Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1982/05/19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 19, 1982 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. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue. Commissioners Present: R. Johnson, Williams, Green, G. Johnson, O'Neill and Stevenson Commissioner Absent: Pressutti (with previous notification) Staff Present: Director of Planning Gray, Principal Planner Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, City Engineer Lippitt, Senior Civil Engineer Harshman, Assistant City Attorney Harron and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Pro Tem R. Johnson, and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Stevenson-Williams) The minutes of the meeting of April 28, 1982 be approved as mailed. Commissioner O'Neill abstained due to his absence from that meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Pro Tem R. Johnson called for oral communications and none were presented. Chairman Pro Tem R. Johnson noted that a revised order of events for conducting the public hearing on tonight's agenda has been prepared, but a request has been made to deviate from that order of events. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that the first item on the original agenda called for consideration of the EIR and~tislisted as item 5 on the order of events. He expressed the opinion that this document has been prepared with all of the information available upon which the Commission should make a decision. He felt the EIR has fully explored all problems, including those which can be mitigated and those which cannot be mitigated. He contended that the EIR has been adequately prepared and discussed in public hearings by the Commission, and should be consid- ered for adoption as the first item on the agenda. MS (Stevenson-Green) Subject to the inclusion of the errata sheets submitted with the staff report, the Commission certifies that EIR-81-3 on the EastLake Planned Community has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and furthermore, that the Planning Commissioners have reviewed these documents and are considering the information in the final EIR as they reach a decision on the project. -2- May 19, 1982 In discussion of the motion Commissioner O'Neill advised that he is satisfied that the requirements established for an EIR have been met but he is not satisfied with some of the mitigating measures; however, since some potential impacts have been identified as being more properly addressed at specific stages in the develop- ment of the project, he could accept the document. Commissioner Williams commented that the EIR does not provide, as it should, the kind of information and background especially with regard to the question of water availability. He was not sure if that can be adequately addressed prior to the balloting within a few weeks on the peripheral canal. He contended that the statements in the EIR that allude to the fact that the water districts will be able to provide water as required are without substance; he, therefore, felt the EIR is inadequate in this area, and should not be adopted. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that the EIR pertains to a development that will take place over a 20 year period and the matter of water availability can be determined at each phase of the development. It is pointed out in the EIR that there may be a water problem for the region but that hinges on other factors than the project under consideration. Commissioner Williams questioned whether there is a substantial base for the water districts to make the statement that water can be provided for the development. Since this project will extend over a substantial period of time and the Commis- sion will be making an irrevocable decision in regard to the General Plan, the City should not be locked into a long term development plan based on information which has not been provided in the degree to which it should be. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid pointed out that prior to the preparation of the EIR, all of the appropriate water agencies were contacted and their input is included in the document. The draft EIR was reviewed by state, regional and local agencies and all of them found it adequate as it pertained to their ability to provide water. Commissioner O'Neill reiterated that additional EIR's will be required in connec- tion with the development phases and the Commission will have an opportunity to address mitigating measures as to their suitability. He believed all of the potential problems relating to the development have been identified. The motion for certification of the EIR carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, Green, O'Neill, R. Johnson and G. Johnson NAY: Commissioner Williams ABSENT: Commissioner Pressutti 1. Update on EastLake Principal Planner Lee reported that the applicant and staff have been working to resolve the issues which are identified in the supplemental report provided to the Planning Commission for this meeting. That report addresses the question of the possible annexation of the area to the City of San Diego, clarification of the housing needs and the City's ability to accommodate growth, the need for a comprehensive plan for the eastern territoy, the right density for the area, water availability, traffic and circulation analysis, including the question of whether Route 125 should be moved to the westerly portion of the property. -3- 5/19/82 With regard to traffic and circulation, Mr. Lee noted five key issues were raised, based upon this development plan, as follows: First, the network 1 and 2 studies, which assumed minimal or no development on the United Enterprise property, nearly doubles the amount of traffic projected for Telegraph Canyon Road, to a total of 47,000 trips. The 1-805 interchange areas will likely require extensive modifica- tions, which could be in the form of additional right-of-way or modifications to the bridges; a comprehensive traffic study will be required as part of the pro- posed City General Plan Amendment for the eastern are~; the traffic study now shows the need for a high level prime arterial north/south road connecting to 1-54 (identified as the Route 125 corridor); a detailed traffic study will be needed with each phase of development to determine the exact nature of public improvements required. Mr. Lee reviewed the changes to the plan as submitted by Cadillac Fairview, which included the addition of two more elementary school sites, making a total of seven; relocation of the high school site and regional park; changing the 125 corridor to the western portion of the property; adding 43 acres of industrial area at the northwest corner, and providing two transit centers. Planning Director Gray completed the update on the project revisions, pointing out that the Planned Community District Regulations have been revised through the efforts of the staff and the applicant. These regulations relate to the land- scaping, signing, design concepts, grading. The staff is in accord with the Planned Community District regulations as now presented. He reported there has been some modification and refinement with regard to the phasing of development if the plan is approved. In addition to that, the 52 condi- tions as listed in the March 10 report have been considered individually by the staff and applicant and there is now agreement on approximately 90 per cent of the conditions, at least in principle if not in detailed language. The conditions still under discussion involve those relating to fire, police, library and transit operational contributions for salaries, equipment, etc., as well as $~me components of the affordable housing plan dealing with the desire of including some mobile home park development within the project. It is hoped that disagreement on the conditions can be narrowed down if approval is given on the General Plan Amendment. 2. Comments on staff report and conditions Bob Santos, representing Cadillac Fairview Homes West, reviewed the key points in the written response addressed to members of the Planning Commission and dated May 19. This included key areas of consensus between the City staff and Cadillac Fairview Homes West, and a discussion on why the staff plan for reduced density (7,500 dwelling units) is not financially feasible to implement. He concluded that the reduced density would preclude the provision of low or moderate housing in the absence of public subsidy, low economic uses such as mobile home parks would be eliminated, parks would be improved using minimal standards, landscaping programs would have to be reduced in scope and quality, and school solutions would focus on interim facilities and busing programs in the absence of state aid. Mr. Santos reiterated their request that the Commission recon~end to the City Council the approval of their project on the basis of its merits. -4- May 19, 1982 In response to a question from Commissioner Stevenson, Mr. Santos asserted that processing the EastLake plan would not be inconsistent with the City's Growth Management Policy since that property is substantially contiguous with the city limits and the Janal Ranch has been eliminated from the Agricultural Reserve area context of the Growth Management Policy and this project should be considered on the basis of its merits. Planning Director Gray concurred that is his understanding of the Council's intent when the Growth Management Policy was adopted. Commissioner Williams raised a question concerning the city's identified housing needs and the potential for accommodating the projected gro~h over the next 20 years. He asked if that growth would require approval of a project the size of EastLake. It was pointed out that the housing needs relate to a regional area, whereas the number of units available in the near future relates to approved tentative maps or development plans within the incorporated city limits. It was al so pointed out that the Cadillac Fairview plan is projected to extend over a period of 20 years. Commissioner Green questioned when the property would be annexed and when there would be a change of ownership which would result in a tax benefit for the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Santos advised that the schedule for annexation would require about six to eight months follo~.ng approval of the project at the City Council level. The change of ownership would not take place until final tract maps were approved. This would be incremental over a 15 to 17 year period. Commissioner G. Johnson asked how much the provision of capital improvements-- roads, parks and schools--would affect the cost of housing. Mr. Santos advised that the housing profile which they prepared indicates they could produce the for-sale units at a price ranging from $58,000 a unit to around $300,000. He asserted that if they are permitted 11,450 units, they can provide quality housing that would meet the market price and still pay for the necessary public improvements. 3. Continued public hearing, discussion and close hea.rin§ Chairman Pro Tem R. Johnson declared the public hearing reopened. Gene Coleman, Gotham Stmet,Chula Vista, expressed the opinion that Cadillac Fairview Homes West is offering a bit of eutopia in their plans for development of EastLake, as they propose a self-contained city within a city, where approxi- mately 40,000 people will live, work and play while exerting no pressures on existing city resources. They have portrayed that industry and commerce will provide jobs for all residents and the residential portion of the development will provide necessary personnel for the industry and commerce. Mr. Coleman suggested that the timing of the development to bring about such results would be difficult. He further pointed out that potable water must be available for the project use before it can be processed through a reclamation facility. With or without the peripheral canal, EastLake would have to depend on the Otay Water District, a pub- lic utility which has traditionally delivered water in excess of its legal entitlement. -5- May 19, 1982 Mr. Coleman commented on the financial problems presently confronting the City, noting that apparently the City's share of the East "H" Street extension cannot be built, also that many staff positions are being eliminated. He urged the Planning Commission to deny the request for a General Plan Amendment for the EastLake project. Gretchen Burkey recalled concern expressed at an earlier hearing that if this project were not approved by Chula Vista, the area might be annexed to the City of San Diego. She referred to a letter addressed to the Director of Planning from Bill Davis of LAFCO which stated that annexation of the Janal Ranch area to the City of San Diego appears highly unlikely, since the extension of City of San Diego services into the area does not appear logical. Martha McDonald, 4425 Acacia Avenue, Bonita, contended that almost every agency from the State down to the County have expressed reservations concerning this project. She made reference to numerous letters and documents contained in the appendices section of the EIR that expressed those concerns. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. 4. Identification of Issues Director of Planning Gray advised that the recommendation of the Planning Depart- ment as set forth in the report of March 10th for denial of the General Plan Amendment has not been changed. That report contained a second recommendation that the Council establish an 18 month moratorium on amendments to the General Plan, prezoning applications and other development proposals in the eastern ter- ritories. He reported that if the Planning Commission does reach a decision tonight on a recommendation to the City Council, the Council has indicated they will commence deliberations on this proposal on Thursday, July 22, in a scheduled public hearing. Mr. Gray pointed out that the Commission also has the option of approving the plan as requested by Mr. Santos with a continuance to finalize conditions, or approval of a modified or phase plan, also with a continuance to finalize condi- tions. Mr. Gray reviewed the issues which the Commission should consider in reaching their decision, which include metropolitan form and structure. He pointed out that the land is in a key location since it is as close to the metropolitan center as E1Cajon and is on the fringe of the metropolitan area. One of the main issues relates to the City of Chula Vista form and structure concerning not only the EastLake proposal but the broader question of the ultimate development of the sphere of influence area. The City's existing General Plan covers that area but does not lay out a blueprint to be followed for its development at the present time. For that reason the Contract Planner was hir6d to study the eastern area and make recommendations for updating and revising the General Plan. Another key issue is the question of growth management as it applies to the timing and rate of development. -6- May 19, 1982 Also of concern is the fiscal health of local governments due to the uncertainty of state revenues and the means of retaining the present level of service to the public. It is apparent that any large scale project will be required to pay an increased share of the cost of services for the project area. Mr. Gray also pointed out the lack of a facilities plan for the eastern area. It must be determined what level of service, specifically transportation routes, will be required for this project and how that service will be financed. 6. Discussion and questions on the plan by the Planning Commission Commissioner Stevenson called attention to the economic status report submitted by the applicant which indicated this development would have a positive versus a negative impact on the City. Mr. Gray advised that he had not read the entire analysis but he read the conclusion of that analysis. He pointed out that any kind of project approval would require a continual review and update of the original assumptions because events can change those numbers. At each phase in the development, the fiscal impact would need to be reviewed and checked. In response to a question concerning increased density to offset the cost of public improvements, Mr. Gray asserted that is being suggested by planning professionals. Future development is perceived to be at increased density in order to keep the cost per unit down to affordable levels. Commissioner Stevenson asked if denial of this project would not result in granting a monopoly to owners of immediately adjacent land to the city and vacant parcels within the city. Mr. Gray indicated he would not consider it a monopoly situation but that the city might not be able to achieve the production of housing at a predictable level because of the different desires of individual property owners of smaller parcels. He expressed the belief that infilling is a key goal if it can be fit into developed neighborhoods where public services are already supplied. Such develop- ment is generally small scale and quite time consuming, so it is unpredictable in terms of a sustained rate of increase in housing. Commissioner G. Johnson asked for comments on the assessment of home owner fees for the maintenance of parks and open space. She reported that in a similar develop- ment which she visited the fee was $37 a month for park maintenance , and units in condominium structures were assessed an additional $62 to $80 for upkeep of buildings and grounds which adds $100 to $120 to the monthly home payment. Mr. Gray expressed the opinion that maintenance through home owners associations has been improving over the years and seems to be an accepted practice. Ne did not feel it results in double taxation. Commissioner R. Johnson asked if it will require 18 months for the Contract Planner to assess the sphere of influence area and submit a proposal in that regard. -7- May 19, 1982 Mr. Gray advised that he anticipates a three to four month stretching of the time set in the original schedule, which called for a concept plan in July. He felt, however, a preliminary plan would be available by the first of January, 1983. Commissioner Green expressed the belief that the property under consideration will be developed during the next 20 to 25 years. With that assumption he is concerned that if development proceeds piecemeal it will not have developers who could take on the burden of the necessary infrastructure. He felt it would be better to approve a development such as the plan now under consideration. He also felt it should be approved at the higher density since if 7500 units are approved the City may look at infilling in that area in the future. Commissioner Williams pointed out that the cost of providing public improvements is ultimately passed on to the home buyer. He also felt it is too much to expect those residents to pay the additional cost of maintaining parks and open space. Commissioner O'Neill commented that he has been favorably impressed with the quality of planning that has gone into this project, but he feels this development does conflict with existing local and regional plans for directing growth, and while those plans can be changed for good and sufficient reason, he did not believe such reasons have been presented. He pointed out that the extension of roads and utilities across intervening undeveloped land with undeniably growth inducing effects will force the City to be saddled with many premature planning decisions. MS (Williams-G. Johnson) The Commission recommends to the City Council the denial of the General Plan Amendment for the 4.8 square miles to accommodate the EastLake development. In discussion of the motion, Commissioners Green and Stevenson again expressed their support for the EastLake project. The motion for a recommendation of denial carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Williams, G. Johnson, R. Johnson and O'Neill NOES: Commissioners Green and Stevenson ABSENT: Commissioner Pressutti DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Gray reported that the Capital Improvements Program for the fiscal year 1982-83 has been compiled and is submitted to the Planning Commission for a finding concerning its conformity with the City's General Plan. It is the staff's recommendation that the program be approved. MSUC (O'Neill-Green) The Commission finds that the Capital Improvement Program for the fiscal year 1982-83 is in conformance with the General Plan and recommends its adoption. City Engineer Lippitt reported that since the writing of the status report on the construction of East "H" Street, dated May 13, 1982, the Chula Vista Elementary School District has agreed to an exchange of property which would make available the necessary right-of-way for the extension of "H" Street from the eastern boundary of the Watt project to the connection to Otay Lakes Road. It is now anticipated that the project will proceed with the construction of 30 feet of paved roadway (two lanes), guard rails and drainage. -8- May 19, 1982 COMMISSION CO~MENTS Commissioner O'Neill advised that he wished to make a matter of public record his admiration for Jim Peterson and his professional ability. He's a true professional and a man who has the courage of his convictions. The City is going to miss him regardless of who his replacement is going to be. Commissioner G. Johnson called attention to the Planning Commission budget to be considered by the City Council on May 27 and asked that the amount budgeted for meetings and conferences be used to provide six dinner meetings during the year instead of paying for one commissioner to attend the annual conference of the League of California Cities. MS (G. Johnson-O'Neill) The Planning Commission budget request be amended to allow six dinner meetings per year. The motion carried by a vote of 4-2 with Commissioners Williams and Stevenson voting no. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Pro Tem R. Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. to the meeting of May 26, 1982. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretly -