Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/11/08 Tape: 306 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, November 8, 1989 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Casillas, Fuller, Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Grasser - with prior notification STAFF PRESENT: Deputy City Manager Krempl, Director of Planning Leiter, Principal Planner Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Associate Planner Griffin, Principal Community Development Specialist Robin Putnam, Senior Civil Engineer Thomas, City Traffic Engineer Hal Rosenberg, Consultant Bud Gray, Consultant Paul Manganelli, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Tugenberg and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Tugenberg reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Carson/Cannon) Shipe abstained, to approve the Minutes of September 27, 1989, as mailed. MSC (Carson/Cannon) Fuller abstained, to approve the Minutes of October 25, 1989, as revised, including Commissioner Shipe as being present. ORAL CO~4MUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-04: CONSIDERATION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE WESTERLY SEGMENT OF RIDGEBACK ROAD TO TERRA NOVA DRIVE - CITY INITIATED (continued from 10-11-89) Associate Planner Griffin stated that staff recommended an additional continuance to November 29, 1989. MSUC (Carson/Grasser) to continue PCM-90-04 to the meeting of November 29, 1989. PC MINUTES -2- November 8, 1989 2. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-89-1, OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING (continued from 10-11-89) Principal Community Development Specialist Robin Putnam asked that this item be trailed because of the late arrival of the consultant making the presentation. Commissioner Cannon stated that since he had just gotten the EIR, he couldn't put any input into a draft EIR not having reviewed it. Commissioner Carson agreed that they had all just received it except for Commissioner Tugenberg. Ms. Putnam replied that they had just been informed prior to the meeting; however, they would like to open the public hearing and take comments from the people present following the consultant's presentation, and then continue it further so the Commissioners would have an opportunity to read the Environmental Impact Report. Ms. Putnam stated that the consultant had now arrived and proceeded with her presentation. She explained that currently Otay Valley Road is a four-lane road with turn pockets from 1-805 east to Oleander. From Oleander to Brandywine, the road becomes a three-lane roadway with two lanes in the westbound direction and one lane in the eastbound direction. From Maxwell east of the City limits, it becomes a two-lane country road that was built by San Diego County. The proposed project entails widening Otay Valley Road to the south to provide a six-lane roadway with a 128' right-of-way. Ms. Putnam used the overhead projector to show the proposed cross section. The typical cross section for Otay Valley Road includes a 16' wide median, six 12' driving lanes, two 8' emergency parking lanes, and 12' behind each shoulder curb for sidewalks, landscaping, and utilities. The proposed cross section is consistent with the specifications in the recently updated General Plan Circulation Element. She then introduced Christine Keller from Keller Environmental. Ms. Keller stated that the Draft Environmental Statement basically identified impacts that were mitigatable for the geology and soils, biology, land use, traffic, and noise issues. She then summarized the results of the studies for those issues as follows: 1. Geology and Soils - the removal of unstable geologic and soil materials will be mitigated through the basic design of the roadway. There will be about 27,000 cubic yards of cut and 190,000 cubic yards of fill required for the project. The slopes will be 2:1 maximum with 4:1 in the western area. 2. Biology - the project will remove approximately 3 acres of wetlands. The mitigation for this impact will be the creation of a new wetlands within the river, and currently the wetlands mitigation plan is underway as well as the 404 permit. Other types of biological issues which could be potentially significant but can be mitigated have to do with the construction activities and disturbances of natural vegetation and PC MINUTES -3- November 8, 1989 additional wetlands within the 20' construction zone. The mitigation for those impacts would be the temporary construction of a construction fence as well as some net meshing at the bottom of the fence to control any kind of erosion and runoff into the wetlands. After completion of the roadway, they are proposing planting native vegetation along the roadway to provide a transition from the wetlands to the roadway and also to create a barrier, possibly using a thorny vegetation or a temporary guard fence, to minimize future encroachment into the wetlands. The area is also the nesting area for various sensitive endangered species, including the Least Bell's Vireo. No ongoing conflicts with those species were identified during the studies, but for mitigation during construction, if construction takes place between April 1 and September 15, a biologist will survey and ascertain whether there are any current nesting pairs in the area within 300'. 3. Land Use - The only direct physical conflict is with the Animal Shelter and basically the parking lot, work area, and administration building are being redesigned to the southern part of the property to alleviate this conflict. 4. Noise At the western end of the roadway where the residences are currently north of the road, the current noise levels are in excess of 64 decibels and, with this project, the City standard of 65 would be exceeded. A noise wall at the top of the hill is included in the mitigation for the project. Ms. Keller then turned the presentation over to Herman Basmajiun of the transportation traffic engineering consulting firm of Basmajiun Darnell, Inc., to summarize the traffic issue. He stated that the traffic considerations for Otay Valley Road are based on the City's General Plan Scenario IV traffic estimates and the roadway, as proposed, is commensurate with the Circulation Element and the General Plan of the City. After taking a detailed look at all the intersections along Otay Valley Road, they have developed the appropriate lane configurations at each of the major intersections. Traffic signalization needs have also been addressed and have been identified in the traffic study. The time of intersection signalization will be dependent upon the build-up of traffic and would be implemented at such time as the City Traffic Engineer deems necessary. The widening of the road itself will accommodate the land uses in the area adjacent to the roadway as well as playing the regional role that the facility is intended to serve. Chairman Tugenberg said it was probably premature for the Planning Commission to ask any questions since they hadn't had the opportunity of reading the Draft EIR; however, they could open and close the public hearing, assuming the item will be continued. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. PC MINUTES -4- November 8, 1989 Mr. Fred Borst, 172 Landale Lane, E1 Cajon 92019, stated he felt it was entirely inappropriate for this matter to be before the Commission at this time. He indicated his surprise that the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee members were not present, since they specifically work in this project area and have been working with staff. He said the Otay Valley Project Area Committee is frustrated by the cost of this project. It was reported at the last Committee meeting that this project is anticipated to cost some $6 million. There is a projected assessment district that is going to be formed and that has not been thoroughly analyzed. He and the Project Area Committee are very concerned about the cost and who is to absorb it. Mr. Borst is one of the property owners, and a significant amount of their property faces along Otay Valley Road and surrounds the Animal Shelter. Referring to pages 3-38 and 3-39 of the report, Mr. Borst pointed out that their property is referred to as the Walker-Scott property which is not impacted. He disagreed with that conclusion and stated that 52 acres of industrially zoned land is so severely impacted that much of the property will not be able to be developed as a result of this proposed widening. There are somewhere between 300 and 400 acres of usable land in the industrial project area; and it is inconceivable to him that a six-lane road with medians can be justified. He believes there are significant property owners to the east and up on Otay Mesa who will benefit significantly from this and it certainly should be looked at and a full report should be made as to how they are going to benefit. The matter should be reviewed from a regional standpoint. He stated that the property owners take very serious issue with the access that is shown into their property. In fact, all along the entire frontage of their property there is only one full signalized intersection to the east of their property at Maxwell Road. The other intersection that is planned enters into the Omar Rendering property. There are other traffic issues concerning the closeness of the area between Nirvana and Maxwell Road. He believes this matter should be thoroughly reviewed by the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee. Chairman Tugenberg told Mr. Borst the public hearing would not be closed; it would be continued and he suggested that Mr. Borst and his group might attend the Planning Commission meeting when this item would be heard again. No one else wishing to speak, Chairman Tugenberg asked staff for the appropriate date to which the matter would be continued. After discussion between staff and Chairman Tugenberg, it was decided the hearing would be held the second Wednesday in December (December 13). MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) to continue the public hearing to the second Wednesday in December. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-E AND PCZ-90-F: CONSIDERATION OF REZONING AND PREZONING TO C-O-P OF APPROXIMATELY 32 ACRES WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE MEDICAL CENTER COMPLEX AT 730-751 MEDICAL CENTER COURT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF CHULA VISTA/VISTA HILL FOUNDATION PC MI~UTES -5- November 8, 1989 Associate Planner Griffin stated this was a straightforward proposal to rezone and prezone the Medical Center complex area in order to conform to both the existing uses and also the uses planned for an extension area which is directly to the east of Community Hospital. Using overhead projection, he showed the areas to be rezoned and the current zoning of the area, along with the area to be prezoned. 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 IShipe/Carson) 5-1 ICasillas voting no) to adopt a motion recommending that the City Council rezone/prezone 32 acres to C-O-P as shown in Exhibit A. 4. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-89-9, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EASTLAKE III/OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER (Continued from 10-25-89) Environmental Review Coordinator Reid indicated that since Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 had been continued from the previous meeting and the public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been closed, that tonight the Commission would consider the Final EIR IFEIR). He then introduced Karlee Nevil, from ERC, to review the new section of that document, the Addendum, describing and evaluating the revisions to the project. After that, staff requests the Commission take action regarding the FEIR and move forward to Items 5 and 6 which would be reviewed by Jeanne Munoz, of ERC. After that, Item 7 should be considered and then appropriate action be taken on Items 5 and 6. Ms. Nevil stated that the FEIR is comprised of three components: Il) The Addendum EIR which evaluates the currently proposed project, Alternative E-l, and describes any differences between that plan, what is evaluated and the final refinements of the DEIR. (2) Responses to comments on the DEIR which are fairly standard and (3) the EIR text for Alternative E-1 which was reviewed in detail at the last Planning Commission meeting. The differences in the environmental impacts in the Addendum EIR include a larger amount of open space on the eastern edge of the project adjacent to the Otay Reservoir. The current plan is more compatible with the General Plan regarding land use. The only elements requiring a general plan amendment are two residential areas and the commercial areas just adjacent to the Olympic Training Center (OTC). The Addendum eliminates other residential areas in the original DEIR that were inconsistent. Basic improvements from a compatibility standpoint include reduction of land use impacts and aesthetic impacts. The traffic generated is reduced approximately 5 percent because of the reduction of 173 units from 2,000 to 1,835. The basic conclusion of the traffic report will not change, however, even with the reduction. The air quality and noise impacts will realize an approximate 5 percent reduction in pollutants and noise generation as will public services and utilities. The elementary school and junior high school locations have been relocated to areas on-site that are consistent with the General Plan and an additional park has been included adjoining the elementary school. Ms. Nevil concluded by saying the plan is considered environmentally superior and is recommended as a preferred alternative to the original plan. PC MINUTES -6- November 8, 1989 MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) 6-0 to certify that EIR-89-9 has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the Environmental Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and the Planning Commission has reviewed and will consider the information in the Final EIR as it reaches a decision on the project. BREAK: 7:40 to 7:45 5. CONSIDERATION OF CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS EIR-89-9, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EASTLAKE III/OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER (Continued from 10-25-89) 6. CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR EIR-89-9, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EASTLAKE III/OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER (Continued from 10-25-89) Jeanne Munoz, ERC, presented the findings as follows: Air quality impacts were significant and unmitigable in large part because the project is not incorporated into the SANDAG Series V, VI, and VII and, therefore, is not included in the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality Management Strategy. Once it is included, then that impact will be regarded differently. Three impacts found to be infeasible to mitigate to below a level of significance are water supply, energy and land-form alteration. The only way any of these impacts could be mitigated is with no project whatsoever. All other significant impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance. One correction is needed to p. 6 of the Findings - Transportation Circulation. Item D under Phase 2 should be deleted as it has already been treated elsewhere. The mitigation measures for both Police Protection and Fire Protection/Emergency Medical for the Olympic Training Center prior to EastLake III coming on line are of particular interest. On an interim, short-term basis, a private security force shall be contracted and utilized to ensure that police protection is available to the Olympic Training Center within the threshold standard. This force will be empowered to detain lawbreakers until the Chula Vista Police can arrive and take over. For Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Services, interim fire protection will be offered through properly trained, on-site, private or volunteer personnel subject to approval of the City of Chula Vista Fire Department. Medical staff will be provided by the OTC to handle medical emergencies. Transition to City police, fire and medical emergency services shall occur when and if the City is able to provide such services. To facilitate these arrangements, a communications facility (tower or antenna) must be in place prior to the opening of the Olympic Training Center. PC MINUTES -7- November 8, 1989 All other mitigation measures are standard mitigation measures and with their implementation, the significant impacts will be reduced to level of insignificance. Impacts with regard to parks and recreational facilities, biological resources, and fiscal effects were insignificant. Commissioner Cannon asked why the fact that Telegraph Canyon Road from State Route 125 to Lane Avenue is projected to operate just below LOS "C", within 400 to 2,600 daily trips above 50,000 (p. 5) is not considered a significant and unmitigable impact since it exceeds the threshold standards. Ms. Munoz replied that this was covered by the clause permitting the LOS to be exceeded twice daily. Dan Marum, JHK, said the 50,000 ADT is daily traffic volume Ithe capacity of the roadway). The volume projection for Telegraph Canyon Road east of SR 125 is in excess of that 50,000 ADT and it is projected that the first segment between 125 and Lane Avenue to the east will operate in LOS "D" Range. However, that one 3/4 of a mile segment of roadway is under design and with the preservation of right-of-way along that alignment there are opportunities to provide additional capacity beyond 50,000 approaching the freeway facility. He pointed out that the traffic analysis report states there is a segment of Telegraph Canyon Road which will have to receive special design consideration when the adjoining properties are developed so that additional lanes to access the freeway can be designed into that cross section. He added that the two additional lanes would not be general purpose lanes but would be exclusively for accessing the freeway. Commissioner Cannon replied that he had seen none of this in the mitigation measures, hence his concern that the threshold standards were being exceeded based on the statement on page 5. The impact may be, but has not been set forth as one that is mitigable based upon the mitigation measures set forth in the agreement. Further discussion ensued with Mr. Marum pointing out that the most critical element in terms of traffic operation is the ability of the intersections to operate at acceptable levels of service. Analysis of the peak period indicates that the intersections on either end of that high volume segment will operate within the threshold standards, so the provision of additional lanes to and from the freeway (beyond just the standard 6-lane prime design) is considered mitigation. Commissioner Cannon asked if that is a mitigation measure that is set forth in the statement of overriding considerations and findings such that it would lower the level of service "C". Mr. Marum replied that it did for the intersections which operate within the Growth Management Threshold Standards. It does not apply to the ADT which is really a planning tool introduced by JHK for the General Plan Circulation Element as a guideline. The criteria which must be complied with is the intersection level of service and the traffic analysis indicates that the critical intersections along Telegraph Canyon Road do comply with the thresholds. In response to a further question from Commissioner Tugenberg, Mr. Marum said the volume is forecast with the improvements of the extension of Orange Avenue from SR 125 to the Olympic Training Center. PC MINUTES -8- November 8, 1989 Commissioner Carson referenced page 8, Police Protection, and said she would like to see stronger language than that used in the sentence, "the developer may be required to participate in funding of additional services". Ms. Munoz said the verb could be changed to "shall be required". The Commissioner then pointed out that on page 12, third paragraph, third line, the word "form" should be changed to "from" in the phrase "any flood control facilities necessary to protect the sides form a 3-year storm fl ow". Also, the incomplete sentence on the same page under Visual Resources, third paragraph, "This use is inconsistent with the City and County objective of preserving the scenic .... " Ms. Munoz indicated the part missing was "quality of this roadway". Commissioner Fuller referenced page 9, Interim Fire Protection, wherein it states, "properly trained on-site personnel subject to approval of the City of CV Fire Department", and asked if the City's responsibility for liability is being protected? Would they have their own equipment and is the City protected from any liability resulting from the fact that they are using their own equipment? Deputy City Attorney Rich Rudolf replied that the conduct of any volunteer or private personnel would not be the responsibility of the City. The only potential for City liability would be inadequate or negligent training of these personnel who are involved and who would provide their own equipment. Commissioner Casillas brought up the topic of water saying that he does not believe there will be an adequate supply of water even before buildout. He would like to see some figures as to what percentage of water might be expected to be reclaimed. He asked where in the planning process can the Commission include a goal for water reclamation; that a certain percentage of water be reclaimed as a condition of approval? Mr. Reid replied that such would be a type of general policy that should be incorporated into the conservation element of the General Plan so it would apply not just to this development, but to others that take place within the City's jurisdiction. Commissioner Fuller referenced the minutes of the meeting of September 27 when Commissioner Cannon had brought up the question of water. At that time he requested that the water issue be further quantified and staff responded that it would be done. She continued that she would like to know what has been done administratively to start discussing if the City should indeed have a policy statement on the water issue; not on water reclamation or water conservation but on what will be done if everything is completed and no water is available. Director Leiter said the Otay Water Authority has a water allocation plan in place currently, an interim plan dealing with a short-time supply issue and they have the authority to deal with that on a long-term basis. The City is developing its Growth Management Policies and Element and is looking at the issue and how it might be incorporated into the Growth Management Element either from a threshold standard or how the City would deal with a long-term water supply problem in terms of overall growth in the City. Commissioner Cannon commented that he preferred to look at things from the planning standpoint of a "worst case" basis assuming that (1) a significant supply of water from Arizona is lost and (2) a significant portion of the -9- November 8, 1989 PC MINUTES water we are receiving from Northern California is lost. He would like to know what we are going to do with the current population versus what it would mean to the citizens that are here now after we allow further development. The people have a right to know. Ms. Munoz continuing on to Item 6, said that the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the General Development Plan for EastLake III/OTC, incorporates the mitigation measures included in both the EIR and the findings and also describes the standards and responsibilities of those who would be doing the monitoring as well as some 69 mitigation measures that are believed necessary to be monitored. It does not include the conditions of approval which might also necessitate some monitoring. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-18 AND GPA-90-05 - CONSIDERATION OF EASTLAKE III GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EASTLAKE III/OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF UPPER AND LOWER OTAY RESERVOIRS - EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (Continued from 10-25-89) Bud Gray, Contract Planner for the EastLake III Project, said he had no further staff comments. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. Robert Santos, President of EastLake Development Company, 900 Lane Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, 92013, stated support of staff recommendations with one exception which is that they are requesting a maximum of 1,835 dwelling units He noted that the versus the 1,817 recommended in the staff report. application under consideration was the result of over 11 months of discussion at various levels of the community and with staff. The project provides for certain minimum necessary dwelling units and levels of intensity associated with the land uses in EastLake III and provides the assurances necessary to bring a major new facility, the Olympic Training Center (OTC) to Chula Vista. EastLake III, including the OTC, is the issue tonight. The integration of the EastLake III Area and the OTC into the community requires that the property be prezoned and annexed and that the adjacent land use intensities be addressed in that context. LAFCO requires that the property be prezoned before annexation to the City. LAFCO also requires that property not be subject to corridor annexation (a long spine connecting it to the City) so the surrounding areas and adjacent land uses need to be considered. The general an and the general plan amendment proposed provide these developmen~]~ ,~ stated that the EastLake III propos~l~ ~as. recei~d~ necessary ~. ~ - · · ' n~ undue favorable consideration or treatment because of ~ts a~a~on w~n ~ OTC but has undergone more scrutiny than previous projects. EastLake's current commitment to the OTC exceeds $20 million to date and the 1,835 units requested represent a necessary minimum land use intensity based upon the economics associated with these commitments. The 1,835 units requested PC MINUTES -10- November 8, 1989 tonight equals a 20 percent reduction from the target density defined by Council in the Statement of Intentions approved in March 1987, which was in itself a 20 percent reduction from the original number approved in 1982 in the context of the then-General Plan for the City. Mr. Santos indicated that many of the issues and concerns voiced tonight by the Commission in terms of water conservation, traffic signalization and so forth will be addressed in the SPAs for the OTC and others coming before the Commission in the next few months. He then introduced Kent Aden and said he would return to answer any questions. Kent Aden, Vice President of Community Development, EastLake Development Company, 900 Lane Ave., CV, 92013. presented a brief slide show highlighting some of the aspects of the application and various components of the project. Mr. Santos returned to the podium and added a further explanation to the request for the 1,835 dwelling units in that it represented the mid-range density associated with all the land uses shown on the Revised General Plan. He emphasized that their intent is to not exceed the mid-range densities in the context of the EastLake III proposal. Commissioner Casillas asked why the name Chula Vista could not be applied to the Training Center? Mr. Santos replied that EastLake had made that request as had Mayor Cox, however, commitments had been made regionally to San Diego and to the fund raising program and the fund raisers and the Olympic Committee back East feel strongly that an association with the region (San Diego) is more valuable in raising funds on a regional basis. Regarding the water issue, Mr. Santos said that a water conservation plan for their entire property had been adopted by EastLake Development and had been presented to the Otay Water District. He offered to present their ~ater Reclamation Master Plan to the Commission. He pointed out that this had been done voluntarily but it was a mandatory program for their project. Each house built will contain low-consumption toilets, shower heads, irrigation systems and the like. Chairman Tugenberg agreed that might be agreeable for a Workshop. David C. Nielson, Executive Vice President, San Diego National Sports Training Foundation, 1904 Hotel Circle N., San Diego, 92108, representing the Olympic Training Center. Mr. Nielson expressed his appreciation for the cooperation received from staff and the enthusiasm and support for the Olympic athletes and for the program. He pointed out that they are very sensitive to the schedule and appreciate the speed with which everything has been done. They are attempting to open the facility for use by the athletes training for the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona. To do that, it is necessary to stay on schedule, to have the LAFCO Hearings in January so they can accomplish the additional discretionary reviews in the actions of the Commission and the Council and to break ground in March or April. He noted the impossibility of separating consideration of the OTC from the balance of the surrounding land. LAFCO will not spot-annex the project and land uses must be agreed upon so the needed infrastructure can be adequately financed and provided on schedule. From the Foundation's point of view, these proposed commercial and conference PC MINUTES -ll- November 8, 1989 uses are compatible and highly desirable based on studies of facilities in The types of facilities and uses Colorado Springs and other training centers. contemplated will meet demands that will be generated by the users of the facilities. They will also accommodate uses and demands generated by people from outside who want to come for technical meetings, symposiums and the like associated with the Training Center. The commercial aspect is important for the athletes, some of whom will be living there a long time. The idea of a commercial node nearby is an attraction and, from the Foundation's view, highly desirable. Frank Scott, 42 San Miguel Drive, CV 92011, representing CROSSROADS, said that CROSSROADS is deeply concerned about this item because it may be precedent-setting for future decisions concerning the General Plan and because the proposed changes pose a serious threat to the greenbelt. Using the overhead projector and data from pages 3 and 4 of the staff report, Mr. Scott illustrated the differences between the land uses and target densities currently approved by the General Plan and those proposed by EastLake III. A column was added to show the amount of traffic (ADT) that each scenario would generate. Mr. Scott stated that such increases in traffic would have significantly adverse impacts on the greenbelt. He noted that the EastLake III plan calls for all types of residential development allowed instead of only the two types of housing densities specified in the General Plan; the 33 acres of commercial development proposed exceeds that necessary for just the OTC or low-density residential while the General Plan has already provided for extensive commercial acreage just west of the OTC; the requested 45 percent increase in the currently approved residential density for the area plus the 33 acres of commercial zoning will result in an estimated 125 percent increase in traffic over the existing General Plan without the OTC. Mr. Scott concluded by saying that CROSSROADS does not object to the OTC per se but that EastLake, in return, is making a drastic change to the greenbelt concept and increasing the intensity of development in the area with resulting adverse impacts on the community at large. For that reason, CROSSROADS does not believe the proposal is in the best long-range interests of Chula Vista and the item should NOT be approved. In response to Commissioner Casillas' question about how many acres of commercial would be considered acceptable, Mr. Scott replied that approximately 10 acres or less seemed appropriate. CROSSROADS is of the opinion that the commercial is being put in for fiscal reasons only, not for the OTC but for the developer. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cannon said he considered the greenbelt concept to be one of the most important provisions in the General Plan. He can visualize the OTC fitting into the greenbelt concept and it is not an urbanized, commercialized area but is for athletes to train. While support facilities are needed, they can be found within less than a mile with no intrusion into the greenbelt area. Another factor is that this area was intended to be a low-density area, one which would provide for large, estate-type housing so badly needed in PC MINUTES -12- November 8, 1989 Chula Vista. The proposed plan calls for a considerable upgrading in the density of the project and the intrusion of a "Bonita Plaza" next to the OTC. This, the Commissioner maintained, is unnecessary. A campus-like facility located within a mile or two of supportive facilities would fit within the General Plan. Because the plan intrudes into the greenbelt which he believes should be preserved, he will vote against the item. Commissioner Casillas said he also had concerns about the size of the commercial area. He would like to see a plan that would reduce it considerably in light of the nearby commercial activity. The intrusion into the greenbelt toward the lake would destroy what cannot be replaced by any type of landscaping. A significant element would be destroyed for people who utilize the lake for recreational activities. He liked Mr. Santos' statement regarding water reclamation and looks forward to seeing the Master Plan. The entire project has a great deal of positive value and will be positive for the whole community and region, however, he cannot support the proposal in its present form and would like to see changes made. Commissioner Carson commented that the total park and recreation/open space represents over 42 percent of the project area but she would like to see it increased to 65-70 percent. The area north of Orange Avenue which has been proposed for medium density, should be retained as low-density. The OTC is a great idea but the Visitor-Commercial Area should be reduced. Commissioner Fuller said she concurred with her colleagues; that however great the concept of the OTC is, there can be no compromise of the qualities that were so important in the General Plan. Reduction of the commercial areas and the housing density is needed as well as some mitigation measures for preservation of the lake itself (undoubtedly already taken into account). Commissioner Carson interposed to say that because of the respect she has for the President of EastLake Development, she wished to ask him if it were possible to rework the proposal; that before the Commission voted tonight, would he like to request a continuance? She did not request an immediate answer but that he give the question some consideration. Commissioner Shipe concurred with the statements of the Commissioners. He said he was 100 percent in favor of the OTC; that it would be one of the greatest enhancements to the community, however, based on the greenbelt theory, the commercial facility needs to be toned down and until that is done he was facility needs to be toned down and until that is done he was unable to support the item. Commissioner Tugenberg maintained that the General Plan should not be destroyed in exchange for the Olympic Training Center. He had endeavored to look at each variation from the General Plan to see if it served a function. The high-density dormitory facility made sense on its own. The location of the Commercial-Visitor Area directly adjacent to the OTC made more sense than to have it over in the Commercial Area to the west and would cut down on traffic as it would be within walking distance. He concurred with his PC MINUTES -13- November 8, 1989 colleagues that there is an excess in the Commercial-Visitor Area and that it should be reduced in the part that intrudes into the greenbelt at the northeast corner of the OTC. The increase in dwelling unity density on the north side of East Orange Street is not needed to mitigate the impact between the facility and the low density since East Orange Street, itself, is a mitigating factor. If that should prove insufficient, grading would mitigate the impact. He would prefer to see all the densities north of East Orange Street retained at General Plan densities. Chairman Tugenberg then asked if Mr. Santos and Mr. Scott had anything further they wished to add. Mr. Scott declined but Mr. Santos returned to the podium. Mr. Santos affirmed that he appreciated the opportunity to speak and respected all the comments made tonight; that if it were possible to rework the plan tonight, he would be happy to work with the Commission; however, the firm had done a lot of soul-searching in the last several months in terms of what could or could not be done to honor the commitments to the OTC. He explained that the 33-acre commercial area is not of the "Plaza Bonita" type but is more of a mom-and-pop type of commercial activity, the student-union type of commercial area. In addition the acreage encompassed a low-intensity conference center, a church site, some garden/office facilities to support the National Governing Board for the athletic associations that will be actually involved in the Olympic Facility. He repeated that he regretted the Commission's lack of approval but would not request a continuance because of the LAFCO hearings in January. MSUC (Cannon/Casillas) 6-0 to recommend to the City Council that they disapprove the EastLake III General Plan Amendment for 1,817 dwelling units. Chairman Tugenberg declared that the motion to disapprove Item 7, dispensed with the need for any further action on Items 5 and 6. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-14 AND P-90-1: CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND PRECISE PLAN FOR TERRA NOVA, CHULA VISTA TRACT 89-14, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST "H" STREET BETWEEN HIDDEN VISTA DRIVE AND RIDGEBACK ROAD - BREHM COMMUNITIES Consultant Paul Manganelli, using overhead projection, pointed out the project area which includes 360 dwelling units on 36 acres. He noted that this is a portion of the Rice Canyon SPA which designates the area for 360 condominiums, 72 of which would be moderate income housing. Earlier this year the applicant obtained conceptual approval from the City Council to process a proposal to use a a portion of the property for detached single-family dwellings on small lots. The project consists of 234 condominiums in 23 six- and eight-unit buildings and 126 detached dwellings on lots ranging from about 3800 'sq. ft. to lO,O00 sq. ft. including slopes. The basic pad is about 40 x 95 which equates to 3800 sq. ft. The parking for the condominium portion is 2:1 one garage and one open space while the single-family units have a two-car ~arage with a driveway capable of parking two additional cars. In addition, there is PC MINUTES -14- November 8, 1989 one space on the street for each unit. The street itself in the single-family area is a 56-foot wide standard public street while the street in the multiple-family area is a private street. A precise plan and development standards have been prepared to regulate the single-family area. The precise plan covers site statistics, conceptual landscaping, fencing, patios, etc. typical in development standards. The Design Review Committee has approved the design subject to certain changes which have already been incorporated into the project. He recommended that Commission approve the project subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Carson questioned where the condos would be located. There was then discussion on the use of drought-resistant plants, on-street parking, and floor area ratios. This being the time and place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Stephen Hardison, Project Manager for Brehm Communities, 2835 Camino del Rio South, San Diego, stated they had already been to the City Council for clarification of change of unit type on a site that was pre-approved in the early 1980's. They were in favor of staff's recommendations and supported them. He noted that item no. 5 on the recreation area and item no. 6 are issues which are more of a development constraint. Item 6 gave them the opportunity to bring the recreation area on-line within 12 months of the beginning of the project. However, in item 5 in the single-family area, staff is asking them to bring the recreation area on at the beginning. They would like to combine these two conditions to allow them the 12-month period due to construction constraints. In addition, they were willing to bond for the recreation facilities. They are in both associations and will be processed through the Department of Real Estate and be obligated by many jurisdictions in addition to Chula Vista to make sure these facilities are in place. They would like the bond wording changed to some form of surety, since they may prefer to use a set-aside letter, cash or other mechanism that could be determined at a later date. Mr. Hardison then referred to item no. 7 pertaining to the landscape maintenance district. The Parks and Recreation Department has requested that the walls on the border of this project along East "H" Street as well as along Hidden Vista and Ridgeback be placed within the maintenance district. He is concerned about liability of the applicant as well as the City, and feels they can provide staff with proper documentation allowing Chula Vista to monitor and control or dictate any problems they may have with the association by putting proper language in the association documents. They are willing to accept the condition as it's worded, but would like to see it modified. He also wanted clarification of item no. 9 referring to fees. PC MINUTES -15- November 8, 1989 Mr. Hardison expressed their concern regarding items 35 and 37 referring to the ability to pull permits which may be based on future traffic impacts on "H" Street which are created by projects downstream. He requested a change in condition 41 allowing them to apply to be a part of the DIF program for whatever improvements the City may wish to put in East "H" Street. Bill Hoover, Vice President of Brehm Communities, 2835 Camino del Rio South, Suite 220, San Diego, requested the Commission to support staff's recommendation. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Carson/Casillas) certifying the Commission has reviewed and considered the EIR-79-8 Summary and Addendum. Commissioner Carson moved that the project be denied. Commissioner Cannon seconded for discussion. Commissioner Carson felt the parking plan was inadequate, that the parking would be too far from the homes, and that the FAR was being "milked" in this area. She complimented McMillin for the quality project in Terra Nova and would like to continue to see that happen. This project was not of the same quality. Commissioner Cannon indicated his dislike for small single-family developments; he would rather see a well-planned condominium project. He concurred with the floor area ratio questions raised. He would rather see more attached dwellings and more open space in between. He didn't like the overall plan in the single-family dwelling aspect. The condominium project part was fine. Chairman Tugenberg felt the project was required in the City for first-time home buyers. He would prefer to see the small lots adjacent to East "H" Street and near 805 where they have immediate access to major transportation systems than out in the eastern territories. He spoke of the desirability of having single-family homes rather than condominiums because of the absentee-owner factor. He doesn't like small lots but is in favor of this project. Regarding FAR's, it was for a specific situation that existed in the City. Those FAR's are not necessarily valid in a planned community. Commissioner Carson disagreed, and felt there was a very appropriate place in this particular project for a very well-defined clustering that would allow elimination of some of the very crowded area. Commissioner Shipe supports products for moderate-income people, but was uncomfortable with this project because of the density. He could not support the project. PC MINUTES -16- November 8, 1989 Commissioner Fuller felt the total project fits into the overall design of what they had planned for the total area. There are one or two items that they asked about regarding the developer entering into an agreement whereby they agree that the City may withhold building permits for any units in the subject division if traffic of East "H" Street exceeds the level of service. They are saying they shouldn't be held to that because the project has been on-line for a long time. Commissioner Fuller thought they should be held to that because the Commission was looking at a total project. They are coming on-line when the problem is here. She felt that should stay intact. The Parks & Recreation Department is asking that fences be part of the City, because even though they may have a homeowners organization, without the structures belonging to the City, we don't have any control over it. She did support the project. Member Casillas supported the project, however, he would like to see an area dedicated to storage of RVs. Chairman Tugenberg requested Mr. Hardison of Brehm Communities to incorporate into the homeowners agreement that recreational vehicles will not be allowed to be parked within the development. Chairman Tugenberg stated that the motion was to deny, and called for the vote. MSD (Carson/Cannon) 3-3 to deny the project. Commissioners Fuller, Tugenberg and Casillas voted no. MSC (Tugenberg/Casillas) 4-2 to approve PCS-89-14 and P-90-1 including staff recommendations. Commissioners Carson and Cannon voted no. Commissioner Fuller asked to be excused because of a possible conflict of interest on the next item. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-13: REQUEST TO ADD 180 SOCIAL MEMBERSHIPS AT THE SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB, 88 "L" STREET - SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB Associate Planner Steve Griffin stated the proposed increase in the social membership from the existing 70 social members to 250 social members was to better utilize the new clubhouse facility that was completed at the Country Club in June of this year. Using overhead projection, he showed the location of the clubhouse and surrounding area use. Chairman Tugenberg asked the applicant if he would prefer to continue this item because of the possibility of the Commission vote not being able to override the Montgomery Plannin~ Committee recommendation, since there were only 5 Commissioners present. A majority vote of 5 would be required. He could not guarantee all 5 Commissioners present would support the project. Staff then requested a 5-minute break to research the number of votes required. PC MINUTES -l?- November 8, 1989 Assistant City Attorney Rudolf regarding that the applicable provision, Section 2.48.110 of the Municipal Code, related to the duties of community planning committees. When they forward a recommendation regarding variances and conditional use permits, the Commission is required to accept their decision unless the Commission votes to change their recommendation by a 5/7 vote. Here, the recommendation differs from staff in that it is a recommendation for approval in the larger sense, but with specificity, three increments as opposed to two. So to go with staff, the Commission would be overriding the Montgomery Planning Committee view and would need 5/7ths to do that. The applicants indicated their desire to go ahead with the hearing. Mr. Griffin then proceeded to give the dimensions of the clubhouse and the capacity and operation of the facility. The clubhouse has an adjacent 175-space parking lot which serves the golf course as well as the clubhouse. There are also 30 parking spaces internally which serve the employees. He noted that the sole issue in this case was whether or not there was adequate parking to serve the increase in membership without burdening adjacent streets and residential areas. According to a Manager's Operational Profile and a parking survey conducted by an independent firm, there is adequate parking to comfortably serve the existing operation and membership. Staff recommended that the increase occur in two phases, an initial increase of 90 and then once there is some experience with that, the Club could apply to the Zoning Administrator for an additional 90 memberships and wouldn't have to go through the more formal process. It would require noticing and perhaps a parking survey to support the request. The Montgomery Planning Committee recommended 60 and then two additional increments of 60 at three-month intervals in the future. Commissioner Carson asked why the Montgomery Planning Committee wanted to go in three phases--their reasoning behind it, and facts they had to back it up. Mr. Griffin stated the Committee gave no specific reason but they may have just believed a more conservative approach might be better in this case. There wasn't really a discussion of numbers or specific concerns. He also pointed out that the applicant is supportive of the two increment 90 and 90 approach, but would prefer not to have the three increment 60, 60 and 60 approach. Principal Planner Ken Lee stated that having an increase of 90 would give staff a good measurement in terms of the impacts as far as parking, and they would have a very good understanding at that point what those total impacts were and would be better equipped to move ahead in the second phase. He didn't feel it was necessary to go through three different phases to accomplish that study. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. PC MINUTES -18- November 8, 1989 Mr. Luke Quinney, 363 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, 92101, representing the San Diego Country Club stated they were in support of the staff recommendation of two phases. At first, they would have preferred to go with one phase primarily to avoid having another parking study and avoid going through another review process. He felt that the JHK parking study showed there is ample parking available today with the clubhouse and other expanded operations. He was at the Montgomery Planning Committee meeting when they discussed the 60, 60, 60 phasing and there was no discussion and no reasons given. He asked that they send the recommendation on to the City Council, that the 90-90 phases be instituted, and stated they did agree with the other four conditions that had been imposed on the permit. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Shipe/Carson) 5-0 (Fuller out) Based on the Initial Study and the comments on the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration, that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issues on IS-90-15. MSUC IShipe/Carson) 5-0 (Fuller out) Based on the findings contained in Section E of this report recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-13 subject to the staff recommended limitations and conditions 1 thru 5. Commissioner Carson commented that they had done an excellent job on the operation profile. Commissioner Cannon commented that the Country Club needed more social members to keep their operation open for those hours. OTHER BUSINESS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Bob Leiter recommended that the study session workshop meeting to be held November 15 be cancelled. He also suggested that at the following meeting an item be put on the agenda to be discussed, "topics of future workshop meetings." He would like some input on issues they may want to discuss, like water conservation. Mr. Casillas expressed an interest in attending a seminar regarding water planning. COMMISSION COM~,~ENTS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 10:12 p.m. to the Regular Business meeting of November 29, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 'Nancy Ri~pley, ~Secre~cary Planning Commission WPC 6935P