Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2001/04/116:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 11, 2001 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Chair Bob Thomas, Vice-Chair Kevin O'Neill, Commissioners John McCann, John Willett, Steve Castaneda, Russ Hall and Marco Cortez Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator Frank Rivera, Senior Civil Engineer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Thomas. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-00-58; Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and maintain a wire~ess telecommunication facility consisting of a 66-foot high light standard supporting nine antennas; and an associated equipment building at 4548 Sweetwater Road (Rohr Park) Environmental review is pending completion, therefore, staff is recommending public hearing be continued to May 23, 2001. MSC (Thomas/Willett) (7-0-0-0) to continue this item until the meeting of May 23, 2001. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Close of public review period for Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR 01-03) for Salt Creek Sewer Background Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator, stated that we are here for the close of the public review on the Salt Creek Sewer Draft Environmental impact Report. This is the first in a series of several EIRs that will be coming forward to the Commission over the next several months. They are unrelated, but they are the first EIRs that you have seen in awhile. As you are aware, CEQA requires a 45-day public review period. Unique to the City of Chula Vista's environmental review §uidelines, we require that the close of the public review period actual happen at a Planning Commission meeting at which time members of the public are invited to make oral comments as well as the Commission making their comments. All of those comments together with the written comments that we have will become the final EIR. So, tonight we will be asking you first to receive any comments from the public, to make any comments to the document that you have to make. We will not be addressing those comments this evening, though, because they will all become pad of the final document, which will contain all the Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - April 11, 2001 comments along with answers. The final document will then come back to you for recommendation on its certification. What I would like to do at this point is have Frank Rivera from our Engineering Department give you a very brief overview of the project. I'm sure that you will recall that we were back here a couple of months ago, and we gave you a full description of the project, and today we just want to give you a brief reminder and then ask you to open the public hearing for the public review. I do want to let you know that this project uniquely has been open more than 45 days. Public review should have closed about two weeks ago, but we were asked for two separate continuances by one of the environmental groups, and we did grant that and tell them that we would bring it back to Planning Commission a couple weeks later. So this document has been open for public review well over 45 days. We have received comments from the Sierra Club, The Audubon Society, some agencies. Although we have not received, so far, from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish & Game, I expect that, since we have not received them to date that we will not receive them. So with that, let me turn it over to Frank Rivera to give you a little overview of the project. Mr. Frank Rivera, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the project is a proposed underground, polyvinyl ch Ioride sewer pipeline, 18-42 inches in diameter designed to convey flows from plan mix-use development in eastern Chula Vista to the City of San Diego's Metro interceptor sewer, which is located west of I-5 near Bay Boulevard. This staff-recommended alignment alternative follows the conceptual alignment identified in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan beginning at the northeastern corner of the Otay Ranch near Olympic Parkway in eastern Chula Vista, south along Salt Creek, west along the Otay River and continuing west within Main Street before connecting to an existing San Diego Metropolitan wastewater metro interceptor facility west of I-5. The project description also includes discussion of two policy options for the northerly portions of the staff-recommended alJgnment. Policy Option 1 is the alignment associated with the gravity sewer design in this area. EngJneering constraints related to gravity flow of sewage in this area result in placement of the alignment within areas of sensitive habitat. To address concerns related to impacts to sensitive habitats Policy Option 2 has been proposed. Policy Option 2 involves pumping of sewage and placement of the pipeline outside of sensitive areas. And that is in the upper portion of the exhibit, and you can see itthere- Reach 3 and 4. For purposes of description of the EIR, the project has been divided into nine Reaches or Segments for the Salt Creek interceptor and the Wolf Canyon Reach. Reaches 1 through 9 for Salt Creek and the Wolf Canyon which intercepts Salt Creek at Reach 8A and 8B. Each of these Reaches except for Reaches 1 and 2, which has already been constructed or are being constructed in conjunction with other approved development projects are analyzed in the EIR. However, actual construction phasing may differ from the Reaches described in the EiR. Generally, construction is anticipated to begin in the west end where the Metro connection is at Bay Boulevard, progressed east on Main Street until we get beyond 1-805 and, ultJmately, to where the Main Street turns south and then connects to the Wolf Canyon, and so the first phase is generally going to be from Bay Boulevard to just about 1-805, and then the other phases will follow subsequently to the that. That concludes my presentation. Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - April 11, 2001 Commission Discussion Commissioner Willett indicated that, within the EIR, it makes reference to the line going on the slope of the Otay River Valley on the north side. My question is on 3.9.3 of one of your sheets and on 3.3-9 - How far below the level of where your map and Engineering shows that Otay Valley Road is going to go at some point in time? How far is that line going to go from the top of that on the slope? The mason I'm asking the questions, staff, is that originally I was under the impression that one of your that it was going to be on almost the same level where the road would go on that first plateau. But, then, in a write-up it says on the slope. Mr. Rivera stated that, within the existing paved portion of Main Street, it's within the roadway section. Now, to the east, them is an existing disturbed trail. It will be in that ama. On the aerial photo you can see where the project alignment has been superimposed on it in certain areas because the roadway or that trail has sharp bends to it. The pipeline straightens out in that area. And so to that extent, I don't have an exact answer for you. B ut the general align ment is to follow that trail all the way east and then up north. Commissioner Willett: So it will be the same level as the road that goes to the Rock Mountain Quarry then is what you are saying? Mr. Rivera: Yes. It will be underneath that at about 10-12 feet, if that's what the question is. Under that roadway, yes. Commissioner Willett: And extends east about the same distance. Mr. Rivera: Yes. Commissioner Willett: The second question that I have is on where that one segment of the sewer line that is south of the Auto Park - How does that get back up to the sewer line? Is there another pumping station going in there? Mr. Rivera: Them is an existing pump station that serves the Auto Park. That segment of the project will connect to an existing City of San Diego facility. Today, them is a pump station them that pumps it to an existing sewer line under Main Street. Commissioner Willett: All right, the same question then, will it go down to the end of Rios, Palm and Date? Mr. Rivera: That is the Date/Faivre line. That's a separate sewer line. There is one City of San Diego facility that parallels this project to the south and another City of Chula Vista sewer line in that area, also. Commissioner Willett: I know. That was not clear in here although I do know it was a separate Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - April 11, 2001 line going all the way down. Ms. Ponseggi: We can certainly provide that clarification in the final EIR. Commissioner Willett: I would like to add another one that's the same way. Where your line follows Main Street all the way down to I-5, just south of that, which is Faivre Street where the other San Diego sewer Ii ne goes under I-5 and then comes back up and then it's going to connect about the Salt Plant? It's not shown in this drawing. Mr. Rivera: Right. That's an existing San Diego Fine and existing City of Chula Vista Date/Faivre line. There are two sewers in that area. Commissioner O'Neill: I have a series of questions regarding the option to pump and Option 1 gravity feed. How long is that segment? Mr. Rivera: From the upper end of Reach 3 to the bottom is probably close to a mile and a half to 2 miles. Commissioner O'Neill: Okay. Then the decision on that particular route has yet to be made? Ms. Ponseggi: The reason that the EIR addresses them as two policy options and analysis them at a full project level is in order to give the City Council the final decision as to whether or not there should be a gravity line sewer through the canyon or the pump sewer that is out of the canyon. And so that is to give them the option of being able to take the sewer out of the canyon. Even though the sewer is contemplated in the MSCP, those portions of it that run through the preserve, we have gotten considerable comment both before the preparation of the EIR and during the comment period requesting that the City not put the sewer in a canyon. And so the reason that the two policy options were included in the EIR was to give the City Council the opportunity to look at the issue of either 'in canyon' or 'out of canyon' sewer and to make that policy decision as to which one they should go with. Commissioner O'Neill: Okay. I guess my observation then is that there is no moving parts in a gravity sewer system. Well, that's not exactly true, but we won't get into that. And the cost of putting it in the canyon and then actually restoring the canyon as opposed to the energy costs of the pumps and the maintenance of that, I th ink you want to look at very closely because none of that out there is pristine. I mean it's all been grazed. Let's try and do the sensible thing and do the right thing and it may actually work out better for everybody simply to restore it even more true to what it should be and maintain a gravity flow. Commissioner McCann: So you are actually going to be digging up part of Main Street to lay the pipe. How far along Main Street will that go where we need to dig up Main Street? Mr. Rivera: The width of the trench? Commissioner McCann: No, the actual length. How many miles down Main Street? Mr. Rivera: It's about 3 miles between 805 and I-5 and about another mile and a half to 2 miles Planning Commission Minutes - $ - April 11, 2001 east to where the turn is for the amphitheatre. Commissioner McCann: And all of that is actually going to be on the pavement. So we are going to have to dig up the pavement through the whole portion there. Mr. Rivera.' That's correct. Commissioner McCann: Looking at what's happening on Telegraph Canyon Road where they are laying a pipe and it was suppose to be done several months ago and it's continuing and we have rush hour traffic of three lanes going down to one lane, do we have any plan or how can we address minimizing the traffic impacts? Mr. Rivera: Currently, we are working on this contract specifications for this project, and that is an issue that we are looking at as to how that construction is going to be phased. The width of the trench is going to be about 8-10 feet and so that's about one lane. The lane is typically 12 feet wide, so depending where the pipeline is in relationship to the lane lines that will dictate the traffic control for that area. But that is something that we are currently working on to address. Commissioner McCann: And then the last question I have. When we are done laying the pipe, are we going to then just sort of patch over the road or can we get it where we are going to actually resurface the road. I mean you drive down Main Street, and it's like Mr. Toad's wild ride right now because there are so many potholes. It would be nice that if we are going to be digging up the street, we could be able to go and resurface as much as possible. Mr. Rivera: The pavement condition on Main Street is going to be done two different ways. From Broadway west, the resurfacing will be in the trench area since the pavement is relatively new in that area. East of Broadway, all the way through the pipe alignment to about 805, that entire section of Main Street....everything from edge of pavement to edge of pavement will be redone. Commissioner McCann: Okay. That's good to hear. Commissioner Castaneda: Which begs a question. I appreciate Commissioner McCan raising the issue of Main Street. There is already a sewer line, I suspect, in Main Street that services the businesses along there? Mr. Rivera: Yes. The existing sewer has the laterals that connect to properties along that now. Commissioner Castaneda: In terms of the relative age of that sewer I Jne....and it gets back to the point that Commissioner McCan talking about. It seems like we are going to go ahead and dig up Main Street and probably th is will happen along about the time EIton John or somebody else will come to Coors Amphitheatre and create a major problem. But, shall I say west of 805, Js there a situation where we will dig up Main Street to install this interceptor and then have to again in the next 2-5 years dig it up again to either maintain or to expand the sewer that is already in Main Street because we are expecting a lot more growth on Main Street? And I'm not quite sure what the capacity the existing line there is anticipated with some of the projects not only that are kind of on the books this Commission has already looked at, but some of the others that we are hoping to bring forward as we kind of promote economic development along Main Street? So I would Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - April 11, 2001 like to know if there has been any thought in those areas. Mr. Rivera: What this project is proposing to do is where Reach 9b and Reach 9a begins at that point where the Poggi Canyon sewer is, there is a sewer line at that point that is providing sewer service for the homes north and east of that area. That currently flows in the sewer line that parallels Main Street (the Date/Faivre line) and that's the one that's nearing capacity. And so with this project, Reach 9b, when that's constructed, then the Poggi Canyon sewer will be connected to Salt Creek relieving the Date/Faivre line and providing additional capacity. Commissioner Castaneda: So in other words this particular interceptor will in fact add capacity to refresh the line that serves those areas. Mr. Rivera: That's correct. The sewer lines to the west. Commissioner Cortez: I would like to jump on the bandwagon that Commissioner McCan and Commissioner Castaneda brought up. With respect to the improvements that are going to be made in light of the new street they are going to be putting over once the construction is done, is this going to be working in conjunction with Community Development as far as the aesthetics that are going to be put in place like more trees and signs as far as identifying certain businesses along Main Street? Mr. Rivera: No. The project description is the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer and part of this project there is some asphalt work that has to be done, but there is also then the reconstruction from Main Street that's going to be done. That is it. It's just the redoing of the pavement. There is no enhancements of curb, gutters, signing, lighting any of that that will be added with this project. Commissioner Cortez: It strikes me that it would behoove us as a City to do that in conjunction. If we are going to tear up that road, do it all at once rather than have to come back and do it piecemeal. That's just the question I have. I suspect there am others. In the community, I want to know....is there a coordinated effort by the City to do th is other than to do the hodge-podge that we have been seeing in the last couple of years? Ms. Ponseggi: That is certainly something that, now that you have raised, will be in the final EIR. We will prepare a response to that and take it back to the Engineering Department for them to look at and Community Development to look to see if there is anything else that can be done in conjunction with this project that is going forward now. Commissioner Cortez: Because, if I recall, Broadway had its fair share of improvements in the last couple of years, and it looks great and that Main Street wasn't too far off. Now that we are at th is juncture, I would tike to just at the very least raise that question. Chair Thomas: I would like to jump on the bandwagon too. What I would like to see in the final EIR would be as much time spent on the future, that is repairing this area as it is today so that we don't get into the situation where within 1 or 2 years we are digging up the street because there wasn't enough foresight or vision put in the project. So I think we need almost as much coordination with Community Development and almost a whole section of the future of this project besides taking care. Right now this looks great, but it doesn't talk about the future and it Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - April 11, 2001 doesn't talk about the buildup. I'm not comfortable with, "Yea, it would take increased capacity". I'm not sure what that means. I'm not saying negative or positive. I think ali of us probably want to know at build-out, where is your plan for expansion. How is this going to address the future so that there is no reason, in my mind, that we have an Engineering Department and the skill of the City that can't almost guarantee that with the land that is available and the zoning and the possible rezonings that we shouldn't have those streets sitting there for 15 or 20 years that shouldn't even be touched after the completion. So I would like to see a little more in the EIR equal time spent on the future and what we are doing so that you will not dig up the road. Ms. Ponseggi: Certainly in the final EIR what we can do is to include lengthier discussion as to how the capacity was determined; the numbers that went. There was a study that was done to determine what the capacity should be. The EIR references back to that study, and we can certainly include more information from that study in the final EIR as a response to your comments to show exactly what the capacity for that line is and what it's anticipated it will be able to serve. Chair Thomas: Now, have you done any coordination with any of the other agencies? Ms. Ponseggi: There has been extensive coordination with other agencies. Chair Thomas: Because you know we don't want to have Cox Communications come in next year and try to dig it up again. You see what I'm saying? To have everyone come in on the same general plan so that they don't come in and dig it up or whoever else. Mr. Rivera: Right. We have monthly meetings with all the different utility companies. They have been forwarded a set of the preliminary plan, and we have received comments from them. They are aware of the project. In fact, we are meeting with them this week, again. And so we have had a continuous input from all the different utility companies. Chair Thomas: And then I would suggest that when we get to the point in the final draft EIR that they include letters from all these agencies that actually gives definitive like: yes, we have done future planning; yes, we have done this and have that part so if something happens down the road we could really go back and even charge those people in order to redo our streets because all these piecemeal streets look terrible with the knowledge that we have to make this stuff happen. Ms. Ponseggi: We can certainly look in to what extent we can put those kinds of letters in the EIR. It's important to remember that the letters in the EIR are commenting on the content of the EIR, and that's mandated by CEQA. And those letters are required to be in the document. To the extent that we can add additional letters that are not commenting on it, I would have to go back and research the law. I don't know that we can do that. That certainly does not keep us from making any letters that we have to that extent par~ of the record when you consider the project. Chair Thomas: Yeah, the attorney can tell us. But I think if we just had it at record that: 1) we are putting in the street today and all of the agencies have all got together, and our expertise tell us this street is going to be staying here for 10 or 15 years and nobody is going to be able to touch it. I think that's kind of what we are looking for. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - April 11, 2001 Commissioner O'Neill: We are ranging a little bit afield from what we can expect out of an EIR. I think part of it arises out of our frustration with probably Otay is the more problematic one in the City right now. But, it makes a good point. SDG&E and their under-grounding program, Ithink, is going to be addressing Main Street or certain segments of it upcoming are they not? Mr. Rivera: I don't believe that there is an under-grounding district for Main Street at this near- term. Commissioner O'Neill: Well, the point I'd like to make is that they have not met their obligations in 2000 and there seems to be no hope of them making their obligations in 2001. And under our franchise agreement, we can cause these people to pay full dollar to repair it to our specifications and not simply take the little trench that so many of them are fond of doing that sinks 2 years later. Again, we will leave it at that because we are going afield. But I think on another meeting, we can address this and we can hold the toes to the fire more firmly. Chair Thomas: Has any planned redesign for new pipe or reconnecting that the pipes are moved closer to the sidewalk? Why couldn't a sidewalk be taken out versus let's say 'H' Street.... Why couldn't at the inception, why couldn't that pipe be put over where 8 feet of the sidewalk is taken out and leave the street? Mr. Rivera: Typically in that area what we will have is the dry utilities (telephone, cable TV) because they have their pedestals along the back of the sidewalk. So their trenches are along the bike lane or the parking area and then swinging back behind the sidewalk and then to their pedestals and then coming back out. So, those utilities are typically there. The sewer generally is the center of the street, and then we have gas, water, storm drain all having to keep certain minimum distances of separation between each facility. And so, generally, that's the way that goes. Chair Thomas: But the work 'general' looks like that's how we did it for 50 years and, therefore, we can't change. What I'm saying is that I think that everybody is aware of the poor streets we have. And it seems like we could redesign that structure to make.... It just seems like somebody ought to be able to put a plan together and maybe re-look at it and look what's happening with all these streets to see if we can't come up with a better way. Commissioner Willett: Knowing some that Engineering has for long-range plans for resuffacing that Main Street, I would like to recommend there be a separate briefing to the Commission for the long-range plans that Engineering has for Main Street, which actually starts at Hollister and going east, and that would clear up a lot of that confusion because the CiW is already taxing some of those large companies. And that resurfacing and repairing of the street, the way I understood it, goes all the way west from Hollister, east to the street beyond Third Avenue. I know that in the long-range budget, it's in there. And I think it would be appropriate to give the Commissioners a full view of the plan that Engineering is coming about so then they can see where the overlay of this sewer line is going in and also describe the re-alignment of some of the cables that went underneath the sidewalks. Ms. Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director: Commissioner Willett, I know that at your last Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - April 11, 2001 meeting, I think, you all raised some concerns about what the City was doing particularly in the west side of town in terms of street resurfacing. I've spoken with Commissioner Hall about that as well I will be meeting with Cliff Swanson, the City Engineering, and we will put together a .... Actually it will be their program that they provide to you on what their street resurfacing and reconstruction plans are. Actually your timing is pretty good because right now we are working on our capital improvement budget, which will be going to City Council in May. So they can give you a pretty good idea of where things are heading. So we'll put that on. Commissioner Castaneda: Just getting back to the other end of the pipe, if you will. I see here in the Appendices to the document that you have got a letter from the City of San Diego. I find it kind of interesting based on the performance of the City or lack thereof in terms of monitoring and taking care of sewage spills. They seem to be very concerned about the potential for overflows, leaks and other things. If, in fact, there is a decision made to use the canyon, I suspect that we will have safeguards, monitoring systems and other things of that nature. Once, obviously, the pipe is laid and revegetated and the habitat is restored and down the line we have a problem in terms of a leak or something like that, we will be able to detect that and, hopefully, perform a little bit better in terms of responding to those problems. Ms. Ponseggi: Certainly that has been extensively discussed by staff. We are well aware of the problems the City of San Diego is having. It's impottant to note that the City of San Diego system is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 years old. The pipe materials that were used at that time .... Commissioner Castaneda: Their voice mail system is only 2 years old. Ms. Ponseggi: The materials that we would use for this sewer are very different and much more durable. And we also have safeguards that have been engineering into it for just those types of reasons. So, we feel comfortable that it could go down the canyon without causing damage. Commissioner Castaneda: One of the things that Mr. Slessenger who runs the Metro Wastewater District for the City of San Diego talked about, monitoring systems that they installed, he called them "state-of-the-art" monitoring systems and alarms that sound off when there is a 25% differential in terms of the flows. I think the last spill that was publicized was in the 6-8% range. So, hopefully, our state-of-the-art will be a little bit more of a better state than theirs. Public Hearing Opened 6:40 Mr. Marvin Howell, 7544 Volclay Drive, San Diego, CA 92119: I'm here tonight on behalf of Hansen Aggregate to express a couple concerns we have. We are not opposed to the project, but we are concerned about continued access for our quarry operation, what was referred to as Rock Mountain) while the project is under construction. We are also concerned about making sure that the project is designed in such a way that our heavy equipment running over the top of the alignment and Reach 8a and 8b will not cause any damage to the system. I know you are familiar with the quarry, but what you may not know is that it's one of the more significant rock reserves in the County of San Diego. And, in fact, it provides overall for the County about 20% of the rock that is used for the production of concrete. So, a disruption of that supply would have significant impact on many projects some of which you may have in the works right now. Obviously, since Planning Commission Minutes - 10 - April 11, 2001 it's the only rock quarry in your area, it's going to have even a greater impact on projects here in the Otay Mesa area. So, we would like to work very closely with the City's engineer to make sure that these two concerns are addressed. I guess we would have hoped to have been involved in the process earlier on. Unfortunately, I think notices for the project were sent to the landowner. So we only recently heard from some of the members of the Commission that this project was in the works. We appreciate the heads up and the opportunity to talk to you tonight. One of the concerns we have about access is that along that stretch (8a and 8b) while that pipe is being laid, that access road is only 30 feet wide. So we are not sure how we are going to be able to maintain access through there. That's approximately a quarter of a mile. We brought some photos tonight that we will leave with you so that you can see the stretch that we are concerned about and you can see the difficulty we are going to have while it's under construction. So, I'm not sure what can be done, but we are anxious to work with the Engineering Department to figure something out. Chair Thomas: Do we have a plan to make contact with all the local businesses and kind of bring them into the loop a little bit for construction and teardown? Mr. Rivera: Yes. There will be a public outreach meeting that is going to be scheduled shortly with everybody along the corridor of the project. Mr. Gary McCall, 7217 Horner Street, San Diego, CA, representing Hansen Aggregate: Our basic concerns down there really for my part is just the ground pressu re problems with our heavy equipment mostly in the Reach 8a area is where most of our activity is at. That's about all I have to say. Chair Thomas: I got another question for staff. Is this obviously an opportunity to increase the type of road that is there when the road was designed, it may not have been designed for the type of traffic and the weight of the trucks. Is th is an opportunity to upgrade either the thickness or the base or the type of road to be able to take care of all the weight that now is coming down these roads? Mr. Rivera: Yes. And the structural section primarily west of 805 where that roadway is going to be reconstructed. That's the older piece of Main Street. East of 805 was done about 10 years ago. And so that middle section from Broadway to 805, it's a complete reconstruction down to the sub-base and so that has been taken into account. Chair Thomas: So they are taking care of upgrading it at the time. Mr. Rivera: Yes. It will have a thicker structural .... Public Hearing Closed 6:45 MSC (Thomas/Willett) (7-0-0-0) to close the 45-day public review period, which has been extended for two additional weeks and include any of the dates that you could put on there to give the background of the amount of time the extension and the availability of the public to come forward to make comments. Planning Commission Minutes - 11 - April 11, 2001 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Mr. Sandovah I just wanted to state that we do have a meeting next week, and it's a workshop. So, we will have dinner at 5:30. Chair Thomas: What is the workshop? Mr. Sandoval: It's on sewer and traffic issues. We are trying to give you an overview of what the City is doing in those regards since you will be seeing some major projects coming to you throughout the summer. Chair Thomas: The comment that I had about upgrading some of our applications or checklist to be able to provide the Council and the Planning Commission with mom information, more technology. Where are we with that, or am I suppose to be starting the ball off to give you some ideas or are you going to give us a checklist? Two weeks ago five of us went to a League of California City's Planning Institute up in Monterey where they talked about a lot of different planning issues. And one of the issues that we have been discussing among ourselves is with the advent of technology and PowerPoint and all this hi-tech stuff, that we am trying to figure out a way to increase the quality of the information that the City receives and to raise the standard because we don't think it's necessary to be able to have to make a decision on a one-dimensional drawing when you have PowerPoint and you can draw hills at 5 degrees. You know, we don't need to see stuff without any information. Now we can have pictures, simulations and all kinds of stuff, and we're thinking what can we add to increase the standards so that when somebody comes with a wireless antenna facility, we ought to be able to see a simulated picture to scale of all the trees, fence, the utility yard, power pole, all that to be able to make decisions. Vegetation at inception, vegetation at 5 years, at 10 years, to be able to help us make a lot better....just kinda raise the standards of what we want to see. Mr. Sandovah The thing we also have on your agenda is a discussion that you can have about the Planning Commissioners Institute and anything that your learned that you want to sham with your fellow Commissioners. If there is anything regarding technology that you want to bring up them that you heard of capabilities that you want us to look into, we can do that. That would be one comment. A second would be Louie Vignapiano from MIS has finally got all of the information together and we are going to be changing over the Council Chambers here to mom of a state-of-the-art presentation capability. What that includes is a situation where you can lay documents on a flat viewer and it will project up on the screen here. We will be able to do more with PowerPoint. And we can have him come at a futura date, too and explain what we will be able to do. And I guess the third thing. We did talk about having another workshop about just the thing you brought up as far as what you get as far as submittals and what improvements we have made based on comments the Commission has made the last 6 months. And we have a series of items that we am thinking would be beneficial to implement, but we wanted to run them by you first. We could put that on as a workshop item if you would like. Chair Thomas: Either we have too much for this workshop or can we combine it? Mr. Sandovah You have three big topics this time including an outside speaker. Chair Thomas: We have traffic and sewer. Planning Commission Minutes - 12 - April 11, 2001 Mr. Sandoval: And the representative from the reinvestment task force is going to be here to give a presentation. Chair Thomas: So when do you think we could have the.... I would prefer not to wait a whole lot a time for the second one. Mr. Sandoval: Next time we meet I can share with you the schedule that we have, but hopefully we will have a quorum this summer. You are having a lot of meetings already booked. So, you could maybe look at the dates we have available and give us some indication when you would like to see this come back based on workload. Chair Thomas: Okay. Could all the Commission on the workshop have the checklist of information required? Or how do we get the ball rolling? Mr. Sandoval: Well, what I was suggesting was if you had any ideas that you want to lay out there tech nologically-wise that you picked up at the Commission, you could do that next week. As far as the checklist, I was th inking we could bring that to you with a whole group of process improvements some of which we have already implemented and others that we wanted to see if you as a group were supportive of. And I think we would want to bring that afterwards at another date. Chair Thomas: Okay. So for the guys that were at the conference, come up with some ideas and have them written so that we can talk about it and we can hand it to them with a date on it and then we can get this thing rolling. It just seems crazy that we have to consider projects with a minimum amount of information. That's not good. In fact, it's dumb, and we want to get it fixed. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: Commissioner Castaneda: Just two things. I'm going to get back on my graffiti bandwagon again because it's still out there and doesn't seem to be getting cleaned up and it's all along Third and it seems to be getting worse. Anyway, that's enough of that. My real question is, the shopping center that we had the problem with a couple months ago at Orange and Third. Nothing has been done out there. They did, in fact.... We were told that center was shored up. The center stayed, at least the building that didn't fail, stayed open for another week before they went and shored up that building. You can kind of imagine the liability of not only the building owner but also the City was put into that. What hasn't been repaired, I'm just wondering if permits have been taken out or if we are requiring the building owner to go ahead and fix that building. My fear is that it's going to go by the way of most of the buildings on Third and in that area that it's just going to stay the way it is with tarps all over it. And then, also, kind of the shoring up structures that were built in the building that didn't fail whether or not there is any permanent repairs that are going to be done to that to make that building a little bit more presentable. So, if there is any update on what's going on with that, I think that that at the very least should be expedited and the building owner should be required to bring that building back up to standard. Mr. Sandoval: In reply. I know that our building official, Brad Remp, was out there the weekend that it happened, and he was out there at the time. The department did a lot of foren sic work the next week to determine what the failure was and what happened. They have a pretty good idea. And then they went in and looked at that other area, and my understanding is that it didn't even really need that much Planning Commission Minutes - 13 - April 11, 2001 beefing up, but they did it just to be double safe. So I know he has been on top of it. So we can find out from Brad what they are doing in terms of the repair to cosmetically take care of it. Commissioner Castaneda: Yeah, on the building that failed the repair is just a parapet back on it or what they are going to do. I don't know. It just needs to be brought back up to at least what it was intended to look like. The other one, all they did was put 4x4 posts all the way around it. I hope it's not planning to stay like that because that's obviously not the way it should look. That's my issue. Chair Thomas: Is that a possibility to give Commissioner Castaneda an update next Wednesday at the workshop, a little 5-minute deal? Mr. Sandovah What I'll do is talk to Brad tomorrow and find out what's going on and maybe hook him up with Steve and we will get an answer for him. Commissioner O'Neill: I went out and took a look at that the Sunday after the failure. The design is not great, but the one that did come down, I think, was probably due to chronic water intrusion in the parapet. That generally is going to give the owner a problem with their insurance carrier because they normally only will cover catastrophic failure and not a long insidious thing. But, the long and the short of it is Brad Remp had been out there, his people have been out there, they have taken a long look. He had already had the plans out on his desk, and we took a look at it. The method of attachment was a pretty dumb way to do it, but it's signed by the engineer, and that's the way it was built. I guess from our standpoint, we have to look at it from a level of code enforcement. As far as abating the nuisance because they were given a permit to have a complete building and it doesn't meet the Design Review criteria right now as it sits. Chair Thomas: Do you think it's moving along slow? Commissioner O'Neill: Well, I haven't looked at it now, but the problem may be a matter of that there is no insurance coverage right now to come in and step in quickly and take care of it, which means there may be a lender involved or they may also go to litigation. If memory serves it's right on the cusp of the 10-year statute as far as whether they can go back to the design in the building. So, anyway, he has his own little swamp full of alligators, the owner does. And Ithink from our standpoint, we want to be somewhat friendly toward business, but at the same time we want to abate the nuisance. Commissioner Castaneda: Yeah, we've got enough problems on Third Avenue. We need to make sure that at least something is put up there that will look somewhat presentable. ADJOURNMENT at 7:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission (J:\planning\Diana\04 11 01 PC Minutes.doc)