Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1993/10/13 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, October 13, 1993 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Martin, Commissioners Fuller, Moot, Ray (7:55), Salas, Tarantino, and Tuchscher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Associate Planner Hernandez, Associate Planner Reid, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf, Otay Ranch Project Manager Lettieri PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Martin, followed by 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 MSUC (Tuchscher/Tarantino) 6-0 (Commissioner Fuller had been absent from the meeting but had read the minutes and believed them to be accurate; Commissioner Ray had not yet arrived) to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 25, 1993, as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None Commissioner Salas stated she would abstain from voting on Item 1, because she had not read all the materials or watched all the videos from previous meetings. She then left the dais. PC Minutes -2- October 13, 1993 ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL (PURSUANT TO TITLE 19.48.070 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE), A PROPOSED ADDENDUM TO FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 90-I, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL (CEQA) FINDINGS, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS - Otay Ranch Project Planning Director Leiter stated that the City Council and Board of Supervisors had held several public hearings to review the General Development Plan and General Plan Amendments for the Otay Ranch Project following review by the Planning Commissions of the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. They had taken tentative actions on all the major issues relating to the General Development Plan and the General Plan, and also reviewed the Environmental Impact Report, and were scheduled to take final actions regarding the project on October 28. Prior to their taking final action, staff had returned to the Planning Commission two items for their review and comment: a list of tentative actions of the City Council and information regarding those actions of the City Council that differed from the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was given the opportunity to forward comments or recommendations on those matters back to the City Council prior their final action. The second item was a set of CEQA-related items; CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Technical Addendum. He then introduced Tony Lettieri, who made a presentation regarding the General Development Plan tentative actions, pointing out the differences between the Planning Commission recommendations and the City Council tentative motions. Commissioner Moot said there had been differences of opinion on the width of the wildlife corridor in Proctor Valley. He asked the outcome of that issue with the City and the County. Mr. Lettieri replied that both the City Council and the Board of Supervisors supported the village concept recommended by the City Planning Commission, which included the wildlife corridor. They also supported the text language in the GDP which required that at the SPA level, the wildlife corridor would be refined. Commissioner Moot said he noticed that a limit had been placed on the amount of development that could occur on the western parcel before there could be some assurances for the funding of the light rail. He asked if the Council/Board of Supervisors had determined any type of enforcement mechanism that appeared to be viable and would balance the inconsistency between jurisdictions. Mr. Lettieri stated that the City Council had not come up with anything new besides the General Development Plan which would be a regulator device of the City, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program which would be implemented at the SPA level. They did feel, however, that the PC Minutes -3- October 13, 1993 15,000 unit limit and the 4 million sq. ft. limit would give Baldwin incentive to work with MTDB to implement the light rail transit. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted the project was based on a programmatic EIR and the CEQA findings were programmatic in nature. They were tied to the specificity of the actions which were before the Planning Commission and City Council. They were the General Plan Amendment, prezoning, and the consideration of the General Development Plan. He spoke of some particular issues which could not be mitigated at this time, and the findings based on the tentative action taken by the City Council. If the Commission agreed with the findings of the City Council and their actions, the findings would be adequate. If there were substantial differences, staff needed some direction as to how to modify the findings to reflect that. Mr. Reid noted the following revisions to be made in the findings: 1. An Addendum to the EIR regarding traffic has been prepared. On page 1 of the findings, there was a reference in the first line made to the Program EIR. Staff would also like to include the Addendum as presented at this meeting. 2. On page 91, there were four impacts which were identified as infeasible to implement regarding the regional and local corridors for wildlife. Those corridors had been implemented and protected, so delete the line "The following mitigation measure is found to be infeasible." The paragraph at the bottom of the page dealing with the rationale for that determination should also be deleted. 3. On page 113, regarding the transit facilities, near the bottom of the page in the middle of the paragraph beginning "Further..." delete "new transit routes" and substitute "transit facilities serving the project." In the following sentence in the parenthesis, add "for a benefit assessment district" after "this final requirement." Mr. Reid noted that the Statement of Overriding Considerations began on page 176. He stated that representatives from Ogden, JHK & Associates, and Tina Thomas, Counsel on the project, were available for questions. Commissioner Tarantino questioned whether Ogden had been paid for their services. Mr. Lettieri confirmed that the issue had been resolved. When questioned about the procedure to be followed, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf suggested that the Commission deal with the GDP first, and if the Commission was inclined to approve of all the City Council's tentative actions, there could just be a single motion. If there were to be changes, it might be better to go through each individual item and make straw votes. That would determine whether or not the Commission's recommended changes would affect the form of the findings which were addressed to deal with the Council tentative action. PC Minutes -4- October 13, 1993 Commissioner Moot, referring to the mitigation and landform aesthetics authorizations on page 23, there was discussion with respect to the mitigation for visual resources for the area north of the Lake. It mentioned no more than three stories in height referring to building size, with an occasional four-story building. Mr. Moot asked if anyone had come to some understanding how many three- and four-story buildings might be expected, based on the proposed density in that area. Mr. Lettieri said staff had seen a conceptual design, but there was no real clear answer on what that could be at this point without going through an architectural program. He concurred with Commissioner Moot that, based on the GDP, four-story buildings could conceivably be in the area north of the Lake in the resort. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Daniel Tarr, representing the Valle de Oro Planning Group, said, for the record, that his tracking of the Board's action did not show them having yet taken action on the EIR, the RMP, or the wildlife corridor study. Regarding the Addendum which was added to the EIR, it did not properly represent their concerns or their comments, and did not, in their opinion, adequately or legitimately respond to those comments as they had expressed them. Regarding the jurisdictional matter, not one of the 23,000+ acres is within the City limits of Chula Vista or within its current sphere of influence boundaries. Therefore, Chula Vista has no land use authority on Otay Ranch, had no decision-making authority on Otay Ranch, and had no business acting in the role as lead agency on the Otay Ranch Project. Mr. Tarr said Planning Area 19 lies up against the "minor area of Jamul" in an unincorporated area of San Diego County. Chula Vista is in the process of prezoning this area, and may then annex it. Jamul was a great distance from Chula Vista, literally and figuratively. Fred Arbuckle, representing the Baldwin Company, responding to Commissioner Moot regarding the four-story buildings, said there were a limited number of four-story buildings, and there were many restrictions called for in the GDP in terms of preserving views, views opportunities, the type of architecture allowed to be used and how it blends with the hillside. The reason for allowing some four-story buildings was when building hotels, there may be need for minor convention facilities. There were some very particular ways of measuring heights of buildings. When getting into a stepped building situation on a hillside, there may be areas where there would be a defined four story. The views and the architecture would be taken care of. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Fuller to accept the attached report on the General Development Plan text map changes, and make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the modifications to the Planning Commission actions. After discussion regarding procedure, Commissioner Fuller withdrew her motion. PC Minutes -5- October 13, 1993 Commissioner Tuchscher asked if, after the project is approved, the final maps could show Villages 9 and 10 as a university site, with separate maps showing the underlying land use. The maps being used show the university area outlined, but the underlying land use was also on those maps. Had there been direction given to Council as to how the Planning Commission felt about that issue? Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said that text language had been carefully crafted to clarify that, and the form of the map was supposed to follow that and would show in both forms. He understood that rather than being portrayed in both ways with clear notation showing primary use as university site and the secondary use as principally residential, Commissioner Tuchscher wanted it to be physically shown only as a university site with a separate page showing the secondary use. Commissioner Tuchscher concurred. He noted that the Commission direction relative to the university and siting it was in such a way to create the best advantage for the City and the Baldwin Company to attract a university. The more definitive documents and exhibits produced showing the university as an actual location designated on a map and the other land use as secondary, the more likelihood of attracting that university at some point down the road. Mr. Lettieri stated that the Commission could include that in its motion. Staff intended to show it both ways in the text. The question was how to show it on the large land use map ultimately done for the GDP. Staff assumed that, at this point, that with the university being a single land use that it could be shown as a note, and give the detail with Villages 9 and 10, but if the Commission wanted it the other way, staff would communicate that to the City Council. Mr. Rudolf was concern in showing it both ways on the map was to avoid the problem of lack of notice so a person could pick up the document and not know to look at the next page to see the next map and realize there was a future potential use. They wanted to show it on the same map. Commissioner Tuchscher felt it was important to describe it in the matter the Commission had intended. He would not have approved the underlying land use if it were not going to be exhibited in a manner that would bring forth a university at some point. At the point that a motion is made, he would like to see that included. Mr. Lettieri said the other clarification he would like to make sum got in a motion was that when and if the Commission made a motion on the GDP to accept the City Council's tentative actions, that the Commission authorize staff to make any changes to any other document, whether it was the RMP or the facility plans, to make them all consistent. Staff was referring to the table as GDP, but they were really referring to those three documents as the whole. Commissioner Tuchscher, referring to page 2 of the matrix, regarding the westernmost parcel and the limit of 4 million sq. ft. of commercial or 15,000 dwelling units, asked if the number was arbitrary. Mr. Lettieri said the 15,000 dwelling units was based on the existing Chula Vista General Plan. Commissioner Tuchscher asked how the 15,000 dwelling units had been arrived PC Minutes -6- October 13, 1993 at in going through the General Plan Update. Mr. Leiter said it was the outcome of the entire General Plan Update. The focus in the Otay Ranch western parcel in the General Plan Update was the continuation of the low-medium density pattern of development that had been proposed in EastLake and some of the other eastern territory areas, since it did not reflect the type of urban village concept of the current Otay Ranch Plan. It was basically a continuation of what was being built adjacent. Mr. Peter Watry, representing CROSSROADS, confirmed that it came from the General Plan. The baseline for that particular property was 6,475 dwelling units, the mid-point or target was 11,031, and the maximum density was 14,995. The 15,000 was rounded up by 5. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Watry if the 4 million square feet of commercial was his estimation of the existing shopping center such as Fashion Valley, etc. Mr. Watry said it was two thirds of the total (6 million), which was 4 million. That equaled the total of the four biggest shopping centers combined. Commissioner Moot, following up on Commissioner Tuchscher's comment on Item B-4 regarding the limits placed on the project regarding light rail transit, said that, unless there was some realistic mechanism by which a Planning Commission/City Council could control the MTDB decision, it was a futile act in putting an arbitrary limit on it. MTDB would take into consideration the cost that has nothing to do with the stage of development of Otay Ranch. It would be taking into consideration what was going on in other areas of the South Bay and whether the line through the south part of the County is feasible. Commissioner Fuller, referencing the Addendum given to the Commission, said there was a report from the SANDAG Transportation Study which the Commission did not have available when they were deliberating. She felt it backed up the concept of the need for the density in that particular parcel, if the light rail was anticipated. She did not feel it was necessary to limit the dwelling units if MTDB was to be encouraged to develop light rail in this area. Commissioner Tuchscher agreed with Commissioner Fuller that without the density, MTDB could not .justify the light rail. If the density was not provided, there would never be a light rail system. He believed, through the information that had been provided about the effect of the transit villages, that they would attract the light rail and that the funding at some point would be put together to do that. Commissioner Fuller asked that the suggestion be added to the list that the Planning Commission did not agree that the development on the Otay Valley parcel be tied to transit funding assurance. There would be no change to the original Planning Commission recommendation. Commissioner Ray arrived at this time - 7:55 p.m.) PC Minutes -7- October 13, 1993 Coinmissioner Tarantino suggested that the Commission take the items one by one and reach a consensus. Regarding Item A, Mr. Lettieri stated that the City Council did not certify the EIR, and it would be discussed on October 28. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if there were other concerns or if they needed to go point by point. Commissioner Moot stated that he was concerned about the development around Otay Lakes, specifically the development north of the Lakes. Commissioner Tarantino was concerned about the deletion of Alta Road. Since there were several concerns, Chair Martin asked that Mr. Lettieri start with B-1 and take straw votes on the items one by one. B. 1: Should Village 3 develop residentially or industrially? MS (Moot/Ray-for discussion) to concur with the City Council tentative action and recommend approval on Item B. 1. Commissioner Fuller recalled that the Planning Commission wanted the area identified for industrial uses only, without pulling in the village with a commercial core. She did not concur with Council action. VOTE: 2-4 - MOTION FAILED (Martin, Moot in favor; Fuller, Ray, Tarantino, Tuchscher against) Assistant City Attorney Rudolf explained that the latest action of the City Council on September 27 embraced the Planning Commission recommendation to identify the area as primarily industrial, on the condition that it revert to residential use only if other industrial property came in. The condition may never occur, so the recommendation would remain as the Planning Commission recommended. Commissioner Tuchscher asked from which jurisdiction the property would de-annex. Mr. Rudolf stated the property was in the City of San Diego and would annex to the City of Chula Vista. MSC (Tuchscher/Fuller) 5-1 (Moot against) to recommend the previous Planning Commission recommendation for the site to be designated only for industrial uses. PC Minutes -8- October 13, 1993 B.2: How many roads should cross the river valley to Otay Mesa? MSUC (Tarantino/Moot) 6-0 to reject City Council's recolnmendation to delete Alta Road, and recommend four roads including Alta Road as a right-of-way reservation. B.3: Should transit village core densities be increased from 14.5 du/ac to 18 du/ac? MSUC (Ray/Tuchscher) 6-0 to accept the City Council's recommendation. B.3a: How should non-transit village densities be reduced to accommodate increase in transit- village core densities? MSUC (Ray/Moot) 6-0 to accept the City Council's recommendation. B.4: Should development on Otay Valley Parcel be tied to transit funding assurance? MSC (Fuller/Tuchscher) 54 (Ray against) to disagree with the Council and that development should not be tied to the transit funding assurance. (The next three items were considered together.) B.5: What area should be designated for potential university site and supporting development? B.6: What should control the phasing of the university site? B.7: Should Salt Creek remain as a site for potential university use? designation? MSUC (Tnchscher/Ray) 6-0 to accept the Council's recommendation with the exception that the GDP map clearly show the university as the primary use. B.8: EastLake land swap area - Council to consider in November. Mr. Lettieri said there were no differences of opinion in the next five items, so the Planning Commission did not need to include these in the straw votes. C. 1: Should the area south and east of Lower Otay Lake be developed (Village 15)? Commissioner Tuchscher asked the density associated with the expanded area and the total number of units per acre. Mr. Lettieri said the City Planning Commission recommendation for the density was .65 du/ac. MSC (Tuchscher/Ray) 5-1 (Tarantino against) to agree with the City Council recommendation on expansion of the area and the unit total of 516 units. PC Minutes -9- October 13, 1993 C.2: What should be developed north of Lower Otay Lake (Village 13)? There was discussion regarding the width of the buffer. Mr. Lettieri explained that the Council recommendation was that development would not touch the lake at any point. The 500' would be the minimum setback, which would be required at the SPA level. Commissioner Moot felt the it was not an issue of buffer, but an issue of intensity of development north of the lake, which he felt was too dense. MSC (Tuchscher/Ray) 5-1 (Moot against) to agree with the City Council, with an amendment stating that a minimum buffer would be set at the SPA level. Mr. Lettieri stated there were no differences between the Planning Commission recommendation and the City Council tentative action on items D through F. G: MS (Ray/Fuller) to accept the Council's tentative action regarding text issues. Commissioner Tuchscher was concerned about future use of the university site--to limit the uses to biological research, educational activities, passive recreation trails, etc.--when the Planning Commission did not know what a university might propose. Commissioner Ray said that, because of the sensitivity of some of the area surrounding the designated area, the only uses that would really be acceptable were for biological-type uses as a result of all the sensitive habitat that was there. Mr. Lettieri replied that the City Commission had shown the area as part of the university and clearly made the comment that they did not see any intensive uses. The comment had been made that there may be an opportunity to have a chancellor's house on the eastern edge, and that decision should be made at a later stage. The City Commission did not include this kind of detailed text language. Commissioner Ray asked what would take precedence--the text wording or the primary designation of the university site on the map. Mr. Lettieri said the primary designation on the map would be the university site with the additional detail to make reference to the text. The text provides the detailed direction regarding Salt Creek. It was intended by the City Council that Salt Creek not be used for any building. Commissioner Fuller said the additional text showed the area of west of Wueste Road east of Hunte Parkway with a designation of open space. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that he thought that if the area was to be used for a university, that it would be designed in a manner that would be sensitive to the biological species and the habitats located there and nothing more. Commissioner Fuller concurred, and said she would rather it just be left as open space, and there would be no question that the chancellor would ever build a house there. She liked the additional wording. PC Minutes -10- October 13, 1993 Commissioner Tuchscher stated he would like to eliminate the uses described in the text-- trails, passive recreation, biological research, etc.--and simply include text that any such use of the property would be decided at the SPA level and designed in a manner that would be sensitive to the habitat and biological species that exist. MOTION RESTATED TO APPROVE CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE UNIVERSITY TEXT LANGUAGE AND THE TEXT AMENDMENTS. Commissioner Ray could understand Commissioner Tuchscher's position; however, Commissioner Fuller felt more strongly about the situation. He asked if there was an option which was in between a limitation and an open door. Commissioner Fuller said she believed that was why the Commission pressed so hard for designation of Villages 9 and 10 for a university site, because they did not feel the site that had been placed on the map was an appropriate site for the university because of the biological restrictions. The Planning Commission chose to vote that they would designate Villages 9 and 10 and that that area that was designated, the area west of Wueste Road east of Hunte Parkway, could be utilized by a campus. That was exactly what the text said. She felt no buildings of structure should be permitted within Salt Creek Canyon. Commissioner Tuchscher agreed that a strong signal should be sent to Council, so he would vote affirmatively on the motion. Commissioner Moot agreed with Commissioner Tuchscher's position, but only to the extent that a structure could conceivably be designed in the future that would be sensitive and fitting. Because of the absolute of no structure, he agreed with Commissioner Tuchscher's hesitation, but he felt sure that issue could be adequately dealt with if such a structure is designed in the future. VOTE: 6-0 to accept the staff report on GDP text changes. Mr. Lettieri stated that the RMP and the Facility Plan and that the GDP was the governing document and the three were interrelated. Amendments would be made to those documents to conform to the ultimate City Council action. MSUC (Fuller/Ray) 6-0 to accept the report on the General Development Plan text map changes with the exception of the below listed items, and that any changes made be included in the RMP and all other related documents: PC Minutes -11- October 13, 1993 University Maps: university should be shown as primary land use (use two maps, one for primary and one for secondary land uses) Transit Funding: do not limit development Roads Crossing Otay River Valley: include Alta as r-o-w Setback from Lake: specify that a minimum is to be established at SPA level. Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid stated that the Commission needed to act on the CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and acceptance of the Addendum. There would need to be some minor corrections made to the CEQA Findings, and if the Commission would make a general motion to modify the Findings to reflect their vote on the project itself, that would be adequate. He pointed out that the mitigation measure referencing dwelling units and square footage of commemial area allowable regarding the light rail transit would need to be revised. MSUC (Fuller/Tuchscher) 6-0 to concur with the Technical Addendum, and adopt the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, authorizing staff to make the necessary technical changes in the documents. Chair Martin declared a pause at 8:50 p.m. At 8:52 p.m., the meeting reconvened. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that he represented the First United Methodist Church in the purchase and sale of real estate and, therefore, had a financial interest in Item 2. He would disqualify himself from participation and leave the dais, due to a conflict of interest. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS BY AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC. FOR 5.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THIRD AVENUE AND "J" STREET A) GPA-93-06: AMEND GENERAL PLAN FROM PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL B) PCZ-93-E: REZONE FROM C-O (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) AND R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY) TO C-C (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) Associate Planner Hernandez presented the staff report. He noted the town meetings which had been held in December 1992 and August 1993, and stated that the issues raised at the town meetings had included parking lighting, hours of operation, noise generated by the commercial activity, traffic, trash enclosure aspects and smell, and other issues related to the physical development of the property. The issues were primarily due to the existing operation. Mr. PC Minutes -12- October 13, 1993 Hernandez drew the Commission's attention to No. 8 of the Precise Plan Guidelines relating to a 20' landscape buffer to be provided along the west property line. The buffer was intended to soften the visual impact which would be created by the building, and also screen the security lights that may be installed on that part of the building. Mr. Hernandez also noted that it was being required that trash enclosures be installed inside the building, as well as all the storage facilities, mechanical or recycling equipment, and machinery. All the service doors and delivery service areas would be located either on the east or south side of the building, and no activity would be allowed on the west side which faced the residential area. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-93-3, and adopt Resolutions GPA-93-06 and PCS-93-13 recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment and rezoning, subject to the Precise Plan Standards listed in the draft City Council resolution. Mr. Hernandez noted that Dan Marum of JHK, traffic consultant for the project, and Barbara Reid from the Environmental Section of the Planning Department were available for questions. Commissioner Fuller was concerned about access for people who would be using the shopping center by alternative modes of transportation. Was thought given to placing the store closer to Third Avenue with the parking behind, additionally buffering the homes in the back from noise? Associate Planner Hernandez replied that the issue of locating the building at the northeast corner of the site was researched by the applicant, as the preferable location based upon the urban character of Third Avenue. However, there were also concerns regarding lighting and insecurity of locating the parking to the rear. Additionally, the size of the building would not physically adapt to the Third Avenue location. If the applicant could have purchased the Masonic Lodge parcel, the Lucky market could have possibly been located near Third Avenue. Regarding hours of operation and curfew, Commissioner Tarantino asked if this was the standard curfew, or if it was determined based on the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hernandez stated they were generally the hours of operation. Commissioner Ray questioned the limitation of delivery truck traffic and why the alley way could not be blocked altogether to any traffic. Assistant Planning Director Lee responded that the issue had been discussed at great length at the public forum, and staff had indicated to the residents that the issue had been explored with the applicant. However, providing access coming in to the front of the building and maneuvering near the southeast corner of the building and back into the loading area creates potential safety issues of trucks accessing continually in front of the store. Commissioner Ray, referring to Condition 5, noted that refuse or recycled cardboard trucks are prohibited from collecting waste materials during times which are outside of normal pick-up hours and raised the question as to why it was necessary to negotiate other than normal pick-up hours. Mr. Lee said that was another option, stating that it was unusual for a standard rezoning to set that many conditions in place to address requirements at the design stage, but staff felt it PC Minutes -13- October 13, 1993 was important if they were going to move ahead with a General Plan amendment and rezoning that would potentially impact the adjacent residential area. In staff's opinion, having standards set in place would make the project compatible with the area. This was basically the plan that Lucky would like to proceed with, depending on some modifications, if necessary. Following up on Commissioner Fuller's question, Mr. Lee said that from staff's perspective, there were many reasons to have the building closer to Third Avenue to provide better interface with bus service and pedestrian movement, but in terms of marketability, the applicant was concerned about having parking in the rear. Commissioner Fuller asked if the parking area could be designed so it could be made pedestrian friendly, having areas where pedestrians could walk safely on sidewalks and not have to be dodging cars. Mr. Lee said even if the building were set back to the west, a condition could be added to alert the Design Review Committee to look at the issue of pedestrian access both from Third Avenue and "J" Street. If the Commission wanted to strengthen a requirement for pedestrian-friendly access coming from those public street systems, it could be included. Commissioner Ray questioned Condition 14, the signage on the building, and asked how it related to discussions in previous meetings regarding a renovation of a business on 'T' Street, and if it was the same condition as on that project. Mr. Lee replied that the project on 'T' Street was in a commercial office zone, which is more restrictive. The subject property was set up for a typical retail commercial zone in terms of a central commercial zoning category. It varies from 1 sq. ft. up to a maximum of 3 sq. ft. in that zone. In this project, staff was establishing signage at 1 sq. ft. maximum. Principal Planner Griffin explained that the previous project, being in a C-O zone, was allowed 50 sq. ft. maximum regardless of the dimensions of the building. Mr. Lee stated the proposed Lucky building was approximately 230 ft. across the front, which would equate to 230 sq. ft. of sign area which would be adequate to identify the building. Referring to Condition 19 regarding the 5' wide street median to be installed on Third Avenue, south of Third and "J", Commissioner Ray was concerned with the narrowness of "J" Street which was quite heavily traveled, and why there was no requirement for a median there and/or significant widening of the roadway. Mr. Lee said the purpose of the median on Third Avenue was to preclude left-turn movements in and out of the property on the driveway closest to the Third and "J" intersection. Mr. Dan Marum, the traffic consultant for the City, concurred that the concern regarding the driveway on Third Avenue was its proximity to the signalized intersection and the potential for left-turn movements into the site as other vehicles would be making a left turn at the intersection itself. On "J" Street, the first driveway accessing the site was set back far enough from the intersection that the conflict would be reduced, and would not be any closer to the intersection than the existing Lucky's driveway. Regarding widening of "J" Street, there was a requirement for an exclusive right-turn lane in the eastbound direction which was an improvement which had been recommended, which would create a geometric configuration in the eastbound direction which PC Minutes -14- October 13, 1993 would be identical to the geometric configuration in the westbound direction on the other side of the intersection. There would be an exclusive left-turn lane in the eastbound direction, a through lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane. Commissioner Ray asked about the westbound lane with a vehicle turning left into the driveway- -would there be room enough to accommodate left turns and a through lane. Mr. Mature indicated that the specific geometrics had not been detailed out, and it was an item which should be reviewed at the next level by the design review team. Commissioner Ray was concerned that there was not some verbiage indicating that it would either be discussed or some specifics included for the westbound traffic. Mr. Hernandez recommended that a precise plan standard be added to the conditions as follows: "An exclusive right-turn-only lane on "J" Street for the eastbound to southbound movement be required." Commissioner Salas asked if the recommended delivery hours were critical to the store or if the hours could be reduced so there could be more quiet time for the neighborhood. Mr. Lee asked that the representative from Lucky speak to that issue. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Richard Williams, 4724 Matty Ct., La Mesa 91941, indicated his support for the project. Mickie Pruitt, 745 Glover Ave., CV 91910, supported the project. She wanted to have a choice. She believed the noise would be reduced; Lucky's had worked very hard for the neighborhood to alleviate any of their concerns. Allen Ashe, 543 Rivera St., CV 91911, representing the First United Methodist Church, gave the Church's vision for the community. He believed Lucky's had attempted every possibility to meet the needs of the community, and felt the City of Chula Vista would be very proud of the project when completed. Jim Hirsch, of FORMA Design, 8910 University Center Lane, SD, representing American Stores, parent company for Lucky supermarkets, discussed the town meetings and the comments made by the community. They studied a variety of alternate plans with consideration given to moving the building to the front of the site. At the time, they were in negotiations with the Lodge to see if they could obtain that property; however, they were not successful. Without that land, it was impossible to place the building at the front of the site because of traffic circulation. He proceeded to discuss the other issues considered. They believed the plan being presented was the best alternative for the site and concurred with the staff recommendation to approve the GPA and rezone. He noted the design review, within the Precise Plan process, would be PC Minutes -15- October 13, 1993 brought back before the Commission when they would be considering the finer points of pedestrian-friendly access, etc. Mr. Hirsch introduced Chris Huss, Sr. Vice President, and Pat Sinn, the area real estate manager from American Stores, who were available for questions. Assistant Planning Director Lee clarified that the Precise Plan would only go before the Design Review Committee and would only come before the Planning Commission on appeal. It would be subject to a public hearing, but it was the Design Review Committee's decision. Charlotte Helms, 805 Floyd Ave., CV 91910, noted her support for the project. Dennis Ginoza, 874 Entrada Place, CV 91910, Pastor of the First United Methodist Church, spoke in favor of the project. At the last town meeting, there had been many concerns and comments regarding the need for a larger store in the area. He believed the applicant was listening to all sides. Evita Beas McCullough, 773 Church Ave., CV 91910, supported the project. The present Lucky store was inadequate, and the new store would help revitalize the neighborhood. Patrick Barajas, 375 "J" Street, CV, was concerned about trucks coming in from Los Angeles, using "J" Street as a truck route. Police did not enforce the "no trucks" signs. He asked if there would be left-mm signals on Third and "J". Mr. Hernandez said that had been recommended. Mr. Barajas was concerned that only one or two cars going north on Third Avenue could turn west on "J" Street. He supported the project and felt the store would be a benefit. Commissioner Fuller asked where the trucks were supposed to access off 1-5. Mr. Barajas stated that trucks coming off I-5 were supposed to mrn on "J" to either south or north on Broadway but some keep going straight through. The designated truck routes were on "H" Street and "L" Street. Commissioner Ray asked if there was anything the City could do to prohibit that truck traffic if it continued. Mr. Lee stated it was a police enforcement matter; the area was posted. Staff would pass it on to the Police Department. Commissioner Ray asked how many calls would have to be made before action was taken. Mr. Lee said that would have to be researched and returned to the Planning Commission. Mr. Barajas said he had contacted the Police Department many times, and was told that only motorcycle police could issue tickets to the tracks. He hardly ever saw motorcycle police in the neighborhood. PC Minutes -16- October 13, 1993 There was further discussion as to whether or not the trucks could be stopped by other police, and staff assured Mr. Barajas that the Police Department would be contacted and the matter would be discussed. Jack Fry, 345-B "J' Street, CV 91910, Treehaven Condominiums, representing the homeowners, supported the project. Staff had addressed their concerns. Mr. Fry said he was a retired Chula Vista police officer, and he assured Mr. Barajas that those in the police cars could write tickets, also. Elsie Brink, 1115 Ocala Ave., CV 91911, said that coming from the south by the post office, she had to make a left-hand turn and then make a "U" turn to mail letters, or make a left-hand turn to go into the post office. Sometimes traffic was very thick, and it was impossible to make a turn. She was concerned with the proximity of the post office to the corner. She felt the change in zoning would increase the buses and trucks in the area. Ms. Brink was against the project. Mae Neumann, 735 Garrett Ave., CV 91910, said the area was designated R-l, and she thought it should remain R-1. The community still needed churches, and houses should be built instead of Lucky's. The owner had attended the last meeting, and said it would still be a grocery store. The community did not need more grocery stores; they could find a better location. She was also concerned with the truck noise. Jack Gardner, Jr., 3535 First Avenue, San Diego, said he had built the original Lucky Store, who had been excellent tenants. He was concerned with heavy traffic on "J" Street. They did not want a divider on "J" Street, so east/west traffic could still go into their property on "J" Street. Another market would raise the traffic impact, and they wanted to be sure the eastbound traffic could go into their property, and the westbound traffic on "J" Street could still turn in. Commissioner Fuller asked if the current Lucky store would remain. Mr. Gardner said their lease with Lucky was for another three years, which would terminate when this project was approved and completed in approximately 2 to 2-1/2 years. He was concerned with access to the current site of the Lucky store, so whatever were in after Lucky left. Answering Commissioner Fuller, Mr. Gardner said there were no definite plans as to what would go there. Assistant Planning Director Lee clarified that Mr. Gardner's concern was that if there were traffic problems arising from left-turn movements and the City wanted to place a median there to preclude that, it could be a problem for Mr. Gardner's property. Mr. Lee said that a median would be one solution; and that a left-mm lane was another solution which would require additional road widening. Those were normally the first kinds of solutions that would be considered. His concern was one that staff could not respond to until such time as there was a user and a further analysis of the traffic situation. The first solution would be to try to come up with a continuous left-turn slot. It would be difficult to try to place a median there with access to the existing condominium project as well. PC Minutes -17- October 13, 1993 Kenneth Ham, 724 Garrett Ave., CV 91910, disagreed with building a Lucky store on the site. He preferred that the Church remain. He felt there would be more graffiti with a Lucky store than with a church. He was concerned with diesel fumes going into the back yards. He was opposed to the Church being tom down. He felt the Church was more of a positive influence in the community. There had not been an increase in population to warrant a new store. He asked that the Commission vote against the proposal. Don Volk, 729 Garrett Ave., CV 91910, said he lives behind the proposed site, and he was concerned about the noise pollution that would come not only from the proposed site, but also from the post office. By changing the zoning, the whole neighborhood would be changed, and he was concerned about health hazards from diesel and other exhaust fumes coming into the neighborhood. He felt there were health concerns which should be addressed. Pat Michaels, 303 Via Bissolotti, CV 91910, said that the Church body had voted to move, and this would take place at some point in time when the land was sold. If it was not sold to Lucky's, it would be sold to someone else. It was not an issue as to whether the Church was going to move; it was a matter of whether Lucky's would be allowed to open a store. She spoke to that as a member of the Church. As a member of the community, she agreed with Mrs. Pruitt regarding the limited number of supermarkets in the area. She said she took 90% of her shopping dollar to I.B. and National City, because she shopped around where she did her grocery shopping. The current Lucky's store and Vons had inadequate parking; the Big Bear was an inadequate store. This would be a new and quieter store. She supported the project. Walter Neulnann, 735 Garrett, CV, said he had made a suggestion to the store to change the truck loading dock from the south side of the building to the north end of the building because of the exhaust from the diesels. With the diesel stack being 8' to 9' tall, there was no way to stop the fumes with a 6' fence. Matt Henderson, 715 Garrett, CV, said that the 6' fence was a City limit and could not be raised. They had proposed that Lucky ask for an 8' fence, along with the 20' abutment for the foliage. He felt an 8' fence would take care of the exhaust fumes. He was in favor of the project, which would give the community somewhere else to shop. He felt the proposed plan was a good one; the trucks would not be coming in the back; the times for delivery were at the request of the neighbors; he was satisfied with the pedestrian-friendly access; did not feel there was a problem with buses; the traffic issues would be worked out. Jack Fry, of Treehaven Home Owners Association, reapproached the podium. He said the Treehaven Home Owners lived closer to the present Lucky's than any other neighbor in the area. When they moved in the area in 1973, the current wall was a grape stake fence. Treehaven residents had contacted Lucky, and they had put in a block wall fence. There had been a lot of noise which had been brought to the attend of Lucky's and they had tried to mitigate it. Regarding diesel smoke, the truck drivers turn off the trucks as soon as they are parked. He felt all the noise would be abated, and the residents would enjoy the new store. PC Minutes -18- October 13, 1993 Chris Huss, Sr. Vice President of American Stores, parent company to Lucky, pointed out that this was a very preliminary design and would have to go through the design process. City staff would be addressing both the pedestrian access to the center and the truck traffic, and applicant would be working with them. Regarding the hours, they had been limited per the neighbors' requests concerning the hours the store would be open as well as being serviced. Regarding the height of the wall in the back, it would be discussed by the Design Review Committee, and Lucky would go along with the recommendations of the Committee and the neighbors' desires. Commissioner Ray asked for a comparison between the Advantage Store in National City and the proposed project. Mr. Huss said the Advantage Store had approximately 67,000 sq. ft. floor space. The Lucky store would have approximately 60,000 sq. ft. floor space. Commissioner Ray also asked for a comparison of the parking allocation. Mr. Huss said the Lucky store would have more parking but did not recall the ratio. They wanted as much open visibility in the front with as much parking as there could possibly be in the back. Chair Martin questioned why it was important to have the parking lot on the main street. Mr. Huss answered that today in the retail market, there needed to be visibility and good access to the center. If not, the parking is hidden, and there is a security problem. Chair Martin asked if any thought had been given to locating the store next to the Masonic Lodge. The parking would still be on the north side. Mr. Huss said it had been considered, but there was a problem with depth and the parking. Commissioner Moot queried how long the project had been in the planning process before it came before the Commission. Mr. Huss said it had probably been 1-1/2 years, but there were other circumstances involved which delayed it because of the Church's relocation. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Assistant Planning Director Lee responded to two conditions which had been brought up during the public hearing. Regarding the potential for having the loading area at the north end instead of the south. Staff had discussed that with the applicant, but the concerns were: proximity to residential development across the street, and conflict with the entry driveway. With the loading area in the south, there was a limited conflict with any parking area. Regarding the height of the zoning wall, Mr. Lee said that the 6' high zoning wall was the minimum height, and both through Zoning Administrator approval and/or the Precise Plan, the height could be increased. The residents needed to get together, if they felt comfortable with a higher wall, to decide if it should be a 7' or 8' wall. It would have impact on light and air for some residents. It could be addressed during the design review process, and a higher wall could be installed. Regarding Condition No. 18, Commissioner Ray asked what type of lighting would be used for security purposes during off hours of the store. Other stores had lighting 24 hours a day; would PC Minutes -19- October 13, 1993 this be the same or would there be a fluctuation of lighting intensity. Mr. Lee said that would be an issue as the project got into the actual design of the project. The City has Codes covering that particular issue as far as lighting; they would not allow glare going into the residential area; if they are installed and there is glare, any complaints are responded to and the lights have to be adjusted. This condition was more of a flag to the applicant. Commissioner Ray asked if there was a trade-off regarding the potential for vandalizing occurring in the alley way at the rear of the store versus the lighting issue if the lights were turned off. Mr. Lee replied that lights would more likely be redirected than turned off. Regarding the buffer area to the west of the property, Commissioner Ray questioned the maintenance of the landscaping in the buffer with vegetation. Mr. Lee stated that the maintenance of landscaping areas was covered in the City's Landscape Manual. It was through zoning enforcement, complaint, or the operation of a particular store that the landscaping would be maintained. Commissioner Ray emphasized for the residents in attendance, that if the vegetation were to begin to die off or begin to look trashy, they needed to complain to the City. MS (Moot/Fuller) that the Planning Commission adopt GPA-93-06 to amend the General Plan from Professional and Administrative Office to Retail Commercial and adopt PCZ-93-E and rezone from C-O Commercial Office and R-1 Single Family to C-C Central Commercial and to add no. 23 to the Precise Plan Standard to provide for an exclusive right-torn-only lane on "J" Street for the eastbound to southbound movement, so that eastbound to southbound movement is required. Commissioner Fuller, on behalf of the Commission, thanked the neighborhood and the members of the Church for the time they had spent for trying to come up with a plan that would be equitable for everyone. She felt it was a needed improvement in the area, and thought it might entice some of the old residents back to that location. Commissioner Ray wanted to include some wording regarding right-of-ways for westbound traffic on "J" Street west of Third Avenue. He asked if that should be addressed, or if the Commission should say there should be dedicated left- and right-hand-turn lanes heading west to go tO either the north or the south of "J" Street, which would be west of Third. He asked if there was any objection to calling that Item 24. As an explanation, Commissioner Ray said the Traffic Consultant was advocating a left- and a right-torn lane, and a middle lane heading east on "J" Street, west of Third Avenue. He'd like to see the same condition west of Third Avenue on "J" Street for traffic heading west. This would allow a left-turn into the store without impeding traffic. Associate Planner Reid stated that the Traffic Consultant was suggesting that consideration be given to requiring a conceptual striping plan for that particular area. Assistant Planning Director Lee explained that a large-scale plan would be done to see how it worked, and could be brought PC Minutes -20- October 13, 1993 back to the Commission for review and a report, and then could be forwarded on the Design Review Committee. In answer to Commissioner Ray, Chair Martin asked that a separate motion be made to add this as Item 24. Before the Chairman called for the vote, Associate Planner Hernandez said he believed a motion to adopt the Negative Declaration should be done first. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf was concerned about the nexus between the proposed requirement and the project. Without consulting the applicant or having any careful thought, he was concerned that there was a lawful, proper extraction with regard to this approval. Mr. Rudolf felt it migllt be more appropriate for the Commission wished to do a companion, follow-up motion to investigate the possibility and explore if it was legally appropriate to add that in as a design review feature when the precise plan itself came forward for consideration by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Ray said he was comfortable voting for the amendment to the General Plan but was not comfortable voting for the rezone with that condition for the reasons he stated, plus the concerns stated by the owner of the property of the current Lucky Store. The current conditions indicate that the street either needed to be widened or something had to be done to address that. He would make a separate motion, unless there was a concern about that. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf replied that if the applicant had no objection, it could be included. The applicant indicated there was no objection. Commissioner Moot, as maker of the motion, said that action needed to be taken regarding adoption of the Negative Declaration, and then move on the motion made. MSC (Moot/Ray) 6-0-1 (Commissioner Tuchscher-conflict of interest) to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Report. MSC (Moot/Ray) 5-1-0-1 (Commissioner Tuchscher-conflict of interest; Commissioner Salas against) to adopt GPA-93-06 to amend the General Plan from Professional and Administrative Office to Retail Commercial and adopt PCZ-93-E and rezone from C-O Commercial Office and R-1 Single Family to C-C Central Commercial and to add no. 23 to the Precise Plan Standard to provide for an exclusive right-turn-only lane on "J" Street for the eastbound to southbound movement, so that eastbound to southbound movement is required; and to include condition no. 24 to prepare a conceptual striping plan. Associate Planner Hernandez announced that this item would be taken before the City Council on November 2, 1993. PC Minutes -21- October 13, 1993 ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-94-02: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM INSTITUTIONAL-OTHER TO HIGH DENSITY- RESIDENTIAL (18-27 DU/AC) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 242 KENNEDY STREET - City Initiated PCS-94-01: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR KENNEDY STREET TOWNHOUSES, CHULA VISTA TRACT 94-01 Kennedy 25 Limited Partnership The project proponent had requested an indefinite continuation of this public hearing in order to evaluate the economic feasibility of the proposed development, given recent School District requirements for full mitigation of project impacts on school facilities. MSUC (Ray/Fuller) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher had not yet returned to the dias) to table the motion until brought forward again by staff. ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-06: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 60' CELLULAR ANTENNA AND COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT SHELTER AT 775 ANITA STREET IN THE IL-P ZONE - Applicant: U.S. West Cellular In lieu of giving a presentation, Principal Planner Griffin indicated his availability for questions. (Commissioner Tuchscher returned to the meeting at this time.) Commissioner Ray questioned the difference in this request and the previously approved request. Mr. Griffin said it was the same, and was located close to the PacTel facility. He noted that these were the only two cellular companies licensed in the County and there probably would not be a third one in the area. This would take care of the cellular needs along this area of 1-5. Commissioner Ray asked if there could not be multiple carriers on the previously approved antenna. Mr. Griffin asked the applicant to expand on that. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Larry Doherty, 3785 Sixth Avenue, SD, Director of Real Estate and Planning Operations for U.S. West Cellular, stated that from time to time the two competing cellular licensed facilities could share common towers. It was a complex engineering task for the two companies to organize the various frequencies used amongst the antennas, and when the antennas are placed closely together, the potential for interference was quite high. There were problems with inteference from L.A. and Baja cellulars. There had been discussions with PacTel and the conclusion was that it would be difficult at best, with platform separations between 20' to 40', PC Minutes -22- October 13, 1993 and coordination of engineering efforts. It would create an 80', 90,, or 100' tower. U.S. Cellular made an effort to maintain as low a profile as possible. They also had to consider, as the systems grow and more cellular systems are required because of capacity and coverage problems, another location has to be found. As locations are added, the heights are lowered. It was possible to share common towers, but it would create a substantially greater monument in the community, which they tried to avoid. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Fuller/Ray) 7-0 to adopt Resolution PCC-94-06 recommending that the City Council approve conditional use permit PCC-94-06 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached draft City Council resolution. ITEM 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-94-01: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.14.050A TO ALLOW APPLICANTS FOR PLANNING PERMITS TO BYPASS THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND HAVE THEIR APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED DIRECTLY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN PUBLIC HEARING Principal Planner Griffin said this was mainly a housekeeping amendment which would formalize what was already being done as a matter of policy. MSUC (Ray/FulleD 7-0 to adopt PCA-94-01 recommending that the City Council amend Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.14.050A to allow applicants for planning permits to bypass the Zoning Administrator and have their applications considered directly by the Planning Commission in public hearing. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE FOR DESIGN MANUAL REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE MSC (Fuller/Ray) 6-0-1 (Tarantino abstained) selecting Commissioner Tarantino as Planning Commission representative to the Design Manual Review Advisory Committee. 2. SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE FOR TIlE REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS MSC (Tuchscher/Ray) 6-0-1 (Fuller abstained) selecting Commissioner Fuller as Planning Commission representative for the Review of Conditional Use Permits, with Commissioner Salas as alternate. PC Minutes -23- October 13, 1993 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee confirmed with Chairman Martin that he would continue to serve on the Growth Management Oversight Commission until January of 1994. Chairman Martin concurred. Mr. Lee reminded the Commissioners of a dinner workshop the following Wednesday evening which would focus on the subdivision map process; and, using a couple of prior projects which had come before the Planning Commission in the past, show how the map had appeared to the Commission and the actual finished product. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Tuchscher noted he would be out of town, and would not be able to attend the dinner workshop on October 20. MSC (Ray/Fuller) 6-0-1 (Tuchscher abstained) to excuse Commissioner Tuchscher from the meeting of October 20, 1993. ADJOURNMENT at 10:40 p.m. to the Dinner Workshop Meeting of Wednesday, October 20, 1993, at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3 to discuss the Subdivision Map Process and, thence, to the Regular Business Meeting of October 27, 1993. N~r~y Ript/ey, Secre~ry Planning Commission