HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/02/05 Tape: 331/330
Side: 2/1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, February 5, 1992 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Casillas,
Decker, Martin, and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tuchscher (excused)
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning
Director Lee, Principal Planner Howard,
Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid,
Associate Planner Barbara Reid, Contract
Environmental Coordinator Miller, Contract Planner
Gray, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City
Attorney Rudolf
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of
silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the
format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
MSUC (Carson/Martin) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Tuchscher because of a conflict of interest.
PC Minutes -2- February 5, 1992
ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EIR-90-02 RANCHO SAN MIGUEL
Chair Fuller explained that members of the Resource Conservation Commission were present;
the RCC normally has a workshop in advance of the Planning Commission meeting on any EIR
where they hear the information about the project and then give their recommendation to the
Planning Commission. They were asked to attend the Planning Commission meeting to
participate in the hearing along with other members of the public. Chair Fuller then explained
the procedure to be followed including questions by the Resource Conservation Commission
before opening the public hearing.
Associate Planner Barbara Reid made some brief statements regarding the process of the
Environmental Impact Report. She noted this was a "program" EIR which enabled the agency
to examine the overall affects of the proposed course of action and to take steps to avoid
unnecessary adverse environmental effects, and would be used to simplify the task of preparing
environmental documents on the later parts of the program, such as the SPA level. Staff
recommended there be questions by the Planning Commission members and the Resource
Conservation Commission members following staff presentation, and that the item be continued
to February 12, so that additional comments could be received from the RCC (meeting February
10), the Clearinghouse, LAFCO, the Audubon Society, and Sweetwater Authority.
Ms. Reid then introduced Katherine Hon of Ogden ERCE, the project manager for the EIR, and
Barry Jones, the Sweetwater environmental biologist on the project. Ms. Hon described the
project, discussed the environmental analysis in general, and highlighted the significant and
unmitigable impacts from the project as proposed. Barry Jones then focused on the biodiversity
of the site and its regional sensitivity. He noted that the project site had 14 sensitive plants and
20 sensitive animal species, which was an unusually high number, even for Southern San Diego
County which tends to have a higher diversity of sensitive plant and animal resources.
Additionally, the population of the sensitive resources found on the site were among the most
significant within San Diego County. Mr. Jones then described the significant species found on
the site.
Chair Fuller asked if members of the Planning Commission or the Resource Conservation
Commission had any questions of staff.
Commissioner Casillas asked if of the 13 pair, 7 pair of Cactus Wren would be eliminated, what
empirical evidence existed that this would be the case. It would appear that some of the other
areas would be appropriate habitat. He was concerned about how the biologist arrived at the
54%. Mr. Jones answered that a common concept in ecology or conservation biology is the
caring capacity of a given habitat, population, or region. He explained the theory of caring
capacity and the area needed for each pair.
Commissioner Casillas asked about the prospects of Tarweed disappearing to a level of near
distinction, since there were large stands in other areas close to the project area. Mr. Jones
PC Minutes -3- February 5, 1992
replied that one of the problems with an annual plant was that it varied from year to year in
detectability. It is a State-listed endangered plant, and any impact to a State-listed endangered
plant is generally considered significant.
Commissioner Carson, regarding 3.1-15, third paragraph, felt there should be stronger language.
Regarding 3.1-17, she commented that she was happy to see Parks and Recreation was opposing
trails within the power transmission easement. Section 3.1-20, first paragraph, dealing with
larger rural estate-type lots, Commissioner Carson asked if there was any research on consumer
demand for large lots. Assistant Director of Planning answered that staff had no specific
information relating to market demand for the larger lots.
Commissioner Carson, referring to 3.1-23, second paragraph, questioned whether there should
be a statement as to where the community shopping center was to be located, and the reason for
locating it there. On 3.1-25, she would like to hear from the developer as to what their game
plan might be. Regarding 3.2-14, she was happy to see the computer simulations in the EIR,
but was not impressed with Figure 3.2-6. She asked that someone look at a different type of
screening--needed to be screened more. Referring to 3.2-19, Commissioner Carson questioned
how effectively the existing electrical substation would be screened.
Regarding to 3.3-6, Commissioner Carson was concerned about large animal predators coming
onto the property. Page 3.1-26, she said there had to be research being done regarding
electromagnetic field which was available, and the issue needed to be addressed. She also asked
for more information on the issue of noise impact to the animals staying in the area after
development.
Commissioner Martin questioned the normal range of the Gnatcatcher and the Cactus Wren, and
why it wasn't assumed the birds would move to the areas not developed. Mr. Jones answered
that the Gnatcatcher, based on research to date, generally rarely nest in slopes above 40% and
often don't occur in extremely flat areas. They liked the best, developable area, with most of
them occurring within the 10% to 30% range.
Commissioner Martin asked how the plants regenerate. Mr. Jones answered that the cacti seeds
are dispersed primarily through birds and mammals; some axe by air, or by mammals eating
them, and plants actually migrate over a period of time.
Finally, Commissioner Martin questioned the location of SR-125 and asked if anyone could
make a commitment as to where the road would go. Associate Planner Reid answered that the
alignment shown in the EIR was the one which was in the City's General Plan, and the decision
was CalTrans'.
Replying to Commissioner Tugenberg, Assistant Planning Director Lee stated the northern
portion adjacent to Sweetwater Lake was shown as residential on the General Plan. Horseshoe
Bend and Gobbler's Knob were not identified specifically on the General Plan, but the area was
shown as residential.
PC Minutes -4- February 5, 1992
Citing page 5-39, Commissioner Tugenberg was concerned about the reconciliation of statements
of CEQA to the General Plan. He asked that staff give him cross references to the General Plan
on the hillside ordinance, etc. Project Planner Gray noted that the reference in the Draft EIR
to the General Plan referred specifically, in most cases, to the Land Use Element, so most of
the policies used to measure the project's consistency with the General Plan were those policies
in the Land Use Element which had to do with density, character of development, clustering,
hillside development policies, and landform grading.
Commissioner Carson asked that a transparency of Figure 3.1.1 be prepared showing a
cumulative impact, so the density of this development and all bordering developments or those
within a short distance would be shown.
Commissioner Decker asked that in future EIRs cross references be included in the Summary
of Impacts showing where the "impact" was covered in the major text.
On page 1-12, Commissioner Decker queried whether there were other projects proposing to use
the SDG&E property for a trail system. Assistant Director Lee answered that in the past the
easement was believed to be a natural connecting point for trail systems. However, with the
safety of those areas being questioned, other solutions are being studied. Commissioner Decker
stated he had a problem declaring this a significant impact, since there would be limited time
spent under the wires while using a trail system.
Regarding page 1-13, Commissioner Decker also asked for information as to what part of the
General Plan was referenced. Contract Planner Gray noted that Land Use Element Sections 4.1,
6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 7.7 were generally the sections being used. Commissioner Decker asked for
a summary.
Citing page 1-15, Wetland Habitat, Commissioner Decker asked for a slide showing the 3.1
acres of wetland habitat which would be destroyed. Page 27 of Appendix B did not seem to be
consistent with the comments on page 3.3-31.
Commissioner Casillas felt that the concern regarding using the SDG&E easement for open
space trails simply because there was a possibility of some unknown danger with EMF was
misplaced.
Chair Fuller noted that page 3-16.5, last sentence, was incomplete.
Commissioner Tugenberg, page 3.10-11, asked if "only" should be struck. Staff concurred.
Resource Conservation Commissioner John Krache, referring to page 3.11-7, questioned the
figures regarding efficiency of hot water heaters and furnaces--instead of a 4t' vent, using a PVC
vent of 2".
PC Minutes -5- February 5, 1992
Commissioner Krache, regarding page 3.12-6, questioned the 65 db; he thought it was 55 db.
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid explained that the standard under the noise ordinance
specifically excluded transportation sources regulated by the State, and that each measurement
was site specific. A short discussion followed regarding several measurements in the report.
Regarding public service and water, 3.15-6, Commissioner Krache was concerned about
including water.
Commissioner Krache commented that the home is more dangerous than the overhead wires.
He questioned the unacceptability by Parks & Recreation of the easement for trails. Associate
Planner Reid noted someone from Parks & Recreation would attend the next meeting.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
David Nairne, 4250 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 950, San Diego, speaking on behalf of San
Miguel Partners, commented that the name of the project had been changed to San Miguel
Ranch. He then introduced the speakers for a prepared presentation.
Mitch Beecham, owner of Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., biological consultants
to the project proponents, stated he had been involved with the design of the proposed project
and alternative designs for several years. He said the biological issues relevant to the project
had been reported with varying degrees of accuracy in the EIR. Referring to a letter in the
Commission packet, he presented what he felt were the principal issues as follows: the massive
natural open space proposed as part of the General Development Plan was not given full
consideration by the EIR consultant; the future role of the eastern portion of this area for future
California Gnatcatcher habitat was given no consideration; and the EIR didn't give credit for the
potential for this Gnateatcher habitat. He pointed out that the densities of Gnatcatchers there
were extremely high. The open space easement proposed for estate lots on the northern portion
of the project assumed that the entire acre lot was going to be disturbed by development. It was
his recommendation to restrict development to the ridge line and to a development envelope,
leaving the rest of the property undisturbed. He stated that the assessment of wetland impacts
was distorted by inaccurate assumptions of proposed land uses.
Mr. Beecham said the overall impact assessment of loss of biodiversity was also inaccurate. The
affected resources may be reduced in extent but none were lost by the proposed project. He was
concerned about the major dense population of Coastal Barrel Cactus in the area. From a
botanical point of view, this was an exemplary stand and the project had been redesigned to
avoid the area. He disagreed there were only 69 pair of Gnatcatchers.
Commissioner Decker asked if the barrel cactus could be relocated. Mr. Beecham answered that
the plant could be relocated quite easily.
PC Minutes -6- February 5, 1992
Commissioner Decker asked if anyone had looked into mitigation by relocating it on site. Mr.
Beecham answered affirmatively.
Commissioner Decker questioned the disturbance of the birds during construction, whether they
relocate to another site, or temporarily relocate.
Mr. Beecham answered that it depended on the time of year, and whether they were on a nest
with eggs or young and they fly away. The eggs or the young could be lost through purgation
or the sun.
Commissioner Decker assumed that during the breeding period or during the hatching period,
construction would not be allowed.
Mr. Beecham replied that was not unreasonable. In other periods of time, the habitat is
disturbed. The issue was preserving habitat, not individual birds. There is a caring capacity.
Commissioner Martin asked about controlling the development of an acre of land.
Mr. Beecham answered that there was a CC&R restriction or an open space easement and upon
purchasing the property, there would be full disclosure regarding the use of the area.
In answer to Commissioner Martin's query, Mr. Beecham discussed the envelope of disturbance
they envisioned and the initial primary effects.
Gary Wood, P&D Technologies, 401 West A Street, San Diego stated he had been on the
design team which created the General Plan. He spoke on the insignificance of Horseshoe Bend
and Gobbler's Knob and the function of the General Plan. Mr. Wood said it was a conscious
decision not to include those as significant features. Mother Miguel Mountain should be
included in open space as well as some additional areas which were shown as open space on the
General Plan. The areas known as Gobbler's Knob and Horseshoe Bend were very specifically
and consciously determined to be areas for residential development focusing the development
in those areas to save the more important specifically named significant features.
Mr. Wood, referring to page 3.2-12, stated that the EIR concluded that Horseshoe Bend and
Gobbler's Knob are a part of the southwest foothills, and therefore site planning must meet
specific hillside standards.
Mr. Wood was also concerned with the issue of development areas of the General Plan. The
more detailed determination of the urban development area, transportation corridors, and open
space would be part of the planning review process on specific development proposals.
Commissioner Tugenberg commented that when the refinements are being made, it comes down
to the staffs point of view on Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob. It is a matter of the
PC Minutes -7- February 5, 1992
applicant's point of view towards that particular piece and the staff's attitude toward that
particular property.
Mr. Wood answered that he was referring to the General Plan's attitude. And the General Plan
very specifically and consciously designated that area would be subject to development, as many
other areas.
Commissioner Tugenberg stated that the General Plan specifically pointed out that sometime in
the future this would be refined. Mr. Wood answered affirmatively.
Chair Fuller asked when Mr. Wood was speaking specifically about the significant landform,
her understanding was that those named at the time the General Plan was written and accepted
were the only ones that were significant landforms.
Mr. Wood answered that the General Plan process was thorough in the sense that the significant
term was "prominent." They listed six prominent landforms--significant landforms--that they
felt were the significant prominent landforms that defined the important open space areas in the
Eastern Territories area plan.
Chair Fuller asked if those were the only prominent significant landforms in the Eastern
Territories the City of Chula Vista needs to be concerned with7
Mr. Wood stated that in this particular area, there was considerable analysis of the significant
landforms and Mother Miguel Mountain clearly emerged as number one. There were secondary
landforms that were also kept as open space. The ridge between Salt Creek and this project
were shown as open space, and then Gobbler's Knob. Horseshoe Bend was considered clearly
a tertiary landform, visually blending into the lower area and would he the appropriate area for
development, saving the primary or dominant landform of Mother Miguel Mountain and the
secondary landforms to form the major skyline view.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the State required the General Plan to be redone at given
periods.
Mr. Wood answered negatively; however, he believed it could only be redone at a certain
frequency.
Commissioner Tugenberg stated that Mother Miguel was a prominent feature, but they could be
smaller than Mother Miguel and still be a worthwhile feature to retain. Mr. Wood concurred.
Commissioner Decker asked if when the General Plan was done, it was the intent of the writers
to specifically list those landforms that were not to be significant. Mr. Wood said it was the
intent of the General Plan to list the significant landforms both in terms of naming them in a list
in the eastern territories area plan specifically, and showing them as open space on the map.
PC Minutes -8- February 5, 1992
Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that areas identified in that plan for residential
development did not necessarily identify every prominent hillside or landform that we may want
to preserve or review when we get into a more detailed plan. It now had been identified as an
issue and one to be considered carefully in the planning of the property.
David Nairne, representing the applicant, stated the inconsistencies with the General Plan could
be resolved through interpretation. In other cases, however, there had been a misapplication of
the General Plan by staff. He discussed the issues of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob and
their significance as landforms. He believed the critical factors in determining the significant
landforms had been the dominance of those landforms through the visual awareness throughout
the community. He noted that both were lost in the foreground of Mother Miguel which
dominated the skyline horizon.
Mr. Nairne said the General Plan included a definition called Prominent Features, which was
contained within the General Plan at Section 5.6 of the Eastern Territories Plan which listed
landforms and shapes that should be preserved. Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob were not
within this specific list. Mr. Nairne said that it was a specific determination at the time the
General Plan was adopted that these were not strong visual features to the horizon and the major
mass form in the Chula Vista area in this region, and they were not included.
Regarding the southwest foothills of Mother Miguel, Mr. Nairne said he was part of the process
which gave them the entitlement to continue the planning process in the north portion of the
property. The four property owners who had property between the applicant's site and SDG&E
were concerned that their property was shown as open space and they would have no
development opportunity without having a chance to have a public forum. Those were the areas
specifically included within the southwest foothills definition.
Other issues discussed by Mr. Nairne were landform alteration and grading, grading techniques,
development consistency in the open space boundary, clustering, open space, compatibility with
surrounding uses, and density. He also discussed the number of lots in the project, lot sizes,
architecture, landscaping, and the natural rural look.
Mr. Nairne noted the necessity to design around the SDG&E facility which will orient the lots
in their development away from the SDG&E facility. He noted that Parks did not want trails
through the SDG&E easement and said the General Plan provided for the trails to go through
the specific easements located on their property.
Regarding the commercial center, Mr. Nairne believed the size of the center should be 14 acres.
He asked for a complete line-by-line review of their project as it related to the General Plan.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked for a response at the next meeting by using the General Plan
to correlate staff's position.
PC Minutes -9- February 5, 1992
Regarding density, Commissioner Casillas asked if the applicant's plan was only 8 above the mid
point allowed as opposed to the DEIR showing 43.
Mr. Nairne answered that the EIR stated that they were 42 units over; however, if the test of
2 units to the acre was applied to other sections of the EIR which quoted areas which were
suitable for development, the numerical calculation would come to only 8 units over mid point.
Based upon their calculation, they felt they were slightly under mid point-l.9 units to the acre
which would make their project 18 units under.
Assistant Planning Director Lee, regarding Member Tugenberg's question about responding to
General Plan issues, stated that staff would respond in the Response to Comments rather than
having specific answers to the questions by the next week. If the document is complete at that
point, the public hearing would be closed. The response to comments would be included in the
final document and the Commission would make the determination as to whether those issues
are significant or not significant.
Dick Kau, 3404 Bonita Road, was concerned about all the requirements, and that ultimately
development would be restricted to such a degree that future generations would not be able to
afford a house. He said land for gnatcatchers is being provided at the rate of about 23 acres per
pair. At the present rate, it's $10,000 an acre for a bird habitat, and a biologist is required to
prove those birds are there. He urged that the Commission approve the applicant's plan.
Peter Warty, 81 Second Avenue, questioned the EIR regarding the percentage of water to be
used and traffic. He asked that the EIR show the percentage of water in relationship to
Sweetwater's available water, and traffic percentage compared to 10 years ago.
Georjean Jensen, 3655 Proctor Valley Road, said that in many cases the developer had included
their property in the development. She stated that they were not part of the development, and
did not want to be a part of the development. The error had been pointed out to the developer.
There were also errors in the map. Ms. Jensen said the rural atmosphere of the adjacent
property to the west and north of Neighborhood B was not compatible with the commercial area
and high density housing. There was no mitigation mentioned in the EIR concerning the San
Diego County Water Authority pipeline for extension phase 2. This pipeline parallels Proctor
Valley Road. The proposed main ingress and egress road, San Miguel Ranch Road, passed over
their home and business at 3655 Proctor Valley Road. There was no mention of grazing land
which encompassed the entire area. They disagreed on the traffic analysis. The project
depended on SR-125 to handle the traffic, and the SR-125 route had not been determined. The
entire project should not be allowed to proceed until SR-125 was in place and operational. The
14-acre commercial zone was not compatible with their existing business which is considered
an agricultural zone.
Donald Jensen, 3655 Proctor Valley Road, noted that Commissioner Carson had discussed the
issues he was going to bring up.
PC Minutes -10- February 5, 1992
Nancy Gilbert, a wildlife biologist representing Fish & Wildlife Service, 24000 Avila Road,
Laguna Niguel, stated that the proposed project would have significant unmitigated adverse
impacts to biological resources, including California Gnateatehers, Cactus Wrens, sensitive
plants, sensitive animal species, sensitive birds of which 13 are raptors including a historic
Golden Eagle nest. Given the significant unmitigable impacts, the approval of the proposed
project would necessitate the need for the Fish & Wildlife Service to assess the need for
emergency listing of the Gnatcatcher, the Cactus Wren, and the Otay Tarplant. The Fish &
Wildlife Service strongly recommended that the project not be approved, or that the biologically
sensitive alternative be chosen.
Jack Choppin, 5936 San Miguel Road, addressed the social impact of the EIR stressing
population and traffic, and the impact of freeways going through the property. He emphasized
that people count, also--not just birds and plants.
Eugene Sproferr distributed an article regarding electromagnetic fields. He felt the issue was
not addressed sufficiently in the EIR. He noted for the record that he had given the
Commissioners a letter regarding the inefficiency. He said that close proximity of housing to
electric substations does not create the most desirable neighborhood setting, and recommended
that the residential area not be located next to the power stations or under the lines as the prints
showed. He asked that the papers regarding electromagnetic fields which he had submitted be
included in the EIR. He objected to Chula Vista being named the lead agency on the project.
He said the land was in the County's area, had been planned by the Sweetwater Planning Group;
they had a water shed protection act in the San Diego County which the developer would have
to adhere to. Mr. Sproferr spoke of the possibility of unavailability of water by Sweetwater;
the overloading of the sewer system and spill-over into the Sweetwater Reservoir, the source of
drinking water. He stated he would challenge the project before LAFCO.
Toni Ingrassia, 4463 Acacia Avenue, Bonita, represented the Sweetwater Community Planning
Group. The Planning Group submitted their concerns in writing for response in the Final EIR.
Gretchen Burkey, P. O. Box 321, Bonita, had concerns regarding traffic and water, and the
assumption that SR-125 would be built.
E. J. Burley, 6500 San Miguel Road, enjoyed the beauty of Gobbler's Knob, Horseshoe Bend,
and Mother Miguel. He addressed the archaeological artifacts, run-off water, flooding, traffic,
and the need for and possible sites for at least two holding ponds.
Cris Johnson, 5626 Watercrest Drive, Bonita, said he didn't see how the project could be
planned before the route for SR-125 was adopted, where the open space would be, the impact
to City streets if 125 was a toll road, the traffic and environmental noise levels, water, parks,
etc. He was also concerned that there were no baseball fields for Little League practice. Mr.
Johnson questioned annexation to Chula Vista and his understanding that it would be annexed
automatically without a vote of the people.
PC Minutes -11- February 5, 1992
At the request of Chair Fuller, Assistant Planning Director Lee replied that the question of
annexation would have to go through LAFCO. It would be the applicant's responsibility to
proceed through LAFCO after the EIR had been completed.
Muriel Watson said there was nothing specific dealing with the trail system as it exists today
and what the project developers were projecting. She said that trail riders were not looking for
staging areas, but links which go around the project or going through the area. The actual
facility of trails had not been properly addressed in the EIR, and everything had been pushed
over to the SPA level. They would like to have a more specific way of how to utilize the
historical trails without traveling under the wires. The horses respond to sharp sounds and the
hum of the wires. She said that riding under the easements of the electrical wires would be
unacceptable for a safe trail ride. Ms. Watson believed the project was incompatible to the area.
Robert Thompson, 6503 San Miguel Road, noted that the County had a general plan for that
area, and that was the plan the project should be under. He was concerned that the development
went along the shoreline and separated the shoreline from the rest of the open space isolating
the water's edge from all animals and birds. He also noted that Sweetwater Authority had a
recreation plan which specifically covered everything within the boundaries that belong to
Sweetwater Authority, the adjacent property to the north. The Sweetwater master plan proposed
non-use of the thatch on the east end of the reservoir. The EIR for this project included
installing catch basins, underground piping, and trenching. He was concerned also about the
water coming out of the project and flooding downstream; and roads dead-ending against public
property. Mr. Thompson assumed that the City of Chula Vista at some point would condemn
the land to continue the road on out.
Don Rose, representing SDG&E, 101 Ash Street, San Diego, said that when Miguel substation
was first built, they had to get our land use entitlements from the County and had to comply
with their general plan. He spoke of suggestions made to provide additional buffer and reduce
the visual impact. Mr. Rose said SDG&E did not feel there had been a comprehensive visual
impact analysis performed, and after the final form of the project, if approved, is agreed upon,
it could be reviewed and decided what the appropriate mitigation and screening measures might
need be. He didn't feel that SDG&E should provide property for the mitigation. However, if
the best most effective mitigation may necessitate some use of SDG&E property, they would
entertain that concept; however that was not a commitment to provide property for mitigation.
SDG&E plans to expand that substation as the area grows. He noted that one of the mitigations
proposed was that buyers of the houses would sign a paper acknowledging they were aware of
SDG&E's plans to expand. However, he felt that would be satisfactory only to the first-time
buyer and that further enforcement would be doubtful. He believed proper mitigation should
be required at the development stage and not depend on what happens down the road. He urged
the Commission to look at proper land use design and do what they could to minimize the impact
of the undesirable adjacent uses.
Patrieia Itolland-Roark, 3645 Proctor Valley Road, whose family had been residents of the
Sweetwater Valley for almost 100 years, said the main entry way to the development went
PC Minutes -12- February 5, 1992
through her home or immediately adjacent. She stated the Draft Environmental Impact Report
did not address social issues, environmental issues, or the economic harm to the community.
She stated the road ended at her property and Jensen's kennels and seriously impacted them.
She was concerned about the installation of San Miguel Ranch Road, the environmental harm
to adjacent off-site properties, air quality during construction, mitigation and the plans for
residents during construction, no adequate buffer between the 110 foot wide roadway and the
adjacent properties, and the planned circulatory system for the San Miguel Ranch Road would
require condemnation of privately owned properties for the benefit of the developer. She
believed it was an incompatible use. Regarding future resales on homes, they would need full
disclosure. It would seriously impact resales in the area; it would seriously cause liabilities for
any realtor or real estate salesperson who neglected to disclose all of the ramifications of the
proximity to the substation.
Michael T. Roark, 3645 Proctor Valley Road, discussed SR-125 not being aligned. He stated
it was premature to discuss the project until that alignment is set. He said there were many
ranchers and businesses that were compatible with the use and none of these issues had been
mentioned in the EIR. None of these off-site considerations had been stressed by the EIR.
None of the compatibility or mitigation issues had been addressed by the EIR. He discussed
traffic issues and the inability to provide adequate funding required for proper roads through the
existing community.
Sherl Todus, 6001 Bonita Meadows Lane, Bonita, said she was another person who was being
"de-mapped" by this EIR. She was concerned that the freeway and a bypass road took her
property. If her property were left intact, it would be flooded, because both of the proposed
drainage systems converge there. She was also concerned about the Sweetwater Reservoir and
the need to develop a protection plan for the reservoir for the water resource and that building
along the rim would not pollute the reservoir. Another concern was sewerage and the possible
overflow from the pump stations. She suggested utilization of a gravity flow system. She said
she was personally offended at being de-mapped.
No one else wishing to speak, Chair Fuller continued the public hearing until February 12,
1992.
ITEM 2: PRESENTATION: CITY PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL PROGRAMS TO
PRESERVE NATURAL HABITAT AREAS
Principal Planner Howard presented the report, focusing on bird and plant species found in this
area and the regional programs to try to preserve large, contiguous and diverse natural preserves
which are interconnected to ensure that natural preserve areas are not disconnected and become
cut off with the rest of the natural wildlife areas. He noted that two programs were of particular
interest to Chula Vista--the Clean Water Program Multiple Species Conservation Program and
the South County Natural Communities Conservation Program. He proceeded to describe the
two programs and the mitigation required by those programs. A South County Natural
Communities Conservation Program through the State program is also being considered by the
PC Minutes -13- February 5, 1992
City of Chula Vista, the County, and interested property owners. The working group for this
program is waiting for guidelines and guidance from the State. When those guidelines are
received and in place, the working group intends to propose that the City of Chula Vista enroll
in the Natural Communities Conservation Program with the County and work on a
comprehensive natural preserve plan for the South Bay area.
Mr. Howard then focused on the effect on ongoing projects and noted that staff wanted to make
the Commissioners aware of the overall regional picture, so they could keep this in mind when
considering the individual projects.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked when a final decision would be made, and when the rules would
be laid down. Principal Planner Howard answered that the State was working on that and the
actual original deadline to enroll was February but had slipped. Planning Director Leiter stated
that hopefully by the end of February, the guidelines for enrollment would be received.
However, field work was already being done as part of the NCCP. To formally enroll in the
program, it would probably be March or April.
Answering Commissioner Tugenberg, Planning Director Leiter said it was optional, but strongly
recommended to enroll. The State strongly encouraged cities, counties, and in some cases
property owners to use this vehicle to deal with this issue.
Chair Fuller inquired about Nancy Gilbert's (U.S. Fish & Wildlife) comment that if the Rancho
San Miguel project were to go through, it would threaten the State's Community Conservation
Program. Planning Director Leiter believed she was expressing a concern that based on the
plan that was evaluated in the EIR which showed the development of certain Coastal Sage Scrub
properties, it was her opinion that that type of an action by a local government would potentially
jeopardize the program by causing development of property that she felt was very significant as
part of an overall regional NCCP.
Chair Fuller asked if the State Act would preclude the City of Chula Vista from approving
development in areas such as this. Mr. Le'lter answered that it would not directly at this time,
but if the City were to adopt an NCCP and the State approved it, we would be agreeing to
preserve specific properties. He believed Ms. Gilbert's point was that she felt some of the
properties being considered for development were strong candidates for preservation under an
NCCP.
Commissioner Decker questioned the inclusion of Camp Pendleton in the NCCP study area
because of its stand of Coastal Sage Scrub. Planning Director Le'lter answered affirmatively,
and stated that in Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, all of the Coastal Sage Scrub
would be covered by an NCCP.
Commissioner Casillas asked to what extent the implementation of this program would influence
the decision of the Federal Government in September in considering the Gnateateher for
PC Minutes -14- February 5, 1997
placement on the endangered species list. Mr. Leiter answered that it is speculated that the
NCCP programs may affect the decision at the Federal level.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Assistant Planning Director Lee reminded the Commissioners of a field trip to the Kaiser
facilities in Riverside on February 8, 1992. He stated there was a possibility of a tour of Salt
Creek Ranch on February 19.
Mr. Lee pointed out that the Commissioners had been given information regarding funds
available in their budget for seminars, and asked that they give thought as to whether they
wished to send more than one Commissioner to the session in April. Chair Fuller asked that
it be part of the Director's report at the next meeting.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
Commissioner Martin asked for a workshop on projects where there might be the need for
explanations on differences of opinion or terms being used.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if when there was an EIR before the Commission, unless they
decide there were deficiencies, all the Commission is voting on is whether it was prepared in
compliance with CEQA. Assistant Planning Director Lee concurred that it was whether the
Commission was satisfied with the document--whether it was complete and accurate. Discussion
ensued as to what should be included in the EIR and what should be considered.
Commissioner Carson questioned the wording of the policy statement regarding no building until
the completion of SR-125. Planning Director Leiter answered that the Transportation Phasing
Plan required that after a certain amount of units were built, the level of service standards would
possibly be exceeded. The phasing of this development would need to fit into that overall
phasing plan, and staff was in the process of preparing a financing plan for SR-125 which would
look at the phasing of existing approved projects, the proposed projects, and the timing of when
they realistically thought the first phase of SR-125 could be built to see how the projects might
be phased. Mr. Leiter believed the first phase was four lanes--two lanes in each direction.
ADJOURNMENT at 11:30 p.m. to the Joint Field Trip to Kaiser Facilities on February 8, 1992
at 8:00 a.m. which will adjourn to the Regularly Scheduled Meeting of February 12, 1992.
~aficy Ripi~y, Secretary d
Planning Commission