HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1985/05/22 Tape #259 - Side 2
0 - 1485
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, May 22, 1985 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Green, Co~issioners Cannon,
Carson, Guiles, O'Neill, Shipe and
Tugenber§
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: With notification:
Without notiflcation:
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Kremp1, Principal
Planner Lee, Assistant City Attorney
Gill, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust,
Environmental Coordinator Reid, City
Traffic Engineer Glass, ERDR Consultant
Manganelll, and Traffic Consultant
Schlaefli
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Green and was
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairman Green reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its
responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Guiles/O'Neill) to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 27, 1985
as mailed with the following changes: Page 12, paragraph 7 - Guiles did not
vote 'no"; page 11, paragraph 5, fourth line from bottom and page 12,
paragraph 1, end of second line, the name of the group should be "Crossroads"
not "Accord". Mr. warty was speaking of the concerns of his group
"crossroads."
Planning Commission -2- May 22, 1985
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-85-9 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
FOR BRIGHTWOOD ATRIUM TOWNHOUSES CHULA VISTA TRACT
85-9 - THOM L. SANDERS ASSOCIATES
Principal Planner Lee stated that the Design Review Committee approved a
one-lot condominium project at 457 "E" Street in February, 1985. The Il-unit
project conforms to all the requirements of the City and staff is recommending
approval of the tentative subdivision map subject to three conditions.
In reply to Commissioner Guiles' request for clarification, Mr. Lee explained
a prior tentative map and addendum for an ll-unit complex was extended three
times until it expired in December 1984. This project consists of 11
two-bedroom units with parking underneath. There is no change in terms of
environmental issues from the previous Negative Declaration which is still
valid.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Tugenberg/O'Neill) to find that this project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-80-7.
MSUC (Tugenberg/O'Neill) that based on findings contained in Section "E" of
the staff report, to approve the tentative subdivision map for Brightwood
Atrium Townhouses, Chula Vista Tract 85-9, subject to the conditions contained
in the staff report.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR LAS
FLORES, CHULA VISTA TRACT 82-7 - HAROLD WEST
Principal Planner Lee stated that a tentative subdivision map has been
submitted on 5-1/2 acres located between Las Flores and Minor. The map was
incorporated in 1983 but has expired. Four of the 11 parcels are through lots
with frontage on both Minor and the extension of Las Flores Drive; the other
six lots are vacant. A single lot has been added to the north end of Minor.
The developer wishes to subdivide the 11 parcels into 22 single family
residential lots; the four through lots will be split, leaving a total of five
parcels fronting on Minot Avenue; the rear portion will be consolidated with
other parcels and divided into 17 lots of which 8 will be panhandle lots with
access to Las Flores Drive. The lots will be included with the improvements
needed on the west side of Las Flores. The City is also asking for an
irrevocable offer of dedication should it be necessary to widen Minor Avenue
at some future time. The gross density of the subdivision is just over 4
units per acre. Staff is recommending approval including the 15 conditions
calling for improvements on Las Flores and a prohibition against garage
conversions.
Plannin5 Commission -3- May 22, 1985
Con~nissioner TuEenber§ asked what con, on areas will there be other than
driveways; how is the §uest parking handled and does the same driveway serve
both residences.
Principal Planner Lee replied the common area in this case was the driveway;
the §uest parking ratio is 1:1; and there are various combinations that can
occur where one or more parties use the common drive. Mr. Lee noted that no
problems have been caused by the use of common driveways during the past 5 to
10 years.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (O'Neill/Cannon) to find the project will have no significant impact and
adopt Negative Declaration with Addendum issued on IS-82-15.
MSUC (O'Neill/Cannon) that based on the findln§s contained in Section "E" of
the staff report, to reco~end that Council approve the tentative subdivision
map for Las Flores, Chula Vista Tract 82-7, subject to conditions "a" through
"o" contained in the staff report.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-83-? AMENDMENT TO EL RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT - GERSTEN COMPANY
Director of Planning Kremp1 stated this item was considered and acted upon by
Council on April 16, 1985, modified and referred back to the PlannlnE
Commission for further consideration and to provide guidelines for Council.
Director Krempl said he would sur~narlze Council's action, then Paul
ManEanelli, the ERDR Consultant, would speak with respect to the Plan itself,
followed by Andrew Sehlaefli, Urban Systems, on traffic and DouE Reid, the
Environmental Review Coordinator, would complete the presentation speaking to
the environment and the CEQA Findings.
Director KrempI noted the changes made to the project since the March 27
Commission HearlnE and the additional infor~atlon furnished the Council on
April 16, 1985 with respect to traffic, the employment park and density. The
chanEes included: (1) A reduction in density by approximately 1,000 units from
the original 5,300 proposed; (2) A proposed increase (by Council) of the
estate housing area with Co~ission direction requested as to how many units
would be appropriate; (3) More detailed information focusing on the peak hour
traffic impact at 1-805 and "H" Street plus mitigation methods (supplied in a
supplemental traffic report); (4) The option to develop 34 acres of the
employment park into a 12-unit per acre residential area has been removed from
the proposal and the employment park is proposed to be developed to its full
acreage; (5) Further guidelines have been supplied re~ardin§ the compatibility
between the employment park and the neighborhood area; and (6) Council had
requested more information on infrastructure financing, phasinE, a more
detailed traffic monitoring system to be outlined in the SPA Plan, and a
development agreement guaranteeing off-site improvements beyond the boundaries
of the development.
Plannin~ Commission -4- May 22, 1985
Director Krempl continued that staff had reviewed the out-parcels and
amendments proposed by the applicants or owners and so advertised them.
Although Council has stated that anything beyond the staff recon~endation
should be handled as a separate application, a recormmendetion can be forwarded
to Council on any out-parcel so advertised as it is still before the
Conunission in that format. He further noted that a letter request had been
received from the owners of Out-parcel #8 for a higher density.
An update from the High School District indicates additional acreage for the
Junior High School site is needed which staff feels should be made one of the
conditions of any approval.
Paul Manganelli, 119 West Walnut Street, San Diego, ERDR Consultant, discussed
the map and text changes pointing out that (1) on the north ridge, the
developer has expanded the estate housing area and changed the 4-6 du/ac area
to 2-4 du/ac in response to Council's desire to increase the estate category
but not at the expense of the 2-4 du/ac area (which now contains almost the
same number of units as originally planned). (2) The center ridge and the
south side of East "J" Street east of Paseo Ranchero has been reduced from 6-8
du/ac to 4-6 du/ac. (3) The northeast corner of East "J" Street and Pasco
Ranchero has been increased to 6-8 du/ac (from 4-6) and (4) on the east side
of Paseo Ladera north of Telegraph Canyon Road, some of the 2-4 du/ac have
been removed for park space.
Mr. Manganelli noted that the text changes are underlined and reflect the map
changes. Included also are requirements for Council approval of any phase
line before any map is submitted; a development agreement; facilities
financing plan; and traffic monitoring and mitigation program in conjunction
with the SPA Plan and sub-area plan; and a schedule for development and
marketing of estate lots as well as standards for development of the
employment park. Mr. Manganelli stated that staff recoranends approval of the
revisions for the nine reasons listed in the staff report.
In response to Commissioner O'Neill's question, Mr. Manganelli said the final
number approved by Council was 13 additional units above the Adopted Plan
(i.e., 4,228 vs 4,215 du/ac) plus the employment park.
Andrew Schlaefli, Vice President of Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 4540
Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106, San Diego, 92123, ERDR Traffic Consultant,
stated that the supplemental traffic report of May 15, 1985 was prepared as a
result of the questions and discussion during the previous Hearing and
centered on (1) project impacts on "H" Street at 1-805; (2) potential adverse
impacts of the employment park; (3) the nature and timing of those impacts;
and (4) the effect of the Plan changes with regard to "counterflow".
He noted that because the primary difference in the adopted and proposed Plan
is the employment park, its effects have been isolated and separated from the
overall traffic impact in the analysis. He explained that SANDAG developed a
new data base as of March, 1985 which contained information re peak hour flows
in and out of the project which was not available previously. Also, a good,
Plannin~ Co~ission -5- May 22, 1985
current data base for the existinE traffic flow was Eathered by countinE
interchanEe ramp movements durinE peak periods plus related info~mation from
CalTrans. The averaEe daily traffic Eenerated by the project was translated
into the peak hour impact (p.m.). This peak hour is usually the critical
period for traffic impaction at intersections and freeway interchanEe ramps.
The employment park Eeneration at critical peak hours was added to the base
traffic data at the peak period to form a cumulative number; then, usinE
estimates of future developments for the entire area for the year 1995, the
impacts were projected and a lonE-term cumulative total traffic figure arrived
at.
Mr. Schlaefll emphasized that to deliberately achieve a "worst case" data base
on which to form decisions, the ramp data was always rounded upwards; it was
assumed that 100 percent of the employment park traffic would impact the
street and hiEhway system away from the project (normally, a Eood portion of
traffic is localized and does not reach the freeway interchanEe); and it was
assumed 100 percent of the traffic would use "H" Street exclusively. Those
impacts were then translated to mitiEating requirements.
Using the view Eraphs, Mr. Schlaefll showed that 20 percent of the afternoon
peak hour traffic is inbound to the site and 80 percent outbound (that is,
westbound on "H" Street); however, just the reverse is true for residential
traffic which is 70 percent inbound and 30 percent outbound at that time.
This illustrates the principle that the predominate direction of traffic flow
for the employment park is in a direction opposite to residential trips;
consequently, althouEh a substantial number of total ADTs are added, the
impact is smaller because of the counterflow.
In reply to Co~issioner O'Neill, Director Krempl stated that the zonlnE would
be controlled throuEh the specific plan and would probably be I-L although not
quite so broad.
Mr. Schlaefli went on to explain his intersection analysis. He explained that
impacts are not additive because it depends on where and how those impacts
occur and whether they occur at critical locations and durinE critical
periods. Traffic may be added to a movement that is not a critical movement
at a traffic signal. To carry out the study, actual traffic counts were made
at 1-805 and "H" Street, usinE the volume ramp counts from CalTrans, the two
data bases were combined and balanced with manual adjustments - uslnE the most
conservative assumption possible.
Mr. Schlaefli reviewed several fiEures includinE one showinE the afternoon
peak traffic impact at the freeway interchanEe for 1995 without the employment
park; one fiEure with the employment park only; and one figure with both
combined.
Commissioner Cannon questioned the hourly traffic volume cominE toward 1-805
west from "H" Street of only 1,420 cars when the traffic from the employment
park equals an estimated 2,034 trips per hour.
Plannin~ Commission -6- May 22, 1985
Mr. Schlaefli explained that by 1995 it is assumed there will be other streets
built in the area to disperse the traffic. The assumption is that 75 percent
of the employment park traffic goes west on "H" Street, and this figure
(1,420) is the cause (demand for use of the facility) on this particular
location on a cumulative basis.
In reply to the supposition that SR 125 might not be built by that time, Mr.
Schlaefli pointed out the traffic monitoring program would have indicated a
threshold was being reached where curtailment of further developments was
warranted.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the college traffic was included and was
informed that the overall traffic study assumed 9,500 trips generated by
Southwestern in 1995. Based on actual data by SANDAG, the exact number of
students, staff, enrollment and estimated traffic generation rate was known.
The actual, plus the projected increase, resulted in a cumulative projection
of about a 30 to 35 percent increase.
Commissioner Cannon still expressed confusion with regard to the statistics
being used, and said that the 2,034 peak hour traffic in Table 1 (for the
employment park only) with 75 percent going west on "H" Street, figured out to
be 1,525 vehicles outbound not 1,420. Mr. Schlaefli replied that the
westbound total is 1,780 (1,420 proposed + 350 existing) and that the 75
percent is an approximation, as the actual number may not round out to exactly
that figure.
Upon asking if the 1,420 westbound cars on "H" Street was the cumulative
number of cars, Cormnissioner Cannon was informed that it was for the
employment park only prior to the addition of the cumulative of both
residential and outside traffic; the vast amount of traffic would assumedly
use 1-805 and "H" Street; as a result of adding the employment park traffic to
the other cumulative traffic, a total of both was shown (3,020 cars);
basically, the volumes are substantial and the major changes are inward; trips
are being added to the left-bound turn lane at the "H" Street ramp, but the
rest of the moves are relatively minor in terms of total traffic flow and
would not make any major changes nor add lanes to the facilities.
Mr. Schlaefli remarked that without a SPA plan or phasing, it is difficult to
analyze and define mitigation measures, however, those stated in the
supplemental traffic report are his best estimate.
Commissioner Carson asked how long it would take for the mitigation measures
to be installed and what would happen to the ramps and bumper-to-bumper
traffic in the meantime; as most students will elect to use this route for
their classes and/or student activities.
Mr. Schlaefli responded that with a monitoring program, interim measures could
be quickly taken; a signal at an intersection put in with moderate cost, or if
a money source is not available, CalTrans would restripe the ramp immediately
thus providing a free turn lane at a moderate cost. He pointed out that the
PlannlnK Commission -7- May 22, 1985
facility is being designed to accommodate this development which gives more
flexibility than attempting to add or change something already fixed; that "H"
Street will be six lanes wide and with the added turn lanes at the freeway
interchange would be eight lanes wide at that point. This capacity can easily
handle 60,000 cars per day.
Commissioner Cannon contended that the projected traffic from the project
alone is 77,500 and doesn't include Terra Nova, EastLake, the college, or the
shopping center already approved. He asked how this would flow with 50,000
per day and if all was based on an in-flow/out-flow; what areas were now
operating at 50,O00/day so the Commission could get an idea of what to expect?
Mr. Schlaefli replied that the intersection would operate at a service level
"B" during peak periods assuming average peak hour flow and percentages; that
comparable locations included Clairemont Mesa Boulevard and SR 163 and Harbor
Drive at the airport; that Clairemont Mesa Boulevard is only a 4-lane divided
road being used as an interim road until Route 52 is built, while 1-805 and
"H" would have eight lanes for use at the interchange. Also, the traffic flow
is about 50,000 at 1-805 to University Town Centre and at La Jolla Village
Center and Miramar Road. Mitigation measures proposed here included a dual
left turn move to handle the increased southbound traffic directly
attributable to the employment park; the intersection would be signalized and
the collector/depositor road for the northbound off-ramp for Bonita Road has
the weave occurring off the main freeway lane and would require an extra lane
through the freeway.
Commissioner Tugenberg expressed concern regarding the weave area (from "H"
Street and for the Bonita Road exit) coming north on 1-805. He was
particularly concerned with the addition of traffic from the Otay Mesa and the
proposed prison to the south plus other northbound traffic on 1-805.
Mr. Schlaefli replied that the weave could be extended or CalTrans could add
extra on-ramps and weave-ons through restriping. He pointed out that with
signalization at the intersection of either an off- or on- northbound ramp,
with 1995 traffic and no employment park, the intersection works at a service
level "B". Even adding the employment park, with northbound off- and on-ramps
at "N" Street taking up some of the capacity, the intersection is not degraded
to a "D" level of service.
Commissioner Cannon's stated concern that the installation of two left-turn
lanes would reduce the width of the road to four lanes in each direction was
answered with the statement that the majority of the traffic demand is east of
the freeway interchange and northbound. The number of lanes are reduced as
the bridge structure is crossed which affords room for the second left turn;
also, it is assumed that even if the westbound traffic flow continuing through
on "H" Street were high, there would still be room to accon~odate the through
lane and the second turn lane.
Director Krempl pointed out that the 73,000+ trips per day is the overall ADT
for the proposed plan with the traffic distributed to the entire network.
Plannin~ Co~m~ission -8- May 22, 1985
There is no visualization of that volume from the total project being on "H"
Street or at the interchange. The projected impact on "H" Street at the
intersection is ~ 47,800 maximum.
Conunissioner Tugenberg asked how many points of intersection there would be
from the employment park to "H" Street and how many traffic signals could be
expected in the 3-mile stretch between Otay Lakes Road and 1-805 (not
including 1-805 and the existing one at Otay Lakes Road). He was informed
that the number of intersections would be determined as a result of subsequent
traffic studies in the individual SPA plans, and six stop lights are
anticipated on "H" Street.
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that the Final EIR had been
certified by the Planning Co~mmission at the meeting of March 25 and that the
document contained an Addendum reviewing the revised project as sent to
Council. The five basic changes to the project have not resulted in any new
significant impacts; the grading concept is the same. There has been some
shift in density and some adjustment in park acreage. The impacts are
essentially the same or less and, therefore, the certification previously made
is still adequate. Only two issues remain as significant--biology and air
quality---and a Statement of Overriding Consideration in draft form has been
included for the Commission's consideration.
Commissioner Green asked for a comparison between this proposed er~loyee park
and its proximity to proposed residential area with the existing industrial/
residential separation in Otay Valley. The reply was that the horizontal
distance would be greater than in Otay Valley, however, information on the
vertical elevation separation was not available without review of the final
grading plan.
Co~m%lssloner O'Neill said it was bls understanding that the out-parcel owners
can either accept staff's recommendation or reflle on their own and asked how
much expense was involved.
Director Krempl replied that staff's recommendations, in most cases, had
benefited the out-parcel owners by increasing the density and Council was of
the opinion that if a greater density was desired the applicant would have to
return on an individual basis at the cost of approximately $1,000, which is a
deposit system based on actual cost expended.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Gary Cintl, 3151 Airway Avenue, #C-3, Costa Mesa, representing the applicant,
gave a slide presentation showing views of the original 1978 ERDR Plan and the
proposed improvements; the estate housing site with the proposed expansion to
271 units: and the circulation system with its distribution pattern of
internal streets. He remarked that the circulation system ties the community
together into a structure; is based on extensive studies of traffic; and
includes monitoring program provisions. There are also conditions requiring a
development agreement between the City and the developer upon submittal of the
first SPA Plan; and a public facilities financing plan to ensure that the
phasing of traffic improvements and other public facilities will be consistent
Planning Commission -9- May 22, 1985
with the impacts. He noted that the three legs of Rice Canyon are contiguous
and the proposed open space, park area, and circulation system regarding
trails has been increased and the overall arrangements greatly improved.
Mr. Cintl commented further that signalization of "H" Street would be needed
on either the adopted or proposed plan, that the densities shown in the
administrative plan applied only to the usable area; the employment park
benefits the City fiscally; there is a commitment for the estate lots; and
more control exercised over the effect of the Plan and what each SPA must
include.
Replyin§ to Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Cinti said the Gersten Company has
received two specific inquiries of interest in the employment park and is
anticipating more when the plan is approved. He mentioned that a meeting of
the BIA recently in San Diego on high tech employment in the South Bay had
drawn 350 attendees.
Replying to Co,~issioner Tugenberg, Mr. Cinti commented that the commercial
area within the employment park would be for support only, as there was a
shopping center at the end of "H", and other commercial outlets on Telegraph
Canyon Road and in EastLake. He envisioned restaurants, and stores but the
area was not intended as a commercial center.
Peter warty, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, representing CROSSROADS, stated
the Council had approved the plan by a 3-2 vote, however, all members had
approved the employment park so CROSSROADS was accepting that as a given. He
expressed concern over the 38 percent increase in dwelling unlts and stated
the Plan should not be adopted because (1) the terrain is radically different
from EastLake or United Enterprises property with only one major east-west
road and no north-south road; there had been no mention of the impact on East
"J" Street which has a two-lane bridge. He read from an article called "2001"
published in the San Diego Union in May, 1984 which stated that San Diego will
be a bad version of Los Angeles if we keep building; the task of pollcymakers
is to change the future now, before it is too late; by the year 2000, the
vehicle miles per day will increase 100 percent and by the year 2005, even if
all presently projected freeways were constructed, there would be at least 75
miles of bumper-to-bumper traffic on the freeways as compared to the present
figure of 9 miles; and, if no freeways are built, traffic is anticipated to
back up 110 miles in all directions. Mr. Warty stressed that none of the
experts in Los Angeles predicted L.A. traffic jams; each one proposed
mitigation measures.
Mr. Warty noted that Councilwoman McCandliss had proposed allowing the
employment park but retaining the same relative density. CROSSROADS would
support that proposal which would reduce dwelling units and residential
traffic generated by 38 percent. He declared that as commercial/industrial
development is considered more profitable, the proposed plan would award the
developer 150 acres of industrial zoning with 1,153 additional dwelling units
as a bonus while Chula Vista gets a traffic jam.
Plannin~ Commission -10- May 22, 1985
Mr. warty listed the specific recommendations from CROSSROADS as (1) approve
the employment park; (2) limit Gersten proposal to 3,200 dwellin§ units; (3) a
minimum of 400 estate lots; and (4) to treat "Out-parcels" in a consistent
fashion. Mr. Warty declared that the existin~ Plan was a compromise plan;
CROSSROADS will make a maximum effort to ~et Council to accept their
sug§estions, however, the major influence on Council would be the Commission's
actions at this meeting and urged that the Commission not sell out Chula Vista
by approving the density at this location.
Richard Michaelson, 3953 Ninth Street, San Diego, spoke on behalf of the
owners of Out-parcel ~8 and requested a zoning designation of 8-12 du/ac
because of the site terrain which indicates the higher density cluster type of
development would be more appropriate; would minimize alterations to the
natural land form; and provide open space buffers between the project to the
west and Paseo Ranchero to the east.
In reply to Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Michaelson stated the owner had held the
property for 8 years.
The Commission recessed from 8:43 p.m. to 8:52 p.m.
Upon return of the Co~isslon, Mr. Michaelson, in the name of the owners of
Out-parcel ~8, requested an advisory vote from the Commission on the request
to rezone the property at 8-12 du/ac.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cannon said, "I reviewed this and I did not see any significent
changes between the first and second time I looked at it. Council has
exchanged some estate size lots for some other sizes, but basically the number
of dwellln~ units has remained pretty much the same; therefore, the overall
impacts that we reviewed very thoroughly last time are pretty much the same on
this proposal. I thought our decision last time was well thought out. Some
criticized it because direction was not given to Council as to what they
should do. I thou§hr we gave explicit instructions to the Council that the
1978 plan was still workable and viable and the change should not be made.
That would remain my position. I have looked at the magnitude of the traffic
and I am appalled. I agree with Mr. Schlaefli that it i__s possible - we could
even mitiEate it. But the question is what are we looking for in Chula
Vista? What type of quality of life are we looking for? Over the last few
years, Chula Vista has tried to better its image. Part of that betterment of
image has been by looking at new developments with more of a development
oriented mind. I think this project §oes too far in that direction. In
looking for this image, are we looking for an eight-lane road down the middle
of a rather nice looking canyon? The only eight-lane roads we have now are
freeways. Visualize a road that magnitude going right down a canyon. Certain
assumptions have been made to this traffic. I find responding to assumption
is like chasin~ ghosts - little fo~m and not ~ch substance. The problem with
assumptions is that my assumptions are as good as anyone else's. Using the
numbers from the EIR the current adopted plan calls for average daily
Planning Corm~ission -11- May 22, 1985
traffic of 52,100 per day; the proposed plan shows 77,500 cars per day average
daily traffic developed only from this project. That is a 50 percent increase
from this project alone. Mr. Kremp1 indicated that what we are talking about
is really a maximum of 47,000 trips per day at 1-805 and "H" because the
traffic generated from the project won't all go down "H" Street. I agree.
But, I disagree with the numbers. 47,000 trips per day takes into account
traffic from outside generation -- EastLake, Southwestern College, Terra Nova,
the Shopping Center at 805 and "H" and other developments. I have to assume
all these are included in the 4?,000. Using a quick ratio, I came up with
47,000 cars versus the 77,500 (the number we were given). That shows
approximately 2/3 of the vehicles coming from the project will be going down
"H" Street. But that loses the outside generation. The assumption being made
here is looking at a 2/3 : 1/3 (which I can't buy as I see most people going
west on "H" Street.) By those assumptions, at 47,000 we are talking about 1/2
§oing west on "H" Street. I can't buy that. I think we are looking at 80
percent. That is m_~ assumption. We are talking about traffic well in excess
of the ability of the roads to handle at that location. To get an idea of
47,000 cars per day, we are referred to the examples of Route 163 at
Clairemont Mesa or Miramar Road at 1-805. I travel those on a regular basis.
I find that concept appalling and a degradation of the quality of life in
Chula Vista. I want to be able to say that the projects I voted for, I don't
mind living with. Under no circumstances could I say that in these
circumstances. I think we are looking at something where each of us is going
to be impacted by the increasing traffic. It won't be just on East "H"
Street. People will take easier and less-crowded routes. The impacts on all
of the other streets filtering out of this development will be tremendously
increased in traffic. The already crowded traffic by EastLake on Telegraph
Canyon Road will be increased. The residential neighborhoods on "J" Street
will be impacted. The most crowded road in Chula Vista (Bonita Road between
Otay Lakes Road and Willow) will be further impacted by cars trying to escape
the even worse situation at 805 and "H". I can't believe the proposed
findings where we have reduced the level of significance of this development
to insignificant. It makes no sense to me when the reality given to us here
in testimony (even using the most conservative assumptions) shows a tremendous
change for the worst in traffic. Lastly, we have the same problem as last
time; this development increases the density tremendously. Why are they doing
it now? Because the estate lots are now envisioned by the developer as
unprofitable while the higher density lots have already been developed by
earlier SPA plans. As a direction to Council, I would say if the employment
park is a foregone conclusion, as Mr. Watry says, then, at the very least,
Council should reduce the density to what it would have been had the
employment park not been there. That would be to remove the 150 acres (1,300
du) from the total number of dwelling units proposed to reduce some of the
tremendous traffic problems. Otherwise, the only way we can get in and out of
this area is the same way the developer showed the Council - by helicopter."
Cormmissloner O'Neill offered the following con~nents, "In essence, I agree with
what my fellow Con~nissioner says here. While agreeing with that, I personally
like the McCandliss proposal which is along the same lines we are discussing.
There is some room for maneuvering here particularly with the out-parcels.
Planning Commission -12- May 22, 1985
Mr. Michaelson's property is in an ideal position for the density proposed
(Out-parcel #8). However, I can't see how people could hold property for 8
years without having an alternative plan to develop. My direction to Council
would be to re-raise the McCandliss proposal and to take another vote on it.
It sounds good to me."
Commissioner Tugenberg stated, "Com~issioner Cannon said almost what I wanted
to say. Everything seems kind of loose. I would llke to see a package put
together like EastLake - up front, right at the beginning, giving exact
phasing of what is going in and when, and have it tied to a specific financing
and facilities package. I would like to see something that says that whether
the employment park goes in or not, the public facilities are put in before
the second 1/3 of the dwelling units goes in. I envision with "H" Street and
eight stoplights and traffic going every direction to get away from those
stoplights to have a potential grid lock in Chula Vista. I could go along
with the McCandliss plan."
Commissioner Carson added, "I don't see the employment park succeeding. My
recommendation to guarantee the quality of llfe in Chula Vista is that we do
not have an employment park at all and to increase the amount of estate
housing and reduce residential housing."
Commissioner Shipe's remarks were, "I am still wondering why we have this
back. I have read and reread all of this and I just can't help but believe we
are being asked to create a traffic monster. I don't want to lend my name to
a proposal that has traffic like Highway 94 going westbound in the morning and
eastbound in the afternoon. I can't support the proposal as it is, but I
would be willing to support the McCandliss proposal."
Commissioner Guiles noted, "The last time I voted for the project because I
looked at the present plan and considered the developers' application and
everything considered, I thought it was better than the present plan. Mr.
Cannon has made some good statements regarding traffic; however, I think it
will be what size monster you want to live with because this proposal is an
increment to be considered over and above the present proposal. I, too, would
support the McCandliss plan in terms of the overall if it could be worked out
with the developer and a compromise reached thereby and density reduced. It
would benefit all of this."
Commissioner Green expressed the following: "I want to thank both
Mr. Tugenberg and Mr. Cinti because some of the things they said helped
crystalize my thinking. This is a proposal of the magnitude of EastLake I,
which is acceptable because of the excellence of the planning going into it.
There is nothing approaching that excellence in this proposal. I am not
talking about the guarantee built into EastLake with phasing - most of the
major parts center around a focus a park, a lake, or some theme. We have
here a collection of neighborhoods with nothing to unify them or tie them
together. Beyond that, if you come up "H" Street and look east you see the
high density at the end of the ridge. It is not a good presentation of the
project. I think low density would be more appropriate on all the ridges -
Plannin~ Commission -13- May 22, 1985
high densities in other places and the out-parcels. I would like to see a
recommendation to Council that they should tell this developer to go away
unless he wants to present the kind of proposal we have seen from EastLake;
something unifying it, bringing it together; with a development agreement
already drafted, with some sample maps so we can see what those ridges are
going to look like when they get them filled. Mr. Cinti has said we could
have three kinds of plans within each designation. What are they going to
look like? What is the grading going to do to the tops of the ridges? We
should not look at the SPA plan until we have some indications of those
things. We have seen nothing in that regard. I believe this developer has
some homework to do. I believe lower density is in order. If there is an
employment part, it might be acceptable to me if it were not on the south side
of "H" Street. I think I would prefer not having one at all. I don't think
the Council should consider this at all until we see a better plan; however,
if they are going to, I believe something in the nature of what Councilwoman
McCandliss has proposed would be in order."
MSUC (O'Neill/Cannon) to recor~end disapproval of the E1 Rancho del Rey SPA as
amended.
Commissioner O'Neill remarked he didn't know if his response expressed the
view of the Commission to Mr. Michaelson and asked if the Commission wanted an
advisory vote on his request.
Commissioner Tugenberg replied that he couldn't vote for it. The man
describes his property "because of the terrain certain things should be built"
and the Com~issloner felt he couldn't make a statement until he saw the plans,
the application and his property.
Oo~unlssioner Green said he would be in favor of an advisory vote.
Commissioner O'Neill replied that Mr. Michaelson may have already had his
advisory in the light of the comments made.
Commissioner Cannon said, "I wanted to corm~ent before we close off this entire
thing since we are sending on our comments anyway to the Council. I would
also prefer not seeing an employment park at all as it is the greatest traffic
generator and that is the major problem with this plan - it creates a
bottleneck on East "H" Street. There isn't any way to get around that
bottleneck. You are going to have to bring people in and out on "H" Street
and you are going to have to use signals to do it. If that is going to occur,
then no matter how many reductions in residential dwelling units that we have,
I think we are going to see more traffic problems due to the employment park
than we would if we had only residential neighborhoods. If we have to have an
employment park, then I would be more inclined to go along with the McCandliss
plan than what we have in front of us now.
Com~nissioner Tugenberg expressed his fear that no one would beat down Mr.
Gersten's doors to get in the employment park so they will end up making it
residential at a high density.
Plannin~ Comm{~sion -14- May 22, 1985
Co~issloner Green advocated a motion, vote and advice directed to Council.
Commissioner Cannon commented that everyone has made a cor~nent and asked the
Attorney if the Commission had the authority to make advisory opinions.
Assistant City Attorney Gill replied that he would have no objection to an
advisory coi~ent being made in the form of a motion.
MSUC (Green/O'Neill) to advise the Council that the SPA plan not be considered
until it includes a Phasing Plan, a Financial Plan and a Development
Agreement. That the Planning commission would prefer there be no e~loyment
park or if there is, the McCandliss proposal is the one the Commission would
support, or to be specific, by that is meant that the density should not be
transferred to other ridges.
Chair~uan Green asked whether an advisory vote re the out-parcel should be
given.
Commissioner O'Neill objected that he was not sure they were in a position to
make a motion. Looking at the location at the intersection of two major
roads, the 8-12 density looks proper - but the CoIm~ission has not seen enough.
Assistant Attor"aey Gill stated that the Commission's first action in denying
the application as presented gives direction as to the entire project.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS: None
COMMISSION'S COMMENTS: Chairman Green co~m~ented that the Beautification
Awards were splendid and the Planning Director a real star on video.
ADJOURNMENT at 9:20 p.m. to the regular business meeting of June 12, 1985, at
7 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Ruth M. Smith, Secretary
WPC 1982P