Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/09/25 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:03 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, September 25, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Ray, Salas, Thomas and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Davis, Tuchscher STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Bazzel, Assistant Planner Nevins, Assistant City Attorney Googins PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tarantino led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Salas/Ray) 5-0 to excuse Commissioners Davis and Tuchscher, who had business conflicts, and to excuse Commissioner Tuchscher from the meeting of September 11, 1996, because of a family emergency. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tarantino reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-06; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONTINUE OPERATING A TEMPORARY TRUCK TERMINAL/TRAILER STORAGE YARD AT 2400 FAIVRE STREET - California Multi-Modal, Inc. and H. G. Fenton Materials Company (continued from meeting of 9-11-96) PC Minutes -2- September 25, 1996 Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that this item had been continued from the last meeting to allow staff to review a deferral action which had been set in place several years before by the Engineering Department. In addition, one of the residents testifying in the project indicated a concern over the operation and supplied staff with a video to be reviewed. It was determined by staff that a meeting needed to be held with the applicants and Fenton, because there were some specific issues that surfaced in viewing the video. Staff requested that the item be continued to the meeting of October 23, 1996. MSC (Ray/Willett) 5-0 (Davis and Tuchscher excused) to continue SUPS-96-06 to October 23, 1996. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-95-04 DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DSEIR) FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT Mr. Lee stated that staff had received letters which required staff to meet with the traffic consultant to clarify some points. He asked that the hearing be continued to October 9, 1996. MSC (Thomas/Willett) 5-0 (Davis and Tuchscher excused) to continue EIR-95-04 to October 9, 1996. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-97-12; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE LOT AT 38-44 THIRD AVENUE EXTENSION, WITHIN THE C- C-P ZONE - Regina K. Hickey Trust Mr. Lee stated that staff had received an application from Ms. Hickey and had prepared and sent out notices. Staff then received a letter from Ms. Hickey indicating that her application was not correct and that she was not requesting a storage yard for RVs but rather a storage yard for towing services, which changed the picture in staff's mind. A copy of her application had been sent to her for modifications and return to staff. Staff suggested the item be continued until October 23, 1996. MSC (Ray/Wiilett) 5-0 (Davis and Tuchscher excused) to continue PCC-97-12 to October 23, 1996. ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-96-39; REQUEST FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE OIL CHANGE SERVICE FACILITY AT 1550 EAST 'H' STREET, WITHIN THE C-C-P (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL/PRECISE PLAN) ZONE - Valvoline Instant Oil Change PC Minutes -3- September 25, 1996 Assistant Planner Nevins presented the staff report. She noted that the draft resolution had some slight modifications to the wording of Conditions C and D regarding the agreement on the part of the applicant or the property owner to relocate the driveway. Also Condition F had been modified to deal with the actual change in the hours of operation. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in the resolution. Commissioner Willett asked if the applicant had to post a bond. Ms. Nevins replied that they were required to provide some type of surety. The type would be agreed to at a later date between the applicant and the Engineering Department. Commissioner Thomas, referring to Condition C, felt the applicant could hold up the progress of a future use by not putting in the southerly driveway. Ms. Nevins said the applicant could hold it up if they declined to put the driveway in. The applicant was agreeing that by the time they came in for building permits for the future use, they would relocate the driveway. Commissioner Thomas asked if someone came in with a proposed future retail site, the applicant would immediately change the driveway. Ms. Nevins replied that the property owner had agreed that before an approval is issued for a second user, they would relocate it. Commissioner Thomas, regarding oil change and minor maintenance, clarified that any other automotive maintenance service shall require prior approval to modification. Ms. Nevins stated that the application was for oil and filter changes, which was classified as minor maintenance. Commissioner Thomas was concerned about waste sewage, cleaning of the floor, drainage, and water going into the sewer. Ms. Nevins noted that Condition J indicated they should obtain and remain in compliance with all applicable licenses and regulations. She suggested that when the applicant comes in for building permits, that could be double checked. She would apprise Engineering staff. Commissioner Ray asked about the City's jurisdiction regarding hazardous materials. He did not want it to be under the County's jurisdiction. Ms. Nevins felt that would be covered under Condition J. Attorney Googins stated the intent of the language in Condition J was to include any and all governmental related regulations, regardless of whether or not there were hazardous material regulations. He thought the Bureau of Automotive Repair and County Hazardous Materials Regulations were specifically called out, because they were considered by staff to be the most appropriate regulations that relate to this kind of use. It was intended that the applicant would comply with any and all regulations that would apply to them in their use. He suggested clarifying language that would state "compliance with any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws, roles, and regulations" including those of the Bureau of Automotive Repair and County Hazardous Materials. PC Minutes -4- September 25, 1996 With reference to Conditions C and D, Attorney Googins proposed that the language "property owner" be changed to say, "The applicant shall cause the property owner..." in each case where "property owner" appears. To the extent approval was being granted to the applicant as opposed to the property owner, the conditions should relate to the applicant as opposed to the property owner directly. Commissioner Willett asked if one of the Codes specified that all the oil and drainage go into a trap, and then pumped out so it could not go into the City sewer system. He asked for assurance that it would be reviewed. Mr. Lee confirmed that it would be. Commissioner Ray asked staff to point out the location of the Taco Bell and Hollywood Video. Answering Commissioner Ray's concerns regarding traffic, Ms. Nevins noted that there were two driveways and there were a number of options for ingress and egress to the site at this location. It was off to the corner of the site, remote to the rest of the center. Commissioner Ray was concerned about the cumulative effects at build-out of the site. Ms. Nevins stated that the building had its own parking, and there was a slope to the east which separated it from the main center. She did not see them as through users who would bring people through the center. Mr. Lee stated that the traffic situation was looked at from an environmental standpoint, and there is a lot of traffic on Otay Lakes and "H" Street. The driveway was a concern of staff in terms of the internal circulation. Working with the applicant, staff felt they had a good phasing program to move that further south to discourage people from cutting through, but still provide the access for this applicant as well as a future applicant. With respect to the oil issues and the drainage, Commissioner Thomas asked that staff check with Engineering. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jeffrey Gong, 7710 Via Capri, La Jolla, a franchisee for Valvoline Instant Oil Change, stated that the building was designed at the sub level which was completely concrete, poured-in-place floor with the masonry walls. They had designed the building so there was no internal drain system. Any spill would be completely contained within the building, and there would be no risk of any discharge into the public waterways or storm drains. The normal cleaning mop water, etc. was put into a common waste or collection tank. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Thomas/Willett) 5-0 (Commissioners Davis and Tuchscher excused) to accept the proposed with changes incorporated, C, D, and J further clarified by the City Attorney's comments. PC Minutes -5- September 25, 1996 ITEM 5. CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT MSCP PLAN AND DRAFT CHULA VISTA SUBAREA PLAN Principal Planner Bazzel stated that the State and Federal Environmental Impact Report of a Draft MSCP was out for public review, recirculated from a year ago. The content of the MSCP had gone through significant changes, including the addition of subarea plans to the overall analysis. He gave the Planning Commission an overview of what the EIR was addressing, and discussed what Chula Vista's Subarea Plan contained, as well as other documents the EIR/EIS covered. He noted that the City of San Diego had the lead on the MSCP; it was planned that they would be adopting the MSCP document in December 1996, and the City of Chula Vista would adopt their own subarea plan during the early part of 1997. He informed the Commission that staff was willing to bring Chula Vista's Subarea Plan back to the Commission on October 23, in order to provide additional comment to San Diego on the Draft MSCP. He noted that he was there to receive questions or comments. Commissioner Willett, re funding - with AB 2000, the voters said no on 2007 and CalPo 94, and one other. Do you feel the public is going to mrn around and vote for more public park acquisition? With the public acquisition funds and annual assessment funds being assessed an open space assessment fee, relative to annual assessment, at what time do the real estate people put that in their CC&R? Expand on funding. Mr. Bazzel stated that the MSCP plan is a joint operation of the City of San Diego, Wildlife Agency, and other jurisdictions, with the primary lead being the City of San Diego. Chula Vista has had input into that. The funding proposal was prepared by the City of San Diego and their economic consultant, Jun Onaka. Chula Vista still has issues as to how this will be ultimately adopted. The funding proposal is for the local and federal government to commit to pay for half of the acquisition with a regional plan to cover the other half of the private property acquisition. As to what funding source the regional or local governments use to pay for that, what has been suggested in the document are some examples of how that might be paid for through Mello-Roos and other techniques. The biggest one discussed was to go to the vote of the people and spread the cost across the entire South County area up to Del Mar and Poway. Any assessment of this type would be a tough hurdle to overcome, and the local jurisdictions would have to, in the long run, convince the citizens of the value of this. The policy makers recognize it will be a tough sell. However, if unable to obtain a funding source, such as an added cost to every household in the region, acquisition will take a much longer time. Commissioner Willett, regarding the $20 to $25 per household, if already in a district and paying an open space assessment, would the $20 or $25 be on top of that? Mr. Bazzel responded that was one of the factors that would have to go into any resolution of the funding program. It is recognized there may be inequities, and before any final resolution of how the assessments would be applied, all of the assessment districts and future assessment districts would have to be worked out in an equitable manner. PC Minutes -6- September 25, 1996 Commissioner Willett commented that on page 16, Mello-Roos and ad valorem property types were described. What does that mean--ad valorem? Mr. Bazzel could not answer. Commissioner Willett felt there was a misconception on Mello-Roos. Basically, what does Mello-Roos encompass? Mr. Bazzel replied that the Mello-Roos, which is used often-times for payment of schools, is a fee assessed to all of the homeowners within a particular assessment area, and it would be generally a hundred percent of the cost of providing schools. It's an assessment district. Commissioner Willett said that he had heard complaints about paying Mello-Roos in St. Claire and not getting things corrected. Mr. Willett questioned whether or not Mello-Roos could be used to pay for an open space maintenance district. Mr. Bazzel stated that Mello-Roos districts are subject to certain state guidelines that enable that to be applied for certain types of facilities, whether that means open space or not. He mentioned Mello-Roos as one of many techniques that could be used, and not being intimately familiar with those guidelines, he was not sure whether it restricted it from acquisition of open space. Commissioner Willett felt staff had done a tremendous job in putting this document together. Commissioner Salas, regarding financial Impacts - $20 or $25 per household. She thought it was the same as the Otay Ranch and the Preserve Owner Manager. Is that separate and apart from this $25? Mr. Bazzel said this fee was a result of the overall regional cost and what would be applied to all of the households throughout the region. It did not take into account subtracting out the dollars that are anticipated for the Otay Ranch preserve. Much of the Otay Ranch preserve would be part of this overall preserve. Therefore, the concern that we have and the property owner, Village Development, and other property owners on the Otay Ranch have is that it is unfair for their residents m pay more than the region for their fair share of retention of open space. And so, before this city would accept a regional program, that fairness would have to be taken into consideration, and it was staff's position that it would have to be an equal cost across the board. That is the City's position. What the ultimate program comes out will be under a lot more scrutiny than what has been to date. Commissioner Salas noted that the $20 to $25 is for all existing homes in the San Diego County at this time and in the future. Is that what the assessment is? Mr. Bazzel replied that it was an assessment based on all the existing homes and well as the anticipated future homes. PC Minutes -7- September 25, 1996 Commissioner Salas, referring to the beginning of the executive summary--"Private lands acquired with public funds for the preserve will only be acquired from willing sellers." What happens if you don't have a willing seller and the property happens to be right in the middle of the sub-area plan or the MSCP? Mr. Bazzel answered that private property would not become part of the operation and maintenance of the preserve; however, the property owner would not be permitted to expand beyond a certain percentage of their existing use on the property now. As an example, if someone owned a single-family home on a large acreage piece that happened to fit right in the middle of the preserve, they would be limited to how much they could expand or farm or clear on their property by the policies of the MSCP and individual sub-area plans. So, in the City of San Diego, they're looking at allowing 25% of a piece of property to be developable within the preserve if it is not acquired--in other words, if it is retained as private ownership. Commissioner Salas concluded that it was restricting what they can do on the property that they own, so the argument might be from the property owner then, if they're not allowed to maximize the use of the land, then the value of their land is decreased. Mr. Bazzel said that was a subjective issue. It was subject to local controls and local zoning and local standards as far as what you can and can't do on your property. However, if you look at the issue of will local controls restrict what they are permitted to do today as a result of this program, then I guess one might be able to discern that that begins to enter into the realm of that issue. Commissioner Salas asked if in any case the existing structure would be required to be demolished? Mr. Bazzel answered negatively. It had been made very clear through the City of San Diego that any existing land use would be able to be maintained in its current configuration. In high quality areas, there would be a higher priority placed on acquiring properties and coming up with funding to acquire those properties sooner than later. Commissioner Thomas asked how much of this is mandated, and how much latitude does the City actually have? In terms of mandates, Mr. Bazzel said the City of Chula Vista felt they had done a very good job of planning for preservation of open space in our eastern area; that our general plan actually in advance of any multi-species conservation plan has done a good job of preserving canyons and open space. The mandate comes from the fact that the Endangered Species Act affects where development can occur if you have impacts to endangered or listed species. A listed endangered species could not be taken; therefore, you cannot get a permit that's going to impact that. Under today's policies, or past policies, it would take a 10(a) permit in order to develop where a take occurs, and that would have to be processed through the U.S.Fish & Wildlife and, if it affected state-listed species, through the California Fish & Game. That often-times takes PC Minutes -8- September 25, 1996 a significant amount of time and often-times mitigation land is required to either be placed in preservation for perpetuity on this site or purchased off-site. That affects the ability for developers to move forward and implement per our general plan. The mandate that could come out of this program is that we're trying to plan for some surety in development proposals in the future by preserving land and habitat for many species that are on the bubble right now, that are getting close to potential listing. By locking into a long-term agreement through an implementation agreement, we have some surety that development can occur as planned and that investors have some surety when they invest in property that they am going to be able to move through and develop it in the long run. In theory, the program makes sense, because right now if a species is listed a year from now, two years from now, it could stop development again like the California Gnatcatcher has done. So there is some benefit to locking into a long-term program that says when these species come close to or become listed, it's covered, and we're able to proceed ahead. Commissioner Ray said there was discussion previously about mitigation banking. Where do we stand with that at this poim? Mr. Bazzel replied that there were a number of mitigation banks throughout the County which have been formed, where a property owner impacting a species that is not part of the preserve plan--the hard lines of the preserve--they am still required to mitigate, but they can take that habitat in trade for spending the money to acquire out of the mitigation bank somewhere either within our sub-ama plan or outside of our sub-ama plan. So the value of habitat has gone up throughout the County. Them am advantages in the value of the land going up to a certain point: an individual doesn't feel they have to develop their land to get what they paid for it. If they can sell it as habitat land for a reasonable value, they are more willing to do that. The values range significantly throughout the County, depending on the quality of the habitat. Coinmissioner Ray asked if them was measurement as far as going into mitigation banking off- site. Is there a yardstick that those lands am measured against as far as quality of that habitat, or is it just between the owner and the buyer? Mr. Bazzel explained that there were some guidelines that the wildlife agencies had set up in order to form a mitigation bank, and there was a credit system that was being developed that you get so many credits within a mitigation bank system. If you're impacting coastal sage, you can actually buy a land in a mitigation bank that might be native grassland, as an example, and get a certain number of credits against the coastal sage being impacted. It doesn't have to be like property that you're acquiring. That's the value of a mitigation bank, and the concept is that you're going to get their by preserving the land, but you don't have to search out coastal sage land somewhere. Them are guidelines to control how that works, and the wildlife agencies have basically taken the lead in working with non-profit groups, in some cases, to set up mitigation banks. The idea is that somehow there is a market regulation of that price, so that you don't have a seller's market and get a standardized price across the board. PC Minutes -9- September 25, 1996 Commissioner Willett, in reference to the Otay Regional Valley Park, stated that he had asked the tax assessor if the parcels which had been bought within the focused planning area of the Otay Regional Valley Park could be identified? He answered that there was no code in their computer program to identify which properties had been bought. Mr. Willett wanted to know so they could be put in the planning areas so active or passive recreation could not be used. Mr. Bazzel stated the red outlined areas in the Otay Valley east of Heritage Road on Otay Ranch were areas staff felt lent themselves to active recreation. There were edge effect issues that need to be dealt with in the design of any active recreation facilities in those areas. The areas outside of the red were areas which are strictly in the core area and not subject to active recreation, primarily because of the type of habitat, vernal pool, coastal sage and wetland issues. If there is acquisition of property for litigation land which is being turned over to a conservative or to the wildlife agencies for long-term maintenance and control, what control does the regional park have over that property in the long run? He did not think it was a problem now, but if additional lands are contemplated for acquisition for mitigation, that could become a potential problem. Commissioner Willett, regarding the Habitat Management Technical Committee to coordinate an implementation coordination committee in the Resource Management Plan Phase II with our preserve owner management and then within the Otay Regional Valley Park, asked who would all these be reporting to? Mr. Bazzel replied that the management groups identified in the MSCP are future groups that need to be developed to monitor these areas. As to whether that's the Preserve Owner Manager, which is the City and County in the case of Otay Ranch, that ultimately acts as at least an arm of the management committee, or whether it's some other hybrid group with the local agencies responsible for forming, it remains to be dealt with. It will have to be dealt with in the context of the implementation agreement once the sub-area plan has been ironed out. The implementation agreement would have to outline a timetable for these management committees to be formed, and the reporting requirements--annual reporting and that type of thing to be defined and whose responsibility it will be. There will have to be a look at existing management, such as the Preserve Owner Manager, and coordination between that group and the ultimate Otay Regional Valley Park entity. MSIJC (Willett/Ray) 5-0 (Commissioners Davis and Tuchscher excused) to forward staff's recommendation to the City Council regarding the MSCP Plan and the Chula Vista Sub- Area Plan with staff to prepare a separate memo noting some of the comments the Commission had. Chair Tarantino suggested that a workshop be held regarding the MSCP. PC Minutes -10- September 25, 1996 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee stated there had been no specific action on the part of the City Council in terms of items moving forward from the Planning Commission. Regarding the Hammond public hearing, she had advised that she would like to come back before the Commission. Coin Mart went before the City Council, who asked staff to get back with the owner to try to resolve the issues. Staff had met with the owner and had been unable to resolve the issues, and the matter was tentatively set to go before the Council on October 8. Mace Street project was set for Council on October 15; Otay Ranch tentative map for October 22. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Ray asked when Mr. Altbaum would be required to remove the telephone pole from the top of the building. Mr. Lee replied that it was the pole to support the rooftop sign which Mr. Altbaum is pursuing. Commissioner Thomas asked when the banners would be removed from Mr. Althaum's property. Mr. Lee said they were allowed to stay until final approval of signage, which still has to go before the Council. When the permitted signs on the facia go up or the signage on top of the building, the banners would come down. Commissioner Willett noted that almost all of the questions Council asked had come up also by the Commission. He questioned if there was some way to let the Council know that the Planning Commission had discussed these and had tried to anticipate what the Council would ask. Chair Tarantino made the Commissioners aware of two seminars available to them, at their expense. Commissioner Thomas noted that he was interested in attending the Planners Conference in Monterey in March. ADJOURNMENT at 8:45 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of October 9, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. N~ncy Ripl/ey, ~ecr~tary Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc96min\pc9-25.min)