Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2000/04/126:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 12, 2000 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Chair Willett, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Ray, Thomas, Cortes and O'Neill Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney Klm Vander Bie, Associate Planner Leilani Hines, Community Development Specialist Luis Hernandez, Senior Planner Alex AI-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Read into the record by Chair Willett No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV-00-09; Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a wall height variance request. Chair Willett stepped down from the dais due to a conflict of interest. Vice Chair Thomas presided. Background: Klm Vander Bie, Associate Planner reported that the applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a wall height variance for an existing 8 foot high masonry block wall that runs along the eastern lot line. The project is bordered by single family residential to the north, east and west, and Eastlake Golf Course to the south. The masonry block wall is approximately 70 feet long and runs 3 feet parallel to the eastern property line, and at one point is as close as 20", encroaching 16" into the 3 foot sideyard setback. The wall, which has a stucco finish on the applicant's side and is unfinished on the adjacent property's side, has an additional 3-foot high lattice on top of the wall, for a total of 11- feet high. The applicant has agreed to remove the plywood portion of the wall, but wants to maintain the 8- foot high masonry block portion, therefore, he is seeking a variance from the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (Section 19.58.150) and the Eastlake II SPA (Section 11.6A), which only allow 6- foot high walls. On December 14, 1999, the Eastlake II Community Association conditionally approved the wall height variance with the following conditions: · The masonry wall shall be approved as a variance, however, the wall must be finished on both sides and not exceed 8 feet high; · The existing wood fence 7' 3.5" high on the eastern property line shall be returned to its Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - April 12, 2000 original design (height [5'2"] and materials) as installed by the develop; Obtain all permits as required by the City of Chula Vista, and All corrective actions must occur within 90 days from the date of the letter. Staff Recommendation: Staff was unable to make the required legal findings to grant the requested variance, therefore, staff recommends adoption of Resolution ZAV-00-09, which would uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision and deny a wall height variance at 1173 Crystal Downs Drive. Commission Discussion Commissioner Castaneda asked for clarification on the sideyard setback and what would be allowed in terms of a shared communal fence on the sideyard. He also asked if a building permit was obtained for the 8 foot high block wall. Ms. Vander Bie responded that there is an existing perimeter lot line fence, which was installed throughout the development by the developer and the sideyard setback from the lot-line fence is 3 feet. Ms. Vander Bie further stated that no building permit was obtained for the existing 8 foot high block wall. Commissioner O'Neill asked what the Eastlake Architectural Committee's position is on this project. Ms. Vander Bie stated that the architectural committee has conditionally approved the 8 foot high block wall only if building permits are obtained, and the block wall facing the neighbor must be have a stucco finish. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: Juan Quemado, project designer for Mr. Kaloyan stated that the Eastlake Homeowners Association has granted them a variance for the 8 foot high masonry block wall with the condition that building permits be obtained. Additionally, the applicant will remove the lattice extension on the existing block wall. He further stated that it is the applicant's desire to have the Planning Commission view this as an architectural feature rather than a wall or fence. The applicant considers this wall as an enhancement and/or extension to the existing living area and adds more privacy to the back yard. Mr. Quemado stated that they solicited input from the neighbor to East and subsequently he submitted a letter expressing his concern with the structural portion of the wall. The applicant has hired an engineer and is working with the Building Department to ensure compliance with all of the building requirements. Next door neighbor (no speaker slip and cannot make out what his name is on tape recording) 1169 Crystal Downs Drive, Chula Vista, stated that the wall with the unfinished stucco on his side has been up for approximately 2.5 years. He would like to see the wall reduced to 6 feet Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - April 12, 2000 and have the City officials ensure that the remaining six foot high wall is in compliance to the building code. Public Hearing Closed 6:30 Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director explained that the regulatory document for this project is the SPA regulations which contain the criteria to be used by both the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. The SPA regulations define a wall fence or hedge as being not more than 6 feet in height and a structures is defined as accessory buildings or structures attached or detached used wholly or in part for living purposes. Commissioner Castaneda stated that he is not convinced that the masonry wall is a structure, as opposed to a fence or wall, and the record shows that the applicant has not considered the aesthetic impacts on his neighbor's property and has not acted in good faith with the City because he neglected to obtain a building permit when the masonry wall was first built, therefore, he upholds the Zoning Administrator's decision. Commissioner Hall stated that he concurs with Commissioner Castaneda's comments and urged the applicant to work with City officials to being the wall into compliance with Code regulations. Commissioner Ray stated that the letter from the Eastlake Community Association states that the fountain in the side yard may not exceed the height of the fence, and asked if staff knew the height of the water fountain. Commissioner Ray further stated that in his opinion, the applicant has not acted in good faith with the City, his neighbor, or the Eastlake Association because clearly, he has circumvented getting the appropriate permits and permission to proceed with construction, therefore, he too, upholds the Zoning Administrator's decision. Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern with the dead non-maintainable space between the lot line fence and the inner wall. The most he could recommend is that the 8 foot wall be reduced to 6 feet, and that the wall be stuccoed fully on both sides. MSC (Castaneda/Hall) (6-0ol-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution ZAV-O0-09 upholding the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the wall height variance a 1173 Crystal Downs Drive. Motion carried with Chair Willett abstaining. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Recommending that the City Council grant a twenty percent (20%) density bonus, eliminate the required guest parking, and allow 16 percent of the required parking as compact parking spaces to facilitate the construction of a maximum of ten (10) Iow-income dwelling units for an existing 40 unit multifamily residential development known as Kingwood Manor, located at 54-94 Kingswood Drive to be developed by IPMG, Inc. Background: Leilani Hines, Community Development Specialist reported that on Maych 22, 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public comments regarding Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - April 12, 2000 this request for a density bonus and modification of certain development standards for the proposed development of ten (10) additional Iow-income dwelling units to an existing 40 unit development. At that time, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to allow staff additional time to provide information regarding parking, traffic and calls for service. The applicant has subsequently revised their site plan to address privacy and parking issues raised by the surrounding property owners. The applicant is requesting some modifications to the City's Parking Standards as it relates to guest parking and compact spaces. Parking Section 19.62.050 of the Municipal Code the addition of the 10 dwelling units would require a total 100 parking spaces, or 2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit. This requirement is inclusive of guest parking as well as handicap parking. The proposed project (10 additional units) does meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. The applicant is requesting a modification of the compact parking of 1 compact space for every 10 standard spaces. The applicant is proposing 17 compact spaces, an increase of 7 compact spaces in order to comply with handicap parking requirements. Presently, 2 spaces are reserved for handicap parking. The proposed 107 parking spaces would increase the handicap parking to 5 spaces. Ms. Hines clarified that although throughout report and resolution, it talks about the elimination of guest parking, it is somewhat misleading because the project does meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. The guest parking is provided within the 100 spaces required by the project. What the applicant is requesting, is leniency of the more stringent requirements of the original Precise Plan, which required 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit vs. the 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit that the code allows. The Precise Plan would require 25 more parking spaces than the requirements of the Municipal Code. Based upon field observations conducted by staff and the inventory of vehicles owned by current residents, the parking lot is currently under-utilized with a maximum of 61 spaces being utilized by vehicles owned by residents. At site visits conducted at various times throughout the day and week staff found no more than 57 spaces being occupied of the 1OO spaces currently available, therefore, staff believes that the proposed parking is sufficient to accommodate residents of the community as well as guests. Traffic The residents' traffic and on-street parking concerns is not new, and Engineering staff has visited this neighborhood on several occasions. As in the past, based on staff's observations, no unusual traffic conditions have been observed, particularly during peak hours when school starts and when it dismisses. While this project will generate additional vehicles and traffic, staff does not anticipate any significant impact on traffic. The Kingswood Drive/Tobias Drive has been one of great concern for the community and there Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - April 12, 2000 have been requests in the past as well as in the present to provide stop or yield signs or some other measure to reduce vehicular speed like speed bumps. Based on Traffic Engineering assessments of that intersection, it does not meet the requirements for installing the aforementioned traffic control measures. To improve visibility at this intersection, Traffic Engineering will paint the curbs red on the northeast corner of this intersection. Calls for Service During the March 22® public hearing, it was reported that during the period beginning on September 1998 to February 2000, there were 103 calls for service for Kingwood Manor. Although this number appears to be high, this is typical for apartment communities. Of the 103 calls, 33 calls were regarding criminal activities, 21 were for noise/disturbances, and 49 were for other service calls such as welfare check of residents, runaway juveniles, pedestrian stops, and 911 hang ups. It should be noted that Kingswood Manor is in the process of being certified under the City of Chula Vista's Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. This program is designed to help tenants, owners and managers of rental property keep drugs and other illegal activity off their property. This program teaches property managers and owner how to properly screen applicants as well as the eviction of problem tenants and it is anticipated that there will be a significant decrease in the number of calls for service with their participation in this program. Richard Price, Crime Free Multi-Housing Coordinator for the Chula Vista Police Department addressed the Commission and gave an overview of the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program, which is new to Chula Vista and has been existence for shortly over one year. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt resolution and recommend that the City Council approve the requested 20% increase in density, the elimination of the required guest parking, and the allowance of 16% of the required parking be compact parking spaces to facilitate the construction of a maximum of 10 Iow-income dwelling units for an existing 40 unit multifamily residential development, known as Kingwood Manor, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Council Resolution. Commission Discussion Commissioner O'Neill asked what the parking requirements would be based on a project consisting of 50, three bedroom apartments units. Ms. Hines responded that in accordance with the Municipal Code, 2 spaces per dwelling unit would be required, or 100 spaces total including the guest and handicap parking. Ms. Hines further stated that the applicant is proposing to assign 1 parking space per un it and the remaining parking spaces would remain open for a second vehicle that the tenant may have and for guest parking. P~anning Commission Minutes - 6 - April 12, 2000 Public Hearing Opened 7:45 Danny Dabby, 11230 Sorrento Valley Road, San Diego, CA, stated he believes the applicant has addressed all of the issues that were raised at the previous meeting. With regard to the privacy issue, the buildings have been re-oriented so that they face in a direction (north/south) so as to minimize the portion of the building that overlooks other properties. Mr. Dabby reaffirmed that there is ample parking and the gates remain opened during the day for easy accessibility during the day for tenants and guests. At dusk, the gates are closed for security reasons, therefore, any visitor would need to make prior arrangements with the tenant. The improvements like painting of the buildings, refurbishing of the swimming pool and new pool furniture, landscape enhancements have been completed and a lighting pole will be installed to help mitigate the poor lighting in the parking lot. In addition, all of the buildings will be re-roofed Daniel Goudy, Architect, 2210 Meyers Avenue, Escondido, CA, reviewed the design of the project, including landscape enhancements and redesigning building layouts to create open space. Bill Franklin 76 Sherwood, Chula Vista, CA neighborhood resident for 16 years stated that although he appreciates the applicant's efforts in mitigating some of the concerns raised at the last meeting, he is still concerned with traffic and visibility impacts created by the project. Mr. Franklin suggested utilizing a vegetation sound barrier along the swimming pool area. Steve Hayes, 68 Sherwood Street, Chula Vista, stated he was encouraged at the applicant's efforts to mitigate the concerns previously raised. Mr. Hayes is not convinced that the traffic studies truly reflect accurately the traffic impacts because they are probably done Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 to 5:00. The traffic studies should be conducted during off hours when those vehicles are in the parking lot and the street. Public Hearing Closed 8:00 Commissioner Ray suggested that a phone could be installed at the gate entrance to be used after hours to contact tenants to allow their guests to enter into the parking lot. Mr. Dabby stated that he has considered this and is in the process of getting cost estimates. Commissioner O'Neill stated that taking into consideration the neighbors comments and concerns with having a two-story building right next to their property line, Commissioner O'Neill recommended moving the footprint of the building from 10 feet to 20 feet away from the property line. The applicant agreed to set the building 20 feet from the property. MSC (Ray/Castaneda) (7-0-0-0) the Planning Commission adopt resolution and recommend that the City Council approve the requested 20% increase in density, the elimination of the required Planning Commission Minutes - ? - April 12, 2000 guest parking, and the allowance of 16% of the required parking be compact parking spaces to facilitate the construction of a maximum of 10 Iow-income dwelling units for an existing 40 unit multifamily residential development, known as Kingwood Manor, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Council Resolution with the following conditions: a. that an intercom system be installed at the gated entrance to the parking lot. b. That a solid sound barrier wall with landscaping be constructed along the pool side of the projecl. ¢. That the setback from the back of the proposed building be increased from 10 feet to 20 feet; and cl. That the Kingwood Manor apartments complete the certification to the Crime-Free Multi- Housing Program prior to issuance of building permits. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 99-06; Consideration of an amendment to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, and Section 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 freeway opening for public access. Pacific Bay Homes. Commissioner Ray excused himself from the dais due to a previously scheduled engagement. Background: Luis Hernandez, Senior Planner, reported that Rolling Hills Ranch, a master planned community formerly known as Salt Creek Ranch consists of 1,200 acres located north of the existing Eastlake Business Center. It is accessed primarily from East H Street, with secondary access from Lane Avenue and Hunte Parkway via Otay Lakes Road. In 1990 the City Council approved the General Development Plan with 2,800 dwelling units and other support land uses which include: a) two school sites (middle and elementary schools) b) a fire station site c) two park sites (1 neighborhood and 1 community park) d) two community purpose facility sites; and e) approximately 450 acres of open space. In 1990 the City Council approved the Salt Creek Ranch SPA with basically the same land use components, minus 200 dwelling units less than the General Development Plan. The adopted SPA Plan and its regulatory components (the Planned Community District Regulations and the Public Facilities Financing Plan) outline more specifically the development of the Master Planned Community and established development parameters that insure that all on- site and off-site public facilities needed to support the project are provided in conjunction or in advanced of development. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - April 12, 2000 The SPA requires several on-site and off-site improvements, including a facility connecting the project to SR-125 located to the north. The SPA limits the development of Rolling Hills Ranch to the first 1,257 dwelling units (Phase I), until SR-125 is constructed and open for public access. Subsequently, in 1992, the City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for 2,616 dwelling units subject to certain conditions of approval. One of the conditions required that Phase I of the project be reduced from 1,257 to 1,137 dwelling units in order to mitigate traffic impacts identified in the traffic report prepared for the Tentative Map. The development phasing has been modified, as required by the Tentative Map conditions of approval. With the exception of the construction of SR-125, most of the public facilities prescribed in the Public Facilities Financing Plan have been completed or bonded. Presently, Rolling Hills has obtained Final Maps for the entire Phase I of the project, and has obtained 765 building permits and sold approximately 500 homes. It is important to note that due to more precise engineering of the site and the inclusion of some neighborhood amenities, Phase I has lost approximately 170 dwelling units for a total of 963 instead of 1,137 dwelling units at the end of completion of Phase I. The applicant has requested that the cap imposed on Salt Creek Ranch be deleted and that they be allowed to proceed subject to the Growth Management threshold standards adopted for the entire eastern territory. Traffic Analysis Alex AI-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer, reported that the proposed amendment is to revised the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Map Condition of Approval No. 1 and 3. These conditions limited the project development to 1,137 dwelling units. The proposed amendment to the Tentative Map conditions and to the related section of the Public Facilities Financing Plan will increase the development limit to 1,665 equivalent dwelling units. The traffic studies conducted in 1990 identified the project's Phase Traffic demands and recommended that the development scenarios adopted by the G DP and SPA Plan be modified to reduce the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 opening, from 1,257 to 1,137 (reduction of 120 units). The intent of the building cap and the recommended reduction was to insure that the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection East H Street and Hidden Vista Drive not exceed Level of Service D. Lindscott Law and Greenspan Engineers conducted two studies to determine if and how much street capacity is available on East H Street. The initial study was to analyze the short-term impact of all on-going land development projects on the East H Street roadway section as defined by the City GMOC standard. The second study was to identify the impacts of the proposed amendment on various intersections along East H Street in order to ensure that the existing building cap would not be violated. Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - April 12, 2000 The study concluded that by July 2004 with anticipated growth, East H Street will not meet the City's Traffic Monitoring Program standards. By July 2004, East H Street was forecasted to degrade to 3 hours of LOS D. Based on the anticipated growth rate, Rolling Hills Ranch would have built 1,150 EDU by July 2004. However, staff recommended development limit for the project to be at only 1,665 EDU's. The Consultant also conducted an intersection analysis on four key intersections along East H Street. The study concluded that the intersection of East H Street and Hidden Vista Drive would degrade from two peak hours of LOS D and one peak hour of LOS C to two peak hours of LOS D and one peak hour of LOS E if more than an additional 330 EDU's are added to the present 1,137 development cap without improvements. The segment and intersection analysis reports concluded that Rolling Hills Ranch development can be allowed to proceed beyond the 1,137 to 1,467 EDU's at this time without significant traffic impacts at the above mentioned intersections and segment. However, to mitigate potential impacts beyond the 1,467 EDU's and be able to increase the development to the maximum of 1,665 EDU's recommended by staff, one of the following improvements needs to be constructed and open for public access: c~ Provide an additional westbound thru lane at East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection; or o Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to at least East Palomar Street. Mr. AI-Agha stated that is should be noted that if SR-125 is constructed from Olympic Parkway north to SR-54, the project could develop beyond the 1,665 EDU's threshold cap to accommodate project build out. Staff recommendation: Based on the Initial Study, adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for IS- 00-05 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program issued for this project. Adopt attached Resolution PCS-99-06, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map and Section 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Draft City Council Resolution. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Hall question why the traffic analysis focused on traffic segments that were east of 1-805 and up H Street, excluding the west segment toward Hilltop Drive. Mr. AI-Agha responded that the scope of the study considered the project-direct impact and general cumulative impact. The critical intersections that will be directly impacted by the project Planning Commission Minutes - 10 - April 12, 2000 are the intersections at 1-805 and East H Street and some key intersections along East H Street. Commissioner Hall further stated that he is not convinced that the traffic pattern that is now causing the blockage on East H Street has a significant percentage that is coming from Otay Ranch, and clarified that what is being discussed now is the East H Street traffic problem and the future cumulative effect of all of the other developments. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. AI-Agha to elaborate on the Level of Service E that is contained in staff's report. Mr. AI-Agha stated that if more than 330 EDU's are added to the present 1,137 development cap without improvements, the section of East H Street, between Hidden Vista and 1-805 would be at a Level of Service E during one peak hour (AM). This is based on a look-up table standard for comparing volume on a standard street. The look up table is very conservative and is only used for initial assessment but not for actually measuring the level of service. Presently the volume on East H Street is approximately 63,000. Once you go beyond 60,000 you are in Level Of Service D. The study is predicting approximately 3,300 ADT's, therefore, at one point in the year 2004 it will get close to 77,000, which translates into a Level Of Service E. Mr. AI-Agha further clarified that there are two limits which are being recommended. The initial cap, which is 1,467 DU's and the pre-SR-125 Ii mit, which is 1,665 DU's. The developer cannot exceed the 1,467 initial cap unless Olympic Parkway is constructed. Once Olympic Parkway is constructed, then the development can proceed to an additional 198 units and shall stop at 1,665 dwelling units until the construction of SR-125. Therefore, the limit is phased into two stages. Commississioner Thomas asked what measures has the City considered if these projections occur before the year 2004. Mr. AI-Agha responded that the Growth Management Oversight is applied fairly and equally to all developments and would stay on top of these projections. It could also recommend a moratorium be imposed. The City is conducting traffic studies on an annual basis for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 in order to avoid reaching the conditions in the year 2004 which would make a moratorium inevitable. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the City is consistent in its restrictions across the board to other developments i.e. San Miguel Ranch. Mr. AI-Agha responded affirmatively i.e. for San Miguel Ranch, the development will be limited to 675 to pre-SR-125 and will likely do the same for future developments. Commissioner O'Neill stated that although the City could impose a moratorium on development, it has no control over student enrollment populations for Southwestern College and was a bit disconcerted to learn that although the traffic studies do factor in, on an aggregate basis, the traffic generated by the College, it does not, however, address the student enrollment number sfor evening classes. Planning Commission Minutes - 11 - April 12, 2000 Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director, stated that through discussions with the College on another issue, they have indicated that they are moving toward capping their enrollment and establishing satellite campuses at different sites away from the main Campus on Otay Lakes Road. Commissioner Hall inquired if the signal lights along East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road are synchronized to allow optimum traffic flow and if so, is it included in the traffic study. Mr. AI-Agha responded that they are synchronized on both roadways. The Caltrans segment may not be in synch with the Cities system, however, they are, as well, synchronized to operate optimally with their system on their segment of the interchanges. This information was included in the traffic study. Public Hearing Opened 8:35 Dave Gatzke, 2300 Boswell Road, Suite 209, applicant, thanked staff and the Commissioner for their time in considering this proposal and gave a brief overview of the project. Mr. Gatzke indicated that they are thoroughly aware of community concerns regarding increased traffic congestion. They made a significant investment in traffic studies and have worked with staff for over a year to fully analyzing the impact of this proposal. The traffic studies do indicate that sufficient capacity exists to support this proposal and strongly urge the Planning Commission to adopt staff's recommendation. Public Hearing closed 8:50 COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Castaneda expressed concern with the myopic view on this whole issue of traffic problems on East H Street and some of the mitigation measures. The whole picture is that these are regional issues and SR-125 will need to be constructed and in service to alleviate some of the gridlock on 1-805, therefore, he does not support granting any density or increases in DU's and be does not support staff's recommendation. Chair Willett asked for clarification on the widening of East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive. Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator, stated that the Mitigated Neg Dec offers one of two alternatives for mitigation: 1) either the additional lane, or 2) the completion of Olympic Parkway from 1-805 to where Palomar will be extended. The Mitigated Neg Dec goes on to find that the widening of East H Street is infeasible, therefore, the mitigation that is included is that prior to those additional units being allowed, Olympic Parkway would need to be opened from the Sunbow boundary to what will be the future Palomar intersection. Planning Commission Minutes - 12 - April 12, 2000 Commissioner Castaneda stated he did not agree with Ms. Ponseggi's statement because before those improvements are even built, we're granting a 330 increase in units. Ms. Ponseggi responded that they can go to 330 additional units (for a total of 1,467) at this this time without any impact, and they cannot exceed 1,665 until SR-125 is opened. Mr. AI-Agha stated that it is important to note that the project won't reach the original cap of 1,137 until another year and a half from now based on their current building plan. Olympic Parkway is financed and under construction and should be completed up to east Palomar by that time. Commissioner Castaneda stated that if that's the case, why don't we allow them to build the 1,137 and then if the improvements are completed, they can build the additional 330 units PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED Liz Jackson stated that part of that request is due to the fact that it takes a considerable amount of time to plan and to implement infrastructure improvements prior to actually pulling a building permit. Prior to proceeding with Phase II grading for the property, their business partner would need some type of financial assurance that prior to spending 8 million dollars in improvements, there is the ability to proceed with construction in the future. While we may not actually pull the building permits, it takes approximately a year or so to map the project and then it takes time to construct the improvements, design the product and build the houses themselves. Ms. Jackson pointed out that Olympic Parkway is bonded for in its entirety. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Hall stated that he does not oppose and developer or development, but is not convinced with that Olympic Parkway or any other arterial improvement is going to resolved the long-term issues and he would like to see it happen first before he approves anything more than what is already on the books. MSC (Thomas/O'Neill) (5-1-0-1) based on the Initial Study, adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for IS-00-05 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program issued for this project along with the clarification on Page 4 of the Negative Declaration to read, "ensure Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to where it intersects East Palomar Street. Motion carried with Commissioner Hall voting against it. MSC (Thomas/O'Neill) (4-2-0-1) that the Planning Commission: a. Adopted Resolution PCS 99-06 recommending that the City Council approve the Planning Commission Minutes - 13 - April 12, 2000 proposed amendments to Conditions I and 3 of Sal Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map and Section 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Draft City Council Resolution; Include the clarification on Page 4 of the Negative Declaration to read, "ensure Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to where it intersects East Palomar Street, and c. Removing the language contained in the Public Facilities Financing Plan regarding the H Street improvements. Motion carried with Commissioners Castaneda and Hall voting against. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT at p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of Diana Vargas, Secretff~¥ to Planning Commission