Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/07/10 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, July 10, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Davis, Salas, Tarantino, Thomas and Tuchscher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Ray and Willett STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Special Projects Manager Jamriska, Senior Planner Rosaler, Associate Planner Luttrell, Environmental Projects Manager Monaco, Associate Planner Miller, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Civil Engineer Detrinidad, Landscape Architect Schmidt, and 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 MSC (Tuchscher/Thomas) 5-0 to excuse Commissioner Willett because of a prior coinmitment. Commissioner Ray had called from out of town to report that he would be late for the meeting and may not be able to attend at all. Chair Tarantino decided to wait until the end of the meeting to excuse Commissioner Ray, in case he was able to attend the meeting. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tarantino reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- July 10, 1996 ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-96-04: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 96-04, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN PASEO RANCHERO AND THE FUTURE SR-125 ALIGNMENT Special Projects Manager Jamriska noted that, through a series of public hearings and public meetings, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of SPA I for the Otay Ranch Project. On June 4, the City Council approved that subject to a series of conditions. Mr. Jamriska highlighted some of the issues remaining relating to the tentative map, many of which had already been resolved at the SPA level and some which would remain unresolved until the final map stage. He introduced Associate Planner Beverly Luttrell, who presented the staff report. Associate Planner Luttrell pointed out revisions made to the Planning Commission and Council resolutions being considered. Attorney Googins added a revision to the Planning Commission resolution to read as follows: "Whereas, the Planning Commission has previously considered EIR-95-01 and the proposed tentative map is consistent with the project described therein and creates no additional environmental impacts requiring additional environmental documentation." Mr. Googins noted that on the next page in the moving clause, which began "Now, therefore, be it resolved, the Planning Commissioner hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council resolution..." between the words "resolution" and "approving" the words "recertifying EIR-95-01" should be inserted to reflect that that is the Planning Commission's recommendation, that on the advice of legal counsel, notwithstanding the fact that the project creates no additional environmental impacts, that the EIR be recertified as being in compliance with CEQA. Associate Planner Luttrell gave an overview of the proposal, stating that it was basically what was approved in the SPA I plan. She noted that the proposal was consistent with the SPA and the General Development Plan in terms of both the land use allocation and the locations of the land uses, and all of the proposed lots are in compliance with the standards which were set forth in the GDP and the SPA. Ms. Luttrell stated that there were future reviews that would occur as the tentative map proceeded. Lots in SF3 and SF4 greater than 3,000 sq. ft. in size would be reviewed at a staff level, and all those lots in the RM1, RM2, and commercial zones would be subject to design review approval process. Additionally, all the uses within the village core would require specific site plan approval. Ms. Luttrell identified the issues that had been dealt with, most of which had been resolved. The first issue was the neo-traditional design concept implementation including the one alley product neighborhood that was to be provided in each both Villages 1 and 5. Staff was still concerned with the number of alley product provided. The issue was raised at a Policy Cormnittee meeting, and it was determined that should the applicant return to the City with a general development plan amendment to request a decrease in density in the core, provision of PC Minutes -3- July 10, 1996 additional alley product in that area would then be explored. A condition of approval had been added in that regard. The next nco-traditional design implementation was the provision of Hollywood driveways. The PC Regs and the SPA required that 30% of all the lots which were 60 feet wide by 110 feet deep be provided with Hollywood driveways. Staff did not feel this was adequate, and through the technical committee process the applicant agreed to have additional Hollywood driveways provided in lots 55x105 feet in width and depth. This would increase the total minimum number of Hollywood driveways provided on the map to 212. Another issue was affordable housing. The general development plan required that the affordable housing requirement for the Telegraph Canyon Estates be required in the first phase of the project. To meet this obligation, the SPA I Affordable Housing Plan required that 34 low- and moderate-income units be provided in Village 5. However, a prior agreement required that the requirement be met by the provision of a 3-acre site. The Policy Committee determined, upon recommendation by Community Development staff, that the 3-acre site was preferable and that it should be provided in either Village 1 or 5. A condition of approval had been added cover this. Ms. Luttrell noted that grading was extensively reviewed. In reviewing the tentative map, it was found that there were many slopes in excess of 25 feet in height. The developer stated that some of the slopes had been reduced as much as possible. All slopes over 25 feet, however, would be extensively planted with trees and shrubs similar to the slope planting proposed between the project and the Otay Water District parcels. Staff also looked at the grading of the villages, particularly the village cores. The Village 5 core would have some slopes higher than those in Village 1 and higher than staff had anticipated. Ms. Luttrell indicated the areas and the height of the certain slopes. Staff was concerned not only with the height of the slopes and the appearance of those slopes, but with the walkability of the core. Staff had looked at how to mitigate this and felt the condition of approval that requires additional planting on slopes over 25 feet in height would create an aesthetically pleasing slope, even though there would be a slope between some of the pads, the proposed streets, or the proposed sidewalks at a maximum of 6%. Ms. Luttrell noted that this would he similar to the slope of the sidewalk along EastLake Parkway from Telegraph Canyon Road to the EastLake High School adjacent to the shopping center. Staff felt that existing area was pedestrian accessible and that this range of slope would be appropriate for the core and, with the slope planting, that the slopes would also be acceptable. This issue was reviewed at Policy Committee and it was determined that the slopes were acceptable and that the costs that would be associated with increased grading to create a flatter pad area for Village 5 would really not be justified in relation to any benefit that might be realized. There was a design issue which was also analyzed by staff. There was concern regarding the appearance of the rear elevations that backed up onto Telegraph Canyon Road. The plans the Planning Commission received showed more side-on lots which were provided to break up what PC Minutes -4- July 10, 1996 staff felt was a linear pattern of rear lots and walls that would be visible from Telegraph Canyon Road. Staff still felt that the row of lots backing up onto Telegraph Canyon Road was a bit too linear and were requiring through a condition of approval that these particular elevations be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Regarding pedestrian connections at open cul-de-sacs, through the review process, it became apparent that many of the connections could not be able to be provided, since slopes were too high and the distance of the slope was too short to provide handicapped accessible ramps. Staff also noted that in other locations ramps would be possible. The applicant identified areas where steps could be feasible but ramps would not be possible. The issue was again discussed at the Policy Committee meeting and it was decided that in those locations where ramps were not possible, steps should be provided. Therefore, there are three situations that exist: no stairs being necessary and a fully handicapped accessible access either because of a flat grade or because it would be possible to install a ramp; locations where stairs would be provided; and where it was not possible to provide a handicapped accessible ramp or stairs in those particular locations where no access would be provided due to the height of the slopes and the short distance between the cul-de-sac and the abutting street. Ms. Luttrell indicated on an overhead where each of those conditions existed. A related item was to connect trails out to the regional trail and in Village 5 which led out to the regional trail along Telegraph Canyon Road. The work on the gradient of the connecting trails to the regional trail was also discussed at this same Policy Committee meeting and conditions of approval had been incorporated into the project which would allow widths of 10 feet and slopes of 10% maximum for these particular connecting trails. Associate Planner Luttrell stated that access to the Otay Water District parcel had been reviewed at the Planning Commission hearings on the SPA I. The Planning Commission had decided that access to Otay Water District should be for pedestrian, bicycle, and carts only with a provision of a 60-foot right-of-way in case vehicular access was needed at some point in the future. Otay Water District would like to receive vehicular access to their pamels within Village 5, so the proposal at this point was to provide vehicular access up to and just beyond the boundaries of those parcels and then provide the pedestrian access for the remaining. Ms. Luttrell noted that the final issue was one of phasing and stated that the Planning Commission's decision on the SPA hearing was not to approve the applicant's proposed phasing plan. The City Council, however, did approve their proposed phasing plan. With this proposed phasing plan, there would be the temporary access to Telegraph Canyon Road, as well. The phasing would begin construction of the single-family neighborhoods in both villages with the Village 5 core construction proposed to begin after approximately 1400 units on the two phases. Senior Planner Rosaler then discussed the issue of gated communities. He stated that the Planning Commission, at the SPA hearing on this issue, had voted to recommend to the Council not to gate the single-family neighborhoods in the two villages. The Council tentatively voted 3-2 to support the Commission's recommendation but at their June 4th hearing, when they took final action, they decided to postpone the decision on gated communities until the tentative map. PC Minutes -5- July 10, 1996 The applicant had proposed 10 gates on the tentative map, which was three more than at the SPA level. Previously, the single-family neighborhood south of Palomar in Village 1 was not proposed to be gated. Mr. Rosaler noted the areas to be gated, stating that two would be staffed full-time. Staff had analyzed the proposed criteria that had been developed for the citywide gated communities policy issue paper, and did not find any inconsistencies with the policies that were being proposed in that paper. The School District had indicated that they would provide school bus services to both villages with the gates; however, they wanted to make sure that the roads were built to City standards so it would support the school buses. In addition, they were requiring hold harmless and indemnification agreements and insurance from the homeowners association. Based on the City Council's tentative decision, staff recommended denial of the gates as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Rosaler stated that staff recoInmended approval of the Chula Vista Tract 96-04 in accordance with the attached resolution of approval with the conditions as proposed, and that the Planning Commission recertify the SPA 1 EIR-95-01. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned the total term in which this map would remain valid. Mr. Jamriska replied that the stipulation for the length of term of the tentative map was covered in the development agreement which is 20 years, as approved by the City Council and signed by the applicant. Because the tentative map was tied to the development agreement, there was no need to duplicate that provision. It was not incorporated in the conditions of the map. Commission Tuchscher asked if it was correct that Council took action to have this map remain valid for a period of six years with no additional discretionary approval? As he understood the action that was taken, under the California Map Act, a regular map was three years and then a discretionary extension for an additional three. The Council approved six years before any discretionary approval for any type of extension. Senior Planner Rosaler answered affirmatively. Commissioner Salas questioned the negotiations regarding more alley product types and if more alley product types were being included. Ms. Luttrell stated that was actually the Hollywood driveways. Commissioner Salas asked if staff had been able to negotiate more alley product? Ms. Luttrell answered negatively due to the grades of the area being suggested. The applicant's engineer felt that the required grades needed to be flatter than they were proposing, so they did not feel they were able to provide any more alley product. Policy Committee made the determination that at some point in the future if they came back to try to amend the general development plan to get a reduction in density, that staff look at providing alley product in the core in the future. PC Minutes -6- July 10, 1996 Commissioner Salas did not understand how that would result in a reduction in the density, since the alley product was one of the higher densities. Ms. Luttrell replied that the alley product had a density of 10 dwelling units per acre, but the general densities in the core were much higher than that averaging about 18 dwelling units per acre. So they could get a reduction in density in the core by providing an alley product, and it would still have a denser kind of feel. Commissioner Salas asked if staff would allow the decrease in the density so long as it was an alley product. Associate Planner Luttrell stated that it would be possible, but staff was not quite that strong in the decision. Commissioner Tuchscher asked for clarification if that type of decrease in density would come back before the Commission? Ms. Luttrell answered that it would be a general development plan amendment, as well, and should come before them. Commissioner Salas, regarding gated communities, noted that the Planning Commissioners were previously opposed to the concept of so many gates in the coinmunity, and she wanted to make it known that she still opposed it. She believed that the number of houses behind the gates was unacceptable. Commissioner Thomas asked Ms. Luttrell to explain the difference between the ADA ramps and the stairs and why ramps could not be in both places. Ms. Luttrell noted that ADA apparently required ramps to be at 8.3 % maximum grade in order to accommodate a wheelchair, and in some of those locations where stairs only were being provided, the slope was too great to provide a ramp without doing switchbacks back and forth, so it was suggested that they could do stairs or no access. Staff and the Policy Committee felt it was preferable to have staired access rather than no access at all. Condition A, no stairs, is either flat where a ramp is not needed, or at such a gradient that a handicapped accessible ramp could be provided. Ms. Luttrell noted that in those locations where there were only stairs, there would be signage indicating that there was handicapped access out to East Palomar in a different location. Commissioner Thomas, regarding affordable housing, asked if the condition had been changed to be able to be met at a furore housing agreement? Ms. Luttrell answered negatively, and stated that the agreement would have to be amended in order to allow the 3-acre site in either Village 5 or Village 1. She said that was really the only amendment that has to come forward. The 3-acre site was a requirement. Commissioner Thomas was concerned about the word "future" on page 9, number C. He interpreted it as an already agreed-upon condition being implemented into a future housing agreement, which seemed to put the affordable housing back. PC Minutes -7- July 10, 1996 Senior Planner Rosaler stated there would be an amendment to the existing agreement on Telegraph Canyon Estates and then, prior to the first final map, an affordable housing agreement for SPA 1 would have to be entered into between the applicant and the City. So hoth agreements would reflect the 3-acre site in Villages 1 or 5. Commissioner Thomas queried whether it was being pushed further on down the line. Mr. Rosaler explained that staff would identify in the affordable housing agreement where that 3-acre site was. The tentative map conditions require that the housing agreement be entered into prior to the first final map. Commissioner Davis asked, regarding the manned gates, if behind gate 2 there were only 989 units? Mr. Rosaler replied that it was difficult to divide that neighborhood up, and so gates 1 through 4 have 989 units behind them. Commissioner Davis concluded that it was all connected; four gates for one complex with 989, with two of the gates manned. Mr. Rosaler said there were 989 units north of Palomar. Gates 2 and 3 were proposed at that time to be staffed. Commissioner Davis asked if gates 5, 6, 7 gated the same 364 houses, with none of those being manned. Gates 8, 9 and 10 gated 1198 units and two were manned. Mr. Rosaler answered affirmatively, noting that gates 9 and 10 were staffed. Commissioner Davis felt that was an improvement over the original proposal. She assumed some would be staffed and some would be mechanical, and asked if that was where more access would be given? Mr. Rosaler indicated that through the Fire Chief and Police Chief, it had been requested that the systems be redundant to ensure that if the primary did not work that there would be a back- up system that they can get through on. Cormnissioner Thomas, regarding affordable housing, asked if the names that were being used like the Baldwin Builders and Otay Ranch LP were all current and updated? Mr. Rosaler stated that those were the names that appeared on the Telegraph Canyon Estates Affordable Housing Agreement. It was a three-way agreement between the City, Otay Ranch LP, and Baldwin Builders. Commissioner Thomas asked if there would be a possibility of a problem, such as "H" Street and Hilltop, of not being able to widen the street and running into a problem that would never PC Minutes -8- July 10, 1996 be solved. He asked if staff felt there had been significant time spent to make sure that 20 years down the road, there was not another situation comparable to "H" Street and Hilltop? Civil Engineer Ullrich stated the projections were out to build-out. The build-out projections were for the entire South Bay area, based on the general plans that were already approved. If there were additional densities approved in other locations in the South Bay, the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego and maybe Chula Vista, he could not answer that, but historically, densities were actually less. As far as the traffic studies, there shouldn't be a problem. Commissioner Thomas stated that formulas that were used had obviously not worked out for a long term, so those had to change for the future. If the same formulas were used today to project 20 years out, the same condition would exist 20 years in the future. Mr. Ullrich agreed that that was possible, but based on today's knowledge and current models that we mn, it should be okay. Commissioner Salas asked where the 3-acre affordable housing site would be located? Mr. Rosaler stated that in the SPA 1 Affordable Housing Plan, both villages identified potential sites for portions of the affordable units. He noted both areas on the overhead and stated that those would be tied down in the agreement that would be done before the final map. Commissioner Salas said she did not recall if there was a discussion in terms of the timeline that the affordable housing would come on. Mr. Rosaler replied that in the report that staff is supposed to bring back at 1400 units, one of the items to be listed in that report is where the first affordable housing site would go and how it would be implemented. Commissioner Salas asked if the single-family dwellings would be built out first. Mr. Rosaler said that under the phasing plan that was proposed, most of the first two phases were single family. However, in phase lB, neighborhood R-21 was an affordable site. Commissioner Salas was concerned that after a neighborhood was built up and established for too long, to try to get the affordable housing on line would be protested by the people that are already there making it really difficult for that to get accomplished. Mr. Rosaler assured her that a lot of lessons had been learned from the EastLake experience, and both the Community Development Department and Planning Department, through the plans and through the agreements, were going to assure that the sites were there and that they have a program to build those units when it was appropriate. Everyone in the neighborhood would know that those were the affordable sites. PC Minutes -9- July 10, 1996 Mr. Jamriska asked if he could clarify two items. On page 14 of the staff report, under Item no. 10, Trails and Open Space, staff was proposing to modify the condition. It should read as follows: "The maximum grading for connector trails shall be 10%. Steeper grades up to 12% for short runs of 50 feet may be permitted, subject to the approval by the Director of Parks and Recreation." It had been discussed at the Policy Committee and that modification had not been done. Staff would recommend that. Relating to the question by Commissioner Tuchscher, Mr. Jainriska repeated that the development agreement stipulated that the term of the development agreement shall be for a period of 20 years. As it relates to the tentative subdivision maps, the tentative subdivision maps shall be for a term of 6 years and may be extended by the City Council for a period of time not to exceed a total of 20 years, and in no event beyond the term of this agreement. In conferring with the City Attorney and actually by the question by the Commissioner, staff felt that probably it would be better to tie the two together and recommended adding a condition to the tract conditions tying in the development agreement. Staff recommended that as a condition. The actual wording would be developed later, but the intent was to add a condition to the tract map that ties in the development agreement provisions. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Kent Aden, representing Village Development, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, stated that there were 141 conditions and they did not oppose any of those conditions. He focused his presentation on the merits of the project, with the exception of a brief presentation on gates. He noted the tentative map was consistent with the SPA Plan. In the case of Village 1, there were 1270 single-family units. The lot sizes varied from about 3500 sq. ft. to in excess of 8,000 sq. ft. There was an alley product in this area and some smaller lot detached, which provide a transition to the multi-family densities in the core. The project gets denser closer to the core. The structure of the plan which highlights the promenade streets, the Paseo, which bring the pedestrians down to the core area. The Village 1 core itself included the larger commercial area and the multi-family densities averaging about 21 units an acre. Mr. Aden said there was a "floating CPF site" and the intention was to allow a little creativity to occur later in terms of actually plotting that CPF use along with the development of the parcel. Within the core itself, Mr. Aden highlighted some of the features of the plan, including tree-lined streets, the main commercial area, the transit station across from the village green, the traffic circles and the accented areas occurring in the landscape. Mr. Aden noted that Village 5 was also consistent with the SPA Plan. He highlighted some of the same amenities as in Village 1. He showed the future village pathway connecting from Village 1 over a pedestrian bridges to Village 6, the transit station in the median which would add an interesting dynamic to the town square, featuring a bandstand type of structure, and then the commercial area surrounding the town square and providing mainly convenience services to the neighborhood. Diagonal parking would be provided in front for convenience with the bulk of the parking behind the center and not visible to the street. PC Minutes -10- July 10, 1996 He pointed out that another critical element of the plan had been linkages throughout the villages, and those were provided by a number of regional trails as well as the promenade and village core streets, and the challenge of interfacing the transit into the street system. Mr. Aden proceeded to give more design details, including landscape plans, traffic patterns, the potential for light-rail and use of buses on an interim basis. Regarding the gating issue, Mr. Aden reiterated that the City Council had asked that it be reconsidered at the tentative map level. The addition of three gates since the SPA Plan had been an oversight on the part of the applicant. There would be unrestricted pedestrian bike and cart access, no public facilities behind the gates, streets would be public standards, but maintained at private homeowners' expense; there would be a master homeowners association which would include the entire village. Mr. Aden thought the gates would provide a greater sense of community, with increased pedestrian activity and decreased vehicular use. The gates would reduce the City maintenance costs while at the same time increasing the tax revenues. He brought the Commission's attention to the Emerald Heights project in Escondido which has a singular gate entry staffed 24 hours a day serving 700 homes. During the peak hours, they leave the gates open on the exit, and they had not had any operational problems from the standpoint of the residents' use or police, fire, or emergency access. They had worked out agreements with the School District to come in and pick up the students within the community. Mr. Aden said that several comments had been made relating to whether or not the project as proposed being gated was consistent with the general development plan. They felt it was not only consistent but enhanced the goals of the general development plan, which had goals to create compact walkable neighborhoods. It preserves the product mix consistent with the GDP promoting a wide variety of product mix, maintains all the village core design concepts and outdoor spaces and enhances the pedestrian friendliness due to an increased sense of security. The applicant felt it de-emphasized the automobile, and that it was an auto-restricted concept rather than a gated concept. Mr. Aden stated that the project was representative of their joint commitment to the village core concept. All of the multi-family units would receive additional review through a precise plan and multi-family process. Even though the 3,000 units are shown on the map, the City retains discretionary actions over approving the design of those projects. He concluded his presentation and noted that he and Chuck Hader from Hunsaker and Associates, their engineer on the plan, were available for questions. Commissioner Thomas asked whether the streets, when built to City standards, would include light poles and the lights. Mr. Aden replied that it would include lights on the streets themselves. Commissioner Thomas asked if they would be designed and implemented by the City. PC Minutes -11- July 10, 1996 Mr. Aden said they would be implemented by the developer but to the City's approved design standards. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether there would be special light poles and light fixtures. He did not want to get into a situation where there were special products around. Mr. Aden answered that they had not gotten to that level of detail, which would usually come at the improvement plan stage. Any special design standard would only go in with the City's approval with Engineering Department's concurrence on that. William Lieberman, Director of Planning and Operations with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board, endorsed the tentative map submission and stated that they had worked many months with the City and with the developer to try to achieve a plan which would be pedestrian and transit oriented and could accommodate a furore light-rail line. He stated MTDB would not like to see a diminishment of the densities. They were already lower than what they would have originally liked. If there was a trade-off in densities from the village cores to alley housing, they would want to carefully study the locations of those to make sure that they were still within the comfortable walking distance of the transit station. Otherwise they were diminishing the return they could get from public transportation by cutting down on auto trips. They wanted as many people as possible to be close to the transit stations. Secondly, they were concerned about the gates; they did not believe they fostered a pedestrian or transit-oriented environment; they were contrary to the whole tradition of the neo-traditional planning by creating a feeling of exclusivity where there should be openness and inclusiveness. MTDB thought they created a psychological barrier if nothing more between the community where people are living and the places they are shopping and using transit, etc. Gating also cuts down on circulation of automobiles, which is another important part of a neo-traditional community. Mr. Lieberman said MTDB thought it would be too easy to have pedestrian gates added later. If light rail came in the future, and people are afraid of the crime that might be associated with light rail, it would not be difficult for them to come back to City Council and request that there be full gated communities. He was in favor of the concept that was presented in the tentative map submission, nothing more, nothing less. Commissioner Thomas concluded that it would be a minimum of 10 to 15 years before the MTDB got involved. Mr. Lieberman concurred. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that he hoped to have the light-rail system in sooner than later and urged Mr. Lieberman to be at the Council meeting when the tentative map goes before them. He thought MTDB's representation relative to densities would help them with some decisions. Mr. Lieberman noted that MTDB was in favor of the project in general, and they thought it was one of the better projects they had worked with in the County. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes -12- July 10, 1996 Commissioner Tuchscher applauded staff for their efforts regarding the stairs relative to access points at the end of the cul-de-sacs. He recognized the challenges associated with ADA and getting ramps versus stairs and was fully supportive of staff's position on that. He thought it was a big plus for the project as a whole. Regarding phasing, Commissioner Tuchscher felt staff's report to the Council had not been accurate in its statement that the Planning Commission did not include the temporary access to Telegraph Canyon in the recommendation to Council. The Planning Commission had specifically excluded it. Regarding the next sentence of the following paragraph--the City Council discussed the applicant's proposal and Planning Commission's recommendation at length. On this particular issue, the City Council did not have the benefit of direct input from the Planning Commission on this, nor were the minutes prepared and before them at the time that they made this decision. The Planning Commission had directed Commissioner Tuchscher, as Chairperson, to inform Council of the masons for our decision. He questioned the City Attorney relative to the tentative map phasing based on City Council approval of the SPA I Phasing Plan. Since the Council had voted on this issue, if the Planning Commission wanted to reiterate their previously taken position on phasing, how they could do that and whether that would be appropriate at this time? Attorney Googins stated that the Planning Commission could include as part of their recommendation that specific note be taken of the Planning Commission's recommendation on this issue. That would be an appropriate venue for communicating their concerns on phasing. To the extent that the Council had already approved the phasing plan, it would take some additional analysis by Mr. Googins as to whether or not they could reconsider that approval. If there were items left in the implementation of that phasing plan that could accommodate the Commission's concerns in that regard, the Council could take their comments into account in any of those implementation decisions and direct staff to take account of those concerns as well. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that it would be his inclination to reiterate through the Planning Commission's recommendation to Council their position on phasing and make sure that the package that goes to Council includes minutes from the Planning Commission meeting where this particular item was discussed so they could have benefit of the time and effort the Planning Commission put into this particular item before they act. Commissioner Salas commented that the Planning Commission had discussed the gated community issue at length at a previous meeting and gates really were contrary to the neo- traditional design. She was still not convinced that they would not degrade the quality of the village concept. She felt it would be too easy to abandon the village concept in the future. Commissioner Thomas stated that his opinion had not changed. He was against the gates. Chair Tarantino noted that he personally had nothing against gates, but had a concern about an entire area being gated. He would not object to certain pockets. He confirmed that staff's recommendation included no gates. PC Minutes -13- July 10, 1996 Commissioner Tuchscher said he was in agreement with Mr. Tarantino and in favor of gated areas and gated housing and would look favorably on certain areas of this project being gated, but not the project as a whole. It seemed to be an afterthought, and he was not comfortable with that many units and that many gates. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if staff had a slide of the grade differential in Village 5 and where the grade differential occurred. Mr. Rosaler indicated on the slide the areas. Commissioner Tuchscher was concerned that it was disruptive to the commercial area. Mr. Rosaler stated that staff had analyzed that at length. The commercial, the town square park, the CPF, the park and the school site were all basically on the same elevation. The elevation change occurred in the multi-family area on the south side. Commissioner Thomas noted that he agreed with Commissioners Tuchscher and Tarantino regarding the gates. He was not necessarily opposed to the gates, but to how they were being used in the proposal. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to approve PCS-96-04, the tentative subdivision map for Otay Ranch SPA I, as presented by staff. Commissioner Tuchscher seconded with the changes stated earlier in the meeting by the City Attorney included, the changes relative to the gradient of connector trails presented by Mr. Jamriska, that the Commission allow the City Attorney to draft some language which ties the tentative map to provisions within the development agreement as recommended by staff, that the motion emphasize staff's recommendation on the gates, and that the Planning Commission's action here reflects the phasing as directed in their previous action and staff include in the packet the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting where that issue was discussed previously. Commissioner Thomas agreed. Attorney Googins clarified that to the extent that the decision was made on phasing and this tentative map recommendation would really implement the previous decision on phasing, his recommendation in terms of phrasing that addition might be that note be taken of the Planning Commission's previous recommendation on phasing in that if there are any implementation measures in the phasing condition as expressed in the tentative map, that might assist in giving meaning to the Planning Commission's previous recommendation that staff be directed to do so. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if it would it be possible to add an additional condition on that particular item so that Council can consider that as a single condition item? Attorney Googins stated that his concern was that Mr. Tuchscher's recommendation might potentially be interpreted to be a recommendation that this tentative map be approved in a form inconsistent with what the conditions of the SPA Plan. PC Minutes -14- July 10, 1996 Commissioner Tuchscher noted that the Planning Commission was recommending to the Council, and Council would clearly have to resolve that issue before they were to approve this tentative map; i.e., they would either have to change the Planning Commission's condition, eliminate their condition, and/or reconsider the SPA approval that they had approved previously. He felt the Planning Commission would be forcing the Council to resolve the inconsistency at their next meeting. Assistant Planning Director Lee offered an alternative that if the Commission wished to approve the tentative map for the area west of La Media, they would only have Village 5 approved by this body or recommended for approval; therefore, they could only proceed to develop that particular area. In other words, the Planning Commission would not be approving the entire tentative map as submitted, only the area west of La Media, which was the phased area that the Planning Commission was asking the Council to consider. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if this item would be going to Council on August 6, and if the minutes from this meeting would be available for their consideration? Staff answered positively. Mr. Tuchscher agreed with Mr. Lee's suggestion. Mr. Jamriska suggested that the Planning Commission take separate action either approving or denying the tentative map, but then seeking action by the Council to reconsider their action on phasing. That would have to be done probably through a separate proposal to amend the SPA conditions. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned the City Attorney as to feasibility of that action. Attorney Googins assured him that it would be an appropriate avenue. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that he would like to take the consideration of the phasing first and then the motion on the tentative map. He questioned the City Attorney as to procedure. Commissioner Thomas withdrew his original motion. Commissioner Tuchscher concurred as second. Attorney Googins recommended the motion to approve the tentative map, subject to City Council consideration of the Planning Commission's request that they reconsider their SPA I approval in order to adopt an alternative phasing as the Planning Commission had previously recommended. MS (Tnchscher/Thomas) 5-0 (Ray and Willett absent) to recommend to Council that they reexamine the phasing plan for SPA I reflective of the previous Planning Commission action and that the minutes from the previous meeting of the Planning Commission where this item was discussed be provided to them at the time of consideration of the SPA I tentative map. PC Minutes -15- July 10, 1996 Commissioner Thomas asked staff if they could use a cover sheet on top of the staff report so the City Council would know the Colnmission's concern about the phasing and the gated issue, and so that the Planning Commission's concerns did not get buried in the staff report. Mr. Rosaler assured Commissioner Thomas that on the front page of their staff report, the first thing that comes in that report after an initial description of the project was Boards and Commissions Recommendations. Very early in the staff report, normally on the first page, the Council would have the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Rosaler stated that staff would bold that paragraph. MS (Thomas/Davis) 5-0 (Ray and Willett absent) to recertify the Final EIR-95-01 and the addendum for the Otay Ranch SPA, and approve PCS-96-04 Tentative Subdivision Map for the Otay Ranch SPA I as presented, including the changes stated by City Attorney, the gradient of connector trails per Mr. Jamriska, tying the tentative map to provisions in the development agreement, and staff recommendation on the gates. Chair Tarantino declared a break at 8:45 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:55 p.m. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-96-40: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A RECREATIONAL WATER PARK ON APPROXIMATELY 32.5 ACRES OF LAND IN THE OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK, PHASE II, WEST OF CASTLE PINES AVENUE IN THE IL-P (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL - PRECISE PLAN) ZONE - Hice Enterprises, Inc. Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report, using slides to indicate the area and the location of the proposed water park in conjunction with the amphitheater. He noted that the original 114 acres would be divided through a tentative parcel map into three parcels, of which the two northerly parcels would be under the ownership of Hice Enterprises, the middle parcel would be the construction area, and the southerly parcel would remain under the ownership of the current owner and would remain an open space lot. Even though staff believed the project was slightly short in parking, because it would be constructed immediately adjacent to the amphitheater, staff felt any parking issues could be resolved through implementation of a reciprocal parking agreement. Regarding traffic, the applicant would be required to be party to a traffic management plan. Mr. Miller noted conditions N,O,P,R,S had been added to the draft resolution originally given to the Commissioners. He briefly explained those conditions. Mr. Miller stated that staff had concluded that the proposed water park is an appropriate, desirable land use for this location and that it will cause no adverse land use impacts, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Resolution PCC-96-40 recommending that the City Council approve the proposal in accordance with the revised City Council resolution. Commissioner Salas, regarding water park operation, asked if when the hours were changed to avoid conflict with a concert if it would present a marketing problem, when the people would PC Minutes -16- July 10, 1996 be used to the park being open certain hours. How would they be notified if there was a conflict with the concert schedule and the water park would be closed? There may be people coming from far distances to use it. Associate Planner Miller deferred to the applicant, to be answered during the public hearing. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if there were any changes other than in conditions N,O,P,R,S. Mr. Miller stated there were some changes in the findings in light of some of the recent litigation regarding the amphitheater. Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff to in the furore provide a redlined copy of the changes. Commissioner Thomas, regarding the shared parking, questioned what would happen if the amphitheater was delayed and the water park went forward. Mr. Miller replied that the City had the option of requiring additional parking by the applicant. The additional parking could possibly go on the northern vacant pamel. He believed 150 to 200 additional parking spaces would meet the requirement. The parcel is not effected by the construction of the amphitheater. Commissioner Davis noted that the parking shortage was only 139 spaces. The water park had space for 1300 parking spaces. Mr. Miller stated that the amphitheater would draw up to 20,000 people in a very short time period, whereas the park would draw people throughout the day. Staff did not anticipate parking problems of the same magnitude that they would anticipate with the amphitheater. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Chuck Schrader, 440 "L" Street, Apt. I, CV, felt Chula Vista needed the revenue. Residents wanted more services with no tax increase. New large businesses would take away from the smaller businesses. A project such as the water park did not exist anywhere else in the area, and people would be willing to pay for it. This type of revenue could be taxed without people complaining, and is an ideal way of raising money for the City. Chris Bitterlin, Bitterlin Development Corp., 525 B Street, Ste D, SD, stated this project was family oriented, complimented the amphitheater operations, and would be an entertainment corridor for the citizens of Chula Vista in addition to the County of San Diego and beyond. He clarified that the season for the water park would be four weekends before Memorial Day, every day between Memorial Day and Labor Day, and four weekends after Labor Day--maybe slightly longer because of weather, but with an anticipated 120-day season. The water park would be a daytime use, with the amphitheater being almost exclusively a nighttime use. Answering Commissioner Salas, there is a condition in the Conditional Use Permit that the water park would close an hour and a half to two hours before an amphitheater event that would normally be scheduled for 8:00. Those days would be posted; it would not hurt marketing efforts. Most PC Minutes -17- July 10, 1996 of the people utilizing the water park would arrive between 10 and 12 in the morning and depart between 3 and 5. On the rare occasions when the water park needed to stay open until 10 p.m., it would not be on amphitheater nights, and ~vould only be for special events. Mr. Bitterlin pointed out that this was not sensitive habitat; it was disturbed industrial land. Traffic studies show that there would be an ADT count which would be 35% less traffic from the water park than from the same 32 acres developed as an industrial park, which was an approved use. Regarding noise, studies had shown that neither the Chula Vista nor San Diego noise ordinances would be violated. Mr. Bitterlin submitted and read a letter from Jay Marciano, President of MCA Concerts, who supported the project and believed it complimented the amphitheater operation and enhanced the area as an entertainment destination. The letter is on file in the Planning Department. He then turned the presentation over to Scott Farrell of Aquatic Design, who is the designer for the project. Scott Farrell, Aquatic Design, gave the background of their company, showing some slides of other facilities and noting the types of wave pools, continuous river, water slides, play structures, landscaping, and rock structures. He noted the rock structure hid the mechanical room and wave caissons, and stated they would not exceed 12 feet in height. He also said that the area had its own lifeguards for protection. He noted that some parks added theming, and they copied rocks existing in the area to make it look as if it were part of the scenery. Regarding the speed slide, it would be a height of 62 feet--45 feet would be natural topography. The Design Review Committee conditioned the project to allow 25 feet above the existing grades to allow the top of the tower to start. The slides would be generally hidden using landscaping and natural topography, allowing the person who was sliding to be seen intermittently. Mr. Bitterlin returned to the podium to note that the project would create 15 full-time jobs year round and 250 part-time jobs; there was a commitment made by Hice Enterprises to give every opportunity to the citizens of Chula Vista, the students of the high schools and Southwestern College to work at the project. It would create 112 construction jobs, with sales tax projected to be over $200,000 over six years to Chula Vista. The site is delinquent in assessments and property taxes, which would be cured by the closing of the transaction. There would be a City assessment on every non-taxable dollar that came in on admissions, parking, and tube rentals which was projected to provide about $870,000 to the City over the next five years. He noted the different organizations and City commissions which were in support of the project. Commissioner Thomas asked if the attendance and economic numbers on Figure 4 were referring to the first phase, or if it was at build-out. Mr. Bitterlin answered that the 300,000 was the projected attendance for year 1 with the development of all but two or three rides. PC Minutes -18- July 10, 1996 George I-Iice, 12961 Robleda Cove, SD, the developer stated that the numbers were based on a feasibility study. New rides would be added each year which would decrease the queuing time. Chair Tarantino asked if there would be in-out privileges. Mr. Bitterlin answered affirmatively. Commissioner Thomas was concerned with the aesthetics of the water park with some of the slides not being built. He asked if there would be open space in between the ones which were built. Mr. Hice stated that the landscape would be included and the design would show a complete build-out. They would use 24" box trees in the locations of the new slides, so that when it came time to build the new slides, they would not have to take out trees. The side of the hill would fully landscaped when the park opened. Scott Farrell noted that all infrastructure would be included, and it would be landscaped, graded, etc. and ready for the slide to be installed. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the rock backgrounds would have the same type of material as shown in the slides. Mr. Farrell said the rock work varied greatly. It would be a high quality rock work, but would be done through requests of proposals. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned regarding the 12' height limitation of the rock formation. Mr. Farrell stated they were asking for 13'6" because that is the height of the wave chambers in the back. Commissioner Tuchscher clarified that the applicant's proposal was 13'6"; it was not a limitation that the DRC put upon them. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the project was still in a sketch form, not in a solid building form. The DRC was trying to give the applicant the go-ahead with enough latitude and parameters set so they could come back to the DRC with specifics when they were ready. Commissioner Tuchscher believed they should be given the option of doing more if they needed to and should not be limited. Associate Planner Miller noted that in the letter resulting from the DRC meeting, it said "no single artificial rock formation shall exceed a height of 12' above finished grade and no higher than 15' above the wave pool caissons." Mr. Miller felt they had given a certain amount of latitude. Commissioner Tuchscher wished to see the applicant have as much latitude as possible, with no limit to the height. Commissioner Tuchscher noted that the slides showed a bridge with a waterfall over a river. He asked if that was envisioned for this park. Mr. Farrell stated they did envision using that type of thing to help with subtle theming in the park. PC Minutes -19- July 10, 1996 Commissioner Tuchscher asked if they had a theme in mind at this time. Mr. Farrell replied that at this time they envisioned heavy timbers and white water coming down the rock formations. Conunissioner Tuchscher felt the heavy theme was a big plus and urged them to use the theme as heavily as they deemed appropriate. Commissioner Salas, regarding the hours of operation, assumed that an event where they were open until 10 p.m. would be something out of the ordinary, such as a private party. Mr. Hice answered negatively. At the outside, the hours would be 10 to 10, with normal closing hours between 6 and 7, depending upon the response of the people in the park. If there was a weekend night that there was an event like a "girls night out" or a "guys night out", they would then stay open until 10 o'clock. Those schedulings would not coincide with an MCA Universal event, because they would be given MCA's schedule 120 days prior to opening. Commissioner Salas asked if MCA's usual performance was about 20 performances per season. Mr. Bitterlin replied that a real good season was 50 nights, projecting 30 to 35 in the early years. Commissioner Salas noted the special events would be something like a grad night. Would there be a point in time when there would be a conflict between MCA and the water park? Mr. Hice said the MCA could go as high as 60 days, but their season was actually running spring, summer and fall, so it would be more spread out. Mr. Hice saw no problem. Commissioner Salas asked about the new condition "H" regarding the security survey. With MCA, there had been much concern about undesirables and she thought the water slide might attract teenagers, etc. She asked if they were going to take a survey of what the crime activity was before they opened. Mr. Hice stated they had already met with the Police Department and had given them statistics from existing water parks in Southern California with respect to crime. The biggest instance of crime was employee theft. At the water park, with bathing suits, the people do not have much room to hide anything. They also check all parcels at the front gate. There was a problem in the parking lot as far as cars and breaking in, but the Police Department suggested they put in "birds nests" in the parking lot from which their security people could observe. Commissioner Salas noted that MCA was going to use off-duty police departments and asked if the water park was doing the same. Mr. Bitterlin stated they would use the police to the extent possible, but the other alternative was private security forces. Mr. Miller clarified that the intent of the security survey was that, once the facility was constructed, the Police Department would come out and look at the actual security facilities and make suggestions as to how security could be improved. PC Minutes -20- July 10, 1996 Commissioner Thomas agreed with Commissioner Tuchscher that the applicant should be encouraged to make a presentation back to the DRC for design review to be given more freedom, as long as it included the rocks and the waterfall. He also agreed it should be a theme park. He noted that at the Oasis, the wave pool was hard to walk on and a person could be cut. He wanted to make sure that would not happen here. Mr. Hice stated the Oasis park was one of the older parks. He noted that they roughen up the sidewalks to keep the children from slipping, but the pool surfaces are smooth. Chair Tarantino said his experience with gangs was that they were very modest and would be unwilling to remove the clothing in order to enter the water park. Commissioner Thomas was concerned about the insurance aspect. Mr. Miller replied that there was an indemnification as far as the City's concerned. The water park may have their own private insurance. City Attorney Googins stated that the indemnification provision recommended by staff was substantially similar to the indemnification obtained from MCA. The City did not require insurance or the naming of the City as an additional insured. Walt Fisher, P.O. Box 3666, CV 91909, thought this was an opportunity for the City to move forward and make the community a unique place to live. He felt the MCA and Otay Valley Regional Park in addition to the water park was an opportunity to create a family-oriented recreational destination which would be a great benefit to the community and the region, impacting the City economically and in reputation and note. He urged rapid approval. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was opened. MS (Davis/Thomas) to approve of Conditional Use Permit PCC-96-40. Commissioner Davis stated she was very excited about the project and thought it would be great for the community. Commissioner Salas supported the project and felt it was a wonderful compliment to MCA and would be of extreme benefit to the City. Con'nnissioner Tuchscher conunented that the action of the EDC should be reflected in the staff report when it goes to the City Council. He also did not see the height restriction issue mentioned in the conditions. He asked how that was handled. Mr. Miller replied that the height issue would be addressed through Design Review and not through the conditional use permit, as the conditional use permit dealt with the land use specifically. Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff, the City Attorney, and the maker of the motion if it would be appropriate to add that this body was not in favor of any height restriction on decorative, PC Minutes -21- July 10, 1996 architectural, landscape, or theme-oriented elements. Attorney Googins stated to the extent that it was a subject within the purview of the Design Review Committee and not the Planning Commission--the Planning Commission is not advisory to the Design Review Committee--he recommended that it not be included in the Planning Commission recommendation, but could be transmitted informally to them. Assistant Planning Director Lee felt if the applicant came back with a design that was in excess of that particular height limit, he did not see the Design Review Committee as not being receptive. They were trying to set some parameters with the information that was available, and once there were more final design elements, the DRC would be able to respond to that. He did not see that as an issue, and would make sure the Planning design review staff responsible understood the Commission's concerns and direction. Commissioner Tuchscher responded that he felt setting a limit with the information they had was arbitrary, and--to clarify the process--if the applicant were to bring forward the final designs and went to DRC, and height became an issue, it could be appealed to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lee answered affirmatively. Mr. Tuchscher encouraged the applicant to file the appeal if they had a problem with that issue. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Ray and Willett excused) ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-95-02: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A MUNICIPAL WASTE TRASH TRANSFER STATION AND MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE STREET - Sky Trucking (to be continued until July 24, 1996) Assistant Planning Director Lee recommended continuing this item until August 14 instead of July 24 because of additional information which needed to be reviewed. MSC (Tuchscher/Salas) 5-0 (Commissioners Ray and Willett excused) to continue SUPS-95-02 to August 14, 1996. DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 4. UPDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the appeal of the Coin Mart Jewelry sign to the City Council had been continued. PC Minutes -22- July 10, 1996 Mr. Lee noted that the workshop for July 17 was being cancelled. The workshop for August would be set for 5:00 p.m., they would meet near the site and tour the San Miguel property, and then return to the vehicles and go to a restaurant in Bonita. The Commissioners decided they would like to go to the Buon Giorno Italian Restaurant. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Commissioner Tuchscher questioned Attorney Googins regarding the MCA legal challenge. Attorney Googins replied that on July 8th, the Judge issued a ruling in favor of the City. There is an appeal period of 65 days. The appeal could be filed as late as the end of September or the first of October. Hopefully, it would not be appealed and the project could commence as soon as possible. Commissioner Thomas asked again about the computerized drawings. Mr. Lee informed him that it was an expensive process, but he has encouraged developers to use it. Since Commissioner Ray had not yet arrived, Chair Tarantino asked the Commissioners if they wished to excuse him. MSC (Tuchscher/Thomas) 5-0 to excuse Commissioner Ray because of business conflicts. ADJOURNMENT at 10:17 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of July 24, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. N~ncy Ri~ley, S~reta~ Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc96min\pc7-10.rain)