Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1995/02/22 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Cotmcil Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, Februar3, 22, 1995 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Fuller, Martin, Ray, Salas, Tarantino, and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Special Planning Projects Manager lamriska, Senior Planner Rosaler, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Environmental Consultant Mclntire, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Contract Attorney Basil MOTION TO EXCUSE - None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of December 21, 1994 and January 11, 1995 MSC (Fuller/Salas) 6-0 to approve the minutes of December 21, 1994 and January 11, 1995. Commissioners Fuller and Martin had read the minutes of December 21 and believed them to be accurate. Commissioner Willett abstained from voting since he was not a member of the Commission at the time of these meetings. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- February 22, 1995 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: CHULA VISTA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DRAFT EIR-94-03 Environmental Review Coordinator Reid began the presentation, noting that the environmental review report covered an area which had been involved in much of the Otay Ranch consideration of a General Development Plan, which had been jointly adopted by the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. The land use assumptions for the bulk of the project area is the same for both the City and the County. A change in the Sphere boundary would in most instances not result in a change in the land use assumptions and the impacts that would result would be primarily insignificant. Mr. Reid stated that the EIR was primarily prepared for LAFCO and focused on such issues as the delivery of public services. The Resource Conservation Commission had voted to recommend certification of the EIR. Correspondence received since the staff report had been given to the Planning Commissioners at this meeting and would be responded to in the final EIR, along with any comments received during the public hearing. He then introduced Jerry Jamriska, Special Planning Project Manager for the Otay Ranch project and the Sphere study. Mr. Jamriska stated that a Sphere of Influence information sheet had been given to the Commissioners, which tried to identify certain key questions that were asked at a public forum presentation to the community several weeks before. Mr. Jamriska noted the initial Sphere of the City of Chula Vista was adopted by LAFCO in 1985, and pointed out the Sphere of Influence area, which is still current. In July 1993, LAFCO authorized the Executive Oficer upon request of the City to conduct an initial update study of the potential addition to the Otay Ranch study area. Mr. Jamriska then gave an overview of the proposal, noting that the four planning areas would add 12,718 acres to the City of Chula Vista, if approved, and pointed out the five General Plan amendments which were proposed to be processed concurrently with the Sphere update. Senior Planner Rick Rosaler detailed the four planning areas, noting that General Plan designations had been applied to the Satterla property. The wedges drained into the Lower Otay Reservoir which are owned by the City of San Diego. Mr. Rosaler, referring to Table 3-C in the EIR, stated that for the most part, because the City and the County had agreed on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan Subregional Plan, there were no changes in land use intensity. The additional properties which were not part of the Ranch would intensify and, in some cases, deintensify based on the General Plan designation. Mr. Rosaler introduced Bruce Mclntire, a principal of the firm of Lettieri-Mclntire and Associates, who prepared the environmental impact report. Mr. Mclntire discussed the environmental impact report, noting that the change in the Sphere boundaries did not have much effect on the ultimate land use. The environmental impacts, which were clearly identified on the Otay Ranch EIR, would happen whether or not the boundary changed. They could develop to the same degree under the County. He noted a process allowed by CEQA called "incorporation by reference" had been used. They had drawn upon the information used in the Otay Ranch EIR, as well as the City's General Plan Program EIR. Mr. Mclntire then summarized the conclusions of the environmental impact report. PC Minutes -3- February 22, 1995 Mr. Jamriska stated that staff recommended that the public hearing be conducted and closed, with direction to staff to prepare a final environmental impact report that would be presented at a joint meeting before the City Council and the Planning Commission on Mamh 14. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Chair Tuchscher called the first speaker, Stan Waid, representing the Bonita Highlands Homeowners Association and Sweetwater Valley Civic Association. Start Waid, 5617 Galloping Way, Bonita, asked if staff would show a certain slide showing the area in which he lives. Chair Tuchscher asked if Mr. Waid represented the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, and if they had taken any kind of formal action. Mr. Waid stated that they had asked him to represent them at this meeting and the one the week before. Chair Tuchscher asked if the same was true of the Bonita Homeowners Association. Mr. Waid stated that he might be called the resident manager of the homeowners association since he had lived there 20 years. Chair Tuchscher asked if either group had taken any formal action. Mr. Waid replied that they had not. Mr. Waid said that in addition to the Sphere of Influence, the Bonita residents are impacted tremendously by decisions by the Planning Commission and the City Council in Chula Vista and the County. Two years ago, Central Avenue became a river flooding about 20 homes downstream by the Bonita Post Office, primarily because of lack of planning by the County, and by the City of Chula Vista in approving the EastLake Development without taking into account what was going to happen to the runoff from that development. Central Creek was a small area which became a river. As a result, the homeowners downstream filed suit against the County to dredge out Central Creek. The County required the Bonita Highlands property owners to dredge it out at a cost of $20,000. Mr. Waid stated that at the 1985 LAFCO meeting, they were given basically two alternatives. They were given the choice of being put in the National City Sphere of Influence and a co-possibility of maybe the San Diego Sphere of Influence or the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence. Mr. Waid had chosen the City of Chula Vista, but said it was probably a mistake on his part. He was concerned about infrastructure not being in place, traffic flow, the flow of the water. At the public forum held a week or so before, they wanted to de- sphere but were told that there is nothing in LAFCO's charter to allow a de-sphere. Mr. Waid said they would like to de-sphere, because they don't feel they are getting their fair shake in the community. Jeanne Evans, 3350 Watercrest, Bonita 91902, read two letters regarding the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Draft EIR, Lot No. 74, Block B, Bonita Hills. Francisco and Luisa Nieto, 4348 Acacia, Bonita 91902, said they were having problems with their septic tank, which was an inconvenience as well as a health hazard. They did not want to lose their zoning privileges PC Minutes -4- February 22, 1995 by annexing to Chula Vista. It would be a detriment to the value of their property; therefore, they disputed the Sphere of Influence Study and did not approve it. They asked for a copy of the EIR and requested more time to respond to the EIR. The second letter was from Martha and Pedro Prado, 4358 Acacia, Bonita 92902, regarding Block 75, Block B, Bonita Hills, stating they had not received copies of the EIR although its text may negatively influence their property value in the years to come. They and their neighbors were being forced to spend over $7,000 each to have decent utilities in their homes. This was not an issue when the property was originally built, because the County had adequate drainage in past years. They were told no other option to build another septic tank was available. They disputed text or any reference to the text of the Sphere of Influence study by future planning zoning agencies that in any way impeded the current zoning rights of their property. They wished their property to remain in Bonita, not Chula Vista. Ms. Evans had the names of 28 people that attended the public forum that was held previously, and noted items in dispute of the Sphere of Influence study, as follows. The legend does not indicate any measurement of miles or kilometers. The legend is practically illegible, too small; legend does not include a train corridor; proposed toll way SR-125 not labeled properly as a proposed SR-125; Sphere map has Proctor Valley Road labeled as San Miguel Road; Sphere city border is ambiguous; only the San Diego city border is labeled; nowhere on the map is the Chula Vista city border labeled; Bonita is not labeled on the map; City border actually goes outside the Sphere of Influence line--how can the City not have influence over its own territory? This is seen in the National City area around Fourth Street. Georjean Jensen, 3655 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita, said she is a member of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group, and the group could not support the expansion of the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence for the following reasons. Chula Vista had demonstrated a lack of responsibility in the current developments of EastLake traffic management and Salt Lake drainage mitigation in Central Creek. The Otay Ranch plan as approved by Chula Vista had little regard for the regional impacts associated with its circulation plans and total dependence on the automobile. Ms. Jensen stated that Chula Vista historically had resented the Sweetwater's area reluctance to annex en masse and demonstrated it whenever Sweetwater residents and groups commented negatively on projects which have negative influence. The Sweetwater Community Planning Group requested that Chula Vista examine past annexations and developments with respect to the significant impacts on neighboring communities. When these conflicts have been resolved and mitigated, then perhaps it would be appropriate to consider some limited expansion of the Sphere of Influence. Chair Tuchscher noted that the Planning Commission had a copy of John Hammond's letter to that effect. Muriel Watson, 3120 Anderson Street, Bonita, showed the Commissioners some pictures which she had taken the morning after the big rain the previous week. She said she was also a member of the Sweetwater Planning Board. Their Chairman was at another meeting trying to protect what they felt was a legitimate community plan. She said she was a member of that PC Minutes -5- February 22, 1995 board when the plan was updated and submitted to the County Board of Supervisors, which they had accepted and then proceeded to implement and use the priorities that had been instilled into that plan. She asked if one planning group was more important than another. Since the Sweetwater Planning Board had submitted its plan, and it was accepted by the County, she did not understand why another group should come aboard, dismiss their plan, and not recognize their plan. In the handout they had been given, it sounded like in 1985 they were delighted to be included in the Sphere of Influence. She stated that they were not. They protested then. LAFCO held an election, and they elected in the Bonita Sunnyside area not to annex to the City of Chula Vista. Ms. Watson said that the feeling remains, and they would hope that their community plan would be respected just as highly as any other community plan. She said that it was her impression that although they may be a smaller unit, in the democratic society, that same smaller unit's priorities and provisions should be respected as much as a bigger and broader group. She thought the City of Chula Vista should be in the Bonita community sphere of influence. Michael J. Roark, 3645 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita, spoke on behalf of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group as a member and in support of the letter that the committee had submitted through the Chairman, Mr. Hammond. He said the study was a hybrid. It excluded Bonita from consideration. Bonita had voted down annexation three times. It was not going to be annexed to the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Roark said the Sphere of Influence took on an unusual meaning. Chula Vista had made a commitment that there would be no more development outside of the first phase of EastLake until there was a north/south corridor from the second border crossing to the eastern part of the County, so there would be access to development of what was hoped would be the enhancement of the region. Mr. Roark stated that it hadn't happened. None of that was addressed in the report. It was extremely short in its foresight in not addressing those issues. An annexation of these properties at this time without proper environmental, access, and roads and movement for the population in a way that would enhance the environment. The shortcomings were valid, and in this particular report, Bonita should be excluded. It should be considered that Bonita not be any longer in the "Sphere of Influence" of Chula Vista because it would never be a part of the City of Chula Vista--at least by the current population. He suggested that the EIR be opened up for further public comment, and the report be referred back to further study before taking any further action. Mr. Roark said a north/south corridor was needed in the area that would benefit the truck traffic. The valley between San Miguel and Mother Miguel was an obvious location that did not take any homes, that would have the most economic impact to the community and the least environmental impact to the community. CalTrans was not proceeding at this point with any schedules that they promised with that EIR report. Many of the projects that were on the books no longer had the applicants in business or the landowners there. Emphasis needed to be put on connecting the second border crossing north in an easterly route that will provide what was needed for that region and opening up the truck traffic north, east, and not in downtown San Diego or through the City of Chula Vista except where there is reasonable open space, and not back into the City. These factors were not considered anywhere in this report. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes -6- February 22, 1995 Commissioner Salas stated that she realized that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss whether or not to recommend the inclusion of Planning Area 1, 2, 3, and 4 into the Sphere of Influence and not so much of a discussion of whether Bonita should be removed from the Sphere of Influence; however, she thought some of the concerns of the residents should be answered. In reference to Mr. Stan Waid's concern in EastLake development causing or exacerbating flooding in the Bonita Valley, Commissioner Salas asked if there was any back-up documentation that supports the fact that had indeed occurred. She had been a lifelong resident of this area and could recall that anytime there were heavy rains, there was flooding in that area. Chair Tuchscher asked staff if EastLake is in the same drainage basin as the Central Creek, or how that worked from a drainage standpoint. Mr. Jamriska explained that staff was not prepared to answer the question regarding the flooding situation. Chair Tuchscher asked, in reference to the Sphere, if the flooding issue was pertinent to the study and to the planning areas on which they were being asked to make a decision. Mr. Jamriska replied that it was a valid question; however, proper staff was not in attendance to answer the question. Commissioner Salas stated that she understood no studies had been done, but asked if by common observation, staff had noticed an increase in the flooding. She recalled flooding in the area in 1982 when she worked in the area. EastLake was not there at the time. Chair Tuchscher stated that staff had indicated they did not have that type of data. He stated that from a Sphere of Influence and General Plan standpoint, this was an Engineering issue that involved hydrology and other issues associated with ongoing development and perhaps it could be better dealt with during a workshop meeting whereby Growth Management Oversight and the appropriate staff people would be available to deal with some of the issues. Chair Tuchscher concurred that the issues that were mentioned should be noted and dealt with at the appropriate time. He asked if there were other comments. Commissioner Martin stated there were good people who felt Chula Vista had treated them poorly and had not done things that were implied. That seemed to be their justification for not having anything to do with Chula Vista or being within the Sphere of Influence, yet the Sphere of Influence really is just a planning tool. He felt more direct input from the residents would be more important. The Sphere of Influence would be a tool used to prevent two or three agencies from making the same decision over the same piece of property. Mr. Jamriska concurred with Commissioner Martin, adding that the City could adequately plan for the furore development and extension of public services without any duplication of that effort by other agencies. PC Minutes -7- February 22, 1995 Commissioner Martin stated that a letter had been received from Mr. John Hammond. He did not agree with some of his statements, and asked how their concerns could be addressed. Chair Tuchscher stated that it was within the abilities of the Sweetwater and Bonita Communities to lobby and apply with LAFCO to be excluded from Chula Vista's Sphere should they decide to do that. It was not within the scope of the Planning Commission during this meeting to make that decision or that recommendation to City Council. If they desired to be excluded from Chula Vista's Sphere, he encouraged those groups to have that discussion with LAFCO and ascertain whether they think it is possible or feasible or economically within reason for them to pursue that. The task in front of the Planning Commission, within the scope of this study, was to look at the areas mentioned and analyzed within the study and make a decision as to what the Commission should recommend and then follow with the meeting on March 14 with the City Council. Commissioner Fuller, regarding the DeGraaf parcel in Planning Area 1, the designation of which was proposed to be open space, asked if the corridor between the villages was all indicated as open space and if that was the purpose of designating the DeGraaf property open space. Mr. Jamriska noted that this was the adopted General Development Plan for the City of Chula Vista, as well as for the County of San Diego. The properties to the east, west, and south were open space and potentially part of the open space reserve as part of the Otay Ranch Project. Mr. Jamriska said it was currently planned by the City's General Plan as open space, which would allow one dwelling unit. The Sphere Study was not proposing to change the General Plan designation. The only addition was that the DeGraaf property would be incorporated into the City's Sphere of Influence. Commissioner Ray, regarding Planning Area 4, asked about a comment in one of the letters which had been left on the dias--the issue of phasing of annexation. Is there a reason that some of the respondents were still concerned. Mr. Jamriska replied that he believed the comment had been made by the County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU). Prior to the environmental impact report being prepared, they received the first study draft of the Sphere of Influence document. The DPLU had taken the draft report to the Board of Supervisors for general direction to a Board of Supervisors subcommittee. The Board of Supervisors determined, pursuant to staff's recommendation, that the Otay Ranch Sphere of Influence and correspondingly the annexation, should occur by SPA by SPA process instead of the entire Planning Area 1, 2, 3, and 4. Mr. Jamriska stated that they made that determination without looking at any of the environmental effects of the provision of services as contained within the environmental impact report. That same position remained. Mr. Jamriska stated that Chula Vista staff did not agree with that. The purpose behind recommending the entire Otay Valley parcel to be incorporated into the Chula Vista Sphere was that staff could properly plan for the provision of utilities. If it is known that an area is within Chula Vista's Sphere and will eventually be annexed to the City of Chula Vista, adequate provisions could be made for the extension of utilities to serve that parcel. He felt there were other reasons the County of San Diego wanted to do that on a SPA by SPA basis. PC Minutes -8- February 22, 1995 Commissioner Ray asked staff to indicate the location of the Watson parcel, and questioned whether the increase in the use was insignificant. He believed the additional 200 units was the cumulative impact over the entire impact of the entire Sphere. Environmental Consultant Mclntire concurred, reiterating that it was on a Sphere-wide basis and there was no major change. Commissioner Ray repeated that the issue before the Commission was the entire Sphere and the increase to the entire Sphere of Chula Vista's boundaries and the impacts Chula Vista had on the General Development Plan versus the County's General Development Plan and the net increases between those two documents. Again, Mr. Mclntire concurred and noted that there would be subsequent environmental review of tentative maps. There were discretionary actions that would allow development to occur. Staff was looking at the programmatic level. Commissioner Ray stated that specifics would be addressed at a point in time when staff came forward with a General Development Plan or a planned tentative map. Mr. Mclntire answered affirmatively. Commissioner Ray, referring to the LAFCO document, stated that there were some specific issues they addressed with specific language and typographical errors, or comments to those effects. He asked if those were going to be specifically addressed in the final environmental review report. Mr. Jamriska stated that staff would respond to all comments that were made at the meeting, as well as the comments made by Commissioner Salas, and written comments received. Commissioner Ray, referring to Planning Area 4, asked about the dispute on Planning Area 4. Mr. Jamriska answered that the dispute basically centered around the area that is within the City of San Diego. The City of San Diego staff and City Council subcommittee on land use and housing took an action that the parcel would best be served from the City of San Diego. The City of Chula Vista felt that when LaMedia is constructed, the prime access to the property and the service of utilities would all be from the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Jamriska stated that the parcel is not plaimed to be developed in the very foreseeable future, but probably at the end of the 15-year timespan. Staff felt that it could still be part of the City of Chula Vista's Sphere. There were several other parcels which could be resolved in the future, if staff went ahead with this proposal. Mr. Jamriska believed the City Manager was desirous of beginning discussions and negotiations on those boundary conflicts. Commissioner Ray then asked for a clarification on the 15-year analysis of what the Sphere is. He said the influence of the 15-year buildout was where the Sphere ended its analysis. PC Minutes -9- February 22, 1995 Mr. Jamriska stated that was a general policy direction that LAFCO and staff followed. Commissioner Ray noted that the traffic analysis or specifically the SR-125 issue as a non-toll road, Phase 1 of the SR-125 was only assumed to be adequate' based on those same plans for 15 years. Chair Tuchscher replied that was the Interim 125 solution. Commissioner Ray was concerned with the timing between the interim and the permanent SR- 125 between that 12th, 15th and 18th year, because of crossing over the threshold. There could be a major disaster in the economy which would cause almost no development for the Otay Ranch and the need for 125 might dissipate altogether, or there could be a more rapid increase with facilities being put in and an accelerated need for 125 coming in. He was uncomfortable that that issue was being addressed on a worst case basis of needing that highway to be built on a more rapid pace. Mr. Jamriska responded that staff was in the process of doing transportation model runs as a result of the specific plan submittal for SPA I for the Otay Ranch project. That would look at various scenarios and the construction of interim 125 or permanent 125 would be one of the factors taken into consideration. He stated if there was any delay or impact, certain other improvements would have to occur to resolve any traffic impacts that may be caused by the development of the SPA I. In addition, the City is looking at some type of phasing for the transportation buildout of 125. Traffic model information as it relates to SPA I and the effect on 125 would be available when the SPA comes before the Planning Commission sometime in June. Commissioner Ray asked if, based on a Sphere study, that needed to be considered in the Planning Commission's decision for the Sphere of Influence study based on the fact that that modeling has not yet concluded. Mr. Jamriska explained that the Sphere was nothing more than a planning tool. It did not change any of the impacts associated with the land use. The same impacts associated with the Otay Ranch were going to exist, whether it was in the County or in the City. Mr. Jamriska believed the Planning Commission could proceed without the modeling being done, because the modeling was done already for the General Plan as part of the General Plan Development Plan EIR, and all of that was taken into consideration. Staff would be revisiting those model runs as part of the SPA, as required by the GDP. At the present time, staff was only looking at extending that planning tool beyond the current sphere to the proposed sphere. Commissioner Ray asked if SR-125 was not in a position to be built, anything beyond the interim facility, and there was a stop to construction or subsequent phases of the Baldwin Ranch, would that impact the proposed influence boundary. Mr. Jamriska replied negatively. PC Minutes -10- February 22, 1995 Chair Tuchscher stated that any future development would be subject to all the growth ordinances currently in place, and the threshold standards, so as this developed out, those standards would apply to each phase, specific plan, tentative map, and at the point where the City's threshold standards could not be met, development would be stopped. He asked if staff concurred. Mr. Jamriska stated that was correct, whether it be EastLake, Otay Ranch, or San Miguel. Commissioner Tarantino understood the Commission's charge was to approve the inclusion of certain areas for planning purposes, not to make decisions. He felt they were getting into specifics. He questioned how the approval of the Sphere of Influence study could impact somebody's septic tank on two different properties. Chair Tuchscher stated that the Planning Commission was looking at a long-term horizon for a future development, and making sure that proper plans were in place as that development proceeds to accommodate that development. Mr. Jamriska stated that with the addition of those areas into the Sphere, it did not change any jurisdictional issues or any legislative representation. Residents of the County prior to this meeting would still be in the County. They would still be represented by the County and receiving their services from the same providers. The change of the Sphere line did not change any of that. Mr. Jamriska again stated that the Sphere was only a planning tool that staff would be using in the future to provide urban level of services. Commissioner Tarantino stated it was an opportunity to look at, not an opportunity to make decisions, not an opportunity to affect immediate change. Mr. Jamriska concurred. Commissioner Fuller remarked that the documents from other agencies commenting on the draft environmental impact report would have to be responded to in the final draft. The City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife and their concern for the multi-species conservation planning area felt that San Diego was the lead agency, and if the City of Chula Vista included the Otay River Valley portion, things would not be the same if this fell within Chula Vista's Sphere of Influence. Commissioner Fuller concluded that those agencies involved in the planning of that program have been established and would continue to be the same. Mr. Jamriska agreed and stated that the draft MSCP program, a study done by professional staff, would be released for public review probably within the next two weeks. The City of Chula Vista, as well as the County of San Diego, had submitted to the MSCP planning staff the boundaries of their General Plan, which is the Otay Ranch plan for the City, as well as the Otay Ranch plan for the County. The City is basically in agreement with the County. California Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife still took issue during the public hearings on the General PC Minutes -11- February 22, 1995 Development Plan to certain items of Chula Vista's plan. Mr. Jamriska stated that in the correspondence received, they still take issue with the General Plan. Commissioner Fuller questioned whether they would take issue with it if it were in the County, also. Mr. Jamriska affirmed. Commissioner Willett stated he could see how the County had made some of their recommendations on the update study that was published. He had compared the draft EIR and the update study to find where some of the differences were and had also talked with staff. It is a planning tool. From the planning tool comes all of the logistic elements of a plan. He commended staff and the people who had worked on the draft EIR. He stated it was very thorough, covered some of the loop holes that were in the update study, and he believed the final would correct it. He had done research through the LAFCO documents regarding the time period, and he believed with the final EIR the questions and fears regarding the Sphere of Influence would be corrected. Commissioner Willett disagreed as an individual with the San Bernardino meridian line dividing the lake in half which is on lane 6 of the Olympic Training Center. Regarding the Munson property which was in the County corridor, he had questioned who the landfill supported. Staff had stated that 85% of that is the South County. A memorandum agreement could be worked out. Regarding the DeGraaf property, Commissioner Willett stated he had questioned where the light rail would come from, and it would probably go through that canyon as part of the DeGraaf property, and then tie into what would be the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road, which would be the rail line. He did not think that had ever been discussed. He offered as a recommendation that the Commission adopt the study, the conceptional portions of the study itself, and that staff be directed to incorporate some of the items in the LAFCO study. At Chair Tuchscher's suggestion, Commissioner Willett moved that the Commission give staff direction to prepare a final EIR on the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence, EIR-94-03. Commissioner Ray seconded and asked for discussion relative to the San Diego City property on Planning Area 4. Mr. Jamriska stated that the phrase "closing the public hearing" should be included as part of the motion. Commissioner Willett concurred. Commissioner Ray, regarding Planning Area 4, the San Diego City property, asked staff to give him pros and cons if it were included in a special study area as opposed to approving it as part of Planning Area 4. Mr. Jamriska said that one of the advantages of recommending to Council that it be a special study area was that it would permit staff to begin some boundary negotiations with the City of PC Minutes -12- February 22, 1995 San Diego not only on this parcel but several other parcels. If a resolution of those issues could occur to the satisfaction of both jurisdictions, then as a special designated area, staff could go back to LAFCO in the future without going through this lengthy process, and request that they take action if there is no opposition from the City of San Diego. Chair Tuchscher asked if staff was recommending that as a better avenue for the Planning Commission to take at this time. Commissioner Ray questioned including it in Planning Area 4 without a recommendation that on the final EIR it be submitted as a special planning area, if at the time this would go to LAFCO it became a hotly disputed issue, they could deny or amend the Sphere of Influence study based on that specific parcel. Mr. Jamriska replied affirmatively. He stated that in light of the City of San Diego City Council Land Use and Housing Committee's action, he thought that would probably be a very appropriate action for the Commission to recommend that LAFCO designate this as a special study area so that several of the boundary disputes could be resolved. Chair Tuchscher stated that it is likely that the City of Chula Vista could get a special study area and resolve some of the other boundary disputes for the west, as well as for this particular issue, but there was not a high degree of confidence that the Sphere could be expanded--that LAFCO would look favorably on an expansion of Chula Vista's Sphere to include Planning Area 4. In fact, Planning Area 4 was designated because that might be the case, and it was split off from the others for that purpose. Mr. Jamriska said that was correct. During the discussions of the General Development Plan hearings, there was one issue with the County of San Diego where the City of Chula Vista wanted Planning Area 3 to be industrial, and the County of San Diego wanted that to be residential. Those were the only two differences in Chula Vista's General Plan. Statements were made by the City Council during that time that if the City of San Diego de-annexed this property and the City of Chula Vista annexed it, the City of Chula Vista would change their General Plan back to residential on this portion. Based upon that action and the discussion at the City Council, staff included the Otay Mesa industrial not as an alternative but as a Planning Area 4 so that in the likelihood of a negative recommendation from the City of San Diego, it would not jeopardize action on the other three planning areas. Commissioner Ray asked if the property owner, the City of San Diego, had indicated hesitance to inclusion in a special study area, as well, or had that specific issue been addressed. Mr. Jamriska stated that the property owner is the Baldwin Company within the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego. He noted that when staff spoke before the subcommittee, City Manager Goss suggested that it be made as a special study area. The Council members in attendance did not respond to that and just took an action to recommend to their City Council that it not be deleted from their corporate limits. It was not discussed, but it was brought up. PC Minutes -13- February 22, 1995 In response to Chair Tuchscher, Mr. Jamriska stated that the Baldwin Company had remained neutral. Chair Tuchscher asked, in light of that, did the motion stand or was there potential for making Planning Area 4 a special study area. Commissioner Ray stated that he would like to see the motion amended to include only the highlighted area which fell within the city limits of the City of San Diego. Chair Tuchscher asked if that was to be designated as a special study area. Commissioner Willett, as the maker of the initial motion, concurred with that recommendation. Commissioner Ray concurred. In addition, he stated that Mr. Jamriska had pointed out that it be included along with some other special study areas. Commissioner Ray asked if that would be a separate action that would have to happen here? Mr. Jamriska replied negatively, and noted there were other properties in boundary disputes. Chair Tuchscher asked for the vote. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid asked that before the Planning Commission took action on that, a final EIR needed to be before the Commission before making recommendations on the project itself and planning areas and their categories. Attorney Basil concurred with staff. Chair Tuchscher stated that the Commission should close the public hearing on the draft EIR, ask staff to prepare a final draft EIR, and then save the rest of the recommendations and discussion for Mamh 14th. Commissioner Ray asked if in preparation of the final EIR, staff would include that as part of all the studies. Mr. Jamriska said staff would actually respond to Commission's discussion on the issue, and would focus the response on Planning Area 4 City of San Diego, so that would give the Commissioners some additional facts and information. Commissioner Ray asked what the difference was in the recommendation as it stands vice waiting for the final EIR. Mr. Jamriska stated that the purpose of the meeting was to receive public testimony on the draft environmental impact report, close the public hearing, and give staff direction to prepare the environmental impact report. PC Minutes -14- February 22, 1995 Chair Tuchscher stated that staff would take into account those comments and all the discussion from both public and from the Commission and respond to those in both the staff report and the final document. Mr. Jamriska said that when that report is presented to the Commission on March 14, that would be the proper time to make that motion, basically certifying the final environmental impact report and then taking action on the Sphere of Influence report itself. That would be where the Commission could modify the boundaries. Commissioner Ray concluded that this piece was to be included on the final EIR as it was currently presented, and then wait to make recommendation only at the point of the final EIR, after the public hearing is closed on the final EIR, rather than come forward with an EIR that states that the Planning Commission wanted that in a special study area. Chair Tuchscher clarified that staff would respond to the discussion by the Planning Commission in the staff report and in the final document. Commissioner Ray stated that staff would make a determination as to whether it would make sense to make it a special study area and come forward with that recommendation at that time. Mr. Jamriska answered affirmatively. Attorney Basil asked that the motion be restated. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION Motion that the Planning Commission close the public hearing, and direct staff to prepare the final environmental impact report answering all of the comments from both the public and the Planning Commission. VOTE: 7-0 to approve ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-94-05: CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF A CHILD CARE ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN Principal Planner Bazzel presented the staff report, noting that the Element was intended to provide a policy framework for adequate childcare facilities within the City. A public workshop had been held in January where the Child Care Commission and staff received comments. The Parks & Recreation Commission had fully endorsed the Element. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration and recommend to the City Council the adoption of the proposed Child Care Element. Mr. Bazzel noted that the Planning Commission had received a letter from Mr. Bruce Sloan of the EastLake Company, who was in attendance, and he stated also that members of the Child Care Commission who were actively involved in the preparation of the Element were present. PC Minutes -15- February 22, 1995 Commissioner Ray, referring to a table in the staff report regarding current supply and demand for licensed child care in Chula Vista, asked if the table represented the total number of children within the City or only the number that needed child care, and also the definition of child care need. Mr. Bazzel pointed out the total number and the number of children needing child care. At Commissioner Ray's request, Mr. Bazzel explained that it was done on a statistical analysis rather than a survey. The 1990 Census was prorated to 1994, factors were applied through documentation of other child care reports to determine the average number of children, and then applied to the estimated number of children. Commissioner Ray asked if that formula would be used until a new formula was deemed necessary. Mr. Bazzel answered affirmatively. He also noted that the figures would give a general indication of what staff has found to be the estimated need. Some of the policies in the Element dealt with annual updating of the demand for child care facilities. Chair Tuchscher asked who developed the formula--the pementage of children needing child care. Mr. Bazzel replied that it was drawn out of the Child Care and Development In San Diego County by the San Diego County Commission on Children and Youth Report, dated February 1994. Chair Tuchscher asked how the County got their formula. Mr. Bazzel did not have that information. Commissioner Ray asked the definition of "need." Mr. Bazzel replied that the range of need not only included those that were not being dealt with at all, but also those being dealt with in a substandard condition--perhaps left with a teenaged sister or brother or in an unlicensed daycare situation. Commissioner Ray asked if the children reflected on the chart would be those being taken care of by someone who was not an adult and not in a facility that was currently licensed in the City of Chula Vista, of the total population. Mr. Bazzel answered affirmatively. He said staff considered the actual number of licensed spaces in the City in all three categories, determined the number of spaces, and compared that to the estimated number of children, applying a factor based on the experience of others to determine the actual number of children making up that need. Commissioner Fuller reiterated that the question of need was also determined on some studies done on the number of licensed day care facilities or small family day care facilities who were providing good service and have waiting lists. That was definitely a need. The families who would like to get into a known small family day care facility, and there is not enough room, PC Minutes -16- February 22, 1995 cannot go without. Someone had to take cam of the child, but there was still that need to find good licensed day care. Commissioner Salas added that possibly need could also mean that a parent took the option of not working because there was not affordable day care. While the need was still there, it was not economical. Chair Tuchscher stated he could see a difference between need and demand. He felt the fact that there are waiting lists at certain day care facilities which do exceptionally good jobs or have exceptionally reasonable costs because they are non-profit or church-oriented, or are convenient was not a good measure of need. Commissioner Willett commented that he had sub-chaired during the "CV 21" Committee. One of the elements was child cam. He stated that several means were used to determine the number of children needing child care. As a result of discussions with several agencies, including the School District and the Parks & Recreation Department, as well as with staff during the past week, he had concluded that the figures were quite accurate, considering single parents, both male and female, and the needs within the 2-5 range. Commissioner Tarantino asked the difference between policy direction and policy. If something was listed in the General Plan, did it not become policy? Mr. Bazzel could see no difference between policy direction and policy. The policies in the Element were crafted to demand additional evaluation; they were not mandates. Commissioner Tarantino questioned whether being in the General Plan made something mandatory. If that were the case, them was no money or staff to implement it. Mr. Bazzel replied that policies in the General Plan were typically mandates, but in some cases required further implementation. The language in the proposed Child Care Element stated that it would require further evaluation, that they were guiding policies, and if the language did in fact mandate it, they would be specifically required. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the streamlining of the permit process had an impact on the screening process done by the State to check out the character references of the people who would be doing the child care. Mr. Bazzel stated that it did not impact the State licensing program or the County licensing requirements. What the policy advocated was better coordination of the local permitting agencies of examination of facilities in order to cut down on time and staffing costs. Commissioner Salas questioned the location of the small family day care providers, and asked if any thought had been given to whether small family day care providers could be provided in the newer developments with smaller lots; or if staff was going to work with the State to see if they would regulate a smaller area for those kinds of neighborhoods. PC Minutes -17- February 22, 1995 Mr. Bazzel said they had not talked to the State about any reduced requirements. Staff had discussed with the Child Care Commission the need in the new communities to provide child care-ready houses and what difficulties that might cause. As part of the planning process on the Otay Ranch, staff was requiring a child care master plan, and intended to do so on any future master plans. It did, however, raise an issue with regard to State requirements and size requirements with the downsizing of the future single-family lots, and the ability to provide child care. Commissioner Salas asked if facilities with recreation rooms had been explored as to the possibility of their being used as day care areas during the day when people are typically at work. Mr. Bazzel stated that in the Policy, staff had encouraged further evaluation of new development to provide facilities in the appropriate locations. These types of issues would be dealt with the Child Care Master Plans of communities. Chair Tuchscher asked if the Community Purpose Facility zoning allowed non-profit child care, but not for-profit child care. Mr. Bazzel concurred, stating that it was not-for-profit child care as an accessory use to a primary community purpose facility. Chair Tuchscher asked how the CPF zoning could be broadened to allow child care without the restriction. Mr. Bazzel replied that the CPF is a policy in the Municipal Code that dealt with providing an amount of acreage for social service-type land uses in master planned communities, based on a formula created through an interactive process with church groups, social service providers, etc. to provide acreage for those types of uses. The formula established dealt with uses which involved non-profit child care. The for-profit had the resources to acquire facilities, and there was concern by the non-profit providers that they would not be able to compete for that property. At that time, the for-profit child care was not included in the formula. To include for-profit child care, the prior discussion that established the CPF factor would have to be reopened and the for-profit would have to be integrated into it. Chair Tuchscher thought it was interesting that a land use was allowed in CPF for a non-profit, but the same land use would have to get a conditional use permit if it was for profit and would have to go onto a commercial or residential lot. He felt it was something that should be pursued. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Martin/Fuller) to adopt Negative Declaration IS-95-19, and recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Child Care Element in accordance with the draft City Council resolution. PC Minutes -18- February 22, 1995 Commissioner Ray was concerned about how the need was determined; he would like for the Element to logistically state the requirements in terms of acreage for facilities; how the formula used equated to square footage per child along with play area, which would equate to an acreage requirement; and the ratio required for child care for the portion of the CPF parcel required to be approved. Mr. Bazzel stated that the Element had not gotten into the division of for-profit versus not-for- profit in terms of actual provisions. There is an umbrella of "need" over both. The Element did not discuss what was actually provided in the field between for-profit and not-for-profit. The CPF was the result of an evaluation process to implement an acreage total based on population. The Child Care Element was envisioned to come up with a formula for determining the adequate amount of land area that might be required for new development for child care facilities. Mr. Bazzel noted there was a policy in the Element which dealt with that. In answer to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Bazzel said the policy generally stated that there would be an evaluation to determine a factor for child care needs. It did not stipulate whether it would be for profit or not for profit. As part of the interactive process for the development community and providers to come up with an equitable formula, both would be considered, including the CPF. Commissioner Ray noted that the not-for-profit area, which was not yet determined, would have a ratio that would be applied to a CPF. He thought this would be the proper time to have those ratios defined. Mr. Bazzel felt that before a ratio could be applied, the CPF aspect of that formula needed to be included. If a percentage of the CPF acreage was to be targeted for child care and it was not established that a certain part of that formula was just for child care, that would have to be extracted from the remaining acreage which was to be provided for for-profit or additional child care. Chair Tuchscher said staff should take into account the CPF zoning to make sure there was not double zoning, or zoning properties for the same uses. Mr. Bazzel questioned whether the best approach would be to determine a fixed acreage formula for child care because child care covered a wide range of private homes in the form of small and large-family day care as well as centers. He felt they were probably focusing more on centers when they were talking about acreage in master planned communities. Commissioner Tarantino commended the members of the Child Care Commission, the Resource Conservation Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission for their hard work. He said the first step to problem-solving was to recognize there is a problem, and that by placing this in the General Plan ot would legitimize the concerns of many parents in the area. He hoped that the Council would allocate the dollars and the staffing to see that it was implemented. PC Minutes -19- February 22, 1995 Chair Tuchscher had reservations about the ratios and the establishment of need. He said he did not understand how a policy could be drafted or proper planning action could be taken when it was unsure whether the ratios were valid or how to extrapolate the numbers. He did not know how the County Commission on Child Care established their numbers, whether it was by survey or by a consultant. He supported putting a Child Care Element into the General Plan, but questioned the source. He could not vote for the motion as it stood. Commissioner Fuller stated she saw part of the source as the State of California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing, which she felt was a legitimate source. Chair Tuchscher was not comfortable with how the County arrived at their information and how it related to the City's jurisdiction. Relative to CPF zoning, he was of the opinion that the plans currently coming through the system were very much out of scale relative to the need for acreage associated with those particular land uses in Chula Vista. It was creating planning problems. He did not want to accept someone else's ratio. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated there was no urgency to take action. If the Commission desired more information, the item could be continued and the Commission could be provided with more data. Chair Tuchscher stated that he did not like to delay things; he personally felt uncomfortable with it, but it would be up to the Commission. Commissioner Salas commented that whether or not the ratios were pinpoint accurate, there was a great need for child care in the community and in the nation. She would vote for the motion. Commissioner Ray stated he would abstain because the Element did not adequately cover the equation of the amount of acreage to the number of children, and what that meant to the General Plan or the impact of the facilities. Commissioner Fuller commented that that was only one part of child care provisions. The vast majority of child care was done in smaller, unlicensed or in licensed homes. The portion dealing with the current zoning regulations and the locational criteria defined that. She saw defining the number of dwelling units too specific in this General Plan for overall child care. Those areas could be worked out within the confines of the issues defined in the proposed Element. Commissioner Ray still believed this was mom of a policy than a General Plan issue and should be addressed as a policy and not part of the General Plan. Commissioner Tarantino again questioned the difference between policy direction and a policy. If it is in the document, does it have to be followed; and if so, how could it be put in without a funding mechanism. PC Minutes -20- February 22, 1995 Commissioner Fuller stated that the issues defined in the Element were already areas that were defined as policy within the City. The for-profit facilities within the City had not been addressed, so it could not be defined in the Element since it did not exist. Conunissioner Ray felt it was global, and wanted to know what it equated to in real impact in terms of acreage or units. Even though there is a need, he did not feel this was the proper vehicle to be placed in the General Plan at the present time. Chair Tuchscher echoed Commissioner Tarantino's earlier comments relative to the hard work of the Commissions and staff. It was clearly a need, but he did not feel comfortable voting for it. VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioners Ray and Tuchscher against) DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee noted the actions which had been taken by Council since the last Commission meeting. Mr. Lee noted that two Commissioners were planning to attend the Planning Commissioners Conference which had a potential conflict with their second meeting in March. He asked the Commissioners if they wished to proceed with the meeting or reschedule it. The Commissioners indicated they would stay on schedule. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT at 9:30 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of March 8, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Ril~ey, ~ecr'~tary Planning Commission (2-22-95~nin)