Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1993/03/03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, March 3, 1993 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Martin, Moot, Ray, Tarantino, and Tuchscher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Howard, Associate Planner Reid, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Associate Civil Engineer Ouadah, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller, followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller dispensed with review of the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None Chair Fuller stated that the order of the agenda would be changed because one of the Planning Commissioners had a conflict of interest on the San Miguel item. The Commission would consider Item 3 first. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-93-04, APPLICATION BY EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 51 ACRES OF EASTLAKE GREENS, LOCATED IN TWO SEPARATE PARCELS, ONE SOUTH OF EASTLAKE HIGH SCHOOL, THE SECOND IN THE SOUTHWESTERN PORTION OF EASTLAKE GREENS PC Minutes -2- March 3, 1993 Principal Planner Howard stated the General Plan Amendment was proposed for two separate parcels totaling 51 acres. Mr. Howard gave the staff presentation and noted that the staff recommendation was to adopt the proposed addendum to the EastLake Greens Sectional Plan Area EIR, finding there were no new impacts of the project not discussed in the EIR; and that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment to the City Council. He noted staff recommended the addition of a condition which would clarify (due to the fact this was tied in with the Otay Ranch project in the EastLake Greens landswap area) in case the Commission took a different recommendation on the EastLake landswap portion of the Otay Ranch, reconsideration after a decision on Otay Ranch land uses, since that might change the rationale for land uses on these parcels. Mr. Howard said there had been a community forum where some concerns were expressed regarding the high density area proposal, the impact upon the EastLake Greens Community in terms of the introduction of rental housing, as well as the impact upon the community association. Staff felt the impact regarding introduction of rental housing would be minimal both in terms of its location at the periphery of EastLake Greens and the fact that it would be the only rental housing in this area; that it was a matter between the EastLake Homeowners Association, the development company, and the homeowners as to the disposition of this area within the EastLake Homeowners Association. Commissioner Carson questioned the viability of EastLake returning before the Commission to ask for 450 units which had previously been forfeited to the Kaiser project. She was also concerned about the adjustment which had been made by the City Council on the number of units. Looking at the maximum amount now proposed under the General Plan Amendment, Commissioner Carson said the only difference would be 145 units. She felt this was not the Council's intent. Mr. Howard replied that it was his understanding that of the five areas redesignated, this was the only one that would be coming back for potential redesignation; if this was approved as proposed, there would be a different land use situation in the area that staff felt would justify the proposed change. Regarding the Kaiser facility, the 450 units lost were the only units which would have the potential for affordable housing in either EastLake I or II. EastLake had a requirement from the Housing Element to provide 5 % low-income households and 5 % moderate- income households. Based upon their application for this area, staff felt this was an appropriate site for a small amount, in comparison to the overall number of dwelling units in EastLake, of potential rental or potential affordable housing opportunities at these densities. Commissioner Carson was concerned about the high density near the high school and the quality of students coming out of the rentals. Commissioner Ray was also concerned about the density increase and the net loss of 38 acres of open space. He asked for the rationale for eliminating the open space. Mr. Howard explained there would still be open space within the projects along the major roadways, but no longer specifically shown on the General Plan. There would not be an actual PC Minutes -3- March 3, 1993 loss of open space. Regarding the justification for multi-family homes, the property was not suitable for single-family residential uses and there was a need for additional multi-family units to provide for a balanced community within EastLake. in the General Plan, but Commissioner Tuchscher explained that it was the accounting for the open space that was changing; the open space along the major arterials was counted as open spaced~lfid was no longer being calculated as open space. Principal Planner Howard stated that the General Plan was not meant to be precise as to the exact acreage; it was meant to represent that some buffer would be along the roadway in order to provide a landscaped parkway or landscaped area within a project to buffer to some extent the roadway from the development. It was never meant to be scaled out. Commissioner Tarantino asked about traffic; staff had stated in the report that there would be no significant impact to the threshold, yet the Star-News had reported the project would generate an extra 4,000 trips. Having served on the Growth Management Oversight Commission, he understood that if all five projects along the Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road were approved, that would already wave a red flag; that all those projects could not be approved and have the current level of service remain the same without violating the threshold. Mr. Howard explained staff's rationale which determined that as long they did not exceed the original unit count that was reviewed for the original proposed project in EastLake Greens, they would not get into new traffic impacts which had not already been accounted for. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned how the land in the aqueduct area was handled, from a construction and density standpoint--could it be built on and the real density. Mr. Howard answered that the aqueduct could not be built on, and had a power line easement. For General Plan purposes, it was also being shown as open space, and was not being counted as part of the density allowed within the high-density area of the proposed General Plan Amendment area. Commissioner Tuchscher concluded that the 400 units on that parcel were net units, not including the aqueduct area. Principal Planner Howard concurred, and noted that there would be additional easements going through that area. He also pointed out that if the General Plan Amendment was approved, EastLake would still need to file a General Development Plan Amendment and a SPA Plan Amendment, and while going through these different procedures the area, after subtracting out areas for roadways and freeway right-of-ways, would get smaller and the density would have to remain in the range. He believed the 405 units at mid-point would probably end up being significantly less than that at the next phases of review. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Miss Katy Wright, EastLake Development Company, 900 Lane Avenue, CV, spoke of the previous land swap with the Baldwin Company for a parcel south and west of the subject parcel. In light of that land exchange, this specific proposal was before the Commission. EastLake PC Minutes -4- March 3, 1993 Company believed the subject pamels warranted reconsideration in light of the high intensity, high activity uses adjacent to them. The high density parcel had been one of five parcels originally planned, studied, and proposed with the EastLake Greens proposal in 1989 and given an interim low/medium density until such time EastLake could come back before the Commission and Council and consider a more permanent designation on that site. They had not specifically proposed apartments, but were proposing a multi-family use. That would be determined at a different planning stage. Regarding affordable housing, they had met the requirement in EastLake I; in EastLake Greens, the 10% affordable moderate income housing requirement had been set aside until resolution of the density of the five parcels. This particular site was a potential site for moderate-income housing, but a specific type of product home had not been addressed. Chair Fuller asked if that was the only site they would have for high-density affordable housing within EastLake Greens. Ms. Wright said if the proposal was approved, it would be the only high-density parcel in EastLake Greens. It would not, however, be concentrated in one location; it would be a candidate site for a portion of those moderately priced homes. Andre Chapman, 2470 Golfcrest Loop, CV 91915, spoke of the emotional commitment involved in a neighborhood; he believed that by bringing in high density, it would bring in large turnover, landlordship, tenantship, subletting, and the people did not have the same kind of commitment and the same kind of stake in the future of the area. He felt this was a convenient change for the worse. Amir Pishdad, 2471 Golfcrest Loop, CV 91915, said he had lived in apartments and had made a step up to EastLake Greens. It was advertised by EastLake that none of the homes in the area would be apartments. He had written a letter to the Association, which was the developer. The homeowners had not been informed by the Association of the impact of this high density. He concluded there would be a loss of impact of financial dollars, as well as the monthly assessments to the Association, if this area was designated for a rental project. It was advertised as a country club type of living and this was not what was being represented at the meeting. He asked the Commission to carefully study this proposal to ensure that the homeowners would not be financially impacted; also the renters would not be paying Mello-Roos. Mrs. Tess Sheckler, 1083 Waterville Lake Road, CV 91915, said as a recent property owner in EastLake Greens, she was opposed to the proposed rezoning. She objected to the ambiguity of the developer's statement that the proposed density would dictate housing types which may be for sale or for rent. She saw this as an ill-conceived attempt to force rental properties to be co-located with high-end residential communities and country club living. This would adversely and directly impact property and resale values for existing properties. She and her husband had invested a considerable amount of money and had risked a lot to afford their home. They had no desire to be in close proximity to the type of residences that were being proposed. She considered it a breach of implied contract for the type of community the developers had advertised and sold to her. The renters would not have anything invested in the area and could PC Minutes -5- March 3, 1993 move at any time. She concurred with Commissioner Carson regarding her comments about students. She urged the Commission to not recommend approval of the proposal. She felt the 1989 approval still valid. However, if the Commission did recommend approval, she asked that the Commission recommend prohibition of the number of rentals entirely or severely limit the number of rentals and require that all rentals be included in the Homeowners Association and that they be required to abide by the same Association requirements and covenants that the current homeowners have to meet. George Khoury, 2337 Eastridge Loop, CV 91915, concurred with the prior speakers, and noted that the graffiti began after students started being bused from National City and San Ysidro. He said that when people are brought from other areas that are of low income or high density, that is what the residents would face. He said the developer was mostly interested in turning their money to profit and were trying to create more income by turning the land to rental apartments to create faster income. Oscar Khoury, 2310 Eastridge Loop, CV 91915, was concerned with higher population, higher traffic, more thieves, car thefts, transients who have no concern about cleanliness of the neighborhood, overcrowding the high school, lack of control, and devaluation of homes. He expressed their opposition to the project. Bob McAlister, 2497 Golfcrest Loop, CV 91915, said he wanted to provide a safe community for the people who live there and that the homeowners get to be a part of the Homeowners Association. He was also concerned with the traffic generation; the proximity of the high school; he hoped they would not see bars on the windows of the homes of the country-club style living in EastLake Greens. Teri Pishdad, 2471 Golfcrest Loop, CV 91915, said they had moved out of apartment areas to get away from that, and she hoped they did not have to see that too soon again. The parks already had a lot of graffiti and words the parents did not think their children should be seeing; the parks were very noisy; neighbors couldn't sleep in their master bedrooms in the summer because their bedrooms were next to the park where there was noise until 2 or 3 a.m.; children are being bused in from other areas and some of the area children are having to be sent out to other schools. Martin Valdez, 2350 Eastridge Loop, CV 91915, supported his neighbors' positions and asked that the Commission disapprove the plan. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ray said he was torn on what may have transpired from 1989 to date. There were comments regarding the City allowing something for potential financial gains. He wished to go on record supporting staff's position who had taken their direction from City Council; however, he felt the Commission had an obligation to the residents. Although there are no PC Minutes -6- March 3, 1993 guarantees when anyone purchases property, he thought The Greens development was sold as country style living. He was firmly opposed to a density change based on the comments heard at the meeting; he thought there was a reason the Commission recommended and the City Council approved the interim zoning in 1989. He would not like to see that changed at this time. Commissioner Moot questioned staff with respect to the lower triangle--the parcel not adjacent to the high school--and asked if it was medium-high density in the surrounding area. Mr. Howard discussed the various densities in the general area. The triangle was proposed for change to be consistent with the immediate surrounding area, Commissioner Moot asked if the triangular property could be considered separately from the property adjacent to the high school. Mr. Howard answered that it could be bifurcated from the property. At Commissioner Martin's request, Mr. Howard discussed density of several other areas. Commissioner Martin stated that he would oppose the amendment. He liked the idea of the land swap of 169 acres for 169 acres, but after studying it, he felt it was really not the same-ae~ea-~-. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if everything east of the aqueduct was existing approved land uses. Mr. Howard concurred. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that the audience had done an excellent job presenting their cases and he appreciated their being sensitive to the other speakers and not repeating themselves. He tried to explain to the audience the constraints the City was under regarding affordable housing, stating that affordable housing was mandated by the State. He said everyone likes it until it happens to be in their back yard, then it becomes a negative. The noise, graffiti, etc. was not unique to EastLake or California regardless of densities. It was up to the people who care to take care of it the best they can privately, but also to make sure the City staff is aware that those things are ongoing so the City could respond to it. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned staff as to the urgency in dealing with the amendment in light of the Otay Ranch project currently in process. Mr. Howard answered that it was filed by EastLake last year, and staff felt that although it was dwarfed by the Otay Ranch, it was a proposal that was in keeping with what was going on with the Otay Ranch and they felt it should be considered at a concurrent time as opposed to a later date after the Otay Ranch is approved. Chair Fuller expressed her feelings regarding finding areas to locate affordable housing, not necessarily apartments or rentals. She said the Commission owed it to the people who live in Chula Vista to be able to live everywhere--not just west of 1-805 and south of "L" Street, but in places like EastLake in affordable homes. She was offended by the statements that young people attending Chula Vista schools from affordable housing or apartments didn't measure up. She felt the speakers had presented some valid arguments--the inequity of supporting the Homeowners Association and the fees the homeowners were required to pay, traffic and noise. PC Minutes -7- March 3, 1993 Commissioner Carson asked if there was an element in the Affordable Housing that said if a place could not be found in the developer area, that the developer could elect--providing it was recommended by the Department and the City Council--to buy a piece of property elsewhere and put affordable housing in that area. Mr. Howard said the Housing Element included flexibility to consider that. Commissioner Moot commented that it was not a persuasive argument to him to say they did not want other people in their neighborhood; however, he did not like the fact that when decisions are made about affordable housing, it is put in the least attractive place in the project. He felt affordable housing should be spread throughout the project in different pockets of the project. He would like to see the triangular area bifurcated from the project and considered apart from the parcel next to the high school. Commissioner Carson objected to the General Plan Amendment because EastLake had previously given up their 450 units to allow Kaiser to come in and were now requesting the units be built in another area of the project. Commissioner Tarantino said it was also very painful to him to sit through a lot of the public testimony, because he had spent 20 years in education in the areas and in the neighborhoods in which many of the people had talked against. His experience in working with those families and children was different from the apparent perception of the speakers. He could see the rationale for the General Plan Amendment and liked Commissioner Moor's proposal for bifurcation. MS (Moot/Tarantino) to bifurcate the two parcels and consider them in separate votes, starting with the parcel next to the high school and then the triangular parcel. At Commissioner Tarantino's suggestion, the Commissioners decided to consider the triangular parcel first, then the high school parcel since it was more controversial. Mr. Pishdad approached the podium and asked that the Commission not consider the parcels separately. Chair Fuller explained that the Commission was only changing the method, not the intent of the motion. Commissioner Martin agreed with Chair Fuller regarding the sensitivity of schools, but had a problem with the land acre swap which took acreage out of the low/medium residential and medium residential and put it in medium/high and high residential. He believed it would have impacts on traffic and other thresholds; it would have a cumulative effect; he felt it would set a precedent for future development and there needed to be more control. Chair Fuller clarified that the first portion being looked at was the triangle which was medium/high density which was next to medium/high density on three sides. PC Minutes -8- March 3, 1993 Commissioner Moot, the maker of the motion, echoed Commissioner Martin's comments but said he saw some logic for consistency in planning and why the change made sense at that time. Commissioner Tarantino said he believed at the SPA level, further refinement in terms of density could be made and in looking at the individual SPAs for those two parcels, the density probably would be less. Mr. Howard concurred. Commissioner Tarantino noted that the safeguards to which the Commissioners were referring were there. Mr. Howard said that these projects, if approved at whatever density, would go through further review. Commissioner Ray commented that the land use to the west and south (Otay Ranch) had not been officially designated medium/high density. Commissioner Moot concurred, and stated that if the proposed Otay Ranch uses were not approved, the triangle would no longer be consistent and the rationale for changing it would no longer exist. Commissioner Ray noted that much of the area being considered was bordered by Otay Ranch which had not been designated and which had not been addressed. He was concerned that the decision made on this project would be counter to what would be proposed on the Otay Ranch project, and would vote on the triangular parcel with what he would like to see in the Otay Ranch there. Commissioner Carson noted that the SPA plans, when they go back to the Coinmission, rarely change. It might be adjusted by the City Council, but once the General Plan is approved, it is difficult to change. Commissioner Ray asked if the SDG&E easement running through the property was 200 ft. wide, and asked how much additional buffer there was between the easement and the medium/high density housing. Mr. Howard concurred that the easement was 200 ft., but the additional setback or buffer would be determined at a later date. Commissioner Ray was concerned with the high power lines, and asked if the City had made any recommendation for SPA-level plans regarding buffering. Mr. Howard said there was no current policy, based upon a lack of definitive information on the nature of EMF. VOTE ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE THE TWO PARCELS FOR DECISION LATER: 6-1 (Carson "no") Answering Commissioner Ray, Mr. Howard said the northern parcel should be referred to as Subarea 1 and the southern parcel as Subarea 2. MS (Ray/Carson) to deny the proposed amendment for Subarea 2. PC Minutes -9- Mamh 3, 1993 Commissioner Tuchscher asked for the maker's rationale. Commissioner Ray said it was based on the density, the location of the power lines, and the fact that he was going to vote for lower density on the Otay Ranch in that area. Commissioner Carson said she believed it was premature and she would be in favor of a resolution with a contingency which gave the Commission the right to come back for discussion, depending on the land use designation of the Otay Ranch. Commissioner Tuchscher concluded that Commissioner Carson would rather defer this decision until the Otay Ranch land use designation had been decided. Commissioner Carson concurred. Commissioner Tuchscher felt there was no more appropriate place for high density than near a high traffic corridor and the power lines. Estate housing could not be put there, from a land use perspective. At the same time, he had some difficulty in dealing with the two small corners surrounded by the Otay Ranch and felt adjacent land uses were critical. He did not believe the land owner should be expected to wait for a decision until after the Otay Ranch land use designation; he felt a decision should be made one way or the other to give the EastLake land owner some direction so they could move forward. However, rather than vote to deny the amendment, he recommended that the maker of the motion modify it to defer the decision until after the next meeting regarding Otay Ranch. Commissioner Ray concurred, and asked that an additional condition which had been presented by staff be read to those in attendance. Chair Fuller read as follows: "Be it further resolved that the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval for this item is contingent upon Planning Commission recommendation of approval for that portion of the Otay Ranch Project known as the EastLake Land Swap, and if the Planning Commission makes any recommendation on this area which is significantly different from the staff recommendation, then staff is hereby directed to return this proposed General Plan Amendment to the next available Planning Commission scheduled meeting agenda for discussion of potential reconsideration of the Planning Commission recommendation." Chair Fuller noted that whatever action the Planning Commission took, if they adopted the accompanying resolution, the issue could be revisited and changed. Commissioner Ray withdrew his motion, and the second agreed. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: MS (Ray/Carson) to table the issue to the first regularly scheduled meeting following the discussion on land use issues for the Otay Ranch. Commissioner Moot did not feel it should be put off, and that is was unfair to those who had attended and spoken at the meeting. PC Minutes -10- March 3, 1993 Assistant City Attorney Rudolf asked that the applicant be consulted as to whether they were willing for the item to be continued. Katy Wright, representing EastLake, concurred with the recommendation of continuance until the Otay Ranch adjacency had been considered. She felt that gave it credence and made it more logical. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf asked that the continuance be to a time and date specific so the item would not have to be renoticed. Assistant Planning Director Lee suggested the item be continued to April 14. Commissioner Martin stated that he wanted to be very clear that he was not for the project because of the land swap; he concurred with Commissioner Moot that a decision should be made. It could still be changed after the Otay Ranch land use designation. AMENDED MOTION: MS (Ray/Carson) to continue the item to April 14, at 7:00 p.m. following the discussion on land use issues for the Otay Ranch. Principal Planner Howard clarified that the motion included the entire proposal, not just Subarea 2. Commissioner Ray concurred. VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: 4-3 (Commissioners Tarantino, Martin, and Moot voted against) Chair Fuller noted the item had been continued to the meeting of April 14, and thanked those who had attended. Chair Fuller called a 10-minute recess at 8:50. The meeting reconvened at 8:57 p.m. Commissioner Tuchscher was excused from the meeting at this time because of a conflict of interest on the following project. ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO SAN MIGUEL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (EIR 90-02) (SCH-90010155) PC Minutes -1D March 3, 1993 ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 93-14, PCZ 93-H; APPLICATION BY SAN MIGUEL PARTNERS FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED COMMUNITY PRE-ZONE FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH, LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, WEST AND SOUTH OF MOTHER MIGUEL MOUNTAIN, AND NORTHEAST OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD - San Miguel Partners Principal Planner Howard asked that these two items be considered simultaneously and presented the staff report regarding the General Development Plan and Pre-zone and the major issues regarding the surrounding properties. Mr. Howard requested the Commission to adopt the resolution certifying the Final EIR for the project recommending that the City Council approve the General Development Plan and the Pre-zone for the San Miguel Ranch Project. Associate Planner Reid presented the contents of the Final EIR, noting that 10 letters of comment had been received regarding the Draft EIR and 11 individuals provided testimony at the February 10, 1993 hearing; response to comments had been incorporated in the Final EIR with the errata and draft. Ms. Reid noted that final decision on the approval of the northern portion was being deferred until after the NCCP process had been completed, and commented on several points made in a letter received from California Fish & Game. A letter had also been received from CalTrans, and Ms. Reid stated the City's Traffic Engineer had commented that the project was in compliance with the City's General Plan and the traffic generated by the project made use of the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Ms. Reid commented, also, that the City and Sweetwater Authority were working closely regarding the impacts of the run- off diversion system. Commissioner Tarantino questioned the success of transplanting endangered plant species and what happened if it was not considered successful. Barry Jones, the biologist on the project, answered that all of the mitigation measures would be bonded, so that if at the end of the five- year period the criteria had not been met the applicant would have the opportunity to try to rectify the problem. If the conditions were not met, the City would have the option at that point to pull the bond and rectify the problem. Answering Commissioner Tarantino, Mr. Jones said there had been a fairly high degree of success in transplantation of Barrel Cacti; in the case of wetlands, there had been a mixed success rate. There was very intensive monitoring, and it was in the applicant's best interest to make it work. The City also required that a separate monitor from the applicant's monitor be involved in the process in identifying problems early on. Commissioner Martin asked how the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator would be paid and who employed him. Ms. Reid said the City selected the consultant, and the applicant paid the coordinator through a three-party agreement--paid by the developer through the City. Mr. Jones commented that the Coordinator's role is as a City employee, looking out for the City's interest. Ms. Reid said the Coordinator and Mr. Jones took their direction from the City ultimately with developer input. PC Minutes -12- March 3, 1993 Commissioner Moot asked for clarification of Mr. Howard's comment during the staff presentation that the proposed development in the north could disappear entirely. Mr. Howard answered that at the SPA Plan level, there may be an approved NCCP which would find that the northern parcel was a key component of a regional open space network for preservation of the Gnatcatcher. If that was the conclusion of the NCCP, it would preclude development on the northern parcel. If the NCCP found that some limited amount of development was consistent with the amount of resources on that type of parcel or did not come to fruition, at the SPA Plan level there would probably be some development potential on the northern parcel. Replying to Commissioner Moot, Mr. Howard said if the NCCP did not come to fruition, the City had the discretion to require up to 100% preservation for various species with no development allowed on the northern parcel. Chair Fuller noted that if the northern portion is not developed, the developer had agreed to a no-density transfer to the southern portion. Mr. Howard said that under the current General Plan designations for the site, the developer would actually lose density on the southern parcel because of the requirement for more estate lots on the southern parcel to make up for the lost lots in the northern parcel; however, the applicant had the option to apply for a General Plan amendment which would recoup all or part of the density from that parcel. There was no commitment from the developer never to ask for a General Plan amendment. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Assistant Planning Director Lee clarified that the public review period had been closed on the EIR on February 10, 1993, so the current public hearing was regarding the amendment to the General Plan and the general development plan of the project. (The following two speakers gave a prepared presentation on behalf of the applicant.) David Nairne, 950-4350 La Jolla Village Dr., San Diego 92122 representing San Miguel Partners, the project applicant, thanked Principal Planner Howard and Associate Planner Reid of City staff, and Ms. Hon and Ogden for their assistance, and turned the presentation over to Denise Ashton. Denise Ashton, Tierra Planning & Design, 34191 Camino Capistrano, Capistrano Beach, CA, representing the applicant, gave a pictorial presentation of the project. Eugene J. Sprofera, 3311 Fairway Drive, La Mesa 91941, speaking as a legislative analyst, was concerned with EMF. He asked for prudent avoidance and that safety standards be set. He wanted to make a strong point that this was not the kind of project to put under power lines. Robert E. Thompson, 6503 San Mignel Road, Bonita, noted the different organizations that were against the project, and the project was predicated on future development that may not happen. He asked that the Commission take a rational look at considering a project that nobody PC Minutes -13- March 3, 1993 seemed to want except the developer, and that the Commission vote against the EIR and on the site development plan. Stephen Ezakovich, 7475 Carrie Ridge Way, San Diego, represented Sierra Club, South Bay Group, who opposed construction or development of the northern parcel of Rancho Miguel. He said its unique biological topographical features should exist undisturbed and be utilized as a study area open space. They were concerned with the density of the southern portion; mitigation of the loss of Diegan Sage Scrub, wetlands, sensitive flora and fauna; cumulative impact to the natural environment. The asked that the Commission preserve the north parcel and decrease the density of dwelling units in the south parcel maximizing natural open space or preserve the sits. George Kost, 3609 Belle Bonnie Brae Road, Bonita 91902, commented on the cumulative transportation problems, and the ultimate widening of several streets in Bonita, the economic factor, and the impact to human beings, the air pollution, noise pollution, and crime. He commented on the difficulty to decide on a project without knowing the routing of SR-125 and the types of roads which would run north and south. Michael J. Roark, 3645 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita 91902, speaking on behalf of the owners of 3645-3655 Proctor Valley Road, and Sunnyside Ranch Equestrian Community, said he was both for and against the project. He said the Bonita residents were in favor of the trails, and land use and the plans for the norther community but the documents did not support that. He said the documents were not correct; there had to be an overriding consideration for the benefit of human beings and the northern portion had to be approved for development for appropriate housing developments. He reiterated the concept of the Bonita residents as to the use of the property. He stated the EIR was neither sufficient nor complete, issues were not mitigated in the EIR; the EIR should be denied. He concurred with some of the ideas of the developer, but Mr. Roark did not believe what was before the Commission was what the applicant wanted or thought they were getting. He concurred with Commissioner Ray's comment at a previous meeting that the project should not be considered as if SR-125 was a consideration. The project had to stand or fall on its own merits without consideration of SR-125. He felt the applicant should not have to give up land without compensation for SR-125, without knowing where it would be located. Mr. Roark felt the northern territory should not be preserved for a species which was not on the endangered species list, for plants which are easily replanted and grow naturally, and for species that are common in the area. He suggested that the applicant's ideas be considered, not just City staff. Mary Renaker, 1374 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, representing the Endangered Habitats League, and San Diego Sierra Club on the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan in North County, supported the project and said the land had highly significant habitat value in San Diego County; the applicant had agreed not to plan development in the north section of the property until the Statewide Natural Communities Conservation Program and the County's Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program had finished map and designing core reserves and corridors. Ms. Renaker said the San Miguel project was critical for redefining California's development style PC Minutes -14- March 3, 1993 for the future; the groups she represented were very concerned about the negative precedent which could be set wherein their efforts to map and preserve critical habitats before they become endangered are blocked by inflexible city codes. She felt if San Miguel Ranch was forced to build a pristine, virgin landscape in order to satisfy municipal zoning ordinance requirements, it would be a setback for their efforts. They were asking environmentalists also to re-examine their views on building densities. She felt the California suburban ranchettes were too wasteful of the air, land, water, and biological resources. Development needed to be clustered on less sensitive land in order to preserve mountains, hills, and rivers for wildlife corridors and future open space. In-fill, redesign and rebuilding was necessary where land had already been farmed or paved, and virgin landscape should be left alone to preserve biodiversity. Ms. Renaker asked that the requirement for the number of units on the less sensitive land be deleted, and the previously approved density be allowed. John Taylor, 3142 Orchard Hill Road, Bonita, was concerned with noise impact from SR-125 on the southern portion of San Miguel Ranch and the noise impacts on human and wildlife health. He said continuous noise levels in excess of 80 decibels could cause documented elevations on certain cholesterol and other stress hormones. Mr. Taylor said there was a federal regulation establishing levels of noise exposure limiting human exposure to continuous sound levels of 85 decibels for no more than 8 hours per day to avoid permanent damage to the inner ear. SR-125 would produce significant levels of noise, and he felt additional in-depth study should be done in order to be sure there would not be a health problem. Muriel Watson, 3120 Anderson St., Bonita, spoke about horse trails, and said there was nothing definitive regarding location or utilization. There was nothing specific dealing with the rural lifestyle. Gretchen Burkey, P. O. Box 321, Bonita, represented the Sweetwater Community Planning Group who had concerns with the EIR and General Development Plan regarding mitigation of biological impacts, the destruction of high visible landforms; size, scale, and intensity of the proposed project; EMF and visible adverse impacts of locating residential development adjacent to transmission lines; discussion of impacts of SR-125 should be terminated; proposed by-pass road would bifurcate some properties which would create hardships of owners; further work needs to be done on EIR before certification, and the GDP should be fine tuned. Peter Warty, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista (assisted by Brent Rivers), representing CROSSROADS, asked that the dwelling units on both parcels be limited to 1262 units and that the Commission adopt the preservation plan which preserved the landform of Horseshoe Bend. He was concerned with traffic, noise ambience level, and visual impact. He said the proposed plan exacerbated the impacts in the regional facilities and would strain the County's ability to provide services such as jails, animal control, health and social services. Mr. Watry noted the Council had made it clear that the General Plan was a maximum, and the maximum number of units did not have to be approved. He also was concerned about the increased number of power lines to be installed after the project is completed, and grading the landform to the south to a PC Minutes -15- March 3, 1993 flatland subdivision. CROSSROADS' proposal was to change the south parcel to a maximum of 907 units with 357 units in the northern parcel with a total of 1262 units. He noted the advantages of changing the density as requested, preserving the Horseshoe Bend formation and building executive houses on top of Horseshoe Bend. E. J. Burley, 6500 San Miguel Road, Bonita, representing the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association stated the EIR was inadequate and inaccurate. He was concerned with flooding and mitigation of water flow. They endorsed the recommendations of Mr. Roark. Sheri Todus, 6001 Bonita Meadows Lane, Bonita, referring to Figure 2.3 of the Supplemental EIR, was concerned that the proposed access road and the proposed SR-125 wiped out her home and two of her neighbors. She did not believe SR-125 should be considered in the EIR since it had not been definitely aligned, and she did not believe much of the project would be compatible with her neighborhood. Patricia Holland Roark, 3645 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita, reported that she had recently attended a San Diego County Water Authority meeting. They had approved purchase of the northern section and were negotiating with San Miguel Panners. She asked if this was the San Miguel Ranch project or if it was another project. David Nairne, San Miguel Partners, returned to the podium to answer questions. In answer to Mrs. Roark, he stated they had received an offer from the County Water Authority to acquire the northern portion of the property to be used as a biological preserve as mitigation for impacts they had in both the water pipeline being proposed and for future projects. San Miguel partners had not responded to the offer. In response to Ms. Todus' concern regarding the SR-125 interchange, the figure she was referring to in the Supplemental EIR had been deleted and was not shown on their plan. The bypass road was taken from the Circulation Element of the General Plan as it currently exists for the City. Regarding the horse trails, Mr. Nairne said there were horse trails shown in their plan--approximately 6-1/2 miles--but that was a SPA level review and the biologist would determine where they could go. In answer to Sheri Todus, Associate Planner Reid said that Figure 2.3 in the Draft EIR showed the proposed access road and transportation corridor; the wrong figure was included in the Final Supplemental EIR; that interchange had been deleted and was no longer part of the new plan and was not included in the analysis. That correction would be made before being presented to Council. Jim Burley returned to the podium to say there was an international riding and hiking trail from Mexico to the Canadian border, and he felt the riding and hiking trails of this project should be tied into this. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes -16- March 3, 1993 Chair Fuller commented that many of the concerns of the speakers were to be considered at the SPA Plan level, and explained that the Commissioners were aware of these concerns but they could not be specifically considered at the General Plan amendment level. Commissioner Ray asked, with the omission of Figure 2.3 and no alignment of SR-125, could the adequacy of the EIR be questioned? If that alignment was moved significantly or an off- ramp or interchange changed, it would change the traffic flow significantly. Katherine Hon, the EIR consultant, said there had been considerable discussion on this issue because the alignment had not been determined and would not be determined for several years. They had shown the alignment to be consistent with the General Plan, and that was the best that could be done short of declaring a moratorium on all EIRs effected by that alignment. Commissioner Ray asked if, in the opinion of Ms. Hon, with the uncertainty of the alignment and the interchanges, that would meet CEQA requirements. Ms. Hon said it would; it was a program level EIR which tried to address the concept of the development given the assumptions which had to be made and using the City's General Plan as its basis. Mr. Nairne approached the podium and asked that their attorney, Mr. Dillon, respond to that question. Mark Dillon, attorney for the applicant, said that based on Commissioner Ray's comments at the last hearing, they had done some research to address that particular legal issue. He concurred with the environmental consultant that the generalized alignment shown was the same alignment that was shown in the Chula Vista General Plan. The CEQA cases they had looked at allowed a development project to assume a generalized road alignment; if that alignment changed down the line, the project would require revisions according to those changes. Commissioner Ray commended everyone involved on the preserve plan. Regarding the concerns about the run-off issue and recent flooding, the monitoring, and funding, he did not find anything in the EIR. Principal Planner Howard asked if Commissioner Ray was speaking of the general drainage question or the question of run-off into the reservoir. Commissioner Ray clarified that it was the run-off into the reservoir. With Chair Fuller's permission, Mr. Nairne said that under the EIR, they were required to have the plans for the run-off protection system approved by the Sweetwater Authority and to have it fully constructed and fully operational before any grading could be started on the northern portion of the development of the first house. That plan also involved a long-term maintenance program in order to be acceptable and a funding source so the maintenance of that could be in place. A two- or three-year bond would probably have to be put up for the start of that in order to insure there would be funding available prior to houses being sold. PC Minutes -17- March 3, 1993 Commissioner Ray asked if the Water Authority would be the monitoring agent, or if there would be a third party. Mr. Nairne answered that the Water Authority wanted to be the monitoring agent as part of their existing mn-off protection system. Chair Fuller clarified that by action that evening, the Commission was not establishing the exact or final number of dwellings in either parcel. Principal Planner Howard said they were establishing a maximum; that number was subject to further refinement at the SPA level. There was additional uncertainty because of the northern parcel and the potential impact on decreased density on the southern parcel as well. Chair Fuller said there would not be a need to discuss the proposal by CROSSROADS at that time, and it would be more appropriate at a later date. Principal Planner Howard pointed out that the CROSSROADS proposal indicated that if there was no development on the north, that density could be transferred to the south. If that happened, in fact the CROSSROADS proposal would have a greater density than the staff recommendation. If there was a development in the north, the density would be less. Mr. Howard noted that as he spoke, he had heard protests from the audience. With concurrence by the Commission, Chair Fuller recognized those speakers. Mr. Sprofera said he did not agree with Mr. Nairne that Sweetwater Authority should make the ultimate decision on the flood control. He felt that was what was wrong with the EIR--it left the public out--and the public demanded that they be part of the EIR process and that it not be turned over to an agency like Sweetwater Authority who was concerned about the water in the lake. The public was concerned about where the water was going to mn off in the project, and he felt they had that right. Mr. Thompson was concerned that if the northern portion was sold, the southern portion would have to stand on its own and a new EIR may need to be done. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf clarified that the way the subject EIR was structured, if the Commission found the EIR adequate and the norther parcel was sold, it would be an adequate EIR for the project. If the northern portion became part of the NCCP in its entirety, the other portion would still be developable. Commissioner Ray stated that if the whole northern portion stayed open space, the same issues would have to be readdressed at the SPA level before drawing any permits. Mr. Rudolf agreed-- to the extent the issues needed to be addressed. PC Minutes -18- Mamh 3, 1993 Commissioner Ray, referring to the Summary of Impacts and Mitigation, page 1-9, was concerned about the buffer planned at the SPA level, and if more information would be available on the EMF at that time. Principal Planner Howard answered that there may be no further information on the EMF of a conclusive nature; however, them would be other general land use compatibility, noise and visual impacts to address, and there would be impacts to buffer through a buffer plan whether or not there was more information on EMF. Commissioner Ray was concerned about future liability for the Commission, the City, developer, or anyone approving projects once the issue had been raised in a public hearing. He would not be comfortable at a SPA level to go ahead with it. Associate Planner Reid responded that staff had to rely on the scientific community, and if there was no better information, staff was required to base the EIR on that information. If Commissioner Ray was asking for consideration of something of a general nature by the City in terms of a policy regarding EMF even though there had not been a stand by the scientific community, that would be a different issue. Mr. Ray affirmed that was what he had been considering. Mr. Nairne stated that the comment regarding buffering had to do more with visual buffering; under the SDG&E existing EIR for expansion of the facilities, there was a requirement for them to do additional buffering. Depending upon where they finally locate their facilities, their buffering should be adequate. Their development is located on the east from the development and, therefore, any present development is as close as any development would be; everything in the future phases would be further away. Chair Fuller said that she believed everyone shared Commissioner Ray's concerns regarding the buffering and there should be comprehensive planning between SDG&E and the developer to make sure it is not only visually buffered, but for protection. The developer and SDG&E want that protection. Motion by Commissioner Tarantino to certify that the Final EIR-90-02 for San Miguel Ranch has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista and adopt the recommending resolution including items a through e on page 2-2 of the staff report. Commissioner Carson suggested that each part he taken individually, because she had a concern with the overriding considerations. Commissioner Tarantino agreed. PC Minutes -19- Mamh 3, 1993 AMENDED MOTION MSC (Tarantino/Carson) 5-1-1 (Commissioner Ray opposed; Commissioner Tuchscher- conflict of interest) to certify that the Final EIR-90-02 for San Miguel Ranch has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State Guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista. MS (Martin/Tarantino) to adopt the attached recommending resolutions approving the General Development Plan based on findings and conditions, adopting an ordinance establishing the Planned Community Prezone, approving the CEQA Findings, and approving the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the EIR. Commissioner Ray said he had some very specific concerns about this EIR and several other EIRs that were before the Commission, but the Commission would have an opportunity to change some things they were not comfortable with at the SPA level. He was concerned about voting on the CEQA Findings since he had voted against certification of the Final EIR; however, he was not against other parts of the motion. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf suggested that the CEQA Findings be bifurcated from the motion and considered separately. Chair Fuller asked the maker of the motion of he would agree to that. Commissioner Martin concurred. AMENDED MOTION MS (Martin/Tarantino) to approve the General Development Plan based on findings and conditions, and adopt the ordinance establishing the Planned Community Prezone. Commissioner Moot said they were not voting on the actual number of units that would be in, and he wanted to go on record that he had a tendency to support the CROSSROADS recommendation but it didn't seem appropriate at this level to make that specific a finding. Commissioner Carson stated that in the resolution there was a maximum of 1,654 dwelling units and the Commission would have to look at dropping at least 300+ dwelling units if it was to be dropped to 1,262. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said the new plan had a maximum of 1,619. Principal Planner Howard noted the maximum number in the resolution should be 1,619 and it would be corrected. VOTE ON MOTION: 6-0-1 (Commissioner Tuchscher-conflict of interest) MSC (Fuller/Moot) 4-2-1 (Commissioners Carson and Ray voted against; Commissioner Tuchscher-conflict of interest) to approve the CEQA Findings of EIR-90-02. MS (Fuller/Ray) to approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR-90-02. PC Minutes -20- March 3, 1993 Commissioner Ray asked if they were to sell the northern portion, would there have to be a new mitigation monitoring plan put in place. Associate Planner Reid said it would be necessary, because this was for the General Development Plan level and they still had to go through a SPA Plan level environmental for the south parcel. There would be a mitigation monitoring plan for the SPA level; however, much of it was already set up and in place in the mitigation monitoring program. Commissioner Ray was concerned that if the dwelling units were dropped to a certain point, it would not be feasible to do some of the mitigation monitoring proposed for the San Miguel Ranch. If the norther portion was not included in the project, would it still be economically feasible to implement the mitigation monitoring plan. Mr. Nairne answered that the plan was separated and if the north was sold as open space, all the mitigation monitoring plan was divided into north and south issues, all the north issues would go, the south issues would stay, and those which would apply to the whole project would have to be complied with. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that staff and the consultants agreed with the statement of Mr. Nairne. VOTE: 6-0-1 (Commissioner Tuchscher-conflict of interest) MS (Fuller/Moot) to approve the Statement of Overriding Considerations for EIR-90-02, San Miguel Ranch. Commissioner Carson stated she had concerns regarding Horseshoe Bend; she believed it was a landform which should be preserved. Principal Planner Howard said to preserve Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob would require a significant alteration to the proposed project to the point where the EIR and GDP would need to be redone. In order to approve the proposed General Development Plan, the Commission needed to find overriding findings of the visual impact of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob grading. Mr. Howard suggested that if there was a concern that Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob should be preserved, the Commissioner should not vote for the proposed project. Commissioner Carson said them were many things about the project she liked; the elimination of Horseshoe Bend was the one thing she did not agree with. She would vote against the overriding considerations to let the City Council know she had one objection. VOTE: 4-2-1 (Commissioners Carson and Ray voted against; Tuchscher-conflict of interest) PC Minutes -21- March 3, 1993 Chair Fuller called the Commission's attention to the schedule for the next two months, noting the next meeting to be held would be Saturday, March 13. Commissioner Ray stated he would be out of town. DIRECTOR'S REPORT - None COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Moot noted he had received a periodical on land use form in which the Commission may be interested. ADJOURNMENT at 11:38 p.m. to the Special Meeting of the Joint Chula Vista Planning Commission/County Planning Commission on Saturday, March 13, 1993, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers; Special Meeting of the Joint Chula Vista Planning Commission/County Planning Commission on Wednesday, March 17, 1993, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers; Special Meeting of the Joint Chula Vista Planning Commission/County Planning Commission on Wednesday, March 24, 1993, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers with a Special Chula Vista Planning Commission meeting to follow immediately afterward at approximately 7:30 p.m. Nancy Riple~, secret/ary d Planning Commission (3-3-93.min)