HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/07/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m. Public Services Building
Wednesday, July 24, 1991
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson,
Casillas, Decker, Martin and
Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant
Planning Director Lee, Principal
Planner Howard, Associate Planner
Batchelder, Associate Planner Reid,
Community Development Director
Salomone, City Traffic Engineer
Rosenberg, Assistant City Attorney
Rudolf
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SILENT p~AYE_R
The pledge o~ allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and
was followed by a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARK~
Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission,
its responsibilities and the format of the evening.
MSUC (Casillas/Carson) 4-2-0 (Commissioners Dec~er and Fuller
abstained) to approve the minutes of July 10, 1991, as submitted.
9RAL COMMU_NIC~TION_S - None
ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: LFD-91-04: APPEAL FROM ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME
AT 505 CHANTEL COURT - JOSEPH A. CANCHOLA
The Chair stated that a letter had been received from the
applicant withdrawing the item.
Planning Commission 2 July_24_~ 199~
ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-91-02: CONSIDERATION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW AUTOMATED
DRIVE-THRU CAR WASHES IN C-N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
ZONES SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FRED FIEDLER AND ASSOCIATES
ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-91-24: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
REDEVELOP SERVICE STATION AND ADD MINI-MARKET AND CAR
WASH AT 1498 MELROSE AVENUE - TEXACO REFINING AND
MARKETING, INC.
Assistant Planning Director Lee, with concurrence of the
applicant, requested continuance to August 28, 1991, to resolve
several items related to the project design.
MSUC (Carson/Decker) 6-0 to continue PCA-92-02 and PCC-91-24 to
the meeting of August 28, 1991.
ITEM 4a: PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-90-01: PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE CITY GENERAL PLAN BY THE REDESIG-
NATION OF APPROXIMATELY 3.65 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAST 'H' STREET AND OTAY LAKES
ROAD, FROM "LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (3-6 DU/AC)"
AND "SPECIAL STUDY" TO "RETAIL COMMERCIAL" - KELTON
TITLE CORPORATION (continued from July 10, 1991)
ITEM 4b: PUBLIC HEARING: pCZ-90-B: CONSIDERATION TO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 3.65 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF EAST "H" STREET AND OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM "R-
1" TO "C-C-P" - KELTON TITLE CORPORATION
Associate Planner Batchelder noted that the purpose of the
application was to establish a General Plan and land use
designation for this site which would allow the construction of a
retail convenience center. The proposal was before the
Commission and the City Council initially in the later part of
1986 and 1987. The Council returned the proposal to the
Commission with a request for recommendations- The applicant
withdrew the item before the Commission hearing. This proposal
is basically the same as that considered previously.
Mr. Batchelder indicated that the site is contained within one of
the seven Community Activity Centers listed in the General Plan.
The Council also placed a "Special Study" overlay designation on
this site that requireS Planning staff to evaluate a variety of
alternate land uses for this location as part of any request to
amend the General Plan. The staf~ report evaluates not only the
applicant's proposal but that of the existing land use and two
alternative uses. He then reviewed the staf~ report and the pros
and cons for the existing "Low Medium Density Residential (3-6
du/ac" and "R-l" zoning, the proposed "Retail Commercial" and
Planninq Commissi3B 3 July 22 1991
"C-C-P", .Professional and Administrative Commercial" and "C-O-P"
and, lastly, "Medium-High Density Residential (11-18 du/ac)"
Staff's finding is to deny the applicant's request for "Retail
Commercial-/"C-C-P" in favor of "Professional and Administrative
Commercial"/"C-O-P" as offering the best variety of potential
uses consistent with the General Plan's intent for the Community
Activity Centers. The zoning recommendation also requires the
application o~ Precise Plan Modifiers.
There is no need for further retail commercial development in the
southeastern area or in the entire Eastern Territory- The
addition of 4± acres of retail commercial to the existing 16+
acres o~ commercial centers nearby would lead toward land use
imbalance and create something of a "strip commercial setting"
adjacent to two busy intersections. Planner Batchelder displayed
a diagram indicating the location o~ retail commercial centers
along Telegraph Canyon Road, East "H" Street, Otay Lakes Road and
in the EastLake developments showing the total number to be well
in excess of the standards of the Urban Land Institute.
Staff is o~ the opinion that the site is well suited for
affordable housing in the Eastern Territory because of its
proximity to public transportation and availability of
supplemental services, such as medical or other shops. A Medium-
High density housing project would meet a variety of needs in the
area.
The Professional and Administrative Commercial designation would
recognize the setting in terms of traffic and permit the greatest
flexibility and balanced land use aspect for the ~outhwestern
College Activity Center. The location would be ideal for a
quasi-public type use because of its geographical location.
For these and other reasons, staf~ recommends that the appli-
cant's request be denied and the Commission approve the
designation o~ Professional and Administrative Commercial with
the zoning of C-O-P.
In reply to Commissioner Tugenberg, City Traffic Engineer
Rosenberg said that the consultant had recommended that the
intersection be modified to provide dual left-turn lanes. More
information is needed by staff regarding necessary improvements
required by build-out of the Eastern Territories. Widening of
Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street sufficient for a six-lane
road will De required, however, the dual turn lanes are
considered to be a City or community need not generated by the
project but by cumulative growth.
In reply to Commissioner Casillas, he stated that the formula, 1
acre/i,000, took into consideration both regional and local
traffic.
Plann'n Commission 4 July 24, 1991
Mark Kelton, Ke£ton Title Corp., 5109 Waring Road, San Diego,
asked for clarification o~ the mitigation measures required.
Associate Planner Reid outlined them and pointed out that i~ the
Commission approved a commercial designation, mitigation would
not be required until such time as a specific project was
proposed. Mr. Kelton asked permission to return to the podium
after Mr. Hedenkamp and Mr. Vance had spoken.
Bill Hedenkamp, Hedenkamp and Associates, 1331 India ~treet, San
Diego 92101, said the site plan allows for 35,00U square feet of
what could be retail and office uses. To go to a purely office-
type project, there would be approximately 70,000 square feet of
office space which far surpasses the need of the area. This
would generate considerably more traffic at peak times.
Beneficial uses such as mail service, shoe repair and beauty
shops are permitted uses in the C-C zone but are conditional uses
in the C-O.
Lee Vance, P&D Technologies, 401 West A., San Diego, addressed
staff's six objections to the project and pointed out that the
proposed project was very small and would increase the overall
retail commercial in Chula Vista by .3% and in the Eastern
Territories by only 1.5%.
Mr. Kelton returned to the podium and spoke to the size of the
parcel as compared with Bonita Point Center. He noted that
traffic fees o~ $438,000 were required regardless of zoning and
that the C-C-P would permit a more viable project. Inquiries
have already been received from businesses such as the Red
Lobster, San Diego Trust, and a children's store.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Decker) 6-0, to adopt Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-90-13 and Monitoring Program prepared thereunder.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Decker) 6-0, to approve the applicant's request
for a General Plan Amendment to "Retail Commercial" and rezoning
to "C-C-P"
Break: 8:25 to 8:30 p.m.
5a. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-89-08 ON MIDBAYFRONT LCP
RESUBMITTAL NO. 8 AMENDMENT
Community Development Director Salomone requested that the
Commission consider only Items 5a and 5c. Item 5c recommends
that action be continued until staf~ and the Bayfront
Subcommittee work with the applicant to resolve key issues
related to the project. The nesource Conservation Commission
~ission 5 Jul~x~1991
(RCC) at their meeting of July 22, 1991 concurred with staff's
recommendation o£ certifying the EIR and recommending further
study. Director Salomone then introduced Christine Keller of
Keller Environmental Associates.
Ms. Keller said that the recirculated Draft and Final EIR had
been prepared to address the environmental impactS of the
original LCP submittal and the six reduced density alternatives
as well as a number of offsite alternatives. Constraints on the
major conclusions of the EIR include potential environmental
impacts o~ Alternative 8, the applicant's proposed project, and
Alternatives 7 and 9 which represent the environmentally
preferable alternatives. She indicated that Walt Crampton was
available to speak to the geotechnical and water aspects of the
EIR as well as Keith Merkel on the biological studies and Dan
Marin on traffic.
She noted that Alternative 8 differs from the original LCP by a
reduction from 4.18 million square feet of development to 3.9
million square feet, the number of residential and commercial
visitor units and by an increase in park space and associated
changes in parking. The basic layout of Alternative 8 remains
similar to the original.
Alternative 7 and 9 are reduced to 2.5 million square feet of
development with a similar mix but provide a larger buffer
between the development and the "E" Street marsh and pond.
The slide presentation illustrated the significant mitigable and
non-mitigable impacts between the original LCP and Alternatives
8, 7 and 9. Relative heights of various buildings throughout the
area were shown and computer-generated illustrations of proposed
structures compared. Visual impacts included blockage of view of
the Bay from Bay Boulevard, Nature Interpretive Center and other
locations. The proposed view corridor was illustrated. Also
illustrated was the impact to the proposed park area by the
shading from the tall buildings.
The restrictions to raptor foraging areas were addressed by Mr.
Merkle saying that traffic of even 1/2 of the proposed magnitude
would have a destructive effect.
The Chair complimented the compilers of the EIR on its
excellence.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Decker) 6-0, to certiIy that Final EIR-89-08 has
been prepared in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and
the Environmental RevieW Procedures for the City of Chula Vista,
and further that the Planning Commission has reviewed and
considered the information in the Final EIR as it reaches its
recommendation on the Alternative 8 concept plan.
Planning Commission 6 !DlY 24, 199%
5c. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
ALTERNATIVE 8
Community Development DirectOr ~alomone stated that the Planning
Commission is being asked to recommend City Council continuation
of this item because issues about economic feasibility of the
project and reduction in density alternatives require final
resolution. He introduced J. Kneip, Centi and Associates, who
made a detailed presentation covering the project descriptions,
the positive features and the unresolved issues (including
density, economic feasibiity and unmitigated environmental
impacts).
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public
hearing was opened.
An organized presentation was made by Chula Vista Investors.
Participants included Paul Peterson, 530 B St., Ste 2300, San
Diego; Carl Worthington, 913 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, 90391; and
william Barkett, 864 Project, La Jolla, 9203;.
Mr. Peterson indicated that the project would beneflt the City
during construction by providing $600 million, or 50U jobs per
year. When completed, it would provide 1200-1500 hotel jobs plus
400 restaurant and new retail jobs yearly. Other significant
economic benefits to be provided the City would include $5
million in annual taxes, $500,000 in sales tax and hotel-room
taxes o~ about $2.2 million per year. He contended that the
project was economically feasible. Mr. Peterson contended that
the City has refused to work with the applicant on the
development agreement for 1-1/2 years.
Bill Burkett noted that every change made in the plan had been
with either the traffic or the envrionment in mind.
Carl Worthington gave a slide show presentation summarizing
project highlights and the efforts made to develop a destination
resort, a 24-hour mixed-use community attractive for residential
and visitor-commercial, appropriate to its bayfront setting and
financially viable.
Jackie McQuade, 339 East "J" St., CV, requested denial of the
project and that the applicant not return with another submittal
unless he can stay within the General Plan guidelines.
will Hyde, 803 Vista Way, CV, 91911, speaking on behal~ of
Crossroads requested denial of the project. Be recommended that
the plan be rewritten in its entirety with public input being
provided from inception. Mr. Hyde referenced "The Midbayfront
Planning Program", adopted in September, 1986, as an authority
regarding building heights.
Planning CommSSsipn___ 7 July 24_x_ 1991
Peter Watry, 81 Second Ave., CV, read a letter from Bill Robens,
Conservation Chairman, South Bay Group, San Diego Chapter, Sierra
Club, noting that the project "...would cause severe and
irremediable harm to the environment." Mr. Robens recommended
that the Commission continue the item for Bayfront Subcommittee
review and specifically indicate a preference for a project of
reduced intensity and one that places more emphasiS on reduction
or elimination of environmental impacts. A second alternative
would be to deny the project as submitted and direct the
developer to return with one complying with the existing LCP and
more environmentally sensitive.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Tugenberg said he would like to see less bulk to the
entire project. This could be achieved, perhaps, by greater
height while opening up the project to allow views to the bay so
there is not the feeling of intensity generated by so many
buildings. Fewer buildings and more height would be his
recommendation.
CommiSsioner Carson said the resource of water should be of
paramount importance whether it is enhanced through the lagoon or
by being able to come up closer without endangering the wildlife.
She indicated that a larger view of the water and open space
should be emphasized rather than a narrow view corridor between
"E" Street and the bay. She wants view, water, open space and
less bulk even if it means a stacking of some of the buildings.
Commissioner Casillas said he would like to compliment both the
staff and the applicant, particularly Mr. Worthington who has
undoubtedly done an outstanding job. Some very significant
issues, however, have not been addressed properly and need work.
For that reason, he would support staff's recommendation to
continue the item so the ~ubcommlttee could work on it and public
input be provided. "The City of Chula Vista deserves the best
project we can get because once that land is gone, it's gone
forever."
Commissioner Martin commented that there was "too much in too
small an area" and he would support staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Decker said that Alternate 8 has focused the efforts
over the years down to a reasonable but adjustable plan. It is
one with a central theme that still needs some work. He liked
the architect's concept and thought further work toward
improvement would be practical.
Commissioner Fuller said she would like to compliment the appli-
cant and architect for a really innovative design which has a lot
of excellent points. The lagoon feature is truly outstanding.
Planning Commission __8 July--24-2-~1991
She said she was not entirely comfortable with the present layout
and would like to see it reduced somewhat. A remarkable job has
been done in working with the various agencies on the
environmental concerns and the enhancement of the marsh which is
something desirable in any project of any scale. The
Commissioner said she supported staff's recommendation but had
some reservations about continuing this with the Subcommittee
without putting some time constraints. The environmental impact
document accepted tonight covers anything that Alternate 8 or a
higher density proposal would entail. A lower density is under
discussion, and it is to be hoped that the Subcommittee would not
feel it necessary to go into further environmental review. She
expressed concern about the continued comparison to the adopted
LCP saying those charts are no longer valid. Ms. Fuller
emphasized that care should be taken that the public does not get
the idea that they will have access to the Bayfront. The public
must be aware that the marsh land is not being developed so they
can go into the marsh or down into the water. The area is now a
National wildlife ~efuge and there is no access to the water.
Carson) 6-0, to continue this item and direct staf~
MSUC (Dec~er/ ......... ~ ~ Ba~front Planning subcommittee
to work with the app~lc~u a~ ~,~e ~
to resolve the key issues raised by the proposed project as
outlined in the staf~ report and to return to the Commission
within 4 months.
Break: 10:41 - 10:46
6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-91-29: REQUEST
TO CONSTRUCT A CAR WASH wITHIN THE FUTURE RIO SWEE~ATER
PLAZA COMMERCIAL CENTER AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 30TH
STREET AND EDGEMERE AVENUE - RIO SwEETWATER PLAZA INVESTORS,
LIMITED.
Associate Planner Reid made a presentation for the development of
a single-bay car wash within the future Rio Sweetwater Plaza
commercial center. She noted that no full-service car washes are
within a 4-mile radius. One of the unique advantages of th~s car
wash is that customers may leave and return for their vehicles at
a later time. Approval of the CUP is requested.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the flood channel would be
covered and Assistant Director Lee answered affirmatively.
Commissioner Casillas asked the number of parking spaces and was
informed that there were 8 on the premises, 212 ~or the total
project plus a stacking arrangement.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public
hearing was opened.
Planninq Commission 9
Bruce Winer, 3444 Camino del Rio South, San Diego, 92108, the
Architect, answered Commissioner Decker'S inquiry into water
recycling by saying that 90% of the water would be recycled. In
reply to a question about water run-off into the street, Mr.
Winer referred to the owner, A1 Stabb.
A1 stabb, Scripps Ranch Area, San Diego, repeated that 90% of the
water would be recycled and the remaining 10% would be evaporated
or run-off on the cars. He emphasized that there was no such
thing as 100% recycling. Mr. Stabb also corrected the statement
that the cars could be left and picked up by the owners.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Casillas) 6-0, that based on the Initial Study
and comments thereon, to ~ind that this project will have no
significant environmental impacts and recommend adoption of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program
issued on IS-91-31.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Casillas) 6-0, that based on the findings
contained in Section "E" o~ the staff report, to approve PCC-91-
29 subject to conditions "a" through "c".
7. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-91-20: REQUEST TO RETAIN THE
EXISTING 6-FOOT HIGH, 13-FOOT WIDE PROJECTING ROOFTOP SIGN
ON THE CAMERA BUG STORE AT 381 'E' STREET - JAMES L.
PAPADAKIS
Associate Planner Reid made a slide presentation and indicated
that the projecting rooftop sign on the Camera Bug store at 381
"E" Street was nonconforming and the building owner and tenant
manager had been notified of the need for abatement. The three-
unit building is allowed one non-projecting rooftop sign or a
freestanding sign, but not both. The non-conforming sign
projects 3 feet beyond the face of the building because of the
"U" setback. The Camera Bug also has a wall sign and a canopy
sign facing "E" Street, which are both permitted.
Re~erring to the "0" setback of the Camera Bug, Assistant
Director Lee indicated that there were some advantageS to the "0"
setback in terms of the sign being visible along the store
frontage, however, there are disadvantages in terms of the sign
being parallel with the street. There are a lot oX buildings
with "0" setback in the C-T Zone. This particular building has
three different businesses and it is virtually impossible to come
up with a project sign program for each business. A suggestion
for shared signage on a freestanding sign was rejected.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked about the length of occupancy by the
Camera Bug and was referred to the applicant.
PlanninCommissio~ 10 Jul¥_~4, 1991
Commissioner Carson asked if individual notices had been sent at
the time the sign ordinance went into effect. Assistant Director
Lee replied they had not. information was promulgated through
the news media because it was felt that by the time the 15 years
had passed, many signs would no longer exist. He added that
there were still 200-250 non-conforming signs being abated and
their owners had been notified. The abatement period in the
Montgomery area dates from the 1985 annexation date.
Commissioner Decker questioned the conformance of the "True Line"
sign on the end of the building. Planner Reid replied that what
looks like a standing sign is actually an architectural feature
o~ the building (as can be seen more clearly from the eastern
side).
This being the time and the place as advertised, the puDlic
hearing was opened.
James L. Papadakis, 75 Third Avenue ~29, CV, said that the
building itself is not a "0" setback building but is actually set
back 3 feet so that the portico does not extend to the public
sidewalk. There is a second sidewalk about 3 feet wide running
along the building thereby making the sidewalk 3 feet wider than
other buildings further along the block. Mr. Papadakis stated
that signs are critical. The shop was purchased in 1978 and the
sign was then in conformance. There was no way in which the
builders could have anticipated the change in zoning codes.
Mr. Papadakis presented slides of other business signs in the
area and throughout the City for comparison. He maintained that
he enjoyed no special privileges nor additional identification
over his neighbors because the only identification was the sign
itself. He presented supporting documents from his neighbors and
patrons o~ the store.
Commissioner Carson asked if the sign could be moved back? Mr.
Papadakis replied affirmatively but added the sign had been in
place a long time and moving it would be cost-prohibitive for a
small business.
Mary woods, 509 Carvalos Drive, CV, said the building was con-
structed in 1958 and she did not believe the clock protruded over
the public sidewalk, she requested approval of the variance.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
In response to Commissioner Casillas, Assistant Director Lee said
the sign would have to terminate flush with the building.
Commissioner Tugenberg commented that there were no findings to
support a variance. He added that viewing from the east, there
appears to be a sign blight.
Planninq Commission 11 July 24, 1991
Commissioner Carson asked if the liquor store and florist shop
shown in the slide had been noticed or were they in conformance?
Ms. Reid said she was not certain i~ they were or not.
Commissioner Fuller agreed that there appeared to be more rooftop
signs not in conformance. Mr. Lee said the matter could be
looked into, however, there was a problem with a building that
possessed only 15 feet o~ ~rontage since no provisions in the
Code covered such a small frontage.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Casillas) 6-0, that based on the findings
contained in Section "E" of the staf~ report, to deny ZAV-91-20.
Commissioner Casillas said what must be remembered is that when
the City adopted the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance 15 years ago,
notice was, in effect, given to everyone having a non-conforming
sign. It is regrettable, but necessary that this be done to
improve the visual quality of the City. For that reason, he
would have to support the motion.
Commissioner Carson said the key issue was the necessity to come
up with ~indings. The presentation made by Mr. Papadakis was
excellent but she was obliged to vote based on the findings that
she had.
OT~ER BUSINESS: REQUEST TO FILE AN APPEAL AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE APPEAL PERIOD ON LFD-91-04
- PETER HAYES
This case was dismissed. See Item 1, page 1.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the Commission would
receive an update on Otay Ranch at the 8/21/91 workshop meeting.
COMMISSION COMMENT~
Commissioner Carson suggested that when lengthy items are placed
on the agenda, consideration be given to placing shorter items
before them.
Commissioner Tugenberg said he would like to receive blueprints
with the packet if they are available.
Chair Fuller reminded the Commissioners to leave unwanted papers
on the desk ~or recycling.
ADJOURNMENT AT 11:45 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of
August 14, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council chambers.
Ruth M. Smith
Acting Secretary