Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/09/23 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, September 23, 1992 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Casillas, Commissioners Carson, Decker, Martin, Ray, and Tuchscher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Fuller (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Howard, Senior Planner Manganelli, Senior Planner Bazzel, Environmental Facilitator Richardson, Community Development Director Salomone, Assistant Community Development Director Gustafson, Parks & Recreation Director Valenzuela, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf pi .FDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Casillas and was followed by a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Casillas reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None MSUC (Martin/Decker) 5-0 (Commissioner Ray had not yet arrived) to excuse Commissioner Fuller, who was out of town. PC Minutes -2- September 23, 1992 ITEM I:(A) CONSIDERATION OF RECERTIFICATION EIR-89-08 - MIDBAYFRONT LCP #8 (B) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MIDBAYFRONT AREA AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT - City of Chula Vista - Chula Vista Investors (C) ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM - MIDBAYFRONT LCP #8 Chair Casillas advised that Commissioner Ray had a conflict of interest, and was excused from deliberations on this item. Community Development Director Saiomone stated the Planning Commission had made a recommendation to certify the EIR in December 1991, which was carried forward to the City Council in January 1992. He noted the Planning Commission's actions would center on the Local Coastal Program Amendment and General Plan actions, as well as the environmental document. They would not be considering the project, the economic feasibility of the project, or the development agreement. Mr. Salomone noted that it was Council's direction to expedite the project. Environmental Facilitator Richardson addressed the environmental issues, and stated that staff had two recommendations to modify the LCP document by reducing the height of the cultural arts facility back to 69' and to correct a typographical error in the LCP document to allow the same square footage as the subcommittee alternative. With those two staff recommendations, the LCP resubmittal and GPA documents were consistent with the subcommittee alternative, and the FEIR remained appropriate for those documents. She noted the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations would be prepared concurrently with or subsequent to the City Council action on the project. Principal Planner Howard discussed various elements of the General Plan which would be altered to conform with the Local Coastal Plan. He noted that the General Plan Amendment could stand alone. If the Local Coastal Plan was modified and the proposed project changed, the proposed GPA was still a desirable land use for the area, and staff was recommending it. Consultant Gary Cinti said the Local Coastal Program consisted of two components--a land use plan, and an implementation program. In this case it was a Specific Plan which implemented the Land Use Plan. Mr. Cinti noted that once it is certified by the California Coastal Commission, it gives the City of Chula Vista jurisdiction over the development in terms of issuing coastal development permits. He said the existing Local Coastal Program is outdated and needs to be cleaned up beyond the Bayfront, although the focus of the amendment is in the PC Minutes -3- September 23, 1992 bayfront area. He proceeded to discuss the steps required for development, after approval by the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Decker asked if the lagoon area was considered part of the open space, even though it was private. Mr. Cinti answered that it was categorized as residential, not as open space. Commissioner Decker inquired if the change in designation would limit Rohr's options for the area in which they are building their headquarters. Mr. Cinti said that Rohr's use was for office space, but the list of permitted uses under the "Office" category in the LCP took into account everything Rohr wanted to do. If there were things they felt should be added to that, it could be changed. Community Development Director Salomone had discussed this with Rohr, and they concurred. Commissioner Decker, regarding flooding, requested staff to give their rationale regarding the 1/4 inch rainfall in a 24-hour period. Mr. Cinti stated this was one of the areas in which the Coastal Commission required very fight standards regarding anything that came close to having the potential of degrading the water quality of a bay or coastal area. Commissioner Decker asked who would determine if 1/4 inch had fallen, since the U.S. Weather Service gave rainfall for a 24-hour period. Mr. Cinti replied he was not sure, but the engineers undoubtedly had a system to measure this. Commissioner Decker was concerned about the period between April 1 and October 31. David Smith, Rick Engineering, replied that the period between April 1 and October 31 is the time the Coastal Commission and Fish & Wildlife Service prefer grading, as long as the Least Tern, Clapper Rail, Bell, or Savannah Sparrow breeding is not interrupted. There is essentially no rainfall during that period of time. In reply to Commissioner Decker, Mr. Smith said there were standard provisions for rainfall for erosion protection during that period, which escalate during the other period. Those standard provisions would become effective during that period of time if there was more rainfall than normal. Commissioner Decker asked that Exhibits 10 and 11 opposite page VI-4 be referenced in the text. Commissioner Tuchscher, referencing page 1-5 of the staff report, said there was no mention of retail shops or restaurants in the resort land use. He asked if that would be appropriate. Principal Planner Howard said he believed it was the intent to encompass those uses. Mr. Tuchscher felt that since hotels and motels were delineated, it was important to delineate retail shops and restaurants. Commissioner Tuchscher asked when the shipbuilding lease on the bayfront would expire. Mr. Salomone answered that it would expire August 1993. PC Minutes -4- September 23, 1992 Commissioner Tuchscher questioned why water access for the passive park uses was not discussed in the land use plan but was in the staff report. Mr. Cinti answered that the staff report was addressing a number of items that the Council directed staff to review during the preparation of the LCP. One of those items was water access. While no water access was proposed in the LCP, the arrangement of use was such that it did not prevent it from being considered at some future date, but there was significant environmental constraint to it actually occurring. Commissioner Carson, referencing page 3-48, read a paragraph regarding the prohibition of recreational boating facilities in that certain area of the bay without specific approval. She felt that at some time there would be access to the bay; she opposed any kind of access and noted that The National Geographic, October issue, had featured Chula Vista bay in a full-page article. Commissioner Decker said that in an earlier EIR, they were specifically told there would be no access to the bay whatsoever. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that it was his understanding that the idea was that the plan would allow for some point of access at some future date, if it ever became feasible from a resource standpoint to provide such water access. He asked for staff's assurance that that was what was being executed. Community Development Director Salomone said that was correct, and it had come from the Council's January meeting in their deliberations. While they acknowledged that water access was not contemplated in the plan that they had approved, they requested, in the eventuality that if it ever became a reality, that the plan be set up so there were points where access could occur. Commissioner Carson asked if that happened, would there be super qualified testing of the water for pollution from outside areas that would safeguard the health of people who might fall in the water. Mr. Cinti said the agreement of the City of Chula Vista, California Coastal Commission, the Army Corps of Engineers and U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and CEQA would have to support it. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned the 25% residential development in the first phase. Mr. Cinti answered that the limitation was on the residential area to the north which was strictly residential. The area within the resort court did not have that restriction, but required a master plan with phasing of its own. Commissioner Tuchscher, referring to the land use plan, questioned the 8 water acres allocated for the lagoon. He understood it was a 10-acre lagoon. Mr. Cinti said it was approximately 8 acres. Mr. Tuchscher asked that it be verified. Commissioner Tuchscher, referring to Specific Plan, Exhibit 2-Coastal Zone Map, asked that the location of symbol//2 be changed to better reflect the industrial sub-area. Referring to Exhibit 4, opposite page V-2, Mr. Tuchscher said it showed a 30' height limit on PC Minutes -5- September 23, 1992 the area west of Marina Parkway, south of the Lagoon. He understood it to be public park. Mr. Cinti said there could also be a need to build a public facility within the park. Mr. Tuchscher was concerned with the height. Mr. Cinti explained that it could be any kind of architectural feature, not the height of the building itself. Commissioner Carson, referring to compliance with the affordable housing policy, said she could not find anything about schools or affordable housing in the staff report. Mr. Cinti said that one of the requirements of the master plan was that it have a report and implementation program for the schools. While it may not be appropriate to have that program in the LCP, it was appropriate to have a full implementation program within the master plan. It would be added to the report. Commissioner Carson asked where the money would come from for the cultural arts facility and the ice skating rink. Mr. Salomone said it was not addressed in the documents received except in a cursory manner. It was a feasibility issue and an issue on which the Council would have to give direction. There were several alternatives from which the money could be obtained. Commissioner Decker, referring to page 1I-8 of the Local Coastal Program, potential hazards within the bayfront, asked if liquification was included in seismic hazards. Mr. Cinti answered affirmatively. Chair Casillas asked the number of students generated by the residential area and the need for additional schools. Mr. Salomone said there had been ongoing negotiations with the School Districts. Chair Casillas asked when the Commission would see the feasibility study of the cultural arts center. Mr. Saiomone said Price Waterhouse had given them several scenarios, and Williams- Kuebelbeck, the City's consultant, was reviewing those scenarios. He hoped it would be available before going to Council on October 13. Commissioner Tuchscher asked at what point during the process did the development agreement came into play. Mr. Cinti said it would be during the redevelopment plan process. Mr. Salomone said they had been meeting weekly on the development agreement, and would have hoped to have had it for the present Commission meeting. As soon as they had the feasibility analysis and direction from the City Council, they would proceed with that. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Matt Peterson, Peterson & Price, 530 B Street,//2300, San Diego, representing Chula Vista Investors, said he would be available for any questions which might come up during public testimony. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista 91910, representing Crossroads, urged the Commission to not approve the General Plan amendment nor the Local Coastal resubmittal at PC Minutes -6- September 23, 1992 that time. He read from the original Council resolution that at the time the General Plan and LCP resubmittal were to return to the Council for review and approval, they would be accompanied by several documents, including the economic feasibility study which would demonstrate clearly the project phasing proposal was economically feasible. That had not been done. Mr. Watry discussed several other items which had not been completed. He asked that the Planning Commission not approve these plans without all the information. Commissioner Decker asked Mr. Watry what date Council resolution he was quoting. Mr. Watry said he believed it was approved in January. W. R. Pack, 883 Dorothy, Chula Vista 91911, representing single-family residents in Sub-Area 4 (West Fairfield), directed the Commissioners to a letter dated September 17, which had been sent to them. He said the land use plan would change the zoning to eliminate the single-family residences there, and would make it into a research industrial area. The people did not want to be bought out. Mr. Pack asked that the area not be considered in any plan. Ian Gill, Starboard Development Corporation, 1202 Kettner Blvd., San Diego, representing Rohr, Inc., in response to Commissioner Decker's previous question, said he believed the commercial/professional/administrative designation in Sub-Area 2 offered sufficient flexibility to Rohr and they were satisfied with that. Concerning the land use plan, landscaping, Mr. Gill was concerned that the landscaping plan would be implemented, although Rohr had recently had a mandated plan as part of their improvement. He requested that Rohr be given the ability to work with staff to develop some language that would provide more flexibility so as Rohr proceeded with more elements of their master plan related to the balance of their property, that an appropriately phased approach to that requirement could be developed. Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff to comment. Mr. Salomone said he did not believe staff would have any objection to implementing that, and would be willing to work with Mr. Gill to make it more flexible. Chair Casillas, relating to Mr. Pack's comments, asked if West Fairfield was in the Southwest Redevelopment Area and if it did not carry certain restrictions or phased plans for different types of developments that might address Mr. Pack's concerns. Mr. Cinti said the current County zoning for that area was in place and was included in the LCP. There was no change to what could be permitted before and after the LCP was adopted. There was a sentence in the Land Use Plan to which Mr. Pack's letter referred that could draw a conclusion about what should happen. Mr. Cinti did not believe there would be a problem with taking that sentence out. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Decker felt there were issues to be resolved. The plans seemed to be relatively adequate; however, he had a problem recommending it to the City Council without understanding the economic feasibility. PC Minutes -7- September 23, 1992 Commissioner Carson said that along with that, there was nothing about schools, and the schools were crowded in the western part of Chula Vista. There were too many loose ends on many things, and she would not feel comfortable recommending it to the City Council. Commissioner Martin said he liked the project, but originally had concerns regarding the feasibility study. He felt the Council would have the information before them, however, and he felt the Commission should send it forward. Chair Casillas commented that some of the statements heard during the public heating were well taken; however, this type of project could not proceed like a smaller project. The issue of economics was a very important one. He had faith the City Council would exercise sound judgment and would not let a plan proceed which was not feasible. Chair Casillas noted that approvals still were to be obtained from the Coastal Commission, Fish & Wildlife, Port Commission, etc. He would support the project. Matt Peterson returned to the podium and, addressing the Chair, said that they were prepared to address a few of the issues raised. Agreement had been reached with the schools, and a full feasibility analysis had been performed by the client's consultants but needed to verified by the City's consultants. The summaries were laid out in the staff report. At the request of Commissioner Carson, Mr. Peterson turned the microphone over Mr. Barkett, the applicant, to summarize the agreement reached with the schools. William Barkett said they had agreed to pay $13 million. The school system would decide how to use the money. They had a letter to that effect. Community Development Director Saiomone said he had also seen correspondence from the School District and could recall a letter from the School District's consultants open with a range from $9 million to $18 million. It was typically not an issue to be resolved at this level and would come at a later phase. He said he was aware, however, that in good faith they had been negotiating. Even though public testimony was closed, the Chair allowed Mr. Pack to approach the podium. Mr. Pack requested that the Commission go ahead with the exclusion of the West Fairfield area, sub-area 4. Commissioner Decker said he could not wholeheartedly recommend this to the City Council without seeing the feasibility study. MSF (Carson/Decker) 2-3 (Fuller excused; Ray-conflict of interest) (Conunissloner Carson/Decker voted for; Martin, Casillas, Tuchscher voted against) not to approve the project, and not to reconunend it to the City Council. MOTION FAILED. At Commissioner Martin's request, Community Development Director Salomone said the feasibility of the project had been analyzed by Price Waterhouse, and had been analyzed to a PC Minutes -8- September 23, 1992 degree by the City's consultant, Williams-Kuelbelbeck. The project was feasible given some participation by the City. The direction to date was that the Redevelopment Agency would not participate until they saw the feasibility study. They had not been able to have a workshop with the Council, which had held up completion of the study. The Council had recently amended the contract to allow the consultant to complete the study. The project is feasible if the City wanted to participate, if the City wanted to defer some of the amenities, etc. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the Economic Feasibility Study would be before Council when the documents the Commission was considering went to Council. Mr. Salomone said it was their hope that at least an executive report from the consultant would be with the Council packet. The consultant had indicated they would have that. Commissioner Tuchscher said he trusted that staff and City Council would be able to review the documents they felt necessary for a decision on the documents before the Commission. MS (Tuchscher/Martin) that the Commission approve the documents and send it forward to Council. Commissioner Decker pointed out that if the Commission recommended it without having a good sense of the economic feasibility, he felt it was a dangerous precedent. He felt it could be deferred for a few weeks until the consultant finished his analysis. Chair Casillas asked the Assistant City Attorney if it was in the area of responsibility of the Planning Commission to take into consideration the Economic Feasibility Study, if it was required by CEQA. He asked what authority dictated that the Planning Commission had to role on it. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf did not believe it was required by CEQA. He did not feel it was a legal part of any particular proposed use that it be either economically feasible or infeasible at that time. The Commission had to be satisfied that the public interest was served by the proposed amendments. Gary Cinti noted that the Commission could recommend approval of the project, subject to the Council having an economic analysis at the time, and if the Council did not have it, the Commission would recommend against the project. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that the project, from an economic feasibility standpoint, was a very complex equation and an equation that probably would not be answered until the point where a development agreement is done. He felt the City would participate in some manner, and participation in any project in a Redevelopment Agency district was not out of the ordinary. He was comfortable that through that process, staff and the Redevelopment Agency would evaluate all those issues and negotiate the best possible agreement for the City, as far as the City's participation or lack of participation in the form of tax abatements, etc. He proposed that the project be moved forward. He did not need to see another economic feasibility study. PC Minutes -9- September 23, 1992 Commissioner Tuchscher asked that his motion be amended to include the changes recommended by the Commission. Commissioner Martin, who seconded, concurred. Mr. Cinti asked if the changes included the discussion on landscape screening regarding Rohr, and elimination of the sentence on page IV-13 regarding West Fairfield. Commissioner Tuchscher answered affirmatively. RESTATED MOTION: That the Commission approve the documents and send them forward to Council, including lhe changes reconunended by the Connnlssion. VOTE: 3-2 For: Martin, Casillas, Tuchscher Against: Decker, Carson MOTION FAILED MS (Decker/Carson to table this item until the Commission received an economic feasibility study. Mr. Peterson, as a point of order, through the Chair, requested that in order to move the item forward, that the Commissioners who were in support vote against the project. He asked that the staff report to the Council show that there were three out of the five members present that recommended approval, but to move it along, there was a recommendation of denial. In that way it would not continually go back to the Commission. He could not guarantee that the City's consultant would have an analysis of the economic feasibility study by the next meeting or by a certain date. Commissioner Martin agreed that was one way to handle it, hut suggested that possibly it could go forward as suggested earlier, with the provision that the executive summary of the feasibility study be included when it goes forward to the Council. Mr. Cinti clarified that the provision was that the Council have the executive summary from the City's economic consultant when they made their decision. Commissioner Tuchscher asked for assurance from staff that it would be able to be done before October 13, when it went to Council. Mr. Salomone said they had been told by the consultant that would occur, and they would abide by the Commission's condition. Conunissioner Decker rescinded his motion to table. PC Minutes -10- September 23, 1992 MSC (Martin/Tuchscher) 4-1 (Commissioner Carson voted against) (Commissioner Fuller absent; Conunlssioner Ray-conflict of interest) to approve the project as recommended in the staff report, as amended, with the provision that an Executive Summary of the Economic Feasibility Study be completed for Council. Chair Casillas declared a five-minute recess at 8:55 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:12 p.m. ITEM 2: (A) CONSIDERATION OF RECERTIFICATION SUPPLEMENTAL EIR-91-03 - Salt Creek Ranch (B) PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-92-02: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR SALT CREEK RANCH, CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-02 - The Baldwin Company (C) ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM - EIR-91-03 SALT CREEK RANCH Commissioner Tuchscher asked to be excused because of a conflict of interest on this item. Senior Planner Manganelli presented the staff report discussing various issues, noting the reduction in the number of lots in Phase 3, and the enlarged lot sizes as previously requested by the Planning Commission. The applicant felt it was infeasible to have any large-lot product in the first phase, because of the requirement to extend the infrastructure to that area and provide the facilities and grading that would occur to provide a few large lots in the first phase. Therefore, large lots in Neighborhood 9 were in the second phase as in the adopted SPA plan. Mr. Manganelli stated that staff was recommending approval as noted in the staff report. He requested that the following condition be added to the resolution: "Establish and participate in a school facility financing plan as well as providing classroom space as required by the Sweetwater Union High School District prior to the approval of the first final map." Mr. Manganelli noted the applicant had been negotiating with the District, and the District was satisfied with the condition. Mr. Manganelli requested that an errata sheet, prepared by the applicant, be distributed to the Commission. He then discussed each of the applicant's requested changes, and noted staff's position. Commissioner Decker, referring to Figure 3-13 of the SPA Plan, commented on the line of sight over two-story houses and the overcrossing and trees. PC Minutes -11- September 23, 1992 Commissioner Decker was concerned about the wildlife corridors and what would be located there. Mr. Manganelli said the areas of concern would be detention basins which would hold rain water to avoid having it go into Otay Lakes. They would not be developed, but would be landscaped. In reply to Mr. Decker, he said the detention basins would have gentle slopes which would allow animals access to the lakes. Commissioner Decker, referring to page 2-22, street names, commented that the street names were too long; he objected to the streets being named after Indian tribes. Mr. Manganelli noted that the street names could be abbreviated in some cases. Commissioner Martin asked if the garages would face the street in the 3LM area. Mr. Manganelli answered that they were only at the "lot" stage; they were not yet dealing with the product. Commissioner Carson thanked staff for considering the liability standpoint of the equestrian tunnel, and the safety of the children. Regarding affordable housing, Commissioner Carson asked how the developer handled the reporting responsibilities. Assistant Community Development Director Gustafson explained that the developer is required to provide semi-annual certified rent rolls. Staff would monitor the rent rolls, and if they have any concerns, they would have a right to audit the books the developer would keep regarding the low-income units. One of the initial requirements was that all of the residents who would be claimed as low-income residents would complete an affidavit stating their eligibility for the unit. At Commissioner Carson's request, Parks & Recreation Director Valenzuela addressed the conditions on the applicant's errata sheet which involved his department. He recommended that the Commission accept staff's conditions, with modification to condition no. 80 changing the word "updated" to ~approved." Commissioner Ray, referring to page 2-20 of the staff report regarding easements, asked if there was a conflict with a letter from Mr. McDade which had been received by the Planning Commission. Mr. Manganelli replied that the County had been contacted and they said it was adequate access. Staff had gone one step further by identifying two other potential access to trails. Based on Mr. McDade's (Pyramids) letter and conversations with him, it seemed that he was satisfied with those three potential accesses. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf commented there was no conflict between the letters. It was the County's independent view that access through Neighborhood 11 was all that was legally required and provided appropriate access in light of the potential developability of the Pyramids property. Because of the conflict and the lawsuit, the applicant had agreed to the other conditions which provided potential access in the event they were successful in the lawsuit. PC Minutes -12- September 23, 1992 Commissioner Decker cautioned that if the multi-purpose community facility location was isolated, it may not be feasible to build anything on that acreage. He was concerned that the area may be too small. Commissioner Ray was concerned about the dispute regarding the location of the temporary fire station. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated the location issue had been settled by the City Council the previous night, and the decision was to move the fire station to a new temporary location. Commissioner Ray, regarding Scenario 2 on page 2-86, was concerned about mitigation which included SR-125. He was concerned that the development of SR-125 was a number of years away, while the impact might be sooner. He questioned the feasibility of having a firm commitment, a funded project, immediately prior to start of construction on SR-125 before approving any projects. Mr. Lee said there were limitations on the number of houses that could be built and the number of trips that could be taken before SR-125 could be constructed, which related to project approval and issuance of building permits. Those limitations would stop development until SR-125 was constructed at some point in time. There were many checks and balances which would stop development, including the threshold standards, if SR-125 is not built. Commissioner Ray was concerned that the threshold standards would be changed as projects were approved, even if SR-125 were not built. Assistant Planning Director Lee said the final decision would rest with the City Council as to whether or not they would accept a lesser level of service. The standards are reviewed on a yearly basis, and there is much discussion before a standard is amended. Commissioner Ray asked who made recommendations to Council that a threshold needed to be reviewed to change a threshold? Mr. Lee replied that the recommendations would be from the Growth Management Oversight Commission; however, anyone could request a change. Chair Casillas noted it could also come from the Planning Commission and said the Commission had at the last meeting offered suggestions as to how the Police response time might be changed. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public heating was opened. Thn Wilson, 12938-77 Carmel Creek Road, San Diego 92130, representing the Watson- McCoy parcel and the Clarkson property where the road terminated in Neighborhood 10B, spoke in favor of the tentative map for Salt Creek Ranch. He urged support by the Commission. Claudia Troisi, 11975 El Camino Rea, Del Mar, representing the Baldwin Company gave a slide presentation and introduced Rick Hume, a principal with FORMA, a land planning firm working with Baldwin. PC Minutes -13- September 23, 1992 Rick Hume, also representing Baldwin, focused on the Sub-area 3, specifically estate roads, the 1-acre lots, and grading. He noted the Planning Commission's suggestions which had been addressed. Claudia Troisi returned to the podium and discussed the community purpose sites proposed to be set aside and the possibility of joint use. She also recommended that no further studies be conducted regarding the equestrian undercrossing, and that a grade level crossing be utilized at Proctor Valley Road and Hunte Parkway. She asked that the Commission be specific in what studies needed to be done if they were required. Ms. Troisi then discussed their errata sheet, which had been previously presented during the staff presentation. Commissioner Decker asked how three lots adjacent to the industrial area would be buffered. Assistant Planning Director ~ stated that there was a slope condition in that area, and the industrial area was in the rear portion and also was a slope area. Physically, there was much more separation than appeared on the exhibit. Commissioner Decker was concerned with on-street parking in some of the cul-de-sacs. Ms. Troisi concurred there was difficulty concerning lots with narrow widths. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich noted Condition 13 addressing that item. Assistant Planning Director [ce asked Mr. Ullrich to comment on one of Engineering's concerns regarding rolled curbs in Area 10A. He said that was a public street area, and the Engineering Department had not approved the use of rolled curbs. It was not their standard, and did not support the use of rolled curb in public streets. Assistant Planning Director Lee added that in the discussions held with the applicant and Engineering, the position of Engineering was largely because of problems with street sweeping-- with rolled curb, it tends to be swept onto the sidewalk--and with vehicles parking on the sidewalk. Sue Strayer, 2836 Via Del Allazon, Bonita 91902, speaking in behalf of the Bonita Valley Horsemen, said they concurred with staff to delete the underground tunnel from the plan. They had used above-ground crossing on streets using signal lights which make it available for horse riders to reach, and they had worked well. They were concerned about a long, underground tunnel because of safety of the horseback riders and pedestrians, especially children. Commissioner Decker asked if the riders required that the streets have a special type of covering for the horses. Ms. Strayer answered negatively. Samir Ghattas, 5232 Jackson #205, La Mesa 92041, representing The Pyramids, said that the access points, which had been approved by the County and City staff, were to the east of their property line going in a northeasterly direction alongside a creek that was difficult to cross. They had a lot of environmental concerns, as well as archaeological and biological. Because of the slopes, the properties to the west could not be reached. The Pyramids, therefore, could PC Minutes -14- September 23, 1992 not provide access to the other property owners. Mr. Ghattas liked the concept of providing potential road access through the two cul-de-sacs mentioned by staff. No one else wishing the speak, the public hearing was closed. Assistant Planning Director Lee, regarding access to The Pyramids property and the potential development, noted that the area had mostly slopes in excess of 25 %. This was a part of San Miguel Mountain, and even though it was out of Chula Vista's General Plan area, the intent would be to preserve the area in its natural state. While there was a legal question in terms of access, the practicality of developing those properties was at issue. Regarding the undercrossing, staff requested that the condition remain as written. The intent of further studies was because the location was part of the 28-mile network system which crossed Telegraph Canyon and Orange Avenue. Staff did not feel the undercrossings would be needed, but wished to make certain. Regarding the errata sheet, staff asked that the conditions remain as presented in the staff report. They had received the errata sheet late and did not have ample opportunity to review it. Mr. Lee asked that the Commission authorize staff the option to meet with the Baldwin representatives before the Council meeting to try to resolve the issues, or take them on to Council if still unresolved. Senior Planner Manganelli stated that staff had been working very closely with the City Attorney on standardization of the conditions, changing format but not content. The conditions submitted, therefore, if recommended by the Commission would be presented to Council in a different format, but the content or intent of the Commission would not be changed. MSUC (Martin/Decker) 5-0 (Commissioner Fuller absent; Commissioner Tuchscher-conflict of interest) to recertify the SEIR-91-03 for Salt Creek Ranch SPA and Tentative Map for Salt Creek Ranch, Chula Vista Tract 92-02. MSUC (Martin/Carson) 5-0 (Commissioner Fuller absent; Commissioner Tuchscher-conflict of interest) that based on the findings contained in the attached Draft City Council resolution, move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Tentative Subdivision Map for Salt Creek Ranch, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, subject to the conditions enumerated in said resolution, with the addition of the condition requested by the Sweetwater Union High School District, and directing staff to negotiate resolution to the errata sheet submitted by the applicant. MSUC (Martin/Carson) 5-0 (Commissioner Fuller absent; Commissioner Tuchscher-conflict of interest) to adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program. MS (Martin/Carson for discussion) to recommend that the City Council approve the street names submitted for Neighborhoods 1 through 8. PC Minutes -15- September 23, 1992 Commissioner Decker had a problem with naming the streets after Indian tribes; wished to eliminate the use of native American language in streets. Commissioner Carson felt the names were too long and would be difficult for people who have poor eyes to see them late at night. She was also concerned with emergency service. She asked who created the list. Assistant Planning Director Lee replied that staff had asked the applicant to submit a street name list, with twice as many names than were needed. Those were reviewed by the various departments, including Fire and Police, to verify that similar names are not already in the planning area. The portion with which there was a concern could be deleted, and names for those areas reconsidered. VOTE: 0-5 - MOTION FAILED MS (Carson/Decker for discussion) to reconunend that staff work with the applicant and amend the street names, and return to the Planning Conunission for approval. Assistant Planning Director Lee asked if that was to cover the entire list, or just the one area, and whether it was to include the length. Commissioner Carson asked that the length be reduced; Commissioner Martin wanted the areas identified. Ms. Troisi of Baldwin approached the podium and stated the applicant would be glad to go back and redo the names, but asked for guidance. Each of the communities were themed; they had discussed abbreviating the street names. Commissioner Decker was not concerned with using Indian words, but objected to tribal names. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Fuller absent; Commissioner Tuchscher-confllct of interest) DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Assistant Planning Director Lee reminded the Commission of a special meeting on September 30, with a tentative special meeting the following Wednesday, November 7, and Friday, November 9, regarding Otay Ranch. However, the schedule may shift. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: Commissioner Ray asked at what point the Water Authority could intervene and no longer issue a permit. Mr. I~e answered that they issue a "will serve" letter on maps and then, beyond that, they have an allocation program set up for building permits. Whether or not permits are issued depends PC Minutes -16- September 23, 1992 on the status of the plan check process. The water districts continually negotiate with the various developers to put in both storage facilities and upgrade the main lines. Commissioner Ray was concerned with the cumulative impact, and whether or not everyone had to share in a new piping system, etc. Mr. Lee replied that the water district considers future, long-term usage by the various developments. Commissioner Carson was concerned about not receiving material from a certain department, and was frustrated with receiving project information with parts missing. Also, she needed a more solid presentation. She stated that if there was a project which came up and there were parts missing, there would be an automatic "no" vote until those parts were put in. It had happened several times recently; she was not comfortable with what was being presented. Assistant Planning Director Lee replied that Council had set specific deadlines on certain projects that were high priority. There was an attempt to secure a workshop session on this particular project for better direction and more answers. That didn't occur; the schedule was still intact; and it was necessary to go to the Planning Commission on that schedule. Staff would pass on to the City Manager's office and directly to Council that it is a concern of the Commission; that they were asked to make decisions on projects where they felt they did not have enough information, or correct information, or enough detailed information to make a recommendation to that body. Commissioner Carson was concerned with the impossible time constraint put on the departments. Commissioner Decker asked what had happened to the East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan, and the Water Conservation Plan. Planning Director Leiter reported that staff was working with HNTB, a consulting firm, to do an analysis of the feasibility of building an interim facility in the SR-125 corridor that could precede a freeway facility, which would be funded by local developers' fees. A financial feasibility study was being done, as well as testing the capacity of the interim facility and the financial requirements. Once that is completed, staff would have an idea as to how much to raise the DIF in order to accommodate that, and how much additional roadway capacity, and would then be in a position to update the Transportation Phasing Program to reflect the results. He anticipated another two to three months to completion. Regarding the water retrofit ordinance, Mr. Leiter reported that the City's Environmental Resource Manager was working with the Interagency Water Task Force and had given them a draft ordinance. He anticipated another two to three months, also, before adoption of a final program. Commissioner Decker asked if the Planning Commission would receive a draft of those documents before finalization. Mr. Leiter answered that staff definitely planned to forward the information on the TPP and the SR-125 Study to the Commission. If the Commission directed that the Water Retrofit Program be brought back to them, staff would be willing to do so either at a workshop or a hearing. The Commissioners asked for a workshop. PC Minutes -17- September 23, 1992 Commissioner Ray, regarding open space land formations and rock outcroppings, asked if there was any kind of protection against graffiti. Mr. Miter replied that the City would only maintain them as open space districts. ADJOURNMENT at 11:23 p.m. to the Special Business Meeting of September 30, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy-R~ley, Sec/etary Planning Commission