Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1984/08/22 Tape 250 - Side 2 0-1753 Tape 251 - Side 1 0-822 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday,August 22, 1984 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Pro Tem Green, Commissioners Cannon, Guiles, Carson, Tugenberg, and Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner O'Neill with notification STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Senior Civil Engineer Doust, Environmental Review · Coordinator Reid, Associate Planner Liuag PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Pro Tem Green and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Pro Tem Green welcomed new commissioners Joanne Carson and Robert Tugenberg. Commissioner Pro Tem Green reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities, and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Guiles/Shipes) Tugenberg and Carson abstained, to approve the minutes of the meetings of June 27, July 25 and AJJgust 8, 1984, as mailed with a correction to those of 6/27/84 to show that on page 4 - Item 2, Green did not abstain from voting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 1. Consideration of: (a) Final EIR-84-6, Chula Vista Woods, Gardner Investment Properties (Continued) (b) Candidate CEQA Findings for the Proposed Chula Vista Woods Subdivision (c) Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Proposed Chula Vista Woods Subdivision Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that an oral presentation would be made on agenda items l(a), l(b), and l(c) and staff is requesting action on these items be deferred until after the closing of the public hearing on ~ Plannin~ Commission -2- August 22, 1984 agenda item 2. He reminded the Commission that a public hearing on the draft EIR was held on July 25, 1984, that all oral and written comments presented at the public hearing in addition to written comments previously submitted, have been incorporated into the final EIR along with responses to each of the comments. Staff recommends the Commission certify EIR-84-6 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista and they will consider the information in this document as they reach a decision on the project. He then introduced Nancy Rollman of Mooney Lettieri, the firm which prepared the EIR, to summarize the Final EIR. Nancy Rollman remarked that she was accompanied by Bruce McIntyre and Harold Weir (project biologist) who were available to answer any questions on the Final EIR. Ms. Rollman stated that mitigation measures would reduce all significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance with the exception of the drainag~ and biological impacts. The drainage is mitigable by the use of standard design methods, however, the biological impacts would require redesign of the project which is not considered economically nor socially feasible. A review of minor revisions to the Draft EIR included the following: Land Use: To prevent any possible electrostatic conduction impacts from the SDG&E facilities, several mitigation measures have been added to ensure the people do not live in their RV's. Traffic Circulation: Secondary Access - Subsequent discussions with staff and the Fire Department indicate one access to the project is sufficient. Stub-Out Street - This road is not being built or approved as part of the project and no environmental impact can be determined as the road alignment has not yet been finalized; when added during future development, it will be addressed in an addendum and subject to environmental review. Public Service: Sewer - Notation regarding utilization of a proposed gravity flow system to the south was added to EIR. If this is utilized, it will be addressed in an addendum and subject to environmental review. Water - It was clarified that a 12-inch main would be installed as the primary line to provide water; remaining mains would be 8 inches. Growth-inducing impact. Based on the Otay Water District's plan to install a water main from one existing line to another existing line and the fact that service is not being extended beyond existing facilities, Chula Vista Woods is not considered to be growth-inducing. ~ Plannin~ Commission -3- August 22, 1984 Ms. Rollman addressed the concerns raised at the public hearing on July 25: Plant Count. A field check made on July 30 of the number of San Diego Ambrosia plants indicated 12,000 stems and 40 of the Orcutt Bi rd-beak pl ants. lraffic. Oleander and East Naples have a design ADT of 5,000. The intersection capacity at Oleander/Telegraph Canyon Road will not be impacted significantly and the volume at the East Naples intersection will not be sufficient to warrant a traffic signal. Drainage. As requested, the applicant has supplied United Enterprise with details on the project's storm drain system. The City Engineer and the EIR's consultant engineer agreed that the use of standard design methods will avert any significant impact. In reply to Commissioner' Green's question of the number of lots affected by preservatl'on of the San Diego Ambrosia, staff replied that considering five lots are directly over the strand of Ambrosia and changing the grade on the loop street may affect Lot lll (the size of four or five residential lots), that l0 would be a realistic figure. (7:22 p.m. - Commissioner Shipe received an emergency call and left the dais.) Environmental Review Coordinator Reid declared that because this EIR concludes that there will be significant impacts, it is necessary to consider the Candidate CEQA findings and the Overriding Considerations on drainage and biological elements. Drainage: As the applicant has submitted revised plans to provide retention basins and energy dissipators to reduce the velocity of the runoff which will reduce drainage impacts to a level of insignificance, the finding should read that changes or alterations have been made in the project to avoid that significant impact. Biological Resources: It is proposed a finding be made that the impact is not feasible to mitigate because of specific economic and social considerations. A redesign of the project which would be required to mitigate the biological impact would result in a lesser number of units to absorb the development costs and, therefore, increase the unit cost by approximately $5,000 to $8,000; this would result in a probable loss of the available 10.6% bond financing and a reduction in the number of potential qualified homebuyers thereby reducing the available stock of affordable housing in the Chula Vista area. Commissioner Guiles expressed concern about the lack of creative solutions to mitigate the biological impacts and stated that he did not see how the profitability of the developer would be impacted as such judgment depends on how much the developer wants to build the project. Planning Commission -4- August 22, 1984 Commissioner Cannon said he would have difficulty in accepting a finding that the preservation of the Ambrosia would result in hayfever effects on future residents. He asked about the EIR statement that the transplantation of these plants was not mitigable and if transplantation would not be preferable to "plowing them under." Mr. McIntyre replied that full mitigation could only be achieved and ensured by preserving the plants in place; and that, under CEQA, the transplantation cannot be considered a reduction of the impact to a level of insignificance. Commissioner Tugenberg expressed concern about lack of a secondary access to the property. Director of Planning Krempl explained that the conditions of the tentative subdivision map call for a stub street to eventually tie in with the adjacent streets. In reply to his questions, Commissioner Green was informed that the San Diego Ambrosia is not yet con)idered "endangered" but is considered a candidate. The plant is common in Baja but not throughout the U.S.A. 2(a). Public Hearing: Proposed redesignation of approximately l0 acres of land abutting upon the easterly tine of Gre~ Rogers Park from "Parks and. Public Ope? Spa?" to "Medium Density Residential' on the plan ~lagram of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. Principal Planner Pass stated the department recommends approval of GPA-84-4 based on the rationale that prior to 1982 the 10-acre parcel was considered as a potential addition to Greg Rogers Park and was so depicted on the plan diagram of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, although it was never purchased by the City; and the applicant's proposal to establish a small lot, single-family dwelling project on the site is consistent with the Housing Element's advocacy for affordable housing and the South Bay's preference for home ownership. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed amendment would promote the development of affordable, single-family dwellings and reflect a land use in keeping with the surrounding area. 2(b). Public Hearing: PCZ-84-1, 20 acres located east of Gre9 Rogers Park from R-l-h to R-l-P-6 - Stafford-Gardner Development 2(c). Public Hearing: PCS-84-13, Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Woods, C. V. Tract 84-13 Stafford-Gardner Development 2(d). Public Hearing: P-84-14, Consideration of precise plan for the development of Chula Vista Woods Subdivision (Commissioner Shipe left the meeting at 7:44 p.m. ) Planning Commission -5- August 22, 1984 Associate Planner Liuag indicated that his presentation will cover the interrelated items of rezoning, tentative map, and precise ~an; however, the environmental issue must be resolved before separate action on each item could be taken Mr. Liuag stated that the project site consists of two 10-acre landlocked vacant parcels east of Greg Rogers Park, 1300 feet south of East Naples Street and 400 feet west of Brandywine Avenue which were prezoned R-1 and annexed to the City in 1970. In 1974, as part of an overall program to apply the hill si de modifying district to properties east of 1-805 possessing an average natural slope of at least 8%, the parcels were rezoned to R-1-H. The City approved a tentative map consisting of 55 units in 1978 which was allowed to expire after attempts to gain access to the landlocked property were unsuccessful. The ap~icant intends to develop the property with llO manufactured units on individual lots averaging 4,700 square feet with the intent of providing affordable housing in th~ $70,000 to $80,000 price range. To do this, he is requesting a density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre which would allow up to 120 units, even though the actual proposed number of units is llO, or 5.5 units per acre. Staff believes the zoning should reflect the actual density of 5.5 dwelling units per acre. The units will be served by a private street system. There will be three models provided--one 2-bedroom and two 3-bedroom units each--with a composition shingle pitched roof, masonite and stucco siding with wood trim. Two-car garages will be built on-site. In addition, - parking for 82 cars will be available on the private street. The precise plan is established to determine adequacy of the tentative map. Conditions of approval are set to provide more specific review and more detailed information at a later date. The zoning proposes to remove the "H" district because the average natural slope is less than 15% and the project is located on high ground at the upper end of a canyon where it is reasonable to permit grading. The precise plan modifying district must be applied in order to reduce the minimum lot size, width and setbacks necessary for development at the proposed density. The tentative subdivision map divides the property into ll3 lots (llO single- family residential lots and 3 common area lots). The average lot is 4700 sq. ft. with an at the 80-foot minimum depth and 53 foot average lot width. Major issues include: Public versus private streets. The Engineering Department has indicated that the streets should be public because (a) the projected ADT will be llO0 trips and private streets are limited to 800 trips daily, (b) except for the manufactured units, the project is a conventional single-family development normally served by public streets, and (c) the maintenance costs (streets and lighting) may become a burden to the homeowners and the City may be requested to take them over. Reduced width public streets would be acceptable provided that the horizontal and vertical curve standards met City standards. If the streets remain private, they should be constructed with 5-1/2" of concrete to reduce maintenance and meet the requirements of the Subdivision Manual. Planning Commission -6- August 22, 1984 Stub Street - Mr. Liuag stated that a stub street should be provided to the easterly boundary to permit another access point in the future. Sewer - The Engineering Department.recommended that a gravity sewer should be constructed to the southern subdivision boundary capable of providing gravity sewer for the project in the future. Prior to approval of the final map, developer should provide for the perpetual cost of maintaining and operating the pump station through a cash deposit for the amount agreed upon by the City Engineer. Drainage - The Engineering Department also concluded that the proposed drainage facilities and retention basin need more review and might require extensive revision and the possible loss of lots. Senior Civil Engineer Daoust stated that the subdivision will be served by a single public street which ends in a cul-de-sac at the northwest corner of the property. He observed that normally a cul-de-sac may be no more than 1,O00 feet long: As measured from Naples Street, this cul-de-sac is approximately 2700 feet, which is well over the normal criteria for such a street, and could create traffic congestion and inconvenience in case of emergency or a blockage of some sort. Associate Planner Liuag concluded by recommending approval of the rezoning, and the tentative subdivision map subject to certain changes to conditions of approval. Items of concern voiced by the Commission included: - too many projects being crowded into a small area; - the removal of parkland from the City; - damage to the environment; - the overriding need for this particular project; - the problem of traffic congestion within the development from parking; - the question of whether the housing price would be raised because of the 21 conditions attached to the tentative subdivision map; - could the project be redesigned with higher density and more open space; - will the developers suggest that the homeowners hire a management company; how the developer arrived at a possible $10,000 cost increase; and - are any of the lots concerned with the biological results coincident with the sewer-related modification? This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Davies, 2550 Fifth Avenue, San Diego representing the applicant, said the units must be built and sold by December 25, 1985, to qualify for the bond financing. He asked that he might defer his remarks until later. Mr. Will Don Gardner, 4351 Grace Street, Bonita, the applicant, replied to the question regarding the $10,000 estimated cost increase, by saying that the addition of the 21 conditions presented in the last 4-5 days, with the Planning Commission -7- August 22, 1984 possible loss of lot 111 and the other five lots (an equivalent total of lO-12 lots), plus the cost of improvements, had resulted in this figure. In response to Commissioner Guiles' question regarding the area of coincidence among the lots, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust {using an overhead projection) pointed out the location for the gravity sewer which he said might also be the location of the retention basin; but he does not know if that is the area with the San Diego Ambrosia. Anthony ~nbrose, HCH and Associates, 4872 View Ridge, San Diego, representing Gardner Investment Properties, said they had reviewed all the conditions of approval and generally concur with them. They do have some concerns about the following: On page ll, item 2, the concrete streets - this would add $100,000 to the cost of the development, and sets a preceOent. He asked if all future condo-type projects wpuld be required to put in concrete streets. On page 12, item 7, the stub street - The Fire Department did not indicate any problem. If the stub street is a requirement, offsite grading may be required and, also, permission from the adjacent property owner. The applicant does not want a stub street and feels that the existing access is adequate. - On page 12, item 8, all-weather roadway - Mr. Ambrose questioned if that meant asphalt or could it apply to something other than asphalt? On page 12, item ll - The developer is concerned about the word "perpetual" in the cost of maintaining and operating the pump station. This seems to be contrary to previous practice. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that the presentation given did not emphasize the fact that the side yards of the houses are 25 feet and have a depth of approximately 80 feet which guarantees sufficient open space for each house which is oriented towards the side yards. Michael Spata, 1007 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, Attorney for United Enterprise, expressed concern regarding a shortage of open space within the City and the proposed conversion of a substantial amount of open space land--10 acres--next to Greg Rogers Park to medium density; the overloading of lots, (57 units originally llO units now); the record does not indicate an overriding financial need on the part of the developer; the EIR demonstrates there is no need for the stub street; the comment made that the site was residential and, therefore, conducive to the area could apply equally as well to institutional; and calculations and estimations ))ave been made regarding the off-site drainage which appear satisfactory to United Enterprise. He concluded that United Enterprise does not object to this project in principle but feels there are some concerns that should be reevaluated. Planning Commission -8- August 22, 1984 Mark Longley-Cook, 636 Broadway, San Diego, representing United Enterprise, questioned the contradiction of statements regarding the need for a feasibility study citing a quotation by Senior Civil Engineer Daoust on August lO and the Final EIR, question no. 18, page 77. He asked if the feasibility study would be required or not and if United Enterprise will have a reasonable time to respond. Director of Planning Krempl replied that a feasibility study will not be required for the stub street. )~. Longley-Cook then raised the issue of a stub road intended to eventually become a secondary access. He noted that the use of the access to the north and the east would be restricted because private streets typically prohibit their use to outsiders. He referenced a statement that possibilities may exist in the near future for stub streets in other than residential areas, saying this might be inappropriate from an effective planning standpoint. Director Krempl declared that after conferring with the Engineering Department, it was determined that a feasibility study would be necessary to determine the street alignment vis-a-vis the stub street. At the request of the Commission, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust explained the requirements for a feasibility study. Dr. Wendy Longley-Cook, 636 Broadway, San Diego, representing United Enterprise, said that she wished to augment the traffic comment. She referred to the statement that the stub street was not being built as part of this project, and because the route was not known, the environmental impact was not known. She pointed out that the Subdivision Manual requires the alignment of a stub street be extended at least 300 feet to determine its direction. The circulation study calls for an extension of East Naples Street and as intersections may not be closer than 250 feet, the areas the stub street would not go are known, leaving a very narrow band within which the stub street could go. There is no reason, therefore, why the EIR cannot discuss the stub street. Dr. Longley-Cook contended that the staff report and the EIR did not agree about the drainage impact; the engineering consultant had not submitted calculations to substantiate his initial claim that velocity reduction to levels not creating erosion could not be achieved nor his subsequent claim that a velocity flow of 2'/second (which would allow vegetation to stabilize) could theoretically be achieved. Dr. Longley-Cook maintained that such a velocity could not be achieved by standard engineering hydraulic practices; such design practices would not be acceptable to the City; the calculations should be analyzed re their adequacy; no premature grading be allowed to cause loss of the plants; clean-out maintenance provisions be included in the tentative map; and redesign and reconstruction of the drainage system be guaranteed. Additional questions raised were the needs for: a recreational lot next to one of the largest parks in the City; a RV storage lot for persons of low and moderate housing; substantial, recorded evidence to override the recommendations; and that no practical alternatives have been suggested. ~ Plannin9 Commission -9- August 22, 1984 When asked her professional opinion re the adequacy of one access to the project, she replied that the area will not remain a cul-de-sac upon development of the adjacent area; she had visited six projects (of over lO0 units) having only one access that seemed to have no problems. Thomas A. Davies, 2550 Fifth, Apartment #1000, San Diego, representing Gardner Investment Properties, stated that if concrete streets were so economically feasible, they would be all over the town; the upkeep cost of asphalt streets was $17 per unit as opposed to $107 in financing cost for the concrete streets; the stub street results in a possible loss of two lots and creates more problems; he noted that they are doing everything in their power to accomplish the sale of the properties before December 1985 and they can achieve density only by the use of private streets. Commission Cannon asked the location of the lots with the ragweed and those with the catch basin. En. vironmental Review Coordinator Reid observed that the catch basin and related sewer problems would be near Lot 46, but the plant is at a higher elevation. In the event Lots 47 through 51 and lll are retained for the San Diego ~mbrosia the impact would be mitigated and no findings would be necessary. A discussion regarding the use of private streets, their inspection, and their maintenance costs proceeded. Commission Green asked if staff intends to recommend the use of concrete streets in all future projects. Principal Planner Lee replied that each project would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis and on the number of units to be served,. Commissioner Green expressed the opinion that the concrete street requirement seems to be a reaction to Point Robinhood's recent request for the City to take over the streets. He stated concern that one developer should be penalized for the actions of another, when such a requirement may prove not necessary in the future. Commissioner Tugenberg observed that the use of a management company instead of a homeowners' association in projects containing affordable homes may avoid the creation of a slum in the next 20 years. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Green stated that the San Diego Ambrosia has not been designated as "endangered"; he is skeptical about this being the only stand in San Diego County without a substantiating survey; Chula Vista wants to provide affordable housing and this is one of the few that he has seen; therefore, he believes the opportunity to provide such housing overrides the potential loss of the plant species. Commissioner Cannon stated that his problem was making findings when he can't seem to find any. Planning Commission -10- August 22, 1984 Commissioner Guiles expressed agreement with Commissioner Cannon and restated concern about the engineering aspects regarding construction of these houses with respect to the bond financing; if the project can be accomplished within the timeframe; and if it is not, hopefully, there may be additional bond financing. If not, the fair market interest rate will prevail and the price will go up. He said he was having difficulty with the findings as proposed in terms of the economic analysis and that there are no other alternatives to accomplish the basic purpose of the project. Commissioner Tugenberg said he had no problem with the biological impact and felt the need for affordable housing overrode the biological impact. 1 (a) EIR MSUC (Cannon/Carson) to certify that EIR-84-6 has been prepared in compliance with the CEQA of 1970 and that environmental review procedures of the'City of Chula Vista have been followed and the information contained in those documents considered as the Planning Commission reached a decision on the project. 1 (b) CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) to adopt a motion finding that in accordance with the Candidate CEQA Findings in the staff report, that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in EIR-84-6 and certify that subject to standard development regulations and the conditions of approval, the project will not result in significant environmental impacts in the following areas: land use, geology/soils, drainage, land form, archeology, traffic, noise and public services. 1 (c) STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS MS (Cannon/Tugenberg) to adopt the findings that the biological resources will have unmitigated environmental impact and that it is infeasible economically to implement alternatives which would significantly reduce that impact. This motion was based on the findings that the project will provide for the City of Chula Vista affordable housing which is needed within the City and which, in the absence of this overriding consideration, would not be built with any feasible affordabil ity standards. Assistant City Attorney suggested that Cannon include in his motion a statement as to why this project will be affordable in his opinion. AMENDMENT MSUC {Cannon/Tugenberg) in accordance with the CEQA findings that the biological resources have significant economical impact and it is infeasible to implement alternatives that would significantly reduce ~ Plannin~ Commission -11- August 22, 1984 that impact. The motion was based on the findings that this project will provide the City of Chula Vista with affordable housing and that affordability is based on the indications from the developer that the unit costs will be between $76,000 and $96,000 and that need for affordable housing provides enough consideration to balance the detriment of removing the two plants in question--the San Diego ~mbrosia and the Orcutt Bird-beak. 2(a) REVISION OF DESIGNATION MSUC (Cannon/Carson) to approve GPA 84-4. 2(b) REZONE MSC (Cannon/Carson) Tugenberg "no" - based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report, to recommend City Council enact an ordinance to chang~ the zoning for 20 acres located immediately east of Greg Rogers Park and 1300 feet south of East Naples Street from R-1-H to R-l-P-5.5 subject to the precise plan development standards contained in the staff report. 2(c) TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP MS (Cannon/Guiles) that based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report to recommend City Council approve the tentative subdivision map of Chula Vista Woods, Chula Vista Tract 84-13, subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following exceptions: l) The requirement on concrete streets be deleted and there be an allowance for asphalt streets subject to normal Chula Vista requirements therefor in residential developments. 2) That the requirement for a stub street be deleted. 3) That condition #4 in the staff report (speed humps) be deleted. 4) That condition #12 have an addition to it that prior to an owners' association, the developer shall maintain all storm drain facilities. (Director Krempl stated that staff requested an amendment to the motion to the effect that - 5) Approval would be required by SDG&E for access purposes prior to the final plan approval. Commissioner Cannon as the maker of the motion accepted that proposed amendment. Commissioner Guiles also accepted it. Planning Commission -12- August 22, 1984 The motion failed by the following vote with Tugenberg and Guiles voting "no". (Cannon, Green, Carson - "yes"; O'Neill and Shipe absent) A~es: Canon, Green, Carson No: Tugenberg, . Guiles Abstain: None Absent: O'Neill, Shipe SUBSTITUTE MOTION MS (Guiles/Tugenberg) that based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report, to recommend that City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Woods, Chula Vista Tract 84-13, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and including: 1) Deleting Condftion #4 - speed humps 2) · Approval would be required by SDG&E for access purposes prior to the final plan approval. 3) The requirement on concrete streets be deleted and there be an allowance for asphalt streets subject to normal Chula Vista requirements therefore in residential developments. (an aside was made that the motion included stub streets) The motion failed by the following vote: Yes - Guiles, Tugenberg, Green No - Cannon, Carson Abstain - None Absent - O'Neill, Shipe SUBSTITUTE MOTION - compromise vote MSUC (Cannon/Carson) that based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report, to recommend that City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Woods, Chula Vista Tract 84-13, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and i ncl udi ng: 1) Deleting Condition #4 - speed humps 2) Approval would be required by SDG&E for access purposes prior to the final plan approval. 3) The requirement on concrete streets be deleted and there be an allowance for asphalt streets subject to normal Chula Vista requirements therefore .in residential developments. 4) If the adjacent property owner does not allow grading on his property and it is necessary to grade to properly clear the stub street, that the stub street not be required. If the neighboring property owner does allow grading, then the stub street is required. Planning Commission -13- August 22, 1984 2(d) PRECISE PLAN No action taken on this item through oversight. l0 MINUTE BREAK (9:45 - 9:55) 3. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-84-7 - SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB Commissioner Green cited a potential conflict of interest and left the dais after appointing Commissioner Cannon as Chairman Pro Tem. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that the public hearing was held on August 8, 1984, during which written comments were presented with the staff report and additional written and oral comments were received at the public hearing. In addition, the Commission granted Richard O. Nielson's request to submit his written comments to staff on August 9, 1984. All of the comments and testimony have been )ncorporated into the final EIR along with responses regarding each of the comments. The finding of this final EIR is, that all potentially significant environmental impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance, staff is recommending that the Commission certify that EIR-84-7 has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Commission will consider the information in that document as it reaches a - decision on the project. Director Krem~ reminded the Commission that the public hearing on the EIR had been concluded at the August 8 meeting, but would need to be opened for items 4(a) and 4(b), and suggested that action be taken on the EIR at this time. MSC (Guiles/Carson) Green abstained - to certify that EIR-84-7 has been prepared in com~iance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Planning Commission will consider the information in that document as it reaches a decision on the project. 4. PUBLIC HE/~RING: (a) GPA-84-1 - PROPOSAL BY THE SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB TO REDESIGNATE ABOUT 6.00 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWESTERLY QUADP. ANT OF NAPLES STRLEi AND HILLTOP DRIVE AND WESTERLY OF CORTE MAJ~IA FROM "PARKS AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE" TO "MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL," (4-12 DWELLING UNITS PLR GROSS ACRE) ON THE PLAN DIAGRAM OF THE LAND USL ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN .(b.) CONSIDERATION TO REZONE AND PREZONE 6.0 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NAPLES STREET ANu OPPOSITE DIXON DRIVE FROM R-1 AND S-90 (COUNTY) TO R-3-P-14 - SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB - Planning Cone~ission -14- August 22~ 1984 Principal Planner Pass stated that staff recommends approval of GPA-84-1 based on the following analysis: The site is in an area which is dominated by medium-density residential and open space land uses and such usage would be harmonious with the adjacent areas within Castle Park. The proposed amendment would better meet the current need for middle income housing in the South Bay and is prerequisite to the applicant's proposal to develop a well-ordered residential annex to the San Diego Country Club. In answer to Commissioner Tugenberg's question, Principal Planner Pass said that the median income in this area is approximately $24,000. - Under HCD regulations, 50-80 percent of the median income is low, 80-100 percent is moderate, and over 120 percent is middle income. Principal Planner Lee, using overhead projects and slides, showed the location of the proposed site in relation to the single-family homes and the shopping center, the proposed proj?t, and views from the project site. He pointed out that the subject property is located at the southeasterly corner of the San Diego Country Club with 520 feet of frontage along Naples Street. The southerly 200 feet, or approximately 2 acres, of the property is located within the City of Chula Vista while the northerly 4 acres is located in the County. The applicant is requesting multiple-family zoning at a density of 14 units per net acre on the property to develop an 80-unit condominium project. The density of the project and the proposed zoning are in conformance with the proposed amendment to the General Plan. Principal Planner Lee continued that the proposed development and its relationship to the adjacent commercial area, the single-family area to the east, and its separation from the area to the south part by Naples Street, make the property more isolated and, therefore, it can be developed to a higher density with only a limited impact on the adjacent uses. Principal Planner Lee noted that the staff is recommending the inclusion of development standards specifying no residential structure will exceed two stories in height and no structure is to be located within 50 feet from the R-1 zone which would exceed one story in height. The front yard setback along Naples Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet. Staff is also proposing a zoning wall and fence along the easterly property line which will be coordinated with the adjoining property owners. No further removal of existing trees shall be permitted without evaluation by the City Landscape Architect and shall be re~aced with specimen-sized material. He concluded that staff is recommending approval of this request with these standards included. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Richard Nielsen, 1032 Corte Maria, neighboring property owner, expressed concern that the social and economic factors and their effect have not been discussed although he had been reassured they would be. He stated that when the project was first presented to the Club members, it was categorized as "high-density, luxury condominiums" but when reviewed in the EIR it was described as "medium-density, medium-income." He pointed out that the EIR Planning Commission -15- August 22, 1984 called for the setting aside of 1/2 acre for parklaQd, yet the mitigating factor indicated that a fee would be Paid. Mr. Nielsen concluded by reexpressing his concern that the Commission had not received sufficient public testimony to reach a mature decision. Principal Planner Lee ex~ained that there was no Park located in the area, therefore the project would be assessed a fee based on the nu~er of units. This fee would be utilized to develop or maintain parklands in other parts of the City. Tony Ambrose, HCH & Associates, 4877 Viewridge Avenue, S.D., representing the applicant, stated concurrence with the recommendations and conditions of approval presented by staff and declared the San Diego Country Club wishes to prepare this property for 80 high-quality medium-density condominiums. Others speaking in opposition to the project were: Mrs. Joseph Choate, 25 Moss Street; Bob Pritch~rd, lO61 Corte Maria; Donald Thompson, 1052 Corte Maria; and Joseph Choate, 25 Moss Street. Their remarks included: The tall buildings would obscure the view; rental property would devalue property; only open space in the heart of Chula Vista is the golf course which is now threatened; one infringement leads to another; view destroyed; traffic congestion at Naples and Moss; noise from the shopping center; why should the residents be subjected to a store in front and back of the property;on the west and north there is a problem with the air quality--the people in the south and east and the golfers deserve air as clean as it is now; why is a decision about County property being made by Chula Vista; for 25 years taxes have been higher in this location - now the property will be devalued. In reply to a question, Charles Talbot, 1420 Maple Street, stated that the compost area had been maintained since 1921 and the cost of removing it was $7,000. Tat L. Wai, HCH and Associates, 4877 Viewridge Ave., S.D., indicated his availability to answer any questions re engineering. Louis Fernandez, 968 Corte Maria, stated there were a number of favorable things about the project including rejuvenation of the shopping area, that 80 more cars would not adversely affect traffic, all two-story dwellings are below view level, and the-area will be a nicer place in which to live. Commissioner Carson remarked that she was assuming that the Commission had been addressed by at least three of the homeowners affected by the proposed project; and requested the petition be read so its contents be ascertained. At the request of the Chairman, the Clerk read a petition signed by 47 individuals, stating opposition to the project. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission -16- August 22, 1984 MSC (Guiles/Carson) - Green abstained - to recommend that City Council approve the proposal to amend the plan diagram of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, GPA-84-1. MSC (Guiles/Carson) - Green abstained - that based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report, to recommend that City Council enact an ordinance to rezone and prezone approximately 6.0 acres located on the north side of Na~es Street opposite Dixon Drive from R-L and S-90 to R-3-P-14 subject to precise plan development standards "a" through "e" in the staff report. Commissioner Green returned to the dais and resumed the Chairmanship. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-84-5 - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE LAND-USE ELEMENT OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN, PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD R~DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Commissioner Cannon stated he had a potential conflict of interest and left the dais. Principal Planner Pass stated that this is an amendment to the General Plan text and, in particular, applies to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment -- Project. The staff recommend approval of GPA-84-5 based on the following rationale: The proposed amendment would enlarge and improve the City's development policy in the Otay Valley Road Area. It recognizes the recently created Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area, and the City's intent to promote the establishment of planned light-industrial uses therein. It also recites the need for the adoption of special City-planning and design standards and guidelines for the growth and conservation of the project area, and th~ protection of its residential environs. The proposed amendment, while recognizing zoning as an important tool for the implementation of the General Plan, would also recognize the text of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan, the implementational plan now being developed and other tools such as the proposed amendment to the Citywide Design Manual. This ties all the projects together, past and future, on the Otay Valley Road General Amendment changes. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Guiles/Carson) Cannon abstaining - to adopt Negative Declaration IS-82-5 as submitted. -' Plannin~l Commission -17- August 22, 1984 NSC (Guiles/Carson) Cannon abstaining - to recommend that City Council approve the proposed amendment, GPA-84-5, to the text of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, pertaining to the development of the Otay Val 1 ey Road Redevelopment Project Area. Commissioner Cannon returned to the dais. 6. PUBLIC HEA~ING: PCZ-85-A - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 4.07 ACRES OF SDG&E PROPERTY ON THE EAS1 SIDE OF I-5 FREEWAY AND NORTH O~ WALNUT AVENUE FROM R-3 TO I-L - GARDNER/GRETLER Commissioner Guiles cited a potential conflict of interest and left the dais and the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Principal Planner Lee stated the property, which is intended as a recreational vehicle storage area, is the westerly 4.07 acres of a 6.83 acre parcel owned by SDG&E and is vacant ~xcept for a transmission line tower and trees left over from'a former tree farm. The site abuts the I-5 freeway to the west, a mobile home park to the north and the cul-de-sac that terminates Walnut Avenue southerly boundary. Directly to the south the area is zoned Light-Industrial. The applicant's request for rezoning is in keeping with the adjacent area to the south and is not in conflict with the General Plan. Permanent buildings are prohibited from the property because of the SDG&E - transmission lines and tower. With its present zoning, the property is virtually unusable except for agricultural uses and certain limited unclassified uses. It cannot be used for residential and would have more utility if zoned for light industrial. The attachment of the "P" district will permit the establishment of development standards to ensure compatability with neighboring properties. The site currently accepts drainage runoff from Walnut Avenue and drains to the northwest onto the private street system of the adjacent mobilehome park and to an open culvert at I-$ freeway. The applicant will be required to address the on and off-site drainage impacts to the approval of the City Engineer. Staff is recommending approval. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Robert Crozer, 4215 Helix del Sur, La Mesa, R.K. Industrial Center, owner of property abutting the proposed project, stated that as the SDG&E had paid only a minimal amount for the footage right, the neighboring property owners should be reimbursed for the expense incurred by the recently completed 1911 Act if this project is permitted; the drainage question should be addressed; and the size of the cul-de-sac might not accommodate the turnaround of a mobile home. John Gardner, 753 Roca Road, Chula Vista, the applicant, said the drainage problem would be addressed; regular business hours would be maintained; and the cul-de-sac would accommodate a mobile home. Principal Planner Lee reminded the Commission that one of the conditions of - approval stipulated that the drainage solution must meet the approval of the City Engineer; the cul-de-sac be examined by the City Traffic Engineer to adequacy of the t~rnaround. - Plannin~ Commission -18- August 22, 1984 Ray Anton, 78 Trenton Avenue, cited the difficulty in accessing Palomar Avenue from Trenton and Walnut Avenues by normal vehicles; the amount of vehicular traffic on these streets, the quantity of on-street parking, the large number of children in the area, compounded by mobilehome traffic; and danger to mobilehome owners occupying the area under the transmission lines. He was informed by the Chairman that the project was intended for the storage of recreational vehicles and that no one would be living under the transmission lines. Principal Planner Lee reported that, after conferring with the Engineering Department, there is no way to require SDG&E to reimburse property owners for money expended on the 1911 Act improvements for Walnut. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Cannon/Carson) - Gui~es abstained - to adopt Negative Declaration IS-85-3. MSC (Tugenberg/Carson) Guiles abstained - that based on the findings in Section "E", to recommend City Council enact an ordinance to change the zone of the easterly 4.07 acres of the SDG&E property located on the east side of I-5 freeway and the northerly terminus of the llO0 block of Walnut Avenue from R-3 to I-L-P subject to the precise plan development standards with the additional condition that the site turnaround must be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None COMMISSION REPORT: Chairman Pro Tem Green congratulated the new Commissioners on a job well done on their first meeting. ADJOURf~IENT AT 10:56 to the Regular Business Meeting of September 12, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary WPC 1245P