Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/11/20 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:05 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, November 20, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Davis, Ray (8:15), Salas, Thomas, Tuchscher (7:15), and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Associate Planner Reid, Senior Planner Manganelli, Senior Civil Engineer Goldkamp, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Parks & Recreation Director Valenzuela, Assistant City Attorney Googins PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tarantino led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tarantino acknowledged Councilwoman-elect Mary Salas and extended the Planning Commission's congratulations. He then reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None Chair Tarantino stated that the majority of the meeting dealt with San Miguel Ranch. With the concurrence of the Commission, he asked that item 4 be considered f~rst. ITEM 4. REVIEW OF FINAL CONDITIONS AND REQUIRED FINDINGS RELATING TO THE OPEN AIR MARKET AT 690 'L' STREET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR NOVEMBER 13, 1996 MEETING PC Minutes -2- November 20, 1996 Commissioner Willett left the dais at this time since he had a conflict of interest. Commissioner Salas stated she was not in attendance at last week's meeting where this item was discussed, and she did not believe she could vote in the matter. Chair Tarantino explained that the Commissioners were going to review the changes that had been made to the resolution; there would not be any discussion. The Commissioners would be validating that what they said at the prior meeting was in the document. Attorney Googins said that no vote was necessarily required. Staff's intent was that unless there was some dispute or conflict between what people recalled was done, staff would proceed to present the resolution before the Commission to the Redevelopment Agency for their consideration. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted, for the benefit of the audience, that a public hearing had been held on November 13. There had been a problem with the microphone system, and as a result the recorder was not working. The Planning Commission had made a recommendation of approval of the special use permit as opposed to the staff recommendation; therefore, staff informed the Commission that they would come back with findings for their consideration, which represented what staff heard in terms of the Commission's support of the project. The conditions had been prepared or modified as staff understood the action by the Commission. A copy had been given to Cheryl Cox, the applicant's representative, who had reviewed them. Mr. Lee felt it would be appropriate for the Commissioners to ask questions or comments of staff or Ms. Cox. Attorney Googins emphasized that the item on the agenda was only to confirm the accuracy of staff's memorialization of the Planning Commission's action of the prior week, and recommended strongly against any additions or changes since the public hearing had been opened and closed on this matter. No new testimony or evidence should be presented by staff, people in the public, or the Planning Commission. (Commissioner Tuchscher arrived at this time - 7:15 p.m.) Chair Tarantino declared a break at 7:15 to read the revised resolution. They reconvened at 7:20 p.m. Chair Tarantino asked if there were any questions for staff or Dr. Cox. Regarding submitting a landscaping bond, he was under the impression that the Planning Commission's final decision was that if the landscaping was not installed within 30 days, the special use permit would be revoked. Mr. Lee concurred and added that they could submit a bond in lieu of landscaping. "Acceptable to the Director" should be taken out. Commissioner Thomas thought the landscaping was to be done 30 days after the opening. Mr. Lee said that was the intent of the condition. The word "30 days after" should be used instead of "30 days of". PC Minutes -3- November 20, 1996 Commissioner Davis confirmed that there would be no bond. Staff concurred. Commissioner Tuchscher, regarding the pilasters with wrought iron along "L" Street, asked where that condition was located. Mr. Lee said the site plan reflected the fence along the edge and the returns, so there was no need to have it as a condition. Chair Tuchscher asked Dr. Cox if she had any comments. Cheryl Cox, 647 Windsor Circle, CV, said her only point of concern had to do with the deferral of the widening of "L" Street. She understood it had been deferred and was not a condition on the applicant. She wanted to know what was required of the property owner regarding the widening of "L" Street, or if nothing was required from the property owner regarding dedication of 10' along "L" Street should the City decide to widen "L" Street? Attorney Googins replied that there was some mention in the mitigated negative declaration of a potential need for widening of "L" Street. A couple elements of that, including the Engineering Department's desire for a sidewalk along "L" Street, would remain staff's recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency. The action being memorialized at this meeting in terms of the Planning Commission's recommendation did not include any requirement for dedication or construction of improvements along "L" Street of the applicant or the property owner. Dr. Cox stated that in order to watch this application go before the Redevelopment Agency, nothing further was needed from the property owner regarding a statement of dedication of property along "L" Street. If the property owner should, for some reason, say that he did not desire to dedicate 10' of the vendor strip to the City, should the City decide they wanted to widen "L" Street, would that make this conditional use permit null and void? Mr. Lee stated that the recommendation of the Commission going on to the Agency did not include that requirement. It was listed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Engineering Department would be providing that information to the Agency and asking that they consider that. Dr. Cox asked if since the Planning Commission did not consider that item, that would go from staff to the Redevelopment Agency, but as far as the applicant is concerned, did staff see that inability of the applicant to get the property owner's consent a means of jeopardizing this conditional use permit for 18 months. Attorney Googins replied only if the Redevelopment Agency required that as a condition when they actually approved the matter. Dr. Cox stated that they concurred with the rest of the items, particularly with the clarification of the bond statement. Chair Tarantino stated that staff could forward the resolution to the Redevelopment Agency. PC Minutes -4- November 20, 1996 Chair Tarantino then returned to the balance of the agenda as listed. He noted that item 1 was not a hearing, and no testimony would be taken until the hearing on the project, items 2 and 3. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that he had just learned that a client of his owned a property that they acquired for mitigation purposes, which was adjacent to the northernmost border of the San Miguel Ranch. It was not contiguous to their master plan project, but was 240 acres of mitigation land that had not yet been dedicated as open space. He questioned the City Attorney and the applicant if that was a conflict of interest in relation to this particular project. It had no economic impact on the contiguous property nor was there any residential development area slated for the area close to the property. He asked for clarification of that. Attorney Googins asked to have the opportunity to look at the conflict of interest rules and discuss the matter with Commissioner Tuchscher. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that he wished to participate in the public hearing, and asked how the applicant felt about that. Mark Faulkner, 9665 Chesapeake, San Diego, representing Emerald Properties, stated they deferred to the City Attorney and Coinmissioner Tuchscher. Chair Tarantino declared a five-minute recess at 7:35 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:43 p.m. Commissioner Tuchscher thanked the Commissioners and the audience for their indulgence. Attorney Googins stated that after asking the four questions regularly asked to determine a conflict of interest, it appeared likely that whether or not there is an economic interest which Mr. Tuchscher held which would be a subject of the conflict of interest rule requiring him to recuse himself, it appeared that Mr. Tuchscher was of the mind that it was not reasonably foreseeable that there would be a material financial effect on any of his economic interests. While that was not a decision for the City Attorney's office to make, he believed that was the likely result in Mr. Tuchscher's belief on this. He asked Mr. Tuchscher to state if that was correct, for the record. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that the City Attorney had accurately reflected his thoughts and their discussion. It was very far from reasonable foreseeable economic benefit. He felt comfortable, based on his discussion with the City Attorney, to participate in this public hearing. ITEM 1: REPORT: EIR-95-04; CONSIDER CERTIFYING THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (GDPA) FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FSEIR), AS COMPLYING WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Assistant Planning Director Lee gave the background of the project, and then turned the presentation over to Associate Planner Reid. Ms. Reid stated it would be a team presentation by Betty Dehoney of Tetra Tech and Dan Marum of BRW. She noted that the plan was an amendment to the plan which had been approved in 1993, and would not be the last plan or environmental document which would be reviewed for this project. The environmental analysis PC Minutes -5- November 20, 1996 was at the first tier, based on build-out. When the applicant proposes a SPA Plan which would include the phasing of the project and a Public Facilities Financing Plan, a Tier 2 EIR would be prepared. Ms. Dehoney of Tetra Tech noted that several issues were identified regarding biological resources during the preparation of the DEIR. Most of them focused on the adequacy of the mitigation measures. She said the City had conducted substantial coordination with U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish & Game, and they had reached the conclusions that the "Points of Agreement" among California Department of Fish & Game, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Emerald Properties was valid, and she noted specific aspects of the "Points of Agreement". Other issues raised during the response to comments included wetlands impacts, and those would be addressed at the SPA level with the associated mitigation measures, based upon the quality of the habitat and the impacts. At this point in time, the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish & Game had concurred with the analysis and the identification that the impacts had been reduced to below a level of significance as identified in the EIR. Mr. Dan Marum of BRW, the traffic consultant presented graphics on the conclusions which had been reached on the traffic analysis at the General Development Plan level. Issues dealt with during the response to comments indicated a clarification of the program level of analysis which was conducted for the study which determines the long-range buildout conditions for the transportation network serving the project in the northeastern Chula Vista planning area. Mr. Marum stated that the SPA level analysis to be conducted on this project would determine interim network conditions, network capacity, and project mitigation requirements as the project evolves and is phased over time. In addition, the Otay Ranch Transportation Analysis process which had been developed for that effort had been applied to the San Miguel project to determine significant project impacts to off-site facilities. He clarified that for the Otay Ranch project, a process was developed in a subcommittee forum with County and City representatives involved. They had tried to carry that over for consistency on this project. Based on the County review comments provided in 1993 on the previous GDP, it was determined that the County Cimulation Element would required an amendment in order to accommodate background plus project related traffic under build-out conditions. Associate Planner Reid stated that she had heard from County of San Diego staff that day who stated they had reviewed the conditions of approval in the staff report, including the formation of the technical committee consisting of appropriate staff from the County Departments of Public Works Planning and Land Use to provide input to the SPA level study of areawide transportation planning concerns, and they would not be attending the meeting. She noted the EIR responded to all of the issues that were brought up by Commissioners at the public hearing. Chair Tarantino confirmed that questions and comments would be received after item 2. PC Minutes -6- November 20, 1996 ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTIONS GPA-96-01, PCM-96-05, FSEIR-95-04; CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, WEST AND SOUTH OF SAN MIGUEL MOUNTAIN AND NORTHEAST OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD - Emerald Properties, Inc. (Commissioner Ray arrived at 8:20 p.m.) Senior Planner Manganelli presented the staff report, noting that the subject property was surrounded by the community of Sunnyside, the Buie Bonita Meadows property, the Salt Creek I property, Salt Creek Ranch, and EastLake. In 1993, the City Council approved up m 1619 dwelling units, approved in principle, subject to further environmental analysis, SPA Plan, and site plan analysis. Mr. Manganelli noted that the applicant was proposing a General Plan Amendment for their projects. Because of the uncertainty of the SR-125 route, the applicant chose to do two plans which reflected the two alignments, with the idea of getting the two plans approved. The plan which reflected the ultimate alignment chosen by the State would be the plan that went forward. Mr. Manganelli then described the two proposals. Regarding the Horseshoe Bend plan, Mr. Manganelli stated that the applicant had a change in his proposal as of that evening. The Horseshoe Bend plan showed land uses somewhat different from the General Plan amendment as proposed. He proceeded to show the differences. He noted that it was to allow for flexibility and density transfers and clustering. The applicant was now requesting that the area designated as Low Medium on the General Development Plan be the category on the General Plan as well. They also requested that the area designated as Medium on the General Development Plan be the category they were requesting on the General Plan amendment. Mr. Manganelli stated that there were no changes on the original application on the Proctor Valley Plan. The two above changes were to the Horseshoe Bend Plan. He then discussed the requested changes to the General Development Plan, with the land use designations of the different areas and the density, with no development on the north parcel. The total number of dwellings being requested for the Horseshoe Bend Plan was 1498. The total number of dwelling units for the Proctor Valley Plan was 1432. Mr. Manganelli noted that the City Council had appointed a Citizens Advisory Committee to oversee the planning of the project. This committee made a variety of recommendations, some of which had been incorporated into the plan, and some of which could not. Staff held public forums with the Bonita Sunnyside area and the Salt Creek I area. Those who attended the forum from Sunnyside were most concerned about traffic, drainage, and the compatibility of the project with their area. The Salt Creek I residents were concerned about a neighborhood park in their area, which was planned but not yet constructed, and compatibility with their development. PC Minutes -7- November 20, 1996 Presentations were also made to the Sweetwater Planning Group and the Sweetwater Civic Association. Traffic, drainage, and neighborhood compatibility were the key issues raised. He noted that staff and the applicant agreed on the Proctor Valley Plan density of 1432 units, which represented mid-point of the density range. Regarding the Horseshoe Bend Plan, the proposal was 1498 units. Staff recommended 1394 units, based on a mid-point General Plan density range and community character, among other considerations. Staff felt that in order to obtain the density that the applicant required, there would be too many units placed in the Medium area, which was actually smaller than the Medium density area of the Proctor Valley Plan. This created a community character issue whereby this project was essentially a single- family-dwelling type development, except for the M area which would permit small lots, patio homes, duplexes, and perhaps a few townhomes. The applicant proposed about 498 units in the M area. Considering General Plan conformance, both plans fell into the density range of the General Plan. While the Proctor Valley Plan was a mid-point, the Horseshoe Bend Plan was 104 units above mid-point. Through the clustering policies of the General Plan, the Low and Medium categories may permit higher density products, so long as the overall density is within the range. Both plans did this, but to exceed mid-point of the range, findings of extraordinary benefits to the City should be made. Although some of the benefits could be classified as extraordinary benefits, there was some monetary conpensation on the horizon for the applicants. Mr. Manganelli then discussed the north parcel and the issues associated with the north parcel. The primary use would be open space. He noted that should the wildlife agencies not purchase the 500 acres in accordance with the conservation agreement, as a secondary use of the project, it is proposed that the applicant would have the opportunity to apply for up to 50 dwelling units on 107 acres. Mr. Manganelli stated that the transition between the semi-rural Sunnyside and the suburban San Miguel Ranch would result in some degree of incompatibility. But the provision of larger and deeper adjacent lots and elevation differential combined with contoured slopes, enhanced slope landscaping, and other design elements adjacent to Sunnyside should assist in softening the impact between the two community types. Senior Planner Manganelli said that staff believed that both proposed plans, as amended through recommended conditions, represented reasonable land use alternatives to the existing General Plan and General Development Plan to regulate the development of this property. There were still several issues remaining that would be dealt with at the SPA level. He said there was a new issue that the applicant would further describe. Commissioner Willett, regarding traffic, said a Sandag Model Series 7 had been referenced. With all the work that had been done on SR-125 using Sandag Model Series 8, shouldn'~ some of those figures, which are more current, be used for this property? Mr. Marum replied that the modeling work that was done for the traffic analysis conducted for this proposed project did use Series 8. They modified the Series 8 Year 2015 model from PC Minutes -8- November 20, 1996 Sandag and rebuilt the old build-out model under the Series 7 forecast that had been used for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan work, and tried to reflect all of the approved projects that had been approved by the Council over the past three to five years since they had done the Otay Ranch model work. They had only done build-out modeling under the Series 8 condition. Regarding the comparison of Salt Creek Ranch and San Miguel Ranch dwelling units per acre, Mr. Willett said it was difficult to understand why one could have 3.3 du/ac and the other 2.03 du/ac, even though the terrain was different. He suggested that staff put together something that could give them a better comparison. Mr. Manganelli replied that in addition to the terrain, it was also close to the Bonita Sunnyside area and staff believed there should be a transition from south to north with lower densities. Staff felt that was reason for a lower density project, and the General Plan recognized that by designating that property Low residential. The applicant was asking for an amendment to the General Plan. Commissioner Willett was concerned about the number of children traversing from west to east to school. He asked if them was going to be a special protected walkway for the school children going across that bridge. Mr. Manganelli said the school children would not be going across the bridge. The School District had asked that the school site be moved so the children going to the facility would be from that neighborhood. The children on the other side would go to the Surmyside school. Mr. Manganelli stated Dr. Billings of the School District had informed staff that they were in the process of planning upgrading and enlargement of that school. Commissioner Willett asked if in the open space ama, it would preserve the hiking and horse trails through the area. He asked if there would be space for parks or greenbelts. Mr. Manganelli said there was a preliminary trail system on-site. At the SPA level, it would be fine- tuned. Regarding drainage overflow, Commissioner Willett asked if there were any provisions to capture any of the overflow from San Miguel property instead of going down Miller Creek. Mr. Manganelli said that as part of the SPA plan, the applicant would be required to prepare a drainage study. They had already done a preliminary drainage study, and as part of the SPA plan process would have a drainage plan. Conunissioner Tuchscher asked if the densities listed were calculated on the entire development envelope of the south parcel. Mr. Manganelli said it was the entire parcel. Regarding Salt Creek I, Mr. Lee said it was calculated on the area north of "H" Street. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that it could be confusing to calculate. He was not sum what the base data was. Mr. Lee noted that with the traditional R-1 development 7,000 square foot lot, the density was about 4-1/2 du/ac, which was reflected at the Salt Creek I area north of "H". Commissioner Salas noted that the County of San Diego had been reluctant to conform to the City of Chula Vista traffic circulation element. She asked if the community had the knowledge that it would be a four-lane arterial with the Chula Vista plan. Was there a good and adequate discussion in the community regarding that? PC Minutes -9- November 20, 1996 Mr. Manganelli said he had attended the meetings and there was discussion about that. The residents of the Sunnyside area were not happy about that. The condition would not necessarily be for the reclassification of San Miguel Road to a wider status, especially since some of the houses along the east end of the road were already very close to the street. The other alternative was for a bypass road. The alternatives would have to studied at the SPA level. Commissioner Salas said they did not propose any development in the northern parcel. She asked if there was access. Mr. Manganelli answered affirmatively and indicated the road on the map. Colnmissioner Tuchscher asked staff to comment on their conversations with County staff to see if there was any forward movement on planning for the eventuality of the need regarding the San Miguel Road. Mr. Manganelli replied that that was the reason for the condition in the recommending resolution to establish a technical committee composed of the County Departments of Public Works and Planning and Land Use and the City Departments of Engineering and Plaxming. In reply to Commissioner Tuchscher, Mr. Manganelli said the limit of the City's participation in discussing this issue was only at meetings with County Public Works and Planning Commissioner Tuchscher understood that the City of Chula Vista had spent DIF money on improving County roads in that area of Bonita, because the County had not stepped forward with improvements that were on their circulation element. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich agreed that DIF money had been spent on Central Avenue and toward the design of a portion of Bonita Road. There was in the DIF program facilities in San Miguel Road and other County facilities. The money had not been actually expended to date. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. (The following two speakers gave an organized presentation.) Mark Faulkner, Radnor West, 9665 Chesapeake, San Diego, representing Emerald Properties, said they were processing a General Plan amendment and two General Development Plans to be weighed equally in the event of SR-125 either going to the Proctor Valley or the Horseshoe Bend alignment. They wanted to build flexibility into the plan, and proposed two changes in the General Plan designation of two portions of the property. They concurred with staff's recommendation on the rest of the project. Regarding the Horseshoe Bend General Plan, they were proposing 1498 units, 104 units over staff's recommendation, because of SR-125. SR- 125 was a 300' wide piece of concrete running through the property, which split the community into two parts, and they felt they had adequately transitioned through land use in the west Sunnyside area and were asking for an L-M designation on the portion of the property that was previously the community park and school site. They would be retaining the full remnant Horseshoe Bend not decimated by the freeway. In the east, the General Plan amendment would consist of an M designation in the middle of the property, buffered by Mt. Miguel Road and the PC Minutes -10- November 20, 1996 out parcels. The school and park sites had been moved, based on staff's recommendation and both Parks & Recreation and the School District's request because of community character changes because of the freeway. Steve Estrada, Estrada Land Planning, 85 Horton Plaza #300, San Diego, had done an extensive land analysis. The basic goal was to build a project that respected the land while providing a variety of housing types and associated uses that met the needs of the Chula Vista community. He explained the goals they had used for a land plan, leaving the boundaries intact and not encroaching upon existing approved areas. For the south portion, they had provided 53 more acres of open space than the existing approved plan called for. The entire north area would revert back to open space. Mr. Estrada went into more detail regarding the plans for Mt. Miguel Road, the grading, the landform and views, visual impact, easements treated as amenities, and trails. Mr. Faulkner returned to the podium to summarize their request of a General Plan amendment to reflect the Horseshoe Bend General Development Plan. They were in agreement with the Proctor Valley General Development Plan and General Plan amendment as it related to the Proctor Valley Plan. They were requesting a change on the General Plan amendment on the Horseshoe Bend Plan only. Mr. Faulkner noted that SDG&E, USF&G, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, CalTrans, and Citizens Ad Hoc Committee concurred with their plan. The freeway through the middle of the project would change the Horseshoe Bend project. The original plan was 1619 units; neither proposal was in excess of those densities. There was transition from the Bonita Sunnyside area. He thanked staff for their efforts. He requested the Planning Commission to support their request for the General Plan amendment on Horseshoe Bend and Proctor Valley, support the General Development Plan request on Horseshoe Bend at 1498 and their General Development Plan at 1432 on the Proctor Valley Plan. Commissioner Tuchscher asked Mr. Faulkner to repeat the changes to be made. Mr. Faulkner stated that the General Development Plan was consistent with the application. They were not changing. The areas being discussed were LM-1 and M areas in the General Development Plans. They requested that the General Plan amendment be made consistent so the applicant would have the flexibility to maintain the mid-point densities, which still had to be justified at the SPA level, reflecting the areas as LM-1 and M in the General Plan amendment as well as the General Development Plan, on Horseshoe Bend only. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the number of potential units increased as a result. Mr. Faulkner stated they were requesting 1498, and that was not changing. Staff proposed a mid- point density of 1394; the applicant was requesting 104 units over the mid-point. Commissioner Tuchscher said that the applicant was in agreement with staff recommendation previously, and now were requesting a higher mid-point. Mr. Faulkner replied that they felt that conditions 5, 6, and 8 were not attainable under the General Development Plan. Thus it rendered an inconsistency with the General Plan Amendment. PC Minutes -11- November 20, 1996 Commissioner Tuchscher asked if staff had had time to analyze this. Mr. Manganelli said staff understood what they were asking for; much of the request had been discussed at various times during development of the plan; the big difference was that the Medium area had changed. The request had not been fully analyzed. John Hammond, 3012 Anderson St., Bonita, representing the Sweetwater Community Planning Group, distributed a letter to the Planning Commissioners which addressed the issues of San Miguel Road and stormwater discharge into Central Creek which ultimately terminated on the Chula Vista Golf Course. Them had been a significant problem with recent uncontrolled storm runoff from Salt Creek I. He stated that the San Miguel Road community was an old community and deserved as much consideration to exist as any new development, if not more. Them was no path through that community that would allow a four-lane collector road. San Miguel is a substandard two-lane road. If it were built to County standards and widened to two lanes and sidewalks put in, those sidewalks would be in the front door of many residences. To try to bring it in other ways would mean hostile condemnation of land. The Sweetwater Community Planning Group recommended cul-de-sacing some of the road so there could be no communication between the areas. He requested that because of the problems on San Miguel Road, the construction traffic for this project be restricted from San Miguel Road. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that he respected the Sweetwater Community Planning Group, had read their letter, and wanted to invoke discussion about this issue. Consideration was necessary as to how to solve the problem, the concern, and he did not see from County staff standpoint any forward movement there. He hoped City staff, the Sweetwater Community Planning Group, and County could start talking about what was going to happen there in the future. If condemnation was necessary, it should be planned for. Mr. Hammond felt Chula Vista continued to ignore the problem occurring with their massive development. The bedroom communities had to be supported for people commuting somewhere else. A real lack of regional planning was occurring. All of the development was occurring without a rational regional transportation plan. It was not that the San Miguel Road community was in the way or that the County could not respond. Don Jensen, 3655 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita, said he owns and operates a dog boarding kennel. San Miguel Ranch wants to put large homes adjacent to the kennel. Mt. Miguel Road ends on Proctor Valley Road, going nowhere. All of the traffic off LA and B and LM-1 areas would be dumped on Proctor Valley Road into San Miguel Road, which goes through the community. Construction traffic from EastLake was causing a big problem. Traffic would go north, not back to "H" Street. SR-125 was not a given. Even if SR-125 was built, there would be a lot of traffic down Proctor Valley Road. Mr. Jensen did not feel the applicant had brought a clear picture of the changes they wanted to make before the Commission. There were still a lot of unanswered questions. PC Minutes -12- November 20, 1996 Commissioner Davis asked where his property was located in respect to either of the SR-125 alignments. She asked if either went through his property. Mr. Jensen replied that SR-125 was on both sides. Cindy Burrascano, 771 Lori Lane, CV, speaking as President of the California Native Plant Society in San Diego, said that they found that the EIR was not in compliance with CEQA requirements of disclosure of significant impacts. There were four plant species in the old document which had required mitigation to less than significant. The current document no longer included many of the mitigations to reduce impacts to those species that had been in the previously certified GDP EIR. Impacts to Palmers Grappling hook and California adolphia were not properly disclosed. While covered MSCP species may be adequately mitigated with the proposed MSCP preserve design, there was no guarantee that non-covered species were adequately mitigated by that program. The CEQA required disclosure of impacts to sensitive species. Ms. Burrascano said that the northern parcel which the applicant had agreed to sell to the wildlife agencies did not contain Palmers Grappling hook or California adolphia. The impact had not been mitigated, and she requested that the mitigation originally proposed for those species be adopted. Commissioner Davis asked staff to comment on the remarks regarding the unmitigated species. Betty Dehoney of Tetra Tech stated that the EIR addressed biological resources on a habitat issue. The proposal has included extensive consultation with USF&WS and CDF&G along the multi-species comprehensive planning process, which was to mitigate by provision of open space habitat instead of what had been traditionally associated with mitigation on a species-by-species basis. The provision of the open space, the provision of the Otay Tarplant Preserve Area, and the mitigation banking options had reduced impacts to below a level of significance. Commissioner Willett asked if the speaker's letter had been answered. Ms. Reid replied affirmatively and said the speaker had also received a copy of the Final EIR and a letter which included the responses. George Kost, 3609 Belle Bonnie Brae Road, Bonita, commented that many of the people who live on San Miguel Road were retired and had lived there for a long time. If their homes were condemned, they would never be able to buy with that money the same kind of community as they presently had. Regarding SR-125, the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association had been involved for about nine years. The Citizens Advisory Commission had recommended the "CAC alignment" (Horseshoe Bend alignment) which had the least effect on housing, recreational centers, schools, and the golf course. His priority was always for the health and general welfare of thc people. It would be a big mistake to try to make four lanes out of San Miguel Road. He asked the Planning Commission to consider that. Commissioner Salas said that the CAC had put a lot of thought into the Horseshoe Bend alignment, and it made more sense with the development that was there now. The applicant's PC Minutes -13- November 20, 1996 proposal would be a more difficult community to plan with that particular alignment. She had concerns about developing two separate communities. Mr. Kost said they had been studying the area for nine years. The Planning Commission needed to think of the community. He asked them to keep in mind that the health and general welfare of the people was their prime responsibility. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Thomas questioned how to make a decision before an alignment was chosen. Mr. Manganelli replied that the applicant was asking that the Planning Commission approve both plans so that when CalTrans decided the alignment of SR-125, the applicant would then go to the next level of planning with the plan reflecting the chosen alignment and discard the other plan. Staff had been expecting a preferred alignment commitment from the State for some time. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if an alignment were chosen during the next few days, this item could be brought back to the Commission. Mr. Manganelli said he believed the project would have to be continued to a time certain, rather than just put off indefinitely. Attorney Googins concurred with Mr. Manganelli, but stated if the item was not acted on, an additional public hearing could be held if it were not continued to a date certain; however, a new notice would need to be sent out to all the adjacent residents. Commissioner Tuchscher asked the applicant to respond. If the Commission approved both resolutions, would the applicant start processing two SPAs concurrently or go on hold until the alignment is selected to process the SPA. Chair Tarantino said that because the public hearing was closed, the applicant could respond to questions but not offer testimony. Mark Dillon, 1921 Palomar Oaks, Carlshad, on behalf of Emerald Properties, pointed out that the City Council had expressed a preference for the Horseshoe Bend alignment. In addition, the applicant had gone forward with the previously approved GDP without knowing what CalTrans would do with respect to the alignment. During the planning process, the CAC (Horseshoe Bend) alignment had emerged, and rather than being placed in a situation where they were in a moratorium waiting for the State to act, the applicant had elected to go forward with two GDPs. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the resolutions were approved, what was the next step? Did they wait for the alignment or start processing two SPAs? Mr. Dillon said they would wait until CalTrans made their announcement about a preferred alternative, which was supposed to take place in December or January. PC Minutes -14- November 20, 1996 Mr. Manganelli stated that there were a variety of studies that the applicant could conduct during the interim. It would be expensive to process two SPAs. Commissioner Salas noted that there was still a question as to whether the County would ever approve a four-lane arterial for San Miguel Road. That was one of the things that would change the character of the area. Because of the fact that CalTrans would be making a decision so quickly, she thought it would afford the applicant the opportunity to work with the community to see if they could come up with something that was more acceptable to the community. She would not vote for approval of that alternative at this point, when in January the applicant would know for certain what they would be dealing with, and the County would perhaps come to some understanding with the City. Mr. Lee said this particular project contributed a relatively small portion of the ultimate overall traffic projected for the area. The County needed to address the issue as much as the City. This plan did not compromise that. It provided that there needed to be a solution, but both parties needed to come to some agreement. Staff was comfortable with this plan at this level and recognized that the hard issues would have to be solved at the SPA Plan level. Chair Tarantino reiterated that the Planning Commission was being asked to certify the Subsequent EIR and either recommend approval or denial of the General Plan amendment and the General Development Plan amendment. Mr. Lee noted that the question of the two alignments was that the Commission would have to feel comfortable with both plans, keeping in mind that the applicant needs some decision points. It was important for the applicant to keep the project moving. Once a decision is reached and an alignment is set, they could move into the SPA. Mr. Manganelli noted that the contribution of 1852 acres to the MSCP would in part be paid for by the 500 acres which would be purchased by the wildlife agencies, perhaps monetary compensation for mitigation banking and some SR-125 right-of-way, and some was for mitigation for impacts on the south parcel. The new approach taken by the applicant on the General Plan amendment was opposed by staff. It lowered the number of half-acre lots on the west side and also introduced lots as small as 5,000 sq. ft. into the L-M area, which was also on the west side. Staff believed that the recommendation of staff offered an opportunity for the west side to have a development that was in conformance to the extent possible with the Bonita Sunnyside Community. Commissioner Ray asked why a vote was not taken on the certification of the EIR separate from the other two actions. Associate Planner Reid replied that staff wanted the Planning Commission to hold off on certification until items 2 and 3 had been considered in case there were any changes in the project. The resolution attached to the packed included a recommendation for certification of the Final EIR and the overriding considerations and findings. PC Minutes -15- November 20, 1996 Commissioner Ray clarified that in any event the adequacy of the EIR would have to be approved prior to any vote on the project itself. Attorney Googins concurred. That would be the first action taken formally, because they were combined in one resolution as a concurrent action. He clarified that the resolutions called for certification of the EIR. The formal CEQA certification was actually accomplished at the City Council level. Processing through and input by the Planning Commission was important; however, the certification was a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Ray was concerned that the resolution was constructed as if the Commission would not vote on the certification individually. If the Planning Commission were to choose not to certify the adequacy of the EIR, there would be no point in considering the GPA and GDP. Mr. Googins stated that if the Planning Commission had problems and issues relating to the EIR certification, those could be brought out and be a basis for not wanting to take action for approval of the EIR or the discretionary approvals. Commissioner Ray did not want to take them as one action. Associate Planner Reid added that the Planning Commission could certify the EIR by minute action, and then have a separate resolution for the project. Attorney Googins stated that was workable. Someone would merely make a motion to recommend certification of the EIR for the City Council's consideration. It was an oral resolution as opposed to a formal resolution. Commissioner Ray said he would fedl more comfortable taking these as separate items. MS (Ray/Willett) to certify by minute action the EIR independent of any action of the GPA or GDP changes. Attorney Googins stated that Mr. Dillon, representing Emerald Properties, had indicated that there was no objection to Mr. Tuchscher's participation in the project, assuming the nature of the conflict was as Mr. Tuchscher described. Commissioner Salas said there was a General Development Plan in place and whether or not this General Plan Amendment was approved, that one still stayed in force. In terms of the San Miguel Road improvements, she asked if that was part of the original General Development Plan. Associate Planner Reid answered that it was part of the original GDP. Commissioner Tuchscher clarified that the motion was to deal with the EIR separately. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION To vote to certify the Subsequent EIR by minute action. PC Minutes -16- November 20, 1996 VOTE: 7-0 MS (Salas) to approve Resolution GPA-96-01 as presented in consideration of the General Plan amendment. There already was an existing General Development Plan in place. This one is a vast improvement to the current one. Commissioner Willett seconded. Commissioner Davis asked if the motion addressed the density difference the applicant was requesting; that is, 1432 on Proctor Valley and 1498 on Horseshoe Bend. Mr. Manganelli believed the motion was on the General Plan Amendment and did not include the units. He asked if the motion included the original staff recommendation or the applicant's amendment. Commissioner Salas said it was for the staff recommendation. Commissioner Ray clarified that Commissioner Salas wanted to go with the lower end of the density, not with the applicant's figures. Commissioner Salas confirmed that. Commissioner Willett pulled his second to the motion, since he concurred with going to the 1498 units. Commissioner Tuchscher seconded instead. Commissioner Ray asked why it could not be left at a general level with a range as opposed to a specific number, until the consideration of the SPA? Commissioner Davis felt it would allow more flexibility at the 1498 dwelling units. Commissioner Ray stated that he was more comfortable with a range and then getting more detail as opposed to limiting them to the low end or giving them the high end. Commissioner Tuchscher commended the CAC for their work on SR-125 and pulling together all the factions in producing the proposal for SR-125. He was hopeful that the final route would go in the CAe alignment, because it gave some distance between existing neighborhoods. It created a challenge for land planning, but also created some opportunity to buffer and plan for the future freeway. Regarding the density issue, he was uncomfortable with changes that come before the Commission and staff at the last minute. The Planning Commission had a positive staff recommendation and a proposed change by the applicant. He had a challenge with the 104 density differential, and making that decision without benefit of staff's analysis. He was willing to go with staff recommendation. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION PC Minutes -17- November 20, 1996 To concur staff's recommendation to approve the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Ray asked if that was inclusive of nailing down the number of dwelling units in total? Chair Tarantino said that numbers should not be considered, only designations. There was more discussion regarding the number of dwelling units and range. Mr. Manganelli stated that there was a General Plan density test in which the highest General Plan densities could not be exceeded. The General Plan establishes a cap. Mr. Manganelli clarified that the motion on the floor dealt with the General Plan, not the General Development Plan. The issue was the designation of Low or Low-Medium. Commissioner Davis said that she was speaking against the motion on the floor because she felt, at this level, the Commission needed to allow flexibility to come back at the SPA level, once the SR-125 alignment had been determined. Commissioner Ray understood that with land use designation, the applicant was still given the range with a high and low end that was not specified. Mr. Lee noted that the next motion would be affecting the General Development Plan and they would either support staff's recommendation or the applicant's request, or some modification. Commissioner Davis asked if this motion would limit them to the 1398 units. Mr. Lee answered negatively as it relates to the General Plan. CLARIFICATION OF MOTION Chair Tarantino clarified that the motion was to accept staff's recommendation for land designation as shown, Low west of SR-125, Low-Medium east of SR-125. VOTE: 7-0 Chair Tarantino noted that the Planning Commission would now act on the General Development Plan amendment. Commissioner Ray asked if by this motion the Planning Commission was nailing down a specific number of dwelling units which are not to be exceeded? If the motion was approved with a range, would it undermine what staff was requesting? Mr. Lee said it would be meaningless since a maximum number established is the critical point. Motion by Commissioner Ray to approve the General Development Plan as presented with dwelling units not to exceed 1498 to give the applicant the latitude for the high end. Mr. Lee replied that in doing that, in terms of the General Plan, the applicant would have to find extraordinary circumstances to justify going above the maximum. Mr. Manganelli said that, based on this 'approval, the overall density on the west side would be 3 maximum. The overall PC Minutes -18- November 20, 1996 density on the east side would be 6. Low is 0-3, with the maximum density being 3. On the east side the L-M would be 0-6, with the maximum density being 6 dwelling units to the acre. The Planning Commission could approve 3,000 units, but it would never meet the General Plan test. Thirteen hundred ninety four (1394) met the General Plan test. Commissioner Ray asked the range of units, in total, that would be approved with the last motion. Mr. Manganelli said the range on the Low would be 0-3 and the High would be 723 units. The Low-Medium would be another 1,064. If the west side was kept Low density, and the Planning Commission wanted to give the applicant 1498 du/ac, one of the areas on the east side must be made Medium. Commissioner Salas explained that the Planning Commission had voted on a motion that accepted staff's recommendation of this General Plan amendment. The applicant had brought forward a different one, where they had different designations in the Low areas which they designated Low-Medium. With the recommended General Plan Amendment, the maximum units would be 1394. Had the Planning Commission gone with the applicant's change, the maximum units would have been 1498. Commissioner Ray withdrew his motion and asked for reconsideration of the previous action. Commissioner Davis seconded the reconsideration. Commissioner Davis stated that she misunderstood what staff told her before she voted on the last motion. She was under the impression that the number of units could go where the applicant wanted them. Mr. Lee said that if the Planning Commission wanted to maintain the rural character of Bonita as described, retain the Low as recommended on the west side. They would have to go to a Medium density to allow the cap of 1498. VOTE to reconsider: 5-2 (Thomas and Salas voted against) Commissioner Tuchscher stated that the project was previously planned and an EIR certified. What the Planning Commission had before them was an amendment to the General Plan, and beyond that, it was a blank slate. He was not willing to off-the-cuff change the density, land use designation, and bump the total number of dwelling units. Commissioner Ray explained that it was his intent to give them the flexibility to start out at the 1498. He anticipated a number between 1394 and 1498 to come back at the SPA level, when the Planning Commission had more specific detail. Commissioner Tuchscher believed if the higher number of dwelling units were designated, the higher number would be used if possible. He thought the Planning Commission should try to honor the integrity of what has made Bonita a great place to live, and keep a uniform character until SR-125 came in. At that point, it would clearly be of a different character and he thought that was a great demarcation for it. PC Minutes -19- November 20, 1996 Commissioner Ray wanted to give the applicant the flexibility to work around the various alignments of what it may be, and give him the highest range of 1498. Mr. Lee clarified that the applicant's "last-minute pitch" was for the amendment to the General Plan in terms of the designation, not the numbers. The General Plan designation would give them more flexibility in terms of lot sizes, etc. Staff was not in agreement with that. MS (Ray/Davis) to approve the applicant's proposal going to the Low Medium designation on the west and a Medium designation east of SR~125 as opposed to the Low and Low- Medium previously approved. Mr. Lee explained that Commissioner Tuchscher had suggested to retain the character of Bonita was to keep the area designation west of SR-125 as Low, with the Medium area east of SR-125, which the Planning Commission could allow a maximum of 1498 units as requested by the applicant. The applicant could then accomplish that, if that was the Planning Commission's goal. More discussion followed regarding the dwelling units, density, lot sizes, and what would happen if various designations were changed. Commissioner Davis stated that a big point had been made about the transitioning from Bonita, but when she looked at what was proposed before on the General Development Plan, where them were 357 units on the north parcel and now there would be no units on the north parcel. She felt by taking 357 units off the north parcel, it made a nice gateway to Low density into the project. That was a real transition. Chair Tarantino stated that it was his understanding that there was a potential for compensation for the mitigation land. Commissioner Tuchscher felt the loss of development on the northern parcel was a big loss for the City. It was a high-end estate housing ama which was desperately needed and was a unique opportunity. It was a loss for everyone, and he was not willing to compensate them with higher density. Chair Tarantino called for the vote. Mr. Lee clarified that the Planning Commission was voting on the General Plan amendment for the Horseshoe Bend alignment. VOTE: 3-4 - Motion failed. (Tarantino, Tuchscher, Thomas, Salas voted against) MS (Salas/Thomas) to approve the General Plan amendment for the Horseshoe Bend Plan as recommended by staff which was Low west of SR-125, Low-Medium east of SR-125. Chair Tarantino suggested that if the Planning Commission wanted to reach a compromise, the designation could be Low west of SR-125, Medium east of SR-125, and that would give the transition to Bonita and also provide the 1498 units. PC Minutes -20- November 20, 1996 Mr. Lee clarified that it was not staff's recommendation. VOTE: 4-3 to approve (Willett, Ray, Tarantino voted against) At the applicant's request, since Commissioner Davis had changed her vote, it was clarified that she was not confused. MSUC (Thomas/Salas) 7-0 to accept staff's recommendation to approve the General Plan amendment for the Proctor Valley Plan. Chair Tarantino noted that the property was not bisected by SR-125. Mr. Manganelli stated that the dividing line was the Gas & Electric easement. Chair Tarantino stated that the Planning Commission now needed to act on the General Development Plan amendment. Motion by Commissioner Ray to deny staff's recommendation for the General Development Plan, setting the maximum dwelling units at 1394. Commissioner Tuchscher felt uncomfortable in that not only was the Planning Commission dealing with two master planned communities, depending on the routing of SR-125, but also with contingencies and modifications. Commissioner Tuchscher seconded the motion to deny. After explanation of the motion, which did not coincide with the previous motion to approve the General Plan amendment. WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION The second and the maker of the motion withdrew the motion. MSUC (Tarantino/Willett) 7-0 to approve staff's recommendation on the General Development Plan amendment for Proctor Valley as presented. MSC (Salas/Thomas) 5-2 (Ray and Tarantino opposed) to accept staff's recommendation on the General Development Plan amendments for the Horseshoe Bend alignment. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-96-02, PCZ-96-C; CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PC PLANNED COMMUNITY PRE-ZONE FOR APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SOUTH PARCEL OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROPERTY - Algert/Scott (Mother Miguel Estates) PC Minutes -21- November 20, 1996 Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that this was an extension of a small parcel adjacent to the San Miguel Ranch property. The Planning Commission dispensed with the staff report and moved to the public hearing. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Billy Scott, 1522 Travelo Way, Encinitas, CA 92024, had owned this land 20 years. He felt this applicant had a good plan, and he supported the project. ,lames Algert, 428 Broadway, CV, stated that he was both an applicant and the project engineer for this development. He concurred with staff's recommendations, and felt that the density given to Emerald Properties for the adjacent property would be appropriate for their property. Don Jensen, P.O. Box 127, Bonita 91908, had left the meeting, but had registered a speaker's slip in opposition of the project. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Salas/Willett) 7-0 to recertify SEIR-95-04 and approve the GPA and Prezone. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (The following is verbatim.) Assistant Planning Director Lee: Mr. Chairman, the only thing on the Director's report, just to--some of you were there last night--the City Council approved finally the tentative map for the Otay Ranch. I think there's still some confusion--at least there's some confusion on the staff's part--there were several major issues, one being whether or not the Council was going to reconsider approval of the gated portion of the community which was being requested by the applicant. It was a modified gated proposal, actually, to not have gates but have guarded areas and have guards there 24 hours. The final Council action was to approve without gates, having guards from dusk to dawn. They would not be there during the daytime. I can't imagine that the applicant would necessarily proceed with private streets that are open at all times during the day and then closed during the evening. But that's, as I say, at their choice. The confusion we still have--and they may want to go back to Council for clarification--is that there were certain gates to be installed on some streets for emergency vehicles, but the action by the Council, as I understood it, was for no gates. And so I brought that up to the Ranch Team today that I thought they needed to go back to Council and get clarification of that, because it's certainly not clear in my mind. Commissioner Tuchscher: Before you change the subject on that issue, one of those gates-by the way, I guess I was a little shocked at a couple of issues that came up last night as I sat through that hearing, because there were a number of proposals and staff recommendations that came from the Otay Ranch Team that weren't even in existence when we looked at the project. PC Minutes -22- November 20, 1996 Lee: Let me just follow up on one of those if I could... Tuchscher: Well, in one of those--and I just want to make a comment on gates and then we can talk about that other issue. One of these guarded entrances without gates and by what private streets is right on the West Coast Land Fund border which is going to be likely, I don't know, public streets. They've got a public street terminating turning into a private street with no gate, no separation, and I would hope that Planning staff figures out a way to solve that Gordian knot if the homeowners association someday decides they don't want these people traversing their private streets. Lee: Well, I think what's going to have to be done is that the City is going to have to be made a party to the CC&Rs and certain enforcement provisions and certain voting rights which we haven't discussed further, yet, with the City Attorney. But it's the only way we could be a party to enforcing some of those. Tuchscher: Or some type of easement or some other vehicle that preserves the right of the public to traverse these public streets. Lee: I had made that suggestion--especially on one of the streets that connects to the northeast, which I think is very important to have the public have access. Now it's going to be a private street. If other people are using it, I could see the homeowners eventually stepping to the plate and asking the Council to gate that area off, because there's people traveling through there that are not paying for the maintenance of it. But, anyway, that's... Tuchscher: And then let's hope that they maintain it. Lee: The issue that I wanted to bring to the Commission's attention--your recommendation to the City Council was approval of Village 1, the tentative map for that area, and Phase lA which was 230 some units to give them a start in Village 5. That recommendation was changed after discussion with the Ranch Team and the City Manager's office to include a portion of Phase 2A, some additional 300 units. So there's now, as proposed--it was 334--so the total is now 570 units as per the approved tentative map for the Village 5 area to the east. I know that was a concern to the Commission and it's still a concern of the Planning Department in terms of we now have a 570-unit subdivision proposed with absolutely no public amenities, such as parks, so hopefully the mesh with West Coast and so forth will come together in Village 5, but nevertheless, we have this approval which, I think from our perspective, was somewhat premature, and that was, I think, the opinion of the Planning Commission when they made the recommendation. I was not aware of that recommendation until it came up last night, so I was not able to report back to you to find out whether or not you wanted to be represented at the City Council meeting. So it was very awkward. Salas: How do changes of that magnitude happen without coming before Planning Commission again in another public hearing? PC Minutes -23- November 20, 1996 Tuchscher: They don't. Lee: They should be brought-~I think those types of changes need to be pointed out very clearly to the Council if there's been a change between the Commission's recommendation going on to Council for some specific reason. It was not explained in the report and it was not explained at the hearing. Commissioner Salas: It was not explained by the Otay Ranch staff, is what you're saying. Commissioner Thomas: Who's responsibility is that to bring that forward to the Council, that there is a change? Lee: In this case, it's the responsibility of the Otay Ranch Team and the City Manager's office. And as I said, everything's been moving rather fast on this so that was their choice, but... Tuchscher: Absolutely appalling. Unbelievable breach of fiduciary duty, in my opinion, on the part of the Otay Ranch staff. I have no problem with the change, if staff wants to change their recommendation, what have you. Clearly, the recommendation changed from what came before the Commission and what came before Council. And if they choose to do that for whatever extenuating circumstances--and they'd better be extenuating in my opinion--but if they are, and they want to do that, fine. But, boy, they'd better tell Council what was presented and what Commission voted on, and why they made the modification, and why they now have this new modification. None of that was discussed, and absolutely, in my opinion, just watching, on the contrary, they gave the impression that it was the same project. I mean, absolutely a breach of fiduciary and we're talking about, in my opinion, a huge change--going from 230 units that were, kind of, could be considered a stand-alone subdivision to 600 units with no parks, none of the blue CPF stuff that I hate, no commercial facilities--you know, this is--well, to put this in perspective--this is the size of Sunbow. Not far off. Essentially, a stand-alone master plan with no amenities, no facilities. Unbelievable. Commissioner Willett: I would like to comment on that, Mr. Director. I think there needs to be some type of a checkoff list when these changes come up. I took the--after last night, I was here trying to figure out where those changes came in and why, went home this morning and tried to find them and could not find them. Then I finally found out through a phone call. There should be some type of a method... Tuchscher: Let me, you know, let me go off for another minute. When that staff recommendation came before Council, staff was recommending no development in Village 5, is it, the eastern village. Their recommendation at that time was no development there. At the meeting, Jerry Jamriska verbally changed, you know, softened that, changed his recommendation, well we don't think it would be bad, what have you--in writing, and I have the documents--they're saying the Paseo Ranchero entrance, phase that--the western village only- -nothing on the eastern side. Commission said, yeah, let's allow some development. I think Patty Davis moved--let's allow some development. This Commission seeks compromise and PC Minutes -24- November 20, 1996 says, yeah, that one phase--Phase lA, okay. Then that grows and that grows from a staff recommendation that says no development over there to allowing 600 units stand-alone and with no explanation. It's unbelievable to me. I think it absolutely reflects the integrity of the Otay Ranch Team and, in my opinion, and I've said it before, they--both privately and publicly--they are absolutely driven by that developer and they make recommendations and changes and push this thing forward as if they are the developer, not providing the discretionary bodies the neutral, unbiased analysis that it requires to make the right decisions. Would you give me word-for- word minutes on this, because I'm goima send it to the Mayor and Council and make sure that at least my comments on this are on the record. Lee: Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the team, and again I'm not trying to defend them, but only to the extent that this particular decision to increase the number of units to be provided in that village at this stage was a decision that was discussed and approved and recommended by the City Manager's office. The City Manager has played a very strong role in this particular project. And I think that's fine. The process, as I would see it, though, under normal circumstances would be the report would go to Council, it would have a recoinmendation from this body, and the reasons for it. If the City Manager, for instance, has a different recommendation, that could be included under the City Manager's recommendation and the reasons for that. The confusion was that there was, in my opinion, no explanation within the report as to how you got from point A to B, how did we get there, and that's all I was pointing out. Tuchscher: I totally agree with your comments and understand the City Manager's prerogative. I personally don't have any confidence the City Manager was given the right information. We don't know that. But I don't have any confidence in it. And even if it were, I mean, it's the break down in the system here that really sends a red flag to me. Lee: And more importantly, I guess, is that there has to be sufficient time when these decisions are made, so that I can report back to you, so that this body is aware that there is another recommendation going forward. That way, if you want to send a representative or be there, you have that ability. You know, I was caught in the middle here. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Thomas expressed his concern about the discussions on the dais between the Commissioners. Commissioner Tuchscher felt the applicant had set up a lot of confusion by coming in at the last minute with a different proposal, with a lot of questions that didn't need to be asked. Staff could have come forth with a recommendation of denial with a compromise position. Mr. Lee said it was difficult when there were two different plans with the two alignments, trying to deal with the GPA, its ramifications and caps, and the GDP. That, thrown in with the last minute proposal, made it very confusing. PC Minutes -25- November 20, 1996 Commissioner Salas agreed with Commissioner Thomas. She said that things may be difficult, but when the Commissioners get to the point of making fun of it or joking, then that irritated the applicant and made the Commission look bad. Commissioner Thomas said it was a difficult decision and difficult for staff to clarify. He thought there was some behavior on the dais that he was not happy with as a Commissioner. Commissioner Tuchscher agreed, and thought that they should probably hold a lot of the comments between each other down to a minimum. Commissioner Ray disagreed because of the Brown Act--this was the only time they had to discuss it. He brought up the point that no one wanted to make a motion, and he had made a motion to deny. Commissioner Tuchscher felt that as a courtesy to the audience and from a procedural standpoint, the occasional whisper back and forth was one thing, but the discussion on the dais during this meeting was probably inappropriate. He was in agreement with Commissioner Thomas, admitting to carrying his fair share of the burden. Commissioner Willett complimented staff for the job they tried to put together with the original development plan, specifically Barbara Reid and Doug Reid. One of the things that was confusing was the ratio of density units. He thought that needed to be clarified better. He recommended that the latest data of Sandag's Series 8 be used. Chair Tarantino noted that the Commissioners would adjourn, but there would be cake in honor of Commissioner Salas, who was leaving the Commission to serve as a member of the City Council. ADJOURNMENT at 11:20 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of December 11, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Ripltey, Sec&tary Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc96min\pcl 1-20.min)