Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1985/03/27 Tape 257 - Side 2 0 - 5280 Tape 258 - Side 2 0 - 62 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 27, 1985 - 7:00 p.m. Public Services Buildin~ ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chairman Green, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Guiles, O'Neill, Shipe and Tugenberg STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, City Traffic Engineer Glass 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None Chairman Green announced that Item 1 would be trailed to the end of the meeting at the request of the applicant. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-85-2 - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR LARGE FAblILY DAY CARE HOMES IN SINGLE FAJ~ILY ZONES Director of Planning Krempl stated that the proposed amendment is to bring our local ordinance into consistency with SB 163 passed by the State in 1983. This Senate Bill prohibits cities from excluding large family day care centers (7 to 12 children) from single-family districts by local zoning regulations and rules that no change of occupancy relative to the State Housing Law or P1 anning Commi ssi on -2- March 27, 1985 local codes is constituted by such use of single-family dwellings. He explained that cities may establish guidelines to ensure the centers are incorporated into the area and are not detrimental to surrounding uses or residents. Standards may be set regarding parking and noise buffering but not lot size. The Zoning Administrator may hold a public hearing to determine whether or not a particular proposal complies with the criteria by notifying surrounding property owners within lO0 feet. Staff's suggested guidelines include two parking places per lot, a separation of 500 feet between location of facilities for the same purpose, open space standards on sites of 1200 square feet and the possibility that a 6-foot wall or additional landscaping may be deemed appropriate for noise attenuation purposes. Commissioner Cannon inquired if the noise standards recently passed by Council would be in effect; if staff would have any problem considering an increase in the notice distance from lO0 to 300 feet, or the separation distance between facilities from 500 to lO00 feet (based on noise control and safety for pick-up and delivery of children). He was informed that the new noise standards would be in effect and no difficulty was anticipated in increasing the notice distance. Commissioner Guiles questioned the appropriateness of including a provision for mandatory outside phones for emergency purposes and was informed that staff would prefer such a mandate be regulated by the State rather than being made a zoning requirement. In response to inquiries, Director Krempl said the City had met with criticism by having no local standards established for this use and cited one instance in which the City had been obligated (by legal advice) to approve a facility with no established standards. He stated that all local jurisdictions had the intent to establish regulations rather than permitting establishment by right and reviewed those established by National City, Carlsbad and San Diego. Commissioner O'Neill supported staff's 500-foot separation distance between facilities as adequate. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Further discussion included Commissioner Green's contention that 500 feet is more separation than needed between facilities and although he could accept that he would prefer more flexible standards; in addition, he disagreed with the idea of a precise standard for play area sizes. Commissioner Cannon said it was his opinion that the square footage of play area should dictate the appropriate number of children, and it was particularly necessary to set a standard in a small yard and he considered lO0 feet per child adequate. MSC (O'Neill/Shipe) Green voted "no" to recommend Council enact an ordinance amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code to establish standards for large family day care homes in single family zones as shown in Exhibit A attached to the staff report. -2- Planning Commission -3- March 27, 1985 AMENDED MOTION MSC (Cannon/Shipe) - Green voted "no" that Council enact an ordinance amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code to establish standards for large family day care homes in single family zones, as shown in Exhibit A attached to the staff report, with the stipulation that paragraph A under 19.58.147 Family day care homes, large, be changed to read: "Notice shall be given to properties within 300 feet of the proposed large family d~ care home at least ten days prior to consideration of the permit." Commissioners O'Neill and Shipe agreed to the amendment. 3. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-83-2, EL RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Environmental Review Coordinator Reid informed the Commission that the Draft EIR was released for public review in October 1984 and was heard by the Planning Commission at the meeting of January 23, 1985. Subsequent to that hearing, major revisions have been made as follows: (a) the dwelling unit count in the DEIR for the total Specific Plan Amendment area was 5,928 as opposed to the applicant's proposed 5,141 and staff's recommendation of 4,598 du/acre; (b) the emplo3nnent park has been expanded from 93.4 to 141.6 acres: and {c) an addendum was prepared to evaluate the analysis in the DEIR and it has been determined that the document is adequate. The letters of comment and their responses have been included in the final EIR, and the response to CalTrans' questions regarding the interchanges at "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road is located at the end of the report. The Final EIR document now consists of three volumes (1) the addendum, {2) the Final EIR, which is the balance of the document, and (3) the appendices which is on file in the Planning Department. Mr. Reid requested that three revisions be made prior to certification by the Planning Commission: namely, (1) an indication that there are three documents comprising the Final EIR; (2) Table 2-3 has been changed to correct mathematical errors in the dwelling unit count (however, the total number has not been changed); and (3) an error in the total number of automobile trips for the new project has been corrected on page 3-2 to reflect the revised conditions. Mr. Reid concluded by saying that all significant impacts can be mitigated except the biological and the air quality; therefore, it is recommended that the Commission certify the EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines. Mr. Tom Larkin, WESTEC Services, Inc., 3211 Fifth Ave., San Diego, was then introduced. He pointed out that the original project had approximately 5,900 dwelling units: however, revisions were made to reduce the unit count and improve the potential to lessen impacts associated with the original project. Substantial mitigation has been achieved from a biological standpoint by the retention of the north leg of Rice Canyon in an open space and undeveloped state; although there still remains a cumulatively significant impact from the development of the entire project. No significant mitigation of the traffic impact has been achieved by the reduction in the number of dwelling units Planning Commission -4- March 27, 1985 because the enlargement of the employment park will result in approximately the same number of trips generated. The fiscal benefits to the City, however, will be increased by the enlargement of the employment park. The retention of the north leg of Rice Canyon has also significantly mitigated the land form and visual quality of the EIR. The second unmitigated impact concerns air quality as the increase in density will create pollution beyond that in the adopted specific plan and will contribute to the degradation of regional air quality. There will be environmental reviews for individual developments within the specific plan area. Commissioner O'Neill reported that Item 13 stated the project would impact the "H" Street and 1-805 interchange, however, "these inputs will be mitigated to a successful level of service by the resources discussed in the supplemental report." The supplemental report, however, did not discuss these measures; in fact, it declared that detailed mitigation studies were not conducted. Andrew Schlaefli, Vice President of Urban Systems, 4540 Kearny Villa Rd, Ste 106, S.D., responsible for the supplemental report, stated that his firm had analyzed extensively the existing interchanges, and traffic count and had identified the locations the project would impact. No specific traffic mitigation measures were proposed since it could not be known with any degree of certainty which of the many alternative measures would be the most appropriate unless the existing traffic conditions at that time were taken into consideration. He pointed out that "H" Street (which is the interchange most significantly impacted) had evidently been designed with development in mind as indicated by the southbound to eastbound loop: yet, to forecast that the loop would need signal control was impossible at this time. His firm recommended a monitoring program with mitigation measures based on information current at the time needed. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid suggested that the wording with regard to Item 13 be changed from referencing mitigation measures contained in the supplemental report to stipulating a requirement for an additional traffic study and an ongoing traffic monitoring program. Commissioner O'Neill expressed agreement. Commissioner Cannon declared that statistics for the project indicated 30,000 ADT east of 805 and a cumulative traffic total of 47,000. He questioned that EastLake would be contributing only 13,000 ADT on "H" Street. Mr. Reid replied that in his opinion EastLake had a much higher load along 125 up to 54. Director of Planning Krempl noted that the numbers would be checked during the public hearing, however, the cumulative impact analysis was based on the same analysis that was done for EastLake; therefore, the numbers should be consistent in that EastLake had anticipated the ERDR project as well as others in their count and visa versa. -4- Planning Commission -5- March 27, 1985 Commissioner Cannon pointed out that the maximum traffic capacity for six lanes on East "H" Street is shown as 50,000 ADT, and a figure of 47,000 indicates it is rapidly reaching its capacity. Commissioner Green remarked that when capacity was reached, EastLake was committed to constructing 125. Commissioner Shipe questioned what the total traffic impact would be 10 or 12 years in the future when ERDR, EastLake, Bonita Meadows and other developments are built out and are incorporated with the traffic produced by Otay Valley, Otay Mesa, and the new border crossing. Director Krempl explained that the City filed suit against the County with respect to their GPA on Otay Mesa because of the unmitigated traffic ~eneration shown as a result of designating an additional 2,700 acres industrial." As part of the proposed settlement, Chula Vista required that a supplemental EIR be prepared and alternative land uses and cumulative traffic be addressed. He added that a task force had been formed comprised of representatives of the County, Chula Vista and San Diego and had agreed to move ahead on a regional transportation network considering all these projects and their impact on the City of San Diego, Otay Mesa, the County, Otay Ranch, Union Oil, United Enterprises and developments within the Chula Vista sphere of influence. Where the analysis deems the circulation system to be ineffective, either mitigation by increasing the capacity of the arteries or adjusting the land use in a way that it can be balanced with the circulation system's capacity will be proposed. Director Krempl emphasized that this is one of the chief concerns of the City of Chula Vista at this time. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Director Krempl commented on the progress that has taken place in slightly over a year. The applicant has initiated additional biological analysis through an independent consultant; there have been studies on marketing and on density, contact and resolution of many issues with the school district; an analysis by VTN {with cost shared equally by City and developer) of the adopted plan in terms of grading adequacy and consideration of alternate ~rading concepts to balance the cut and fill on the property. Many issues ave been resolved. Concensus has been reached on (1) the treatment of Rice Canyon, (2) grading of the property, (3) traffic issues, and (4) the number of sites and final parameters of the service radii of school sites. Staff and applicant are closer on the issues of density reduction and a staff analysis has indicated several hundred additional units that would be permitted even under the adopted plan. Agreements have not been reached about the density and proper allocation of units within the site, and staff will be making a firm recommendation with regard to its posture on the supplemental EIR and traffic analysis. He assured the Commission that the adopted plan, prepared in 1978, is not being discarded but changes in the market place, the affordability of housing, mix of product and desire to create a sense of community have dictated changes to be made to the adopted plan to provide a broader mix of products and to depart from low-density, single-family developments into other densities and dwelling types. -5- Planning Commission -6- March 27, 1985 Chairman Green apologized for opening the public hearing prematurely, but followed the Attorney's recommendation that he continue the hearing and after its close take action on the EIR. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-83-7 - AblENDMENTS TO EL RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN - GERSTEN COMPANY Paul Manganelli, ll9 West Walnut, San Diego, E1 Rancho del Rey consultant, outlined on a overhead projection the out parcels not under ownership of the Gersten Company, the original specific plan area and the portion not under construction. This portion is included for continuity purposes since the residential land use categories in the amended plan differ from those in the original plan although the total number of units will not exceed designations shown on page 9. Mr. Manganelli traced the history of the project from its purchase in 1968 through the approval of Council of the Rancho Bonita Land Use Plan in 1970, its incorporation into the General Plan by means of general land use designations in 1970, and by a General Plan Amendment in 1978 when the adopted specific plan for E1 Rancho del Rey was approved. After the purchase by Dr. Bloom of nearly all the property north of East "H" Street and the defeat by referendum of the Sports World proposal and the subsequent shopping center proposal, most of the property reverted to the Gersten Company except for one portion now being developed by the Watt Company as Terra Nova. A City-prepared specific development plan approved by Council in 1978 provided for 6,002 dwelling units. A series of amendments gradually increased that figure to 6,843 dwelling units with the commercial area reduced but open space remaining approximately the same. In 1983, the Gersten Company applied for an amendment to the 1978 specific plan and introduced the employment park and a community spine partially filled with public and private park and recreation facilities. Subsequent changes have deleted the community spine down the north leg of Rice Canyon and enlarged the employment park. Mr. Manganelli noted that the proposed amendment involves the remaining undeveloped 1,582 acres of Gersten-owned land and the 10 out parcels. He described the density category changes in which each range (0-2, 2-4, 4-6, 6-8, 8-12 and 12-20) signified the density permitted. The applicant's requested increase for the Gersten ownership from 4,216 dwelling units to 4,634, represents a density increase of about 10 percent in actual figures but 37 percent when looked at as a net figure with the employment park area density from the orginal plan transferred elsewhere on site. Mr. Manganelli described the housing type locations and the employment park with its highly restricted type of facilities designed for compatibility with the residential area. He pointed out that the major commercial uses are confined to the south side of East "H" Street near its intersection with 1-805; that 56 acres have been designated for park purposes and 613 acres for open space where rare plant and animal species can exist in safety. He noted that the traffic circulation would be discussed by the applicant. -6- Planning Commission -7- March 27, 1985 In reviewing the public facilities, it was pointed out that the water distribution facilities would adequately serve the uses proposed by the specific plan amendment; the Rice Canyon outfall has the capacity to accommodate the sewage from the project, however, additional facilities would be required to handle peak flows and new trunk sewers are proposed for the north and south legs of Rice Canyon; existing and proposed drainage improvements will accommodate storm runoff in the project area; police service is adequate although additional personnel and equipment will be required as development of the project occurs; a new fire station should be on line by the time development occurs on the project site; a site for a branch library is still "floating" but a request will be made for a potential site to be located in the general vicinity of East "H" Street; the locations for the elementary and junior high schools are on an if/as needed basis; school financing figures are not available as both districts are readjusting their fees; and an analysis of the fiscal impact of the proposed plan on the City indicates that the employment park would have a positive cost impact on operating revenues. The proposed amendment would create one large SPA (Corcoran Ranch) which would subsequently be divided into several sub-areas by a process of negotiation between the City and the developer. This method of phasing is deemed appropriate since the property is nearly surrounded by existing development and facilities are already in place and the flexibility needed for land development in response to today's market demand and economy would be provided. The owners of the out parcels have been contacted and those who did not request a specific density have been assigned one commensurate with adjacent property. Mr. Manganelli pointed out the various parcels on an overhead projection and identified the density and the reasoning behind its assignment. Mr. Manganelli reviewed the primary issues associated with the proposed amendment; namely, the residential density, the employment park and the traffic circulation (biology is discussed in the EIR). He pointed out that the adopted plan projected densities appropriate to the 1978 market demands but the proposed housing mix responds to today's changes in the market characteristics; permits the construction of housing at more affordable levels; and provides an opportunity for a more comprehensive mixture of residential products while still retaining the City's basic single-family character by the use of 4-6 du/ac density. Mr. Manganelli noted the property has good freeway and arterial road access, that all required public facilities are available, and the VTN grading study indicates the proposed plan can be accommodated with basically the same grading plan. He pointed out that the SANDAG study indicates a need for an estate category in Chula Vista to provide a balanced development and the proposed amendment provides such a site with approximately 100 acres on the north ridge featuring outstanding views to the west and south. With regard to the employment park, Mr. Manganelli referred to the report by Market Profiles which points out that there is a limited number of large-scale, new industrial parks in the South Bay and recommends such an establishment. He outlined some of the advantages including the positive fiscal impact on the City, the provision of additional jobs and the dispersement of industrial areas within the City's planning area. -7- Planning Commission -8- March 27, 1985 Mitigation measures for traffic circulation (which would exceed that generated by the adopted plan by approximately 24,000 ADT) were discussed in Section III.B. Mr. Manganelli referenced staff's concerns with density and recommended that 406 additional units be deleted from the applicant s proposal. He reviewed the areas where staff feels the density should be changed and the rationale for their decision (see pages 25 and 26). Mr. Manganelli explained briefly the proposed changes in the Specific Plan Text as outlined in detail in the staff report (pages 26-2?). He also cited staff's recommendations on the out parcels as detailed on pages 27 and 28. A recess was declared at 8:30 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Questions raised by the Commission included: (1) Would the owner be prevented from developing the 2.4 acre out parcel (item 7, page 26) recommended for open space? (2) Which portion of the employment park would be reserved for residential use and is staff in agreement? (3) What access points from the emplo~a~ent park onto "H" Street are recommended for signalization? (4) What high school facilities will be available and why is a decrease in enrollment shown between the adopted and proposed plan attributed to the employment park? (5) How can there be a decrease in the number of trips per day shown for the schools (in the statistics on page 10 of the staff report) when there is an increase in the number of dwelling units? (6) How will losing our portion of the Colorado River allocation affect the statement shown on page ll, "the water distribution facilities...would adequately serve the uses proposed by this specific plan amendment request"? Mr. Manganelli replied (1) the property owner, even if his land is designated "open space" must be allowed to develop to the R-E zoning designation requirements. (2) Thirty-four acres located in the easterly portion would be developed at 12 du/ac (approximately 400 dwelling units). Staff is not in agreement with this option. (3) The main entrance to the employment park might require signalization but no individual industrial lots would have separate direct access to "H" Street. (4) Too many schools were shown on the first plan; the district is revamping their master plan so the actual needs of the high school district are not fully known at present, but it might be Bonita Vista. (5) The school traffic generation forecast is now less because there would be fewer schools. (6) The effect of the loss of the Colorado River allocation is unknown. Chairman Green repeated that the public hearing was opened for testimony on the Specific Plan Amendment and urged the applicant to address matters differing from staff's, to give a clear explanation of the difference and why, and to make the presentation as brief as possible. Bill Robens, 254 Camino Elevado, Bonita, representing the applicant, stated the project area is situated 9 miles from downtown San Diego, close to Chula Vista, has excellent freeway access, is beautiful scenically and possesses a Planning Commission -9- March 27, 1985 micro-climate and a terrain providing a refuge for the sensitive species which will be preserved. Illustrating his presentation with slides, Mr. Robens explained that the plan is designed around the views and integrated with the canyons taking advantage of open space corridors as well as utilizing a trail system. The proposed plan features an employment park, a new circulation system, new emphasis on preservation, new land use locations and addresses the housing needs of today, 1985. Changes have occurred since the inception of the adopted plan in 1978 with cost increases, higher interest rates and a growing preference for attached homes rather than the detached which were popular in 1978. He emphasized that the goal of the Gersten Company is to develop a plan that everyone can take pride in; a plan that is financially viable; and one that meets the needs and desires of the City. They feel this is represented in the proposed plan. Mr. Robens then introduced Gary Centi, Centi & Associates, 3151 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, the project planner. Mr. Centi showed views of the Corcoran Ranch as originally planned and the amended and proposed plans. He reviewed briefly the changes that have taken place with reduction of the higher density on the north end, the relocation of the employment park from the north side of "H" Street to its proposed location with residential as an optional use. He referred to the realignment of Paseo Ranchero, the deletion of the Rice Canyon fill and recreation area, the lowering of densities in a number of locations, and said the proposed plan represents two year's worth of compromises which have resulted in a viable plan. "Walking" the Commission through the plan and using slides to illustrate types of developments and locations, he reviewed the densities, the areas and construction involved, emphasizing that the employment park was designed to be as much like a park center as possible. He cited the incorporation of the natural drainage areas, development along the ridges, use of natural corridors taking advantage of the scenic views and leading to park areas ranging from private recreational facilities to more natural settings connecting the employment area with the residential where residents can enjoy equestrian or jogging trails and stop-off points for picnics. Mr. Robens resumed the presentation addressing the issue of staff's density recommendations which is the primary area of disagreement between staff and applicant. Reduction in the density does not affect the plan in any material way, however, the point has been reached where they can't cut any more. He compared gross and net densities with those of EastLake noting that the gross density (or number of dwelling units) is 6 percent less as proposed; staff modification takes it down to 17 percent less - a significant reduction and more than can be tolerated. The net density is 5 percent less than that approved for EastLake and staff's recommended density in the residential is 16 percent less. The plan is very viable at the present time and is something the City and the community will like. Twice as much open space (80%) in a natural form, and half as much in commercial and residential is being provided. The applicant is proposing a development more difficult than EastLake with lower densities, less commercial and more open space. -9- Planning Commission -10- March 27, 1985 He commented that staff's recommended amendments don't affect the infrastructure needs, the compatibility within the area, or improve the project aesthetics; however they do reduce the density, distort the balance of the plan, and increase the cost of the development (eventually passed on to the home buyer) with no corresponding benefits. Mr. Robens replied to staff's rationale for changes in area densities, as itemized on pages 25 and 26 of the staff report saying: {1) Estate and road alignment - staff recommends a flat area for development. The applicant proposes 214 units with the area ungraded and the road not relocated as more attractive. The applicant would agree (at the development level of time) to relocate the road if the units cannot be fitted in. {2) Entrance to the property on Ridgeback Road - staff recommends a decrease in density from 4-6 du/ac to 2-4 du/ac which is not consistent and compatible with density of the neighboring Terra Nova. In reply to the statement that a lower density would provide a more attractive entry to the development, Mr. Robens pointed out that such a consideration was important to the developer also. Also, 4-6 du/ac is the primary dwelling type in the plan and a good proportion is necessary. (3) Center Ridge density has already been lowered by about 200 units. Staff talks about reduction of intensity, however, the 6-8 du/ac is at the corner and the infrastructure can handle it. The narrow ridge has been broken up with different kinds of dwelling units and developing 6-8 du/ac is as easy as 4-6 du/ac. Another reason for the importance of density is they have elected to show a single-loaded road for a good distance which means the infrastructure cost is increased elsewhere. He added that if adequate private parks are not provided along the ridge, a public park will be constructed. (4) North side of East "H" Street/Buena Vista Way - staff indicates 6-8 du/ac is not compatible with the adjacent development; however, "H" Street is an effective barrier to any adjacent development since it is six lanes wide. This area of high density is in an ideal location along the major roadways and transit routes. He then referred to a staff recommendation not covered in the presentation involving a relocation to the west that decreased the 12-20 du/ac by about 150 units and increased the 8-12 du/ac by half that much. (5) Northeast corner East "J"/Paseo Ranchero staff's reduction of the amount of 6-8 du/ac was related to compatibility with the neighborhood. Mr. Robens maintained the developer's design is the most compatible as it is separated from the 4-6 du/ac by "J" Street and a school along one side, open space and Telegraph Canyon Road on the other and is essentially isolated. (6) South side East "J" east of Paseo Ranchero the movement proposed by staff puts the 6-8 du/ac immediately next to 4-6 du/ac, whereas they had been separated by a road. -lO- Planning Commission -ll- March 27, 1985 (7) Northwest corner Telegraph Canyon Road and Paseo Ranchero staff proposes removal of 12 units for a park. Topographically, the area is set down from the residential and has no homes facing it. No one from the west and a limited number from the east side will be using it. At one time a park was located in this area, but in negotiations with the City it was determined to put the park in ERDR 6. (8) Small area of 5 acres along Paseo Ladera - this is in a topographically different area with the ridge breaking down toward Telegraph Canyon Road. There is a natural entry along Paseo Ladera. The proposed development setback would be about 200 feet in contrast to some developments along Telegraph Canyon Road which come down to the roadway. In concluding, Mr. Robens maintained that there are more areas of agreement than disagreement between the staff and the applicant; and requested time to respond, if necessary, after other testimony. Robert Thompson,Sr., 20 E. Georgina Street, Chula Vista, representing wife and self, introduced himself as "Out parcel #9," and requested he be designated a density the same as the property to the left between himself and Paseo Ranchero and south "J" because he has a 10-acre site with 660 feet of frontage on "J" Street and needs compatible density saying, "whatever you do to Gersten Company to my west, do to me." Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, spokesman for the Crossroads Group, traced the history of the City-prepared 1978 adopted plan from the initial formation of a group of concerned Chula Vistans to a Council-formed committee called Accord. This Committee, working with Sedway Cooke, met for a period of +9 months and developed the adopted plan. He stressed that the 1978 plan represented the most democratic plan in the history of the City involving thousands of citizens over an extended period. He urged the Commission not to set aside the adopted plan which reflects the desires of the Community for those of the developer or staff. He listed the four major concerns of Crossroads as (1) the decrease in the number of estate-sized lots; (2) mistrust of the abolition of the SPAs; (3) viability of the industrial park and relocation of the houses planned there; and 14) the traffic situation. (1) By use of census material, Mr. Watry demonstrated the need for estate-sized lots to attract wealthier people to Chula Vista. Utilizing an aerialphoto of ERDR he affirmed that the location chosen in 1978 is still the most appropriate for estate lots because of the terrain, and suggested that if the applicant did not wish to develop the lots, the homes be custom built and individually purchased. Mr. Watry emphasized that what is being considered is a small portion of ERDR and the overall plan approved by Council was well balanced. (2) He maintained that abolishment of individual SPAs and the creation of one large SPA would result in loss of control. (3) Mr. Watry declared the 150-acre employee park too small for viability citing the need of businesses to share services, lack of railroad or easy access to roadways, the speculation that #125 might not be built, and a resultant run-down industrial area if the park is not successful. Mr. Watry also stated that the removal of Planning Commission -12- March 27, 1985 1,050 units changes the character of the entire area. He suggested either the employment park or the relocation of the units would be acceptable to Crossroads but not both . {4) the traffic situation had already been spoken to. Gerald LaLande, 4608 Villas Drive, Bonita, stated he was present to request a change in density for Out parcel #8 which staff is recommending at 2-4 du/ac. He has an approved tentative parcel map for 26 lots; 2-4 du/ac would not be feasible because of the cost of moving 135,000 cubic yards of dirt and importing 83,000 cubic yards at $4-6/cubic yard; the property would just pencil out with 120 units. He reviewed the density of the property around him which is inconsistent with the 2-4 du/ac density he has been assigned. Harry Griffin, 692 East "J" Street, Chula Vista, a member of the Resource Conservation Commission, expressed concern at the location of an employee park in the middle of a residential area which, he said, was a euphemism for industrial park. He urged disapproval of any industrial activities in such a location. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. In reply to Commissioner Cannon's inquiry about the traffic figures on east "H" Street, Mr. Reid said the numbers were the same, the balance of the traffic is the same on the EastLake project as in ERDR and is based on the assumption of #125 extending from EastLake up to Route #54. Commissioner Carson asked if there had been any applications to develop in the employee park and was informed by Mr. Robens that one letter had been received discussing approximately lO acres in the park. MSUC (Cannon/Guiles) to certify that EIR-83-2 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information in the document. MSC (Cannon/Tugenberg) Guiles voted "no" to move that Council deny the changes requested by the developer. Commissioner Tugenberg said it was not fair to equate EastLake with ERDR because it had been a farm, there were no scenic views, and no homes encircling the property. He said that an industrial park would turn the traffic back into Bonita Road; he did not care for the phasing of the specific plan because it is wide open for abuse and would be returning to the Commission for piece-meal corrections. Commissioner Cannon expressed agreement with Commissioner Tugenberg, saying he had been following this project closely since 1973; agreed with Council in forming the Committee; the plan was well discussed in every aspect and he agreed lO0 percent with Mr. Watry about the developer requesting higher densities again and again; the plan was good then, and still good by today's standards; he was still concerned about traffic and the level of service on East "H" Street. Planning Commission -13- March 2?, 1985 Commissioner O'Neill remarked that he had served on the Accord committee and liked the approved plan. He did see a need for density changes here and there but did not like what has been proposed. He also did not like the industrial center. Commissioner Green expressed agreement with all that had been said, including the room for adjustment within the adopted plan. 5. CONSIDERATION OF "CEQA FINDINGS" AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR EL RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT This item was not addressed. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, RIO OTA¥ INDUSTRIAL PARK, CHULA VISTA TRACl 82-11 - 4826 OlAY VALLEY ROAD - (continued) Director of Planning Krempl stated that this item has been continued on two occasions; when Council took action on the guidelines for the draft implementation plan and design manual for the Otay Valley Road Project, they indicated concern regarding the minimum lot sizes, the interpretation of the 25-foot landscaping, handling of the highly sensitive impact area and other items which were then referred to staff and to the Project Area Committee. Direction received from Council was to consider using a sliding scale (as is done in residential areas) with a base of 2 acres but allowance made for a certain percentage to be smaller. On the overhead transparency, Director Krempl showed the proposed recombination of eight of the lots into four lots approaching the 2-acre minimum lot size; said that the sewer issue had been reviewed with Engineering and satisfactorily addressed; the applicant concurs in the dedication of additional right-of-way to increase Otay Valley Road to a 126-foot total section and an increase of 4 feet of right-of-way of the internal roadway; and all design guidelines would be reviewed by staff and recommendations based accordingly. This movement on the part of the applicant to comply with the spirit of the guidelines plus further testimony to be given to the Commission by the applicant influences staff to recommend acceptance of the map extension with the understanding that a revised map would be submitted prior to the present expiration date of April 20, 1985. Assistant City Attorney Gill said that in light of the representation to be made by Mr. Beam regarding conditions (which are adequate to protect the City) he does not consider it necessary that a revised map be filed prior to the expiration date of April 20, 1985. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Craig Beam, of Luce, Forward, Hamilton and Scripps, llO West A, San Diego, representing Rio Otay Industrial Park, stated it was physically impossible to file a revised map prior to the expiration date. He stipulated that his understanding of the additional right-of-way required on Otay Valley Road - 13 - Planning Commission -14- March 27, 1985 would be ? feet total additional right-of-way to the amount {the applicant) already pledged on the tentative map and covers the total right-of-way the City is requesting on the north side. Mr. Beam declared that: "We do agree and are, in fact, requesting that conditions be affixed to the tentative map as follows: "l. That lots 1 and 2 as shown on the tentative map be combined; 2. Lots 16 and 17 be combined into 1 lot; 3. Lots 21 and 22 be combined into 1 lot; 4. Lots 14 and 15 be combined into 1 lot; (all these are represented on the exhibit.) 5. We do agree to the external street width being widened by a total of 4 feet, from 68 feet to 72 feet, as indicated on the exhibit; 6. Next, would be the matter of the right-of-way to be offered in addition to that shown on the face of the map again, it is my understanding that is ? feet additional dedication for whatever purposes intended on the map." Mr. Beam continued that he wished to honor a request made by the Assistant City Attorney and would, therefore, state: "We are requesting {or accepting) these conditions with full knowledge that there may be State law suggesting the City does not have the right to condition the extension of the tentative map, and I am making this statement waiving the right that might accrue to our benefit under the E1 Patio case. Again, this is done in a cooperative spirit with staff." Commissioner O'Neill asked what would be the client's view if the right-of-way was in excess of what had been indicated. Mr. Beam replied that his understanding was that the right-of-way desired by the City was primarily on the south side of Otay Valley Road, not the north side; that the additional right-of-way is not a large amount and discussion with the engineer, Mr. Orvick, indicated the additional right-of-way to be ? feet. He pointed out that the widening project (as seen on the City's graphics) indicates an extension primarily to the south since there is new development on the north side which will be retained. Director Krempl added that the right-of-way would ultimately be 126 feet {an increase from the current lO0 feet), which would be a 63 foot half-street versus the present 50 foot half-street, or 13 feet off the north and south respectively. He said it would be necessary to check with Engineering regarding Mr. Beam's indication of 7 feet off the north and the balance off the south. Planning Commission -15- March 27, 1985 Senior Civil Engineer Daoust said that the ultimate right-of-way is proposed for 128 feet and the City's original condition of approval was for a maximum of 41 feet to be dedicated in addition to what was already there; that without adequate dimensions it was difficult to specify if the figure of 7 feet is correct or not; and it would be necessary to review the dimensions. The Chairman said action could not be taken by the Commission in the absence of such crucial information. It was then suggested that the item be continued to the meeting of April lO, 1985. In reply to Attorney Gill, Mr. Beam said he would bring in a revised map for the meeting if he could receive some general concensus from the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Gill requested that in consideration of the time situation being faced, the Commission issue a statement of intent contingent upon seeing a revised map. Chairman Green asked if anyone would like to address the issue of continuance; no one spoke. The public hearing was closed. MSUC {Cannon/Tugenberg) to continue this item to the meeting of April 10, 1985. Chairman Green upon receiving no contradictions from the Planning Commissioners then stated that the Commission would approve a revised map reflecting the conditions presented by Mr. Beam. DIRECTOR'S REPORT None COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT AT 10:28 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of April 10, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers WPC 1859P Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary -15-