Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1994/09/14 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 14, 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, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Associate Planner Miller, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, 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 - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: (A) PCZ-91-D - CONSIDERATION OF PREZONING 14.23 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF MOONVIEW DRIVE FROM RR-1 (COUNTY) TO RE-P (8.37 ACRES) AND RE-40 (5.86 ACRES) - Michael Demich PC Minutes -2- September 14, 1994 (B) PCS-91-02 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR BONITA HILLS EXECUTIVE ESTATES, CHULA VISTA TRACT PCS- 91-02 - Michael Demich Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report showing the location of the project and the area to be subdivided. Mr. Miller stated that an Initial Study, IS-91-15, of possible adverse enviromnental impacts for the project had been conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator who concluded there would be no significant enviromnental effects and recommended adoption by the City Council of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. IS-91-15 is scheduled to be considered by the Resource Conservation Commission on September 26, 1994. Mr. Miller, by overhead projection, showed where the sewer line would be located, the reservoir site, the gated road, the water tank, the area to be revegetated with new plants and an irrigation system to be installed by the applicant. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions recommending that the City Council approve the proposed prezoning and tentative subdivision map in accordance with the draft City Council ordinance and resolution based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid gave the background of the Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) loss permit, noting that this was the first CSS loss permit to come before the Commission. The permit was prepared under an ordinance recently adopted by the City Council implementing Section 4(d) of the Federal Endangered Species Act which allows up to a 5 % take of the Coastal Sage in the region. Mr. Reid noted that this was a draft report out for public review and also review by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Game, and SANDAG. These groups would get their comments back, then the report would be finalized, and the Director would consider issuing the final report. All of the documents would become part of the environmental review process, and when one is required, the Commission would see it with a draft EIR or Negative Declaration. In this particular case, there was a take of 1.5 acres of CSS, which was mitigated both on and off the project site. Given the nature of the site, the lack of quality of the CSS and the lack of concentration of gnatcatchers on the property, and the lack of linkage to any major areas of CSS, staff felt this permit was adequate. Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Reid to define the "poor quality" of habitat. Mr. Reid stated the poor quality could not sustain the density of gnatcatcher typically seen in the higher quality habitat. Commissioner Ray asked how that would relate to the one pair sighted on this project site. He explained that be was trying to get a relationship between the taking of the land versus the fact that gnatcatchers habitat the project at this time. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid replied that the CSS take permit was not directly related to the take of gnatcatchers. It was a "cover or umbrella" type of habitat CSS that not PC Minutes -3- September 14, 1994 only supports gnatcatchers which were listed as threatened, but a variety of other species which had been nominated for listing by the Federal Government. Commissioner Salas, referring to the area to be revegetated near the water tower, asked if the previous revegetation did not take because there was no irrigation system. Mr. Reid stated that had been done by the Sweetwater Authority and he did not know why it did not take. Under the present procedure of the mitigation monitoring program, there was a yearly inspection of the revegetation to assure that it does take, and there would be specific standards for percentage of plants and coverage that have to be attained each year over a five-year period. Mr. Demich, one of the developers, was asked to step to the microphone, since he had information regarding the previous revegetation. He stated that during the drought, there were many complaints by people surrounding the area that Sweetwater was recklessly watering the weeds or bushes, not knowing how valuable they were or what the purpose was. Sweetwater, because of the complaints, turned off the irrigation system during the drought years and had not come back on line. Part of the mitigation for this project was to get back on line, fill in the gullies, and rehydroseed any areas on this parcel as well as the adjoining water tank site. Commissioner Salas asked if there was a complaint during the drought season about the watering of the "weeds", were they looking at a more efficient way of irrigating that area, such as drip irrigation. Mr. Reid replied that it would be part of the mitigation package, once it had been finalized and prepared by a biological consultant on the project. Commissioner Moot queried staff regarding the gated access road, and asked if that was part of the subdivision map being approved, or if it would come back later. Associate Planner Miller stated it was part of the subdivision map. Since this was the only entry and exit to the subdivision, which was only 12 lots, it was not a big issue. Commissioner Moot felt the open space should be available to all residents. Mr. Miller replied that the open space areas were not public open space. Staff was trying to ensure that the areas remained in as natural a state as possible even after development. There would be no trails in the open space. The streets would be private streets, owned and maintained by the homeowners association. They would not be public streets. Staff believed these were justifiable reasons for the gating of the project. Commissioner Ray asked if the private street began at the gate. Mr. Miller affirmed, and stated that the residents would maintain up to the crash gate and the final location of the crash gate would be determined in conjunction with Sweetwater Authority and the Chula Vista Fire Department. Answering Commissioner Moot, Mr. Miller stated there would be a cul-de-sac on Moonview Drive, installed at the developer's expense, where people could turn around in case they took a wrong turn. PC Minutes -4- September 14, 1994 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Joseph H. McGowan, 3442 Glen Abbey Bird, C.V., stated that within about 1,000 yards, from Glen Abbey Blvd. to the top of the hill there was a distance from almost sea level to 255 feet at the crest. The water rushes down the hill down to Glen Abbey Blvd. and down through the property at 3394 Glen Abbey. From the corner of Randy Lane down to 3394 Glen Abbey Blvd., there was one outlet which was 78" long and 3" high. There was no place for the water to go. He had discussed this with the County and with Chula Vista Engineering and Planning. Mr. McGowan said water backed out on Glen Abbey Blvd. They were concerned with the bank from Randy Lane down to the canyon, which the County maintained that the lack of vegetation caused the runoff down the hill onto Glen Abbey Blvd. The County had also said that in the vicinity of 3394 that the hill had been cut and was at a 90 degree angle. This did not increase the water, but brought the water down with additional fome. There was no place for the water to go. At the top of the hill by his house there was a 14' to 21' gully at the top of the hill, which had washed out during the last five years. Mr. McGowan was also concerned about the sewerage. They had annexed years before and were told that the water table in his yard was 14'. Down the street from him, the water table was 5' to 7'. His concern was if the sewerage would hold the sewage from the new subdivision in addition. Chair Tuchscher asked if the jurisdiction of the properties at Glen Abbey Lane was in the County. Mr. Miller stated it was, and showed the Chula Vista city limits. Chair Tuchscher questioned whether the grading to be done to finish the lots would drain back toward the internal streets. Mr. Miller confirmed. He showed the present ridge line and stated that any water on the north side of the ridge line flowed naturally down the slope. George E. Gochenaur, 3436 Glen Abbey Blvd., CV 91910, stated that his lot bordered 230+ feet directly north of the open space "A" lot. Mr. Gochenaur concurred that there was natural drainage, but he was concerned that grading and taking of vegetation would start flow in his direction. He had seen cars flood out on Glen Abbey Blvd. when it rained because of lack of drainage. The proposed drainage through Lot "B" and back down on Glen Abbey Blvd. from an 18" drain pipe would go out on Glen Abbey Blvd. They were concerned about whether or not the sewage from the hill would add to Glen Abbey Blvd. Another concern was water pressure, which Mr. Gochenaur said was already a problem. Mr. Gochenaur noted that the minimum sized lots were supposed to be 20,000 sq. ft. Only two of those lots were 20,000 sq. ft. or greater. The rest were all smaller. His main concerns were the storm drainage, the fresh water, and the sewerage. Marie Kolb, 3401 Glen Abbey Blvd., CV 91910, said she would be in the path of all the drainage water. With the development of "H" Street, a drainage pipe was installed which ran down the canyon, and there was a heavy suit because of the damage. There would be a heavy law suit if the proposed drainage is installed. They should be required to put in an underground drainage through Bonita Road into the river channel. This bordered Cordell Lane which had been a berm installed in front of it. She was not going to have water under her house because PC Minutes -5- September 14, 1994 of stupidity. She thought Chula Vista representatives needed go to those places affected when it was raining to observe what was really going on. She did not object to houses being built on top of the hill, but asked that it be done right the first time and not make other people suffer. Walt Selph, 3394 Glen Abbey Blvd., CV 91910, stated his home was where all the water came through. Everyone who spoke before him had been against the project; he had five acres which joined the property which Mr. Demich was trying to develop. He had been a builder for many years, and in all cases natural drainage rules. He stated in all the years it had never been a problem to him. He disagreed with his neighbors saying that water on Glen Abbey stood there. It stands sometimes at the one drain for a short time, but he had never seen a car drown out because of standing water. Regarding sewerage, the existing sewer line would adequately take care of the sewage from the subdivision without putting any pressure on the existing line below. He had no objection to the subdivision. Mr. Selph said that Mrs. Kolb was probably in the lowest lot in all of Glen Abbey. He felt the building on top of the hill would help the drainage. (The next three speakers had an organized presentation.) Greg Cox, 647 Windsor Circle, CV 91910, representing the applicant, asked for 15 minutes for an organized presentation including several speakers. With concurrence from the Chair, Mr. Cox gave the background of the project. He noted that the applicant had the responsibility to not only hydroseed and maintain the open space area, but would also have to hydroseed the adjoining Sweetwater Authority reservoir and ensure that it is better maintained as habitat. Given the fact that there were requirements to hydroseed and to monitor the hydroseeding in the open space areas, there would be a greater stand of natural vegetation that would be put in as a result of the project which would mitigate some of the drainage that was currently occurring. Mr. Cox stated there were parcels less than the R-E designation because the request was for a residential estate with a precise plan, which presented the opportunity to provide a development which conformed to the landforms without a lot of cut and fill. The streets would be privately maintained by the homeowners association, and would be a gate-guarded community. He asked Mr. David Porot to respond to issues raised by the residents concerning drainage. David Porot, the project engineer for Mr. Demich, expressed his concern to the residents around the area and said that the existing situation on lots 1, 2, and 3 on the ridgeline currently drained to the north. The proposed development would take about 100' of that to the center. The subdivision would reduce the drainage going down the bank. Lots 4, 5, and 6 and the internal drainage would be draining to the center. They were proposing to install rock rip rap to reduce water flow possibly into the residents' area. The cfs would be reduced by 1 cfs because of the diversion of water into the proposed inlets. Commissioner Martin asked Mr. Porot to explain what he meant by rip rap. Mr. Porot stated that with the existing situation, lots 1, 2, and 3 ran north. With the grading to be done, it would drain into the catch basin and diverted into the center storm drain system in open space lot 'b'. PC Minutes -6- September 14, 1994 Commissioner Martin questioned whether that was silted water. Mr. Porot said it would be nuisance water which would be off roofs, streets, water collected from the lots themselves. Commissioner Martin asked if the water east of that outside of the property would still come down through there. Mr. Porot said part of that would be taken, and would have silt. Using the appropriate chart, it had all been taken into consideration. He did not feel there would be any problem with the drainage system. Chair Tuchscher asked that Mr. Porot define "cfs." Mr. Porot explained that it was "cubic feet per second" and was the amount of water that travels a certain distance. Commissioner Moot asked if there were any design solutions that would improve the drainage situation for the downhill residents. Mr. Porot stated the proposed mitigation for the drainage was by providing adequate rock rip rap protection with the City Engineer's approval. The intense landscaping would absorb some of the sheet flow and slow down the water flow. Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, referring to Commissioner Moot's question regarding reduction of impacts, stated that a retention facility could be installed in the lower part where the drains were coming out and retain the water for a longer time. There was a trade-off in that the water would mn for a longer period of time. There was not a lot of area to construct a retention facility. Mr. Porot added that retention facilities were usually for larger quantities of water, such as for golf courses or desert areas where water is needed to perk the soil. The quantity being dealt with in this case was not very large as compared to other areas. At Commissioner Ray's request, Mr. Miller indicated the City and County boundaries, the subdivision area, and the location of the drainage. A slight portion on the northern ridge would be taken to the center. Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Porot what percentage of the current runoff going down to Glen Abbey would be eliminated or reduced. Mr. Porot answered that approximately 1/3 would be taken away. Commissioner Ray concluded that if the project was developed, 1/3 less water would come down imo the same drainage area that it goes to today. Mr. Porot concurred. For the whole project site, the cfs would be 1 cfs less. It would be reduced because of the time and concentration it would take to travel because it would have a longer distance to go. Commissioner Ray was concerned because the drainage problem area was in the County and the City had no jurisdiction to fix it. In terms of the project site, the mn-off could be limited by including mitigation measures which would not impact the residents negatively if it were approved. He asked Mr. Porot if the cumulative effect of the project would reduce the current drainage into that area. Mr. Porot concurred. PC Minutes -7- September 14, 1994 Mike Demich, 3356 Glen Abbey Blvd., CV 91910, one of the owners of the project site, said he had met with most of the people down on Glen Abbey; the flows were being reduced to two of the back yards. Reduction of the water flow would occur because of the planting of the hillsides that currently erode and cause siltation going down the hill. The water tank parcel would be revegetated, as well. By rehydroseeding the City of Chula Vista site, water and siltation would be kept from Windrose and going across property down to Glen Abbey. Mr. Demich commended staff on their study of the drainage, the vegetation and the grading contours to come up with something that would flow, look nice, and help with the runoff. He felt it was a win-win situation. They had checked with the County, and there was the capacity to handle the sewage in Glen Abbey. Regarding the water pressure, he was not sure where the residents were obtaining their water. Sweetwater had told them there was adequate water pressure for their project. Commissioner Moot asked if there was a particular reason for gating the road. Mr. Demich stated there had been much vandalism, and currently Moonview was gated off with a permanent chainlink fence. It seemed to be an attractive area for people to drink beer, break beer bottles, and a lovers lane. Sweetwater Authority and the local biologists wanted to keep the reservoir area protected. It was designed as a natural habitat for the birds. Everyone involved, including Planning staff, felt it would be best to have it gated with a torn-around for people to get back out. If not gated, the problems would filter on into the residential neighborhood and onto Sweetwater's property as well as theirs. Mr. Cox returned to the podium to conclude the presentation, stating that they thought it was a good project; it met all City standards regarding drainage and grading. The project would not increase the drainage to the area below on Glen Abbey and would improve the problem by reducing the flow by 1 cfs. He thought the rip rap would help dissipate the speed and the amount of the debris and silt picked up. He pointed out that given the fact that it would be designed as a gate-guarded community, those buying the homes would have a significant amount of vegetation as part of the homes which should help the retention of the water. He asked for support of the staff recommendations. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Moot asked where the gate at Moonview was located and the area Mr. Dimich felt needed to be protected. He was uncomfortable with gating off the area. Associate Planner Miller indicated the location of the gate, and stated there was apparently a problem with people vandalizing and littering the area. If this were a public road, the problems would be carried over into the cul-de-sacs and possibly to the reservoir site itself which is a sensitive habitat area for the gnatcatcher and cactus wren. Commissioner Moot confirmed that it was the sensitive area by the reservoir which needed to be free of people. He stated that every cul-de-sac had a problem with people coming in. He asked if there was some other area that needed to be protected. Mr. Miller indicated the bank PC Minutes -8- September 14, 1994 and other open space lots which needed to be protected because they were intended to be natural areas connecting with the reservoir site. There were definitely gnatcatchers and cactus wrens in the area. Commissioner Martin asked staff to explain the difference between a private road and a public road; who was responsible for maintenance; would there be sidewalks and curbs; who was responsible for those? Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich answered that private streets were typically less in width between the curb faces; public streets would be wider and need more grading, private streets would be maintained by people living in the area; public streets would be maintained by the City. The tentative map showed that some of the streets showed sidewalks on both sides, others showed sidewalk on one side. Commissioner Ray asked the rationale for putting the gate at the existing location rather than at the entrance to the development. Mr. Miller stated the gate as proposed would be at the municipal boundary. Staff saw no need to move it. Commissioner Ray asked if there was any legal issue with the City by allowing a gate limiting access to County property. Mr. Miller noted that it would be annexed. Staff had contacted LAFCO regarding that, who said they had a set policy that a city street could not go from a city into a county and back into the city. Therefore, the Sweetwater parcel was having to be annexed and, for continuity of ownership, the smaller parcel with the pump house. Commissioner Ray, referring to a previous proposal for a gated community, asked if there was a sewerage or drainage problem, the City would be liable to fix the sewerage and drainage problem even though it was a private street. Mr. Ullrich stated that the sewer line would be public and the City would have the responsibility to repair the sewer lines. The drainage on the site would be private and would be maintained by the homeowners. Chair Tuchscher stated that from a locational standpoint, it would make sense to protect the Sweetwater reservoir. From a housing product standpoint, he thought it was exciting to have some higher end houses within the City limits; it would help from an economic standpoint in that the individuals making decisions to locate companies often want to know where they would live and would seek these types of views. From a drainage standpoint, there was a pm-existing condition which would be made slightly better. There was a problem with the County perhaps responding to citizens complaints. He suggested that staff draft a letter to the County letting them know of the situation. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated staff would pass that on to the Engineering Department to forward on to the County. Following up on some of the comments regarding public versus private, Mr. Lee reminded the Commission that there would be no access directly to the private property. Extending the street as a public street would provide access to the subdivision itself, not to open space. The City has an open space area immediately to the east, part of a park PC Minutes -9- September 14, 1994 system, which abutted the County line and into the cemetery. There was no access into the cemetery, so the open space in the area as far as linkage was limited. Commissioner Martin commented that the residents had flooding and drainage problems and he asked if there was some way to alleviate their concern that they were being ignored by showing them something that was done in the past where there was flooding, but due to the developed area, there was less. Mr. Ullrich noted that a dam had been installed with the construction of Bonita Long Canyon Estates. There had been flooding problems downstream along Acacia. With the dam, the flooding subsided. Mr. Ullrich noted this was a much larger project than the project under consideration. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated the similarity was that the flooded area was previously in the County as the proposed area, and was developed by the City and the flooding alleviated. Commissioner Ray stated he had a great deal of sympathy for the residents, it was an existing condition which he felt would be reduced. However, it was a County problem and the Commissioners had no jurisdiction. MSC (Ray/Fuller) 5-1-1 (Commissioners Salas against, Commissioner Tarantino excused) to approve Resolution PCZ-91-D recommending that the City Council prezone 8.37 acres of land to R-E-P and 5.36 acres of land to RE-40. MSC (Ray/Fuller) 4-2-1 (Commissioners Salas and Moot against; Commissioner Tarantino excused) to approve Resolution PCS-91-02 recommending that the City Council approve the tentative map for Bonita Hills Executive Estates, Chula Vista Tract 91-02. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that this item would move forward to the City Council and would probably be heard during the middle of October, possibly October 11. The residents would be receiving notice to remind them. Commissioner Ray suggested that the residents represent themselves before the City Council. Chair Tuchscher asked the radius of mailing for this project. Mr. Lee stated it was noticed at 1,000 feet. Chair Tuchscher declared a break at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:40. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-47; REQUEST TO ADD A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH TO THE EXISTING SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT 501 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD - Shell Oil Company PC Minutes -10- September 14, 1994 Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report and stated that the Design Review Committee had considered and approved the project design on August 29, contingent upon the Planning Commission approving the conditional use permit. The Commission would have ultimate authority unless appealed. The primary elements looked at by staff were noise and circulation. A study was done in-house and it was found that the ambient noise levels from the 1-805 freeway and Telegraph Canyon Road and separation from the residential areas to the northwest were to the degree that noise would not be a significant impact and would conform to City standards. There was a concern regarding ingress and egress from the carwash tunnel, stacking for entry into the carwash from the gas dispensing islands or from Halecrest Drive, blocking traffic exiting and resulting in stacking occurring on Halecrest. Staff had proposed as a condition of approval that the applicant obtain an easement from the adjoining shopping center to create a direct exit drive onto the shopping center service lane. The City Attorney had stated that that sort of condition was inappropriate. Alternatives were to recommend approval without the condition, recommend denial or continue the project and work on some alternate solutions or allow the applicant further time to work with the shopping center in obtaining an easement. The applicant states they had approached the owner of the shopping center and they were not interested in granting an easement. The applicant wished, however, to receive comments from the Commission. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, take testimony, offer comments, keep the public hearing open, and continue it to October 12, 1994. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Gary O. Wilson, 490 Hale Street, CV, stated he lived directly across from the station. He had seen nothing in the proposal about whether the water would be recycled. He commented that he had seen the intersection of Halecrest and Hale Street flooded; the drain had not handled the run-off in the past. He questioned why no traffic impact analysis had been done. He stated that there were truck trips Willig tracks, UPS tracks, the colleges, schools, the Olympic Village, foot traffic, an increase of joggers, and future traffic from the Daley Rock Quarry. He wanted to know why that was not in the report. There were problems getting across the street even with the lights. Emergency vehicles had had to ask people to clear the road in order to get through. He had seen Telegraph Canyon Road traffic backed up east and west to 1-805. He did not think the carwash was needed. Jackie McQuaid Lancaster, 339 East "J" Street, CV, speaking also for Judy Wilson, pointed out the three entrances and exits and stated that neither Halecrest Drive nor Hale Street mentioned in the traffic impact report. The credit union and shopping center created much traffic and there was rarely a place to park in the shopping center. She lived on East "J" Street and passed the proposed carwash almost every day. There were three major concerns--the easement the station owner was not able to get from the shopping center, on-site traffic circulation, and off-site circulation accessing the carwash. Not enough attention had been paid to the other services of the station, including the car repair service. Ms. Lancaster also noted there was no mention of the impact on Halecrest, and that the bingo bus passengers park on Halecrest or Hale. PC Minutes -11- September 14, 1994 Principal Planner Griffin stated that on October 12, staff could elaborate on the traffic impacts. The Safety Commission had an interest in the item and staff would try to get their recommendation. Mark Hayden, Tate & Associates, 3665 Ruffin Road, SD, on behalf of the applicant, said he was agreeable to the continuance and would welcome further input. He stated they did not have any control of the off-site drainage. The drainage from on-site to off-site is reduced. Traffic impact was based on SANDAG standards. Rod Bisharet, 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd., CV, the applicant, stated that the water was recycled up to 85%. Some of the water evaporated. The water coming off-sita would be recycled. He had tried to get an easement from the shopping center but had not been able to. There were seven cars being stored on the facility, but they could be moved if necessary. Principal Planner Griffin noted that detailed questions and answers could take place on October 10. The applicant, however, would like a general reaction from the Commission. Commissioner Salas stated she was familiar with the gas station. She agreed with the residents that she found it difficult at times to get in and out of the station even without a carwash. Commissioner Moot asked if paying $200 per month for gas precluded him from voting. Attorney Basil assured him it did not. Commissioner Moot asked why the owner of the shopping center opposed the easement. He asked that the Planning Department write to ask him to give his reasons for disallowing the easement. Commissioner Ray was concerned about the traffic and internal traffic patterns, the right hand turn coming out of the carwash and the exit area to the right. He would like to see how that worked. He stated that in terms of the number of parking spaces, it is determined by the type of business and square footage. Commissioner Ray asked how many employees parked at the facility. Mr. Bisharet answered that there were three spaces. They park onsite or next door. Commissioner Ray stated that he would like to see that addressed. Commissioner Martin was disappointed in staff's drawings. He requested that larger drawings be included in future staff reports, because they were too small to read. He also requested better traffic reports. Chair Tuchscher asked if staff had used a turning template on the internal circulation. Principal Planner Griffin assured him that they had, and that it did work. PC Minutes -12- September 14, 1994 Chair Tuchscher stated he did not have a problem with traffic offsite. He would not go out of his way to go to a limited carwash. He would be interested in hearing what the Traffic Engineer would say. Regarding drainage, Chair Tuchscher asked if the water coming off the cars would go into the storm drain system. Mr. Bisharet stated that water outside the carwash when exiting would go into drainage catches and would go underground into recycled water. Chair Tuchscher encouraged the applicant to try to work something out with the adjacent property owner. Internal circulation was his biggest concern on the project. MSUC (Martin/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Tarantino excused) to continue the open public hearing to October 12, 1994, when it could be addressed with more specificity. Commissioner Moot stated that the applicant may use the argument that people would use the shopping center when stopping at the gas station. The shopping center might get some benefit from the easement. Mr. Bisharet stated that he would like the Commissioners to visit the facility. He would clear off the vehicles that were not supposed to be there. OTHER BUSINESS ITEM 3: SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR FY 94-95 Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the Planning Commissioners needed to select a representative to the Growth Management Oversight Commission for this year. Commissioner Martin had served the previous year. MSUC (Tuchscher/Fuller) 6-0 (Commissioner Tarantino excused) to nominate Commissioner Ray. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee presented the calendar of meetings for the next three months, and noted that because of budget restraints some of the dinners after the planned dinner/workshops would have to be brought in. He stated that the next workshop would be a joint workshop with the Resource Conservation Commission. SANDAG would make a presentation regarding future growth. Mr. Lee noted that some of the future workshops would include a presentation regarding Community Development interfacing with Planning, the School Districts, and sign analysis. PC Minutes -13- September 14, 1994 Mr. Lee asked the Commissioners if they preferred to skip the meeting the night before Thanksgiving or move it to November 30. It was agreed that the Commissioners would meet on November 30 instead of November 23. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Moot expressed disappointment that the gated community aspect was handled in a one-line throw-away paragraph. He believed the reasons for a gated community needed to be stated in the staff report. Chair Tuchscher believed staff would have pointed it out if there were problems with circulation, etc. He did not share the same concern. Commissioner Martin stated there was a 360 degree view of South San Diego County. Staff had to be very sensitive to a gated community. It invited an analogy of "snob hill." Commissioner Moot felt it was a public policy issue, and it should be flagged for them. ADJOURNMENT at 9:45 p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of Wednesday, September 21, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of September 28, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Ripley, S~creta{y Planning Commission