HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/09/13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
September 13, 1976
A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was
held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present:
Smith, Starr, Floto, Pressutti, R. Johnson and G. Johnson. Absent (with previous
notification) Commissioner Chandler. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson,
Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant
Director of Public Works Lippitt, Assistant City Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes.
In the absence of Chairman Chandler, Vice Chairman Smith served as Chairman
Pro Tempore of the meeting and led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed
by a moment of silent prayer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Starr-Floto) The minutes of the meeting of August 23, 1976 be approved
as written.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Pro Tempore Smith called for oral communications but none were offered.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman Pro Tempore Smith explained that items on the consent calendar are
considered to be routine and will be approved by one motion without separate
discussion of said items unless cause is shown prior to the time the Commission
votes on a motion to adopt.
1. Consideration of one sear extension of conditional use permit PCC-75-17-
Vista Hill Hospital
Director of Planning Peterson reported that this conditional use permit, approved
about a year ago, allows the expansion of the hospital facilities at 3 North
Second Avenue. Due to economic considerations construction of the additions has
not commenced and the hospital has requested a one year extension; approval of
the request is recommended.
2. Consideration of request for one sear deferral of installation of zoning wall
674 Broadway - Penny Withem
Director of Planning Peterson advised that the establishment of a proposed retail
flower sales facility fronting on Broadway would necessitate the construction of
a zoning wall between the commercial property and the adjoining residential property
at the rear. The applicant has requested a one year waiver of this requirement in
order to determine if the business will be profitable prior to spending the money
for the construction of the wall.
-2- Sept. 13, 1976
Mr. Peterson noted that an existing solid wood fence adequately screens the
commercial site from the residence to the rear and it is recommended that installation
of the zoning wall be deferred for one year with the condition that the fence be
painted or stained and repaired structurally
MSUC (R. Johnson-Floto) The items on the consent calendar be approved in accordance
with the staff recommendation.
REGULAR CALENDAR
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-76-13 - Request to remodel
existin~ service station, 401 Telegraph Canson Road (ThriftS
Oil Compans) - C1sde Carpenter & Associates
Director of Planning Peterson advised this proposal requests substantial remodeling
of an existing service station to convert it to self-service with a cashier's booth
at the exit driveway, including removal of one pump island and enlarging another to
accommodate three pumps covered by a canopy. The architecture includes slumpstone
for the cashier's booth and for columns supporting the canopy. Further information
concerning the proposed aluminum mission tile roof has been requested.
Approval of the application is recommended subject to three conditions enumerated
in the staff report.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Lou Hislop, representing Thrifty Oil Company, advised in response to a question
from the Commission that the entire site will be resurfaced upon completion of the
construction. He also affirmed that the turning radius for autos to reach the
pumps has proven adequate at 13 other sites.
He expressed concurrence with the proposed conditions with the exception of the
requirement to relocate the sidewalk adjacent to the curb and use the existing
sidewalk as a bike path, since this will require modifying the existi~planter
which they estimate would cost from $2,000 to $2700.
In discussion of the need for a bike path at this location, it was noted that
in conjunction with development on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road a
bicycle path, outside of the roadway, will be installed from Hilltop Drive to this
site.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Floto-Pressutti) The Commission finds that in accordance with the findings
in Negative Declaration on IS-76-58 this project will have no significant adverse
environmental impact and certifies the Negative Declaration.
MSC (Floto-R. Johnson) In accordance with the findings as stated in the staff
report, the Commission approves conditional use permit PCC-76-13 to remodel an
existing service station at 401 Telegraph Canyon Road, subject to three conditions
enumerated in the staff report.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners Floto, R. Johnson, Smith, G. Johnson and Starr
NOES: Commissioner Pressutti
-3- September 13, 1976
ABSENT: Commissioner Chandler
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental Impact Report EIR-76-6 for medical facilities
at Community Hospital
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that this project includes rezoning
the property to C-O-P for the purpose of permitting construction of a 62,000 sq. ft.
nursing facility and medical office building with a gross building area of 65,000
sq. ft. The construction will be carried out in three phases.
Mr. Reid noted that this site is within the La Nacion fault zone as evidenced by
a linear prolongation of fault traces discovered near the hospital building; how-
ever, it should be noted that these faults are segmented and inconsistent as to
orientation. It is recommended that prior to final development plans, trenches
be excavated to insure there are no fault traces under the proposed buildings.
He also pointed out that access is solely from Telegraph Canyon Road which has
a vehicle count of approximately 13,000 ADT. This could result in problems of
emergency access if an earthquake occurs.
Input to the report has been received from the Environmental Control Commission
which recommends certification of the report but expressed reservations regarding
the project itself.
The Chairman opened the public hearing on the Environmental Impact Report.
Frank Kingery of Westec Services, Inc., advised, in response to a question from
Commissioner G. Johnson, that buildings may be constructed on a fault trace if a
special foundation design is used.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSC (Starr-R. Johnson) With the inclusion of input and testimony, the Commission
adopts EIR-76-6 as the final Environmental Impact Report for additional medical
facilities at the Community Hospital.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Starr, R. Johnson, Smith, Pressutti and G. Johnson
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Floto
ABSENT: Commissioner Chandler
5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-76-B - Rezoning property at 720, 740, 751 Dora Lane
from R-1-H to C-O-P - Community Hospital of Chula Vista
Current Planning Supervisor Lee pointed out that this application for rezoning
approximately 30 acres includes the designation of the Precise Plan Modifying
District, and that development plans were not submitted to the office in time to
allow for staff review and recommendation. It is therefore recommended that the
hearing be continued to September 27th.
Chairman Pro Tempore Smith opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present
wished to speak on this item and could not appear on September 27th. No one
responded.
-4- September 13, 1976
MSC (R. Johnson-Pressutti) The public hearing in consideration of rezoning
application PCZ-76-B be continued to the meeting of September 27, 1976.
Commissioner Floto abstained from voting on the motion.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-76-15 - Request for two 2-storS
additions to BaS General Hospital, 435 "H" Street - Ronald Davis
Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted that the proposed addition is relatively small
in comparison to the hospital, containing just over 11,000 sq. ft. of area, which
would be used for additional waiting room space, rest rooms, dining room for
doctors and office space. The expansion will not increase the number of beds or
decrease the number of existing parking spaces. The Environmental Review Committee
issued a Negative Declaration of environmental impact which is forwarded for
certification by the Commission; and the staff report contains findings for approval
of the conditional use permit.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no
one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the
findings stated in the Negative Declaration on IS-76-60 the proposed addition to
the hospital will have no significant adverse environmental impacts and certifies
the Negative Declaration.
MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission approves conditional use permit PCC-76-15
with findings as stated in the staff report.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental Impact Report EIR-76-8 for 1911 Act improvement
of Las Flores Drive
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid advised that this report covers the extension
of street improvements for 660 feet, from "D" Street to a point 230 feet north of
"E" Street, between Minot and Second Avenue with drainage facilities to extend an
additional distance to the north. Mr. Reid indicated there are no significant
geological hazards on the site and that no rare or endangered plants exist in the
area of the proposed improvements.
He pointed out, however, that the improvement of the street and the division of
adjacent lots accommodated by the street, could result in a growth inducing impact.
This could affect the schools serving the area, however, both school districts
have indicated they can provide educational services for students generated from
this area.
Mr. Reid acknowledged written input to the report from Henry Jahn, California Native
Plant Society, and the Environmental Control Commission. He pointed out that a
memo from the Engineering Division provides adequate response to that input and
will be incorporated into the report.
He suggested that the public hearing be opened to receive any additional testimony,
and if no response to that testimony is deemed necessary, the report may be adopted
- at this meeting.
In response to a question from Commissioner G. Johnson, Mr. Reid confirmed that
installation of the street improvements would necessitate the removal of one large
tree.
-5- September 13, 1976
The Chairman opened the public hearing for testimony on the Environmental Impact
Report.
Robert French, 129 Second Avenue, pointed out that lacking parks or playgrounds in
the area, children of the community have used the vacant property where this street
would intercept "D" Street as a play area. He felt that the added traffic projected
as a result of these improvements would present a danger to those youngsters. He
further pointed out additional trees would probably be removed if the lots adjacent
to the proposed street are divided and redeveloped.
Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, expressed the opinion that a letter from the schools
indicating they can provide education services to the students generated in this
area does not adequately address the impact of such development on the schools and
on the students who presently attend those schools, since an increase in enrollment
will result in overcrowding or bussing students to another school. He felt that
the EIR understates the possible impact of putting in Los Flores in terms of inducing
growth.
The Commission discussed the maximum number of units that could be developed in this
area under the existing R-2 zoning.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Pressutti expressed the opinion that the problems raised in the
hearing have been clearly defined in the EIR. He also felt that installing public
improvem~ntsin this street right of way would be a benefit to the residents and
to the community.
MSUC (Pressutti-Floto) The Commission adopts the draft EIR-76-8 with the
inclusion of written input and testimony presented in the hearing as the City's
final Environmental Impact Report for improvement of Las Flores Drive.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-76-16 - Request for reduction of side yard from
l0 ft. to 4½ ft., 50 Orlando Court - Josefina Uvero
Current Planning Supervisor Lee indicated the location of a corner lot at the
southeast corner of Orlando Court and Tobias Drive, which contains approximately
7400 sq. ft. Earlier this year a building permit was issued for an addition to
the residence and at that time the applicant was informed that the property
line was 7 feet from the face of curb on Tobias and 12 feet on Orlando. It was later
learned these figures were reversed. As a result the building addition encroached
into the required setback area adjacent to Tobias. This error was not discovered
until the project was nearly completed. The original contractor had also turned
in an incorrect site plan and when it was discovered that he did not have a valid
contractor's license he left the job uncompleted. Since this encroachment resulted
from a series of human errors and removal of the nearly completed structure would
be an extreme hardship, findings are offered for approval of the variance request.
Chairman Pro Tempore Smith pointed out that although the agenda and report indicate
a 4½' setback, the plan shows the distance as 4' 2". He felt that should be
clarified.
Mr. Lee indicated that at this point he would assume the drawing is correct.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
-6- September 13, 1976
Adelaide Childs, daughter of Josefina Uvero, speaking on her mother's behalf,
spoke of their need for the enlarged residence and of the problems they experienced
with the unlicensed contractor.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
~SUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) In accordance with the findings as stated in the
staff report the Commission approves variance application PCV-76-16 for
reduction of side yard setback.
9. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-76-16 - Request to operate roller
skatin§ center at 475 "H" Street - Lewis & Craver
Director of Planning Peterson reported that this is a proposal to convert the
northern portion of the Home Fair building to roller skating use; it would include
remodeling the west and south facades of the building. This is considered a compat-
ible use in this location, adjacent to a theater and ice cream parlor. Parking
for this use would not be as great as for a retail store, for which the building
was designed and formerly used. The hours cited in the conditions of approval are
the same as the hours proposed by the applicant and should preclude any conflict
with the adjacent school. Conditions and findings for approval are submitted for
Commission consideration.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Jim Magot, owner of Chula Vista Farrells, expressed support for the application
and noted the need for this type of activity in the community. In response to a
question raised by the Commission, he affirmed that a new lighting system will be
installed to illuminate the parking area at the rear of the building.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Pressutti-G. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the
findings stated in the Negative Declaration on IS-76-64 this project will have no
significant adverse environmental impacts and certifies the Negative Declaration.
MSUC (Pressutti-G. Johnson) In accordance with the findings stated in the staff
report the Planning Commission approves conditional use permit PCC-76-16 for
operation of a roller skating center, subject to the 9 conditions enumerated in
the staff report.
10. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-76-L - Prezoning and rezoning 8.4 acres on the south side
of L Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues to R-3-P-14
Director of Planning Peterson reported that a portion of this property was considered
in a proposal to amend the General Plan several months ago. After a tie vote by
the Commission the proposal went to the Council without a definitive recommendation.
The Council denied the request and referred it to the Commission to consider rezoning
the area to R-3-P-12.
Mr. Peterson expressed the opinion that the existing prezoning of R-3-G, which
allows 17 units per acre, is too high a density for this area adjacent to single
family neighborhood to the south. He acknowledged an interest on the part of two
property owners in the subject area--Mrs. Betty Padelford and Mr. Charles Offerman--
for a density of R-3-P-14 to allow 14 units per acre. After evaluating the two
-7- September 13, 1976
densities with respect to this particular area and considering Council's previous
action in two instances of rezoning from R-3-G to R-3-P-12, the staff has recommended
R-3-P-12 prezoning for the major portion of the subject area outside the city and
rezoning to the same category for two lots in the city located at the southwest
corner of Fourth Avenue and "L" Street and presently zoned R-1. Four small lots
in the county with an R-1-A designation were formerly prezoned R-2; it is
recommended that this prezoning be changed to R-1 due to the inadequate lot size
for higher density development.
Mr. Peterson called attention to the guidelines recommended for application under
the "P" District.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Charles Offerman, 331 L Street, reported that at the Council meeting at which the
decision was made not to permit development at a density of 17 units per acre, there
was considerable discussion due to a development plan proposed by Mrs. Padelford,
as to whether 12 units to the acre would be acceptable, or 14. He had the under-
standing that 14 units to the acre on this site would still be in conformance
with the General Plan designation for medium density.
Mr. Peterson confirmed that if applied to a small area, 14 units to the acre would
conform to the General Plan designation which is applied to gross acreage, although
he has some reluctance to do that because at some point applying such zoning to a
large area would result in a density higher than that designated on the General Plan.
Mr. Offerman noted that it has been over a year since he inaugurated annexation
proceedings and while he has not prepared plans for the property he owns, he feels
that the plan submitted by Mrs. Padelford at 14 units to the acre looks good. He
asserted that the proposed guidelines for the "P" District appear reasonable and that
the property could be developed at 14 units to the acre and conform to those guide-
lines.
Betty Padelford, 8405 Prestwick Drive, San Diego, advised that she and her two
brothers own the property at 914 and 916 Fourth Avneue which is included in the
area being considered for prezoning. She requested favorable consideration of
R-3-P-14 zoning, which would allow them to develop two additional units on their
property and the capital thus generated would make it possible to develop common
areas which would be esthetically pleasing. She asserted that the Environmental
Impact Report indicated that there would be no adverse impact from development
at an even higher density; and further, that the theory of the maximum usage of
land would indicate the suitability of 14 units per acre.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Assistant City Attorney Beam admonished that a consistency between zoning category
and the General Plan designation must be found as a fact. He expressed the opinion
that the records support that finding.
Commissioner Starr asked what was considered in the Initial Study IS-76-63 that
resulted in a Negative Declaration.
Mr. Peterson advised that it evaluated a reduction in density from the existing
prezoning, and determined on that basis there would be no significant impact on
-8- September 13, 1976
the environment due to the action under consideration. Development plans would be
subject to additional environmental review.
MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the
Negative Declaration on IS-76-63 the rezoning action will have no significant
adverse environmental impacts and certifies the Negative Declaration.
MS (Pressutti-Starr) The Commission recommends the rezoning of two lots at the
southwest corner of Fourth and "L" from R-3-P-14; that the four lots fronting
on Fifth Avenue remain prezoned as R-2; and that the prezoning of the remaining
area on the south side of "L" Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues be changed
from R-3-G-P to R-3-P-14.
In discussion of the motion, Commissioner Pressutti acknowledged that the four lots
fronting on Fifth Avenue, with the existing lot lines, are not suitable for higher
density development. He contended, however, that the entire area in the vicinity of
"L" Street from the freeway to Third Avenue is no longer suited for R-1 use, and
that through consolidation of lots the property could be redeveloped at some higher
density.
Commissioner Johnson moved that the motion be amended to recommend R-1 zoning for
the four lots fronting on Fifth Avenue.
The motion for amendment died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Starr withdrew his second to the original motion.
MS (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends to the City Council that the
entire area under consideration be prezoned or rezoned to R-3-P-14.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, Smith, G. Johnson & Starr
NOES: Commissioner Floto
ABSENT: Commissioner Chandler
The meeting recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
ll. Consideration of final EIR-76-7 for Rancho Robinhood III
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid explained that this item was the subject of
a public hearing before the Planning Commission on August 23. All oral and written
input presented has been incorporated into the report along with a response to
questions raised, to comprise the final EIR.
Mr. Reid summarized the response to some of the major concerns expressed. He
pointed out that with regard to water pressure, conditions of approval of a
tentative map would require that adequate pressure for fire fighting be made
available prior to the start of construction. He reported that a landscape
architect has participated throughout the development of the plans to assure
an esthetic appearance of the overall site.
Mr. Reid noted that the report does indicate there will be an increase in traffic
as a result of development and that the development alternative used will determine
how much of this traffic will be channeled to Surrey Drive; however, it is felt
that no significant traffic hazard will be created. The subdivision map will be
-9- September 13, 1976
considered by the Safety Commission.
He pointed out that a noise analysis is included in the E.I.R. as well as a discussion
of the increase in runoff due to the development.
MSUC (Pressutti-Starr) The Commission adopts the draft EIR-76-7 with the inclusion
of all input submitted and the staff response thereto, as the City's final Environ-
mental Impact Report for the Rancho Robinhood III project.
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Precise Plan PCM-76-16 for Rancho Robinhood III
Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that this project, located on 100 acres
south of Rancho Robinhood I, is a 110 unit single family lot subdivision with 48%
of the area left in open space. Lot sizes vary considerably but after deducting
the open space acreage, the average lot size is in excess of 20,000 sq. ft.
Approximately 85% of the open space will be left in the native state and 15%
will be graded slopes with the major portion at a 3:1 grade. The graded area
will be replanted primarily with native material and will be under temporary
irrigation system until it returns to a native state. Graded slopes adjacent to
residential lots will be used as a firebreak and will be under permanent irrigation.
The trail system planned for the area will consist of sidewalks in front of the
houses, although in some instances this will mean sidewalk on only one side of
a street. The sidewalks will be augmented with a trail system going through
the natural open space which will be surfaced with decomposed granite for use
by pedestrians and as an equestrian trail system.
Mr. Lee advised that 72 of the lots will be FHA/VA approved plans, with 38 lots
reserved for the construction of custom houses. Included in the floor plans is
a split level model which will be used to minimize the grading which would be
required to provide a flat building pad. This development will deviate from
the straight wall frontage along Otay Lakes Road, as used in the adjacent tract,
and the property line and wall will be at varying distances from Otay Lakes Road.
This wall and the landscaping will be included in the maintenance district.
The 38 custom lots will not be graded until development occurs on them individually.
Development standards proposed for those lots set the maximum grading at 25%, ex-
cluding the building footprint, and maximum lot coverage at 50%.
The staff has recommended that the number of two story models on the lots adjacent
to Otay Lakes Roed be reduced from the number indicated on the applicant's proposal,
and also that the rear yard of those lots be a minimum of 25 feet.
Mr. Lee called attention to the list of 10 conditions recommended in approving the
precise plan; also the deletion of several lots which is a condition recommended
for approval of the tentative map and also affects the precise plan.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Sam Safino, 8913 Complex Drive, San Diego, project engineer representing the
owner and builder, discussed the overall master plan of the 100 acre site, showing
plats of different portions of the proposed development on a larger scale than
the precise plan map on display. He also displayed a large three dimension model
depicting the topography and development including open space, streets and the
siting of structures on the lots.
-10- September 13, 1976
Mr. Safino discussed the design criteria followed to assure that this development
is consistent with the General Plan of the City, with particular regard for density,
circulation, and the housing element. He pointed out that the General Plan calls
for a density of 1-3 units per acre; this design results in an overall density of
1.1 dwelling units per acre. With regard to the circulation element, this plan
meets the requirements of Otay Lakes Road as a scenic route, and provides for the
construction of Surrey Drive as a collector street extending to the southerly
limits of the development. They have attempted to satisfy the housing element by
providing the custom lots as well as FHA/VA approved homes. He also discussed
the limitation of development in the slide area and the method of grading proposed
to stabilize that area.
Mr. Safino affirmed the developer's agreement with all conditions enumerated in
the staff report relating to approval of the precise plan.
Rudolph Hradecky, 969 Buckaroo Lane, indicated that he is speaking on behalf of
15 residents of Rancho Robinhood I and presented a petition signed by 95 residents
of the area which requests that consideration to given to elimination of the
proposed road through the canyon to connect "A" Street and "B'~ Street in order to
preserve the scenic beauty of the canyon and minimize adverse traffic consequences
to the rest of the development, that houses constructed along the west side of
Surrey Drive be one story houses in order to preserve the view of people residing
on the east side of that street, and that construction on lots 69 through 76 be
eliminated inasmuch as those houses would be on top of a slide zone and in lieu
thereof a small park be incorporated into the design of the project. If those
conditions can be met the residents have no objection to the development.
Mr. Hradecky also expressed concern with regard to grading during the rainy season
and to the need for review and possible upgrading of the existing drainage system.
He also requested that a traffic study be conducted to make sure the existing
streets are safe and adequate to accept the additional traffic flow to be generated
by this development. He further suggested that Surrey Drive be closed at the
boundary of this subdivision to retain a closed characteristic of the community.
Girard Redden, 940 Buckaroo Lane, expressed objection to the 8 houses to be
located on "B" Street. He suggested that if the total number of lots must be
retained the relatively flat area at the top of the hill could be enlarged to
eliminate the need for constructing houses on the hillside.
Mrs. William A. Spies, representing the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association,
expressed the consensus of the board of that organization that this design is
superior to the one proposed for this area two years ago. They, however, support
the requests made by the residents of Rancho Robinhood I. She expressed concern
over the drainage conditions which have been caused by the existing subdivisions
in the area and the feeling that the subject of drainage was treated very
lightly in the EIR. She requested a more extensive analysis of drainage in the
area and constant surveillance during the grading operation.
Carol Palm, 264 Surrey Drive, expressed concern over the prospect of Surrey Drive
being extended at a later date. She contended that connecting this street to
Otay Lakes Road, or some major street, would induce additional traffic through
this community which would make it extremely hazardous.
Mr. Safino responded to concerns brought up by the residents. With regard to
"A" Street, he noted that an alternate plan has been prepared which will be
discussed under the tentative map hearing. The alternate eliminates extending "A"
Street down the canyon. The developer finds either plan acceptable.
-ll- September 13, 1976
He also pointed out that the proposed pad elevations on the west side of Surrey
Drive are below the grade of the street, while those on the east side are above
the street. He further noted that only one two story model is planned in that area,
al though there are some one-and-two-story models with bedrooms located over the
garage. With regard to the 8 lots on B Street, he pointed out they are not on a
fault line but are in a potential slide area. He again discussed the method of
grading proposed to attempt to stabilize that area.
Martha Walker, 291 Surrey Drive, expressed concern wi th regard to Surrey Drive
being extended beyond this subdivision, pointing out traffic safety problems
already experienced on this street. She felt it should not be opened up to
travel by the general public.
Jim Payton, 4425 Vista Coronado Drive, reported that he is building a home
on Horton Road in the canyon below Surrey Drive. He asked what is the plan
for the runoff water from Surrey Drive, whether it is to use the natural flow of
the canyon or be routed through the storm drain system to Bonita Valley.
Mr. Safino advised that in general they are maintaining the present watersheds.
They will be extending the existing storm drain system at Corral Court through
a fill area which would otherwise restrict the natural flow. The overall
disposition of rain water along the north-south canyon at the western boundary
of the subidvision will remain the same.
Chairman Pro Tempore Smith closed the hearing on the precise plan, and recessed
the meeting for a 5 minute break at 10:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at ll:O0 p.m.
Assistant City Att6rney Beam advised that if the Commission wishes to propose
substantial modifications to the precise plan, that would be a rejection of the
improvements and design of the subdivision map. If, however, they are satisfied
with the precise plan, subject to no major revisions, then they can proceed to
consideration of the tentative map.
MSUC (Starr-Floto) The Commission recommends to the City Council the approval
of the Precise Plan and Development Standards for development of Rancho Robinhood
III subject to the ten conditions as enumerated in the staff report.
13. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Tentative Map PCS-76-7 for Rancho Robinhood III
Current Planning Supervisor Lee presented the proposal for the subdivision of
100 acres into 110 single family lots and six open space lots. He discussed
the circulation system and advised that it is the Commission's responsibility to
approve street names. The names suggested by the developer for this subdivision
are Stagecoach, Wagonwheel Way, and Longhorn; these are not in conflict with any
street names in the City and if the Commission has no objection, they will be
considered acceptable.
Mr. Lee called attention to the list of 40 conditions recommended in approving
the tentative map. He briefly reviewed those conditions for the benefit of persons
in the audience, noting that conditions applying to may of the concerns earlier
expressed are included. He suggested that condition No. 15 which specified
asphalt paving for the surface of the 6 ft. trail should be modified to state the
surfacing should be a material acceptable to the Engineering Division and Planning
Department. He felt that paving is not necessary, and that decomposed granite
would probably be suitable if the trail is to be used by horses.
Mr. Lee pointed out that Surrey Drive is planned as an extended street terminating
-12- September 13, 1976
at Otay Lakes Road just south of Bonita Vista Junior High School. It is considered
as the feeder road to serve relatively low density development in the hilly area
south of the subject subdivision.
With respect to the elimination of street A through the canyon, he noted that
alternate A to the subdivision map would delete that street and provide for
the connection of B Street to Buckaroo Lane. He noted that this would necessitate
all residents of A Street to use Surrey Drive.
In response to a question from Commissioner Starr, he discussed the rationale
of the staff in recommending the deletion or relocation of the two custom lots
and the five lots fronting on the portion of A Street which is proposed to be
eliminated, which would leave the canyon in its natural state.
The Chairman opened the public hearing for consideration of the tentative map.
Sam Safino, representing Robinhood Homes, expressed agreement with most of the
conditions recommended by the staff, pointing out that many of the conditions are
applicable only to the original tentative map and not to alternate A.
Mr. Safino did take exception to condition 3 which limited the slope between
lots 85 and 86 to a 3:1 grade, he felt a grade of 2:1 should be acceptable, since
it would preserve more of the natural area. He expressed agreement with condition
3b to delete lots 77 and 78 in the location shown based on the provision that the
lots may be relocated within the subdivision. He felt they could be relocated
without any difficulty.
He expressed exception to conditions 4 which would delete 5 future custom lots;
he asked that they be given opportunity of incorporating those lots into another
area.
Mr. Safino acknowledged the need for supplying fire flow water system but objected
to the requirement that it be required prior to construction of the models. He
indicated that the developer would install all public improvements at one time.
He suggested the possibility of providing a temporary fire fighting service during
the early stage of construction.
With reference to condition 16 requiring the sidewalks to be 5½ feet wide, he
pointed out that Rancho Robinhood I has 5 ft. sidewalks and he felt this project
should be the same.
Rudolph Hradecky, 969 Buckaroo Lane, contended that the modification proposed
by alternate A was not addressed in the environmental impact report which was
adopted at this meeting. He reported that the residents of Buckaroo Lane have
a specific objection to alternate A, based on the fact that they purchased their
homes with the understanding that Buckaroo Lane was a cul de sac street.
Gerry Redden, 940 Buckaroo Lane, affirmed that all maps of the area show Buckaroo
as a cul de sac. He objected to opening that street to the proposed development.
Assistant City Attorney Beam advised that if it is the consensus of the Commission
to recommend approval of alternate A, consideration of the map should be postponed
until that issue can be addressed in terms of the sufficiency of the adopted EIR.
Sam Safino cited a section in the EIR which made reference to the proposed alternate
deisgn of the development and he felt it would not be necessary to backtract through
the environmental review procedure before consideration can be given to that
alternate.
-13 September 13, 1976
Assistant City Attorney Beam admonished that the alternative as referred to in the
staff report is not sufficiently clear to determine if there would be an added
impact on adjacent residents. He indicated he had no objection to the Commission
going forward with the plan without alternate A.
Mr. Redden again expressed opposition to alternate A and asked that the Commission
give consideration to the specific requests they submitted on the original plan.
Brenda Taylor, 315 Surrey Drive, expressed extreme concern over the increased danger
of traffic on Surrey Drive if it is connected to another major road. She suggested
that Surrey Drive at the boundary of the proposed subdivision be restricted to a
limited access for emergency vehicles only.
Director of Planning Peterson advised that it would be difficult to design a road
that would be available only for emergency vehicles and not for passenger cars.
He also pointed out that there is a definite limit as to locations suitable for
a street to serve future development in the area to the south and it has long been
contemplated that a street connection in this area would be installed.
Jack Benham, 303 Surrey Drive, questioned whether all of the points listed in
the petition from the residents have been considered. He contended that access
to the area south of this development could be made from Otay Lakes Road without
connecting it to this area, and permitting emergency access only at the southerly
end of Surrey Drive. He pointed out that Allen School Lane is not adequate to
handle the traffic presently generated from Surrey Drive and there should be no
increase in that traffic.
Rudolph Hradecky again spoke against giving any consideration to alternate A since
the residents had not been given an opportunity to review that proposal.
As no one else wished to speak, the publi~c hearing was closed.
MS (R. Johnson-Floto) The Commission recommends to the City Council the approval
of the tentative map PCS-76-7 for Rancho Robinhood III, subject to the conditions
set forth in the staff report with the exception that condition 3a be modified to
allow a steepness of slope of 2:1 instead of 3:1, in condition 11 it is imperative
that they have water for model homes and before construction starts; delete
condition 16 to require 5½ ft. sidewalks; revise condition 19 to state that the
grade of "A" Street shall be 15% or less, and delete condition 26 which indicated
Department of Public Works preference for Alternate A.
MS (Smith-Starr) Amend the previous motion to omit condition 4 which required
the deletion of lots 64 through 68 which front on "A" Street.
The motion for the amendment carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Smith, Starr, Floto and Pressutti
NOES: Commissioners R. Johnson and G. Johnson
ABSENT: Commissioner Chandler
The motion, as amended, for approval of tentative map PCS-76-7, carried unanimously.
14. Consideration of boundaries of E1 Rancho del ReS Unit 5 Annexation
Chairman Pro Tempore Smith asked if the property owner had any comment on the
boundaries as proposed.
-14- }ptember 13, 1976
Carmen Pasquale, representing E1 Rancho del Rey, reported that they have no opposition
to the boundaries but would request that consideration of this annexation and the
tentative map for E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 5 go to the City Council at the same time.
MSUC (Floto-G. Johnson) The Commission recommends approval of the boundaries of
E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 5 Annexation as shown on Exhibit A.
15. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of Tentative Map PCS-76-6 for
E1 Rancho del ReS Unit #5
Director of Planning Peterson reminded the Commission that this proposed develop-
ment is in the P-C zone so the guidelines for development of the property are
those established in the P-C zone by the General Development Plan. The General
Development Plan, approved in 1970 and 1971, does not contain guidelines for
development for this area other than a general density designation. Based on
that fact, Mr. Peterson felt it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to
establish the standards which they feel are necessary for a detached single family
home tract.
Mr. Peterson also noted that the Council has directed the staff to reconsider the
1970-71 General Development Plan and to work with the applicant to define areas
which should remain as natural open space; progress is being made in this under-
taking.
lie reported that the Council is also interested in establishing an assessment
district for all of the E1 Rancho del Rey property so that all undeveloped properties
will contribute a fair share toward the major public improvement expenses, including
the extension of "H" Street and construction of the Rice Canyon sewer. The Council
indicated that they would not give final map approval for Unit No. 5 until such an
assessment district is established, which could be a matter of some years. If the
developer does not wish to wait, it is possible that the Council would be willing
to consider some other method of assuring that this tract would pay its share of
those major outside improvements.
Mr. Peterson recounted the major issues related to this particular proposed develop-
ment, including lots fronting on a major collector street, lot sizes and lot widths.
He noted that the applicant has submitted standards which include lot size and
widths, but these are below the City's R-1 standards. Since this development is
for detached single family homes, Mr. Peterson felt the proposed standards should
be measured against adopted R-1 standards. If the Commission accepts smaller lot
size they could look for a trade off in other areas to compensate for the difference.
He pointed out that the developer's proposed standards relate to pad size rather
than lot size and the Commission may wish to establish standards for both the
pad and the lot size.
Mr. Peterson noted there is a time limit under State law in which action must be
taken on a subdivision map. He advised that the staff is not in a position to
recommend approval of the subject map at this meeting and if the developer does
not concur with a continuance, then the staff would be obligated to recommend
denial of the map and would offer findings for denial of the map as presented.
Assistant City Attorney Beam pointed out that if the applicant requests action
on this item at this meeting, and the Commission favors the recommendation of the
Director of Planning to deny the map, the Commission is required to make factual
findings justifying the denial. Absent the ability to make those findings, the
Commission does not have the authority to deny the map.
-15- September 13, 1976
Current Planning Supervisor Lee elaborated upon the issue of streets fronting
on Paseo del Rey, which traffic studies have projected will carry 10,000 cars per
day and could result in a safety hazard for cars entering or exiting from driveways
off the street. He cited other developments in which the rear of lots abutted
the major street and through the use of decorative walls and landscaping this can
result in an attractive feature of the development.
He also discussed the recommendation for relocation of Mesa Court to move it
further from the intersection of Paseo del Rey and "J" Street for safety reasons.
Mr. Lee pointed out the number of lots fronting on cul de sacs with the lot frontage
too narrow to permit any curbside parking. He recommended that lots fronting on
a cul de sac have a minimum frontage of 35 feet.
He also noted the recommendation to continue Douglas Street to meet Paseo del Rey
thus providing a circulation link between the two residential areas without going
on to Telegraph Canyon Road.
Mr. Lee called attention to a letter received from the Chula Vista Elementary
School District indicating their concern about the lack of planning in the area
with regard to school sites. They are not ready to require that a school site be
reserved specifically within this subdivision, but they need to know of plans to
develop the area to the east of this site, in order that they can determine a
suitable site for a school if it is needed.
Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt further discussed the feasibility of
not having lots front on Paseo del Rey, pointing out that this street is projected
for ten to fifteen thousand cars per day, which would require a major collector
street, of four lanes,with an 80 foot right of way and 64 feet curb to curb. On
a major collector of this type access is usually limited to intersections with
other streets. Houses fronting on such a street not only create a traffic hazard
but also have a more difficult problem of noise mitigation. He asked that the
Commission reconsider their former action in this regard.
Commissioner Floto pointed out that such Streets as "E", "F", "H" and "L" in
Chula Vista carry more traffic than projected for this street and all have
residential lots fronting on them.
The Chairman reopened the public hearing in consideration of the tentative map.
James Ashbau§h, planner with CEP Associated, 5555 Magnatron Boulevard, representing
E1 Rancho del Rey, responded to each of the issues raised in the staff report as
follows:
a. Lots fronting on Paseo del Rey: Mr. Ashbaugh discussed the terrain of the
entire property pointing out the ridges and canyons. He noted that Paseo del Rey
comes through a fairly steep and deep canyon which is not very wide. It is the
developer's feeling, in developing lots along this collector street, that because
of the terrain and the fact that the road is largely in a canyon, they have used
the most logical approach toward retaining the general land form.
b. Distance between street intersections: The reason for the location of the
cul de sac coming off "J" Street west of Paseo del Rey, is again related to the
topography. The street was placed along the ridge to minimize the need for placing
fill in the canyon.
c. Lot widths and lot size: Mr. Ashbaugh asserted that the average pad size,
_ -16- _September 13, 1976
excluding all manufactured slopes, is 7,050 sq. ft., which is larger than the pad
size required by R-1 regulations.
d. Width of lots on cul de sac: Mr. Ashbaugh pointed out that on the cul de sacs
many of the lots are unusually deep, and with the residence located far back it
will permit parking in the longer driveways in lieu of curbside parking.
e. Extending Douglas Street: Mr. Ashbaugh contended it is contradictory to
require the extension of this street through an area which they were trying to
preserve as a natural canyon.
f. Designating lot "A" as open space. Due to interest expressed by the Parks
and Recreation Department of locating a park in this canyon, it has been indicated
on the map as "reserved for park."
g. Provision for extending streets to the east: There has been discussion with
regard to retaining a one foot control lot at the end of a cul de sac and also
reserving one lot abutting the SDG&E easement as a possible street extension;
this has been indicated on a revised map.
h. Designation of use of triangular piece of property between the subject tract
and the Horton tract now under construction: If Telegraph Canyon Road improvements
can be accomplished as part of an improvement district, or if those improvements
are assured in the approval of this project, Mr. Ashbaugh felt it is not necessary
to worry about that piece of property.
i. Preservation of Cholla cactus: Mr. Ashbaugh contended this is not a rare or
endangered species of plant which is in danger of being wiped out.
j. Deletion of lots 156, 157 and 158: Mr. Ashbaugh indicated they would work
something out for those lots which extend into the adjacent property.
k. Relocation of subdivision boundary to centerline of Entrada Place and
including Lots "H" and "I" of South Bay Villas within the boundaries: Mr. Ashbaugh
reported that a notation on the subdivision map indicated the developer would
endeavor to obtain those lots. He felt approval of this project should not be
contingent upon including those remnants from an adjacent development.
1. Inclusion of street sections for Telegraph Canyon Road: Mr. Ashbaugh advised
that this was not shown in the typical cross section because at the time they
were preparing the map there was still discussion about the alignment of Telegraph
Canyon Road ~nd the location of the bike paths.
Mr. Ashbaugh further discussed their intent of developing with a minimum of grading
and retaining the natural land form. This results in a wide divergence of lot
sizes as best fit into the canyon widths. He feels it is an innovative project
which conforms to the intent of the P-C zone.
Carmen Pasquale, representing E1 Rancho del Rey, expressed concern over the
lengthy consideration devoted to this subdivision. He contended that the P-C
zone provides for setting up development standards rather than adhering to R-1
standards; the purpose of this provision is to give flexibility. He pointed out
that the standards proposed are the same as those approved by the Council for Unit
No. 4.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Assistant City Attorney Beam requested that some action be taken on the tentative
-17- September 13, 1976
map, either disapproval, making the necessary findings, or an indication of approval
subject to findings and conditions to be provided by the staff.
MS (Floto-G. Johnson) The Commission directs the staff to provide findings for
approval of the tentative map for E1 Rancho del Rey Unit No. 5 subject to
conditions!to meet the requirements set forth in items b through 1, under
paragraph 2, in the recommendation of the staff report for this meeting, for
Commission consideration at the meeting of October 4, 1976.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Floto, G. Johnson, Smith, Pressutti, and R. Johnson
NOES: Commissioner Starr
ABSENT: Commissioner Chandler
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Peterson reported that inasmuch as the regular meeting date
for the first meeting in October falls on a legal holiday, it is necessary to
schedule that meeting for another date. It is recon~ended that a business meeting
be held on October 4, 1976.
The Commission expressed consensus.
Mr. Peterson also suggested that in view of the lateness of this meeting the
Commission may be inclined to cancel the study session normally scheduled for
next Monday night, September 20.
MSUC (Pressutti-Floto) The study session regularly scheduled for September 20 be
cancelled.
ADJOURNMENT
Chariman Pro Tempore Smith adjourned the meeting at 2:05 a.m.
~Respectfully submitted,
Helen Mapes
Secretary