Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/04/10 MINUTES Chula Vista Planning Commission Hearing Chula Vista, California Council Chambers 7:12 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, April 10, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Tarantino, Saias, Thomas, Davis, Ray and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Special Planning Projects Manager Jerry Jamriska, Assistant Planning Director Ken Lee, Assistant City Attorney Ann Moore, Police Chief Rick Emerson, Fire Chief Jim l-lardiman, Parks & Recreation Director Jess Valenzuela, Senior Planner Rick Rosaler, Senior Civil Engineer Bill Ullrich, Planners Beverly Luttmll and Julia Matthews OTHERS PRESENT: Klm Kilkenny, Rauie Hunter and Kent Aden of Village Development; John Mattox of Remy, Thomas & Moose and Tom Bandy of Willdan Associates APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of March 28, 1996 MSUC OVillett/Thomas) to approved the minutes of March 28, 1996. Approved 7-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Kim Kilkenn¥, Village Development, 11975 El Camino Real, Suite 104, San Diego, CA 92130 indicated that at the previous Commission hearing there were questions about the ownership of Otay Ranch and the Baldwin Builder bankruptcy and various claims of West Coast Land Fund. Mr. Kilkenny distributed a letter to the Planning Commission addressing those issues. STAFF INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Mr. Jamriska stated that the Planning Commission packet included a chart indicating Agenda Order, Current Status, Disagreements, Significance of Issue and Staff Recommended Disposition. He suggested the Commission follow the agenda as published by following the organization of the chart. Staff is recommending tentative decisions be made tonight because staff is recommending the Environmental Impact Reporl be continued as the Responses to Comments, the Findings of Facts and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are not complete. Commissioner Davis questioned tentative actions. Mr. Jamriska indicated that it was the Chairs desire that the Commission take tentative actions on these issues in order to move forward. When the EIR is certified at your next hearing, you can then ratify or change your decisions. This procedure was followed during the preparation of the General Development Plan. Mr. John Mattux (Remy, Thomas & Moose), legal counsel for the Otay Ranch project, stated that there were a number of issues that the Commissioners wanted to address related to the SPA. The discussion that ensued with Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - April 10, 1996 staff and Remy, Thomas & Moose had to do with the matter in which those issues could be addressed within the CEQA context. It is Remy, Thomas & Moose's recommendation that no final actions by the Commission, with respect to project approval, be taken until the EIR and supporting documents are certified. Thus, Remy, Thomas & Moose suggest that issues be identified and action be taken on a tentative bases. Chair Tuchscher indicated that he wanted to make sure that as the Commission goes through this agenda that the items are fully discussed and they have come to a general consensus and then they later revisit that and either ratify our decision, change our decision or modify a previous decision in some manner. Tentative action is a vehicle to do that. Commissioner Salas asked that the relationship between Action Items VIII and XII be explained. Mr. Mattox indicated that the component items of the SPA One Plan are what make the E1R. The Environmental Impact Report analyses the environmental impacts and the mitigation measures addressing those impacts associated with the SPA One for Otay Ranch. Commissioner Ray indicated that it was his understanding that the Commission could not take any action on SPA level approval without an approved EIR. Mr. Jamriska answered in the affirmative, from a final decision standpoint. Commissioner Tarantino indicated he would like to follow the issue order of the agenda by following the highlighted chart as Mr. Jamriska suggested as opposed to the one from Mr. Kilkenny. Chair Tuchscher asked Mr. Kilkenny to make a brief comment on his thoughts regarding staff's planned presentation. Mr. Kilkenny indicated that he and Chair Tuchscher shared some concern about the organization of tonight's session. There are a handful of areas where the applicant or some other party disagrees with the recommendation of City staff. He did not know that was going to be reflected in the materials provided to the Planning Commission because there is a listing of something like 34 issues, a majority of which there is no disagreement with Village Development and City staff, and he did not want to see the Commission's attention diverted to what could be termed as non-issues. So in response to that, Village Development listed a matrix which says, yes, there is disagreement or no, there is not disagreement. The Chairman saw that and asked that he forward it to all Commission members with a cover letter. He was fearful that some people might see it as an attempt on Village Development's part to usurp the authority of staff. That is certainly not Village Development's intention. Village Development's goal is to get through the SPA process in an orderly and intelligent manner as quickly as possible. With respect to what Mr. Jamriska has prepared in the shaded document, he certainly, from a procedural standpoint, would not object to using that as an outline. Mr. Kilkenny continued by indicating that one of the foremost issues is gated community. He had heard the Commission express concern about that and the phasing of the project. Depending upon the Planning Commission's decisions, it will affect other subsequent decisions that have to be made. Village Development would suggest that those major issues be dealt with up front and then the lesser issues be dealt with over time. Village Development thinks it makes sense to categorize these topics into major issues, minor issues, those items which have to be continued and those items which can be acted on in consent. Chair Tuchscher stated that Mr. Jarmiska was good enough to provide the Conunission with a chart which identifies the items readily. There is no disagreement on 13 items, in staff's opinion. What he would like to do is move forward with the regular agenda format that staff laid out. On the items where there are no disagreements, ask the Commission if they have any questions, concerns, problems, and then immediately move through those and bypass those areas of presentation from staff. Does that meet with the Planning Commission's approval? The Commissioners unanimously agreed. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - April 10, 1996 1 VIII. ACTION ITEM: EIR 95-01; consideration of action to certify the Final Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One and Annexation Dratt Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Addendum Mr. Jamriska indicated that the hearing on this item was open on several occasions. The hearing was closed on March 28, 1996 and items were referred to staff. Staff has not completed its deliberations on all the issues relating to the Findings of Fact, and is asking that this item be continued at the next available Planning Commission date. Mr. Lee indicated that them am four public hearings at the next regular meeting of April 24, 1996. May 8, 1996 is the next available meeting outside of having a special meeting on May 1, 1996. If staff could hear from Village Development regarding some particular date that works better for them, and then the Commission could decide if those dates are acceptable. Mr. Kilkenny indicated Village Development is very anxious to get this project considered in a timely manner and acted on. There are a variety of other pending actions that are dependent upon the SPA One EIR going through the process and being certified. The foremost is moving forward on the City's application to annex the western portion of Otay Ranch. The LAFCO Commission slaff has indicated they would not consider the annexation complete until such time that the EIR is certified, and then it will take 90 days thereafter to get the annexation to the full LAFCO Commission. If the certification of the EIR is delayed, then the annexation will be delayed. If the Planning Commission can find any time prior to the May 1 date, Village Development would appreciate that consideration. Mr. Jamriska concurred with Mr. Kilkenny in that it is not only a major goal but is what they pemeive as on the critical path. Until that property is annexed into the City, action on the Final Map and starting construction cannot proceed. Mr. Lee indicated that one option would be to certify the EIR on April 24 and come back with the rest of the action on May 1. Mr. Jamriska indicated staff would need an additional item besides certification of the EIR and that would be the zoning ordinance amendments and the pm-zonings. Those two items am key to the annexation application. Commissioner Ray asked, if the Planning Commission is taking tentative action tonight, wouldn't it make sense to make formal action on April 24 to ratify anylhing that the Planning Commission has tentatively agreed to tonight? Ms. Moore answered in the affirmative. Once the EIR has been certified, the Planning Commission can take final action on the project. MSIJC (Thomas/Ray) to continue EIR 95-01; consideration of action to certify the Final Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One and Annexation Draft Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Addendum and whatever documents have to trail that to satisfy LAFCO and move the annexation forward to April 24, 1996. Then schedule a special meeting on May 1, 1996 to deal with the SPA issues. Approved 7-0. llb:\SPASpc41096M.doc Plannine Commission Minutes - 4 - April 10, 1996 IX. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND PREZONES: IX-A. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 96-02; consideration of an amendment to thc Planned Community (PC) Zone (Continued from March 27, 1996) IX-B. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 96-03; consideration of an amendment to the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code to create the Public/Quasi-Public (PQ) Zone (Continued from March 27, 1996) Mr. Jamriska indicated that Item IX is dealing with zoning ordinance amendments that relate to the annexation application. Staff would consider Items IX.A and IX.B to be consent items and ready for action. There have been no issues relating to them, and st,~ff recommends the Commission rake tentative action at this time. Commissioner Thomas made an inquiry regarding the PC Zone Amendment. What period of time do those land owners have to m~ke that decision for zoning? Mr. Jamriska indicated any property owner can petition the City for a General Plan Amendment to bring his property into compliance with either the current land use or any proposed land use they may desire. Or, they could apply for rezoning at any time after it has been incorporated into the City of Chula Vista. Commissioner Ray asked if that was a result of the fact that the Planning Commission would be prezoning his property anyway7 Mr. Jamriska answered in the affirmative. Chair Tuchscber opened the public hearing for all of Item IX. MSUC (RayfWillet0 tentative action to approve staff's recommendation on PCA 96-02; consideration of an amendment to the Planned Community (PC) Zone and PCA 96-03; consideration of an amendment to the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code to create the Public/Quasi-Public (PQ) Zone. Approved 7-0. IX-C. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ 96-A; application of said modified Planned Community (PC) Zone by prezoning certain parcels of land within Planning Areas One and Three of thc Chula Vista 1995 Sphere of Influence Update, prezoning the Otay Water District parcel to Public/Quasi-Public (PQ) and prczoning the Nclson/Sloan rock quarry property to Agriculture (A) (Continued from March 27, 1996) MS. Luttrell indicated that the prezoning on the non-Otay Ranch pamels is a requirement of LAFCO and must be included in order for staff to complete the annexation application. All the property owners were notified by mail, and staff has met with most of them to explain the process. Shaft is proposing A-8 to prezone the existing Nelson/Sloan rock quarry, which is currently operating under a major use permit issued by the County of San Diego. This particular use, which is an operation, will be grandfathered into the City as a legal non-conforming use. No concerns have been raised in relation to the pmzoning of either the Otay Water District or San Diego Water Reservoir parcels to public/quasi-public. The remaining non-Otay Ranch parcels are being proposed to be zoned planned community. It is staff's intent that these parcels be folded into the overall planning effort for the Otay Ranch. The parcels in the northwest and southwest comer are located west of Paseo Ranchero. The southwest comer was one of the most problematic of the areas. This is a group of 12 parcels located in the southwest corner of Planning Ama 1. Staff is proposing to annex this into the City to avoid the creation of an isolated County island. IIbSSPA:~pc41096M.doe Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - April 10, 1996 They are designated as impact sensitive in the County's General Plan except for the southerly most parcel, which is designated Industrial. The underlying zone designation that will be applied to these parcels is Open Space, which would ensure consistency with the City of Chula Vista's General Plan. Stuff noted there has been some grading done on the property owned by Mr. Burns. This appears to be legal. Staff has verified with the County that there does appear to be a grading permit on these three parcels. Staff also noted there is a tracking opemtion located on the three parcels owned by Mr. Hofer. Staff has not as yet been able to verify with the County that this is a legal use. Based on this designation, staff believes that they are currently operating illegally within the County, and they would have to be annexed into the City as an illegal use which would fome them to become legal in some form or another. One of the options would be for them to apply for a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the parcels as Industrial. All of the owners in the southwest comer wish to pursue some type of industrial use on their property. Mr. Rowland owns the southerly most parcel which is designated as M-52 (Limited Industrial) on the County's zoning and would like to pursue Industrial designation if annexed into the City. Commissioner Davis asked, if the rock quarry is agriculturally zoned, what does that do to the owner down the line if he wants to sell it and transfer it as a working rock quarry to another business person? MS. Moore indicated that, as long as the owner did not expand the operation's use, it would be considered legal non-conforming regardless of who the owner was. Commissioner Davis asked if the owners who did not want to do this (Dauz/Groman) were the ones who would get to develop less? Ms. Luttrell answered in the affirmative. Comnnssioner Davis stated that there is a move afoot to appeal the County's Resource Protection Ordinance. If that were repealed, they still would not be able to do anything based on the repeal of that act? Mr. Rosaler indicated that, if the County did repeal their ordinance, it would be difficult for Dauz/Groman to develop because of coordination problems, topography and habitat. They would have to get permits from Fish & Wildlife and Fish & Game. Staff believes the policies proposed in SPA One will help comprehensively plan that area, and there will be some equity for the Dauz/Groman parcels. Mr. Gregory T. Smith, P.O. Box 2786, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 asked, why the agriculture zoning on the rock quarry instead of the PC zone that was used on the other parcels in Otay Ranch? He would urge a little broader view so that the rock quarry can continue to do what they have been doing and not have to move a General Plan Amendment through to make slight changes in their operation. Ms. Moore indicated that the A-8 zone was chosen for that property because staff has to live within the restrictions of the General Plan. The General Plan has designated that as Open Space. Chair Tuchscher asked if that property was still under long-term ground lease to Nelson/Sloan? Mr. Jamriska stated that it is leased by Nelson/Sloan from United Enterprises. MSUC (Ray/Tarantino) tentative action to approve staff's recommendation on PCZ 96-A; application of said modified Planned Community (PC) Zone by prezoning certain parcels of land within Planning Areas One and Three of the Chula Vista 1995 Sphere of Influence Update, prozoning the Otay Water District parcel to Public/Quasi-Public (PQ) and prezonlng the Nelson/Sloan rock quarry property to Agriculture (AS). Approved 7-0. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - April 10, 1996 X. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-09; consideration of seven General Development Plan Amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (Continued from March 27, 1996) X-A-1. Delete Village Master Planning for the Inverted "L" Mr. Rosaler indicated that the applicant and Cily staff are in agreement that this should have its own SPA. The Wildlife agencies are concerned that this piece would be part of the regional wildlife corridor and have recommended that it not be separated and remain in the County'. They believe that the development potential is less if it remains in the County. Chair Tuchscher opened the public hearing for all of Item X. MSUC (Ray/Wiilett) tentative action to approve staff's recommendation on PCM 95-09 to maintain the requirement for master planned villages but provide an exception for the Inverted "L" to develop under its own SPA. Approval 7-0. X-A-2. Delete Village Master Planning for the Area West of Paseo Ranchero X-A-3. Delete Village Master Planning for the Ranch House MSUC (Ray/Willett) tentative action to approve staff's recommendation on PCM 95-09 to maintain the requirement for master planned villages but provide an exception for the area west of Paseo Ranchero and the Ranch House area to develop under their own SPAs. Approved 7-0. X-A-4. Belete Village Master Planning for the Freeway Commercial Mr. Rosaler indicated that Village Development has proposed that the Freeway Commercial area of the Eastern Urban Center, Planning Area 12, also be included in this master-planned village exception in order for it to be developed under its own SPA when SR-125 goes through. Staff had difficulty agreeing with that because staff has negotiated these General Development Plan Amendments with County staff, and these amendments were limited to the three areas that stuff previously presented to the Planning Commission. Staff believes that the Freeway Commemial ama ought to be developed as part of the SPA for the Eastern Urban Center. Chair Tuchscher indicated that it made sense to him to develop the freeway commercial under its own SPA when SR-125 comes in because of the potential market demand. That puts staff in a position to m- negotiate some issues with the County, but it probably makes sense for the City. Mr. Kilkenny indicated that Village Development supports the provision that Village 12 be listed under those areas that need not be planned as a unit for a variety of reasons: 1) Planning Area 12 is not a village; it is a planning area. 2) Planning Ama 12 is the Eastern Urban Center and has the most intense uses. Many of those uses have to come on-line long before the development of all Otay Ranch. It was never envisioned to be planned and developed entirely as a unit. 3) With respect to the County in negotiations, he did not want the Planning Commission to be under the misimpression that the City and the County have to be in concurrence on this action. Them is no mqnimment that the County take a General Plan action on this issue. There was a staff discussion regarding this language where the two jurisdictions came to an apparent agreement. The applicant was not party to those discussions. When Village Development learned of the conclusions of those discussions, they expressed their opposition. Village Development agrees with the Commissioner that this is an opportunity for tax revenues for the City of Chula Vista sooner as opposed to later. llbSSPA:\pc41096M.doc Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - April 10, 1996 Chair Tuchscher asked for comments from Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee could not see any reason why the area could not be planned independently. It is not necessary to be part ora village. Commissioner Ray requested a 3 minute recess so he could look at the area in the November 1995 Village Design Plan and try to recall some of the Planning Commission discussions with the County. Break from 8:25 to 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Ray indicated that, on page 85 of the General Development Plan, there is a discussion and definition of what villages are, and the Eastern Urban Center is specifically defined as a separate item. With that, he could support the motion and have a clear mind. MSUC (Davis/Thomas) tentative action to approve applicant's recommendation on PCM 95-09 to amend the General Development Plan allowing the "freeway commercial" area of Planning Area 12, the Eastern Urban Center, to develop under its own SPA. Approved 7-0. X-B. Preserve Owner/Manager Irrigation Mr. Jamriska indicated that the applicant is seeking to allow irrigation to occur on a case-by-case bases. Staff has no opposition to the applicant's proposal. However, Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife does disagree with this. Not so much on the issue of irrigation of the farm land, but in that they would like to be part of the management team for the Preserve Owner/Manager. The City and County have agreed, in writing, who should be the Preserve Owner/Manager on an interim basis. Staff does not agree with Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife. Therefore, staff is asking the Commission to approve the staff recommendation. MSUC (NVillett/Thomas) tentative action to approve staff's recommendation on PCM 95-09 to amend the General Development Plan to allow the Preserve Owner/Manager to determine if additional irrigated farm land is appropriate. Approved 7-0. X-C. Solar Heating MSUC (Ray/Thomas) tentative action to approve staff's recommendation on PCM 95-09 to amend the General Development Plan to provide for the practical use of solar energy systems. Approved 7-0. X-D. Transit Right-of-Way Mr. Rosaler indicated that staff is in agreement with the applicant on the amendment to the General Development Plan on the right-of-way alignment for the transit going into Village One. Fish & Wildlife have commented that the proposed alignment goes through habitat. They prefer that stall used the existing alignment. Commissioner Ray asked if this was one of the issues to be discussed in response to the EIR at their next meeting? Mr. Jamriska answered in the affirmative. The Planning Commission will be presented with the entire letter by Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife where they raise this issue as well as a side-by-side comparison of the issue and staff's response. IIb:\SPA:\pe41096M.doc PlnnninE Commission Minutes - 8 - April 10, 1996 Mr. Rosaler indicated that the current approved alignment comes up through the middle of Village One and does not allow s~ff to place the village core where it is planned on the SPA. Going with this proposed alignment gives staff mom flexibility in the design of the village in complying with all the other policies for village design and a more gentle grade to Palomar Street. For some reason, right-of-way was required to be dedicated on the Tentative Map. Technically, as far as the City's procedures under the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance, that is out of sequence. What the amendment does is put the dedication of the transit right-of-way in the proper sequence with all the other dedications. Those are done at Final Map when precise engineering is being accomplished. Commissioner Ray indicated he was hesitant to vote on even a tentative action until he saw what the response from the Wildlife group was as far as the impacts. Mr. Lee indicated that the core of Village Five was so close to the core in Village One it was important to move that corn further to the west. In doing that, it was necessary for the trolley alignment to follow through that core which necessitated the re-alignment further to the west. Mr. Jamriska indicated that Fish & Game's position is they felt that there is sensitive habitat them and it should be protected and preserved. There am negotiations going on as part of the MSCP Program where Village Development has proposed to the Wildlife agencies certain lands not to be developed upon and to permit development on other parcels. This particular parcel, where the proposed alignment is to go through, is one of those areas that the Wildlife agencies would permit not only the alignment but actual residential construction in those habitat areas. Chair Tuchscber asked if Fish & Wildlife were willing to give up some development ama them in exchange for areas elsewhere that am more sensitive? Mr. Jamriska responded in the affirmative. When the MSCP Plan is presented back for the Planning Commission's implementation, you will be confronted with this issue once again. MSIJC (Davis/Thomas) tentative action to approve staff's recommendation on PCM 95-09 to amend the General Development Plan to allow flexibility in transit alignment at the SPA level and to require transit line dedication as a condition of tentative map approval. Approved 7-0. X-E. Exterior Noise Standard MSUC (Ray/Thomas) tentative action to approve staff's recommendation on PCM 95-09 to amend the General Development Plan to provide for a 65 CNEL residential noise standard. Approved 7-0. X-It. Gnatcatcher Noise Standard Mr. Rosaler indicated that staff is in agreement with the applicant on modifying the Gnatcatcher noise standards. In the preparation of the EIR, biologists have done specific studies on the impacts of noise. StalT does not believe that increasing the decibel from 60 to 65 will have an impact on the Gnatcatchers. The Wildlife agencies have disagreed with us. They believe additional study is necessary to make this determination. Mr. Kilkenny stated that he wanted to clarify for the record that SPA One and tray Ranch, as approved, can be builtout without this modification and meet all the Gnatcatcher related standards. The standards are 52% of the birds and 70% of the habitat. This modification is being advocated because the best available science today supports the modification. IIbSSPA:~pc41096M.doc Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - April 10~ 1996 MSUC (Thomas/Ray) tentative action to approve staff's recommendation on PCM 95-09 to amend the General Development Plan Program Findings of Fact to provide for a 65 dBA noise standard for Gnatcatcher habitat. Approved 7-0. X-G. Grassland Species Mr. Rosaler indicated that Fish & Wildlife and Fish & Game have commented that they are not in agreement with this modification. The GDP required that 80% of the habitat for these four species be preserved. The biologists have told staff that the four birds have a wide-ranging habitat, so the absolute preservation of the habitat is not going to affect their longevity. The biologists have suggested that staff modify this standard so that the species are preserved within the Olay Ranch habitat preserve. MSUC (Tarantino/Willett) tentative action to approve staff's recommendation on PCM 95-09 to amend the performance standard for the four grassland bird species to provide habitat for them in the Otay Ranch Preserve. Approved 7-0. XL ACTION ITEM: Gated Communities Policy Paper for the City of Chula Vista (Pulled from the March 27, 1996 agenda~ Mr. Jamriska indicated that this report is not ready for the Commissions consideration. Staff is asking that this item be continued with no action taken other than a continuance. Chair Tuchscher indicated he would like to take tentative action to give staff and the applicant an indication where the Planning Commission stands on this matter thus far. Commissioner Davis stated she would like more time to go over the issue. Mr. Kilkenny indicated that there are two gated items on the agenda. Item XI refers to a City-wide gated policy. Item XII-J is gated communities as they relate to SPA One. His understanding of the City Manager's direction to staff is that the City-wide policy need not be adopted at the same time the Planning Commission deals with the SPA-related issues. MSUC (Ray/Tarantino) to continue and bring the City-wide Gated Communities Policy Paper to the Commission as soon as it is completed and ready for public discussion. Approved 7-0. XII. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-01; consideration of approving the Otay Ranch Section Planning Area (SPA) One Plan including the Planned Conununity District Regulations; Overall Design Plan; Village Design Plan; Public Facilities Finance Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan; Regional Facilities Report; Phase 2 Resource Management Plan', Non-renewable Energy Conservation Plan; Ranch-wide Affordable Housing Plan; SPA One Affordable Housing Plan; and Geotechnical Report (Continued from March 27, 1996) XII-A. Phase Proposed by Applicant Mr. Rosaler indicated that the current proposed phasing of SPA One that staff and the applicant have agreed on allows for the development of both villages at the same time with Final Maps. Phase lA is in Village Five, and Phase lB is in Village One. Once these two phases are completed (approximately 1,400 dwelling units), significant off-site decisions have to be made. The major one is whether Palomar Street or Orange Avenue gets put through to the west. At some point, staff needs to stop and take a look at where the market is and where the development of SPA One is going. So, what staff has proposed is a criteria in Planning Commission Minutes o 10 - April 10~ 1996 the Conditions of Approval that says: At the 1,150th building permit, the applicant will initiate a project review which will be complete at the 1,400th building permit. That project review will identify which arterial street will be extended and identify where the high school site and community park is going to be. The last criteria asked the applicant to identify which village core should be completed. And, lastly, how the affordable housing requirement will be met. Chair Tuchscher opened the public hearing for all of Item XII. Mr. Michael Woodward of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, 555 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (representing West Coast Land Fund) indicated that the phasing plan exhibited tonight does not match the phasing plan in the EIR. It excludes the West Coast Land Fund collateral, which they hope to own if the foreclosure actually goes through. They made their comments in an earlier letter about the phasing plan. They think the phasing in the EIR seems a little more central and more well thought out. Mr. Kent Aden, Village Development, 11975 El Camino Real, Suite 104, San Diego, CA 92130 indicated that Village Development is committed to the village concept. However, they also have to look at it from the standpoint of what financially makes sense. With regard to the projected phasing, the two areas that are identified as Phase lA and lB take direct access off Telegraph Canyon Road. Both of those access points were identified as potential access points on the approved General Development Plan. Village Development feels that, given the level of permit activity in San Diego County in the last few years, most developers would not support a major phase of infrastructure, commercial and multi-family in a project like this in this economy. So Village Development thought, what is the second best thing to get the project going? Let's take a look at phasing it with some of the single-family areas which are market viable. Village Development thinks that developing these areas first will assure the success of the village cores by getting the people out there who will eventually use the commercial. Village Development is also hopeful that the multi-family market will start returning next year. As a developer, Village Development is in business to sell land and build projects. That is how Village Development makes its money. So, you should be assured that Village Development has the greatest incentive of anyone to not have that land just sitting there. Regarding West Coast concerns --- Phase 3, which is in the West Coast area, comes well before Phase 7, which is the Village One core. The West Coast commercial area is planned to be the first commercial area in the project. In fact, their entire village core area is projected to come on first. Mr. Aden was somewhat confused as to the nature of their complaints. Lastly, he wanted to remind the Commission that Village Development has taken a significant market risk by developing this village concept. We all recognize that this is innovative for the developer and for the City. Village Development wants this to work, but it is a significant risk, and it is very difficult to internalize the commercial. Village Development asks the Planning Commission to continue to support them by allowing them to develop in realistic phases so they can successfully implement that concept in the future. Commissioner Salas asked if the first three phases would support the commercial? Mr. Aden indicated, that is the hope. It would be more aggressive than the EastLake Village Center in a less desirable location. Commissioner Salas commented that Village Development is asking the Planning Commission to approve the phasing as is because they will not have to put in that infrastructure while other developers have. Mr. Aden indicated that the initial phases of EastLake and Rancho del Rey had substantial infrastructure. Those developers, in this economy, would not make those same decisions. He reminded the Commission that Village Development has invested seven years and almost $20 million dollars in the entitlement process. Approval of this project will bring substantial public benefit in the form of the 11,000-acre preserve, the transit right-of-way and SR-125 right-of-way, all which are being dedicated. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that substantial commitments are being made by Village Development. They just are not in the form of a lake or a major read widening in the first phase, but all of that will come. llbSSPA:Xpc41096Mdoc Planning Commission Minutes - 11 - April 10, 1996 Chair Tuchscher indicated that Mr. Aden made a statement that said, economically, you cannot afford to throw up a bunch of infrastructure when it is not commercially viable to do so. At the same time he said, Village Development does not know what West Coast Land Fund's concerns or complaints are because they have got an early phase of commercial and an early phase of high density residential which, you will have to admit, are not commemially viable. Mr. Aden indicated that his sense of it is that thc Commission, defining the word early, would like to see that type of development in the first phase. That is not viable; however, Village Development thinks that the third phase may be viable and was clarifying that, in fact, the first phase of commercial would be what is, potentially, West Cost properly. Commissioner Ray stated, for the record, that it made more sense to develop the far west and southwest portion that are contiguous with one another as opposed to leaving a large gap and thereby allowing the City to have that infrastructure put in in the first phases and put Orange and Palomar through. Other than issues as far as West Coast, them are issues revolving around the pending litigation that are forcing Village Development to move to the east. Chair Tuchscher indicated that what he sees in the current phasing plan, in regard to development opportunity that is being taken advantage of, is a lot of subdivisions. He does not see any amenity or benefits to master planning. If we are going to do a master plan, he would like to see that master plan get developed. We do not have a master plan if we do not have major entrance, major spine, major signage and develop the thing from La Media. You do not start on both sides and take all the cream offthe top and end up with a bunch of stuff that needs to be m-planned by some other Planning Commission. From his perspective, the phasing of this thing is done in a manner to accommodate a bad economy and a struggling developer trying to make things work, and he has to do what is best for the long-term of the City. This project needs to get done by one developer and in a unified fashion. As he recalled, the EIR did not contemplate those access points being phased out. Mr. Ullrich indicated that the PFFP does provide for the infrastructure necessary to serve SPA One. Staff can adjust the PFFP to whatever phasing is decided upon. Chair Tuchscher indicated that he does not have a concern with the way this phasing plan functions. He does have a concern with it from the macro-City oriented and long-term planning standpoint, as well as marketing. We have no golf course, no lake and no major infrastroctum put in. In this phasing plan, he wanted somebody to tell him what the benefit to the City is in approving the project that gets buildout in this way? He would like to have some high quality infrastructure if SPA One craters and falls in on itself. Commissioner Salas indicated the developer needs to be able to show the public the benefits of the village concept. It has to be strongly marketed to the buyer, initially, that this is what it is going to be. Commissioner Davis indicated that she would like to make sum the master plan of the village works. She does not think we do it by starting at the center, building commemial and having that die. We are going to have to start with the houses. After seven years and $20 million dollars without a stick in the ground, you have got to say, am we willing to risk moving forward to try to make this concept work in Chula Vista? Let's move forward. We know it is a risk; we know it has not been done. Chair Tuchscher indicated that he does not like the way this project is phased in the way it brings residential on-line. Commissioner Ray thought that the existing neighborhoods to the west would help support the initial commemial centers if areas lB, 2B, 7 and part of 4 were developed as opposed to the areas to the east. Chair Tuchscher indicated that them is an entity called West Coast Land Fund that, potentially, has some property that is pretty heavily burdened with a lot of stuff that is not buildable. There is an entity known as llb:\gPA:\pc41096M.doc Planning Commission Minutes - 12 - April 10, 1996 Village Development that owns property on either side of that that has a lot of great stuff that is economically viable today. These people need to get together. At this juncture, he would like to see La Media be the major access point and the project be phased from there. Commissioner Ray asked ff it was the Chair's position at this point to take a straw vote and go against staff's recommendation or to make a different motion all together regarding the phasing? Chair Tuchscber felt staff should be given the benefit of taldng a position on their position itself. And then, if necessary, we put a different alternative up. Commissioner Davis asked staff to comment as far as moving that phasing from a different direction or to the west? She wanted to hear what staff had to say about the alternatives that were suggested. Mr. Rosaler indicated that staff was comfortable with the phasing in the original Environmental Impact Report. This proposal has been made by Village Development to respond to economic conditions. Staff understands those conditions and am supportive to a certain point. But staff is concerned about the village concept and wants to see that established early on. That was the reason for the conditions staff is proposing. Mr. Ullrich indicated that one of the reasons why most of Phases 4 through 7 comes later is sewem through Poggi Canyon. There is significant off-site sewer needed and upgrades to the existing line that it will connect to for that to develop. The only alternative is to pump into the Telegraph Canyon trunk, and we are reluctant to let them do that. Chair Tuchscher asked, if you were to follow the original phasing off of La Media, it allows you to develop lB, 2B, 3, 2A and half of 4 and still solve that problem. Is that correct? Mr. Ullrich answered in the affirmative. Chair Tuchscber indicated that 2B, lB, half of Phase 4, 3, 2A and the final phase on the far right could be developed. From a development standpoint, that is why you plan phases in the way that they originally did. It just saves you infrastructure costs and makes a lot of sense. But, then, the economy comes apart and you got to build about $6 million dollam of road before you get them. What is better? Temporary access and not spending $6 million? From his perspective, you spend the $6 million, put the infrastructure in and we end up with a successful project. Commissioner Ray indicated that the temporaly access would not be temporary once it goes in. It becomes part of normal life for the neighborhood. You are not going to close it with an elected City official voting on this thing. Commissioner Davis indicated that she has a hard time mdesigulng this phasing plan. She felt that if the Commission was not happy with it, we should ask staffto come back with alternatives and continue it. Commissioner Salas indicated that it was good that both the applicant and City get an idea where the Planning Commission stands with their phasing process, and where the Planning Commission feels nnconffortable with it. Taking a position gives the staff and applicant an opportunity to work something else out and bring back to the Planning Commission. MSC (Thomas/Ray) to tentatively deny the phasing program recommended by staff. Approved 6-1 with Davis opposed. MSUC (Tuchscher/Ray) whereby staff is asked to re-examine the phasing plan originally contemplated in the EIR which gains initial phases and main access from La Media with the freedom and latitude to look at other alternatives. Approved 7-0. IIb:\SPASpc41096M.doc Planning Commission Minutes - 13 - April 10, 1996 Chair Tuchscher apologized to the applicant for turning things upside down. But this is the first opportunity whereby the Planning Commission can really get into issues in detail and hash them out in a public forum setting and come to some kind of deliberative conclusion. XII-J. Gated Communities (Item taken out of order.) Ms. Matthews indicated that the outshoot of multiple Policy Committee meetings has been the draft criteria that is before the Planning Commission. The criteria has been itemized separately and a paragraph below each criteria reflects how the SPA Plan, as proposed by the applicant, could meet or does meet or will meet that criteria, if that criteria were to be in a final state today. Commissioner Davis questioned Criteria #2 regarding precluding public pedestrian, bicycle or cart access. She felt that was not the reason people want to be in gated community. Ms. Matthews indicated the SPA Plan is pedestrian-oriented with the village core. Maintaining bicycle, pedestrian and cart access is thought of as necessary by the applicant and by staff as making sure the village concept, as described in theory, will continue to work. The applicant has never proposed to gate off public pedestrian, bicycle or cart access. They have always felt that needs to be maintained in order to continue to support the village concept and the neo-traditionalist design. Commissioner Davis indicated that, as a general criteria for the City of Chula Vista, she would not want to see that. As for the Otay Ranch, if the applicant is comfortable with it, then she could live with it. Another concern is the mitigation on fire sprinklers in the homes. With this gate access, there should be some way to still meet those thresholds in Chula Vista as far as providing the services and not have to see fire sprinklers included because of the cost. Ms. Matthews indicated that, if the gate causes delay, them can be some kind of mitigation measures that would have to be acceptable to the Fire Department that could be used to help that situation. Fire sprinklers is just one of them. Mr. Lee indicated, from a Planning Department perspective, staff has been constantly concerned about Criteria #5 that speaks to the issues of "....balanced and diverse neighborhoods and/or larger community planning areas, gates shall not be installed in locations that are determined to separate or isolate segments of these neighborhoods or community planning areas". If the gates are going to be installed, they should be done in an area where it includes a comprehensive planning unit and not in a location that would tend to isolate or separate the areas. Primary gating involves the single-family areas, but there am portions of the single-family areas that are not gated. The multi-families and commercial areas are outside of the proposed gated area. It is mom of a concern in terms of trying to gate a portion of the village and yet trying to have this sort of cohesive interaction within the village. Commissioner Salas had a problem understanding why you would have a gated community when one of the rationales for a gated community is to enhance security and to keep mischief makers out. And, yet, in this project staffis looking at having gates that restrict vehicles but will allow people to come in and out at will. Why is staff having the gate them? Commissioner Tamntino stated there is nothing in the general criteria as to when the gates will become operational. He would like to see something in terms of when they become operational. Commissioner Thomas referred to Criteria #1, "Gated communities which can not be served by police, fire, paramedics or other emergency services within existing City-wide GMTS shall be discouraged......" Why would staff even want to consider gates if they did not meet the parameters or the thresholds? llb:\SPA:\pcA 1096M.doc Planning Conunission Minutes - 14 - April 10, 1996 Ms. Matthews indicated that it was the thought that there might be overriding considerations in conjunction with mitigation measures such as fire sprinklers, staffing of gates, private security or some kind of system. Staff did not want to make the criteria so inflexible that, if you were dealing with a threshold standard that was being exceeded by 7 or 10 seconds, those 7 or 10 seconds would make the difference between a gate or not. Those words were used to expect a situation that we do not have right now. Staff wanted a criteria that would allow those kinds of solutions to at least be available. If they are unacceptable, the City bas the ability to deny. Commissioner Ray stated that Police and Fire are not in compliance with the threshold standard today. Until the implementation of a CatRMS System, Police and Fire will never add a gated community in Chula Vista. Secondly, has the issue of park credits for community parks been solved? Ms. Matthews indicated that the decision was made at the policy level, if parks were provided behind gates, no credit was to be given. Commissioner Ray stated that he does not want to see gates anywhere near public facilities. Chair Tuchscher asked Ms. Matthews to describe the character of the large gated community of Coto de Caza in Orange County. Ms. Matthews obliged. Chair Tuchscher stated that he is a major fan of gates. He thinks it is exactly what the buyers want today. He has never seen anything of this magnitude behind gates before, but that does not mean it cannot be done. He needs somebody to tell him why, and he is not hearing why. Commissioner Davis stated that to her it's an oxymoron to the concept that we are going forward with the master plan. The pedestrian-oriented society and village core does not fit. Commissioner Thomas agreed with the Chair and Commissioner Davis. He is not for it. Mr. Aden acknowledged the Chair's apology on phasing and said that it was not necessary. Phasing is always the last thing that comes in a project, and he did not think the Commission really had an opportunity to comment on that. Regarding gates.... Village Development is primarily interested in gating two major areas of the project. It was Village Development's proposal from the beginning; it was not a condition that this would have free pedestrian, bicycle and cart access. Village Development thought that was critical to maintaining the neo-tmditional quality of the village. There is a lot of confusion about what these gates actually mean. Village Development is proposing a master homeowners association for the entire Village One. There would be a tiered dues in place such that the people in the single-family gated areas would pay an additional increment to cover the cost of the private streets and the gates. However, each person would receive the same newsletter, be part of the same garden club, etc. Village Development believes the community would behave as one community. Mr. Aden proceeded to present slides of gated communities in Orange County: Coto de Caza, Dove Canyon and projects in Newport Coast. Village Development thinks the gates offer several advantages. They give a greater sense of community by creating the enclosed area. Because of that, we will get increased pedestrian activity. There will be reduced City costs because of the private street and landscape maintenance. There will be potentially a tax revenue increase to the City. Most projects have shown higher values due to the gates, and Village Development thinks it gives an increased diversity of housing in the City because of the opportunity to live in a gated community, which is different than the other master plans. Commissioner Salas asked, if the gated communities have pedestrian access whereby they could just bypass the gate and go in the community, why are the gates them? Planning Commission Minutes - 15 - April 10, 1996 Mr. Aden indicated that from a security standpoint, most peoples fears come mom from what someone can do by driving a truck or a van up. They can only carry so much on their back if they walk in. Granted, it does not give great security, but it does control that vehicular access. Commissioner Salas stated that, in terms of building a better sense of community, she can see it as building a very small community with a very special interest within the gate and then not interacting with the rest of the city. She is concerned about a perception now in this City of a division between the east and the west. Isolating Otay Ranch as one community is not conducive to keeping the City whole. Has Village Development thought about those issues? Mr. Aden indicated that Village Development looks forward to Otay Ranch being a part of the City of Chnla Vista. At the same time Village Development wants the village concept to inspire a sense of ownership with the residents that it is their neighborhood. Village Development is not convinced that the gates substantially contribute to a sense of isolation any more than eveEnhing we are trying to do here when we am rtying to create a quality neighborhood. Whether that is positive or negative, is subjective. Chair Tuchscher agreed with his fellow Commissioner's comments and stated that he is absolutely intimidated by gates for no reason. Commissioner Ray asked if the Fire and Police Chiefs agree with Criteria #1 which says the City is not within threshold standards; that these things should be avoided knowing that the City is not within the threshold standard today? Police Chief Emerson stated that the 7 seconds that the City is off on the GMOC priority 1 calls could be attributed to waiting for a gate. Those kind of things. We see it slowing us down not speeding us up to provide the service that either the Police or Fire Departments need to provide. And so as such, we am not supportive of gates. Commissioner Ray asked if it was the Police's position that a gated community will not reduce crime within those areas significantly enough to account for the potential unavoidable delay caused by gates? Police Chief Emerson responded in the affirmative. Them are no statistics you can show that they am better off or flee from crime as a result of having gates. Commissioner Ray asked if Chief Emerson could briefly touch on a manned outpost as opposed to an unmanned gate. Police Chief Emerson responded that both Police and Fire would want something with a human being there so that them would be someone to wave them through. Fire Chief Hardiman indicated that he would love to have an opportunity to speak to some of the individual Commission members on the merits and costs of sprinklers for residences. The matter of the threshold standard is important. Any impediment to respond to any community within Chula Vista could have a potential negative impact on our threshold standards. He totally concurred with the Police Chief's comments regarding none mechanical and manned outposts if we are going to have any type of gates for that community. MSUC (Tarantino/Davis) tentative action to deny the use of gates at main access points as proposed in SPA One. Approved 7-0. llbSSPASpc41096M.doc Planning Commission Minutes - 16 - April 10, 1996 XH-B. Trigger Points Established Mr. Jamriska wanted to call to the Commission's attention that there are certain trigger points where facilities would be implemented. Staff and the applicant do believe and are supportive of the trigger points that am in the report. Commissioner Davis asked, if we change the phasing plan, will that change the trigger points? Mr. Jamriska answered in the afffirmative. Ms. Luttrell indicated that the trigger points am based on the number of dwelling units regardless of where they am located. Staff will take a look at it mom closely as the phasing changes. Mr. Ullrich pointed out that these trigger points am for major infrastructure. If the Planning Commission changes the phasing, staff might change some of the improvements on La Media, Paseo Ranchero and Palomar to provide proper access to wherever the site is that is being developed. MSUC (Thomas/Davis) tentative action to approve staff's recommendation in establishing trigger points for construction of parks, schools and public infrastructure improvements. Approved 7-0. XII-C. Small Park Credit/Criteria Ms. Lnttrell indicated that this is an issue regarding small parks which are 5 acres or less in size and the amount of credit they am to receive. The Parks & Recreation Commission has recommended a range of 25 to 50%. That pementage is proposed to be based upon a City-wide small park criteria which has yet to be developed. Some items that am listed in the Village Design Plan that talk about what kinds of facilities will actually happen in the small parks might be a starting point in developing the small park criteria. Whether or not Village Development receives credit for the small parks, they have enough park credit. The parks that are proposed meet their park obligation in terms of the 2 acres per 1,000 for local parks. It would be an excess credit that would be applied to future SPAs or to the community park in terms of the number of facilities that they would be required to place within that community park. Parks & Recreation Commission based their decision in part on the fact that there is precedent for another developer within the City who is receiving up to 50% credit for small parks that are 5 acres or less in size. Chair Tuchscher asked, what project is that? Ms. Luttrell responded, the EastLake Development Company. Commissioner Ray stated the GMOC has recommended to the City Council that a PMP (Parks Master Plan) be developed. What the criteria would be would have to be defined prior to the implementation of the acceptance of that PMP. He doubts we would see a PMP it in the next year. Chair Tuchscher asked, if the project meets all its park criteria, why give Village Development any credit or why not give them all credit? It doesn't matter does it? What is the applicant trying to achieve relative to the credit? What are they doing with that credit? Ms. Luttrell indicated that Village Development feels they are doing something above and beyond what the City actually requires, and they would like to get some amount of credit for that which would then be applied to offset future park credit in future SPAs. Commissioner Davis would want to have one of those small parks near her home because then you feel more comfortable sending your children. It is more conducive to the kind of atmosphere we are trying to make in Otay Ranch. That is really where the Planning Commission should be going to bring back the Planning Commission Minutes - 17 - April 10, 1996 small cormnunlty atmosphere. Personally, she would give Village Development 100% credit for the parks because not only is Village Development doing what they should be doing, but they are also paying to take care of the parks, and the City is not going to be burdened by them. Commissioner Thomas commented that he did not understand the purpose of the credit. Commissioner Ray could not understand why the item was on the agenda. Village Development is already meeting it, irrespective oftbe credit issue. Ms. Luttrell indicated that Village Development would like 100% credit; staff is recommending 25 to 50% based on Parks & Recreation. Chair Tuchscher did not know what affect surplus credit would have on future SPAs. Mr. Aden indicated that the surplus credit was probably 3 to 4 acres. Where we see the difference eventually coming out is in the development of the three community parks in Otay Ranch. Those are a minimum 25-acre parks. The philosophical decision the Commission is faced with is, do you take 3 acres of that community park, pull it back into the SPA and put it out in the sthgle-family neighborhoods because eventually there would be 3 acres less of community park built in the Ranch? That is the kind of threshold issue you should consider. Village Development does not see it coming out of the SPA itself. Chair Tuchscher stated, that even though Parks 8: Recreation does not want small parks, he does. Commissioner Tarantino stated that the only way the parks standard could be met on the west side is through small parks which, according Parks & Recreation, are "very labor intensive in terms of maintenance and don't pay for themselves". The City does not want to maintain small parks on the west side. He thinks that is where the City is coming from. He does not think it has anything to do with credits on the east side. Commissioner Davis moved that Planning Commission give Village Development tentative approval for 50% credit on their small parks. Chair Tuchscher stated that staff was proposing a range of 25 to 50% depending on criteria. The sliding scale gets set by Parks & Recreation and stall Do we ever see that again? Is it brought back to the Commission in that City-wide form? Ms. Luttrell indicated that the Planning Commission will see the criteria again, and the criteria will eventually be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner Davis stated that the Planning Commission should not even begin to give Village Development less than 50% because they are doing what she thinks they should be doing; Village Development supporting them and they are not making it a burden on the City. Commissioner Thomas asked Commissioner Davis if she would amend her motion to 25 to 50%? Commissioner Davis responded in the negative because there is no maintenance to the City. Chair Tuchscber indicated that the reason for the range is to set up a matrix of amenities. It is designed to incent the developer to put certain amenities into their parks, and those amenities cost money. There would be a burden to the developer, but they get compensated for that because of these credits. Commissioner Thomas stated that by giving them a range, you give them an opportunity to make adjustments. By setting the straight 50%, there is no room for adjustments. llb:~qPASpc41096M.doc Planning Commission Minute~ - 18 - April 10, 1996 Chair Tuchscher indicated that he likes the idea of some incentive to bring the higher degree of amenity. Commissioner Ray asked, if we say 50%, aren't we kind of circumventing the whole decision that Parks & Recreation is going to have about the amenities and what the credits are worth? Mr. Aden indicated that possibly setting a range from 50-100% would meet everybody's needs. Commissioner Davis is looking for a minimum incentive of 50% while others are looking for an upside of increasing the amenities, and Village Development is looking for the potential to achieve 100%. Chair Tuchscher stated, why not start at 0 and have a full cadre of items to choose from? Mr. Aden indicated that zero makes him nervous given a Parks Director that does not support these parks, and a Parks Commission that supported them, in a way, with a split vote. Chair Tuchscher stated that the Parks Department is tough and difficult. They are often unreasonable and get in the way. In this circumstance, we got a great asset to the character of this project, and there should be some yield there. He thinks the Planning Commission should send them a message. Commissioner Davis amended her motion to 50 to 100% credit. Commissioner Tarantino seconded. ConUmssioners Ray and Thomas could not support anything exceeding the Parks & Recreation Commission recommendation. Commissioner Salas was concerned that all these credits would reduce the size of the 25-acre community park. Ms. Luttrell clarified that park credit would not be used to reduce acreage acre-per-acre. It would be used to reduce the actual amenities or facilities that would be located in the community park. You would still have a 25-acm coramnnity park, but you might not have a tennis court or whatever kind of improvement would bo equal to those number of acres of credit that Village Development received from those small parks. Commissioner Salas stated that, if you are going to bo giving credit based on the amenities put into the small parks, but it is going to reduce amenities put into the big community park, then there does have to be a range. Commissioner Ray questioned, if we took a final vote on a specific range of credits, haven't we now just locked ourselves into that as a bases for whatever does get developed in the Parks Master Plan or the criteria statement? Ms. Moore answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Ray suggested that the Planning Commission let the experts make the definition on what the credit is. He does not want to tell a Director of Parks & Recreation and lock him into a number that he may not bo comfortable with based on his expertise. Chair Tuchscher stated that Parks & Recreation have made it pretty clear that they want no credit. Someone has got to set that range. We would end up with no small parks if Parks & Recreation got their way. Planning Commission Minutes - 19 - April 10, 1996 MS (Davis/Tarantino) tentative action for a range of 50 to 100% credit for parks based on criteria to be determined. Failed 3-4 with Willett, Ray, Thomas and Salas opposed. Ray made an alternate motion to accept staff recommendation to allow park credits based on a sliding scale to be determined by the Parks & Recreation Department. Motion dies for lack of second. MSC (Willett/Thomas) tentative action to accept staff's recommendation that pedestrian parks shall receive a minimum of 25% and a maximum of $0% park credit, as determined by the Director of Parks & Recreation pursuant to City-wide small park credit criteria to be determined by the City of Chula Vista. Approved 5- 2 with Tarantino and Tuchscher opposed. XII-D. Timing of Credit for Neighborhood Parks Ms. Luttrell indicated that the City's proposal is that Village Development would receive the park credit upon acceptance of the park by the City and al~er the maintenance period. There are two other alternatives that the Planning Commission might consider. The first was an initial proposal by Village Development that they receive credit upon commencement of construction of the neighborhood park. The compromise position that they are now proposing would be upon completion of the park but prior to that maintenance period of 9 to 12 months. Commissioner Thomas asked, why would you want to hold off a decision for 9 months? What is the difference? Ms. Luttmll indicated that the park is not available for public use until after the maintenance period is over. It is a question of, should Village Development receive park credit when the park is completed or when it is actually available for use by the public? Mr. Jamriska emphasized that the current practice of the City is not to accept a park until after the 9- to 12-month maintenance period so the developer can cover items such as a broken swing set, grass dying, sprinkler system not working. Chair Tuchscher stated that the park credit issue is separate from dedication. The City does not take possession of a park that has not gone through that maintenance period. It is just a matter of affording the developer credit so they can keep their building program going. Ms. Luttrell indicated that the maintenance period is required regardless of when Village Development gets the credit. It is not a waiver of the maintenance period. Commissioner Ray asked, why is this an all or nothing? Why couldn't they get 50% credit? If the issue is so the applicant can move forward, and the other issue from the City is the fact that they want to make sure it is going to be taken care of properly, why not do a trade oily MSC (Thomas/Davis) tentative action to assign park credit after the park is completed and prior to the 9-month maintenance period. Approved 6-1 with Ray opposed. XII-E. Park and School Adjacent Ms. Matthews quoted a Policy in the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP (page 249). "Encourage the design of park sites adjacent to public schools and other public lands where co-location of facilities is feasible". The high school district encouraged co-location of facilities and would look into joint use. A high school is typically Planning Commission Minutes - 20 - April 10, 1996 50 acres in size. They would consider making it slightly smaller if there were co-location adjacency and joint use of facilities. Commissioner Thomas indicated that he was concerned with security. Ms. Matthews indicated the elementary schools and neighborhood parks in SPA One could be separated by a paseo, a grade separation or a street. Mr. Kilkenny stated that, if the staff recommendation is re-endorsement of the language in the GDP, then the applicant is supportive. If the staff recommendation is to "require" co-location of high schools and community parks, then Village Development would have some reservations. To our surprise we found resistance from the Parks Department who did not want equal co-location. They wanted separation by a pasoo, separation by elevation, separation by a road. Be advised that there is some level of resistance internal to your staff to what your Commission's desire is. Mr. Jamriska indicated that staff's position is to support the policy stated in the GDP --- to "encourage" co-location. Cl~tr Tuchscher felt that the word "encourage" sort of weakens it and opens the door. He wanted verbiage stronger than encourage, so he liked "require" a lot. MSUC ($Villett/Thomas) tentative action to accept staff's recommendation to require the design of park sites to be adjacent to public schools and other public lands, and joint use agreements with school districts are encouraged. Approved 7-0, XII-F. Access to EastLake Parkway Mr. Rosaler indicated that, when staff was planning Village Five, staff determined that four access points into the village were necessary. At the time that the plan was prepared, The Baldwin Company agreed with that. They have since reconsidered their position, and would like not to provide vehicle access across SR-125 to EastLake Parkway. EastLak¢ Land Development Company are opposed to it because this access point will be gated. The access road goes through the Otay Water District property from Village Five and crosses SR-125 and aligns with the collector street that is required in the General Plan in thc EastLake project to connect with EastLake Parkway. If the Cit~ does not provide this connection, EastLake will probably come in and ask for a circulation element plan amendment to eliminate that street from the circulation element. Staff thinks there are valid reasons for trying to get vehicle access across. EastLake Parkway and Otay Lakes Road, according to the Engineering Department, is going to be one of the most heavily impacted intersections. The more relief the Cit7 can provide to that intersection, the better. Mr. Lee indicated that staff was concerned about the interface between Village Five and EastLake in terms of the attracters. Without this crossing it will be 1 mile between the ability to get from Village Five to EastLake or vise versa. It forces any internal traffic coming out of either of these areas to utilize Otay Lakes Road and East Orange Avenue. That is what the Commissioners need to keep in mind. If that is acceptable, then this crossing is not put in. Mr. Ullrich indicated that the traffic study did not take into account that access. Mr. Lee indicated that another attmcter are the reservoir sites on both sides of the proposed 125 that are being looked at as potential active recreational areas. The next proposed reservoir site is being looked at in the EastLake triangular portion. Chair Tuchscher asked if that was the land swap area and would that water tank serve Otay Ranch? Mr. Lee responded in the affirmative. Planning Commission Minutes ~ 21 - April 10, 1996 Mr. Aden indicated Village Development feels, because them is not the need of the access from a cimulation standpoint, and there is not the need for the road from a public safety standpoint, that access can be served as a pedestrian and bicycle access. He wanted to remind everyone that them is an extensive arterial system within the Ranch, which, in SPA One, includes Paseo Ranchero, Orange Avenue and La Media. It is about a $23 million dollar network of arterials just around SPA One. The purpose of that network is to serve regional traffic to these facilities. Village Development does not want to encourage through traffic through the villages. That is not consistent with the village concept. Village Development believes that the Otay Ranch General Development Plan deleted that road from the cimulation element. That road does not show up on the improved General Development Plan as part of the circulation system. He thought it might be mistakenly shown on the General Plan exhibit the Commission saw. Village Development asks the Commission's support to delete that road. Commissioner Ray asked if any thought was given to eliminate vehicular access, however, dedicate an area equal to that so that in the future it could be turned into a vehicular road? Mr. Rosaler responded in the affirmative. The right-of-way between the Otay Water District property has already been planned and reserved. Commissioner Davis stated that the pedestrian, bicycle access would probably suffiee at this point, and we do not have a traffic study. She made a motion that the Commission ought to go with the recommendation to eliminate the vehicular access and keep the bicycle/pedestrian. Commissioner Ray would support that motion with one proviso. If the Planning Commission goes with the applicant's proposal, does that preclude them at some point in the future of turning that into a vehicular roadway? Mr. Rosaler indicated that, when SR-125 goes through, whatever type of bridge is built for the bicycle and pedestrian would not handle vehicle traffic and would have to be redone. Ms. Moore indicated that, if we were going to mquim the construction of this roadway, it would have to be placed as a condition to Tentative Map approval for SPA One. We could not skip it at the Tentative Map stage for SPA One and come back and revisit it at a later date once that Tentative Map has been approved. Commissioner Ray stated he would still go ahead and support the motion which supports the applicants proposal. Chair Tuchscher asked if it was possible to reserve pedestrian and bicycle access in a right-of-way that is wide enough and adequate enough for vehicular? Mr. Ullrich believed them is a way that you can do that by conditioning the Tentative Map to dedicate the roadway for transportation and other public purposes. Ms. Moore stated that the issue becomes: Who would build the street improvements? If that was not specifically required by the applicant, then that would not be his responsibility. Mr. Kilkenny believed there is an opportunity for the City of Chula Vista to negotiate an agreement with CTV under which they would agree to pay for the cost of the ovemrossing at some future date. Chair Tuchscher asked ff the maker of the motion would make that modification and the second would concur? Commissioner Davis stated she would take that as an amendment. IIbSSPA:\pc41096M.doc Planning Commission Minutes - 22 - April 10, 1996 Commissioner Ray agreed. Mr. Ullrich indicated there is one advantage to having the street in place when SR-125 goes through; CTV would have to provide for the overpass. MSC (1)avis/Ray) tentative action to provide pedestrian and bicycle access to EastLake Parkway with an amendment to the motion to preserve vehicular access. Approved 6-1 with Willett opposed. XII-G. Additional Access North of Palomar Mr. Rosaler indicated that three accesses can probably handle the trips, but staff thought that, for the grid system that is supported by nco-traditional, at least two additional access points would be beneficial for the north side of Palomar. Staff is recommending two additional access points between Neighborhood R-8 and R-9 and between Neighborhood R-2 and R-20. Mr. Aden wanted to emphasize that the additional two access points are not needed from a traffic cimulation standpoint or from a public safety standpoint. Additional pedestrian points of access are not necessary. There are sufficient intersections to slow the traffic on Palomar. Village Development requests your approval of our position to not require the additional access points. Commissioner Ray inquired, as far as the traffm modeling, what does this really relieve? Mr. Ullrich indicated that the interior streets were not included in the traffic model; only the major streets. The threshold standards have been waived within the SPA Plan. The Engineering Department did not look at it from a traffic circulation standpoint because we accepted the fact that the village design was set up for congestion. The additional access points would help distribute the traffic onto Palomar. Mr. Lee indicated that staff has concerns in terms of the congestion because ora park and a school in that location. Chair Tuchscher felt he did not have enough information to make a decision. Mr. Rosaler indicated there will be 2,600 trips going in each one of those three access points, and staff is uncomfortable with that. Commissioner Ray suggested dedication of that area until we get some historical knowledge. Mr. Aden indicated that might work between Neighborhood R-8 and R-9 because that is planned to be a 60-foot wide pasco. The other, between Neighborhood R-2 and R-20, would be more problematic, and Village Development would continue to be opposed to that one. Reserving a right-of-way through there is cutting down on buildable area. Mr. Rosaler indicated that reserving the pasco between R-8 and R-9 for future vehicular right-of-way and eliminating the access between R-2 and R-20 would be acceptable to staff. MSIJC (Davis/Ray) tentative action to dedicate/reserve vehicular right-of-way between Neighborhood Areas R-8 and R-9 to Palomar Street and eliminate the access to Palomar Street between Neighborhood Areas R-2 and R-20. Approved 7- 0. ab:~q PA:\pc41096 M.doc Planning Commission Minutes - 23 - April 10, 1996 XII-H. Access Triangular Property Mr. Ullrich indicated that staff recommends this item be considered with the Tentative Map. He would like to revise the staff recommendation to indicate that they are still studying the issue and have not come to a conclusion on whether the access will be needed or not. MSUC (Ray/Davis) to approve staff's recommendation of continuing driveway access to the EastLake triangular office property on Telegraph Canyon Road to the Tentative Map. Approved %0. XII-I. Third Access to Orange Avenue MSUC (Ray/Willett) tentative action to accept staff's recommendation to require the Orange Avenue connection to the Village One core when Palomar Street is opened from Paseo Ranchero to La Media Road and close the connection to Telegraph Canyon Road. Approved 7-0. XH-K. Village Design Plan Modified MSUC (Davis/Ray) tentative action to approve staff's recommendation to approve the errata sheet and direct the corrections be included in the final approved documents. Approved 7-0. XII-L. Specific Plan Area One Modified XII-M. Conditions Adequate MSUC (Ray/Davis) to continue the Specific Plan Area One modifications and Conditions of Approval adequacy to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Approved 7-0. XII-N. Resource Management Plan Modified XII-N1. Joint Exercise Powers Agreement Commissioner Salas stated that she wanted to consider thc recommendation made by thc Resource Conservation Commission that an independent third party be considered. MSUC (Davis/Ray) to continue the Joint Exercise Powers Agreement to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Approved 7-0. XH-N2. In-lieu Fee Mr. Jamriska indicated staff is not ready to present this to the Planning Commission for consideration and is recommending that it be continued until thc next meeting. MSUC (Ray/Thomas) to continue the in-lieu fee until the next Planning Commission meeting. Approved 7-0. XH-N3. Conveyance at Final Map Mr. Jamriska indicated that it is the recommendation of scarf and applicant that thc conveyance occur at Final Map. Therefore, wc recommend it be approved. Planning Commission Minutes - 24 - April 10, 1996 Mr. Woodward indicated they do have an issue with that. If you are going to continue it, we would be happy to address it then. Mr. Smith indicated that his recommendation would be to continue the RMP. He has issues regarding the RMP in terms of the Habitat Management Fee and conveyance schedule. Neither one of those is identified as an issue. Chair Tuchscber stated that the public hearing is open and will be continued. We are going to be taking the Resource Management Plan forward to the next meeting. MSUC (Ray/Davis) to continue the conveyance at Final Map to the next Planning Commission meeting. Approved 7-0. XII-N4. Conveyance Based on Developable Acreages Mr. Jamriska indicated that staff is recommending this be continued because there is some discussion based upon a procedure for developing a conveyance schedule. Commissioner Ray asked that the Commission be made informed of any concerns, comments and requests relayed to staffby Mr. Smith. MSUC (Ray/Thomas) to continue the conveyance based on developable acres to the next Planning Commission meeting. Approved 7-0. XII-N$. Maintenance Program Mr. Jamriska indieatcd that a maintenance program is required to be established prior to acceptance of conveyed property by the Preserve Owner/Manager. Since this item is related diroctly to Item XII-N3, staff is rocommending continuance. MSUC (Willett/Thomas) to continue the maintenance responsibility to the next Planning Commission meeting. Approved 7-0. XII-O. Multiple Ownership Condition MSUC (Davis~lay) to continue the multiple ownership condition to the next Planning Commission hearing. Approved 7-0. Comnfissioner Tarantino stated that the matrix was very helpful. He would like to have it back with their actions and votes so they could see where they were and how much work they have to do. Commissioner Willett thanked Mr. Kilkenny for his document on what is behind the Baldwin Company. He also supported Commissioner Tarantino's comments about the matrix. Commissioner Thomas asked if department heads would be addressing the Commission? Mr. Jamriska indicated they had all been invited. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Mr. Lee pointed out that the next regular Planning Commission meeting is April 24, 1996 not April 17, 1996 as shown on the agenda. lib 5SPA:~pc41096M,doc Planning Commission Minutes - 25 - April 10. 1996 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT: The hearing adjourned at 12:50 a.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, April 24, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Linda Bond, Secretary Otay l~nch Project