Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1980/03/19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 19, 1980 A regular business 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: Pressutti, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, O'Neill, Stevenson and Williams. Absent (with previous notification): Commissioner Smith. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Supervisor of Current Planning Lee, City Engineer Lippitt, Assistant City Attorney Harron, and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Pro Tem Pressutti, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (R. Johnson-Stevenson) The minutes of the meeting of February 27, 1980 be approved as written, copies having been mailed to the Commissioners. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Pro Tem Pressutti called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-9, The Flower House, 10 unit condominium project at 49~Flower Street Supervisor of Current Planning Lee explained that this map is for a corner lot just over 15,000 square feet in area in the R-3 zone. There is an existing duplex at the east end of the property and eight additional units are under construction. The subdivision map will permit the sale of individual units. The project complies with all condominium requirements and R-3 zoning regulations. A Negative Declaration of environmental impact is provided for the Commission's adoption with a recommenda- tion for approval of the tentative map. In response to a question from Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Lee affirmed that the two existing units will be architecturally modified to match the new units under construction. 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 (G. Johnson-Stevenson) The Commission adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-78-9 and finds that this project will have no significant environmental impact. MSUC (G. Johnson-Stevenson) Based on the findings contained in the report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Tract 80-9, The Flower House, subject to the two conditions listed in the report. -2- March 19, 1980 2. Consideration of final EIR-80-4 for South College Sectional Plannin~ Area, Charter Point Director of Planning Peterson noted that the public hearing to consider EIR-80-4 was held last November. The EIR addressed a number of environmental impacts. In order to mitigate those impacts the applicant redesigned the plans to pull the project back from Telegraph Canyon Road so the area designated as adjacent to the Scenic Route of Telegraph Canyon Road will remain in open space. The redesigned plan also uses split level floor plans to reduce the required grading. The EIR is ready for certification by the Planning Commission. In response to a question from Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Peterson affirmed that the plan has not deleted the access from the project to Otay Lakes Road; it will be retained and be aligned with an access road into the development proposed for the East College area, on the east side of Otay Lakes Road. The traffic engineer strongly favored this circulation system over having this project tie in to the driveway to Southwestern College. MSUC (R. Johnson-Stevenson) The Planning Commission certifies that EIR-80-4 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the Environmental Review Policy of the City of Chula Vista, and that the Commission will review the information in the EIR as it reaches a decision on the project. 3. Consideration of CEQA findin§s for Rice Canson Sectional Planning Area ~EiR-79-8) Director of Planning Peterson noted that the public hearing on the environmental impact report, EIR-79-8, was held last October and the report certified. The CEQA findings were presented at the ~bruary 27 meeting, but action on their adoption was delayed to this meeting so it could be considered with the Sectional Planning Area Plan. As pointed out in the CEQA findings, mitigation measures will be implemented in the project to avoid significant adverse environmental effects in the following six areas: geology, soils, drainage, archaeology, transportation and short-term noise. The mitigation of the impact on regional water quality, air quality, schools, and regional sewage treatment is the responsibility of other governmental agencies. The three remaining areas in which the environmental impact cannot be fully mitigated are land form, biology and aesthetics. It is recommended that the Commission finds there are economic, social and technical reasons why the impact in those areas cannot be mitigated and adopt the "overriding considerations." The Commission discussed the impacts that are the responsibility of other agencies, particularly water quality, schools and sewage treatment and whether the impact of a development of this size can be handled by the responsible agencies. It was pointed out the City has met its responsibility when those impacts have been pointed out. None of the other agencies have indicated the project should be denied. In response to questions raised, Mr. Peterson advised that the housing for low and moderate income families would consist of apartments provided under a rent subsidy plan. While development plans for this housing have not been submitted, the developer has reserved an area within the project for that use. The design for that housing will be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval before construction proceeds. -3- March 19, 1980 Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern as to whether the social, economic and technical reasons for approving the project were sufficient to override the impact of the landform alteration. Mr. Peterson pointed out that one mitigating factor of landform alteration is the relatively high percentage of the area that will be retained in natural open space. MS (Stevenson-R. Johnson) In accordance with the Candidate CEQA findings submitted with the staff report to the Commission, the Commission certifies that the imple- mentation of specific mitigation measures recommended in the final EIR will avoid significant environmental effects in the areas of geology, soils, drainage, archeology, transportation and short-term noise; that the mitigation of the impact on regional water quality, air quality, schools and regional sewage treatment is the responsibility of other public agencies; finds that there are specific economic, social and technical considerations which make infeasible the full mitigation of the impact on landform, biology and aesthetics; and adopts the overriding considera- tions as listed in the report. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, R. Johnson, G. Johnson, Pressutti and Williams NOES: Commissioner O'Neill ABSENT: Commissi~oner Smith 4. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of development plan for the Rice Canson Sectional Plannin~ Area of E1 Rancho del ReS Specific Plan Director of Planning Peterson noted that much of the information contained in the written report was previously discussed at the meeting of February 27, but additional information and discussion is included concerning the total number of dwelling units that would be allowed under the adopted Specific Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey and the number proposed in this plan. The proposed plan substitutes residential development on 16.5 acres designated for commercial development on the Specific Plan. Under Paragraph G.3 on page 6 of the Text of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan this would allow an increase of approximately 297 dwelling units for the entire project. Mr. Peterson explained that the total unit count may vary as a plan progresses from general plan stage to a precise development plan, and if it is reasonably close this would not be a concern. In this case the applicant has gone beyond the Sectional Planning Area stage to the tentative map stage which provides more detail on the proposed development. Mr. Peterson recommended approval of the development plan for the Rice Canyon Sectional Planning area subject to two conditions contained in the staff report and an added condition making it subject to approval of the tentative map. Chairman Pro Tem Pressutti reopened the public hearing. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, referred to the previously discussed siltation problem in the drainage channel downstream from this project and asked where this developer's responsibility ends with reference to this drainage system. -4- March 19, 1980 Mr. Peterson pointed out the applicant's responsibility is spelled out in conditions of approval of the tentative subdivision map. He also noted that this development will not necessarily increase the problem of siltation downstream, and, in fact, may help to alleviate that problem in the long run. City Engineer Lippitt concurred and pointed out there will be a siltation basin installed at the east end of this development so there should be less silt flowing to Bonita Road than occurs now. He added that if a development worsens the condition downstream, his/responsibility would not necessaril~ e~d at the As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Williams expressed opposition to the increased residential development above the range of units designated on the Specific Plan for this area, pointing out that the language in the text of the plan specifies that the number of dwelling units allowed within a Sectional Planning Area is fixed. He felt this plan does not carry out the intent of the Specific Plan. He contended that any change from the specified commercial area should constitute an ancilliary use rather than dividing the area half and half for residential use and commercial. He also suggested that low and moderate income housing should be developed in smaller areas scattered throughout the development rather than in one large area. He expressed the opinion the plan should be discussed on the merits of the change rather than on the basis of a paragraph in the text of the Specific Plan that allows 18 units to the acre in addition to the specified residential development. The Commission further discussed the intent of the Specific Plan with regard to the concern expressed by Commissioner Williams. MS (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Rice Canyon Sectional Planning Area plan subject to two conditions stated in the report and to subsequent approval of a tentative subdivision map. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, R. Johnson, G. Johnson and Pressutti NOES: Commissioners Williams and O'Neill ABSENT: Commissioner Smith 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-13, Hidden Vista Village Supervisor of Current Planning Lee noted that this project has been discussed by the Planning Commission at a workshop meeting and at a public hearing held on February 27th. He briefly reviewed the response contained in the written report to each of the questions and issues raised during the February 27 public hearing. He pointed out that a condition has been recommended to provide access to an undeveloped parcel to the south of the east end of this project. It is recom- mended that no connection be made to Lynwood Drive, but that a street reservation be required so that a connection to Lynwood Drive can be made in the future. It is also recommended that only one pedestrian access be provided from the Lynwood Hills area to street "C" of this project. The elementary school has expressed a real need for one such easement to provide access for students coming from Lynwood Hills. -5- March 19, 1980 Mr. Lee reviewed the proposed phasing schedule for the total development. Mr. Lee referred to the handout sheet containing the following revisions to the conditions in the written report to the Commission: In condition 3, tree planting in the canyon areas shall be subject to approval of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Condition lO.a should refer to Phase I, and in condition lO.b street "C" should be changed to street "E", and reference made to Phase II. Condition 12 relating to the transplanting of endangered species may be eliminated after review by the Environmental Review Coordinator. In condition 21, the street reservation should be to the "northerly boundary of the subdivision," rather than to the southerly right of way of Lynwood Drive, with a requirement to post a cash bond to guarantee the acquisition of the right of way and construct improvements for street "C" to Lynwood Drive. In condition 23, delete "and listed on the attached phasing schedule," and make reference to condition 10. Condition 44 concerning construction of the fire station should be deleted and no development approved southeast of Ridgeback Road. In condition 45, add a statement that park development will eliminate the requirement for RCT fees. Condition 46 is to be reworded to read as follows: "Prior to action by the City Council the school districts shall submit evidence of overcrowding and request the dedication of land and/or fees in accordance with city ordinance #1848; or, the districts shall notify the Council in writing that they have reached an equitable agreement with the developer regarding school facilities. In the event the proposed sites are not required for use by the schools the developer shall submit a revised grading plan and the General Plan shall be amended deleting the sites. If the sites are determined to be needed and the developer is not obligated for the dedication of the entire site, the developer shall reserve the area for future purchase by the district in accordance with Section 18.40.130 of the municipal code." Conditions 48 and 49 should be combined to read, "All corner lots shall be limited to single story construction; in addition, a minimum of 20% of the remaining lots under 7,000 sq. ft. shall be developed with single story units with the mixture to be subject to Planning Department approval. In condition 56 add, "to be reviewed by the Planning Department on an individual lot basis." In condition 68, delete the words "relocated to the northerly end of street "F"," and substitute, "reviewed for possible relocation." Mr. Lee also suggested that condition 32 relating to the siltation basin be clarified by adding a requirement that an estimated cost for maintenance of the siltation basin be submitted by the developer prior to submission of the final map. Commissioner Williams pointed out that this tentative map provides for more land to be developed south of "H" Street than anticipated in the adopted Specific Plan and also exceeds the total number of dwelling units allowed in the adopted plan. The adopted plan allows for a transfer of dwelling units from one place to another within the sectional planning area but the total number should not be exceeded. He expressed the opinion there is not an absence of demand for commerical or commercial recreation use in this area. He felt that with the construction of the South Bay County Center a mile and a half away, commercial development would be feasible. In response to a request from Chairman Pro Tem Pressutti, Mr. Peterson again discussed the wording in the text of the Specific Plan as it relates to the Rice Canyon area. He stressed that this is an important point because the substitution affects the applicant's total plan and if he cannot get the 18 units per acre it would have a tremendous impact on the plan. He felt that beyond the numbers the Commission should seriously consider whether there is a need for 300,000 square feet of commercial development in this area. -6- March 19, 1980 Commissioner Stevenson expressed the opinion that the provision of a substantial amount of low and moderate income housing should entitle the developer to some bonus. Commissioner O'Neill pointed out that when the Specific Plan was discussed, there was some doubt about the future development of the National City commercial center, and without that there might have been a need for more commercial use. Chairman Pro Tem Pressutti reopened the public hearing. Dick Brown, 9621 Alto Drive, La Mesa, representing the Gersten Company, discussed their concern over condition 23 relating to the construction of "H" Street beyond the boundary of this development. He advised that they are presently in the process of developing a total plan for the construction of "H" Street, and have vertical and horizontal realignments of the entire length of "H" Street. They anticipate having a proposal for the city's consideration within a few weeks. He expressed their opposition to the requirement for grading only a 50 foot right of way for the extended portion of "H" Street beyond the applicant's property. He recommended that improvement of "H" Street either be stopped at the applicant's property line or that it be graded to its full ultimate width to the point of its intersection with Paseo Del Rey. James Hutchinson, Project Design Consultants, 610 A Street, representing the Gersten Company, addressed the siltation problem as covered in conditions 32 and 38. He pointed out that sedimentation of the Rice Canyon channel is now concentrated in the vicinity of 1-805 and "H" Street. This development will fill in that natural sedimentation area and transfer it to the eastern boundary of the development. In light of that, he felt other properties should not be assessed for the mainten- ance of the sedimentation basin. Mr. Peterson again addressed the need to provide a circulation link between this development and Paseo Del Rey. If a reimbursement district is created and this exten§ion of "H" Street is determined to be beyond the applicants fair share, he would be reimbursed. Mr. Lippitt advised that the sedimentation basin will be part of the open space maintenance district and the percentage of each property's responsibility will be determined prior to approval of a final subdivision map. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, strongly urged that one pedestrian access from Lynwood Hills to this development be retained to prevent the need for bussing children from Lynwood Hills to the school sites proposed within this development. Gilbert Dreyfuss, 333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, one of the owners of the property referred to in condition 1, asked that the condition be modified to delete the reference to "seven dwelling units allowed to be built under the R-1-H zone," and merely state "access to the adjoining property." He spoke of his efforts to present an acceptable plan for the development of that property. Russ Vance, 4455 Vista Nacion Drive, advised that it would be the preference of the residents of Lynwood Hills to delete both pedestrian access ways from the plan in order to preserve their right of privacy as much as possible. If one is to be retained, he would prefer that it be the one at the end of Vista Coronado. -7- March 19, 1980 Gary McCabe, 2160 Fletcher Parkway, E1 Cajon, advised that he had attended all of the hearings in the past three or four years on the E1 Rancho del Rey project. He contended it was made very clear during the City Council's deliberation that the trade off for residential units in place of commercial development was in addition to the number of dwelling units designated for the sectional planning area. He contended that the proposed project does adhere to the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. He advised that Watt Industries has continued to do market analysis to determine what the need is, and it is their belief that 180,000 square feet of commercial development will meet the need. With regard to the school sites, Mr. McCabe advised that on the previous night the elementary school district accepted their proposal to provide a school facility in this development. He contended they are implementing a plan that the Planning Commission and City Council approved two years ago. In line with that plan it is their intent to provide the full improvement of "H" Street through the extent of their develop- ment. He reported that they withdrew their verbal commitment to build the fire station in exchange for locating 27 lots in the previously open space area because the staff had added the condition of extending "H" Street beyond their project boundary. When asked for a choice between constructing the fire station and deleting the 27 lots, Mr. McCabe agreed with the retention of condition 44 which requires construction of the fire station. He advised the 27 lots are not additional units but are part of the allowed density. He affirmed that developing those lots does require substantial grading that would not otherwise be necessary. With regard to the pedestrian access, if it is limited to one access, Mr. McCabe expressed a willingness to put in steps so that traversing it with a motorbike would be difficult. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. The meeting recessed for ten minutes at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened at 10:00 p.m. The Commission further discussed the requirement for construction of a fire station--to consist of a detached dwelling structure with an oversized garage for the fire fighting apparatus, the extension of "H" Street beyond the boundary of the project, and the total number of units proposed in the project. Commissioner Williams suggested that since so many modifications to the printed conditions have been suggested, the Commission should consider the conditions individually before making a motion on the total project. The Commission went through the list of conditions and concurred with making the following modifications to the printed list: In condition 1, substitute the wording "access to the adjoining property," as requested by Mr. Dreyfuss. In condition 3, add the words, "subject to the approval of the Environmental Review Coordinator." Modify condition 9 to state that only the pedestrian easement shown at the end of Vista Nacion connecting street "C" to Hidden Vista Village shall be eliminated. -8- March 19, 1980 In condition lO.a add "Reference Phase I" and in lO.b change "C" to "E" and add "Reference Phase II." Indicate that condition 12 may be deleted after review by the Environmental Review Coordinator. In condition 21, delete the words "southerly right-of-way line for Lynwood Drive" and substitute, "northerly boundary of the subdivision." It was moved by Commissioner Stevenson, seconded by Commission Williams, that the condition requiring the extension of "H" Street beyond the applicant's boundary to Paseo Del Rey be deleted. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Stevenson and Williams NOES: Commissioners R. Johnson, Pressutti, G. Johnson and O'Neill ABSENT: Commissioner Smith Conditions 22 and 23 remain with a modification referencing the phasing schedule in condition 10, and with a statement added that "The City shall use its power of eminent domain if the developer fails to reach an agreement with the adjoining property owner." Add a statement to condition 32 that "the estimated maintenance costs for the siltation basin shall be submitted by the developer prior to consideration of the final map by the City Council." Add a statement to condition 45 that, "Park development will eliminate the requirement for RCT fees with the exception of Lot 336." Rewrite condition 46 to read, "Prior to action by the City Council the school districts shall submit evidence of overcrowding and request the dedication of land and/or fees in accordance with city ordinance #1848; or, the districts shall notify the Council in writing that they have reached an equitable agreement with the developer regarding school facilities. In the event the proposed sites are not required for use by the schools, the developer shall submit a revised grading plan and the General Plan shall be amended deleting the.sites. If the sites are determined to be needed and the developer is not obligated for the dedication of the entire site, the developer shall reserve the area for future purchase by the district in accordance with Section 18.40.130 of the municipal code." Combine conditions 48 and 49 to read, "All corner lots will be limited to single story construction; in addition a minimum of 20% of the remaining lots under 7,000 sq. ft. shall be developed with single story units with the mixture to be subject to approval by the Planning Department." In condition 56, add the words "to be reviewed by the Planning Department on an individual lot basis." In condition 68, delete the words "relocated to the northerly end of street "F" and substitute, "reviewed for possible relocation.'' -9- March 19, 1980 MS (R. Johnson-Stevenson) The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Hidden Vista Village subject to the recommended conditions as modified. It was moved by Commissioner Williams that the motion be amended to retain the project south of "H" Street as shown on the adopted Specific Plan with retail and commercial recreation. The motion died for lack of a second. It was moved by Commissioner Williams that the motion be amended to compute the density south of "H" Street at the density allowed in the adopted Specific Plan-- 18 units per acre--and to base this on the acreage transferred from commercial use after deducting the park land required for the senior and low/moderate income housing development. The motion died for lack of a second. The original motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners R. Johnson, Stevenson, G. Johnson and Pressutti NOES: Commissioners Williams and O'Neill ABSENT: Commissioner Smith Commissioner O'Neill advised that he could not approve the project as it stands due to the severe land form alteration that will result. DIRECTOR'S REPORT The Director of Planning had no report. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner G. Johnson complimented the staff on the report for this meeting which she felt was very good. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Pro Tem Pressutti adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Transcript from tape of meeting of March 19, 1980 ippitt: There is a condition that there will be a siltation basin installed east of this development in the open space, so from the standpoint of siltation, there should be less siltation down at the Bonita Road section than there is now. Also, the siltation basin can also tend to act as a device to lower the peak, otherwise the water ponds in that area and then flows out at a slower rate, so it's not necessarily true that the peaks will increase. The total runoff over the whole storm would probably, could be greater, but the peak, which is important and causes the flooding may not be greater. I don't have the information to exactly tell you what the peak would be at this time, but siltation would be less. Watry: I was trying not to say this--at the last meeting I sat through here and Mr. Smith and the engineers, and the engineers all were so confident--I'm afraid I lost my respect for engineers a long time ago, so I'm not asking that question. I'm asking where does the responsibility end. Does the developer's responsibility end at the end of his property, from then on is it the taxpayers or somebody else's responsibility? If he dumps more water, let's say, whatever happens, let's say it's bad. Does his responsibility end at the end of his property. Lippitt: If he worsens the condition downstream, the developer's responsibility may not necessarily end at his property. Otherwise, the city, if he worsens the condition downstream, otherwise, if these pipes under Bonita Road, and they were designed assuming the development upstream, but if they weren't adequate or if there was a problem downstream, I think the city could place a condition on there to require that adequate pipes be put in. But in this case, the conditions of the subdivision require that he place in a siltation basin and that he put in the necessary storm drain, and so forth, which were contemplated at the time the bridge and the freeway and everything else was put in. Watry: Just on his property? Lippitt: Yeah. Watry: So his responsibility ends at the end of his . Lippitt: In this case, yes. Well, it goes a little beyond it because he has to connect in to the system that's underneath "H" Street there, going across the freeway. He has some offsite work, but it's not down at the bottom of the hill. Watry: Well, that's where the problem is. Someone pointed out to me that it levels out flat down there. There's no problem under "H" Street, the problem is down- stream. What I noticed, for instance, I take it the City of Chula Vista is the one that had to dredge that out last year. Lippitt: No, that was Cal Trans. Watry: Well, Cal Trans, it's a public agency and from my house I watched Cal Trans trying to save that campground, and I'm a little bit lost why the public has to pick up the tab because mistakes are made, or whatever happened. Lippitt: I think it was Cal Trans that built that culvert underneath Bonita Road. If it wasn't built properly--you're talking about the pipes underneath Bonita Road? Wa~ry: Also down by K.O.A. They had a problem down there and they worked all night trying to save that campground. That's way downstream. Lippitt: True. March 19, 1980 Page 2 ..~try: So, the answer is, his responsibility ends at the end of his property. He just gets the water off of his property. Lippitt: Well, there are connections offsite of his property for a minor distance. I think he has to connect up to the pipes that are actually under "H" Street and it is off of his property, so he has to do some work off of his property. Watry: But not down by Bonita Road? Lippitt: No. Watry: If that plugs up that's not his responsibility. Lippitt: Right. Watry: Thank you.