Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/09/30 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, September 30, 1992 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Casillas, Commissioners Decker, Fuller, Martin, and Ray COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Carson (Excused); Tuchscher (Excused - Conflict of Interest) STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Howard, Associate Planner Reid, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Casillas and was followed by a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Casillas reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None MSUC (Martin/Fuller) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Carson because of business conflicts. MSUC (Fuller/Decker) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Tuchscher because of a conflict of interest. ITEM 1: CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-90-02, RANCHO SAN MIGUEL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-19, PCZ-90-M: CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED COMMUNITY PRE- ZONE FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH, LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, WEST AND SOUTH OF MOTHER MIGUEL PC Minutes -2- September 30, 1992 MOUNTAIN AND NORTHEAST OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD - San Miguel Partners ITEM 3: CONSIDERATION OF CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH EIR-90-02 Principal Planner Howard asked that the three items be considered together. Upon affirmation, he noted the additional items the Commissioners had received since their agenda packet. The applicant had submitted their proposed addendum to justify their proposed project, as well as their statement of overriding considerations which had been forwarded to the Commissioners, and just prior to the meeting had delivered their Candidate CEQA Findings. The applicant had not yet completed their Mitigation Monitoring Plan needed for their proposal. Mr. Howard stated that if the Commission chose to go forward with the applicant's proposal, they may wish to continue the hearing to review those documents more fully. Staff recommendation was to continue the project for a major project redesign. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf interjected that even though staff was recommending a continuance for a major redesign, it was in practical effect a recommendation for denial of the project. Four of the Commissioners must agree to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the items. If unable to make the required findings, the Commission would be required to deny and should indicate which of the findings they were unable to make which required denial. Principal Planner Howard proceeded with the presentation, using viewgraphs of the project and land uses proposed. He summarized the issues which concerned staff on the Southern Parcel, including lot sizes, SR-125 alignment, preservation of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob, grading impacts and preservation of the Otay Tarplant. The concerns regarding the Northern Parcel were: the biological resources of the site, which included unique and diverse native plant and animals and contained a large amount of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat; the proposal to transfer density from the northern to the southern parcel. South has problem handling the proposed density already without consideration of up to 357 additional units transferred there; State Route 125 - Traffic Circulation-staff felt the SPA Plan may be delayed if CalTrans had not selected alignment of the road. Staff recommended deferral of action on northern parcel until a compromise biological mitigation plan could be agreed to by the City with input from all parties; or wait until the SCNCCP is completed to see whether this site is a candidate for preservation and what measures should be taken to preserve it, or whether significant development could go forward. Associate Planner Reid presented the staff report regarding the Environmental Impact Report, mitigation monitoring program, noting that the applicant's final addendum and final CEQA Findings was not available at the time the staff report was written, and, therefore, there were PC Minutes -3- September 30, 1992 a few inconsistencies. She again reviewed the significant impacts of the project as proposed; those being, land use, biodiversity, landform visual quality, Coastal Sage, Otay Tarweed, Coastal Barrel Cactus, California Gnatcatcher, Palmer's Grappling Hook, Adolphia, Cactus Wren, and air quality. Responses had been received from U. S. Fish & Wildlife, Assemblyman Tricia Hunter, California Fish & Game, CalTrans, three regional agencies, 12 local agencies, seven individuals. Responses were included in the Final EIR. Commissioner Decker asked if the Mitigation Concept Plan Alternative was factored into the EIR analysis. Ms. Reid said there was a Mitigation Concept Plan in the EIR, and it may be the same document with a different cover. Commissioner Decker asked how long before the NCCP Program would be in effect. Mr. Howard replied that it was scheduled for completion in November 1993; however, it was subject to the State properly funding it and meeting schedules. Commissioner Fuller, regarding General Development Plan-Circulation Element, asked staff to comment on the County's response regarding the applicant's application and approval of the General Plan Amendment from the County Circulation Element prior to the City approving it. The letter from the County believed the traffic generated by this project should be mitigated by providing access on City of Chula Vista streets. Principal Planner Howard believed the project would have significant traffic problems loading only onto "H" Street and within the project itself; therefore, there was a proposed access way to the northwest into Bonita that is consistent with the City's Circulation Element, but not consistent with the County's at the level that the project was being proposed. Staff was, therefore, stating that before the SPA Plan level, the applicant needed to do a General Plan Amendment at the County level. If the County did not approve the General Plan Amendment, it could have some serious repercussions for the project in its present form. The County felt it was improper to go forward with a plan which required significant upgrades to the County's Circulation Element in an unincorporated area of the County for a City project. Commissioner Ray questioned the split of the north and south development, the rationale, and who recommended that the project be looked at as one singular project as opposed to two. Mr. Howard said the applicant was proposing a single development General Development Plan and had kept the project together and had insisted that it be considered together as one project. The project was originally one parcel until SDG&E purchased right-of-way for their major transmission facility between the two projects. Commissioner Ray asked if that was inconsistent with other projects which had an easement or right-of-way that split the project. Mr. Howard was not aware of another project which allowed physically separate properties to be considered as one project. The City believed it was best from the City's point of view to plan it all as one project. PC Minutes -4- September 30, 1992 Commissioner Ray asked why the trade-off from the northern parcel to the southern parcel was not recommended as an allowable mitigation in terms of dwelling units. Mr. Howard said the question was whether the south could handle a transfer of density from the north. He felt it would be a significant problem. Commissioner Ray asked if the General Plan specifically recommended preservation of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob. Mr. Howard replied that the General Plan des~g-na-tee~4t- -for-tow-residential-devetopmentand does not preserve it as open space. The question was not whether it could be developed, but how it could be developed. It was staff's recommendation to either develop around it, or hillside housing or estate housing that kept the landforms. Regarding SR-125, Commissioner Martin asked if it was a toll road, how many people would actually use it. Mr. Howard said that analysis was not included in the Draft EIR traffic study. Commissioner Decker commented on the graphic used showing Gobbler's Knob and Horseshoe Bend from the aircraft. Mr. Howard noted that was used to show the shape of the landforms, and why it was called Horseshoe Bend. It was difficult to show that from the ground. Chair Casillas asked Associate Planner Reid what the impact was of either deferring or denying the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Ms. Reid answered that if the Commission wished to recommend approval of the project, they needed to recommend the adoption of the Overriding Considerations. Chair Casillas asked the rationale of making Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob significant landforms. Mr. Howard said it was a matter of opinion. They rise above the surrounding terrain quite precipitously; have a very unique shape which could be discerned from some angles; and are very visible off-site from the San Miguel Road and Proctor Valley areas. Chair Casillas asked if the County disapproves the General Plan Amendment allowing for the off-site circulation needed to the west of the project, what would happen to the project. Mr. Howard replied that the project would have to be reconsidered and perhaps redesigned. A new traffic analysis would have to be done, and if existing development proposed would overload East "H" Street, development would have to be reduced. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf clarified that the approval of the GDP would be conditioned upon obtaining a General Plan Amendment on the County General Plan and, if that is not obtained, by operation of law the GDP would die. Commissioner Ray was concerned with the diameter of the underpass for wildlife and if it was a large enough opening for the animals to feel comfortable. Barry Jones of Sweetwater Environmental, the environmental consultant on the project, said that generally the size of the underpass was determined by the distance in which the animal needed to cross--the longer the underpass, the wider the underpass needed to be. PC Minutes -5- September 30, 1992 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Tom Davis, Tierra Planning Design, 34191 Camino Capistrano, Capistrano Beach, land planners for Rancho San Miguel, gave an overview of the project and some of the amenities of the project. David Nairne, 4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 950, San Diego, representing the applicant, spoke regarding the outstanding issues of whether Horseshoe Bend should be preserved, and the appropriate lot sizes for the project. Their recommendation was to grade Horseshoe Bend; and they felt their project was consistent with the Sweetwater Community and that the lots sizes were appropriate as required by the General Plan. Regarding SRq25 and the by-pass road, Mr. Nalrne deferring the traffic analysis to the City's SPA level was equivalent to the County's SPA and deferring to the next level would bring them into conformance with the County. Mitch Beauchamp, Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 132 West 24th Street, National City, spoke to the biological issues regarding project impacts on the Otay Tarplant, San Diego Cactus Wren, and the California Gnatcatcher. He believed the significant impacts presented in the EIR were substantially mitigated to levels less than significant by the various redesigns and the mitigation plan set forth by the project proponent. Nancy Gilbert, 2730 Loker Avenue, Carlsbad, representing U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, said the site is important biologically based not only on the existing wildlife values of the site and sensitive plant resources, but also based on its location. She believed the proposed project would result in significant, unmitigated impacts to biological resources, included the proposed endangered Gnatcatchers. Ms. Gilbert recommended that the project treat the Gnatcatcher as if it were listed instead of a proposed endangered species listing. Michael J. Roark, 3645 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita, representing the owners of 3645 and 3655 Proctor Valley Road as an attorney, and a member of the Sunnyside Ranch Equestrian Community, discussed the "rural" use of the land, which was conducive to preservation of the plants and biology and natural biology which was there. He was concerned that the lots were not large enough, and felt there was a need to stay with a minimum lot size of 1 acre to be consistent with the current General Plan. He was also concerned with circulation and access to the new school site, the new higher density around that school, and the traffic which would flow into Bonita Road and into Sweetwater Valley out of the project. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, representing Crossroads, was concerned with the excessive density of the southern parcel, and objected to the elimination of Horseshoe Bend, and felt it was an opportunity for Chula Vista to maintain some interesting landform. He urged the Commission to deny the project until the density was reduced. Michael Beck, P. O. Box 841, Julian, representing the Endangered Habitats League, felt the northern and southern parcels should be looked at as a single unit, and preservation of the entire northern parcel as mitigation for development in the south. He believed the Fish & Wildlife PC Minutes -6- September 30, 1992 Service and Department of Fish & Game should be strongly involved in the process. He agreed with staff that conformance with the eventual MSCP and NCCP standards should be required. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ray questioned the applicant if the 9,000 ft. lot size was a minimum or an average lot size. Mr. Nairne said it was an average, with the clustered lots beginning at 7,000 sq. ft. In answer to Commissioner Martin, Principal Planner Howard stated that staff believed the minimum for a mid-sized lot should be 10,000 sq. ft.; the applicant felt it was unduly restrictive for their proposal and wanted it lowered to 9,000 sq. ft. Mr. Nairne said they viewed the 9,000 sq. ft. lot as giving them more flexibility in doing some planning designs with the project itself. Commissioner Martin asked if the SDG&E easement was not between the northern and southern parcels, would there still be a problem with the transfer of open space. Mr. Howard believed it would, because the northern parcel was considered a distinct and unique development opportunity in 1989 as part of the General Plan Update. Commissioner Fuller asked if the applicant in considered leaving the landform of Horseshoe Bend as is and building under the Hillside Development, that for technical and engineering reasons it could not be done. Mr. Naime said, technically, building could not be done on the hillside due to the slopes and soil conditions. There were landslide risks, the soil was expansive clay, and the slope bank was approximately 50% which meant it was impossible to grade without causing the whole hillside to fall in. It was feasible to develop on top of Horseshoe Bend, but it would need to be graded down about 75 feet to give enough lot width to have a road with houses on both sides. Commissioner Fuller queried if that was judged on the applicant's interpretation of "rural" which was 1-acrn lots. Mr. Nairne said it was staff's proposal which had been studied, and the applicant did not feel it met the requirements as to what happened around the development as to a substantial increase in density and a reduction in lot sizes elsewhere. Commissioner Fuller asked if the applicant had considered "rural" lots larger than 1-acre lots and if it was economically feasible as not just another "planned community" with mixed use from 8,000 up to 1-acm lots but large, truly rural lots. Mr. Nairne said they studied significant reductions in density, and felt that maintaining a large area of 1-acre lots in the north was the most appropriate location and design, allowing greater density in the south so there could be a trade-off in the cost of maintaining. Commissioner Decker requested Mr. Nairne to describe the soil mater/al in Horseshoe Bend. He asked if it could be described as alluvial material that had expansion potential. Mr. Nairne concurred, and stated that their soil analysis revealed that it was a combination of clay stones, PC Minutes -7- September 30, 1992 sandstone, silt stones, expansive clay, and other rock deposits. He did not believe there was anything unusual about how the Horseshoe Bend was created or how it had stayed there. Commissioner Decker asked, in Mr. Nairne's opinion, how the hydrology would be handled if the applicant was required to maintain the Horseshoe Bend landform. He felt there would be significant runoff onto houses that were either on the slope or below the slope. Mr. Naime said they would have to build some type of fairly substantial brow ditch to catch it. Because of the steepness of the slope, the runoff was fairly extreme at certain times of the year. Chair Casillas questioned the location of clustered areas or large lots next to the freeway. Mr. Nairne said they had tried to create an elevational difference in the clustered area to the freeway corridor and focus those areas back towards the inside through the greenbelts to pull people into the parks and the school, and take them further away from the freeway in their recreational opportunities. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. At Commissioner Martin's request, the Assistant City Attorney summarized the required action of the Commission. Principal Planner Howard asked that, since the applicant and staff were at a fundamental disagreement on several issues, staff needed some direction from the Commission on those issues. He reiterated the issues, and asked the Commission if they agreed with the applicant or staff. Commissioner Fuller asked what the Commission was legally bound to do that evening. She did not believe there had been another project where the applicant had provided their CEQA Findings which looked exactly like the staff CEQA Findings, and it was difficult to find the differences. Planning Director Leiter answered that it had been done in the past, but not with two sets of CEQA Findings, because normally staff is able to resolve those issues prior to bringing forward the item. He suggested a short recess for staff to confer to give the Commission more specific guidance regarding the issues they had brought up. Chair Casillas declared a 5-minute recess at 10:13 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:27 p.m. Mr. Leiter suggested that the Commission discuss and make a straw vote on the five major issues that staff and the applicant had presented, including four General Plan issues, a fifth issue regarding the biological mitigation plan. At the end of the discussion, the Commission would either have decided they would support the applicant's position in each case. At that time, they could certify the EIR, recommend the plan as submitted along with the applicant's addendum. If they supported the staff's position on any of those items, staff would recommend that the PC Minutes -8- September 30, 1992 Commission either deny or continue the project and refer it back to staff and the applicant to resolve that particular issue. Mr. Leiter then summarized each issue and indicated the page of the report in which it was covered, as follows: 1. Page 2-4; issue of lot size. Staff recommended requirement of minimum of 50% as estate lots and remainder as described on page 2-6 of the staff report. The applicant requested approval of plan as submitted. MSC (Decker/Ray) 4-1 (Fuller against; Carson absent; Tuchscher-conflict of interest) to approve the plan as submitted by the applicant. 2. Compatibility with the Sweetwater Valley Community - resolved by action on item 1. 3. Should landforms of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob be preserved, or allowed to be developed in accordance with applicant's plan. MSC (Decker/Ray) 4-1 (Fuller against; Carson absent; Tuchscher-conflict of interest) to accept applicant's position that Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob are not significant landforms. 4. Page 2-10; calculation of mid-point -- whether to allow the transfer of 35 units from the open space on the Northern Parcel to the Southern Parcel. Staff recommending transfer not be allowed; applicant requesting transfer to be allowed. MSC (Decker/Ray) 5-0 (Carson absent; Tuchscher-conflict of interest) to deny transfer of the 35 units from the north parcel to Neighborhood A. 5. Question of acceptability of biological mitigation plan as submitted by the applicant. If voting in support of the applicant, indicating that the proposed biological mitigation plan is acceptable and meets both CEQA tests, as well as is consistent with the City's concerns regarding regional biological and habitat planning; i.e., the NCCP. If voting in support of the staff's position, recommending that the applicant, staff, and Wildlife Agencies revise that plan to meet the concerns described earlier. The mitigation plan is already written to reference the NCCP; however, staff and the Wildlife Agency are concerned about the way the language is written, how it is structured. Recommend that it be modified. Mr. Leiter recommended that MSCP not be included, because City of Chula Vista does not have the same relationship to City of San Diego's MSCP as it does with City of Chula Vista plan. It could be considered but should not be committed to in a condition. PC Minutes -9- September 30, 1992 Staff recommended that both issues be addressed by directing staff and applicant to go back and modify that condition. MSC (Decker/Fuller) 4-1 (Decker voted against) to accept staff's position on biological mitigation. Commissioner Decker asked how the condition of the County Circulation Element would be handled. Mr. Leiter stated it was a mitigation measure in the Final EIR; staff felt it was adequately addressed. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf noted it was also in the conditions on page 2-15 as one of the proposed conditions of potential approval for the project. That condition could be modified if requested by Commission. MSC (Ray/Martin) 5~0 to continue the item for two weeks until October 14, 1992. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Assistant Planning Director reviewed the Commission calendar for the coming months, and asked that the Commissioners review the dates and let staff know if they would not be able to attend. Commissioner Ray stated he would not be able to attend on November 6. Commissioner Fuller indicated she would be absent October 9, 12 and 14. Commissioner Decker said he may not be available on October 12 and 14. Chair Casillas said there was a possibility he would not be able to attend the October 29 meeting. Commissioner Martin said Friday meetings were always difficult for him to make. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: Commissioner Martin stated that the way the project was presented was very difficult to follow. He felt it would be easier with the applicant's position and the staff's position in columns on the same page. Planning Director Leiter apologized for any confusion created by the late information, which was caused by last-minute negotiations between the applicant and the staff to try to resolve some of those issues. The Commission was receiving, in some cases, some fairly last-minute resolution of issues that otherwise would not have been resolved. Planning Director Leiter presented to the Commission the action taken by the City Council at the meeting with the Board of Supervisors regarding environmental guidelines. There was general discussion as to the responsibility of the Planning Commission in heating environmental impact reports. Commissioner Fuller surmised that the Planning Commission would be relegated to the position of other commissions who would just read and comment on the EIRs, but the Planning Commission would still have to make discretionary action on the project without having the actual input from the public. Commissioner Fuller said she objected to that. PC Minutes -10- September 30, 1992 Commissioner Decker asked the Council's motivation. Mr. Leiter said the Council felt there was strong evidence to suggest a 60-day review period on the Otay Ranch EIR was adequate and believed, as the final approving authority for the project, they should have the ability to set the time limit. The City Attorney recommended, also, that if they set the time limit, they should take the responsibility for the public hearing. Commissioner Decker stated that if those changes were approved by Council, they would have his resignation forthwith. Commissioner Fuller noted that the Planning Commission does not currently set the time period for review. Mr. Leiter concurred that it is done administratively by the Environmental Review Coordinator. It was understood by everyone that the Council had the final decision regarding setting the time limit, but in reviewing the ordinances more closely, it had been determined that the Commission actually had the authority to set the time limit. Commissioner Martin felt that the Commission would become just a hearing board. Planning Director Leiter encouraged the Commissioners to review the report and proposed amendments, and if they felt strongly about it to go before the Council at their meeting of October 6. Chair Casillas said he would not attend the meeting; he did not feel that was the real reason for the change; he resented it, and if the Council approved the change, he would also resign. He felt the motivation was something other than the time period. Commissioner Fuller asked that the Commissioners read the report before reacting. ADJOURNMENT at 11:00 p.m. to the Joint Planning Commission/County Commission Special Meeting of October 7, 1992 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers; to the Joint Planning Commission/County Commission Special Meeting of October 9, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. at the County Department of Planning and Land Use Room; and to the Regular Business Meeting of October 14, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Ri~ley, Secretary Planning Commission