Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2003/04/23 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, April 23, 2003 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROll CAW MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Hall, Madrid, O'Neill, Cortes, Castaneda, Hom Staff Present: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning and Building Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Mary Ladiana, Planning & Environmental Services Manager Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney III Mary Venables, Associate Planner Mark Stephens, Principal Planner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Hall APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 2, 2003 MSC (Cortes/Madrid) (5-0-0-1) to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried with Commissioner O'Neill abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. PRESENTATION: "Crossroads" Patricia Aguilar, President of the Crossroads II Steering Committee gave a brief overview of Crossroads' history and its core values and beliefs. They are a group of concerned citizen who are committed to voicing their concerns and giving input on issues relating to growth and development, ensuring that the quality of life is not compromised. Ms. Aguilar stated that as the City's focus moves toward the revitalization of western Chula Vista, they are concerned about how that revitalization and redevelopment takes place. She emphasized that "Crossroads" is not oppose to growth, as it is inevitable, however, they are dedicated to making sure that growth is balanced with sound planning, ensuring that infrastructure and services are in place to serve that growth. They encourage public ___._.._m_._._,__,,_. . _.._n"..__ _.__.__....__._,__ _ .___~_,~,._____,__..__._~__.______._ ___.______.__.__.~_~~__ Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - April 23, 2003 participation in the planning process and stated that Crossroads II is a venue for interested citizens to become involved in the planning of their community. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-02-13; Conditional Use Permit proposal to allow the expansion and conversion of an existing accessory building into a 906 square foot accessory second dwelling unit attached to a two-car garage behind the existing single-family dwelling located at 736 Church Avenue. The project site is located in the Single-Family Residence (R-1) zone. The accessory second unit is in compliance with State Government Code Section 65852.2(b). The applicant is Daniel Contreras. Background: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director informed the Commission that although this item was scheduled to be first on the agenda, there was a last- minute change on the order in which items were going to be heard and it was determined by staff that the MSCP item, which was a culmination of a lot of hard work, spanning over many years, was going to be heard first. Staff contacted the applicant informing him of the change, and upon Mr. Contreras' conferring with his representative, his rep. was unavailable for the later time change, therefore, staff is recommending that this item be continued to May 14, 2003. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 6:40. Pandra Boyle, addressed the Commission and spoke on behalf of the area residents that were present in the audience stating their disappointment at hearing, at the last minute, that the item is being continued. MSC (Castaneda/O'Neill) (6-0) to continue public hearing to May 14, 2003. Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-017 and GPA 03-07; Consideration of the Final Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment (EIR No. 03-01), Revised Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program, Amendment to the Chula Vista General Plan, Draft Implementing Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, Draft Implementing Ordinances; - ....~---_._-,---,._- Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - April 23, 2003 PCM 02-11 and PCS 92-02A; Consideration of an Amendment the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan, Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map (C.V.T. Map No 92-02A) and supporting regulatory documents for the Rolling Hills Ranch project (previously known as "Salt Creek"), and Addendum to Final EIR No. 91-03 for the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan. Background: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning and Building made introductory comments regarding the MSCP Subarea Plan, stating it is the culmination of several years of work on behalf of the City of Chula Vista working with the City and County of San Diego, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the environmental and development community. Mr. Leiter stated that the reason why it took the amount of time that it did was largely because it is a unique planning process that involves many stakeholders and an enormous amount of time was spent working through a vast number of issues related to multiple species preservation. This Plan will result in the permanent preservation of about 5,000 acres of land within the City of Chula Vista and nearly another 5,000 acres of County of San Diego land that is within our planning area. Mary Ladiana, Planning & Environmental Services Manager noted that the two letters placed on the dais tonight were received subsequent to the distribution of the Planning Commission packet for tonight's meeting. One ofthe letters is from Hewitt & O'Neil Law Firm and the other from Orrick Law Firm representing the Mary Birch Foundation. Ms. Ladiana gave a brief history of the MSCP, stating that in 1993 the impetus that launched the MSCP program was the California Gnatcatcher being listed as a threatened species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, under the Endangered Species Act. In the early 90's, the City of San Diego started the MSCP as a concept related to their sewer upgrade project. The City boundary is west of the Otay Reservoir. The key features of the Plan include approximately 5,000 acres within the City of Chula Vista, plus another 4,250 acres of County land for a total of 9200 acres in the MSCP Plan Area. The City's Plan is proposing coverage for 86 species, which includes the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, and is one more than the City of San Diego and County of San Diego had with their Incidental Take Permit. Approximately 99% of our Preserve is "hard-lined", which means that it clearly defines -----.--."..---.",..-..--- -- ------ -- .-.---- . ,,-,_..._,_._,"-_..~-_.._------_."---_.,.. -......--.. --' -.-..-..-----..-- ------ -------.-......------.----.+.--.-- Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - April 23, 2003 where development can occur and where conservation shall occur. Other jurisdictions have "soft-lines", which is more vague as to where conservation is going to occur. Another unique concept is that it requires minimal public acquisition, where other jurisdictions had lofty acquisition amounts that they needed to implement in order to get their plan done. It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend: · The adoption of the Sub-area Plan as a new element of the General Plan · The execution of an Implementing Agreement, which is the contract between the City and the Fish and Wildlife, and Fish and Game · The adoption of the implementing ordinances Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission review and consider the documents and recommend to the City Council the adoption of the MSCP Subarea Plan. Commission Discussion: Cmr. Castaneda commented on the two letters that were placed on the dais tonight, specifically, the letters from Hewitt & O'Neill Law Firm representing Trimark San Miguel Ranch. Cmr. Castaneda stated that they raise issue with what is being proposed and the overriding theme of the letters is that private property owners and third party beneficiaries are not being afforded the same kind of protections that the City is with respect to the ability to defend against litigation. Andrea Maderazo, Remy, Thomas & Moose, stated that their law firm was involved in drafting the Implementation Agreement as well as reviewing the environmental documents. In response to Cmr. Castaneda's statement, she indicated that the City is the permittee who is in contract with the Fish and Wildlife Service through the Implementing Agreement. The third party beneficiaries are not individual permittees, they receive their "Take" authority through the City. In terms of processing development entitlements, their ability to proceed under the Endangered Species Act comes through the permitting authority that's granted to the City, therefore, they don't and can't have the same legal status as the City, unless they become individual permittees. Cmr. Castaneda inquired what would happen if a species that is not currently listed as endangered, is listed in the future in the near future; would the entire Plan then need to be amended? ...-."....,.. ---~..._._..~._._..._.~------------_... Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - April 23, 2003 Ms. Ladiana responded that one of the unique benefits of the Multiple Species approach is that many of the 86 identified species that could potentially be listed are covered. The goal is to get ahead of game and not have to have them listed, but if they were to be listed in the future, they would be covered by the Plan. Cmr. O'Neill addressed the wetlands protection program and inquired if the City was able to negotiate the ability to go in and do limited flood control work. Bob Leiter stated that the decision was made early in the process of developing the MSCP to focus on upland habitat areas and initially did not pursue the authority to issue permits for wetland species, however, the resource agencies indicated that we needed to provide protection for wetland species as part of the program. Currently, we are still required to go through the U.S. Corp of Engineers permits for wetland activity. By having the provisions in our Plan, it provides guidance for the kinds of activities that we should be able to do related to flood control; if it's a minimal impact, it can be handled on an administrative basis by the Corp of Engineers with relatively little difficulty. Mr. Leiter further stated that very recently the City Council approved an agreement with the Corp of Engineers and the County of San Diego to develop a Special Area Management Plan for the Otay River Valley, which will lead to obtaining a blanket Corp permit for wetlands activities in that watershed. The City is just now starting a process to try to obtain that kind of permit authority for wetland species, but that involves a whole different type of planning process and analysis. This particular MSCP Plan was not geared toward providing coverage for wetland species. Public Hearing Opened 7:35 Bill Tippitts, Environmental Program Manager, Department of Fish and Game, commended staff and all of the consultants that he's worked with throughout the year in preparation of this plan for their hard work and professionalism, which is event in the Plan that was put together, which serves as a prototype to other jurisdictions who are still in the process of getting their plans completed. The City now has new ordinances and revision, that the agency believes are very clearly written and will be very implementable. The percent of preserve that is "hard- line" in the City is 99%, and there is no other plan that is quite as conservative and definitive. Lastly, Mr. Tippitts stated that the resource agencies stand behind this comprehensive Plan and exhort the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council its approval. "---_.,....._---------~.__..._-_.._-----_._..._._.__..-._---------,--- Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - April 23, 2003 Simon Malk, Otay land Company, 1903 Wright Place, Carls bad, submitted a letter to the Commission. Mr. Malk stated that they support staffs recommendation and commended staff, the wildlife agencies, landowners and developers, specifically McMillin Company and Otay Ranch Company for taking the lead and putting together a comprehensive plan, which was a very difficult undertaking. Mr. Malk stated that the letter raised two issues related to implementation of the Plan. The first concerns the area Specific Management Directive. The first SMD's approved will set the precedence for all the later plans, therefore, they want to ensure that all the stakeholders are involved in that process and its not just the developer that's preparing that plan, who is setting the precedent. The second issue concerns updating the mitigation ratio of the conveyance plan. Like the Otay Ranch RMP, the MSCP subarea plan remains committed to ensuring that all 11,336 of the Otay Ranch preserve is eventually dedicated to the public. In 1996 the Phase II RMP calculated the ratio at 1.188 acres of open space to development. The RMP emphasized that as SPA Plans are processed, the actual conveyance obligations may vary slightly from the referenced forecast due to more precise planning and engineering. Staff stated that these differences will not result in a change in the total acres eventually conveyed to the resource preserve, which we agree with. The one recommendation that we make is that instead of an auditor evaluation of that ratio occurring, when future amendments to the RMP boundary are made, that it be more of an annual process. Allison Roth, Policy Director for San Diego Bay Keeper, also representing the San Diego Audubon Society stated that San Diego Bay Keeper will be working on growth- related issues in South County, which was inspired by the community's demonstrated interest in open space and quality of life. They plan to coordinate with groups like Crossroads and other groups. They believe that open space is a tremendous concern for the future and can't overstate how critical it is to be protecting large intact blocks of habitat. Ms. Roth stated that sometimes regional habitat planning sets the mindset ofthinking, how much habitat protection is enough to provide us with the Take Authorization. She posed the questions, of how much development is enough or too much. Lastly, they support the Plan and urged the Commission to recommend its approval. Public Hearing closed 7:50. _ _..____'__m_'__"__ '" ·'...om. ._____~_________._._____ _________ -_.__...._.~.,._-_._.__._-------_._~_. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - April 23, 2003 MSC (Castaneda/O'Neill)(6-0) that the Planning Commission adopt: I. Resolution PCM 95-17 and GPA 03-07 recommending that the City Council take the following actions: A. Certifying the Supplemental EIR and Environmental Assessment 03-01 prepared for the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. B. MSCP Policy Actions 1. Adopt the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, dated February 2003, conditioned on the following: a) the future execution by all parties of an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003; b) the issuance of a Biological Opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sonsistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003; and c) the issuance of Take Authorizations with conditions that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003; 2. Find that the Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. C. MSCP Implementation Actions 1. Amend the Chula Vista General Plan to incorporate the MSCP Subarea Plan as a new element of the General Plan (PART 2, Chapter 7A); 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Implementing Agreement in substantial form of the Implementing Agreement, dated February 2003, with minor changes approved by the City Attorney and City Manager. The effectiveness of said Agreement is conditioned upon the issuance of Take Authorizations and execution of the Implementing Agreement by the Wildlife Agencies; 3. Approve the Revised Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program, dated February 2003; 4. Recommend that the City Council Introduce the following MSCP Implementing Ordinances: a) Ordinance repealing Section 1730 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relative to the Interim Habitat Loss Permit Ordinance and introduce in its place Section 17.30 the Otay Ranch Grazing Ordinance; and b) Ordinance establishing the Habitat Loss and Incidental take Ordinance as Section 17.35 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code; and c) Ordinance amending Section 15.04 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (Excavation, Grading -..-.- . -_._~-~-----,------_._.._-_._- Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - April 23, 2003 and Fills Ordinance). Motion to include accepting and forwarding for Council's consideration the two letters submitted tonight from Hewitt and O'Neill. Motion carried. II. MSC (Castaneda/Hom)(6-0) that the Planning Commission adopt: 1. Resolution PCM 02-11 and PCS 92-02A of the Planning Commission recommending that the City Council take the following actions: A. Considering the Addendum to Final SEIR 91-03 for the Salt Creek Ranch project (now known as Rolling Hills Ranch); and B. Amending the Sal Creek Ranch General Development Plan, Sectional Planning Area Plan and associated implementing regulations and Tentative Map (C.V.T. Map No. 92-02A) for the Rolling Hills Ranch project (previously known as "Salt Creek") to implement the MSCP Subarea Plan. Motion carried. 4. ACTION ITEM: Consideration of Resolution PCM 03-36 recommending that the City Council adopt the City of Chula Vista Water Conservation Plan Guidelines. Background: Mary Venables, project manager reported that the Growth Management Ordinance and program is the implementing document which requires preparation of a water conservation plan for projects that file SPA Plans, Tentative Subdivision Maps or major projects (50 dwelling units or more). A pilot study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness, the cost, and issues associated with the implementation of water conservation measures beyond those currently required. Three projects agreed to participate in the study, they are: 1) Eastlake III, 2) Otay Ranch Village 6, and 3) Otay Ranch Village 11. Their water conservation plans were developed base on what we learned and based on study results, the guidelines have been developed. The pilot study revealed that there are certain water-saving devices that are cost effective and others that are not. Those measures that had an acceptable cost benefit ratio were used in the guidelines. The most effective devices and strategies were identified in two categories (indoor and outdoor measures) Indoor measures include building construction items and water efficient appliances. Outdoor measures include wise landscaping techniques and efficient irrigation systems. The proposed WCP guidelines require that all residential projects subject to the requirements provide hot-water pipe insulation, pressure reducing valves and water --------------_....-.---- .._-----,_.~--,,_.~ -.,-"----.--- Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - April 23, 2003 efficient dishwashers. Each dwelling unit must also contain at least one outdoor conservation measure and one additional measure from either indoor or outdoor categories as listed in the guidelines. Non residential projects are required to provide hot-water pipe insulation in all common areas and tenant-development buildings. Pressure reducing valves at all meters area also required. Additionally, one additional measure from either indoor or outdoor categories as listed in the guidelines is required. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 03- 36 recommending that the City Council adopt the City of Chula Vista Water Conservation Plan Guidelines. Discussion: Cmr. O'Neill noted his disappointment in that there is no provision for gray water systems. Ms. Venables responded that the report that the consultant prepared revealed that gray water did not have a cost benefit ration that was very favorable because the systems themselves are still quite expensive. Cmr. Castaneda stated that he would like to extend the same requirements imposed on project consisting of 50 residential units or more, to include also any new unit or major remodel project. MSC (O'Neill/Hail) (6-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 03-36 recommending that the City Council adopt the City of Chula Vista Water Conservation Plan Guidelines, including the following additional recommendation: That the City Council consider requiring any new unit or major remodel to meet these same standards. Motion carried. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director reported that at the Chair's behest, a regular Planning Commission meeting is being planned to take place in eastern Chula vista, and the targeted date is May 28th. Further details will be given as those arrangements are made. ADJOURNMENT at 8:30 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 2003. J:Þt~ ~~ _ Diana Vargas, Secretary t lanning Commission __._______.__.___ ___..._..__...._..__....._ __ ___'__.n .. _.~ H u'_________ _ _________..__.__ ".....-.".-,,-.. ..-.-----------.