St., CV, who had previously deferred his time to Mr. Krabacher,
approached the podium and asked the City Attorney about the area across the vacated property
and onto Moss Street becoming public right-of-way. He said he had lived there 29-1/2 years
and the cars crossing the vacated property had occurred for at least 25 years. The only time it
had not occurred was when the grass and weeds got too tall.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said he understood that Mr. Mitchell was making a factual
assertion that for 25 uninterrupted years there had been a steady, continual, open, notorious use
of that area of the lot directly across from the northern edge of Alpine. Mr. Mitchell concurred
and showed pictures of the car path. Mr. Rudolf said he couldn't tell from the pictures. There
was a provision in the law for acquisition of an easement by that use, but it would have to be
researched with an attorney and established factually that it was there and that all the elements
were there, established in court and established title to take it.
Chairman Martin reiterated that they were talking about the General Plan consistency, and asked
if anyone else wanted to bring up something new.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
PC Minutes -9- October 27, 1993
Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich clarified the traffic counts given earlier as follows: at Alpine and
Naples in May 1993 - ADT was 6,790 trips with eastbound direction being 3,370 and westbound
being 3,320; at Moss and Naples in September 1992 - 10,190 trips with eastbound trips being
5,830 and westbound trips of 4,360; at Alpine and Moss in March 1993 - ADT of 6,050 with
eastbound trips of 2,660 and westbound trips of 3,390.
Commissioner Tarantino thanked the people for coming to make their feelings known.
MS (Tarantino/Ray) to adopt the attached resolution reporting to the Council that the
Commission had found that the proposed street vacation is consistent with the Chula Vista
General Plan.
Commissioner Ray recommended that City staff prepare a different detail of traffic impact. He
did not understand the ADT count. Mr. Ray felt it was unfortunate that the Commission could
not vote on their instincts and whether they believed it would be a good project in the future,
but there was only the option of voting on the General Plan consistency.
Commissioner Moot asked the maker of the motion to consider a substitute motion sending the
item to the City Council without a recommendation and suggest that the City Council also
consider the vacation issue in conjunction with an actual plan to develop the property, and if the
fees were a concern with the applicant that the City consider some lesser fee compensation in
exchange for considering the issue of vacationing along with an actual plan to develop the
property at the same time. He felt it would be much easier to deal with the issue of a vacation
in conjunction with an actual proposal for development of the property.
Commissioner Tarantino asked for Counsel's opinion on the possible substitute motion. Mr.
Rudolf replied that the Statute requests the Planning Commission's recommendation in regard
to the General Plan consistency. As he understood the motion, the Commission would not
specifically address the General Plan consistency in the motion. The Commission would be
silent with regard as to whether it was consistent or inconsistent to the General Plan. It would
be preferable to at least in some way indicate whether, all those other things aside, the Planning
Commission concluded it was either consistent or inconsistent with the General Plan to meet the
requirements of the Statute.
Commissioner Ray was concerned that if they passed forward a recommendation, they would
like to give themselves an option to have the item brought before them all at once. By vacating
this lot, it could become a bigger vacant lot with people using a right-of-way to an existing Moss
Street that was vacated if nothing was ever built. He asked if there was anything they could do
to substitute an actual vote with a recommendation.
Mr. Rudolf said he had no objection to other things being placed in a substitute motion, but
requested that the Planning Commission address along with them the consistency versus
inconsistency.
PC Minutes -10- October 27, 1993
Chairman Martin questioned the easement by prescription and if the City of Chula Vista had the
authority to vacate this particular street. Mr. Rudolf said they did have the authority to vacate.
If it could be established that there was already a prescriptive easement to square off the
intersection with Alpine Street, if it were determined that there were facts present that could
establish that and Council gave direction to file a suit in declaratory relief and attempt to prove
in court that the public had acquired that easement through the property squaring off the Alpine
intersection by prescription, then the public (the City) would already own that and there would
be no condemnation action necessary to accomplish that goal. Staff would look at that before
it went to Council.
Principal Planner Griffin added that the Commission's actions are reported to Council in the staff
report, and staff could convey to them the fact that the Planning Commission found consistency
with the General Plan but also recommended that they not consider the vacation until a package
is presented including a development plan.
Commissioner Moot said that would be acceptable if the maker of the motion would consider
an amendment that the Planning Commission pass on a recommendation that it is consistent with
the General Plan; however, the Planning Commission did not feel that the vacation issue should
be decided separately from a plan to develop the property in total, and that the City Council
defer ruling on the vacation issue until the Planning Commission is presented with a development
plan for the whole parcel of land, and that if the fees associated with that are deemed to be
excessive, that the Planning Department can consider some adjustment to that if they deem it
appropriate.
The maker of the motion concurred.
Commissioner Tuchscher stated he was uncomfortable with the situation and would have voted
against the original motion. He did not feel there was inadequate information that it met with
the General Plan and that the Planning Commission was making the right decision in the broad
view. He thought that the proposal as it evolved satisfied his concerns that they would be able
to make a good land use decision later and, at the same time, it kept the project moving forward
for the applicant.
Commissioner Moot proposed the following substitute motion:
That the Planning Commission find that the proposed vacation would be
consistent with the existing General Plan; however, the Planning Commission
recommended that the issue of the vacation be considered in conjunction with the
proposed development of the property and not separate from it; that if the fees to
consider the vacation and the proposed development are deemed excessive by the
Planning Department, that some consideration be given to the applicant to
potentially reduce those fees so that the two issues could be heard at the same
time.
PC Minutes -11- October 27, 1993
Commissioner Tuchscher agreed with the proposed motion in total with exception of the fee. He
believed this project shouM not be given special treatment.
Commissioner Moot proposed leaving it to the staff's discretion to decide the fee issue. He felt
the applicant was being asked to bring both forward at the same time and he didn't have to;
there was a financial reason why he didn't, and there was a benefit to the City. He felt some
consideration shouM be given to the applicant for that reality. He wanted to be fair to all sides.
Commissioner Ray said he was struggling with the City deeming the fees as adequate because
there were very high fees today and they deem those adequate.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that the current status of the fees and the ability to waive
fees--if it was $25,000 or less, the City Manager had authority to waive, and it if was $25,000
or more, the City Council had authority. In light of that information, perhaps Mr. Moot would
like to amend his proposed motion.
Commissioner Moot asked that the portion concerning the fees be deleted, and urged the
applicant to make such an application to the City Manager if he felt it appropriate.
Commissioner Ray seconded the motion and asked that the portion of the discussion regarding
the Planning Commission's concern over the fees be highlighted.
RESTATEMENT OF SUBSTITUTE MOTION
That the Planning Commission f'md that the proposed vacation would be consistent with the
existing General Plan; however, the Planning Commission recommended that the issue of
the vacation be considered in conjunction with the proposed development of the property
and not separate from it.
VOTE: 6-0-1 (Commissioner Fuller-conflict of interest)
Chairman Martin declared a break at 8:59 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m.
ITEM 2: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-09; REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A
PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR GRADES K-12 AT 2400 FENTON STREET IN THE
EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER - Covenant Christian School
Principal Planner Grift-m presented the staff report and recommended a shorter initial approval
period of two years. The proponents requested five years and saw the potential of using the
building over the long term as a school. Staff recommended that the permit be conditioned on
a two-year time limit with ability to extend that further provided that the conditions remained
essentially the same. Mr. Griffin noted that Bonita Country Day School had expressed concerns
about shared use of the building. The two issues of most concern to staff in this regard were
PC Minutes -12- October 27, 1993
the coordination of drop-offs and pick-ups, and shared use of the parking lot. The other issues
brought up by Bonita Country Day School were probably internal issues that could be worked
out between the parties without the City's involvement. Several letters had been received since
the Commission packet had been delivered which had been place on the dais prior to the
meeting.
Commissioner Ray asked why staff had set a definitive time period of two years.
Mr. Griffin replied that staff thought the two-year period was a reasonable short-term period
which would allow staff to look at the property and analyze what had happened during the two
years. Staff did not feel the property was an appropriate site to accommodate a school over the
long term; it had no on-site recreation facilities; the children must be taken to and from a park
which required crossing streets which would eventually carry a significant amount of industrial-
type traffic; if the site was to be considered for school use, it should be in the context of an
amendment to the EastLake Plan and considered in the context of overall land uses and
compatibility. Mr. Griffin noted that interim-type uses in an industrial center are usually limited
to two or three years, subject to reapplication and renewal rather than just review. The ones on
which a review requirement are placed were usually uses that staff had concerns about how the
operational impacts would affect others. Mr. Griffin said in this case, if staff had the choice of
not approving it at all or approving it for an indefinite period, they would be recommending
denial of any use of the site for a school. However, with the pace of development, it could
accommodate a school for a short period of time.
Commissioner Ray asked the Assistant City Attorney what was the real difference in setting a
two-year limit with a review and a potential extension versus the normal language.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that generally conditional use permits run with the land,
so that and the variance, unless specifically limited, were good forever. There would have to
be a major change to get rid of it, as opposed to its expiring by its own language. There was
a significant difference in terms of the viability of the property salability effect on its title.
Answering Commissioner Ray, Mr. Rudolf said even if the building lease had expired and not
renewed by the owner of the property, the conditional use permit would be in effect and
someone else could hold the property out for that use.
Commissioner Ray asked if the conditional use permit could be only for that tenant. Mr. Rudolf
said it was not typically done. The focus should be on the use in the more generic sense.
Commissioner Tuchscber questioned the term "manufacturing district" and asked if there was
some significance to that. Mr. Griffin stated it was the term being used in the EastLaJce Plan,
and terminology could vary in the planned communities.
PC Minutes -13- October 27, 1993
Commissioner Salas asked if there were any projections on the build-out time of the bio-tech
ama. Mr. Griff'm said it was in the discussion stage now, and he had no idea as to when that
might come into reality.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
The following speakers were in favor of the project and gave a 15-minute organized
presentation:
Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, CV 91910, speaking on behalf of the property owner,
stated that they were in support of staff's recommendation with the exception of the two-year
time period. He thought it was a good land use and would be good for future businesses in that
their employees could put their children in a private school, if they wished, which was close and
where they could visit at lunch, etc. Mr. Cox introduced Mark Dolan, the Headmaster of the
Covenant Christian School.
Mark Dolan, 1398 Oleander, CV 91911, Headmaster of the Covenant Christian School, stated
that they had outgrown the practical capacity of their current facility. EastLake was a very
desirable location for their school; it had a good long-term potential for them; they were pleased
with the Fenton Street building in the EastLake Business Park; it had good visibility, an
attractive architecture for their needs, the site was convenient within the business park on a cul-
de-sac away from busy streets. They had worked out a use agreement for the Scobee Park
which they believed adequately met their immediate needs for playground space. To their
knowledge, none of the other permanent businesses saw any incompatibility with having a school
in that area. Mr. Dolan said a two-year permit was not long enough to cover the amortization
cost of the lease. The price would be more than they could afford over a short term like two
years; extending the lease to five years would permit the school to pay a smaller amount during
the first couple of years during which time they could recruit additional students to afford the
lease payments over the balance of a five-year lease period. A two-year permit was not
sufficient time to cover the financial cost or the practical difficulties involved in a move-in.
They had searched for other locations in the City, and everywhere they went they were faced
with having to obtain a conditional use permit. They must have a five-year conditional use
permit for the building on Fenton Street, or it would be of no use to them.
Mr. Cox noted that Curt Stephenson was available for any questions regarding the EastLake
Business Center Owners Association and the proposed lease for the recreation uses of Scobee
Park.
Commissioner Moot, referring to the agreement in the Planning Commission packet, asked Mr.
Stephenson about the two-year limit on the use of Scobee Park. It seemed to be inconsistent
with what Mr. Dolan had said--that there were no outstanding issues between the School and
EastLake.
PC Minutes -14- October 27, 1993
Curt Stephenson, 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100, CV, said he was Vice President of the
EastLake Development Company and also the President of the EastLake Business Center Owners
Association. Mr. Stephenson said Scobee Park was not set up for recreational facilities for a
school, and it was an unusual request from that standpoint. They had taken a request before,
however, from Bonita Country Day and had surveyed the owners who had felt it was an
appropriate type of use. As a result of that, when Mr. Dolan originally approached them, he
had requested a two-year period and the Association thought that was a reasonable timeframe
and had agreed to that. Extending that period to five years would mean he would have to go
back and ask each of the individual owners again, but he assured the Commission that he
believed they would accept the five-year period. Beyond that, they believed the school was an
appropriate use for an interim facility. Mr. Stephenson noted, also, that there were multiple
access to the park. The only route would not be along Fenton.
Commissioner Salas, referring to possible conflicts for park use by a company wanting to use
it for a single company event and the use of the park by a school, felt it was too broad. Could
anything be done?
Mr. Stephenson said that as a specific owner of the property, the right to use the park could not
be taken away from them. They were requesting if a conflict would arise, that Covenant
Christian would suspend that day's activities so EastLake could abide what had been guaranteed
all the people in the park.
Commissioner Salas asked how often such an occurrence would arise where Covenant School
would have to suspend their outdoor activities. Mr. Stephenson replied that at the present time
it was about one day a month, where it took the entire park. Sometimes it was during the week,
and sometimes on the weekend.
Commissioner Salas questioned the time that landscaping was done on Mondays from 7 a.m. to
10:30 a.m. and noted that it would preclude the morning recess period of the school every
Monday. Mr. Stephenson said the mowers would run for a three-hour period but not over the
whole park at once. There were areas in the park that would be mowed early in the morning.
It was something that could be worked out with the school through their schedule.
Chairman Martin said that the area was earmarked for bio-tech. As a business person in that
area, was Mr. Stephenson aware of any projected time when that might happen.
Mr. Stephenson reported that they were working with staff to look at existing lots to do an
overlay for a bio-tech zone, and were also looking at the future Phase II. Phase II would require
a full-blown EIR and EastLake Development Company would be coming back to the Planning
Commission with additional reports. He could not give a timeframe.
Commissioner Tarantino questioned Mr. Stephenson if a five-year conditional use permit would
be too restrictive. Mr. Stephenson, speaking as EastLake Development Company, felt there
probably would not be a problem with a five-year conditional use permit. He felt the two years
PC Minutes -15- October 27, 1993
was appropriate because it would give a test case of how they would use the park and what kind
of conflicts would be realized and the resolution of those. If they had the same track record that
Bonita Country Day currently had with them for the past two years, they probably would not
have a problem approving five.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if it would be their desire to have the leases run in tandem and
expire in tandem, would that be advantageous to the Business Park.
Mr. Stephenson did not believe there was a deep-rooted conflict with the use. Five years was
an adequate time for them to negotiate to find out whether or not they could expand their
facilities into the other vacant lots near there. They could possibly request a rezone to a
community zone area, which could work in a business setting.
Gordon Dunfee, 6480 Weathers Place, San Diego 92121, the Managing General Parmer for
the property, requested a five-year term as a minimum.
Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Dunfee for confirmation that they did not intend to extend the
current lease with Bonita Country Day School after the remaining eight months. Mr. Dunfee
said it was their intention to not extend. There were no extension rights; it would be a new
lease and, at that point, they did not intend to sign a new lease.
Commissioner Ray queried if in any event there was not a Covenant School before the Planning
Commission, it was his intention to not extend the current lease for Bonita Country Day, or was
it strictly the financial gain because of Covenant School. Mr. Dunfee said it was a combination
of all the factors.
Mr. Cox returned to the podium and commented that the only issue of contention was the two
year versus the five years requested by the applicant. He asked the Commission's consideration
of that since it was very critical to the viability of the project. Mr. Cox requested a short time
at the end to respond to comments or questions raised during the public hearing.
Commissioner Ray asked if the agreement which had been made was dependent upon something
more than a two-year conditional use permit, or if everything basically hinged for financial
reasons on a five-year. Mr. Cox said he understood that the five years was a very key
component of the project, and the lease would be for five years.
The following were in opposition to the conditional use permit:
Paul Catanzaro, 372 Camlno Elevado, Bonita 91910, the Headmaster of the Bonita Country
Day School, asked for denial of the application. He felt the issue was far more complex than
the question of the building's adequacy for a school. Bonita Country Day School would be
isolated on the second floor. Children of two different schools could cause problems; there was
no agreement between the two schools regarding subletting first-floor classroom space for
Country Day School; where did Bonita Country Day fit in--did they simply get displaced until
PC Minutes -16- October 27, 1993
the end of their lease; safety; noise. Mr. Catanzaro questioned Covenant Christian School's true
intentions--would they get a conditional use permit only to get into the building and squeeze
Bonita Country Day out? Mr. Catanzaro also wanted open dialog between the two schools in
order to work together for the benefit of all parties. They were concerned with the children's
safety, noise, security, parking, and traffic, which would affect the quality of education
presented by both schools. Mr. Catanzaro also stated that the property was in foreclosure, and
wondered how Covenant Christian School could feel secure making a commitment to a landlord
who could not guarantee performance of his end of the lease until he regained full title of the
property.
LaVonne Cashman, 669 Rue Pare, CV 91913, was concerned with traffic and safety problems,
insufficient parking, uncontrolled FentordLane intersection, children crossing street where there
was no stop sign, high speed of traffic. She urged a study of the intersection before making a
final decision.
Genevieve Brody, 1041 Paseo Del Norte, CV 91910, a senior at Bonita Country Day, said the
school was like a small family; they could depend of staff and students; had their own identity
as a safe and drug-free environment without outside pressures. She felt that allowing 200
students to occupy the same building would destroy the structure of their environment and would
cause conflict of authority and confusion of discipline.
Richard Chavez, 5646 Pray St., Bonita 91910, spoke against the conditional use permit. He
had experienced attending a shared facility with another school. There was conflict among the
students. It was always "us" and "them". Two schools in the same facility was bad planning.
Shirley Casper, 3921 Long Canyon Dr., Bonita 91912, said her child, who had a learning
disability, had been a student at Bonita Country Day School. The neurological pediatrician who
dealt with learning disabilities had told them he should go to school in a very small environment
with people who were trained to work with this type of children. Attendance at the Bonita
Country Day School was an extremely successful experience for them, and her son had been
able to mainstream in high school. She praised the school for the quiet, loving atmosphere, and
marvelous individual attention he has received there.
Suzanne Catanzaro, 372 Camino Elevaflo, Bonita 91902, the Director of Curriculum at Bonita
Country Day School, said it was a two-story building built to a B-2 code with very little grass
around the building. Bonita Country Day occupied approximately 8,000 sq. ft. which only
allowed for 70 students. The classes were very small by school standards; a little over 30% of
the students were learning disabled and required very small classes, a quiet environment, and
as little distraction as possible. The proposed use would greatly disrupt the quiet environment
and would infringe upon their unique community. Mrs. Catanzaro stressed the efforts of the
Country Day School administration to keep Scobee Park open space and buildings clean; she felt
the use of Scobee Park by Covenant Christian School would jeopardize their continued use of
Scobee Park. Scobee Park was not designed to be used as a school playground; the increase in
students almost precluded broken sprinkler heads and damage by foot traffic to lawns and a
PC Minutes -17- October 27, 1993
tremendous increase in garbage. Bonita Country Day School had raadom mandatory drug
testing, and was concerned about their maintenance of a drug-free environment with the addition
of students. A second, different school in the facility would hamper the continuation of their
program. She asked rejection the application of Covenant Christian School for a high-density
use in the facility. There were many other types of uses that would be much more compatible.
Commissioner Fuller asked Mrs. Catanzaro if she was aware as part of the staff that the owner
of the building was not going to renew their lease, and that they would only be there eight more
months with possibly six months with the other school. They would be displaced regardless of
whether the other school was there.
Mrs. Camaro responded that on August 25, the owner of the building asked them to lease the
entire building. His change of interest in Bonita Country Day leasing space in the building had
been fairly recent, and had not been known to them.
Commissioner Fuller said it was obvious that the owner of the building for economic reasons
wished to lease the entire building, or at least a larger portion of the building that what was been
currently occupied. Answering Commissioner Fuller, Mrs. Catanzaro said they had been in that
location for three years and in a commercial building on Bonita Road prior to that.
Commissioner Salas concluded that if they would allow Bonita Country Day School was allowed
to extend their lease, they would not be willing to be in the same building with Covenant
Christian School. Mrs. Catanzaro said the proposal would greatly hinder the continuation of
their programs as they were. The Headmaster had said he would be happy to work with the
other school to see if they could make some arrangements so that both schools could exist in the
building. They were aware that the owner of the building was desperate to lease space. Bonita
Country Day's preference would be that it actually followed its original use as an office
building. Because of the smallness of their classes and the way their particular school operated,
they would function better in an office-type situation.
Commissioner Salas asked if the decision not to renew the Bonita Country Day lease was
because of their objection to share the building because of their differences philosophically.
Mrs. Catanzaro said there was a suggested threat presented to them in a memorandum after they
had met with the owner of the building and representatives of the Covenant Christian School,
and they addressed the different points of objection that they had taken to the Planning
Department. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mrs. Catanzaro had indicated that things were
not settled, but everyone agreed that the meeting had been successful because it had opened the
door for discussion. Shortly after that, the owner of the building had sent a letter to the
Planning Department saying all the issues had been cleared up at the meeting, and sent Bonita
Country Day School saying to agree to this, or else, which evidently indicated his interest in
perhaps discontinuing their relationship after the term of their lease. It was their intent to stay
in the building.
PC Minutes -18- October 27, 1993
Commissioner Salas questioned Mr. Stephenson regarding his rationale for preferring that
Covenant Christian have a five year lease versus two year. He had stated his experience with
Bonita Country Day School was such that he was sure there would be no objection from the
other owners of the park that there be a school there for that length of time. She wondered if
they were good clients, why they weren't willing to extend the lease? She felt it was
discriminatory. Mr. Stephenson said he was not the building owner and represented the
development company and Scobee Park. He could not respond to it.
Chairman Martin if the 20 sq. ft. per student was a regulation. Ms. Katanzaro replied that she
was given the information by the Building Department.
Mary Ella Fetzer, 1041 Paseo Del Norte, CV 91910, a retired school teacher, believed two
schools with two philosophies, different rules, different beliefs, different regulations, different
identities could not operate out of the same facility and still maintain their own autonomy; not
standard practice; would cause confusion to parents and students; quality of education; safety
of children. Opposed - not a good use.
George Kost, 3609 Belle Bonnie Brae Rd., Bonita 91902-2703, a member of Bonita Country
Day School Board, said Bonita Country Day School had no drug problem, no drop-out problem,
graduate all their students; 97% go to college; no gang activity; mixed type of school but have
a ratio of 1 teacher to 7 students; School is unique; builder has financial problem, but the
Commission should concentrate on what would be good for the students in the building today
and the School's previous success. Economic problems not unique to property owner; chance
for expansion and possible use of land close to the School in lieu of the Scobee Park for
recreation, since it may be years before the industrial park is built out. Regarding to two years
versus five years, Mr. Kost thought five years were reasonable. He was concerned about the
eight months Bonita Country Day School would be enduring students from a school that may
have a different philosophy. The students would cause the problems, and Mr. Kost felt the
problems would be against Bonita Country Day School.
Nancy Matson, 1072 Surrey Drive, Bonita 91902, spoke to the concern of the Planning
Commission about the use of the area for a school. Because Country Day School was so small,
it did not impact the area of small manufacturing companies. Both schools had loyal students
and there would be rivalry.
Scott A. Moomjian, 4933 Chaparral Way, SD 92115, Social Studies Teacher at Bonita
Country Day School, discussed student density and environment, building not design to
accommodate the number of students a new school would bring, interference of new students
with learning environment, noise inside the building and from the parking lot area, cleanliness,
decrease in quality of building with increase of quantity of pollution produced by another school
on the premises. Mr. Moomjian asked that the Planning Commission reject Covenant
Christian's application to move into 2400 Fenton St.
PC Minutes -19- October 27, 1993
Felix Vaidez, 3196 Caminito Quixote, SD 92154, student at Bonita Country Day School, said
more students would be confusing and would take away from the education of the existing
students.
Waiter Padelford, 1963 Rue Michelle, Bonita 91902, James Pericomb, Sr., 205 Camino del
Cerro Dr., and Del Vogel, 785 Mission Avenue, CV 91910, had filled out speaker slips in
opposition, but were not present when called.
Chairman Martin called Mr. Cox back to the podium for the remaining time he had requested.
Greg Cox said the issue before the Planning Commission was whether it was a legitimate use
for that particular building. Based upon the fact that it had been a school in the past, this would
also be an acceptable use. The issues which had been raised were landlord/tenant-related issues.
Staff did not feel there was a concern about traffic, had attached the appropriate conditions
regarding the recreation space; EastLake Development had no problem with the five-year
timeframe, and had not had problems with Bonita Country Day utilizing the existing park.
Referring to the statement that the property was in foreclosure, Mr. Cox did not have that
information, but believed there was a potential with Covenant Christian School to occupy the
first floor with the intent to ultimately occupy the entire building when available. He added that
he thought Bonita Country Day School had an excellent program, but their lease would expire
and there was a desire on the part of the property owner to lease the entire building. He felt
the concerns would be present on any other land use.
Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Dunfee, the property owner, in light of the issues raised that
were landlord/tenant issues, if he had considered waiting until the current lease had expired and
then going before the Commission with a clean slate, showing that the building had previously
been used as a school, rather than making the Commission feel they had to make a judgment
placing two educational facilities in the same building.
Mr. Cox stated there would be a need for both parties, if the Commission approved the
conditional use permit, to meet and work out some of the operational details. He believed they
were solvable details, as long as both parties were willing to do so.
Chairman Martin asked where the Covenant Christian School was presently located and who
would be moving in there? Mr. Cox replied that they had outgrown that facility and 'would be
moving, for the first six months, the K-6 operations.
The following did not speak, but wished to register their opposition. No addresses were given.
Esther Dunn, Naomi Hoffman, Christine S. Beeker, Pauline Haltmeyer, Karen Catanzaro,
Walter Burrola, Waldo Bond, Bariska Burrola, Burleigh N. Kroener, Humberto Rodriquez,
Beverly Meester, William Meester, Martha Klein, Luna Cohen, Paul Cashman, Margaret Block,
Mimi Alfonso, Fernando Alfonso, Ed Preble, Stella Preble, Todd Preble, Ron Schuler, Lonera
Hannig, Johann Casas, Socorro Barreras, Oscar Costello, Allan McCloud, Barbara McCloud,
PC Minutes -20- October 27, 1993
Cathy Stroud, Kenneth Stroud, Tony Starks, Barbara Starks, Sukumer Boyd, Sharta Boyd, Doug
Pilliang, Gayle C. Caliges, Mary L. Hiatt, Maria Zacorozay, Lili Lopez
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Ray said Bonita Country Day was granted a one year administrative conditional
use permit, and it was extended by two years. Since there was an existing conditional use
permit, if a five-year permit were granted, would it be in effect until 19957
Principal Planner Griffin confirmed that the conditional use permit ran with the land, but the
parameters of the use had to remain the same. The Bonita Country Day application was
approved with a maximum of 70 students, it was based on a certain schedule, and agreements
regarding Scobee Park. If another different application came in, that raised other issues, and
would have a minimum need to modify a conditional use permit if it was by the same applicant,
or require a new conditional use permit if it was a new applicant.
Commissioner Tuchscher said the issue was land use and the only comments relevant were land-
use-oriented comments. It was unfortunate that some of the communication and venting did not
happen before it went before the Planning Commission. He was certain staff had tried to pull
the parties together to work through some of those issues. Testimony had shown that a school
was appropriate, and the question was size and the impact on the area.
MS (Tuchscher/Fuller) to adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit on the
property for a five-year term.
Commissioner Ray asked that condition no. 1 be revised to show a five-year period instead of
two years, subject to periodic review.
The maker of the motion concurred and said he would modify the motion.
REVISED MOTION
To adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit on the property for a five-year
term, subject to periodic review.
Commissioner Salas did not agree with extending the term to five years because of unknown
needs in the future, and the potential objection of a school site being there. She agreed with the
initial staff recommendation of two years.
Commissioner Tuchscher said that the bio-tech zone was in its infancy. It was hopeful that it
would be successful in attracting some jobs and good companies to the area, but it was an
unknown. The Economic Development Commission had recently completed a market study
which demonstrated that they estimated only 7 acres of industrial land per year would be
absorbed in Chula Vista in the next several years. He felt EastLake Business Center might
PC Minutes -21- October 27, 1993
attract some of that, but they had roughly 35 acres of vacant land which was finished, plus other
industrial land not yet graded. Mr. Tuchscher felt comfortable that for the next five years there
would not be any major conflict in the area.
Commissioner Salas objected also to the five years because the agreement between Mark Dolan
and Curt Stepbenson in terms of the EastLake Business Center Owners Association was for two
years to meet certain conditions. While Mr. Stephenson said he would probably get a positive
response from the other tenants of the park, that was not a certainty.
Commissioner Fuller said she agreed with Commissioner Tuchscher that because of the
economic outlook of the EastLake Business Park and that there were no other buildings
constructed around the school, the five-year term made it more economically feasible, the
agreement regarding Scobee Park could be reconsidered to be extended to five years, she would
be willing to accept it. In answer to a comment in one of the letters received, Commissioner
Fuller noted that in some areas, the City was planning community facility districts where
facilities could be located, provided they build their own facility or have someone build it for
them.
Commissioner Tuchscher stated that the conditional use permit was predicated upon providing
access to Scobee Park. If the tenants did not give an extension to the two-year concession they
had already provided, the conditional use permit would then be in violation.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf replied that there was no specific requirement in the conditions
that there be, prior to occupancy or during the entire occupancy, whether two years or five
years, obtaining and maintaining adequate, suitable outdoor recreational and physical education
facilities for the students.
Commissioner Ray asked if the maker of the motion would like to add a condition stating that
it should be predicated on obtaining an agreement with the EastLake Business Center for use of
Scobee Park to run concurrent with the lease and/or development of their own physical
educational facilities.
The maker of the motion asked Commissioner Salas if that satisfied her; upon her negative
answer, Commissioner Tuchscher noted that the original motion stood.
Commissioner Moot concurred with Commissioner Salas that staff's input into a two-year
conditional use permit was appropriate. He did not feel it was an appropriate place for a school,
and believed it was borne out by the disagreements between the two schools and the arguments
they make about why their school should be there but the other school shouldn't. It was planned
as a light industrial area; the park and the facilities were designed for that and were not designed
for a school; there was not parking designed for a school; the streets were not configured for
a school; he thought as a temporary solution the two-year conditional use permit was probably
appropriate, but the sooner schools were taken out of the area the better.
PC Minutes -22- October 27, 1993
Commissioner Ray responded that there was also a responsibility to help the City's fiscal
outlook; the Chairman of the Economic Development Commission had discussed the potential
build-outs; the economics outweighed the problems, which Mr. Ray believed could be worked
out. Fiscally, the applicant could not occupy the facility with only a two-year usage. He would
vote for the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Moot indicated that in two years, he may vote for the renewal of the conditional
use. He thought the City's logic from a land use planning point of view was solid. If that
presented problems, that was a landlord-tenant issue.
Commissioner Tarantino was frustrated because the Commission had a very narrow purview.
He commended everyone for attending and making their feelings known to the Commission, but
it did not enter into the scope of the Planning Commission's decision.
Chairman Martin applauded the young people for attending; he was proud of the teachers; both
schools were outstanding.
VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioners Salas and Moot against)
At Commissioner Ray's request, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf confirmed that the verbiage of
Item 1 on page 2-6 to read: "The permit is approved for a period of five years until October 27,
1998, and subject to periodic review."
Mr. Rudolf also confirmed that the front page, Item No. 1, of the resolution would read:
"reconsideration in five years to determine if the development of the surrounding area... "giving
a specific date.
ITEM 3: PCA-93-01; CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AND AMENDMENTS
OF PORTIONS OF TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW
AUCTIONS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
IN THE I-P (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE PLAN) ZONE - City of Chula
Vista
Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report, and stated that a letter had been submitted
that evening by Ms. Rebecca Michael, attorney for the McCormack family who were property
owners in the area, which suggested alternate wording in the conditions. Based on the Initial
Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, staff recommended that the
Planning Commission find that the project would have no significant environmental impacts, and
adopt Negative Declaration IS-93-42 and the Addendum thereto, and that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council add to and amend portions of the Municipal Code
as shown in the draft City Council ordinance.
PC Minutes -23- October 27, 1993
Commissioner Ray asked staff's recommendation regarding Ms. Michael's suggestions on Items
E, F, and 1. Mr. Miller replied that in discussions with Ms. Michael and Mr. McCormack
prior to the meeting, they indicated Items F and 1 in the attachment to her letter could be left
as staff recommended. They proposed that Item E would read "All areas shall be properly
'screened and improved' to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer and the Landscape Architect,
dropping out the words 'paved and striped.'"
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Rebecca Michael, 530 B Street//2300, San Diego, CA 92101, representing June and Jim
McCormack, thanked the Planning Commission and staff for expanding the definition of
"auction." The definition was acceptable to them. The McCormacks had a special use permit
granted by the Redevelopment Agency, with the condition that they have a landscape plan and
a parking plan. They were concerned with the loud speaker, which was an added expense and
which they wanted to oppose, but they would go along with that. Regarding parking ratio, the
18-acre site would have to provide 380 spaces, which they felt was high. However, if the
spaces did not have to be paved and striped, the 18-acre site would be sufficient. They felt
stripe and pave was overkill. Ms. Michael felt the deletion of the words "paved" and "striped"
would be satisfactory. The "improvement" could be some kind of decomposed graphite instead
of asphalt and paint.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if the change in wording to "merchandise" was a problem. Ms.
Michael answered negatively.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff if the use of decomposed graphite or some other material
less expensive than paving was at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator. How did the word
"improved" work? Assistant Planning Director Lee said there was a specification in the
Standards which provided for a decomposed granite with a road oil mix that was good for one
year which was an interim-type paving which had been used. For the size parcel being
considered, the standard paving might be difficult; staff had no objection to looking at the use
of the decomposed granite and oil mix only for a one-year period, to be reviewed to determine
the frequency of the use and how it was working. It would have to be renewed on a yearly
basis, but might be the best solution, given the size of the parcel and location.
Principal Planner Griffin stated, that under the "improved" umbrella, staff could make that
interpretation, and the applicant could probably take issue with it as well.
Commissioner Tuchscher concluded that it was the Zoning Administrator's decision to make that
determination, and if the Zoning Administrator and the applicant came to a conflict, then it could
be appealed.
Answering Commissioner Tuchscher, Assistant Planning Director Lee said that decomposed
granite, or something less than paved, would have to be renewed on a permit basis annually.
The material itself is only good for a one-year period, as authorized by Code. The applicant
PC Minutes -24- October 27, 1993
would have to formally reapply and receive approval from the Zoning Administrator. The
concern that the City Attorney had was that the Planning Commission was looking at an
ordinance as part of the Code and trying to define a paved surface. The proposed amendments
had just come in that afternoon, and staff had not had time to digest them. Mr. Lee
recommended continuance of the item to review the changes and come back with a
recommendation.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked if an applicant could come forward with a variance to allow
them to use the decomposed granite and oil road mix. Mr. Lee answered affirmatively, adding
that it would be on a one-year basis, subject to review on a yearly basis.
Commissioner Fuller questioned why it needed to be paved with decomposed granite, since it
was out by itself and properly screened; why couldn't it be bladed and rolled and left dirt? Mr.
Lee said it could be a consideration of the variance; it got back to City standards and how far
the Planning Commission wanted to drop those standards in consideration of the location.
However, this was one operator, and although the circumstances may not be identical, another
operator would use that as precedent setting.
Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich stated that one reason for paving would be to cut down the erosion
in the area. The area was somewhat hilly.
Commissioner Ray asked if the applicant was opposed to continuing the item.
Ms. Michael was concerned with a continuance because the SUP that was granted by the
Redevelopment Agency gave them a 6-month period to conduct the auctions and after 6 months
they must cease if this amendment did not happen. She felt that a continuance would probably
put that in jeopardy. Since this was a Code amendment and needed to go to City Council, they
would accept the wording as it was and work with staff before the Council meeting.
Commissioner Ray did not want to put the McCormacks at a disadvantage because they were
the first. He asked the City Attorney to give them some legal guidelines to leave the issue open
in terms of the paving and the definition. By the same token, he wanted leave the City some
options.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that the applicant was willing to take the risk that it could
be worked out before going to Council.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Tuchscher did not want to continue the item; the applicant's needs were different
than the ordinance allowed; he was willing to support the changes suggested by the applicant
regarding No. E with the word "improved "; he knew that created problems for the City Attorney
but he felt they could be worked out with the applicant.
PC Minutes -25- October 27, 1993
Commissioner Tuchscher stated that was a motion, and Commissioner Ray seconded.
Commissioner Ray confirmed that only No. E was being changed as it was worded on the letter
from Peterson & Price to eliminate "paved and striping" and simply say "and improved to the
satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer and Landscape Architect."
Commissioner Ray said what was meant by "improved" would be defined by staff.
Commissioner Moot asked if the issue of it being paved was different from the issue of
providing parking? He had heard the applicant suggest that maybe paving for 300 cars was not
reasonable, but possibly paved parking for 15 or 20, and the requirement that the rest of it could
then be "improved." He suggested that may be a way out of their dilemma.
Chairman Martin felt that should be covered in the motion.
Commissioner Ray stated that would be covered under "improved to the satisfaction of the
Traffic Engineer."
Commissioner Salas asked for a restatement of the motion.
Commissioner Ray suggested the motion be withdrawn and a new motion made. Commissioner
Tuchscher withdrew his motion.
At Commissioner Ray's request, Chairman Martin reopened the public hearing.
Ms. Michael said they were willing to focus just on the paving and striping with the hope that
they could convince the Planning Commission to direct staff that leaving it just dirt would be
appropriate, or something far less than paving. They had taken another approach regarding the
ratio, by calculating not on the net lot area of 18 acres, but on the sales area. That was a much
smaller area than the 18 acres, and if that ratio were used as a criteria, they would probably
already meet it. They already had 15 spaces that were paved and striped. They had not done
the calculations on that but that would alleviate their concern with the paving, if they could
provide for a lot less spaces.
Commissioner Ray asked if the sales area varied based on the type of equipment and the kind
of deal they got on that equipment?
Ms. Michael replied that Mr. McCormack can talk to that.
Commissioner Ray thought heavy equipment would take up a lot more sales area.
Mr. McCormack stated that they got only a few pieces of large equipment, and there was a limit
as to how much they could handle in one day. They normally took up about 4 acres with the
sales area. And that's very loosely put so they can be removed without having to shuffle them
PC Minutes -26- October 27, 1993
around. He said they had paved parking in their main parking lot, which is in front of the
building and the sales ama; but they had a large parking lot which was only opened on sale day,
and it is decomposed granite and gravel mix, which is known as Class 2 road base. It was an
all-weather surface.
Commissioner Tuchscher thought the applicant had acquiesced on number 1.
Ms. Michael said she acquiesced before she heard it would require a variance, and her client had
already spent a lot of time and money pursuing the SUP and the amendment.
Commissioner Tuchscher stated that with the amendment to Lot E, they would not require a
variance. The Zoning Administrator could make that determination. That's the process?
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that, as he understood what staff was proposing, the
ordinance would have requirements which would be capable of being subject to a variance.
Whoever heard it, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission, or the Council or all
three, had to make the findings for a variance, and those findings were very difficult to make.
He was very uncomfortable with that requirement being in the ordinance. He did not think staff
was prepared to give a good solid complete analysis of the pros and cons of those options.
Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Rudolf what would lead him to the conclusion that the Planning
Commission would not grant a variance, given the discussion they had heard during two
meetings?
Mr. Rudolf answered that they would be getting legal advice from him that they must have facts
in the record that would establish the f'mdings that were required to be made under the Code and
the State law, and those were difficult to find.
Commissioner Ray questioned whether this property would not fulfill those requirements?
Mr. Rudolf stated that one of the requirements was that there had to be 'something peculiar about
the property itself.
Commissioners Ray and Tuchscher asked if location was not one of those? Or size?
Mr. Rudolf said there had to be something peculiar about the property, and maybe they were
not going to be able to meet that finding.
Commissioner Ray asked who defined what is peculiar? Mr. Rudolf answered that they were
the fact finders.
Commissioner Ray noted that the Planning Commission had two options. They could continue
the item or vote on it with just "improved." He would go either way.
PC Minutes -27- October 27, 1993
Commissioner Moot suggested that the Planning Commission move on PCA-93-01 as drafted,
and let the staff during the time before the City Council meeting analyze the suggestions made
by the applicant in E, F, and 1, and then let the City Council determine whether those were
appropriate changes. The applicant could move the item along. Assistant Planning Director Lee
concurred.
Chairman Martin closed the public hearing.
MS (Moot/Fuller) that based on the Initial Study, the Planning Commission make a finding
of no significant environmental impacts and adopt a negative declaration; adopt the
resolution recommending the City Council add to and amend the portions of the Municipal
Code as shown in the draft of the City Council ordinance with the recommendation that
the applicant and the staff, during the time before City Council meeting, attempt to work
out the language proposed by the applicant in their October 27th letter and re-raise the
issue with the City Council at that time.
Associate Planner Miller asked if that included the addendum to the Initial Study? The answer
was affirmative.
Commissioner Ray felt it put the applicant at a very big disadvantage by leaving the wording the
way it was. The City should not be allowed to force the issue on something that had been there
for many years. He had a problem with the fact that the Commission had gotten a letter that
showed three significant issues for the applicant.
Chairman Martin said that speaking as one person who was going to vote for this motion, he felt
that it was probably the most pragmatic thing to do. Staff received the letter that day and had
not had a chance to analyze it, there were some serious questions, the applicant was willing to
cooperate in a number of areas; it was obvious that they hadn't discussed it, but he did not feel
it should be continued.
Commissioner Ray stated there were still a lot of questions, and he would vote for a
continuance.
Commissioner Tuchscher thought item had been properly flagged so they could get it worked
out prior to the Council meeting.
VOTE: 6-1 (Ray against)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the next scheduled meeting was on November 10 at
7:00 p.m. The item on the agenda was the amendment to the Olympic Training Center SPA
PC Minutes -28- October 27, 1993
Plan. Given that and given the lack of public input on that particular item, he recommended
having the meeting earlier that day, or to move it to November 17 and combine it with their
workshop. The meeting of the 10th would be eliminated. The representatives of the OTC were
agreeable; the earlier time was more convenient for them.
MSUC (Ray/Tuchscher) 7-0 to schedule the meeting for November 17, 1993, at 5:30 and
combine it with the workshop.
MSUC (Ray/Fuller) 7-0 to cancel the Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1993.
COMMISSION COMMENTS - None
ADJOURNMENT at 11:35 p.m. to the Special Business Meeting/Workshop of Wednesday,
November 17, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3.
N~ncy Ripley, Secretarye
Planning Commission