Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1982/07/15 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, July 15, 1982 - 7:00 p.m. Council Chamber, Public Services Building ~--~pLL CALL Councilmen present: Mayor Cox, Councilmembers McCandliss, Scott, Malcolm, Moore Councilmen abs.ent: None Staff present: City Manager Cole, City Attorney Lindberg, Assistant City Manager Asmus, Development Services Administrator Robens PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED EASTLAKE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTLAKE PLANNED COmmUNITY ZONE Staff Presentations (Note: eopies of the staff's presentations are attached to these minutes) Lane F: Cole, City Manageri Noted the magnitude of the development; impressed with Cadillac-Fairview's attention to detail; pleased with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the General Plan Amendment; supports the approval. Bud Gray, Director of Planning: Noted the reason for the public hearing - a General Plan Amendment and P-C zone application submitted by Cadillac Fairview Homes West to amend the City's General Plan from medium residential and agriculture land use to a designation to allow a planned community to be developed on 1,268 acres of land contiguous to the eastern City limits along Telegraph Canyon Road and the extension of H Street. Mr. Gray stated that this is a different plan than that submitted to the Planning Commission; noted the comparison with the original plan; discussed the major issues identified in the development. Ken Lee, Principal Planner: Presented slides showing aerial views of the site and maps in which he noted the locations of the proposed employment park, community park areas, residential, commerical and industrial areas and public facilities. Mr. Lee reported on the density factors; noted that 10% of the residential units would be for low and moderate income housing; indicated school needs would be met and described the circulation element of the development. John Lippitt, City Engineer: Detailed the traffic study, drainage and sewer service capacities; remarked that the developer will pay his fair share of the north/south road improvements; listed the traffic count on the major arterials leading to the proposed development; stated the traffic needs for the area will be adequately served; that the development will not cause any significant impact on drainage on the adjacent areas; and commented on the sewer capacity in the Metro System - the City's reserve capacity. Doug Reid, EIR Coordinator: Highlighted the unmitigable impacts in the environ- mental report - loss of potentially valuable agricultural land, growth inducement and air quality; gave a rundown of the dates involved in certifying the environ- mental impact report; noted the areas that cannot be mitigated and the impact of these on the development. Ann Neusbaum, WESTEC: Commented on the changes in the plan; summarized the impact significances- those with no mitigation required, those with mitigation to insignifi- cance and those that are unmitigable. She declared that substantial environmental impact reports will be required for many of these issues. City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting -2- July 15, 1982 Bud Gray, Director of Planning: Summarized the key points - Environmental, Physical, Fiscal, Policy, and Socio-Economic and stated that in his opinion, "EastLake will be beneficial to the City - that it represents the most viable opportunity to achieve environmental, social, economic and policy goals of the City." Mr. Gray recommended that the City Council: (1) certify that EIR-81-3 on the proposed EastLake Planned Community has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environ- mental Review procedures of the City; (2) tentatively approve the General Plan Amendment and EastLake Planned Community zone subject to the conditions of approval contained in the Planned Community Zoning Regulations; refer the plan back to the Planning Commission for review and report; adopt the candidate CEQA findings; and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Councildiscussion followed during which they raised the question of considering this item tonight without benefit of the recommendation of the Planning Commission since this plan is different than that considered by the Commission; questioned what safeguards are built into the plan if the present developer sells off some of his land; noted some of the conditions imposed for approval. Bob Santos, Project Director, Cadillac-Fairview Homes West: Showed a slide presentation depicting the trends in the housing market, discussed the energy costs, development patterns, water supply, government subsidies for homes and public improvements, empl~ment changes and size of homes. He stated that the development will consider energy conservation, transportaion planning, water resource conservation, school needs, economic development, fiscal benefits to the City, affordable housing and will protect the community's well-being. In answer to the Council's questions, Mr. Santos explained the "economic multiplier" whereby this development will create more jobs in "midtown"; and as for the concern of having the developer stay with the project, he proposed tha!t the City and Cadillac Fairview Homes West enter into a pre-annexation agreement that would become a development agreement upon annexation which would legally bind the developer to the performance. A recess was called at 9:00 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Letters supporting the project were received from the San Diego Sierra Club, Sweetwater Valley Planning Group (based on conditions), and from Rohr Corporation. The proponents: Chuck Smith, 145 Willow Street, Bonita; Sharon Spurck, 1104 Grove Avenue, Imperial Beach, representing the South San Diego Bay Cities Board of Realtors; Nancy Palmer, 230 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, representing the Sierra Club; James Cusack, 5915 Elder Gardens Street, San Diego 92120, representing the South Bay Cultural Arts Center; Milton Lenz, 607 Melrose Avenue, Chula Vista, representing Haleys Addition Property which adjoins the proposed development; John Kracha, 358 E. Millan Street, Chula Vista; Penny Allen, 666 Mariposa Circle, Chula Vista; Kathleen Suros, 3839 Old Dairy Lane, Bonita; Donald F. Armstrong, 37 Palomar Drive, Chula Vista; Marshall "Ty" Compton, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce. In summary, their comments were: (1) the development is a good blending of residential, commerical and industrial uses; (2) it will be a good positive image for Chula Vista; (3) it provides a variety of housing; (4) ask that the developers allow continuance of the agricultural lands; (5) th~ City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting -3- July 15, 1982 developers will donate land on the lakefront for a cultural arts center and also pay for a feasibility study; (6) the arterials are conducive to all interests; (7) better to have one large developer than a 'hodge-podge' of numerous developers for this one area; (8) want this development to reflect the Sweetwater Community Plan adopted by the County in 1979; (9) Cadillac-Fairview has the financial capacity (over 2.4 billion) to make this a successful community; (10) completely overwhelmed by the developer's cooperation in all aspects of the plan. The opponents: Martha McDonald, 4425 Acacia Avenue, Bonita, President of the Long CanyonHomeowners Association; John Riess, P. O. Box 584, Bonita, representing the Sweetwater Community Planning Group; Anthony Rangus, 837 Elm Avenue, Chula Vista; Gale Burkey, P.O. Box 321, Bonita; Gretchen Burkey, 4807 Del Prado and P. O. Box 321, Bonita, representing the Sweetwater Women's Club; and Mrs. James Collins, Box 753, Bonita. In summary, their comments were: (1) Planning Department did not have material available - reports, etc- as indicated in the public hearing notice and opponents did not have time to prepare a reply; (2) staff is asking Council to endorse a 'blank check'; all mitigation factors will have to be addressed; (3) because of the drainage capacity, further developments adjacent to this area may have to be postponed; (4) it is a leap-frog development; (5) LAFCO has not adopted the sphere of influence for Chula Vista thereby leaving this annexation to a legal challenge; (6) it is premature and growth-inducing; (7) plan does not provide protection topossible flooding from 1-805 downstream; (8) concerned with the loss of agricultural lands; (9) traffic increase and congestion as a result of this development. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Further discussion continued with Mr. Santos answering the Council's questions pertaining to the continuation of agriculture on the remaining portion of the property which he stated would be "dry farming"; the City Engineer explaining the sewer capacity and drainage; and the City Attorney reaffirming the recom- mendation to send the matter back to the Planning Commission for report after the Council ta.kes action. MSUC (Cox/Scott) ~9_accept the staff's recommendation as itemized on the Agenda Statement (All3) with the notation that this approval is subject to a report back from the Planning Commission. The Mayor and the Councilmembers expressed their pleasure in the proposed project and the developer's cooperation. In reference to the comments and requests made by the Sierra Club (include a requirement that the owner of the Janal Ranch encourage continued suitable agriculture on the remaining portion of the property by actively seeking leasees if necessary including but not limited to placing advertisements in local and regional newspapers and appropriate trade publications and that a repre- sentative of the Sierra Club be a participant in the overall planning of the eastern portion of the Chula Vista Planning Area; and the request of the Sweetwater Valley Planning Group (that the City amend its General Plan Land Use Element to reflect the Sweetater Community Plan adopted by the County in 1977 and 1979), the City Attorney stated that these will be put in a · I T City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting -4- July 15, 1982 formal resolution and brought back to the Council for approval. Time Element: In answer to the Council's query, Director of Planning Gray said he would submit this item to the Planning Commission on August 18 for report and it could be back to the Council on September 7, 1982. Councilman Moore commented that he will not bepresent at that meeting. The Council concurred that the report from the Planning Commission be placed on their meeting of August 24, 1982. Special Redevelopment Agency Meeting: Councilman Malcolm asked for a special meeting of the Redevelopment Agency to reconsider one of the items apprQved at today's meeting. MSC (Cox/Moore)to schedule a special meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on Saturday, July 17, 1982 immediately following the Council Conference which begins at 8:00 a.m. Councilman Scott voted "no". ADJOURNMENT at 10:25 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Saturday, July 17, 1982 at 8:00 a.m. and to the regular scheduled meeting of Tuesday, July 20, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. 1 I N T R 0 B U C T I 0 N bl . tOZ NN -"'t- MR. MAYOR; MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL THIS ITEM IS A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PC ZONE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY CADILLAC FAIRVIEW HOMES WEST TO AMEND THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURE LAND USE TO A DESIGNATION TO ALLOW A PLANNED COMMUNITY TO BE DEVELOPED ON 1,268 ACRES OF LAND CONTIGUOUS TO THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS ALONG TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AND THE EXTENSION OF "H" STREET. THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY (1,800 ACRES) IS PROPOSED FOR A GENERAL PLAN CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURE AND RESERVE TO FUTURE URBAN AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A IN YOUR PACKET. THIS IS A DIFFERENT PLAN THAN THE APPLICANT FIRST SUBMITTED TO THE CITY IN OCTOBER, 1980. THIS NEW PLAN WILL BE REFERRED TO THROUGHOUT THIS PRESENTATION AS EASTLAKE I. ON MAY 19, 1982, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 4 (IN FAVOR), E (OPPOSED), I (ABSENT) TO RECOMMEND THAT YOUR COUNCIL DISAPPROVE THE ORIGINAL EASTLAKE PLAN. THE COMMISSION'S REASONS WERE VARIED. HOWEVER, SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION, I HAVE TALKED WITH BOB SANTOS, AND TOGETHER WE HAVE TRIED TO RESOLVE AS MANY ISSUES AND PROBLEMS AS POSSIBLE, SO THAT THE COUNCIL COULD HAVE THE OPTION OF APPROVING SOME TYPE OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE RESULT OF OUR EFFORTS IS THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING - EASTLAKE I. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL EASTLAKE PLAN AND EASTLAKE I ARE AS FOLLOWS: Ill COMPARISON CHART ORIGINAL SPECIFICATIONS EASTLAKE PLAN FASTLAKE I SIZE (ACRES) 3,073 1,268 DWELLING UNITS ll ,450 3,683 EMPLOYMENT PARK (ACRES) 254 145.3 OFFICES (ACRES) 30.3 19.2 COMMERCIAL (ACRES) 31.8 15.0 SCHOOLS (ACRES) 120.2 59.9 OPEN SPACE/RECREATION (ACRES) 707.1 301.4 CIRCULATION (ACRES) 217.7 106.4 OVERALL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 3.7 2.9 THE MAJOR ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE STAFF DEALT WITH TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT, PRECOMMITMENT OF A LARGE OWNERSHIP IN THE EASTERN AREA BEFORE THE CITY HAS COMPLETED THE UPDATE TO THE GENERAL PLAN, AND THE LOSS OF POTENTIALLY VALUABLE AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE LAND. I BELIEVE THE NEW PLAN BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING ALLEVIATES THE ORIGINAL STAFF CONCERNS BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING POINTS: 1) IT'S NOT AS BIG -- 1,268 ACRES VS. 3,073 ACRES, THEREBY REDUCING THE IMPACT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. 2) THE SCALED-DOWN PLAN PRESERVES 1,800 ACRES OF THE EASTERN AREA FOR FUTURE URBAN, WITH NO COMMITMENT TO ANY DEVELOP- MENT UNTIL AFTER THE GENERAL PLAN IS UPDATED. 3) PROVIDES AN EVEN MORE FAVORABLE COST/REVENUE PICTURE FOR THE CITY 528,000 VS. 268,000 AT END OF PHASE I. 4) AVOIDS LONG-TERM COMMITMENTS BY BOTH THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER IN A PERIOD OF ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY. 5) REPRESENTS A MORE ORDERLY EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING CITY -- FROM WEST TO EAST. 6) RELOCATES THE NORTH/SOUTH TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TO A MORE CENTRAL LOCATION, THEREBY PROVIDING MORE CHOICES IN THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EASTERN AREA. 7) PRESERVES THE APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN CONCEPT FOR "AN URBAN VILLAGE" WITH ALL OF THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT RESULT FROM PLANNED COMMUNITIES. · 1 T 3 MR. MAYOR, WE HAVE SEVERAL STAFF MEMBERS READY TO MAKE A COORDINATED PRESENTATION THIS EVENING. AT THIS POINT, I WOULD ASK KEN LEE TO RUN THROUGH A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EASTLAKE I AND TO EXPLAIN THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. I CAN ALSO TELL YOU THAT EVERYTHING CONTAINED IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS IS AGREEABLE TO MR. SANTOS, THE PROJECT DIRECTOR FOR EASTLAKE I. MR, LEE-- - 'r: ~- :: ~.' f~' ,;j~.. ! ,,. "t , SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 1. ENVIRONMENTAL The Environmental Studies and the Environmental Impact Report clearly document the impacts of this project on the environment. There are three significant, unmitigable impacts: A) Loss of potentially valuable agricultural land B) Growth inducement C) Air quality All other environmental impacts are either insignificant (8) or will be miti- gated (13). There are significant social and economic benefits which balance the relatively few negative impacts, namely: A) Job opportunities for 5,000 persons B) Extension of "H" Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and the north/ south road C) 10% of the units will be affordable housing D) The benefits derived from a planned community in terms of energy reduction, alternative transportation services, reduced commuting, and a positive cost/reyenUe benefit for the City. 2. PUBLIC [ACILITIES AND SERVICES The project will require substantial public facilities and services, as we la n°'~cl Co~,/.,-.~,,~ have indicated in the staff report. The P n ~ C~district regula- tions contain numerous conditions to insure that the project provides these facilities and services at no net cost to the City. The Public Facilities and SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 2 Financing Plan m)l~irc~.ent will h~ be prepared and approved by the Council or no development will be permitted to occur. The major public facility impact is obviously traffic, and we have included conditions that require additional traffic studies for EastLake I at the SPA level. I believe that John Lippitt is comfortable with the drainage and sewer conditions. Parks will be provided, schools will be guaranteed; and police, fire, library and transit facilities and services will be provided. 3. FISCAL The current estimate by Dr. Alfred Gobar, who is the applicant's economic consultant, is that EastLake I will not only pay for all the on-site and off- site capital facilities such as streets, drainage, sewers, parks, schools, etc. at no cost to the City -- but once EastLake I is built-out, there will be a positive cost/revenue benefit to the City of an estimated $528,200 annually. The Public Facilities and Financing Plan will address in greater detail the revenue and cost estimates,and provide the City Council with specific measures to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the financial ability of the City to provide EastLake I with normal city services. 4. POLICY The staff report concludes that EASTLAKE I is consistent with the applicable policies (~and2.) contained in the Growth Management Policy. It is also ~l~ ~ill~consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. It is entirely consistent with other elements of the General Plan, such as the Housing Element and Circulation Element. I recognize that there was a concern about i~ precommitting a large portion of the Eastern Area to a specific type of development prior to the completion of the new General Plan. I think the reduction in the size of EASTLAKE gives the City Council the ability to achieve many worthwhile City goals, while not diminishing your options for planning the Eastern Area. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 3 5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC The City of Chula Vista is the second largest city in San Diego County. All indications point toward the fact that this City is going to grow and develop at a consistent rate into the 1980's and 1990's. -A_~ ~ ~row, Or~w+~ is neiL~ ~ood-ae~4~-i~ ~ The important question is how to grow in a manner that meets human needs and how to grow in a way that is sensible, intelligent and beneficial to people that live and work in Chula Vista today and in the future. I believe that planned growth and balanced growth is in the public interest. In my opinion, EASTLAKE I will be beneficial to the~Milil~e"" " ~ of the City. It represents the most viable opportunity to achieve environmental, social, economic and policy goals of the City. Introductory Statement - Eastlake Hearing - 7/15/82 Whenever a development of the size of Eastlake is proposed, there is a kind of natural negative reaction that wells up in us simply because of its size. We prefer to deal with things or conditions in bite-size increments and do not like to bi~e-off ~re than we can chew. Most of our California towns and cities, while growing at a rapid pace, had this growth occur through incre~ntal develop~nt that is easy to accept and deal with, typically 100 to 250 lots subdivisions. Indeed, the City of Chula Vista's average number of lots developed in a typical year has been below 1,000. Eastlake I consists of over 3,000 dwelling units, covering an area approximately 1,300 acres. So it's natural that we would have some concern in dealing with the magnitude of this proposed development. Further, it is the first phase of a larger planned community. This first phase, however, ~ets the test of our General Plan and our recently approved Growth Management Plan. I am personally pleased that the Planning Department's recommendation is to approve the Eastlake's General Plan Amendment and t~Eastlake Planned Community Zone for Eastlake I recognizing that the plan be returned to the Planning Commission for review and report. I journeyed to the north along with the City Council and others to view the Woodbridge Development which is similar in nature to what the ~st~id~ Development will be. I was impressed with this community which obviously had excellent prepl~nning. I am impressed with Cadillac-Fairview's attention to detail; they seemingly leave no stone unturned to answer questions and seek out ~'"to~ m~e sure that no hitch will ~_hinder the implementation of the development phase of the project. I am excited .bout this development because I believe it will set a very high standard and indeed will become the datum upon which other developments in the South Bay, and perhaps in all of San Diego County, will be compared. -f~be~,-~Fe~e t,~t-we-~-~a~itigat~'~'~he'pr~'~E~a~c='w~il' -a.rise because of this development. I~ose that. c~ll3/3o~.are ou~we~h~ by. the s~ia]~r~" ~on~m+~-t~e~'~Tt~ i~o-e~F~a~,-~. The City of Chula Vista has a unique opportunity in the development of its eastern sphere of influence because the landholdings are in large ownerships. There are only three. This means that community-wide needs can be determined and provided for on a broad base through the subdivison and developn~nt process. Needed facilities for the City to support the development will be planned and provided in the development process. Fire Stations, Libraries and other infrastructure that cannot be gained through incremental development will be part and parcel of the improve- ments. As you can see, I support the approval of the Eastlake Phase I and recommend that the City Council also support it. LFC:lm · ,3'0 ~rN J I PPI T' T" EASTLAKE SPEECH MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I WILL DISCUSS THREE AREAS INVOLVED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF EASTLAKE: 1. TRAFFIC IMPACTS 2. DRAINAGE 3. SEWER SERVICE ONE OF THE MORE DIFFICULT AND COMPLICATED ASPECTS OF THIS PLAN IS THE PLACING OF EQUITABLE CONDITIONS FOR OFFSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. I'LL DISCUSS THE CONDITIONS IN A MINUTE. I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THEY ARE WRITTEN SUCH THAT FURTHER STUDIES WILL BE MADE AT EACH PHASE OF EASTLAKE SO MORE ACCURATE OFFSITE CONDITIONS WILL BE PLACED AT THE TIME THOSE SPA PLANS ARE APPROVED. TO ASSIST IN PREPARING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WHICH WAS USED AS A GUIDE IN PLACING CONDITIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT, JACK C. RAUB COMPANY COMPLETED A REPORT ENTITLED "EAST CHULA VISTA TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE EASTLAKE PLANNED COMMUNITY". THIS STUDY WAS BASED UPON THE ORIGINAL EASTLAKE PLAN, AND ALSO MADE ASSUMPTIONS OF WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE IN THAT AREA AT THE TIME EASTLAKE WAS COMPLETED IN THE YEAR 2,000. IT WAS ANTICIPATED IN THE STUDY THAT THERE WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 51,000 DWELLING UNITS, 250 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL, 60 ACRES OF OFFICE SPACE, AND 460 ACRES OF BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL. BASED UPON THOSE NUMBERS, THERE WERE IN EXCESS OF i/2 MILLION TRIPS GENERATED PER DAY IN THE WHOLE STUDY AREA. THE SLIDE SHOWS THE STUDY AREA WHICH IS ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT EAST OF 1-805, SOUTH OF THE SOUTHBAY FREEWAY, NORTH OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD, AND WEST OF OTAY LAKES. SINCE THERE ARE PRESENTLY 10,000 DWELLING UNITS IN THE STUDY AREA, WE BELIEVE THAT BASED UPON THE STANDARD GROWTH RATE IT WOULD BE FAR BEYOND THE YEAR 2000 BEFORE 50,000 DWELLING UNITS COULD EXIST IN THE STUDY AREA. THEREFORE, THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE AND THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES GENERATED IN THE REPORT MUST BE REGARDED AS VERY CONSERVATIVE. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THERE WAS VERY LITTLE GROWTH ANTICIPATED ON THE UNITED ENTERPRISES PROPERTY SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD DURING THAT TIME PERIOD. THE CITY HAS HIRED A CONTRACT PLANNER TO DEVELOP A GENERAL PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE EASTERN AREA. AS PART OF THAT GENERAL PLAN WE WILL NEED TO DEVELOP A CIRCULATION SYSTEM SO THAT THE AREA CAN BE ADEQUATELY SERVED. THEREFORE, FUTURE TRAFFIC STUDIES CAN BE MADE BY THE CITY BASED UPON AN APPROVED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE EASTERN AREA, SO THAT THE CITY WILL HAVE A BETTER TOOL TO USE IN PLACING CONDITIONS ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. WE ALSO PLAN TO DEVELOP A FACILITIES NEEDS STUDY FOR THE MAJOR ROADS IN THE EASTERN AREA SO THAT A PROGRAM CAN BE DEVELOPED SIMILAR TO THE "H" STREET PLAN WHEREBY FUTURE DEVELOPERS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF ALL THE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS. 2 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LOOKED AT TWO STREET NETWORKS, THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BEING THAT NETWORK 1 INCLUDED A NORTH/SOUTH PRIMARY ARTERIAL TO CONNECT WITH ROUTE 54. NETWORK 2 DID NOT INCLUDE THE ENTIRE PRIMARY ARTERIAL TO CONNECT TO 54, AND DID NOT INCLUDE ORANGE AVENUE. SINCE DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT ANTICIPATED SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD IN THE UNITED ENTERPRISES PROPERTY, WE WERE NOT PROPOSING TO INSTALL ORANGE AVENUE OR A PORTION OF OTAY LAKES ROAD AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL EASTLAKE PLAN. HOWEVER, WE DID PLACE A CONDITION THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD PAY HIS FAIR SHARE OF INSTALLING THE NORTH/SOUTH PRIMARY ARTERIAL ALL THE WAY TO STATE ROUTE 54. AND, THAT'S STILL THE CONDITION. THE QUESTION THAT NOW EXISTS WITH THE NORTH/SOUTH ARTERIAL IS AT WHAT TIME WOULD THAT BE NEEDED AND HOW MUCH IS THE DEVELOPER'S FAIR SHARE REDUCED BECAUSE OF THE SMALLER SCALE PROJECT? THESE QUESTIONS CAN BE ANSWERED ONLY BY FUTURE FINANCIAL PLAN STUDIES AND TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES. THE SLIDE SHOWS THE MAJOR STREET CIRCULATION SYSTEM SHOWN IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. THE BROAD, THICK HASH MARKS REPRESENT A SIX-LANE FACILITY; THE THINNER, BROAD HASH MARKS REPRESENT A FOUR-LANE FACILITY; AND THE NARROW HASH MARKS REPRESENT A TWO-LANE FACILITY. BASED UPON THE ORIGINAL TRAFFIC STUDY AND ASSUMING 50,000 DWELLING UNITS IN THAT AREA, TYPICAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON THE LOCAL STREETS WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 3 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD NEAR THE 805 FREEWAY SHOWED 48,000 VEHICLES PER DAY THEN. NOW 25,000 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD JUST WESTERLY OF OTAY LAKES ROAD SHOWED 24,000 VEHICLES PER DAY THEN. 13,000 NOW EAST "H" STREET 43,000 VEHICLES PER DAY NEAR THE FREEWAY, AND RAPIDLY REDUCING TO 26,000 VEHICLES EASTERLY OF RIDGEBACK AND APPROXIMATELY 20,000 VEHICLES PER DAY JUST WESTERLY OF OTAY LAKES ROAD THEN. NOW 0 BONITA ROAD 50,000 VEHICLES NEAR THE FREEWAY, AND BETWEEN 30,000 AND 37,000 EASTERLY OF THE FREEWAY TO OTAY LAKES ROAD THEN. NOW - 34,000 AND 30,000. HOWEVER, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FROM THE EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT WESTERLY OF WILLOW WAS NEGLIGIBLE AND APPROXIMATELY 10% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON BONITA ROAD BETWEEN WILLOW AND OTAY LAKES ROAD. IF THE NORTH/SOUTH PRIMARY ARTERIAL IS INSTALLED ALL THE WAY TO STATE ROUTE 54, THE IMPACTS ON THE NORTH/SOUTH STREETS IN THE BONITA AREA, SUCH AS C'ORRAL CANYON ROAD AND OTAY LAKES ROAD, WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: THE PROJECT WOULD REPRESENT APPROXIMATELY 14% OF THE TOTAL TRIPS ON CORRAL CANYON ROAD, AND THE TOTAL TRIPS WOULD APPROXIMATELY BE 8,000 TRIPS PER DAY. THE PERCENT OF TRAFFIC ON OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM THE EASTLAKE PROJECT WOULD RANGE FROM 14% TO 34%. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT A NORTH/SOUTH PRIMARY ARTERIAL TYPE STREET IS ESSENTIAL TO THE EARLY GROWTH OF THE CHULA VISTA EASTERN AREA. AND, IF THAT IS NOT INSTALLED TO CONNECT TO STATE ROUTE 54 AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME, MAJOR IMPACTS COULD OCCUR TO SOME OF THE OTHER LOCAL STREETS THROUGH BONITA. BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS A STUDY CONDUCTED FOR NOT ONLY THE PROPOSED EASTLAKE PLAN BUT MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS FOR BONITA MIGUEL AND OTHER AREAS OF THE EAST, AND THE FACT THAT THE EASTLAKE PROJECT WAS CUT FROM 11,800 DWELLING UNITS TO APPROXIMATELY 3,600, AND THE FACT THAT FUTURE TRAFFIC STUDIES WILL BE REQUIRED AT EACH PHASE OF EASLAKE I, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SURROUNDING GROWTH AT THAT TIME AND THE EXISTING TRAFFIC ON THE STREETS SO THAT ADEQUATE ROAD CONDITIONS CAN BE PLACED, IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THE CONDITIONS STATED IN THE REPORT ARE SO WRITTEN THAT THE TRAFFIC NEEDS OF THE EASTERN AREA WILL BE ADEQUATELY SERVED. A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THOSE OFF SITE ROAD CONDITIONS ARE THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL BUILD "H" STREET BETWEEN HIS DEVELOPMENT AND OTAY LAKES ROAD, AND WILL BUILD OTAY LAKES ROAD BETWEEN THE 5 INTERSECTION WITH TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AND HIS DEVELOPMENT TO FULL STANDARDS. HE WILL BUILD AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN BUILDING TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD WESTERLY OF OTAY LAKES ROAD BASED UPON TRAFFIC NEEDS, AND HE ALSO MAY BE REQUIRED TO WIDEN "H" STREET WEST OF OTAY LAKES ROAD. IT IS ASSUMED THAT IF HE HAS TO BUILD "H" STREET WEST OF OTAY LAKES ROAD THAT HE WOULD THEN BE REIMBURSED OUT OF THE "H" STREET PROGRAM. HE'S ALSO REQUIRED TO PAY HIS FAIR SHARE OF NORTH/SOUTH PRIMARY ARTERIAL BETWEEN HIS DEVELOPMENT AND STATE ROUTE 54. THE NEXT AREA OF DISCUSSION WILL BE DRAINAGE. THE CONDITIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ARE GENERALLY THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL NOT CAUSE ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES DUE TO HIS DEVELOPMENT. IN EFFECT, HE WILL EITHER PROVIDE DOWNSTREAM FACILITIES OR WILL DEVELOP HIS PROPERTY WITH RETENTION BASINS, AND SO FORTH, SUCH THAT THE PEAK FLOW DUE TO THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE STABILIZED ON HIS PROPERTY. ONE OF THE MORE SEVERE IMPACTS AT THIS TIME IS THE LONG CANYON AREA. IT IS PROPOSED THAT THIS DEVELOPER WILL WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GERSTEN COMPANY FOR A SYSTEM OF RETENTION BASINS, SO THE EXISTING FACILITIES DOWNSTREAM WILL BE ADEQUATE. IT SHOULD BE REALIZED THAT THESE CONDITIONS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND SPECIFIC DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE PLACED AS EACH SPA IS DEVELOPED. THE LAST AREA OF DISCUSSION WILL BE THE SEWER SYSTEM. AS CAN BE SEEN BY THE SLIDE, EASTLAKE I WILL USE THREE TRIBUTARY SEWER BASINS. NUMBER 1, AND THE LARGEST, WILL BE THE TELEGRAPH CANYON BASIN WHICH ALREADY HAS A SEWER CONSTRUCTED IN TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO RUTGERS AVENUE. THE SECOND BASIN IS THE LONG CANYON BASIN, AND THE THIRD BASIN IS THE PROCTOR VALLEY BASIN. ,THE CONDITIONS STATE THAT AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE, DIVERSION WILL BE ALLOWED FROM LONG CANYON AND PROCTOR VALLEY INTO THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SYSTEM. HOWEVER, BEFORE ANY DIVERSION IS COMPLETED, AN AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE EXECUTED BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER WITH ADEQUATE SECURITY TO ENSURE THAT SHOULD THE DOWNSTREAM TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER EXCEED ITS OVERCAPACITY, OR OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT BASIN DOWNSTREAM NEED CAPACITY, THEN EASTLAKE WOULD NEED TO RELIEVE THAT PROBLEM BY EITHER BUILDING THE OFFSITE SYSTEM AT THAT TIME, OR BY CONSTRUCTING A RETENTION BASIN TO RETAIN FLOWS DURING OFF-PEAK HOURS. THE COUNCIL HAS APPROVED A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BONITA LONG CANYON PROJECT, SO WITHIN A FEW YEARS THERE WILL BE A SEWER BUILT THERE WHICH THEN WOULD ELIMINATE THE YELLOW AREA FROM THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SYSTEM. THERE IS ALSO A PROPOSED MANUFACTURED HOUSING PROJECT TO THE NORTH IN PROCTOR VALLEY WHICH WOULD EXTEND SEWERS TO THAT AREA WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN APPROVED, BUT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE IN A DISCUSSION PHASE WITH THE COUNTY AT THIS TIME. I BELIEVE THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS WILL ENSURE THAT THE CITY AND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WILL BE PROTECTED. ONE OTHER AREA TO ADDRESS IS THE AMOUNT OF CAPACITY THAT EASTLAKE tS USING COMPARED TO THE TOTAL AVAILABLE CAPACITY FOR THE EASTERN AREA. EASTLAKE I PRESENTLY ENCOMPASSES APPROXIMATELY 8% OF THE PLANNING AREA, AND PROPOSES TO USE ABOUT 10% OF THE SEWER 7 CAPACITY AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE GROWTH. THE CITY HAS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF EXCESS CAPACITY IN THE METRO SYSTEM AND IN FACT WE HAVE RECOMMENDED SELLING SOME OF IT. BASED UPON,THE ATICIPATED GROWTH IN CHULA VISTA AND THE LIFE OF THE METRO SYSTEM, I BELIEVE WE WILL HAVE PLENTY OF CAPACITY, AND THAT EASTLAKE WILL NOT IMPACT IT SIGNIFICANTLY. JPL:AV TURN OVER TO DOUG REID