Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/12/11 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:33 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, December 11, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Thomas, Tuchscher (7:33), and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Davis and Ray STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Manganelli, Associate Planner Hernandez, Associate Planner Reid, Assistant Planner Pedder Pease, Senior Civil Engineer Goldkamp, Assistant City Attorney Googins PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tarantino led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Thomas/Tuchscher) 4-0 to excuse Commissioner Davis because of a conflict of interest on the Rancho del Rey project. In addition, Commissioner Ray had called to say he would be late, and may not be able to attend the meeting. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tarantino reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Willett/Thomas) 4-0 to approve the Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of November 13, 1996. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- December 11, 1996 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-06; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONTINUE OPERATING A TEMPORARY TRUCK TERMINAL/TRAILER STORAGE YARD AT 2400 FAIVRE STREET - California Multi-Modal, Inc. and H.G. Fenton Materials Company (continued from the meeting of 11-13-96) Assistant Planning Director Lee reported that since there were a number of details to be worked out regarding a drainage structure going through the property and the need for the City to secure an easement, Mr. Fenton had requested that this item be continued until January 22, 1997. There were some residents in attendance who had been given the name of the project planner, in case they wished to contact him. Chair Tarantino noted he had two requests to speak, George Solis and Julian Garcia, who were not in attendance. Mr. Lee believed they were part of the group he had spoken with. MSC (Tuchscher/Willett) 4-0 to continue SUPS-96-06 to January 2~, 1997. Chair Tarantino then requested that Item 4 regarding the update on the San Miguel Ranch project be taken out of sequence ITEM 4: UPDATE ON SAN MIGUEL RANCH FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. Senior Planner Manganelli reported that two conditions recommended by staff and approved by the Commission required the area designated Low density have minimum lot sizes of 20,000 sq. ft. for at least 50% of the lots; and the second condition, the M area, required a maximum density of six dwelling units per acre, with a similar situation on the Proctor Valley Plan. The applicant's engineer and designer had tested the plan to see if they could actually get the yield of 1394 that was approved and found they could not. Staff concurred and was recommending to City Council a change in Condition 5 stating that the density designated Medium would be at a maximum of 7 dwelling units rather than 6; and Condition 8 designated Low would be developed at the R-E standards, which require a 20,000 sq. ft. lot but a maximum of 25% of those lots could go down to 15,000 sq. ft. as long as the overall density was at the General Plan requirement. The applicant was concurring with the Commission's decision of 1394 and had agreed to provide a minimum 3-acre private park to be mn by the homeowners association to provide a focal point and activity center for that area. Staff was reporting the changes to the Planning Commission since it was a little different from that approved. Commissioner Willett asked where the recreation unit would be located. Mr. Manganelli replied that it would be in the M area. It would be designated as part of the SPA Plan. Commissioner Willett asked if there was any recommendation for the L and L-M on the west side of SR-125. Mr. Manganelli said those would be minimum 7,000 sq. ft. lots which would PC Minutes -3- December 11, 1996 be large enough to provide good sized yards and play areas. The M area, which would have a smaller lot product, could use a small park. Commissioner Tuchscher understood this was advisory to the Commission and no action was required. Staff would recommend the modifications to the Council, and the recommendation relative to the project had changed since it had come before the Commission. Mr. Manganelli confirmed. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that he appreciated being advised, and he thought staff's position was warranted and was something he would back informally as it moved forward. Commissioners Tuchscher, Thomas, and Willett agreed. Chair Tarantino noted that if the City Attorney agreed, he would take items 2 and 3 concurrently, even though the Commission would be voting on the items separately. Attorney Googins said that the concurrent public hearing would be appropriate. Individual action on the items could be taken as they are presented. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the following applications filed by Rancho Del Rey Investors L.P. for 28.8 acres located on the south side of East 'J' Street within Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero Court within the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Planned Community: a. PCM-97-01: Consideration of amendments to the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Ama (SPA) Plan, General Development Plan, Planned Community District Regulations, Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan to allow a 58 unit density transfer from Parcel R-7c to Parcel R-6. b. PCS-97-01: Tentative Subdivision Map for 25.8 acres at Rancho Del Rey SPA III, Chula Vista Tract 97-01. ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-97-01: Consideration of an appeal filed by Rancho Del Rey Investors L.P. of a Design Review Committee decision to deny approval of the site plan and architecture for a proposal to build 246 units on 15.2 acres on the south side of East 'J' Street within the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Planned Community Assistant Planning Director Lee introduced the project manager, Luis Hernandez, who would discuss the issues relating to the SPA and the tentative map, and Ann Pedder Pease who handled design review through the Design Review Commission who would explain the Committee's review and their action. There were some basic differences which were fairly significant, which were unresolved. Staff felt there were problems with the setbacks relating to the buildings, the ability to landscape, and inadequate pedestrian system. Mr. Lee noted that staff was not PC Minutes -4- December 11, 1996 opposed to some transfer of density. About 30 units as opposed to 58 being proposed onto this site could be transferred and meet staff's concerns. The Design Review Committee had agreed with staff's analysis and offered a continuance of the item for the applicant to try to work out those details and come up with a modified plan that would address those issues. The applicant indicated that that was not acceptable; they needed a decision and needed to get this moving foiward through the Planning Commission and City Council. Associate Planner Hernandez pointed out some changes which had been made since the staff report had been sent to the Planning Commission. He then made a presentation relating to the SPA amendment comments, tentative map comments, and general remarks on the overall development proposal. Mr. Hernandez noted that the SPA amendment and the tentative map process might involve a detailed analysis of the site design. However, the Specific Plan criteria for allowing density transfers required that as a result of the density transfer, the spatial arrangement and functional relationship of the site plan components be substantially improved as a result of the density transfer. Staff had not been able to make that finding, primarily because after reviewing the site design, they had encountered a number of deficiencies in terms of the functionality and the amenities in design that are directly linked to the increase in density. For these reasons and the issues that Ms. Pedder Pease would discuss regarding the design of the project and some of the aspects that staff had been unable to resolve with the applicant, staff recommended that the SPA amendment and the tentative subdivision be denied. Conditions had been included, however, if the Planning Commission deemed it appropriate to approve the project. Ann Pedder Pease stated that the Design Review Committee on November 18 met to consider the site plan and architecture, using the City's Design Manual and Design Guidelines of the Rancho del Rey SPA Plan. The tentative map, SPA Plan, and density transfer were not considered. The Committee agreed with staff that the amhitecture was in accordance with the requirements of the Design Manual. She noted that the second floor in each instance overhung the first or garage floor of the buildings. Regarding the site plan, the major concern on the part of the Design Review Committee was a requirement of the Design Manual that a project such as this have a coherent pedestrian walkway system. The system as first proposed to the Committee lacked continuity and did not link dwelling units. The applicant had attempted to add some additional pedestrian walkway to give more coherence to the system, but still did not address the other issues pointed out by the Design Review Committee: the areas immediately adjacent to the walkways were not conducive, often not landscaped, frequently bordering a fence, and still did not provide for full linkage of all the features of the project. Ms. Pedder Pease went on to explain other findings required in the Design Manual which had not been met. Regarding transfer of units, the Design Review Committee was anxious to see what kind of solution the applicant could reach which would transfer some units and still meet all of the concerns that had been outlined by the Committee. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the applicant was planning for the walkway to be 4' in width, which would only leave 3' of landscaping on either side. PC Minutes -5- December 1 I, 1996 Commissioner Willett had visited Serena and had visited the houses being built across the street. He shared the concerns of staff regarding security. There was no visibility from the street to either of the entrances. He was concerned that the children would play in the driveways and drivers would not be able to see them in time to stop. He questioned the turning radius of the larger fire trucks on the streets and if the Fire Department had approved them. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Craig Fukuyama, McMillin Companies and Rancho del Rey Investors L.P., 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, representing the owner, said they were trying to bring to the area another quality product, an entry-level product. The higher density and greater number of units would allow the cost distribution to be done on a less-per-unit allocation and a more affordable the product. There was a mandate in their plan not only for aesthetics, but to secure housing affordability, housing variety, and to have an absence of entry-level housing in Rancho del Rey was as much a violation of their goals and objectives as aesthetics would be. Mr. Fukuyama noted that they had an entry-level product and, therefore, did not have all the glitz and glamour that would be in a more upscale-type product. They were trying to create an affordable product. He discussed the sidewalk width, security, landscaping, recreation and activity areas, staff's concern regarding the double-loaded street system, recreation areas, circulation system, and pedestrian system. He compared the proposed project to pictures taken of the Serena project which would be comparable to the landscaping proposed and building separation. Russ Haley, 10721 Treena St., SD, representing Shea Homes, the guest builder for the project, said they were building a triplex product and showed slides of the architecture, yard space, and elevation. Peter Reeb, Reeb Development Consulting, 13601 Etude Road, SD, had conducted a market feasibility study for the project, analyzing the site, supply, and demand. Currently, there was no attached for-sale product in Rancho del Rey, which limited the overall size of the market they had to appeal to. Not having an attached product in the community left a void in the marketplace. During the past few years the ratio of attached sales to detached sales had been declining because there had been fewer attached projects approved and fewer builders building attached products primarily because of construction issues. Outside of Rancho del Rey, there were only four condo and townhome projects that were actively selling in master planned communities in the Chula Vista area. Within those four projects, there were only about 70 units left. Those four projects should be sold out by mid-1997. Rancho del Rey currently had under construction a duplex product which would be on the market at that time. Beyond that, there would be nothing in the marketplace for entry-level buyers. He discussed the prices of the homes and the demand. He felt that in South County, there was a current demand in the marketplace from 150 to 250 attached unit sales per year. There would be a large unmet demand in the marketplace for an affordably priced attached product. Mr. Reeb noted the key issues which made other projects, which were more dense, successful. He felt it was a good site and setting; there was a dwindling supply of affordable product; there was strong demand; PC Minutes -6- December 11, 1996 the product had been market tested; it filled a void in the marketplace; and it fit well within an overall array of products being offered at Rancho del Rey. Mr. Fukuyama returned to the podium and stated that if the Commission chose to move forward with approval, they could come back before the Commission with revision to the conditions. McMillin would meet with staff and possibly come to some consensus on their differences. He requested approval of their project. Commissioner Willett asked if, in the marketing analysis, they had estimated the number of students who would be attending the elementary and high schools, and if they planned to attend Chula Vista Hills. He had not seen anything in the staff report regarding the school's agreement regarding the number of students they could handle. Associate Planner Hernandez stated that the School District had sent a letter indicating that the school needs had been satisfied by the school that would potentially be built across Paseo Ranchero. Answering Commissioner Willett, Mr. Hernandez stated that the school had not said it would be built, but it could be satisfied with that site. Commissioner Willett said that took care of the high school, but not the elementary school. Mr. Fukuyama stated that he believed there was an elementary school site that the School District owned on the southwest corner of Paseo Ranchero and "J" Street. Commissioner Willett asked if the Fire Department had taken a look at the area. It was a one- entrance unit. Mr. Fukuyama replied that there were two entrances; there was an emergency entrance from Buena Vista which would be gated and locked to provide emergency entrance only to the site by the Fire Department. After meeting with the Fire Department, the emergency entrance had been provided and Mr. Fukuyama did not think there were any other objections. Mr. Hernandez stated that staff had also met with the Fire Department and specifically inquired about the turning radius of the fire equipment and apparatus. They concluded that there was sufficient room to maneuver in that specific configuration, and expressed no concern. Chair Tarantino questioned the overhangs and the impact on the street scene. Mr. Fukuyama stated that in the Serena Project, the streets were 24' wide. They were proposing 26' wide for this project, so the streets themselves were 2' wider. They did overhang the streets, but he did not think it created an objectional appearance. Mr. Haley returned to the podium to say that there had not been a lot of attached product in the County during the last few years because there was a liability issue now. Regarding this product, all three units would be owned fee simple and the only thing that would be commonly maintained would be the roof. Commissioner Thomas commented that the school site would not be built and would probably be used as a land swap. PC Minutes -7- December 11, 1996 Mr. Hernandez stated that he had located the letter from the School District which stated that the need for a school in Rancho del Rey was mitigated through a Mello-Roos and for this particular site, they were proposing to use the Discovery Elementary School at this time. Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff to compare Marbrisas and this project regarding the units per acre. Mr. Hernandez stated that Marbrisas had 17.7 du/ac and this project went up to 16.1 alu/ac. Regarding garages, Mr. Tuchscher asked if they had direct access into the units. Staff answered positively. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that he saw only one access to the park from the site. Assistant Planning Director Lee said that was at the direction of the Parks & Recreation Director. They wanted to provide access, but wanted it at a controlled location. The applicant was willing to provide more, but the Parks Department did not want additional access. They did not want people entering it at several different points and wanted it at a controlled point. Mr. Fukuyama stated that Parks & Recreation had had negative experiences where they had several access points. The problem was with park users trespassing onto the private property. Commissioner Tuchscher felt that with the gated community, park users could not just walk into the neighborhood. He did not see the conflict from the homeowners' standpoint; rather, on this particular plan, the residents of the southwest units could not access the park there, although they lived next to the park. They would have to walk back and around. Mr. Tuchscher did not agree with that. He wanted to make sure the homeowners next door got easy access to the park. Mr. Fukuyama said the fence was 5' tall and would not be much of a deterrent for the older children. If someone wanted to jump the fence, they would get in anyway. McMillin's preference was for more entrances, but respected the wishes of the Parks & Recreation Director. Answering Commissioner Tuchscher, regarding roofing materials, Mr. Fukuyama stated they would use concrete tile. Commissioner Tuchscher asked Mr. Reeb the historic percentage of multi-family for-sale product in San Diego County. Mr. Reeb said in San Diego it was about 1/3 of the total market. Today it was closer to 25%. The decline had been the result of fewer projects on the market. Countywide, four years ago, there were probably about 100 attached projects on the market; today there was less than 40 Countywide. In South County, four years ago had 12 active projects; throughout all of South County presently, there were only six. Mr. Reeb said he was just referring to for-sale product; if apartments were included in the mix, in the 1980's about 1/2 of all the product built was attached product, including apartments. Today, there is virtually no apartment construction going on. Commissioner Tuchscher said it was clear to him that there was a market out there that needed to be served. PC Minutes -8- December 11, 1996 Commissioner Tuchscher asked Mr. Fukuyama if the landscaping would be similar to the landscaping at Serena, if similar types of shrubbery would be used. Mr. Fukuyama stated that it was. The concept plans submitted in the plant pallet would mature to the level of the shrubbery at Serena. Commissioner Willett, referring to the school, asked how the students would get to the Chula Vista Hills Elementary School. Mr. Fukuyama said they would walk from the project, through the park, to the back of the school. The remainder of the students going to the middle school would walk the same route to the new middle school. There were two entrances, one for the cars and one for the children to walk through. Mr. Fukuyama said the neighbors did not want vehicular connection, which was the reason for terminating "J" Street, but they did want the ability to go from their project to the schools. Commissioner Tuchscher asked the radius of noticing. Mr. Hernandez stated it was 1,000 ft. Mr. Tuchscher wanted to know the count and if there were any town meetings. While Mr. Hemandez researched the files, Mr. Lee stated that public forums had been held and a very limited number of people attended. There was very little concern over the design; there were some initial comments relating to the transfer, but more interest in the affordable housing project on the adjacent site. No one was in attendance at the Design Review Committee meeting. Commissioner Tuchscher asked approximately how many people attended the public forum on this project. Mr. Lee answered that there were three or four separate homeowners. Ms. Pedder Pease, answering Commissioner Tuchscher's previous question, said that an estimate of the mailing labels in the file was that about 360 homeowners received notice. Commissioner Tuchscher asked the City Attorney if it created a problem to leave the public hearing open during deliberations so the Commissioners could ask the applicant additional questions. Attorney Googins said it would not create a problem for the City Attorney's office. Commissioner Tuchscher asked the Chairman to leave the public hearing open. Chair Tarantino asked if anyone else wished to speak. Hearing no one, the Chair left the public hearing open and asked the Commissioners to deliberate. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that the Planning Commission did not have control over the internal circulation of the site. However, on this project, they were dealing with internal circulation, pedestrian versus vehicular interaction and circulation. He asked staff why. Mr~ Lee said it was the function of the Design Review Committee to review the site plan and architecture as a package, including pedestrian flow and the arrangement of parking stalls. Staff interfaced with Engineering to get comment on the traffic flow. In this particular case, it was an appeal so it was coming to the Planning Commission. PC Minutes -9- December 11, 1996 Colnmissioner Tuchscher said it was the general impression that the scale of the project, in light of the issues addressed in the staff report and in the negative report, it did not seem that any of the issues were insurmountable or unlivable. The pedestrian walkways had been addressed; Mr. Tuchscher had stated his concern regarding landscaping; regarding entrances, the direct access from the garages had solved a lot of his security concerns and he would lilce to hear what the security issues were on where the entrances were located; regarding privacy, the close proximity of the entrances was not unreasonable from a high density residential standpoint. He thought that was livable and not a major negative from a buyer or a City planning design/land use standpoint. He asked that staff address the two issues on the entrances. Mr. Lee stated that one of the products had a two-car garage with a direct entrance into a larger unit; the other two units out of the triplex had a single-car garage, so the second space was one of the parking bay spaces which meant in some cases the driver of the car could park and use the sidewalk or sometimes would have to use a partial sidewalk or no sidewalk and walk in the street. Staff had now received some feedback from other condo projects in terms of safety issues and the desirability to walk in those streets. Part of staff's job was to look at those designs and determine what they were doing that really worlced well and what were problem areas. This project had a lot of positive points; however, the issues staff pointed out were significant enough, and if a number of units were being transferred, it could be addressed. Regarding front door entrances, Mr. Lee did not think it was a major issue. It was a for-sale product with three entrances clustered in one area. There were some slight recesses to identify those, but it was not a very attractive entrance to those units, with relatively narrow walk systems between the buildings. Staff wanted to open it up a little, obtain a little more light in the area, and malce it a more friendly entrance. Chair Tarantino felt the project was an excellent project and had a lot of good things going for it. His concern was that the Design Review Committee normally would try to worlc something out with the applicant. That did not happen in this process. In addition, he was the Planning Commission representative to the revision of the Design Manual. There was a lot of deliberation during this process, and by being a part of the Committee, he felt the things that were in the Design Manual were there for a reason. They had come up with a manual they thought was good for the City, it was good for the quality of life, for the people that would be living in projects. He could not support Rancho del Rey's request. Answering Commissioner Tuchscher, Ms. Pedder Pease stated that the findings that had been made by the Design Review Committee were that the criteria of the Design Manual had not been met. Commissioner Thomas asl~ed if the problem was specifically because of the transfer of the 58 units. Mr. Lee said the particular product type had some characteristics that staff felt were workable, not necessarily the most desirable. The project was tested in terms of transferring a limited number of units and felt the issues pointed out could be addressed adequately in staff's opinion. Staff could support that type of density transfer. That was staff's analysis; however, no further testing had been done. PC Minutes -10- December 11, 1996 Commissioner Thomas stated that the applicant was requesting a 58 unit transfer; the City was at 30 units. Mr. Lee said the applicant had a density established at about 12 du/ac which was typical in the past for a townhouse unit. Because of market conditions and economics, developers had been looking at different kinds of solutions than in the past, and some increases in density, some of which could be done successfully both in a marketing standpoint but not necessarily something that would meet all of the planning criteria. Commissioner Thomas asked if a possible compromise could be reached as to the number of units. Mr. Lee stated that was possible; the applicant had indicated they were at a point where they needed that particular number of units to make this work with this particular product and applicant. Staff had not seen any movement on their part. Commissioner Tuchscher saw the need in the market for more affordable housing product; Chula Vista did not have the affordability that it needed and diversity of product; this site being next to a park was appropriate for that kind of density; since there was no opposition from adjacent property owners, he was inclined to support the project. He did not care for the architecture. He thought the product would probably sell; there was room in the market for it. He had been satisfied as to what the landscaping would look like in five years. At the same time, the applicant was looking at a negative staff recommendation and needed all four votes. Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff what was the next step for the applicant, should they not get a positive vote from the Planning Commission. Mr. Lee stated that the Commission was making a recommendation to the City Council, and their recommendation, whether positive or negative, would move forward to the City Council, with the exception of Design Review. The applicant would have to appeal that particular action. Attorney Googins stated that on both the SPA-related approvals and the tentative map approvals, the Planning Commission was acting as the recommending body. That matter would proceed to the City Council automatically. He confirmed that the DRC issue could be appealed up to the City Council by the applicant. Regarding the conditions presented on the exhibits which had been placed on the dais, Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the item was defeated and the applicant appealed it to Council, Mr. Fukuyama would have an opportunity to meet with staff. Mr. Lee stated that staff would have time to meet with the applicant prior to the scheduled Council hearing on January 21. Staff would have time also to go back to the Design Review Committee on January 13 and discuss potential conditions with them, so that if Council chose on the 21st to proceed, staff would have conditions for consideration in that regard as well. Commissioner Thomas also felt it was a viable project and was much needed in the South Bay. From what he understood, he would challenge the Parks & Recreation Director on the accessibility of the park and the security issue. He did not feel comfortable overriding the staff and DRC recommendation. He thought the project was good and would like to see it discussed further to make it work. PC Minutes -11- December 11, 1996 Mr. Lee said that the Planning Commission, in forwarding any recommendation to the Council, could ask that the access to the park be evaluated at the time it went before Council. It would give the Parks Director a chance to look at that particular issue and perhaps address it before the Parks Commission before it went to Council. Commissioner Thomas stated that was his intent. Commissioner Tuchscher felt that made sense regardless of what was planned for the site. Chair Tarantino felt a precedent had already been set in terms of what was already in the area off of Buena Vista and Calle Santiago. There was open space and multiple access. To have it walled off made no sense. Commissioner Tuchscher said that he lived in an area next to Rohr Park and had to drive down Sweetwater Road in order to get there. It made no sense at all to him. Commissioner Tuchscher informed the Chair that he appreciated his leaving the public hearing open, and he was ready to make the motion if the Chair wished to close the public hearing. The Chair closed the public hearing. MS (Tuchscher/Willett) to deny staff recommendation and support the applicant's recommendation, footnoting the park access issue, and with staff to get with the applicant regarding the conditions listed in Exhibit D to be brought back before the Planning Commission at their meeting on January 8, in advance of going to Council. Chair Tarantino asked if this motion was acceptable, or if the City Attorney wished for the items to be separated. The Attorney stated that the motion on the floor was fine. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the Planning Commission agreed with staff if it automatically threw that back for renegotiation. Chair Tarantino understood it could be appealed to the Council. If the motion on the table was accepted, he understood that it would go to the City Council with a positive recommendation, with an endorsement of the Commission. Commissioner Tuchscher noted that four votes were needed to either approve or deny. Council would get the information as to the vote, but in order to execute on the motion, all four votes were needed. Mr. Lee confirmed. VOTE: 2-2 (Tarantino and Thomas voted against the motion). MOTION FAILED. Commissioner Tuchscher asked, in order to move the project to the next step, if anything else needed to occur. Attorney Googins stated that it was the effect of the motion, or any motion that was not carried forward with four votes, of a non action on the part of the Planning Commission on the item. The applicant had the option, with respect to each of the items, to either resubmit it for the Planning Commission's reconsideration or to present it to the City Council without a formal Planning Commission recommendation and/or an appeal with respect to the Design Review issue. PC Minutes -12- December 11, 1996 Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that since the Planning Commission was one member short and one member had to abstain, there would only be one additional member voting over the next month or two, so he assumed the applicant would want to move this project on to Council. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Lee reported on the actions taken by Council the previous evening. The zone variance for Coin Mart had been approved for a 42' high sign, 128 sq. ft. with no fascia signs, however, giving the applicant the ability to return to Council with the potential for two fascia signs, maximum, if identification cannot be properly gained t~ough the rooftop sign. The open air market on "L" Street was also approved by Council with a vote of 3-2, with a concern regarding the major entrance into the City at the west end of the City and the image that this particular business might portray. Mr. Lee noted a scheduled Planning Commission workshop for the next Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. to discuss processing, and issues raised by the Commission regarding the Otay Ranch tentative map processing as it moved from the Planning Commission to the City Council. It would be set up as a dinner session, so the workshop would be for an hour or 1-1/2 hour and dinner at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the idea was to explain to the Planning Commission what transpired regarding the Otay Ranch processing and how that occurred, or to clarify that issue and then make a report to the Council. At what point did Council understand what occurred and continues to occur regarding the Otay Ranch processing. Mr. Lee stated that in terms of what would be reported to Council, it could be discussed at the workshop after it was explained what process took place and the Manager's role, etc. Based on the Commission's direction, a decision would be made there as to whether or not staff was to be provide additional information on the Council in this regard or whether something would be drafted for Planning Commission consideration. Commissioner Tuchscher was concerned that policies and procedures had changed and things had been handled differently than the norm. In his opinion, placating the Planning Commission in the form of a workshop and explaining to them what had happened was irrelevant. What was important in the process was that it got communicated to Council what the Commission saw and voted on and how that is changed when they make a vote. He had no problem with staff making changes, but he was concerned about the characterization of what the Council was seeing and what the Planning Commission's vote was; why it was not explained to Council. He felt a memo should be written explaining the differences between the staff recommendation when it went to the Planning Commission and when it went to Council. Mr. Lee explained that the City Manager had participated in a final staff recommendation to City Council. However, in the future it would be helpful to point out in the body of the staff report PC Minutes -13- December 11, 1996 any changes in the staff position made during the time between Planning Commission deliberation and Council consideration. Commissioner Thomas felt a letter needed to be sent to the Council before the January 7th meeting. Mr. Lee stated that if anything moved forward at the January 7 meeting that affected any action taken by the Commission, a copy of the report should be provided to them in advance of that meeting. Staff would make an attempt to do that. He was not aware that anything would be moving forward to that meeting. Commissioner Thomas supported Commissioner Tuchscher in that Council should be made aware that it was not the exact verbiage that went before the Commission, even regarding San Miguel Ranch. It still needed to be identified that it was not the presentation that went before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tuchscher noted that in the past, staff had usually noted the changes. Commissioner Willett wanted to know what would happen if he had stood up at the Council meeting and stated that was not the way it happened. Mr. Lee replied that Mr. Willett was a member of the Planning Commission and if he was in attendance at a City Council meeting and heard something that was not fact, and he wished to testify to that, he thought it could be done in such a manner that would not create a large controversy by stating that from his recollection that was not what happened and ask the project team to clarify for his edification and for Council. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Willett stated that at the last Growth Management Oversight Commission, he had spoken with Ed Batchelder who had a major project map that listed the major projects going on in the City. Accompanying that document was another item which listed specifically each one of the projects that staff was working on. He thought it was interesting, and had asked the Commission secretary to supply copies for the Planning Commission. Mr. Lee noted that these project lists would be submitted as part of the budget package to the Council. He also stated that the Council was planning workshop meetings on the third Thursday of each month at 4:30 for goal setting and priority setting. ADJOURNMENT at 10:00 p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of December 18, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of January 8, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Planning Commission