Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/10/09 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, October 9, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Taramino, Commissioners Davis, Ray, Salas, Thomas COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Tuchscher and. Willett STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Conservation Coordinator Meacham, Special Planning Project Manager Jamriska, Associate Planner Reid, Associate Planner Miller, Contract Planner Manganelli, Senior Civil Engineer Goldkamp, Assistant City Attorney Fritsch PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tarantino led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Ray/Davis) 5-0 to excuse Commissioner Tuchscher, who had a business conflict. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tarantino reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator for the City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, CV, mentioned to those in attendance that as of October 1st, the Used Oil Curbside On-Call Collection Program was started in the City of Chula Vista, also serving Imperial Beach, for people living in a single-family home or dwelling of four units or less who have curb-side collection. They could call Laidlaw two days in advance of their regular trash collection day, and Laidlaw would pick up motor oil for free at the curb. There were free empty oil bottles to PC Minutes -2- October 9, 1996 put the oil in at all fire stations, at the main library, EastLake library, and 33 businesses in Chula Vista that also collect motor oil from the public for free if they care to transport it. They would also take oil filters, which should be put in a lidded coffee can or a reusable paint-style container properly marked as household hazardous waste. ITEM 1: ORDINANCE: AMENDING OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN OTAY RANCH, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Special Planning Project Manager Jamriska presented the staff report. On June 25, the Planning Commission in joint session with the City Council approved a development agreement for Village Development and Otay Ranch, Tiger Development 2, and Tigerheart. The area included the entire SPA I. Also on that date, United Enterprises and Greg Smith development agreements were approved. In August, the Planning Commission considered and recommended for approval the Jewels of Charity, Stephen and Mary Birch Foundation, SNMB Limited development agreements. Council introduced the development agreements but they have not been adopted because staff was waiting for the applicant to submit the required signatures relating to the nuisance easement surrounding the landfill area. Baldwin Builders development agreement would be presented to the City Council on October 15. Village Development, together with the tentative map, would be submitted to Council on October 22. When the Village Development agreement was approved for the entire SPA, it was all under one ownership. Since that time, there had been a foreclosure and West Coast Land Fund is a new property owner. As the development agreement was refined, it was by mutual desire between the City and Village Development to revise the development agreement in three areas: (1) to further guarantee the infrastructure that would be going in as part of the tentative map; (2) head off any potential problems that may occur with regard to any debt payment that may be required for any required public improvements; and (3) should development be only partially completed on any particular project, what steps could be taken to tighten up the development agreement. Mr. Jamriska highlighted the changes between the previously approved development agreement and the one being presented for Planning Commission consideration. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of the amended development agreement. Commissioner Salas, regarding Section 7.11, asked if the developer failed to remedy the problem if a nuisance or safety hazard, the City would take care of it and collect from the developer. She questioned if they were in bankruptcy and if the money was not available, how was it guaranteed that the City could collect for that. Mr. Jamriska said staff was requiring excess funds be deposited for the amount of improvements; and if that did not exist, a lien could be placed on a particular property. Commissioner Thomas asked what happened to the 1,031 acres that Tiger had. Mr. Jamriska replied that that particular property was foreclosed upon by West Coast Land Fund. PC Minutes -3- October 9, 1996 Commissioner Thomas, regarding Section 7.1, Subordination, asked how strong the agreement was regarding challenge. Since the whole project seemed to be entwined with each other, and the agreement goes with the land, if one of the new landowners challenges any of this agreement and it is litigated, what happens to the other developers around it? Mr. Jamriska said one of the key provisions of the development agreement is the subordination statement. It places any furore property owner on notice that the development agreement exists, and all the requirements of the development agreement which are contained in the General Development Plan, the SPA, the Public Facilities Financing Plan, and the map conditions must be complied with. Because the agreement runs with the land, and because Village Development successors in interest and any lienholder's successors in interest will be governed by the requirements of the development agreement, if the development agreement is not complied with, the issuance of further permits stops and discretionary applications halt. If construction stops, there are other adequate provisions. In terms of litigation, they would probably have to seek an injunction to stop further implementation of the agreement. Commissioner Thomas was concerned that if a lawsuit is filed and challenged, since there are so many different owners, would the whole project stop? Mr. Jamriska replied that it was a possibility. He noted that before the development is approved and before the tentative map is approved, the lienholders will be required to subordinate their interest to the development agreement and thereby acknowledge it. So they are in essence waiving their right to challenge it, in essence. Commissioner Salas asked if in the future the merchant builder would be shouldering the cost of the backbone infrastructure. Mr. Jamriska said that the agreement and tentative map conditions were very closely paralleling each other, even though the development agreement was more global than the tentative map. The development agreement and tentative map will permit Village Development to get approval for an "A" map which will entitle them to sell large blocks of land to other entities. That would not give them any entitlements except to build one house on each lot at the "A" map. The "B" map was where they would start subdividing the large superblock lots into marketable lots for sale. That is when the infrastructure will be required to be installed, as required by the tentative map conditions. The backbone facilities for the tentative map pending before the City Council have been identified and will be constructed before the first "B" map is approved. Commissioner Salas said that another part of it was whether or not the merchant builder would have the financial ability to get a completion bond. Mr. Jamriska stated that before the first final "B" map is approved, the builder would be required to post appropriate securities. The "B" map gives them the entitlement to build individual homes. The "A" map superblock permits them to sell the large lots to a merchant builder who may then provide for the "B" map infrastructure requirements. In case Village Development no longer exists, the first developer would be required to provide the backbone facilities. Through the PFFP, the development agreement, and the conditions of the tentative map, assurances have been made that before the first entitlements are given, certain backbone facilities have to be completed as identified. PC Minutes -4- October 9, 1996 Commissioner Ray understood that any subsequent developer still had the right to change the land use plan and seek a new agreement. Mr. Jamriska said that any property owner or any signer of a development agreement had the right to seek amendments to a development. That did not mean that the City would approve a modification to a development agreement. A development agreement conveyed to the developer certain rights that would be vested forever as long as they complied with the requirements of the development agreement. Commissioner Ray stated this in essence would be for the existing plan without any major modifications, primarily. Mr. Jamriska concurred, and said that it did not limit any party to apply for a change in the development plan. Commissioner Ray, regarding Section 7. I 1, asked if there was some quantifiable time that says they must commence construction once the building permit was pulled, and how long does that run. What is "diligent"? Mr. Jamriska stated that the Building Code specified how frequently or infrequently they must call for inspection of any particular segment of building construction. He believed that was close to a year; if they did not call for an inspection within a particular period of time, the building permit is null and void or the City can require completion. There could be certain bonds put up for certain improvements, such as park or landscaping, and the City did not have to wait the normal time provision to require calling those bonds once it is declared a nuisance. Commissioner Ray was concerned about their pulling building permits, doing nothing for up to two years, and then commencing construction. He did not see a tie-in for a specific timeframe. He could see that being open for interpretation in legal circles. Assistant Planning Director Lee explained that if they pull permits, they have a certain timeframe in which they must start construction or the permit expires. Staff would rule that that is not diligently pursuing the construction. The timeframes vary. Mr. Lee would get Commissioner Ray the information. Commissioner Ray stated that he did not have a strong opposition as long as the City Attorney gave him some assurance that "diligently" was not too broad a term and that, if the City wanted to come in after eight months, that could not be interpreted as not giving the developer due diligence. Mr. Lee responded the City Attorney's office had reviewed the agreement and was comfortable with it. Mr. Jamriska stated there were several phases where inspections would be required. If staff thought the builder was not diligently pursuing completion of construction, the City after declaring it a nuisance, fire, or safety hazard, could then rectify the situation. PC Minutes -5- October 9, 1996 Attorney Fritsch stated that language was included which gave the City sole discretion to make the determination as to whether or not there is a nuisance, and the developer would have to abide by it. Chair Tarantino noted that this was not a public hearing, but he had two requests to speak. With concurrence from the Commissioners, he allowed them to speak. Kim Kilkenny, Village Development, 11975 El Camino Real, SD, emphasized that the reason the development agreement had been revised was the desire on behalf of the City staff to ensure that the incidents in St. Claire would not be repeated in Otay Ranch. The vast majority of the changes were designed to increase the City's security that performance would happen. To clarify Commissioner Salas' question as to how they could be assured that should the developer not survive that the City is not stuck and would have the cash on hand to move forward and make the necessary improvements, it was not addressed specifically in this development agreement, but staff had proposed a new tentative map condition that on landscape and maintenance and other kinds of improvements, instead of using a bond that they would request a cash deposit. If the landscaping was not pursued, the City could take the cash immediately and complete that. Village Development had agreed to that. Regarding Commissioner Thomas's question about the prospect of litigation, Mr. Jamriska was accurate in responding that one of the things this agreement does that is different from other development agreements is, in order for the development agreement to go into affect, the lenders on the property have to sign an agreement acknowledging that should they acquire the property through quitclaim deed, foreclosure, or any other method, that the burdens and benefits of the development agreement fall to all of Village Development's successors in interest and assures their protection. Commissioner Salas had expressed a concern that the development agreement, in Section 7.11, might be seeking to move the burden for backbone infrastructure to merchant builders away from the master builder. By careful reading of the section, it would become clear that the City's intention was the opposite. The master builder was forever obligated to do the backbone infrastructure. Should they not survive, the lienholders become obligated to do the backbone infrastructure and any effort to transfer the responsibility to a merchant builder had to be expressly approved by the City of Chula Vista. Commissioner Ray had asked the question that should a successor come in and want to revise the plan, what would be the effect on the development agreement. Mr. Kilkenny agreed with Mr. Jamriska that anyone could apply to the City to try to amend the plan, but there were no obligations to amend the development agreement. It was in concrete and did not automatically get amended or in any way changed without the City's consent. Michael Woodward, 555 South Flower, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, representing West Coast Land Fund, regarding the provision for the preserve conveyance plan, page 13 of the agreement, commented that the staff report refers to 1,252.4 acres as a conveyance obligation for SPA I and PC Minutes -6- October 9, 1996 it was unclear as to what it was for other areas. He suggested that that acreage be pinned down. He was also concerned with the Commission's last action on the tentative map. The Commission approved the tentative map over the Village I area and over the Phase lA area, leaving out the West Coast parcel in the middle, and then an area between lA and West Coast. Once the development agreement is approved and recorded, it's in concrete and locked in, they have a vested right, and the City would not have to change it. Any future changes would have to take into consideration that there was a development agreement that the Village had over its adjoining property. Mr. Woodward suggested that the Commission carve out some kind of language that consent would not be unreasonably withheld if there were changes proposed in this area that would be consistent with their last action. It did not commit the City to doing it; it just removed the defense that they had a development agreement and did not have to agree with anything, and the developer was out in the cold. Chair Tarantino asked Mr. Jamriska to address Mr. Woodward's two issues. Mr. Jamriska said there already existed by action of the City Council in July, a development agreement on this property. So, Village Development et al had vested rights according to the plan adopted in SPA I. Through staff's encouragement and their willingness, they want to amend this agreement. The development agreement which had been approved, which runs with the land but did not have the subordination statement included, also covered West Coast Land Fund property. There already existed a vested right for it to implement the General Development Plan and the SPA I plan on SPA I properties. Regarding the preserve conveyance plan, Mr. Jamriska stated that the development agreement was global and related to the entire Otay Ranch properties owned by Village Development. The preserve conveyance plan had only been adopted for SPA I. As relates to future SPAs, that is the yet to be adopted preserve conveyance plan for subsequent SPAs. He did not believe it needed any additional modification. Mr. Kilkermy called to the Planning Commission's attention a provision added to the most recent development agreement, which was not in the prior development agreement, which was substantially similar to what Mr. Woodward had requested. On page 9, paragraph 5.2.4, the underlying language says "Developer agrees to reasonably cooperate with any amendments to the existing or future discretionary approvals as may be requested by the City from time to time." As explained by City staff, the developer had to act reasonable and in good faith when the City sought to change the plan for a reasonable reason. He thought that at least part way addressed Mr. Woodward's concerns. MS (Thomas/Salas) to accept staff's pre-annexation agreement as presented with the amendments of 10/9/96. Commissioner Ray asked if the development of La Media would be covered under the development agreement by West Coast from the July agreement? Mr. Jamriska replied that the July agreement referred to the Public Facilities Financing Plan, with certain trigger points which PC Minutes -7- October 9, 1996 required the construction of La Media. Whoever reached that trigger point first was required to then put in the La Media improvements. It could be Village Development. Commissioner Ray said that Village Development had the access road off Telegraph/Otay Lakes Road which reaches one of the thresholds for the requirement for La Media, then it would be encumbered upon Village Development to develop La Media? Mr. Jamriska stated that access to Orange then took control. It would not be La Media; it would be another access to Orange Street. They would have to provide Orange Street. Commissioner Ray asked if anyone could respond to Mr. Woodward's concerns. Mr. Woodward said that Section 5.2.4 could be stronger, but it somewhat addressed their concern. The agreement was not effective until the annexation occurs. It was in the agreement and per the Government Code. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Tuchscher and Willett absent) to approve. ITEM 2: REPORT: PCM-97-04: LAND USE CHART REVISION: INCLUSION OF THE NOMENCLATURE "TRANSFER AND BROKERAGE OF NON- PUTRESCIBLE MATERIAL" AS A PERMITTED LAND USE IN THE IL & I ZONES Associate Planner Miller stated that staff was requesting clarification from the Planning Commission on a particular land use, which staff believed should be a permitted use in the I-L and I zoning districts. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to include "Transfer and Brokerage of Non-Putrescible Material" on the land use chart under the I-L and I zones. Commissioner Ray asked if the non-putrescible material included metals that had been solution heat treated or aged, etc. which inserted other elements and alloys. Mr. Miller stated that the metals were non-ferrous-type metals. Mr. Ray said that the titanium they used came in many different forms and goes through many different solutions and chemicals to change its characteristics. Mr. Miller deferred to SOS Metals. Commissioner Thomas asked what the property was used for before SOS took over. Mr. Miller said it was used by Ryder Truck as their main repair facility, with a large warehouse on the side. If the Planning Commission approved the use, SOS would still have to go through site plan approval. Staff would be looking at the fencing, landscaping, and any changes to the buildings. Chair Tarantino stated that this was not a public hearing, but Mr. Shadrow of SOS Metals requested to speak, and he would honor that request. PC Minutes -8- October 9, 1996 Don Shadrow, 2165 Kurtz St., SD, representing SOS Metals, stated they handled a lot of titanium and recycle titanium. They did not find any kind of residual of the heat treating process. Sometimes there was a small amount of film on it, like a powder, used when they were doing some bending or forming. There was no free-running, free-flowing liquid coming off the material that was of a hazardous nature. Commissioner Salas asked how many employees would be employed. Mr. Shadrow said they currently employed 23 employees in the San Diego area, and would probably be up to 40 or 45 employees when they move to Chula Vista. They were looking to continue growth and participate in doing good things in the City of Chula Vista. Commissioner Salas asked when they anticipated moving. Mr. Shadrow said the escrow was supposed to close on the 2nd, but they had a 20-day additional grace period for any sort of zoning consideration. They would probably closing escrow in the next five to seven days, and moving in before the end of October. Commissioner Salas asked if they were going to be hiring new staff or if most of their staff would come from their Kurtz Street facility. Mr. Shadrow said they anticipated hiring a lot of new people: trackers, sales people, and office people. Commissioner Salas referred him to the South County Career Center on Bay Boulevard. MSC (Davis/Salas) 5-0 (Commissioners Tuchscher and Willett absent) to direct staff to include the nomenclature "Transfer and Brokerage of Non-Putrescible Material" as permitted land use on the land use chart under the I-L and I Zones. ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-95-04: DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DSEIR) FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT (continued from 9-25-96) Associate Planner Reid noted the presentation would be done in three parts: she would be giving the background, the history of the project and EIR; TetraTech would be going over the key points of the EIR; and then she would make final comments. Ms. Reid noted that this public hearing was to consider comments on the San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment and General Development Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. The public hearing had been continued from the Planning Commission meeting of October 9th, to allow for staff to clarify issues raised in the letters of comment. She noted that on August 13, 1996, the San Miguel Ranch Draft Subsequent EIR was filed with the Clearinghouse in agreement of a 30-day review period request. Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing on the Draft EIR, close the public hearing and the EIR public review period, and direct staff to prepare the PC Minutes -9- October 9, 1996 Final EIR, including the response to comments, the findings of fact and the statement of overriding considerations. Associate Planner Reid said there were two Board or Commission recommendations. The first one was from the San Miguel Ranch Citizen's Advisory Coxnmittee, who on September 5, 1996, passed a motion unanimously concurring with the impacts identified in the San Miguel Ranch EIR; however, they would like to see the impacts mitigated to a level of insignificance at the SPA level, in all but air quality, integrating visual quality. The Resource Conservation Commission had a unanimous motion that the Draft Subsequent EIR was adequate under CEQA. In March 1993, Council approved the original San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan and certified the final EIR in 1992. Major changes to the land use concept were incorporated into the project, in response to public review comments and staff concerns. An addendum was prepared, evaluating the environmental affects, and refinements to the proposed land use concept referred to as mitigation concept plan. A second addendum was then prepared incorporating additional changes to the mitigation concept plan, and additional mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources. After the public hearing process, a supplement to the EIR was prepared to evaluate further changes to the mitigation concept plan, referred to as the new plan. The new plan proposed design changes; specifically, additional estate lots and density reductions to the South parcel. This was certified in 1993, the new plan was adopted as the approved General Development Plan for the Ranch, subject to a number of conditions to which compliance must be made prior to approval of the first sectional planning area for the project. The adopted General Development Plan approved 1,619 single family units and allows for an overall gross density of .63 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Reid said the applicant, Emerald Properties Corporation, had redesigned the project and was now seeking approval of an amendment to the General Plan and General Development Plan, as described in the EIR. Several route alignments were proposed. Caltrans stated in their comment letters to the letters of preparation that they really appreciated the fact that we were doing that in the Environmental Impact Report since alignment had not been chosen. Additionally, Chula Vista, as a participant in the Multiple Species Conservation Program, identified the north parcel as a key element for preservation in their revised MSCP preliminary map. The EIR shows no development on the north. There has been no previous development planning conducted on Mother Miguel Estates since the original EIR was adopted in 1993. Associate Planner Reid then turned the discussion over to Betty Dehoney, of Tetra Tech, who discussed the alternatives in the EIR. She said that the alternatives being considered by the applicant on this project was Proctor Valley alignment with no north development and Horseshoe Bend with no north development, and those were generally highlighted in the yellow area. The EIR evaluated impacts and identified significant and unmitigated impacts at the GDP level on land use, land form, air quality and parks for the Proctor Valley alternative. The Horseshoe PC Minutes -10- October 9, 1996 Bend alternative also evaluated the impacts associated with development on the south parcel only and identified significant land use, land form alteration, air quality and parks. In the event that development was proposed on the north in accordance with Proctor Valley, or in the event that Horseshoe Bend was subsequently identified, additional impacts that were unmitigated were identified at the biology and public services issues. There were also a variety of annexational alternatives in accordance with LAFCO's requirements to provide contiguous area for all City property. Associate Planner Reid referred to four additional letters on the dias; two from the County, one from Gail Kobetich of Fish & Wildlife, and one from a neighboring residem. The letter from Fish & Wildlife still raised some questions as to whether biological impacts had been addressed, and mitigated to the low level of significance. Ms. Reid reported that the applicant and the City were involved in making a good faith effort to resolve this issue with the resource agencies, however, if they were not able to resolve them to point where the resoume agencies were stating that there is mitigation to the low level of significance on biological impacts, staff would need to recirculate the EIR. Ms. Reid noted that staff from the Engineering Department was available to answer questions on traffic and drainage and other questions that may come up. Also, a representative from BRW, Kay Brenner, was available for questions. Commissioner Thomas asked Ms. Reid if she could explain what the silky pocket mice and the Baja California Racers were, and how prevalent they were on the property? Ms. Reid replied that the Baja Racer was a snake. The comments of the Resource Conservation Commission were that these were adjacent to the project and these would be SPA level, analyzed at the SPA level. She asked Betty Dehoney to comment. Ms. Dehoney said that based on prior surveys or biological surveys conducted on the parcel, there were no species identified during those field surveys. However, no focus surveys were conducted for mammal trapping or for the snake, and they have been identified by representatives on adjacent parcels. At this point in time the status was unknown. Chair Tarantino asked Mr. Manganelli if he could pencil out on the last map the route that the Planning Cormnission took on their workshop, on the overhead. Mr. Manganelli, using the overhead, indicated that they had driven up a gas & electric easement, and also in a portion of the north parcel. At Commissioner Thomas's request, he indicated also the SDG&E storage yard. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was a section that the U. S. Fish & Wildlife was going to take as a refuge. Mr. Manganelli said that would be the whole north parcel. PC Minutes -11- October 9, 1996 Commissioner Salas said that LAFCO had some concerns, if the 125 route that was taken was Horseshoe Bend, because then it would bisect the property. They were concerned about the services being provided and development being contiguous. She asked if she understood that correctly? Associate Planner Reid responded that staff had received comments from LAFCO, but this would not be the final document. They would review it at the SPA level. There was another EIR at that level which would address their concerns. Commissioner Salas said that the County of San Diego had written a very strong letter about the inadequacy of the traffic studies. It said the EIR contained factual inadequacies and omitted CEQA-required analyses, information in these reports was inadequate for assessing the proposed projects impacts. She asked if the RCC had this letter in their possession when they approved the adequacy of the EIR. Ms. Reid stated that they did not. Commissioner Salas asked if there would be some kind of presentation that would allow staff to counter the letter? Ms. Reid replied that staff could make some comments on it, but, basically what staff hoped to do at this meeting was just take testimony and then respond to that in terms of the final EIR. The Planning Commission would see the final EIR, and the County would get staff's response to comments on that as well. However, staff could make some comments on it at the current time, if the Planning Commission would like. Commissioner Salas indicated that she would like to see what they were up against. Betty Dehoney explained that the initial issue related to the inadequacy of the document associated with the level of detail of analysis that the City of Chula Vista typically tiers their environmental review. This project is a General Development Plan EIR. It is based upon plan level environmental review. At subsequent levels of discretionary action, at the SPA plan approval, there will be subsequent environmental review, including the phasing and timing plan for each of the traffic improvements. This is an appropriate level for a global plan level analysis of the circulation element impacts, including full general plan level 20-year build-out scenarios, versus the near term. Ms. Dehoney said it was somewhat speculative to address the impacts at that time because you typically want to wait until the SPA level plans are brought forward and assess what the planning and the phasing of those improvements and the development scenario is. Ms. Dehoney said the City was in accordance with CEQA, conducting their analysis at the earliest time possible and evaluating the impacts at the level that is appropriate at the plan level, again, recognizing that the Planning Commission would have future subsequent environmental review, including the phasing and timing plan for the traffic analysis at the SPA level. The specific issue related to the circulation element is that the adopted GDP has specific mitigation measures, including conditions, and a specific concern of the County was the four-lane PC Minutes -12- October 9, 1996 designation on the San Miguel Road circulation element. The adopted GDP, including the EIR, assumes that the San Miguel is, and will need to be, improved as a four-lane designation, and this EIR assumes that that is also necessary prior to SPA level. Therefore, the analysis assumed that it was at a four-lane. Commissioner Salas asked if there was a difference between the four-level and the two-level, and if that had to do with the County's plan for this area? For instance, on the Otay Ranch they had a different vision for what the Otay Ranch was going to look like, and not too many differences, but there were some differences in the County plan. So, is that where this controversy is coming from? Ms. Dehoney stated that the County currently designated this segment as a two-lane, and the City's General Plan designated it as a four-lane and required the developer, prior to SPA approval, to process a circulation element change in the County of San Diego to be four-lane, or show that the circulation element within the City and the County will operate accurately and adequately at the SPA level without the improvement to that designation. Chairman Tarantino said the difference was between a program EIR versus a project EIR. This is the more global, and as the Planning Commission gets into the actual SPA level, it would become more specific. Ms. Dehoney concurred that they were at a program EIR level, global, and could not go to those finite points of analysis until they were ready to go forward into the phasing. The level of specificity is in accordance with the level of project description, and the level of project description is at global planning. Commissioner Salas said there was going to be an elementary school in the area, but not a high school. She asked if the developer was also going to consider a high school? Ms. Dehoney replied that the level of specificity was at a sufficient development to allow for major land use decisions, the land use densities, the land use types, including the general location of schools. At the SPA level they may change, and be altered, and that was the reason the Planning Commission had to go through a subsequent environmental review. At the plan level, the Planning Commission needed to make sure that there was sufficient capacity and sufficient land uses to support the development. At the next level of specificity, the design of the grading plans, the circulation, the number of units going forward in what year, when the children will be generated, as associated with the development would be considered. Commissioner Salas said she was recalling things of concern that she thought could be future problems. She did not recall in her reading that there would be the capacity for two schools, say an elementary and a high school. Yet, Bonita Vista is already at 110% capacity, and the information from Eastlake High School is that by the time this project gets up, they would be at 100% capacity. So the question is, at this level, did the Planning Commission have that input PC Minutes -13- October 9, 1996 to say a high school would be needed as well as an elementary school, and where would it fit into the area? Ms. Dehoney stated that, at this point in time, the mitigation measures were payment of fees to the school district and establishment of a Mello Roos in accordance with and acceptance of the school district. They must approve the financing plan through the Mello Roos before the City will accept that mitigation measure and proceed with the next level. Commissioner Salas understood that there was going to be Mello Roos financing, but since it looked as if this project was going to be limited to the South parcel only, would all the requirements fit in the South parcel? Mr. Manganelli replied that the general plan did not designate a high school site on that property. It designated an elementary school and a community park, which would be provided. The school district had not asked for a school site here, but the payment of fees and the establishment of Mello Roos District. Commissioner Salas noted that there was also a high school site planned for the Otay Ranch area. Chairman Tarantino concurred, and said it should take some pressure off of Eastlake High School. Since the Planning Commissioners did not have a copy of the letter from U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Associate Planner read the letter into the record (copy to be filed in the project file). Commissioner Ray questioned the matrix regarding what was significant and what was insignificant based on the various options. He understood that Horseshoe Bend was finally considered not a significant visual land form. On the matrix it was considered significant. Ms. Reid confirmed that it was significant. Ms. Dehoney stated that in accordance with the impact evaluation conducted, the land form alteration associated with the entire project, the Horseshoe Bend alternative north was considered significant and not mitigated fully to a level of significance. The Proctor Valley alternative was also considered significant and not fully mitigated to below a level of significance based upon the magnitude of land form alteration and associated visual quality. Commissioner Ray asked if that was associated with the amount of grading that was required, or the height or width of the land form. What was the criteria to make it a significant land form? Ms. Dehoney stated that the amount, the grading, the cut, the fill, the modification to the existing topography, would all be considered significant at a GDP level. They would also be PC Minutes -14- October 9, 1996 re-evaluated at the SPA level to determine whether they could be mitigated through contour grading, and whether the re-vegetation programs were adequate to reduce them to below a level of significance at the SPA level. However, at the GDP level, they remained significant and mitigated in the EIR as written. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Dwight Smith, the Deputy Director of Land Development Division Department of Public Works, 5555 Overland Avenue, San Diego, 92123, delivered to the Commissioners a letter dated October 9th, co-signed by the Director of Planning and Land Use and Tom Garibay, Director of Public Works. Mr. Smith said they had previously furnished to City staff their concerns about this project. San Miguel Road, west of Proctor Valley Road, was classified on the County circulation map as a two-lane road. The draft EIR showed a four-lane major road there. With this project, it would be subject to over 18,000 trips a day, which could not be carried by a two-lane road. Mr. Smith stated that the draft Subsequent EIR contained no analysis of the near term impacts of the predicted traffic or existing traffic conditions on the road network. Several segments of the circulation of the roads in the area are currently level service E and F, but the draft EIR did not assess the impacts at this time. This project has no direct access to the County circulation or the County roads. The project proposed to connect to the four-lane road that goes through the project on the Proctor Valley Road which is nothing but a residential street and not very well improved. He said it was not on the County circulation element and he was not sure it was on thc City's circulation element. The Series 8 forecast presented in the EIR was not at complete build-out. It only carried thc projected volumes out to the year 2015. They felt the traffic volumes used in the document were understated for that reason. The draft EIR found no significant impacts to traffic from the proposed project. In their opinion, this conclusion was based upon an analysis of full buildout of the circulation element. They ran the traffic projections with all the network built, however, there would be interim facts that they were concerned about. It was also stated in the EIR that analysis of impacts on the local roads would occur at the future SPA level. However, the County felt this analysis should be done with this EIR. They thought there was enough specificity there, that that could be done and appropriate traffic mitigation could be discussed. Regarding impacts to archeology, hydrology and water quality, the EIR made no evaluation of those issues, but relied on a 1990 document, with which the County had had some serious inadequacy problems. The County felt that this document failed to adequately cover the impact to the regional welfare, particularly the impacts on the County territory. Commissioner Davis, regarding Proctor Valley Road, said it was her understanding that if 125, the state toll road, did not move forward, that Chula Vista would put through the interim 125. That would make it more than a residential road. She asked Mr. Smith if he was aware of that? Mr. Smith said he was not aware of that. Mike Roarke, 3645 Proctor Valley Road, speaking on behalf of the Sweetwater Planning Group, distributed a comment letter (see project file). He said they had three major concerns. PC Minutes -15- October 9, 1996 One was that the four-lane road ended at Proctor Valley Road, which was not logical. There was a by-pass road that had been discussed and approved in the original General Plan. There was nothing set aside for the cost of eminent domain for that flood plain area to make that connection for the by-pass road. He thought that was necessary. Another major concern was that the water shed on the entire project runs directly into an area where there already was a water shed problem, off of Long Canyon and into Sweetwater Valley. The plan made no significant study of this problem at all. It demanded some serious look at how to handle this continuing problem, and should be addressed fully and adequately at this stage, particularly in a global environment, particularly when we are talking about the circulation element for traffic. The third item was on the density of the project and compatibility. The area surrounds an area that we often call the Sunnyside equestrian community. And the average parcel is 2-3 acres, and it was one of the few areas left zoned for equestrian uses. Going from 1,200 on Parcel 2, to 1,500 homes, was really increasing density substantially. He asked staff to seriously look at and consider to make it compatible to the existing environment there. They asked that the City take the responsibility of having horse and riding trails actually dedicated and actually provided to be soft trails, and that they tie the two parcels together, including tying one through the gas and electric area for that purpose. Mr. Roarke said there were existing uses out there for dog training and boarding, as there is for horses, and they felt that should be part of the planning that should be compatible uses with what's presently out there, and should be considered in the planning stages and in the General Plan Amendment. They did not see any of those conditions anywhere. On behalf of the Sweetwater Valley Planning Group, and with the plan that Chula Vista supposedly adopted, the General Plan for Bonita Valley, this is within the General Plan. The 1,500 homes on 400 acres comes close to estate lots that this was originally designated for, and estate lots in the County were much larger than 130 per acre, that Chula Vista has for estate lots. He said those items deserved serious consideration and he did not think the Supplemental EIR was ready for approval. He encouraged the Planning Commission not to approve it at this time. Chairman Tarantino clarified that the Planning Commission was not taking action on the EIR, but were taking comments and closing the public hearing, and then, considering those comments. Ms. Reid concurred. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission close the public hearing to comments and direct staff to respond to those comments and bring back a final EIR. Chairman Tarantino stated that in those comments, staff would be taking Mr. Roarke's comments and they would be addressed in the final EIR. Ms. Reid concurred. Mark Faulkner, 9665 Chesapeake Drive, San Diego, representing Emerald Properties, owners of San Miguel Ranch, stated that over the past two years they had been diligently working with several groups, including City staff on this project, and including the County of San Diego, Caltrans, SDG&E, U.S. Fish & Game, California Department of Fish & Game, San Miguel Advisory Committee, the Sweetwater Community Group and the Sweetwater Civic Association, not to mention several individuals with whom they had been in contact, as well as holding several workshops with, not only with the Planning Commission, but any other interested party PC Minutes -16- October 9, 1996 on the project. They had tried to address all of the concerns of the previous project, and tried to make amendments to the project to make this more compatible with the City of Chula Vista and the existing market place. LAFCO's main concern was the connectibility between the north parcel and the south parcel, not the south parcel being subdivided by SR125. They concurred with that. They were not proposing annexation of the northern parcel into the City because there was no level of service, because they were not proposing development on it. Mr. Manganelli also eluded to our agreement with the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Department and U. S. Fish & Game. They were happy to have that agreement. They had worked long and hard on this agreement and felt they had been a needed component of the MSCP and the potential federal wildlife refuge that was being proposed by those agencies. SDG&E was a major opponent of this project at first, but were now a proponent of the project, with caveats about development in the north. Mr. Faulkner thought that was a substantial change over and above where they had some concern before. He commended the San Miguel Advisory Committee and Mr. Manganelli on the job they had done in trying to address the various concerns of community members, including Mr. Roarke's group and other concerned citizens. Emerald Properties was trying to adequately address those issues. Regarding Horseshoe Bend, SR125 is the driving force that would remove Horseshoe Bend. Mr. Faulkner stated that their Proctor Valley project did not address or touch Horseshoe Bend at all. Regarding Mr. Smith's comments, Mr. Faulkner had met several times with Mr. Oberbauer, Mr. Denny, and several others members of the County staff and had provided the County staff with correspondence from Kimley-Horn, their traffic engineer, over the past 18 months and tried to keep communication with them in all aspects of our project. Emerald Properties felt this draft EIR at the GDP level had addressed those issues and they would address further concerns at the SPA level. Regarding the high school issue, Commissioner Salas brought up as well, the high school is not requiring a site. They had moved the elementary school site on the recommendation of the Chula Vista School District from the west side of the freeway, in the event that Horseshoe Bend goes forward, to the east side to more readily accommodate the San Miguel Ranch project and the Salt Creek Ranch project that would be coming on board in the next few years. They felt the EIR was adequate, and recommended that the Planning Commission move the EIR forward. Don Jensen, 3655 Proctor Valley Road, said his main concern was what they had out there now would disappear. The birds, the coyotes, and rabbits. His main concern was his dog boarding business. The City of Chula Vista did not have a dog boarding business in the City of Chula Vista. There are three licensed dog boarding businesses in the South Bay area, of which his is one. If homes are built close to us, this will probably force us out of business. People do not like to live next to a dog boarding facility. At any given time there may be 75 to 85 dogs there and they bark. Mr. Jenson said the developer had basically ignored that the business was them. At one time they had a road going through their property. Mark Faulkner returned to the podium to clarify that Emerald Properties acquired the project in 1994 and were not the original proponent of the original San Miguel Ranch. That was San Miguel Partners. San Miguel Ranch, Emerald Properties was giving 78%, 1,852 acres out of 2,590 acres, to open space natural preserve preservation of several endangered species. Mr. PC Minutes -17- October 9, 1996 Faulkner said he would challenge anyone to find a project in the State of California that gives up 78% of their private property rights to aide in the City's MSCP. Georgine Jensen, 3655 Proctor Valley Road, commented about the traffic as a member of the Sweetwater Planning Group. San Miguel Road is designated as two-lanes on the County map, and yet this project speaks of it as a four-lane road. If it was going to be made into a four-lane road, a lot of homes would have to be condemned. She wondered if Chula Vista was willing to pay the price to condemn all those homes. Because developers could not condemn, it had to be from a governmental agency. So when the Planning Commission approves this project and San Miguel as a four-lane road, you are obligating the City to a great condemnation cost. Chairman Tarantino clarified that the Planning Commission was not approving any project at that time, but just taking comments for the EIR. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ray, regarding the public comments, said it was inferred that this was only to gather information as far as public testimony and close the public hearing. Chairman Tarantino concurred, and added that staff would be directed to take those comments and incorporate them into the final EIR. No other action was being taken. MS (Ray/Davis) to close the public hearing and direct staff to prepare the final EIR, including responses to the comments and letters received to date, inclusive of the testimony heard at this meeting, findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations. Commissioner Thomas commented that a lot of the land that Emerald Properties was giving up seemed to be rocks and undevelopable and had no value anyway. It seemed like it would be a good idea to find out exactly, if that was going to be used as a selling point. If they're giving back rock and 90 degree mountains and it had no value anyway, then it shouldn't be used as a marketing tool. Commissioner Ray asked if the 78% reference was going to be used as a mitigation bank resource for other projects to buy in and mitigate their impacts? Mark Faulkner responded that the proposal that was in writing between the wildlife agencies and Emerald Properties had a portion of the property to be set aside in the event that certain approvals were obtained on the other portion. Five hundred acres of the northern parcel would be acquired by the wildlife agencies; the 500 acres in question were the westerly 500 acres that oversee Sweetwater Reservoir. Answering Commissioner Thomas's comment, Mr. Faulkner said in the response letter by both U. S. Fish & Wildlife and California Department of Fish & Game, they viewed this as the most pristine natural habitat in their system. It was a little more PC Minutes -18- October 9, 1996 than rocks to them. And further, the naked eye could see it. He did not think any of them had ever seen a black tailed gnatcatcher, but believed there were plenty of them up there. Chairman Tarantino said that he recalled that this plan was far less aggressive than the original plan that was brought about 3 or 4 years ago. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Tuchscher and Willett absent) ITEM 4: APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (GMOC) Mr. Lee noted that John Ray had served for the last two years as the GMOC representative. Commissioner Ray made a motion to appoint Commissioner Willett. Mr. Lee thought Mr. Willett needed to be contacted to see if he would have time to dedicate to this Committee. Commissioner Ray asked that the Commission vote on the motion and get his concurrence. If he did not concur, it could be brought back to the Commission. Mr. Lee said it was a very worthwhile and educational committee. Commissioner Thomas volunteered to be the backrup if John WiIlett could not. MSC (Ray/Davis) 5-0 to appoint John Willett as the GMOC representative, with Bob Thomas as the back-up in case Mr. Willett did not wish to serve. DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 5: UPDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS Mr. Lee stated that the Coin Mart project had been before Council the previous evening and had been referred back to staff to come up with findings that would satisfy the applicant in some manner. Staff was working with the City Attorney's office in that regard. There were no items in a position to bring forward in a workshop setting at that time, Ko Mr. Lee noted no workshop would be held. The next regular meeting would be held October 23, 1996. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Thomas asked the status of Sunbow. Mr. Lee stated that the new owners were the Ayers Development Company. Staff had been in contact with them; they had indicated they would like to proceed with a portion of the development on the westerly part of the property. Under that scenario, they were looking to modify some of the lot sizes. Staff explained to them that in doing that, they would have to return with an amendment to their SPA Plan and tentative map, which would up the entire project for a revisit. Mr. Lee said it was more likely that they would record final maps on a portion of the property in the west that had a legal tentative map PC Minutes -19- October 9, 1996 and proceed with development. If that happened, it would allow for the connection of Medical Center to Orange Avenue and would complete that linkage for the City. They would be providing a presentation to City staff on October 14. With more information from them, there could possibly be a workshop on that project. ADJOURNMENT at 9:10 p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of October 16, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of October 23, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Ril~ey, Secro~ary Planning Commission (rn:\home\planning\nancy\pc96min\pc10-9.min)