Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1979/02/28 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 28, 1979 A regular business meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginnin~ at 7:00 ~.m. with the following members present: Smith, Pressutti, R. Johnson, G. Johnson, O'Neill, Williams and Stevenson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Supervisor of Current Planning Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, City Engineer Lippitt, Assistant City Attorney Harron and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Smith, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The minutes of the meeting of February 14, 1979 be approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Smith called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. Consideration of the final EIR-79-2 on Bonita Long Canyon Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that this Environmental Impact Report was the subject of a public hearing on February 14 and a considerable amount of input was received at that time, which has been incorporated into the final EIR along with a response prepared by Multi- Systems Associates to that input. Mr. Reid reported that while attempting to confirm certain facts insofar as drainage in the County of San Diego, it was found that estimates regarding the amount of money deposited with the County to provide for drainage facilities downstream were incorrect; therefore, modifications of those figures have been included in the final EIR which reflect the actual figures. Mr. Reid recommended that the Planning Commission certify the final EIR. Chairman Smith pointed out that an EIR is intended to examine the problems which may result from a development project, but does not carry with it the approval of the project. The information in the EIR is to be considered in determining whether a project should be approved. Commissioner O'Neill asked whether the Commission should certify that the EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA if there is doubt as to whether a mitigation measure proposed is a viable answer to the problem. -2- February 28, 1979 Mr. Reid advised that the EIR could be certified as being prepared in accordance with the law, and when the project is under consideration, the Commission would take into account the feasibility of the mitigation measures in determining whether the project should be approved or denied. Commission O'Neill asked if the developer has agreed to pay for down- stream improvements, and whether other developers have also made such payments. Mr. Reid reported that projects within the County and the City of Chula Vista have paid their fair share; there are certain areas previously developed which have not contributed to a solution to the downstream drainage problems. He also pointed out that an alternative mitigation measure is the establishment of an assessment district so that all property owners within the assessment district would participate in the construction of drainage facilities. It is felt that is a viable alternative. Commissioner Williams expressed concern because some of the mitigation measures are not stated as specifically as he would like in order to give the Commission some criteria. He referred specifically to the impact of traffic and the mitigating measures suggested, noting that the EIR considers this for the entire project area, but when phases of the project are considered, the boundaries seem to collapse and it is not possible to get the quality of mitigation necessary. Mr. Reid pointed out that the EIR definitely identifies adverse affects. If East "H" Street is not extended to Otay Lakes Road and traffic lights are not installed when the tentative map for the first phase is before the Commission, unless such installation is made a condition of approval and agreed to by the proponent, the Commission could find a substantial environmental effect which could lead to denial of the project. The same would hold true for later phases of development, if adequate improvements had not been installed, they should be made a condition of approval, or the project should be denied. Although this is not a public hearing, Chairman Smith asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the final EIR. He asked that only new information be presented and not a repetition of input previously given. John Reiss, 3579 Lomacitas Lane, questioned the mitigation of the archeology impact, noting that the report states "that salvage is the last resort, with loss of information, if it determined, etc." He contended that the last resort does not provide sufficient mitigation of the impact. He further contended that the mitigation measure of making a cash contribution toward solving the drainage problem when the project is approved is not a sufficient measure to having the problem solved. He felt this document does not present reasonable assurance that the impact will be mitigated and should not be certified at this time. Frank Serras, 4375 Acacia Avenue, questioned whether the Bonita Ridge Estates or the Degen Hall development on the other side had ~put any money into the drainage fund. He pointed out that the area is being flooded now and the problem should be taken care of. He asserted that people who have been living on Acacia should not have to be in an improvement district just so developers can make a lot of money. -3- February 28, 1979 Martha McDonald, president of Long Canyon Home Owners Association, called attention to the letter from the San Diego Department of Flood Control which finds fault with the proposed mitigation for the drainage impact; the letter states that the County recently denied a map which proposed the payment of fees in lieu of construction of downstream improvements, and recommends that drainage be considered a significant, adverse, unmitigated environmental impact, and that the project not be approved until adequate drainage facilities exist in Long Canyon. Mrs. McDonald also pointed out that in the section on traffic mitigation the EIR recommends connection to streets which do not presently exist. She recommended that the Commission find that the EIR does not offer adequate solutions or adequate mitigating measures for the proposed project. In response to a question from Commissioner Stevenson, Mr. Reid advised that the EIR in its final form does meet all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Policy of the City of Chula Vista. Assistant City Attorney Harron affirmed that the purpose of the EIR is to identify potential significant effects upon the environment and to suggest mitigating measures. In considering the project, other mitigating measures could be applied, or the project could be approved with no mitigating measures if the finding was made that such measures were not feasible. Commissioner O'Neill reported that he is convinced the EIR serves the purpose for which it is intended, but asked that it be made a matter of record that he has serious reservations about the feasibility of the mitigating measures which have been suggested for drainage and traffic problems. MSUC (O'Neill-Pressutti) The Commission certifies that EIR-79-2 for Bonita Long Canyon development has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the Environmental Review Policy of the City of Chula Vista, with the previously expressed reservations, and that the Commission will consider the information in the EIR when it considers the project. 2. Consideration of final EIR-79-5 on Town Centre Commercial Development Environmental Review Coordinator Reid advised that consideration of the final EIR on the Town Centre Commercial Development was set for this meeting in order that traffic information could be reviewed by the Traffic Engineer. That information has been found to be adequate and there is no need to amend the final EIR, and it is recommended that it be certified. MS (G. Johnson-Stevenson) The Commission certifies that EIR-79-5 has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the Environmental Review Policy of the City of Chula Vista, and that the Planning Commission will consider the information in the report when it reviews elements of the project. -4- ebruary 28, 1979 The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Stevenson, O'Neill, R. Johnson, Pressutti, and Williams NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: None Chairman Smith advised that he voted no because he does not believe in the power of City government to take property from some owners and give it to others. 3. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.) - PCV-79-5 - Request for reduction of sideyard from 25' to 0 for construction of commercial structure at 366 Broadway in the C-T zone - June Jensen Director of Planning Peterson noted that the hearing was continued from the meeting of January 24 at the request of the applicant. The request is for a reduction in the side yard setback from 25 feet to zero, to permit construction of an auto parts store on the north property line, with the front portion one story and the rear portion two stories, or 30 feet in height. The variance application applies only to the rear portion of the property, which is adjacent to R-3 zoned property and requires a 25 ft. setback. The front 125 feet of this site is adjacent to C-T zoned property and requires no setback. The applicant indicates that the irregular zone boundary line constitutes a hardship that justifies granting the variance. The staff does not concur that the zone boundary line justifies treating this property differently than any other property adjacent to the R-3 zone. Approval of the variance would result in the construction of a wall 30 feet in height on the common property line, 5 feet from an existing house, which would have a definite impact on the amount of light and air to that house. The staff could not make the finding that the project would not have a significant detrimental impact on adjacent property, and therefore have recommended denial of the application. Without approval of a variance, a 30 foot high wall could be constructed on the common property line for a distance of 125 feet back from Broadway. Commissioner Stevenson questioned the adequacy of the 125 ft. depth of commercial zoning on the adjacent property. Mr. Peterson concurred that at some point in time the commercial zone of the adjacent property should be increased in depth. He pointed out that the depth of the C-T zone along Broadway varies all the way from 60 feet to several hundred feet. While the General Plan anticipates that the entire frontage along Broadway should be zoned and developed for thorough- fare commercial uses, it does not specifically indicate the depth of the commercial zoning, either in the text or on the map. He agreed that at some time in the future the city may look to deeping the commercial zone and that could be a factor as the Commission weighs the evidence in this case. Chairman Smith reopened the public hearing. -5- F~ruary 28, 1979 Gerald Fick, 353 Broadway, reiterated his opposition as expressed in January. As owner of the adjacent property he indicated they have no interest in changing the zoning or the use from the existing residential trailer park. John Thelan, 530 B Street, San Diego, representing June Jensen, applicant and owner of the property, distributed copies of a letter to the Commission which outlined the findings which he felt justify granting the variance. He stressed that approval of the variance would permit the best commercial development for his client's property, keeping the two-story portion of the building back from Broadway, and providing good circulation and landscaping on the site. He expressed the opinion that from the scale on the General Plan map it appears that commercial zoning should be about 250 feet in depth. He passed to the Commission photos showing the location and effect of the zoning wall which was required to be constructed on the north property line when the Holiday Honda use was approved. He also pointed out the awnings and sunshades which have been installed on the adjacent residence. He suggested that their develop- ment plans could be modified to observe a 15 foot side yard setback. He affirmed that had not been discussed with the Planning staff. June Jensen, owner of Holiday Honda, 366 Broadway, reported that they had earlier anticipated a smaller project for this property, but the lessee has indicated a need for a larger building to justify his retail business. She expressed the opinion that requiring the setback would destroy the looks of the building and hinder the traffic pattern which is very important. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the proposed plan and its effect on the adjacent site. Commissioner G. Johnson expressed the opinion that the proposed use is suitable for this location and the building would be an attractive improvement. She indicated her support for a zero setback. MSUC (G. Johnson-Stevenson) The Commission adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-78-22 noting that setback reductions are exempt from review under the provisions of CEQA. MS (G. Johnson-Stevenson) The Commission approves variance PCV-79-5 for a reduction of the side yard from 25 feet to zero for construction of a commercial structure at 366 Broadway. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Stevenson NOES: Commissioners Williams, R. Johnson, Pressutti and O~Neill ABSTAIN: Commissioner Smith Commissioner Smith advised that he abstained because he owns property to the north in National City on which the tenant has a competing business. -6- Fe ~ary 28, 1979 Assistant City Attorney Harron advised the applicant of the right of appeal to the City Council within 10 days. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-79-15 Request to construct additional class- rooms, offices and restrooms at 740 Hilltop Drive- Hilltop Baptist Church Director of Planning Peterson reported that this is a proposal for a 5500 sq. ft. addition to the existing church structure to house classroom and office space which would replace the commercial coaches being used at the present time. The addition is appropriate and approval is recommended. Staff has some concern over the plain appearance of the church and a recommendation for improved architectural treatment is included in the conditions for appproval. This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened. H. E. Been, chairman of the building committee, expressed their desire to upgrade the property. He called attention to the existing shrubber~v and advised that additional trees and landscaping would be installed in the parking area. He expressed a willingness to work with the Planning staff on improved architectural treatment, but indicated they hesitate to incur too much cost since the building will be largely hidden by trees. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (R. Johnson-O'Neill) The Commission adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-79-41 and finds that this project will have no significant environmental impact. MSUC (R. Johnson-O'Neill) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the Commission approves conditional use permit PCC-79-15 for the construction of an addition to the church structure at 740 Hilltop Drive, subject to the conditions enumerated in the staff report. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of precise plan ~uidelines for Otay Industrial Park at Otay Valley Road and Nirvana Avenue in I-P zone Director of Planning Peterson reported that in the past few years the Planning Commission has approved several precise plans for development of lots in the Otay Industrial Park which have involved small permanent buildings. The proposal at this time is to adopt guidelines to be applied to individual lots within the park and allow the staff to approve or deny developments based on those guidelines without further public hearings. He suggested that the Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the guidelines for use by the Zoning Administrator in approving future development within the park. Commissioner Pressutti expressed some concern over the guideline restricting colors to be used on buildings. He felt in this area the -7- F~-~uary 28, 1979 buildings are behind fences and landscaping and the developer should be permitted to select the color. He indicated he would go along with adopting the guidelines if the other Commissioners are in favor. Commissioner O'Neill pointed out this is a step in the right direction for eliminating administrative time. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Earl Bruce, 7925 Linen Drive, Santee, secretary for Valle Verde Construc- tion, Inc. advised that they are among those proposing to develop some of the lots in this industrial park and are strongly in favor of the staff proposal. They have no complaints with any of the guidelines recommended by the staff and feel the savings in time and money in getting plans approved will be invaluable. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Smith pointed out that in the section for parking, the guideline under "b" seems unnecessary since the first guideline relates to "all parking areas." Mr. Peterson agreed that guideline 2. b could be deleted. MSUC (O'Neill-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Zoning Administrator to approve industrial developments in the Otay Industrial Park where such industrial developments involve no building containing more than 5,000 sq. ft., and establish guidelines for development within the Otay Industrial Park as proposed in the staff report with the elimination of guideline 2.b. Chairman Smith announced that the public hearing on the following three agenda items would be held simultaneously, with separate action taken by the Commission on each item. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-79-F - Chan~e prezonin~ on 10.9 acres at 300 block Hilltop Drive from R-E to R-E-PUD - L & M Professional Consultants 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-79-15 - Tentative subdivision map for Villa San Mi~uel 8. PUBLIC HEARING: PUD-79-1 - Site plans for Villa San Miguel Supervisor of Current Planning Lee reported that the subject property, presently considered for annexation to the city, was formerly prezoned R-E. As the applicant has submitted an application for Planned Unit Development on the property, it is first necessary to consider applying the PUD Modifying District to the underlying zone. This will allow a reduction in lot size below the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum while maintaining the same overall density for the development. Approximately one half of -8- F .-uary 28, 1979 the site would be available for common open space and recreation area for all residents within the subdivision. Mr. Lee passed to the Commission a locator map and photos furnished by the applicant which depict the uniqueness of the site. Mr. Lee pointed out that the subdivision map provides for 19 single family lots located north of Hilltop Drive and served by an access drive located on a 50 ft. wide strip of property extending to Hilltop Drive. The north half of the strip is presently paved, with trees located on either side. It is proposed to have two 15 ft. wide drives with a landscaped median between. The staff has recommended installation of a sidewalk along the south side of the drive leading to Hilltop Drive. As shown on the photographs the existing vegetation consists largely of trees on the west boundary and the central core area. It is proposed to use split level design houses to take advantage of the topography and require minimal grading. It is recommended that the change of prezoning be approved and also the tentative subdivision map subject to numerous conditions related to requirements for streets, sewer, and drainage improvements. It is also recommended that the site plans be approved subject to two conditions. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Smith opened the public hearing on all three items. Terrence O'Malley, attorney with the firm of Gray, Cary, Ames and Frye, representing L & M Consultants, developer and owner of the project, complimented the staff on the assistance Given in the preparation of this proposal. He noted there are a total of 26 conditions proposed for the tentative map, the majority of which have already been included in the map. He indicated that he wished to address seven of the conditions, and would call on Bill Mosier of Nasland Engineering to discuss some of the items. With reference to condition 1.c, requiring curb, gutter and sidewalk along the south side of Lion Court, the access drive, Mr. O'Malley reported that five property owners to the south of that drive have access easements and he felt that placing a sidewalk across their easements might be a violation. He asked that it be further investigated. Bill Mosier, Nasland Engineering, 4855 Rutland Street, San Diego, expressed the opinion that in areas such as this, with half acre lots, sidewalks are not normally required. He urged that the sidewalk be deleted to retain the semi-rural feeling of the area. If a sidewalk is required he felt it should not be the monolithic type. Under item 1.d he raised objection to the requirement for P.C.C. curb instead of the 6" A.C. berm proposed, pointing out that the drainage pattern does not warrant the cost of a concrete curb. Under item 1.e, he questioned the need for a cul-de-sac at the east end of Lion Court, noting that the traffic will be very limited. He also pointed out physical constraints --such as trees and power lines-- which would have to be removed to construct a cul-de-sac. He suggested achieving the same result by providing a turn-around within their project site. -9- Fe Jary 28, 1979 Mr. O'Malley noted that condition 2.b also relates to construction of the cul-de-sac and pointed out that such construction would require land not owned by this developer. If the owner is prepared to dedicate the land for that purpose, it would be simple, but he felt condemnation of the land should be avoided, if possible. Under section 3, relating to sewers, Mr. O'Malley noted the requirement that an easement and adjunct of the sewer line be put in across the diagonal of the corner to serve potential needs of other properties in the future; he felt it would be appropriate for this developer to be reimbursed in the future by others who hook up to the sewer and get the benefit of improvements required of this development. With reference to items 7.a and 7.c, dealing with the installation of an irrigation system in the median island in Lion Court and maintenance of the area, Mr. O'Malley advised they are prepared to install the irrigation system in that area to insure the continued quality of the landscaping, but expressed concern about imposing the cost of maintaining that system on private property owners. He felt the requirement under item 7.c should be done prior to approval of the final map rather than the tentative map. Due to the complexity of this hearing the Commission requested that the staff respond to issues as they are raised. City Engineer Lippitt pointed out that condition 1.c for a monolithic curb, gutter and sidewalk is a standard that has been built in the city for years. When access is needed for ajoining properties, a driveway is to be installed. He pointed out that a concrete sidewalk holds up far longer than an asphalt walk. In response to a question from Commissioner R. Johnson as to the need for making Lion Court a dedicated street, Mr. Lippitt advised this is necessary because all properties adjacent to this drive obtain access from it. It will not be used only by the home owners of this development and they should therefore not be responsible for its upkeep as a private street. With reference to the suggestion that the sidewalk be eliminated, Mr. Lippitt expressed the opinion that the amount of foot traffic from a 19 lot subdivision would warrant a sidewalk on one side of the street. With regard to the suggestion of providing a turn-around within the project site instead of a cul-de-sac at the end of Lion Court, Mr. Lippitt advised he would not want to comment on the feasibility of that until the Traffic Engineer has considered it. Concerning reimbursement for installation of sewer which will benefit other properties, Mr. Lippitt pointed out the city has an ordinance which permits any developer to request formation of a reimbursement district. That is separate from subdivision map approval. With regard to the maintenance of landscaping and irrigation in the median strip of Lion Court, Mr. Lee pointed out that if it were a private street the home owners association would be responsible for the maintenance, and since it is not the policy of the city to install and maintain a median in local streets of this type, he felt the home owners should assume the responsibility. -10- Fe'-~ary 28, 1979 Commissioner G. Johnson expressed support for the requirement of a sidewalk on one side of Lion Court, particularly for the safety of school children who should not be walking in the street. Mike Pointer, attorney with the law firm of Jenkins & Perry, 225 Broadway, San Diego, representing Frank Ferreira, expressed concern about the Negative Declaration offered for this project. He contended the impact of the development would not be insignificant, particularly with reference to the drainage aspect. He felt the grading would definitely affect the drainage onto Mr. Ferreira's residential property, including the Whispering Trees apartments. Those apartments have already experienced some drainage problems from this area. He felt that a Negative Declaration saying there is trivial significant impact is not sufficient, and suggested that prior to approval of the tentative map, measures to mitigate drainage damages should be considered. Mr. Pointer reported that the sewer easement to the north is on Mr. Ferreira's property and expressed opposition to the use of condemnation action to acquire a sewer easement. He suggested that pumping stations be installed to carry the sewage back to the Hilltop Drive sewer line. Frank Ferreira, 270 Bonite Glen Drive, which is the property bordering the subject subdivision on the east, advised that his home will be 15 feet from the easterly boundary of this subdivision. He contended that this is an ill conceived map for this particular site. He expressed strong opposition to the creation of slope banks adjacent to his home site. He also expressed concern about drainage problems, pointing out that on four occasions his property has been flooded. He requested that the Commission delay approval of the map until that problem is satisfactorily addressed. The meeting recessed at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. George Owen, 254 Bonita Glen Drive, pointed out that he is at the lower end of this development and gets any water that runs from that hill. He advised that it has been necessary in the past three years for him to go up on the hill and shut off the water main due to broken pipes. He also suggested that utilities serving this development should be required to be undergrounded as has been the case with his property and Mr. Ferreira's. In response to a question from Commissioner O'Neill, he advised that they have experienced some problems from runoff due to rains, but not more than is to be expected. Mr. Ferreira added that he has experienced serious drainage problems due to the fact that the earthen ditch along the northern boundary of the property is not adequate to carry the runoff. Dr. James Dow, 21 Cresta Way, reported that his property abuts the southerly boundary of this development and includes approximately one acre. He advised that he has followed this development since the original development by the Cruz family in the county. He indicated that most residents of Cresta Way did not want any development because they wanted to keep the rural atmosphere. He concurred that the development as proposed is a step in the right direction and agreed with the developer that a concrete sidewalk is not in keeping with the rural atmosphere. He reported that as a property owner he is concerned with noise from traffic going in and out of this development. He suggested that the tentative map be delayed until those items can be included. -ll- Fe. ~ary 28, 1979 Terrence O'Malley, 525 B Street, San Diego, representing the applicant, responded to some of the issues raised. He suggested that Mr. Owen's comment concerning the drainage problem caused by faulty irrigation equipment as opposed to natural runoff should be taken to heart. He contended that the design as shown on the map to control the flow of water will be an improvement. He felt there are no legal problems buried in this proposal. Bill Mosier, Nasland Engineering, contended that the drainage problems have been overstated, as there is a very small basin draining to the area below. Adequate means of handling the drainage have been designed into the project. He expressed the opinion that the suggestion of eliminating the sewer easement and handling the sewage through a pump station is not feasible. Mr. Mosier also asserted there will not be extensive grading. The slope bank adjacent to Mr. Ferreira's residence is at a 5:1 slope and the pad of the nearest house will be only about 3 feet higher than the present elevation at that point. He also felt that the landscaping on the periphery of the development would provide an adequate sound barrier from the amount of noise that would be generated by a 19 lot development. Roger Kerr, representing Dale Naegle, architects, advised that the maximum height of any building from the lowest elevation to the peak is 30 feet; many of the houses are less than that, averaging around 20 feet. The house plans were designed to minimize the grading as much as possible. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner O'Neill questioned why no environmental impact report was required. Direct of Planning Peterson pointed out that the issues raised related to drainage and sewer. Those are relatively minor problems in this case and under such conditions, they are resolved as part of the plans for development. Matters that truly require an EIR deal with serious traffic problems or inability to provide sewer or broader issues such as destruction of endangered species, a major impact on schools, etc. He pointed out that the location of this project is on the fringe of the urbanized area; it is an infilling rather than branching out into new territory, as it is virtually surrounded by developed areas. The construction of 20 additional homes will not have a significant effect. He pointed out that when the tentative map was considered by the County, they issued a Negative Declaration, as did LAFCO when they considered the annexation request. MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-76-41 and finds that the proposed project will have no significant environmental impact. MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in section D of the report on the proposed change of prezoning, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve a change of prezoning on the property from R-E to R-E-PUD. -12- ~ruary 28, 1979 Commissioner Pressutti suggested each of the sections of conditions for the tentative map be considered and adopted separately since there may be a number of changes which would make a motion very complex. MS (Pressutti-R. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in section E of the report on PCS-79-15, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative for Villa San Miguel, Chula Vista Tract 79-15, subject to all conditions enumerated in section I of the report (items a through g). Commissioners Stevenson and Williams expressed their feeling that consideration of the tentative map be continued so the staff can review the conditions which appear to need clarification. Commissioner G. Johnson pointed out that on previous occasions the Commission has voted on items separately, and if agreement cannot be reached, the Commission can give guidance to the staff. Chairman Smith urged the Commission to proceed with the item while the issues are still fresh in the minds of everyone. Commissioner Pressutti noted that interest had been expressed in a modification of one of the conditions in section 1; he therefore amended his motion to modify condition e to read: "Revise the easterly end of Lion Court to show a cul-de-sac, or provide turn-around capabilities near the entrance, subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer," (balance of the condition to read as recommended in the report). Commissioner R. Johnson agreed to the change in the motion. The motion carried by unanimous vote of the Commission. MS (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The conditions in section 2 be applied to approval of the tentative map with item 2.b modified to reflect the wording in condition 1.e The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, Williams, Smith, G. Johnson and O'Neill NOES: Commissioner Stevenson ABSENT: None MS (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The conditions in section 3, relating to sewers, be adopted with the addition of a parenthetical statement that "(It is understood that the developer may apply for reimbursement.)" The motion carried by unanimous vote of the Commission. MS (R. Johnson-Pressutti) The condition in section 4, relating to drainage, be approved as revised (copies distributed to Commission before the meeting). Chairman Smith expressed doubt that everyone in the audience has seen the revised condition; he read the condition which is proposed. Assistant City Attorney Harron suggested that the condition be amended by adding after, "the developer" the words, "and his successors in interest," which would shift the responsibility to the home owners association when the development is completed. -13- Fe'~'~!ary 28, 1979 The motion was amended to include the phrase, "and his successors in interest," and carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners R. Johnson, Pressutti, Williams, Smith, O'Neill and Stevenson NOES: Commissioner G. Johnson ABSENT: None MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) Conditions in section 5 and 6 relating to grading and traffic be approved as recommended in the staff report. MS (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The miscellaneous conditions, listed under item 7, be approved as written in the staff report. Commissioner O'Neill questioned the requirement that the home owners association of the 19 home project maintain the median in a dedicated street that would be used by other residents as well. Commissioner O'Neill suggested that condition c be amended by adding after Lion Court, "if required." The maker and second of the motion agreed to the amendment and the motion to approve the conditions listed under item 7 carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, Williams, Smith G. Johnson and Stevenson NOES: Commissioner O'Neill MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) Based on the findings contained in Section D of the report on the site plans for Villa San Miguel, the Commission recommends that the City Council approved the Planned Unit Development, PUD-79-1, for Villa San Miguel subject to the two conditions enumerated in the staff report. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson advised that only one item is tentatively scheduled for consideration at the Commission meeting of March 14, and as that item is city initiated and a public hearing has not been advertised, if it is the Commission's desire that item could be delayed until the March 28 meeting, and the regular meeting of March 14 could be cancelled. The Commission concurred with cancelling the meeting of March 14. Mr. Peterson advised that the next meeting of the Commission wiql be a study session to convene at 5:00 p.m. on March 21, followed by dinner. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner G. Johnson suggested that during the daylight saving months some 5:00 p.m. study sessions be devoted to field trips. Chairman Smith commented on the final report of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Mobile Parks which was distributed to each Commissioner. He also read a letter addressed to the Commission from Mayor Hyde which expressed the -14- Fe .ary 28, 1979 appreciation of the Council for the Commission's letter on adequate housing. Mr. Smith also commented on a letter on the subject, "Is Southern California Running Out of Water," and asked that it be reproduced for each Commissioner. Commissioner R. Johnson reported that he had attended the League of California Cities meeting in Monterey and would be pleased to submit a written or oral report if the Commission desires. It was suggested that an oral report be given at the next study session due to the lateness of this meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chaiman Smith adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Respectful ly submitted, Helen Mapes,