Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2001/04/11(2) MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, April 11, 2001 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CAW 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 wireless 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 tonight is the close of the public review on the Salt Creek Sewer Draft Environmental Impact Report. CEQA requires a 45- day public review period. This project uniquely has been open more than 45 days. Public review should have closed about two weeks ago, but staff was asked for two separate continuances by one of the environmental groups, which staff did grant. The City of Chula Vista's environmental review guidelines 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 will become the final EIR. Staff will not be addressing those comments this evening because they will all become part of the final document, which will contain all the comments along with answers. The final document will then come back to the Planning Commission for recommendation on its certification. '_".'_"H_'_'~""' __m.__ ......_._.~~----- Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - April 11, 2001 Mr. Frank Rivera, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the project is a proposed underground, polyvinyl chloride 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 1-5 near 8ay Boulevard. Engineering 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. 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. Each of these Reaches except for Reaches 1 and 2, which have already been constructed or are being constructed in conjunction with other approved development projects, are analyzed in the EIR. Construction is anticipated to begin in the west end where the Metro connection is at Bay Boulevard, progress east on Main Street until it gets beyond 1-805 and, ultimately, to where Main Street turns south and then connects to the Wolf Canyon. Staff Recommendation: The alignment alternative that 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 1-5. 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. How far is that line going to go from the top of that on the slope? Mr. Rivera stated that there is an existing disturbed trail. The general alignment is to follow that trail all the way east and then up north. Commissioner Willett questioned the one segment of the sewer line that is south of the Auto Park. How does that get back up to the sewer line? Mr. Rivera indicated that there 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, there is a pump station there that pumps it to an existing sewer line under Main Street. Commissioner Willett asked if it would go down to the end of Rios, Palm and Date? That was not clear in the EIR. Mr. Rivera stated that is the Date/Faivre line, which is 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. Ms. Ponseggi indicated that clarification would be provided in the final EIR. Commissioner O'Neill asked how long is the option to pump and Option 1 gravity feed segment? Mr. Rivera stated that 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 asked if the decision on that particular route has yet to be made? Ms. Ponseggi indicated that the reason the two policy options were included in the EIR was to give -...-.- ----- --- '--..-.- .--.- Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - April 11, 2001 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 McCann asked how far along Main Street will that go where Main Street will need to be dug up? Mr. Rivera indicated that it is about 3 miles between 805 and 1-5 and about another mile and a half to 2 miles east to where the turn is for the amphitheatre. Commissioner McCann asked if there was a plan to address minimizing the traffic impacts? Mr. Rivera stated that is something staff is currently working on to address. Commissioner McCann asked, if after the pipe is finished being laid, is there going to be just sort of patch work over the road or will it actually be resurfaced? Mr. Rivera indicated that 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 will be redone from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. Commissioner Castaneda asked if there is a situation where Main Street west of 805 will be dug up to install this interceptor and then have to in the next 2-5 years dig it up again to either maintain or to expand the sewer that is already in Main Street? Has there has been any thought in those areas? Mr. Rivera stated that, with this project, when Reach 9b is constructed, the Poggi Canyon sewer will be connected to Salt Creek relieving the Date/Faivre line and providing additional capacity. Commissioner Cortez asked if 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 identifying certain businesses along Main Street? Mr. Rivera responded in the negative. There are no enhancements of curb, gutters, signing or lighting with this project. Commissioner Cortez stated that it would behoove the City to do that all at once ratherthan have to come back and do it piecemeal. Is there a coordinated effort by the City to do? Ms. Ponseggi stated that, now that it has been raised, it would be in the final EIR. Staff will prepare a response to that and take it back to the Engineering Department and Community Development forthem to look to see if there is anything else that can be done in conjunction with this project. Chair Thomas stated that he would like to see in the final EIR as much time spent on the future, that is repairing this area as it is today so that we do not get into the situation where within 1 or 2 years we are digging up the street because there was not enough foresight or vision put in the project. Right now this looks great, but it does not talk about the future and the buildup. Those streets should not be touched for 15 or 20 years after the completion. Ms. Ponseggi indicated that staff could include in the final EIR lengthier discussion as to how the capacity was determined. There was a study that was done to determine what the capacity should be. Chair Thomas asked if any coordination had been done with any of the other agencies? Ms. Ponseggi stated there has been extensive coordination with other agencies. Mr. Rivera stated that staff has monthly meetings with all the different utility companies, and they are aware of the -- -----'--_._--_."---~._._._-.. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - April 11, 2001 project. Chair Thomas suggested that when staff gets to the point in the final EIR that they include letters from all these agencies and have that as a part so if something happens down the road we could go back and charge those people in order to redo our streets. Ms. Ponseggi stated that staff can look in to what extentthose kinds of letters can be put in the EIR. It is important to remember that the letters in the EIR are commenting on the content of the EIR, which is mandated by CEQA. To the extent that we can add additional letters that are not commenting on it, she would have to research the law. That certainly does not keep staff from making any letters that they have to that extent part of the record when you consider the project. Chair Thomas wanted it stated as part of the record that 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. Commissioner O'Neill indicated that Otay Water District is the more problematic one in the City right now. They have not met their obligations in 2000 and there seems to be no hope of them making their obligations in 2001. And under the City's 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. Chair Thomas asked why couldn't a sidewalk be taken out versus the street? Mr. Rivera stated that the sewer is generally in the center of the street as is the gas, water and storm drain all having to keep certain minimum distances of separation between each facility. Chair Thomas thought it seemed like somebody ought to be able to put a plan together and maybe re-Iook at it and look what is happening with all these streets to see if we can't come up with a better way. Commissioner Willett recommend there be a separate briefing to the Commission for the long- range plans that Engineering has for Main Street. He thought it would be appropriate to give the Commissioners a full view of the plan that Engineering is coming about so the Commission could 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, indicated that City Engineering would be providing the Commissioner with their street resurfacing and reconstruction plans. Commissioner Castaneda noticed in the Appendices to the documentthatthere was a letterfrom the City of San Diego. He found it 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, 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 indicated that has been extensively discussed by staff. Staff is well aware of the problems the City of San Diego is having. Public Hearing Opened 6:40 Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - April 11, 2001 the Planning Commissioners Institute and anything that you learned that you want to share with your fellow Commissioners. b). Louie Vigna piano from MIS has finally got all the information together to change over the Counci I Chambers to more of a state-of-the-art presentation capability. He could come at a future date to explain what staff will be able to do. c) We did talk about having another workshop about what you get as far as submittals and what improvements have been made based on comments the Commission has made in the last 6 months. Staff has a series of items they are thinking would be beneficial to implement, but wanted to run them by the Commission first. Staff could put that on as a workshop item if the Commission would like. Chair Thomas stated that he would prefer not to wait too long for the second one. Mr. Sandoval indicated that the Commission could look at the dates available and give staff some indication when you would like to see this come back based on workload. Chair Thomas wanted to know how to get the ball rolling. Mr. Sandoval suggested that, if the Commissioners had any ideas to lie out technologically wise, they could do that next week. As far as the checklist, staff could bring that to the Commission with a group of process improvements some of which have already been implemented and others that staff wanted to see ifthe Commission as a group was supportive of. He thought that should be brought back afterwards at another date. Chair Thomas asked the Commissioners who were at the conference to come up with some ideas and have them written so that we can talk about it and we can hand it to staff with a date on it and then we can get this thing rolling. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: Commissioner Castaneda stated that the graffiti is still out there and does not seem to be getting cleaned up. It seems to be getting worse along Third Avenue. He asked if there was an update regarding the problem with the shopping center at Third Avenue and Orange Avenue. Mr. Sandoval indicated that Brad Remp (Assistant Building Director) has been on top of it. He would talk to Mr. Remp and find out what is going on and maybe hook him up with Commissioner Castaneda with an answer. ADJOURNMENT at 7:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of April 18,2001. Prepared by: Linda Bond Administrative Office Specialist U:\planning\Diana\04-1 1-01 Final PC Minutes.doc) - ,-..-.- ------_._._._._~- --