Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/06/08 Tape #: 290 Side 1 MINUTES City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, June 8, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. Conference Rooms #2 and #3 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Fuller, Tugenberg, Grasser (7:32), Cannon, Casillas & Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, General Plan Coordinator Gray, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf, Director of Community Development Desrochers, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Community Development Specialist LoBue, Environmental Consultant Richardson APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Shipe/Fuller) Casillas abstained, Grasser out, to approve the minutes of May ll, 1988 as mailed. MSC (Fuller/Shipe) Cannon abstained, Grasser out, to approve the minutes of May 18, 1988 as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-88-3 TOWN CENTRE ll REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT #2 Community Development Specialist LoBue stated that on February 10, 1988, the Planning Commission had approved the addition of 10 new sites to the existing Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area and the Preliminary Plan for the proposed Amendment. Since that time, the sites have been expanded to include the street rights-of-way fronting those properties. The Commission is being asked to: (1) certify that the Draft EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and City procedures; and (2) certify that the Redevelopment Plan Amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan. Mr. LoBue indicated that the Commission is not being asked to take action immediately but to receive comments on the Draft EIR. Comments Planning Commission -2- June 8, 1988 have been received from staff, the School District and the public to which the EIR must respond before the Final EIR is returned to the Commission for certification. Comments have also been submitted for the proposed Plan Amendment as well. Mr. LoBue stated that since the February meeting, public meetings have been held with the property owners and with residential and business tenants of these sites. The Redevelopment Agency will consider a report to the Council on the financial and land use impact of the proposed Amendment prior to the joint public hearing on July 12; an ordinance will be considered, approved and returned for a second reading on July 19. After a 30-day period, the Amendment will become effective. He noted that the Amendment needs to be effective no later than August 20, 1988 to enable the Redevelopment Agency to collect the tax increments for the coming year. He indicated that Doug Reid would speak to the process of the EIR; Diana Richardson (P&D Technologies who prepared the EIR) would give a brief summary of the issues developing from the EIR and that Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator, and Director of Community Development Desrochers were present to answer any questions. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated briefly that the Redevelopment Agency had selected P&D Technologies to prepare the EIR; that the 30-day review period through the State Clearinghouse had just ended and that they had been informed that some comments had been received from the California Department of Fish and Game. Diana Richardson, P&D technologies, said the EIR and CEQA Findings had been analyzed including the full range of issues Chula Vista normally requires for environmental impact reports, plus the potential impact of future development on the 10 sites. All impacts found in the projected "worst case" scenario, could be mitigated to an insignificant level with the exception of the traffic impacts which would be experienced with or without the future redevelopment of the site. Redevelopment would incrementally make those impacts more severe. In-house comments received were mostly for matters of clarification. A letter from the County requested that a description be included in the EIR of the regional services provided to the project area and the entire San Diego Area including social services, public health, ports and criminal justice programs with a statement that these services would be undermined unless the County is compensated. The School District indicated that the relocation of the administrative building, the transportation facilities and public works yard might create additional school volume. In response to questions, the Commission was informed that the Amendment to the Plan does not specify any changes in land use or any special redevelopment projects. Planning Commission -3- June 8, 1988 This being the time and the place, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg stated that the EIR was unusually well done. MSUC (Casillas/Shipe) to continue the item to the meeting of June 22, 1988. 2. OTHER BUSINESS: GENERAL PLAN POLICY DISCUSSION (CONTINUED) Planning Director Krempl noted that at the meeting of May 18, 1988, after a presentation on the status of the General Plan policies on open space and density transfer, the Commission directed staff to prepare guidelines that might allow for some development on slopes over 25 percent. The Commission concurred with staff's recommendation of an allowance essentially of 0-100% credit for private schools, day care centers and special educational centers as part of the larger package on how density computations would be made. This has been included with the options in the staff report. Also included were copies of minutes of previous meetings and correspondence containing the proposed criteria of Buie Corporation and those of UNOCAL as presented by the Ladera Association. Director Krempl stated that the Buie representative had elaborated further on their proposed criteria on allowance and development on steep slopes and that UNOCAL's representative expressed concern in how density would be determined, the impacts of future SR 125 and other considerations relating to their property. The Director commented that the Commission had a noticed field trip workshop to look at the Rancho Bernardo area and projects developed by Buie Corporation. Also, six members of the Commission had the opportunity to look at the UNOCAL property. Director Krempl reviewed the recommendations in the staff report: Option #1, the current staff recommendation, is to adopt a policy of no encroachment in open space areas designated on the General Plan including slopes in excess of 25%. That recommendation is based on the study and effort expended on the various land use scenarios for the General Plan Update particularly Scenario IV. In Scenario IV, the relationship of open space to developed area to density intensity was carefully prepared and drafted to implement the goals of Council and Commission in terms of Chula Vista's future action. Staff feels the current recommendation is appropriate to protect the natural land form and prevent loss of character. Finally, a benchmark of 25% as a guidance point for which development should not occur has been established in several of the sensitive land initiatives which are under consideration County-wide. The City and County are currently contemplating putting ordinances into effect, or having initiatives on the ballot in November which direct the sensitive land policies. Staff's recommendation is consistent with this direction. Option 2 proposes a modification to the density allocation for steep slope areas and guidelines are suggested to permit limited encroachment. The steeper slopes would be calculated at 1 du/20 acres; for slopes less than 25%, 1 du/5 acres and for slopes more than 25%, 1 du/lO acres. In Planning Commission -4- June 8, 1988 contrast to the current policy which allows no development in open space areas, staff suggests that up to 20 percent of the area designated as open space on the General Plan could be encroached into under specific conditions while the balance would be dedicated as permanent open space. Buie Corporation would allow encroachment up to 25% in the slope areas, however, staff is of the opinion that 25% is too large a figure and 20% would be more reasonable. Staff also suggests that a density transfer from open space lands to the adjacent development areas within the same ownership could be permitted. Projects would be subject to review by the Design Review Committee and to hillside criteria. Director Krempl said that staff is not ready to present specific hillside development criteria recommendations at this meeting. He pointed out that Option 2 allows a little more density; reduces the amount of encroachment to less than that proposed by Buie; however, the density transfer must be from the open space land to this 20 percent. Option 3 is consistent with all the policies in Scenario 4 and simply moves the line of demarcation from 25% to 30% and allows the developer the opportunity to develop whatever the land use pattern may be in Scenario 4 within the lands that are 30% as opposed to 25%. Mr. Krempl concluded that staff considers the matter to be a policy issue. It is possible to develop steeper slopes and to do it in a sensitive fashion; however, it is staff's opinion that it is not appropriate, necessary, nor desirable from a policy point of view to do so. Chula Vista should make a conscious decision to preserve the natural land forms and steeper slopes and keep them free of development. This can be accomplished and still have an alternative for development in other areas. The City Council has been advised of the subject of this meeting, it is targeted to return to Council on June 21 for consideration in company with other General Plan factors. The Director noted that Mr. Gray, the General Plan Coordinator, as well as Mr. Wood were available for questioning. In response to questions by Commissioner Tugenberg, Director Krempl said that a case where the entire acreage of a piece of property was an over 25% slope, the density would be calculated on a 1 du/5 acres. Generally, areas within a development area capable of residential development are not over 25% slope. Commissioner Tugenberg stated that protection of the land form should be a part of the general policy to prevent decapitating a mountain or part of one and destroying the land form. Director Krempl replied that we have a hillside overlay district and other internal measures, and if the Commission is concerned over their adequacy they can be tightened up and revised. Planning Commission -5- June 8, 1988 Commissioner Cannon said he was more desirous of seeing criteria for hillside development rather than automatically precluding one way or another based on certain percentages of slope and asked how long would it take to get such criteria back to the Commission. Mr. Krempl said the material should be available by the first meeting in July. (Commissioner Grasser arrived at 7:32 p.m.) This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Wayne Loftus, Ladera Associates, representing UNOCAL referenced concerns contained in their June letter; namely the policy of density transfer from open space and the issue of the northerly portion of UNOCAL property being designated as open space. Mr. Loftus noted that 576 acres of the 1,800 acres is under the 25% slope. At 1 du/5 acres that equates to a little over lO0 units on 1,800 acres. Such a figure is not encouraging to UNOCAL. He said that UNOCAL is most supportive of the recommendation made by Mr. Lettieri on behalf of the Buie Corporation. In addition, UNOCAL suggest a density transfer of 2 units per acre for the open space area versus the 1 unit per 5 acres. There are some very desirable opportunities for development on UNOCAL property (and other properties in the eastern territories) that can be achieved in a very sensitive manner. The 25% slope is not magic but is a generic kind of solution and sometimes ignores the opportunities for innovative development. Mount Helix, Mount Soledad and other areas offer unequaled opportunities for people to enjoy their environment. If accomplished in a sensitive manner, such development will neither destroy the City nor compromise the views but will enhance the community and make it a much more desirable place for people to work. There is a balance between protecting the environment and offering a broad prospectus of opportunities. Charles Gill, Buie Corporation, representing Bonita Meadows, expressed concern that the staff report did not seem to reflect what they had understood to be the intent of the Commission expressed at the May 18 meeting. He noted that the Buie Corporation was not asking for a site-specific planning approval nor for an increase in density over what the General Plan currently provides for the Bonita Meadows area, nor for any type of density transfer. They were requesting only the flexibility to enable the Commission to consider individual planning proposals and to establish appropriate criteria to allow creative, innovative planning solutions. Mr. Gill maintained that the confusion about what the policy is addressing is because of the broad designations of areas in the eastern territories in the open space categories of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Buie Corporation proposes consideration of two different types of open space; open space that would be of a regional character (something like Mother Miguel Mountain) and local open space involving areas unique to a specific site that should be preserved. He said another alternative to the adoption of the policy proposed by staff would involve changing land use designation on individual sites in a site-specific Planning Commission -6- June 8, 1988 manner. Land use designations such as the Bonita Meadows property designated as open space would be changed to some type of a developable designation to be controlled by existing ordinances relating to precise plans and hillside development. This would restrict development on those portions on Bonita Meadows property (or any similarly situated property) from developing within those areas unless specific criteria are proposed. For ease of reference, Tony Lettieri, representing the Buie Corporation, distributed a reformatting of their suggested criteria already contained in the staff report. Mr. Lettieri said that the staff recommendation does two things (1) establishes a low density (1 du/5 to 10 acres) that could be applied either to the site itself or transferred to another area. Buie's concern is that the encroachment, whether at 1 du/5 acres or 3 du/acre, would probably have the same impact because of the need for roads and other public improvement infrastructure. (2) If Option #2 were implemented, the property on Bonita Meadows (and many other properties in this area) would probably remain undevelopable because the 25% slope could not be developed without encroaching into the 35% slope. Buie's proposal is that a very restrictive criteria be established that would be applied on a Citywide policy level (not a site-by-site level) that would permit development with 25% slopes. In Bonita Meadows, only 25 acres could even be considered for development. Design variety and a mixture of housing types (which would not be provided otherwise even in the City's hillside development policies) could be promoted. Sensitive grading and re-contour of slopes would be required and Buie has added restrictions requiring that the silhouette for the hillside not be disturbed. Mr Lettieri remarked that one of the options mentioned by Mr. Gill was that Bonita Meadows property (and others) that are designated open space because of the slope could be designated as a residential density but with a restriction that an over-25% slope would require a precise plan or hillside modifying district requirement. It is Buie's contention that a limited project on a hillside is appropriate and would not interfere with the Citywide goals of open space maintenance and land forms; however, with the policies as they are presently written there would be no opportunity to do that. Mr. Lettieri requested that the Commission consider the policy presented by Buie and ask staff to develop policies that would permit this type of development. Commissioner Tugenberg referenced a statement that to build Blacksmith Road down to Proctor Valley it would be necessary to scrape the earth from one of the promontories and use it for fill thus obliterating one of the land forms. He declared he would rather see the land form with a few houses than scraped flat with 80 units. Mr. Lettieri expressed agreement and continued that development could be sited in those areas in a very good manner and not on the basis of providing fill for another area. He reminded the Commissioners who had attended the field trip in Rancho Bernardo and had seen a development totally covering the hills that in Buie Corporation's case, only 25 percent of that area could be developed with roads and home sites. Planning Commission -7- June 8, 1988 Steve Estrada, 533 "F" Street, representing Baldwin, spoke on the density transfer. He maintained that a density transfer of 0-100% should be allowed for schools and parks as the same factors affect both. It should be allowed for other public service features such as libraries and other items that were not considered on the General Plan as well as unanticipated environmental constraints. As long as the community character is not affected, the density transfer to adjacent areas should be allowed. Bill Robens, 254 Camino Elevado, representing the Sierra Club, said that the policy to be adopted may be the primary element determining the land form of Chula Vista. The Sierra Club agrees with staff's recommendation regarding 25% slopes. Mr. Robens noted that he had accompanied the Commission on the field trip to Rancho Bernardo area and remarked on the similarity of the man-made slopes. Speaking of the Bonita site he referenced the terrible scars that would be left on the hillside, the fact that the land form would be irreversibly changed and the beauty lost forever. Whatever policy is adopted needs to consider the final issue. He requested that the Commission adopt staff's recommendation. Stanley Wade, 5617 Galloping Way, Bonita, representing Bonita Highlands, stated that he was a member of the Homeowner's Association and on the Board of the Bonita Sweetwater Civic Association. He asked what would happen to their property and stated that he shared the concerns of 667 homeowners. He noted that Bonita Highlands is a planned community with horse and walking trails. That Steeplechase Way is more than a 25% grade and it is developed; and that the Association maintains 127 acres of open space. He stated that Bonita Meadows would blend in nicely with them. Mr. Wade noted that the Civic Association is recommending that SR 125 go up through the two mountain saddlebacks and intersect 94 at Campo Road and Jamacha Road instead of going through Proctor Valley. He drew attention to the fact that there is a horse trail along the boundary of Bonita Highlands that covers the whole perimeter of the land holdings. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, representing Crossroads, referred to the May 18th workshop when staff recommended no development on slopes of 25% or more. He emphasized that the goal of the General Plan is to create open space and not just allow continual development. The logical place for open space is the canyons and hillsides. He agreed that although building on slopes could be creatively done, the open space is then lost. Most citizens of Chula Vista don't want that. Any development creates more people and the citizens don't want as many people crowded in as possible. Any development creates more traffic and Chula Vista doesn't want as much traffic as possible generated. Mr. Watry strongly supported the original idea of not allowing open space on slopes of 25%. He stated that based on past actions of the Council, if a development policy is adopted and if an exception is warranted, Council will consider it. If it is attempted to develop a policy with a lot of criteria to allow development on slopes, what will end up is more developments. If staff's recommendations are adopted, there will be less development on slopes. Planning Commission -8- June 8, 1988 Mr. Watry urged that the Commission err (if necessary) on the conservative side and let the Council make exceptions in the future if they consider it to be justified. Regarding density transfers, Mr. Watry pointed out that before Scenario IV was finalized, the location of SR 125, major highways, large developers, etc., had all been calculated. The density transfers had been taken into account. To allow a wholesale density transfer destroys the whole plan. Crossroads recommends Scenario IV. There has been a gradual chipping away of Scenario IV by developers at meeting after meeting. He urged the Commission to be cautious in allowing that. Will Hyde, 803 Vista Way, Chula Vista, a member of CROSSROADS but speaking for himself, recommended that the Commission look at the General Plan from a broad-brush aspect. This community is blessed in having to the west the ocean and the bay and to the east the beautiful landform of hills which can be demarcated by a percentage of slopes for protection if the City has the will and wisdom to do so. The Commission must rise above the respective subdivision interests and think of the whole as it represents the community. Space is our most valuable aspect and will become more valuable as urbanization takes place. Creativity and flexibility are vital to subdivision developments, but policy and flexibility often mean loopholes. To allow these exceptions to a general rule and encroach into open space because of this creativity is to open a Pandora's box. The major task for Commission and the Council is to carefully define what the open space is and say "that shall be protected. Creativity be damned as far as encroachment." Whenever these loopholes are allowed, the possibility of eroding the policy is established. Support the staff for no development in hillside slopes of certain degree. The decision should be firm. If staff is asked to come up with criteria, in essence exceptions are requested. They won't make any more open space. Once development comes -- it is there always. If the Commission errs, err on the side of being conservative for the future No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cannon said he has yet to see a 25% slope area he would like to see developed but that doesn't mean he would preclude its development in particular circumstances. He does not think limiting developers to 25% necessarily means an encroachment into open space. He would like to see staff return with some flexibility to 25% slopes. If he had criteria in front of him, he could evaluate it and see if there were loop holes. He likes the ability to look at something and make a determination if it is a good or bad development for Chula Vista. The arbitrary percentage to set absolute standards doesn't make sense. It would be difficult to bring a proposal to him that he would like enough to pass with the very restrictive criteria he would like imposed. In response to Commissioner Carson, he said he would still like to see criteria developed by staff. He agreed that the man-made slopes were pretty boring - all had iceplant and eucalyptus. Plannin~ Commission -9- June 8, 1988 Commissioner Tugenberg said he would like to see something about grading included in the criteria. Commissioner Grasser said she had not attended the field trip but shared some of the concerns re grading. She expressed willingness to look at other criteria, but was of the opinion that staff's recommendations should be accepted. Commissioner Carson said that because of her strong feelings for protecting land form and open space she would support staff's recommendation, or #1 at least. If it is the desire of the rest of the Commissioners she would look at the hillside criteria. Commissioner Casillas said he was not convinced that the 25% figure is magic. He noted that a policy is not set in concrete. It is a guide and can be changed should the situation warrant. He has a lot of confidence in staff and their capability of doing a great deal of analysis and making some determination that would represent the whole community equitably. MSUC (Casillas/Cannon) to request staff prepare more specific criteria of where and how development in slopes of 25% could be allowed and to continue the meeting to July 13th. Commissioner Tugenberg said to vote for something other than the staff recommendation the criteria would have to be excellent. His version of allowing building or grading over 25% is not what he saw on the tour. That adds nothing to the community even though the product was very good. Commissioner Carson said the criteria would have to be fantastic for her to go along with it. Commissioner Grasser noted she would vote in favor of the motion. She supports creating open space and natural land forms, but there may be a possibility to have some type of creative development in Chula Vista which is lacking at this time. I would like to see some criteria return to the Commission. Commissioner Shipe said he is very much pro open space and wishes to preserve it. He agrees with many of the speakers both pro and con and would support the motion. DIRECTOR'S REPORT None. Planning Commission -10- June 8, 1988 COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Shipe said that he and Commissioner Cannon have devoted 6 years to the Commission. When he was appointed originally, the load was small but now there is more and more material to review and study. Sometimes 7 to 8 hours are involved. Chula Vista is the only City that doesn't pay the members of their Planning Commission. In view of the considerable number of hours demanded, he thinks it is appropriate to request Council to consider some kind of a stipend. Assistant City Attorney advised that the matter be referred to staff and brought back on the agenda. Commissioner Carson referred to the Star News Shopper and the fact that instead of it being delivered to the houses, they are in fact littering the area in front and in the streets. Director Krempl said he would have that looked into. Director Krempl remarked that Council had made appointments to the Growth Management Oversight Committee and had asked that the Planning Commission appoint one of their members to serve as a temporary Chair until the group gets going and sets its own policy. The item will be docketed for the next meeting. Commissioner Casillas asked for a report on the Home Occupation Permit problem on Second Ave and was informed that the Zoning Enforcement people had documented the case and it has been turned over to the City Attorney. Mr. Krempl indicated that there was also a question raised about a real estate business but the use had been put up for sale. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:45 p.m. to the Study Session of June 15, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 of the Public Services Building. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 5413P