Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/05/10 Tape: 298 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 10, 1989 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Cannon, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Casillas - with notification STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Environmental Review Reid, Associate Planner Griffin, Montgomery Consultant Lettieri, General Plan Consultant Gray, Senior Civil Enqineer Daoust and Deputy City Attorney Fritsch PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the fl ag was led by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Fuller/Shipe) 6-0, to approve the Minutes of April 12 with corrections to page 4 to read "Sweetwater Union High School" and in the Director's Report to indicate the date of the next meetinq to be 5/10/89 instead of 5/19/89. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-20 AND PCS-89-8 - CONSIDERATION OF A SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP KNOWN AS WOODCREST SOUTHWESTERN, CHULA VISTA TRACT 89-8, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN APACHE DRIVE AND BUENA VISTA WAY - WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT Commissioner Cannon said he had a potential conflict of interest with this item so he would abstain from voting. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 10, 1989 Associate Planner Griffin stated that the applicant Had requested a 2-week extension on this item to the meeting of May 24, 1989 and staff was in concurrence. MSC (Tugenberg/Fuller) Cannon abstained, 5-0, to continue the item to the meeting of May 24, 1989. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-I CITY INITIATED PROPOSAL TO REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY "L" STREET ON THE NORTH, BROADWAY ON THE WEST, OXFORD ON THE SOUTH, AND FOURTH AVENUE ON THE EAST, FROM ITS CITY-ADOPTED (COUNTY-ZONING) CLASSIFICATIONS TO THE CITY CLASSIFICATIONS UTILIZED THROUGHOUT CHULA VISTA. THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC REZONINGS, AND THEIR PRECISE TERRITORIAL LIMITS ARE DEPICTED ON ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT "A" Commissioner Fuller stated that she had a potential conflict of interest since she was a property owner and resided in the area. She then left the dais and the Chambers. Montgomery Consultant Lettieri said the proposal involved the reclassification of a portion of the Castle Park "A" Subcommunity by the Montgomery Specific Plan as outlined in the staff report and would convert the existing City-adopted County zoning to City zoning classifications as indicated on Exhibit "A". Mr. Lettieri noted that the Montgomery Planninq Committee had approved staff's recommendation at the meeting of April 5, 1989, except for the area west of Fifth Avenue and north of Oxford which they recommended as an R-l-? zone to be consistent with the single-family character of the rest of the development east of Fifth Avenue. Staff recommends adoption of the indicated rezoning classifications based on the fact that: (1) The Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted by the Council and these zone reclassifications are proposed to implement that plan. (2) In the case of the area west of Fifth Avenue, South of Moss and along Wykes Street and Welton Street, it is proposed from RV-15 to R-l-7; that reclassification is consistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan and seeks to preserve the single-family residential character in the area. In all other cases, staff is recommending that a City zoning classification that is somewhat of an equal conversion from the County's existing zoning be adopted. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Kay Everitt, 469 Emerson, Chula Vista, 92011, said she had presented a letter to the Montgomery Planning Committee with copies sent to the Planning Department and to City Council in opposition to the rezoning of the property on the west side of Fifth Avenue from Nickman Street south to Oxford Street from RV-15 to R-2. She stated that the area is now heavily zoned R-3 (apartments) and that additional zoning for townhouses or duplexes was not feasible; that a more logical zoning would be R-l-? which Planning Commission Minutes -3- May lO, 1989 coincides with the present zoning of R-l-? along a portion of Fifth Avenue. Ms. Everitt pointed out that the Sweetwater School District would benefit financially with the higher zoning when its property is sold and that the City Council had expressed opposition to the zoninq of R-2-P west of Fifth Avenue between Naples and Oxford. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Carson's question Consultant Lettieri confirmed that the main reason the Montgomery Planning Committee had wanted the referenced R-2-P area to R-l-7 is the concern regarding the number of units that could be built under the R-2 zone as opposed to simple single-family zoning. He added that staff would not oppose the recommendation; however, during the hearings on the Montgomery Specific Plan this issue had been discussed and the area was designated Medium-Residential rather than Low-Medium Residential. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that Mr. Lettieri appeared to be orienting the property on the west to those properties farther west; however, individual perspective determines whether the orientation is to the higher density to the west or the lower density to the east. The Commissioner said it is his opinion that inasmuch as Fifth Avenue is a major thoroughfare, the orientation of the property should be to the east in agreement with the recommendation of the Montgomery Planning Committee. Commissioners Cannon, Carson and Shipe stated their agreement with Commissioner Tugenberg. MSUC (Shipe/Cannon) 5-0, Fuller out, that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and readopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. MSUC (Shipe/Cannon) 5-0, Fuller out, to recommend that City Council enact an ordinance to change the zones as described in Exhibit "A" with the exception that the R-2 zone on the map would be changed to R-l-?. Commissioner Fuller returned to the Chambers and the dais. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-88-2 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that the General Plan Update includes the City of Chula Vista, its sphere of influence and some areas in addition to its currently defined sphere that are within its planning area. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by P&D Technologies is quite general in nature and the degree of specificity corresponds to the degree of specificity in the General Plan Update documents. Two letters of comments have been received, one from the Traffic Consultant of the Rancho del Rey Partnership and the second from the Elementary School Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 10, 1989 District. No comments have been received from the State Clearinghouse as yet. Staff's recommendation is that any letters coming from the State Clearinghouse be included in the Final EIR. Mr. Reid then introduced Gary Wood of P&D Technologies to present general background on the status of the General Plan itself (which would comprise a project description), and Betty Dehoney who would give a brief summation of the impact analysis. Gary Wood, P&D Technologies, 401 West A Street, Ste 2500, San Diego, 92101, stated that preparation of the plan began in August, 1986. The result is the distribution of the Draft General Plan, its companion map and the EIR. He noted that the purpose of the General Plan is to have a generalized blueprint of the development and redevelopment of the City over the next 15-20 years. The plan is a build-out General Plan to show development and preservation of the entire planning area which includes Central Chula Vista Area, the Bayfront Area, the Montgomery Area, the Sweetwater Area and the Area called the Eastern Territories. Mr. Wood outlined the key phases including the initial phase of data collection and analysis including an economic base study of the City; interviews and establishment of goals and objectives; re-examination of these repeatedly; preparation of General Plan Alternatives Scenarios ! through III; and the creation of Scenario IV which is the base for the General Plan text and the EIR. Betty Dehoney said that 15 issues were evaluated in the EIR. She emphasized that because of the lack of specificity of the General Plan, the impacts are based on conceptual land uses and many will have to be re-evaluated in the future with site-specific evaluations to determine whether those impacts are significant and unmitigable at that time, or whether mitigation measures can be incorporate~.to reduce the level of impact or significance. Ms. Dehoney gave a precis of the 15 issues as outlined briefly in the staff report and in a more detailed manner in the EIR. Ms. Dehoney said that in accordance with CEQA, the "no-project" alternative was evaluated. This would be the retention of the existing General Plan and, because several unmitigated significant impacts were evaluated, a reduced urban land use designation was evaluated. Also, in conformance with CEQA, an alternative site was evaluated. This was considered unfeasible because of the lack of suitable vacant land in the vicinity. Two site-specific alternatives were evaluated, the Rancho San Miguel concept plan and the Olympic Training Site. Both of these projects, when submitted, will require subsequent environmental review to determine the level of significance at that time. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that during the review of the Draft EIR by other public agencies, a meeting had been held with the Sweetwater Authority who provided some clarifying language about water availability versus the availability of transmission and storage facilities; these suggestions will be incorporated in the Final EIR. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May lO, 1989 Commissioner Carson said she had noted one typo on page 3-56 in the EIR under Air Quality. In the spread sheet calculations - the noise refers to Appendix "E" and this should be corrected to Appendix "F". This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Matt Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Matt Peterson, of Peterson the law firm of Peterson and Price, 530 "B" Street, #2300, San Diego, CA 92101. As you know, we represent Chula Vista Investors with regard to their proposed Chula Vista Bayfront Project. I apologize for this late submittal of the letter I have just submitted this evening. Unfortunately, we are experiencing some communication problems with your staff and did not find out about this hearing until this afternoon. Further, my client was never notified by any formal notice of this hearing even though, certainly, his property interests may be affected by this as well as the General Plan Update. As the Planning Commission is aware, our client is currently processing plans through the City to put the Chula Vista Bayfront Project. Because the proposed uses on the site are different from the previously approved Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program, we would request that a new Alternative be prepared and incorporated into the EIR for the General Plan. This new Alternative -- this, by the way, -- this Alternative would be similar to the ones you just heard about, the Mother Miguel Mountain Alternative and the Olympic Training Site Alternative. It is not an extremely detailed Alternative for the Chula Vista Bayfront but something similar in character. This new Alternative would be titled, obviously, the Chula Vista Bayfront Project Alternative. We have recently submitted to staff revised project plans which are diagrammatic in nature and we would be available and willing to work with P&D Technologies as well Keller Environmental, who is doing the environmental work on the Bayfront, to develop the wording and appropriate documentation to be put into the EIR for the General Plan Amendment. At the Planning Commission and City Council hearings regarding the Draft Chula Vista General Plan, we will be requesting that minor modification be made to both the text and the General Plan Land Use Map. I have attached for your review a copy of sections of the Land Use Map. You can see here the Special Plan Area designation we feel would be appropriate for the Chula Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 10, 1989 Vista Bayfront site. The reason we feel it is appropriate is that if the General Plan goes forward as it is, the land use designations that are currently on the Map would become part of the General Plan. If we proceed forward with our proposed project Bayfront Project - those uses invariably would be different from these as shown. Therefore, we would request that the designation of Special Plan Area be placed over the entire site so that it would allow the City to have flexibility in dealing with the proposed project and then wouldn't have to come back forward again with another General Plan Amendment in the future based upon the new uses, if it so proved. If for some reason, the City does not approve the Chula Vista Bayfront Project, then the previously approved project would still be in place, still be existing, and, obviously, would be consistent with the Special Plan designation. So, we would respectfully request that you first direct P&D Technologies to prepare an Alternative to be placed into the EIR (and we would be willing to work with them and help with them so that we don't lose any time at this point). And, secondly, direct the Planning Department to look at the text and the Map itself and incorporate these changes so there is a Special Plan designation on the property. Thank you very much. Comm. What is staff's position on the request that Mr. Peterson made. Cannon It makes sense to me. Director Madam Chain~an, with respect to the designation of the property Krempl on the General Plan itself, ! believe that comment should be appropriately considered when we consider the General Plan on the 31st of May, and not at the hearing this evening. With respect to the request regarding including a Bayfront Alternative in the Environmental Impact Report Analysis and directing P&D to do the same, we believe that is not appropriate from the standpoint of timing and would inordinately delay consideration of the EIR and General Plan. We think the consideration of an Alternative on the Bayfront, the Environmental Review should stand alone and would be amended at the appropriate time. If we had had the request in a sufficient prior period of time to have incorporated it into the General Plan as an Alternate, I think we would have done so, but the timing was no such to allow that. Mr. Chairman Carson, I just need to respond to that quickly. We Peterson have no intention of delaying the EIR at this point. We did present this concept to staff well over 2 months ago. It has just gone on and on and we have never been able to get anywhere with this particular request. So as an alternative to giving a full analysis now, maybe, as an alternative that could be easily drafted into the EIR, it would just be a Special Plan designation for the site rather than a full analysis of the Chula Vista Bayfront Project as we conceive it now. That certainly shouldn't delay them any weeks. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 10, 1989 Chm Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Are you satisfied with your answer? Carson Mr. Jeff Brinton. Mr. Good evening, members of the Commission. My name is Jeff Brinton Brinton. My address is 401 "B" Street, San Diego, CA 92101. I am an attorney who is representing Mr. Herbert Beckett, property owner,' whose 40 acre parcel lies at the end of San Miguel Road in the City's Sphere of Influence and thus is being designated under the proposed General Plan Update. Currently, Mr. Beckett's land is designated for Residential use. Under the proposed General Plan, it would become Open Space. We are opposed to this change. We appreciate the City's mandate to plan for open space, and its development of open space ...... Certainly, that mandate is outlined in the Environmental and other documents that the City has prepared. However, we are more concerned with those associated mandates or intentions as specified by the Legislature which appear on Open Space designations. Namely, that the Legislature's mandate is not intended to justify Open Space designation for other than health, safety and welfare reasons. Furthermore, it is certainly not a license or intended as a license for local governments to take private property without just compensation. Apparently, the City's justification for the Open Space designation in the area of Mr. Beckett's property would be Visual Relief and, perhaps, Reservoir Protection. Insofar as Visual Relief, I don't think that is going to measure up to the health and safety aspect. Mr. Beckett's property, just for reference purposes, if you save just south of Sweetwater Reservoir, the circular area that says "See Alternative Section of EIR" -- it's in that area -- 40 acre piece so it doesn't fill that entire area but that's the location. Reservoir Protection can certainly rise to the level of health and safety, however, there is insufficient data presented in the EIR to justify or explain the Open Space designation for that reason. Neither are there Alternatives presented in the EIR. I know, the reference says "See Alternative Section of EIR" that pertains, I'm sure you realize, to the Ranch of San Miguel Alternative which does not include Mr. Beckett's property, although it is adjacent to it. The Rancho San Miguel Alternative is, in any event, not really an Alternative in the CEQA sense. A potential Alternative to the Beckett property, I'm not suggesting anything specific at this point, but as an example of the kinds of things that should be looked at is the County's current land use designation for that area. As you may know, the County, for the last several months culminating just recently, went to a great deal of time and effort to evaluate the Sweetwater Community Plan. It has revised that Plan. It specifically looked at the Beckett property and some of the Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 10, 1989 characteristics of the Beckett property. The result was that the Beckett property received an Estate 17, Estate Residential 17, in the County's Plan designation category, which basically allows one dwelling unit per 2 acres. Rural residential use, but certainly not Open Space. In our opinion, that type of approach -- and let me just back up and say that the issue of Residential Protection which has been a major concern, I know, for the local community and I'm sure yourselves as well -- is addressed by the County through the imposition of a site plan requirement whereby future development would not be allowed except that except after a (garbled) protection plan was submitted and approved in order to allow development to proceed. In our opinion, this is the kind of creative approach that needs to be dealt with by your Commission and the City of Chula Vista as it was with the County. In conclusion, we are opposed to Open Space designation. We feel that the property is adjacent to other developed properties along San Miguel Road. It is not inherently different from those properties other than the fact that it is one step removed, adjacent to. It is also an area that is not restricted by steep slopes as is adjacent area on San Miguel Mountain -- Mother Miguel Mountain. The property is certainly available and for development and conducive to development on a rural scheme such as one dwelling unit per 2 acres. Any Reservoir Protection issues can be addressed through the site plan requirement and appropriate runoff protection measures rather than putting a blanket Open Space designation. Insofar as the EIR -- the Open Space designation that is contained in the General Plan and discussed in the EIR is really quite vague and ambiguous as far as what kinds of uses are going to be allowed under Open Space. There is no substantiating information to back up that designation, neither are there reasonable alternatives discussed insofar as the Beckett property. That concludes my remarks and I am available for any questions. Chmn Thank you very much. Ruth, will you catch the light because it Carson was going the entire time that he was making his presentation. I apologize for that. Comm. What is staff's position with regard to the Beckett property and with Cannon regard to the San Miguel Alternative? Director Madam Chairman, it was not part of the Rancho San Miguel Krempl Alternative. I believe there is some explanation as to the rationale for it being Open Space in the General Plan text although be it not in the EIR. Also, in the General Plan text there is reference to what uses would be allowed in the Open Space category. We would be more than happy to meet with Mr. Brinton on that. Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 10, 198g Chm Thank you. Mr. Adriance. Carson Mr. Good evening, my name is Doug Adriance. I live at 467 Oriole Adriance Court, Chula Vista, 92011. I am not an attorney. I am here tonight with some concerns. I'm not really speaking in opposition to this EIR Report but do have some concerns about some of the things I have read in it. I haven't had a lot of time to read it, in fact, t just got the book today. But I have read the Update of the General Plan from cover to cover. My main concerns are, I guess, I can remember Chula Vista when it was one-lane streets - just a little town. That was back in the 1950s when I used to ride my bike around. When I read this Report and the Updated General Plan, it looks like we are going to become a suburb of Los Angeles here before long, with what I see described as what is going to happen to the streets and the number of people who propose to move here. Specifically in my neighborhood (I live off East Palomar which is generally a very quiet area beside the new Boys' and Girls' Club) and from here to my house on East Palomar at this time, about 900 cars a day travel through that street. As I read this Report and the General Plan Report, there are proposing that 30,000 cars may qo through that street which is right in front of my house. I question that a bit. I think that is too much of an increase. I think it is going to impact my house and my neighborhood in a bad way. It's a little depressing also when I read in this Report, specifically on page 365, the people who wrote this make this statement, "Given that mitigation may be infeasible or impractical, it is anticipated that some significant unmitigable impacts will occur." I would like to know -- we're the people who live here now. I can't be worried about people that are being proposed -- they're not voters, they're not tax payers, they don't live here now -- and I don't want to have to be forced to sell my house, move to EastLake or someplace where I can't afford. I can barely afford the house that I'm in right now. If I have to go out to EastLake or someplace - maybe, one of the newer developments in the Eastern Territories which sound like they are going to be pretty nice places to live; because they are being well-planned. But where I live, the houses were built in 1978, and that was well-planned at the time. But now what is being proposed here is a poorly major street going through my back yard basically. Part of the street is going to be in my bedroom and the buffer area is in my kitchen and I don't like it. It's obvious I'm not the best public speaker but -- it just seems to me that -- maybe 10 or 15 or 20 years from now -- when I'm retired out, my house is going to be a very qood place to live. Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 10, 1989 Another thing I notice is that when you talk about all these decibel levels and everything -- they are talking about the inside of the house. Well, this is Southern California and know I spend, and I'm sure that you spend, a lot of time in your garden or outside your house. And they're just talking about in this book, some of the problems just in the inside of your house. Like the guy up on "L" Street that's been down here four or five times trying to get that area wall in front of his house. I don't want to have to have that happen at my house. like to be able to spend some quality time outside and some good time inside too. It just seems to me that these levels are too high. I even question the levels themselves. They are using a noise model that is about ll years old here. I question that - I think that's too old a value. I also question -- I took time to read the Fire Service -- I'm a fire fighter so I took the time to read the Fire Service Master Plan and I really question the response time that is being used for that model. I think they are too long. I think they are going to stretch the Fire Stations in the City too thin as proposed. They are moving stations out of the old neighborhoods where they were and I disagree with it and a lot of the fire fighters in Chula Vista disagree with it too. We haven't had any input into that. These books are a little bit hard to read also. I couldn't really tell in reading whether there was going to be an interchange at 805 and East Palomar or not. I read this book and looked at the map. It shows a half a one there and then it's not mentioned anymore in the book. I found that throughout all these books, especially the other one because ! read that one really well, it was kind of hard to understand exactly how big some of the streets that were proposed were actually going to be. It was hard to read and I couldn't quite understand it. I plan to follow up my kind of poor public speaking here with some written letters to your Commission and maybe City Council -- something I can take more time with. And I also plan to read this better and be back at the next meeting. I hope you keep some of the things I've said. I grew up in this town. I've lived here for a long time. Some of the things I see, I like. Some of the things ! see happening, I really dislike and I don't think it's going to be to the benefit of our children or future generations. Thank you very much. Chm Thank you very much. Ms. Rikki Alberson. Carson Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Commission. My name is Rikki Alberson and I represent the Baldwin Company whose offices are located at 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, 92130. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to review the Environmental Impact Report. We do have a few concerns and I just wanted to review those very quickly. Planning Commission Minutes -ll- May 10, 1989 The General Plan that has been prepared, we feel has been designed to be sensitive as possible to the Eastern Territories. We feel it contains a great number of mitigation measures in it already. With that in mind, we are little concerned about the number of significant unmitigable impacts that have been generally found to exist upon implementation of the General Plan as identified in the EIR. Some of these include, for example, biology. The biology section of the EIR has referenced certain thresholds of significance but it is not really clear where some of these were derived from. For example, it is stated on a project-by-project basis loss of 40 acres could be considered significant. But it is not considering the overall context of Open Space. Is it disturbed? Is it a high quality (garbled)? Is it -- what is it? (Garbled) request some consideration be given in identifying significant impacts with respect to the context within which the resource is located, or the Open Space is located. With respect to Open Space, which is held to be significant, unmitigable loss, the EIR contains no plan-to-plan analysis. For example, Otay Ranch is currently designated largely as Urban Reserve and Agriculture in the City of Chula Vista. The property is located in the County of San Diego. The County of San Diego Plan designates it for Residential and Agricultural uses. The existing General Plan don't provide any hard protection for the Open Space or the biologic resources. The proposed General Plan certainly does. Following along significant areas such as Poggi Canyon and Salt Creek, all identified as Open Space. The existing General Plans, both the County and the City, don't have those hard designations in there. Again, we would suggest that maybe some look could be taken at the Open Spaces especially significant, unmitigable across the boardwalk because they are significant areas (portion missing in turning tape)...measures in transportation management that are included in the General Plan are, perhaps, not hit as hard in the EIR. We are concerned about Agriculture. The EIR singled out just the Baldwin Holdings in the Eastern Territories as significant agricultural lands even though the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the County and State did not find these soils to be prime in the sense of the word. The significant finding is based on the fact that there is water available so the lands would be suitable for a higher level of agriculture. But there is no consideration given to the economic feasibility, the pure physical feasibility of getting water in there, the cost of getting water in there, the fact that the cost of water is rising not going down. So, again, we would request that the entire Ag section be revisited and perhaps some consideration given to soils actual cost by this plan and to water availability. Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 10, 1989 With respect to Land Form, the EIR again identifies it being significantly unmitigable for the Eastern Territories. The General Plan includes large, large section devoted to criteria for land form grading. It could widely mitigate a lot of these impacts. So we question the wholesale finding of significant and unmitigable. Perhaps that should be compared on a project-by-project basis. Similarly with respect to Parks and Open Space, the General Plan designations that exist don't (garbled) space. Mineral Resources. It is suggested that MRZ zones be completely avoided. But there have been studies in the Valley that should have shown those resources are not high quality. Complete avoidance until the resource is mined out could also materially delay implementation of the Otay Green Belt. Perhaps somethinq could be considered on a case-by-case basis. I realize I am out of time. I have a number of other concerns. I have drafted up a letter that will be forthcoming shortly and I thank you very much. Chm Thank you. Jackie McQuade Carson Ms. My name is Jackie McQuade. I live at 339 East "J". I didn't McQuade get to read the EIR. I didn't find out about it in time. But I have some questions. My first question - when I picked up the General Plan, the Open Space Element wasn't complete. Is it complete now? Bud Gray The Open Space Element was complete when the Draft General Plan was distributed. If your copy did not have the Open Space Element, it was omitted by error. Ms. Okay, thank you. I understood that San Diego had said as far as McQuade. Open Space, that if there was a 25 percent grade that building would be prohibited. Is there a similar thin~ in the Chula Vista Open Space Element? Bud The criteria of 25 percent slope is one of many criteria in Gray evaluating what should be Open Space and not Open Space. Simply a 25 percent slope in and of itself was not sufficient to designate an area Open Space necessarily -- also, where it was, it's size, it's relationship to other land forms -- so the Open Space, 25 percent was not any hard and fast criteria in the General Plan, but it was a Guideline. Ms. It is in there on a certain page so that I can come to the McQuade Planning and read it and see what it does apply to? Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 10, 1989 Bud There is a reference to the 25 percent slope, but it is not an Gray exclusive criteria. Doug Madam Chairman, this hearing is on the Draft Environmental Impact Reid Report and not on the General Plan and the contents of that document. Ms. Thank you, I meant to say that but I know that is going to be McQuade covered on the 31st. Right? Okay. There are still some things I have that need to be covered tonight. One is that on page 1-59, the East "J" Area has already been designated as a Scenic Route and it's not in this General Plan designated as a Scenic Route. In the pages and on the map it is not designated so that needs to be added. Chm Ms. McQuade, since that is to be carried another time and you Carson are very laboriously reading through that, I suggest that you take your little comments on things and give it to the staff concerning those items. Because, as Chairman, if I allow you to address the General Plan, I have to allow everybody else and I m trying to be consistent. Ms Okay. The other two questions relate to the EIR. The threshold McQuade standards, as ! understand it, for Open Space is 2 acres of park for every 1,000 residents? You mentioned the threshold standards. Doug That standard is 3 acres east of 805. Reid Ms. Three acres for every 1,000 east of 805. Do you have a standard for McQuade Open Space as well as Parks? Doug No. The standards for Parks and Recreation .... Reid Ms. Okay, then my fourth and last question. The drawing of the McQuade reservoir and Mother Miguel Mountain and the resort that is proposed there? Is that resort the Pointe? Gary No, that's not the Pointe. The resort is a small resort Wood associated with a proposal for Rancho San Miguel development. The Pointe Resort is on the other side of the reservior outside the General Plan Area. Ms. Thank you. McQuade Chm Thank you. Bill Hauf Carson Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 10, 1989 Mr. Thank you. I'm Bill Hauf, General Partner of San Miguel Hauf Partners. We are the owners of Rancho San Miguel, 12707 Hiqh Bluff Drive, San Diego, CA 92130. First of all, I just want to thank staff for the time and the effort they have put in the Report. We have spent 8 months preparing the plan, the concept plan, taking into consideration the environmental aspects of the Alternate that is proposed on the property. We have hired biologist and archeologists and we have done our reconnaisance and prepared what we consider to be a very sensitive plan for the area. Since the EIR basically addresses the Alternate, we have prepared a booklet to summarize the concept plan. We have a copy for each of the Commission members. This booklet simulates or duplicates the presentation that was given to the Commission during the workshop session and we hope that it will help answer any questions that any of the Commission members may have regarding the proposal. We have also made a comment in letter form to staff regarding the EIR Report. I won't get into those specific comments at this time. But ! will say that the concept plan that we have put together we could not have done in isolation just as a developer. It was done in concert with staff. It was done in concert with community soliciting inputs from the various community groups of which the many we were able to get in contact with have seen our proposal and have a chance to give us some direct inputs. We have attempted to incorporate those particular inputs into our concept plan, keeping in mind, of course, that sensitivity of the property that we do own is of utmost importance and keepinq Mother Miguel as pristine is a primary concern to us. So in developing the Alternative, we have basically tried to look at some specific area that we consider to be a potential for development as well as emphasizing the fact that we have done a tremendous amount of work to provide amenities that will fit in with the environment and provide things to the community. We realize this is not a time to talk of the General Plan and only the EIR. I just again want to emphasize that we have done an awful lot of work and staff has also spent time and we appreciate the time that they have spent in helping us address the concerns in trying to put together a plan that we hope the community and the Commission and the City will be able to accept and find appropriate. Thank you very much. Chm. Thank you. I have no further slips. Is there anyone else in the Carson audience who would like to speak on the Environmental Impact Report? I close the public hearing. Mr. Madam Chairman, I believe the representative from Baldwin Reid indicated that their letter of comment would be forthcoming. We would recommend that that al so be accepted even though late. Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 10, 1989 Commissioner Fuller asked if the information received recently by Mr. Reid from the Sweetwater Authority meant that they were going to upgrade their 1985 Master Plan? Mr. Reid replied that the discussion with them had been in the context of the EIR and some changes in wording to clarify what was identified as transmission and storage facilities versus the overall availability of water. Upon Commissioner Fuller's statement that a study had been done to upgrade the Sweetwater Authority's Master Plan, Coordinator Reid said he was not aware of any update in recent years but he would check into the matter. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the San Diego Water Authority had received a copy of the EIR and would their response be in the final EIR? Coordinator Reid said there had been no response at this time. Commissioner Fuller referenced a letter from SANDAG, dated April 28, 1989, that the adoption of the General Plan designations would convert thousands of acres of agricultural land to urban usage causing a significant, unmiti~able impact to agricultural resources. The Commissioner commented that the Draft EIR neither indicates that a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be presented on this issue nor does it provide background information to support the statement. Coordinator Reid stated that such a statement would have to be made for each individual, unmitigated, significant impact and would return for Commission review on May 31. When LAFCO receives copies of the Final EIR on the project, the CEQA Findings, and the Statement of Overriding Consideration will be part of that package. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) 6-0, to continue this matter until May 31, 1989. BREAK: 8:32 - 8:26 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-89-24 - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SERVICE STATION AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST 'H' STREET AND OTAY LAKES ROAD - UNOCAL CORPORATION - CONT'D Associate Planner Griffin stated that the project site is located in the Central Commercial Zone with a Precise Plan Modifying District attached and is at the corner of the Bonita Point Shopping Center. The Center surrounds the site on the north and west, Bonita Vista High School is located to the east, and Southwestern College located directly to the south across East "H" Street. The Center has three access points to Otay Lakes Road and two existing access points on East "H" Street. The service station would provide an additional access point on to East "H", and would share an entrance drive with the Center off Otay Lakes Road. Both drives would be right-turn only. Parking along the perimeter and approximately 13,000 square feet of landscaping are proposed. Mr. Griffin reviewed a series of slides showing the elevation of the service building as well as the canopy over the gas pump and a diagram of the monument plan. The Design Review Committee approved the site plan and elevations on May 4 on the condition that the monument sign be reduced in size. Staff considers the service station to be compatible with adjacent uses and Planning Commission Minutes -16- May lO, 1989 represents a convenience to the area because it will offer auto service which is rare east of 1-805. The trips generated by this project would not lower the present service level of "C" at the Otay Lakes Road/East "H" Street intersection. The access points into the site are located to minimize the traffic conflicts at the intersection. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request based on the findings. Commissioner Tugenberg questioned the distance from the existing present entrance to where the cars come up to turn left on Otay Lakes Road. Mr. Griffin said the entrance is about 350 feet from the intersection. Commissioner Tugenberg said he did not believe the distance was lO0 yards from the existing entrance much less from the proposed entrance. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cannon said he considered the plan to be good and the project would provide a needed service for that area. MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) §-0, that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-69. MS (Cannon/Grasser) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the report, to approve the request, PCC-89-24, to construct a service station at the northwest corner of East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Tugenberg said he did not object to the service station itself which is in a good location, but if the intent is to cross Otay Lakes Road going west and access the station at the suggested entrance, there will be an immediate conflict with traffic making the turn off Otay Lakes Road and going west. Access to the existing entrance is a major problem at the present time. He suggested that the entrance be accessed through the shopping center parking in a manner similar to that of the Shell Station in Terra Nova. Commissioner Cannon replied that he did not consider it a feasible solution to go through a shopping center parking lot to access the gas station. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Commissioner Tugenberg moved to delete the additional access from East "H" Street onto the property. The motion died for lack of a second. The motion to approve request, PCC-89-24 passed by a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Tu~enber~,votin~ no.. Planning Commission Minutes -17- May lO, 1989 OTHER BUSINESS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Krempl reported that the State Population Estimate for the City had been received last week and amounted to 128,028 people, bringing Chula Vista to rank 23rd in size in the State -- the same as last year. Based on that increase, the rate of growth of Chula Vista (3.1%) is ranked 140 as compared with other cities in the State like Oceanside (9.08%), Escondido (6%), Carlsbad (5.5%), and Poway (4.5%). Even though we are growing, we are still proceeding at a moderate rate. The Director brought up the subject of the special meeting to be held on May 31, and asked the Commission if they wished to cancel the workshop meeting which would normally fall on the l?th. If the workshop were desired, a video tape of the Baldwin presentation to the Council could be reviewed. The Commission elected to cancel the workshop. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Grasser noted that she would be out of town on the 17th and the 24th. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:24 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of May 24, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council chambers. Ruth M. Smith, Planning Secretary WPC 6307P