VISTA — A proposed single-family residential project along Monte Vista Drive is moving forward, after the Vista City Council agreed Tuesday to deny a resident’s appeal that sought to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the project.
Proposed by Carlsbad-based California West Communities, the Monte Vista Residential project proposes 19 two-story homes — 16 of which will include attached accessory dwelling units — on a 6.47-acre site directly east of Monte Vista Elementary, bordered by Valley Avenue and Monte Vista Drive.
The project was granted a density bonus, increasing the allowed density from 13 to 20 dwelling units per acre due to the inclusion of two deed-restricted affordable units.
The Vista Planning Commission approved permits for the project in June, and resident Keith Andrew appealed the decision shortly after. He and several other residents claimed the project does not fit the community’s character and does not properly assess the impacts of additional vehicles, ADUs, or fire safety based on updated fire hazard information.
The council first reviewed the appeal last month, but chose to delay a decision until city staff could gather more information regarding fire safety. The item was brought back on Tuesday, with city and fire department leaders confirming that the project complied with all requirements for traffic studies, the California Environmental Quality Act, and fire safety.
“They’ve met or exceeded all of the city’s conditioning requirements,” said Community Development Director Joe Vaca. “The standard of review for denial is extremely high, and we cannot meet that standard, so we do recommend approval.”
Council members said while they shared some of the residents’ concerns about increased density in the city, there was no feasible way to block the project under state housing law. They voted to deny the appeal in a 4-1 vote, with Corinna Contreras opposed.
“I do want to genuinely say that I appreciate all of the public comment and reaching out and everything you’ve done, but unfortunately, based on the laws that we’re presented with by the state, I just don’t see any other pathway forward,” Councilmember Dan O’Donnell said.
Councilmember Jeff Fox said while community character is important, it’s not something that the council is allowed to consider when deciding on an appeal that could potentially block a project.
“It’s the law working as intended. The state of California decided that there are some communities out there that just did not want to build housing, and so they put some very heavy-handed rules on the cities,” Fox said.
Andrew and other residents reiterated their concerns to the City Council on Tuesday, arguing that the project will exacerbate traffic on the already-congested Monte Vista Drive and that these impacts require further study.
“I’m representing approximately 65 different homes in the area that are just not happy with this project as it’s currently designed,” Andrew said. “We hope that you would provide some more time so proper analysis, proper traffic studies can be done, because they have not been done.”
Fire safety concerns arose because the project site is located directly adjacent to a moderate-severity fire hazard zone, as defined in the most recently updated fire hazard severity zone maps adopted by CalFire.
Residents also said that if they need to evacuate due to a fire, the increased traffic on Monte Vista could make it difficult to exit safely.
“They’ve let us know that the homes themselves are fire safe, but nowhere have they really considered the impact,” said resident Jill Martin.
Project representative Arlene Tendick said that, following the City Council hearing last month, California West Communities took additional steps to ensure the project meets fire safety standards.
This included obtaining another fire safety review from the environmental planning firm Dudek, meeting with the Vista Fire Marshal to confirm that all necessary reviews and analyses had been completed, and committing to using ignition-resistant materials and construction methods in the project.
“This appeal has failed to raise any significant issues, and the additional time taken to re-examine and reaffirm with the city that this project fully complies with all the fire safety requirements has resulted in a project that now actually exceeds the city’s fire requirements,” Tendick said.
Vista Fire Marshal Mark Vierow also said that the project meets the department’s standards regarding evacuation routes. His office previously confirmed that the private road in the development provides sufficient space for emergency vehicles and fire engine access.
“We didn’t find anything different that would concern us,” Vierow said.
He also noted that the bigger issue in fire evacuation comes from people not leaving when instructed to do so by the fire department, which can lead to worse traffic congestion later if the situation becomes life-threatening.
“That all depends on where’s the fire, where is it coming from, where’s it going, and if people pay attention and actually leave when we say leave. If they don’t, then then that’s what causes problems,” he said.
Contreras, who opposed denying the appeal, said she still had concerns about how the area would be impacted in the event of a fire.
“It may be true that under the conditions that exist, this project seems fine, but we 100% know that in this area, evacuation for fire is already impacted. I could not in good conscience vote for something that I know is a public health and safety issue, that will only show itself in a matter of time because it gets worse and worse every year,” Contreras said.
Council members agreed that change is needed at the state level to restore discretion to cities related to housing decisions, particularly increased density.
Contreras said she would like to bring back an item to form an ad-hoc committee that would advocate for repealing density bonus provisions for projects within a quarter mile of a CalFire-recognized fire severity zone.
Mayor John Franklin said he favors more sweeping changes that would prohibit increased density in more areas. He said he would like to bring forward a resolution rejecting the state legislature’s “repeated attacks on our local autonomy.”
