Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1994/09/28 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:03 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, September 28, 1994 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Fuller, Martin, Moot, Ray and Salas COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tarantino (excused) STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Principal Planner Bazzel, Associate Planner Herrera, Landscape Planner Williams, Landscape Architect Schmidt, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, Traffic Engineer Rosenberg, Principal Community Development Specialist Haynes, Environmental Projects Manager Monaco, Principal Community Development Specialist Buchan, Contract Attorney Basil MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Fuller/Martin) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Tarantino who had a business conflict. 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MSC (Ray/Salas) (Tarantino excused) 6-0 to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meetings of August 10, August 24, and September 14, 1994 (Commissioners Salas, Fuller, and Moot stated they were not present at various meetings, but had read the minutes and believed them to be correct.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- September 28, 1994 ITEM 1: REQUEST OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW "AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE" FACILITIES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ZONES - Econo Lube 'n' Tune, Inc. Principal Planner Griffin commented briefly on the purpose for amending the Municipal Code, and recommended that the Planning Commission authorize staff to proceed with the study and scheduling of public hearings to consider the amendment. Chair Tuchscher stated that he believed this type of business had changed significantly in recent years and although he felt the current Code allowed for this use in more industrially oriented zoning, there had been changes in market demand for these facilities, access, and high visibility locations and the way that they conduct business. It seemed appropriate at this time to have staff look at it and determine if it was appropriate to make the change in the Municipal Code within the City of Chula Vista. MSC (Salas/Fuller) 6-0 (Tarantino excused) that the Planning Commission authorize consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code to allow automotive maintenance facilities by conditional use permit in certain commemial zones. Chair Tuchscher noted that Item 3 would be taken before Item 2, to free up staff time. Commissioner Moot also had a conflict of interest on Item 2. ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-94-20/PCA-94-02; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE - City initiated Landscape Planner Williams stated that this item had been continued from the meeting of August 10, 1994, in order for the development community to have additional time to review and comment on the final draft of the Manual. Various comments had been received which had resulted in some minor changes in the text. The overall format and information remained consistent with the August 10 Planning Commission packet. Staff had received endorsement from the Chamber of Commerce and Otay Water District; the local chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects endorsed the Manual in concept. However, some minor technical clarifications expressed by ASLA would be resolved prior to Council adoption, and an additional requirement to address brush management would also be added. Mr. Williams continued by describing the components of the Manual. He noted that the Manual had been reviewed by the State Department of Water Resources and found to be in compliance with AB325. Mr. Williams introduced Landscape Architect Marty Schmidt of the Parks and Recreation Department, who was available to answer questions. PC Minutes -3- September 28, 1994 Commissioner Martin stated that there was a real problem in the shopping center on the corner of Fourth and "F". He was uncomfortable driving his car there because of the inability to see around the landscaping. Assistant Planning Director Lee replied that there were two components to landscape plans, the original installation and maintenance. There were maintenance agreements with various developers, but other than some type of problem occurring or something brought to staff's attention, an area is not reviewed. Staff would be happy to review the problem with the shopping center owner. Commissioner Moot asked about the "watering window," regarding the comment that some of the developers of EastLake and Baldwin felt that it would increase or add some additional irrigation meters with some fiscal impact to them. He wanted to know how it was resolved. Landscape Architect Schmidt stated the "watering window" was required of the development industry by the Parks and Recreation Department. The criteria was established due to the time restraints within which staff is able to irrigate both the parks and open space areas. As a result, those timeframes were incorporated into the manual so that when parks and open space areas are designed and intended for mm-over to the City for maintenance, they would be designed in such a fashion that staff would have irrigation systems that functioned and met the design and time parameters that the City must adhere to. Mr. Schmidt stated there would be an increase in cost of the systems over the cost of systems which did not have a timing system, but it was necessary for City maintenance. Commissioner Moot asked if this was different from the way it was done before the Landscape Manual. Mr. Schmidt said there was no set criteria in the current Landscape Manual. The Landscape Manual had not been revised since 1978, and since that point in time there had been more development within the central and eastern portions of Chula Vista with additional acreage of open space and mm-key parks which had been developed. This was a situation which had evolved with the type of development which was occurring. Staff was responding and trying to establish some type of criteria and parameters within which to develop these new communities and master planned residential areas. Commissioner Fuller asked if some of those open spaces would have to be retrofitted with additional irrigation meters. Mr. Schmidt answered negatively; those areas had been turned over to the City, and systems that were designed and installed and subsequently turned over to the City would have to be retrofit and revised through the City's capital improvement process or would have to be maintained with the devices available to the City. Commissioner Ray asked about the comparison between the City Manual and the State model, and why two items were not included in the City Manual which were in the State model--the water audit budget and the special meter requirements. Mr. Williams stated that the City was not in the business of selling water. The Otay Water District had its own ordinance which addressed those two areas. They required separate water meters for new landscaped areas. PC Minutes -4- September 28, 1994 Since this was something already covered by the water purveyor, staff did not feel it was appropriate to go into the Manual. The intent of the Manual was to set up more definitive and more stringent design criteria which a professional would be able to use to create a design that would conserve water. It was not staff's role to police the use of water, and it was already addressed and covered in Otay Water District's ordinance. Replying to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Williams stated that during the development of the Manual, staff had been working with the Otay Water District who was developing their own water ordinance. They saw the effort of conserving and managing water as a cooperative effort by the City and any local water purveyor. Commissioner Ray concluded that this was being set up as a guideline, and the enforcement of it was being left to private entel~rise. Mr. Williams stated the City would be enforcing any requirements and standards set forth in the Manual; however, if Otay Water required separate water meters, it was something the City staff would be looking for when plans came through for plan check. Typically, many of the projects were required to be approved by Otay Water prior to City approval. Commissioner Ray stated that at worst case, if anything were to change with the Water Districts, the Water Districts would impose a stricter guideline. Mr. Williams concurred. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Fuller/Martin) 6-0 (Commissioner Tarantino excused) to adopt Resolution PCM-94-20 and PCA-94-02 recommending that the City Council approve the amendments to the City Landscape Manual and associated amendments to the Municipal Code in accordance with the findings contained in the draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance. Chair Tuchscher congratulated staff on a long, tedious, drawn-out process which had been done well. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: (A) GPA-94-04/PCZ-94-C; CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND REZONING FOR 31.63 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 54 (SR54), BETWEEN BROADWAY (NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD) AND FIFTH AVENUE - National Avenue Associates (B) CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS #12 AND #13 TO THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN PC Minutes -5- September 28, 1994 Chair Tuchscher directed staff to present the General Plan Amendment and Zoning and also the Amendment No. 12 of the Local Coastal Program, which was specific to the project. Amendment No. 13 had been brought forth and represented as a housekeeping type of amendment to the Local Coastal Program, but to keep things "project specific", he asked that Amendment No. 13 be presented separately at the end of the public hearing. He noted that the Commission had the ability to act independently on the Local Coastal Program amendments. Commissioner Moot asked to be excused from consideration of this matter. One of the panners at his firm had in the past represented Gatlin Development. While his f'mn did not represent them with respect to this particular project, he felt it was appropriate for him not to consider and vote on this matter. Commissioner Salas noted that she worked for the Employment Development Department and the State of California. Currently, they were working with WalMart in terms of recruiting employees on their site on 1-805 and Palm. It was not related to the Channelside Shopping Center, but she wished it to be noted in the record that she had worked for WalMart in the past. Attorney Basil stated it was remote enough that it did not represent an impermissible conflict. He felt she could vote on this. Principal Community Development Specialist Haynes introduced the project team and those who would be involved in the presentation, and then gave an overview of the project, noting that this was an interjurisdictional project with a great deal of cooperation between the Cities of Chula Vista and National City. Inasmuch as it was a redevelopment project, it was their charge to create jobs and help stimulate economic development and growth. Approximately 400 jobs would be created by the project; in addition, staff would be working with Gatlin Development to prepare an agreement that would work with Sweetwater Adult High School and the Southwestern College to provide WalMart with trained employees, with Chula Vista residents having the first opportunity in obtaining those jobs. Environmental Projects Manager Monaco stated the Planning Commission had previously considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Channelside Shopping Center at their meeting of August 10, 1994. The Final EIR had been prepared and was before the Commission at this time. Three main issues were raised during the public review period which were addressed in the Final EIR-school impacts, traffic safety, and biological impacts. Regarding school impacts, the Final EIR stated that the current State-mandated school impact fee is adequate mitigation for the enrolment impacts that would be caused by the development of the project. The School Districts disagreed with this conclusion and had indicated that State- mandated fees are not adequate in lieu of their current capital cost per student. To offset this imbalance, the developer had agreed to provide mitigation beyond the State-mandated fees in the form of offering one relocatable classroom per district. That mitigation had been agreed upon by the School Districts, and staff was working with both the applicant and the School Districts to make those arrangements. PC Minutes -6- September 28, 1994 In the area of traffic safety, comments had been received from Worley, Schwartz, Garfield and Rice, the counsel to GES Exposition Services, an adjacent land use. Their specific concerns regarded potential conflicts between traffic entering and exiting the proposed commercial center site and their large truck traffic egressing the GES site. The Final EIR addressed the issue, but a second letter received from GES's counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the level of specificity in the mitigation offered. To address that concern, staff recommended that an amendment be made in the Final EIR to the response to comments to require conditions of approval as follows: 1. Prohibition of parking on Fifth Avenue from "C" Street to its north end; 2. Restriping of Fifth Avenue along this link to provide for two southbound lanes, one of which would act as a truck lane from the GES driveway south to "C" Street; and 3. Provision for sheltering of that truck lane at the northerly end of the street to allow exclusive use by the trucks. Regarding the biology issues raised in the Draft EIR, Mr. Monaco stated that a detailed mitigation plan had been provided in the Final EIR in the appendix to the response to comments that set forth a specific mitigation and revegetation plan for impacts that would be caused by the bridge over to Broadway. Those plans had been conceptually agreed to by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and also by the Department of Fish & Game. Mr. Monaco noted that an additional comment had been received the previous day from the law finn of Davis, Cowell & Bowe, representing Mr. William McMahon and other Chula Vista residents. This comment had been received well after the close of the public review period on the Draft EIR and the City had no legal obligation to respond to that comment in the Final EIR. Mr. Monaco reviewed the points raised in that comment, however, and showed that the EIR had adequately addressed those points. Mr. Monaco stated that staff recommended an additional modification to the Mitigation Monitoring Program that the timing for traffic improvements be modified to state that they would be consistent with the conditions of approval. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the Final EIR as modified and, if the Commission chose to recommend approval of the project, that the Commission recommend adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program as modified and adoption of the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Associate Planner Herrera made a presentation at this point regarding the proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning. The proposed General Plan amendment from Research and Limited Manufacturing to Commemial Thoroughfare did not propose to modify the greenbelt designation currently depicted on the land use diagram, which would continue to front on Fifth Avenue and between existing major retail areas to the east of the project site. Mr. Herrera also discussed buffering and signage, and gave a slide presentation showing access and egress, bridge PC Minutes -7- September 28, 1994 alignment, building site elevations, and an architect's rendition of the final project build-out including the bridge and the National City marketplace, as well as the proposed project. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a) the draft resolution recommending that City Council certify the Final EIR, adopt the CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Certificate of Overriding Considerations, amend the General Plan by redesignating the 31.63 acres depicted in Exhibit A from Research and Limited Manufacturing to Thoroughfare Commercial, and b) the draft City Council ordinance to change the zone classification from I-P to C-C-P for the 31.63 acres depicted on Exhibit D, including Precise Plan Guidelines contained therein. Principal Community Development Specialist Buchan then presented the staff report regarding Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 12, which involved an amendment to the Bayfront Specific Plan and Land Use Plan. Ms. Buchan noted that Amendmem No. 12 was specific to the land use of the proposed Channelside Shopping Center project site, not specific to the project itself. The Channelside Shopping Center site is currently designed for Industrial General under the Local Coastal Program. Staff recommended a change to Commemial Thoroughfare, which is subject to the Central Commercial zoning with the "P" modifier which would be consistent with the rezoning, the General Plan Amendment, and the project. Commissioner Martin questioned the zone area of National City and the existing Dixieline Lumber. Mr. Herrera answered that the present zoning for the eastern portion of that area was CG-PD (General Commercial Planned Development) for the lumber yard. The area to the west was CH-CZ (Heavy Commercial Coastal Zone). Those zones were consistent with Chula Vista at this time. Commissioner Martin commented that some of the property at the end of the Second Avenue bridge which belonged to Chula Vista was in the middle of National City. The property of Dixieline which was in the boundaries of National City was in Chula Vista. Commissioner Martin asked if the channel could be used to divide the cities, and trade the properties. Mr. Herrera assured Commissioner Martin that had been discussed with National City on various occasions and nothing had come out of it. Commissioner Martin was concerned with traffic in the intersection between National City and Chula Vista. Community Development Specialist Haynes stated that was the genesis of the need for a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of National City, because both projects were starting concurrently. Staff recognized that there were some jogged city boundaries both on the north and the south side of SR-54; however, those issues were beyond staff, so in the Memorandum of Understanding both cities agreed to cooperate with one another in terms of designing a project that worked well together, and each understanding the traffic impacts that each project would have on the corresponding city. In a development agreement being prepared, staff is trying to clarify some of those problems. Staff is in the process of trying to negotiate PC Minutes -8- September 28, 1994 a landswap of a 6.1-acre parcel on the north end of Fifth Avenue to National City in exchange for other considerations. Mr. Haynes felt that, in the end, both cities would be protected from traffic impacts that each project would have on the other city. Addressing Commissioner Martin's concern regarding the National City Swap Meet, Principal Planner Bazzel stated that the only portion of the area which was in the City of Chula Vista was the drive-in theater, not the swap meet. Chair Tuchscher asked if staff agreed that they felt comfortable that most of the major issues associated with these two projects would be able to be handled jointly with the City of National City due to the Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Haynes concurred. Commissioner Ray, referring to page 4.8-20 of the EIR, regarding the widening of National City Boulevard/Broadway to a six-lane street between "E" and SR-54, asked if the thoroughfare would be widened and the bridge rebuilt. Mr. Monaco replied that the General Plan showed Broadway as a six-lane major in that location, which would be at buildout. Commissioner Ray asked if that would be in 1995. Traffic Engineer Rosenberg stated that Broadway had a projection of approximately 40,000-50,000 cars under the scenario of the buildout, when all the land of Chula Vista is developed to the present allowed zoning. This would take place in a 20-30 year period. Commissioner Ray asked if that would be inclusive of Otay Ranch, etc. Mr. Rosenberg concurred. It was included in the EIR to show what the ultimate section of that roadway would be at some time in the furore. Commissioner Ray stated that this project would not be proposed to exacerbate that problem and speed up the buildout time, given the volume anticipated to go to this project. Mr. Rosenberg replied that it was a cumulative effect, but the amount of traffic contributed by the project was very small compared to the ultimate growth expected on that particular section of the street system. Commissioner Ray asked if there was any concern about the back-up from the left-mm lane at Broadway/"C" Street traffic going south. He felt the traffic on the bridge was already heavy during peak hours. Mr. Rosenberg said they were concerned; there is a constraint there; the wooden bridge did not provide adequate distance for a left-turn lane to turn in a southbound direction to go east on "C" Street. The project is proposing a new connection to 35th Street to provide for a left-turn facility into the project at that location, which would relieve the pressure at "C" Street. Mr. Rosenberg stated it is a problem; National City has a project to widen the bridge and will widen it to provide for a bike lane, but it would not be sufficient to extend the left-turn pocket much distance. It would be a problem until the creek crossing was built to a standard four-lane section. PC Minutes -9- September 28, 1994 Commissioner Ray asked if the projections proved inaccurate, and there is extensive traffic build-up at that intersection, what was the mitigation for it. Given the fact that the bridge is in National City's jurisdiction, what could be done about it other than possibly closing off the left- turn lane. Mr. Rosenberg answered that the mitigation possible would be to adjust the phasing of the signal to allow the southbound moves to operate independent of the northbound moves so the left turn and through moves could be doubled up. The traffic could be handled at least for the short term until a capital program could be developed to improve the creek bridge crossing. Commissioner Ray asked if, at buildout, National City had not expanded the bridge, did Chula Vista have any power enforcing the expansion of the bridge. Mr. Rosenberg replied that it would strictly be a National City initiated project. Concurring with Mr. Ray, Mr. Rosenberg stated that as long as there is a bottleneck, there would not be much more capacity. The capacity is limited to the weakest link of the system, and until the bridge is improved, it will be constrained. Commissioner Ray asked about the internal traffic at Fifth Avenue into the project. Comparing it to Terra Nova, he asked if there would be traffic backed up until a median had to be installed to control the traffic. Mr. Rosenberg stated that the environmental traffic consultant had looked at internal circulation, and in his own estimation as well, the amount of traffic generated at that intersection was not comparable to the Terra Nova. They felt the intersection could operate sufficiently with an all-way stop, particularly with the access road connection to Fourth Avenue which would provide most of the relief. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Donald R. Worley, 401 B Street, Suite 1150, San Diego 92101, representing GES Exposition Services, stated they had some traffic concerns and, with the three mitigation measures added as mitigation measures in the EIR, they were in agreement with the EIR and they could support the project. Jerry Alford, 2445 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400, San Diego 92101, stated he is a principal of National Avenue Associates, the applicant, co-developing the project with Gatlin Development. He gave some history of the project, and commended staff for their efforts. Mr. Alford concurred with staff's recommendations with the mitigations and asked the Planning Commission's support in recommending the project to City Council for approval. Commissioner Salas asked Mr. Alford how this WalMart Store compared to the store on 1-805 and Palm in terms of the size. Mr. Alford deferred to Mr. Phil Adams, the builder. Phil Adams, 12625 High Bluff Drive, #304, San Diego, commended City staff for the effort they had put in the project. Mr. Adams stated it had been a "herculean" effort to work with two developers, two cities, and dealing with all the different agencies including the Coast Guard. One of the major concerns of WalMart had been traffic; another concern was with respect of the bridge, which brought them in contact with the Local Coastal Commission, U.S. Fish & PC Minutes -10- September 28, 1994 Wildlife, and U.S. Fish & Game. Mr. Adams noted a traffic study had been done in connection with the EIR, and asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Salas repeated her question regarding the size of the store. Mr. Adams said the store in Chula Vista was larger than the one at 1-805 and Palm. Commissioner Salas stated that in the Planning Commission package they had been shown three different alternatives for the bridge. In the environmental impact report, the worst case scenario of the bridge was . 15 acres of wetlands. Mr. Adams stated that took into consideration the impact of construction. He discussed the different alternatives, and, using the overhead, he explained that the Fish & Wildlife Service and the Dept. of Fish & Game had agreed with a partial bridge and an on-grade crossing. Commissioner Salas questioned the landscape buffer which had been used as mitigation measure for the greenbelt. She asked if the landscape buffer would be something that the public could walk through. Mr. Adams replied that the designated buffer was a buffer from the actual wetlands. The USF&WS had asked that the public be precluded from entering the area and to encourage wildlife and other habitats for this particular area. The project proposed to plant a bramble bush along with landscaping and screening the border of the WalMart site. Commissioner Martin asked if they planned to install any permanent tables, etc. at the north end of the property where it met the greenbelt, where people could meet to ride horses through the greenbelt. Mr. Adams stated they had made it user friendly; they did have areas for people to sit down, relax, and enjoy themselves. There were pedestrian accesses running through the site, with a sidewalk across the bridge to Fourth Street. Commissioner Martin clarified that he was concerned about the true greenbelt concept as it was originally formed in the channel area itself. Chair Tuchscher stated that the jurisdictional boundaries created a real conflict at this location for that. He asked staff to comment. Principal Planner Bazzel responded that in the initial review of the project, the 28-mile circumferential combination open space and trail system surrounding the City, there was a requirement that a master plan be developed for that. The master plan had not been developed yet; however, development pressures occurring in the Sweetwater Valley as well as in the Otay Valley have necessitated looking at some of these issues sooner than the master plan preparation. The primary goal is to assure that the trail system is intact surrounding the City. Staff had looked at many areas where that opportunity exists. Mr. Bazzel, using the overhead, showed the existing trail system and noted the constraints as far as having jurisdictional control, and existing development to the east. The greenbelt also consisted of open space linkage where connections to other park systems back up to the trail system, as well as visual open space, all become factors. Mr. Bazzel stated that with this particular project, staff realized that the trail would have to be achieved along the levee of the channel on the north side of the eastbound travel lanes of SR-54, but there was still a need to preserve the open space within the river recharge area, and to provide a visual buffer along the back side of the project and along the PC Minutes "-11- September 28, 1994 edge of the river recharge area. That would be done at the site plan and landscape review at the precise plan level and at the implementation level. Mr. Adams stated that the area was also a habitat for transients and migrants, and a part of their logic was to create the area, and re-landscape it with berms and types of vegetation to discourage possible settlements. They hoped National City would take the same steps when they redesign and reconstruct their bridge crossing. Commissioner Ray questioned the internal traffic, asking their rationale when exiting the bridge onto the WalMart project site, to take the traffic through the perimeter rather than through the center of the parking lot. They did not want to have a straight shot, since it would be difficult to control traffic speed. They felt it would be best to create a meandering type of route to discourage people shortcutting from one street to another. Commissioner Ray, regarding the entrance off Fifth Avenue, asked the rationale for the entrance further to the south. Mr. Adams stated it allowed for an escape route from the shopping center. It was a logical road that traversed through the center and terminated at that specific point. He explained to Mr. Ray their thinking regarding traffic collection and dispersement. More discussion followed regarding the internal traffic and the rationale for using signs rather than signals for the intersection. Commissioner Ray commented that traffic would probably be coming off SR-54 from the eastern territory or from Broadway or Fifth through Chula Vista, which would impact Fifth Avenue south of "E" Street. He believed the majority of the traffic would probably come off Fourth Avenue and go through the project site. Traffic Engineer Rosenberg commented, since Mr. Ray was comparing again to Terra Nova, that the driveway at Terra Nova generated about 24,000 cars per day at East "H" Street. Fifth Avenue in this project would only generate about 7,000 cars. There was a total of about 15,000 driveway trips. Seven thousand of those trips were attracted to Fourth Avenue, 5,000 to Fifth Avenue, and another 1,000 to 2,000 would be attracted to Broadway. The kind of impact Mr. Ray was looking at was not comparable to Terra Nova, except for the fact that there was an intersection that would have a significant amount of traffic--but not at the level of Terra Nova. Regarding the interchange, Mr. Rosenberg concurred that most of the traffic would be attracted to the full interchange at Fourth and Highland/SR-54 interchange because it provided moves to all directions. The intersection would be designed and signalized to provide the capacity needed for that volume. Regarding Fifth Avenue and the four-legged intersection, based on the numbers Mr. Rosenberg had seen, it appeared that an all-way stop and the lane configuration being proposed would be sufficient and signalization would not be necessary. Commissioner Ray asked if this had been run through the traffic model. Mr. Rosenberg said they had used the modeling approach to determine the level of service to be expected at all of the intersections the project touched on. PC Minutes -12- September 28, 1994 Commissioner Ray asked what the pad to the southwest of the project would be. Mr. Adams said it was undetermined at this point. They were hopeful to attract another high volume use. Commissioner Ray stated he assumed they had taken the highest potential usage to discuss the impacts. Environmental Coordinator Monaco confirmed. Commissioner Martin asked how far it was from the front of WalMart to the bridge on Fifth Avenue; he wished to compare it to the distance from Ralphs and Target between Oxford and Palomar. Mr. Rosenberg believed Mr. Martin was referring to the motorists who wished to access the Price Club to avoid the intersection of Broadway and Palomar. Mr. Rosenberg did not believe the situation was similar here, because the desire to shortcut through the project would strictly be to get from Broadway to Fourth Avenue, but the center was the generator and was the destination. He did not see the parallel. Commissioner Martin again asked how far it was from the main door of WalMart to the bridge and the mm-off. He was concerned with possible stacking at the front door if several cars were stopping for passengers, and asked if Mr. Adams was satisfied with that. Mr. Adams stated that he was satisfied; this was a wider than normal area and was about 400' in length. Chair Tuchscher asked Mr. Rosenberg to describe the mitigation measures discussed and agreed to by consensus by GES, particularly the truck lane on Fifth Avenue. Mr. Rosenberg said the present roadway was 56' wide and striped with one lane in each direction and parking was permitted. Staff was proposing to prohibit parking on both sides, use the parking area and some of the additional width of the street that was available to restripe the roadway to four lanes. There would be one northbound lane beginning at "C" Street, which would allow a continuous left-tom lane to tom into the first driveway into the Center and to the four-way intersection where an exclusive left-tom would be created. The right lane would be a choice lane to go straight or turn right to the Dixieline area. There would be only one southbound lane at the intersection, and immediately opposite the driveway for the GES project, there would be a second lane so the trucks could mm into that lane without the interference of the project traffic. That lane would be shared until it approached the intersection of "C" Street, where there would be two lanes to provide capacity. Chair Tuchscher asked about the "sheltering" exclusive use. Mr. Rosenberg replied that it was an island configuration at the south leg of the access road intersection. It could be a painted or raised island which was a means of controlling traffic as they tom south onto the roadway so that they stay in the lane closest to the curb, or the west side of the roadway, so that the inside lane could be created solely for the use of the tracks as they turned out of their driveway. Commissioner Ray, regarding the intersection of Fifth and "C" Street, asked if there was any proposal to make that four lanes all the way through from "C" Street to Broadway. Mr. Rosenberg stated this project would not be required to do any widening on "C" Street. They PC Minutes -13- September 28, 1994 did not feel that was an impact created by the project. The estimated volume occurring on "C" Street could be accommodated within the existing width. Some adjustments may have to be made in the striping and prohibiting parking. Commissioner Ray was concerned with traffic leaving the ballfields, and asked if there would be dedicated left-mm lanes going into the ballfields and right-mm lanes going into the project site. Mr. Rosenberg said that was not a condition, but it may be necessary to alter the bike lane configuration and create a third lane to allow for a continuous left-mm lane to provide that protection for turning into the ballfield site. Commissioner Ray asked what was the measurement device before the City would take action on that. Mr. Rosenberg said the threshold standards were their basic guide, which were usually relative to the safety performance. Eventually, "C" Street may have to be widened and consistent with Fifth Avenue; however, this project did not generate the need. There may be a cumulative growth impacts by other projects in the area. In answer to Mr. Ray, he stated reported accidents were used as a measure. Jack Duncan, 3250 Sports Arena, San Diego 82119, representing Dixieline Lumber, regarding the letter received that day from the law firm of Davis, Cowell, and Bowe, stated this law firm or its clients had no objection to the project as a development in the City of Chula Vista. They objected to the hiring practices of WalMart; it is a political action group of labor unions, one of which happened to be the carpenters union. Dixieline, being a union employer, was aware that the carpenters union was involved in this and had met with them on several occasions to discuss it with them. Dixieline, as a union employer, objected to this type of labor negotiating. They had been pro labor for their entire history, and to the best of his knowledge had negotiated with the Teamsters and Carpenters over the years in good faith and fairness and had an excellent relationship with the unions they do business with. He felt if the unions had an issue with WalMart, those issues should be raised in the board room or in their stores, not by blocking what Dixieline considered a very fine quality development. Mr. Duncan also congratulated staff. It had been a very difficult development because of the levels of government, the two cities, the two developers, etc. Chair Tuchscher asked if there were any questions relative to this project or Amendment No. 12 of the Local Coastal Plan. Chair Tuchscher then asked Principal Community Development Specialist Buchan to make the staff presentation on Amendment No. 13 of the Local Coastal Plan. Ms. Buchan asked that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the amendment be approved. The amendment basically involved corrections and clean-up. She asked that a change be made to the proposed amendment on land use exhibit no. 3. There were two land use changes; one involved changing an Industrial Research parcel. The I-R designation should be changed to I-G (from Industrial Research to Industrial General). She wished to withdraw that particular portion of the amendment. The I-R portion of the LCP was in the Montgomery Specific Plan Area and there had been some underlying land use rezoning with the PC Minutes -14- September 28, 1994 Montgomery Specific Plan. Her proposal was inconsistent with that zoning, and she had to review that. The change to CVH from C-T was still being recommended. Ms. Buchan stated that Amendment No. 13 was varied and could be confusing. She would be glad to answer any questions, if there was anything specific. Chair Tuchscher did not have any specific questions, but stated that he found it difficult to get through and somewhat confusing. He would like a more in-depth presentation. On another project, they had used a matrix and he felt that was an easier way to get through some of the issues. The way it was presented was challenging to him. Ms. Buchan agreed, and volunteered to go through each page. Regarding the land use plan, on the graphic and also in the text under the Commercial uses--in the graphic, there were C-V, CVH, and C-P designations. In the text, there was a C-T designation discussed. The CVH and C-T were used interchangeably. She was making that land use designation consistent by taking the C-T out and using the CVH consistently. Commissioner Ray suggested that Amendment 13 be tabled and brought back for discussion, if legal, at the next workshop so the Commission could become well enough versed to discuss it intelligently. Attorney Basil stated it would be appropriate if the Commission determined that it would like to table Amendment No. 13 so it could be discussed at a workshop meeting, but another public hearing would have to be noticed in terms of Amendment No. 13 itself. Commissioner Martin said he would like to table Amendment No. 13 as well. Commissioner Fuller did not see a problem and asked if the Bayfront Specific Plan had not been reviewed. It had been approved, and she understood that it did not contain any substantive changes to the actual LCP. They were just talking about corrections and cleanups in wordings, and she would like her fellow Commissioners to explain if they planned to review what the LCP contained or just the revisions. Commissioner Ray said he was just concerned with Amendment 13; the rest he was okay with. He wanted to understand what the differences were with the designations and what it was really going to accomplish. Ms. Buchan said that on this particular amendment, there were no changes that actually change a land use. It brought the terms into consistency by not using two different terms. It was changing the label only. Chair Tuchscher commented that his challenge was with the text issues, and he was not clear on what the original said and the changes they were making. He respected staff's opinions and recommendations and professionalism, but he felt his obligation was to review the changes side by side with the original versus the changes proposed, and that he could weigh them and make sure they were consistent with the intent of the original document. He was having a problem doing that. PC Minutes -15- September 28, 1994 Principal Planner Bazzel added that the General Plan could be amended four times a year; this particular action on the Channelside proposal would be the second amendment, and there was one or more additional amendments coming up near the end of the year. If this Amendment 13 were tabled or delayed and tracked separately, it could be hatched with other amendments later in the year. It may be some time before it got back onto the agenda. Answering Chair Tuchscher, Ms. Buchan said the Local Coastal Program could be amended three times--going to the Coastal Commission. These did not need amendment with the General Plan. It was a minor amendment. The Coastal Commission had two types of amendments-- minor and major. Amendment No. 12 was a major amendment, where there was a substantial change. They were changing a land use from industrial into commercial with the WalMart project. Amendment No. 13 was changing terms for clarification and all the new information had been brought in from the previous Local Coastal Program before going through the major amendment--if there was an inconsistency in terms, typographical errors, etc. The Coastal Commission had determined that would be a minor amendment and would not have to go through a full Coastal Commission public hearing. It could be done at a staff level with a report to the Commission. Staff could go with another batch of amendments next year with the LCP; the timing was not critical; there was a little concern after passing Amendment 12 that there would be another C-T land use designation for WalMart and there could be some confusion. Commissioner Fuller said if there was a decision by the majority to delay Amendment 13, this did not delay the project, if action was taken. This was simply included because it was a housekeeping action that seemed to fit here because an LCP amendment was being made anyway. It was not critical to this project. Ms. Buchan stated it was not critical for this project; it was kept separate for that reason. Commissioner Salas commented that if it would not delay the project, she would like a workshop on Amendment No. 13, or to at least postpone it. Motion by Commissioner Ray that this item be continued until such time that the Commission could have a workshop on it and tag it with the next batch of amendments that would be going forward sometime later in the year. Motion died for lack of second. After confirming with Attorney Basil, Chair Tuchscher suggested that the Commission move forward on project issues associated with the WalMart center, the Channel project, and deal with the amendments through separate motions. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Fuller/Martin) 5-0-2 (Commissioners Tarantino and Moot excused) that the Planning Commission approve the Draft City Council resolution to certify the FEIR, as modified, PC Minutes -16- September 28, 1994 adopt the CEQA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as modified, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations; and amend the General Plan by redesignated 31.63 acres depicted as Exhibit A from Research and Limited Manufacturing to Thoroughfare Commercial. MSC (Fuller/Martin) 5-0-2 (Commissioners Tarantino and Moot excused) that the Planning Commission approve the draft City Council ordinance to change the zone classification from I-P to C-C-P for 31.63 acres depicted as Exhibit D, including the Precise Plan Guidelines contained therein. MSC (Fuller/Ray) 5-0-2 (Commissioners Tarantino and Moot excused) to adopt Amendment No. 12 which entails changing the land use designation of approximately 32 acres of undeveloped property from Industrial General to Commercial Thoroughfare, subject to the Central Commercial zoning criteria. MSC (Ray/Salas) 4-1-2 (Commissioners Tarantino and Moot excused; Commissioner Fuller voting 'no') to continue Amendment 13 to the LCP until such time that the Planning Commission can meet via a workshop and bring this back when the next revision to the LCP is made. Chair Tuchscher commented that he was very happy with all the praise that staff received; he thought it was well deserved relative to this project, working with National City and with GES and getting all the issues resolved before it was brought before the Commission. Congratulations to staff on that, and to the applicant. Commissioner Ray asked if a development agreement was in place on this project. Mr. Haynes answered that there was a Disposition and Development Agreement that had been approved contingent upon approval of all of the discretionary approvals by the Council, Agency, and the Coastal Commission. They were hoping to make the agenda of October 18 for the Council/Agency, and then it was undetermined with respect to the scheduling of the Coastal Commission for their approval of the LCP Amendment and the subsequent Coastal Development Permit. Commissioner Ray asked to receive a copy of the development agreement when it had been signed and agreed to by City Council. OTHER RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL ON SANDAG'S LETTER REGARDING GROWTH MANAGEMENT ISSUES Assistant Planning Director Lee gave some background of the issue, and stated that SANDAG was recommending that cities approve the Series 8 forecast which would relate to a forecast into the year 2005, which still leaves the region with 3.3 million people. The Mayor had directed PC Minutes -17- September 28, 1994 a letter to the Planning Commission asking that they respond back to issues relating to the Series 8 forecast; there was a joint meeting with RCC; the RCC had taken action to recommend adoption of the documents presented. In terms of the Planning Commission, Mr. Lee felt there was a question as to whether or not the Commissioners felt comfortable at this point in making comments back to the Council as to whether there should be additional work by staff regarding amendment of the Chula Vista General Plan intensifying land uses around transit centers and what implications that might represent. This was not time sensitive, and with two members absent, Mr. Lee questioned whether the Commission wished to make a recommendation or trail the item and have staff provide them with further evaluation or analysis. Chair Tuchscher felt it would be useful to have some input from staff. He also would like to have Commissioners Tarantino and Moot present. Chair Tuchscher commented that in the eastern territory, it seemed that everything had been done that SANDAG considered positive in the regional perspective. On the west side, the intensification of use would probably be along the trolley lines. Mr. Lee stated that was one area that could be studied. They had discussed in the past with MTDB the maximization of parking areas and looking at potential building over the parking areas, providing some mixed use operation. Chair Tuchscher did not wish to see staff spend a lot of time on this, but the numbers would be very important in projects proposed in the future. Commissioner Fuller asked if there had been discussion in years past regarding redevelopment of the corridor along the trolley from "H" Street south and west of Broadway. Mr. Lee answered that there had been discussion between "E" and "H" regarding intensification of potential office use south of "E" Street. He felt it would be helpful to the Commission for staff to spend some time and provide them with additional input, and come back at the end of October. There would still be time to respond to SANDAG, and hopefully there would be a full Commission. Chair Tuchscher asked that staff bring input back to the Commission on October 29. DIRECTOR'S REPORT - None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Ray apologized to the Commission for missing the workshop the previous week, due to an oversight. Commissioner Martin stated that he got frustrated looking at a letter received the day before, when they had 45 days to respond. He applauded City staff in the way they handled it by responding point by point even though they did not have to. Attorney Basil noted that the City did not have a legal responsibility to respond because they were turned in late, but staff went out of their way to make sure the Commissioners had an answer to every concern that was presented, regardless of how late or how meritorious it may or may not have been. PC Minutes -18- September 28, 1994 Commissioner Fuller asked since there was no defined master plan for the greenbelt and one of the concerns was having access into the City from the proposed greenbelt, and since this was one of the last links before the Bay, was it being assumed that the link into the City would have to come in the Bayfront development when and if that ever was finalized. Mr. Lee confirmed that she was referring to a north/south connector, and stated that staff was looking at extending Fifth Avenue as a public right-of-way which would give an access between the two projects. Staff was not very hopeful at Broadway or at Fourth, because of the intersection design, to try to get people safely in there. If the Fifth Avenue extension did not happen, the Bayfront would offer the only opportunity. Regarding the ganendment No. 13, Commissioner Ray said it would have been much easier to understand if they had a line-out with text changes immediately next to it. Chair Tuchscher concurred, and Attorney Basil noted that the City Attorney's office also found it difficult. Chair Tuchscher noted that he would like to see the Council action regarding issues which had come before the Commissioners. After discussion, Commissioner Ray suggested a report be presented at the Planning Commission meetings. ADJOUP~NT at 9:47 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of October 12, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Planning Commission (9-28 94.rain)