Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1985/02/13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, February 13, 1985 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Green, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Guiles O'Neill,Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, City Engineer Lippitt, Consultants Gray, Wedin, 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(O'Neill/Guiles) to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 16 and January 23, 1985, with corrections to those of the 16th, page 7, Cannon voted "aye" and Carson voted "no"; and to those of the 23rd, pg 15, paragraph 3, the reference made by Commissioner O'Neill is to Route 125 not EastLake. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-85-11; REQUEST TO APPROVE THE MASTER PLAN FOR ST. JOHN'S PARISH A~ 760 FIRST AVENUE - RECTOR, WARDENS AND VESTRYMEN OF ST. JOHN'S PARISH Principal Planner Lee informed the Commission that this item was continued from the December 19th meeting to allow a study of the traffic circulation and to permit discussion of the master plan between the church and the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 13, 1985 Mr. Lee then showed a slide of the proposed master plan and remarked that since the last meeting the church has decided to eliminate the church expansion and, consequently, the need for an additional parking lot adjacent to Kearney Street. The proposed master plan would be implemented in three phases as outlined in the staff report with the first phase consisting of restriping the existing parking lot to increase its capacity from 58 to 65; construction of a 2,000 square foot classroom addition, and a new classroom/storage facility. Enrollment would increase from 226 to 275. The concerns discussed at the last meeting have been addressed including a modification of the school dismissal procedures. Staff recommends installation of a masonry wall along the western property line for noise buffering purposes {particularly in view of the addition of a parish hall in a later phase) and aesthetics. The church and the adjacent single-family homeowners to the west object to the wall and have submitted a petition so stating. Principal Planner Lee then showed slides of the existing fences pointing out the need for repair in some and the effect of apparent vandalism at the end of Millan Street. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the parking could be expanded through restriping and if there would be sufficient room for maneuverability. He was answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Carson expressed concern over the need for the wall and the neighbors' objections and asked if any alternatives to its installation were suggested. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Chairman Green stated he had received 12 requests from St. John's parishioners to speak and suggested a spokesperson be appointed. Amilda Guthrie, 122 Millan Street, CV, spoke in opposition to the wall but in support of the approval of the master plan. She expressed concern over people parking in the lot at night, the creation of opportunities for vandalism, her view being blocked and the expense of erecting a new fence. Vincent Orlofsky, 121 Millan Street, a 33-year resident, commented that there is very little noise from the church either by day or night: the prevailing winds disperse any noise or pollution and he saw no need for a concrete wall. Barbara Miller, Headmistress of St. John's School, acting as spokesperson for the parishioners, stated that the parking lots are presently checked by the custodians on a regular basis and by one of the wardens on an irregular basis to prevent unwelcome parkers and vandalism. She maintained that the wall is Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 13, 1985 an invitation to graffiti and will require constant repainting. The open space in the fence located on Millan Court is a path the local public school children constantly use and a decision had been made previously to leave the passage open: with the passage blocked, church members fear the wall will be damaged in retaliation. She commented that the enrollment was 260 in September, is currently at 253, and that the total has never exceeded 270; they are not seeking expansion so much as accommodations for the students and staff they have. They have endeavored to be good neighbors and will continue to do so. Commissioner O'Neill pointed out that the staff proposal did provide for a pedestrian walk-through at the end of Millan Court. Commissioner Carson remarked favorably on the new pick-up and dismissal procedure but that some cars were still making "U" turns. Commissioner Green expressed puzzlement on why so much of the grounds are devoted to the school and church instead of reorienting the buildings so the playgrounds could be expanded. John Johnstone, 851 Floyd Avenue, CV, a parishioner stated that when the area was first enclosed with fences, a tremendous amount of vandalism occurred at the church and expressed concern that erection of a masonry wall would eliminate the watchful protection of the neighbors who phone when they see evidence of trouble. Patt Casey, 302 Lemire Drive, Chula Vista, Secretary to the School Board, asked the Planning Commission to focus on the fact that the moving force behind the brick wall is noise abatement; however, if the school reached its maximum, it would only be 20 more students and some of these involve counseling services. She also pointed out that erection of a wall would mean that the neighboring families would be unable to park a RV in their backyards, put in a pool or bring in any sort of major equipment; and concluded saying 300 church families, 250 school families plus four adjacent families objected to the wall. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner O'Neill said he agreed with staff that the fences are very unsightly and the 6-foot wall would be desirable; however as the property owners and the church owners do not want the wall, he would vote against the motion because of condition "b". Commissioner Green stated he would modify the motion to omit condition "b". Discussion ensued comparing the request by the neighbors at the Church of Christ for a noise attenuation wall with this situation where the neighbors do not want a wall; if any objection had been raised when the church was built; the possibility of future neighbors wanting a wall; the fact that the existing neighbors are long-term residents who will probably continue to live in the homes. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 13, 1985 Commissioner Guiles stated he shared the same concerns of the church and the neighbors but felt the Commission should be consistent in its actions and proposed that condition "b" not be deleted. Commissioners Cannon and Tugenberg expressed agreement. Commissioner O'Neill replied that the Commission had approved the 6-foot wall installation at the Church of Christ because the surrounding neighbors said they wanted and needed it to eliminate the noise problem; which was not the case here. Commissioner Green stated he would vote for approval because he wanted the master plan approved. Although he had not been present at the December, 1984 meeting, Commissioner Shipe decided to vote on the issue after Assistant Attorney Gill declared there would be no objection if the Commissioner had read the minutes. MSC {Guiles/Cannon) - O'Neill voted "no" - that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-85-11 subject to conditions "a" through "e". 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-85-5 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CHULA VISTA TRACT 85-5 - LAS BRISAS, PIONEER MORTGAGE COMPANY Director of Planning Krempl stated that the tentative subdivision map covers an area 2.3 acres in size. The easterly portion is proposed to be developed with four lots; the westerly portion proposed for lot 1 is within the lO0-year flood level; and an additional 2:1 slope bank will not be developed. The applicant has agreed that the single lot on the western part of the property must be filled to a height of 1 foot above the lO0-year flood level. The access road, however, would be flooded to nearly 8 feet unless the Sweetwater Flood Channel is built also, and staff has no evidence as to when this will occur since the funding from the State could be subject to modification and the City is concerned about creating a legal residential lot with no all-weather access until a flood channel is constructed. Staff recommends that the Negative Declaration not be adopted which would prevent action from being taken on the subdivision map, or that the item be continued to allow the applicant to revise the map by combining parcels 1 and 2 and eliminating the need for access from Third Avenue. In reply to Commissioner Green's question regarding the reason for combining the parcels, Director Krempl explained there would be housing on the east but the west would remain as open space. In reply to Commissioner Guile's question if the applicant had been approached with this suggestion, Director Krempl said he believed so. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 13, 1985 Steve Nasland, Nasland Engineering, 4855 Ruffner St., San Diego, representing Pioneer Mortgage referred to the problem of access from Third Avenue stating that when the existing apartment complex on the corner of Third and "C" was allowed for development they were not required to dedicate for street improvements as staff believed the area to be unsuitable for development. If the street were 60 feet wide, a standard street with slopes would be constructed instead of one with a reduced street width of 22 feet as proposed. With regard to the Sweetwater Flood Channel, the funding has been approved by Congress and construction is expected to begin in 1988; there is no reason to believe the channel will not go in; they have proposed the access to the property to be 1-1/2 feet below the flood level and to construct a street 6 feet higher seems impractical for a period of 3 years. Gary Naiman, President of Pioneer Mortgage, 5605 E1 Cajon Blvd, San Diego, said that most of his work has been with the Project Engineer. In reply to the Commission's questions regarding waiting until 1988 and development of parcels 4 and 5 now, he indicated that carry costs are the primary problem. Commissioner Guiles stated that the Commission was concerned about approving the project prior to certain knowledge that the Flood Channel would be constructed, and asked Mr. Naiman if he would rather have denial of the request, or approval to develop lots 2 through 5, with lot 1 held in abeyance. Mr. Naiman replied he would rather try to get all the facts from the Flood Control people including a statement from his congressman. Curt Noland, Nasland Engineering, remarked that a substantial amount of development had been allowed previously in light of the present disapproval. Commissioner O'Neill pointed out that regardless of how the Commission felt about the project, they could not adopt the Negative Declaration. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Cannon/Shipe) to deny the Negative Declaration. Assistant City Attorney Gill pointed out the option remained for a continuation to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit a revised map. In reply to a question, he answered that the Negative Declaration would not have to be addressed if the project consisted of four lots. Mr. Naiman indicated that he would like the meeting continued. MODIFIED MOTION: MSUC {Cannon/Tugenberg) to continue the item to a date agreed upon by the developer. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 13, 1985 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC 85-12; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 24-UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 270 "C" STREET IN THE R-1 ZONE - SOUTH BAY PIONEERS Director of Planning Krempl stated that the request is to construct a 24-unit residential structure on a 2.21 acre site located at 270 "C" Street in the R-1 zone for residences for alcohol recovery patients. The buildings would be two story structures, 140 feet long with related parking on the presently unimproved easterly portion of the property. The new units would supplement the structured living environment for those who have completed an alcoholic recovery program but are not quite ready to return to independent living, for family reorientation, and for senior members serving as counselors. Director Krempl pointed out that the site is in an area depressed approximately 12 feet below "C" Street and 18 feet below the southern property which would prevent the structure from intruding into the view of the single-story home construction located nearby. The site is generally self-contained and access will occur only on the far westerly boundary of the property; the resident population will be for adults only and the living environment will be semi-structured and monitored by the Alcohol Recovery Center a short distance away. The staff has received a number of letters and a petition in support of the project and is whole-heartedly in agreement with the purpose of the project. Staff's main objections are based on the 140-foot long, two-story buildings which are not in scale with the neighborhood structures; the potential for an increased amount of noise being funneled back to the east and adversely impacting the single-family homes in that area; and the intrusion of a high density project into a single-family area. The main question concerns the appropriate place to make a transition between multi-family and single-family use; and the impact of this project on the property to the north along Del Mar and to the east on "C" Street. Staff is of the opinion that the current boundaries of R-3 zoning on both the north and south sides of "C" Street are appropriate locations for demarcation for those particular densities. Director Krempl concluded that the density of the project should be reduced in light of those concerns; the Negative Declaration adopted; the project denied as filed but approved subject to staff conditions including reduction of the number of units from 24 to 12 one-bedroom apartments of approximately 500 square feet, one-story in height with a minimum of one resident parking space per occupant, and the units should consist of a combination of duplex and/or triplex separated by a minimum of lO feet. Also, that the site plan and architecture be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open). James H. Johnson, 424 Stoneridge Ct., Bonita, 92002, introduced himself as an 8-year member of the Board of Trustees and reported that John Nash, the building designer, was also available for questioning. Mr. Johnson explained that these buildings will enable families who have been separated to be Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 13, 1985 together in a somewhat structured atmosphere with resources nearby. He expressed willingness to enlarge the size to 500 square feet by widening the building 1 foot. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the two-story structure, because of the ground depression, would appear as one story; a grant has been received to install the public improvements required: that Item "h" would be a safeguard to ensure that the goals of the Pioneers would be protected; and that the density of the 24-unit project would equal about 43 persons per acre as compared to the density of Canterbury Court (207 units with 85 per acre) and Woodland Hills (60 units with about 52 per acre. Mr. Johnson stressed the need for a facility of this type in the South Bay area stating this could be referred to as a 3/4-house, the last step to getting back into the community; that the project must be affordable because of the financial condition of the occupants; and through a slide presentation, showed the physical relationship to the surrounding properties. In reply to questions from the Commission, Mr. Johnson replied that each bedroom would house a maximum of two people who might remain longer than the 4 months; they preferred the long buildings because of the similarity, the cost and the desire for green open space. George D. Lindberg, 357 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, attorney representing Mitch Angus, requested a continuance until the nature of the development on the northern property has been decided to avoid adversely affecting that property. He declared the applicant had no objection to the program or its concept. In reply to Commissioner Green, Mr. Lindberg answered that there was objection in terms of a single-family project, but not in terms of multi-family. Niek Slijk, Chamber of Commerce, 233 Fourth Ave, CV, said he had been on the Board of Trustees for over 20 years, was impressed with the accomplishments of the Pioneers; analysis indicated a need for proximity to a residential area, shopping area and recreational areas because many of the occupants do not drive; the Pioneers wished to expand their program to include female members; the project is privately funded, has been very successful and serves a major need. In reply to the Commission, Mr. Slijk remarked there had been some objection to the Alcohol Recovery Center at the very beginning of the program but the facility has proven to be a good neighbor; that most of the residents in the 3/4-house will be employed but still need continuous support at this transition time. Ray ¥oder, 296 Sea Vale Street, CV, stated that the Pioneers have been good neighbors in the 7 years he has lived nearby; a cut-back to 12 units would not be cost effective and would deny 18 to 24 people the help they need. He suggested rezoning the area R-3 because of the topography; and said staff recommendation is a text-book approach that does not consider the needs of the Pioneers. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 13, 1985 Commissioner Green stated that he was impressed by the fact that the neighborhood, which is quite active and vocal, had not been at the meeting thus assuring him there was no objection on their part; he finds the usage is compatible with Canterbury Court and would support the project. MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) to find that this project will have no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-85-23. MS {Cannon/Shipe) to adopt a motion to approve the request subject to the following conditions: a. The number of units shall be limited to 24 1-bedroom apartments (minimum of 500 sq ft each). b. The units shall be a maximum of two stories in height. c. Each unit shall have a minimum of one resident parking space. d. Delete Condition "d". Conditions "e" through "h" to remain the same. Commissioner O'Neill stated that the project was responsive to the needs of the community; two stories are appropriate in that area; there are multi-family projects; and he felt difficulty in basing his judgments on what the owner of the property to the north might do that would be adversely affected by the project. Commissioner Cannon remarked that the facility is already in existence, the character of the neighborhood (with multi-family property across the street) is not being changed nor adversely affected. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that the density of this project will be insignificant in comparison with the massiveness of Canterbury Court. Assistant City Attorney Gill declared that findings other than those in the staff report would be needed for approval of this conditional use permit, and suggested a short recess while they were compiled. The Commission recessed from 8:45 to 8:55. Upon return from the recess, Chairman Green read the following findings: (a) the project site is depressed in elevation, buffered from surrounding uses by terrain and landscaping and lot orientation; (b) the project meets a Community need by providing an expansion of an existing facility and a new program component; and Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 13, 1985 {c) the existing use is permitted under a conditional use permit; the ownership is singular and conditions have been imposed which would ensure its retention in this use. Commissioner Cannon incorporated the findings into his motion, and Commissioner Shipe repeated his second. The motion for approval was approved unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-85-7 CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHERO SPA TO PERMIT CHILD CARE CENTERS WITHIN THL P-C ZONE - WILLIAM MURRAY Director of Planning Krempl stated the Ranchero SPA Plan was approved in 1980 when daycare centers were not permitted within the P-C zone. Staff, however, has concluded that it is appropriate to allow daycare centers in proximity to the population base they serve and especially appropriate for this particular site. It was noted that the property is triangular in shape and located at the intersection of Paseo del Rey and "J" Streets The preliminary plan calls for a 7,300 square foot facility on the east portion of the property, with a playground and a 17-space parking lot on the west. A convenience store is proposed to the west and an open space easement to the south. Staff recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration and a recommendation that Council approve the amendment to Ranchero SPA to permit daycare centers within the P-C zone. The balance of the recommendation includes language indicating this would be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit and staff would like to modify the language to indicate that a conditional use permit is not necessary for this particular property because the advertising indicated an amendment to the Ranchero SPA was being considered and also contemplated was the establishment of a 7,300 square foot daycare center on 1.7 acres of the southeast corner of E1 Paseo del Rey and "J" Streets "presently designated for neighborhood commercial uses." After discussions with the applicant and the City Attorney, staff is of the opinion that with the advertisement and inclusions, the review has been focused not only on the Ranchero SPA Plan but also on the appropriateness of the land use for this particular site and has no hesitation in recommending approval of the land use. Director Krempl continued that the project design, layout, and site plan are not being approved at this meeting but would return with the precise plan when staff would further evaluate and make findings regarding environmental effects, buffering, setbacks and other components incorporated with the precise plan. Staff believes the land use is appropriate, will serve a need, is well-sited, is in confomance with the intent and, due to its location, size, shape and relationship to the surrounding uses, is appropriate. In reply to Commissioner Green's query about daycare centers in residential zones, Director Krempl said that certain State regulations preempt local zoning requirements with regard to this and staff is in the process of formulating guidelines and performance standards to be considered by the Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 13, 1985 Commission at a later date. He declared that childcare facilities in the R-1 zone were independent of this under the analysis of the staff report, and tonight's action would pertain only to this site as it is the only commercial zone in the Ranchero SPA; that references to conditional use permits should be deleted; however, for clarification purposes it could be indicated that the property was within the neighborhood C-N zone located within the SPA. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. William Murray, 1080 Pomona Road, Corona, CA 91720, agent for the Daybridge Learning Center, stated his willingness to answer any questions. Commissioner Tugenberg questioned the compatibility of a convenience store selling beer and wine next to a daycare center. Mr. Murray indicated the use was incompatible and would be considered prior to sale of the property. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) to find this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-85-6. MSUC (Cannon/Carson) to adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to the Ranchero SPA Plan to permit child daycare centers within the P-C zone, and, further within the neighborhood C-N zone located within this SPA. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-85-14 REQUEST TO ESTABLISH MINI-MARKET IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION AT 685 "H" STREET - WORLD OIL COMPANY Principal Planner Lee stated this is a request to convert an existing self-service station located on the corner of "H" and Oaklawn into a combination self-serve station/mini-market. Showing a slide of the site plan, he pointed out that the project was a 1/2 acre site with three pump islands perpendicular to "H" Street and a small 905 square foot building used for storage and a cashier's booth. The stacking area is minimal but there have been no accidents as a result of the alignment. The proposed change would remodel the building, remove the existing driveway on the east side of the property put additional landscaping in its place plus additional parking for shoppers. Staff has recommended approval subject to submittal of a landscape and irrigation plan and review of the site plan and architecture by the Design Review Committee. Mr. Lee concluded by saying that "H" Street is one of the major entries to the City and this would provide a general upgrading of the area. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes -ll- February 13, 1985 Paul Hakimian, World Oil Company, 9302 South Garfield Ave, South Gate, CA, the applicant, said he had no objection to the staff's recommendations. Commissioner Tugenberg stated that the property in questions was not being properly maintained citing garbage, holes in the asphalt and reinforcing rods protruding from the rear wall. He questioned how a building could be allowed to get in such a state of disrepair. Mr. Hakimian said that the condition of the site is one of the reasons for remodeling the building and the wall. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) based on the findings in Section E, to approve request PCC-8-54 to establish a mini-market/self-service gas station at 685 "H" Street subject to conditions in the staff report. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCM-84-9 - CONSIDERATION OF THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES AND FINANCING PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - EASTLAKE I {b) PCZ-85-D - AMENDMENT OF THE EASTLAKE I PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (c) CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EASTLAKE I, CHULA VISTA TRACT 84-9 (d) CONSIDERATION OF "CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS" EASTLAKE I Director of Planning Krempl advised that certain items concerning the SPA Plan, Public Facilities and Finance Plan and Development Agreement were referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council as a result of the Council Hearing held on January 29, 1985; also advertised for consideration at this Hearing were the items of an Amendment to the Planned Community Regulations and the Tentative Subdivision Map for EastLake I. Mr. Krempl reported that changes have been made to the Public Facilities and Financing Plan; pointing out that in reorganizing that document, the facility needs were moved from the back to the front of the document. Chapter 5 of the document explains what those needs are and how they will be provided. Chapter lO contains a list of the major public improvements and the assignment for responsibility of funding on a project-by-project basis. Chapter 8 of the plan indicates the on-site improvements which will be installed by the developer through subdivision map conditions or Mello-Roos District. The off-site improvements listed in Chapter 9 are phased over a multi-year time frame. The Development Agreement incorporates the Public Facilities and Finance Plan, by reference, as a part of the contractual agreement between the City and the EastLake Development Company. Beyond the requirements for Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 13, 1985 on-site and off-site improvements required by the subdivision map, the City has the capability of forming a Facility Benefit Assessment District, with backup financing by EastLake through the Development Agreement. In the event that any of the off-site improvements have not been constructed at the time necessary to meet the demands by the EastLake I SPA, it is clearly stated that the EastLake Developers will be prohibited from drawing building permits until after the facilities are either constructed or under construction. The procedure by which the City will make that determination is described in Chapter 12 of the Public Facilities and Finance document. Chapters 12 and 13 are new sections which have been added to the Public Facilities document, Chapter 13 sets up the concept of a reserve fund mechanism to protect the City against a negative cash flow from the project. The positive cash flow, as visualized by the consultants, was based on the industrial and commercial employment activities becoming available as housing is built and service facilities are required. In the event this does not happen, the City would be protected by the reserve fund. Mr. Krempl also pointed out that a new chart has been included which shows trip generation as the need for public facilities. He noted that the main provisions for public facilities improvements are contained in Sections 6.2., 6.2.1, 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 of the Development Agreement. Mr. Wayne Wedin, Financial Consultant, stressed that the Public Facilities Finance plan has been structured to protect against liability to the City and that it has a certain amount of improvements to be financed through an assessment district. He enumerated the following obligations of the developer: (1) all subdivision extractions, as listed on page 62, amounting to $26 million or $26.5 million; (2) the backbone system, through Mello-Roos financing, in the $20 million range; (3) and for his share of off-site improvements, in the $20 million range. Mr. Wedin reviewed the eight points presented to the City Council by the City Manager, which appear in the Council minutes of January 29, 1985. In response to a question from Commissioner O'Neill, Director Krempl advised that Route 125 is still being shown as the responsibility of EastLake, and as requiring a four-lane facility from the EastLake development to Highway 54., it is the hope of EastLake that prior to reaching Stage II-B of their development, a Facilities Benefit Assessment District, or a joint powers arrangement, would be reached, involving the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, and some of the major property owners along that corridor, which include the County Parks and Recreation Department, Union Oil Company, and United Enterprises. City Engineer Lippitt reported on meetings under the leadership of the County concerning the construction of 125 from the border-crossing to Highway 54; these meetings included the City of San Diego, CalTrans, and the City of Chula Vista, to explore ways of putting this facility in as a freeway or as a prime arterial. Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 13, 1985 In response to a question from Commissioner Cannon, Mr. Lippitt affirmed that reference to a two-lane bridge over Sweetwater Road was an oversight in revising the document and it should be shown as a four-lane bridge. In discussing the requirement for improving San Miguel Road to four lanes, it was pointed out that meetings in that regard are being held with the County and further that this improvement would be required in a later phasing sequence of the development and a solution would be reached by that time as provided in the documents under consideration. Andrew Schlaefli, President of Urban Systems, summarized the procedures used in carrying out the transportation phasing plan analysis and the assumptions which served as a basis for that analysis. The assumptions of traffic generated are translated to needed improvements in a phased program, with a careful review on an annual basis of traffic counts, and adjustments made in the improvements if necessary. He pointed out that one of the important factors is the trip distribution and as a project develops over time, this distribution may change, due to increased opportunity for employment and for shopping within the project itself. City Engineer Lippitt discussed the guarantees in the process to ensure that the improvements are installed as needed, which are included in the Public Facilities Financing plan. It will also be a requirement on the tentative map that the developer enter into an agreement on sewers and the development can't proceed without sewer capacity. The goal of the program is to use a Facilities Assessment District for off-site improvements so that each developer will have adequate facilities to serve the needs and will pay their fair share of these facilities. Those facilities will be required when subdivision maps are approved. Planning Consultant Gray discussed the amendment to the Planned Community District Regulations, pointing out that the entire property of 1,268 acres was zoned Planned Community in 1982 with very broad and general regulations adopted by the City Council at that time. With a specific development proposal for 892 acres of EastLake I project, more specific regulations are proposed to control the use of the property. The prior P-C regulations will remain on the portion of the property not included in EastLake I SPA plan. He noted that the Commission held a workshop on the regulations as they are set forth in the staff report. No questions were raised concerning these regulations. Principal Planner Lee presented the subdivision map covering the EastLake Hills and EastLake Shores areas, containing nearly 500 acres. The map includes approximately 24 acres of parks and lake, 150 acres of open space, a lO-acre elementary school site, and residential lots to accommodate nearly 2,000 units. Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 13, 1985 Mr. Lee pointed out that the EastLake Hills area includes large estate lots of 8,000 sq. ft. or more at the northern periphery of the map, abutting the open space. Just south of that area are more traditional ?,000 sq. ft. lots, and further to the south are 5,000 sq. ft. lots in an area abutting "H" Street and the elementary school and park site. There are a total of 453 lots in the area north of "H" Street, with access from "H" Street and from Corral Canyon to the west end of the project, and the 125 corridor to the east. In the EastLake Shores area there are higher densities. Five lots ring the loop road system: they contain 66 acres and would accommodate 663 units. Adjacent to "H" Street are 188 lots of 4,000 to 5,000 square foot size. Two remaining lots, relatively large, total 35 acres and would accommodate 638 units. EastLake Shores contains a total of 1,525 units on 137 acres, or about 11DU/acre. Mr. Lee displayed a map showing the four phases for the development, with phase 1 supplying the backbone of the project with the street system, school site, lake area and adjacent parks. Mr. Lee noted there are over 50 conditions on the tentative map but felt only a few of those needed discussion. The first condition listed is one of the most critical and it includes the on-site and off-site improvements as they will be required in each phase of development. Condition 5 relieves the -- developer of obligation of RCT and PAD fees based upon their proposal to build parks and public facilities. Condition 6 requires the developer to construct 119 moderate income units prior to or concurrent with Phase 3. Condition 22 requires a minimum of 166 manufactured housing units to comply with an earlier EastLake provision and Council policy on this project. Conditions 12 and 13 should be deleted as they are duplicated in conditions 23 and 47. City Engineer Lippitt requested that condition 30, which states, "No diversion of flows between tributary areas shall be permitted in this project," be amended by adding the works, "unless approved by the City Engineer." Mr. Lippitt pointed out that EastLake will build a retention basin for run-off water so that the peak flow will be less than currently exists with no development. Mr. Lippitt also requested that condition 48 be modified to specify 60 MPH speed rather than 70 MPH. He discussed the need for design speed due to the horizontal and vertical curves in the street pattern. Commissioner O'Neill pointed out that finding No. 1 for the subdivision map states that the Sectional Planning Area Plan was adopted by the City Planning Commission on January 23, 1985, and that was not the case. Mr. Lee affirmed that should refer to the conceptual approval action by the City Council on ~-- January 29, 1985. Planning Commission Minutes -15- February 13, 1985 Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, advised that the Candidate CEQA Findings are based on the Master EIR on the EastLake project and also the supplemental EIR certified in January. That document covers not only EastLake I, but also makes reference to EastLake Greens out of Telegraph Canyon Road. This would account for minor differences between the mitigation measures identified in the CEQA findings and those specified as conditions of approval of the subdivision map. Changes in the findings made since the previous meeting include the addition of three items on page 3 of the Findings relating to traffic monitoring and to the EastLake Public Financing Plan which is tied to each phase of the project and incorporated into the Development Agreement. In response to an observation by Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Reid concurred that on page 2, the traffic impact to San Miguel Road should apply to both east and west of SR-125. That is correctly stated in the mitigation measure for traffic impact. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Robert Santos, EastLake Development Company, commended the staff for their thorough presentation and for the sophisticated job in preparing the documents for a very complex subject. He expressed agreement with the conditions recommended by the staff and also with the errata type recommendations to be forthcoming from United Enterprises. Mr. Santos called attention to condition 22 to require a minimum of 166 manufactured homes to be located within the Shores area. He advised that their efforts to find a manufacturer to install such units had been unsuccessful as the most prominent firm in this field had indicated such developments in the past have been financial failures and they would not do another project. Mr. Santos stated that in an effort to meet this condition, they looked into the possibility of purchasing manufactured housing and installing it with their own forces, but found this runs about $4 to $5 a square foot more expensive than a "stick-built" home {constructed on-site). He also contended the manufactured housing is less attractive as it is limited to a long building, 12 to 14 feet wide. He suggested that the best use for manufactured housing would be in the Village Center and Industrial Park tract, where the units can be stacked and sold as condominiums. They have agreed to provide 5% low-income housing and 5% moderate-income housing and, to do that, have requested that condition 22 be deleted from this map and the manufactured housing techniques be utilized in the Village Center. Michael Spata, representing United Enterprises, referred to the written revisions to the documents which he submitted to the Commissioners at this meeting and has supplied copies to the staff. He requested that those revisions be included in the documents. Planning Commission Minutes -16- February 13, 1985 Wendy Longley-Cook, representing United Enterprises, lO0? Fifth Avenue, raised objection to tying in the Facilities Financing Plan to the trip generation. She felt if a problem arose, because of the difficulty in predicting the order in which development will occur, the formal hearings to revise the financing plan and development agreement would be too lengthy. She felt more flexibility should be provided by incorporating some objective standard of need into the Facilities Financing Plan in a way that some of the improvements might be reorganized without having to go through the formal procedures of changing the plan. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (O'Neill/Green) Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the EastLake I Sectional Area Planning (SPA) Plan subject to the conditions listed in Section 5 of the staff report (with modifications as requested by United Enterprises if subsequently approved by the City Attorney), Public Facilities Financing Plan and Development Agreement (based on findings stated in Attachment 1). MSUC (O'Neill/Tugenberg) Adopt a motion recommending the City Council approve the EastLake I Planned Community District Regulations and repeal the Planned Community District Regulations as adopted by the City on September 7, 1982 {Ordinance 2002) for the area of EastLake I north of Otay Lakes Road (Telegraph Canyon Road). MS (O'Neill/Cannon) Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative residential subdivision map for EastLake I (Chula Vista Tract 84-9) subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the following changes: delete conditions 22, 12 and 13, modify condition 30 to add the language, "unless approved by the City Engineer," and condition 48 to change the design speed from 70 to 60 MPH. MS (Tugenberg/Carson) Amend the motion by adding a requirement that 31 very low density units, specified in parcel 2, shall be constructed by the time the number of constructed units reaches 40% of the total project units (1,192 units) and that the remaining 73 low density units be constructed by the time the number of constructed units reaches 90% of the total project units (3,315). The motion for amendment carried (5-2) wi th Commissioners Green and O'Neill voting no. Speaking to clarify the requirement, Mr. Santos advised that the 104 very low density units would be custom lots and as such EastLake would not be building the houses; the home-buying public would do that. He expressed a willingness to improve all of those lots - put all the streets in and have the lots on the marketplace - on the time schedule requested. MS (Tugenberg/Carson) The amendment be reworded to require that street installed for the low density lots so the lots will be improvement be available for sale on the time schedule previously stated. Planning Commission Minutes -17- February 13, 1985 The revised amendment carried unanimously. The motion recommending approval of the tentative map, as amended, carried unanimously. MSUC (O'Neill/Shipe) Adopt the proposed Candidate CEQA Findings on the EastLake I project. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS: The SPA amendment for E1 Rancho del Rey will be discussed at the Planning Workshop on February 20th. COMMISSIONERS COUNTS: - Commissioner Green requested a week's time in which to review staff reports, if possible, particularly for complex issues like EastLake. Commissioner Cannon requested that the Commission be provided "completed" documents instead of so many handouts immediately prior to the actual meeting. ADJOUR~4ENT AT ll:lO p.m. to the Study Session meeting of February 20, 1985, at 5:00 p.m., in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary WPC 1773P