HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/10/25 Tape: 305
Side: 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday. October 25, 1989 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Cannon, Carson,
Casillas, Grasser and Shipe
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Fuller - with prior notification
STAFF PRESENT: Deputy City Manager Krempl, Director of Planning
Leiter, Principal Planner Lee, Principal Planner
Pass, Associate Planner Griffin, Assistant
Planner Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner
Batchelder, Director of Parks and Recreation
Mollinedo, Senior Administrative Analyst Stokes,
Senior Civil Engineer Thomas, Sunbow Consultant
Nunes, Assistant C~ty 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 (Shipe/Casillas) Cannon abstained, to approve the Minutes of July 12, 1989
as mailed.
MSUC (Shipe/Casillas) to approve the Minutes of July 19, 1989 as mailed.
MSC (Shipe/Casillas) Tugenberg abstained, to approve the Minutes of July 26,
1989 as mailed.
MSUC (Shipe/Casillas) to approve the Minutes of September 13, 1989 as mailed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 25, 1989
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF MAJOR USE PERMIT FOR
MAINTENANCE OF AN R.V. STORAGE LOT AT 1375 BROADWAY
PCC-87-39M - BROADWAY EQUITIES, LTD.
Assistant Planner Barbara Reid stated that the applicant, Broadway Equities,
Ltd., had established an R.V. storage lot 4 years ago without obtaining a
major use permit from the County. The storage facility is located on the
SDG&E right-of-way on the east side of Broadway, south of Palomar Street. On
July 12, 1989, the City Council considered the appeal of denial of the major
use permit application and resolved that the storage facility be permitted to
remain for 18 months or until a Special Study was completed examining the
long-term land use of the SDG&E easement. The permission was contingent upon
seven specified conditions being completed within 60 days.
After 14 months, the only two conditions completed were the installation of
solid fencing and the initiation of the curb and sidewalk. (Ms. Reid noted
that the staff report's statement that the paving within the storage area had
been completed was in error.) The applicant then requested additiohal time to
complete all of the conditions. A continuance for one month to October 25,
1989 was granted. At the present time, most of the conditions have been
completed. Unfinished is the paving within the storage area and the
application for a sign. The Fire Department has lowered their recommendation
of fire hydrant installation from three to two but has indicated satisfaction
that significant progress has been made. Because the applicant has made
substantial progress toward completing the conditions and because the major
use permit expires in mid-January, staff recommends that the permit be all owed
to continue until that date. At that time, if desired, the applicant can
reapply.
Commissioner Grasser asked about the accuracy of the statement in the letter
received from Beatty Development which blames the delay on the processing in
dealing with the various Departments within the City of Chula Vista. Ms. Reid
replied that from speaking with the Sweetwater Authority about the fire
hydrants, and from speaking with the Engineering Department regarding the
timing, that statement was not accurate. As far as the landscaping and so
forth, those come after the other conditions have been met. Commissioner
Grasser said she was almost inclined to disapprove the item because she did
not believe some of the remarks made in the letter.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the Montgomery Planning Committee (MPC) had
agreed to the continuance of the permit to mid-January and was informed that
the item had not returned to the MPC.
Principal Planner Lee commented that in looking at the number of conditions
that had been accomplished and the well-conceived level of the landscaping in
concealing the project plus the fact that only 90 days remain, it was felt
that nothing would be gained by abating the use at this time. Commissioner
Grasser said she agreed with staff's reasoning but had a difficult time in
voting for approval under the circumstances.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 25, 1989
Commissioner Shipe said that, personally, he did not see any reason NOT to
vote to rescind the major use permit. The facility was established 4 years
ago without a major use permit; in August of 1987, the MPC scheduled an
abatement; in February of 1988, the Planning Commission denied a major use
permit because of conflicts with the Montgomery Specific Plan; and, simply
because the Council overruled the Commission and granted the applicant 18
months if certain conditions were met, has not changed his original position
established in 1988. He noted that City Council is free to do whatever it
desires, but he would vote against not revoking the item.
Commissioner Cannon said he was in agreement with Commissioner Shipe, claiming
he was more solidified in his position than he had been previously. Nothing
has been indicated from this applicant from the time of the facility's
establishment to manifest a good faith effort to comply with City
requirements. The Council gave them a reprieve in 1988 if compliance to
conditions were made within 60 day. Fourteen months later, the conditions
have not been met. To allow continuance for even 3 more months just flaunts
zoning enforcement. The issue should have been returned to the Commission a
long time ago.
MSC (Cannon/Shipe) 4-2, Grasser and Tugenberg voting no, to revoke the Major
Use Permit for the RV storage lot at 1375 Broadway, PCC-87-39M, Broadway
Equities, Ltd.
2. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-90-03 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
FOR PARK BONITA, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-03, AT THE
INTERSECTION OF "E" STREET AND BONITA ROAD - STAFFORD
GARDNER
Associate Planner Griffin stated that the item is a revised plan from the one
considered by the Commission last July. The site is a vacant 5-acre parcel at
the intersection of "E" Street and Bonita Road. The zoning is R-l-7 which
also exists to the south and west with single-family dwellings.
Multiple-family zoning and development exists to the north of the site across
"E" Street. Using the overhead projector, Mr. Griffin showed the previous
subdivision map as compared with the one before the Commission. Ne noted that
the previous plan had been supported by the Commission but denied by the
Council. The Commission, however, had adopted the Negative Declaration with
the previous request so no further environmental review is required. The
present development has been reduced by two lots which allows for the
lengthening of the interior cul-de-sac and resulted in lots that conform with
the R-l-7 zone in terms of both size and frontage. The additional width of
the lots addresses two concerns of the previous proposal; namely, limited
on-street parking and limited opportunity for front yard landscaping.
The primary condition recommended involves the perimeter treatment which is
similar to that recommended before and includes a decorative wall fronted by
landscaping on both "E" Street and Bonita Road. Also recommended is expansion
of the landscaping to provide a more significant element at that location.
With these and the other conditions and findings in the staff report, approval
of the tentative map is recommended.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 25, 1989
Jack Marshall, BHA, Inc., 1615 Murray Canyon Road, San Diego, representing
Stafford-Gardner, supported and agreed with the conditions and requested the
Commission recommend approval to the City Council.
Jackie McQuade, 339 East "J" Street, Chula Vista, noted that the project would
be a big mistake since the area has been designated as a scenic gateway to
Chula Vista. In no way can a 1,400 foot wall around the rear of two-story
buildings enhance the scenic quality of the area. It has been concluded that
there would be no significant environmental impacts, however, destruction of
the gateway area appears to be of significance as does 5,000 truck loads of
fill, additional on-street parking and traffic congestion in an area that is
already one colossal bottleneck. Ms. McQuade cited that it was "poor planning
to build a Berlin Wall at the gateway of Bonita and Chula Vista". She noted
that the wall was reportedly needed to shut out 70 dba traffic noise from the
19 houses thereby forcing 30,000 Chula Vista and Bonita commuters to look at
"ugly fortress" every day. She maintained that would be appreciated by the
citizens would be "a tiny oasis of nature" and suggested creation of an
arboretum to emphasize Chula Vista's reputation as "Tree City USA", to enhance
the scenic quality and to absorb carbon dioxide at this busy intersection (as
discussed in an article she distributed to the Commission).
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cannon maintained that the project was very nice and proposed a
good use of a piece of property that, at present, was not very attractive. He
considered it unreasonable to expect the owner of property zoned for R-l-7
should leave it open space for the benefit of the community when he not only
has a substantial investment in the property but has been paying taxes on it
on an annual basis. He commended the developer on the amended proposal which
provides a modest number of houses for the size of the property and would not,
he felt, exacerbate the traffic situation.
MSC (Cannon/Grasser) 4-2 with Carson and Tugenberg voting no, that based on
the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report to recommend that
City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Park Bonita, Chula
Vista Tract 90-03, subject to conditions 1 through 29g.
Commissioner Carson said she had voted against the item previously and this
time because although a reduction to 19 units was fine, she felt it would be
better reduced by another 4 units. Then there would be a corner available for
nice signage which ~ould address the gateway to the City of Chula Vista per
the General Plan which specifies that gateways should be "subject to special
attention and treatment to preserve and enhance the quality of the site from
the street". Beyond that, she commended the plan.
Commissioner Casillas said he supported the project because the applicant had
done a very good job in addressing the previous areas of concern, in
particular, that of more frontage. Also, the landscaping on Hilltop Drive
will be visible from both "E" Street and Bonita Road. He complimented the
developer on the plan.
Plannin~ Commission Minutes -5- October 25, 1989
3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-90-4 - CONSIDERATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN TASK
FORCE'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CONTROL,
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, AND CLUSTERING PROVISIONS OF THE
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING SECTIONS 4.5, 6.1,
6.2, 6.3, AND 6.4 AND THE ADDENDUM OF SECTION 6.4A
Deputy City Manager Krempl reviewed the background and foundation of the
nine-member Task Force to reexamine certain policies contained in the General
Plan Update relating to clustering and density transfer referenced in the Land
Use Element. Mr. Krempl noted that two members of the Planning Commission,
Commissioners Carson and Grasser had been appointed to that Task Force. He
pointed out that this was a very hard-working group possessing a good balance
between development and community interest and was certainly not a
rubber-stamp for anything. The Task Force after many meetings and discussions
concluded that there were a number of deficiencies with the previous text of
those particular policies in the General Plan. They were subject to too great
an extent to a formula-type of approach for computing density and transfers,
some of the language was ambiguous and had unintended consequences in terms of
density transfer. The text which has been presented to the Commission has
been considerably stream-lined; the definitions, in particular, of gross
residential density have been redefined; the cluster concept has been
de-mystified and some constraints have been imposed to protect community
character in the low and low-medium density categories; guidelines have been
set for establishing what the density will be within the range of each
category and there is a very limited degree of density transfer consideration
and all within the context of the total number of dwelling units authorized by
the range of the General Plan remaining constant.
Mr. Krempl continued that the new guidelines, if adopted by the Commission and
Council, will not affect existing approvals including the EastLake Greens' and
EastLake Trails' General Development Plan previously authorized, with the
exception of the high density parcels which the Commission and Council
withheld approval on and which the applicant intends, once these policies are
in place, to return for potential reconsideration. These policies, if
amended, would affect all future applications and approvals for any Planned
Community Developments forthcoming to the Commission or Council.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Shipe/Cannon) 6-0 to approve GPA-90-4 and to recommend the City Council
adopt the General Plan Amendment proposed thereunder.
4. CONSIDERATION OF CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
EIR-88-1 - SUNBOW II (Continued from 9/27/89)
5. CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR EIR-88-1, SUNBOW II
(Continued from 9/27/89)
Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 25, 1989
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-7 AND PCZ-8?-E CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED COMMUNITY PRE-ZONE FOR
SUNBOW II LOCATED SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD,
ADJACENT TO THE CHULA VISTA MEDICAL CENTER RANCHO
DEL SUR PARTNERSHIP (Continued from 9/27/89)
Commissioner Shipe stated that he had been absent from the meeting of
September 27, 1989 but had read all material related to items 4, 5, and 6 and
had listened to the tape of the September 27, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting
and was therefore qualified to participate in consideration of the items.
Commissioner Grasser said that she also had been absent from the meeting of
September 27, 1989 but had read all material related to the items, had
listened to the tape of the September 27, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting and
had seen the visual presentation and was therefore qualified to participate in
consideration of the items.
Sunbow Consultant Nunes stated that the item had been continued from the
meeting of September 27, 1989 to resolve questions regarding street
improvements particularly traffic conditions related to Telegraph Canyon Road
and levels of service at 1-805 and Telegraph Canyon Road interchange. The
Commission had asked also about how assurances are provided that proposed
public improvements would be built and in place to serve those newer
developing areas that generate traffic. A report by City Traffic Engineer
recommended the
Rosenberg had been provided to the Commission. Staff also
addition of four conditions of approval to those listed in the original staff
report. These conditions tie the City's issuance of building and occupancy
permits to the Mitigation Monitoring Program and any City-sponsored growth
management program. Mr. Nunes requested that the public hearing be reopened
for further testimony and introduced City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg.
This being the time and the place, the public hearing was reopened.
City Traffic Engineer Rosenber9 stated that the report presents an updated
assessment and review of the Sunbow II traffic impacts on the adjoining
circulation system and is intended to amplify the analysis in the EIR. It
delineates the order of improvements both on- and off-site to prove that the
evolving circulation system and the planned improvements for the
1-805/Telegraph Canyon Road will adequately serve the anticipated traffic
growth including traffic generated by Sunbow II. Mr. Rosenberg then presented
a series of Viewgraphs prefaced by a brief description of the City's
Transportation Phasing Plan to clarify the relationship between the Sunbow
Development Project and other developments proposed for the Eastern
Territories. He indicated that he would be assisted by Bill Darnell, from BDI.
City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg stated that the Transportation Phasing Plan is
based on an assumed order of land development expected to occur in ll
increments over the next 10 to 15 years in the area east of 1-805. Sunbow II
occurs during increment 2 on the Phasing Plan and continues through increment
6. Other developments are also occurring simultaneously in the eastern part
Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 25, 1989
of the City. The cumulative effect of the developments as they occur is taken
into account in analyzing the traffic impacts on Telegraph Canyon Road and
other streets in this area. Mr. Rosenberg pointed out which of Sunbow's three
phases would occur during increments 1 through 6 and indicated the threshold
point of 9,100 dwelling units during increment 5. At this point State Route
125 will be required and until it is in place, the transition planning phase
for all development will come to a halt. In reply to Commissioner Tugenberg,
he said SR-125 would need to be a four-lane freeway between Telegraph Canyon
Road and State Route 54 at that threshold point.
A long discussion took place between Commissioner Cannon and Mr. Rosenberg
regarding the level of service on Telegraph Canyon Road between 1-805 and
Oleander. Mr. Rosenberg noted that during increments 2 and 3, the current LOS
"D" at this section and also at Oleander between Telegraph Canyon Road and
Palomar would improve. After increment 5 when State Route 125 is constructed
and provides additional relief, the volumes on Telegraph Canyon Road will be
reduced. Commissioner Cannon said he had reviewed both the original and
revised Table 2 of this road section and the mistake made between the two
tables appears to be one of designation between a 6-lane major street and a
6-lane arterial; however, as the street remains physically the same, he did
not understand how the traffic level of service could be changed whether it is
called a major or a prime arterial street; it's still the same street.
Mr. Rosenberg explained that the capacity is based on the function of the
roadway and Telegraph Canyon Road functions as a 50,000, 24-hour (volume)
street. The first table was in error, it measured the capacity incorrectly.
A 6-lane major street assumes that there will be a large number of driveways
and developments causing a considerable amount of friction resulting in a
capacity of 40,000 cars at LOS "C". A 6-lane prime, like Telegraph Canyon
Road, which has limited access, few driveways and no parking has a capacity of
50,000 cars at LOS "C". In response to fu~t~r~estions, Mr. Rosenberg said
that Telegraph Canyon Road has a capacity o~ bU,UUU cars a day when we look at
a segment of the roadway. He added that when looking at the intersection, it
is necessary to take a different approach. In reply to the question of how
many cars are traversing the roadway portion of Telegraph Canyon Road to
Oleander at present, he answered approximately 40,000 cars. The Commissioner
expressed disbelief that with all the developments occurring, even after
SR-125 is in service, the volume would remain at 40,000 cars and that traffic
on 1-805 and Telegraph Canyon Road would be no worse than today's. Mr.
Rosenberg showed a road layout of alternate access routes that the Sunbow
Project will make available; namely, extensions of Medical Center Drive,
Palomar, Orange and Oleander. He then indicated additional planned
improvements including the construction of Paseo Ladera, improvements to the
Telegraph Canyon Road/I-805 interchange.
The Sunbow Traffic Consultant, Phil Darnell, had pointed out some potential
improvements to the signal timing at the intersection and CalTrans has been
contacted. Other recommended improvements to the interchange included:
widening within the right-of-way on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road to
facilitate the move onto the northbound lanes of 1-805; narrowing of the
Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 25, 1989
median and readjusting the existing traffic lanes from 12 feet to possibly ll
(which admittedly may create a problem for the bicycle lane; signalization for
the westbound to southbound left turn lane at the intersection; signalization
of the left turn movement on the southbound off-ramp; minimal widening of the
southbound ramp scheduled by CalTrans for 1990 at a cost of $450,000; widening
of Telegraph Canyon Road on the south side to provide three lanes and
improvement of the northbound off-ramp to provide more capacity. Also
included are some improvements on the southbound ramp and perhaps the creation
of two lanes so that the traffic can turn more efficiently to travel east on
Telegraph Canyon Road.
Commissioner Tugenberg inquired if the median on Telegraph Canyon Road in
front of Halecrest would be removed. Mr. Rosenberg replied that the report
contained a recommendation to perform a feasibility study to determine the
benefits of suspending the island across Halecrest to provide a more efficient
operation of the signal system. The signal may be best served at the main
entrance to the shopping center and also allow for U-turns for those persons
wishing to access the Halecrest neighborhood.
Commissioner Cannon said he was still having difficulty in how renaming a
roadway affects the LOS. If the road is being regarded in the abstract as a
non-constrictive flow because it doesn't have very many curb cuts, that is one
thing - but if the determination has been made by looking at Telegraph Canyon
Road as it exists today, then how can a mistake be made by merely naming it
incorrectly? Either the traffic is there and the LOS is there, or it is not.
He then asked if the Traffic Engineer had any further information on when
CalTrans would be making changes to the off- and on-ramps to Telegraph Canyon
Road and I- 805 as well as other interchanges in the City of Chula Vista. Mr.
Rosenberg said he had no information available other than the proposed project
at the west end. Further, the 5-year study period he had mentioned at the
last meeting may have been misleading because at that time there was
speculation about reconfiguration of the entire interchange which would
certainly have required such a long study program.
Commissioner Carson asked what improvements would take place if Sunbow project
was NOT approved and was told that the improvements for the southbound
signalization at the west end of the bridge would be completed whether or not
Sunbow project is approved.
In response to Commissioner Casillas' statement that he would like to have the
recommended improvements completed prior to occupancy for each phase of
Sunbow, Mr. Rosenberg indicated that such requirements could be made more
specific as the project proceeded to the SPA Plan and the tentative map.
Commissioner Carson indicated confusion about whether the discussion between
Mr. Rosenberg and Commissioner Cannon had involved the 1-805 northbound
on-ramp or not since the answer given to the Commissioner indicated that
~-~ordination with CalTrans was not yet final. Mr. Rosenberg replied that he
had been referring to the northbound off-ramp. The minimal widening on the
northbound on-ramp might not require that kind of review and permit process
because it is slightly off-site of the jurisdiction and might be completed
without too much effort on CalTrans' part.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 25, 1989
Commissioner Carson commented that she had anticipated receiving some very
defined figures as to when these improvements would occur or that coordination
with CalTrans was already underway. She maintained she would like something
more definite than phrases such as, "it requires coordination", "can be
designed" and the like. Mr. Rosenberg reminded the Commissioner that the
report specifies that Sunbow cannot proceed past certain phases of development
unless these improvements are provided. A letter had been received from
CalTrans which has committed them to the improvements for the southbound
off-ramp and a signalization in 1990. As far as the widening under the bridge
or any other improvements, they have not been negotiated but can be done
within a time frame required for Sunbow to proceed with their development.
Commissioner Tugenberg inquired if CalTrans had been approached about the
northbound on-ramp from Telegraph Canyon Road. Mr. Rosenberg said that could
be done.
Commissioner Cannon remarked that when Rancho del Rey was discussed, that
particular on-ramp was to be improved as well as "H" Street. It was to be
done within a time frame that enabled the City to retain traffic control in
the area; tonight, he is hearing that the time frame is not known. The
Commissioner continued that 3 or 4 years seem to have been lost in discussions
and that we do not appear to be any closer to solving traffic problems already
in existence, much less future problems. Mr. Rosenberg explained that Sunbow
I was conditioned to provide improvements to that particular ramp and to the
widening of the roadway to provide a dual left turn to travel northbound on
the ramp. Although the transaction occurred before his arrival, he is certain
that it was coordinated with CalTrans.
Commissioner Cannon said the problem is not just Sunbow but all of the
projects which will add more traffic to this section which is already close to
capacity. The answer he is looking for is on an overall basis, but the
answers being given seem to involve only one project. A 40,000 ADT is shown
at Telegraph Canyon Road and 1-805 now, with a capacity of 10,000 more;
however, all these projects coming on line will add much more than 10,000
cars. What will be done with all those cars?
Mr. Rosenberg acknowledged that interchanges are going to be a problem
throughout the City; not only along 1-805, but along SR-125 when it is
constructed, and along I-5. It becomes a question of tolerance and what level
of service we are willing to accept as a condition of development.
Jeanne Munoz, ERC, said she had submitted to the Commission additions to both
the Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan reviewed at the prior
meeting. The additions are based on the report generated by the City Traffic
Engineer. Except for one inadvertent omission, the Commission has the full
package. The mitigation monitoring measure omitted was:
Phase 3, Mitigation Measures for Traffic. Widen the south side of
Telegraph Canyon Road under the Interstate 805 overcrossing to provide a
third eastbound through lane between the ramps and restripe/widen the
northbound off-ramp to provide two northbound to eastbound right turn
lanes.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 25, 1989
The only subsequent changes is a minimal amount of reordering of when certain
of these improvements to the transportation system shall occur.
Ms. Munoz indicated that it was appropriate for the Commission to determine
whether these Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring Program be adopted.
Tim Kruer, 2445 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, representing Rancho del Sur, the
developers of Sunbow, acknowledged support to the modified conditions of
approval presented by staff and which it is hoped will satisfy some of the
concerns raised at the previous meeting regarding Telegraph Canyon Road and
1-805 interchange. As requested, they have worked with staff to provide
additional information regarding present and future traffic conditions at the
interchange. Their consultant's, BDI, on-site observations of the traffic
specifically at the interchange confirmed that the present level of service
was "C". He explained that the levels of service shown on this roadway were
obtained from General Plan and the error in Table 2 came from taking the LOS
from the wrong place in the Table. Mr. Kruer reiterated the willingness of
the developer to work with the City and with CalTrans, as a condition of their
occupancy, to satisfy some of the concerns that relate to that interchange.
They have previously funded $70,000 for the signal for the southbound off-ramp
that was a condition of their Phase I, although most of the traffic did not
originate in their project but in the neighborhood to the west. They
interpret the identification of these mitigation measures as being an
implementation of the DEIR, previously approved by the Commission on September
27, 1989, and are willing to proceed with the additional provisions based on
the understanding that staff will initiate amendments to the areawide DIF
Program to include these recommended traffic improvements as soon as possible
within the existing improvements. He pointed out that these improvements are
required not only because of Sunbow Phase II Project but because of the
cumulative regional impact of all the projects shown on the Chula Vista
Traffic Phasing Plan. Sunbow represents less than 20 percent of the traffic
through phase 6. Sunbow requests that all projects within the planning area
have similar conditions tied to their occupancy so that these conditions will
be worked on by the development industry to help solve these problems of
concern. He also pointed out that the construction of Medical Center Drive,
Orange Avenue and Palomar will actually reduce the traffic at that interchange
and, in fact, the cumulative impact of the Sunbow Project through phase 5 of
the Phasing Program is less at that interchange than it would be at phase 1
which has only Sunbow's phase 1 traffic involved.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Casillas said he was still troubled by the traffic. He commended
Mr. Rosenberg on his October 17 report. However he is still wondering and
doubtful of Column 1 in Table 2. He does not believe that at increment 5 and
6, traffic will be at LOS "C" in that area. He asked if it would not be
preferable to effect those improvements even prior to occupancy of these
various phases. The sooner work is begun, the sooner conditions can be
ameliorated. In Column l, increment 2, 47,000 ADT is shown at the
interchange. Then in increment 2, 41,000 is shown and he has difficulty
Plannin9 Commission Minutes -ll- October 25, 1989
believing that. He is of the opinion that these improvements should go in
much faster than the "projections"; there are too many weasle-word$ involved
in the recommendations; and what was requested at the last meeting was not
supplied to his disappointment.
Nonetheless, Commissioner Casillas moved to accept the traffic report that
describes the effect of the phase development of Sunbow II in the adjoining
circulation system.
Chairman Tugenberg remarked that the CEQA Findings must be considered first;
whereupon, Commissioner Casillas withdrew his motion.
Commissioner Cannon stated that the Sunbow Project overall will be of benefit
to the City but he remains gravely concerned about the traffic situation on an
It is necessary that this traffic
overall basis of all the projects.
situation be monitored very closely. Regardless of what the Tables say, he
can look at traffic as it exists now and it's not the way it ought to be. The
proposed improvements will help - enough, a~c,}east, for Sunbow to be developed
- but Sunbow is taking a chance that LOS will not be exceeded. He will
vote for Sunbow with some trepidation mainly on traffic.
Commissioner Tugenberg said he would like to encourage Sunbow to punch through
Medical Center Drive to Palomar to Orange as rapidly as possible. He agreed
with Mr. Kruer that Sunbow will have a very neutral effect on that stretch of
Telegraph Canyon Road provided that the connection to East Orange goes through
in Phase 1.
MSUC {Casillas/Grasser) 6-0 to approve the CEQA Findings, the Statement of
Overriding Considerations for EIR 88-1, Sunbow II.
MSUC {Casillas/Cannon) 6-0 to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR
88-1 as presented.
{Casillas/Cannon - for discussion purposes) to accept the Traffic Report which
describes the effect of the phase development on the Sunbow II project and the
adjoining circulation system; and further recommend that staff continue
discussions with CalTrans and process necessary agreements to site
improvements to 1-805 and Telegraph Canyon Road interchange; and, in addition,
to recommend approval of the following roadway improvement scheduling program
as presented for Phase I, Phase 2, Phase 3, and the additional Mitigation
Measures required for project-related traffic included in the following three
items:
Installation of signal at East Palomar Street/Paseo Ladera Street shall
occur before completion of the project.
The project shall contribute toward improvement {widening and
signalization) to Interstate 805 interchange with Telegraph Canyon Road/L
Street, and Orange Avenue on a fair share basis, to the satisfaction of
the City.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 25, 1989
Prior to any tentative map approval, the project proponent shall prepare a
public facilities financing plan to determine the extent and nature of the
community facilities necessary to serve this portion of Chula Vista east
of Interstate 805 and south of the existing Development Impact Fee area.
This financing plan shall identify the project's responsibility toward
construction and financing these facilities. The plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the City during the subdivision process.
Commissioner Cannon said he had some questions regarding coverage of all
items. Being discussed in the public hearing is consideration of the General
Development Plan and the Planned Community Pre-zone; however, he found no
recommendation in the staff report regarding those items.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said what had been omitted from the report were
the recommendations in the staff reports of September 27, 1989 which would
have been to approve the General Development Plan, approve the Planned
Community Pre-zone for Sunbow II subject to the conditions listed in the
report and based on the findings in Section "E" plus the additional four
findings found· on page 2 of the present staff report. He expressed
uncertainty if the motion had included that or had some additional items.
AMENDED MOTION
MSUC (Cannon/Carson) 6-0, to approve the General Development Plan and the
Planned Community Pre-zone for Sunbow II, PCM-89-7 and PCZ- 87-E, subject to
the conditions contained in the staff reports subject to the findings
contained in the staff reports and equally subject to the October 17, 1989
conditions and recommendations set forth in the note to the Planning
Commission of that date from Harold Rosenberg via John Lippitt.
BREAK: 9:10 to 9:20
Chairman Tugenberg announced that Commissioner Grasser has a potential
conflict of interest with the Olympic Training Center items and has left the
meeting.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) DRAFT EIR-89-9, EASTLAKE III/OLYMPIC
TRAINING CENTER
8. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-89-9 EASTLAKE III/OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER
9. CONSIDERATION OF CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
- EIR-89-9 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EASTLAKE III/OLYMPIC TRAINING
CENTER
10. CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR EIR-89-9 GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EASTLAKE III/OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER
Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 25, 1989
ll. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-18 AND GPA-90-5 - CONSIDERATION OF EASTLAKE III
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE; AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR EASTLAKE III - EASTLAKE
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Bud Gray, Contract Planner for the EastLake III Project, said he proposed to
present an overview of the General Plan Amendment and the General Development
Plan for EastLake Development which will, hopefully, facilitate the
Commission's understanding and shorten the length of time needed for the
environmental issues. He then indicated that a few "housekeeping" items
needed attention.
The title of Item ll, contains a reference to a General Development Agreement
for EastLake III which is an error. There is no Development Agreement in the
packet and the item is not before the Commission this evening because it has
not been reviewed adequately by staff as yet.
The reference in the staff recommendation of Item ll saying, "...1817 dwelling
units which is consistent with the midpoint number of units authorized by the
proposed General Plan Amendment..." is in error and should be disregarded.
The "1817 dwelling units" is a figure which is equal to the maximum number of
dwelling units permitted by the recently adopted General Plan Update.
The Commission has been supplied with two new conditions to be added to the
General Development Plan, #17 and #18, and copies are available at the
Secretary's desk for anyone wishing one. He read the conditions into the
record as follows:
17. The total amount of natural open space depicted on the EastLake III
Genral Development Plan shall remain equal to or greater than the
open space shown on the General Plan.
18. At the time of the SPA Plan submittal, the applicant shall provide
evidence that the visitor-serving commercial uses are directly
related to and ancillary to the functions of the OTC.
Mr. Gray explained that there was a considerable number of acres of
visitor-serving commercial contained in the plan, and it is desired that at
the time of the SPA Plan, those visitor-serving types of commercial uses will
support the functions of the OTC and not stand alone.
On page 13 of the staff report reference is made to the amount of open space
in the adopted General Plan versus the amount of open space in the proposed
EastLake III General Development Plan. Mr. Gray's calculations, however,
indicated more open space in the proposed EastLake Plan than is currently
shown on the General Plan. However, through a different method of
calculations, Gary Cinti, the Planning Consultant for EastLake, indicates 9
acres less open space in the General Development Plan. As there is no
official General Plan Map yet to work from, those numbers can be considered
ESTIMATES at this time. Condition #17 has been proposed as a guarantee that
whatever eventual calculations result, there will be no net decrease of open
space as shown in the General Plan for this project
Planning Commission Minutes -14- October 25, 1989
Mr. Gray emphasized that the project is of special interest to the City of
Chula Vista and has already been the subject of meetings with the Council in
different settings. Consideration was given by Council in August and a
statement of intentions was adopted by resolution back in February wherein
Council pledged to put this project on a fast-track schedule and recognized
certain commitments made by the City to the applicant. The special interest
is caused by the Olympic Training Center which is a part of EastLake III and
in order for the Olympic Training Center to annex to the City of Chula Vista a
plan and zoning of a plan for EastLake III is required. EastLake III is not
being taken out of its sequence, it is being advanced in te~ms of the initial
zonin~ to permit annexation of the OTC to the City and facilita-{~--f~
development. There is no plan to actually start development of the remainder
of EastLake III before 1993.
Mr. Gray then presented slides showing the location of the proposed site, its
components and its relationship to surrounding developments.
Mr. Gray spoke of the special task force that had been formed because of the
need for fast-track processing of the OTC. The task force was made up of
representatives from five or six departments. They met with the EIR
representatives and EastLake approximately lO times, identified issues from
all the representatives and then worked on solutions. Approximately seven
different versions of the plans were considered before this one, Alternative
E-1. Four main issues kept reoccurring including: (1) The open space issue
which was considered of great importance because of the need to maintain the
integrity of the green belt system contained in the General Plan. EastLake,
therefore, revised their plans to pull development back from the greenbelt.
(2) Consideration of a possible need for an intensification of land use around
the OTC; its configuration and mix. It was felt that if such a justification
for altering the land use pattern in the General Plan Use existed, it would be
only in close proximity to the OTC itself. Mr. Gray concluded by saying the
plan before the Commission has been coordinated with the San Diego Sports
Training Foundation, which is actually pursuing the OTC, and has been filed,
is being reviewed by staff and will be before the Commission later in the
year. The main reason staff is supporting the General Plan Amendment is
because of the OTC. The intent is to make the best plan supportive of the OTC
and for that reason, the recommendation is to support and approve the General
Plan Amendment and the proposed General Development Plan. Mr. Gray then
recommended proceeding with opening the public hearing and taking further
testimony on the DEIR.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked why the OTC could not be annexed to the City by
itself. Mr. Gray replied that EastLake Development has made financial
commitments to facilitate development of the OTC and needs to know prior to
making that commitment of resources what kind of a plan it can count on in the
future.
The Commission moved on to consideration of Item 7, and Commissioner Shipe
said that although he had been absent at the meeting of September 7, 1989, he
had read the material and listened to the tape of that meeting and felt
qualified to vote on the matter.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- October 25, 1989
Jeanne Munoz, ERC, stated that they would like to receive any more public
testimony and to respond to questions as they arrive and then to request that
the Commission direct staff to prepare written statements of those comments
and written versions of the responses and include it in the Final EIR as it
will go forward to City Council.
This being the time and the place, the public hearings on Items 7 and 11 were
opened.
Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, CV, said he had received the revision to the
EIR and that he had submitted a letter previously listing three objections and
noted his concerns had been partially addressed. He reviewed the connections
between the water districts with regard to supplies and noted that court cases
were being filed against LA for excessive water use through Mono Basin. The
State Legislature has passed a bill to pay Los Angeles Water District to buy
300,000 acres feet of water (normal use is 75,000 acre feet) which will
adversely affect the other water districts. Mr. Watry stated that the EIR has
never addressed the problem that the Otay Water District might find itself
without water when LA starts taking its full share.
Will Hyde, 803 Vista Way, CV, representing Crossroads, said he had been
confused by the two editions of the EIR in which some differences were shown
particularly in relationship to open space. Mr. Hyde's concern dealt with the
professionalism of those who prepared the EIR. He noted that it is stated
several times in the EIR and in the staff report that the EastLake III
Proposal is consistent with the Adopted General Plan. This has been the
position of the consultants all along. He then read an extract from page 2-1
of the October issue saying, "The proposed densities, although inconsistent
with the General Plan, do not represent a significant impact due to their
compatibility and appropriate siting in proximity to the proposed OTC land
use." Mr. Hyde says to him that appears to be a subjective opinion. Mr.
Gray, in his comments, had indicated that there was considerable inconsistency
between the proposed plan and the Adopted General Plan. This should be
clearly understood. In many places throughout the document, the author has
taken the position of minimizing the impacts which occur. This could create
in the minds of some people the impression of a "snow job" on behalf of the
project. From a professional standpoint, he maintained, an EIR should be
objective, put out the facts and let the judgment of those facts be left to
those parties that are responsible for interpreting it.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing on Item 7 was closed.
Commissioner Cannon said he had some concerns regarding the project in general
and the EIR specifically that warrant, in his mind, another 2 weeks
consideration on his part. If the Commission accepts that, he would take that
time to specifically review all of the items between now and November 8 mainly
because he sees intrusion into the open space around the City of Chula Vista.
He has not been convinced that there needs to be that much commercial area
around the entryway to the Olympic Training Center, and entertains doubts
about the compatibility and consistency. Normally, the DEIR is reviewed, the
comments are returned and then the Final EIR is considered and the project
discussed. He would like to see it occur in this instance.
Plannin9 Commission Minutes -16- October 25, 1989
MSUC (Cannon/Carson) 5-0, Grasser out, to continue items 8, 9, lO and ll to
the meeting of November 8, 1989.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Leiter stated that the meeting of November 22 would be
canceled because of Thanksgiving and would be held on November 29.
In addition, the Workshop Meeting of November 15 is normally a dinner meeting
but as the Board and Commissions' Banquet follows the next night, he asked if
the Commission wished to postpone the dinner portion of the Workshop meeting.
The answer was affirmative.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Cannon noted that he would not have been present on November 22,
1989.
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:58 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of
November 8, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
M?~ml th~, Recx~rding Secretary
WPC 6885P