Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/06/27 . ~..-..---,- . . . . Tape: 311 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Wednesdav. June 27. 1990 Council Chambers Public Services Buildinq ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Casillas, Carson, Grasser and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Fuller, Shipe and Cannon (with notification) Pl anni ng Di rector Lei ter, Pri nci pa 1 Pl anners Lee and Pass, Envi ronmenta 1 Revi ew Coordi nator Doug Reid, Assistant Planner Barbara Reid, Associate Planner Herrera-A, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Planning Consultant Lettieri, Assistant Attorney Rudolf STAFF PRESENT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pl edge of all egi ance to the fl ag was 1 ed by Chairman Tugenberg and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Cha i rman Tugenberg revi ewed the compos i t i on of the Pl anni ng Commi ss i on, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The mi nutes of May 9, 1990, were not approved, since there were only three members present who had attended the May 9 meeting. MSUC (Carson/Grasser) 4-0 (Cannon, Full er and Sh i pe absent) to approve the minutes of May 23, 1990. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None Chairman Tugenberg stressed the fact that there were only four members of the Commission present, so if any of the applicants wished to continue their items to another meeting, they should do so. ITEM 1. PCZ-90-0-M: CITY-INITIATED PROPOSAL TO REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY, WHICH IS A PORTION GENERALLY BOUNDED BY OXFORD STREET, BROADWAY, ORANGE AVENUE AND A LINE 750 FEET WEST OF BROADWAY; ALSO A PORTION PC MINUTES -2- June 27. 1990 GENERALLY BOUNDED BY ORANGE AVENUE, HERMOSA AVENUE, BROADWAY AND AN IRREGULAR LINE FROM ANITA STREET TO APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET NORTH OF MAIN STREET, FROM ITS CITY-ADOPTED "COUNTY ZONING" CLASSIFICATIONS TO THE "CITY ZONING" CLASSIFICATIONS, UTILIZED THROUGHOUT CHULA VISTA. THE PROPOSED REZONINGS ARE CONFINED TO THE OTAY TOWN II SUBCOMMUNITY OF MONTGOMERY, AND ARE GOVERNED BY THE MONTGOMERY SPEC I F I C PLAN, ADOPTED BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 12, 1988 AND ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1988. SHORT FORM OF TITLE OF PROPOSAL: "OTAY TOWN II - REZONING" Planning Consultant Lettieri showed the areas to be rezoned, and discussed the conversions of those areas from County zoning to City zoning classifications, as outl ined in the staff report. He stated that staff was not making a recommendation on the area designated "Parks/Open Space Speci al Study" area which includes the utility right-of-way. Commissioner Casillas asked about the timeframe for completion of the special study area. Principal Planner Pass replied that the area was in a deep study by the State of Cal ifornia to determine the danger from high voltage 1 ines. He said that according to the State of California, it would be two years; but, because of the enormity of the project, it could go beyond that. This being the time and the place advertised, the publ ic hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Carson/Grasser) 4-0 (Cannon, Fuller, and Shipe absent) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. MSUC (Carson/Grasser) 4-0 (Cannon, Fuller, and Shipe absent) that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A". ITEM 2. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-89-3, SALT CREEK RANCH (Continued from 5-23-90) Environmental Coordinator Reid gave the background of the EIR, there had been an amendment to CEQA which took effect January 1, that all projects goi ng through the State Cl eari nghouse have to their review period before the local review period can terminate. have the effect of lengthening review periods in general. Mr. Reid stated that some of the actions involved in the project involved prezoning, general development plan, annexation, and a change in LAFCO's sphere of i nfl uence. He said there had been 16 1 etters recei ved, whi ch were noted in the staff report, and one had been received that evening. Mr. Reid stated that some of the issues i nvo 1 ved in the project i ncl uded aesthet i cs, visual resources, biological resources, cultural resources, traffic and circulation impacts, noise and air quality, parks and recreation. and stated which says go through This would This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. . . . PC MINUTES -3- June 27, 1990 James Harter, Vi ce Pres i dent and Project Manager for the Ba 1 dwi n Company on Salt Creek Ranch, sa i d that it was thei r opi ni on that the EIR on Salt Creek Ranch complied with all CEQA requirements, was adequate, and that it should be cert i fi ed. He cont i nued to exp 1 a in that as they had collected i nformat i on from the different studies, it became evident there were some impacts that needed address i ng. These had been addressed in the Alternat i ves sect i on of the EIR and included preservation of cactus wren and Cal ifornia gnatcatcher habitats, improving wildlife corridors, adding a school, changing private recreational areas to open space, adding a fire station and two religious sites, converting an equestrian center to a staging area to better protect the water qual ity, increasing the size of the neighborhood parks, adding greenbelts and buffers, relocation of school sites and neighborhood parks, and increasing the preservation of coastal sage habitat. Harold Wier, representing Michael Brandman Associates for Baldwin Co., discussed the wildlife corridors and said they felt the corridors were required to preserve the sensitive resources found in that area, which primarily included plants and two sensitive bird species, and to provide adequate habitat for the remaining animals and linkages with the properties to the east, north and south. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that this particular plan had not been evaluated in the EIR and they would do a complete evaluation of it and either do an addendum to the report finding that it would not result in any further s igni fi cant impacts or prepare a suppl ementa 1 E IR to i dent ify those impacts. Commissioner Carson suggested that an overlay be made to make it easier to study. Steve Lacey, ERCE, representing the City of Chula Vista, spoke also of protecting the habitat and the adequacy of the open space corridors. Commissioner Carson asked Mr. Lacey to define "adequate" and what guarantee they had to prevent a child throwing something at an animal and spooking it. Mr. Lacey replied he didn't think there was any protection, and that it was a long-standing sort of issue that they have to relate to almost all biological projects. They try to look at the quality of the habitat, the buffer, whether people tend to move through the habitat or around it; the type of impact that might occur, if there is enough adequate cover for wildlife to move. Commi ss i oner Carson sa i d she wanted to know what the corri dor was goi ng to look 1 i ke and what thei r purpose was. Were they protect i ng it because of nesting or because that's the food source? What was their hidden agenda? Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated he thought the areas of primary human movement on the project plan are intended to be through the main Salt Creek area and then also the corridor identified farther to the west. There was not an intent to put any active trail through the canyon areas. Commissioner Carson asked if there would be any identification in the EIR showing which animals were going to be no longer in the area, or plants that were going to be moved. Mr. Lacey answered that would be shown. PC MINUTES -4- June 27. 1990 Environmental Review Coordinator Reid asked if page 3-36 in the EIR was the map for whi ch Commi ss i oner Carson wi shed the overlay. Commi ss i oner Carson answered in the affirmative. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, speaking on behalf of CROSSROADS, pointed out that the EIR i ndi cated dens i ty in the upper range of the range and with no amenities to the rest of the City, and also that the development would contribute to Level of Service D. He said that CROSSROADS would address both of those when the plan came back for approval. Chairman Tugenberg asked Mr. Harter to indicate on the transparency where the blasting would be during the grading period. Mr. Harter indicated the rocky areas. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-12; CONS !DERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR GRETCHEN ESTATES, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-12 - Don Goss (continued from 6-13-90) Chairman Tugenberg reminded the applicant that they could ask for a continuance if they chose to do so. Principal Planner Ken Lee showed transparencies of the area to be considered, whi ch is zoned R-l and developed with s i ngl e-famil y homes. The proposal was to retain two single-family homes along "F" Street and create four new lots toward the rear of the property providing an access through the center. The lots would vary in size from 7300+ sq. ft. to 10,500+ sq. ft. Staff had determined that a wider drive would be appropriate near the entry where the project intersected with "F" Street with a 4' wide median dividing the two driving lanes. Staff requested that a condition be placed for the garage that currently exits to the north directly out to "F" Street to be moved approximately 20 ft. away from the drive and near the southerly property line; with the garage located on the easterly lot being the same. This would allow for a corridor through the area and an adequate stacking area before entering the garage. Mr. Lee stated the staff recommendat i on i ncl uded 12 cond it ions with modifications to two conditions which had been provided to the Commissioners. Staff recommended approval of the project, with the changes to the conditions. Commissioner Carson asked if staff knew anything about the number of species of birds and other wildlife that inhabit the area. Mr. Lee said there was no feedback regarding this, and nothing had been identified in the Negative Declaration IS-90-43 which was significant. Commissioner Casillas questioned where the palm tree in the median would be re located. Pri nci pa 1 Planner Lee answered that there were three palm trees a 1 most in the center of the dri ve 1 ane with the most northerly tree in the right-of-way. It would be possible that all three trees may have to be moved. They planned to save the trees. PC MINUTES -5- June 27. 1990 . Commissioner Casillas asked if the old pepper tree was to be destroyed. Mr. Lee said there didn't appear to be any way to save the tree because of the future location of the driveway and any possible widening of "F" Street. Chairman Tugenberg asked about the easement for guest parking referred to in Condition g. Mr. Lee answered the appl icant was trying to make a provision for access into the area if it were needed. Upon Chairman Tugenberg's query, Mr. Lee said they were trying to provide an additional 10' width to the present access on the neighboring property should the area develop. This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. James Algert, 428 Broadway, Civil Engineer representing the applicant Don Goss, sa i d they were in complete agreement wi th the staff's recommend at ion, and requested to speak just before the Commissioners voted. . John Smith, 87 "F" Street, Chula Vista 92010 speaking on behalf of himself and some of his neighbors, spoke of the "tone" of the neighborhood and thought it would be detrimental to the neighborhood, even though it would economically feas i b 1 e to the app 1 i cant. The project woul d produce a sense of development rather than a residential area. He asked that the Commission consider the residents along "F" Street who have built, added on, and tried to keep the neighborhood one that represented a certain "tone" and quality of life. Commissioner Carson asked the square footage of the lots in the area. Mr. Smith said he thought it was not so much the size as the nature of the development when things are put in a pattern rather than an individual home on the individual lot. Carole Smith, 87 "F" Street, Chula Vista 92010, was concerned with the amount of traffic the development would generate plus the other lots which could possibly be developed. She said this project would set a precedent. She was concerned about the greenbelt; destroying pet possums, skunks, and birds; water; sewage; and trees. She urged the Commission to consider number density and the change in quality of life of the neighborhood. . Dianna Davis, 65 "F" Street, Chula Vista 92010 directly across from 56 "F" Street which was one of the homes which would be subject to subdivision. Part of her reason to live on "F" Street was the beautiful tree-lined street. She was concerned with the possibility of the widening of "F" Street, the possible remova 1 of the pepper tree, the impact on the commun ity, the an i ma 1 s, the birds. She would feel very strongly about it if it impacted the birds or the animals. She said when we make access to other people, we are doing it to the detriment of our own residents. She wouldn't want to 1 ive on "F" Street if they took away the trees, because that is the beauty of "F" Street. She requested that the tentative subdivision map not be approved. However, if the tentative subdivision map was approved, she had the following requests: if the trees were removed, requ i re that the trees be preserved or replaced with trees of the same quality and size; a requirement be made that the residents fronting on "F" Street put in sidewalks; that parking requirements include double garages and at least a minimum parking space of two additional cars off the street. PC MINUTES -6- June 27. 1990 Chairman Tugenberg stated there was a condition that concrete sidewalks be put in on those two parcels. Andrea Skorepa, 60 "F" Street, Chula Vista 92010, immediately to the west of the proposed subdivision. She stated she was opposed to the project for all the reasons which had been stated. She spoke of the traffic and the danger to the motorists who use "F" Street, and the danger of losing the particular "ambiance" developed there in the interest of building more homes. The building of more homes would bring about the use of more water. Patricia Kelly, 60 "F" Street, Chula Vista 92010, immediately across from the proposed subdivision area. She said she was proud to live on "F" Street which to her represented flora, fauna, and fi ne neighbors and she had an appreciation for the birds, the sounds, and the trees in the neighborhood. She said she was adamantly opposed to the development. Daryl Skorepa, 60 "F" Street, Chula Vista 92010 agreed with the speakers before him and added that one thing that attracted him to "F" Street was that it was not a subd i vi s i on, it looked 1 i ke it had grown sl owl y, the trees, and it was a nice place to live. The density problem in Chula Vista was a major problem which the Commissioners should be addressing and where we have an opportuni ty to preserve a 1 i ttl e lower dens ity, it is incumbent that it be taken into consideration. Mr. Skorepa said if the Commission felt they needed to approve the subdivision, he would like for them to consider a lower density subdivision, and take into consideration the people who live there now and put in setback provisions for those lots so they don't have houses in their back yard that weren't there when they moved in. Tad Petnik, 1072 "F" Street, Chula Vista 92010 said he agreed with all the objections presented and understood the houses were going to be single-family, three-bedroom, two-story houses. He was concerned with the amount of cars the development would bring in, the people, dogs, noise pollution, exhaust pollution, crime. The lot now was 1 ike a bird sanctuary which would be no more. Glennis Carson, 30 "F" Street, Chula Vista 92010 also agreed with everything everyone had stated. She, too, spoke of the traffi c, and the hi stori c homes there. She recounted the problems with the pollution, noise, etc. the project would generate. Chairman Tugenberg then asked Mr. Algert if the homes would have two-car garages, to which Mr. Algert replied in the affirmative. He also noted the homes would have more than the City-required off-street parking spaces which included a minimum of two per lot; some would have more. There would be room for 30 cars on-site. Mr. Algert stated the sidewalk on "F" Street would be provided and the pepper tree that is there would be in the way of the driveway approach and the s i dewa 1 k, and the pepper tree woul d be replaced wi th two other pepper trees (24" box pepper trees). The lots vary from 7300 sq. ft. to over 10,000 sq. ft. whi ch are 1 arger than requi red City standards in the area. The appl icant has tailored the grading to provide a minimum impact on the site and preserve as many trees as possible. PC MINUTES -7- June 27. 1990 . Chairman Tugenberg asked about the setback for Units 2 and 3 from the property line to the west. Mr. Algert said it was at least 25 ft., which was required by the City Ordinance. Chairman Tugenberg spoke of a building to the west which was on the property 1 ine. Mr. Algert said he thought it was a guest house and was about 2-1/2 feet off property line. General discussion followed regarding the buildings on the property and the distances between lots and houses. Commissioner Carson asked if they had considered reducing the number of houses. She was not happy with the 7000+ sq. ft. lots and was concerned about the panhandle lot for a number of reasons, including the fire truck turnaround and the spri nkl ers. She suggested a change in the size and number of lots with less homes and more turn-around area. She was also concerned about the birds that staff hadn't found. She wanted to know if there was anything of significance. She then requested staff to indicate on the sl ide where the residents lived who were objecting to the project. Mr. Algert replied that the reduction of the number of houses had been considered. He then asked for continuation of the item, so the appl icant could gather more information that the Commission might desire. Commissioner Carson stated she thought they had reached a point where everyone should look at what is more than adequate, rather than just adequate. She wanted to know what other two-story homes are being built in the area; she . would like to see it indicated on drawings; who would have shade cut off, etc. Mr. Algert briefly discussed lot size, the usability, the yard area, and requested again that it be continued. Commissioner Grasser asked if the two front houses would be remodeled. Mr. Algert said they would be rebuilding the garages, repainting, and upgrading the exterior to look like a part of the project. Cha i rman Tugenberg suggested that the app 1 i cant contact some of the people whose property abuts the project. He said there was a un i queness about the area which would be a shame to lose, and thought by contacting the neighbors to see what their interests were, they might be able to arrive at something that would make everyone happy. Commissioner Grasser added that she did not feel would be that great on the neighborhood or significantly, maybe even improve it. the impact of thi s project change the street scene MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) 4-0 (Full er, Shi pe and Cannon absent) to cont i nue PCS-89-12 to the meeting of July 25, 1990. ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR FAIRWAY VILLAS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-8 - Century American Corp. . Principal that the project. Pl anner Lee i dent ifi ed the area by overhead project i on and stated proposal was to divide the site into an eight-lot condominium The EastLake III SPA Plan had been approved earlier and had PC MINUTES -8- June 27. 1990 designated the area for 179 attached units. The site abuts the EastLake Greens Golf Course and features 158 units--21 units less than provided for in the SPA Pl an. Pri nc i pa 1 Pl anner Lee requested the addit i on of Condit i on No. 21 as follows: "Should the developer elect to file multiple final maps, a phasing plan shall be approved by the City Engineer indicating public and private improvements to be installed for each map prior to approval of the first map." Staff recommended approval of the map, subject to 20 conditions and the add it i on of the one read into the mi nutes. Staff also requested the change of two street names: North/South Golf Course Vista Drive to North/South GreensView Drive, and GreensView Road to GreensGate Drive. Commissioner Carson asked about Condition No.5, regarding provision of adequate school hcil ities, which did not include a high school. Mr. Lee replied that a high school was being built. Upon Commissioner Carson's request, Principal Planner Lee pointed out the view corridors to the golf course. Commissioner Casillas asked if there would be any affordable units in the project. Mr. Lee answered that this development was not required to provide affordable units, because the higher density development pads were taken out of the project. Chairman Tugenberg asked if there would be up to eight units in a cluster. Principal Planner Lee answered there would be a maximum of six. This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Ron Metzler, 23421 South Pointe Drive, Laguna Hills 92653, representing Century American, concurred there were six units in a cluster, but he had some concerns with some of the conditions. He deferred to Michael Prinslow to explain the changes the applicant desired to make. Michael Prinslow, 23421 South Pointe Dr., Laguna Hills 92653, representing Century American, came forward to discuss the conditions. Regarding Condition No. 2 regarding the Growth Management Element and other related growth management implementation programs, he said EastLake had entered into a developer's agreement that exempted these items. He requested those to be deleted, and the transportation phasing program retained. Planning Director Leiter agreed that the overall project was exempted from the Growth Management Program by the development agreement, but di d not apply to the transportation phasing plan; however, he recommended that this only be applicable to the extent the development agreement didn't exempt it. He suggested wording be added that to the extent the development agreement didn't exempt it, it was subject to Condition No.2. Assistant Attorney Rudolf recommended an introductory phrase be added to state "that unless otherwi se speci fi ca lly exempted by Council act i on on the approval of the development agreement, the approval of all final maps will require..." . . . PC MINUTES -9- June 27. 1990 Mr. Prinslow asked for clarification. Planning Director Leiter explained that a standard condition was being appl ied to all new tentative maps in Eastern Chula Vista, and this was the first case which had come up since this development agreement had been in place. If the development agreement exempted it from this, it would be exempt, but it would be better to go to the development agreement to clarify it. Mr. Prinslow asked that Condition No.3 be deleted, since EastLake again was conditioned in an agreement with Otay Water District, and the applicant was a party to that agreement. Discussion was held regarding the appl icant working out the changes to the conditions with staff. The Commission felt it should be taken care of before coming before the Commission. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich stated that if the agreement the applicant had entered into met the condition, the Engineering Department would consider Condition No.3 as met. Mr. Prinslow stated they would work with the Fire Marshal regarding Condition No. 18 which allowed the Fire Marshal to modify Street A for adequate turnaround. The applicant agreed with the other conditions. Chairman Tugenberg stated that he thought their product at EastLake was excellent, one of the outstanding products. No one else wishing to speak. the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Grasser/Carson) 4-0 (Fuller, Shipe and Cannon absent) to recommend to the City Council to rename North/South Golf Course Vista Drive to North/South GreensView Drive, and GreensView Road to GreensGate Drive. MSUC (Grasser/Casillas) 4-0 (Fuller, Shipe and Cannon the City Council to approve the tentative subdivision Chula Vista Tract 90-8, subject to Conditions 1 recommended changes to Conditions 2 and 3. absent) to recommend to map for Fairway Villas, through 21, with the ITEM 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-39: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 30-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AT 1250 THIRD AVENUE Crandall-Williams Assistant Planner Barbara Reid gave an overview of the project and stated that the proposal was compatible with the surrounding area. Ms. Reid stated that the project had been to the Design Review Committee and a number of conditions had been added. The Montgomery Planning Committee voted unanimously against the Negative Declaration, being concerned about overcrowding of schools, water conservation, and the added number of apartment units and possibly crime. They dec i ded not to vote on the project itse 1f. Pl ann i ng Department staff proposed that the Commi ss i on approve the project on the condit i on that the developer satisfy the requirements of the Chula Vista School District to annex to the Mello-Roos. PC MINUTES -10- June 27. 1990 Commissioner Grasser asked where the 17 garages would be located. Principal Planner Lee replied that they were underneath the project. The parking spaces along the east and north were open parking spaces. Commissioner Grasser asked about making 18 more garages instead of open parking spaces. Bill Hedenkamp, project architect, answered that because of the panhandle lot and the 1 ack of street parki ng, there were an add it i ona 1 9 spaces of guest parking provided on site. No garages were required because of the nature of the site and effort was made to conceal the cars completely from the park and conceal vehicular activity from the park. Commissioner Grasser was concerned about crime in the area. Mr. Hedenkamp rep 1 i ed that a securi ty gate for the project may be helpful. Chairman Tugenberg recommended the security gate, also. This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Lawrence Crandall, 7858 Ivanhoe Avenue, La Jolla 92037, stated he was a partner-deve 1 oper of the project. Mr. Crandall agreed wi th the idea of the security gate, but said he had a problem with free-standing garages because there is not enough architectural design. He went on to explain why the project would be good for the area. Kay Everi tt, 469 Emerson, cv nOll gave a presentat i on she had previ ous ly given before the Montgomery Planning Committee. She opposed the project, stating the the area was saturated with apartments, traffic, recreational vehicles, and the inability of the street sweeper to sweep some of the areas. She requested that the Commission disapprove the project. Bill Hedenkamp, 1331 India Street, San Diego 92101, stated they were requesting a conditional use permit, and did not have an opportunity at the Montgomery Planning Committee meeting. He said the Montgomery Planning Committee seemed to be focused on the multiple family dwelling issue in their opposition to the approval of the environmental negative declaration. Commissioner Carson asked what they planned to do to buffer between the park and their open space. Mr. Hedenkamp replied there was a predominant amount of open space; there was an existing chainl ink fence which they would leave and which had been approved by the Design Review Committee. He then showed slides of the surrounding areas. Commissioner Carson asked how much open turf area was available. Mr. Hedenkamp repl ied that there was approximately 26%, and that 14 of the cars belonging to that project would be in garages. Commissioner Carson asked about security to the residents, with the open link fence. She was concerned about young people climbing over the fence at night. Mr. Hedenkamp replied that the project would be well lit and well managed, and a full house of watchful tenants. PC MINUTES - 11- June 27, 1990 . Commi ss i oner Carson stated that she interpreted the message the Montgomery Planning Commission was sending to be that they were finally making a stand that they should have taken a long time ago. That should give the appl icant some indication as to how she would vote. Mr. Hedenkamp replied that he concurred regarding some of the issues brought out by the Montgomery Planning Committee. He had no control over the gray water issue; he agreed there should be separate areas and sorting areas within the dumpster locations; they would do what they could in the area of car theft, wi th a security gate, garages, and good management; there were issues regarding water with which they didn't agree; and the applicant has signed a Mello-Roos agreement regarding schools. Commi ss i oner Cas ill as commented that since the Montgomery Pl ann i ng Committee failed to vote on the Negative Declaration, to him it was a negative vote. He agreed with Commissioner Carson that the message the Committee was sending was that there were too many apartments in that area; that the City and Commission are going to honor some of the promises that were made at the time of annexation; the area is too dense. Mr. Hedenkamp stated he didn't think the Montgomery Planning Committee addressed the project fairly and there was not a good, full debate on it. His understanding was that it was zoned for apartments, and they were charged with looking at certain specific requirements that were in the staff report under . the findings that need to be made with respect to the conditional use permit. Chairman Tugenberg suggested to Mr. Hedenkamp that he ask for a continuance before a full Commission, since there were only four Commissioners present. Mr. Hedenkamp asked if it went before Council in either case. Principal Planner Lee stated it would be final at the Planning Commission stage unless appealed. Commissioner Casillas stated he would not support the motion. He had some concerns he wanted to state. Chairman Tugenberg asked Commissioner Casillas to continue. Commissioner Casillas said that since the Montgomery area was annexed, the City has some moral obl igations to honor something the City told the residents they were goi ng to get, an enhanced quality of 1 i fe for that area. The Montgomery Planning Committee had stated some reasons for not approving the project; he had stated others; the issue of traffic hadn't been addressed. He believed the project would aggravate the problem. Mr. Hedenkamp stated they had been through the rezone process on this particular property, the zoning, and the plan process, and the area was left available for multi-family use. . Commissioner Grasser said that Commissioner Casillas had a lot of valid points, but quite often he had stated the City needs low-income housing. This project offered decent low-income-type housing that tenants could be proud of living in. Quality should be taken into consideration. PC MINUTES -12- June 27. 1990 Commi ss i oner Cas ill as concurred, but bel i eved there were enough apartments. He was concerned with the problems the park might create. Chairman Tugenberg stated there were some requirements by the Montgomery Planning Committee that were inequitable for the appl icant, and that was one of the reasons the Negative Declaration was not approved. Commi ssi oner Carson noted the Planni ng Commi ss i on did not get the mi nutes of the Montgomery Planning Committee which would have stated their concerns. Cha i rman Tugenberg poi nted out there was a summary; however, Commi ss i oner Carson stated that the summary did not contain everything that had been brought up at the Planning Commission meeting, and she would make a motion to continue the item. MSF (Carson/Grasser) 3-1 (Cannon, Fuller, Shipe absent; Casillas voted against) to continue PCC-90-39 to July II, 1990. MOTION FAILED. A total of four votes either for or against were needed to pass a motion. There was discussion regarding the number of votes needed to pass the motion. The applicant stated he was not in attendance at the beginning of the meeting when that was explained. Ass i stant Attorney Rudolf exp la i ned that the Code had a provi s i on where the application is denied by the Planning Commission by less than four votes, the applicant has the right to either a re-hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting or an appeal to the City Council without the payment of additional fees. The choice of alternatives is discretionary with the applicant. If the mot i on was made to grant, and the app 1 i cat i on is deni ed by 1 ess than four votes, the appl icant has the choice of coming back before the Commission or going before the Council. Commissioner Carson clarified that if she recommended acceptance of the Initial Study and that failed, the applicant had the opportunity to either come back to the Pl anni ng Commi ss i on hopi ng there woul d be seven members present or go on to the City Council. Assistant Attorney Rudolf concurred. MSF (Carson/Grasser) 3-1 (Cannon, Fuller, Shipe absent; Casillas voted against) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-44. MOTION FAILED. Commissioner Carson stated that since the motion had failed, the applicant had the opportunity to come back before the Commi ss i on, or to go before the Council. Assi stant Attorney Rudolf agreed, but stated it would have to be at the next Planning Commission meeting. . . . PC MINUTES -13- June 27. 1990 OTHER BUSINESS: None DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Planning Director Leiter recommended that the July IB, 1990 workshop be cancelled. The Commissioners concurred. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Carson asked if the two satell ite dishes on Del Mar and "J" Street (600 block) were both in the grandfather stage. Pri nc i pa 1 Pl anner Lee said he would check with Zoning Enforcement. Commissioner Carson also commented on the Eucalyptus trees dying in Hilltop Drive Park, and asked that this be referred to Parks & Recreation. Cha i rman Tugenberg asked about in it i at i ng an amendment to the General Pl an regarding low density categories. Planning Director Leiter said a report would be brought to the Planning Commission with a specific recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Carson asked again for the minutes of the She al so wanted to know when Salt Creek would come back. it may be sometime in August. Montgomery meeting. Mr. Leiter thought ADJOURNMENT at 10:00 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of July 11, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nan~; Ripley, Secretary Planning Commission WPC B066P