Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/06/12 Tape: 324 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, June 12, 1991 Public Services Building COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Grasser Horton, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, Fuller, Martin, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Associate Planner Barbara Reid, Sr, Civil Engineer Ullrich, Community Development Specialist Abbott, Assistant City Attorney Fritsch PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Grasser Horton and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARK.q Chair Grasser Horton reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meetings of March 27 and May 8, 1991 MSC (Deeker/Carson) 6-0-1 (Commissioner Tugenberg abstained) to approve the minutes of March 27, 1991, as submitted. MSC (Decker/Fuller) 6-0-1 (Commissioner Martin abstained) to approve the minutes of May 8, 1991, as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None Planning Commission ~2- June 12, 1991 ITEM 1: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR EIR-89-10, RANCHO DEL REY SPA III Associate Planner Reid stated that the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Rancho del Rey SPA III was adopted at the same time of certification of the Final Supplemental EIR on November 14, 1990, by the Planning Commission and in January 1991 by Council. The changes included in the proposed Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program included removal of all references to a specific EIR consultant, correction of sections inconsistent with the EIR, and more specific language regarding mitigation for gnatcatcher habitat. Additionally, the Commission had received before the meeting language including vernal pool mitigation and monitoring to be added. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt and arecommend that Council adopt the Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program for Rancho del Rey SPA III. Commissioner Tugenberg suggested that with the City moving east, the City should possibly obtain an additional monitoring station for air quality. MSUC (Fuller/Decker) 7-0 that the Planning Commission adopt and recommend that the Council adopt the Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program for Rancho del Rey SPA III. ITEM 2: REPORT ON AMENDMENT #1 TO THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, PRELIMINARY REPORT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-91-36 Community Development Specialist Abbott stated that in November 1990, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency adopted the Redevelopment Plan and boundaries for the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. He identified the areas to be added to the redevelopment area, and discussed the planned uses of the property. Chair Grasser Horton noted the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Resource Conservation Commission comments were not included in the packet. Mr. Abbott answered that the minutes were not ready, but on June 5, 1991, the Montgomery Planning Committee voted 4-2-0 in favor of the Negative Declaration and unanimously in favor of the Plan. The Resource Conservation Commission was scheduled to review the Negative Declaration, but did not have a quorum. Chair Grasser Horton asked about the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area Committee. Mr. Abbott replied that the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area Committee had reviewed the plan and amendment area on June 3, 1991, and voted unanimously in favor of the amendment area. Commissioner Casillas asked what had been the reaction of the seven adjacent property owners. Mr. Abbott explained that staff had been required under State law to mail certified mail notices to all the property owners, both in the larger project area and in the amendment area. There Planning Commission -3- June 12, 1991 had been no specific written or oral responses from the property owners to date. Staffhad been in contact with them, and they were aware that the area was being included in the shopping center development; Pacific Scene was in the process of contacting them, and staff would be discussing with them the possible purchase of their property and relocation. Commissioner Martin asked if there was any plan for Palomar Street expansion. Community Development Specialist Abbott answered that there were plans for widening of Palomar and for signalization along Palomar. It was being addressed by an expanded EIR to include not only the original area for the shopping center, but also the expanded area which included the amendment area as far as the corner of Broadway. Commissioner Martin suggested that Anita Street be somehow used to eliminate some of the traffic on Palomar. Mr. Abbott said that Jayken Way was being studied possibly as a truck route. It was possible that Anita Street would be studied in conjunction with it. Commissioner Martin asked how the City named streets. Assistant Director Lee explained the procedure. Commissioner Martin suggested that a street be named in memory of Mayor McCandliss. Assistant Director Lee answered that it could be considered in an area more in keeping with that. Commissioner Carson asked when a mechanism may be in place to require payment of fees over and above the State-mandated fees (regarding schools); had it been placed as a high priority, or was it on the back burner. Mr. Abbott said, regarding the project area, staff was in the process and had substantially concluded agreements with the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater Union School Districts, and also the County Office of Education that would give them some of the proceeds from the redevelopment funds generated by those areas. Chair Grasser Horton asked if construction operations were limited to weekday hours. Mr. Abbott answered in the affirmative. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) 7-0 to recommend approval of Amendment Number 1 to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, and certifying Negative Declaration IS-91-36. Planning Commission -4- June 12, 1991 ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-91-04 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EAST PALOMAR ESTATES, CHULA VISTA TRACT 91-04 - United Enterprises, Limited Assistant Planning Director Lee gave the location of the site and a description of the land uses in the immediate vicinity. He noted that each of the two panhandle areas would be required to provide three off-street parking spaces in addition to their two-car garages, and noted other conditions in the report. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions and findings listed in the report. Mr. Lee said that traditionally the applicant would be required to reach agreement with the Chula Vista and Sweetwater Union School Districts relating to adequate school facilities prior to approval of final map. On this particular project, the applicant would either be paying the school fees or participating in a Mello-Roos. Chair Grasser Horton asked whether "enriched paving" was decorative paving. Mr. Lee answered that it was to identify the entry areas as a common drive, and there was a variety of different types of material which could be utilized. In answer to Commissioner Decker's query, Mr. ~ said the maintenance of the paving was handled by the homeowners directly affected by that. Most of the area would be concrete except for the use of the decorative material at the entry. Commissioner Martin was concerned with threshold standard compliance regarding parks and recreation. Assistant Director Lee answered that the environmental review process reviewed the amount of park acreage in existence in a given service area. In this case, the applicant would pay the park fees which would provide community parks as opposed to a neighborhood facility. Commissioner Martin was interested in which park the subdivision would use. Several parks were mentioned; however, Mr. Lee said no additional park acreage would be dedicated. Commissioner Carson asked the approximate size of the lots which surrounded the project. Mr. Lee answered that they were zoned R-I, typically in the 7,000 sq. ft. range; however, there could be some larger lots near the end of the cul-de-sacs. In the project, none of the lots were below 7,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Carson was concerned that there was no condition regarding water in the Negative Declaration, on page 3. Mr. Lee said the project was located in the Sweetwater District, and Council had indicated they wanted staff to proceed working with the Water District to arrive at a solution, regionally and Countywide. Council had not proceeded with any specific conditions relating to the smaller subdivisions and individual lots. There had not been a fee established. Commissioner Carson concluded that without a condition regarding water, if a project was developed, they would not have to offset. She asked if a condition regarding water could be added, then removed if Council decided to proceed with a requirement for an offset program. Planning Commission ~5- June 12, 1991 Mr. Lee said an offset program could be implemented at building permit stage and did not have to be a condition of the map. Typically, a tentative map takes approximately 6 months before a final map is ready for recordation. Mr. Lee said building would take place at a minimum of 8 months. The water issue should be settled by then. Commissioner Decker asked if the Design Review Committee would insist on some form of xeriseape without it being a recommendation. Assistant Director Lee answered that it would be decided by the City Landscape Architect. If the Commission wished to have an emphasis on xeriscape in the smaller subdivisions similar to that which had been imposed on the larger scale subdivision, that could be a condition. Unlike the larger subdivisions, there would be more individuals providing the landscaping. Commissioner Casillas was concerned about the role of the City as a party to the CC&Rs. If the City did not have an obligation to enforce the CC&Rs as they related to ordinance regulation, who would enforce them. Assistant Attorney Fritsch answered that the City had a right to enforce them, but was not obligated to. She felt the condition gave the residents an additional civil remedy so that, if necessary, they could actually enforce the CC&Rs themselves, but does not detract from the remedies the City already has. The City already has ordinances speaking to those issues. Commissioner Fuller asked if, under the Negative Declaration, the applicant must agree to no net increase in water consumption or participate in whatever water fee offsite program the City has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. It wouldn't need to be added as a condition of approval. Mr. Lee said each document is reviewed at the building permit stage to see if they are in compliance with the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Don Ayles, ERV Engineering, 13260 Poway Road, Poway 92060 representing the developers, said it was their understanding that by the time building permits were ready to be issued, they would have to comply. They had agreed to comply with the ordinance in effect at the time. Regarding Conditions 'T' and"" m , he asked that the dedication to the City for street widening and easements be part of the map rather than a separate document. He requested that the wording "... or as dedicated on the map" be added after the words "separate document." Mr. Ayles asked for approval of the project. Answering Commissioner Decker, Mr. Ayles said they did not any object to using xeriscape whenever possible. Therese A. Petermichel, 1300 Park Drive, Chula Vista spoke in favor of the project. She reported some of the problems the neighborhood had experienced with the empty lot. Ms. Petermichel said the park behind the cul-de-sac was dangerous; there was a recent fire in the Planning Commission -6- June 12, 1991 empty lot on the other side of the park which she thought was probably the responsibility of the City. Chair Grasser Horton asked if the fire was because of weeds. Ms. Petermichel concurred. Commissioner Martin asked if there was a ball field, barbecue pits, or tables in the park. Ms. Petermichel answered that previously there had been, but not anymore because it was destroyed. Robert Spriggs, 7777 Alvarado Road #621, La Mesa, representing the developer and home builder, said he was there to answer any questions. Commissioner Fuller asked if the petitioners had been contacted and their concerns resolved. Mr. Spriggs said he hail responded to the petitioners by letter, and they were invited to come to his office. Mrs. White had come regarding a view situation, and it had been worked out. None of the other petitioners commented or inquired. Mr, Spriggs said he had attended the Chula Vista Elementary School meeting, and this project along with three other projects were unanimously incorporated into a special Mello-Roos district. Commissioner Decker asked if the alleys would be red curbed. Mr. Spriggs said they would be marked red and also posted. There would not be a homeowners association, but they would be maintained under a CC&R arrangement. The street would be maintained under a joint use agreement. Barbara Felvor, 1272 Pecan Place, Chula Vista said she was concerned about the density. She agreed that the empty lot had been a dangerous place for the children for years. She was also concerned about drainage and the grading. Ms. Felvor asked if the area would be fenced; if there would be access to the path just east of the development. Assistant Planning Director Lee explained how the area would be graded; the fencing would normally be left up to the individual homeowner. Ms. Felvor said the park had been nice at one time, but she had quit going because of drug activities. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Decker asked that the words "any developer-installed landscaping shall subscribe to xeriscaping principles whenever possible" be added to condition "c." Assistant Planning Director Lee suggested that the Commission consider adding language as follows: "Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall comply with any City or regional fee or water offset program that has been adopted." Commissioner Tugenberg asked that conditions be added to read: Planning Commission -7- June 12, 1991 "The applicant must agree to no net increase in water consumption or participate in whatever water conservation or fee offsite program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance." "The CC&Rs shall contain a provision prohibiting the parking of RV vehicles on driveways, front lawns, or on their property in any shape or manner, including all types of RVs." Commissioner Tugenberg said the City Council had a great concern that the RVs were destroying the appearance of the City, and the CC&Rs had contained this in most of the larger developments. He believed anything over 10 was a large development and the CC&Rs should preclude the parking of RVs on the property. The City would have a list which defined what RVs were. Mr. Spriggs returned to the microphone to clarify that the additional condition regarding water would be at the building permit stage rather than map stage. They preferred the building permit stage. Assistant Planning Director Lee concurred that the building permit stage would be agreeable as long as they entered into an agreement. Commissioner Fuller requested that the engineering questions regarding conditions 'T' and "m" be discussed. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich explained the issue regarding the easements and dedication on the map in lieu of a separate document. Typically, the dedication statement is signed on the map and the developer has actually entered into the agreement to dedicate so that when Council considers the map, it has already been granted to the City and the Council only needs to accept it. The improvements to be installed in the street will meet the existing facilities. Regarding drainage, it would be considered during the grading plan cheek and is very carefully reviewed to make sure there is no problem from that grading. Commissioner Martin discussed the various parks in the area, and thought the rough land next to Orange/Rienstra Park could be accommodated as part of the park for barbeques, etc. The plan was very nice, but he was concerned about an additional burden on Palomar Park which was already being used by an unwelcome element. He suggested that the area between Orange/Rienstra and the SDG&E easement be developed. Mr. Lee noted that in this case the applicant was required to pay the fees which would be used somewhere in the community, either in a neighborhood park facility or one of the community facilities. He asked if Commissioner Martin would stop by his office during the next week to identify the property and find out if there was an opportunity in that particular area. MSC (Tugenberg/Carson) 6-1 (Commissioner Martin against) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-35. Planning Commission -8- June 12, 1991 MSC (Tugenberg/Carson) 6-1 (Commissioner Martin against) that based on the findings contained in Section "D" of the report, recommend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for East Palomar Estates, Chula Vista Tract 91-04, subject to conditions 'a' through 'z', in addition to the following: Include in condition 'c' that any developer-installed landscaping shall prescribe to xeriscaping principles whenever possible. Add as new conditions: aa. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City providing for a no net increase in water consumption or participate in whatever water conservation or fee offsite program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. bb. The CC&Rs shall contain a provision prohibiting the parking of any RV-type vehicles (including campers, boats, and trailers) on any portion of the lots including driveways. Chair Grasser Horton informed the audience that if they were concerned about parks and wished to address the Commission, they were welcome to speak under "Oral Communications." She also noted that the City has a Parks Commission. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee noted the next session was the Commission's workshop and it was a dinner meeting. Different examples of grading and landscaping in the area would be presented. Commissioner Tugenberg asked that John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, attend the meeting. In addition, the June 26 meeting only had one item which Mr. Lee felt would be brief. He asked if the Commission would consider a 5:00 meeting rather than a 7:00 meeting. The Commissioners agreed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the City of Chula Vista recycled paper. Mr. Lee answered that the City was in the process of instituting a recycling program. Mr. Tugenberg suggested that a container be available after meetings to deposit the paper. Chair Grasser Horton asked if the City had a weed abatement officer. Mr. Lee answered that there was a weed abatement program through the Fire Department. He believed the area Planning Commission -9- June 12, 1991 referred to was within the SDG&E easement. The Fire Department notifies SDG&E when there is a problem. Commissioner Casillas asked for a copy of the report regarding generation of students. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:25 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of June 19, 1991, at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3. iqaney Ripley~, Secretary Planning Commission