Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/10/28 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednes0ay, October 28, 1992 276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Martin, Tuchscher, and Ray COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Griffin, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None Commissioner Tuchscher apologized for not being present at the last joint Planning Commission meeting because of a scheduling error. He clarified his position as to delivery of documents to the Planning Commission; i.e., if there is a project whereby a development agreement is not yet completed, he had no problem moving forward with the project and approving the documents the Commissioners had received, but the development agreement could trail; he would not vote on the development agreement if he had not had time to review it. PC Minutes -2- October 28, 1992 ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-93-01, PCM-92-16, PCS-92-05, PCS-93-01: CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, EL RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMERCIAL CENTER AMENDMENT, AND RANCHO DEL REY SPA I PLAN AMENDMENT; PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT, RDR EMPLOYMENT PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES AMENDMENT; TENTATIVE MAPS CHULA VISTA TRACTS 92-05 AND 93-01; AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN; WATER CONSERVATION PLAN; PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN; DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT; CEQA FINDINGS, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (Continued from October 14, 1992 Meeting) Senior Planner Griffin asked for continuance of Item 1 to the meeting of November 18, 1992. The applicant concurred with the recommendation. MS (Martin/Ray) to continue the item to November 18, 1992. Commissioner Ray asked the status of the rumor of Price Club backing out of the project. Economic Development Manager Dye said the Price Club had publicly indicated that they did back off from the project at one point; however, at this point negotiations had recommenced and there were negotiations between management of the Price Club and the City. Commissioner Ray asked if there was reason to expect a significant change if another tenant were to occupy that space; a smaller retailer without as high a volume. If those talks prove futile and the Price Club does not occupy a space, would that significantly alter any of the issues previously discussed. Ms. Dye replied that staff's recommendation would be that the project would be conditioned such that the lots currently being provided for major users would all be conditioned to only allow building permits for a facility with a minimum of 100,000 sq. ft. and a comparable type of regional or sub-regional retailer. Answering Commissioner Ray, Ms. Dye said staff's intention was that the development agreement would come forward to the Planning Commission concurrently with the land use approvals on November 18. The agreements with the specific retailers may not be ready at that time; the development agreement would be a master development agreement with McMillin and would have some general provisions that would be required of any retail that would come forward. The development agreement with the developer could not be effectuated until such time that there was a minimum of at least one implementing agreement with a retailer. Commissioner Ray asked at what point options such as limiting operating hours to reduce traffic during peak periods would come in. Ms. Dye believed that could be addressed through conditions on some of the land use issues, as well as within the development agreement. PC Minutes -3- October 28, 1992 Assistant Planning Director Lee said it would normally be included in the Planned Community District Regulations. If there were concerns of the Commission, they should be placed in the Regulations. Commissioner Ray stated, for the record, that an option be looked at and discussed to limit the hours of operation during the peak traffic hours, say, between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m. He mentioned other cities which had required certain retailers to limit their hours of operation by closing their stores at a certain time and reopening after peak hours of traffic. He wished to make sure this idea was passed on to the City Council, and that option be considered as an alternative for mitigating traffic. Commissioner Tuchscher noted that he would also like to discuss that at the meeting on November 18. Commissioner Ray referred to an earlier request that staff provide him with feedback as to the lighting and the potential impact environmentally in signalizing 'H" Street, extending the red period, and delaying traffic. He felt there should be some other options in mitigating traffic and wanted to look at other alternatives. Assistant Planning Director Lee asked if was Commissioner Ray's intent that staff review the hours of operation and closing down during certain hours as it related to the three major retailers. Commissioner Ray said it would need to cover all three; however, based on costs he did not know if a full-blown study needed to be done. In terms of an alternative, he would like to know if mitigation could be reached by limiting the hours of one, two, or all three. VOTE: 5-0 Chair Fuller noted that the Commissioners had received a letter regarding the project from the Chula Vista Residents for Responsible Planning, a group who planned to appear at the November 18 hearing. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-92-02; PCZ-93-B AND PCM-93-03 - REQUEST TO: 1) AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN FROM "VISITOR COMMERCIAL" TO "RETAIL COMMERCIAL"; 2) REZONE FROM C-V-P AND A-8 TO C-C; AND 3) ADOPT A SPECIFIC PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS "BONITA GATEWAY" FOR 2.23 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF BONITA ROAD AND 1-805 - Robinson Pacific, Inc. (Continued from October 14, 1992 Meeting) Senior Planner Griffin presented the staff report, and recommended approval based on findings and listed recommendations in the staff report. Commissioner Martin was concerned with ingress into the property from Bonita Road. PC Minutes -4- October 28, 1992 Mr. Griffin said the proposal would create an exclusive right-turn lane into the northbound 1-805 on ramp, and would be limited to ingress only from Bonita Road. All traffic exiting from the site would have to exit on Plaza Bonita Road and would not create a conflict on Plaza Bonita Road. Answering Commissioner Martin, City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg said the analysis had taken into consideration further development to the east. Answering Commissioner Ray's query regarding dedication of northbound access to 1-805 and the right tum off Plaza Bonita Road onto Bonita Road, Mr. Rosenberg said markers would be in place for the extreme right lane to ensure exiting to 1-805. Commissioner Ray was concerned with the flow of traffic, especially during the holiday period, and access into the project. Mr. Rosenberg replied that the right tums did not pose the same kind of interruption as an exit movement. The project was being conditioned to provide the dedication and the ultimate improvement of the widening along Bonita Road, which had a joint use of providing not only the lane for the right turn, but also a stacking lane for turning onto northbound 1-805. The intent was to widen back to Plaza Bonita, including the widening of the channel, to provide for the continuation of the third lane. Commissioner Ray was concerned with cars exiting the project area who wished to go south on 1-805 and the need to cross all lanes prior to the 1-805 southbound ramp. Mr. Rosenberg said the lane change would have to be made between Bonita Plaza and the off-ramp. There would be no exit onto Bonita Road from the project. At Commissioner Ray's suggestion to place traffic cones for only the extreme right lane to ensure that people would be forced onto 1-805 north, Mr. Rosenberg said staff would look at the operational performance and make a determination, but at this point it would be premature to determine what type of barriers would be required. Commissioner Carson, referring to a letter from Sweetwater Authority, asked how much it would cost the applicant to make an adjustment for a new water system. Mr. Griffin said they would be required to obtain a service availability letter prior to any actual demand on the system and would have to provide whatever was necessary to serve that demand. He did not know the cost. Commissioner Carson asked staff if there was any kind of movement on the City's water program. Assistant Planning Director Lee said there did not seem to be much progress at this point. Public Works was still working with the County Water Authority and others involved in the process. Commissioner Tuchscher, regarding pavement widening, asked if the 68' was only dedication without improvements. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich answered that the 68' was the fight-of-way PC Minutes -5- October 28, 1992 width; the 58' would be the curb location with 10' from the curb face to the property line. The 10' was for the sidewalk and an area back of the sidewalk. Commissioner Tuchscher asked for a description of the 4' raised median along the frontage on Bonita Road. Traffic Engineer Rosenberg said the current improvements along Bonita Road was an asphalt median with some portions which were painted. This would be for pertinent improvements of that section of roadway. It was in the center of Bonita Road. Commissioner Ray asked if that would impede the area immediately to the east on the southern side of Bonita Road, the Pointe. Mr. Rosenberg answered that the raised median was just to the intersection of Plaza Bonita, the full length of the property itself to the intersection. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jhn Milch, 501 W. Broadway,//1780, San Diego 92101, representing Robinson Pacific, said he and the next two speakers would give a planned presentation, and clarified that there was no exit on Bonita Road, there were two entry points onto the property--Plaza Bonita Road and Bonita Road. He said the occupant was to be Pier I and water usage would be minimal. Scott Robinson, Robinson Pacific, 5425 Riggs Rd., El Cajon, representing the developer and trustee of the Bradley Family Trust, the owner of the property, gave a history of the property and their plans for development. Mr. Milch reported that the Design Review Committee had requested that the Sweetwater Community Planners review the plan to see if it was corresponded to their community plan. There was unanimous support of the Sweetwater Planning Group supporting the design. Commissioner Ray asked why the owners decided to pursue development given the constraints. Mr. Robinson said he could not sell it, and if there were buyers, development was substantially limited. The family decided to keep it, develop it, and pass it down. Commissioner Ray asked if the County was uninterested in purchasing the property, or if that was pursued. Mr. Robinson answered that the County was not interested. CalTrans had not been approached, but the applicant did not see where they would have a use for it or a need to purchase it. Commissioner Martin asked what had been planned for the property when it was zoned Visitor Commercial. Mr. Robinson had not been involved at that time, but believed it was zoned Visitor Commercial because of its location. Kirk McKinley, McKinley Associates, 1818 First Avenue, San Diego, the architects for the project, showed the easements crossing the site and noted they had to be considered when planning a project. He discussed the parking, screening, traffic circulation, ingress and egress, and the architecture of the building. Mr. McKinley asked for approval of the project. PC Minutes -6- October 28, 1992 Commissioner Martin was concerned about cars entefing the project from Bonita Road into the circular turn-around area. Assistant Planning Director Lee explained that it would not be a typical movement for someone to use the circular turn-around. Most patrons would find a space in the parking area and, when ready to leave, would use the exit onto Plaza Bonita Road. Commissioner Carson asked if there would be a sign on the back side of the building. Mr. McKinley answered affirmatively. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned the reciprocal parking agreements with the adjacent property owner. Mr. Robinson said they had been negotiating with the adjacent property owner to help him plan and develop his property. There were some walls which would probably be eliminated and there would be a central entry. The access points to both roads would not change. Part of their approach to their site plan was to eventually allow for the whole site to be integrated with a comprehensive circulation plan. Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff if enough thought had been given in terms of this project. Mr. Lee answered that there had been much discussion with the applicant in terms of the location of the building, and looking ahead to the future so staff could work with the adjacent property owner. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if signage had been discussed with the Sweetwater Community Planning Group, and had the type of sign been discussed. Mr. Robinson answered affirmatively, and they had no concerns relative to that. Senior Planner Griffin commented that he did not believe the access program under the Specific Plan or otherwise would prohibit an additional fight-in, fight-out for the easterly parcel on Plaza Bonita Road. That could happen in the future; it was not excluded by the plan. Assistant Planning Director Lee read into the record a copy of a report regarding the results of the CalTrans study report on the 1-805/Bonita Road interchange which went to City Council in January 1991. There were three recommendations which the Council accepted: "1) that the Council accept the report and recommendations of CalTrans which indicate that major improvements on Bonita Road and 805 would not be cost effective; 2) that Council direct staff to notify the County of San Diego that Chula Vista is no longer interested in pursuing the purchase of the County surplus parcel (Sweetwater Park)" -- which was identified as the park area--"and 3) that staff be directed to develop a project to add another westbound lane on the north side of Plaza Bonita Road and the northbound on-ramp to be considered as a condition of development of the adjoining property." George Kost, 3609 Belle Bonnie Brae Road, Bonita 91902, representing Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, said that in a Sweetwater Study on traffic in 1988, they had given this PC Minutes -7- October 28, 1992 intersection top priority because of the traffic. Nothing had been done to date to change that intersection. He was concerned with the service level with the additional traffic, the alignment of the road, and thought it was premature to build something without knowing what the intersection was going to look like. He noted that Chula Vista's mandate was service level C. He believed it was a mistake that the County did not buy the land; it should be a park, a monument, or a water fountain. Commissioner Ray asked staff to comment regarding the alignment of the intersection, and if it was something that would potentially change. Mr. Rosenberg said the 1988 study did indicate that there was a need to provide some improvement at the interchange. The intersection of Bonita Plaza and Bonita Road was under the jurisdiction of the County, and the Plaza Bonita Road was under the jurisdiction of National City, with some jurisdiction by Chula Vista. Two years ago, at the request of National City and with the cooperation of the County, the City of Chula Vista entered into a three-party agreement to revisit the need for future improvement of the interchange. After looking at several alternatives and future development, CalTrans concluded that future improvements were not necessary. The existing design was adequate to provide projected traffic. Based on that study, the City Council agreed to release the property and indicate to the County that the City no longer had any interest in the purchase. Commissioner Tuchscher requested the current level of service. Mr. Rosenberg replied that the level of service during the peak hours was at Level C. The travel time through the complex was high enough to meet the City's threshold standard, and this project would allow the City to stay at the threshold standard. Commissioner Ray asked if that study included the time getting off 1-805 north onto Bonita Road or after passing west of 1-805 to get onto 1-805 south. Mr. Rosenberg replied negatively. He noted the travel time was measured from Willow down "E" Street to 1-805. Using a chart, he indicated the various speeds maintained through segments of "E" Street during the peak hours of the day. Commissioner Ray questioned the times used as peak hours, the time of year, and day of the week. Mr. Rosenberg said it was performed in September during the week, between 4 and 6 p.m. Commissioner Fuller asked if the information from the recent study and staff findings from the Engineering Department was the reason for the variation on the table. Mr. Rosenberg explained the change in the measurement procedure, and said the overall speed may be acceptable where some intersections may encounter some delay. Commissioner Carson asked the date the Growth Management Commission made the determination to make the change in measurement. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf believed the Council had adopted the ordinance change in March 1992. PC Minutes -8- October 28, 1992 Commissioner Carson, referring to the page 2-45, Traffic, questioned the level of service E and asked if it shouldn't be corrected in Negative Declaration. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said Addendum B to the Negative Declaration had new discussion regarding school impacts and traffic circulation. The conclusions were the same on both. Commissioner Carson clarified that the new methodology gives a level C. Mr. Rosenberg concurred. Commissioner Carson felt it wa.s important what day in the week the studies were taken. If it was taken on Friday, would it still be level C? Mr. Rosenberg answered that the study was done with random sampling and not intended to concentrate on any particular day but to use various days of the week. Mr. Rosenberg noted that the project would generate approximately 700 trips a day; the total site would be approximately 1400. According to the SANDAG Trip Generation Studies and information used regionally and statewide, this type of development attracts many trips that are already on the road--passerby trips--so the actual impact of the project would be about 50% of the total traffic that goes in and out at the driveways. When that is narrowed down to the peak hour, it represents a very small amount of the total traffic that is already on the roadway, taking into account that traffic entering the project from Bonita Road is ingress only. Commissioner Carson was concerned also about setbacks and who would be liable if a car crashed through. She asked the actual setback from 1-805, Plaza Bonita Road, and Bonita Road. Mr. Robinson showed the edge of the property and the on-ramp to 1-805, with a 5-foot setback from their property line, but the drainage ditch and the on-ramp to 1-805 was in between the property and the freeway, approximately 60 to 70 feet. The setback from Plaza Bonita Road was 25 feet; from Bonita Road was a variable setback from 15 feet to 25 feet from property line. With Chair Fuller's approval, Mr. Kost approached the microphone again. He said CalTrans had recently run a computer model on build-out of the eastern section and had come in with six lanes for Bonita, Sweetwater, and Otay Lakes. Without a major intersection redesign, he did not believe they would be able to build the six-lane road under 1-805. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf, for clarification of the record, said Mr. Kost represented the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association; he had understood someone to say the project had been taken to the association to receive their support. Mr. Kost clarified that it was taken to the Sweetwater Planning Group, the elected officials. The project was not presented to the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association. Mr. Robinson commented that they had waited to see whether this property would be needed as an interchange and the City had released the land. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff what happened if Pier One was not the user and if it changed the picture as far as traffic, design issues, etc. Senior Planner Griffin answered PC Minutes -9- October 28, 1992 negatively, and said any other project would have to comply with the parameters outlined in the Specific Plan, including most if not ail the concerns brought up. There would still be a prohibition against some of the uses felt to be inappropriate on the site. Commissioner Martin asked if there would be a left turn lane off Plaza Bonita Road into Pier One. Mr. Robinson said there would be a left-turn pocket which would take traffic off the thoroughfare. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Fuller/Carson) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-35. Commissioner Ray questioned the drainage, referenced on page 247 and 248, fiowing into the area off the site, or if other improvements would be needed to be made to drain into the City system. He was concerned with the acids, oils, etc. from the parking lot draining into the culvert. At Senior Planner Griffin's suggestion, Mr. Robinson responded that the site lies within the 100- year flood plain area; they would raise the pad area 3 feet per the FEMA Guidelines; the transition into the parking lot would be gradual; there was a drainage swale which would tie into the culvert. The runoff would drain into the main storm drain. Commissioner Ray asked if there was concern about additional contamination from the runoff. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich said the site did not have to comply with the MPDS regulations because it was under 5 acres. There could be a condition added that they put in some type of trap to catch oils. Commissioner Ray did not feel that was necessary. Environmental Review Coordinator Miller said staff did not deem it to be a significant impact under CEQA. The project was going to be mitigated to comply with any regulations for floodplain and drainage requirements through the Engineering Department, and staff believed that would take care of any hydrology drainage impacts. Because of the size of the project, it did not fail under any requirements for the applicant to mitigate contamination from petroleum from the cars. Commissioner Ray asked how significant it would be to request that the drainage be tied into the City system with drain basins. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich said staff tried not to divert storm drain water into the sewer system because it would overload the sewer system and the Point Loma Plant. Commissioner Ray asked if studies were ongoing or done periodically to anaiyze the impact of street drainage the goes over petroleum based droppings or a sealant on the roadway, or oil, to monitor the level of contamination that is putting into drainage basins. Mr. Ullrich said studies PC Minutes -10- October 28, 1992 were currently underway, but believed that may come out of the MPDS studies or their requirements. In answer to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Ullrich said the culvert ultimately drained to the Sweetwater River. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION To approve Resolution GPA-93-02, PCZ-93-B, and PCM-93-03 on pages 2-26 and 2-27 of the staff report. VOTE: 5-0 ITEM 3. CONSIDERATION OF LETTER FROM COUNCILMAN MALCOLM REGARDING JOINT MEETINGS WITH COUNCIL PRIOR TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS. The Commissioners had received a letter from Councilman Malcolm suggesting that the Commission meet with the Council quarterly before Commission meetings. The Commissioners discussed whether there would be an appropriate time to meet. They felt it was important to keep an open line of communication between the City Council and the Planning Commission, but would find it difficult to meet immediately prior to a Planning Commission meeting. If there were to be meetings, they should be at a scheduled Planning Commission workshop night with Council attending if they wished. The Commissioners felt it was the responsibility of the Council to advise staff, boards and commissions of their feelings and wishes, either personally or through the City Manager. The Commission did not want other meetings added to their already heavy workload. They agreed that a line of communication should be developed. The Commissioners concurred that they would be open to meeting with members of the Council. They suggested the Council be invited quarterly to attend a regular Planning Commission workshop session with a topic that would be of importance to both, and that they have an opportunity to interchange on that subject and any other subject they wanted to at that time, without being tied into any agenda or any time. MSUC (Carson/Ray) 5-0 to recommend strong consideration of meeting with the Council on a quarterly basis at a regular Planning Commission workshop meeting. The Commissioners asked that the Council be polled to get their reaction to this suggestion. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that there would be a special meeting on November 18 including dinner. PC Minutes -11- October 28, 1992 COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Tuchscher asked that an area be added to the Commission agenda for individual Commissioners, such as the Council agenda, so items could be added to the agenda for discussion and action. Commissioner Carson was concerned that the Water Conservation Program seemed to be at a standstill. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that he would contact Barbara Bamberger regarding the status and inform the Commission. Commissioner Carson asked that her packet for November 12 be delivered early, since she would be out of town until November 11. Commissioner Ray asked that Mr. Nairne's letter of appeal for the San Miguel Ranch project be included in the Commission packet when it comes back for reconsideration. The Commissioners requested a workshop on EIR/CEQA for new Commissioners and Council members and for others who would like to participate. ADJOURNMENT at 9:50 p.m. to the Joint Special Meeting with County Planning Commission of October 29, 1992 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. r-l~ancy R~pley, S~:retal~ Planning Commission (pc~O-28.min)