Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/06/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:06 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, June 26, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Davis, Ray, Tarantino, Thomas and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Salas STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Acting Senior Planner Hernandez, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, Deputy City Attorney Googins PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. MOTION TO EXCUSE - Commissioner Salas was excused due to a possible conflict of interest. Her home is in the proximity of the project area. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Thomas/Willett) 6-0 (Salas absent) to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 1996. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- June 26, 1996 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FILED BY RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP FOR 156 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST 'H' STREET BETWEEN PASEO RANCHERO AND DEL REY BOULEVARD WITHIN THE RANCHO DEL REY PLANNED COMMUNITY A. PCM-96-05: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SPA III SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES, AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN B. PCS-96-06: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 156 ACRES AT THE RANCHO DEL REY SPA III, CHULA VISTA TRACT 96-06 Commissioner Davis abstained from this item because of a relationship with McMillin Realty and to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Acting Senior Planner Hernandez presented the staff report, and noted that the SPA amendment was in substantial compliance with the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and with the small lot development criteria established by the City's Design Manual. Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions listed in the resolution. Commissioner Willett asked if the unresolved issue on Study B superseded Exhibit J. Mr. Hernandez answered negatively. He stated that in the staff report, it had been reported that they had not been able to resolve the design of the area that contained lots 45 to 65, and that they were suggesting an alternative design that was included in the packet. After the reports had been delivered, the applicant had submitted a sketch that was similar to the one staff recommended; therefore, staff was in concurrence with the applicant's sketch and recommended approval of that design. Commissioner Willett, regarding a 4' landscape transition which was to exist between a wall and a fence, asked who would maintain it and how it would be accessed. Mr. Hemandez replied that typically when the wall is to delineate the property line and the landscaping is between the right-of-way and the wall, those landscaped strips become a part of an maintenance district. Mr. Lee explained that when there is retaining wall of 4' or 5' in height, and a 5' or 6' high fence is placed on top, it would be a barrier that is out of scale. The applicant had been asked to provide an offset between the retaining wall and the fence itself, so there would be a landscaped break between the two. Commissioner Willett asked if the 10-acre public park had been accepted by the Parks & Recreation Department. PC Minutes -3- June 26, 1996 Mr. Hernandez stated it had not yet been dedicated to the City, because development had not gone that far. An additional 2 acres would be provided either by paying the fees or adding additional amenities to the park. Mr. Lee noted that as the subdivision activity progressed in the area, the public facilities document controlled the timing in terms of dedication and construction. Conunissioner Willett questioned the impact on the elementary school. He asked if some of the students would be going to Chula Vista Hills. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that the response received from the Chula Vista Elementary School District indicated that it was in a community facilities district and Rancho del Rey would be required to pay the annual fee. The District could serve the property with existing proposed sites. They did not specify which school the children would be utilizing. Commissioner Willett noted that most of them would probably go to Chula Vista Hills, which was already above maximum. Mr. Reid stated it would be the District's decision as to where the children would go. Commissioner Ray asked why a retirement community could not exist there. Why was it too small? Who was contacted as to why the parcel would not work as a retirement community. He asked for some background from staff. Mr. Hernandez deferred the question to the applicant who did the research. He felt it had to do with the Fair Housing Act. Commissioner Ray asked if there would have to be a parcel somewhere else, to provide a facility the City had envisioned would have been on this parcel. Mr. Lee stated that there had been some initial discussion on several of the villages in Otay Ranch as potentially offering a chance for that to occur. The applicant had contacted a number of the firms that build these types of facilities in an attempt to entice one to come to this particular site. Because of the size and configuration, it did not work. There were opportunities within Otay Ranch because of the land available and the size, or possibly the next phase of EastLake. Commissioner Ray questioned whether there was a requirement for the City to dedicate a portion of land for a facility such as this, or is this strictly up to the developer or the builder. Is there some state or federal mandate. Mr. Lee stated that was not a mandate. The City tried to provide a mixture of housing, and expected those to occur in the new communities. Commissioner Ray asked if it was economy driven. Mr. Lee concurred. PC Minutes -4- June 26, 1996 Chair Tuchscher noted there was a significant difference in assisted living or congregate care and what was envisioned as a specialty housing project for retirees. It was a focused marketing effort. Commissioner Tarantino noted that a retirement community would necessitate single-story as opposed to two-story. If so, it would need a bigger footprint and, therefore, more area. He commended McMillin for the trail system and open space. Commissioner Willett, referring to the conditions of approval, asked if there was a setback from East "H" Street of 80 feet. Mr. Hernandez explained that the 10' separation was from the face of curb of East "H" Street. The 40' is the minimum width of the 80' strip of landscape. Both sides of the trail would be landscaped. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Donna Mallen, 693 East "J" Street, CV, lived above the site. She did not oppose the project, but wanted the natural vegetation preserved as much as possible, and hoped there would be less grading on the site. She was also concerned about how the City preserved the open space. She wanted to see more responsible follow-through. Assistant Planning Director Lee indicated a fence and trail system located along the boundary which was the trail system. All of the natural area south of that would remain. Development is north of that area. The applicant would provide a connecting trail system along "H" back to Paseo and the existing trail, plus continuing the trail to the west. Nora Forrest, 957 Chestnut Court, CV, was opposed to the single-family dwellings instead of the senior housing community. Thought it would bring their property value down. Bill Torte, 963 Chestnut Court, CV, felt there was very little concern for the homeowners; more concerned with the tax revenue. It appeared to him that the homes would be low-cost homes which would reduce the values of the existing homes. He felt the existing homeowners should be considered. He didn't understand why it was too small an area for senior housing. Thought it was economy-driven; concerned about the noise from "H" Street and impact on Chula Vista Hills Elementary School. The school is already crowded and they are trying to add two more trailers to accommodate students. Staff had stated there was no requirement for mixed land use, but Mr. Torte thought it should be considered. He asked if the SDG&E easement was being used for some of the environmental mitigation or if other land was being provided. Mr. Hernandez stated the SDG&E easement was not being used for environmental mitigation. Other land was being provided. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that when the project was originally approved, 360 acres were purchased by McMillin in O'Neill Canyon south of the Otay Valley area to mitigate for the impacts by this project. PC Minutes -5- June 26, 1996 Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hoover Avenue, NC, representing McMillin Community and Rancho del Rey investors of the property, stated that other than one multi-family site, this would be the last tentative tract map in Rancho del Rey. In response to one of the speakers, he stated that the grading that had occurred to date was about 50% of the grading that would take place in the area. All the current vegetation would remain; there would not be any further native vegetation removed. The restoration and revegetation work that they had undertaken needed to germinate with natural rainfall. The Federal Government gave a minimum of 5 years to restore and complete the requirements of the permits. Mr. Fukuyama gave the reasons why senior housing would not be built, including the size of the property, which could not financially handle all the amenities that were required. All the builders contacted had rejected the proposal. Mr. Fukuyama stated they had no issue with staff's recommendation and requested approval by the Planning Commission. Answering Commissioner Willett, Mr. Fukuyama stated the future middle school would be located off "J" Street and Paseo Ranchero next to the community park. It would be a joint use facility with the school and the park. A joint use agreement was being negotiated. They would begin construction of the park January 1997, as well as the school. Both facilities would be open for use in September 1998. When the school was ready for use, the park would be ready for use. The park would sit for a year to allow the grass to mature. Commissioner Willett asked if this was in keeping with the City and School agreement of shared facilities--the shared parking that was agreed to. Mr. Fukuyama answered affirmatively. Mr. Fukuyama noted there would be a trail from Paseo Ranchero accessing the park, as well. Regarding the type of housing, Commissioner Willett asked if Mr. Fukuyama would give him the sizes of the houses. Mr. Fukuyama explained the different products and their sizes and comparable projects. Commissioner Willett asked if the SDGE&E power line easement would be leveled and replanted as open space. Mr. Fukuyama stated they were proposing to install an open space area under the easement of approximately 1 acre. SDG&E, however, has stated that they may wish to install other facilities in their easement. SDG&E has approved in concept a 1-acre grassed turfed area with picnic tables and benches for children to play. There would, however, be no play equipment, and would be maintained by the open space maintenance district. Commissioner Tarantino thought there may be some turf and possibly a jogging trail, as in the Sunbow park. Mr. Tarantino concurred, although he believed it would not be quite as flat and would be more rolling rather than flat. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was a 10-acre park and a 2-acre park. Mr. Fukuyama stated the 10-acre park would be next to the school and would be known as Voyager Park. The PC Minutes -6- June 26, 1996 other park is on the SDG&E easement and was not included in the acreage. It did not count as park credit. Chair Tuchscher asked the square footage of the R7C lots. Mr. Fukuyama stated they were 55 x 70 pad. The average lot size was over 5,000 sq. ft. Answering Mr. Tuchscher, Mr. Fukuyama stated the average lot size in R7A 5,400 sq. ft. and on the duplex, the average lot would be 3,700 sq. ft. Answering Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Fukuyama explained how the duplexes would look and the location of the garages and the sound wall, noting the garages separated the two units. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Willett the capacity of the Discovery School and how close it was to the maximum. Commissioner Willett stated that all the new schools used the same plot plan and accommodated from 670 to 700 students. Commissioner Thomas noted that Chula Vista Hills was 100 children under maximum and questioned the enrollment at Discovery. Mr. Willett believed Discovery to be at the maximum, but noted they were transferring in from other areas. He asked Mr. Fukuyama when the houses in Rancho del Rey would be completed. Mr. Fukuyama explained that houses were currently being constructed. Chula Vista Hills, Clearview, and Discovery Elementary Schools served Rancho del Rey. In talking with the District, they were adjusting their boundaries in anticipation of Rancho del Rey as well as other enrollments being generated for the schools. The District seemed to feel confident they would be able to manage the growth being anticipated. Commissioner Thomas questioned Mr. Fukuyama as to the number he anticipated enrolling in the elementary schools. Mr. Fukuyama stated that the District used 1.2 or 1.3 as a generation factor, so with 400 units there should be approximately 450 students for the elementary school. Mr. Lee stated he recalled that the Elementary District used approximately .6, or approximately 240 students at build-out at the Elementary District. The middle school and high school were approximately .3. Both factors added together totaled close to 1.3. MS (Thomas/Willett) to accept staff's proposal. Commissioner Ray asked where the open space was proposed. Aside from trying to maintain a continuity for the open space and a greenbelt, were the areas selected based on topography or other factors other than maintaining the continuity. Mr. Fukuyama stated that when the specific plan was originally conceived the intent was to maintain the canyons and open space. Because PC Minutes -7- June 26, 1996 of the habitat preservation criteria, an agreement was negotiated with USF&WS for off-site mitigation. They had purchased 350 acres in Otay Mesa which had been determined to be of greater or equal biological value by the USF&WS, which the applicant had bought. They in turn had been allowed to develop portions of Rancho del Rey and maintain parts of the open space system currently designed there, rehabilitate and revegetate, and manage it for the long- term preservation of other plants and species including the gnatcatcher, cactus wren, etc. that currently reside in those areas. The selection then was based on amenity, environmental, and the land plan. VOTE: 5-0-1 (Sa]as absent; Davis abstaining) Commissioner Davis rejoined the meeting at 8:20 p.m. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that Commissioner Salas had called indicating that she lived within between 300 and 2500 feet from the subject property, and after consultation with the City Attorney's office determined there may be a potential conflict and, therefore, she chose not to participate in the meeting since this was the only item on the agenda. Mr. Lee asked the Commission to consider excusing her on that basis. MSC (Willett/Ray) to excuse Commissioner Sa]as from the meeting. ITEM 2. UPDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS Mr. Lee noted that the City Council had approved the budget. No reference had been made to the Commission's request to add monies back in for travel. The Council had restored staff positions in Parks & Recreation and the Library that had been proposed to be cut. Commissioner Tuchscher had informed Mr. Lee that an applicant felt a revision needed to made to the appeal form where the applicant was to state where the Commission was in error. The Planning Department has revised the form to simply ask the applicant to explain the issues where there were differences in opinion. Regarding noticing, Mr. Lee expected a report to be going to Council by the end of the next month. He needed to check with the Planning Director as to whether he intended to bring it back to the Planning Commission or the Council. PC Minutes -8- June 26, 1996 OTHER BUSINESS ITEM 3. ELECTION OF CHAIR/VICE CHAIR Chair Tuchscher stated that he was pleased to have served as Chair for the past two years. He thanked staff--Planning and Engineering, as well as other departments. He felt it was a good experience. MSC (Tuchscher/Ray) 6-0 to elect Frank Tarantino as Chair and Patty Davis as Vice Chair Commissioner Tarantino stated that he appreciated Commissioner Tuchscher staying on as Chair for two years. It helped to move the process along. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Thomas asked if it would be too expensive for McMillin to use computer design to show the Commissioners how the whole project would look at build-out. Mr. Lee stated it could be done, but it was not cheap. He apologized for the poor graphics. Commissioner Thomas stated that it needed to be clear and the streets needed to be identified. ADJOURNMENT at 8:40 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of July 10, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. e-~J~ (~ ~ y, Se~et~y Planning Commission (m:\horae\planning\nancy\pc96min\pc646.min)