Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1995/06/14 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Conference Rooms 2/3 7:30 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, June 14, 1995 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Fuller, Ray, Salas, and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Tarantino and Thomas STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Senior Planner Batchelder, Associate Planner Hernandez, Housing Coordinator Arroyo, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Assistant City Attorney Moore MOTION TO EXCUSE - MSUC (Willett/Fuller) 5-0 to excuse Commissioners Tarantino (business conflict) and Thomas (last night of college class). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities, and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-95-24: REQUEST TO ESTABLISH AN ADULT RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME FOR TWELVE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED RESIDENTS AT 8 TOURMALINE STREET - Trinidad M. Dela Rosa MSC (Fuller/Ray) 5-0 (Commissioners Tarantino and Thomas excused) to continue PCC-95-24 to the meeting of July 12, 1995. PC Minutes -2- June 14, 1995 ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-95-15: CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE EASTLAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM (Continued from May 10, 1995) Senior Planner Batchelder presented the staff report, and congratulated the task force on their work. Commissioner Salas questioned the Housing Advisory Committee's (HAC) negative comments about the proposed affordable housing site near SR125. Mr. Batchelder noted that the site had previously been approved for higher density housing as part of the Eastlake Activity Corridor. Staff was working within the approved regulatory plan regarding the proposed site, and the issue was more related to location of residential uses adjacent to a future highway than to whether or not the units would be affordable. Housing Coordinator Arroyo stated the HAC was more concerned about site design and that it was consistent with the balance of EastLake. Mr. Batchelder added that the site had yet to undergo SPA-level review or design review. Those and additional environmental analysis would provide sufficient opportunity to address any issues regarding noise or other site design considerations. Mr. Arroyo stated that with proper mitigation and enough setback from the freeway, there would be no appreciable impact from noise. Commissioner Salas was also concerned that with the site being somewhat set apart from the balance of the Greens area, it may be identified as a separate especially if it was affordable. Mr. Arroyo replied that the design would adhere to the rest of the community. Them were the same design standards for the entire community. Commissioner Willett stated that some homes in EastLake I already mitigated from potential noise by putting up sound barriers and glass walls. Berms would make it so they could not see traffic. Commissioner Ray, referring to a comment on page 6 of the staff report regarding OTC, asked if the City was not going to give credits for housing of athletes and what specifics would they not meet as far as affordable housing. Mr. Batchelder indicated its was staff's position not to give credit and stated there were some legal issues involved. The City's Affordable Housing Program (AHP) is designed to address a portion of the City's Regional Share housing need as defined under State housing law and contained in the General Plan Housing Element. State housing law requires construction of "permanent housing" units in meeting Regional Share allocations. Dorm housing did not meet the definition of permanent housing. In addition, the AHP is intended to provide units as part of the normal housing stock and available to the general public. The OTC dormitories are a specialized form of housing and available only to the athletes. PC Minutes -3- June 14, 1995 Commissioner Ray asked if EastLake Shores had 32 units over what they would need and if that could be credited toward future development. Senior Planner Batchelder stated negatively, and referring to Appendix C, indicated that for EastLake I, the entire Hills & Shores, of the 92 low-income units required, 101 were actually produced. The result was a credit of 9 units which be applied to future development. Commissioner Ray asked if EastLake could sell credits to someone else. Mr. Batchelder replied that it had not been proposed, although not all development had equal financial opportunities to meet affordable housing requirements, and it was not inconceivable. While this concept of transfers had been discussed during update of the Housing Element, most developments had devised plans to provide the units within their own planning areas. Replying further to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Batchelder stated that the draft affordable housing program for Otay Ranch intends to fulfill a transfer allowed from the neighboring Telegraph Canyon Estates project. That program also provides for affordable housing transfers within the Ranch from rural villages to urban villages. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Susan Radecki, 1460 Nolan Ct., Chula Vista, asked where the proposed affordable housing site discussed earlier was in relation to the high school. Mr. Batchelder indicated the site on the overhead projection. Ms. Radecki was concerned with what kind of entity would be coming from the affordable housing. Mr. Batchelder stated that the applicant was proposing a standard garden apartment type project for mainly families. They would be working people. He then displayed an overhead projection defining incomes and wage equivalents for low and moderate-income households of four (two parents and two children). Top end on the low income earnings would be $36,300/year. More discussion followed regarding the type of family and income. Mr. Arroyo stated there were some misconceptions dealing with affordable housing. They were talking about working individuals and not tenements or public housing. Commissioner Fuller commented that the Task Fome had focused on affordable housing and the fact that these were people already living in Chula Vista and projects already in Chula Vista. By following the guidelines of EastLake, they would be able to educate people that these are people who are doing well. Senior Planner Batchelder stated that for example, the Villa Martinique and Camelot projects in Eastlake I qualified as low income housing when they were built. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes -4- June 14, 1995 Chair Tuchscher also complimented the Task Force. He said he appreciated the input, and also appreciated the hard work of staff as well. MSUC (Fuller/Willett) 5-0 (Commissioners Tarantino and Thomas excused) to adopt Negative Declaration IS-95-21 and recommend that the City Council adopt the "Program for the Provision of Affordable Housing within the EastLake Planned Community" subject to the findings and conditions contained within the draft City Council resolution. ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-95-14: REQUEST TO OPERATE A GASOLINE STATION 24 HOURS A DAY AT 1498 MELROSE AVENUE IN THE C-N (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONE - Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. Principal Planner Griffin gave the staff report, and noted that the Neighborhood Commercial Zone limited the hours of operation. He stated that there was one complaint on file and there had been one police service call to the site. Staff had received a letter and a petition by 16 surrounding residents expressing concerns with the traffic and noise generated in the area. Staff recommended adoption of the resolution, but accepting the letter and petition and any public testimony and comments. Commissioner Salas questioned the statement that the station had been operating on a 24-hour basis for a time. This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Susan Radecki, 1460 Nolan Court, Chula Vista, stated that she lives behind Unocal and 7-11, with Texaco across the street. There was a concern about traffic, and about children getting peaceful sleep. When the windows were left open in the summer, they could hear all the noise. When they were in their back yard, they could hear if there was a robbery below. Commissioner Willett asked her to point to her residence. Clyde Williams, 9966 San Diego Mission Road, San Diego, representing Texaco, asked that his time be given to Mr. Schanberger. Philip Schanberger, 5125 Glasgow St., San Diego 92117, representing Texaco, addressed the concerns regarding the petition. He said noise was a legitimate consideration. He pointed out particular residences impacted. Regarding noise at the station, the owners had not done any mechanical work and there were no tow trucks. Regarding crime, they do business through glass windows. The altercation which had been reported originated off-site. The clerk called the Police Department, then immediately called back and stated they had left. Texaco had classes where clerks learn crime prevention and how to secure evidence. The Police Department had given approval of 24-hour operation. Planning had looked into the crime and traffic. Traffic of ambulances, tow trucks, etc. would not stop if this station was not open at night. The PC Minutes -5- June 14, 1995 noise factor was coming from doors closing or conversation. He did not think noise was a major factor, with only 20-50 customers per night. They had taken down their 24-hour sign. He thought it was a service the community could use. Commissioner Fuller asked if Planning had given approval to allow 24-hour operation. Mr. Schanberger stated that they were in Code compliance which had stated that as long they were operating in good faith, they could operate as a 24-hour station. When lights go out, there would be graffiti, etc. Principal Planner Griffin stated that he did not recall the Planning Department authorizing continued operation. It may be Code Enfomement. Planning would not authorize continuing violation of Code with a complaint on file. Commissioner Willett said he had driven by the site. He asked if the company had looked into any other types of lighting. The light reflected off Texaco and Unocal across the street. They could use some of the new low flood lights. Mr. Schanberger replied that they could install recessed lighting. Safety was an important consideration since people had been attacked behind the station. Commissioner Willett said the station presently had high, almost vertical, lighting. Could the station look into some other type of lighting. Chair Tuchscher asked if they continue operation, the Commission could ask them to look into a different type of lighting. Since there was no other discretionary action, it would have to be a condition placed that night, or continue the item to another night. Commissioner Willett said he would like to see the lighting changed on the station across the street also, not just to Texaco. Mr. Schanberger said that in 1992, the Commission had approved a food store and carwash. After lengthy study regarding noise, the food store was approved with no alcohol sales. The 7- 11 generated the noise up the street. Commissioner Ray asked if they were now in operation and not in compliance, why had there not been any action. There would typically be imposed some sort of action for non-compliance. Principal Planner Griffin replied that staff should have made it clear that they should have gone to restricted hours. His impression was that City staff allowed them to continue while processing. Commissioner Ray said that along with this station, he assumed that a number of businesses in the area were in violation as well. PC Minutes -6- June 14, 1995 Principal Planner Griffin stated that Unocal clearly was in violation. 7-11 was trying to document that they were in operation before the Code was adopted. Staff could not retroactively require them to reduce their hours. Assistant City Attorney Moore stated that if a use was in existence before the Code came into place, it was grandfathered in. It would need to be researched. Conunissioner Ray commented that he would rather know if 10 or 12 were in violation before changing the zone. Assistant Attorney Moore said it was common procedure when there was a Zoning Code violation to ask them to come in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Others are being told that they need to come in compliance by coming before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ray asked what happened if they were denied and if any of the business were to continue operation and not be in compliance. Assistant Attorney Moore said the City would bring criminal action against them. Commissioner Ray questioned why that type of action had not already been pursued. Assistant Attorney Moore stated it was typically based on a complaint. Principal Planner Griffin stated that traditionally a violation was only enforced upon complaint. If a City employee cruising around found violations, it would have to be addressed Citywide. The Radeckis had complained about 7-11, Unocal and Texaco. They had written official complaints on those three issues. Commissioner Ray said it bothered him that we are reactive rather than proactive. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated it was not something that staff would typically go out and police. They relied on complaints. Staff had had a request from other 7-11 operations to stay open 24 hours. They would go through the same type of process. Mr. Lee said it was important to hear from the neighbors as to whether it works in the neighborhood during evening hours. Staff could come back with all three and give a rundown as far as the City Attorney's office and Code Enforcement. Principal Planner Griffin noted that the Scoreboard Inn was approved to stay open until 2:00 p.m. a few years ago. Commissioner Salas asked how many employees were typically working the shift between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Mr. Schanberger replied that there was one employee during those hours. PC Minutes -7- June 14, 1995 Commissioner Salas asked if it would be a significant burden to the business to restrict their hours. Mr. Schanberger answered affirmatively. There were probably more deliveries in the summer. He said they would probably lose day customers as well as night. Carl Fletcher, 262 Sandstone St., Chula Vista, representing Neighborhood Watch, said that Orange Street residents have windows on the north side. They have a problem with light shining in their windows, fumes, etc. They asked that the 24 hours not be approved. He submitted a petition representing 12 households. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Fuller said she was concerned that there were two other properties that were being investigated by either Zoning Enforcement or City Attorney regarding compliance. She did not think the Commission should wait on those. She was uncomfortable in the fact that this would set a precedent and that the business had operated four years in violation of the ordinance. It was the owner's responsibility to know that when he extended his hours that he was within compliance or in violation. She felt the Commission should listen to the complaints of the neighbors. If the Commission gave their approval to start operating on a 24-hour basis, it would increase their business. She was opposed. Commissioner Ray concurred. He hesitated to vote for this project without taking them cumulatively. He would be more apt to vote for continuance while currently restricting the hours between midnight and 6 a.m. Commissioner Salas concurred with Commissioner Fuller. The station had been out of compliance for four years. They did not need to continue the hearing. The business was in violation. If they continued this item, the Commission was telling other business that they may allow these kinds of violations of the zoning code. MS (Salas/Fuller) to deny the request to extend the hours. Commissioner Willett supported staff's inability to monitor. He asked if Unocal and 7-11 could come in with some lighting. He asked if this item could be continue so staff could work with property owners in the area regarding lighting and installation of sound attenuating walls on the northeast comer behind the Unocal. There was insufficient shrubbery to reduce the noise. He would refer the item to staff to come back. Chair Tuchscher said that there were probably some issues associated with 24-hour operation that needed to be addressed--noise, lighting, and other potential sales. Those issues needed to be addressed, taking into account what the neighborhood is looking for. The concerns of lighting, noise, etc. could be mitigated. PC Minutes -8- June 14, 1995 RESTATEMENT OF MOTION: That the Planning Commission deny the request for Texaco to extend their hours to 24 hours. VOTE: 2-3 Yes - Commissioners Salas and Fuller No - Commissioners Tuchscher, Ray, Willett The motion failed. Motion by Commissioner Ray to direct staff to work with the applicant in reference to the neighborhood concerns to reach solutions. Assistant Planning Director Lee said staff should be able to complete investigation regarding the other complaints, and notice the surround neighborhood as far as the intent to allow 24-hour businesses. Mr. Griffin stated they would notice at 500 feet. Commissioner Ray asked if it was within the Commission's jurisdiction to ask for limited hours at this point, and if they could ask that the ordinance be in compliance immediately. Assistant Attorney Moore suggested asking for investigation of the current station in response to Code compliance in that area and report back regarding Code compliance. Chair Tuchscher stated he would like to see the total number of 24-hour operations. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION: To continue the item until the station has had sufficient time to address the issues at this site and then brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Willett asked if they could add the issue of lighting, security, and noise concerns. The maker of the motion concurred. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Willett. Commissioner Ray asked if Code Enforcement was now forced to do something today. Mr. Lee stated that Texaco had no authority to operate beyond 11 p.m. Commissioner Ray commented that the business owners should be motivated to get the issues resolved to get staff's report and back to the Planning Commission. PC Minutes -9- June 14, 1995 Commissioner Fuller noted that four votes would be needed to pass the motion. She was ready to take action to deny the extension. Commissioner Ray said he also intended to deny. It had been going on for years with no complaints. He was giving them a chance to come up with alternatives. VOTE: 4-1 (Salas voting against the continuance) DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 5. Update on Council Items Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that there were no items for the meeting of June 28. He would request continuation, but the Commission may wish to continue the next item. At the last meeting, the Planning Commission had indicated a general concern over the City's policy regarding mailing out to residents. It would be going back to the City Council with a report on the streamlining process. At that time, he would like to present the report to the Planning Commission. The Econo Lube 'n' Tune ordinance had been approved by the Council to allow them to operate on 30th Street. There would be a dinner workshop the following Wednesday with an update presentation on Otay Ranch. The new Planning Commissioner, Bob Thomas, would be there. ]The Planning Commission then returned to Item 3. ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR THE "BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES" PROPOSAL, FILED BY JOSEF AND LENORE CITRON FOR 2.53 ACRES LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A) PCZ-95-A; REZONE FROM C-T THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL TO C-C-P CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN B) PCC-95-23; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 36 UNIT MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITH SHARED PARKING Commissioner Tuchscher asked to be excused because of potential conflict of interest. PC Minutes -10- June 14, 1995 Associate Planner Hernandez presented the staff report. He noted that the applicant was requesting to rezone the 2.53 acre site from C-T to C-C-P to allow the construction of a 36-unit commercial/residential mixed use project, and that mixed use projects are permitted only in the C-C zone with approval of a conditional use permit. He went on to explain that the development proposal called for 36 individually owned home/business units featuring a 500 sq. ft. retail floor space at the lower level with a 1,500 sq. ft. dwelling unit directly above. The 36 individual commercial shops amount to approximately 18,000 sq. ft. of retail space for which 80 parking spaces had been provided. Mr. Hernandez stated that the mixed-use project development criteria proscribed in the Zoning Ordinance requires that the project be in compliance with parking and common open space. It also requires that the access of the two components be independent from each other and allows the restriction of some land uses to ensure a high level of compatibility. The project was in compliance with the development criteria prescribed in the Municipal Code, except for parking and open space. With regard to parking, the 18,000 sq. ft. retail commercial floor space required 90 parking spaces (10 less than what was being provided). However, because the residential occupant would be the commercial component operator and parking for the residence provided separately, the parking demand would be reduced by the number of units. With regard to open space, Mr. Hernandez stated that typically multi-family residential projects included a central usable open space. This project did not provide a central recreation facility and, therefore, was deficient approximately 25 % of the open space required. However, enhanced pedestrian paving and decorative trellis structures had been incorporated throughout the project to compensate for the open space deficiency. To ensure a high level of compatibility between the two components of the project, Mr. Hernandez suggested that some uses shown in an exhibit in the Planning Commission packet not be permitted. In addition to the total parking and open space deficiencies, Mr. Hernandez indicated that the other deviations such as front building setbacks, use of compact and tandem spaces, and a reduction in vehicle back-up and maneuvering area, which had been conceptually endorsed by the Design Review Committee, were necessary to achieve the unique live and work environment area. With regard to the rezoning, since Broadway is a heavy commercial area, and features traditional shopping centers and multi-family zones, staff was of the opinion that the proposed zone change was consistent with the General Plan and that the zone change would not change the character of Broadway, but would improve the existing conditions of the site and provide an alternative way to conduct business and live at the same location. He reported that at a public forum held on June 1, residents to the west were concerned about lack of privacy. The applicant and staff agreed that a higher fence would somewhat mitigate concerns regarding privacy. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit would allow the applicant PC Minutes -11- June 14, 1995 to raise the wall from 6 to 10 feet, subject to approval by the Design Review Committee and with input from residents. The residents and staff were also concerned that the units would be rented separately, since they were not linked exclusively from the inside. Staff suggested that each title of the property have restriction on the CC&Rs indicating that only the resident could be the operator of the business. Commissioner Fuller asked about the loss of privacy to the residents of the west. She questioned the location of the wall in reference to the loop road, and if the wall would be immediately behind the residences. Mr. Hernandez indicated where the zoning wall would be located. Commissioner Fuller asked if the 10-foot wall would restrict the view. Mr. Hernandez answered negatively and stated there was a 6-foot easement between the wall and the fence of the property owner. Commissioner Fuller asked if there was a security problem in the easement of 6 feet between the wall and the fence. Mr. Hernandez replied that there was not. Commissioner Fuller noted that Sweetwater Authority had some concerns regarding the availability of water. Mr. Hernandez stated that water would be available. The water main would be upgraded as part of the Broadway improvement. Senior Civil Engineer Thomas reported that was a part of the upgrade. He did not have the timetable. Commissioner Salas stated there would not be enough water pressure in order to adequately provide sufficient fire protection. Mr. Hernandez stated that the problem had been resolved. The requirement had been reduced to a lower GPM. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. R. D. Frederick, 752 Riverlawn Avenue, had submitted a speaker's slip, but had left the meeting. Russell Gillis, 741 Riverlawn Avenue, speaking for himself, Bill Bond of 745 Riverlawn, and William Hannai of 740 Riverlawn, said that this development was the best thing going on in this area of Chula Vista. Regarding the wall issue, the residents agreed that the 10-foot wall would insulate the noise, shield them from view, and also keep people out. No permanent structure could be placed on the easement. He was using the easement for a garden. The residents wanted the wall, and the Citrons had agreed to work with them. PC Minutes -12- June 14, 1995 Gary Cooper, 767 Riverlawn Avenue, said it had not been good having an auto dealership in their back yard. He felt this project was a good step in the right direction and a good utilization of the land. He said he spoke for other members of his family and his tenant. The people in his block were in favor of the proposal. The Citrons had listened and responded to their concerns. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Salas asked if the restroom facilities on the first floor addressed the requirements for handicapped. Mr. Hernandez replied that the business would be required to be handicapped accessible. Commissioner Willett suggested the Code needed to be looked at to come up with this new concept. He did not think anything in the Code should hold up the project. He asked if the City could enforce the conditions even though there were CC&Rs. Ms. Moore stated that the City could be considered a third party to the CC&R process and could enforce. Commissioner Willett stated that the easement concerned him. He asked if the easement could be used for planting trees. Mr. Hernandez stated that the utility easement was used for telephone lines and that trees could obstruct access to the telephone poles. Commissioner Willett asked if the utilities could be undergrounded and trees planted. Mr. Hernandez answered affirmatively, but stated that since the utilities do not serve the proposed project, there could not be a condition to require that they be undergrounded now.. Commissioner Salas said the CC&Rs stated that the resident of the building must be the operator of the business. An individual or company could buy a unit and rent that unit out but the operator of the business would have to be also the resident of the unit directly above. Mr. Hernandez replied that the whole concept was that the business operator and be the resident of the unit above but not necessarily the owner. Commissioner Ray asked if the business operator would be precluded from subleasing the units. Assistant City Attorney Moore stated that staff was working on a development agreement, and a number of those issues would be raised. She was comfortable with the conditions in the resolution and would be uncomfortable in expanding them. Commissioner Willett stated that he supported the concept. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the parking was based on 18,000 sq. ft. commercial space. Some of these units would not be used as retail, but could be an office, etc. He noted that the parking could overflow to the street. PC Minutes -13- June 14, 1995 Commissioner Salas stated that she was in support of the project. The City had to get away from the idea of providing a certain amount of parking lots per unit. She was not concerned with less parking. Commissioner Ray asked if they were all four-bedroom units. Associate Planner Hernandez answered that there were 30 four-bedroom units and six one-bedroom. Conunissioner Ray noted that they would need at least four parking spaces each for the four- bedroom units. Mr. Hernandez replied that the Zoning Ordinance requires only two spaces, based on the number of bedrooms. Commissioner Ray noted that the applicants would not use parking during business hours. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that parking lots would be used by residents during off hours. He stated that it may have to be revisited later. If the parking worked and them was some excess parking, staff may want to revisit. If business fails, staff did not want to leave it vacant. Commissioner Ray asked what happened if a business failed and they still wanted to live in the unit. Are they prohibited in doing anything other than leaving the business vacant. Ms. Moore answered affirmatively. Commissioner Fuller questioned whether there could be some way to preclude that from happening. If a business failed, could they be penalized in some way. Could them be some way to protect the City, other than forcing the sale of the whole thing? Commissioner Ray asked if there could be an inter-project condition that other residents and business owners be required to report to the group as a whole. Assistant City Attorney Moore stated that it be possible to incorporate something in the CC&Rs. MSC (Willett/Fuller) 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Tarantino and Thomas excused) (Commissioner Tuchscher abstained) to adopt the amended resolution PCZ-95-A/PCC-95-23 recommending that the City Council approve the rezonlng and conditional use permit in accordance with the draft City Council Ordinance and Resolution and the findings and conditions contained therein. MSC (Fuller/Salas) 4-0-2-1 (Tarantino and Thomas excused; Tuchscher had left the meeting) to cancel the meeting of June 28, 1995. PC Minutes -14- June 14, 1995 ADJOURNMENT at 10:00 p.m. to the workshop meeting of June 21, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3. N~.ncy R~pley, Secret((ry ! Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc95min\6-14pc.rain) MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION AND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Conference Rooms 2/3 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, June 14, 1995 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION PRESENT: Chair Hubbard, Commissioners Allen, Peter, Dull, Ray EXCUSED: Commissioners Armbrust, Hyde, Kell PLANNING COMMISSION: PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Fuller, Ray, Salas, and Willett EXCUSED: Commissioners Tarantino, Thomas Staff in attendance included Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Senior Planner Batchelder, Assistant City Attorney Moore GMOC Chair Hubbard opened the meeting and introduced the Commissioners. All GMOC members were present except for Commissioners Armbrust (business commitment), and Hyde and Kell (both of whom had previously arranged out-of-town travel commitments). MSC 5-0 to excuse Commissioners Armbrust, Hyde, and Kell. MSC 5-0 to accept the GMOC minutes of May 25 and June 1, 1995. Planning Commission Chair Tuchscher called the Planning Commission to order and introduced its members. All were present except Commissioner Tarantino, who had a business conflict, and Commissioner Thomas who had just been appointed to the Commission and had another commitment. MSC (Willett/Fuller) 5-0 to excuse Commissioners Tarantino and Thomas. Senior Planner Batchelder then gave a brief introduction of the 1994 GMOC Report, highlighting its main findings. Chairman Tris Hubbard then presented the report and recommendations, noting that the thresholds for which compliance had not been fully achieved were police, fire/EMS, and air quality. Joint PC/GMOC Meeting -2- June 14, 1995 Chair Hubbard noted that the recommendation for Police was based on past years, and that it is critical that the Police Department have the CAD reporting system. GMOC encouraged the City Council to assist and support the projected Spring 1996 implementation date for the CAD system. GMOC felt it would improve the ability of the Police Department to manage and its resources, and to better understand the affects of growth on the delivery of police services and maintaining threshold response. The GMOC was also concerned about development in Eastern Chula Vista--the planning and impact on the Police Department. The GMOC is recommending an update of the City's master plan for police facilities, (as well as those for fire and library facilities) to commence and possibly complete during FY 95/96. Planning Commissioner Willett was concerned that the CAD system would be cut from the budget. Based on information received from the Police and Fire Departments, Mr. Batchelder assured him that it was not in jeopardy; approval was expected for the balance of the cost in this year's budget. Commissioner Willett asked if the input hours would stay at the same level. GMOC Chair Hubbard replied that he understood the CAD/RMS would not require additional personnel. Commissioner Willett felt that once the system was in, the threshold would be okay. GMOC Commissioner Allen was concerned about implementation, training and operation of the CAD system. Mr. Batchelder stated that his understanding that they would retrain existing staff. Discussion followed regarding the need for the CAD/RMS system. Commissioner Peter noted that the system would speed up the Police and Fire reporting and productivity in doing their jobs in the field and dispatch. Chair Tuchscher recommended that the by-product of the system be emphasized; what will it do and how will it benefit service delivery. Chair Tuchscher noted that the volunteer policing program was an important element. He felt the City needed an update of the Civic Center Master Plan. He felt the Police Department needed to expand their facilities. He suggested that the police facilities be looked at rather than the entire civic center. Planning Director Leiter stated that the two did not have to coexist. Chair Hubbard said the Police needed to address how they were going to meet the needs of the expanded city. The Commission then considered the Fire Threshold, and recommended the same as for the Police Threshold. They felt that the installation of the CAD reporting system would improve the Fire Department's service delivery. Once it was in its place over a year, the GMOC would look at the threshold to determine if it was appropriate. Joint PC/GMOC Meeting -3- June 14, 1995 Air Quality - improvements were being made in the region. The City has also made efforts through the purchase of several electric and compressed natural gas operated vehicles, and the opening of two telecommuting centers. The GMOC is recommending revision of the standard based on prior input from the APCD. Mr. Batchelder noted that the APCD supported the City staff's proposed draft revised air quality threshold standard. Discussion then ensued regarding proposed light rail within Otay Ranch. GMOC Chair Hubbard noted that APCD had indicated that funding for such was unlikely, and encouraged an approach directed more generally at mass transit rather than solely to light rail as the plan now designates. Chair Tuchscher felt the General Development Plan language for Otay Ranch regarding mass transit, and the mass transit corridor versus light transit needed to be reworked. Planning Director Leiter noted that the next Planning Commission workshop would be on Otay Ranch, and that topic could be discussed if desired. Libraries - it was noted that with the opening of the new South Chula Vista Library, the Library Threshold had been met and would continue to be in compliance at least through the year 2000. The GMOC felt there was a need to look at the method of evaluating the thresholds. Chair Hubbard stated that in five years, libraries would be going to CD roms and would be on-line. Therefore, the libraries may not need to be as large. Sewer - in compliance. The GMOC recommended that the City Council and Public Works continue to fund staff and equipment for the monitoring, replacement and upgrade programs. Drainage - in compliance. Fiscal - in compliance, but the GMOC recommended that a five-year development projection be incorporated into future Public Facilities Development Impact Fee updates as has been done for the Transportation DIF. Water - the water companies were looking for alternative sources for water for both the short- term and long-term. There were many positive accomplishments at both the State and regional level to ensure adequate water supply to San Diego County. GMOC was concerned that they needed to continue to look at alternatives to develop local resources to reduce dependence on importation. Schools - GMOC had sent an early message to the Council regarding legislation (SB1066), which if approved could have severe consequences on local schools' planning and funding activities. Traffic - GMOC recommended that the City Council and staff look at impacts on "H" Street; there was a limit on "H" Street expansion, particularly west of 1-805, which would produce future threshold problems if not addressed. SR-125 would help alleviate some east/west traffic. They were concerned that the interim SR-125 plan would not meet the circulation needs of Joint PC/GMOC Meeting -4- June 14, 1995 already approved development. Commissioner Ray noted that if thresholds were not met, there would have to be a moratorium on building. Parks & Recreation - The GMOC has an ongoing concern because of inadequate park and recreation thresholds for west of 1-805. They hoped that the forthcoming Parks Implementation Plan (PIP) would be definitive and would insure that there is an ongoing program to bring parks and recreation up to threshold standard levels west of 1-805. Chair Hubbard noted that the GMOC strongly endorsed the need for a greenbelt master plan, and asked the Planning Commission to support its preparation and adoption. Planning Director Leiter stated that the MSCP program is a precursor to the greenbelt master plan. Within the next year, the habitat issues should be resolved, and such a plan should be able to be assembled. MSUC (Fuller/Willett) 5-0 (Commissioners Tarantino and Thomas excused) to accept the 1994 annual report and their recommendations, and recommend that the City Council do the same. ADJOURNMENT at 7:15 p.m. with the Planning Commission adjourning to their regular meeting immediately following, and the GMOC to their workshop meeting in later July with the City Council (date to be set). 'Nhncy R~pley, Secretary Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy~gmocpc, min)