Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/07/13 Tape #: 292 Side 1: 0-1110 MINUTES City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, July 13, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Fuller, Cannon, Casillas, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Grasser (with notification) STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Associate Planner Griffin, Deputy City Attorney Fritscher, Senior Civil Engineering Daoust, General Plan Coordinator Grey, General Plan Consultant Wood PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Robert J. Giangreco, 1391 La Mancha Place, CV, 92010-7117, spoke in opposition to Bonita Vista Townhomes, a proposed development in the canyon between Telegraph Canyon Road and Buena Vista Way, and submitted a copy of his remarks to the Secretary for the record. He was informed by Principal Planner Lee that the applicant had filed a tentative subdivision map and precise plan and it was estimated that the project would be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration in approximately 2-1/2 months. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-88-8 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CANYON VIEW, CHULA VISTA TRACT 88-8 KELTON TITLE CORPORATION Associated Planner Griffin stated that the Planning Commission had approved an application for a rezoning of this property last December from R-1-H to R-1-H-P plus the majority of the precise plan. The site consists of +]1.4 Planning Commission -2- July 13, 1988 acres at the southwest and southeast corners of East "H" Street and Rutgers. The surrounding land uses consist primarily of single-family homes, Tiffany Park abuts the northwest portion of the site, and a proposed daycare center site is located to the north across East "H" Street. The project consists of 40 single-family attached units served by private streets with guest parking bays. There are 22 units in 11 structures on the west side and 18 units and 9 structures on the east side of Rutgers. The entire site is terraced. Most of the dwellings are split-level ranging in size from 1,950 to 2,500 square feet of living area plus an attached two-car garage. The majority of the dwellings straddle intermediate slopes and are located above East "H" Street and Rutgers and below the single-family homes. Using the overhead projector Planner Griffin showed the floor plans for the different units. The issues remaining from the earlier hearing are addressed by the tentative map and the revised precise plan. The individual private lots would range from +3,500 to 8,800 square feet. Most of the prominent interior slopes would be i~- common open space lots. The major slopes adjacent to East "H" and Rutgers would be included within an open space maintenance district. Staff further recommends that the slopes adjacent to lots 17 and 18 on the east side of Rutgers be within a common open space lot also as they are fairly prominent. Fencing for the rear of the lots would be a view fence consisting of low stucco walls with wrought iron on tops and sections with tree plantings between the units. The side yards would have solid fencing and the fencing between the structures would be a combination of open fencing and solid fencing. Staff is recommending that the frontage of the lots be a detailed landscape under the Homeowner's Association. The views of surrounding residents should be retained in the landscape concept. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bill Hedenkamp, 1331 India Street, San Diego, 92101, the architect, commented that there are four basic concepts in designing the project. To protect the views from the adjacent single-family residences the landscaping has addressed the tree height and density. The residences are being set down the hill to protect the views. The entrances have been moved to Rutgers up the hill and as far from "H" Street as possible. A major concern of the property owners was to preserve the views of the property. The applicant concurs with staff recommendations. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) 6-0, to recommend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Canyon View, Chula Vista Tract 88-8, subject to conditions 1 through 14.i contained in the staff report. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that this was one of the most attractive plans that had come before the Commission. Commissioners Carson and Cannon agreed. Planning Commission -3- July 13, 1988 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-88-56 - REQUEST TO ESTABLISH CHILD DAY CARE CENTER AT 275-280 BEECH AVENUE - THOMAS W. DELANEY AND DOUGLAS O. HAIGH, JR. Associate Planner Griffin indicated that the proposal is to convert two existing duplex dwellings at 275/277 and 279/281 Beech Avenue in the R-3 zone to a child day care center for approximately 30 two-year olds. This would represent an expansion of the adjoining Early Childhood Learning Center at 273 Beech Avenue. The rear structure would be just for day care. There would be 3,000 square feet of outside play area between the buildings and the existing center and at the rear of the site. The site plan shows three on-site parking places in the driveway and two off-site in front of the center. The hours of the day care center would be from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the arrivals and departures staggered to minimize noise. The total complement would be 64 children and 8 employees. Staff feels the proposal is a supportable expansion. To ensure adequate parking, employees should be required to use the off-street spaces. The Initial Study required establishment of sound walls along the rear of the property. Staff is also suggesting that the height of the wall along the rear property of the existing site be increased from 4 feet to 6 feet and a 6-foot sound wall be constructed along the portion of the northerly boundary coinciding with the play area. With these conditions, staff recommends approval. In response to Commissioner Shipe's question if any objections had been filed on this item, Planner Griffin replied there had not. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg remarked that he sat across from the front of the existing center from 7:40 to 8:00 a.m. and that parking did not seem to be any trouble. The noise level across the street was very high, however. MSUC (Shipe/Fuller) 6-0, that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-82. MSUC (Shipe/Fuller) 6-0, that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to approve the request, PCC-88-56, to establish a child day care center at 275-281 Beech Avenue subject to conditions "a" through "h" contained in the staff report. ~-- Planning Commission -4- July 13, 1988 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-O - CONSIDERATION TO PREZONE 1.11 ACRES ADJOINING THE EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER TO P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE - EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Associate Planner Griffin stated that the property is a triangular 1.11 acre piece abutting the northerly line of lots 13, 14, 15 and 44 within the EastLake Business Center. Approval of the request would prezone the property to P-C Planned Community subject to the Business Center Manufacturing District Regulations of the EastLake Plan. Following the prezoning the property could then be annexed and incorporated into those lots to increase their depth and usability. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and also the development regulations which apply to the lots to the south and staff recommends approval. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if Miller Drive on the east side of Boswell would be eliminated in order to put the four lots together. The reply was in the affirmative. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) (6-0) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-86. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) (6-0) to recommend that the City Council enact an ordinance to prezone 1.11 acres adjoining the EastLake Business Center to P-C Planned Community Zone (EastLake Business Center District B-2) as shown on Exhibit A attached to the staff report. OTHER BUSINESS: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: OPEN SPACE POLICIES REPORT Director of Planning Krempl introduced Bud Gray, General Plan Coordinator, and Gary Wood, P&D Technologies, and remarked that the item had been before the Commission twice at workshops. He referenced suggestions made regarding a break-point in the slope and additional density consideration as to the number of units allowed and that the Commission had directed staff to return with some hillside guidelines to ensure compatible development within the hillside area. Since that time, Staff has met with representatives of Buie, UNOCAL, CROSSROADS, City staff and the General Plan Consultant and has solicited examples of hillside development regulations, ordinances and guidelines from them and from other jurisdictions in the State and around the Country. Staff has also discussed the Buie property in terms of specific development proposals and how those hillside areas might be treated. The conclusion is a three-fold recommendation: Planning Commission -5- July 13, 1988 1. Allow no encroachment into open space designated as such on Scenario 4 of the Chula Vista General Plan. Staff feels that the open space designated on the General Plan should remain as such because it defines steep hillsides, canyons, transition areas, natural land forms and the total open space network planned in combination with the development areas and the residential development intensities that are already contemplated in the Plan. Staff recommends no additional change of the 1 du/lO acres density allowance within the open space designated lands to avoid inverse condemnation. Individuals with large ownerships would be encouraged to have those units transferred from the steep slope lands onto the developable portion of the property. This would only be in cases where the project was entirely surrounded by open space and would be developed at a very low density of 1 du/lO acres. That density is somewhat consistent with the initiatives on the ballot in November in both the City and County of San Diego and the sensitive lands initiative which is being studied as potential alternate measures. In sum, staff recommends (1) no encroachment into open space and (2) density transfer under limited circumstances at 1 du/lO acres. 2. The second part of the recommendation speaks to hillside design and development guidelines. In the Commission's packet, staff included a sample (for illustrative purposes only) of a development overlay ordinance used by the City of San Diego. Staff intends (after the implementation of the General Plan) to return with ordinances which would further define and carry out the intent of the General Plan and the hillside development guidelines. With these guidelines, staff believes key components regarding grading and how the hillside development should be treated have been covered and will indicate to people the City's intent in terms of hillside development. 3. Staff is recommending a modification to the General Plan which would add some 26 acres to the residential low 0-3 du/acre category to the southerly portion of Bonita Meadows property. One reason is in conformance with the Commission's request to allow hillside development property for hillside and estate-type housing. Designating the land within the Bonita Meadows property for low density would be more appropriate than tinkering with the General Plan policy which would have repercussions for other properties within the General Plan area. If, in the future, UNOCAL or another project within the General Plan area, were able to convince staff, the Commission and Council that it was appropriate to add more land into the general development category, staff would be willing to consider the idea subject to compliance with the hillside criteria, the ordinances, policies and related documents. That, however, would be viewed as a General Plan Amendment because the General Plan would already have been enacted and in place. Director Krempl continued that the change to the general development area is suggested because of a set of circumstances and the fact that Buie has done extensive work and made extraordinary progress in Planning Commission -6- July 13, 1988 modifying their proposal by reducing the density, preserving the natural land form of all four of the noses of land (their steep slope that defines the character of that property), and the development grading is following the contours and is essentially limited to the pad. In addition, the lot orientation, the treatment of open space, the grading, contouring and the entire development is far improved over where consideration began several months ago. The Director said he would like to credit both the land planners, the Buie Corporation and Estrada Land Planning who have worked on this proposal cooperatively with staff. Staff is very pleased with the progress made. Gary Wood, P&D Technologies, General Plan Consultant, stated that the draft Hillside Design Development Guidelines have been formed by information contained in many other guidelines collected from various sources and customized to the situation within Chula Vista. Its organization is based on a general policy statement with a series of guidelines by various categories. Mr. Wood made the distinction that what is being presented to the Commission falls into the category of guidelines consistent with what should be in a General Plan. He pointed out the difference between standards (which are much more specific) and guidelines which delineate the type of information and procedures desired by Chula Vista. In response to the Director's affirmative reply that the 0-3 density was according to the new description in the General Plan in which the target would be 1.5, Commissioner Tugenberg asked if it would not be easier to incorporate something of this nature into UNOCAL at the present time so that the open space is registered in the General Plan. The Director replied that the open space was already in Scenario IV as far as the UNOCAL property was concerned. At this juncture, without more definitive planning by UNOCAL, staff can do nothing further, and barring that information has taken what is considered to be the best position. This being the time and the place, the public hearing was opened for the hillside criteria discussion only. Will Hyde, 803 Vista Way, Chula Vista, representing CROSSROADS, spoke in support of Recommendations 1 and 2 for the open space policies for the General Plan. He strongly commended staff for the conclusions reached, the subsequent recommendations, and is a staunch supporter of designated open space remaining so unless it is processed for an amendment of a General Plan. With regard to Recommendation 3, Mr. Hyde commented that it seems that staff has said that the areas designated as open space should remain so unless a General Plan Amendment is pursued and then reverses itself by saying "except for this area shown on Attachment #2, which the Buie Corporation has recommended (that would normally fall in the open space category) should be permitted." Mr. Hyde declared a matter of principle was involved in that if a policy is established, it should be maintained except for the appropriate procedure to change it. He requested that consideration be given to taking no action on Recommendation #3 but permitting it to pass forward to the Council during Scenario IV as a part of the General Plan process. Planning Commission -7- July 13, 1988 Charles Gill, 600 B Street, Suite llO0, representing the Buie Corporation the proponents for Bonita Meadows, said that Tony Lettieri would follow and address some of the specific planning concerns presented in the staff report and as raised by Mr. Hyde. Mr. Gill expressed appreciation to staff and indicated concurrence with the recommendations both in the criteria developed and the proposal relating to the Bonita Meadows property. He maintained that the criteria developed was appropriate and stringent but would provide creative, innovative development on hillsides sensitive to a specific, unique environment. With reference to the 0-3 density, he asked if the target was not 2 du/acre as opposed to 1.5. Director Krempl affirmed the correction and then responded to Mr. Hyde's critique saying that not all of the property shown or being added in the 0-3 was over 25%. The upper portion was but the lower portion was not. Mr. Gill commented that not only on Buie's property but on others there are instances existing in the General Plan where areas in excess of 25% are not mandatorily placed within the open space designation. Such instances include 25% slopes that, because of isolated areas, are necessary either for development of the specific site or are not of a nature that is sensitive or of regional or local importance warranting protection. Tony Lettieri, 533 "F" Street, San Diego, passed out an llxl7 exhibit of the site, noting that it was of a generalized nature. He commented that staff's recommendation to take the lower portion of the property out of the open space designation not only responded to the issue of development within 25% slope but also to the open space designation. The area on the south side of the property is the area within 25% slope and, as shown on the exhibit, all of those significant land forms are being preserved. The design of the subdivision would be through non-standard lots to reduced grading and a proposed circulation system that conforms more to the natural topography than the exhibit presented at the last meeting. The circulation system meanders more because of the topographical limitations as well as the natural drainage courses. Buie proposed the design (and it has been supported by staff in concept) because of the need to provide more detail showing the relationship between the criteria and its actual application to this property. Additional design, grading detail and engineering will be completed and presented to the Commission at a tentative map and precise plan stage and problems with the criteria would evident at that time. Mr. Lettieri noted that staff has provided a technique {even through the General Plan Amendment process) to show that a good project could be developed within the open space designation. Mr. Lettieri contended that Buie is willing to modify the original recommendation regarding open space if they we can develop a project on the lower portion of that slope which conforms to the hillside criteria to the letter of the law. Specifically, there are 267 acres on Bonita Meadows, approximately 15 to 20 acres over 25% slope are shown as either street or lots. That is less than any of the requests Buie made regarding the 25% encroachment presented to the Commission before. Commissioner Tugenberg asked the anticipated size of the lots for these 52 homes. Mr. Lettieri said that the lots would be smaller than the original proposal to reduce grading and would probably be 72 to 100 feet in depth and 90 to 100 feet in width. Planning Commission -8- July 13, 1988 Tim Kruer, 2643 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, representing Sunbow, said he would like to limit his comments to Recommendation 2 and that they do not oppose the incorporation of a hillside design and development guidelines but support the concept. Sunbow feels, however, that the guidelines should be enacted into an hillside review overlay ordinance similar to that of the City of San Diego or other municipalities and not be included in the General Plan. He expressed concern about the comments on page 2 referring to slopes in excess of 15% since 25% has always been the number used. He stated it is important to recall in the development of the open space area that a substantial part in all of the eastern territories properties came from the 25% slope. In Sunbow's case, approximately 40% of the open space Iwhich is a total of 1/3 of the second phase) is less that 25% slope but is being given as open space. Their other concerns are related to the guidelines themselves specifically 2.33 which discusses that grading should be confined to a building pad and not extend to the entire lot. In concept, Sunbow agrees on large lots but it will be counter-effective in cases where clustering is desired because it will remove rear yards from the 6,000 and 7,000 foot lots to be built. Another concern involves 2.42 which discusses hazardous areas such as landslides, unstable soils and fault zones. He considers that in some cases these are mitigable without major grading and 2.42 would say, in effect, that many of these areas would not be developed within the hillside. The major concern is the 15% because the major part of the eastern territories is in 15% slopes or more and there is concern about the impacts that would have. Wayne Loftus, representing UNOCAL, said they had reviewed the standards for the hillside development and are concerned that the standards are cutting in at 15%. They are particularly concerned because if comments are limited to the developable portion of the property, the southerly portion (560 acres) will further limit UNOCAL's ability to achieve the dwelling unit opportunity last identified by staff. Many sites with soil conditions can be dealt with in an engineering and land-planning fashion and he was concerned that these are summarily excluded from the opportunity even though more open space is created. The last comment is regarding the process. His concern relates to a discrepancy in the process between the developers who have determined they are able to be pro-active with the project at this point in time (such as Buie) and the other developers who can't afford that. They will have to go through a General Plan Amendment at a later point in time which may very well be the coup de gras for that project. Mr. Loftus stated that in order to accomplish some equity, language must be developed to identify that opportunity for all the properties in the area without the requirement of a General Plan Amendment. Everyone would then have the same opportunity through a process (not a General Plan Amendment) to convince the Planning Commission and the City Council that there is merit to their project in dealing with the standards that staff proposes. Maybe another option would be that developers be given the opportunity between now and the time that hearings actually begin, to come forward with a plan and work with staff. Mr. Loftus concluded that it seems that the process so far has been inequitable because those that have been able to be very pro-active have benefited from it more than developers who wanted to see some conclusion to the process before they proceed. Planning Commission -9- July 13, 1988 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg referenced page 2 and asked why the figure 15% is used instead of the customery 25%. Director Krempl replied that there is nothing in the Recommendations which speak to 15%. It is strictly in the discussion of what would perhaps ultimately be hillside ordinances. All staff was saying is that there is also hillside property that is less than 25% and if we have valid criteria for development of slopes, we ought to look at that in the context of the hillside whether it's 25% or less or whatever the number might be. Commissioner Cannon said he had a number of comments. He has changed his position considerably. He commented that he doesn't think there has ever been a particular item that he looked at more closely since he has been on the Commission, and after observing the incredible angles of the 25% slope he has gone to staff's recommendation he thinks that should remain open space in all instances. Recommendation #2 is just a guideline for hillside development - not a specific thing. It says "should" instead of "shall" and doesn't have anything particularly onerous to developers. They are guidelines for development that someone needs to look at before they develop on hills and he would certainly support a 15% slope beginning on that. On Recommendation #3, he agreed with Mr. Hyde. A policy decision cannot differentiate from one developer to another. This is particularly pointed out by the last speaker who just indicated that if the inroads on one are opened, a criterion will have to be developed to open inroads for others. Commissioner Cannon said he agreed with that position. "If we have open space on 25% slopes, we don't encroach into them and we don't provide development on them regardless of how nice that development may look in the planning stages." Commissioner Tugenberg said his attitude has changed also. He can easily go along with Recommendation 1 and 2 but could not recommend #3 to the City Council. There is not enough information to base it on. Mr. Cannon was absent at the last workshop but it got around to the lack of a certain type of product available in the City of Chula Vista and our main concern was to open up large lots 1 du on 5 or 10 acres for the high and estate lot and we were hoping that a possible encroachment onto the open space might afford some sort of product to that end. This potential 52 homes on 25 acres does not achieve the kind of product we think the City lacks. Commissioner Fuller added that staff and the developer worked diligently to come up with the product requested which was a need for estate-sized lots. She agreed, however, that it was inappropriate for the Commission to approve a policy of no encroachment into open space, to suggest a hillside design and development guideline and then to suggest Recommendation 3 to Council at this time. Commissioner Casillas stated that he would commend staff and the consultants for the great job done in drawing up the draft hillside design and development guidelines. However, they are guidelines and guidelines can be changed. He too has some concern about Recommendation 3 relating to equity in this process Planning Commission -10- July 13, 1988 and what happens to those land owners that are not up to a given point in the development process. By adopting this Recommendation 3 one particular developer will be getting a bonus as it were, because of getting into the pipeline a little earlier. On the other side of that issue, however, the Commission instructed staff to work with the group and attempt to establish or develop a mechanism or process that might test what might be done with the 25% slope situation. They have done so whether or not it is finite enough to meet some of the goals or discussions that we have had. The Commissioner said he would like to see more specific information on what the lot would look like and to defer action on that item until that time. MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) to approve the policy of no encroachment into open space as per the recommendation in the staff report. MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) to approve the hillside design and development guidelines as they were proposed in draft to us for inclusion in the General Plan. Commissioner Cannon remarked that since there was really no approval of a modification before the Commission, then no action on Recommendation 3 would be necessary. He would like it on the record however that, at least, in his estimation Recommendation 3 would not fit into the guidelines that have just been approved because certain portions of it would fit the criterion for open space that have now been included (apparently) in low density residential which he sees as being inconsistent and inappropriate. Commissioner Tugenberg suggested that a vote be taken to indicate to Council the feelings of the entire Commission. MSUC /Tu§enberg/Fuller) to disapprove Recommendation #3. The Chair said that the Commissioners wished to express their appreciation to staff and the developers for their many hours of effort and working on this particular item. She also thanked Mr. Hyde and Mr. Loftus for pointing out the need to be fair to all developers. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Director Krempl noted that there is a workshop next Wednesday and the subject for discussion will be the 70/30 policy regarding density transfer and clustering which was a referral to the Commission from the Council. - He noted some of the hand-out information items provided included a letter, dated 11/23/87, to Mr. Paul Green from the City Attorney's office. The letter was furnished by Mr. Green with the request that it be distributed to the Commission. - The other distribution is the draft of two measures which the County is contemplating putting on the ballot for November as an alternative to the rural preservation and growth management issue. The first measure would Planning Commission -ll- July 13, 1988 be a binding measure specifying quality of life standards and certain other components and the other measure would be an advisory measure having to do with regional land-use planning and the formation of a growth management review board at the regional level. With respect to the binding measure, there is a missing component which will be furnished as soon as it become available. That will deal with sensitive lands. Finally, he noted that Dr. Cummings had submitted signatures in support of his initiative (over 9,000 signatures) and the preliminary information is that it will qualify and will be going to the City Council on the 26th of this month for their consideration and to do one of two things - either put it on the ballot for November 8 or adopt it into Ordinance without change. The Commission said they had not received a copy of Paul Green's letter, whereupon the Secretary passed an extra copy to them for review. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commissioner Casillas asked if at the next workshop Mr. Larsen, the Building and Housing Director, could be present to give a general overview of permitting functions, inspection, quality standards, landscaping when required and so forth. Commissioner Cannon said that judging by the letter to Mr. Green, the City Attorney would be going forward with the procedure needed to enforce the ordinance. Deputy City Attorney Fritsch said she had been in Court with Mr. Green and the judge imposed a fine of $160. The Attorney's office has contacted the Zoning Enforcement Officer asking for initiation of the summary abatement procedures and there will be ultimately a hearing before the Abatement Board. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:30 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of July 20, 1988, at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary WPC 5439P Rebert Jo Giangreco City of Chu!a Vista Plannin9 Commiseion Chula Vimt. a, CA 92010 Dear Ccmmimsioners, it. has come to ~y attention that Baldwin Moore is planning a development ~ nine%y-Sour <94) townhoume condominiums in the canyon adDacent to La ~ancha Place; and %his development would come within eighty feet {80') of the end of development in thim canyon. We feel that this area im already overpopulated - a belief mupported by the lack of space in schools, end the tra~fi~ problems ~hat already ex,st in the area. The developer estimates that an additional 752 automobile trips per day would be generated by thim development and this would create an additional burden on our already overcrowded streets, in addition to We would like to mee this canyon remain aa natural o?en apace, it im tke ho~e would result xn thekr d~struction. ~oad, amc Telegraph Canyon Roa~, to handle the additional traffic 5a£ely. ~obert 3. &iangreco