Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1997/05/21MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:08 p.m. Wednesday, May 21, 1997 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Aguilar, Davis, O'Neill, Ray, Thomas Commissioner Willett Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Rosaler, Associate Planner Miller, Community Development Specialist Tapia, Civil Engineer DeTrinidad, Assistant Civil Engineer Cuthbert, Deputy City Attorney Googins PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tarantino led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. MOTION TO EXCUSE MSUC (Ray/Davis) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Willett for personal reasons. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tarantino reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Thomas/Davis) 4-0-2 (Willett excused; Aguilar and O'Neill abstained) to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 19, 1997. MSUC (Thomas/Davis) 6-0 (Willett excused) to approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 9, 1997. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- May 21, 1997 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-97-03; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE A MORTUARY AT 753 BROADWAY IN THE CT (COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE) ZONING DISTRICT - The Loewen Group for Humphrey Mortuary Associate Planner Miller showed the location of the project. He noted that this project would replace the existing Humphrey Mortuary. He gave an overview of the project and showed slides of the existing use and surrounding uses, and noted that the proposed land use was consistent with the existing and proposed surrounding commercial land uses, and was separated from adjacent residential areas. Mr. Miller stated that the project is located within the Southwest redevelopment area and must, therefore, implement the goals and objectives of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. He noted that under normal circumstances, the land use approved through the special permit use process is required to implement construction or some substantial form of plan submittal within one year after its approval. In this particular case, because this parcel is being sold by the Redevelopment Agency to the Loewen Group for construction of this mortuary, staff was allowing them a three-year time period in order to take advantage of their construction without having to bring it back to the Planning Commission. However, that was not the life of the conditional use permit, which was not for a three-year period. They had three years in which to begin construction of the facility. Mr. Miller noted that the project had been approved by the Design Review Committee on May 19, 1997, and staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration issued on Initial Study IS-97-10 and approve Resolution SUPS 97-03 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve the application to construct, maintain, and operate a mortuary at 753 Broadway, pursuant to the draft Redevelopment resolution. Commissioner Aguilar asked what would happen to the existing mortuary site. Community Development Specialist Tapia stated that staff did not know at this time. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Shawn Phillips, 855 Broadway, CV, representing Humphrey Mortuary, submitted a request to speak only if there were questions. Joseph L. Henderson, 6200 San Miguel Road, Bonita, representing Franklin Design and Humphrey Mortuary, also submitted a request to speak only if there were questions. Commissioner Ray questioned a comment in the staff report regarding accommodation of the height of the second floor by grading. Associate Planner Miller stated that there would not necessarily be any special grading, but that the building and the structure met regular height and setback requirements. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that there were some modifications to the rear elevation facing the residential area to add some additional windows, which were opaque so the privacy would not be impaired in terms of the residential area. PC Minutes -3- May 21, 1997 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Thomas/Ray) to accept staff's proposal. Commissioner Aguilar stated that she was a member of the Design Review Committee and had reviewed this project on two occasions. She felt very strongly that it would be a real asset to the community. It is a great design and would fit in well in that location. VOTE: 6-0 (Willett excused) to approve. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-97-20; CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO OTAY RANCH SPA ONE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 1,110 ACRES SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN PASEO RANCHERO AND THE FUTURE SR- 125 ALIGNMENT - McMillin Companies PCS-97-02; CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 290 ACRES OF THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 97- 02, GENERALLY LOCATED OFF THE SOUTHERN EXTENSION OF OTAY LAKES ROAD SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD - McMillin Companies Commissioner Davis stated that she was leaving the dais, because of her affiliation with McMillin in the past and a potential conflict of interest. Senior Planner Rosaler, the Otay Ranch Project Manager, gave an overview of the proposed SPA One Amendment, which included a proposal to delete Pedestrian Park P-5, delete Santa Delphina as a promenade street, and modify the Hollywood driveway conditions. He noted that the map was generally consistent with the SPA, except for the modifications proposed. There were no changes proposed south of Palomar and Village 5. The issues dealt with the deletion of Park P-5, the Hollywood driveways, the use of parkways on the residential streets, and maintaining of all the landscaping by a master homeowners association. The Parks & Recreation Commission had recomanended 4-1 to support the deletion of the Pedestrian Park P-5. For the new Commissioners, Mr. Rosaler then gave a brief history of the Otay Ranch Project. Mr. Rosaler then discussed each issue, beginning with the deletion of Pedestrian Park P-5. McMillin believed that was additional park acreage over the requirements of the SPA for the neighborhood parks. They also believe that because the lots are larger in this area, that those lots will provide for the private recreation needs of the neighborhood. Mr. Rosaler noted the other parks in the ama. He stated that there had been a previous issue that these parks would not be able to provide for sufficient recreation uses for the neighborhood. Mr. Rosaler provided a recent example of a pedestrian park design proposed by Village Development which included an area set aside for children's play equipment, a grass picnic area, a shade trellis structure, and PC Minutes -4- May 21, 1997 an open amphitheater which steps down to a hard court area with a half basketball court, and over 9,000 sq. ft. of grass play area. Staff had asked Village Development to install a full-sized basketball court. Staff felt this was a legitimate use of the pedestrian park and would qualify for the 50% park credit. This proposal to delet Park P-5 had been taken before the Technical Committee and the Policy Committee. The Policy Committee was generally supportive of McMillin's position; however, they recognized this as a significant policy issue and asked staff to bring it before both the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission so their individual recommendations could be made to the City Council. Mr. Rosaler then showed the Commission some slides taken of similar pedestrian-type parks. Regarding Issue 2, the Hollywood driveways, Mr. Rosaler stated that the McMillin representatives now find the Hollywood driveways to be acceptable; however, the 30% requirement is still a concern. McMillin had found the possible gated auto court plan to be acceptable, but they were a little concerned about the landscaping strip in the Hollywood driveways and its maintenance. In the opinion of staff, it did not have to be landscaped, pointing out that an alternative hardscape material could be used. From a staff perspective, it was important that the garage be moved back off the street. McMillin was concerned about the marketability of those types of homes. Staff had proposed that language be added to the PC Regulations in the footnote that deals with Hollywood driveways giving the Planning Director the discretion to determine that if they were not marketable that McMillin could come in with an alternative plan that would meet the guidelines in the Village Design plan, and that he could approve that or refer it to the Planning Commission. In addition, the lot sizes being discussed were 55 x 105. In Neighborhood R-24, about 36 of those lots qualified, which at 30% would produce just 12 lots with Hollywood drives. That would not achieve what staff was looking for in that neighborhood. However, staff did not want to lose the standard for the entire SPA and, therefore, recommended that Neighborhood R-24 be exempt from the requirement, but apply the standard to Neighborhood R-il. Issue 3 dealt with the Tentative Map and the type of parkways being proposed. Street Section A included a parkway with a 6' wide landscaping area with a tree in it, a 4' wide sidewalk, and then the property line. The curb to curb width would remain at 32'. Street Section B uses the City standard, where the sidewalk is adjacent to the curb and the property line is 5' back from the sidewalk. McMillin has proposed to use the Residemial B on all but two streets in their project; staff is requesting that Residential A be required as the predominant street as outlined in the Village Design Plan and the SPA plan. Staff requested and had proposed conditions that would require Residential Street Condition A on all the single-family residential streets, except in R-22 (duplex units) where the g condition would be acceptable. Regarding Issue 4, maintenance of the open space and landscaping, the Engineering Department believes that most all of the landscaping involved in the project should be maintained by the residents living there. A homeowners association exists in EastLake and Village Development located on both sides of the project. As recommended by staff, there would be an open space maintenance district formed to maintain the street medians and the drainage channel bottoms. Because of Proposition 218, the City may be moving toward community facility districts or PC Minutes -5- May 21, 1997 requiring the formation of a homeowners association to insure the maintenance of common land areas. The various alternatives are scheduled for City Council consideration in early June. The Engineering Department and the Technical Committee recommended the formation of a Master Homeowners Association, and the conditions of approval had been prepared to be consistent with that recommendation. McMillin prefers not to have a Master Homeowners Association; they believe all the landscaping should be maintained through an open space maintenance district. The SPA Amendment with the revised conditions in Exhibit A clarifying the Hollywood driveway was placed on the dais with a recommendation that the Planning Commission provide a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rosaler stated that staff is recommending deletion of Pedestrian Park P-5, or that the subdivision for that area be modified to put the park back in; that Santa Delphina be deleted as a promenade street; however, that the tree easement, as required in the conditions of approval on the tentative map, be included to insure a double row of trees; the approval of the tentative map with the conditions with Street A on all of the neighborhoods except R-22; and that a Master Homeowners Association be required to insure landscape maintenance. Commissioner Aguilar asked if this would be the first development actually constructed in Otay Ranch. Mr. Rosaler stated that Village Development already had their tentative map approved; staff had reviewed the mass grading plans for Village One and the precise grading plans. Staff had been informed that Village Development was anticipating pulling the grading permit within the next several weeks. McMillin expects to record maps in June 1998. Commissioner Aguilar asked if only Santa Delphina was required to have additional street trees in front of the homes. Mr. Rosaler stated that the SPA Amendment only dealt with Santa Delphina. McMillin had requested that Santa Delphina be deleted as a promenade street. Staff suggested that Santa Delphina be developed as a Street A condition which would result in a 6' wide parkway, 4' wide sidewalk, and a 6' wide tree easement in the yards of the homes on the west side of the street, thus achieving a similar effect as the promenade street but not having the same right-of-way or improvements. McMillin would like to apply Street B standards to R-12, R-23, and R-24. Staff was convinced that the SPA Plan and the Village Design Plan required Condition A in all the single-family neighborhoods. Staff was proposing the Neighborhoods R- 11, R-12, R-23, and R-24 all use the Street A condition which would introduce parkways into those neighborhoods. Commissioner Aguilar requested confirmation that with respect to Santa Delphina staff had proposed a compromise, and with respect to the other streets staff would require Condition A. Mr. Rosalar concurred. Referring to the staff report, Commissioner Aguilar noted that the City Council was to have a discussion on the open space maintenance issue at their meeting the day before. Mr. Rosaler stated that discussion was schedule for June 3. PC Minutes -6- May 21, 1997 Commissioner Aguilar asked if the park requirements referred to apply just to Otay Ranch, Citywide, or east of 1-805. Mr. Rosaler stated that the City requirements were 3 acres per 1,000, for both cormnunity and neighborhood parks. At the SPA level, it was decided that 1 acre would be devoted to community parks and 2 acres would be devoted to neighborhood parks. The two neighborhood parks that were proposed in each village met that 2-acre-per-thousand- residents requirement. The pedestrian parks were above that requirement. Commissioner Aguilar asked if the 2-acre requirement was just a requirement for Otay Ranch or citywide. Mr. Rosaler stated it was just for Otay Ranch SPA One. Commissioner O'Neill questioned who watered and maintained the landscaped parkways for the A-type streets. Mr. Rosaler said that in Village Development's case, the master homeowners association would be responsible. Staff was also looking for a master homeowners association as a method to maintain them in this case. If not, staff believed it was an important enough pedestrian feature in the neighborhood that the individual homeowners would maintain it even it there was not a master homeowners association. There were conditions that required that irrigation be connected to the house and that the owners would be required to maintain the standards as outlined in the CC&Rs. Commissioner Thomas, regarding the percentages for the Hollywood driveways, asked if there was not an agreement and it had to go back to the Planning Commission, would that stop construction. Mr. Rosaler replied that they would have to construct at least the first phase to see if it was marketable. If not, staff would look for a very short turnaround, from a couple of weeks to a month, to return to the Planning Commission for a decision. Civil Engineer DeTrinidad, regarding the maintenance of the parkways for Condition A, clarified that one of the conditions of approval that the tentative map required was that the property owner maintain the landscaping and improvements, with the exception of the trees and the sidewalk that are to be maintained by the City, as any other residential street. Mr. Rosaler stated that' the groundcover or shrubs would be the responsibility of the homeowners. The trees and sidewalk would be the responsibility of the City. Chair Tarantino questioned who would be the enforcer, lacking a homeowners association. Mr. Rosaler stated that the City would, through the CC&Rs. Commissioner Ray, referencing narrowness of the lots in R-22, noted that in the past when the Commissioners were not sure how things would work out, he was not sure if they took a vote or had the item brought back when there was more information. Assistant Planning Director Lee said it had varied. Staff had indicated, in this instance, that the concept was valid; the lot width was in question in terms of product types available today and in the past. Staff felt comfortable that there had to be some increase in lot width. The applicants had concurred with that and had indicated and agreed that they would likely lose lots with added width required in final design. Also some density would most likely be lost. The duplex units would come back PC Minutes -7- May 21, 1997 through design process, either at staff level or through the Committee, depending on the design issues and could be brought back to the Commission. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the basic layout and recognize that the exact density would probably not be achieved, but some reduction, then the Commission could vote in favor. Commissioner Ray was concerned that the only place the density was in question was the interior of the neighborhood on the inside of the street as it looped around, as opposed to the entire neighborhood. He was concerned that as the interior lot size was increased, McMillin may ask for a decrease on some of the exterior lots in order to compensate for the total number of units. Mr. Lee said they could not do that without coming back before the Commission. In terms of the maintenance of the parkway areas, Mr. Lee clarified that typically the City is not a party to enforcing CC&Rs. If there was not a master homeowners association, the individual homeowner would be responsible. However, staff thought it was an important design element. The bulk of Village 1 is under a master homeowners association and a different developer and would be built in that manner, and staff thought it was very important to carry out that theme between the two villages. Regarding the application of the Hollywood concept, Commissioner Ray surmised that the issue, as far as the Planning Commission was concerned, would not have to do with the land use; it was more of a design feature. Mr. Rosaler concurred. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Chair Tarantino noted that the applicant could take 15 minutes. Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, representing the buyers of the property, McMillin Companies, said they were in the process of purchasing the entire approximately 1,000 acres from the West Coast Land Fund. The amount dealing with SPA One is approximately 290 acres. Mr. Fukuyama said they believed this project was in substantial conformance with the SPA, GDP, and the design guidelines. They had made no land use changes to the village core. One of the issues raised by West Coast Land Fund during their participation in the hearing process was the location of the park and school. McMillin had left the park and school intact. Based on their experience and product preferences, they had changed the single-family product slightly, which had necessitated some changes to the plan; however, the single-family areas remained as proposed before. Regarding the elimination of Pedestrian Park P-5, the Parks & Recreation Commission felt there were adequate facilities in the balance of the project that would accommodate and make up for the loss of that park. The policy committee had considered this on two occasions and had arrived at the conclusion that this amendment would be appropriate. The neighborhood parks were generally established to augment small lot development. Mr. Fukuyama stated that the lots in this area were the largest lots in the project and had larger yards, and did not need the park. There would be one other neighborhood park in the project, and McMillin did not feel the maintenance of the park, which benefited one neighborhood, should be a burden on all of the PC Minutes -8- May 21, 1997 residents of SPA One. The City Council in the approval of the Village Development tentative map for that area had made that a public park and a part of the larger P-6 park near the school. They had reduced some multi-family residential acreage to expand Park P-6. Mr. Fukuyama said that, regarding Hollywood driveways, staff had recommended that it be applicable to only R-il and that they were not far from roaching a compromise; however, McMillin did not want to be obligated to do 30%. With 125 units, they would probably do a four-product development and would commit to one model having the Hollywood driveway concept. It would be about 25%. If there was a high market demand, they would do more; less, if not. They would prefer to make that decision without having to come back to the City for permission. Regarding the parkway streets, Santa Delphina was to serve a singular service connecting the regional trail system. For that reason, staff felt that moving to a Condition A street was acceptable and that the promenade type arrangement would be overkill and the intervening driveways would be impractical. Mr. Fukuyama stated that if this condition was imposed on them, they would have HOAs. They would probably install the irrigation systems initially. The City has a right, but not the obligation, to enfome CC&Rs. There was no uniformity of enforcement policed by an HOA. They wanted to continue using the maintenance district system as in the past. Mr. Fukuyama showed slides highlighting the differences in the placement of the sidewalk in the Type A and Type B conditions. Mr. Fukuyama asked that they be allowed to do the Type B condition except for the two areas where they had agreed to install the Type A condition. The Village Design Plan had only set aside two streets that were required to have the Type A condition. Commissioner Ray asked who would pay for the maintenance for the tree easement in the Type B condition. Mr. Fukuyama replied that the homeowner would pay for it since it was an easement in the front yard. Mr. Fukuyama asked that if the Commission required that only the two streets have Type A condition, that condition no. 32 be modified. He noted they preferred to use the same method of maintenance as they presently used in Rancho del Rey, which was to use open space maintenance districts. Mr. Fukuyama stated they supported staff's position for approval. They had no objections to any of the conditions other than condition no. 32, which was tied to the Type A and B street situation. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Fukuyama to give them an update on the success or lack of success on other duplex projects. Mr. Fukuyama replied that the project in Rancho del Rey was doing phenomenally. It was priced right, and there was a tremendous demand for entry-level housing in the South County marketplace. PC Minutes -9- May 21, 1997 Commissioner Thomas asked if the desired effect was to have a tree-lined street. With Condition B, a homeowner could cut down their tree. Mr. Fukuyama answered negatively, stating that it was in the City's tree easement and the City had control over the type of tree that was there and demands that it be them and be replaced. Commissioner Aguilar stated that in the staff report, there was reference to a consultant who had been hired to review the issue of open space maintenance. It was recommended that the City use community facility districts to pay for ongoing maintenance costs. She inquired as to what a facility district was and how it differed from an HOA or an open space maintenance district. Mr. Fukuyama replied that an HOA was privately managed; the community facilities district was a Mello Roos; and generally the open space maintenance districts were funded under the auspices of the 1972 Lighting Act and enaction of Proposition 218. There was some question of the applicability of that as a mechanism to collect the tax. An alternative method to collect the tax was through the Mello Roos, which avoided just general public benefit. Commissioner O'Neill asked if in the absence of an HOA, the CC&Rs were enforced by the City. Mr. Fukuyama replied that they could be. Generally, the CC&Rs were private contracts and enforcement was dealt through either coercion or a lawsuit. There was not an authority to step in and enforce them, other than the City. Mr. O'Neill was concerned that the second or third owner may not get a copy of the CC&Rs and would not have any knowledge of it. Kent Aden, 11975 El Camino Real, S.D., representing Village Development, regarding the parcel R-12 landswap which indicated that both owners supported the landswap, clarified that Village Development conceptually supported it; however, they had not yet gotten into the details relative to acreage and units. Secondly, relative to the Hollywood driveway condition, he asked if both McMillin and staff now support staff's proposal for the condition. Senior Planner Rosaler replied that staff is recommending 30% and have the ability, if it is not marketable, to go back to the Planning Director; McMillin is proposing one in four, or 25% of their models. Mr. Aden said he wanted to clarify that Village Development was in support of the condition as currently written, or the condition as staff would like to change it. They would like to see it equally applied across the entire SPA. He clarified that they did support the language that R- 24 in McMillin's property be exempted, which he understood was a 5,000 sq. ft. lot of 50' wide product. It was never the intention that the Hollywood driveway be applied to 50' wide lots; research had shown it would take at least a 55' wide pad in order to accommodate it. Mr. Aden stated Village Development was extremely proud of the award that the SPA plan had just won, and that McMillin was looking to be involved in the project. He commended both McMillin and staff on continuing to implement the vision of the General Development Plan. Responding to Mr. Fukuyama, Senior Planner Rosaler clarified that, in this case, the pedestrian park could be public, could be maintained by the open space maintenance district, and would PC Minutes -10- May 21, 1997 be a benefit zone that would be made up of only those residents of R-il that would pay for the maintenance of that park. Secondly, in going from the SPA to the tentative map design, regarding R-29 and the adjacent park, on the SPA plan there was a corner that came out of R-29 that showed it as residential. In translating the SPA to the tentative map, the change in acreage actually decreased. Chair Tarantino asked Mr. Rosaler to speak to the inequity of condition no. 32; how many gates there were on Village Development's property; and, as of today, how many owners there were on the Otay Ranch. Regarding condition no. 32, Mr. Rosaler stated staff had gone through each one of the neighborhoods and listed the streets in that neighborhood that they believed should have the Condition A streets. If the Planning Commission wished to use Condition B, they could go through each neighborhood to determine whether they wanted to use "A" or "B" in that neighborhood. In Condition 32, residential street condition B may be used in neighborhood R- 22; all the others require the A condition. Regarding gates, the Council's final decision was to not gate the project but to guard the entrances during dusk to dawn. There would be no physical barriers across the entrances, but there would be a guard there during the evening who could restrict access. Mr. Rosaler indicated the locations of the gates. Mr. Rosaler stated there were 10 to 12 owners on the Otay Ranch; however, some of them were subsidiaries of each other. Chair Tarantino was concerned that whatever the Planning Commission decided could open the door for other owners to come in with the same kinds of requests. Mr. Rosaler stated that was true; they would set a precedence. Ann Levin, 1505-C Apache Drive, CV, asked how far back the development was set from Telegraph Canyon Road. Mr. Rosaler stated that the average setback was required to be 70 feet, but when translated in the tentative map, it was more like 100 to 120 feet back. Commissioner Ray asked for another clarification on condition 32. Would condition A be applied SPA-wide, or just to certain streets. Mr. Rosaler answered that condition A would only be applied to certain residential streets, where applicable. The other streets were promenade streets and no changes were proposed. Commissioner Ray asked if that did not constitute the balance of what was in the proposed development. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered affirmatively, except for the duplex area which had been identified. Chair Tarantino asked if staff felt that was an unfair burden being borne by McMillin as opposed to Village Development. Mr. Rosaler did not feel it was an unfair burden, but was a pedestrian PC Minutes -11- May 21, 1997 design feature that was significant to village and to the neighborhoods. Staff thought condition A was the superior pedestrian environment. Chair Tarantino asked for the rationale for not requiring as many streets in the Village Development SPA with condition A as opposed to the McMillin parcel. Mr. Rosaler said the same condition applied to Village Development, and even more so. All of their residential streets would have residential condition A, except for the alley product. Commissioner Ray asked if anyone had analyzed the cost trade-off for a type A versus a type B as far as non-recurring and recurring costs, and if it was significant. He noted that McMillin would rather make that incumbent upon the homeowners as opposed to the open space maintenance district or the HOA. Mr. Fukuyama said it was initially about the same. Maintenance was the overriding consideration. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Thomas did not have a problem eliminating the park. He preferred the type A streets throughout. Regarding the question of the ongoing quality of street A, whether the open space could take care of it or an HOA, he was flexible on that. In regard to the 30%, he favored putting the responsibility on the developer, since they were the ones making the product. He did not think it would be necessary for them to come back to staff, if they had a product that was not working, to get approval to move forward. He would be comfortable with one of the four models having the Hollywood driveway. He favored the elimination of the condition that the developer be required to come back to the Planning Director for a change in percentage. Commissioner O'Neill felt the park could be deleted without adversely affecting the whole village; he was strongly in favor of the type A streets with maintenance through an HOA. He thought CC&Rs became useless in short order and that inter-neighbor lawsuits were only effective in the most blatant of changes. He thought it was important to the whole village concept or the neighborhood concept to have the street trees in a parkway, not in a front lawn which would be difficult to control and maintain. He supported the Hollywood driveways, and would leave it up to the developer to decide whether or not it would work. He agreed with a minimum of 25 % in the first phase, and the market would take care of it. Chair Tarantino noted that Mr. Fukuyama had said he was fearful that the Hollywood driveways would be an experiment and he did not wish to have it be such. Mr. Tarantino felt the entire Otay Ranch was an experiment and he had bought into the experimentation. He said he was excited about the neo-traditional concept and loved the idea of pocket neighborhood parks, although the Parks & Recreation Commission did not agree. He loved Rancho del Rey but did not want to see it leap frog across Telegraph Canyon Road into the Ranch, because the Ranch was something different. He wanted the retention of the Pedestrian Park P-5, 30% Hollywood drives, and the master homeowners association. He was concerned that with 10-12 owners and PC Minutes -12- May 21, 1997 with the prospect of the number increasing, everybody would come back and want to change their area, and there would be no Otay Ranch, but just business as usual. That was not what he envisioned for the Otay Ranch. He also liked type A streets. Commissioner Aguilar agreed with Chair Tarantino. Regarding the park, she felt it was an important element of the project for the same reason that staff believed that the type A condition was an important element of Otay Ranch in general, and this project in particular, that being pedestrian orientation. The deletion of Park P-5 would mean residents would drive to the other parks instead of walking, which was contrary to the pedestrian concept. She would support keeping the park as part of the project in order to reinforce the residential nature and pedestrian orientation of the overall community. The technical committee believed the park was a key pedestrian feature to the neighborhood and was opposed to elimination. The committee was concerned with what could be seen as an incremental reduction in the neo-traditional features of the project, and Ms. Aguilar felt that was what Chair Tarantino was alluding to, that it was supposed to be something different and something new. Although it apparently met the park requirements in the sense there were adequate acreages devoted to park uses, nevertheless, the elimination of this particular park in this particular area, Commissioner Aguilar felt went to the heart of the Otay Ranch concept, which was the idea of pedestrian access. Regarding condition A or condition B, the Commissioners who had spoken were in favor of condition A and felt it made a far superior environment, and Commissioner Aguilar agreed with that. With respect to Hollywood driveways, she preferred to stick with the 30% requirement. There appeared that there would be other development prior to the McMillin development within Otay Ranch, and she felt they would learn from what happened with that development that went in first whether or not the 30% would or would not work. If it was shown that it was not marketable and did not work, the Commission or the Planning Director, or whoever was appropriate could make changes that would then affect the McMillin project. She said her general impression was that they should start out with what they wanted. There had been a lot of discussion and the 30% was part of the package, and rather than back down before anything had been built, she felt it was more appropriate to stick with their goal and see if it would work; if it did not work, then they could back off at a later time. With respect to maintenance of the open space, in general, and with the parkways, in particular, Commissioner Aguilar felt it was important that the parkways be maintained. She would like to see whatever mechanism that is most likely to result in the maintenance of the parkways and of the open space. She was not exactly sure what mechanism that might be, although she thought it might be the homeowners association mechanism. She felt the overall issue was the substantial conformance, whether or not the changes the applicant was proposing were minor enough so that the project would still be in substantial conformance with the concept for Otay Ranch. She believed the changes were not in substantial conformance and thought they would lead to a more traditional product, which was not wanted in Otay Ranch. Commissioner Ray, regarding the homeowners association versus the open space maintenance district, asked if anything was actually sent to the City Council relative to what the consultant's PC Minutes -13- May 21, 1997 position would be long-term for the entire ranch or just for SPA One, or did they actually come back with a recommendation? Civil Engineer DeTrinidad replied that the report would address the general formation of the district citywide, not specifically for the Otay Ranch. It would study the 1972 Act, Mello Roos, HOA, and would identify the pros and cons and a recommendation would be provided to Council on the preferred mechanism for this open space district. The report would not address specific solutions for the Otay Ranch. Commissioner Ray concurred with Commissioners Aguilar and Tarantino in that he would not be easily swayed from the original concept for Otay Ranch. Regarding the parkway streets, he felt the type A was preferable primarily because of the aesthetics. He had heard of other homeowners in other districts cutting down the trees and removing them, so he would like to see that covered. He was not sure which way was the best. He wanted to pull this item until they had a reconunendation from the consultant as to which way was the best way to go. He had very negative experiences as a property owner with HOAs and the fees continuing to escalate and it was hard to control. An open space management district would leave it more under the control of the entire community as opposed to a small group. They needed to vote for what was best for the homeowners and what they thought should be applied to the entire ranch, as opposed to just SPA One. Regarding the Hollywood drives, he would go with the staff recommendation as delineated on Exhibit A, which was on the dais. He did not have a problem with initially leaving it at the 30%, letting the Director and the developer come to some kind of agreement. If they disagree, he would like for the Planning Commission to see it again. Regarding the park, after listening to Commissioner Aguilar, he was leaning more towards keeping it. There were compelling reasons why they wanted to keep the feel of the neighborhoods, and they wanted to reduce traffic. He would go against the deletion of the park, trying to retain as much as possible the original plan. For the new Commissioners, Commissioner Ray stated that there had been very lengthy discussions about the probability that this property would be diversified as far as ownership. The Commissioners had wanted to come up with one plan that would be a constant. It had been stated in the minutes as a part of the public record. They wanted to come up with a plan that was best for Chula Vista, something that could be applied and looked at in the furore with pride as the vision the City and County had. Chair Tarantino asked the City Attorney how they should vote on these items, since they included both item 1 and item 2. Attorney Googins gave the Commissioners their options, noting that no single item had four votes either for or against in order to bring forward a recommendation. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that in order to have a recommendation move on to City Council, it required a majority of the membership. With seven members, it required at least four votes either in favor or against an item. PC Minutes -14- May 21, 1997 Mr. Rosaler reminded the Commission that they had in the past taken tentative votes on the issues and then an overall vote on the project, once they had identified their positions on their individual issues. Commissioners Thomas and Aguilar agreed with Commissioner Ray's suggestion that the open space maintenance portion be pulled out until the consultant gave his report. Chair Tarantino asked when the consultant would be giving his report to the Council, and if the Council took a vote, why would the Commission be considering it? Mr. Rosaler said that, based on what Mr. DeTrinidad had told them, this project and the consultant's report would reach the Council on the same evening of June 3. The Council would have all the information in front of them, the consultant's recommendation for financing open space maintenance districts, and the open space maintenance district on this project. Chair Tarantino concluded then that it would not be back before the Conunission. When Commissioner Ray said he would like to have more information, Mr. Tarantino had assumed the information would be going back to the Commission and they would be able to take action. Commissioner Thomas felt all the Commission had to explain in their recommendation was why they were not taking action, but saying that based upon what was available, the Commissioners felt they needed additional information, but because of the timeframe the Council would get the additional information and would make the policy decision. Commissioner Aguilar said they could state their objective, which was to adopt whatever mechanism provided the greatest likelihood that the parkways and the other open space would be appropriately maintained. That could be stated as their goal, but without all the information, they did not know which mechanism best achieved that goal. MS (Ray/Thomas) 5-0 (Commissioner Willett excused; Commissioner Davis-conflict of interest) to adopt the Otay Ranch SPA I PCM 97-20 and Tentative Subdivision Map PCS-97-02 as presented, with the exceptions of Pedestrian Park P-5; the parkway streets, Type A versus some other type for promenade streets; also removing the item relative to Hollywood drives and the percentages; and also removing the item relative to the funding mechanism for maintenance, the homeowners association or open space maintenance districts, and handle those as separate items. MSC (Ray/Thomas) 5-0 (Commissioner Willett excused; Commissioner Davis-conflict of interest) to adopt the standards for Type A streets. Comanissioner Thomas commented that he would feel comfortable to support other Planning Commission members on retaining the park if they could loosen up on the 30 % requirement for the Hollywood driveways. Keeping the park would keep the ambiance the Commission had been looking for at the beginning on the Otay Ranch. He felt the developer would police himself on the mix, and he did not think they needed to require him to come back if the product did not PC Minutes -15- May 21, 1997 sell. He would make his own corrections. He would delete having the developer come back to the City. Commissioner Ray concluded that if Exhibit A was retained, less the Director of Planning needing to waive that, what happens if in subsequent developments it was decided they did not want the product at all? Commissioner Thomas did not think freedom was given to do that, because at least one of the models would have the Hollywood driveway. They would still have to offer it. Because of that, he could support keeping the park in for the overall effect. Commissioner Ray commented that the standard for Hollywood drives only applied to lots of at least 55 x 105. Commissioner Aguilar said it appeared that there would be some product built prior to the McMillin product. Once that product is built and starts selling, but prior to the time the models for the McMillin are built, the Planning Commission could have a report from staff as to the marketability of the Hollywood driveway issue and at that point make a decision as to whether or not they would want to require McMillin to keep the 30%. Commissioner O'Neill was not in favor of putting them off until later. He thought the Hollywood drive was a good design and was important. Whether or not it sells remains to be seen. He asked if the project before would have Hollywood drives. Mr. Rosaler believed R-1 had large enough pads to require that, and staff would be looking for 30% of R-1 to have Hollywood driveways in it. Mr. O'Neill asked if that would actually be constructed and marketed prior to the plans being made for this project. Mr. Rosaler stated that this standard applied SPA-wide. MSC (Ray/Thomas) 5-0 (Commissioner Willett excused; Commissioner Davis-conflict of interest) to adopt Exhibit A as presented by staff, amending PCM-97-2, with regard to the Hollywood driveway issue, with 30% on lots that are 55x105, that those types of lots or pads shall be a minimum of a 30' setback and incorporate a Hollywood driveway. The Director of Planning may waive this requirement based on evidence from the developer that these units are not marketable. If they can't come to a resolution, it would be brought back before the Planning Commission. Neighborhood R-24 would be exempt as presented by staff. MSC (Ray/Thomas) 4-1 (O'Neill against)(Commissioner Willett excused; Commissioner Davis-conflict of interest) to include Pedestrian Park P-5 as opposed to the deletion of it. MS (Ray/Thomas) to not take any formal action on HOA versus open space management district, and instead take a straw vote and send the message to the City Council that the Planning Commission could not take a formal vote due to the lack of information, because the consultant would not be making the report until the evening the Council would be voting on it. PC Minutes -16- May 21, 1997 Commissioner Aguilar asked for an addition to the motion that the Planning Commission's goal was to establish whatever mechanism would best maintain the open space, as well as the parkways, in the long term. Commissioner Ray felt the mechanism used should also be Ranch-wide, not just SPA to SPA, as kind of a gate keeper. Commissioner Aguilar wanted to make clear to the Council that, although the Commission was not taking action, they had a position and did not know what action to take which would best support that position. The maker and the second to the motion concurred with the additions. REVISED MOTION: MS (Ray/Thomas) to not take any formal action on HOA versus open space management district, and instead take a straw vote and send the message to the City Council that the Planning Commission could not take a formal vote due to the lack of information, because the consultant would not be making the report until the evening the Council would be voting on it. Commission's goal was to establish whatever mechanism would best maintain the open space, as well as the parkways, in the long-term, and that it should be Ranch- wide, not just SPA to SPA. Although the Commission was not taking action, they had a position and did not know what action to take which would best support that position. VOTE: 4-1 (Tarantino against) There was some confusion over the previous motion. Some of the Commissioners realized it was to take a straw vote; others thought it was a "no recommendation" because the Planning Commission was deferring to the Council because they would get the report. MSUC (Ray/Thomas) 5-0 to reconsider the last item. Commissioner Ray stated that his intent was to actually take a straw vote, which would not be binding because the Planning Commission did not have enough information. He did not like homeowners associations. Commissioner Thomas noted that the Commissioners wanted to send forward a message that they wanted long-term maintenance and integrity of that area, whatever option was best. Commissioner Tarantino did not feel they had enough information to take a straw vote. He liked the way the landscaping was maintained at Rancho del Rey; his concern was that they were dealing more with McMillin than this swath of land; they were dealing with the entire Ranch. He would vote for a homeowners association, basically, because it goes with the project. PC Minutes -17- May 21, 1997 Commissioner Aguilar felt it would be very difficult to vote on something without having all the information. However she voted would be just a best guess, because she did not really know which would best serve the objective. Commissioner O'Neill favored a straw vote, whether it be an HOA or something else. A report may come out ambivalent, or may come back saying each of these are equally good. He felt it would be good to give some information. There were two basic differences between an HOA and another forum. The HOA was a more macro organization with the locals having control. The other difference is that one is private and the other would go on to the City. Whether you know one is going to be better or not, you could have an opinion about which one would be better in the absence of a complete report. Open space required a different level of maintenance than parkways. Commissioner Ray clarified that the motion sent no preference either way; it was just a back-up to the Council to show what the Planning Commission would have done if there was ambivalence in the report. Commissioner Thomas stated that the only reason he was for the HOA was because of the maintenance of the trees in the parkway. He did not know what was the best mode. He would vote for it if the consultant came back and said the best mode was the homeowners. He couldn't say at the moment he was for the homeowners association. Commissioner Ray said one was more encompassing than the other and that was the reason he would prefer the open space maintenance district as opposed to an HOA. Commissioner Thomas clarified that if the Commissioners voted for an HOA, that would basically as a back-up to say they were more concerned with the ongoing quality. Commissioner Ray stated that the intent of his motion was to send a clear message that the Commissioners wanted to do whatever was best for the residents of Otay Ranch in total, and this would be a precedent because it was the first development, along with Village Development. Commissioner Aguilar asked the City Attorney to comment on whether there should be a straw vote. City Attorney Googins stated that the Planning Commission had a lot of discretion as to the form that the recommendation to the final approving body. MS (Ray/Thomas) to not take a formal vote, but where there is ambivalence on the report that will be presented to Council, have the straw vote be considered. VOTE: 3-2 (Tarantino and Aguilar against) - NO ACTION; Needed four votes either for or against to constitute action. PC Minutes -18- May 21, 1997 MS (O'Neill/Thomas) 4-1 (Tarantino against) to convey to the Council that the Planning Commissioners' concern was that the parkways be maintained in the most advantageous way, both from efficiency and economics, as recommended in the report that the City Council would be receiving the same evening from this consultant. MS (O'Neill/Ray) that the Commission take a straw vote, or an advisory vote, that their preferred method of maintenance and funding would be an HOA as opposed to a community facilities district. VOTE: 2-2-1 (Commissioners O'Neill and Tarantino voted for; Commissioners Aguilar and Thomas against; Commissioner Ray abstained) Commissioner Ray noted he had abstained because he had no idea as to the merits or detriments of either one. ITEM 3. CANCELLATION OF REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 28, 1997 MSUC (O'Neill/Aguilar) 5-0 to cancel the May 28, 1997 Planning Commission meeting due to lack of items. ITEM 4. UPDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the City Council had endorsed the Planning Commission's recommendation and passed the ordinance that allowed for the reconstruction of the non-conforming residential units. Council had also approved Rancho del Rey Parcel 6 with the second point of access into the park area. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Lee distributed copies of the Planning Commission budget which was scheduled to be adopted by City Council on June 10. He noted there was no change in the Commission's budget, as proposed. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Chair Tarantino reported that he had asked Mr. Lee to include on the June 11, 1997, agenda the election of the Chair and Vice Chair for the Planning Commission. Mr. Tarantino would not be in attendance between June 11 and July 30 because he would be teaching a class. He would PC Minutes -19- May 21, 1997 like to have the election take place so there would be a smooth transition prior to the July 1 deadline. ADJOURNMENT at 10:00 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of June 11, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Rip'y, Secretary Planning Commission (h :\hmne\planning\nancy\pc5 21 .~nin)