Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/11/15 (6) DRAFT CITY OF CHULA VISTA MINUTES SPECIAL HOUSING ADVISORY COMMISSION Monday October 30, 1995 3:30 p.m. Conference Room 1 Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL - 3:35 p.m. PRESENT: Chair Madrid, Members Helton, Flaugher, Worth ABSENT: Lopez-Gonzalez, Alonso-Massey STAFF: Housing Coordinator Arroyo, Administrative Office Assistant II Gonzalez: Otay Ranch Staff: Richard Rosaler; Planning Staff: Duane Bazzel, Ed Batchelder EX-OFFICIO: Mayfield (present), Lembo (present) GUEST: Kent Aden, Vice President, The Baldwin Company 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - (Flaugher/Madrid) to approve September 27, 1995 minutes, (4-0-2 Lopez-Gonzalez, Alonso-Massey absent). 2. OTAY RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN - Mr. Bazzel gave a presentation on the Otay Ranch Affordable Housing Plan. MSC (Helton/Madrid) to recommend that the City council defer the adoption of the Ranch-Wide and SPA One Housing Plans until prior to, or concurrent with, adoption of the first Tentative Subdivision Map for the Otay Ranch, (4-0-2 Alonso-Massey, Lopez-Gonzalez absent). 3. STAFF REPORTS- 4. MEMBERS COMMENTS - 5. ADJOURNMENT - 5:05 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled November 22, 1995 in the Public Services Building. Recorder, Alicia Gonzalez [AG\C:\WPWIN\ 1 0-30-95.MINJ EXCERPT FROM THE DRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Mondav. October 23. 1995 4:30 p.m. Conference Rooms ~ and' A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Spethman, Vice Chair Rodriguez, Members Way, Duncanson. and Kelly STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Steve Griffin Special Planning Projects Manager Jerry Jamriska Senior Planner Rick Rosaler Assistant Planner Ann Pedder-Pease Assistant Planner Patty Nevins B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Spethman made an opening statement explaining the design review process and the committee's responsibilities. He asked that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally for the tape when speaking. C. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS Item #3 was moved to first in order 1. D RC-96-17 DRC-96-18 Otav Ranch Overall Design Plan Otav Ranch Villag:e Design Plan Staff Presentation Special Projects Manager Jerry Jamriska noted that these items had been presented previously to the Committee, and stated that staff was available to answer any questions members might have. Committee Discussion Chair Spethman stated that he did not have any questions; committee members indicated that all questions had been answered at the previous presentation. MSUC (Spethman/Rodriguez) (5-0) to approve DRC-96-17. MSUC (Spethman/Rodriguez) (5-0) to approve DRC-96-l8. Excerpt from Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes of October 12, 1995 D. Otav Ranch Workshoo Jess Valenzuela in1roduced Rick Rosier from the Otay Ranch project office and Kent Aden from the Baldwin Company who would present the park plans for Otay Ranch Villages 1 & 5. He said when the item was previously heard there was much discussion regarding pedestrian parks. There had been some changes from the previous plan. Kent Aden presented Baldwin's Villages 1 & 5 master plan including the park plans. Jess Valenzuela said 1he issues before the Commission were whether or not to allow pedestrian parks and whether to allow credit for them, the physical plan, and phasing. The project had come a long way. He asked Martin Schmidt 10 make a brief presentation on the physiral plan as it related to the neighborhood parks from 1he Department's point of view. Martin Schmidt stated he had served on the technical committee for the Otay Ranch for SPA I. The Parks & Recreation Department had a vision of neighborhood parks not just to provide active use facilities, but to provide passive use opportunities. There would be a density of housing and people who needed a release by going to a green area to relax. The focus of active uses would shift to the community parks. There was a requirement of the developer to design and implement a 25 acre park. Depending on the park credit allowed for pedestrian parks <1-2 acres), the community park could be built at 15,25 acres. Staff wanted to have centrally located facilities for basketball, tennis, ete. so that staffing could occur at the facilities. Jess Valenzuela men1ioned that phasing was an issue. Staff was looking for a balance between neighborhood and community parks. The core area of the Village would serve as a passive area. When a high school sight was selected, the community park might be designed to be constructed next the high school. There were several triggers as to when parks would be cons1ructed. As the SPA developed over time, there would be a lot of active needs generated. There needed to be a balance, that was why staff desired the larger neighborhood park. Baldwin was seeking park credit for the two acre parks. The General Plan minimum standard for neighborhood parks was five acres. The pedestrian parks proposed by Baldwin were below General ?Ian standards. Another question was if the City wanted to accept the smaller parks. There was not a lot that could be done with the smaller parks. It could, however, provide relief in the areas. The General Plan indicated that smaller parks (five acres or less) would be built in western Chula Vista where vacant land could not be found. Smaller parks were not encouraged in the eastern portions of the City since the land was available. The proposed two acre parks were in qun.;tion for two reasons: would the parks receive credit and would the parks be built. His recommend.tion was that the parks not receive credi1 because he did not feel the parks served a need. If Baldwin UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ,KS & Recreation Commission Minutes October 12, 1995 Page 5 desired to build the pedestrian parks and the parks were maintained through a homeowners' association, and did not receive park credit, he could support them. He would not support park credit for the smaller parks. The Town Square area could receive park credit per the General Devr,lopment Plan. The Plan did not specify how much credit, however. Commissioner Helton asked the time frame for building Villages 1 & 5. Kent Aden said it would be approximately ten years for the residential area and fifteen years for the commercial and community purpose facilities. The parks would be phased in as the residential areas were built. He reviewed the sizes of current neighborhood and community parks in Chula Vista. The neighborhood parks in Villages 1 & 5 would be approximately eleven acres, which was almost twice the size of many current neighborhood parks. Commissioner Vacarro asked which parks met the park standard. Jess Valenzuela pointed out the parks that met the standards and the ones that did not. The downside to the pedestrian parks was that there was not a lot that could be done with them. The parks looked nice. Tot lots were possible, but most likely very passive activities would take place in the park. The maintenance of the facilities also created problems because of the constant unloading and loading of equipment, as well as the continuous act of starting and stopping mowers and vehicles. Kent Aden said that the smaller parks could be placed in an open space district, landscape district, or under homeowners' association maintenance so that the City's cost would not be increased. Baldwin did not see maintenance as a problem. He distributed photographs of Coronado parks that were less than one acre. Commissioner Vacarro asked how, after four reviews of the item, there were still parks that did not meet the City's minimum standard. Jess Valenzuela said the plans had gone through many reviews. Baldwin felt that they had been as flexible as possible, but they wanted the pedestrian parks. Kent Aden said that both the Baldwin and City were sticking 10 their positions. Baldwin felt strongly about the pedestrian parks due to the new urbanism design of the Otay Ranch. Baldwin was not proposing the parks to ignore the City's wishes. Otay Ranch was a large project and it was Baldwin's opinion that pedestrian parks would be good for residents. Commissioner Vacarro asked how long the five acre policy had been in effect and when Otay Ranch began the project. Jess Valenzuela said the policy went into effect in 1990, when the General Plan was adopted. Kim Kilkenny from the Baldwin Company said the plans were started six years ago. The reason the pedestrian parks were important, was that the Baldwin Company did not feel they were advocating anything that clearly conflicted with City policy. When the City Council adopted the Otay Ranch General Plan two years ago, park standards were not decided. Council decided to wait until the first SPA plan was submitted for approval. Commissioner Sweetwood said the smaller parks totaled approximately 8 acres. He asked Baldwin if they were asking the Commission to accept the eight acres as credit for their overall park requirements. Baldwin showed 49 park acres proposed. Kent Aden reviewed the park requirements as listed by the City and showed that Baldwin was over and above the royuirement. All the smaller parks could come off of the plans, and 1here would still be enough neighborhood pari- acres to meet the standard. If the smaller parks did not receive credit, Baldwin might choose not to build thel11. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes October 26, 1995 Page 6 jess Valenzuela said the City had worked hard to meet the minimum standards to prevent mistakes that occurred in western Chula Vista. The City was trying to get larger neighborhood and community parks. He was not saying that smaller parks were bad, but wanted to make sure that the need was met when the subdivision was built out. Commissioner Sweetwood asked if the 33.17 acres had been accepted and if the four larger parks would meet the allocations. jess Valenzuela responded that acres could be borrowed against the community park alloca1ion to construct the smaller parks. Chair Sandoval said the question before the Commission was if the parks met recreational needs. jess Valenzuela said in terms of process, Baldwin would perform a demand analysis and park master plan for each park installation. The demand analysis would shape what facilities would go into each park. Commissioner Vacarro asked how many more acres the City would require on some specific parks and what the estimated population would be. Kent Aden estimated SPA I population at approximately 16,000. He also indicated that it was not an option to make the pedestrian parks bigger. The parks would go in as proposed or would come off the plan, because the overall plan me1 park standards. Vice-Chair Palma said he had not seen a change in what had been previously proposed. The Commission made it clear at the last meeting where the item was heard, that there was a five acre minimum. He would rather send the item back to staff, because he would go all the way to Council and recommend a five acre minimum. He did not see that it should be an issue between a developer and the Parks & Recreation Department. Villages 1 & 5 should have a minimum of five acres or no credit allowed. He viewed 1he fact that the Baldwin Company was coming back with the smaller parks again as an insult. Chair Sandoval asked what the Commission's pleasure was regarding 1he item. She asked whether they wanted 10 have a special workshop and have staff return with additional information. Commissioner Radcliffe said she did not feel the pedestrian parks should receive credit, but agreed with Baldwin's concept for the parks. The previous presentation was that the pedestrian parks were part of the overall concept. Kent Aden said they were part of the concept. However, if no credit was given, since Baldwin would be paying for the parks, it was their decision whether or not to build them. Chair Sandoval said the project itself was enormous and she did not see it as a imposition that the Commission wanted to enforce the City's policies. The City had already made concessions regarding density. Commissioner Sweetwood said if it had been determined 1hat 1he parks met recreational needs, then it was a question of credit. If pedestrian parks were constructed, it would be against the policy. If maintenance costs and recreational needs were met, then the only question was 1hat the policy said parks mus1 be a minimum of five acres. He personally would not mind having a small park in his neighborhood, as long it would not take away from other recrea1ional needs. If the City did not maintain the parks, he would like to see them consiructed. Chair Sandoval said it cost twice as much to maintain a smaller park 1han a larger park. jess Valenzuela said if the Baldwin Company paid for the installation of the pedestrian parks, maintained them, and did not receive park credit, it would be acceptable to staff. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES f-....,(s & Recreation Commission Minutes October 12, 1995 Page 7 Commissioner Sweetwood asked what the City would lose if Baldwin was willing to build and maintain the parks, then why would the City not give park credit. jess Valenzuela explained that if the credit was given to the smaller parks, it could decrease the amount of acres for larger parks. It would also set precedence for other developers. He had spoken with representatives from Eastlake Development Company who were watching to see if credit would be allowed, because they wanted to build smaller parks. He explained that there were smaller parks within the City and the smaller parks became a hangout for youths and created crime, as well as maintenance problems for staff. It also did not meet a recreational need, except for a very passive one. The demand that was going to be placed on the parks needed to meet the active need first. Larger parks would meet the active needs of the community. Rick Rosier brought up the fact that Eastlake had been given 1/2 credit for private parks in 1989. Chair Sandoval went over the options that the Commission had regarding the project and questioned if the Commission wanted to take action at the meeting. Commissioner Dennison said she wanted more time to review the information. Rick Rosier reminded the commission that the public hearing for the Planning Commission had been advertised for November 8, 1995 and if the Commission wanted their comments included, action would have to be taken. Commissioner Radcliffe asked if credit for the pedestrian parks would be all or nothing. Kent Aden said the Eastlake private parks received 50% credit, and it could be a combination. Commissioner Helton said the problem was that the pedestrian parks did not meet the policy. She could see the pedestrian parks utilized by mothers and their small children. Commissioner Sweetwood said there should be pedestrian parks whether nedit was given or not. It would be a high density area and something needed to be there. He could not see the objections to maintenance costs if Baldwin was willing to pay. He would support 50% credit for the parks. It would be incentive for the developer to keep the parks, but the City should not maintain them. jess Valenzuela said if the community park was never built, the City would be deficient. It was unknown when the community park would be built. Commissioner Vacarro asked why the Commission needed to waive the City policy in order to accomodate the development. There may have been exceptions in the past, but it was time 10 stop exceptions. Commissioner Radcliffe said a homeowners' association could hire an outside contractor to maintain the parks. jess Valenzuela said that the City would most likely end up maintaining the parks through an open space district. MSF: (PalmalVacarro) that Villages 1 & 5 meet the minimum five acre park requirements. Motion failed 2-2,3 with Commissioners Sweetwood and Radcliffe voting no and Commissioners Dennison and Helton and Chair Sandoval abstaining. MSC (Radcliffe/Sweetwood) to approve the SPA plan (Villages 1 & 5) with the parks as presented, with pedestrian parks receiving partial credit to be determined by staff, only if the parks were maintained under a separate agreement (HOA, Open Space). Approved 5-2 with Vice-Chair Palma and Commissioner Vacarro voting no. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES TIlE CITY OF CIlliLA YISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT You are required to file a Statement of Disciosu<< of certain ownership Of financial interests, payments, or campaign eonttibution" or: 311 matters which will require discretion3J)' action on the part of u':le City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bocies Th. following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of aU persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contn.7..... e,g" owner, applicant, contractor, sub<;ontractor, material supplies. The Otay Ranch, L.P" a Ollifornia Limited Parmersbip Baldwin Builders. a California Corporation Tiger Development TWo, a California Limited Parmeriliip 2. If any person' identified pur-man; to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals ""11mg more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any parmership interest in the partnership. James P. Baldwin Alfred E, Baldwin ~. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is 111m-profit organb.ation or 3 trust, list the names of any person serving "-' director of the non"'pI"ofit organization or as trUStee or beneficiary or trustor of the tr\l$t. N'A 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business tranSacted with <wy member of the City staff, Boards. CommiS$ions. Committ~s and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No ..x If yes, please Indicate person(s) 5 Pleose identify each and every person, including any agents. employees, consultants or independent contraCfors who ,'ou have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter, Kim John Kilkenny Timothy O'Grady Kent Aden Ranie Hunter James Baldwin Alfred Baldwin 6. Have you and/or your offIcer> or agents, in the aggregate, conttibuted more than $1,000 to a Councilrnember in the CUITC!l' or prec<ding election period? Yos _ No ...<L If y~s. state which CouncilmembeJis): ".(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)". Da!O: 11 10'95 Kim lohn Kilkennv Print or type name of contmctor!applicant ,,= i.> defiDed 0.<. "Any individual. ,firm. co-parrnmhiP, Joine ,,,,'UT<. a.>SocUJiM ,.odel cu.b, fr",m,al o,-ganiWeion. cerpo",,,'on <.ceal<. ffU$L rear.,r. ,y""iail<. /hL, and any oeMr c'JUJ<ly. cicy and ccunl7y c'O'. """"apa};,.'. dL,uict Or owr pei,tical ""-"division. or an)' otMr PO"P or ",mti,,,,,,on acling a.' a un': .. 3"~'u'd 'or :WO~d Ll:~l S6-0t-AON