Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/11/29 (2) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item 1 Meeting Date 11/29/95 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: DRC-94-24, appeal of the Design Review Committee decision to deny the installation of a three ft. high 16 ft. wide gate at La Costa Avenue between the EastLake Greens neighborhoods known as Masters Collection and Bristolwood - B-EDCI7 L.P. c/o Brehm Investment Inc. BACKGROUND In 1989, the Design Review Committee approved a development plan (Masters Collection) for parcel R-17 of the EastLake Greens planned community (see Exhibit A). The project involved the construction of 214 dwelling units (107 duplexes) along a single private street. The developer built 110 of the 214 dwelling units (55 duplexes) on the eastern one half of the parcel and sold the remaining land to Brehm Investments, Inc. In 1994, the Zoning Administrator considered a development proposal (by Brehm) for the western one half of the parcel. The proposal consists of the construction of 114 single family detached homes with a gate across La Costa Avenue/ Torrey Pines Road. The 3 ft. high 16 ft. wide gate is intended to prevent through traffic along the private street and separate the two neighborhoods. The Zoning Administrator approved the development proposal but required that the above mentioned gate be deleted (no appeal of this decision was file). On July 20, 1995, Brehm filed a DRC application requesting that the gate previously deleted from the development plans by the Zoning Administrator be considered again. The applicant stated that the gate was necessary to reduce potential litigation to the Bristolwood residents resulting from claims by residents of the opposite neighborhood. On September 11, 1995, the Design Review Committee considered the above mentioned request and after hearing staff's presentation and public testimony denied the project by unanimous vote (see attachment 3) On September 25, 1995, the applicant filed an appeal of the Design Review Committee decision to deny the above mentioned request. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission deny the appeal based on the findings listed in attached Resolution DRC-94-24. Page 2, Item -L Meeting Date 11/29/95 PUBLIC INPUT: In correspondence received by the Planning Department, area residents and public agencies that provide emergency and social services in this area have expressed concerns about the installation of a gate across La Costa Avenue. According to them, the gate would make it difficult to patrol and will be confusing for those delivering goods and services for area residents. Another issue raised by area residents is the vehicle turnaround areas created as a result of the proposed gate. They have stated that the street was not designed for hammerhead turnarounds and that consequently existing front yards, landscaping and open space areas would have to be modified to accommodate said turnaround areas. They added that this condition is not only unsafe, but detrimental for the neighborhood and property values. The Police and Fire Departments as well as the Sweetwater School District and the Metropolitan transit Development Board cited concerns regarding the installation of the gate and the limitations it places on the neighborhood internal circulation. The Masters Collection Homeowners Association and certain homeowners from the Masters Collection neighborhood as well as home buyers from the new Bristolwood residential development have expressed desire to have the proposed gate installed (see Public Input Attachment 4). DISCUSSION: 1. Site Characteristics The 3 ft. high gate is proposed to be located across La Costa Avenue/ Torrey Pines between the residential developments known as Bristolwood and Masters Collection. These two EastLake Greens neighborhoods are located on the south side of Otay Lakes Road between EastLake Parkway and Hunte Parkway (see locator/ Exhibit B). La Costa Avenue is a private street serving both neighborhoods (Masters Collection and Bristolwood) with access to and from North Greens View and Masters Ridge Road. The street has no other connecting streets. 2. Proposal The project consist of the installation of a 3 ft. high, 16 ft. wide emergency access gate across La Costa Avenue with a hammerhead turnaround area on each dead end side. The gate is intended to cut continuous vehicular circulation but allow pedestrian access between the two neighborhoods. The hammerhead turnaround on the east side of the gate (within the "Masters Collection" subdivision) is proposed to Page 3, Item -L Meeting Date I1J29/95 be provided within the 30 ft. common open space/ utility easement located adjacent to 2496/2498 and 2497/2499 La Costa Avenue (see exhibit C). The turnaround facilities would result in the removal of four mature Jacaranda trees and 684 sq. ft. of lawn area. The hammerhead turnaround on the west side of the gate (within the "Bristolwood" subdivision) would be located within the front yards of 2490, 2492, 2493 and 2495 La Costa Avenue (see Exhibit C). To compensate for the lost landscaping, both turnaround areas are proposed to be paved with decorative paving. 3. Analysis Parcel R-17 is an inverted "L" shape parcel that limits the subdivision design to a single street. In this residential development the 4,600 ft. long street is private and ia accessible from each end through public streets identified as North Greens View Drive and Masters Ridge Road. When the original development was approved, the central street was designed to provide continuous circulation and convenient returns at several points along the street. The returns (landscape islands) occur some distance away from where the gate is proposed to be installed and consequently it is required that a turn around area be provided on each side of the gate. The applicant has indicated that allowing traffic from the easterly adjacent residential neighborhood through the Bristolwood segment of La Costa Avenue would result in additional wear on the street as well as an increase in liability for Bristolwood residents. In staff's opinion, both residential developments have about the same number of dwelling units and the dividing line is about half the length of the street. Based on this, it is easily assumed that the number of vehicles crossing the subdivision boundaries in either direction would be about the same from each side. Consequently, the street wear on each side would be reciprocally caused by residents of both sides. With regard to the liability issue, staff is of the opinion that any liability for the residents of bristolwood may exist with or without the proposed gate because the street on each of the neighborhoods is not restricted at the access points. Thus, Masters Collection residents as well as the general public could have unrestricted access to both segments of the street. Page 4, Item -L Meeting Date I1J29/95 In order to preserve the continuous vehicular circulation through both neighborhoods and the integrity of the originally design, staff recommends that the street maintenance and liability be shared by the two home owners associations. Based on the above and for the reasons listed below, staff has not been able to endorse the proposed modification to the previously approved plan: a. The lot configuration and circulation system within Parcel R-17 was planned and designed under the precept that the site would be developed as a single neighborhood, well integrated within the community fabric, rather than as a self-contained project. The private street within the site was intended to tie the public street system providing continuous circulation to and from North Greensview Drive and Masters Ridge Road. The proposed gate contradicts the original design and, in staff's opinion, is not a good urban design solution. b. La Costa Avenue/ Torrey Pines Road has been designed in accordance with public loop road standards and does not meet public cul-de-sac design standards. If the gate is installed, each segment of La Costa Avenue would exceed the 500 ft. maximum length allowed for Public cul-de-sacs by virtue of each segment being over 2,200 ft in length. c. The proposed hammerhead turnarounds have not been well integrated within the overall plan to reduce disturbance to property owners and aesthetic impacts. The dead end streets and hammerhead turnarounds reduce the front yards and existing landscape/ open space areas of four lots (two lots of each subdivision), and creates a less than attractive dead end street condition. d. The Police Department has indicated that the proposed gate would create a visual barrier and would limit police patrol which could increase emergency response time. e. The Fire Department has indicated that although the time required to gain access through the gate would not be significant, it may be critical on certain situations and it would be preferable to provide uninhibited access throughout the project. f. Installation of the gate would be confusing for delivery services as well as residents' guests. g. The Design Review Committee and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) have indicated that the placement of the gate at the proposed location would form an artificial barrier between two halves of the same Page 5, Item -L Meeting Date 11/29/95 neighborhood restricting continuous vehicular circulation along LA Costa Avenue, and that such action would be contrary to the efforts made at all levels of government to create more interactive, livable communities. The DRC and MTDB have recommended against placing a gate across La Costa Avenue. h. Other solution such as the installation of multiple lines of speed bumps across the street to discourage trips across neighborhood boundaries or a reciprocal access and street maintenance and liability agreement between the two neighborhoods associations have not been fully explored. Conclusion For the reasons listed above staff recommends that the appeal be denied. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolutions 2. Exhibits 3. DRC minutes and Resolution 4. Public Input 5. Disclosure Statement (m:\home\planning\Luis\DRC-9424.pcr) ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. DRC-94-24 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DECISION TO INSTALL A 3 FT. HIGH 16 FT. WIDE GATE ACROSS LA COSTA AVENUE WITHIN THE EAST LAKE GREENS PLANNED COMMUNITY WHEREAS, a duly verified Appeal Form was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on September 25, 1995 by B-EDC 17, L.P., Brehm Communities; and, WHEREAS, said appeal requested approval to install a 3 ft. high by 16 ft. wide gate across La Costa Avenue within the EastLake Greens Planned Community; and, WHEREAS, The project is exempt from environmental review as a class 3(e) exemption; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its mailing to property owners within 1000 ft of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m. November 29, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION finds as follows: a. The lot configuration and circulation system within Parcel R-17 was planned and designed under the precept that the site would be developed as a single neighborhood, well integrated within the community fabric, rather than as a self- contained project. The private street within the site was intended to tie the public street system providing continuous circulation to and from North Greensview Drive and Masters Ridge Road. The proposed gate would prevent the implementation of the original development plan and would be contrary to the urban design policies contained in the EastLake Greens SPA plan. b. La Costa Avenue/ Torrey Pines Road has been designed in accordance with private loop road standards and does not meet cul-de-sac street design standards. If the gate is installed, each segment of La Costa Avenue would exceed the 500 ft. maximum length allowed for private cul-de-sacs by virtue of each segment being over 2,200 ft in length. c. The proposed hammerhead turnarounds have not been well integrated within the overall plan to reduce disturbance to property owners and aesthetic impacts. The dead end streets and hammerhead turnarounds reduce the front yards and existing landscape/ open space areas of four lots (two lots of each subdivision) and creates a less than attractive dead end street condition. d. The Police Department has indicated that the proposed gate would create a visual barrier and would limit police patrol and could increase emergency response time. The Police Department opposes installation of the gate. e. The Fire Department has indicated that although the time required to gain access through the gate would not be significant, it may be critical on certain situations and it would be preferable to provide uninhibited access throughout the project. f. Installation of the gate would be confusing for delivery services as well as residents' guests. g. The Design Review Committee and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) have indicated that the placement of the gate at the proposed location would form an artificial barrier between two halves of the same neighborhood restricting continuous vehicular circulation along LA Costa A venue, and that such action would be contrary to the efforts made at all levels of government to create more interactive, livable communities. the DRC and MTDB have recommended against placing a gate across La Costa Avenue. h. Other solution such as the installation of multiple lines of speed bumps across the street to discourage trips across neighborhood boundaries or a reciprocal access and street maintenance and liability agreement between the two neighborhoods associations have not been fully explored. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby denies the requested appeal this 29th day of November, 1995 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: William C. Tuchscher II, Chairman Nancy Ripley, Secretary (m:\homc\planning\pcm9511. per) ATTACHMENT 2 EXHIBITS SITE UTILIZATION PLAN Parcel No Bristolwood Site Masters Collection Site . oo.,~ , EastLake ~ High School po. 1 ----- ~ fASTLAKE GREENS A PIamed carm.nty n ttw CIty 01 CIUa VIsta EXHIBIT A '. ,-,-",':',>,:1 r. ,L1"~'K":."~-':";'>\''i: .. ; I, ~.' IUNITY' .\~ UtIC ':~'.>~;!f ',:&~ttf )~~!.!;}~~. . . ~ . u. CITY COUN Y ) CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~j;i\~~T' Eastl~ke Greens DESCRIPTION, C) @ Bnstolwood DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT La Costa Avenue & Request: Modification of plans to construct 16 feet ADDRESS: Masters RI dge wide emergency gate. SCALE: FILE NUMBER, EXHIBIT B NORTH No Scale DRC - 94 - 24 I BRISTOLWOOD I I I , \ q,<!J 2497 2499 TURNAROUND LA COSTA AVENUE 2490 2498 @ , , , I I I I I . . . . . CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~~~~IH' Eastl~ke Greens DESCRIPTION, C9 @ Brlstolwood DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT La Costa Avenue & Request: Modification of plans to construct'16 feet ADDRESS, Masters RI dge wide emergency gate. SCALE, FILE NUMBER, EXHIBIT C NORTH No Scale DRC - 94 - 24 ATTACHMENT 3 DRC RESOLUTION AND MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. DRC-94-24M RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DENYING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION PROPOSAL TO INCORPORATE A 16 FT WIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE WITHIN PARCEL R-I7 OF THE EASTLAKE GREENS PLANNED COMMUNITY AREA WHEREAS, a duly verified application for design review was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on July 20, 1995 by Eastlake Development Company and Brehm Communities; and WHEREAS, the owners requested in said application a modification of the development plan for Parcel-I7 (lots 6-13) located within the Eastlake Greens Planned Community and known as "Bristolwood at Eastlake Greens" to incorporate a 16 ft wide emergency access gate; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said design review application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its mailing to property owners within 1000 ft of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 4:30 p.m., September 11, 1995 in Conference Room 2 & 3, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Design Review Committee and said hearing was thereafter closed; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE finds as follows: 1. The lot configuration and circulation system within Parcel R-I7 was planned and designed under the precept that the site would be developed as a single neighborhood, well integrated within the community fabric, rather than as a self- contained project. The private streets within the site were intended to tie into and extend the public street system providing continuous access to N. Greensview Drive and Masters Ridge Road. The proposed gate would prevent the implementation of the anticipated land use plan concepts for this area of the Eastlake Greens SPA Plan. 2. La Costa Avenue/ Torrey Pines Road has been designed in accordance with private loop road standards and does not meet private cul-de-sac street design standards. La Costa Avenue exceeds the 500 ft maximum length pennitted for private cul-de-sacs and does not comply with the requirement for provision of a 40 ft radius turnaround for such streets. RESOLUTION NO. DRC-94-24M RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITIEE DENYING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION PROPOSAL TO INCORPORATE A 16 FT WIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE WITHIN PARCEL R-17 OF THE EASTLAKE GREENS PLANNED COMMUNITY AREA WHEREAS, a duly verified application for design review was flIed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on July 20, 1995 by Eastlake Development Company and Brehm Communities; and WHEREAS, the owners requested in said application a modification of the development plan for Parcel-17 (lots 6-13) located within the Eastlake Greens Planned Community and known as "Bristolwood at Eastlake Greens" to incorporate a 16 ft wide emergency access gate; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said design review application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its mailing to property owners within 1000 ft of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 4:30 p.m., Sep18mbef-H,1995 in Conference Room 2 & 3, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth AVenue, before the Design Review Comminee and said hearing was thereafter closed; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE fmds as follows: 1. The lot configuration and circulation system within Parcel R-17 was planned and designed under the precept that the site would be developed as a single neighborhood, well integrated within the community fabric, rather than as a self- contained project. The private streets within the site were intended to tie into and extend the public street system providing continuous access to N. Greensview Drive and Masters Ridge Road. The proposed gate would prevent the implementation of the anticipated land use plan concepts for this area of the Eastlake Greens SPA Plan. 2. La Costa Avenue! Torrey Pines Road has been designed in accordance with private loop road standards and does not meet private cul-de-sac street design standards. La Costa Avenue exceeds the 500 ft maximum length pennined for private cul-de-sacs and does not comply with the requirement for provision of a 40 ft radius turnaround for such streets. 3. The proposed hammerhead turnarounds have not been well integrated within the overall plan so as to minimi7.e disturbance to property owners and aesthetic impacts. The turnarounds would be retro-fitted within front yard areas and an existing landscaped open space area, resulting in potential safety, nuisance and aesthetic impacts. 4. The proposed gate would create a visual barrier and would limit preventive police patrol services throughout Parcel R-17. Police officers would access the project site on a .call for service" basis only. The gate would not prevent pedestrian access to criminals and could increase emergency call response time. 5. The design of the gate provides a 16 ft clearance and does not meet the minimum 20 ft clearance standard required for emergency vehicle access. Furthermore although the time required to gain access through the gate would not be significant, it may be critical on certain situations and it would be preferable to provide uninhibited access throughout the project. 6. Installation of the gate would hinder pick-up and delivery of special education students . 7. The proposed gate would contribute in creating a circuitous and confusing street system inhibiting vehicular access through the site. The placement of the gate at the proposed location would form an artificial barrier between two halves of the same neighborhood and such action would be contrary to the efforts made at all levels of government to create more interactive, livable communities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE denies the development plan modification based on the fmdings contained herein. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 11th day of September, 1995 by the following vote to-wit: AYES: Commissioners Spethman, Rodriquez, Duncanson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Way, Kelly ..~~ Michael Spethman, Chairman MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DRAFT Mondav. September 11. 1995 4:30 p.m. Conference Rooms 2 and 3 A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Spethman, Vice Chair Rodriguez, Member Duncanson Members Way and Kelly, with notification STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Ken Lee Associate Planner Luis Hernandez B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Spethman made an opening statement explaining the design review process and the committee's responsibilities. He asked that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally for the tape when speaking. C. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS 1. DRC-95-26 YMCA of San Diego 851 Paseo Magda New Facility in Rancho del Rey , MSUC (Speth man/Rodriguez) (3-0) to continue DRC-95-26 to the October 9, 1995 meeting. 2. DRC-94-24M Brehm Communities Bristolwood at Eastlake Greens Modification of previously approved development plan to incor:porate a 16 ft. emerf!encv access f!ate Staff Presentation Assistant Planning Director Ken Lee presented the project, which is located within Bristolwood at EastLake Greens. Mr. Lee pointed out that the Bristolwood project, near the northeastern section of the EastLake Greens planned community, was approved in 1989. This neighborhood was originally part of a larger project that was developed with a duplex product (the Masters Collection), and included a private street and a private homeowners association. Midway through the original project, the developer sold the westerly portion of the project; that portion was subsequently developed by Brehm communities with a detached single family home product. Mr. Lee reviewed the project history, noting that at the time of approval for the single family home project by the Design Review Committee, the committee discussed a gate to be located midpoint, but approved the project without the gate, leaving the option open for later consideration. The developer started construction in a west-to east manner and realized that the issue of the gate was still unresolved. They then filed a request with the City proposing a 3' high and 16' wide gate and turnaround area. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE -2- SEPTEMBER 11. 1995 Mr. Lee pointed out the affected streets and surrounding land uses on an aerial photo. He stated that staff had identified circulation issues, both vehicular and pedestrian, and was recommending denial of the request. He noted that EastLake Development does not oppose the project, and resident response has been mixed. Mr. Lee reviewed comments by the Engineering Department, which has expressed concern with the resulting cul-de-sac length, and the Police Department, which has concerns about normal patrol activities. He further reviewed comments by other agencies such as Metropolitan Transit Development Board. Mr. Lee stated that the applicant had expressed concerns regarding liability issues involving private streets. However, he noted that since there was no barrier to access of the neighborhood (and therefore the private street) from the outside, staff does not believe that the proposal addresses this issue. Committee Ouestions Member Duncanson stated that the issue seemed to involve legal and public safety matters rather than design, and asked if potential buyers had been advised of this proposal. Mr. Lee acknowledged the issues referred to, stated that he did not know specifically what disclosures had been made to buyers, and advised that the committee is charged with both design and site plan review. He stated that there is a circulation issue to be decided, but noted that whether the committee approves or denies the project, there still may be legal issues to be dealt with by the parties involved. Member Rodriguez asked for clarification ofthe committee's responsibilities on this item. He noted that the normal cul-de-sac length is 500' maximum, and asked if, beyond this exception, he should be looking at design; Mr. Lee responded that this was correct. "' ApDlicant Discussion Mr. Scott Sandstrom, Director of Communities for Brehm Development, stated that early purchasers were advised of the possibility of the construction of this gate. He noted that the area has been gated with a temporary construction gate for safety reasons during the last twelve months. Mr. Sandstrom stated that turnaround areas and a "Not a through street" sign would be provided, and added that the hammerhead design is not a retrofit design. He assured the committee that displaced landscaping would be replaced within the vicinity, and stated that the gate can be widened to 20' if the Fire Department so requires. Mr. Sandstrom stated that he had not had time to address comments by outside agencies and was unaware that they were involved. He added that there would be no interruption of pedestrian linkages, and concluded that the gate had been referenced in the conditions of the original project approval, making it clear that this was an option. Ms. Nancy Scull of Luce, Forward, Hamilton, & Scripps addressed the committee. She reviewed the legal issues, including the private ownership of the street (in the Master's Collection each owner owns the street in an undivided interest; in Bristolwood, the Homeowner's Association owns the street). Ms. Scull stated that the proposed gate eliminates potential conflict between the two neighborhoods over the issues of access and liability. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE -3- SEPTEMBER 11. 1995 Mr. Sandstrom stated that EastLake had made a presentation to the Masters Collection HOA, which had voted 48-1 in favor of the installation of the gate. Chair Spethman stated that some 32 Masters Collection owners had signed a petition opposing the gate and that figures had been provided stating that 68 % of residents do not want the gate. Member Rodriguez asked if there were plans to construct gates at the entry to either project; Mr. Sandstrom stated that Brehm currently had no intention of providing entry gates in the future. Public Comment Darlene Dusseault of 2496 La Costa Avenue stated that many of the neighbors do not want the gate. She voiced concerns about emergency access, stating that the street will appear as a through street on maps, which will create confusion. She further stated that she had purchased her home in large part due to the adjacent landscaping, which she did not want to see removed. Anita Lewis of 2498 La Costa Avenue stated that children play within the existing blocked area which creates a safety issue. She noted that 4-5 times a week delivery trucks arrive at the wrong side of the blocked area and find that they cannot reach their destinations. Ms. Lewis also stated that her son is asthmatic which means that even 1-2 minute delays by emergency vehicles is of great matter. Jack Dusseault of 2496 La Costa Avenue stated that upon purchasing his home he had specifically inquired about through access and did not buy to live on a cul-de-sac. He stated that police cars will not have the ability to pursue if necessary, noting that illegal aliens are a problem. James Kell of the Masters Collection Homeowners Association stated that his HOA had asked for the street closure before Brehm did based upon concerns about the legal implications upon the dividing of the original project. He stated that the HOA felt that the closure was necessary from a legal standpoint, and had held a noticed meeting at which time it was voted 48-1 not only to close the street but also to deny pedestrian access. Upon questioning by Chair Spethman, Mr. Kell stated that concerns involved liability issues with private streets. Committee Discussion Mr. Lee pointed out that with only three members present a unanimous vote is required for approval. He stated that the applicant may ask for a continuance if it appears that this will be a factor. Chair Speth man stated that although this appears to be a land use issue rather than a design issue, he had concerns about the loss of landscaping and security issues, and supported leaving the street open. Member Rodriguez stated that from a design perspective, the gate design is fine but the street and neighborhood atmosphere will be destroyed with the construction of a barrier in the middle; therefore, he concluded that he would vote against approval of the gate. Member Duncanson repeated concerns that this is a land use issue. However, he agreed that the dividing of the neighborhood was not desirable, and from a site planning perspective stated that he would vote against the project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE -4- SEPTEMBER 11. 1995 MSUC (Spethman/Rodriguez) (3-0) to adopt Resolution DRC-94-24M, denying the development plan modification for Parcel R-17 (lots 6-13), based on the findings contained therein. D. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. litts. '~~VLM Patty evins, Recorder " --~ -,"- ATTACHMENT 4 PUBLIC INPUT September 5, 1995 Anita Lewis 2498 La Costa Avenue Chula Vista, Ca. 9191 5-1406 (619)482-6817 The Masters Collection Lot #117 Planning Department/Case No. DRC-94-24M I am extremely concerned about having La Costa Avenue blocked off by a gate, I feel very strongly about having it remain open to vehicular circulation. I live in the last unit and did not buy thinking I would be living on a dead end street. In my opinion there is the matter of safety involved, if there was an emergency situation there would be only one way for the people living at the end of the street to get out. The fire and police department would also have only one way to respond to an emergency situation. Our street is off the main street to get to the club house, library or school the small amount of traffic from the new development should not adversely affect out dev'elopment. If, you-~a!king about making the masters collection a gate gu-arded community where we can enter and leave at will, that would be okay, but not to block the street to those of us living at the end of it. It would cause confusion trying to get throughout the street, as of now deliver trunks come to make delivers and can not understand why they cannot go through, the same thing can happen with emergency vehicles. Making it a dead end street as it is now will help to make it an added play area which is totally unfair, it has already turned into an added play area. We have parks and each home has a back yard, it is unfair, for this to become an added play area. Also it would distort the beautiful green belt area the development has and replace it with hot ugly black top, that would help to devalue the property. This is the second letter I'm writing to you, concerning this I do not want our street to become a dead end. If, myself is harmed in anyway I will have no choice but to take legal action. ~ ~<,,~.;) Anita Lewis .~- TilE "ALTERS jl \.\\( ;DJE:--"T'( :mll:\.\")' _._---_._-----~---- - -.~.__.--. _.._."~'_.~-~--_._----------- -----_.__._~-- . cr )\f\1l\ITY ..-\S\OC!-\ TJO'\S o-\f'-\RT\lE'\TS' CO....1\1ERCI:\L. CO.'\Sl"L TI'\G August 28, 1995 City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: AMY WOLF RE: PROPOSED ACCESS BETWEEN BRISTOLWOOD AND THE MASTERS COLLECTION (EASTLAKE GREENS) Dear Ms. Wolf: This letter is written on behalf of the EastLake 11 Community Association Board of Directors. On August 16, 1995. the EastLake II Community Association Board of Directors voted unanimously to support the position of The Masters Collection and deny vehicular access between the two community associations of Bristolwood and The Masters Collection. The Board of Directors also chose to support denial of pedestrian access. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (619) 296-6225. Thank you. Sincerely. 44! C;;Zt~h~.:'-C 'c;; Michael Hardcastle- Taylor, AM~ Real Estate Manager for EastLake II Community Association MHT/bb cc: EastLake II Community Association Board of Directors '::'::." I <..; -\ \ DIF(,() -\ \1-::'<1 'E' sun". .\-:':'0' SA' DIEGO. CA li:'] ] O..::!Y70. (011,11 :'Yf,-h22:'i' FAX I{J Ill! 29:'i-9027 jS ',"IEDI 08 '1 EASTLAV" TEL 619 4" '30 THE MASTERS' COLLECTION AT EASTLAKE GREENS HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION '"": August 15, 1995 Planning Director City ofChula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 91910 Dear Sir. The purpose of this letter is to reiterate the position of the Masters' Collection Home Owr."-:: AssocIation regarding the closure of La Costa Avenue, separating our homes ftom the one, L" l'.,il! by Brehm Communities Oill m~mbership has overwhelmingly approved the total closure of the street, allowing neiIL.,' vehicle nor pedestrian access :: is requested that our position be given full consideration. S;~~.erely. lJr~ ,'j ~'.'"e Allen ?ie-.-ident :,~",!ers' Collection HOA 9610 W.ple. Street, San DIeGo, Ca. 91121-2991 (619) 550-7900 August 24, 1995 Jack and Darlene Dusseault 2496 La Costa Ave. Chula Vista, CA. 91915 (619) 482-3131 The Masters Collection Lot #118 Planning Department/Case No. DRC-94-24M We are adamantly opposed to the proposal that would entail blocking off the originally approved vehicular cirulation system and segregate the Fieldstone homes from the new series of homes by Brehm. Our home is the very end unit and we did not purchase the property with the notion that our home would be on a dead end street. The city subdivision manual states that a cul de sac on a private street is ordinarily not to exceed five hundred feet. Our street is aproximately two thousand four hundred feet. or five times the legal limit. This barrier. which is apparently planned for some far-fetched purpose of discrimination. will only serve to delay emergency services. confuse delivery services and guests, as well as devalue property on both the Fieldstone and Brehm sides of this three foot high gate. During the construction process. Brehm has constructed a temporary gate which has already resulted in numerous instances of confusion. August 18th. a huge flat bed two trailer truck attempting to make a delivery of sod to Brehm was stuck on the Fieldstone side outside the gate. In desperation (and probably great frustration) the driver had to back his enormous rig out of "our side" of La Costa Ave. -- all 2.400 feet. On two other occasions these huge flat-bed double trailer trucks were forced to park in front of our residence at 6:30 A.M. and wait for Brehm to open the gates. Another time. a delivery person for our residence got stuck on the Brehm side of the fence. It took her ten minutes to get from there back to our front door. If the Brehm side of La Costa Avenue were renamed and a gate were installed. the confusion and delays would continue since city maps would display this as a through street. If that temporary gate constructed by Brehm causes delays in emergency service to the Fieldstone side of La Costa Ave., Brehm may expect massive law suits. If a permenant gate is constructed and there is ever a delay in emergency fire or medical service to either the Brehm or Fieldstone developments because of the gate. the city of Chula Vista, Eastlake II. Brehm, Fieldstone and the Masters Collection would all be liable in a,court of law. Eastlake II is . lanned community with extraorG 4rily beautiful landscaping. We purchased our home at 2496 La Costa Ave. because we would be adjacent to the watershed lot which is planted in front with a lovely lawn and jacaranda trees which are now about fifteen feet tall. This lawn and the trees were a major factor in our decision to purchase this particular piece of property. By installing this gate, the lovely through street will be turned into an unsightly dead-end, and the grass and trees will be removed in order to provide turn around space for fire equipment -- provided it gets to the correct side of the fence. This loss of grass and trees and the extent ion of asphalt will result in a devaluation of adjacent properties. Included with this letter is the page from the Masters Collection CC&R's which explains the voting standard which must be met before the board can make a decision on any change in Community common areas. This criterion was not met in the matter of this gate. (See inclusion #1). Thirty-two homeowners in the Fieldstone development and 69% of those directly affected by this gate on La Costa Ave. have signed a petition opposing the gate. (See inclusion #2). Inclusion #3 is a pictorial display of the four trees and grass that would be removed if this abhorrent project materializes. S .nce:a;s. ~ ~e- .c:25~ Jack and Darlene Dusseault Inclusion #1 policies shall contain loss payable clauses acceptable to the affected institutional First Mortgagees naming the Mortgagees, as their interests may appear. 17.15 Non-Curable Breach. Any Mortgagee who acquires title to a Lot by foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure or assignment-in-lieu of foreclosure shall not be obligated to cure any breach of this Declaration that is non-curable or of a type that is not practical or feasible to cure. 17.16 Loan to Facilitate. Any Mortgage given to secure a loan to facilitate the resale of a Lot after acquisition by fore- closure or by a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or by an assignment- in-lieu of foreclosure shall be deemed to be a loan made in good faith and for value and entitled to all of the rights and protections of this Article. 17.17 Appearance at Because interest in the development, any Mortgagee may appear (but cannot vote except under the circumstances set forth in Section 17.14) at meetings of the Members and the Community Board to draw attention to violations of this Declaration that have not been corrected or made the subject of remedial proceedings or assess- ments. 17.18 Right to Furnish Information. Any Mortgagee can fur- nish information to the Community Board concerning the status of any Mortgage. 17.19 InaDDlicability of Right of First Refusal to Mortgaqee. No right of first refusal or similar restriction on the right of an Owner to sell, transfer or otherwise convey the Owner's Lot shall be granted to the Community Association without the written consent of any Mortgagee of the Lot. Any right of first refusal or option to purchase a unit that may be granted to the Community Association (or other person, firm or entity) shall not apply to any conveyance or transfer of title to such Lot, whether voluntary or involuntary, to a Mortgagee which acquires title to or Ownership of the unit pursuant to the remedies pro- vided in its Mortgage or by reason of foreclosure of the Mortgage or deed or assignment in lieu of foreclosure. ARTICLE XVIII AMENDMENT AND TERM OF DECLARATION 18.1 Amendments. Prior to the close of escrow for the sale of the first Lot subject to a Public Report issued by the DRE, Declarant may amend this Declaration with the consent of the DRE. After the sale of a Lot to an Owner, other than Declarant, Merchant Builders or Apartment Owners, this Declaration may be amended by an instrument in writing, signed and acknowledged by the President or Vice-President and Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Community Board after approval of the amendment 75 - at a meeting of the Community Members duly called for such purpose. The vote (in person or by proxy) or written consent of: (a) at least sixty-seven percent (67\) of the Class A votes and at least sixty-seven percent. (67\) of Class B votes and (b) sixty-seven percent (67\) of the Eligible Rolders (based on one vote for each Mortgage owned) shall be required to add to, amend or modify, whether for final amendment or otherwise, any material provision of this Declaration which establishes, provides for, governs or regulates any of the following subjects: 18.1.1 Voting; 18.1.2 Assessments, assessment liens, or subordina- tion of such liens; 18.1.3 Reserves for maintenance, replacement of the Community Common Area; repair, and 18.1. 4 Insurance or Fidelity Bonds; Rights to use of the Community Common Area; 18.1. 5 18.1.6 Responsibili ty for maintenance and repair of the EastLake Greens Neighborhood; 18.1. 7 Greens Neighborhood property to or from Expansion or contraction of the EastLake or the addition, annexation, or withdrawal of the EastLake Greens Neighborhood; 18.1. 8 Boundaries of any Lot; 18.1.9 Common Area; Reallocation of interests in the Community 18.1.10 Conversion of Lots into Community Common Area or the Community Common Area into Lots; 18.1.11 Leasing of single family residential Dwellings; 18.1.12 Imposition of any right of first refusal or similar restriction on the right of a Owner to sell, transfer or otherwise convey his or her Lot; 18.1.13 Any provisions which are for the express benefit of Mortgagees, Eligible Holders, or eliglble insurers or guarantors of First Mortgages on Lots; 18.1.14 A decision by the Community Association to establish self-management when professional management has been required previously by an Eligible Holder; 76 Inclusion #2 Planning Dep. lent/Case No. DRC-94-24M / We, the undersigned, would like to express our opposition to the proposal to install a gate on La Costa Avenue in order to close the street between Fieldstone and Brehm developments. We are concerned about possible delays in emergency service and confusion for delivery services as well as for our guests. Disfigurement of the existing landscape in order to achieve this will result in depreciation of adjacent properties. NAME ADDRESS lOT NUMBER lja&i. ;ZJad;~ '2J~J-d:<I'1,,4~~ ;;(pu, -I11~ 2. ~(---IlJ;ch.t~~tL--t?,W1 M !k~& 4 / ~Ox 3. hI:. titdc' Bz~ "-I ..2SO;2 /d {ltY.:b k-e . ~ , I {' 4.)}~ .4tj?P~~~~. ~//7 ( 5. ,-.J,'-'L "l. '1~,-d:L, d. 50S ~ ~~- &'" .f'it" 6. I~~~~ JSC1 to- C1--:d4..~.z 1. '1;; r C-', ..A 1,'-- " 7. '2>~Jt., ~,b,_-h-L ;(;; it I LA Cc:rs ,1\ ,._ ft1Jt=. 1J6 "- f. . rlC>-l) 9. 'J Cl~L~ ZSlS- ~CoV~ ~)M1)~b fII. lV)@JDo~ ~ i5 n LA &><1>1'1) =* ;'0 (pr;b-rl/J'-f " (1f.2-1;':;;e 8. 10. <:fl'1q C, t4\; C?6. r It- lIi/e J(. 99 , 11. '< 1'1~ 12.~/; 2-.s'2.2.. ~~/~ ~'6~ 'fj-~/-~rt3 tjZ;-o/q ~ I! l f ~ . ~ /I?- 14. ~ C14..r~ ()14~~J,A.~~4r; -3]&1 ~IO~ ,. 15. JvLt'1Ai rJ.../tr-:5 4ZI-Z.'f13 ;(Y:;2D L~ ('O<3T1'1 7lr/F' C. v: "11 'j 15- 16. T/tl:nm Jf ::J/f-DJ<5orU ~Q,.,,~ / ~SfX(' 4~57Yf1/Yb i/'/ 71915 * /01 17. ~,~~~ "'~~,~ (pf~ttoL..> ) '\....~~~ \...~ 'C-~~_~ ~"'<... ~L"-O\oL-<\ 18. Ca: 0Rcu(fJ Y8;;;'-WS3 $/ LtI ~-rr< Aut. qlcW~ & //0 19. ~ f jJI~ ~ 'fi/-'~V( d-\")) L.A UJO)-fJ /I~' rlfl)' ~ 76 20. N~t'id C Cd<J:l~\~ :\ ~S~S LA c.oSIA Av!t q\~\S ~.gd.-'f1"{b 4 ,'1 if 21. ~ c.M.1es ZS33 LA CcGrA AV'i:.- en '-1 15 Lfe;2.-rlif7 ~BO *10 22. 54 J u i~ Lo P G1, It (Y)c, 1(11)('- / J 0 jJf Z- Q:y-n LM (D5f@ I CJ:;, Q'0 I') fJ.:5w-O(PQLj ff~ 23. ~'t;,~ t,5G-O(P87 -"'f'" cJ5LfS ~~~ {!v 91CflEJ 24. c:; 6: ( ~) r::;(-'~ /?/ >7'" --ro~/! of!:.y ;1 '7t"'.,) P. e v '" ('! IS'":. / y'o,y 25. f-/~.& ~p H~~ca ,,;f~ Jr h.- c.~J'.; Av-€.- PI-7 t'"37 ~ {Df) 26. Vt 'v1 c ~ Y1 -r /tJ ftfL. -n J1 e 2.. -'1 cf 2 - cf7 Ro / 04 C? TO(l..jtA'( 70 Y1 7- r< c:! ' 27. Dottf ~N()ESSGf ~ (01 .2')/% ~4{};s71 R/J ~~6-f~fll j 28. ~~ I~ /~ G !)c;_oy,ry .),5"'It/ lfu.-- ~ . * (01 29. LAV'''''Y SI'W',~T ~5"r~ ~S+14 ,t}VL-. $/{/O 30. ~ ~~':;;'6~f 14.- t'P~ ~. -rt1?.Jjr.1--tt/tIj 31. 4-.:JJY ~MtJ~ :;5tJ3 ~ ~,fv-l-(/5!p-~! f u:~) ~ 1'1 1" /Drp 1111'; , <" '1(. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. j(-/ l(a.r " 32. ~ ~ if.).. .J;:j~ "-,., CtJ-'77+ 14\1~-:- (,~,- <''fG-~ f IU;1 (1/'1 II- .::Jt. I /f., ~,fZJD 1-1. ~ ,,'t-I Pi 50 H"1"(:, ie(N_ h1 ~i./~ GVTI c::vLrt.e"2- ?.,{...,.. :L~3 I 4- c..oSQ A-v\:,- 4 Z.\-'7!>7\- ~<G~~'fI...I~' ~ii - il / .' #- - I .:rf t:Y ......'], '- AI /I.;L <..(. -x-.f ,/Ie. 2,,:/-...:I Ed lie --o~-< "->" ,..t~.6..> ~ L"-<.';;" -->flu. ,... A. / '" II ""L " _ J --<, '~.4' _____ 'r~ ,0,7' C/fif..,./i' 0-".ft,,:6'~_, :/ AUG-25-95 FRI 17;43 BREHM COM~Y~~TIES P _ e 1 ----~--' ',"1'" .... RECEIVEO AUj;ust 14, 1995 AUG 211995 BR~t" _. Amy Wolfe, Assistant Planner Chula Vj~ta City Planning Dept. 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Case No. DRC-94-24 r"'\ Dear Ms. Wolfe: In July, 1994, I sent you a letter expressing my opposition to a proposal to close La Costa Ave. The portioo of the above reference plan to close La Costa Avenue and install a gate with a Knox box was disapproved and I thought the issue was dead. It has come to my attcntioo that Brehm Communities is again requesting that a gate be installed to divide La Costa A venue. As I have previously informed your office, I am extremely opposed to this action for the following reasons. First, closing the street in the middle of the 2400 block will be confusing for emergency vehicles, mail service and delivery vehic1cs. This confusion could endangcr lives should emergcncy vehicles enter from the wrong cross street. The precious seconds lost while the gate is being opened could mean the difference between life and death. I suffer from both asthma and hcart problems. If a gate is allowed to be installed and I suffer harm because of delays in obtaining emergency help, I or my heirs will sue the City, Brehm Communities, Bristolwood Homeowners Association, Eastlake II' Association arid The Masters Homeowners Association. Second, when I purchased my home I was led to believe by Fieldstone that they wO\IJd be developing all of La Costa A venue. I thought I was buying on a through street and not a cui de saC, In my opinion, La Costa Avenue is too long a street to be a eul de sac, In addition, it is a half mile longer to exit the area from Torrey Pines Road than it is to exit from Master's Ridge. This adds a minimum of one mile a day wear and tear on my vehicle not to mention the added air pollution. Had I known that there was a possibility of the street being changed, I would not have purchased my residence. Third, there is not adequate parking now for visitors. The street is narrow and it is against the CC&Rs to park along side the curbs. There is currently insufficient guest parking. In order to accomplish the closure, parking spaces and a green belt will have to be removed to create a turn arow1d for emergency vehicles. Without adequate parking, it -2'5-9'5 FRI 17: 4. 4 BREHM COMMUNITIES - -.-.--- - Case No. DRC-94-24 August 14. 1995 is inevitable that visitors will park in front of thc gatcs without thinking of !he potential risk for emcrgeney vehicles. This could cause further delays in an emergency situation. Fourth, a gate, in any form, is an eyesore that will dccrcase the property value of the residents within site of the gate. In addition, to accomplish the closure, part of the green belt including several beautiful trees will be removed. The green belt area is why some of the residents selected their units. Removing all or part of it will make their property less desirable to them. It is my understanding that !he gTeen belt is part of a water company easement. If that is the case, bow can it be removed? Finally, how can a private street be closed without a vote of the associations involved? I know The Master's Association's CC&Rs require a two thirds vote of the association !he authorize major changes. This is definitely a major change. A3 a member of the association, 1 know that there has been no legal vote to authorize this change. As a result, the association's request to close the street is not lega1. 1 wi11 be consulting an allomey to discuss possible legal action on this issue. 1 would like to be notified of any hcarings that are scheduled in this mailer. I hope that aflcr carefully considcring this proposal, the City will decide not to grant this requcs\. Sincere1y, ~ '~l "'\... "\.).....,'t ,., ........... ;...",')c.- Iva L. Butler 2505 La Costa Ave. ChulaVista,CA 91915 691-5515 (day) c: Brehm Communities Bristolwood Homeowners Association Eastlake II Community Association The Mastcrs Homeowners Association P.02 TO: AMV HV WIFE GREENS. "ASTERS AUG 2 11995 BHE:.fll'" __......-."'.-..;1 WOLFE AND I ARE PURCHASING A HOME AT BRISTOLWOOD IN EASTLAKE WE WOULD PREFER A GATE BETWEEN BRISTOLWOOD AND THE COLLECTION. .~ /) gf/'l~.!7'~ G 7U~r.) ';?Ci 'P,-U) RECEIVED AUG 211995 Btu:", h'.. _ _. .. TO: A"V WOLFE "V WIFE AND I ARE PURCHASING A HO"E AT BRISTOLWOOD IN EASTLAKE GREENS. WE WOULD PREFER A GATE BETWEEN BRISTOLWOOD AND THE "ASTERS COLLECTION. c;y~~~~ 'i/I"7/7S- RECFI\1r:-"'" AUG 211995 TO; AMY WOLFE ~nN' \,/""'""."......., .--~ REGARDING BRISTOLWOOD AT EASTLAKE GREENS; WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE END OF LA COSTA AVENUE CLOSED OFF TO THROUGH TRAFFIC. BUYERS OF LOT 63 2431 LA COSTA AVENUE CHULA VISTA CA 91915 ~~;!:tt/ ~1l ~~f'-)UJ)a,W~ ATTACHMENT 5 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ( 11iE cr OF CH\.1V. VISTA DIS<1OSURE STI '.MENT You are required to file a Statement o. Di.clo.ure of certain ownership or finan. ., interests, payments, or campaign contribution.. on all mailers which will require discrctionary aClion on the part of Ihe City Council, Planning Commi~ion, and all Glher official bodi"'. The following inrormalion mu" be disclo.ed: 1. Lisl the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or Ihe contract, e.g.. owner, applicant. contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. Brehm Investments, Inc. Forrest W. Brehm Eastlake Development Company Brehm Communities 2. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporal ion or partnership, lislthe names of all individuals owning more Ihan 10% of the .hares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Forrest W. Breham Eastlake Development Company (on file w/City) 3. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non.profit organization or as truslee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4 Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any .member of thc City staff, Board.. Commi~ion., Commillees, and Council within Ihe past twelve months? Yes_ NoK If yes. please indicate person(.): - ~ 5. Plea.e identify each and every person. including any agents, employees, consultanls, or independent contractors who you have a~igned to represent you before the Cily in this mailer. Forrest W. Brehm - Brehm Communities Scot Sandstrom - Brehm Communities Jack Hepworth - Brehm Communities Steve Wallet - Bowlus. Edinger & Starck Architects Steve Estrada - Estrada Land Planning John Janazewski - CJ and Associates Civil Enqineers 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more Iban $1,000 10 a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes_ No~ If yes, slate wbich Councilmember(s): . . . (NOTE: Attadl additiooal pap as op. Date: 7/20/95 q(v'( f';- . P~TSOII i.r defiucd QJ: -Any ;ndjvi~al. fin" c(}-pontf6Jhip. joiN WftAIrt, AUOC;aliOlI, IOCW club, frQlm&Q1 OfJOIUzAJlintl, corporllliOfl. t:SUUe. A'WI, rtetiw:r.I)'"IliCCltt. L\L! GILd 10111)' OIhrr C0Il1U)', cily illuI cowury, ciry rrumicipdliry, disvicl, fX tHhrr poIilic'fJI ",bdi~;s,'ot&, Of 4UI)' OIlIer ,-oup 01 ,ombiIuJIjOlJ <<,;tJI OJ d waiL . , ....