Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/02/13 Tape: 318 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, February 13, 1991 Public Services Buildinq ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Grasser Horton, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, Fuller, and Martin COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tugenberg (with notification) STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Griffin, Senior Planner Gray, Contract Planner Miller, Contract Planner Frischer, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf, Consultant Carter PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Grasser Horton and was followed by a moment of silent prayer remembering our troops in the Persian Gulf. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Grasser Horton reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-91-10: REQUEST TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING FREESTANDING POLE SIGN AT 772 THIRD AVENUE - Hikmat Zoura Senior Planner Griffin requested, with the applicant's concurrence, that this item be continued to the meeting of March 13, 1991, in order to work with the applicant to resolve the problem. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) 6-0 to continue ZAV-91-10 to the meeting of March 13, 1991. Minutes -2- February 13, 1991 ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-90-10, ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX Contract Planner Miller stated the Final EIR included the Draft EIR, as well as the comments received during the public review period and the responses to the comments. Ms. Miller stated the Commission had received three letters reiterating the position of the Chula Vista Elementary School District, as well as the Sweetwater Union High School District, with regard to school impact fees associated with non-residential projects such as the Rohr project. The Districts' positions are that non-residential projects do create school impacts and, therefore, should have been considered a significant impact in the EIR. These letters were received after the close of the public review period on the EIR, and were not responded to in the Final EIR. Contract Planner Miller stated it did not change the conclusions of the EIR regarding school impacts. The conclusions were that school impacts were deemed to be less than significant. The "Comments" section of the EIR had been expanded in order to clarify the City's position. This did not affect the conclusions of the EIR or the adequacy of the document. Ms. Miller noted the expanded comments would be forwarded to the School Districts for their information. Contract Planner Miller, referring to the traffic issue, stated the Draft EIR assumed the site could be utilized as a large commercial office building greater than 100,000 sq. ft., and the traffic generation rate was based on a trip generation factor of 17 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. for a total of approximately 4,170 ADT. After discussing this matter with the applicant, it was determined that a trip generation rate of 10 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. would be a more adequate measure of traffic. It was the conclusion of the traffic consultant that the reduced trip rate would generate approximately 2,450 ADT, which is about 41% fewer trips than previously reported. Ms. Miller noted the decrease did not change the conclusions of the EIR regarding traffic impacts which presented a worst-case scenario for traffic, but changed the percentage contribution that the project would have on impacted segments and intersections. The adequacy of the EIR was not affected by the new information. However, in order to be adequate under CEQA, it would be necessary for staff to come back before the Planning Commission with an addendum to the EIR reflecting the minor technical changes that had occurred. Ms. Miller noted this would occur before the project is actually approved. Chair Grasser Horton asked if the percentage would change for the benefit assessment district. Contract Planner Miller answered that the percentage of the contribution of the project toward impacted segments and Minutes -3- February 13, 1991 intersections ultimately will affect the contribution of the applicant towards off-site improvements. It would be a lesser percentage than the 4.7% noted in the staff report. The traffic consultant would have to come back with a revised traffic analysis reflecting the specific percentage contribution of the project would be. Chair Grasser Horton asked how the percentage was reached. Dan Marum, traffic consultant from JHK, replied that the percentage of project contribution at the critical study area intersections was based on the amount of "project only" traffic entering those intersections during the peak hour. That is compared with the total volume coming into the intersection from all other cumulative impacts based on future forecasted volumes. Chair Grasser Horton asked if the cumulative impacts were based on a built-out bayfront. Mr. Marum answered that this did not include the complete build-out of the bayfront, but was a near-term analysis of three years in the future with some cumulative impact from traffic growth from other development and in-fill development, but not a build-out analysis of long-term contribution at these intersections. Commissioner Decker noted the number of trips generated by this facility would be reduced by 41%, and asked how that would affect the number of parking spaces. Traffic Consultant Marum replied the rates used for parking and trip generation were separate rates. He suggested that this could be included in the addendum. Commissioner Carson queried staff as to what other dust abatement measures could be used instead of watering of the site during grading to enhance air quality, since water is at a premium. Since homeowners are being asked to cut back severely, she felt a strong look should be taken to balance air quality against water usage. She asked that it be included in the addendum. Contract Planner Miller answered there would have to be an expanded discussion in the addendum. She noted the applicant had informed staff that they had available the use of recycled water. Commissioner Decker suggested the use of wetting agents to make the water more efficient. Minutes -4- February 13, 1991 MSUC (Decker/Fuller) 6-0 to certify the final EIR for the Rohr Office Complex (FEIR-90-10) has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR. ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-91-09: REQUEST TO REDEVELOP SERVICE STATION AND ADD MINI-MARKET AND CAR WASH AT 765 "E" STREET - Mobil Oil Corporation (continued from 1-23-91) Senior Planner Griffin gave the location and zoning of the property. He noted the project had been continued from January 23, when the Commission had concerns regarding traffic, noise, and conversion of full-service stations to less-than-full-service stations. Mr. Griffin reviewed the project, and stated that one of the recommended conditions of approval with the project now would be to dedicate an additional portion of the street width, and participate proportionately in the future in improving the street as well as installing a raised median in the middle of "E" Street. The improvements would not be done sooner because there was a limited amount of right-of-way both to the east and west of the project. Without the additional right-of-way in conjunction with this project, there is no opportunity to install a consistent set of improvements along the "E" Street right-of-way. Senior Planner Griffin noted that with the present narrow width of the street, there is not the opportunity of making "U" turns on "E" Street. If there was a temporary median placed within the street in order to restrict left-turn movements, that would have to take the place of the left-turn lane without the ability to make "U" turns. The inability to make left turns would complicate traffic on "E" Street and restrict access to several of the properties now fronting on the street. Mr. Griffin, addressing the concern the Commissioners had regarding on-site stacking and the effect on traffic on "E" Street, said a survey of similar sites had been done which showed the peak period of stacking averaged about four cars. Using overhead projection, he showed how the cars would be stacked on the site, and the relationship of the circulation areas to the size of the cars. The City Traffic Engineer had reviewed the stacking issue for potential problems on "E" Street and concluded there would not be a real potential for a problem at this site in most cases. Senior Planner Griffin then discussed the concerns the Commissioners had regarding noise. Since the last meeting, some ambient noise measures had been made in the area, and it was found Minutes -5- February 13, 1991 that the ambient noise level from the freeway and the trolley were much higher than would be generated by the carwash. In accordance with our local standards, if the ambient level is higher than the level generated by the project, the ambient level becomes the standard because the noise generated by the project itself is insignificant. The environmental document had been updated to show this information. Regarding conversion of full-service stations to mini markets, the staff report showed alternatives used in case of emergencies, and questioned the role the City should play in requiring full-service stations. Mr. Griffin concluded that based on the findings and recommended conditions in the staff report, staff recommended approval of the project. Commissioner Casillas felt a workshop should be held regarding future conversion of full-service stations, since he was of the opinion more data was needed. He approved of the project otherwise. Upon Commissioner Decker's query, Senior Planner Griffin explained the traffic circulation pattern. Commissioner Decker asked if there was a potential of water washing out into the street, and if the water would be recycled. Ken Huepper, 18634 Lancashire Way, San Diego, representing Mobil Oil, responded that the carwash would have a reclaim system which would recycle the water. He explained any water which would come off the cars would be minimal, since the carwash had a blow drier which would remove the majority of the water, and any remaining water would wash back into the reclaim system. Chair Grasser Horton asked staff if the developer would have to pay for an island. Senior Planner Griffin explained that he would be required to pay for half the island--half the street width. City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg explained that the requirement for the improvements is based on the deficiency of the street. The missing improvements are assessed; since this street is identified as a major street, an island is required along with two lanes of traffic and a shoulder. There is not a shoulder provided, so staff requested a widening of the roadway and a dedication to provide for that widening. In addition, the improvements of the median was required. The developer would not be expected to provide the full width of the median. As developments occur throughout the entire length of "E" Street, other developers would be required to provide the missing improvements. The median project would be deferred, Minutes -6- February 13, 1991 and sometime in the future all the resources from the different projects would be pooled to provide it. In answer to Commissioner Martin's query, Senior Planner Griffin explained that the landscaping would be reduced if the street were widened. Further discussion was held regarding the length of the island, provision for "U" turns at signalized intersections, and turnouts, similar to the East "H" Street median. Senior Planner Griffin clarified that the recommendation was for a 16-foot dedication, and the eventual distance between the gas pumps and the sidewalk would be 50 feet. Chair Grasser Horton asked, because of the trolley, if there are similar sites in the City regarding traffic flow. Mr. Rosenberg answered the Arco station at Palomar had a similar situation, but he didn't know of any traffic problem. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Ken Huepper, 18634 Lancashire Way, San Diego, representing Mobil Oil, presented drawings of the proposed facility and compared it to the present facility, showing stacking space and traffic circulation, and the distance between the pump islands and the carwash. Mr. Huepper requested approval of the project. Commissioner Carson questioned Mr. Huepper regarding possible remedial work in a worst-case scenario insofar as contamination on the site. Mr. Huepper answered that they had received an approval from the County authorities that their site met the criteria of remediation, and they believe that situation is resolved. Commissioner Decker asked what provisions had been made for servicing the handicapped, especially those who cannot get out of their vehicles. Mr. Huepper responded that Mobil's policy at self- serve locations was to offer to the handicapped an attendant to come out to assist them. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Fuller commented that responses to the questions and concerns which had been raised at the last meeting were very amply answered, and both staff and the applicant working together did a fine job. She agreed with staff that there was a question as to how far government could go to require the private sector to provide something the consumer feels they have to have. Minutes -7- February 13, 1991 MS (Fuller/Casillas) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-03. Chair Grasser Horton, for the record, asked Commissioner Martin if he had listened to the tape recording of the last meeting. Commissioner Martin confirmed. He also said his concerns were answered; he liked the location of the pumps. Chair Grasser Horton concurred that staff had fully answered her questions and concerns. VOTE CARRIED 5-0-1 (Commissioner Decker abstained since he had been absent at the previous meeting when this item was discussed; Commissioner Tugenberg absent) MSC (Fuller/Casillas) 5-0-1 that based on the findings contained in Section E of the report, adopt a motion to approve the request PCC-91-09 subject to conditions 'a' through 'd'. ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-91-5/PCA-91-3: CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE Planning Director Leiter made some initial comments regarding the background of the Growth Management Program and Ordinance. He noted that the Growth Management Plan was designed to provide a comprehensive approach to various stages of development and thresholds, and specifically recommend changes in the way public facility finance plans are prepared; development phasing policies which recommend a means by which the cumulative impact of development projects could be monitored and facilities provided when needed; and compliance monitoring and implementation programs to make sure the policies and development conditions the City Council and Planning Commission require are in fact being met and the City's threshold standards are being complied with. The Ordinance would put into legal effect the various policies and programs that are recommended. Mr. Leiter noted that Phil Carter of Willdan & Associates would present the Growth Management Program, and also that David Ferguson, an attorney with the firm of Higgs, Fletcher, & Mack, who prepared the ordinance was present to answer any questions regarding the ordinance. Phil Carter informed the Commission that the Growth Management Program was the element which implemented the City's Growth Management Element, and the policies and goals of the General Plan recently adopted by the City Council. He discussed the Minutes -8- February 13, 1991 implementation procedures which included the quality of life threshold standards, facility master plans, project processing requirements, development phasing policies, and the Growth Management Oversight Committee's review responsibilities. Mr. Carter noted that the annual report of the Growth Management Oversight Committee had previously looked back at what had happened; the emphasis now was to project into the future and show how the compliance could be maintained over time as opposed to looking backward. This program will identify potential problems and allow City staff, the developers, and the special districts the time necessary to provide solutions to those projected problems. The Growth Management Ordinance provides the legal requirements of how the growth management program will function within the Municipal Code in the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Carter specifically discussed the section on schools. He noted the first paragraph on page 3-39 needed to be revised based on additional information which was not available at the time of preparing the document. This information added specific enrollment figures. Planning Director Leiter added that the City Attorney had suggested some minor word changes to the Initial Study and Negative Declaration to clarify the relationship of the Growth Management Program with the currently adopted threshold standards. The revised Negative Declaration report was prepared to reflect that and would be distributed to the Commission. He noted the basic content of the two documents was the same. Chair Grasser Horton then called for questions of staff. Commissioner Carson asked if computer simulations would be used. Planning Director Leiter said staff would be using computer phasing forecasts, and have already computerized the 12- to 18-month and the 5- to 7-year forecasts, so reports could be provided to the Commission and Council on a regular basis, showing the status of every project. Commissioner Carson, referring to page 7 in the Negative Declaration, regarding water, wanted to ensure that water facilities were provided in new development (like a Mello-Roos). She wanted to make certain there was adequate water supply. Minutes -9- February 13, 1991 Planning Director Leiter referred the Commissioners to page 3-69 of the Growth Management Program which recommended that a water conservation plan be required of all major new development projects which would address both the water needs of the project and then various conservation measures and supply measures that could be included within the project. Commissioner Fuller, as a member of the Growth Management Oversight Committee, suggested that a schedule of future meetings and threshold topics of the Growth Management Oversight Committee might be provided to the Commission for their information. She noted some of the concerns the Growth Management Oversight Committee had discussed. She stated that she felt this was a program that other cities would adopt. Referencing a letter received from Kate Shurson of the Chula Vista Elementary School District, Commissioner Fuller asked staff if the treatment of schools and the need for schools in the older areas of Chula Vista differs from the way it is being addressed in the Growth Management Program. Planning Director Leiter answered that the Growth Management Program and Ordinance as they are currently developed are primarily focused on the area east of 1-805. The Growth Management Program was geared toward transportation and the other threshold standards. Staff would recommend that we move forward through the Growth Management Oversight Committee's review this year, and ultimately through adoption of additional ordinances or other requirements to deal with the specific problems west of 1-805, since the needs are very different. For example, the financing of the school facilities west of 1-805 deals with small, individual in-fill projects. The methods of financing are different, and they present different problems. This program and ordinance focused on the area to the east, but staff recognized the need to come back to the Commission and Council at a later date with a program dealing specifically with the issues west of 1-805. Chair Grasser Horton referred to page 3-62 and 3-63 regarding the allocation program involving the Otay Water District. She asked how this would affect smaller developers. Would they still be guaranteed a certain number of units? Planning Director Leiter answered that the Otay Municipal Water District allocation program affects only new project east of 1-805, geared primarily toward the large-scale master planned communities. He noted the Sweetwater Authority would need to develop some type of program to respond to the stage 3 water alert which will affect the issuance of new permits or new water connections. Chair Grasser Horton asked if construction would stop if there was a mandatory cut-back of 31% and possibly 50% by summer. Minutes -10- February 13, 1991 Mr. Leiter answered that one of the considerations the Otay Water District was making as they move through the various stages of water alert was that at stage 5 they would prohibit the use of water for grading. The use of potable water from the District for grading operations would cease at stage 5. At that point, there would be a choice of reclaimed water or well water. There would be an effect on new development, although there were other projects already graded which would continue to move forward. Commissioner Decker commended the writers of the Growth Management Program on a well written document. Referring to page 6 of the Ordinance, he asked that a provision for life cycle analysis be added. Mr. Decker had previously given the Commission a copy of a memo concerning this which he read into the record and which is attached. He recommended the following be added to paragraph 21.09, the contents of the Public Facilities Finance Plan: "d. The plan shall include life cycle cost (LCC) projections for each element in 21.09(c) as they pertain to the City fiscal responsibility. The LCC projections shall be for 25 years from submission of the PFFP. The model used shall be able to identify an estimate of initial and recurring life cycle cost for the above elements." Mr. Decker pointed out that subsequent paragraphs may need to be amended to accommodate the concept of a life cycle projection. He asked if anything like this was considered? Consultant Phil Carter answered it had been anticipated that these types of costs would be included, but recommended that the Commission add the above paragraph to the ordinance, since it was better written and clarified what was meant by looking at the total cost of facilities. He suggested the number of years be left open. Commissioner Decker concurred. Commissioner Decker, referring again to the draft Ordinance, asked about the exclusion of government agencies from the growth management oversight, such as the Social Security Administration. Planning Director Leiter answered that the primary reason for that exclusion was that the facilities that would typically be built in the eastern territory by governmental agencies are facilities that would be constructed to meet the requirements of the threshold standards. Those facilities would have to meet all of the City's development standards and other requirements; however, it exempts them from some of the specific study and plan requirements of the Growth Management Program. Minutes -11- February 13, 1991 Commissioner Decker used a new university as an example of a government facility, and the exclusion of their having to present a plan. Mr. Leiter agreed that the exclusion may need to be narrowed down to relate to facilities that are needed that are related to new development, and larger scale facilities that would have a direct impact on growth possibly should be looked at along with others. Staff's focus was on the types of facilities that government normally builds to serve new development. Referring to page 4, paragraph 21.03(a), Commissioner Decker asked if the generic term "SPA" should be defined in the definitions. Planning Director Leiter concurred. He noted this section would become a part of the Municipal Code, which already contained a definition of the term "SPA." On page 6, paragraph 21.07(e), Commissioner Decker noted it was not stated who would receive the application first, the Planning Commission or the Council. Planning Director Leiter answered that "upon recommendation of the Planning Commission" could be added. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Kent Aden, representing EastLake Development Company, 900 Lane Avenue, Chula Vista, complimented staff on the excellent job on a very complex task. He concurred with Commissioner Fuller that this was a model that he thought other cities would adopt. EastLake Development Company concurred with many of the City's goals and supported the document in that regard. EastLake Development Company strongly believes in managed growth, improved air quality, water conservation and traffic management. Over five years ago they had pioneered the City's first public facilities financing plan with EastLake I. They also have a voluntary water conservation plan and support staff's efforts in that area. Mr. Aden requested that EastLake Business Center Phase II be included in the list of approved projects or projects that would be allowed to obtain a tentative map. He listed several reasons including traffic management (contra-flow traffic in that people are coming the opposite way out Telegraph Canyon Road to work at the EastLake Business Center), consistency with the City's air quality goals (to promote balance of jobs and housing, reducing the commuter miles traveled by providing those jobs adjacent to the housing), and provision of an additional tax revenue base for the City. He also noted the business center was consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, had an approved General Development Plan, and a Development Agreement. Minutes -12- February 13, 1991 Kim Kilkenny, Baldwin Company, 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, distributed an outline summary of comments particular sections of the program and the ordinance. He also complimented staff and the consultants on the preparation of a series of excellent documents that would serve as a model of a modern land use policy. Regarding the Growth Management Program, page 4-5, the draft document suggests that no additional tentative maps would be approved until a financing plan for SR-125 was adopted. Baldwin suggests that tentative maps be allowed to continue to be approved, that the issuance of the building permits connected with those tentative maps be conditioned such that they would have to comply with the threshold standards and the financing plan ultimately adopted. Mr. Kilkenny said it would be desirable to state the intent of the document, that "new development is responsible for solving its proportionate share of facility problems and is not responsible to remedy existing deficiencies." He asked that this statement be added to the ordinance. Mr. Kilkenny also asked that a statement to the effect that the payment of in lieu fees satisfies new development's obligation to provide their proportionate share of facilities. There would be some instances, for example, libraries, where the facilities would lag development because the policy in the City of Chula Vista is to develop large libraries. Fees would be paid for the construction of libraries, but the library itself, for some period of time, would not exactly meet the standard of 500 sq. ft. per thousand residents. The payment of the fee and the accruing of the revenues should satisfy the standard until such time that the library could actually be constructed. He said that kind of language about payment of fees satisfying the standard would be helpful to avoid conflict later on. Referring to page 5 of the ordinance, Section 21.07, Mr. Kilkenny noted that "facilities must be provided in advance of the phasing schedule." He said the tenor of the whole document was to provide them on time, and they didn't need to be provided in advance of the phasing schedule. Page 10 in the ordinance referred to language concerning the preparation of an air quality plan and water conservation plan. Mr. Kilkenny felt they were of little value until such time as the region had regulations on air quality. Mr. Kilkenny asked that on page 7, clarification was needed to the language that "development in an area will not reduce the existing facilities or improvements capabilities." There would be some instances where development would reduce a facility's capabilities, Minutes -13- February 13, 1991 possibly not beyond a threshold standard, but would reduce it. He thought that adding the phrase tying it to a threshold standard would make that sentence clearer. Lastly, on page 9, Mr. Kilkenny noted that a developer was responsible for maintenance and operation when they advance the facility. He suggested using "developer or benefitting party" because in some instances there would be an assessment district and it need not be the developer who advanced the maintenance and operation money, but rather an assessment district. Chair Grasser Horton asked if Planning Director Leiter would like to respond to the first item on page 4-5, referred to by Mr. Kilkenny. Planning Director Leiter emphasized it was an interim policy and related to the need to do a financing plan for an interim 125 facility. That would be expected to take between six months to a year to complete, and at that time staff would have a much better idea of what the financing requirements for that facility would be and what the relative share of responsibility of new development would be for that project. Until that's completed it would be premature to approve tentative maps because it would be uncertain as to what the financing implications or the financial impacts of that facility would be on each tentative map. After a tentative map is approved, the ability to place certain types of conditions or requirements on that project is restricted. It doesn't preclude processing of SPA plans or preliminary review of tentative maps, but staff would recommend that actually approving additional tentative maps not be done until the financing plan is completed. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Martin stated he had not had time to review all of the documents regarding this issue, so he was abstaining from voting. Commissioner Carson asked staff to comment on the comments from Baldwin regarding the recommendations they had made. Phil Carter, Willdan Associates, said he would start with the ordinance and follow the same order that Mr. Kilkenny presented. Mr. Carter concurred in the recommendation that new development was responsible for satisfying its proportionate share of the facility deficiency and should not be compelled to remedy deficiencies not caused by the proposed development. The City of Chula Vista cannot require a new developer to pay for a past deficiency of a facility. There are a number of items within the plan that specify if a developer chooses to move ahead of the City's schedule and pays more than their fair share, or their proportionate share, how they Minutes -14- February 13, 1991 will be reimbursed over time. Mr. Carter noted there were a number of issues through the ordinance and also through the finance policies that ensure that no developer will pay more than their proportionate share. Regarding the payment of fees satisfying the development's obligation to provide its proportionate share of the facility deficiency, it needs to be pointed out that the collection of development impact fees happens at a slower pace than the demand for facilities. On a truly fee-based program, the collection of fees does not assure compliance with the threshold standards. The goal of the program is to assure compliance with the threshold standards. This would not allow that to happen. On page 5, Mr. Carter clarified that if the development is not consistent with the phasing policy of a master plan, then the developer is required to show how those facilities will be provided in advance. It is not saying that they have to be provided before the master plan would have required them. It is saying if the project projects a need for a facility that wasn't included in the master plan on that same schedule, then the developer is required to provide that facility. It is not intended that a developer would provide facilities ahead of need. It basically says that if they are not consistent with the phasing of the master plan, then they have to do something. On page 10, Mr. Carter reiterated that Chula Vista is a leader in growth management. In order to be a leader, additional challenges like air quality plans need to be taken on. Although the City can't tell today exactly what that plan is going to look like or consist of, it is important to keep that on the forefront of the planning and to provide the best air quality planning as the projects go forward. Mr. Carter didn't recommend taking that out of the program, because it allows the City to be ready so that when those regional policies and guidelines are put in place, the mechanism is already here. Regarding page 7, "development in an area will not reduce the existing facilities or improvements capabilities," the purpose of this section was to ensure there is no timing issue, to ensure that as each project is approved, it is conditioned to provide all of its facilities needed to meet its impacts. The timing issue of when those will be needed will be determined through the SPA process. Page 9, maintenance and operation costs, the program recommends that if property owners/developers wish to move ahead of the City's schedule; for example, a park facility, if the City had planned to build a park in 1995 but the developer needed that park to meet the threshold standard in 1993, it should not be the City's obligation Minutes -15- February 13, 1991 to pay for the operating cost of two additional years. It should be the responsibility of the property owner who is creating that need. All the benefitting property owners who would be serviced by the facility financing plans should pay their fair share. That would mean if the Baldwin Company provided additional park capacity which would allow other developers to move forward, they should also share in the burden of those operating costs. Mr. Carter stated the intent of this was to ensure that the City's resources and finances weren't stretched when the City was not ready to bring those items on line. The goal was to ensure that those who create the need for the facility actually pay their full costs. Chair Grasser Horton asked Mr. Leiter to respond to Mr. Aden's concerns. Mr. Leiter said that, with regard to the issue of the interim phasing policy and a specific set of projects were analyzed which already had the level of approval of a SPA plan and a General Development Plan. Staff was able to determine that set of projects could be accommodated without the construction of 125. To add additional projects would go back to the earlier point of not really having an implementation program for 125. While there are merits to be considered for any additional projects outside of the ones listed, Mr. Leiter believed staff's preference would be to recommend that the policy be carried forward as written, but with the assurance that the City and the development community could work together over the next several months to analyze the financing issues for 125 and try to come up with that program in a timely manner and then allow the approval of additional maps to go forward at that point. Commissioner Casillas asked what could be done prior to development of the regional air quality plan? Planning Director Leiter explained that staff had been working with the McMillin Company specifically on an air quality improvement plan for Rancho del ney's SPA III. As to what could be done without regional standards being adopted, the air quality impacts of a particular project could be analyzed and quantified, and measures could be identified and considered which would reduce air quality impacts. A particular set of measures could be recommended to be included in a project and the improvements made in air quality quantified. The only thing lacking was a specific final numerical standard for how low we want to get. That would be coming out of the regional plan. By doing certain things, the air quality impact would be improved, which would be a valid plan at this point. Minutes -16- February 13, 1991 Commissioner Casillas asked for clarification of the recommendation to include it at the Sectional Planning Area stage? Mr. Leiter stated it was being recommended that an air quality improvement plan be prepared for a master planned community as part of the SPA plan and to be approved by the Planning Commission and the Council. Commissioner Fuller asked if over the next few months staff would be working with the developer and others on the SR 125 financing and if this might then come before the Planning Commission again? Mr. Leiter answered that the RFP for the financing plan studies for 125 would be issued within the next several weeks, and then a consultant would work with City staff and the development community to do that financing plan. Once that is completed and adopted by the City Council, this interim phasing policy would be met. At that point the applicants could move forward with their tentative maps. Commissioner Fuller asked what would happen to the EastLake Business Center in the interim? Mr. Leiter replied that Phase I had already been approved and they were already moving forward on that. They could also move forward on the SPA Plan work and the tentative map design work for Phase II. The restriction is recommended to apply at the approval of a tentative map. Staff does not foresee that taking any more than a year, and is not aware that it would significantly delay any of the projects that are currently underway. MSUC (Decker/Carson) 5-0-1 (Commissioner Martin abstained; Commissioner Tugenberg absent) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-20. MSUC (Decker/Fuller) 5-0-1 (Commissioner Martin abstained; Commissioner Tugenberg absent) to adopt the proposed Growth Management Program and Implementation Ordinance, as amended. ITEM 5: REPORT: AMENDMENT #1 TO THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY PLAN City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman presented the first amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, which proposed to add eight parcels to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan for the purpose of developing an efficient and coterminus project in the vicinity of Broadway and Palomar Avenue. He noted that the Commission was Minutes -17- February 13, 1991 being asked to adopt a resolution which approved the amendment, the area being added to the plan, and authorizing the further processing of the amendment. Commissioner Fuller noted this area included single-family homes, and asked if there had been any concern by residents. Carlos Flores, consultant to the Redevelopment Agency, answered that there were four single-family homes on the parcels which would be added to the commercial development. The developer had contacted the various property owners to make offers for their property. The preliminary plan before the Commission would set the boundaries, and the notification process of a proposed development would begin. Commissioner Carson asked what the Montgomery Planning Committee decision was at the February 6 meeting. Mr. Flores replied that the Montgomery Planning Committee's recommendation was to approve the preliminary plan for the amendment. They had some concerns about providing access to the back side of the development, as well as to make sure that the earlier City Council to the developer regarding the uses in the development would have some use-serving types of activities. They wanted to underscore that as a recommendation, as well. He clarified that the plan before them involved the amendment of the Redevelopment Project Area. It could go forward independent of any development actually taking place on those parcels. He wanted to make a distinction between the development plan and the redevelopment plan amendment. Commissioner Carson noted it was her understanding the Montgomery Planning Committee was talking about the preliminary plan and didn't have to adopt a resolution. They were thinking in terms of previous discussions regarding that property before the Southwest Redevelopment Area was established. The redevelopment plan amendment was to augment the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area in total with this extra parcel. MSUC (Carson/Fuller) 6-0 (Commissioner Tugenberg absent) to adopt a resolution for the adoption of a Preliminary Plan, Southwest Redevelopment Amendment No. 1. OTHER BUSINESS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee welcomed new Commissioner Tom Martin to his first meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Lee asked the Commission to appoint a representative to the Beautification Committee, the first meeting being scheduled for the next week. Minutes -18- February 13. 1991 MSUC (Fuller/Carson) 6-0 recommending that Chair Grasser Horton serve on the Beautification Committee. Assistant Director Lee noted the Commission,s regular study session was to be held on February 20, and was a dinner meeting. Assistant Director Lee asked that the meeting of February 27 be canceled, because of projects being shifted. MSUC (Carson/Fuller) 6-0 to cancel the meeting of February 27, 1991. Chair Grasser Horton stated she would be absent March 13. Mr. Lee noted a notice had been received from the League of California Cities for the Planning Commissioners, Institute to be held March 20-22 in Monterey, and the Commission was budgeted for one Commissioner. Staff needed to know who was interested in going, so hotel reservations could be made. Commissioners Casillas, Martin, and Decker expressed interest. Assistant Planning Director Lee said staff would check the budget and try to accommodate those interested. COMMISSION COM~RNTS Chair Grasser Horton also welcomed Mr. Martin to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:40 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of February 20, 1991 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 Nancy ~pley,/ Secretary Planning Commission (PC2-13-91 .MI/q)