Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/08/14 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:05 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, August 14, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Davis, Salas, Thomas, Tuchscher and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Ray STAFF PRESENT: Deputy City Manager Krempl, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Special Projects Manager Jamriska, Senior Planner Rosaler, Senior Civil Engineer Goldkamp, Deputy 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 MSUC (Davis/Willett) 5-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher not yet arrived) to excuse Commissioner Ray who was out of town on vacation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Willett/Thomas)(Ray absent; Tuchscher not yet arrived) to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of April 3, 1996 (5-0); April 10, 1996 (5-0); April 24, 1996 (5-0); May 1, 1996 (5-0); June 12, 1996 (4-0-1, Salas abstained); June 26, 1996 (4-0-1, Salas abstained); July 10, 1996 (5-0). INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tarantino reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PC Minutes -2- August 14, 1996 Fred Payea, 1641 Hilltop Drive, regarding gas station which had turned into a truck stop at Orange and Hilltop. Trucks constantly go up and down the street breaking up Hilltop Drive; street wasn't designed for 18-wheelers; at least four LP gas trucks a day go through; residential neighborhood; making U-turns in front of their home at all times, day and night; go up on the sidewalks, knocking down city signs, back up and block traffic. Not a verified truck stop and he thought it should be stopped. They are parking the LP trucks down Hilltop Drive towards Main, leave them overnight. Mr. Payea was afraid some night someone would shoot it or hit it with another vehicle and it would explode, wiping out a good part of the residents. Orange Avenue was a through fare and there were big signs stating "No Trucks Allowed." Richard L. Boyfl, 1575 Hilltop Drive, said the trucks park directly across the street from his home in a vacant lot. There was no sidewalk in the area. One night a refrigerator truck parked there over the weekend and ran refrigeration unit entire weekend, which was objectional. Showed pictures of the "truck stop" with five trucks there at the time--he said it was a light load at the time. Later the same day, the gas station itself was not only full, but the northbound lane on Hilltop had an additional two trucks blocking traffic completely for left-turn lanes unless they came around on the right side and made the turn illegally, which happened fairly often. He had called the police. He thought the police called the gas station to see who it might belong to, and then waited to see if they left within a certain time. B. Rosie Bystrak, 24 Tourmaline Street, said they also had trouble with trucks, tubular tanks which say "flammable". As they descend on Hilltop Drive, it is very dark. The street light does not always go on, and when cars go down, they go faster than 35 mph. One day a car will run into the tubular tank and will explode. Mike Kelley, 3749 Festival Ct. (facing Hilltop Drive), reiterated what the others said, and said he had a couple of mn-ins with the truckers. They stop in front of his house, check their oil, kick their tires, throw their trash in his yard. The trucks were mining their neighborhood. He would not bring someone to his house during the day to show it to them if he was trying to sell it. There are cracks in the stucco of his house, the pictures won't stay straight on the walls because of the trucks. They roll the asphalt up on Hilltop Drive, the City comes in, digs it out and makes it worse than it was; they come up the hill from Ivan's Meat Plant to get fuel at the truck stop and literally shake the house. Something had to be done; it was out of hand. Assistant Planning Director Lee asked for all their phone numbers and told them that he would have someone check out the situation and that they would most likely be contacted. ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-96-13; REQUEST TO EXCEED MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND ENCROACH INTO REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR AN OVERHEAD SHADE CLOTH STRUCTURE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOME ORCHID GROWING AND SALES OPERATION AT 1341 PARK DRIVE, WITHIN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE - Eugenia Hammond (To be continued to meeting of September 11, 1996) PC Minutes -3- August 14, 1996 Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the applicant had requested that ZAV-96-13 be continued until September 11, 1996. On the advice of the City Attorney, Chair Tarantino opened the public hearing for anyone who could not be present on September 11. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Salas/Willett) 5-0 (Ray excused; Tuchscher not yet arrived) to continue ZAV-96-13 to September 11, 1996. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-02; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A MUNICIPAL WASTE TRASH TRANSFER AND MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE STREET - Sky Trucking (Continued from 7-10-96) (To be continued to meeting of August 28, 1996) Mr. Lee informed the Commissioners that staff was working on the environmental analysis, the Agency meeting had been rescheduled, and staff requested continuation of SUPS-96-02 to the August 28 Planning Commission meeting. He noted that again the public hearing should be opened for those who wanted to speak and could not return on August 28, and then the item should be continued to the meeting of August 28. Chair Tarantino opened the public hearing. He noted that anyone who spoke at that meeting would defer their chance to speak on the 28th. Mike Kelley, 3749 Festival Ct., was opposed to the trash plant. There were already a lot of trucks in the neighborhood. It was less than three blocks from his house; Otay Elementary School nearby, noise, pollution, blocking of streets, U-turns already out of control; 156 more trucks trips daily; if low on fuel, the trucks would go to the nearby gas station to refuel. Thought the trucks were killing their property values. There had been diesel spills from the gas station down to Main Street. Fire Department puts sand on it. A motomyclist had gotten into the diesel fuel and had an accident. Main Street will be even more dangerous. Frederick G. Payea, Jr., 1641 Hilltop Dr., opposed because plant would be close to residential neighborhood. Why not locate it near the dump on Main Street. It would bring odors, vermin, rats, rodents, flies. R. L. Boyd, 1575 Hilltop Dr., reiterated other comments; concerned about diesel fumes; parking across the street; three schools within five block area of plant; children's safety; extremely dangerous; that part of C.V. is being made into a slum with this action; already have two half-way houses in the area. It's enough. Time to change things. Patty Diaz, 231 Date St., concerned that traffic is already bad from Nelson Sloan and Laidlaw; new bus lane in front of their business on Mace; 40 mph traffic on Main; pollution. Ulysses Gonzales, 1605 Hilltop Dr., said that placing the project would be detrimental to the community. There were three schools in the area and there would be more traffic, there had PC Minutes -4- August 14, 1996 been a shooting on Hilltop in his driveway. Hilltop was very close to main and that traffic would eventually go up Hilltop. He would not want his children walking down any street with trash trucks, etc., that could possibly harm them. He thought it was a bad plan. He thought it should be placed near the dump on Main Street past 1-805. Ana Maldonado, 169 Date St., was concerned about the traffic, speed of traffic, proximity of schools, flies, the water already smells, and the project would not be good for the community. Fausto Maldonado, 169 Date St., said he was opposed to this plan. He could see why they were having problems with the environmental plan. The speakers had talked about their concerns with the children. The river could be affected. They had been promised a park behind them. They had seen no evidence of that. The traffic was bad. There should be a stop sign on the exit from Date onto Main, because Main became a hill between Melrose and Hilltop and the trucks and cars go very fast. On Date and Otay Valley Road, there had been dozens of accidents because they don't see the post. That had never been changed. The field was not developed, and could be a two-way road. They did not even have a sidewalk. He was concerned that Otay Elementary School would be too close to the plant. He thought it would be better as a park, or somewhere for the children to play. B. Rosie Bystrak, 24 Tourmaline St., stated that her back yard faced Main Street. They have a problem at night when they hear the semi trucks that honk to warn people they were going through the light because they couldn't stop. She has also heard the screech and bang when someone did not stop. She wanted to know where the trash would come from, where it would go, why must it stop there if it was a transfer. It was in close proximity to their neighborhood. They already have mice and bugs, a sulfur smell when it is humid and hazed. To have a dump site would make it worse. She wanted some explanations. She wanted her neighborhood protected. John Arinas, 375 Date Street, lives east of the site, and said he had not gotten notice until the first of August. He had collected signatures but would bring more to the next meeting. People in the area of Date and Palm were not aware of it. They had questions regarding health, environment, rodents. With the amphitheater, the water park, and the whitewater, he did not think this trash site would not be appropriate. The recycling place made it easier to put this trash place in. He believed the transfer should be east by the trash dump site. If the City wanted this community as promised to them when they annexed to the City in 1986, he believed the City should at least put in their streets, sidewalks, and parks. It seemed like they had to band together to resist the trash site. They had not received any paperwork until the last minute. He was definitely opposed. Sal Lukey, 1636 Jasper Ave., asked if on the 28th she could ask questions and to whom. Chair Tarantino informed her she would have an opportunity to speak during the public hearing, and staff or the applicant could answer her questions. PC Minutes -5- August 14, 1996 Assistant Planning Director Lee pointed out that Martin Miller was the project planner and anyone who had questions before the 28th could call Martin at 691-5101 and he would try to answer their questions. Or if they needed research that staff could assist on, staff would try to accommodate them. He noted that the staff report would be ready on Thursday, August 22. If anyone would like a copy, they could call Nancy Ripley at the same number and leave a message to get a copy mailed or to pick up a copy. Ms. Bystrak returned to the podium to ask if notices did not have to go to all residents. She made copies and passed the word around. She asked staff to let the people know the distance for mail-out. Mr. Lee said that under State law, the City was obligated to notify within 300 feet of the property boundaries of an application. By City policy, that notification area had been expanded to 1,000 feet on large-scale projects. Assessor parcel numbers were used for verification of ownership and residence. Both are notified in accordance with the assessor's records. In addition, in this case, there was a public forum held in July. The purpose of those forums was to have the applicant explain the proposal on a more informal basis to the public and give them a chance to ask questions. City staff are there to inform people of the process that would take place in the notification. Ms. Bystrak said that in the vicinity where this building was to be built, she thought the closest house may be 1,000 feet. Mr. Lee said Date Avenue was approximately 650 feet to the east end of the property. Everyone on Date Avenue should be on the mailing list. Ms. Bystrak said that those north of Main Street would not have gotten any kind of notice. U- Haul had gotten a notice, but anybody else beyond that point would not have gotten any. These were neighbors who lived just behind the area. She was concerned and had passed the word along. Mr. Arinas said that on Date Avenue there were only four houses connected to Date Street, where nobody had gotten notice. There were no houses around Mace. He thought the notification should be changed. Chair Tarantino noted that they could comment at the meeting of August 28. Mr. Maldonado said that regardless of what anybody said regarding the distance, once the plant was there everyone beyond 1,000 feet would know. They couldn't rely on luck to be at the meeting. They had to rely on people's good will to do something right. MSC (Davis/Willett) 5-0 (Ray excused; Tuchscher not yet arrived) to continue the public hearing to August 28, 1996. PC Minutes -6- August 14, 1996 ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-96-04; CONSIDERATION OF REVISION TO TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE OTAY RANCH SPA I, CHULA VISTA TRACT 96-04, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN PASEO RANCHERO AND THE FUTURE SR 125 ALIGNMENT AND EXCLUDING 288 ACRES IN ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 642-060-11 AND A PORTION OF ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 642-080-01 Special Projects Manager Jamriska stated that the applicant had requested revision to the tentative map to delete the portion of the area that goes partially into Village 1 and into Village 5, the West Coast Land Fund's collateral. A presentation had been made before the City Council on August 6 supporting the applicant's request for a continuance, and the City Council continued the case to come before the Planning Commission on August 14 and before the City Council on August 20. In addition to the applicant's request, staff was recommending two other alternatives--all of Village 1 excluding the West Coast Land Fund, and that area together with phasing lA of Village 5. There were nine modified and new conditions staff was recommending for the Commission's consideration to be added to the conditions on each one of the alternatives, as well as the second addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch SPA. Mr. Jamriska summarized the second addendum and noted that the Environmental Review Coordinator had concluded that the proposed revised project, as well as the alternatives considered, would not require the preparation of any further environmental documentation because the project would have fewer and less severe environmental impacts due to the reduced scope; and all necessary public facilities would continue to be provided on an as-needed basis. Senior Planner Rosaler stated that there were three issues that staff identified during the technical committee's review of the project which dealt with the implications of deleting 288 acres out of the center of the previous tentative map, gated neighborhoods, and access to the EastLake triangular parcel to the east of Village 5. The technical committee had several concerns dealing with the flexibility in Village 5 if the ownership changes. The West Coast Land Fund had indicated that they were not satisfied with the village design of the village core for Village 5 and would like to see some modifications. If they became the future property owner, it would limit their ability to move land uses around if the Planning Commission approved the land uses on Village 5. Mr. Rosaler noted that this tentative map was the last discretionary action that the Commission and Council would take on Village 5. The next actions were final maps which were ministerial. If the applicant meets all the conditions of approval, the City must approve the final map. Staff recommended that that portion of Village 5 not be approved until the ownership situation was resolved. Regarding access to non-gated neighborhoods through gated neighborhoods, the property on the other side of the gated neighborhood in West Coast's collateral needed to have public access. Staff was also concerned about grading impacts where there would be a future subdivision. The City had experienced problems in the past with grading boundaries between two property owners. Police and Fire were still concerned about emergency access to Village 5, especially in neighborhood R33. Regarding gates, the City Council had deferred action until the tentative PC Minutes -7- August 14, 1996 map stage. Mr. Rosaler noted that, after staff had reviewed everything, they agreed with the Planning Commission's previous decision that gates should not be approved on the project. Mr. Rosaler indicated that staff was uncomfortable with the proposal for development in both Village i and Village 5, and recommended development in Village 1 only, approving 2583 units with the elementary school site, the park sites, the open space, colnmercial facilities, and community purpose facility sites. Staff had provided an alternative approving Phase lA in Village 5, which included 236 units on 55 acres. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map for Village 1 and recommend denial for the tentative map for Village 5, stating the reasons why. He noted the reasons staff would recommend was that the public and private services necessary in the village core were not provided in the subdivision for Village 5; additional flexibility was needed for the school park location; and additional findings in the City Code indicated that the impact of subdivisions on surrounding properties needed to be considered. Those throe reasons should be shown in the record for the denial of the tentative map on Village 5. Mr. Jamriska noted that in the applicant's proposal, as well as any of the alternatives, the issue of gates still function if it was the desire of the Commission to permit gates. Gating could be used in several areas to provide gated communities, but it may pose some transitional problems. Commissioner Willett questioned the impact on La Media and East Palomar regarding the timing of completion. Mr. Rosaler replied that the PFFP for the SPA had trigger points that identified when those streets would be needed. At 300 units into Phase 2A, the extension of La Media would be needed; Palomar would be needed as 2B developed. The trigger points would still be maintained as those unit levels are reached, and the improvements would still be required. Commissioner Willett asked if it depended on the center parcel. Mr. Rosaler answered affirmatively, and stated that if they were DIF streets, on the circulation element, and if Village Development was not able to acquire the right-of-way, the City had the ability at that point to condemn the right-of-way. Village Development would pay for the condemnation. Commissioner Willett inquired whether Paseo Ranchero would be first street and if they would both be on the same time phase. Mr. Rosaler stated that Palomar would be started during Phase 2B; he thought it was at about 300 units. Commissioner Willett asked if the Fire Department was satisfied with that. Mr. Rosaler replied that Police and Fire had concern, especially for access into R33. Staff was considering a condition that would allow them to use the sewer access road as emergency access into that portion of the project. There would be normal access off of Telegraph and Palomar with emergency access off the sewer access road. PC Minutes -8- August 14, 1996 Commissioner Willett concluded that in Village i, there would be no temporary access. It would still depend on La Media and Paseo Rancho. Mr. Rosaler concurred. Commissioner Willett asked if staff could indicate the phasing from west to east. Mr. Jamriska stated the phasing has not been formally submitted by the applicant. They intended to primarily follow the product types located within the various complexes. If the Planning Commission supported staff's recommendation, the applicant would have to submit a phasing plan to staff, because they could either come off of Telegraph or Paseo Ranchero. They were still governed by the trigger points in the Public Facilities Financing Plan, whether they get approval of the portion of Village 1 or a combination of Village 1 and Village 5. Commissioner Willett asked if the same held true with the building of the sewerage trunk lines. Staff answered affirmatively. Mr. Rosaler stated that they had examined all the master plans-- water, sewer, and drainage and had made sure that those facilities still could be maintained and services provided, and they all functioned with the West Coast collateral out of the tentative map. Commissioner Thomas noted that he was also concerned that the trigger points not get extended, but were able to be maintained as is. Regarding the gated village development neighborhood, he asked if that was in the proposal as being in the gated community. Mr. Rosaler noted that the non-gated area in R-12 would be part of West Coast's collateral but not part of the subdivision. The public access to that non-gated area would require public access. That was a concern. Answering Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Rosaler stated that one of the concerns of staff was that the portion controlled by Village Development was basically a large subdivision. All the support services were located in the village core in West Coast. By dropping West Coast out of the map, the Village Development area became just a large subdivision. Staff thought the core was necessary for the development of the village. Commissioner Salas asked if West Coast Land Fund had a disproportionate share of the public facilities, and if that was not resolved, how did that carry over with the Village Properties and how did they take up their fair share of the development of that. Mr. Jamriska replied that that was the key to the whole issue of staff's recommendation in that it was based on the fact that staff was not supporting the approval of the tentative map on the balance of either all of Village 5 or Village 5 excluding Phase lA, because staff saw that in the past West Coast Land representatives had made, on numerous occasions, petitions before this body as well as the City Council that they did have a disproportionate of certain land uses. While staff did not necessarily agree with that statement, it was the most ideal location for a village core regardless of who owned the land. Staff believed that if West Coast Land took ownership of the property, while the core needed to be retained and protected, there were some potential areas of flexibility of reallocating and relocating some of the uses. That flexibility would have to occur in that area. Staff was not abandoning the core concept of the neo- PC Minutes -9- August 14, 1996 traditional village. They needed the flexibility. The approval of the tentative map, together with the development agreement which had already been approved by the Commission and Council and signed by the developer, limited staff's flexibility without the developments' concurrence. Commissioner Salas said staff wanted to be flexible in order to shift the core so that the public facilities may be shared by whoever developed those parcels. Mr. Jamriska stated that the core had to remain in that area; however, the park facility and the school could take different configurations, and the multiple-family uses could be shifted. Commissioner Willett asked if there had been reconsideration for the core to go into Village 1. Mr. Jamriska stated that staff thought the core of Village 1 was not only properly located but the surrounding land uses were very appropriate to the adjacent land uses. He thought the pattern of the single-family areas in Village 1 of West Coast Properties was probably very appropriate and would probably remain the same. Commissioner Willett asked if any of the streets next to R12 and moving down would end up in cul-de-sacs or if they would be through streets. Mr. Rosaler indicated on the map which streets would be stubbed out and which would be through streets. There were conditions proposed by the Engineering Department that would require them to be extended through on the next project, and some conditions for temporary turn-arounds at the ends of those stub-outs. Commissioner Willett asked if the school buses would be able to go through. Mr. Rosaler answered affirmatively. Mr. Jamriska noted that those were some of the conditions that were recently added to deal with those situations. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Klm Kilkenny, Village Development, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, gave the history of why they were back before the Planning Commission with the tentative map. He emphasized that the SPA Plan had been approved by the Planning Conunission and City Council and was not affected by changes in the tentative map. All the trigger points would be enforced. When the point is reached that La Media is needed, the applicant would have to make the improvements even if someone else had the title to that property. The thresholds would stay in place. The typical process was to have the SPA approved and then come in with the tentative map for the SPA. They had planned everything. Now the applicant was asking that a portion of the plan be deleted; now asking for two smaller tentative maps. It was identical to the specific plan and all of the components of the specific plan remained. The major issue was the scope of the proposed tentative map. Mr. Kilkenny summarized the different alternatives being offered. He did not agree with the West Coast proposal. Staff's position was that they wanted to see flexibility regarding Village 5 land uses. The tentative map was identical to the SPA, and made sense regardless of ownership and collateral uses. There was development agreement, a SPA, an EIR, a PFFP on it and there was no need not to put a tentative map on that piece of land. The West Coast collateral had its fair share of schools and public facilities, which included 287 acres of West Coast's 1,000 acres. Mr. Kilkenny noted that they were not PC Minutes -10- August 14, 1996 pursuing the gates at this time. Village Development had no problem with the modified conditions. Baldwin Builders had requested in a letter to the City Council that consideration of this tentative map be delayed indefinitely until such time that a fee in-lieu program be prepared for the conveyance program. The developer is required to convey open space as a condition of each final map. For every i acre of development, the developer had to convey 1.18 acres of open space. If impossible to convey the open space because of ownership problems, then the developer had to pay a fee in-lieu so the open space could be acquired by a third party. Mr. Kilkenny noted that the program was in preparation between City and County staff and would not be adopted for several months. They could not wait until that plan is adopted. Commissioner Salas, regarding fair share, said that she was concerned also with that. There were some disparities. When weighing the percentage of public facilities versus number of acres, it did not equate to a fair share. Mr. Kilkenny explained, regarding parks, the West Coast Land Fund collateral provided too much park in the neighborhood parks and a deficit in the community parks which, added together, were perfect in the amount of parks they were providing. Village Development were providing 5.72 acres more parks than they should provide. The same kind of rationale applied to schools. He felt the CPF requirement was overburdensome on the collateral if another property owner took title to it. From a land use perspective, that was easily satisfied, because there were floating CPF zones that could easily be changed from CPF to some other use. Commissioner Salas asked if Alternative A was approved, the applicant would be able to build 2580 dwelling units. She thought the building of Village 1 would take a while and the land use issues could be resolved on Village 5. She did not see the rash to have to do Village 5. Mr. Kilkenny stated that they had an obligation to pay off a variety of lenders and the mechanism by which to do that was to sell land. The market today was for single-family detached, not for multi-family. So in using a number like 2,900, a good portion of which was multi-family, there was not currently a market to sell land and generate revenues to pay off debt. Therefore, they had sought entitlements in Village i and Village 5 to be able to move forward on the single-family detached where there is a market today to build homes and sell them to the public. Commissioner Salas noted that if the applicant was interested in selling the single-family only, in Alternative A there were 1,126 and in Alternative B, there was a total of 1,362, would that make that much difference. With Alternative B, they would be picking up only 240 more houses. Mr. Kilkenny said that under their proposal, they would pick up 900 single-family homes. Commissioner Salas concluded that the applicant was trying to get the map approved not to build homes, but to sell the land. Mr. Kilkenny replied that they were trying to get the map approved to do two things: sell land, and in the event they were unsuccessful in selling the land or in the PC Minutes -11- August 14, 1996 event they were able to sell land and generate sufficient cash to allay their immediate concerns, they also wanted to get back into the home building business. Their strategy had never been to get entitlements and sell land, but to get entitlements and build the homes themselves. Commissioner Salas was concerned that the merchant builders would not have any cormnitment to the village concept. Mr. Kilkenny stated they had a commitment to the concept, because the plans that the Planning Commission had approved were still in place. All those led towards the construction of a village. Their problem was that multi-family homes was not a profitable product to build today, and no one would build it until it was profitable. The ability to get to the core was a function of the overall market place; not a function of the scope of the tentative map or their particular financial problems. Mr. Jamriska noted that in that portion excluding West Coast collateral, the applicant did not provide a minimum 5-acre park. That in itself was not an impediment to the approval of the map. PAD fees collected as entitlements were given to the building permit stage, which then could be used to acquire an off-site park and build it. Mr. Kilkenny thought the park issue should be looked at in context with Village 1, which has an 11-acre park in the heart of it. In other communities, it would be equal to a community park, not just a neighborhood park. He emphasized that as they went along, they would be paying PAD fees, and it was not an uncommon procedure to acquire a park off-site. Michael Woodward, 555 South Flower, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, representing West Coast Land Fund, having distributed copies just prior to the beginning of the meeting, noted that their recommendation was a modified version of the staff recommendation. They had no basic problem with Village 1. They were basically in support of the staff proposal as a best solution, and he hoped that if they became the owner, they would be talking to Village Development. Their concern was that they had been shut out of the process. Had they been involved in the process, the issues of schools, parks, etc. would have been worked out. They were asking for the flexibility to let them come to the table on Village 5 at a future point in time, after they had a chance to resolve and negotiate with them. They thought the staff proposal gave them that flexibility. Regarding fair share, Mr. Woodward stated they had 44% multi-family, which was unmarketable at this time. It was those kinds of changes they wanted to negotiate with staff. Chair Tarantino questioned whether Mr. Woodward would accept approval of Village 1, or the approval of Village 1 with the development bubble of lA in Village 5. Mr. Woodward said they much preferred Village 1, so the neo-traditional project could be developed. They were not necessarily in favor of Sub-Area lA, but it was somewhat distant from their area. Commissioner Davis asked if the 42 % of the multi-family units in the West Coast Land Fund was actually in Village 5. Mr. Jamriska answered affirmatively. PC Minutes -12- August 14, 1996 Commissioner Salas asked if Alternative B, which included Phase lA, would affect anything in the West Coast Land Fund vestige, except the possible sale of multi-family homes if more single-family homes were on the market. Mr. Woodward stated that was possible, but they were in Phase 3 in the phasing plan. Commissioner Thomas noted that it was hard to concentrate on what was being said when they had items to read which had been put on the dais just before the meeting. Mr. Woodward apologized for the lateness of the information. Bill Brasher, 17550 Gillette Avenue, Irvine, CA, representing Baldwin Builders, stated that several months before they had become aware of a fee-in-lieu provision for dedication, and had requested a continuance. The major portion of the open space preserve to be dedicated for the benefit of SPA I came from Baldwin Builders property. They had sought to find out the amount of the fee and the conditions, which did not exist. They were ready to meet to get that finalized as quickly as possible. They were interested in buying Village 1, but they needed to know what fees were to be paid in lieu of dedication of land. That would be fairly significant. They did not want to extend the item indefinitely, but wanted to get that part of the equation finished. Mr. Jamriska, regarding the in-lieu fee, stated that a meeting had been held about a month before with City and County staff, together with the principals of the property owners involved with the western parcel. There had been a subsequent meeting with City and County staff and had another scheduled for the next day. Them were issues relating to nexus, process and procedures, determining the appropriate criteria to utilize in trying to designate lands that would be required, the role and relationship of the preserve owner/manager, and how to determine value that is fair and equitable. It would require additional research and would take three to four months before an ordinance would be before the Planning Commission. Bruce Sloan, 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100, Chula Vista, representing EastLake Development Company, stated EastLake Development was the entitlement manager for the property directly to the east of parcel iA, commonly referred to as the triangular pamel. It was acquired by the underlying property owner which is a trust. He spoke of the ingress and egress from the property, and noted that the property owner preferred to approach the City regarding a mid- block intersection, which would be a freeway intersection centered on that parcel. Public Works was generally opposed to those types of intersections; however, staff thought it might facilitate traffic flow. (Commissioner Tuchscher arrived at this time - 9:00 p.m.) Commissioner Davis asked if when they acquired the triangular piece of land, was it always going to be a right-mm out and never allowed to be an intersection. Mr. Sloan said that was not considered at the time they acquired that piece of land. He gave some history of the trade of that land with Baldwin. PC Minutes -13- August 14, 1996 Commissioner Davis asked if the value involved in the trade have been reflected in that position of being a right-mm only. Mr. Sloan answered that the trade was structured to be an acre-for- acre trade. There was never really a discussion between the parties about valuing the acreage. Mr. Jamriska stated that subsequent meetings had occurred since the report had been prepared the previous Friday, and he concurred with Mr. Sloan that the report that would be going to City Council had deleted all references to the discussion of EastLake getting access to and through Phase lA. Relating to the issue of the signalized intersection, there were statements made in the report to the City Council that reflected that the signalized intersection would improve the traffic flow if certain timing considerations, etc. were implemented. This had now become a non-issue as it related to the Otay Ranch project. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tuchscher apologized for being late. He asked the City Attorney his options relative to participation in the decision on this matter, since he had missed most of the public testimony. Attorney Googins recommended that to the extent that Mr. Tuchscher had had an opportunity to review the staff report and would be able to take part in the discussions, if he felt he had a complete picture of the issues being presented, Mr. Googins felt he would be able to participate in taking action on this item. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the Commission could take a 5-minute recess so he could digest what had been put on the dais before the meeting. The Chair called a recess at 9:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Commissioner Tuchscher noted that he would be stepping down from the dais since he had not been available for the public hearing. Commissioner Salas questioned whether they needed to recertify the EIR. Mr. Googins stated that prior to taking action on any of the three proposed resolutions, he had some proposed changes that would reflect the fact that an addendum to the EIR was presented for the Commission's consideration. The recommendation would include recommendation for adoption of that addendum and recertification of the EIR. That could be done in one action, depending on which resolution the Commission chose. His preference would be for the Commission to make a motion on a particular resolution, and he could then fine rune it to make sure it included all the necessary actions. MS (Davis/Willett) to approve Resolution PCS-96-04 recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Subdivision Map for Village 1 and Phase lA of Village 5 of the Otay Ranch SPA I, and further recommending denial of the balance of Village 5 and deletion of gates. Commissioner Salas stated she could not support the motion, because it was her feeling from the onset that the Commission had to a commitment to at least one of the villages before moving PC Minutes -14- August 14, 1996 on and leap frogging to other developments. In order for there to be a buy-in to the village concept and to really make it work, they could not set a dangerous precedent of just doing single-family subdivisions. There would be too much pressure in the future to chip away at the village plan. Staff made a very good argument in that until the issue of ownership was decided that the City had to allow itself the most flexibility to work with the Village 5 plan. She believed if they adopted the recommendation of Commissioner Davis, that it would take away from their flexibility. Commissioner Davis stated that this was staff's Alternative B recommendation. She was including lA because she thought it was clearcut aside from the other land which was West Coast Land Fund. It would not be a problem for them to go ahead and start on that village also, to generate money so possibly they could buy back the middle part from West Coast Land Fund and make the whole project happen in the long run. Commissioner Willett, regarding the 101 conditions against Village 1, stated that they generally applied to Alternative B, Phase IA in general content. He did not f'md any conditions. Mr. Jamriska noted that Attachment 3 dealt with the conditions of approval for Villages 1 and Phase lA of Village 5. It contained all the conditions, if it was Commission's desire to adopt the alternative on the floor. Not all the conditions were applicable in each alternative, because the land configurations and streets were different. Chair Tarantino asked if staff's Alternative B compromised the integrity of the village concept in Village 5. Mr. Jamriska stated that would best be answered by the values the Commission individually placed upon the importance of the core. Staff believed in the village core concept. As it related specifically to lA of Village 5, he did not believe it compromised the development of the core in Village 5, because it did not really have a direct impact. It may slow down the development of the core in Village 1, because there was only a certain number of units the City could absorb on a single-family basis before they could proceed on the next unit. He did not see it weakening the core concept in Village 5. Commissioner Salas asked Mr. Jamriska if he felt in delaying the process of developing the Village 5 core, that would be a detriment. Mr. Jamriska answered negatively. He felt South County would have an increased demand for housing as the available land in North County became limited. Commissioner Davis felt the Commission was compromising in backing off and not approving the whole tentative map plan and doing the revision. She thought that was enough of a compromise and urged the Commission to move forward to give as much flexibility to the tentative maps of the Village development so money could be generated to hold the project together. Commissioner Willett, referring to iA, asked if the school district had accepted them coming on line, and which school would handle the overload. Mr. Rosaler stated that they would probably go to Olympic View elementary school initially, but when the trigger point was hit, PC Minutes -15- August 14, 1996 they would be bused to Village 1, until they got into phase 2 when the second school site was needed in Village 5. Mr. Willett asked if Phase lA would add to the trigger point for Village 1 to cause the elementary school to come on faster. Mr. Rosaler said it was added into the trigger points. Mr. Willett asked if that was on the same level then with the other infrastructure with the road coming in. Mr. Rosaler answered affirmatively. Commissioner Salas stated that she had listened to the deliberations of the Planning Commission and the additional comments of staff and could now support Commissioner Davis' motion. Chair Tarantino asked the City Attorney to give the Commission the necessary amendments to the resolution before they voted. Attorney Googins asked the Commission to refer to Resolution PCS-96-04, Village 1 in Phase lA proposal and make the following changes: After 4th Whereas Clause, add: WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that only the Village 1 portions of the proposed tentative map owned by Village Development be recommended for approval, or in the alternative, the portions of Village 1 development owned by Village Development and Phase lA of Village 5 be approved as more specifically set forth in the staff report; The Whereas Clause second from the bottom: WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed alternative tentative maps and determined that they are in substantial conformance with the SPA Plan and the related environmental documents; therefore, only an addendum to FEIR-95-01 is required in accordance with CEQA; Page 2 of reso - replace Whereas clause on top of page 2: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received and considered the second addendum to the EIR reflecting the deletion of certain portions of the tentative map previously considered and recommended for adoption by the Planning Conunission; Add Whereas provision subsequent to that: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered all evidence on the record which supports the recommendation for denial of proposed alternative tentative maps other than staff's recommendation; PC Minutes -16- August 14, 1996 The first moving paragraph should read as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council resolution adopting the Second Addendum to EIR-95-01 recertifying EIR-95-01 and approving staff's recommendation for tentative subdivision map for Village 1 only in Phase lA of Village 5 of Chula Vista Tract 96- 04, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Add the followine additional paragraph after above paragraph: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council deny approval of the tentative map alternatives which include territory other than staff's proposed Alternative B, based upon the findings and determinations on the record for the project. Chair Tarantino asked if the fact that Commissioner Davis in her motion had mentioned "no gates", would that need to be added anywhere? Attorney Googins added that the motion on the floor should also be considered to include all staff's proposed amendments to the resolution which were circulated on the dais for the Commission. He asked Mr. Lee to comment on the gates issue. Mr. Lee asked for clarification from Mr. Kilkenny if they were not pursing the gates through the Planning Commission or if they were not pursuing the gates. Were they planning to take that argument to the City Council? Mr. Kilkenny replied they were not pursuing the argument before the Planning Commission, but were still considering the option of suggesting to the City Council that a portion of the project be gated. Mr. Lee felt the Commission needed to clarify that. Mr. Jamriska had made a statement earlier that it was still possible to gate the development. As it was being offered by the Planning Commission, it was his opinion that the project could not be gated under those circumstances. Chair Tarantino felt the spirit of Ms. Davis' motion was that there would be no gates in the entire project. Ms. Davis concurred. Attorney Googins stated that the motion before them would not include any kind of proposal for gates, and that was consistent with staff's recommendation. VOTE: 5-0 (Tuchscher had left dais; Ray excused) ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTING OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE BALDWIN BUILDERS Commissioner Tuchscher rejoined the Commission on the dais. PC Minutes -17- August 14, 1996 Deputy City Manager Krempl presented the staff report, noting that on June 25, the Commission had considered four development agreements, and on August 6 they had considered a three-way split of the Foundation agreement. Those three agreements were still pending before the City Council. This was Agreement No. 7 with Baldwin Builders. There were no outstanding issues between staff and the developer. Mr. Krempl stated that the agreement included all the clean-up items and changes that staff felt were appropriate for the agreement to Planning Commission considered on August 6. He stated that the language in Section 11.2.4 regarding default provisions was the same as the language in the SNMB agreement and which the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council. In the second item in the agreement, staff had referred to the Baldwin Company rather than Baldwin Builders. It should be "Baldwin Builders, a California Corporation." They were also suggesting a one-sentence deletion in Section 13.4 in the Natural Communities Conservation Act (NCCP). That sentence was added originally at the request of the applicant, and it was now being suggested by the applicant that it be deleted. This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bill Brasher, 17550 Gillette Avenue, Irvine, CA, representing Baldwin Builders, stated that regarding the deletion of 13.4, recognizing they were creating problems for the other developers of the Ranch and that this was not in everyone's best interest, they were not requesting that it be inserted. They agreed with Mr. Krempl's presentation. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Thomas/Davis) 6-0 (Commissioner Ray excused) to adopt the Otay Ranch pre- annexation development as presented by staff. ITEM 5. REPORT: PCM-96-26; CONSIDERATION OF A POLICY DESIGNATING TIME LIMITS FOR SPEAKERS ADDRESSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Lee stated that at the direction of the Commission, this policy had been prepared and the Commission had been implementing it for the last several meetings. It proposed to limit the speaker time to three minutes with 10 minutes for group presentation, but still allowing the Chair the discretion to extend that time frame. Chair Tarantino asked if people who wished to speak under Oral Communications would still be given five minutes under this policy. Mr. Lee replied that the policy number 1 read that comments under Oral Communication should be limited to three minutes. PC Minutes -18- August 14, 1996 MSC (Tuchscher/Willett) 6-0 (Commissioner Ray excused) to adopt the resolution as prepared by staff. Commissioner Tuchscher stated this was a long time coming, and he felt good about the way it was working. Commissioner Willett concurred. ITEM 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-95-03; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 19.14.490 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE AND UPDATE THE REGULATIONS REGARDING HOME OCCUPATIONS - City Initiated (To be continued to meeting of August 28, 1996) Assistant Planning Director Lee asked that this item be continued until August 18, 1996. Staff was still working on this in-house. He suggested that the public hearing be opened, and if there was someone who could not make the meeting of August 28, they could speak. Chair Tarantino opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak. MSC (Willett/Davis 6-0 (Ray excused) to continue the public hearing to August 28, 1996. DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 7. UPDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS Mr. Lee did not have a report on any Council action being taken. Commissioner Davis noted that at the previous night's meeting, the Council had continued the development agreements. ITEM 8. TOUR OF SAN MIGUEL RANCH AT 5:30 P.M. ON AUGUST 21, 1996 Mr. Lee reminded the Commissioners of their tour scheduled for Wednesday, August 21, and suggested that they meet at the Buon Giorno restaurant at 5:30, with dinner following the tour. He asked if everyone planned to be there. The Commissioners indicated that they would all be attending. Staff will contact Commissioner Ray. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Willett noted that a public forum regarding SR-125 would be held the next day from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the Bonita Vista High School cafeteria, so the public and members of the Commission could see the various alignments and talk to CalTrans. Chair Tarantino noted that a League of California Cities 98th Conference would be held in Anaheim on October 13 and 15. If anyone wanted to attend, it would be on their own. Mr. Lee PC Minutes -19- August 14, 1996 noted that there was enough money to send probably two Commissioners to the Planning Institute in March, which would probably be in Monterey or San Francisco. ADJOURNMENT at 10:05 p.m. to the Planning Commission Tour on August 21, 1996, at 5: 30 p.m. and thence to the Regular Business Meeting of August 28, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy R~pqey, Secretary Planning Conunission (m:\homc\planning\nancy\pc96min\pc8-14.min)