The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/05/12 (7) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 12, 1993 Page 1 4, PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) GPA 93-04, Application by EastLake Development Company for approval of a General Plan Amendment for 58 acres of EastLake Greens, located in two separate parcels, one south of Eastlake High School, the second in the southwestern portion of EastLake Greens, BACKGROUND: The applicant, EastLake Development Company, has submitted a General Plan Amendment (GPA) for consideration for 58 acres (corrected from 51 acres originally depicted) located within EastLake Greens in two separate parcels, one south of Eastlake High School, on the west side of Eastlake Parkway, and east of the future alignment of the SR-125 freeway/tollway, (Subarea 1) and the second in the southwestern portion of EastLake Greens, also south and west of the (200 ft, wide) San Diego Aqueduct, The proposed amendment would result in the redesignation of a portion of Subarea 1 from Low Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre) to High Density Residential (18 to 27 dwelling units per acre), reconfiguration of the alignment of EastLake Parkway and the relocation of an area designated for Public and Quasi-Public uses which will contain a future Gtay Water District Storage facility, Subarea 2 would be redesignated from Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre) to Medium-High Density Residential (11-18 dwelling units per acre), This proposal was submitted by the EastLake Development Company in September, 1992, after discussion with the Planning Department and Gtay Ranch project staff, Both of these parcels are adjacent to the EastLake "Land Swap" area of Gtay Ranch, which will be granted to the EastLake Development Company in exchange for land to the west which will be granted to the Baldwin Company, owners of Gtay Ranch, This proposed GPA is a "companion request" to the proposed GPA/General Development Plan for Gtay Ranch, which is being considered by the Planning Commission in a series of public hearings at this time (see Attachment A), A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 3, 1993, for the proposed GPA, The Planning Commission took considerable public testimony and, after discussion, continued the public hearing to April 14, 1993, April 28, 1993, and subsequently to May 12, 1993, in order to trail discussion of the GPA for the 169 acre EastLake "Land Swap" property, which is part of the Gtay Ranch Project proposal. The public hearing for the Gtay Ranch Project has been continued, and a preceding item on the agenda for May 12, 1993. An Initial Study (Case No, 93-16) was prepared for the proposed project and a recommendation was made by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator that the project be found to have no significant impacts which were not discussed in EIR 86-04 for the EastLake Greens project, and '1-/ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 12, 1993 Page 2 that an Addendum for the proposed project be adopted (the addendum was prepared based on a 51 acre project, which has been modified to 58 acres due to errors in calculation), RECOMMENDATION: 1, Find that the proposed project has no significant impacts which were not discussed in EIR 86-04 for the EastLake Greens project, and adopt the proposed Addendum to Environmental Impact Report EIR-86-04, 2. Adopt the attached Recommending Resolution by which you recommend that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment as reflected in the staff alternative, designating the two areas MH (Medium High Residential) 11-18 du/ac. DISCUSSION: After much discussion at the March 3, 1993, public hearing, regarding correct acreage totals for the proposed GPA, various errors were discovered in interpreting mapped General Plan land use boundaries, These errors amounting to a change in total acreage from 51 acres to 58 acres have now been corrected and are reflected in the following: EastLake GPA ProDosal: The proposed amendment to the Chula Vista General Plan would involve the following changes in acreage of different general plan designations for the 58 acre area (see Attachment B and C): Existing General Plan Proposed General Plan Low-Medium Residential(3-6 du/ac) Medium-High Residential(11-l8 du/ac) High Residential(18-27 du/ac) Open Space Circulation Streets Public/Quasi Public Total 37 acres o acres o acres o acres 10 acres 11 acres 58 acres o acres 15 acres 19 acres 6 acres 8 acres 10 acres 58 acres The project would result in an increase in allowable density in the 58 acre area from a range of 111 to 222 dwelling units in the existing Low-Medium residentially designated areas to a range of 507 to 783 dwelling units in the proposed Medium-High and High Density residentially designated areas. Thus the maximum potential change in dwelling of- 2. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 12, 1993 Page 3 units for these areas would be 561 dwelling units, although at midpoint the potential increase in units over current designations would be 469 dwelling units, Historv: As originally proposed and analyzed, EastLake Greens called for a total unit count of 3,609 dwelling units, In approving the project in 1989, the City Council, reduced the density and unit count of five parcels in EastLake Greens from High Density (18-27 + du/ac,) to a density of 4,5 dulac, Overall dwelling units were reduced from 3,609 to 2,774, for a total reduction of 835 dwelling units, Later plan amendments modified two (2) of the parcels from 4,5 du/ac to 10 dulac, thus adding 68 units to the 2,774 The applicant's proposed General Plan Amendment would re-designate one of these five parcels, R-26 which is part of Subarea 1, back to a High-Density Residential General Plan Designation, Otav Ranch Proiect: The January 15, 1993 Otay Ranch Staff Report, Pages 16-19, describes a part of the project known as the "EastLake Land Swap," The Land Swap area consists of 3 separate parcels totalling 169 acres (see preceding agenda item), which are located immediately adjacent to the EastLake Greens project area. Proposed land uses in these areas are to be considered by the Planning Commission as part of the Otay Ranch project. However, action on the Land Swap area is so closely related to action on this item, that any consideration of land use changes on Sub Area #1 or Sub Area #2, in EastLake Greens, should be made in concert with the adjacent Land Swap area and with knowledge of the proposed land use relationships proposed for the Otay Ranch (see Attachment C and Exhibits 1 through 4), The proposed uses for the 169 acre area are as follows: Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac) Medium Residential (6-11 du/ac) Medium High Residential (11-18 du/ac) High Residential (18-27 du/ac) Retail Commercial Professional & Administrative Comm, Public/Quasi-Public Open Space Circulation Element Road Total Existing General Plan Proposed General Plan 72 acres 37 acres o acres o acres o acres o acres 22 acres 19 acres 19 acres 169 acres 16 acres o acres 31 acres 18 acres 56 acres 20 acres o acres 12 acres 16 acres 169 acres i" - ..3 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 12, 1993 Page 4 Staff is recommending an alternative to the above proposal which will be discussed with the prior agenda item for the EastLake Land Swap, Additional information will be forwarded to the Commission under separate cover prior to the hearing date regarding that recommendation, The Land Swap area proposal would extend southward an "Activity Corridor" along EastLake Parkway, from the Kaiser Hospital facility north of Telegraph Canyon Road to the Eastern Urban Center within the Otay Ranch project. The "village" concept, proposed for adjacent areas within the Otay Ranch, would not be applicable within the area of the Land Swap since the EastLake Greens (golf course-oriented community) does not specifically conform to the "village" concept. Nevertheless, there are certain features of the Land Swap area which are similar in nature to the Transit-related villages proposed within Otay Ranch (proposed with Medium High Residential Densities 11-18 du/ac in the village core areas). The location along a future Express Bus route, proximity to future regional light rail transit facilities, and the relationships to high intensity activities (such as the Eastern Urban Center) along the SR-125 corridor dictate that land uses within the Land Swap area be compatible with these adjacent areas, Lower intensity single family residential land uses would not be compatible with the activity ultimately planned for the SR -125 corridor. Subsequent Approvals: If this proposed General Plan Amendment is approved, the project proponents will need to process 1) a General Development Plan for the area, 2) a Sectional Plan Area Plan, including a Public Facilities Financing Plan, and 3) tentative and final subdivision maps and/or precise plans, prior to issuance of any building permits for this area, Communitv Forum: On February 18, 1993, Planning Department staff conducted a community forum for this proposed project at the Eastlake High School library , Nine citizens attended the forum, The two chief reservations expressed about the project were; 1) That the Sub Area #1 site was not appropriate for single-family residential uses as called for in the existing General Plan, and, 2) whether the parcels would be included within the EastLake Community Association, The staff response to the first issue is included in the Analvsis section below. The second issue is one which must be resolved between the residents of EastLake Greens and the EastLake Development Company. Prior Public Hearing: As mentioned previously in this report, a public hearing on the proposed EastLake Greens GPA for Sub Areas #1 and #2 was held on March 3, 1993 (See attached -(-.y City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 12, 1993 Page 5 minutes), Concerns expressed by the public at that hearing involved opposition to the GPA request based on impacts that would result from increased density (e,g" added financial burden to the existing Homeowners' Association, import of residents with a lack of commitment to the community, higher traffic impacts and crime, school overcrowding, and the devaluation of property values, After extensive discussion by the Commission, it was decided to continue review of the GP A until after discussion on land use issues for the Otay Ranch, Staff Alternative GPA Proposal: Staff has examined the land uses and intensities proposed on the Otay Ranch, the EastLake Land Swap parcels and those within EastLake Greens, After examining these land use relationships closely, listening to discussions by the Planning Commission regarding the adjacent Otay Ranch proposal and this proposal, as well as examining the surrounding General Plan-level land use designations for the area, staff is recommending a modification to the EastLake Greens General Plan Amendment proposal and will be recommending modifications to the EastLake Land Swap GPA as a part of the Otay Ranch Project based on rationale contained in the following Analysis section, Briefly, the General Plan land use designation recommended by staff for the residential portion of Sub Area #1 and #2 is Medium-High Residential (11-18 du/ac), The following modifications to the EastLake Greens General Plan Amendment are recommended by staff (see attached Attachment D): Existing General Plan Proposed General Plan Low-Medium Residential(3-6 du/ac) Medium-High Residential(ll-18 du/ac) Open Space Circulation Streets Public/Quasi Public Total 37 acres o acres o acres 10 acres II acres 58 acres o acres 34 acres 6 acres 8 acres 10 acres 58 acres The staff recommended alternative GPA would result in an increase in allowable density in the 58 acre area from a range of III to 222 dwelling units in the existing Low- Medium residentially designated areas to a range of 374 to 612 dwelling units in the Medium-High Density residentially designated areas, The maximum potential change in dwelling units for these areas would be 390 dwelling units, although at midpoint the potential increase in units over current designations would be 326 dwelling units, 4-.5 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 12, 1993 Page 6 ANALYSIS: Based upon the discussion above and the discussion contained in the staff report for the prior agenda item for the EastLake Land Swap, staff recommends that a General Plan Amendment be approved for both Sub Area #1 and Sub Area #2 per the Staff Recommended Alternative above (See also Attachment D), Staff's rationale for this recommendation is as follows: 1, The proposed General Plan and General Development Plan for the Otay Ranch parcel substantially alter the land use and planning parameters for these two parcels, Subarea 1, located between Eastlake Parkway and the SR-125 alignment, is within the EastLake "Activity Corridor" along SR-125, The location along a future Express Bus route, the close proximity to a potential regional light rail transit station to the south, the location adjacent to future SR-125, the location near retail services to the north and south and placement along and access from a major roadway (EastLake Parkway), as well as separation from single family neighborhoods to the east by a major water aqueduct and SDG&E utility easement (200 f1. wide) make the proposed designation of these as parcels appropriate (See Exhibits 1 through 4), 2, By designating the property as Medium-High Residential flexibility in providing a variety of residential product types within the EastLake Greens community can be achieved, Under the proposed land use designation, and combined with the adjacent EastLake Land Swap parcels, a range of dwelling types from townhomes to apartments could be developed along the "Activity Corridor" and provide the ability to achieve some dwelling units in the higher density range, The use of the property for the existing as single family residential uses is inappropriate and undesirable given the site's location adjacent to SR-125, the Otay Water District storage facility site, and EastLake High School. 3, Through transfers of densities within the areas designated as Medium-High Residential an opportunity to provide some affordable housing to meet the City's Housing Goals can still be achieved without a General Plan Amendment to High Residential. The densities recommended for both Subareas, at 11-18 dwelling units per acre, are within the range of numerous existing and planned townhome condominium developments within the EastLake Greens project and thus would be compatible with the remainder of EastLake Greens, Processing of a General Development Plan, SPA Plan and Design Review applications would be required in order to develop the property, eastlkpc.db iI-" - u----:- ---\ ~ '" ATTACHM~ A~ - ~ , , . N . = 800' " -'.~~.'-' .~.... :~' . ',07"';.-: t' : , , ~ (ASTL.AIC,[ \ \ \ " \ '. \ \ \ -., \ \ \, \ I I: .: I , !~\ l ~ " \ , .... , AMENDMENT AREAS , , -A / (~~' '---- -- : ' I -' ) / PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN Ol'>> ~.r -&~ ~O ~ " GPA 93-04 EASTLAKE GREENS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 6Z <( (00)-' =0.. fQbC!) Z I- =(f) W)x bW 00 6 @ ~ - ~ ~ :a :a~a.'>_ ~ - :z ~ j~i~~~ ~ ~jj~~Ji;Hh.& JiJi &~~~i~J] .!! in ". '~ , ~ 0., :5 '9, ~ ~ ":\ " ' ~ ~ ..J .\ ((\ .". 0\ ,I ~ ..J .... . a ('</1\ a.. ':I:' ',_...' ........... <-:'>:-:. <<~ " ....... ....J <"<"'1' (~~) (~;': ."."'."<<<<) - . ...i~t)9 . ............ ~ ..J "1-& ~~ S~ tiiI 1:iS~ ~q I:Q .... z U< ::E :I: U ~ -< . . ~~I' \J'-'!f 1) ~ ~i ~<i OOCl) =0 @Js a: c.. - ~ ~ - --~ ~ ~ eo_ 'I' :a ;;: ~ iH!~huhL jjJj~~~~~irj~ = OOW 6~ OO~ ~~ @JW ~ u ~~ :Sf Vii (iS~ ~q !z LIJ ::E :I: U ~ < ~ 0 CI) Z LIJ --- :3 LIJ N CI:: ~ ~ :3 0 c<I ... & ~ <: t .:\ ~ '" ' ~ '" ~ -' CI) '-' CI) < LIJ , , ., o ~ ~) ~ a.. ,--' . . LIJ . u ~2 ~ ,J' :; J! ~ -, 0 r ~ CI) CI) t:) z, --- LIJ - 5 LIJ ~ CI:: c<I 0 ~ g g ~ '" CI) '-' < ~ LIJ ~"'r G~ ~~ lQb~ w b =<( ~ bH: OO~ GC/) 00 ~ - ~ g - --13 -a 1,j '" _ :s;:a~~ , i~f~~~ ~ ~h~pIHhf' jj~j~~~~!i~i~ ~~ S~ tiiI ~~ -.... '90 Ii ~ ":\ ~ :2 ..J :2 ...J /(j)~\ ~ 1\.;/ a.; SZ~'HS ~ < Q... o ;:2\ W ~" W 'II: \ Q:: cd o '" ... ~ < ~ ~ tI1 < W . . ~IJ'21. .::,ti t I;; \I" ~ .y' -Ittb o ~ p.J ::E :I: u ~ < < Q... o tI1 Z ~ p.J N p.J 'II: Q:: cd o '" p.J <: ~ .D ~ ~ tI1 < p.J .. ~ W U ~ ~ ~ tI1 o 5 ~ < p.J ~) ><C';' " '-c' , ,~:;/"i, ( " .,;" ' / :~,,'\)/C~,.. '. .' . ~ -l::!: '. ~"~ ,<,",' ,8Oi:, ~~:~I~ ~",.;"', ,~".:bJ, " df> J 0",) , SO!. \~<"- j /~ ..- ,--' . '" ',f';;"- /' ./ -;0. , "0./ "- ;"" ...'..,,';.:.:-- '"'*''' 0 "\/ , ~ / ',,:,;,\ ,',' I; "'--J---;. .- -- " '/ -, ~" "';d: ,J' "'.....,..:r.:.~'J, .,.~(,:, '~ '. ;.~ '~,: ~'n'z 'I' '", \~,~~. ::\ '\'-- .."'-< ,) c" ..\),;'10.:" ,. C'*'~ ; ~~ \( YP, ..'W' ':7~'~~-0<~ " " :r-' "\t:"i,,~.,., ,-,;;~.j" 1~ .....: ;/'./' ~ -~ ~ .., J' _... . '\ '" _'""""'_"~~"".) _"":'"; _ ~,', .~ ' It> 'P;:::.-;- .~ -".'_" ... :,. "" '-." ,.:' ~. , 1- " 'v. "~".;.,, ~/" ~", ~.4 I::;:: .~ ,. -~. . ~..., "r" # , .....,,?' -~ I~(;~"" - ... '. \ ~ r . ,.,'. .~ ,~. :I: (+ '- -.... *~ I..,..,0oI _ ' .. '. '.....' . ..-' """... \, 't.IJi;.J .,~'~-"-.. #> -, .. " '~>h' -r t, \, '., \. ,. / '" '> " "',,. ~ ',( . ~t " ~.~f . 7~". 18 :", ~ '. i~ ;c '. I< ,II",t ! ~ ,; .& .~': ~:;c j --.. ,; I- x~ W~ 1-> z<{ O-J O:J J: (!)O ~z zo: ZW <{t- -J(f) o..US N t: -j:Q , - :I: ><: \.IJ ~ ^!!MI!J!!d fJ/unH '\ 'I' ~"/ 2. ~ 0) c: '6.. a. o .s:: CIJ .:.: .... rf >, - 'i:: ::J E E o u (5 o .s:: () CIJ .s:: 0) J: 0) c: '6.. a. o .s:: CIJ ~ 9G ~ -8S I-a: ><0 Wo 1-- Za: Oa: 00 c;O Z>- -I- z- z> <(1= ,--I 0 a..<( >6-.-0 ~ cs:. ~c. ~ h "C.)'-" ?'" ~ 'E ~ , :;:; '5 ~ ~ "'1..3 "" t: ~ - :I: >< w f- X W t- Z o Oz (!)Q ~~ z--' z=> <(0 --,a: Cl.O ~ Q) 2 E:: .~ ~ ::J - --I ft 2 ~ - .- ::J W CJ) - ft ,(IJ c .- .... ~ CJ) Q) c c - t= ~ .'!:: .0 .... = t= CJ) ca <( (IJ c a: CJ) ~ - Q) ,Q) (IJ CJ) t= (f) OJ OJ ~ - ~ I.() c .r::: ro - (IJ c <( .- .QJ Q. CJ) C\J .r::: (IJ x u c ..... E:? .r::: - --I W .3 (IJ , E:? u F a: 2 ,Q) (f) 2 5' ~ .f: .... c.. . . fii0\,L,"" = \[])= . . = . . . . ie . . ~.~ ..:'?o . ~6 + ~+ \ tii @j~~ _.iII, ' .,l \t ~ ~..~ o..u \,J ~~~' ...~,E" ~ ' ~, ~ .....n.. ~ 'liJ.. <' ~~h...~~8.l. Ice _~ illi~.. -<)_ ~ ..n.. ",,__ ~ 0.- ................ %...~ \1+ I -.'-1 \ ~~~, ~\ \\.J ~\ :.>\'6 /'0'-.-'" +,J V-- \ ' ~." ~+ ~... ... + o \,J ~\ ~.I'f FU " ..~ General Development Plan ..--.----.--- I-A I-A RESIDENTIAL ~. 0 woo USE 'CAE' OOJ....c c:J:::JLOW 249,4 0-3 "8 ~ Low/Medium 349.3 ,... 1833 ~......., 238.8 8-11 1950 PO ~"""""''''''' 1205 11-18 1680 ~""" 88.7 18-27.. 1672 ~--~-- ~ &b-TotaJ 10257 7834 f1,QN'RESIOENllAl WI) LOE ."",. PO ~Retu * '------ 58.8 '.-.", I C-o i A"ofesaOW & 12.8 AarinstTatNe ~R8'8an::h& 132.4 Lirited Men./factu"ng i 0 j Qpen Spac. 183.0 ~ P\dc/0Je~ 103.3 ~~.&~ 299.4 ~MajorCirClJ8t1or1 211.!5 .......TotaI ..." ~Futu".l..I't.I 74.2 PI"oiect Total 2099.1 ac 7834 au .. C.n~'~.'. Cllur~1I SiI. -~, p r- ',H'-: C /--'----,----...... " ! '" \H PO M\ I eM \ \ -I \ \ .J---- ~ '< \ --------- .-...... \ '\ \ ""',M cS,,? p /.... 1..,...--..... \\\ \ '~', ~. PO"- \ P II L '\ p'- :.W__---, LM ,I ,I ) , \! /./ '~ \'" // /.,ot-i / - /M , _/ ~~" , eM H .4i fASTLAKE A PlANNED COMMUNITY BY EASTlAKE DEVELOPMENT co. mCinti U.;,.......,;'\:,. -"N- O.,. )!~~I~~ _ '1-/5 EXHIBIT 5 RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 58 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN THE EASTLAKE GREENS COMMUNITY, SOUTH OF EASTLAKE HIGH SCHOOL AND ON BOTH SIDES OF THE EXTENSION OF EASTLAKE PARKWAY WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a General Plan Amendment was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on September 15, 1992 by the EastLake Development Company; and WHEREAS, said applications requested that approximately 58 acres located within the EastLake Greens community, specifically located on the west side of the southerly extension of EastLake Parkway, south of EastLake High School (Sub Area I) and east of the southerly extension of EastLake Parkway, south of EastLake Greens Golf Course (Sub Area 2) as diagrammatically depicted on the Attachment A, be amended from Low Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac), Open Space, and Public/Quasi-Public, to Medium High Residential (11-18 du/ac) and Public/Quasi- Public (reconfigured), and that the alignment for EastLake Parkway as shown on the General Plan land use and circulation diagram be adjusted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Property at least ten days prior to the hearing in accordance with Government Code Sections 65358, 65091 (a) I and 2 and Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19,12,070; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study (Case No, 93-16) was prepared for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator recommends that the project be found to have no significant impacts which were not discussed in EIR 86-04 for the EastLake Greens project, and recommends the adoption of an Addendum for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment has not been amended more than three (3) times this calendar year and the Planning Commission intends the General Plan Amendment recommended for approval by this action be heard, considered, consolidated and treated as one General Plan Amendment along with the Otay Ranch General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council, as a condition of Resolution No, 15200, for the EastLake Greens Tentative Map, required a low and moderate income housing program with an established goal of a 5 % low and 5 % moderate, and deferred said low and moderate income housing condition .y -~~ requiring that it be further evaluated as a factor in the analysis of the General Plan density policies as they relate to parcels R-24, R-25, R-26 (Sub Area #1), and R-28; and, WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would provide the potential for additional density on parcel R-26 (Sub Area #1) and therefore the additional potential to provide affordable housing units within the EastLake Greens project to be analyzed further at the General Development Plan level; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p,m" March 3, 1993, and continued to April 12, April 28, and May 12, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the Planning Commission the Commission finds that the project would have no significant environmental impacts which were not discussed in EIR 86-04 EastLake Greens project, and adopts the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report EIR 86-04, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission recommends that the City Council enact the draft resolution as attached hereto to amend the General Plan to redesignate 58 acres located on both sides of the southerly extension of EastLake Parkway, south of EastLake High School, and south of EastLake Golf Course, from Low Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac), Open Space, and Public/Quasi Public, to Medium High Residential (11-18 du/ac) and Public/Quasi-Public (reconfigured), and that the alignment for EastLake Parkway as shown on the General Plan land use and circulation diagram be adjusted as diagrammatically shown on Attachment D (Attachments Band C not included), BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 12th day of May, 1993 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Susan Fuller, Chairperson ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary eastlkpc.rsl t" ./ ? RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 58 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN THE EASTLAKE GREENS COMMUNITY, SOUTH OF EASTLAKE HIGH SCHOOL AND ON BOTH SIDES OF THE EXTENSION OF EASTLAKE P ARKW A Y WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a General Plan Amendment was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on September 15, 1992 by the EastLake Development Company; and WHEREAS, said applications requested that approximately 58 acres located within the EastLake Greens community, specifically located on the west side of the southerly extension of EastLake Parkway, south of EastLake High School (Sub Area I) and east of the southerly extension of EastLake Parkway, south of EastLake Greens Golf Course (Sub Area 2) as diagrammatically depicted on the attached Attachment A, be amended from Low Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac), Open Space, and Public/Quasi Public, to Medium High Residential (11-18 du/ac) and Public/Quasi-Public (reconfigured), and that the alignment for EastLake Parkway as shown on the General Plan land use and circulation diagram be adjusted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 3, and continued it to April 12, April 28, and May 12, 1993 and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 1000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Property at least ten days prior to the hearing in accordance with Government Code Sections 65358, 65091 (a) I and 2 and Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19,12,070; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study (Case No, 93-16) was prepared for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator recommends that the project be found to have no significant impacts which were not discussed in EIR 86-04 for the EastLake Greens project, and recommends the adoption of an Addendum for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment has not been amended more than three (3) times this calendar year and the Planning Commission intends the General Plan Amendment recommended for approval by this action be heard, considered, consolidated and treated as one General Plan Amendment along with the Otay Ranch General Plan Amendment; and I' rr S WHEREAS, the City Council, as a condition of Resolution No, 15200, for the EastLake Greens Tentative Map, required a low and moderate income housing program with an established goal of a 5 % low and 5 % moderate, and deferred said low and moderate income housing condition requiring that it be further evaluated as a factor in the analysis of the General Plan density policies as they relate to parcels R-24, R-25, R-26 (Sub Area #1), and R-28; and, WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would provide the potential for additional density on parcel R-26 (Sub Area #1) and therefore the additional potential to provide affordable housing units within the EastLake Greens project to be analyzed further at the General Development Plan level; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely6:00 p,m" _ , 1993, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the Planning Commission the Commission finds that the project would have no significant environmental impacts which were not discussed in EIR 86-04 EastLake Greens project, and adopts the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report EIR 86-04, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission recommends that the City Council enact the draft resolution as attached hereto to amend the General Plan to redesignate 58 acres located on both sides of the southerly extension of EastLake Parkway, south of EastLake High School, and south of EastLake Golf Course, from Low Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac), Open Space, and Public/Quasi Public, to Medium High Residential (11-18 du/ac) and Public/Quasi-Public (reconfigured), and that the alignment for EastLake Parkway as shown on the General Plan land use and circulation diagram be adjusted as diagrammatically shown on Attachment D (Attachments Band C not included), Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A, Leiter Director of Planning Bruce M, Boogaard City Attorney eastlkcc.rsl 2 .y ~I' ? ADDEI\'DUM TO EI\'VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-86-04 EASTLAKE GREENS SPA EASTLAKE TRAILS PREZONE & ~"EXATION I. Introduction PROJECT NAME: Eastlake General Plan Amendment PROJECT LOCATION: East of proposed SR,125 alignment; south of Telegraph Canyon Road, north of Orange Avenue ASSESSOR'S PARCEL #: Book 595 (Assorted parcels) PROJECT APPLICANT: Eastlake Development Company CASE NO: IS,93-]6 DATE: January IS, 1993 n, Background The environmental review procedures of the City of Chu]a Vista allow the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) to prepare an addendum to a Negative Dec]aration or Environmental Impact Report, if one of the following conditions is present: 1. The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since completion of the Final EIR or Negative Declaration have not created any new significant environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration; / 2, Additional or refined information available since completion of the Final EIR or Negative Declaration regarding the potential environmental impact of the project, or regarding the measures or alternatives available to mitigate potential environmental effects of the project, does not show that the project will have one or more significant impacts which were not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Dec]aration, This addendum has been prepared in order to provide additional information and analysis concerning land use, drainage, traffic and school impacts. As a result of this analysis, the basic conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report have not changed. Land use, drainage, traffic, and school impacts are found to be less than significant for the proposed project. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Eastlake Greens SPA Eastlake Trails Prezone & Annexation, 1./. :i!. c:I ill, Project Setting The project involves two parcels totaling approximately 51 acres, The fmt parcel is located on the northwest corner of Palomar Street and Eastlake Parkway, bounded to the east by the planned SR-125 alignment. The second parcel is north of Orange Avenue along the western and southern boundaries of the EastLake Greens SPA, where it adjoins the Otay Ranch property (see parce1~ R-26, PQ,I. and R-9 on Exhibit A). The land is currently vacant and has been used in the past for dry farming and cattle grazing. The parcels have been graded and are covered with native grasses, IV. Project Description The proposed project is an amendment to the Chula Vista General Plan, As originally proposed and analyzed, Eastlake Greens called for a total unit count of 3,609 dwelling units. In approving the project in 1989, the City Council reduced the density and unit count of five parcels in Eastlake Greens, R-24, R-25, R-26, R-27, and R,28, from High Density (18,24 du/ac) to a density of 4,5 du/ac (see Exhibit A), Overall dwelling units were reduced from 3,609 to 2,774, a reduction of 835 dwelling units, The current GPA proposes increasing the density of parcel R-26 from Low-Medium to High Residential (18-27 du/ac), changing parcel PQ-I from Public/Quasi-Public to Public/Quasi-Public and High Residential, and increasing the density of parcel R-9 from Low Medium Residential to Medium High (11,18 du/ac) as shown on Exhibit B, The proposed GPA would increase the density range of these parcels from 66-132 residential units to 489,756 residential units. This is a potential increase from 357 to 690 residential units, A summary of these changes is provided below, East]ake Greens original project After reductions by Council in 1989 With proposed GPA Tota] Units 3,609 2,774 3,464 (maximum) Exhibit B of this document provides a detailed breakdown of the changes in General Plan designations and acreage associated with the proposed project. Subsequent actions required to implement the project wilJ include amendments to the adopted EastLake Greens II General Development Plan (GDP) and EastLake SPA Plan, These actions will be subject to future environmental review at the time the particular projects are proposed, V. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans , The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment (GPA) on two separate sites which are currently designated for approximately 22 acres of residential development, 7 acres of public and quasi'public development, 13 acres of open space, and 9 acres for transportation infrastructure, The project proposes altering the General Plan designations 2 ~.21 to 33 acres of residential, 10 acres of public and quasi'public, and 8 acres of major circulation systems, The density range of the parcels would increase from 66-132 units to 489-756 units, The zoning on the site is 'Planned Community' (PC), and the project is compatible with this zoning, VI. Compliance with the Threshold Standards 1, Fire/EMS The Threshold Standards require that tire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of the cases, The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 4 miles away and would be associated with a 5 minute response time, The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard, In addition, Fire Station 6 will open in January 1993, approximately 1/2 mile and 2 minutes away from the project site, Specific development projects couJd be required to meet additional, site'specific Fire Department requirements, 2, Police The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I, calls of 4,5 minutes or less, Police units must respond to 62,10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to alJ Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard, ' The Police Department has indicated that the proposed project will not impact police services, 3, Traffic The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) 'C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D' may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections, Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS, No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour, Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have an impact on traffic circulation systems, According to the City Traffic Engineer, the actual change 3 ~. 2.~ in land use associated with the implementation of the GPA may impact adjacent loca.I street segments and nearby intersections, Therefore, further traffic analysis may be r~uired at the time specific development is proposed, See Section VI for a more detailed analysis of traffic mitigation. 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold Standards for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I ,000 population, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standards, Payment of park fees may be r~uired at the time specific projects are proposed. 5. Drainage The Threshold Standards r~uire that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineer Standards, Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standards, Existing one-site drainage consists of surface flow to catchments and city storm water conveyance systems, The proposed GPA will not impact drainage systems, however, improvements to existing facilities will be r~uired when specific development occurs, According to the Engineering Department, off,site drainage flows into Poggi Canyon, Existing facilities wiJI not be ad~uate when the proposed project is implemented, The Engineering Department has indicated that regional drainage improvements may be necessary in the Poggi Canyon area when specific deve10pment takes place, Future development will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, The proposed project, however, will meet this Threshold Standard, See Section VI, for a more detailed discussion of drainage impacts, ' 6, Sewer The Threshold Standards r~uire that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards, Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. The proposed project would not increase overall solid or liquid waste generation in the Eastlake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA), Existing lines in the area include an 8-inch polyviny1choride (pVC) sewer leading to a 12-inch PVC sewer in Olay Lakes Road. Flows from the Poggi Canyon Basin are pumped to the Telegraph Canyon Basin, Some segments of the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer are over capacity, The City Engineering Department has indicated that payment 4 .y. 23 of fees in acrordance with the Telegraph Canyon Basin Plan will mitigate these impacts, 7. Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned powth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Because Southern California is in its 6th consecutive critically dry year, the County Water Authority is recommending a voluntary 10% reduction in water consumption for new development through the use of low flow fixtures and drought,tolerant landscaping, Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance, VD. Identilication of Em'ironrnental Effects School Impacts EIR-86-04 found that new students will be generated for both the elementary and secondary school systems as a result of the project. One elementary and one high school will be constructed within the project area, School construction is phased concurrently with residential development. Section 65995 of the California Government Code authorizes school districts to collect fees from developers of both residential and non,residential projects to offset school facility impacts, School facility fees are $1.58 per square foot for residential deveJopment and $0,26 per square foot for commercial and industrial development. Both schoo1 districts collect their proportional aliocation of these fees. For each square foot of commercial and industrial development, the Chula Vista Elementary School District receives $0,12 and the High School receives $0,14 to assist in financing school facilities, EIR,86-04 found that impacts to school facilities could be mitigated to a level of less than significant to the satisfaction of the school districts in the context of existing binding agreements regarding school sites and financing, The Planning Department has worked with representatives of both Otay Ranch (the Baldwin Company) and the EastLake Development Company to establish strategies to mitigate school impacts. The Sweetwater Union High School District has indicated that they have no objection to the proposed General Plan Amendment. The Chula Vista Elementary School District has entered into an agreement with the Eastlake Development Company and the Baldwin Company to ensure school impact are mitigated adequately. Therefore, impacts to schools from the proposed project will be less than significant. 5 .y- 2~ Land Use The proposed GP A would have an impact on land use, as it involves altering the use and density on the sites, However, the total number of units currently proposed is at least 145 units less than that previously assessed in the Eastlake Greens EIR-86-04. EIR,86- 04 found that implementation of the Eastlake Greens project would not have adverse land use policy impacts, therefore no ~ific TTlitigation measures or policies are required fur the proposed project. Thus, land use impacts from the proposed GPA are found to be less than significant. Drai na~e EIR-86-04 found that no significant, unmitigable impacts to hydrology or drainage would result from implementation of the Eastlake Greens project if recommendations in the preliminary geotechnical report and any subsequent geotechnical reports are implemented, These recommendations include: minimizing surface runoff into downslope natural areas and graded areas; pJanting sJopes with appropriate drought,resistant vegetation as recommended by a landscape architect; and regularly maintaining drainage devices such as graded berms, swales and area drains, In addition, drainage system plans must be approved by the City of Chula Vista's Department of Public Works, At the time specific development occurs, additional environmental review will be required to ensure impacts to drainage facilities are less than significant. All recommendations contained in EIR,86-04 must be followed to the satisfaction of the City Engineering Division, Traffic In addition to complying with all requirements of the Engineering Division at the time specific development is proposed, the proposed project must comply with the traffic mitigation measures set forth in EIR-86-04, as follows: 1, Improve Telegraph Canyon Road between State Route 125 and Eastlake Greensrrrails boundary to six lane prime arterial standards. 2, Construct Hunte Parkway and Eastlake Parkway as major roads between Telegraph Canyon Road and Orange Avenue. 3, Construct a southbound SR 125 to eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road loop ramp at the SR 125rrelegraph Canyon Road intersection, or extend SR 125 south to East Palomar Street (which would connect to the Eastlake SPA II street system), Compliance with these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts to traffic are less than significant. 6 i'. 2..5 , . vm. Consultation 1. Individuals and Or~anizatjons City of Chula Vista: Diana Lilly, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering John Lippitt, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department Martin Schmidt, Parks and Recreation Department Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva App1ieant's Agent: Eastlake Development Company 2, Documents IS-92-21 Addendum to Environmental Impact Report EIR,86-04 Eastlake Greens SPA Plan/Trails Pre-zone and Annexation Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Eastlake Village Center South (March 31, 1992) City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures EIR-86-04 Eastlake Greens SPA PJanlTrails Pre-zone and Annexation Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (ERCE, June 1989) Eastlake SPA I Plan City of Chula Vista General Plan Title 19, Chula Vista Zoning Code "hut VJ d..fl.--!'- c., I~U-A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR 7 lip :2~ , . , )( ,,-'I.. . -CTJI I I, ffi r'......I..........,."...,...,..' , LIJ~ J:i < i 1 ;=r II....T ......~-:..I:-Jr. .~ I~ ~ It, I.ii.. ti~~+::::::~: :........IIII.~:':= f:j';'C.. .. .jl .. . ...... ._ 1 · '.....i=~::::::.:.,I.r.1 .c ~ if ..... ............ ......... .' I! Ii hi i II Ii m1'1' ~ .- HL- ----r-. II _' I (!) ~ 'uo., ,-.........puu.. I'Hh:HrluiHUi ~ ~ ~ --' f I,::: : :1' :::... · · · · · .. .......; ,kTTTTTTTTTTTllTTTl ;gi Q)~e' i ~I'~ +-' II I, . .- U) <#;', , Iff .r ' , , ,., : ~-.. \ , 1 '. X. I'; -"! \ L. ,: , .",'" I --- f . I I /, I I i J 1m It:.! I .' ~m OJ EJ -;....---,:: .....-. ~ -:-- , " " , ... J(- 27 . PI )POSED GENERAL P,L..AN AME~'TJ)MENT - EXISTING GENE.RAL PLAN ...i~.TIt.1Al ~ 2Z ac DU Ih,nof! ~ tov-Had1u. ('-i) "-1'2 du ..on-.... id~n'lt1.1 PO PUb11c/OUI1-PUb11c 7 o OpIOll apacI l' C1rculat1on -I ~Al. 11 ac "-112 du Note: Shaded area is area of prop::>sed GPA. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN J.I.1 ..cidf!Tlth.l ~ !)u Itanot! CU "TOCO..~ HH Hld1u. H19h (11-11) 15 1i5-~'D du 196 H 1119h (1I-~' ) U ~'._.I! I!u 1a .UJ-~Al. ".. CU., II 'U 12' Men_...id.,,~i.l PQ PUbl1c/OUI11-Pub11c 10 C1rculaUon -A .-oTAl. 11 .~ 12' .\1 r~l I I , J "''1 ~ \ Ii \ ~ Exhibit B .-Al:r.' .,.. ,n.. .C'ft, ...., .. plu.&..C." "'.""'r- .......1 -I' .~r.. tlJ.JJ "'TT' I(p 29 THE CITY OF CHUL4 VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of discJosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contnlmtions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be discJosed: 1. List the names of alJ persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e,. contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ., If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of an individuals ovming more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. DAVID B, KUHN, JR TlZl.NT1='T n T hN'J=' J,G. BOSWELL 3, If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non'profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non'profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. N/A 4, Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes ~o ~ If yes, please indicate person(s): 5, Please identify each and every person, incJuding any agents, empJoyees, consuJtants or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. BOB SANTOS KENT ADEN KATY WRIGHT 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Counci]member in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No -X- If yes, state which CounciJmember(s ): Pcr...nn is defined as: "Any indh'idunl, jirm, co-pnrtnrrs!llp, join! "~nturc, associnrion, socinl cJub,frmern.n/ orgnniznrion. corporal/on, ('Sltll", 111151, rccei\Jcr, syndic{/fe, this and nllY other COUllty. ciry and coun1'T)', cir)', municipality. district or other political slIbdi,oisivll, or OilY orher group or combU1mion nCling ns n unit." , (!"OTE: AlIach additional P"fCS "5 neCCSS:1TY) 8_: {~ '., _ , r '; ;- /((1., l:JJ"cJi Signature of cotftr;Jctor/applicant KATY WRIGHT D:l1c: '\ :, \ DISC'LOS!:T\T] Print or Iype n::lmc of co: ~,2.9 "\ I'..Cu 1 J.~U')1)1 EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 3, 1993 ITEM 3, PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-93-04, APPLICATION BY EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 51 ACRES OF EASTLAKE GREENS, LOCATED IN TWO SEPARATE PARCELS, ONE SOUTH OF EASTLAKE HIGH SCHOOL, THE SECOND IN THE SOUTHWESTERN PORTION OF EASTLAKE GREENS Principal Planner Howard stated the General Plan Amendment was proposed for two separate parcels totaling 51 acres, Mr. Howard gave the staff presentation and noted that the staff recommendation was to adopt the proposed addendum to the EastLake Greens Sectional Plan Area EIR, finding there were no new impacts of the project not discussed in the EIR; and that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment to the City Council. He noted staff recommended the addition of a condition which would clarify (due to the fact this was tied in with the Otay Ranch project in the EastLake Greens landswap area) in case the Commission took a different recommendation on the EastLake landswap portion of the Otay Ranch, reconsideration after a decision on Otay Ranch land uses, since that might change the rationale for land uses on these parcels, Mr. Howard said there had been a community forum where some concerns were expressed regarding the high density area proposal, the impact upon the EastLake Greens Community in terms of the introduction of rental housing, as well as the impact upon the community association, Staff felt the impact regarding introduction of rental housing would be minimal both in terms of its location at the periphery of EastLake Greens and the fact that it would be the only rental housing in this area; that it was a matter between the EastLake Homeowners Association, the development company, and the homeowners as to the disposition of this area within the EastLake Homeowners Association, Commissioner Carson questioned the viability of EastLake returning before the Commission to ask for 450 units which had previously been forfeited to the Kaiser project. She was also concerned about the adjustment which had been made by the City Council on the number of units, Looking at the maximum amount now proposed under the General Plan Amendment, Commissioner Carson said the only difference would be 145 units, She felt this was not the Council's intent. Mr. Howard replied that it was his understanding that of the five areas redesignated, this was the only one that would be coming back for potential redesignation; if this was approved as proposed, there would be a different land use situation in the area that staff felt would justify the proposed change, Regarding the Kaiser facility, the 450 units lost were the only units which would have the potential for affordable housing in either EastLake I or II, EastLake had a requirement from the Housing Element to provide 5 % low-income households and 5 % moderate- income households, Based upon their application for this area, staff felt this was an appropriate site for a small amount, in comparison to the overall number of dwelling units in EastLake, of potential rental or potential affordable housing opportunities at these densities, Commissioner Carson was concerned about the high density near the high school and the quality of students coming out of the rentals, .y.,3c::s Commissioner Ray was also concerned about the density increase and the net loss of 38 acres of open space. He asked for the rationale for eliminating the open space, Mr. Howard explained there would still be open space within the projects along the major roadways, but no longer specifically shown on the General Plan, There would not be an actual loss of open space, Regarding the justification for multi-family homes, the property was not suitable for single-family residential uses and there was a need for additional multi-family units to provide for a balanced community within EastLake, Commissioner Tuchscher explained that it was the accounting for the open space that was changing; the open space along the major arterials was counted as open space in the General Plan, but was no longer being calculated as open space, Principal Planner Howard stated that the General Plan was not meant to be precise as to the exact acreage; it was meant to represent that some buffer would be along the roadway in order to provide a landscaped parkway or landscaped area within a project to buffer to some extent the roadway from the development. It was never meant to be scaled out. Commissioner Tarantino asked about traffic; staff had stated in the report that there would be no significant impact to the threshold, yet the Star-News had reported the project would generate an extra 4,000 trips, Having served on the Growth Management Oversight Commission, he understood that if all five projects along the Telegraph CanyonlOtay Lakes Road were approved, that would already wave a red flag; that all those projects could not be approved and have the current level of service remain the same without violating the threshold, Mr. Howard explained staff's rationale which determined that as long they did not exceed the original unit count that was reviewed for the originaJ proposed project in EastLake Greens, they would not get into new traffic impacts which had not already been accounted for. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned how the land in the aqueduct area was handled, from a construction and density standpoint--could it be built on and the real density, Mr. Howard answered that the aqueduct could not be built on, and had a power line easement. For General Plan purposes, it was also being shown as open space, and was not being counted as part of the density allowed within the high-density area of the proposed General Plan Amendment area, Commissioner Tuchscher concluded that the 400 units on that parcel were net units, not including the aqueduct area, Principal Planner Howard concurred, and noted that there would be additional easements going through that area, He also pointed out that if the General Plan Amendment was approved, EastLake would still need to file a General Development Plan Amendment and a SPA Plan Amendment, and while going through these different procedures the area, after subtracting out areas for roadways and freeway right-of-ways, would get smaller and the density would have to remain in the range, He believed the 405 units at mid-point would probably end up being significantly less than that at the next phases of review, This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened, +,,"'5r Miss Katy Wright, EastLake Development Company, 900 Lane Avenue, CV, spoke of the previous land swap with the Baldwin Company for a parcel south and west of the subject parcel. In light of that land exchange, this specific proposal was before the Commission, EastLake Company believed the subject parcels warranted reconsideration in light of the high intensity, high activity uses adjacent to them, The high density parcel had been one of five parcels originally planned, studied, and proposed with the EastLake Greens proposal in 1989 and given an interim low/medium density until such time EastLake could come back before the Commission and Council and consider a more permanent designation on that site, They had not specifically proposed apartments, but were proposing a multi-family use, That would be determined at a different planning stage, Regarding affordable housing, they had met the requirement in EastLake I; in EastLake Greens, the 10% affordable moderate income housing requirement had been set aside until resolution of the density of the five parcels, This particular site was a potential site for moderate-income housing, but a specific type of product home had not been addressed, Chair Fuller asked if that was the only site they would have for high-density affordable housing within EastLake Greens, Ms, Wright said if the proposal was approved, it would be the only high-density parcel in EastLake Greens, It would not, however, be concentrated in one location; it would be a candidate site for a portion of those moderately priced homes, Andre Chapman, 2470 Golfcrest Loop, CV 91915, spoke of the emotional commitment involved in a neighborhood; he believed that by bringing in high density, it would bring in large turnover, landlordship, tenantship, subletting, and the people did not have the same kind of commitment and the same kind of stake in the future of the area, He felt this was a convenient change for the worse, Arnir Pishdad, 2471 Golfcrest Loop, CV 91915, said he had lived in apartments and had made a step up to EastLake Greens, It was advertised by EastLake that none of the homes in the area would be apartments, He had written a letter to the Association, which was the developer, The homeowners had not been informed by the Association of the impact of this high density, He concluded there would be a loss of impact of financial dollars, as well as the monthly assessments to the Association, if this area was designated for a rental project. It was advertised as a country club type of living and this was not what was being represented at the meeting, He asked the Commission to carefully study this proposal to ensure that the homeowners would not be financially impacted; also the renters would not be paying Mello-Roos, Mrs. Tess Sheckler, 1083 WatervilIe Lake Road, CV 91915, said as a recent property owner in EastLake Greens, she was opposed to the proposed rezoning, She objected to the ambiguity of the developer's statement that the proposed density would dictate housing types which may be for sale or for rent, She saw this as an ilJ-conceived attempt to force rental properties to be co-located with high-end residential communities and country club living, This would adversely and directly impact property and resale values for existing properties, She and her husband had invested a considerable amount of money and had risked a lot to afford their home, They had no desire to be in close proximity to the type of residences that were being proposed, She considered it a breach of implied, contract for the type of community the developers had advertised and sold to her. The renters would not have anything invested in the area and could ~r32 move at any time, She concurred with Commissioner Carson regarding her comments about students, She urged the Commission to not recommend approval of the proposal. She felt the 1989 approval still valid, However, if the Commission did recommend approval, she asked that the Commission recommend prohibition of the number of rentals entirely or severely limit the number of rentals and require that all rentals be included in the Homeowners Association and that they be required to abide by the same Association requirements and covenants that the current homeowners have to meet. George Khoury, 2337 Eastridge Loop, CV 91915, concurred with the prior speakers, and noted that the graffiti began after students started being bused from National City and San Ysidro, He said that when people are brought from other areas that are of low income or high density, that is what the residents would face, He said the developer was mostly interested in turning their money to profit and were trying to create more income by turning the land to renta] apartments to create faster income, Oscar Khoury, 2310 Eastridge Loop, CV 91915, was concerned with higher population, higher traffic, more thieves, car thefts, transients who have no concern about cleanliness of the neighborhood, overcrowding the high school, lack of control, and devaluation of homes, He expressed their opposition to the project. Bob McAlister, 2497 Golfcrest Loop, CV 91915, said he wanted to provide a safe community for the people who live there and that the homeowners get to be a part of the Homeowners Association, He was also concerned with the traffic generation; the proximity of the high school; he hoped they would not see bars on the windows of the homes of the country-club style living in EastLake Greens, Teri Pishdad, 2471 Golfcrest Loop, CV 91915, said they had moved out of apartment areas to get away from that, and she hoped they did not have to see that too soon again, The parks already had a lot of graffiti and words the parents did not think their children should be seeing; the parks were very noisy; neighbors couldn't sleep in their master bedrooms in the summer because their bedrooms were next to the park where there was noise until 2 or 3 a,m,; children are being bused in from other areas and some of the area children are having to be sent out to other schools, Martin Valdez, 2350 Eastridge Loop, CV 91915, supported his neighbors' positions and asked that the Commission disapprove the plan, No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed, Commissioner Ray said he was tom on what may have transpired from 1989 to date, There were comments regarding the City allowing something for potential financial gains, He wished to go on record supporting staff's position who had taken their direction from City Council; however, he felt the Commission had an obligation to the residents, Although there are no guarantees when anyone purchases property, he thought The Greens development was sold as country style living, He was firmly opposed to a density change based on the comments heard at the meeting; he thought there was a reason the Commission recommended and the City ~r3.3 Council approved the interim zoning in 1989, He would not like to see that changed at this time, Commissioner Moot questioned staff with respect to the lower triangle--the parcel not adjacent to the high school--and asked if it was medium-high density in the surrounding area, Mr. Howard discussed the various densities in the general area, The triangle was proposed for change to be consistent with the immediate surrounding area, Commissioner Moot asked if the triangular property could be considered separately from the property adjacent to the high school. Mr. Howard answered that it could be bifurcated from the property, At Commissioner Martin's request, Mr. Howard discussed density of several other areas, Commissioner Martin stated that he would oppose the amendment. He liked the idea of the land swap of 169 acres for 169 acres, but after studying it, he felt it was really not the same. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if everything east of the aqueduct was existing approved land uses, Mr. Howard concurred, Commissioner Tuchscher commented that the audience had done an excellent job presenting their cases and he appreciated their being sensitive to the other speakers and not repeating themselves, He tried to explain to the audience the constraints the City was under regarding affordable housing, stating that affordable housing was mandated by the State, He said everyone likes it until it happens to be in their back yard, then it becomes a negative, The noise, graffiti, etc, was not unique to EastLake or California regardless of densities, It was up to the people who care to take care of it the best they can privately, but also to make sure the City staff is aware that those things are ongoing so the City could respond to it. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned staff as to the urgency in dealing with the amendment in light of the Gtay Ranch project currently in process, ' Mr. Howard answered that it was filed by , EastLake last year, and staff felt that although it was dwarfed by the Gtay Ranch, it was a proposal that was in keeping with what was going on with the Gtay Ranch and they felt it should be considered at a concurrent tinie as opposed to a later date after the Gtay Ranch is approved, Chair Fuller expressed her feelings regarding rmding areas to locate affordable housing, not necessarily apartments or rentals, She said the Commission owed it to the people who live in Chula Vista to be able to live everywhere--not just west of 1-805 and south of "L" Street, but in places like EastLake in affordable homes, She was offended by the statements that young people attending Chula Vista schools from affordable housing or apartments didn't measure up, She felt the speakers had presented some valid arguments--the inequity of supporting the Homeowners Association and the fees the homeowners were required to pay, traffic and noise. Commissioner Carson asked if there was an element in the Affordable Housing that said if a place could not be found in the developer area, that the developer could elect--providing it was recommended by the Department and the City Council--to buy a piece of property elsewhere and put affordable housing in that area, Mr. Howard said the Housing Element included flexibility to consider that. I{.. 3" Commissioner Moot commented that it was not a persuasive argument to him to say they did not want other people in their neighborhood; however, he did not like the fact that when decisions are made about affordable housing, it is put in the least attractive place in the project. He felt affordable housing should be spread throughout the project in different pockets of the project. He would like to see the triangular area bifurcated from the project and considered apart from the parcel next to the high school. Commissioner Carson objected to the General Plan Amendment because EastLake had previously given up their 450 units to allow Kaiser to come in and were now requesting the units be built in another area of the project. Commissioner Tarantino said it was also very painful to him to sit through a lot of the public testimony, because he had spent 20 years in education in the areas and in the neighborhoods in which many of the people had talked against. His experience in working with those families and children was different from the apparent perception of the speakers, He could see the rationale for the General Plan Amendment and liked Commissioner Moot's proposal for bifurcation, MS (Moot/Tarantino) to bifurcate the two parcels and consider them in separate votes, starting with the parcel next to the high school and then the triangular parcel. At Commissioner Tarantino's suggestion, the Commissioners decided to consider the triangular parcel first, then the high school parcel since it was more controversial. Mr. Pishdad approached the podium and asked that the Commission not consider the parcels separately, Chair Fuller explained that the Commission was only changing the method, not the intent of the motion, Commissioner Martin agreed with Chair Fuller regarding the sensitivity of schools, but had a problem with the land acre swap which took acreage out of the low/medium residential and medium residential and put it in medium/high and high residential. He believed it would have impacts on traffic and other thresholds; it would have a cumulative effect; he felt it would set a precedent for future development and there needed to be more control. Chair Fuller clarified that the first portion being looked at was the triangle which was medium/high density which was next to medium/high density on three sides, Commissioner Moot, the maker of the motion, echoed Commissioner Martin's comments but said he saw some logic for consistency in planning and why the change made sense at that time, Commissioner Tarantino said he believed at the SPA level, further refinement in tenns of density could be made and in looking at the individual SPAs for those two parcels, the density probably would be less, Mr. Howard concurred, Commissioner Tarantino noted that the safeguards to which the Commissioners were referring were there, Mr, Howard said that these projects, if approved at whatever density, would go through further review, ,,/-3,5 Commissioner Ray commented that the land use to the west and south (Otay Ranch) had not been officially designated medium/high density, Commissioner Moot concurred, and stated that if the proposed Otay Ranch uses were not approved, the triangle would no longer be consistent and the rationale for changing it would no longer exist. Commissioner Ray noted that much of the area being considered was bordered by Otay Ranch which had not been designated and which had not been addressed, He was concerned that the decision made on this project would be counter to what would be proposed on the Otay Ranch project, and would vote on the triangular parcel with what he would like to see in the Otay Ranch there. Commissioner Carson noted that the SPA plans, when they go back to the Commission, rarely change, It might be adjusted by the City Council, but once the General Plan is approved, it is difficult to change, Commissioner Ray asked if the SDG&E easement running through the property was 200 ft. wide, and asked how much additional buffer there was between the easement and the medium/high density housing, Mr. Howard concurred that the easement was 200 ft., but the additional setback or buffer would be detennined at a later date, Commissioner Ray was concerned with the high power Jines, and asked if the City had made any recommendation for SPA-level plans regarding buffering, Mr, Howard said there was no current policy, based upon a lack of definitive infonnation on the nature of EMF, VOTE ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE THE TWO PARCELS FOR DECISION LATER: 6-1 (Carson "no") Answering Commissioner Ray, Mr. Howard said the northern parcel should be referred to as Subarea 1 and the southern parcel as Subarea 2, MS (Ray/Carson) to deny the proposed amendment for Subarea 2. Commissioner Tuchscher asked for the maker's rationale, Commissioner Ray said it was based on the density, the location of the power lines, and the fact that he was going to vote for lower density on the Otay Ranch in that area, Commissioner Carson said she believed it was premature and she would be in favor of a resolution with a contingency which gave the Commission the right to come back for discussion, depending on the land use designation of the Otay Ranch, Commissioner Tuchscher concluded that Commissioner Carson would rather defer this decision until the Otay Ranch land use designation had been decided, Commissioner Carson concurred, Commissioner Tuchscher felt there was no more appropriate place for high density than near a high traffic corridor and the power lines, Estate housing could not be put there, from a land use perspective, At the same time, he had some difficulty in dealing with the two small corners surrounded by the Otay Ranch and felt adjacent land uses were critical. He did not believe the land owner should be expected to wait for a decision until after the Otay Ranch land use .1/ ~ 3" designation; he felt a decision should be made one way or the other to give the EastLake land owner some direction so they could move forward, However, rather than vote to deny the amendment, he recommended that the maker of the motion modify it to defer the decision until after the next meeting regarding atay Ranch, Commissioner Ray concurred, and asked that an additional condition which had been presented by staff be read to those in attendance, Chair Fuller read as follows; "Be it further resolved that the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval for this item is contingent upon Planning Commission recommendation of approval for that portion of the Otay Ranch Project known as the EastLake Land Swap, and if the Planning Commission makes any recommendation on this area which is significantly different from the staff recommendation, then staff is hereby directed to return this proposed General Plan Amendment to the next available Planning Commission scheduled meeting agenda for discussion of potential reconsideration of the Planning Commission recommendation," Chair Fuller noted that whatever action the Planning Commission took, if they adopted the accompanying resolution, the issue could be revisited and changed, Commissioner Ray withdrew his motion, and the second agreed, SUBSTITUTE MOTION: MS (Ray/Carson) to table the issue to the first regularly scheduled meeting following the discussion on land use issues for the Otay Ranch. Commissioner Moot did not feel it should be put off, and that is was unfair to those who had attended and spoken at the meeting, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf asked that the applicant be consulted as to whether they were willing for the item to be continued, Katy Wright, representing EastLake, concurred with the recommendation of continuance until the atay Ranch adjacency had been considered, She felt that gave it credence and made it more logical. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf asked that the continuance be to a time and date specific so the item would not have to be renoticed, Assistant Planning Director Lee suggested the item be continued to April 14, Commissioner Martin stated that he wanted to be very clear that he was not for the project because of the land swap; he concurred with Commissioner Moot that a decision should be made, It could still be changed after the atay Ranch land use designation, ~.37 AMEl\'DED MOTION: MS (Ray/Carson) to continue the item to April 14, at 7:00 p.m. following the discussion on land use issues for the Otay Ranch. Principal Planner Howard clarified that the motion included the entire proposal, not just Subarea 2, Commissioner Ray concurred, VOTE ON AMEl\'DED MOTION: 4-3 (Commissioners Tarantino, Martin, and Moot voted against) Chair Fuller noted the item had been continued to the meeting of April 14, and thanked those who had attended, Chair Fuller called a JO-minute recess at 8:50, The meeting reconvened at 8:57 p,m, I{- 38