HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1995/11/08 MINUTES DRAFT
Chula Vista Planning Commission Hearing
Chula Vista,California
7:03 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, November 8, 1995 Public Services Building
CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by
Chair Tuchscher.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Tarantino, Salas and Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Davis,Ray and Willett(excused)
MSU (Thomas/Salas) to excuse Commissioners Davis, Ray
and Willett.Approved 4-0.
STAFF PRESENT: Special Planning Projects Manager Jerry Jamriska, Assistant
Planning Director Ken Lee, Environmental Review
Coordinator Doug Reid, Assistant City Attorney Anne Moore,
Senior Planner Rick Rosaler, Senior Civil Engineer Bill Ullrich,
Planner Beverly Luttrell and Planner Julia Matthews
OTHERS PRESENT: Kim Kilkenny, Kent Aden and Ranie Hunter of The Baldwin
Company, John Bridges of Cotton/Beland/Associates, Dan
Marum of BRW and Tina Thomas of Remy&Thomas
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of September 20, 1995
MSU (Thomas/Salas) to approve the minutes of September 20, 1995 as stated. Approved 4-0-3
with Davis,Ray and Willett absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-95-01: consideration of comments on the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) One and Annexation Draft Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report
(EIR)
Mr. Jerry Jamriska indicated that on September 25, 1995, the SPA One Draft EIR was filed _
with the State Clearing House opening the 45-day public review period. Staff was informed
this morning that, while the 45-day public review period ends tonight, the State Clearing House
did not begin their distribution of the Environmental Impact Report until two days later. Staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission take oral testimony and close the public
comment period tonight but permit written comments to be.submitted until Friday, November
10, at 5:00 p.m. Staff will then prepare the appropriate responses to comments to be distributed
to the Planning Commission on November 29, 1995. At that time, staff would like the Planning
Planning Commission Hearing Minutes
November 8, 1995
Page 2
Commision to close the public hearing on the SPA One Plan and take appropriate action on the
Draft EIR and the SPA One Plan.
Mr. Jamriska indicated that on November 15, 1995, staff will be asking the Planning
Commission to open up the public hearing on SPA One consideration. At that time, staff will
be presenting the SPA One Plan, the Planned Community District Regulations, the Overall
Design Plan, the Village Design Plan, the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, the
Regional Facilities Report, the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan, the Non-renewable
Energy Conservation Plan, the Ranch-wide Affordable Housing Plan, the SPA One Affordable
Housing Plan and the Geotechnical Report. These reports are all required apart of the General
Development Plan that was adopted in October 1993.
Mr. Jamriska further indicated that on November 17, 1995, staff will be presenting the Public
Facilities Finanace Plan and the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Conditions of Approval to the
Planning Commission.
Chair Tuchscher and Commissioners Salas and Thomas expressed concern regarding the
amount of additional material before them. There was also confusion as to what their duties
were for the evening. A five minutes break was requested so the Planning Commission could
confer on how to proceed.
BREAK: 7:30-7:35 p.m.
Chair Tuchscher indicated the Planning Commission would move forward with staff's
presentation,,open the public hearing on the Environmental Impact Report, continue the public
hearing until the meeting of November 15, 1995 at which time they would anticipate closing
the public hearing.on that item.
Mr. John Bridges (CottonBeland/Associates), EIR consultant for the project, gave an overview
of the Otay Ranch SPA One and Annexation Second-Tier Draft EIR, the conclusions of the
document and some of the points to consider as the Planning Commission entertains oral
testimony. The Draft EIR evaluates the environmental impacts of the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area 1 of the SPA One development, the amendments of the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan and the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3 within the Chula Vista Sphere
of Influence and the Mary Patrick Estate Ranch House. The Draft EIR analysis the SPA One
Plan as it existed on July 22, 1994. Tiering is recommended by CEQA for complex projects
like the Otay Ranch. The first tier involved the entire Otay Ranch Project; the second tier deals
with a specific level or component of the project that builds off that first-tier EIR. This
eliminates repetitive discussions of some of the same issues and allows the first tier documents
to be incorporated by reference. There were nine alternatives analyzed. Six alternatives were
identified for the SPA Plan, and three for annexation. Alternative A, B 1, B2 and C look at
reduced grading and landform impacts. Alternative C proposed two modifications in the
alignment of Paseo Ranchero that would affect and improve the biological impacts of the
project by preserving Coastal Sage Scrub, some Gnatcatchers, Cactus Wrens and other
sensitive species. The existing General Development Plan was looked at as an alternative.
Planning Commission Hearing Minutes
November 8, 1995
Page 3
Annexational Alternatives A, B and C proposed variations of reducing the amount of area that
would be annexed. There are three categories of impacts associated with the project: 1)
significant and unmitigable impacts [land use planning and zoning, landform alteration, air
quality, noise and transportation], 2) significant but mitigable and 3) less than significant.
CEQA indicates that where you have significant and unmitigable impacts, you must identify
these in the Findings of Fact and the Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations if the project is to be approved. Cumulative impacts are those impacts that are
associated with development of the project and other development that's expected to occur,
generally, in the South Bay area during the same time that this project is developing.
Chair Tuchscher asked for questions or comments for staff of the Commission.
Commissioner Tarantino asked about the status of the appeal by Daniel Tarr on the EIR.
Ms. Tina Thomas (Remy & Thomas), legal counsel for the project, indicated that a Notice of
Appeal was filed with the Appellate Court, and the Appellate Court has stayed the appeal
pending resolution of the bankruptcy issues.
Seeing no additional questions of staff, Chair Tuchscher opened the public hearing.
Mr. Gregory T. Smith, P.O. Box 7727 Rancho Santa Fe CA 92067 (SNMB) stated that since
the hearing was being continued until November 15, 1995, he didn't have any comments.
Mr. Jack Monger, 722 `F' Avenue Coronado CA 92118 (representing the Bamabas
Foundation) stated that his client feels they have been unreasonably and unfairly singled out to
have their property designated as open space primarily to provide a view corridor for Telegraph
Canyon Road. The impact on the value of that property is truly significant. We would like to
voice our opposition to that action.
Chair Tuchscher suggested that Mr. Monger discuss the proposed annexation at the November
15, 1995 hearing.
Mr. Bruce Sloan, 900 Lane Avenue Suite 100 Chula Vista. CA (EastLake Development
Company) wanted to make sure EastLake's comment letters had been received. He stated that
he would be available at the next hearing to answer questions if any were directed to EastLake.
Mr. Mike Coleman (Otay Water District) wanted to let the Commission know that OWD was
still reviewing the documents and would respond back quickly.
Ms. Nancy Bragado 1255 Imperial Avenue Suite 1000 San Diego CA 92101 fttropolitan
Transit Development Board stated that MTDB appreciated the emphasis given toward transit
and the receptiveness to their comments throughout the process. Every aspect of the plan,
including the land use mix, densities, street layout and site design standards have been
designed to support transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists. The E1R does not give any traffic
credit to the project based on its efforts to promote altemative modes of transportation, and it
Planning Commission Hearing Minutes
November 8, 1995
Page 4
merits some consideration at this stage in the process. The EIR does not address public
transportation in the Public Services and Utilities section. Neither does the SPA One Plan
Public Facilities Plan.
Seeing no further speakers, Chair Tuchscher stated that the public hearing would remain open.
He then asked for comments from the Commissioners and staff presentations.
Mr. Dan Marum (BRW, Inc.), traffic consultant for the project, stated that the traffic analysis
that was performed for the GDP for the entire project did address the issue of the potential
benefits that could be realized from the design of the villages and their ability to reduce the
reliance on the automobile for some of the trips generated by the residential development in the
project. The transit component's ability to reduce travel demand and traffic activity were
viewed as two distinct issues in both the GDP and SPA One traffic analysis. The component
that BRW did not test was the transit corridor impact on reducing travel activity and travel
demand. The work BRW did addressed the non-work trip. SPA One will have the light rail or
transit corridor component. In the analysis that BRW has conducted to date, we don't feel that
you have the mass of all the villages together to contribute to a true traffic benefit in testing the
village component or the transit component yet. BRW does envision that as more villages come
on-line and the transit component becomes more real and there is commitment of funding and
there is a realistic time of delivery of that transit service, and you have the mass of multiple
villages contributed to a reduction in local traffic activity,that you would be able to start to see
' the benefit on the circulation system that is going to be built in eastern Chula Vista. In BRW's
opinion, there wasn't going to be a lot of benefit realized from just these first two villages
which are a relatively small percentage of the whole urban acreage,the 10,000-acre parcel.
Commissioner Salas voiced concern about the unknown in terms of the phasing and
development and time line of the project.
Mr. Marum indicated that there are traffic monitoring programs that the City does annually.
The City,is going to hit capacity problems as growth continues to occur in eastern Chula Vista.
The Otay Ranch has got circulation systems that are going to solve that. In terms of the
phasing, BRW believes it is critical that the City recreate the Transportation Phasing Plan
process as this project and other projects are approved because some of the thresholds are
starting to get closer to their maximum on the existing facilities.
Chair Tuchscher asked if set-aside traffic credits had been taken into account
Mr. Marum believed that the only thing that was not intended to be included was the set-aside
for the Kaiser Hospital which was conditioned on SR-125. All the'traffic work that has been
done for year 2010, which is the buildout horizon for SPA One, assumed that SR-125 would
not be in place.
Chair Tuchscher asked that Mr. Marum check on that as his recollection was that there were
trips set aside from EastLake's next phase of their business center as well. The concern being,
if there are trips there from approved SPA areas, we don't give them to a new applicant by
Planning Commission Hearing Minutes
November 8, 1995
Page 5
virtue of this approval as opposed to just releasing those credits. Chair Tuchscher also stated
that there are a number of road segments that are currently operating at Level of Service E and
F that are within the County of San Diego, and we seem to be stymied as to how to get the
County to rectify those situations. If and how do we intend to solve those challenges?
Mr. Marum indicated that the challenge is certainly before us to work with the County. We are
sensitive to some of the difficulties that the County has had in even implementing their
community plan upgrades to be in conformance with their community plan due to some of the
sensitivity of some of the facilities within the Bonita and Sweetwater Valley area. Also, BRW
ran the model without SPA One and without any other Otay Ranch activity anticipated being
on-line by year 2010. BRW found that many of these same facilities were at a level of service
that is unacceptable. Some of the facilities are at that level today. BRW then tested with the
project and found that daily volumes are even higher because of a little bit more traffic activity.
Mr. Bill Ullrich added that the City has included in their Transportation Development Impact
Fee (Trans DIF) Program some streets in the County that the City is collecting fees from City
projects to fund in the future. That amounts to around $2.9 million worth of improvements, and
the City feels that is its contribution toward the City projects in the Bonita area. The City is
paying its fair share toward County road impacts.
Chair Tuchscher asked how long the$2.9 million has been there?When did that start and when
did it reach that number?
Mr. Ullrich indicated that the City does not have a definite commitment to put those facilities
in. The CIP Program dictates which projects get done.
Chair Tuchscher was concerned that there are funds available to make some improvements,
especially in the Bonita area, and yet the City has no control over those actually going in. The
problem is that the improvements need to be put in and even if the City has Trans DIF funds to
do it,the City has a County that does not have the political will to make it happen.
Mr. Ullrich indicated that the City also has some funds in the SR-125 fee program that are for
County facilities as well, if SR-125 is constructed.
Commissioner Salas inquired if traffic flow assumed that the extension of Orange Avenue is
built and completed? -
Mr. Marum stated that the extension of Orange Avenue is a key component of the future
circulation system to serve this project. At what point in time that Orange Avenue is warranted
for implementation is dependent on the amount of cumulative traffic activity that is a result of
development over the next 3-5 years in eastern Chula Vista along with the development on this
project. Recreating the Transportation Phasing Plan would track that development exactly
where it occurring on an annual basis to give you better input on when Orange Avenue and
Palomar Street would be required to be extended and whether improvements to the interchange
to I-805 would be necessary along with the extensions of those facilities to the east.
Planning Commission Hearing Minutes
November 8, 1995
Page 6
Commissioner Salas was concerned about the housing to be developed on the south side of
Telegraph Canyon Road all the way to EastLake and not having Orange Avenue extended. She
could see very serious traffic problems on Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road.
Mr. Marum: stated that, with Telegraph Canyon Road put in place as a 6-line facility and
improvements at the interchange at I-805 prior to year 2000, there would be acceptable
capacity in the system to accommodate the Otay Ranch first increment of growth over the next
four years. However, for the next increment of growth to occur between 2000 and 2005, either
Palomar Avenue extension and/or Orange Avenue extension would need to be in place.
Commissioner Tarantino wanted to make sure that, if at any time the threshold standard was
violated, construction would stop until the improvements that were necessary would be in
place.
Mr. Marum responded in the affirmative.
Chair Tuchscher inquired about specific major infrastructure improvements tagged to either a
phase of buildout or a specific number of permits.
Mr. Marum indicated that that information could be found in the Public Facilities Financing
Plan.
Commissioner Salas had questions regarding the letter that was written by LAFCO. What does
the letter mean in terms of annexation to the City of Chula Vista? Does it mean that, if they
don't accept this EK then the annexation doesn't go through?
Mr. Jamriska indicated that LAFCO is the lead agency. If they do not accept the Environmental
Impact Report, the annexation will not proceed. Staff does not see a problem with responding
to their questions, and we can support our position with SANDAG's Population Series 8
Projections.
Chair Tuchscher had several concerns if only the SPA One.area first: parks, road segments,
infrastructure, police, fire, etc.
Mr. Jamriska stated that staff is being very emphatic about presenting our position before
LAFCO Committees as well as the Commission that it is important that the entire western
parcel be annexed at this time. From an environmental stand point, staff will determine what
the potential impacts would be if it was annexed on a phased bases. Staff will prepare that
response for your consideration.
Commissioner Salas asked if the Otay Water District being the, water supplier had been
resolved.
t
Planning Commission.He-,_,;�.�Minutes
November 8, 1995
Page 7
Mr. Jamriska answered in the affirmative. The Otay Water District is the preferred provider.
Negotiations are going on between the City Manager and the Otay Water District in terms of
clarifying a whole range of issues relating to providing water, the master planning of water
facilities and their capital improvement program of providing emergency storage.
Seeing no additional comments or questions, Chair Tuchscher asked for a motion to continue
discussions at their November 15, 1995 hearing.
MSU (Thomas/Salas) to continue discussions regarding the Draft EIR-95-01 in
consideration of comments on Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One and
Annexation Draft Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report to Wednesday,November
15, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Approved 4-0-3 with Davis, Ray and
Willett absent.
Ms. Moore indicated that a motion was needed to continue the items that were noticed for the
November 8, 1995 meeting.
Chair Tuchscher asked for a motion to continue the public hearing to November 15, 1995.
MSU (Salas/Thomas) to continue the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, Planned Community
District Regulations, Overall Design Plan,Village Design Plan, Parks, Recreation, Open
Space and Trails Plan, Regional Facilities Report, Phase 2 Resource Management Plan,
Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, Ranch-wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA
One Affordable Housing Plan, Geotechnical Report, Public/Quasi-Public Zone,
Prezonings and the General, Development Plan Amendments to the meeting of
November 15, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Approved 4-0-3 with Davis,
Ray and Willett absent.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
2, Update of Council Items: Mr. Ken Lee reported that City Council took action last night to
approve the additional use permit of the amphitheater at the Otay Valley Road area.. Council
added several conditions, but Mr. Lee had not had a change to review them. Kolbey's
Marketplace was approved with a 5-year CUP.
ADJOURNED at 8:52 p.m. to a Special Otay Ranch SPA One Hearing on Wednesday, November 15,
1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
11bAEIRASPA:\PC 11895M.doc