HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/04/24 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, April 24, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Ray, Commissioners, Salas, Tarantino,
Thomas and Willett
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Davis and Tuchscher
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner
Griffin, Assistant Planner Nevins, Special Projects
Manager Jamriska, Senior Planner Rosaler,
Associate Planner Luttrell, Planning Tech II
Matthews, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant
City Attorney Moore
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chair Ray, in the absence of Chair Tuchscher, led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag
and a moment of silent prayer.
MOTION TO EXCUSE
MSC (Willett/Thomas) 5-0 to excuse Commissioners Tuchscher and Davis, who were out of
town.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
At the request of Vice Chair Ray, Commissioner Thomas reviewed the composition of the
Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
Vice Chair Ray led in a discussion as procedure. Commissioner Salas felt uncomfortable
making a decision on certifying the EIR because she did not feel she had all the information.
She had concerns regarding the Public Facilities Financing Plan.
PC Minutes -2- April 24, 1996
Attorney Moore informed the Commissioners that action needed to be taken on the EIR before
any actions regarding ratification of any of the items could be taken.
MS (Salas/Thomas) to continue item 1.
Vice Chair Ray asked Commissioner Salas to elaborate on her reasons in that regard.
Commissioner Salas was uncomfortable in certifying the EIR based on not receiving the full
information on the Public Facilities Financing Plan and she still had some questions on the
Resource Management Plan. She was uncomfortable in certifying the EIR until she had the
information she felt she needed.
Commissioner Willett asked her to identify those items which she thought were missing, and if
she had made it known to staff?.
Commissioner Salas was concerned about the $27 million shortfall in the TransDIF fee. It was
an important part of the project, and it was important that the TransDIF fee fund was analyzed
and the information made available to the Commissioners.
Vice Chair Ray asked if the shortfall TransDIF fee specifically pertained to SR 125.
Mr. Jamriska replied that it was citywide. He stated that if the motion failed, staff could bring
this issue up for discussion under the Environmental Impact Report. It was scheduled for
presentation the following week; however, the Issue Paper had already been prepared and was
ready for presentation as part of item no. 1, if the Commission desired. Mr. Jamriska said that
the conclusion was that the City was more than well protected in terms of there being a shortfall.
There was no shortfall, and it was an inappropriate term that was used in the Public Facilities
Financing Plan. The term should not have been used. Staff would be recommending deletion
of that term and that it be rephrased in the PFFP.
Commissioner Salas stated that if her motion failed, she was willing to listen. She felt it was
important that it be discussed in terms of item 1.
Vice Chair Ray asked that the motion be to continue this item to the next scheduled meeting of
May Ist.
The second concurred.
VOTE: 3-2 - MOTION FAILED (Needed four votes to pass). Vice Chair Ray, for the
record, asked to include the discussion on the shortfall of the $27 odd million dollars.
PC Minutes -3- April 24, 1996
ITEM 1: EIR-95-02; CONSIDER CERTIFYING THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE AND ANNEXATION FINAL SECOND-TIER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) AND ADDENDUM
Special Projects Manager Jamriska noted that the request before the Planning Commission was
to certify the Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report as well as the addendum, make
certain findings of fact to adopt, adopt a mitigation monitoring reporting program, statement of
overriding considerations, and recommend certification to the City Council. He introduced John
Mattox of the firm of Remy Thomas and Moose to review the legal requirements for CEQA
processing and John Bridges, the consultant firm of Cotton Beland Associates who prepared the
environmental impact report.
John Mattox, Remy Thomas and Moose, stated that they were special CEQA counsel to the City
of Chula Vista for the Otay Ranch Project. He noted that on March 28, the Commission had
closed the public comment and review period and had directed staff to prepare responses to
comments received on the SPA I EIR. Those responses had been prepared by the EIR
consultant, as well as a number of subconsultants with technical expertise in particular resource
areas. In addition to the EIR, they had also prepared findings of fact and a statement of
overriding considerations as well as a mitigation monitoring report. He then introduced John
Bridges from Cotton Beland, who actually prepared the EIR and oversaw preparations of
responses to comments.
John Bridges, principal with Cotton Beland Associates, the preparers of the environmental
impact report for SPA I, noted that two versions of the EIR had been sent out and responses
were prepared to reply to both sets of comments received. The comments received some 28
letters on the first initial EIR, and some 15 letters of comment on the recirculated draft EIR.
They involved'not only responses to the comments, but in some cases some changes to the text
of the environmental impact report itself where those changes had been made, noted by a
reference in the margin of the page which had been changed, with a direct tie-back to the
response relating to that comment. Mr. Bridges recommended certification of the environmental
impact report and addendum, mitigation monitoring reporting program, and statement of
overriding considerations.
Mr. Jamriska then called upon Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich to make a presentation regarding
the Public Facilities Financing Plan. Mr. Ullrich began by giving some background of the
TransDIF program, stating that the shortfall as called out in the TransDIF was not really a
shortfall. The $20 million represented EastLake Development Company who put in Telegraph
Canyon Road in advance of their development, in which case they received credits on future
building permits towards the construction of that road. The $20 million shown in the PFFP
would be credits to the Baldwin Company or whoever constructed the improvements for the
circulation system needed for the development of that project. So, in essence, the $20 million
would be credited towards future development. The Public Facilities Financing Plan showed all
improvements that are included in the matrix for Alternate A and Alternate B. And the total that
PC Minutes -4- April 24, 1996
was shown there was if it had to build all of those facilities. All of the facilities did not have
to be built at once, depending on the alternate used. The $20 million could be reduced by
capital improvement projects that the City may build with DIF funds been paid by other
developers. Mr. Ullrich stated that a couple of projects were proposed in the 1996-97 CIP
project list included in the PFFP, which had not yet been approved.
Mr. Ullrich explained the two alternatives which had been analyzed with the traffic analysis,
which was done to show which circulation element roads might be needed at a certain time. The
alternatives including either Palomar Street or Orange Avenue were needed by the time SPA I
builds out, but the facilities in each one would be somewhat different. Mr. Ullrich discussed
a chart which showed the different facilities needed and the cost of each facility. In the
proposed 1996-97 DIF projects, there were about $1.9 million worth of projects on the list that
may be included in the CIP project, which are part of the DIF program. Some developers pay
their fees and then the City builds the project; others build the projects, and get credit towards
their fees.
Commissioner Salas understood that in Alternative B where the total cost of the traffic
infrastructure was $45.6 million, that was the cost for building the traffic infrastructure.
Mr. Ullrich concurred.
Commissioner Salas asked if Council approved the Capital Improvement Program, the $27
million may be reduced by the $1.9 million.
Mr. Ullrich stated that was correct. He stated that the costs indicated in Alternate A and B
included traffic signal costs, and the developer would be paying traffic signal fees. That should
be subtracted out because those were not typically included in the DIF program. By taking those
out, the total would be about $43 million. The total cost shown in the PFFP was approximately
$64 million. Mr. Ullrich stated that some of the improvements were exactions that the
developer would have to pay which were not DIF funded. The total cost shown in the PFFP
of $64 million was because the costs to build Alternate A and Alternate B were combined. It
was indicated in the PFFP that the $42.9 million was the cost of transportation development
impact fee projects. The total fees shown in the PFFP was $20,600,000. If Baldwin were to
build all those facilities themselves, they would have $22.3 million worth of credit for future
building in the TransDIF Program. Mr. Ullrich stated that the TransDIF program was basically
the area east of 1-805 within the city, stopping just short of Otay Valley Road.
Commissioner Salas was concerned the $20 million figure was generated by the fees paid by
equivalent dwelling units. She asked if that was correct.
Mr. Ullrich answered affirmatively.
PC Minutes -5- April 24, 1996
Commissioner Salas asked if the total cost of the traffic improvements, whether or not they have
credits, was still short. They did not have the fees, so there was still a shortage of $22 million,
even though they're given credit for it so eventually they get it back?
Mr. Ullrich confirmed, and stated that the developer had to fund the facilities up front.
Commissioner Salas was concerned about the requirement for funding up front.
Mr. Mattox, of Remy Thomas, explained that the PFFP, in respect to transportation, addressed
the traffic improvements that would be necessary in Eastern Chula Vista because of cumulative
build-out. The costs and the improvements were not necessarily resulting strictly from or only
from SPA I. For purposes of CEQA, the fundamental question was what was the project's
specific contribution to the overall need. To that extent, the items that were listed in Table 9
of the PFFP were improvements needed in Eastern Chula Vista and San Diego County, not
because of SPA I, but because of cumulative build-out in the region. The equivalent dwelling
unit contribution that Baldwin was being required to contribute, the $20 million, characterized
that contribution. An analysis in the PFFP which characterized that contribution represented a
fair share for Baldwin to contribute to this overall need. The shortfall did not result from
Baldwin's failure to contribute a fair share to needed improvements in Eastern Chula Vista
because of this cumulative build-out in the region. The PFFP made it clear early on that the
PFFP addressed improvements needed in this particular region, separate from what happens with
SPA I. The shortfall identified in the PFFP creates an erroneous impression that Baldwin is not
paying its fair share. The reason that it was identified as a shortfall was because, despite the
fact that predictions had been made about this cumulative traffic load, individual projects had
not necessarily been identified at this time that would contribute to that cumulative load.
Nevertheless, as part of the CEQA process and as part of the City's long-term planning effort,
based on traffic models and land use assumptions that are developed by staff and reviewed, that
data is essentially run as a series of models by SANDAG. The City has had to try to predict
what improvements would be needed in its circulation system as the SPA develops, but those
needed improvements are not necessarily attributable just to the SPA. Even though Baldwin
would receive credit if they build some of these other improvements, among one of the other
possibilities is that other developers will come in and they would also be required to contribute
the equivalent dwelling unit contribution to the City's TransDIF program.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if part of the phasing requirement was contingent upon
improvements being made in the circulation system at a specific time?
Mr. Ullrich stated that the matrix in the PFFP was set up so that the improvements needed at
the time would be installed. The 2,40 million worth of improvements would not be installed all
at once. The improvements on Telegraph Canyon Road would be started first and followed by
either Orange Avenue or Palomar.
Commissioner Tarantino stated that would be based on the studies of where the traffic was going
to be impacted or the circulation was going to be impacted.
PC Minutes -6- April 24, 1996
Mr. Ullrich concurred, and added that the other part would be the inclusion of a diamond at
Palomar through the State of California, which may be a difficult chore, because it did not meet
their standards. Staff was working on that.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if it be erroneous to assume that even though possibly the impact
from SPA I was not contributing to the circulation problems, if there was a cumulative effect
from other developments, the threshold standards would kick in and, technically, development
in the whole area could be ceased until improvements were made.
Mr. Ullrich stated that was correct. The tentative map would have a condition on it that would
enable staff to withhold building permits if the threshold standards had been exceeded. That
same condition was put on Rancho del Rey SPA III, EastLake Greens and Sunbow.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if the Commission should be concerned whether or not Village
Properties was able to secure financing for this?
Mr. Ullrich felt they should not be concerned. If the thresholds had been exceeded,
development could be stopped. If that happens, the developers would all get together to fix it
somehow.
Mr. Ullrich stated that the program had been set up so to get the improvements installed in front
of the need.
Commissioner Tarantino stated that if that was not done, there were two safeguards, the
threshold standards and other trigger poims.
Mr. Ullrich stated that the trigger points on traffic were determined based on the traffic analysis,
and were set up on a certain number of trips that are generated from SPA I.
Commissioner Willett stated that he had been concerned also about some of the items
Colnmissioner Salas had brought up, but the staff presentations had cleared that up. He was
now satisfied with the DIF organization and the planning and would like to make a
recommendation to support the staff's explanation.
Vice Chair Ray asked if there were further comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Thomas asked if any project had been stopped because of threshold standards
being exceeded.
Commissioner Tarantino recalled that at one time before the developments, building in EastLake
was halted until the developments on East "H" Street were completed. Building permits were
held up for a while, maybe six months. That was the only project that had been. The
implication was that the developers were meeting the responsibilities in putting the improvements
in prior to the need.
PC Minutes -7- April 24, 1996
Vice Chair Ray said that in some cases, there was not a choice. There was nowhere to expand
the facilities, especially in the older sections of the City, when a threshold was exceeded. At
that time, either construction was halted or the fact was accepted that the threshold standard was
exceeded. The thresholds are a standard, and not a hard-fast line that stops, halts, and deceases
construction because a threshold is exceeded. It was at Council's discretion to accept missing
a threshold standard and continue building. In this case, because of the f'mancial impact of the
City, he felt Council would do that.
Mr. Ullrich agreed, and stated it was the Council's decision.
Commissioner Tarantino stated that the threshold standards were only as good as their
enforcement.
Mr. Jamriska asked if Commissioner Salas was comfortable with the responses from staff or if
she would like Dan Marum to explain the analysis in the traffic study and explain the big
picture.
Commissioner Salas thought it was a concern as a community as to whether Baldwin would be
able finance that before they got their credits. The City may be left with a project that has these
huge traffic ramifications and no way to fund the improvements because Baldwin cannot get the
financing.
Mr. Jamriska stated that the improvements would be built before the entitlements were given.
In other words, as permits are seeking permission to build, the improvements go in.
Commissioner Salas understood that development will not occur if there is not a road to get
there.
Mr. Jamriska concurred. The road would be there before the building occurred, potentially
overbuilding the improvement to accommodate a projected growth, and that growth may not be
there.
Commissioner Ray asked Assistant Planning Director Lee to give the Planning Department
Director's position on this shortfall. Has the Planning Department taken a stand on this outside
of the Otay Ranch Team?
Mr. Lee said it had been well explained by the consultant and Mr. Jamriska in terms of this
particular proposal, and the Planning Department saw it as a valid proposal. It was a very
typical PFFP which analyzed the needs and set forth the program. The development would not
occur unless these improvements were built ahead or were concurrent with that development.
Commissioner Ray said that from the Planning Department's standpoint, without the threshold
standards from the GMOC that are approved by the City Council, the Planning Department is
willing to say if those improvements are not made, they would withhold permits.
PC Minutes -8- April 24, 1996
Mr. Lee replied that it would not be the Planning Department's decision; it would be the City
Council's decision. Conditions placed on the map throws up those flags and has that review
process and staff has the capability of doing that, but the final decision rests with the City
Council.
Commissioner Ray stated that the Planning Department would stop the issuance of the permits,
and the applicant would then have to appeal that up to the City Council.
Mr. Lee concurred.
Mr. Ullrich stated that the actual stopping point would be the final maps. There would be a
condition of approval on the tentative map requiring installation of improvements called out in
the Public Facilities Financing Plan. They would have to be bonded and an agreement entered
into at the time of final map approval for the project as indicated in the matrix. He used
Telegraph Canyon Road, the widening of the portion around Sunbow, as an example. After
building 300 units, they would have to bond for the improvements with that final map. If the
developer is unable to finish them, the City would call the bond and put the improvements in.
In every situation where the improvement is called out for the particular fmal map, the City
would have the bonds in place.
Commissioner Ray concluded that the City was essentially taking insurance for lack of
performance for whatever reason by any developer that would impact the necessity for an
improvement to anything revolving around the TransDIF fees.
Mr. Ullrich stated that he was talking about a condition of approval on the final maps which
only pertained to SPA I.
Commissioner Ray stated that the City was basically insured that the infrastructure would be in
place before those final maps were approved and building permits were issued based on those
bonds that Mr. Ullrich referenced.
Mr. Ullrich replied that the bonds were placed with the final map and they were allowed three
years to install the improvements unless the City told them to do something quicker than that.
Commissioner Ray asked if that would allow the development to occur without the improvements
to happen either prior to or concurrent with that development? You could not have this
infrastructure in place and still allow development to occur for a three-year period.
Mr. Ullrich said that could happen for the improvements that were required with that map. The
next map could not go, because the developer would not be able to meet that. The matrix was
set up so that as a number of units were built, the developer is required to build more
improvements. If those improvements are not made, they would not get to the next map. The
bonding is a state requirement, it's a state law that they place the bonds with the final map.
PC Minutes -9- April 24, 1996
Commissioner Ray believed it had been determined previously by the County and City that the
infrastructure, road improvements, was going to be in place prior to any final map, prior to any
development occurring on any of the SPAs.
Mr. Lee said they would occur sequentially with development, and so all of the infrastructure
is in day one, and then you start building the first home. And it's portions of villages as they
are developed. During the years, the conditions have worked. This project was no different
than any of those other projects. There had been problems in other cities, because they did not
have this type of process, but Chula Vista had been able to keep a very good handle on the
process and projects by doing this.
Commissioner Salas asked for the big picture regarding traffic Mr. Jamriska had previously
offered.
Mr. Dan Marum, the traffic consultant, pointed out that the forecast in a future travel demand
that they had analyzed in the SPA level traffic evaluation was based on not only project but
cumulative traffic. So there was an estimate of the amount of collective growth that would be
occurring in Eastern Chula Vista. They had divided that growth into increments and tried to
analyze at five-year increments what transportation infrastructure would need to be in place.
Mr. Marum thought there had been a good track record at the City and that there was some
strength behind the plan review process and the ultimate level of approval associated with pulling
permits. He thought the traffic monitoring and threshold review were simply tools or indicators
that are supposed to help staff to determine where the travel demand would exist and where the
the hot spots would be, and what solutions might occur or might be necessary to solve a hot
spot. Mr. Marum thought it was important to recognize that there are processes in place at the
City that have been proven to work, that would require that the capacity be provided concurrent
with need, and that if that capacity is not funded and not provided, that the final level of
approval that would allow for the pulling of the permits would not be recommended for
approval. He also pointed out that there had been previous shortfalls where there were not
sufficient funds in the account to build the infrastructure. Yet the developer was ready to load
traffic onto the system in excess of the capacity that was available. Previous development in the
City had fronted the money, but had received financing for building infrastructure beyond the
level of building permits that they were seeking at the moment. They get that money back when
permits are pulled in subsequent SPAs and they do not pay a fee. Their money was already
invested in the City's infrastructure system. Mr. Marum stated that there were other cumulative
development that would benefit from the road system that had been fronted by any given
developer that could pay back that developer over time when they pulled permits.
Vice Chair Ray stated that the PFFP itself was not essentially a part of the EIR. The PFFP was
a stand-alone document and, therefore, if the Planning Commissioners wanted to take action on
the EIR itself, this discussion was really something that would be on the agenda for May 1st.
Mr. Jamriska confirmed that it was not part of the environmental impact report, but it gave a
picture of the total financial impact of the project. They would be discussing the PFFP later in
PC Minutes -10- April 24, 1996
this meeting. It would be presented for clarification because Commissioner Salas raised that
issue. It could lead into Commission action, however, it was on the agenda for the following
week.
Commissioner Ray felt that since it was an item for the next week's agenda, he would like to
continue discussing the EIR. He asked Commissioner Salas if she was comfortable with that.
Commissioner Salas was comfortable that the PFFP and the Resource Management Plan were
stand-alone, but if the Commission did not agree with those, was the EIR sound only as long
as the other documents were sound?
Mr. Mattox stated that the purpose of the EIR was to analyze the impacts associated with SPA
I. The RMP, the Phase II RMP and the PFFP essentially relate to the EIR to the extent that
they address mitigation measures that the EIR uses to address project impacts. The question
with respect to the EIR was whether or not it adequately analyzed and disclosed the impacts
associated with SPA I. In reaching that decision, the Planning Commission had to decide
whether or not the mitigation measures recolnmended by staff adequately addressed those
impacts and were feasible.
Commissioner Salas said that if there was a problem with the funding so that, as an example,
the open spaces can be preserved, then that means that there is not a mechanism to ensure that
all those things can be done.
Mr. Mattox stated that Ms. Salas was correct; however, he clarified that approval of these
supporting documents and some of the tentative decisions would be addressed by the Planning
Commission at their May 1st meeting, along with the consideration as to whether or not the
analysis in the EIR remains valid as they reached their final conclusions with respect to the
project.
Mr. Jamriska added that one of the conditions of the environmental impact report was that it
follow the RMP Phase II. The mitigation monitoring report sets up a procedure and process to
monitor that all the conditions, all the mitigation impacts, are meeting the requirements. If not,
then there is a procedure in process to implement corrective action. If the fee for the habitat
maintenance district is not adequate to meet the mitigation, then in essence another process,
another procedure, or another financing plan has to be established to make up that deficit. That
was why the State and the City were required to come up with a mitigation monitoring plan to
make sure that the impacts were indeed mitigated, and that there is a process to ensure that. A
TransDIF program was one aspect of that, together with the habitat maintenance district if that
assessment district was adequate.
Vice Chair Ray stated that he had two speaker slips. However the public heating had previously
been closed. He asked the City Attorney if the City would be in violation of noticing
requirements it the public hearing was reopened.
PC Minutes -11- April 24, 1996
Attorney Moore stated that it would be in violation.
Vice Chair Ray advised Mr. Kilkenny and Mr. Silva that they would not be able to speak to this
item.
Mr. Kilkenny stated that he was available to answer questions, and did not need to address this
item.
Mr. Silva also indicated he did not wish to speak on Item 1, but was available for questions.
Vice Chair Ray noted that both were in favor of the recoxnmendation.
Mr. Jamriska noted that there was a resolution for Planning Commission consideration.
MS (Willett/Thomas) 5-0 (Commissioners Tuchscher and Davis excused) to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution EIR-95-01 certifying the Otay Ranch SPA I Annexation Final
Second-Tier EIR-95-01, including the response to comments, mitigation monitoring
program, and the findings of fact, and statement of overriding considerations in compliance
with CEQA.
ITEM 2: PCA-96-02; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED
COMMUNITY (PC) - (Continued from April 10, 1996)
Associate Planner Luttrell had previously presented the staff report on this, and stated that she
was available for questions.
Since there were no questions of staff, Vice Chair Ray opened the public hearing.
Klm Kilkenny of Village Development, 11975 El Camlno Real, San Diego, stated that on this
item, along with items 3 and 4, he was available to answer questions. The applicant was in
support of those three items.
Abel Parr, 845 E. 8th Street, National City, representing Ernie Hofer, John Burns, and
Nelson Sloan, a quarry operator in the Otay Ranch, stated that they were opposed to this item
being heard. They did not receive any notice of this hearing and would like to have it
continued.
Vice Chair Ray asked staff to respond to the lack of noticing comments.
Mr. Jamriska stated that this hearing was advertised twice, initially as part of the original
environmental impact report circulation. It was renoticed again for the supplemental
environmental impact report. This issue, as well as every single item on this agenda was put
in the public notice. That notice was not only to the property owners, but to the tenants as well,
PC Minutes -12- April 24, 1996
not only within the project site, but within 1000 feet of the perimeter of the entire 23,000 acre
property. Over 2,000 notices were sent twice.
Vice Chair Ray asked if staff knew if Nelson Sloan was included in that list?
Mr. Jamriska confirmed that they were, and that they had also met with not only the operators
of the rock quarry, but the property owner as well and had also informed them with a calendar
of hearings before the Commission as well as before the Council as well as on several other
issues relating to the development of the property. In addition, he had talked with Mr. Parr on
many occasions informing him of this date.
Vice Chair Ray stated that, given that staff were the ones who put out the notices, he had to take
them on their discretion and their comments that Nelson Sloan was noticed on this. He
suggested that if there were any other concerns, it be directed either to the City Attorney's office
or back to the Planning Department with a letter of concern. The item could not be continued
without a vote by the Commission.
Mr. Parr stated that the two owners of properties were present and they could attest to the fact
that they did not receive notice, so they may wish to pursue this. The concern was the
implementation of the PC zone. It currently restricted the parcel of land under unified
ownership of 50 acres or more and also required the concurrent submittal of a general
development plan to change that PC zone. Mr. Parr thought the amendment might short-change
the small owners to the point where they would no longer be protected, that the southeast corner
or southwest corner of the property where Mr. Burns and Mr. Hofer own property of 15 acres
each and the ordinance apparently combined all of the ownerships into one and it appeared to
take away the checks and balances that had initially been planned.
Vice Chair Ray asked if either of the other two owners within that area would like to speak.
John Burns, P. O. Box 93, Jamul, stated that he did not receive a notice on this meeting.
There were two or three meetings that he had not received notices on.
Ernie Hofer, 7048 San Miguel Avenue, Bonita, stated he had the same problem as Nelson and
Sloan and Mr. Burns. He had not gotten notice of this meeting and one other.
Vice Chair Ray directed staff to look into the allegations and for the Assistant Planning Director
to report at the next Planning Commission meeting what may have happened and how it might
be resolved.
Mr. Jamriska noted that the public notice which had been mailed was for the environmental
impact report as well as all the items relating to the SPA. It had been set for March 28th, at
which time the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare responses to comments, and
continued the item until April 10th. At that time, it was continued to April 24, and then
additional items will be continued to May 1st. If the property owners did not attend any one of
PC Minutes -13- April 24, 1996
those meetings, they would have missed those continuances. Mr. Jamriska stated that staff was
under no obligation to send out new notices every time an item is continued at a duly advertised
public hearing. He thought they may have missed the March 28th meeting, which was in the
public notice that they may or may not have received, and then subsequent continuances. He
believed that was the case, but staff would loo1~ into it further. Staff had a record of everyone
who were sent notices.
Vice Chair Ray felt that may be a sufficient answer. However, he asked staff to check the
records for the March meeting. He apologized for the fact that they were not renoticed, but
explained the cost and timeliness involved in renoticing.
Attorney Moore explained that the whole purpose of noticing was to provide property owners
or people with due process right of knowing when a meeting is scheduled so they can contribute
to that public hearing. By the fact that the property owners were in attendance, they had that
opportunity available for them. They could raise any objections or concerns they had at the
meeting.
Vice Chair Ray asked if any of the three gentlemen wished to address something specifically on
item 2, or if Mr. Parr handled that sufficiently for them.
Mr. Parr stated that the owners would like to see that the ordinance remains as is rather than
change. They were in opposition to it.
Vice Chair Ray asked Ms. Luttrell to make a short presentation, which may alleviate some of
the concerns of the owners. This was not necessarily a down zoning, and maybe she could
address those issues.
Ms. Luttrell explained that it was an amendment to the Planned Community zone. There were
several properties which were surrounded by the Otay Ranch which were non-Baldwin-owned
parcels less than 50 acres in size. The Otay Ranch project was prezoned PC in the past. It was
staff's intent to allow parcels less than 50 acres in size and not under a single ownership to be
able to be folded into this Otay Ranch planning effort, this an amendment to the Planned
Community zone. The affected property owners, who were proposed to be prezoned PC, had
several options. The particular owners could amend the adjacent GDP which is the Otay Ranch
GDP and annex into it in order to be part of that comprehensive overall planning effort; they
could also seel~ an underlying land use zone which would be consistent with the City's General
Plan designation, or they could come back at some time in the future if they so chose and apply
for a General Plan amendment to be more in line with what they had in mind for their property.
Vice Chair Ray noted that it was not permanent; they could come before the Planning
Commission if the property was annexed and asl~ for a rezone. If the Planning Commission for
some reason turned them down, those options would still exist. It was more of a blar~et zoning.
Ms. Luttrell concurred.
PC Minutes -14- April 24, 1996
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed on this item.
Commissioner Tarantino clarified that the public hearing was only for item no. 2; the Planning
Commission was not taking 2, 3, and 4 all together.
Vice Chair Ray stated that he would like to take 2, 3 and 4 individually and vote on those
individually because he had speaker slips on those independently. At this point, the Commission
was considering item 2, PCA-96-02, the rezone for the Planned Community PC zone.
MSC (Thomas/Salas) 5-0 (Commissioners Davis and Tuchscher excused) to accept staff's
recommendation on PCA-96-02; consideration of amendment to the Planned Community.
ITEM 3: PCA-96-03; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE THE PUBLIC/QUASI-
PUBLIC ZONE - (Continued from April 10, 1996)
Associate Planner Luttrell stated that this was an amendment to the Municipal Code to create
the public/quasi-public zone. At the April 10th meeting, the Planning Commission had taken
a straw vote to approve the creation of the PQ zone. This was originally intended to be applied
to the Otay Landfill which was at one point going to be annexed into the City; that particular
piece of property would not be annexed, but this zone still was of some use in that staff was
going to apply it to several of the non-Baldwin or non-Otay Ranch parcels--that being the Otay
Water District parcels as well as the San Diego Water Reservoir parcel. Generally, it could be
used for other properties within the City as a whole or those which are under control by public
or quasi public agencies.
Vice Chair Ray opened the public hearing. Mr. Kilkenny indicated he was available to answer
any questions. Mr. Ray asked Mr. Parr if he had the same reservations that he had previously.
Mr. Parr said he had no reservations.
No one else wishing to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed.
MSC (Willett/Salas) 5-0 (Commissioners Tuchscher and Salas excused) that the Planning
Commission concur with staff and approve Resolution PCA-96-03 recommending that the City
Council adopt the attached ordinance creating the PQ zone as presented in the Planning
Commission packet.
Vice Chair Ray noted for the public's benefit that the Planning Commission had had lengthy
discussions on all of the items at previous meetings, and they were not rushing through the
items, if that appeared to be the case.
PC Minutes -15- April 24, 1996
ITEM 4: PCZ-96-A; APPLICATION OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE
BY PREZONING CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN PLANNING
AREAS ONE AND THREE OF THE 1995 CHULA VISTA SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE UPDATE STUDY, PREZONING THE OTAY WATER
DISTRICT PARCEL TO PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (PQ) ZONE AND
PREZONING THE NELSON/SLOAN ROCK QUARRY PROPERTY TO
AGRICULTURE (A) ZONE - (Continued from April 10, 1996)
Ms. Luttrell indicated on an overhead map all those parcels that were surrounded by the Otay
Ranch which are not owned by Village Development or the Baldwin Company. They were all
proposed to be zoned or prezoned prior to annexation into the City. The PQ zone was being
applied to the Otay Water District parcels, the San Diego Water District parcel; the A zone was
being applied to the Nelson Sloan Rock Quarry; and the PC zone would be applied to the
remainder parcels. Again, at the April 10th meeting the Planning Commission had taken a straw
vote to approve all of the prezonings.
Vice Chair Ray opened the public hearing. Mr. Kiikenny indicated he was there to answer
questions.
Abel Parr, 845 East 8th Street, National City, representing Emie Hofer, Hofer and Sons, Jack
Bums, and Nelson Sloan, the tenant or operator of the Quarry. Mr. Parr said they had had
extensive discussions with staff with respect to the prezoning that staff would like to apply. The
property owners were opposed to that. The present zoning on the Quarry under the County was
Agricultural. They would like to see that area prezoned to some other more suitable zoning
which would accommodate the plant that was presently there. With respect to the southwest
corner, the activity there would make it more suitable for industrial, or industrial use types. The
present County zoning of A-7, allowed one unit per 4 acres and the proposed zoning would
allow one unit per 10 acres. The owners of the properties believe that to be a down zone. Each
owner had a legal lot that can go ahead and continue the same use, and would not be forced to
buy additional acreage so that they can go ahead and build something, but the bottom line was
that they would like to have the area zoned to an industrial use type. They had been trying to
get this zoned industrial for quite a number of years with the County of San Diego. The Quarry
and the southwest comer were left out from the plan because, at that point, Mr. Hofer and the
Quarry operators were talking to the County of San Diego to have that area zoned for industrial.
The County was not taking any applications until after the Baldwin project had been completed.
So the County opted to leave out the Quarry area and the southwest comer, to be addressed
later. That had not happened, and the concerns of the owners were that they would like to see
that area zoned industrial. He urged the Planning Commission to prezone the area to a more
suitable use.
Vice Chair Ray understood that the Quarry and the other landowners would not be affected.
Their existing uses would remain and they could come before the Planning Commission
requesting a rezone.
PC Minutes -16- April 24, 1996
Attorney Moore stated that if they were currently a legal use, they would be allowed to continue
as a legal non-conforming use. They could at any time request a rezone or, in this case, in
order to do that, they would probably need to ask for a General Plan amendment, because the
zoning has to be consistent with the General Plan.
Vice Chair Ray asked who would bear the brunt of the cost of a GPA.
Mr. Jamriska stated the applicant would bear the cost. At the Planning Commission's direction,
staff had met with the County Department of Planning and Land Use representatives, first,
individually with rock quarry representatives as well as, in subsequent stages, with several of
the property owners of the southwest corner. Staff had asked the County Department of
Planning and Land Use to submit any information that they would have that the uses currently
operating on the site were legally permitted by the County. Relating to the rock quarry, the
County submitted information together with permits and maps to show to staff's satisfaction that
the rock quarry is indeed a legal use currently within the County of San Diego. Upon
annexation, of which these prezonings are a precursor to an annexation, the City had made a
determination that the rock quarry would be a legal, non-conforming use. And then they would
be able to continue operating. If they desired to expand, they would need to apply for a permit.
Relating to the southwest corner, staff looked at the site and the current uses on several of the
parcels of the site, and met with the County and the representatives. The County at this time,
through formal correspondence, could not make a determination from their records as to whether
the use currently operating on the site was legal or not legal in the County. Staff's investigation
showed the current use as a trucking operation, a trucking repair facility, and an office clearly
beyond the requirements of the current County agricultural zoning. It was Mr. Jamriska's
determination that that operation in the County was not permitted, and until the County made
a decision otherwise, he thought the decision stood. The County was not willing to pursue this
interpretation of whether it was legal or non-legal unless an individual files a complaint with
their office. They would then investigate. Mr. Jamriska stated that staff had made a
determination, upon aimexation of this property and the prezonings that were required as a pre-
cursor to that, that the use that currently resides on a couple of parcels in the southwest corner
would be a non-conforming land use and probably would begin the abatement process, if they
did not seek to become legal through the permitting process or General Plan change.
Vice Chair Ray asked Assistant Planning Director Lee to coinment on non-conforming uses
where they had not been in compliance with the existing zoning. He asked if the type of
leniency which had been given to other establishments would be given to this establishment in
regard to shut-down. He asked if they would come before the Planning Commission before staff
took any hard action?
Mr. Lee stated it was up to Zoning Enfomement to follow through with those particular actions.
Vice Chair Ray asked if Zoning Enforcement would have to wait until they got a complaint
before the City would really go out and take action on that.
PC Minutes -17- April 24, 1996
Mr. Lee stated that it would not necessarily be on a complaint. The City operates primarily on
a complaint basis, but it would not necessarily be ignored just because there was no complaint.
It depended on the location and whether it was cited by Zoning Enfomement, and what their
work program was at that particular time.
Attorney Moore agreed that it was a Code Enforcement issue and they would investigate and
make a determination as to whether they thought it was a legal or non-legal use. Then they
could take the measures that they normally do, which would require the owners to come in with
a permit to make whatever use they were doing legal, or take whatever legal actions that they
felt was appropriate.
Vice Chair Ray asked Mr. Parr if he had any other questions.
Mr. Parr commented that the operators were not law breakers by nature. They would like to
conform, but they would like to get the opportunity to be able to conform. He believed that
opportunity was in the hands of the Planning Commission tO do so by prezoning that area, or
making provisions for that area to be prezoned to something more adequate. They had asked
staff to help them and guide them along this line. They had responded like they had now. But
the owners would like to get that area cleaned up and they would like to get it in operation in
conformance with the zoning regulations, but they would like their zoning regulations to be more
to their liking.
Vice Chair Ray asked if Mr. Parr was speaking specifically to the southwest comer.
Mr. Parr stated that it was the area on the south side of the southwest comer. The City of San
Diego had that area zoned as highly industrial, with one 5-acre parcel within that southwest
comer presently zoned industrial. The rezoning was supposed to continue on an application
basis as it went along, but it never happened because of the larger project that took effect. The
owners wanted to conform to the zoning ordinance but they would like to get some help on it.
Commissioner Willett stated that he had visited both the southwest comer and the Quarry and
noticed the industrial work going on down there. He had noted with the staff that one of them
was a limited industrial. He asked Mr. Parr if he had done research to find out when the
owners had requested the County to provide a change to the zoning. He asked if the County
Planning staff had helped them in the research.
Mr. Parr stated that he was involved with Mr. Hofer in trying to obtain an amendment to the
General Plan since about 1988. In 1988, he and Mr. Hofer approached the County of San Diego
who said they would entertain an application as soon as the Baldwin project was completed. The
owners had continued along those lines and this also included the Nelson Sloan Quarry
operations. It was put on hold, so the end result of it was the quarry operation and the
southwest corner were taken out of the Ranch. They are a part of the Ranch because they are
physically a part of it, but as far as the planning is concerned, they had never been a part of the
Ranch. They had been excluded. That was the reason the County said they would entertain a
PC Minutes -18- April 24, 1996
General Plan amendment to the community plan as far as a general update. It had been eight
years and it had not happened. They would like to go ahead and get their activities legalized
and cleaned up so they could go with their work.
Commissioner Willett asked staff if it would preclude the applicant from coming back in and
asking for a General Plan amendment or zone change, if the Planning Commission approved the
PCZ resolution.
Mr. Jamriska said it would not. Staff would encourage them to do that upon annexation to the
City.
John Burns, P. O. Box 93, Jamul, stated that he had bought 15 acres of land in 1985. They
owned a tracking business and his intent was to someday get it zoned correctly. They had legal
grading permits since 1989 and still had a current legal grading permit. They had been filling
the canyons as they could, between struggling to pay for the property and a $390,000 bond for
the grading activity. They had gone to the County in 1988 or 1989 and met with Brian Bilbray
a couple of times. At that time they had told Mr. Burns not to waste his money, and come in
on a shirttail with Baldwin Ranch when the County took that over. He was put on hold. It
would be a hardship on him to downzone the property. He had a bond to finish the grading.
He asked what was the point of finishing the grading if their property was going to be downsized
and he couldn't do anything with the property. They would either like to get the zoning left
Agricultural as it was in the County or preferably Industrial. They were looking for help.
Vice Chair Ray asked staff what was the lower zoning they could give this and allow this
operator to continue? Just for that particular parcel.
Mr. Lee stated that type of operation would require I-L zoning.
Vice Chair Ray asked if a separate recommendation could be made for this particular parcel,
defined as the southwest corner, as a 4A or some prezoning that would be in the Planning
Commission's discretion?
Mr. Lee said the General Plan would have to be reviewed and considered and acted on before
that could be done. That would necessitate further environmental review, and it was a longer
range process. Once the area was annexed, the applicants would be free to pursue that particular
application. He could not say whether it would be supported.
No one else wishing to speak, Vice Chair Ray closed the public hearing. Mr. Ray stated that
his concern was the cost to the applicant of a General Plan amendment. He asked if it actually
required a General Plan amendment as had been commented on, or if they could do this with
just a conditional use permit? He wanted to know what the Planning Commission could do to
help this business person continue operating and still annex under what was being proposed?
PC Minutes -19- April 24, 1996
Mr. Lee stated it would require a General Plan amendment and if the City Council wished to
direct staff to entertain a General Plan amendment or review of that area, the Council is free to
do that if they so desire.
Vice Chair Ray asked if the EIR specifically addressed the existing use, and what were the
comments based on the existing use in the EIR?
Ms. Luttrell replied that the EIR had not analyzed the existing use that was presently in
operation in the southwest comer. It looked at the County's General Plan and the potential for
development in the County versus the potential for development in the City and the City's
General Plan. It did not look at the actual use of a tracking finn on those particular parcels.
Vice Chair Ray stated for the record that he was really leaning towards trying not to impact this
business, and that would mean that this entire item would have to be continued. He was
concerned about that because he did not want to stop the progress of the Ranch.
Commissioner Tarantino asked what would be the purpose of continuing it.
Vice Chair Ray said he would like to see whoever is on the property today that has an existing
business be allowed to be retained, because he did not want to make this person go out of
business. He was concerned that the City of Chula Vista, trying to be business friendly and
what not, was immediately going to annex a property that would have to shut down because
under the present zoning, they would have to ask for General Plan amendment, which takes time
and cash. He was concerned that they were forcing that upon someone.
Mr. Lee noted that through staff's investigation, the operations were apparently illegal at the
moment. If the area was annexed, staff had the choice to either allow it to continue and ignore
that, or pursue the illegal activity and try to get it abated, or the applicant could pursue the
General Plan amendment. If the City chose to approve that and the appropriate zoning, then they
have a legal use. The applicant basically has the same choice in the County. Apparently the
County placed their application on hold, and he was not sure how the County would do that.
If someone legally applied for a General Plan amendment in the City, staff would process that.
Vice Chair Ray asked the City Attorney if the City could actually ignore a non-conforming
activity until such time that a complaint is actually made, if the prezoning were allowed to go
over that southwest comer?
Attorney Moore said it was not the City's prezoning that would be shutting them down. It was
the fact of whether or not they were a legal in the first place with respect to the County's
zoning. With respect to the City ignoring it, basically the City has a discretion to prosecute
violations of its Municipal Code and its zoning ordinances, and this seemed rather a complicated
case. The City would need to do some investigation, and it would probably take some time to
investigate that. Further, there were a variety of options available to the applicant. She did not
think the City would necessarily prosecute and require them to shut down the business right
PC Minutes -20- April 24, 1996
away. They would try to get them in conformance by using alternative methods, such as
requesting a General Plan amendment or changing the zoning.
Vice Chair Ray asked if the cost of a General Plan amendment could be avoided by the applicant
in the furore, for the southwest comer, by folding that in with other GPAs that may come before
the Planning Commission?
Attorney Moore replied that it was a possibility if it's a City-initiated General Plan amendment
that the cost would be avoided by the applicant.
Vice Chair Ray asked if it was within the Planning Commission's purview to. make that part of
the stipulation if they were to approve this item that if the City were to find that this use was
not conforming but to allow it to continue and if a GPA was required, to fold that in with a
furore General Plan amendment that was borne by the City so as to help the operator avoid costs
associated with that change?
Mr. Lee said the Planning Commission could make that recommendation to the City Council.
MS (Thomas/Willett) that the Planning Commission accept staff's recommendation to approve
the PCZ-96-A.
Commissioner Willett asked the maker of the motion if he would concur with the Chair's
discussion and staff's approval that they would work with the applicant in trying the correct the
situation.
Mr. Thomas concurred and asked for clarification of the wording.
RESTATEMENT OF MOTION
Recommend approval of this prezone and recommend that the City Council consider
folding in a General Plan amendment to address the property at the southwest corner.
VOTE: 5-0 (Conunissioners Tuchscher and Davis excused)
Vice Chair Ray suggested that he open items 5 and 6, take those as one motion with all the
items on their matrix, and ratify their previous straw vote of tentative approval, take public
testimony on any of those items, and then close public hearings again, continue the ones that are
shaded that are in contention, and approve everything that not shaded with the exception of 6N.
At Attorney Moore's suggestion, Vice Chair Ray proceeded with item 5.
PC Minutes -21- April 24, 1996
ITEM 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-95-09; CONSIDERATION OF SEVEN GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN - (Continued from April 10, 1996)
Senior Planner Rosaler noted that the Planning Commission had heard this item two weeks
before and were in concurrence with all of them except for the Freeway Commercial. The
Planning Commission had directed that the Freeway Commercial area be included in the master
planned village exception. Therefore, the Planning Commission could take action to ratify all
of their previous actions, all of which had unanimous votes.
Mr. Jamriska explained that staff was asking the Planning Commission, with one vote, to
approve 5Al, 5A2, 5A3, 5B, 5C, 5E, 5F and 5G, ratifying their previous actions. That action
could not be taken previously because the environmental impact report was not approved. It was
now proper for the Commission to take action.
Vice Chair Ray opened the public hearing. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
MSC (Willett/Thomas) 5-0 (Commissioners Tuchscher and Davis excused) to forward to the
City Council items 5Al, 5A2, 5A3, 5B, 5C, SE, 5F, and 5G, basically with Commission
supporting staff action.
Mr. Jamriska noted that while, in item 5A4, there was some contention between the developer
and the staff, he suggested the Planning Commission take a continuance motion to continue items
5A4 and 5D to May 1st.
MSC (Willett/Salas) 5-0 to continue items 5A4 and 5D to May 1.
ITEM 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-95-01; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE
OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN
INCLUDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS,
OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES
FINANCE PLAN, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS
PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT PLAN, NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION
PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT -
(Continued from April 10, 1996)
Vice Chair Ray asked for comments on Items 6E, 6G, or 61. Since there were none, he opened
the public hearing. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
PC Minutes -22- April 24, 1996
MSC (Willett/Salas) 5-0 (Commissioners Tuchscher and Davis excused) to approve 6E, 6G
and 6I on PCM-95-01 and forward those items to the Council for approval.
MSC (Salas/Thomas) 5-0 (Commissioners Tuchscher and Davis excused) to continue all
other items, inclusive of 6N, to the Planning Commission meeting of May 1.
Vice Chair Ray declared a recess at 9:30 p.m. The Planning Commission resumed the meeting
at 9:35 p.m.
ITEM 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-96-14; AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO DEL
REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) I PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY
27.15 ACRES BY COMBINING THE EMPLOYMENT PARK lA AND
EMPLOYMENT PARK lB DISTRICTS INTO A SINGLE EMPLOYMENT
PARK DISTRICT AND MODIFYING THE PERMITTED, CONDITIONALLY
PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED LAND USES APPLICABLE THERETO -
Cinti Land Planning representing various property owners (Continued from
April 3, 1996)
Principal Planner Griffin gave the presentation and recoinmended approval of the resolution
before the Planning Commission.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Jeff Rogers, 6019 Waverly Avenue, La Jolla, representing C.W. Clark Incorporated, Craig
Clark and the current owners of parcels 3 and 22 combined and lot 23 which was in escrow,
stated that the owners he represented were in full agreement with staff's recommendations.
They offered two suggestions for refinement: 1) the line on the Price Club property should be
moved to the toe of the slope; 2) change the list of land uses, page 7-17, item 6, to read "retail
sales of bulky items, such as carpeting, furniture, and volume sales of office equipment and
supplies".
Commissioner Salas asked if the word "volume" was needed.
Mr. Rogers replied that "volume" put it in the context of the other types of retail uses within
the vicinity, which he believed was the intent of this zone.
Mr. Griffin stated that staff had no objection to that recommendation, which is consistent with
the other uses that would be allowed to be reviewed under a conditional use permit in that
category.
Vice Chair Ray asked if that was already permitted, even though it was not specifically stated,
and if it helped anything by including those words.
PC Minutes -23- April 24, 1996
Mr. Griffin felt it was already implied, but staff did not have a problem with specifying that and
would consider that type of use under that category with a conditional use permit.
Referring to Mr. Rogers' first point regarding the location of the line, Mr. Griff'm commented
that the slope went down to the Price Club property and that staff would have no objection to
the boundary being adjusted provided that lot line adjustment was approved. Normally staff
would not approve a lot line adjustment which would have the property line at the bottom of
slope as opposed to the top, since the slope could be ignored.
Commissioner Willett asked if the applicant recommended that the lot line be at the top or the
bottom of the slope. Mr. Griffin stated that the adjustment would move the boundary to the
bottom of the slope, and that would not usually be something staff would recommend. A
condition could be included stating if that were approved, the boundary of the zoning could also
be aligned to conform to that.
Commissioner Willett asked if the Price Club had been contacted about the movement of the
line.
Mr. Rogers replied that the Price Club had been contacted and the boundary line adjustment was
being prepared by the Price Club and may already be submitted. In effect, it was in process to
facilitate the Cinema Star project already approved.
Gary Cinti, 2932 Poinsettia Drive, San Diego, representing other owners, was in agreement
with staff recommendations and had no problem with Mr. Rogers' suggestions.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MS (Willett/Thomas) that the Planning Commission adopt PCM-96-14 to recommend that
the City Council approve the amendment in accordance with the draft City Council
ordinance combining the two parcels.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if that also included the applicant's request to add the words
"volume office equipment and materials" as well as the adjustment of the boundary pending
approval of the lot line adjustment.
The maker of the motion agreed. The second concurred.
VOTE: 4-0-1 (Commissioners Salas and Tuchscher excused; Commissioner Davis
abstained-conflict of interes0
PC Minutes -24- April 24, 1996
ITEM 8. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-96-27; REQUEST TO EXTEND HOURS OF
OPERATION TO INCLUDE SUNDAYS FOR THE VILLAGE CLUB
CARDROOM LOCATED AT 429 BROADWAY IN THE C-T
(THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL) ZONE - Harvey F. Souza
Principal Planner Griffin noted the project location and stated that the site presently contained
the Village Club Cardroom and the Winner's Cimle Bar plus 47 on-site parking spaces. The
property was in the C-T zone with commercial property to the north, south, and west with R-2
zoning and single-family dwellings to the east. The Village Club had been at the location since
before conditional use permits were required. The City Council had adopted a new "Gaming
Plan" for the City which had expanded the ability of cardrooms to operate in several different
ways in terms of the days of the week, hours, and different types of games, which would be
available to the Village Club provided they could find a site that fully conformed to Code. They
were only requesting to be open on Sundays during the same hours of operation that they operate
during the six remaining days of the week. The conditional use permit the Planning Commission
was considering was for that Sunday operation only. In order to meet the standards for the
Sunday operation, the applicant was proposing to either close the bar or provide off-site parking.
The total amount of on-site parking was inadequate to serve both uses at the same time. Staff
supported the request. Staff, however, felt it would be to the applicant's benefit to get the site
conforming or move to another conforming site as soon as possible, so he could take advantage
of other opportunities in the "Gaming Plan". Staff suggested that the conditional use permit be
sunset at a five-year period, so it could be confirmed that the applicant is making other
arrangements to provide parking or to find another site.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the time limit was for five years. Mr. Griffin answered that it
was an initial five-year period, subject to extension by the Zoning Administrator.
Vice Chair Ray asked the rationale for five years as opposed to less years. Mr. Griffin replied
that the idea was to give a reasonable period to generate the revenues to allow Mr. Souza to
make a move. One of the reasons the Council approved the gaming plan was because of the
competition the local cardroom was receiving from the Indian reservations which was severely
cutting into his business.
Commissioner Salas asked if this was a non-conforming use and where it would be a conforming
use in the City. Mr. Griffin stated that it was only non-conforming because it did not presently
have a conditional use permit, and because it did not have enough parking to serve both the
cardroom and the bar, which share the existing parking. In terms of the zoning, it was located
in the C-T zone which was an appropriate zone for a cardroom with a conditional use permit.
With the issuance of a conditional use permit for the full operation, it would be conforming at
this site if it met all the criteria.
Commissioner Salas asked if it was the desire of the applicant to eventually move. Mr. Griffin
thought that was his ultimate desire, because he needed a bigger site to provide the additional
parking, and where he could add tables and games and have everything contained on-site.
PC Minutes -25- April 24, 1996
Commissioner Salas concluded that there was a very limited number of licenses available in the
City. Mr. Griffin concurred, explaining that each license was based on a population of 40,000.
Four licenses were available, based on the City's present population. Mr. Souza holds two of
those licenses.
Answering Commissioner Salas regarding the number of tables allowed under one license, Mr.
Griffin stated that one of the restrictions was that each individual license could have a maximum
of eight tables. With a combined license at one location, the maximum, however, would be 12.
That could not be accommodated at this site. The applicant was looking for another site or
additional parking.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Michael Green, 535 "H" Street, CV, representing Harvey Souza, the applicant, stated that this
operation had been in the same location with the same family for 50 years. He was present to
answer questions.
Commissioner Salas asked if the applicant had plans to move. Mr. Green replied that Mr. Souza
would like to move but there are very few places that could accommodate it. The Police
Department was the regulating agency, and they had to be satisfied that the quality of life issues
would be satisfied. They would have to find a place away from residential areas, in a correct
zone, that had enough parking, that they could afford. They were caught up in competition, and
had not had much time except to fight that battle.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MS (Willett/Thomas) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC-96-27 approving
Sunday operations for the Village Club Cardroom in accordance with the findings and
subject to the conditions listed.
Vice Chair Ray asked if any public response had been received. Mr. Griffin said there had not
been any.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Tuchscher and Davis excused)
Vice Chair Ray asked that item 12 be taken out of order and continued until Chair Tuchscher
could be present, at Mr. Tuchscher's request.
ITEM 12. CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING LENGTH OF SPEAKER TIME FROM 5
MINUTES TO 3 MINUTES
MSC (Thomas/Willett) 5-0 to continue item 12 to May 1, 1996.
PC Minutes -26- April 24, 1996
ITEM 9. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV-96-08; REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE UP TO 5.5 FT. HIGH WITHIN THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 21
F STREET IN THE R4 ZONE - Nicholas & Jayne Gistaro
Assistant Planner Nevins noted the request was for a variance to allow the construction of a
fence up to 5.5 feet high within the front yard setback in an R-1 zone, which limits walls and
fences in a front yard setback to 3.5 feet in height. The applicant's reason for constructing the
fence at that height was primarily for security. Ms. Nevins noted there was extensive
vegetation; a wall could not be installed in a linear fashion across the whole frontage of the
property; the property was designated as a historical site. The combination of a number of
factors on the property that made it unique; therefore, staff recommended approval.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Vice Chair Ray called Fred Lewis, who had left the meeting.
Nick Gistaro, 21 "F" Street, CV, the applicant, stated that he was present to answer questions.
Commissioner Salas asked if the applicant had started building the fence before submitting an
application.
Mr. Gistaro said they had the columns up and one section completed before they had to stop
work. He had then received an encroachment permit which allowed the fence to be built up to
42 inches. It was approved conditioned upon Planning Commission approval. With approval
of this variance, the columns would be 5 feet; the wrought iron would start at 5 feet and elevate
up to 5.6 in the middle to get a fiat arch.
Commissioner Salas asked if there would still be a clear view of the house. Mr. Gistaro
answered affirmatively. There would be a gate entry to be secured at night or when they were
not home.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Willett complimented the applicant on the work he was doing to restore the
house. On behalf of the heritage society, he congratulated him on it.
Commissioner Willett abstained from voting due to a possible conflict of interest because he was
a neighbor.
Commissioner Thomas noted that he had visited the site, and there would be a problem putting
the fence 40 feet back with all the vegetation and landscaping. He preferred to have the fence
left where it currently exists and grant a variance. Mr. Gistaro stated that the encroachment had
PC Minutes -27- April 24, 1996
been approved for the current location, and followed the original fence line which coincides with
the property to the east and west. It was only a question of height.
MSC (Thomas/Tarantino) 4-0-1 (Salas and Tuchscher excused; Willett-conflict of interest)
to grant the variance.
ITEM 10. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-96-19; REQUEST TO REMODEL AN EXISTING
SERVICE STATION, INCLUDING REPLACEMENT OF AN AUTOMOTIVE
REPAIR FACILITY WITH A MINI-MARKET AND CARRY-OUT FOOD
SERVICES, AND REQUEST FOR EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION
FOR SAME, AT 1498 MELROSE AVENUE IN THE C-N NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL ZONE - Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc.
Assistant Plaimer Nevins presented the staff report, noting that they were proposing to replace
the existing automotive service bays with a mini-mart and carry-out fastfood operation. They
would not be enlarging the building. The two major issues which had arisen in that area in the
past were traffic and noise. The increased traffic anticipated as a result of this project would
not change the level of service and the impact was considered less than significant. Regarding
noise, all operation would take place inside the building and a significant noise increase was not
anticipated. There was a request for an extension of hours of operation. The Planning
Commission had recently approved extended hours for gasoline sales only. Staff felt that
approval had not been in effect long enough to determine if there had been negative impacts.
No complaints had been received. A condition had been included that at the end of the year for
the original hours' extension, the extension of hours could be considered for the proposed
operations.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the area was zoned for carry-out food. Ms. Nevins answered
affirmatively, stating that staff considered it restaurant operations.
Commissioner Willett asked staff to point out where the 7-Eleven was located across the street,
which was open 24 hours with food carry-out.
Commissioner Tarantino concluded that staff felt the objection on the extension of the hours was
the food and gas combined. Ms. Nevins said it was not necessarily the combination, but the
fact that the extension of hours for gasoline sales had only been in effect for a couple of months
which was not long enough to evaluate whether it was a problem.
Commissioner Willett asked staff's rationale for not approving the hours from 11 to 12 for mini-
market and carry-out fastfood services. Ms. Nevins stated that staff did not have strong
objections to it; they simply were looking at the trial basis for the gasoline sales.
PC Minutes -28- April 24, 1996
Vice Chair Ray noted that staff recommendation was that the extended hours be denied but the
additional services be approved, based on the previous Planning Commission recommendations
two months before.
Principal Planner Griffin noted that staff's feeling was that if the mini-market was strictly
serving the gas customer, it would make no difference if they had extended hours. However,
the hours had been such a contention previously, approving three additional hours, staff believed
that should have a one year trial period. If the mini-market and fastfood generated additional
traffic beyond the gas, there would be an additional component. Staff did not have a strong
feeling either way.
Commissioner Willett stated that the 7-Eleven was open 24 hours generating noise; the cardroom
next to them was open until 2:00 a.m. None of the people he had talked with had any objection
to their operating until midnight.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Susan Tague, 10425 Caminito Cuervo, San Diego, on behalf of Tait and Associates
representing Texaco, stated they agreed with staff's recommendation of approval but asked for
a reconsideration on the extended hours of operation. The provision of new uses would not
change the clientele of the customer base. She felt it would be hard to limit them from
purchasing gas and not being able to purchase an item from the self-service bar until 7:00. She
did not think a loitering or noisy crowd would result from an expansion of the snacks that they
could already sell in the extended hours. She asked the Planning Commission to consider letting
the new uses as a whole operate for the remainder of the trial period and then look at the project
and its impacts on the community.
Commissioner Salas did not think people would drive to a gas station to get food; it was an
afterthought when they were there. She did not think it would promote more traffic. She did
not see a problem with having the food available for the same length of time the gas sales were
available.
Ms. Tague concurred and felt Texaco wanted to take better advantage of the traffic they already
had.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Ray agreed with staff's recommendation. There had been many speakers when
the Texaco station had wanted to extend to 24 hours, and he could see both sides.
MS (Thomas/Willett) to accept staff's recommendation approving PCC-96-19, approving
the remodel but denying the extended hours.
PC Minutes -29- April 24, 1996
Commissioner Salas clarified that it included no change to hours, but the staff recommendation
is to not include food in that.
Ms. Nevins stated that the staff recommendation was to approve the remodel and deny the
extension of hours for the food sales. The hours for gas sales would not be changed.
With the Chair's approval, Ms. Tague approached the podium to clarify that initially the
extended hours of operation included a small snack shop, and the station could still sell
beverages from the cooler and candy. They would now be able to walk into the convenience
store. She asked if the hours of the fastfood counter could be limited where they were prepared,
but still let the person partake during the three additional hours when they could get the
newspaper or beverage.
Vice Chair Ray asked how long it would take for a remodel. Ms. Tague replied that the
construction would take 90 days, permitting would take about 60 days. The total time would
be five months. Mr. Ray suggested that part of the proposal be that the Environmental Review
Coordinator or City staff take a review, check on complaints and make a determination at that
point whether they wished to make a recommendation of extended hours for the food service,
as well. Texaco had plenty of time to prove they had been a good neighbor. He would not have
a problem asking for an 8-month trial period as opposed to a year.
Ms. Tague asked if it would require an amendment to this permit. Mr. Ray said it would be
a condition of the permit.
Ms. Tague asked if Commissioner Ray would consider the fastfood counter staying at the limited
hours, but letting the convenience store portion operate, seeing that the snack shop is currently
allowed to operate the extended hours.
Mr. Griffin noted that they had previously asked Texaco to combine this into one comprehensive
application, but they had different people handling different aspects.
Commissioner Ray asked staff if the Planning Commission approved staff's recommendation,
if there would be an enforceable way of stating they could not sell a sandwich as opposed to a
newspaper or coffee along with buying the gas.
Mr. Griffin understood originally on the previous approval that there would be a pass-through
to pay for the gas. Now, it was to be paid inside.
Commissioner Ray stated that the community had not been in favor of any extended hours until
it was proven there would not be an inconvenience to them and the surrounding neighborhoods.
He asked Ms. Tague if this was a situation where the people would have to go inside. Ms.
Tague replied that they did have to walk through the front doors. The pass-through doors are
used on sites that are granted the 24-hour operations, because they don't want to have a breach
PC Minutes -30- April 24, 1996
in their security and they don't operate the sales store or convenience store after certain hours,
but they continue to sell gas.
Commissioner Ray was agreeable to allowing Texaco to open up the scope of their sales and
continue to limit the hours of operation.
Commissioner Thomas asked if staff had a problem with allowing food up to the hours
recommended. Mr. Griffin stated the mini-market items rather than the fast food items would
be available during the three extended hours.
Vice Chair Ray stated that the extended hours would still be denied. Just the remodel and
anything associated with the remodel as far as new products for sale would be available. Mr.
Griffin agreed.
Commissioner Thomas agreed with the amendment to the motion. Commissioner Willett also
concurred as second.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if it was pre-packaged sandwiches, or someone preparing it on-
site.
Ms. Tague stated it was a franchise. Instead of going to the cooler, the customer also had the
option of getting a brand name. It was a limited express menu for carry-out, prepared on-site.
She was proposing that during the extended hours, there would not be a person them, but
everything else in the convenience store would be available. It was a separate counter, a
franchise owned and operated by Texaco.
Commissioner Thomas felt if you could pay for your gas and other items at the same time, he
did not have a problem with that.
Vice Chair Ray, clarifying the motion, stated that the Planning Commission was taking the
recommendation as written, understanding there were no limitations on what Texaco sold.
Mr. Griffin stated that from 5-7 in the morning and from 11-12 at night, all Texaco would be
selling was gas.
Commissioner Ray did not feel there was a reason to limit the sales during the hours of 5-7 and
from 11-12.
Mr. Griffin stated if the Commission was not concerned, the fastfood sales could be approved
for all of the hours.
Commissioner Thomas rescinded the motion, and the second concurred.
PC Minutes -31- April 24, 1996
MS (Thomas/Tarantino) to approve the remodel but denying the extended hours of
operation for the new uses.
Commissioner Salas felt if the remodel was approved and carry-out food was going to be sold,
the fast-food should be during the extended hours as well.
After much discussion, Vice Chair Ray explained that if the Planning Commission approved
staff's position for approving the remodel, anything that is franchised by Texaco would be
limited. Mr. Griffin replied that it was not staff's recommendation, but if that was the Planning
Commission's preference, the recommendation could be amended to state that only the franchise
would not be allowed the extended hours at this time. The mini-market packaged foods would
be allowed extended hours and would be reviewed in a year.
Vice Chair Ray asked if the "franchise services" should be defined. He was concerned that the
franchised sandwiches could be packaged and still sold during the extended hours.
Attorney Moore felt the intent was to limit requiring another cashier being opened and having
someone on site. If Texaco was to take those products and repackage them and sell them like
their other products in the mini-mart, the intent would still be met. She stated that the motion
on the floor would need to be amended, as follows:
AMENDED MOTION
Approving the remodel and the extended hours of operation for the mini-mart but denying
the extended hours of operation for the fast-food franchise services.
The maker of the motion and the second concurred.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Salas and Tuchscher excused)
ITEM 11. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV-96-09; REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO GASOLINE CANOPIES TO 18'11" IN
HEIGHT FOR THE SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT 1498 MELROSE
AVENUE IN THE C-N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE - Texaco
Refining and Marketing, Inc.
Assistant Planner Nevins presented the staff report, noting that staff recommended approval.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the previous lighting problem had to do with the parking lot and
not the canopies. He believed the Planning Commission had asked Texaco to upgrade the
canopy lighting.
PC Minutes -32- April 24, 1996
Commissioner Willett concurred that they were going to change the lighting so it would be
inside the canopy.
Principal Planner Griffin stated that the lighting had been changed from fluorescent fixtures to
incandescent fixtures but were still visible. The situation was improved, but with the new
canopies they would be placed up in the canopy and there would be less impact.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Susan Tague, Tait and Associates, 10425 Caminito Cuervo, San Diego, representing Texaco,
stated that the purpose of raising of the canopy was to maintain an identification. There was a
concern regarding the sale of diesel fuel along with the grades of petroleum. It was a condition
that to raise the canopy, the sale of diesel fuel would have to cease so larger trucks would not
come on-site. Texaco had established a diesel clientele and they would like to maintain that.
The vehicles that used diesel were smaller diesel-fueled vehicles, such as automobiles or moving
trucks, not big rigs. The site would have to be redesigned to accommodate that. Ms. Tague
asked that variance be approved to allow the construction of the canopy, but maintain the diesel
sales.
Vice Chair Ray asked if the delivery times for diesel fuel trucks could be limited.
Ms. Nevins stated that the issue was not with delivery trucks; it was the possibility that the
increase in canopy height would accommodate large rigs who would come to the site to purchase
diesel fuel sales. The applicant had stated they currently had a clientele that did not pose a
problem; that there not signs on the freeway advertising diesel fuel and they were not pulling
in big rigs off the freeway. Staff would not object to deletion of the condition.
Commissioner Thomas was concerned that there could be a noise problem with trucks coming
in. Once it became known that diesel was being sold there, with an extended canopy, trucks
would be utilizing it.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if 3 feet made much of a difference. Ms. Tague stated that it
did not. For big rigs to come on site, the canopy would have to be moved because they would
be constantly damaged or knocked. This was only to have a uniform identification with the
canopies and the relationships to the building, and with a standard minimum clearance Texaco
liked to provide. They did not intend to expand on the types of vehicles that came in for diesel.
They were happy with what they had established. It was not a freeway-oriented station.
Commissioner Willett stated it was not on a truck route.
Commissioner Thomas suggested that the condition be removed, but include a condition for
review after a year in case there was a problem with noise.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
PC Minutes -33- April 24, 1996
Vice Chair Ray clarified that staff did not mind the Planning Commission including or excluding
the diesel. The question was whether the sale of diesel could be included in the review to see
if there had been a problem.
Mr. Griffin felt it was reasonable and that it would be a hardship to ask Texaco to forego selling
diesel and much more reasonable to see whether heavy trucks were a problem.
MSC (Thomas/Willett) 5-0 (Conunissioners Salas and Tuchscher excused) to approve staff's
recommendation, but amend it to allow the sale of diesel and review it in one year.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ITEM 13. Mr. Lee had no comment regarding the update of Council items.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Thomas suggested that when there was a large agenda, the agenda be taken out
of order when there were a number of people present.
Mr. Lee stated it was at the Chair's option. In this case, the Otay Ranch item had been
continued to this meeting and it was staff's opinion that it was important to take care of that
item. The Planning Commission had taken care of some of the items regarding Otay Ranch
which could have been continued until the next week. Staff will normally put items first which
they feel will have a lot of public input.
Commissioner Salas stated that the people could be advised ahead of time. Mr. Lee stated that
it would be difficult to give a time for certain items, because some move faster than others.
Items can be moved on the agenda.
Commissioner Ray asked if the Otay Ranch matrix would be republished with the Planning
Commission's final actions. Mr. Lee said it was the intent of Mr. Jamriska to do that.
ADJOURNMENT at 11:07 p.m. to a Joint Meeting with Planning Commission, City Council
and Growth Management Oversight Committee on Thursday, April 25, 1996, at 6:30 p.m. in
the Council Conference Room, City Hall Building, and to a Special Meeting on Wednesday,
May 1, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Nancy Rfpley, Se'cretafy
Planning Commission
(m:\home\planning\nancy\pc96min\pc2-28.min)