Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/06/03 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, June 3, 1992 Public Services BuildinE ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, Martin, and Tuchscher (arrived at 7:12 p.m.) COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tugenberg (excused) STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Environmental Consultant Ponseggi, Contract Planner Gray, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Traffic Engineer Rosenberg, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of ailegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller dispensed with opening remarks, since everyone in the audience had previously attended a Planning Commission meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTF~q - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None MSC (Casillas/Decker) 5-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher had not yet arrived) to excuse Commissioner Tugenberg from the meetings of June 3 and June 10, since he was out of town. PC Minutes -2- June 3, 1992 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING; EASTLAKE SPA AMENDMENT/KAISER PERMANENTE CItlILA VISTA /~E~DICAL CENTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-92-01) Environmental Consultant Ponseggi stated that the Draft EIR was being brought before the Commission for their comments and public comments. Those concerns, in addition to letters the Commission had received that evening and those in the Commission packet, would be incorporated in the Final EIR. She then introduced Katy Wright of EastLake Development. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf asked that the public hearing be opened. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Katy Wright, EastLake Development, 900 Lane Avenue, Chula Vista, gave a brief presentation on the description of the project. Marne Borg of Lettieri-Mclntyre, the preparer of the environmental impact report, summarized the impacts of the project. Dan Marum, JHK & Associates, the traffic engineering firm on the project, gave an analysis of the traffic impacts. Commissioner Casillas asked if the analysis only took into account phases 1 and 2, which led to the net increase in ADTs of 32,000. Mr. Marum, referring to page 5-9 of the Traffic Appendix, Table 5-4, showed that the TPP assumed 20,916 trips for the site, and the proposed project--phases 1 and 2--called for 35,400. That delta is the key value which was used to assess the impact in the pre-125 study. In columns 4 and 5, the difference between 16,740 and 9,440 were the two values focused on at the build-out level of analysis for the General Plan review. Commissioner Casillas clarified that it was build-out value of phases 1, 2, and 3. Commissioner Casillas asked if the increase in water usage would be 104% over the approved land use, even with conservation measures, and why was it not significant. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated he believed it was 72% with conservation, and the mitigation covered under Water covers the fact that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer has to agree to the water conservation offset program. The same wording which has been in all the projects is listed as a mitigation measure. Answering Commissioner Casillas' query, Ms. Borg stated it would not be a significant impact. The 72% increase computed to a. 16 mgd increase. PC Minutes -3- June 3, 1992 Commissioner Decker, referring to page 1-7, asked why the proposed parking structure would have a significant visual impact from the freeway, since it is 150' back from the freeway. Ms. Ponseggi stated the letter referred to was from EastLake Development Company was questioning the accuracy of the CAD simulations. Lettieri-McIntyre had reviewed it and the CAD drawing was accurate. Commissioner Decker did not believe it would be a significant impact from the freeway. Commissioner Decker, referring to page 1-9, Table S-i, regarding the winds from south to north, said the winds are mostly from west to east or east to west. He didn't feel there was much value in that statement. Commissioner Decker, regarding Item B, said he hoped the dally sweeping was being complied with at other places for mitigation monitoring, and asked who monitored it. Ms. Ponseggi said all the mitigation measures would be addressed in the mitigation monitoring package which would be part of the Final EIR. Commissioner Decker asked for clarification regarding the 16,700 ADT without the project and an ADT figure in the TPP book. Mr. Marum stated the TPP figure was a segment volume. The model was asked to assign all projects in a cumulative manner. The graphic showed a cumulative assignment of various projects in Eastern Chula Vista. Mr. Marum noted that the original SPA project for this parcel allowed for 22,780 trips out of the area referred to as SPA Amendment area. Although there was a significant increase in total daily trip generation from this site, the medical center spreads the loading of travel to those periods of the day which would be different from the previously approved project which was an activity center and heavily employment based. Commissioner Decker said there was a memo from JHK & Associates with the last page missing just before Appendix E. Chair Fuller asked for an explanation of roadway reclassification. Mr. Marum said it would involve an amendment to the General Plan of an adopted classification for a circulation element roadway that would need to be reclassified to a wider or higher grade of street to allow the widening which is recommended to take place and the dedication of right-of-way to occur. Chair Fuller clarified that the reclassifying and redesign is done at the same time. Chair Fuller, referring to page 4.1-36, Housing, noted that EastLake had already provided 101 low-income and 119 moderate-income units in EastLake I. Therefore, requirements had been fulfilled with the exception of 19 low-income units remaining to be provided within the Village Center or through other arrangements. How could this be significant and unmitigable. Environmental Consultant Ponseggi clarified that it dealt with a whole territory loss of area available for affordable housing, not just what EastLake would be providing, but what would PC Minutes -4- June 3, 1992 be available to be provided for other developments off-site. It was being discussed in a regional context. Chair Fuller concluded that the 19 units left to be provided was then part of EastLake's total requirement. Ms. Ponseggi concurred. Dan Marum clarified two of the mitigation measures included in the EIR for the widening of Otay Lakes Road between SR-125 and EastLake Parkway. The additional lanes which would equal eight lanes on that section of roadway were covered by statements referring to acceleration and deceleration lanes which, at the discretion of the City Engineer, could be added to roadways where appropriate. The two outer lanes proposed to access the two properties to the north and south at a mid-block location between the off-ramps and the signal at EastLake Parkway would be considered accel and decel lanes, and thus the eight-lane roadway would not require reclassification of the General Plan to an eight-lane facility. The project applicant had committed to dedicating the right-of-way that would be needed to add those two lanes, one in each direction. The other mitigation measure, on EastLake Parkway adjacent to Otay Lakes Road, is a widening from a four-lane major to a six-lane major standard would require an amendment to the General Plan to add those standard use lanes for the section of EastLake Parkway to just north of Fenton Street. Commissioner Carson, referring to page 1-14, asked in what other phases of EastLake there would be a potential for affordable housing. Katy Wright, of EastLake, said they had a requirement on EastLake Greens to provide 10% low and moderate income housing. They had discussed with staff a number of locations within The Greens. In terms of EastLake I, those 19 units would likely be relocated in those areas as well. She said it was an ongoing discussion and was being tracked. Commissioner Carson was interested in how staff would respond to comments of the State of California Business Transportation and Housing Agencies in dealing with updated traffic studies for SR-125, and the fact that they would like to come back and re-evaluate the design concept which would be completed in the fall of the year. Commissioner Carson said she was concerned about the congestion that would take place during phases 1 and 2 that would be significant and unmitigable. She asked if there was some way to mitigate everything. She was looking forward to the responses to all the statements regarding traffic. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned the 9100 units stated in the TPP plan and if the traffic model assumed full buildout of all infrastructure for all the approved projects. Mr. Marum answered affirmatively. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if this project took a significant amount of the average daily trips from the 9100 units. He was concerned that if at some point residential development was PC Minutes -5- June 3, 1992 stopped, significant portions of the roadways already approved in those projects would not be built. Mr. Marum agreed that it would create a problem, and it was important to recognize that in this study a subarea version of the regional transportation model was used. The characteristics of trip making of this use was vasty different from the previous use at this site. The analysis was done for a point in time when all approved projects would be in place and a network would be provided to serve those approved projects. It was determined that there was additional reserve capacity in the 9100 EDU network to handle not only the portion of the 9100 which was associated under this project under its previously approved project scenario, but also the additional traffic produced by phases 1 and 2 over and above what was in the 9100 EDU value. The implementation of that network over time would be a function of the monitoring program which is conducted annually to make sure they are providing those facilities in advance of their need. Commissioner Tuchscher was concerned that this project represented a significant portion of the EDLIs and at some point there would be threshold where development was stopped in the eastern area until SR-125 is built. He stated that the potential of compounding the traffic problem by having an intense traffic use and the roadways not being fully built out was a real concern. City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg explained that the TPP looks at the level of development at a point in time representing approved projects, and the effect of those approved projects results in approximately 9100 dwelling units reported in the Willdan report. That number had now been increased to about 9800 dwelling units. That 9800 du value represents the number of trips that is difference. When the commercial and industrial development included in the TPP is added, it totals approximately 195,000 trips added to the system beyond what existed in January 1991. The 195,000 trips is equivalent to 19,000 EDU. The Kaiser Hospital would be generating approximately 30,000 trips for phases 1 and 2. The study has shown there is additional capacity in the system to accommodate approximately 15,000 more trips. There are competing developments for those 15,000 trips, se it is a question as to how those trips are allocated. The circulation system assumed for the Kaiser project would be in place. The developments that are committed or approved would provide the necessary infrastructure to provide for those additional 195,000 trips plus another 15,000 that would be generated by the hospital. Commissioner Tuchscher clarified that the current approved projects would be able to move forward unhindered with regard to traffic regardless of whether or not this project goes in. Mr. Rosenberg concurred. Commissioner Decker, referring to S-1 on page 1-14, Housing, asked how many employees would be new and how many would be transfers--how many new jobs would be actually generated. Ms. Ponseggi answered that it would generate approximately 4,000 jobs. Commissioner Decker questioned the transferring of employees. PC Minutes -6- June 3, 1992 Commissioner Decker, referring to S-2 on page 1-26, Mitigation Measure 4.10.4.5, did not understand why the hospital was being penalized for using water. He needs a general statement in the EIR. Commissioner Casillas said he was pleased to hear Ms. Wright and staff were having discussions as to how to handle the requirement elsewhere. He asked that staff provide the Housing Advisory Committee with some progress reports, specifically as it relates to some timeframes when they could expect some housing to go up. He felt it was critical that there be some urgent requirements for moderate~ and low-income housing given that some of the employees will not all be doctors. They can't all afford to live on the Greens or on the golf course. He believed it was critical that the work that dovetails with the Housing Advisory Committee and other facets of Community Development be known. He felt the Committee would be very interested in the progress of this project. He asked that staff provide that. Assistant Director Lee agreed that it could be provided. Commissioner Tuchscher reiterated that he would like more clarification regarding the TPP and the total allowable units for approved projects and how the computer model plays out if in fact we hit the threshold laid out in the TPP prior to full build-out of all those approved projects. He also commented on the letter from Rancho del Rey addressing a commercial center change to their SPA which would also have significant traffic impacts. He would like to look at that in conjunction with the assumption that both projects are approved and how that would be mitigated from a traffic standpoint. Tim Kruer, 2445 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, representing Sunbow Development, was also concerned with the conclusion of the EIR that the approved projects which totaled 8200 dwelling units plus Rancho del Rey resulting in 11,600 dwelling units. He asked that the EIR address the apparent conflict between its conclusion that there was no impact on the TPP with the addition of the 18,000 trips in phase 1 and 2. He said it would be helpful to know that there is reserve capacity in the system, but felt if it was the conclusion of the EIR that there were no significant impacts in terms of the phase 1 and 2 traffic, that there at least should be some discussion as to the amount of reserve capacity, how many dwelling units could be allowed within it, and that the hospital trips are not dispersed the same as residential but over a longer day. He felt it was important that the EIR discuss that its conclusions are in conformance in terms of how they tie back together. If a different modeling system was used, it should be discussed in the EIR so there would be back-up later. He was concerned, also, that the approved projects may not be built and a portion of the infrastructure would not be built. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Fuller noted that this closed the public review period of the Draft EIR and the comments received would be included in the preparation of the Final EIR. Chair Fuller declared a 5-minute break at 8:20 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:28 p.m. PC Minutes -7- June 3, 1997 ITEM 2: DISCUSSION; PLANNING COMMISSION 92-93 PROPOSED BUDGET Assistant Planning Director Lee gave a synopsis of the FY 92-93 proposed budget, and noted that Council would be holding a hearing on June 9, 1992. He particularly discussed the budget for printing and binding, conferences, and postage. There was general discussion regarding conferences, and the increased allocation for postage. The postage had been redistributed to more closely show actual usage. The Commissioners would like to see more funding allocated for conferences. ITEM 3: INFORMATION ITEM; REVOCATION PROCEDURES FOR VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Assistant Planning Director Lee presented the staff report, noting that the City Attorney had prepared an amendment relating to the procedures which would establish a specific process to deal primarily with violations. The amendment was exempt from CEQA and did not require any specific action by the Commission. Mr. Lee noted that the amendment set forth a procedure which had typically been followed by the Commission, but sets it forth officially in the ordinance and allows the determining body to actually have the hearing and appeal to the next higher body. Commissioner Decker asked if the Zoning Officer had always been able to change conditions. Mr. Lee replied that at the time the variance or conditional use permit is granted, language is included to give authority to review the conditions. Should any complaint be filed, a condition could be added at that time. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Director Lee noted that a memo had been forwarded to the Commissioners from Mayor Nader regarding meeting dates and times for boards and commissions. The Planning Commissioners did not feel there was a need to change the meeting times, and it did not need to be on the next agenda. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Commissioner Casillas asked if there had been a request to budget for additional people in Zoning Enforcement. Mr. Lee said that was handled through the Building Department, but he was not aware of any additional personnel. Commissioner Decker commented that he enjoyed the trip to Anaheim; it was very worthwhile, and he found out that there were a significant number of cities that compensate their Commissioners. Commissioner Tuchscher said he thought it was very enlightening and very interesting. After meeting with all those cities, he believed the City of Chula Vista had done an outstanding job PC Minutes -8- June 3, 1997 in recent years in planning for growth, and staff should be commended, and all the people in the decision-making process as well. It was very clear that Chula Vista is far ahead of the power curve with regard to probably 95 % of the cities. He asked Assistant Planning Director Lee to take that information back to the Department. Chair Fuller noted that she may not be able to attend the next Commission meeting on June 10. Commissioners Tugenberg and Tuchscher will also not be able to attend. Commissioner Martin noted that one of the things received from the conferences was meeting other commissioners and finding out how they look for things like the Brown Act. He thought it might be beneficial to have a workshop dinner meeting with the Planning Commission of Imperial Beach or La Mesa, or other cities nearby who would be impacted by the same things, such as Otay Ranch, etc. The workshops with the County had been enlightening. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that on June 17, there would be a joint meeting with the County and dinner would be brought in. At 7:00 p.m. there would be a hearing on the Boathouse. It would be a dual meeting. ADJOURNMENT at 8:45 p.m. to the Regular Meeting of June 10, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Riplo~, Secretal4j Planning Commission