Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1981/06/09 Item 20 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item xlCi 20 Meeting Date ~ 6/9/81 ITEM TITLE: Resolution )Ot!,y Approving tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 81-7, Pepper Tree Estates SUBMITTED BY: A. BACKGROUND Director of Planning ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No~) 1. On May 19,1981 the City Council considered the tentative subdivision map for Peppertree Estates, Chula Vista Tract 81-7, and directed the developer to revise the tentative map by: (a) reducing the number of lots from 15 to 14; (b) widening the easterly side of Jacaranda Drive to accommodate parking; (c) requiring that lots 14 and 15 (now 13 and 14) be served by a hammerhead or circular driveway. Council also added several conditions of approval which do not involve changes to the map and which have been incorporated into Council's resolution of approval. 2. A revised map incorporating the conditions was received by staff at 4:00 p.m. May 26 and distributed to Council at the May 26 City Council meeting. Because neither Council nor staff had time to properly review the map, the item was continued to June 2. B. RECOMt.1EfWATION: Adopt resolution modifying the Planning Commission's resolution and approving the tentative map. C. DISCUSSION 1. The developer has made the revisions to the tentative map as follows: a. One lot has been deleted on the northerly side of Cook Court and the lot lines adjusted so that each lot has a minimum lot area of 16,000 sq. ft. b. Three eight foot wide parking bays accommodating 6 cars have been provided along the easterly side of Jacaranda Drive. The two lots fronting on Peppertree Drive have a common driveway which will allow for the installation of a hammerhead driveway. No revision of the map is necessary to accommodate this requirement since the driveway design can be checked when building permits are issued for the lots. ( 0 l[9 L[ Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79) 2. Some concern was expressed at the May 26 meeting regarding headlights shining into the nearby residences from cars exiting Cook Court. A review of the map and field conditions shows that Cook Court is approximately 12 feet higher than the residences on the west side of Jacaranda Drive at a point where the headlights could shine into the windows. Because of this height differential and the fact that the garage of the existing home lies closest to Jacaranda Drive, the impact on the living spaces of the home should be minimal. Should the owner of the home be bothered by this condition, he could take appropriate landscaping or other measures within his own property to provide screening. It should be noted that a similar condition exists to some degree at every "T" inter- section and loop street in the city. I - c ] . ~~;(;" 1- ~.-..~ /2-' /- . . 'J '-' -' "...,. ~ C' ' " '. : '., , , -~ j /, I;.....:...;.? 'f i)" . """"l " ..,., . '" ,. ,A I' i, J 11:",)'d ~-~ -~/ KGL:hm ... Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1981 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-81-7 - Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 81-7, Pepper Tree Estates, 15 single family lots, 0-100 Pepper. Tree Road Director of Planning Peterson reported that this map involves a 7.3 acre property which is in the County and in the process of being annexed to the City. It is proposed to divide the site into 15 single family lots varying from 13,000 to 22,000 sq. ft. in size. Access is from Pepper Tree and more directly off Jacaranda Drive, a private street. A new private cul-de~sac street, to be known as Cook Court, will be extended from Jacaranda Drive to serve 13 lots; two lots will have frontage on Pepper Tree Drive and take access directly from that street. The subdivision has been designed to minimize the amount of grading required and to avoid disturbing as many trees as possible. It is the developer's intent to build several homes, and to sell the remaining lots for custom building after street improvements have been installed. Although some opposition to the development was expressed during the public hearing on the environmental impact report, Mr. Peterson believed the changes that would be brought about by this subdivision would be in character with other developments in this area, since the development proposed will be low density. Concern has also been expressed about traffic and sight distance problems at Pepper Tree Drive and Jacaranda. That problem has been addressed in the conditions for approval by requiring that the sight distance shall be cleared to the east a distance of 250 feet from the intersection. The City's Traffic Engineer has investigated the site and recommended that condition; he would not support having an additional access road intersect Pepper Tree Drive. Mr. Peterson called attention to the 18 conditions recommended for approval of the tentative map and directed that in condition "d" the word, "shall" be changed to read, "may be required by the City Engineer to . . ." and also that in condition "0" the last sentence the phrase "which trees are worth preserving," be changed to read, "which trees shall be preserved." This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Richard Grabhorn of Sholders and Sanford, San Diego, engineers for the development, advised they wish to seek relief from three of the conditions. Condition "e" requires sight distance for 250 feet, which would accommodate 37 to 38 miles per hour speed, whereas Pepper Tree Drive is designated for 25 miles an hour. They would be willing to make a commitment for 25 miles an hour speed in a sight distance of approximately 175 feet. Condition "h" requires the construction of curb and gutter along Pepper Tree Drive for a distance of 145 feet in front of lots 14 and 15. Since that would be the only curbing in that vicinity he asked 10 L\ ct Cr -6- April 22, 1981 submitted Sectional Planning Area plans which differ from the ori~inal ~lan. The revisions include a change in the phasing of the development, deletion of access to Acacia, elimination of the equestrian center and the addition of dwelling units in that area, and a redesign of the elementary school and park areas. The proposal also includes retention basins to control downstream runoff. Mr. Reid requested that a change be made in the Candidate CEQA findings, on page 8, under Phase I development, a reference is made to signalization of the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and Canyon Drive. That would not be done as part of Phase I of the project, but would be done at a later time with City signalization fees. The reference should be deleted. Chairman Pressutti opened the public hearing to consider recertification of the EIR and the Candidate CEQA findings. John Riess, Sweetwater Valley Community Planning Group, noted that the plan has been changed in several significant areas, including the desilting and retention basins, and the traffic circulation has been altered. He asserted that the traffic impact will be worse and that the report does not indicate the precise location of those serious problems or analyze them as necessary under CEQA. He called attention to the ADMA Corporations development at Otay Lakes Road and Bonita Road, which is currently under way, and will add to the already heavily congested traffic at that intersection. He also advised that the County has tentatively approved a major mobile home park to be located to the east, for which the only access is on Central Avenue and then to Bonita Road. He suggested that a supplemental EIR is required for this traffic impact. Dick Brown, representing the Gersten Company, proponents of the project, spoke of their efforts over the past two years to allay the concerns expressed by residents over the original plan. Mr. Brown asked that the following changes be considered in the Candidate CEQA findings, bearing in mind that in Candidate findings the concern is not the design of the project, but to be sure there are not adverse impacts. He pointed out that finding No.2 indicates that Otay Lakes Road shall be widened to four travel lanes between Bonita Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. He believed that what is critical is that it be adequate to handle the traffic and requested that it be changed to read: "Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road and Tel egrapl, Canyon Road shall be improved to adequately accommodate increased traffic from the proposed project." In the same finding, under Phase III it says, "Central Avenue shall be improved to a four lane configuration from Corral Canyon Road to Bonita Road." He requested that the wordi ng be changed to read, "Central Avenue from Corral Canyon Road to Bonita Road shall be improved to adequately accommodate the increased traffic from the proposed project." Under Phase IV it states, "Corral Canyon Road shall be extended to East "H" Street." To avoid any misunderstanding he suggested that it be changed to read "Corral Canyon Road be extended south to "H" Street." Mr. Brown called attention to finding No. ment which reads, "An alternative to this facility which could cost over $700,000." added for clarification to read, "If this would be required to pay his proportional 3, relating to drainage, and the state- system would be an offsite downstream He requested that a statement be alternative is adopted the developer share." . - 5- April 22, 1981 that the condition be waived and ADMA would agree to participate in an assessment district if the entire area was so improved. Condition "0" related to the alignment of Cook Court to retain as many trees as possible; Mr. Grabhorn asked for clarification or deletion of that condition. Ben Layton, 430 Jacaranda, asked what will be done about the drainage problem which exists. He contended that replacing the natural growth on the area with concrete and buildings will increase the runoff. He also avowed that the actual travel on Pepper Tree Drive is closer to 40 miles an hour than 25 miles an hour. Aaron Mannis, 446 Jacaranda Drive, asserted that the proposed development is at a higher density than would be permitted if the area remained in the county, and that such density will change the character of the area. Lawrence Lassman, 471 Jacaranda Drive, requested that the Commission require a private access point to this development rather than using Jacaranda. He suggested that an access road between lots 14 and 15 would be preferable to tripling the amount of traffic adjacent to the front yards of the existing homes. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Pressutti asked if conditions "a", "b" and "c", addressing drainage will mitigate the existing problems. Mr. Peterson affirmed that the existing problem of drainage will be alleviated with the construction of this tract. In response to questions, Mr. Peterson also advised that the Traffic Engi~eer is firm in his recommendation that a 250 foot sight distance is necessary for safety. He also asserted that the owner of the subject property has rights over the private road--Jacaranda Drive--because that is the only access to his property. The Commission discussed the numerous conditions and possible alternatives. Commissioner G. Johnson expressed support for using the Jacaranda Drive access pointing out that the developer will be required to improve that street which will make it safer than the existing condition. Msur (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council certify that EIR-81-2 has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista. MSUC (Stevenson-R. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in the report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentatlve subdivision map for Pepper Tree Estates, Chula Vista Tract 81-7, subject to the conditions enumerated in the report with the modification to conditions "d" and "0" as requested by Mr. Peterson. 4. PUBLI C HEARING: a. Recertifi cati on of EI R-79-2 on Bonita Long.~anyo_~ Estates b. Consideration of Candidate CEQA findings on Bonita Long Canyon development Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that since the original certification of this environmental impact report in 1979 the applicant has ) 0 L\ q <vJ