Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1980/04/09 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 9, 1980 A regular business meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Smith, R. Johnson, G. Johnson, O'Neill, Pressutti, Stevenson and Williams. 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 Chairman Smith acknowledged a request from Peter Watry to comment on the minutes of the March 19 meeting. Mr. Watry pointed out that under agenda item 4 he asked the question as to where the responsibility of this developer ends with regard to water flowing from the project and the answer given by Mr. Lippitt was that except for offsite construction his responsibility basically ends at his property line. That answer was not included in the minutes and Mr. Watry requested that it be inserted. When questioned about the statement, Mr. Lippitt noted there had been considerable discussion on the drainage problem, and that Mr. Watry's statement could be considered correct. It was suggested by Chairman Smith that the minutes of the meeting of April 19 be approved with the exception of agenda item 4, and a transcript of the tape be provided for later consideration of that item. MSC (R. Johnson-Stevenson) The minutes of the meeting of March 19, 1980 be approved with the exception of agenda item 4 which will be considered following review of a transcript of the tape concerning Mr. Lippitt's response to Mr. Watry. Commissioner Smith abstained from voting on the motion as he was not present at the meeting of March 19. MSUC (Stevenson-O'Neill) The minutes of the meeting of March 26, 1980 be approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Smith called for oral communications and none were offered. -2- April 9, 1980 1.a. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of development plans for East College Sectional Planning Area Director of Planning Peterson reviewed the development plan proposed for the 35 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. The adopted Specific Plan designates the area for residential development at 10 units to the acre; the plan under consideration proposes development at that density. Just over 25% of the area will remain as open space. The 256 dwelling units will be contained in 21 buildings, most of which are oriented toward the east or west along the contour lines of the property. The buildings to be located in the northern portion of the site will be two stories in height, while those closer to Otay Lakes Road will be a split level design with three stories on the side adjacent to Otay Lakes Road. Mr. Peterson displayed a number of slides showing the relationship of this site to the existing residences to the north and east. He noted that during the hearings on the environmental impact report concern was expressed about the buildings blocking the views from the homes on Ithaca Street, Ithaca Court and Citadel Court. As a result of that concern, the project was redesigned to delete one building from the northwest corner of the project and to move other buildings further from the north property line to lessen the impact on the adjacent homes. On a field trip the Commission viewed the location and height of the proposed buildings from a number of locations on Ithaca Street and Citadel Court. Mr. Peterson expressed the conclusion that the applicant has gone to some lengths to reduce the impact of the development on the single family homes, and the worst impact is at the easterly edge, where the natural terrain is above the pad elevation of the adjacent home. At that location there will be a separation of 125 feet between the apartment building and a single family home, with the end of the building nearest to that home. Mr. Peterson suggested that the architecture of the proposed development be referred to the Design Review Committee for consideration as to its compatibility in this location. One of the concerns expressed earlier was the impact of additional traffic that would be generated from this development. The applicant approached the Council a few months ago and obtained Council's permission to build in this location in exchange for widening Telegraph Canyon Road to four lanes all the way from the Casa Del Rey tract out to Otay Lakes Road; thus providing a four lane road from 1-805 to Otay Lakes Road. This amounts to an offsite street improvement for this project of about 9300 feet. Mr. Peterson noted that the question of affordable housing is discussed in the staff report. The applicant has proposed, in lieu of providing 10 per cent of the units in this project at a cost affordable by low or moderate income families, to locate a project of Section 8 rental subsidy units on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road at Paseo Del Rey in an area designated on the Specific Plan as open space. The staff recommended against approval of that alternative and the applicant's representative has prepared a letter which lists six additional alternatives. Mr. Peterson indicated that none of the alternatives are entirely -3- April 9, 1980 appealing, but he felt the most acceptable would be the proposal for a rental subsidy program to be constructed at the northeast corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Nacion. He recommended that approval of this development project should be contingent upon the City Council's acceptance of some response to the Housing Element which requires 10 per cent of the units to be affordable by low and moderate income families. The staff's recommendation for approval is subject to six conditions listed in the report. Mr. Peterson acknowledged receipt of petitions signed by 429 residents of the Southwestern College Estates area, expressing objection to the project and stating: "The proposed development would be less objectionable by reduction of density from the proposed 10 units per allowable acre to 6 units per allowable acre. The reduction could be partially attained by the elimination of the most offensive buildings intruding upon existing adjacent single family dwellings, specifically, buildings 1, 4, 5, and 10. We also recommend relocation of the entire project south and lowering of the elevation of the project to provide additional open space to function as a buffer zone between the proposed development and the existing adjacent single family dwellings." This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Donald Cousino, 1660 Ithaca Street, advised that he is one of three speakers selected to represent the residents of the area who signed the petition. The speakers will express concerns and opinions arrived at in a series of neighborhood meetings attended by about 40 persons. They have three areas of concern: location of the structures in the project; impact of density on surrounding community; appearance of the project. It is their feeling that some of the structures and the parking areas are too near the adjacent residences; this will result in an intrusion of noise from the units and from the parking areas, as well as lighting overflowing into adjacent yards and homes. Noise will be generated not only by the occupants of the units, but by air conditioning units, laundry facility and trash pick-up vehicles, as well as by children using the parking areas as play grounds. It is also felt that buildings 1, 4, 5, and 10 will have a visual impact on the homes and since there is sufficient land area available to locate the project lower down the slope it is hoped that the Commission will consider the request contained in the petition to provide a buffer area between the apartments and the existing homes. Don Bodie, 1654 Ithaca Street, discussed the impact the increased density would have on the already congested traffic on Otay Lakes Road. He contended that widening Telegraph Canyon Road to four lanes would not solve the problem, but that a reduction in density of the project would provide some mitigation. He also expressed the opinion that the parking areas are located too close to the adjoining residences and the lack of sufficient recreational facilities for the project will result in children playing in the parking lots which will be a safety hazard to them as well as a source of noise. He recommended reduction in density from 10 units to 6 units to the acre. Richard Turnblatt, 779 Sesame Street, discussed the general appearance of the proposed project, which he felt would not be appealing either from the road or from neighborhood above. He suggested that the structures should have some architectural design similar to the neighborhood. -4- April 9, 1980 Dick Brown, 1050 Pioneer Way, E1 Cajon, representing the applicant, the Gersten Company, noted that Mr. Peterson has given a thorough explanation of the project. He noted their attempts to modify the project to be sensitive to concerns expressed during the hearing on the environmental impact report. He felt that the 21 condi- tions recommended by the staff for approval of the tentative map would mitigate many of the concerns expressed at this meeting. Mr. Brown expressed agreement with the six conditions recommended for approval of the development plan with the exception of the requirement to provide one carport for each unit. He advised that a carport would increase the cost per unit by about $1,000; they would not enhance the appearance of the project and would afford little protection except as a sunshade. He requested the deletion of that condition. He pointed out their attempts to break up the parking area with landscaping and through separation of the parking areas. In response to a question from Chairman Smith concerning the provision of 26 units of low or moderate income housing, Mr. Brown acknowledged this is an extremely difficult problem for which the company is trying to find a solution. He concurred with the wording of the condition relating to the availability of 26 units for low or moderate income families either on the subject site or on another site acceptable to the City Council. Commissioner Williams suggested that the trash containers should be located at the edge of the parking area nearest the units rather than the side away from the units. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams with reference to lowering the elevations of the buildings, Mr. Brown indicated that would require substantially more grading and would eliminate some open space. He pointed out that the proposed pad elevations are below the existing homes with the exception of one building at the east end of the site where the natural terrain is presently above the adjoining residence. Donald Linn, 1744 Ithaca Street, suggested that adding carports would do little to lessen the impact, except for lighting, and there are other ways of handling that. He asked if Chula Vista has restrictions that would prohibit repair work on cars or boats in the parking area. Mr. Peterson advised that the city has no regulation concerning repair work on cars or boats in the parking lot of a residential development. That is normally a concern of the owner or landlord of the apartments, and if the project became condominiums it would be the concern of the home owners association. Commissioner G. Johnson asked if that could not be included in the CC&R restrictions. Mr. Peterson concurred with that suggestion. Mr. Brown also concurred it would be desirable to have such a provision in the CC&R's. Sandra Caddell, 1820 Citadel Court, advised that her residence is the one nearest to building 10 which will be at a higher elevation than the single family homes. She asked what kind of fencing would be provided. Mr. Peterson advised that the overall fencing plan for the entire project would require approval by the city; this would not involve a public hearing but anyone interested could be advised when the plan is submitted for consideration. -5- April 9, 1980 Dr. Robert Sanet, 1644 Gotham Street, spoke against the development of this open space area which he contended will effect the quality of life in the area where people have had an opportunity to jog or run their dogs in the open space. Debbie Cousino, 1660 Ithaca Street, expressed the concern of young people in the area over development of areas of natural environment. She suggested that future generations will be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy nature as it will be all gone. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stevenson questioned the wording of condition 5 which he felt does not require the developer to install fencing. Mr. Peterson suggested that the condition be rewritten to read: "Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit for approval an overall fencing plan for the project." Commissioner O'Neill expressed pleasure that the Housing Element of the General Plan is finally being reflected in the conditions under which developments can be built. He acknowledged that the provision of low income housing may be an administrative nightmare and concurred that the most reasonable way to provide such housing is through Section 8 rental housing. He felt the Planning Commission should make a definite recommendation for the inclusion of 26 units of Section 8 rental housing within this particular development. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out this brings up the problem of allowing additional density over the 256 units authorized by the previous plan if the developer is required to provide 26 low income units. Mr. Peterson advised that in his opinion the city would not be required to allow a density bonus for this amount of low income housing. In response to a request from Commissioner G. Johnson for comment on the condition requiring carports, Mr. Peterson advised that in general it is desirable under individual home ownership to have a carport. He pointed out that in the R-1 and R-2 zones garages are required. In a project of this type he could not say whether the increased cost would be justified and he would have no strong feelings if the Commission wished to delete that condition. He further reported that no considera- tion had been given to requiring individual garages as that would require a complete redesign of the project. Commissioner Pressutti expressed the opinion the owner of the property has certain rights to make use of the land unless the city purchases it for permanent open space. He also felt the developer has done the best he can toward mitigating the problems raised by the residents. MS (Pressutti-R. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in the report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the development plans for East College Sectional Planning Area subject to the conditions listed in the report, eliminating condition No. 4 and modifying condition 5 as recommended by the Director of Planning. -6- April 9, 1980 It was moved by Commissioner O'Neill, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the motion be amended to modify condition No. 2 to read: "This approval is contingent upon'the provision by the applicant of 26 of the units to low and moderate income families through the Section 8 rental program. After some discussion on the amendment it was suggested by Commissioner G. Johnson that the amendment be modified to read: "This approval is contingent upon the City Council's approval of a plan by the applicant to make available 26 of the units to low or moderate income families on the subject site." Commissioners O'Neill and Williams agreed to rewording the amendment as suggested by Commissioner G. Johnson. The motion for the amendment failed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners O'Neill, Williams and G. Johnson NOES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, Smith and Stevenson ABSENT: None It was moved by Commissioner Williams that the motion be amended to require that the plan be modified by eliminating one vertical tier on the eastern end of building 10. The motion for amendment died for lack of a second. It was moved by Commissioner Stevenson, seconded by Commissioner G. Johnson, that a new condition be added to require that one garage will be provided for each unit, with the architecture subject to approval by the Design Review Committee. The motion for the amendment failed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Stevenson and G. Johnson NOES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, Williams, Smith and Stevenson ABSENT: None The original motion as offered by Commissioner Pressutti carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, G. Johnson, Smith and Stevenson NOES: Commissioners O'Neill and Williams 1.b. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map~for Chula Vista Tract 80-16, The Terraces Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that most of the issues concerning this development plan were considered under the previous item. The tentative map has been filed to enable the developer to convert the project to condominiums at a future date if he so desires. The project has been designed so that all units meet the requirements for storage and open space for condominiums. The recommended conditions of approval dealing with dedication of right of way, installation of street improvements, drainage facilities, maintenance of open space, sewer facilities, are standard for subdivisions. This project entails an extraordinary condition dealing with the offsite improvement of Telegraph Canyon Road. The recommendation for approval is contingent upon the City Council's approval of a plan for 26 low or moderate income housing units in connection with the development. -7- April 9, 1980 Mr. Peterson pointed out that the report includes a new finding as required by Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, which requires the Planning Commission to consider the effect of the tentative map on the housing needs of the region and to balance those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. In that regard, there is an awareness by city officials of the desparate need for additional rental housing in the city, and in the beginning this is proposed as a rental project, and if it were to be converted to condominiums presumably they would be at a lower cost to the home owner than detached single family homes, With respect to the public service needs of the city, the widening of Telegraph Canyon Road to four lanes is a definite need in the community and that would be accomplished through this development. The applicant is also obligated to make the in lieu payments for park dedication and to pay residential construction tax for capital facilities which would amount to a little over $150,000. With regard to environmental resources, the environmental impact report was considered and adopted by the Commission some time ago and the project was found not to have a significant environmental impact if it is developed as recommended. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dick Brown, representing the applicant, advised that they concur with the staff recommendations. He pointed out it is an extraordinary condition to be required to install approximately two miles of offsite road improvement but based on previous bargaining with the city that condition will be fulfilled. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Peterson noted that the Commission discussed under the previous item the possibility of restricting the repair of automobiles or boats or the parking of inoperable boats. He suggested that could be added under condition 3 as an additional restriction to be contained in the CC&R's. MS (Stevenson-G. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the subject tentative subdivision map contingent upon the applicant's provision of 26 units of low or moderate income housing either on site or in an alternative location acceptable to the City Council, subject to the 21 conditions enumerated in the report and with an added condition 3.d to prohibit repair work on automobiles or boats in the parking areas or the storage of inoperable veh~cles. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Pressutti, Smith and Williams NOES: Commissioner O'Neill ABSENT: None The Chairman recessed the meeting for 15 minutes at 8:55 p.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 9:10 p.m. 2.a. Consideration of CE~A findings for development of Ranchero Sectional Planning Area (EIR-80-5) Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that it was the finding of the environmental impact report, EIR-80-5, that the project could result in significant -8- April 9, 1980 impacts which could be avoided. In response to that finding in the report, the project has been substantially modified by the proponent. This modification consists of the elimination and placement of fill material in biologically sensitive areas. It has also resulted in a reduction in the land form alteration. CEQA findings are attached to support the determination that all impacts can be mitigated in the project as now proposed. MSUC (G. Johnson-Stevenson) The Planning Commission finds that in accordance with the attached CEQA findings, and having reviewed and considered the information in EIR-78-2 and EIR-80-5, that the implementation of specific mitigation measures will avoid significant adverse environmental effects in the areas of geology, land form/aesthetics, noise, biology, fire protection and paleontology; and further that the Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information in EIR-80-5, finds that the provision of educational services is the responsibility of the appropriate school districts with State funding sources. In this regard the City of Chula Vista will continue to provide a mechanism for cooperation between the developer and the school districts in providing adequate educational services. If the school districts provide evidence of overcrowding, further actions may be necessary. 2.b. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of development plans for Ranchero Sectional Planning Area Supervisor of Current Planning Lee reported that this development plan covers 180 acres which is the north half of the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area; the southern half was approved as E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 5 and an additional area designated as Lot 340, which is adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road. Approximately 81 acres of this site was designated on the Specific Plan for residential development at 2-3 units per acre, with 52 acres of the remainder set aside for a high school and approximately 32 acres to remain in open space. The proposed plan differs from the adopted Specific Plan since the applicant now proposes to utilize the high school site for residential development with three dwelling units to the acre. Combining this with the 81 acres designated on the Specific Plan would allow for a total maximum number of units of 399 in the remainder of the Sectional Planning Area. The tentative subdivision map contains a total of 369 units, however, it does not include the 10 acres designated on the plat as the Bennett property. As pointed out in the report the topography of the 10 acres is such that a standard R-1 subdivision would yield approximately 42-45 dwelling units. This would result in an excess of the overall density of 3 units per acre for the Sectional Planning Area. It is felt, however, this excess can be accommodated in the submission of detailed plans. It is recommended that if the school district does not elect to use the site set aside for a high school, it should be used for residential purposes, with the maximum holding capacity of the Sectional Planning Area fixed at 415 dwelling units. Mr. Lee noted that the applicant's plan also includes a one acre neighborhood commercial site, a two acre church site and a five acre park site. He pointed out that location of this type of facilities at this particular site would permit an area traversed by a fault trace to be devoted to parking with the buildings located away from the fault, -9- April 9, 1980 It was pointed out that the park site would be located partially within the SDG&E right-of-way and would take the place of a designated park site in the Ladera Sectional Planning Area which the Council has determined would not be acquired. This solution provides for a usable park site, The proposed plan not only preserves all of the open space designated on the Specific Plan, but through the use of smaller lots the plan provides additional areas of open space. Mr. Lee presented a series of slides showing the proposed siting of structures on the couplet or split duplex lots and for the zero lot line houses, and discussed the standards that would apply to each type of development. He also presented renderings of the architectural elevations for the different styles of dwelling units. Mr. Lee noted the 14 conditions recommended in the report for approval of the development plans and elaborated on the following conditions: 1. Elimination of the school site and adding park, church, and neighbor- hood commercial sites would require an amendment to the General Plan. 2. Approval of the plan is contingent upon the applicant's ability to provide 10% of the units for low and moderate income families. 4. This condition should be modified to allow a maximum of 415 dwelling units in this Sectional Planning Area. 7. Requires approval of the architecture and site plans for the detached single family lots. 9. Requires an overall fencing plan for the entire project. 12. Provides that all corner lots for the single family detached dwellings shall be limited to single story. 13. Makes the same provision for zero lot line houses and extends the limitation of single story construction to a minimum of 20% of the non-corner lots. Mr. Lee recommended the addition of condition 15 to provide that: Coverage on the 140 single family detached dwelling lots would be limited to 40% of the lot area. This represents a change from the development standards proposed by the developer which specify 45% coverage on the single family lots. Commissioner Williams questioned whether the 415 units would be allowed in the event the school district picks up the option to acquire the school site. Mr. Lee advised that development would then be limited to 3 dwelling units per acre for the developable property, which is approximately 81 acres without the high school site. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dick Brown, 1050 Pioneer Way, E1 Cajon, representing the applicant, the Gersten Company, advised they are in agreement with the recommended requirements with the exception of conditions 12 and 13 which limit construction on corner lots to one story structures in the single family area and in the zero lot line area, and extends that requirement to 20% of the lots in the zero lot line -10- April 9, 1980 development. He requested deletion of those two conditions and suggested it would be more appropriate to carefully consider the architectural design for each lot to determine what will best fit the location, James Bennett, owner of 10 acres in this area not included in this development plan, concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Department that the allotted density for his 10 acres, if a site is not acquired by the school district, would be 45 units. He expressed concern that any offsite grading in connection with the Gersten development would leave all of his property in a usable condition. He asked about the responsibility of constructing "J" Street which is indicated to cross their property. Mr. Lee reported that "J" Street is not necessary at this time since an alternative circulation system has been devised for this development. At such time as develop- ment to the east of this site occurs, it will be necessary to have "J" Street installed and at that time the responsibility for the cost would have to be determined. Larry McConnell, pastor of the Del Rey Bible Church, expressed an interest in acquiring a site for a church to serve the present and future inhabitants of the E1 Rancho del Rey area. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner O'Neill commended the requirement for 10% of the units to be affordable by low and moderate income families but expressed concern that all of this type of housing for the total E1 Rancho del Rey area should not be concentrated in one location, as this is not the intent of the Housing Element. In response to a question from Commissioner St6venson, Mr. Lee supported retention of conditions 12 and 13 dealing with the requirement for one story structures on the corner lots and interspersed through the zero lot line development. He cited the need to provide visual relief due to the narrowness of the lots as well as corner lots to give the subdivision better scale with people. MS (Stevenson-G. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in the report, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area plan subject to the 14 conditions stated in the report with a modification to condition 4 to stipulate a maximum of 415 dwelling units for the area, and the addition of a 15th condition to require that on the 140 standard single family lots, the total area covered by the structure shall be limited to 40% of the lot area; zero lot line lots are limited to 45% coverage. It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Stevenson, that the motion be amended to delete conditions 12 and 13. The motion for the amendment failed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Smith and Stevenson NOES: Commissioners Williams, R. Johnson, Pressutti, G. Johnson and O'Neill ABSENT: None -11- April 9, 1980 The original motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Pressutti, Smith and Williams NOES: Commissioner O'Neill ABSENT: None 2.c. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-5, F1 Rancho del Re~ Unit 6 Supervisor of Current Planning Lee reported that the subdivision of approximately 181 acres would provide 140 single family lots, 78 couplet lots and 151 zero lot line parcels, which is a fairly new concept for Chula Vista. It allows the location of the house on a side property line. Annexation of the northerly portion of this property will have to be approved before action is taken on the final map. Development of the property is proposed in four phases, progressing from west to east. Mr. Lee discussed the proposed park site and the developer's obligation for dedication and improvement costs as required by ordinance provisions. Mr. Lee noted that approval is recommended subject to 31 conditions, most of which are standard subdivision requirements. Mr. Lee also elaborated upon the finding required by the Commission that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the city and the available fiscal and environmental resources. In this development, additional housing will be provided including low and moderate income housi~ng, along with park land and dedicated open space. All public improvements will be installed at no cost to the public and school fees will be paid to both districts subject to agreements reached by the district and the developer. Mr. Lee pointed out that condition 18 requires the offsite improvement for the extension of Paseo del Rey to "H" Street to provide a connection to the Rice Canyon Sectional Planning Area. The developer may wish to request a deferral of this construction. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dick Brown, representing the applicant, expressed basic agreement with the conditions recommended. He requested that the applicant be allowed to bond for the construction of Paseo del Rey rather than building it at this time since it serves no purpose for this development, and it is undesirable to have it constructed before "H" Street is built from 1-805 to the point of its intersection with Paseo del Rey. It is felt this may be several years in the future. Mr. Brown asked for clarification of conditions 29 and 30 relative to reimbursement or assessment districts for major thoroughfares and Public Works facilities. City Engineer Lippitt reported that the developer of Casa del Rey has submitted a proposal for a reimbursement district to cover portions of ~'J" Street and Paseo Ladera. The establishment of such a district will be subject to a public hearing. -12- April 9, 1980 He also added clarification that the reimbursement distri'ct referred to in condition 29, would not be both the East "H" Street and Tele§raph Canyon Road districts, but would be one or the other, as appropriate. Mr. Brown requested that the words "as appropriate" be added to condition 29. James Hutchinson, 610 A Street, San Diego, advised, in response to a question raised earlier concerning lots 14, 21, 22, 23 and 24, that the full improvement of these lots requires the access of three lettered lots that were created with the development to the southwest. The lettered lots were designated on that map with a condition establishing the amount in an agreement to acquire those lettered lots for future development. That agreement is being carried out and the lots will be acquired. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (R. Johnson-Pressutti) Based on the findings as stated in the report, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-5, E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 6, subject to the 31 conditions enumerated in the report with a modification to condition 18 to permit bonding or deferral of the construction of Paseo del Rey, and adding the words "as appropriate" to condition 29. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners R. Johnson, Pressutti, Williams, Smith, G. Johnson and Stevenson NAY: Commissioner O'Neill ABSENT: None 3. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): PCA-80-7 Consideration of proposed amendments to the Municipal Code relatin§ to bicycle storage facilities, offstreet parking, rideshare parkin9 and pedestrian ways. Director of Planning Peterson noted that the public hearing to consider the subject amendments was opened by the Planning Commission on February 13, at which time the Commission asked the staff to make some of the major employers in Chula Vista aware of the amendment, along with the schools, hospitals and shopping center owners. A letter was sent out to a number of people inviting them to attend a meeting for the purpose of discussing this matter. Only two people attended the meeting, one from the high school district and one from ADMA Corporation, developers of the Bonita Center. As a result of that meeting, the proposed amendments were modified to eliminate the Type I bicycle storage from the educational and commercial land uses; that requirement was retained in the industrial, office and multiple family uses. The amendment as proposed requires certain bicycle facilities for certain uses, provides for preferential parking for carpooling, and allows a slight reduction in the required parking for automobiles in exchange for the other provisions, and provides greater flexibility in requiring pedestrian ways in connection with the development of subdivisions. These provisions are part of the regional air quality strategy that has been approved by the State and the Federal government. Those agencies expect the cities to carry out such provisions and if it is not done the city may run the risk of endangering grants and other funds from both the federal and state government. -13- April 9, 1980 Mr. Peterson recommended that the proposed amendments be approved and recommended for adoption by the City Council. Commissioner Pressutti noted that if these provisions are adopted, developments of the type approved this evening would be required to install bicycle storage facilities which he felt would add to the cost of the housing provided. He felt the cost would not be justified for any type of residential development. Mr. Peterson pointed out there is a definite need for bicycle storage in connection with apartment development. He felt such storage could be provided either in the parking area or adjacent to the units where the plans would permit. Commissioner Pressutti asserted that such storage might be provided by a developer as a selling point, but he did not feel it should be mandated for every development. He concurred that such storage facilities would be appropriate at a manufacturing plant as an incentive for some employees to use other transportation than the automobile. He recommended that the requirement for bicycle storage in connection with residential development be deleted. Chairman Smith expressed the opinion that the requirement of a minimum aisle width of 5 feet in connection with bicycle lockers is excessive. He also objected to the requirement that such storage be located at ground level. He recommended that the 5 ft. aisle requirement be changed to 2½ feet and the deletion of the requirement that the storage be at ground level. Commissioner Stevenson expressed the opinion that the proposed requirements go beyond the realm of zoning and have little to do with public health, safety and welfare. He felt that preferential parking for rideshare participants has been practiced for many years but he did not see the need to mandate it for every development. Chairman Smith declared the public hearing open and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Stevenson-Smith) The proposed amendments relating to bicycle storage facilities, offstreet parking, rideshare parking and pedestrian ways not be adopted. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, Smith, Pressutti and Williams NOES: Commissioners R. Johnson, G. Johnson and O'Neill ABSENT: None MS (O'Neill-Pressutti) The Commission requests the staff to prepare an amendment to the Municipal Code relating to offstreet parking, rideshare parking and pedestrian ways, and eliminate the requirement for bicycle storage facilities. After some discussion it was suggested that the proposed amendment be discussed at a study session. Commissioners O'Neill and Pressutti withdrew the motion and the second and requested that the matter be studied at a study session. Mr. Peterson advised that he would invite a CPO representative to the study session to defend theSr position of requiring the adoption of this type of ordinance. -14- April 9, 1980 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson advised that it is appropriate to cancel next week's meeting since there are no applications for General Plan amendments at this time. Mr. Peterson also called attention to the need for the Commissioners to file their annual Statement of Economic Interest with the City Clerk's office. The forms for this statement have been distributed to the Commissioners, COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner O'Neill inquired about a letter to be written to the City Council requesting another planner to facilitate work on the General Plan. Mr. Peterson reported that a couple of weeks ago the City Council held a session on Saturday morning with all Department Heads at which time they considered priorities, and one of the things with the highest priority was some additional work to update the General Plan. He indicated he would write a letter on the Commission's behalf to request additional help. Commissioner O'Neill reported that he attended a recent forum in San Diego with regard to water. However, the main speaker, Pat Brown, cancelled his appearance and then Mayor Pete Wilson did the same. The meeting turned out to be not a very informative forum. Commissioner Pressutti advised that he will be absent from the meeting of April 23. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted,