Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1985/10/09 Tape 265, Side 1 0-639 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, October 9, 1985 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Cannon, Commissioners Carson, Grasser, Green Guiles, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Cannon and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Cannon reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 25, 1985, as mailed with a correction on pg. 4, item 3 Commissioner Shipe's potential conflict of interest involved the applicant not the architect. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-83-2(B) - EL RANCHO DEL REY SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that at the time of its certification by both the Planning Commission and the City Council, EIR-83-2 and the Addendum addressed all appropriate environmental issues known on the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. However, subsequent surveys revealed significant new information pertaining to the biological resources on-site including the discovery of two State-designated endangered species of plants (San Diego Thornmint and Otay Tarweed). The supplemental EIR responds to potential impacts of the proposed project upon these two regionally significant endangered species. Mitigation measures outlined in Section F of the staff report have been incorporated into the text and the diagrams of the E1 Rancho Specific Plan. Staff recommends certification of the supplemental EIR. Planning Commission - 2 - October 9, 1985 Mr. Reid introduced Lee Jones, Senior Ecologist, from Michael Brandman Associates {preparers of the EIR), 3140 Red Hill Ave., Suite 200, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, to speak to the findings. Mr. Jones reviewed the mitigation measures recommended to preserve these species including realignment of the connector road to avoid the plant species (Otay Tarweed) found in the area, revegetation of any graded slopes with native perennials to inhibit weed growth, protection from human encroachment by establishment of designated trails, and provision of a small open space area within the estate category to accommodate the San Diego Thornmint. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid explained that although the Specific Plan Amendment would not return to the Planning Commission, the Commission had been empowered by the Council to review the public hearing on draft EIRs. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Green) to certify that this supplemental EIR (EIR-83-2(B)) has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EASTLAKE AREA R-12 (BRIDGEWATER COVE), CHULA VISTA TRACT 86-2, WITHIN THE EASTLAKE PLANNED COMMUNITY - MCKELLAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Commissioner Grasser stated she had a potential conflict of interest because of the relationship between her husband's law firm and EastLake. On the advice of the Assistant City Attorney, she remained on the dais but did not participate or vote on the matter of continuance of the item. Principal Planner Lee noted that the applicant had requested continuation of the item to the meeting of October 23, 1985, to enable the applicant and the City Traffic Engineer to resolve concerns about the access to the project which might result in modification to the tentative map. Chairman Cannon inquired if any member of the audience wished to address the subject of continuance; no one indicating a desire to speak, the Chairman asked for a motion from the Commission. MSC (Shipe/Guiles) - Grasser abstained - to continue the item to the meeting of October 23, 1985. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: (CONTINUED) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-84-11: REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A CHURCH AND DAY SCHOOL FACILITY AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF EAST "H" STREET AND BUENA VISTA WAY - PILGRIM LUTHERAN CHURCH Principal Planner Lee noted that a continuance of this item to the meeting of November 13, 1985 was requested to enable the applicant to supply additional information concerning potential acoustical effects of the project. He added that the applicant has submitted a separate letter indicating they are dropping the Junior High classes, thereby, reducing the size of the project. October 9, 1985 Plannin9 Commission - 3 - Chairman Cannon inquired if any member of the audience wished to address the subject of continuance; no one indicating a desire to speak, the Chairman asked for a motion from the Commission. MSUC (Guiles/Carson) to continue to the item to the meeting of November 13, 1985. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-86-6: REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A CHILD CARE FACILITY AT 176 OTAY LAKES ROAD, BETWEEN BONITA ROAD AND ALLEN SCHOOL LANE - KINDER-CARE LEARNING CENTERS, INC. Principal Planner Lee stated that the item is a request to construct a child care facility on 1.36 acres zoned multiple-family residential and located on the westerly side of Otay Lakes Road just to the north of the SDG&E substation at the corner of Allen School Lane and Otay Lakes Road. The facility would include an ll,500 square foot single-story building with 18,800 square feet of outdoor play area and 34 off-street parking spaces and would accommodate 204 children between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Fridays. The only area with a potential of being adversely impacted by noise or activity would be the two single-family homes directly to the west of the site, a distance of 95 feet and 120 feet respectively plus a 30-foot difference in elevation. The proposed building orientation {with parking and access from Otay Lakes Road) and the physical separation of play areas from these homes inhibit excessive noise impact and the acoustical analysis indicates the noise levels are within the City's standards. Space allocation exceeds that required by the State licensing agency and access and parking standards comply with City requirements. The present noise level at the site is 59.9 db{A) and the play activity would increase the ambient by .O1. Future traffic on Bonita Road would increase the noise factor to 61.3. In checking other municipalities, it was noted that most nursery schools are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and there is heavy reliance on State standards. The proposed project will have no more than 70 children outside at one time which equates to a play area of 270 square feet per child. Mr. Lee noted that the Design Review Committee continued consideration of the project in order to further define the building design. Staff recommends approval based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. Commissioner Tugenberg expressed concern about the difference between the number of students {60 per acre) recommended in the suggested draft private school standards (reviewed at 9/18/85 workshop) which would equate to 81.6 students as compared to the 204 proposed by the applicant on this acreage. In reply to Commissioner Cannon's question about interior space footage, Principal Planner Lee said that the applicant is providing 56 square feet per child or 50 percent over the State requirement. Planning Commission - 4 - October 9, 1985 Questions about the noise impact were answered by the Environmental Review Coordinator as follows: (1) The table on page 4 of the Acoustical Report gives the expected student noise as compared to the Criteria on City noise limits: (2) The Criteria on the south property line is shown as "undefined" because the readings are not taken on the property line and the receptor location is unknown; (3) The Acoustical Report concludes that the project will not provide exterior sound levels which will violate the limits imposed by the City Noise Ordinance. Replies to other questions raised by the Con~nission included: {1) A condition could be added which would make revocation of the permit possible in the event that noise at the property lines exceeded the limits imposed by the City Noise Ordinance, however, it would not be automatic but would return through the Commission; {2) The most critical change occurs at the south property line adjacent to the SDG&E substation which is an unoccupied site; (3) There are six child care facilities within an approximate 2-mile area; (4) Parents will not be leaving children by the curb but entering one of the two access points off Otay Road, parking and then taking the children into the Center and signing them in. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Norman Williams, Planning Consultant, 3404 Bonita Road, CV 92010, representing Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc., said in answer to some of the questions raised by the Acoustical Report that (1) the acoustician had wanted to show how he factored out some of the noise occasioned by the location of the school on a busy highway with construction work being done nearby. He explained that (referring to page 4) the road itself is 60 db(A) so basically it is masking the noise at the site or co-mingling with it; {2) The Noise Ordinance no longer stipulates that readings shall be taken at the property line but that the receiving land use shall receive no more than (a stipulated amount) of decibels; He pointed out that the nearest residential development backed up to Allen School Lane is llO feet away from the property line so, as there are no real receptors on that site, no mitigation measures have been provided; (3) The difference in the play noise of 74 db(A) at the south property line and 60 db(A) at the west property line is because the 60 db{A) is at the receiving land use which is 155 feet away; the centroid is 77 feet from the west property line and is located in the bark pit and is surrounded by jungle gyms and assorted play equipment. Mr. Williams said that Wayne Mason from Kinder-Care was present and avail able to answer any questions. Principal Planner Lee pointed out that the difference in elevation is about 25 feet between the project and the properties to the west, whereas on the south side the properties are closer to the same plane. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Guiles noted that problems in resolving complaints over sound levels may arise because of the use of an "A" weighted scale since the sound levels may meet the ordinance requirements with a small change in the decibel level but the frequencies are changed. October 9, 1985 Planning Commission - 5 - Commissioner Cannon commented that 60 students per acre were being considered in the suggested draft standards and that 204 students on 1.36 acres is a considerable stretching of the suggested standards. He considers interior classroom space more important than open space because outside play time can always be staggered. On being informed that State requirements for 1.36 acres would permit over 300 students, he said the number of students should be made a condition of the conditional use permit. MSUC (Tugenberg/Guiles) to find the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-85-22. MSUC(Tugenberg/Shipe) that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to approve the request, PCC-86-6, to construct a child care facility on 1.36 acres at 176 Otay Lakes Road subject to conditions "a", "b", and "c" with two additional conditions as follows: d. The student population shall not exceed 204. e. The applicant shall comply with the City Noise Ordinance and any failure will result in additional conditions or possible revocation of the conditional use permit. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Director of Planning Krempl reminded the Commission that: There will be a joint Planning Commission/Project Area Committee dinner workshop on October 16, 1985. Several conference handouts had been given to the Commissioners, and if anyone wished to attend any of them, to please inform the Secretary. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None ADJOURNMENT AT 7:47 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of October 16, 1985, with to Project Area Committee at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary WPC 2249P