Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1987/11/04 Tape No.: 284 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, November 4, 1987 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Cannon, Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Principal Planner Pass, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Garibay, Contract Senior Planner Heiter, Assistant Planner Herrera, Planning Tech II Batchelder PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY RE~b~RKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 1. REPORT: PROPOSED OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 17 (BEL AIR RIDGE) Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Garibay stated that the tentative map for Chula Vista Tract 87-7, Bel Air Ridge Subdivision, had been approved in June, 1987. The project is located on the north side of East "J" Street, just west of Paseo Ladera and consists of 46 single-family residential lots and one open space (Lot A). Lot "A" consists of a slope 90 feet high containing a 48-inch storm drain collecting into Rice Canyon. It was concluded by staff and agreed to by the applicant that the project should consist of a single open space by itself and future projects in Rancho del Sur would be annexed to that open space. A district is being formed that MINUTES - 2 - November 4, 1987 maintains not only open space but also the drainage facility. The estimated cost for the open space is $2,800 or $60.87/lot/year. The developer is placing a $2,000 reserve for the drainage facility and there will be an assessment per $20/dwelling unit/year. The developer has agreed to maintain the off-site slopes in proximity to Lot A for a period of 7 years. MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) to recommend formation of the proposed open space district by the City Council. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-10 - MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN, PARTS ONE AND TWO (CONTINUED) Principal Planner Pass stated that a synoptic review of the Montgomery Specific Plan including the structure and its proposals had been given at the meeting of October 28, 1987 and that staff was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Cannon said he had listened to the tape of the hearing, had read the material involved and asked if tonight's hearing was an open public hearing or solely on the items for which information had been requested. Upon being informed it was for the entire hearing, Commissioner Cannon notified the Commission and staff that the next time an item was continued in this manner he wished it noted that he would not listen to the same testimony twice and that he hoped tonight's testimony would not be repetitive of the previously made comments. Commissioner Tugenberg said that he had listened to the tape and read all the pertinent information also. He asked if there were recycling firms in addition to those listed in the report and about their future. Principal Planner Pass replied that if the economy continues well after adoption of the Montgomery Plan, some of the firms might be gone within the next 3 years. With the establishment of a redevelopment area similar to that in the Otay Valley Road Area, there would be the ability to "marshall" lands and to put in new uses under a negotiated plan. This information is based on the City's experience in the Otay Valley Road Area where several recycling facilities have been disestablished by market demand for higher economic uses. Planner Pass agreed with the Commission's recognition of the positive function served by the recycling yards but indicated the situation encountered in the Montgomery Areas was one where, "When the Region needed solid-waste facilities and dump sites, they were installed in the south part of Chula Vista and Montgomery. When the Region needed hazardous waste sites, they have been placed only within Chula Vista and Montgomery. As the Region needed recycling facilities, they have~ been placed in Chula Vista and Montgomery. As the community has needed animal shelters and disposal places, Chula Vista has taken the burden." The approach reflected within the text of the Montgomery Specific Plan for these locally unwanted but necessary regional uses is for the several cities and the County to distribute the uses instead of centralizing them in one City or urban center. Chula Vista, under this proposal, will assume some of these uses, but will no longer be "the capital of all the waste trades within the region." MINUTES - 3 - November 4, 1987 Commissioner Casilla$ thanked staff for their answers to the queries raised at the October 2~ meeting but admitted to some confusion over the statement on page 5 that the current density of Broderick's Acres (14.5 du/ac) would create an adverse economic impact on the community causing increased crowding, poor traffic circulation, greater on-street parking and a random mix of structures. He inquired if it was not the function of the Planning Department to consider such factors and recommend amelioration or mitigation measures to reduce the adverse economic impacts at the time of permit application. Principal Pass replied that (1) to produce good planning at the current planning level where the policies and regulations have authorized what is not sound planning in the long term, is not really practical; (2) 12 to 15 dwelling units per acre generate approximately 150 traffic movements per day per element and result in congestion plus lowered environmental quality; (3) the tolerances of good planning become less as density increases because any mistake becomes magnified. In a low-density area (such as Sweetwater), mistakes can be handled by subsequent actions; however, in high-density areas, many mistakes are irreparable without redevelopment. In Broderick's Otay Acres with the narrow streets, few cross-streets and a basic pattern of low-density throughout, the incursion of high-residential density is handled more appropriately at the policy and advance planning levels than the current planning level. Commissioner Tugenberg called staff's attention to references to Exhibit C (which is now non-existent) on pages 4 and 5 of Part II of the Montgomery Specific Plan. Deputy City Attorney Moore replied to questions as follows: (1) The City is not liable for any change in zoning as no guarantee is given that a particular zoning will exist for any specified number of years. (2) If the uses on Main Street not having a major use permit or conditional use permit time limitation were later to be found as legal non-conforming uses, they would remain; however, the City also has the power to enforce abatement within a reasonable period of time if desired. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. The Chair directed that testimony be limited to 5 minutes; personalities be left out of the testimony; and testimony not be repetitive of other speakers or of information given at the previous hearing. Don Rose, 101 Ash Street, San Diego 92011, representing San Diego Gas and Electric, commented that information requested by the Commission about potential revenue from the fee-owned right-of-way through the Montgomery Planning District had been provided in the Commissioners' packets and indicated his willingness to answer any other questions by the Commission. Susan Lay, Planning Manager at Sefino, Bucher and Armandey, 3615 Kearny Villa Road, stated that she represented Castle Park Enterprises, owners of +30 acres located at the southeast corner of Drange and Third Avenues. The site is MINUTES - 4 - November 4, 1957 occupied by the Palms Mobile Estates, with the Third Avenue frontage of + 8 acres vacant and zoned for commercial use. The client's concerns include~l) loss of approximately 3/4 of the commercial zoning on land which had been zoned commercial in the County, designated commercial on the General Plan, carries a tax assessment for commercial use ano carried a commercial price tag when purchased earlier this year; (2) lack of individual noticing sent to owners of specific parcels proposed for land-use change in the Plan, and that no individual noticing is planned until the actual proposed rezoning consideration, which would be too late for a protest of the land-use change; (3) loss from down-zoning of a significantly-sized commercial parcel at the intersection of two major roads thereby eliminating a comprehensively planned commercial development which could significantly improve the area. Ms. Lay requested reconsideration for the residential recommendation contained in the Montgomery Specific Plan and indicated the presence of the owners and their willingness to answer questions. George Don Lindberg, 4201 Bonita Road, Bonita 92002, representing opponents of the Montgomery Specific Plan, indicated that persons who appeared before the Commission at the November 4 meeting do not believe they have had sufficient time to review and analyze the report under consideration. The proposed change is exceedingly important and sufficient time (30 days) spent in analysis may resolve many issues. He stated the specific area of concern was Broderick's Otay Acres, additional issues raised by the previous speaker and general questions regarding elimination of certain industrial uses. The Commission indicated concern over further continuance of the public hearing. The Chair stated that an additional opposition petition with 28 names had been presented to the Chair at the beginning of the meeting. The petition was passed to the other members of the Commission. Bill H. Harter, Jr., ll04 Helix, CV 92011, representing himself as owner of lots 234, 236, 246 and 248 and as representative of the 400 persons who signed the petitions, said it was his understanding that if a petition for continuance were to be submitted by a certain time, it would be on the agenda. He asked that the issue of continuance be considered prior to that of the Montgomery Specific Plan. Director Krempl asserted that the issue of continuance was at the discretion of the Commission along with either approval or denial in the course of considering the Specific Plan. Discussion ensued about the previous closure of the public hearing, readvertisement upon advice of the Attorney, and the fact that the entire item is before the Commission in the form of a public hearing. Commissioner Cannon commented that unless there was a motion in favor of continuance, the public hearing should continue. Mr. Harter referenced the 4DO petition-signatures expressing concern about the Specific Plan and pointed out that over 136 signatures had been received from the 181 parcels comprising Broderick's Otay Acres. He reviewed MINUTES - 5 - November 4, 1987 claimed-discrepancies between figures contained in Tables 2 and 3 (pages ll and 12) of Part I of the Specific Plan and those developed by the opposition using staff's original work drawings and then walking the area actually counting the residences. Staff's Mr. Harter's Figures Figures Land Use - % % Single-family 66 42.8 Two-family 2 12 Multi-family 0 7.3 Mobile Homes 0 1 Vacant 31 6 Industrial In agreement He asserted that staff's assessor maps containing more than one house on a parcel of land had not been counted as two- or three-family, but the map had been adjusted with broken lines to divide the lots which had then been counted as one house per lot. Upon his request for a speaking-extension, the following persons relinquished their speaking times to Mr. Harter: Rose Duncan, 28-286 Date Street, CV 92011; Gladys Thompson, 806, 802, 808 and 804 Dorothy Street; Judy DeLong, 321 Date Ave, 92011; and John M. Halbert, 237 Palm Ave., 92011-6223. Mr. Harter expressed concern over the public hearing notification process claiming that residents of Broderick's Otay Acres had not been informed the rezoning issue was being considered. The Montgomery Planning Committee Chairperson had, at the November 2, 1987 meeting, indicated there would be a series of public hearings but, to date, only a workshop had been held. He asserted it was difficult to obtain notification regarding public hearings or to obtain reports in advance of meetings and requested the Chair direct staff to notify by direct mail all persons registered to speak on the issue of the Montgomery Specific Plan for all future meetings. He noted that the answers to Commissioner Casillas' questions at the previous meeting had not been made available. In response to the Chair's inquiry, Director Krempl said it had been indicated to the Council that all persons named in the petitions would be notified of the Council hearing. With respect to representations made by the Chair at the November 2 meeting, it was his opinion that the referral was to future public hearings by the Planning Commission and the City Council not the Montgomery Planning Committee since the Committee had taken an affirmative action at that public hearing. MINUTES - 6 - November 4, 1987 Commissioner Fuller referred to the annexation election and the formation of the Montgomery Planning Committee and asked if Mr. Harter was not aware of the intent to formulate a plan for the development of Montgomery and that monthly meetings were held on that subject as part of the charge handed down to them at the time of annexation. Mr. Harter said he was not aware the Montgomery Planning Committee was meeting on that subject. Ron Withall, 1431 Stratford Court, Del Mar, 92014, representing Beaty Development Inc., Broadway Equities, said t~e was present at the last meeting and wanted to learn more about the special study area as his firm has an RV parking facility which it is leasing from SDG&E in one such area off Palomar. Juan Llamas, 210 Date, CV 92~11, said he was the owner of property at 3925 Main Street and objected to the change because his property was purchased for commercial use and his financial investment would be lessened by the proposed downzoning. He has operated a wrought-iron shop in Montgomery for 14 years and is a 2B-year resident of the area. His mother also owns an acre and the downzoning of the property would affect her sale value. He noted that it was his understanding that the proposed zoning at Date and Main would be R-1. Francisco Llamas, 211 Date St, 92011, said he agreed with his brother and that he was a life-long resident also. He resented the fact that non-residents could change the zoning of the area so that the long-time residents could not realize life-long ambitions. In response to a query by the Chair if anyone in the area had attended one of the Committee meetings during the last 18 months, Mr. Llamas replie~ that the majority of the residents on Date Street were not aware of what was happening. In reply to Commissioner Cannon, Principal Planner Pass explained that RV-15 is Residential-Variable in the County and means a net density designation of 15 du/acre; that R-1 would allow 5 du/acre. Prior to the middle of 1985, the Llamas property had been zoned RS-7 which was single-family dwelling (the same as proposed) and that commercial zoning was first granted toward the end of 1985. Mr. Pass stressed that the issue is not a zoning proposal since work has not progressed to Part III (the regulatory suggestion proposal). The Department has never discussed R-1 for this area because the varied parcel sizes would require a low-to-medium density; namely, 3-5 du/gross acre which would result in 6-7 du/net acre. In reply to Commissioner Grasser's questions regarding notification of property owners and residents in the area, Planner Pass replied that the public hearings were advertised as required by Law in the Star News. Press releases had been given to the Star News also and notices had been posted in the recreation and civic centers within the r,iontgomery Community. With respect to Broderick s Acres, bilingual leaflets had been distributed and the area broadly covered. The Montgomery Planning Committee, the actual preparatory body of the Plan, has been studying 18 months and the Chair had at each meeting welcomed people and urged that they participate in the study. Many of those contending lack of notice are persons who attended and/or participated in several of the meetings in addition to having been in the MINUTES - 7 - November 4, 1987 Planning Department on numerous occasions. Staff has endeavored both staffwise and Committeewise to give special notice. There are 27,000 people in the area and personal notice would entail an enormous expenditure. Before any property is rezoned, however, the Municipal Code demands that personal notice be given. Raymond Ruiz, 395 "H" Street, 92010, said he represented Mr. and Mrs. Frank Vasquez of 1005 Chula Place who had been out of the area at the time Mr. Kellogg was gathering signatures, and who wished it to be noted in the record that they are in favor of the petition's request to have the 3900 and 4000 block of Main Street changed to Light-Industrial or Commercial. They are concerned how the tax liability would be affected on their two acres if the property were down-zoned and if any recompense would be available. Planner Pass indicated that the land was on the north side of Main Street within the Woodlawn Park Area, not in Broderick's Otay Acres and it would be a request for a rezoning and a redesignation on the General Plan since it is medium-low density now under the General Plan and zoned RS-6. Phil Scheuer, 1319 Costa Avenue, 92011, requested that he be notified formally of all future meetings regarding this item. He said the prevalent confusion was created by improper notification as indicated by the signatures of over 400 persons. He declared the reason for the continuance request was because of the information requested by Commissioner Casillas which had been made available in only the last day or so. Mr. Scheuer claimed that there had to be more input from community members in Broderick's and Fairfield than that referenced on page 4, Section C, and that a survey of the Woodlawn Area would present the same type of economic impact. He contended that there had not been enough community input; the Star News' circulation within Chula Vista is less than 12,000 out of a community of 130,000. He contended that people had not been noticed; persons with whom he had spoken in Broderick's Acres, Fairfield and Woodlawn Areas had not received any flyers, and because of the magnitude of the Specific Plan the extension should be granted as the only way to resolve the confusion evinced by the testimony given. In reply to why there are few multiple-residences in the Broderick's Area even though it is zoned multiple-use, Mr. Scheuer replied that (1) it had taken many years under County structure to develop the RV-I§ and (2) personal reasons of the property owners. Nancy Palmer, 971 Fourth Ave., ~42, 92011, introduced herself as the Chair of the Montgomery Planning Committee and said that it was mid-1985 (with annexation on the horizon) that zoning in the area was raised to RV-15; and the County RV-15 zoning stood unchallenged only a matter of months. She noted that there had been 18 months of open public meetings on the draft Specific Plan; 12 months of which had involved two meetings per month. She said it was difficult to sustain allegations that the document had not been properly reviewed since members of the public claiming not to have known about or not to have been informed about the document had actually been present at the workshops, meetings and at the public hearing. She asserted that the time-line between the present hearing on the Montgomery Specific Plan and that of the Council would provide ample preparation time. In reply to a question MINUTES - 8 - November 4, 1987 from the Commission re (1) the Committee's rationale in the down-zoning of Broderick's Otay Acres, she noted that the area was being returned to its former state based on the most consistent request heard a~ town-hall meetings held in both Woodlawn Park and at Otay: namely, to keep the community as uncluttered as possible. In her personal opinion the rezone which took place so close to the annexation process appeared to be the action of speculators. (2) The notification was adequate and, in her opinion, the present charge of inadequate notification was used because it was the easiest reason for not coming forward sooner, in response to a query from Commissioner Casillas if there had been any large movements of property and ownership to support her personal conclusion of speculation, Ms. Palmer said it would be a natural reaction to maximize profit on property in County jurisdiction which appeared to be moving under the more watchful jurisdiction of the City. Commissioner Casillas remarked that such a statement seemed to insinuate that the "great American dream" was a sin and although her opinion was personal, he believed it affected her "push" for a change of zoning within the Specific Vlan. Ms. Donja Blokker, 352 Palm Ave, 92011, said she favored the Montgomery Specific Plan because of the reinstatement of the zoning which allowed that area to remain as it grew and developed. She submitted as a win-win solution for people wishing develop and those wanting to retain a single-family designation, tile need for park space in Montgomery and the possibility of land-sale to create small mini-parks in the area. Ben Patton, 1444 Hermosa, pointed out that his election platform for the Montgomery Planning Committee had been based on the assumption that there was too much spot zoning in Montgomery and too much density and that because of the expressed gratitude this platform had received he had endeavored to reduce density, make the area single-family and to obtain parks. Fred Creveling, 500 Oxford, also a member of the Planning Committee, said the allegation that people were not aware of the intent of the Committee is erroneous in that the Planning Committee was elected not appointed which meant all participants, winners or losers, went out--poke on a one-to-one basis with hundreds of people. Rose Duncan, 28D-286 Date Street, residence 809 Dorothy Street, contended that people approached in Fairfield in a door-to-door campaign for signatures did not have any idea of what was going on. She personally had never received a notice, did not read the paper, and learned about the Specific Plan when she saw others gathering signatures. She had needed help reading and assimilating the information and most of her neighbors are Spanish some of whom are unable to read English. She had bought her property in 1971, and the County had requested the zone change, not speculators. She had not developed her property previously because of information regarding the possibility of the land being zoned industrial or manufacturing. She had sold half of her property, but the other half is undeveloped, and many others were probably waiting for a rezone as she had been. When the County had noticed the consideration of rezone, she and others had gone out, walked and obtained the RV-lb. These were not speculators but life-time residents except for renters who approximated 1/4 of the total. MINUTES - 9 - November 4, 1987 Chuck Mervell, 815 Ada Street, said that the September 2, 1987 meeting was the first one he had known about. He would like his acre of land to remain RV-15 so it could be split. The property had not been developed before because the cost in school bonds alone is about $3,500. He would have attended other meetings if he had known of them. Carol ~arquez, 3517 Main Street, J&C Auto Recycling, questioned what will happen to unusable cars if the recyclers are phased out? Will they remain in the streets? Will San Diego permit taking the vehicles to their recycling station? Mr. Pass replied that as stated prior, every city in the County, including Chula Vista, has an obligation to handle its fair share of the recycling needs of the area; which should be arranged through negotiations through the County and the several cities, rather than concentrated within the Montgomery Area. The Committee, in their election and in their subsequent studies learned that people wanted (1) upgrading of the industrial area to the like of other first-rate industrial parks within the region, and (2) an emphasis on home-ownership, single-family dwellings and not on very high residential. These wants are the basis of the Montgomery Specific Plan. Bill Harter returned to the podium to address the questions of (1) the change in zoning achieved in Broderick's Otay Acres and (2) the subsequent lack of development. He asserted that (1) in 1965, the County was forced to hold a public hearing to bring their Community Plan and zoning into compliance with State Law. At that hearing, several of the residents requested a rezone for various reasons. His particular property had two duplexes on the acre and he was told that to split into four lots would necessitate conversion of those duplexes into single-family residences which was not economically feasible. (2) The value of land is not high in the area; a lot of the zoning changes included from commercial to residential. Since the zoning changed and the density increased, the school districts raised their fees, and the vacancy rate for rentals has gone from -3% to +10% which is not the time for little people to risk their life-savings. The improvements required by County or City prior to construction are a tremendous outlay to an individual. In regard to the size of the lots in Broderick's Acres, of the total 181 lots, 119 are less than 1/4 acre and 61 are less than 1/5 acre. There is not enough land in one group to have any massive build-up. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Fuller expressed agreement that there had been considerable confusion; however, she reminded the Commission that, as a member of the Montgomery Co~unity who had worked hard for the annexation, she viewed the confusion as being cultivated and created by the same people who had opposed annexation as the approach is the same. She urged a return to the concept of the Plan itself and to remember that Part III (forthcoming) is the portion that will contain the implementation and will be subjected to a full public review and hearing process. It is the phase by which the ideas will become actualities. MINUTES -10- November 4, 1987 The auto dismantling businesses provide an important service to the entire community and those businesses who participated in the fine report should be complimented. It is hoped they will work together to conform to the Plan and to fit into the area without being an eyesore. Commissioner Shipe stated he had supported the Montgomery Specific Plan at the last meeting and had heard nothing tonight to alter that decision. It had been stated that Montgomery was a hodge-podge of obsolescence caused by a disinterested and financially-strapped San Diego County and that Montgomery demonstrated urban decay based on sprawl and blight. In his opinion, it has many under-managed land uses, economic and industrial obsolescence plus nuisance industries throughout the area and for those reasons he would support the Plan. Commissioner Casillas commented that essentially he supported the Plan although he still experienced some concern over whether or not certain segments of the community really have had their say. He would like to see what could be done in the referenced 30-day period in terms of establishing or developing a methodology that would attempt to answer some of the questions. Considering that the area has suffered the neglect of the County, 30 days doesn't seem a long time particularly since the Plan would then move forward whether or not those issues were resolved. He woul~ support the 30-day delay period if, at this level, it would minimize any greater impact and delay of implementation of Part III. Commissioner Tugenberg said he was against any delay; that nothing in Phase I or II involved down-zoning; and he is in support of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Cannon remarked that when he had chaired the Sweetwater Community Plan over a period of 2 years, the same type of comment had been received. There is a requirement that notice be given in a certain fashion, and it is incumbent on the people in the community to gain notice by the way it is given. He expressed certainty that some people were unaware of the impact on their particular properties, however, such a situation could continue forever with some person or other not being noticed. The Commissioner pointed out that the vast majority of the persons wishing to speak were present and have attended and spoken before and that he was ready to vote. MSUC (Shipe/Fuller) to find the adoption of Parts I and II of the draft Montgomery Specific Plan will have no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issue~ under lS-88-O4M. MSUC (Shipe/Fuller) to approve Parts I and II of the draft Montgomery Specific Plan and recommend the City Council adopt such. Chairman Carson thanked everyone, whether in support or in opposition, who had attended the meeting and noted that the only way the community can be improved is by the input persons are willing to make. According to staff, all will be notified when the item proceeds to the City Council and were urged to bring their information to Council. MINUTES -ll- November 4, 1987 3. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-87-1 - RANCHO DEL REY SPA-1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN (PCM-87-6), PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN AND FINANCING ANALYSIS, DEVELOPMENT REGULATION FOR RANCHO DEL REY SPA-1 - RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP 5. CONSIDERATION OF CEQA FINDINGS, EIR-87-1 - RANCHO DEL REY SPA-I 6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS - RANCHO DEL REY SPA-I Consultant Lettieri said that since a detailed presentation had been made at the last Planning Commission meeting (10/28/87) he would limit staff response to the Rancho del Rey Partnership letter. He indicated that staff was in agreement with four of the points raised in the letter; namely, items l, 2, 5 and 7. 41 Road "A" The discrepancy found in the traffic count on this road has been resolved with the applicant and his traffic engineer and a two-lane road has been designated. 42 School Phasing - Staff is in agreement. 43 Regional Development Impact Fee The Partnership is requesting that immediate credit for regional road construction and improvements be given against the development impact fees within the public facilities plan. Staff agrees in concept; however, does not consider it feasible to amend a City-wide policy on a project-by-project basis. It is intended that the development impact fee program will be revised to include East "H" Street and the Otay Lakes Road utility under§rounding and submitted to Council prior to transmittal of the Rancho del Rey SPA 1 project. 44 Parks - The Partnership is concerned that while most of the park land dedication took place in Phase I, staff is not making a recommendation regarding the amount of dedication in Phases 2 through 4. Staff concurs that any park dedication fees for SPAs II through IV be waived (relating only to the amount of park-land dedication) because of the amount of park land and improvements made in SPA I. However, since there may be concerns raised in SPAs II through IV regarding dedication and improvements of those parks, a policy decision on those SPAs at this time would be inappropriate. #5 Stagin~ Area Phasin~ - staff is in agreement with this. 46 30,000 Trip Allocation - Staff considers it inappropriate to plan in the 30,000 trip consideration for this approval process because: (a) The City General Plan will be considered next year and major policy decisions will have to be made that might impact ~ast "H" Street as well as other circulation roads; (b) Most of the eastern territory is not under the MINUTES -12- November 4, 1987 City's control; (c) The possible expansion of Southwestern College or change in traffic circulation is also controlled only partially by the City. For those reasons and for staff's concern about the amount of traffic on East "H" Street, staff can make a recommendation that traffic is environmentally significant but mitigable based on conditions such as the monitoring program placed on this project; however, to give one project a guarantee of 3D,O00 trips would defeat the purpose of the environmental process. #7 Annual Fiscal Impact Analysis Update - staff is in agreement with this. Commissioner Tugenberg asked about traffic generated by the employment park. Deputy City Engineer Garibay stated that lO,O00 trips will be withheld from the employment park based on the traffic analysis. It is projected by analyzing traffic from the project, projections for future growth, and permits issued but not acted upon, that East "H" Street, east of Hidden Vista, will carry 56,500 trips per day. Until SR-125 is built or some other mitigation available, the 10,000 trips are withheld so that the 56,50D trip or Level of Service "C" is not exceeded. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Ken Baumgartner, McMillin Financial and Rancho del Rey Partnership, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, said he would respond to the three items left outstanding only. ~3 - Regional Development Impact Fee McMillin wishes to establish the concept of "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road being clearly defined as "regional" roads in the overall East Chula Vista Regional Road System and desires a clear statement to that effect. #4 - Parks - Considering the amount of park land being provided in Phase I (a community park and two neighborhood parks), that the developer not be required to provide additional land to that al ready included in the approved Specific Plan of SPAs Il through IV. Commissioner Fuller interjected that she had listened to the tape of the last meeting as well as reading the material, was qualified to vote and requested clarification regarding the parkland issue. Mr. Baumgartner replied that there are two parks, a small one in SPA II and another 5-1/2 acre neighborhood park in SPA III to the west of the loop road already included in the approved Specific Plan. Those will be constructed and the developer is amenable to staff proposing relocation of the parks or a better configuration; however, concern is felt that another community park might be required within SPAs II through IV. The developer wishes to set an acreage limit about the amount of parkland required for SPAs II through IV. MINUTES -13- November 4, 1987 #6 - 30,000 lrip Allocation An iron-clad guarantee that McMillin has a 30,000 trip allocation is strongly desired by the developer. The capacity of the roadway as set forth in the environmental document presented to Council last March was known. The developer is ready to accept the risk of the project being stopped if the traffic report is incorrect resulting in an excess of 56, b00 trips occurring on East "H" Street and the level of service being reduced below LOS "C". He noted that staff and the developer are in agreement with what is specified in the Development Agreement. In answer to Uommissioner Shipe, Director Krempl confirmed Mr. Baumgartner's last statement. He pointed out that when the applicant made his traffic study, all of EastLake I was assumed to be built out and was factored into their equation; however, if the trips are not there, it would be necessary to stop the project and move ahead with SR-125. To the extent that the trip capacity is present, in the context of future projects the City has not yet reviewed or approved, or of properties that have not been annexed, the City has the discretion to make assumptions with respect to trips being allocated to Rancho del Rey and would do so. Commissioner Tugenberg inquired about the projection for the build-out of Phase 1. Mr. Baumgartner replied that the developer is anxious to start; is of the opinion that in a relatively good market place they can build 400 to 5UO units per year and is planning to develop up to 40 acres with probably about 6 to 10 acres of industrial land. It is fully intended to start park-planning for SPAs II, III and IV and much planning work in terms of layouts and work has al ready been completed. In terms of planning, the developer was proceeding as quickly as possible. Commissioner Tugenberg said he was asking about the actual building on the additional Phases more than then planning; and he did not consider it advisable to tie the hands of the Planning Department now when 10 years down the line the situation might be entirely different. George Rodway, 1459 Summit Drive, 92010, Vice President of the Homeowners' Association, said he understood that the developer would want parks to service the homes being built; however, he is concerned about the location of the baseball and soccer fields; namely, right in front of his house where very few of the homes will be built. He asked if that fact was being taken into consideration. He also expressed the opinion that the number of buildings planned for construction is "mind-boggling" and it seems totally unrealistic to fill up the canyon. Commissioner Tugenberg said he recalled that Commissioner Cannon had explicitly requested during the draft EIR hearings that an alternative addressing a reduced density be brought to provide the Commission with realistic alternatives. Commissioner Cannon noted that Mr. Reid had pointed out some areas within the EI~ indicating alternatives, but what he had wanted was to have a plan brought back omitting the employment park; he wanted to see some alternative uses in the employment park area. MINUTES -14- November 4, 1987 Mr. Reid noted that the last section of the staff report (Section F) described the various alternatives listed in various environmental documents that comprise the EIR for the project. That includes a Master EIR with an addendum and a Supplemental EIR with a modified project, which contained different combinations of the employment park being in and out, different residential densities and configurations of the employment park and residential areas. Commissioner Cannon complimented Mr. Reid on the environmental analysis and the addressment of the CEQA issues in the EIR. It was his opinion, however, that some of the approaches on the water points brought up by Mr. Watry were a "bit Pollyanic" since there would be a long uphill fight on a long-term problem regarding water problems in Southern California. He maintained Arizona would take their water; and we will have a water problem here and the more houses, the larger the problem. MSUC (Tugenber§/Cannon) to certify that EIR-83-2 and EIR-87-1 have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Equality ACT ICEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, the environmental procedures of the City of Chula Vista and the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the document as it reaches a decision on the project. MSUC (Tugenber§/Cannon) that the above recordation is conditioned by the substitute of the referenced Public Facilities Plan and the Financing Analysis in lieu of Table 4-F-4, which follows on page 4-106. Director Krempl interjected that the development agreement should be extracted as it was provided for information only and no action is as yet necessary. Commissioner ~rasser stated for the record that she had listened to the tape of the last meeting, read all the material and was qualified to vote. MS (Tugenber§/Casillas) that based on the findings attached to the staff report to recommend that City Council approve the Rancho del Rey General Plan. Commissioner Casillas said that he appreciated the points raised by Commissioner Cannon; however, the matter of obtaining a quality-of-life perspective in large measure depends upon where we will be able to enjoy some kind of economic life; we have an obligation to provide for livelihood for some of our citizens as they pay the taxes, provide the schools and live in the area. He is of the opinion that the employment park is an excellent idea and is certain it will be developed in such a fashion that will not reduce the quality of life. For this reason, he will support the motion. THE MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Fuller, Carson and Casillas NOES: Commissioners Tu§enberg, Grasser, Cannon and Shipe ABSTAIN: None MINUTES -15- November 4, 1987 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Krempl reminded the Commission that there would be no workshop meeting on November ll, 19~7. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. AUJOURNMENT AT 9:31 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of November 18, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 4668P