Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1993/02/10 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:30 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, February 10, 1993 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Martin, Moot, Tarantino, and Tuchscher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Ray STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Principal Planner Howard, Associate Planner Reid, Environmental Coordinator Reid, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Associate Civil Engineer Ouadah, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller, followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Carson/Moot) 5-0 to accept the minutes of January 27, 1993, as submitted. MSUC (Carson/Martin) 5-0 to excuse Commissioner Ray because of work obligations. Chair Fuller noted that Commissioner Tuchscher had left the meeting because of a conflict of interest regarding Item No. 1. At the request of Chair Fuller, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that he had asked Commissioner Tuchscher before he left if he still had a conflict of interest, based on a financial relationship which he had severed, and the conflict of interest PC Minutes -2- February 10, 1993 would dissipate in one year. The year was up in January but Commissioner Tuchscher was abstaining to make sure them was no appearance of impropriety. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Robert Kelly, 1910 Avenida de la Cruz, San Ysidro, said they owned property above the Salt Creek Ranch in the Chula Vista School District. He asked when the Planning Commission would be detailing the roads which would possibly access their property. Assistant Planning Director Lee said he would contact Mr. Kelly the next day to discuss his property location. ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: RANCHO SAN MIGUEL - VOLUME 3: DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-90-02. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 90010155 Associate Planner Reid presented the staff report and noted some of the changes in the project description. Ms. Reid said the new plan introduced the concepts of preservation of the north until the NCCP process is completed, and biological mitigation for the south. Commissioner Tarantino, referring to page 2-13, asked if there had been any timeline attached to the phasing. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dan Silver, 1422 North Sweetzer (#401), Los Angeles, representing the Endangered Habitats League, said they were an organization of 53 groups interested in conservation and in land use solutions. They believed the northern portion of the property was a core reserve area and an extremely high quality habitat for the gnatcatcher and cactus wren and that any development there would be unmitigable. He suggested that everyone work together to try to be flexible and innovative, and to try to facilitate the preservation of the northern parcel as permanent open space. They were in favor of more efficient use of land, density transfers, timing ways to reduce conflicts and to make open space protection feasible. If a General Plan amendment was necessary to achieve that type of public benefit, they would probably support it. Norma Sullivan, 5858 Scripps Street, San Diego, CA 92122, representing the San Diego Audubon Society, concurred with Mr. Silver. Efforts to preserve this would protect not only the coastal sage scrub and the 50 species dependent on the coastal sage scrub habitat but those near the Sweetwater Reservoir as well. She said that half or more endangered species are lost with mitigation, and that avoidance is the first mitigation recommended by CEQA. She appreciated the Commission's concern for the sensitivity of the area and hoped they could find creative solutions. PC Minutes -3- February 10, 1993 Eugene J. Sprofera, 3811 Fairway Drive, La Mesa, CA 91941, legislative analyst, was concerned about EMF and power lines near the houses and the studies which link electricity exposures to cancer. He did not think the impact to Sweetwater Reservoir could be mitigated, since it was the source of drinking water for residents of Chula Vista, National City, and the South Bay Area. He said the project was biologically degrading from the existing landform, and felt the developer should come in with a better project. Gretchen Burkey, P. O. Box 321, Bonita 91908, believed the impacts to significant landforms, disruption of rich biodiversity, impact to 70% of the total Otay Tarweed, loss of Palmer's Grappling Hook, Gnatcatcher loss and destruction of habitat, impaction of Cactus Wren territories, and loss of 467 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat were unmitigable. She said SR-125 and the by-pass road were speculative, and there was no assurance traffic from the proposed development would be accommodated. More analysis should be done before the Draft Supplement and the EIR is circulated. John Taylor, 3142 Orchard Hill Road, Bonita 91902, a physician specializing in disorders of the head and neck, specifically in this case, the sense of hearing, said the EIR did not adequately address the problem of projected increase in ambient noise levels in the rural area. Studies done by the United States Navy had shown that chronic exposure to elevated noise levels would cause measurable elevations in human blood pressure and certain cholesterol levels. The effect was anticipated to be similar in wildlife, but was left unstated. He felt detailed analysis of this problem should be done. Toni Ingrassia, 4463 Acacia Avenue, Bonita 91902, representing the Sweetwater Community Planning Group, said the majority of the problems impacting their community could not be mitigated without redesign of the project. She was concerned with irreversible environmental changes through density, intensive grading, terraced manufactured slopes, the elimination of two significant distinctive landforms, loss of prime natural biological resources, encroachment of extensive wildlife corridors, the degradation of air quality, and the reduction of water quality in the Sweetwater Reservoir. She stated that many of the impacted roads were in the County, and the EIR minimized their exceedence and impact upon the rural Bonita community. Ms. Ingrassia said the entire EIR analysis was inadequate because it was predicated upon the assumption that LAFCO would approve annexation to Chula Vista, and that the County would amend the County Circulation Element General Plan. The subdivision would drive the location of SR-125; the EIR should not defer the analysis to the SPA level or other permit levels when this Draft EIR analysis may set in motion cumulative impacts which may become irreversible at the SPA level. The Sweetwater Community Planning Group asked that their community plan be considered, and that consideration be given to the quality of life in the existing community and that they not be sacrificed for new communities. They asked that the EIR not be certified as an adequate document. Michael J. Roark, 3645 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita, said the EIR was narrow in looking at the geological and natural effects on the land itself, but not the adjacent community. It does not discuss the density and the existing Sunnyside equestrian ranch community or the community PC Minutes -4- February 10, 1993 and village. He stated it did not take into consideration many of the comments and letters that were submitted during the initial draft environmental process. All the rest of those are comments in letter form written by other agencies and on behalf of other agencies pointing out a number of serious, real concerns about the impact of this project, not just on the land that's being developed on, but on the surrounding area and its compatibility. He believed the community plan was adopted by the County of San Diego and became a part of this area and part of the Sweetwater Plan. The Bonita residents believed the City Council adopted the community plan of Bonita when the sphere of influence issue came into existence, and felt this was the proper and appropriate planning for this area. He was concerned about density and trails. He urged denial of the project on the basis the document is totally incomplete or inadequate, or for the planners to draft and come up with their own concept and recommendations which would be good planning for the area under the SPA concept. Mr. Roark offered his assistance in drafting a new plan. He was also concerned with SR-125, which is proposed to run along an existing new high-pressure major aqueduct pipeline down the middle of that pipeline cutting through the existing community. Don Rose, representing San Diego Gas & Electric, 101 Ash Street, San Diego 92024, stated they did not oppose the project but the design of the project. They felt residential uses adjacent to the substation property line was inappropriate and a land use conflict. The substation was going to be expanded in the future as growth in San Diego escalates. SDG&E would support a transfer of density to those areas not impacted by the substation's existing or expanded configuration if the applicant agreed to pull away from the property line. Jim Burley, 6500 San Miguel Road, Bonita, represented the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association who endorsed the position of the Sweetwater Valley Planning Group and recommended denial. They were concerned over flood control and the mitigation measures planned. Additionally, Mr. Burley stated that the route for SR-125 had not been firmed up and planned improvements on roads effected by this development and other developments had not been funded, and they were concerned about traffic impacts. Robert Thompson, 6503 San Miguel Road, Bonita, stated that he found the EIR and the logical progression of events confusing and hard to understand. He said Sweetwater Authority had filed an EIR for public review which covered some of the same property which was covered in this supplemental EIR. Sweetwater Authority said they were going to use as mitigation the land that the applicant was considering building on, and the applicant was considering land that Sweetwater Authority was building on as mitigation. He questioned who the lead agency was and indicated that San Miguel Partners was involved in both of these EIRs and chances were that neither agency was made aware of the other agency's activities. Mr. Thompson stated that he had called the City, and 10 days after this hearing was scheduled there had not been a new application; that the application to cover the meeting was not made out until a few days before. He did not understand the procedures. Chair Fuller asked about the application to which Mr. Thompson was referring. Mr. Thompson said that before anything could be considered, a major development had to applied for with the PC Minutes -5- February 10, 1993 Planning Department, and based upon that application, hearings are scheduled, and until 10 days ago there was no application on file. David Nairne, representing San Miguel Partners, Suite 950, 4350 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, said the plan had undergone changes to address two of the major concerns received at the present hearing and from the Commission at the earlier hearings. Regarding the General Plan issue, they had gone through a significant redesign to ensure conformance with the General Plan. Regarding biology, they had been working on the biological issues which had become more significant over time, principally, gnatcatchers and the coastal sage scrub habitat. They had provided that if they could not find a solution, or if the NCCP program did not move forward, there were minimum levels of impact on the species and the specific acknowledgment that those levels could be raised to prevent any taking whatsoever. He indicated some of the mitigation measures being taken in the northern and southern portions of the project. Answering Commissioner Tarantino's previous question regarding phasing of the project, Mr. Nairne said each phase would follow 12 to 14 months after the phase before it, assuming there was normal market absorption and the infrastructure was available at the site and could be built to meet the necessary requirements of the City of Chula Vista to let them proceed with the next phase. Chair Fuller asked Mr. Nairne to comment again on the required amendment to the County's Circulation Element of their General Plan for the realignment of San Miguel Ranch Road and what would happen if the County did not make this General Plan amendment. Mr. Nairne answered that the project could be held up. The requirement was that the bypass road shown in the supplemental EIR be consistent with what was on the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and the EIR was analyzed on that basis. They did have to resolve with the County the issue over that roadway; he did not know what their position would be, and the project would be held up pending some type of solution acceptable to the County and to the applicant. It could involve tying the project into other traffic improvements after a certain level of development, or reducing the density to ensure the capacity on existing roads was not exceeded. At Chair Fuller's request, Mr. Nairne said the bypass road was part of San Miguel Ranch Road which intersected San Miguel Road at a location west of Proctor Valley Road about 3,000 feet. Commissioner Tarantino asked Mr. Nairne how they intended to market those homes that would be overlooking the immense power plant. Mr. Nairne answered that the power plant itself was visible from only 14 home sites in one location of the project. The rest of the site would be screened from the plant itself by berming and landscaping and would not be any closer to the development than currently exists. The transmission towers could not be hidden. They had tried to keep as many homes as possible away from the easements. PC Minutes -6- February 10, 1993 Chair Fuller asked staff to comment on the issue raised by Mr. Thompson regarding no application being on file. Principal Planner Howard explained that a hearing had been tentatively scheduled for early December; however, it had been decided that the applicant would withdraw the appeal, submit a new plan, and staff would do a supplement to the draft EIR on that plan. That supplement was done and submitted for public review January 8. The following week the applicant officially submitted the new application which consisted of filling out the application form and submitting the new map for the project; it was a technical matter. It was done in early January. Answering Chair Fuller, Mr. Howard said he had spoken with Mr. Thompson in early January and informed him at that time that the applicant had not yet submitted his new application. The applicant then submitted it soon afterward. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated the fact that the new project description was included in the supplement to the EIR constituted all of the new information that would be on the application, and probably defacto constituted it. It may not have been physically submitted in the proper form and signed, but had subsequently been done, so if there was any technical shortcoming, it had been satisfied in spirit, and he assumed all the appropriate fees had been paid. Commissioner Tarantino requested clarification as to why so much was left to the SPA level; was it because the Commission was considering a program EIR, as opposed to a project EIR, and it was not atypical that so much would be left to the SPA area in dealing with this kind of EIR. Associate Planner Reid concurred. Chair Fuller explained to the public in attendance that the Commission had just been going through this in great detail on the Otay Ranch Project, and that a project EIR looks at environmental impacts on a broad base without getting into specific project design issues. Those are left until the Specific Plan is brought before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Carson asked how the Resource Conservation Commission reacted to this EIR. Associate Planner Reid said their opinion at a meeting she had attended two weeks prior was that they were against the project for a number of reasons. They didn't pass a motion on it. They had concerns about possible health effects of the EMF, and they were concerned generally about water use in the City of Chula Vista, and making sure there was adequate water. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that on Monday night prior to the Planning Commission meeting, they had discussed the biological impacts of the project which they did not feel were satisfactorily mitigated. The had also discussed imposing a requirement for solar heating of the units, but backed off that believing it should be done on a citywide basis rather than project by project. PC Minutes -7- February 10, 1993 Associate Planner Reid noted the Resoume Conservation Commission also commented that they did not feel the requirement for participation in the Mello-Roos District was adequate as far as financing for schools. They thought there should be additional measures. Chair Fuller asked if they addressing their comments to the supplemental environmental impact report or the project. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid answered that because the only item they had before them was the EIR, their comments were focused on the EIR. They were ready to make a motion regarding the project itself, and he had advised them to wait until the project was before the Planning Commission, so they could make a recommendation to the Planning Commission at that time. Answering Chair Fuller, Mr. Reid stated that the Resource Conservation Commission reviewed the EIRs and Negative Declarations and made recommendations. Planning Director Leiter added that there had been a recommendation in the permit streamlining program that the RCC not hold noticed public hearings like the Planning Commission, and they had agreed to that, but they would just review and comment on the EIRs. Chair Fuller noted that the only action that the Planning Commission had to take was to close the hearing on the draft supplemental to the environmental impact report. No further testimony would be taken once the public hearing was closed, and the next action for the Planning Commission would be to consider the draft and act upon it at the next meeting. The final EIR would contain all of the responses to comments made at this meeting. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. ITEM 2: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES Principal Planner Griffin gave the background and the possible changes to the floor area ratio standards for single-family zones. He noted the City had formerly regulated bulk by a lot coverage standard which was 40% in height restrictions, basically 2-1/2 stories or 35 feet; an FAR of 0.45 was added several years ago. He gave some examples of the proposed FARs using a sliding scale with a minimum floor area ratio of 0.50 for smaller lots. Mr. Griffin stated that the City Council had asked the Planning Commission to give input on two potential modifications: using the sliding scale for all single-family properties under 7,000 sq. ft. and an exemption of patio covers and porches from the FAR calculation. He said staff was supportive of the sliding scale and some type of exemption for open patio covers, which could also cover porches. With input from the Commission as to their direction, staff would take a report to Council, and if Council chose to proceed, staff would be returning to the Commission and Council with a formal ordinance amendment to be reviewed and discussed at that time. PC Minutes -8- February 10, 1993 Chair Fuller questioned staff regarding the home which had been included in the staff report. Mr. Griffin stated it would benefit the particular home that had triggered the analysis of the floor area ratio. Commissioner Carson asked when the lot is smaller -- 5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. on a sliding scale - -- why the amount was larger. If the lot was smaller, it should be reversed. Assistant Planning Director Lee said that part of the analysis got into the planned communities and it became fairly evident that even when establishing a smaller lot, it should be able to accommodate a reasonably sized home. Mr. Lee explained staff's rationale using the sliding scale. Commissioner Carson asked if the sliding scale would allow a home such as the Raso or Salganaek houses to be built. Mr. Lee answered that they would not be allowed, and informed those in attendance about the homes to which Commissioner Carson referred. Chair Fuller concurred with the recommendation. Commissioner Tarantino asked what would happen if the developer decided to build up instead of out. Mr. Griffin explained that the Code required a maximum of 40% lot coverage; there could only be a certain amount of a lot that could be covered in a footprint. This would not change and the setbacks from the property lines would also continue to apply. Commissioner Martin asked about the porch or carport. Mr. Griffin said that originally they had discussed, as one alternative, exempting patio covers which had been done in newer planned communities, and Council had asked staff to look at exempting porches which had previously been included in FAR calculations. There were no other comments by the Commissioners regarding FAR. DIRECTOR'S REPORT - None COMMISSION COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT at 9:00 p.m. to the Dinner Workshop Meeting of February 17, 1993 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. l{!ancy Ripl~y, Secretary Planning Commission (2-10 93.min)