Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1994/08/10 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:08 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, August 10, 1994 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Fuller, Ray and Tarantino COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Martin, Moot and Salas (excused) STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Environmental Projects Manager Monaco, Landscape Planner Williams, Planning Tech Nevins, Traffic Engineer Rosenberg, Civil Engineer Franco, Landscape Architect Schmidt, City Attorney Boogaard PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Tuchscher, followed by silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of July 27, 1994 MSUC (Fuller/Ray) 4-0 (Commissioners Martin, Moot and Salas excused) to approve the minutes of July 27, 1994, with correction to page 9 in reference to comparable projects, "Bonita Road" should be "Briarwood" and "Mansanto" should be "Manzana Way". ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-94-02 PC Minutes -2- August 10, 1994 Environmental Projects Manager Monaco noted that the project was proposed for a 32.5 acre site and is not a part of the project. Regional access from the site is provided by SR-54 to the north, National Avenue and Broadway to the west, and Fourth Avenue to the east. Additional access will be provided by North Fifth Avenue which will terminate at the project boundaries. Previous development approvals for the site included an industrial office project and a golf driving range, and a portion of the site was previously used as a part of the Dixieline Trust manufacturing operations. That area was approximately 5 acres. The site has a General Plan designation and zoning that allows limited industrial uses, and it is an inland parcel of the Local Coastal Program, so it will be under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission as well. The LCP designations are consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations. The site has been previously graded to accommodate the prior developments. Mr. Monaco described the project and transportation plan, noting that the Fourth Avenue intersection was proposed to be significant. Regarding the impact analysis--the significant but mitigable impacts included impacts to the salt marsh, which would be inconsistent with the Local Coastal Program, and project design impacts to the Chula Vista greenbelt designation. Those impacts would mitigated through salt marsh revegetation on-site at a ratio of 3:1, and the greenbelt impacts would be mitigated through enhanced landscaping. Aesthetics were examined and the impacts were found to be less than significant. Under air quality, there were significant impacts--some that were not mitigable. Vehicular emissions that would contribute to regional or cumulative air quality impacts were found to be significant, and there was no mitigation at project level available to mitigate those. There would also be construction-related dust impacts which would be mitigated through dust control measures implemented as a part of the project. No significant impacts to noise were identified, and under fiscal and economic impacts, there were beneficial impacts. For biological resoumes, .06 acres of unvegetated drainage were impacted and .15 acres of coastal salt marsh. That is a worst case analysis, assuming that the connection to the access to Broadway would be constructed through a 2:1 fill slope, and the developer is proposing something somewhat less impactive. This was a worst case analysis. That impact is mitigated through revegetation on site at a ratio of 3:1 and will be subject to permits by the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game. Under public services and utilities, no significant impacts to fire, police, sewer, water, or parks and recreation were found. There were potential significant impacts identified for schools, and those would be mitigated either through payment of state-mandated fees and/or assessments on the property. For traffic and circulation, significant impacts were identified to Fourth Avenue and Brisbane Street, and Fifth Avenue and C Street. Those impacts were mitigated through signalization of both of those intersections. Additionally, project traffic would incrementally contribute to significant impacts at the SR-54 westbound ramps at Fourth Avenue and at the intersection of Broadway and E Street. The in-project increment is approximately 5% and the project would be required to pay a fair-share portion of those improvements. PC Minutes -3- August 10, 1994 Under geology, we found significant but mitigable impacts to soil suitability and seismic hazards were found. The mitigation for soil suitability would be compression of soils to a suitable level through a surcharge operation, and seismic hazards would be mitigated through appropriate structural design. Hydrology and water quality impacts were identified, and those would be mitigated through provision of adequate drainage facilities and water quality protection devices to be installed as a part of the project. The EIR also looked at four alternatives, including the no project alternative, the existing approved use alternative, a reduced density alternative, and several alternative sites. Two additional comments were received after the draft EIR was distributed from the fh-m of Worley, Schwartz, Garfield, and Rice representing GES Exposition Services. Relating to traffic impacts and safety related to truck turning movements on Fifth Avenue, and one from the California Native Plant Society concerning the impacts to the Coastal Salt Marsh. All of the comments received to date, including the public testimony that received at the meeting would be responded to in the Final EIR. Mr. Monaco, in summary, stated that the EIR identified one significant impact that was not mitigable which was the air quality impact and, specifically, ozone emissions. Otherwise, all other significant impacts were mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Staff recommendation was that the Commission conduct the public hearing on the EIR, close the hearing, and direct staff to prepare a final EIR for further discussion. Commissioner Ray, referring to the letter from the California Native Plant Society, asked about construction of a bridge over the Coastal Salt Marsh will result in increased traffic. Mr. Monaco showed the location of the proposed bridge and noted that currently the developer contemplated a span of the river with buttresses on either side. The impact would be less than that idemified in this document, but would still be mitigated to the same level. Commissioner Fuller asked if Mr. Monaco would point out the location of the GES Exposition Services on there. Mr. Monaco stated it was from the project access to C Street. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Donald R. Worley, Worley, Swartz, Garfield and Rice, 401 B Street, Suite 1150, San Diego 92101 representing GES Exposition Services. He pointed out that they were not in opposition to this project, they thought this project would be a good neighbor. Their main concern was with the traffic conflicts between traffic from the shopping center site and traffic leaving the GES facility. He showed the location of GES and stated that GES is an exposition services company which stores and transports basically trade show exposition and convention materials PC Minutes -4- August 10, 1994 to convention sites in the region. It is the largest company of its kind in the United States. Every truck is an 18 wheeler ranging in size from 40 to 53 feet, and adding the cab, the entire truck length could be 70 feet. They had adopted a circular traffic pattern which is most efficient. Their main concern was the exit point, and one of the principal exit points from the shopping center was on Fifth Avenue. They felt the environmental impact report should address the circulation and should consider various mitigation measures. He added that representatives from the shopping center developer had met with GES and had been very open to suggestions and discussions, and had respected our concerns. Mr. Worley suggested putting a berm or curb across the lane and preventing right-mm traffic, forcing an exit to another road; an alternative mitigation measure simply by restriping, not by expanding the street, but adding a left-mm-only lane which would allow GES trucks to make that left mrn and then accelerate. GES was concerned with traffic conflict with the turnout. They asked for consideration of a stop sign. He asked that his alternatives be addressed in the EIR and that mitigation measures be considered. Mr. Worley stated that if that was adequately done, they thought WalMart would be a very good neighbor, and they could support their project. Jerry Alford, 2445 Fifth Ave., Suite 400, San Diego, joint venturing the project with Gatlin Development, concurred with staff recommendations and the mitigations that they suggest. They were aware of the situation with GES. They had met with GES and were in agreement that something needed to be done. Some of the suggestions that were made seem to be very sensible. They were working with the traffic consultants, and the City's traffic engineer to resolve the issues. Mr. Afford did not see them as being real issues and thought they could be resolved to everybody's satisfaction. Phil Adams, 12625 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, representing Gatlin Development, commended staff for their hard work. He stated they had met with GES and were willing to be a good neighbor and try to make everything work. He was confident that with the cooperation of all the consultants involved, which are the traffic engineers and Mr. Rosenberg, that they could resolve any of their concerns to their satisfaction. They were also concerned with traffic and customers entering and exiting that center. Mr. Adams said that WalMart is very customer oriented and they had developed the site with more parking than required by the City, wider drive aisles, and was a priority for drivers to have safe ingress and egress. He assured the Commission that they would work with GES to overcome the problem. Commissioner Tarantino asked if they had worked with the school districts in terms of the impacts on schools. Mr. Adams deferred to Joe Monaco who stated that staff had spoken to the school districts. Both the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District had responded to the Notice of Preparation and to the Draft EIR. Their specific concerns were regarding student generation that would be caused by the project through people being employed with the center moving into the area and also a state law that allows for students to attend PC Minutes -5- August 10, 1994 schools close to their parents' work rather than near their homes. The City's historical position on this matter has been that non-residential development does not have any impact on the school districts. However, staff is revisiting that issue, and this project was one of the first to be considered in looking at what type of impacts non-residential development does has on the school districts. In the EIR, staff took the formula that the school districts had developed for determining impacts and projected the number of students that would be generated. The City is still working in conjunction with the school district through SANDAG and their consultants, SourcePoint, in developing a more accurate formula, possibly, for determining what the impacts would be and what the corresponding mitigation would be. Mitigation was set in this document that would mitigate the worst case impact which would be the 80 to 100 students. Commissioner Tarantino stated that staff seemed to be using the figures given in Kate Shurson's letter. In reading her letter, she pointed out a discrepancy in the Draft EIR, and it sounded as if staff had gone to her figures as opposed to what was in the Draft EIR. Mr. Monaco confmued that staff was still working with the school districts to determine what the specific formula would be, but regardless of changes that may result in the impacts, he thought the school district was in agreement on the mitigation that would be either payment of fees or inclusion in the Mello Roos District. Commissioner Ray, referring to page 4.7-10 of the Draft EIR referencing a SourcePoint review, specifically titled "School District Development Impact Fee's Relationship Between New Non- Residential Development and Student Enrollment," stated that this is speaking about new development. What about reductions in force or changes in the type of use for that property? Commissioner Ray felt that, to be equitable about it, the school districts would therefor owe money. He did not understand the continual taking and not giving back. If the philosophy can work one way, it should work the other. He could understand that a new business coming in may generate more people wanting to work here and therefore looking for more homes and therefore generating the requirement for new housing and, therefore, the schools should be compensated. He thought they may be double dipping. Mr. Adams said he did not understand either, he had never seen commercial property in this type of a relationship, and WalMart had 2300 stores across the country. They hire people locally and, for the most part, draw both full-time and part-time from the local community. It works within a community as almost an independent source with respect to eyeD, thing in the community. Commissioner Ray asked if WalMan had run into this in other areas where they were trying to locate. Mr. Adams said this was the first time it has really been brought up as a major issue, because most people recognize that this does not have an impact. Generally not an impact on the schools. A 129,000, 159,000 square foot industrial, light industrial, or even computer software, may be drawing people from all across the country, all across the state, all across the city to PC Minutes -6- August 10, 1994 work there and relocate, and he could see a justification for impact on the school district, but not from a retail use. WalMart had deferred this to Joe Monaco and his expertise to work through the issue with the school. Commissioner Tuchscher asked how many WalMarts in Southern California were being built by Gatlin Development. Mr. Adams answered that they were presently four in the San Diego area, three would be open this fall, November, one in Oceanside and two in the City of San. Diego. They had done numerous projects in the Inland Empire, and were building stores in Chula Vista, East County, and Oceanside, and several other sites under consideration. The Chula Vista store would open up probably fall of 95. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if relative to the school district issue, had WalMart run into that in any other jurisdictions in Southern California where they had been working. Mr. Adams answered that this was the first time. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ray asked staff the same question regarding the school issue. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that staff was revisiting that with SANDAG and SourcePoint. That was one of the issues being explored now. What are the impacts and, if those impacts do exist, are there some tradeoffs in terms of relating to employment. Staff would get back to the Commission when the work with SourcePoint was completed. Commissioner Ray stated that, based on the prior comments from the previous speaker, this just an issue with Chula Vista, and if Chula Vista was that unique, or? Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the report from SANDAG was put out for Countywide consideration. He was not sure if other jurisdictions were looking at it as closely as the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater District have been in making that an issue. But, again, staff could get back to the Commission with the full report once they were completed. Staff was trying to work in cooperation with both districts, but at the same time making sure that everyone has correct facts. Chair Tuchscher stated it was his understanding that the school district was now in agreement with staff's direction on this, and he assumed the applicant would deal with that as the project was brought forward. The larger issue associated with how the Commission dealt with this in the future was being handled by staff. Mr. Lee concurred. PC Minutes -7- August 10, 1994 Although the Commission was hesitant to make a motion without an attorney present, Commissioner Tarantino moved that the Commission give staff the direction to prepare the Final EIR. Commissioner Ray seconded, noting due to the lack of the City staff attorney, that the responses and/or changes and as a result of a lack of an appropriate response to the comments made, and comments made by the Sweetwater Authority, Chula Vista Elementary School District, the Save Our Bay group, the California Native Plant Society, and GES, be either responded to or appropriately addressed in the Final EIR. Commissioner Tarantino agreed to the revision to the motion. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Martin, Salas and Moot excused) Chair Tuchscher stated that he was very excited about having WalMart enter our community, and was happy about the diligent search that was ongoing relative to f'mding a site and the complications associated with the multiple ownerships of this site. He was enthusiastic about having WalMart be a good business citizen in our community. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-48: REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS ON THE PROPERTY OF RISEN SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH AT 625 OTAY LAKES ROAD - Bonita Country Day School Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report. He noted the project had been, on a preliminary basis, to the Design Review Committee who had suggested that the trellis work be extended across the entire front building elevations, a fence established between the two clusters of buildings (which would be installed at a later date), that the landscaping be of a larger specimen size to have a more immediate effect, and some vertical articulation be provided in the structures rather than all horizontal. The applicant would consider these comments and go back to the Design Review Committee for final action on August 29. Mr. Griffm showed the approved Master Plan for the Risen Savior Lutheran Church, the existing buildings, and the future usage plans by the Church. He noted that staff believed the interim school use was consistent with the long-term use of the Church property. The modular buildings were appropriate as an interim use with the enhancements suggested by the applicant. Based on the proposed school hours, the parking lot was more than adequate to serve the needs of both the school and the Church, based on non-conflicting hours. Two issues which were discussed at a public forum held at the Church in late July were traffic on Otay Lakes Road and noise. Mr. Griffm stated the existing LOS on Otay Lakes Road is B (almost A) and the additional number of trips would not change that to a significant degree; the LOS would stay at B. The additional number of trips was also less than what would eventually be generated by the Church school facility. PC Minutes -8- August 10, 1994 Regarding noise, Mr. Griffin stated the Church was required to submit a noise study prior to Phase I construction, which showed that because of the ambient noise level of Otay Lakes Road and the separation of the play area from the area to the north, there was no mitigation required. The homes to the east located below the property would not be impacted. The noise consultant who prepared the study believed the addition of the modular buildings would actually attenuate noise by an additional 10 to 15 decibels. Staff had suggested as a condition that one of the buildings be relocated to screen the play area from the property to the north. Staff recommended approval of the project, based on the findings and subject to the conditions placed in the draft Planning Commission resolution. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jose Rodriguez, 575-30tay Lakes Road, CV 91913, opposed the project because of noise and pollution. He also noted the high speed of traffic on Otay Lakes Road. June Mitchell, 575-20 Otay Lakes Road, CV 91913, was concerned about traffic. It was already difficult to get out of their driveway. She was also concerned about more children and cars taking children to school and picking them up. Jerry Wisz, 575-28 Otay Lakes Road, CV 91913, said their property had been cut back to widen Bonita Road, and they had then been given a left-mm lane. When Risen Savior Church was built, a median strip had been put in the middle which cut off the turn lane. He believed some of the 135 students would be coming in by bus which, if stacking on the left, would not leave a place for the residents to mm out except into right-hand traffic. Traffic was very congested, and it would be dangerous for traffic into Bonita Vista High School. Mr. Wisz noted that the trailers to be used would all have to have air conditioners which would be additional noise and would create problems for the people living on the end. Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Wisz to explain about the left mm lane and what had happened. Mr. Wisz stated that when Bonita Road was widened to a four-lane highway, a mm-out strip was added for left turns. That had been deleted with the addition of the median and the left-mm into Risen Savior Lutheran Church. With the left-mm lane blocked with buses or cars, it is almost impossible for the residents to make a left mm. Commissioner Ray asked if it was actually closed as far as a solid median, or if Mr. Wisz was concerned about the back-up traffic that may be going into the Church. Mr. Wisz answered that it was the back-up traffic caused by the closed median. Susanne Catanzaro, 372 Camino Elevado, Bonita, the applicant, suggested that it would be very difficult for them to relocate buildings 5 or 6 as recommended by staff because of the different interior configuration and plumbing needs. Therefore, they suggested that a fence be constructed instead, as suggested by the Design Review Committee. The fence line would go PC Minutes -9- August 10, 1994 in the curved area until those three buildings were installed, which was expected at the end of the first year. Commissioner Tarantino asked why there was a gap and why the trailers were separated; if it was because of the grading. Ms. Catanzaro stated the younger children would be in the farthest buildings behind the play area, the farthest from the condominiums to the north. Ms. Catanzaro stated that at this time the Bonita Country Day School had no facilities, and it was difficult to f'md an appropriate site for a school. They were excited about this property which already bad approval for a school, not having close neighbors, being able to design their own campus, and to have the play area a distance away from the nearest neighbor. Ms. Catanzaro, referring to Commissioner Ray's concern about the modular buildings, stated that the buildings were not portable classrooms; they were relocatable classrooms which were different from those on the public school grounds. There were none located in the South Bay area. People have a mental image of classrooms being metal or wooden boxy trailers above the ground with stairs going up to them. There was an installation at Santana High School in Santee which used the locatable modular classrooms for their permanent school. Commissioner Ray asked how the classrooms were brought in. Ms. Catanzaro stated they were put on tracks; they did not have wheels. Commissioner Fuller noted they were manufactured housing. In answer to Commissioner Tuchscher, Ms. Catanzaro replied that the classrooms were placed on slab or soil at grade rather than having wheels. Commissioner Fuller asked Ms. Catanzaro to comment on how the children were transported to school, whether or not they used buses. Ms. Catanzaro stated that buses were not used; the children carpooled. Traffic would not be increased on Otay Lakes Road. The children had attended Country Day School when it was located in EastLake and those families coming from Bonita are the same families who already used Otay Lakes Road when they were located in EastLake. Commissioner Fuller asked when the Country Day School appeared before the Planning Commission the previous year, were they not at that time K-12, and if they had been forc~ to reorganize because of the lack of facilities. Ms. Catanzaro answered affmnatively. Chair Tuchscher asked if the rear of the buildings were separated, or if panels would be behind the buildings. Ms. Catanzaro said they were separated, and the Fire Department preferred to have them separated in order to get around. They were light wells--there was about a 4' separation between the buildings at the rear. Chair Tuchscher asked if there was a reason Building 7 was on an angle rather than on a 90 degree at the corner. Ms. Camaro stated it was more for aesthetics and increased the light between the buildings. PC Minutes -10- August 10, 1994 Commissioner Tarantino asked how the start time of Bonita Country Day would conflict or coincide with the start time of Bonita Vista Middle School, which he believed started at 8:30 a.m. Mr. Tarantino said it was the most heavily bused school in the Sweetwater District with 19 buses serving it. Was the start time taken into consideration with regard to traffic analysis? There was a potential for a severe traffic bottleneck. Ms. Catanzaro said it was not a problem for them to adjust their start time. It was not taken into consideration. They would talk m Sweetwater and get the exact times. Patrick Miller, 2008 Bridgeport, CV, member and on Church Council of Risen Savior Lutheran Church, stated that their 5-year plan for the Church included that in Phase 2, the school buildings would be built. Until they were able to build those, they had been talking to day care groups. There was a good probability there would be children on that site, whether it was Bonita Country Day or some other group. Bonita Country Day was the fu:st group who had planned to provide a buffer with their buildings between the condos and the play area. Bonita Country Day had been the most concerned about the community and about being a good neighbor. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the project. Paul Catanzaro, 372 Camino Elevado, Bonita, CA 91902, asked if Bonita Country Day took students out of Sweetwater School District, would they get paid for that. He stated that the configuration they were proposing would keep a good buffer between all the outside activities and the condominium complex. They would be finished by 4:00 p.m. except when they had a parent meeting once a month. After they were gone, the configuration would continue to attenuate noise from Otay Lakes to the south end of the condo complex, which should be an added bonus to them for the five years that Bonita Country Day is there. During the next five years, they expected to grow to 140 students. They have made a deal to go into the Salt Creek Community when the infrastructure gets out to a site which had already been selected. Their problem is time; they can't afford any more delays; they had already talked with the Design Review Committee to make sure they were meeting DRC criteria and would not have a slowdown due to misconceptions of what they should be doing with the property. They would like to have primarily landscaping as both visual and a sound buffer from Otay Lakes Road. At the end of 1999, they would expect to employ more than 30 professionals when they go to their permanent facility. Bonita Country Day is the only independent private school in the entire South Bay. Over 800 students every school day leave our community to go to an independent private school in other cities. Commissioner Ray asked what percentage of Bonita Country Day's students came from the South Bay or specifically Chula Vista. Mr. Catanzaro answered 100%. Commissioner Ray questioned why a South Bay school would have 100% from here, when La Jolla or other cities had students from out of their city. Mr. Catanzaro stated it was because of the way the people in North County perceives the South Bay. He had learning centers in Chula Vista and had students driving in from as far as Rancho Santa Fe, and other areas in the County. Their perception was "Oh, that's in the South Bay." Mr. Catanzaro stated this perception was going to change dramatically over the next ten years, and they wanted to be a very important PC Minutes -11- August 10, 1994 component of that change in how the South Bay is viewed. Commissioner Ray concurred that the perception exists. Chair Tuchscber commented that if in fact the Bonita Country Day project was approved and moved forward, he would assume that Mr. Camaro would continue to be conscious of the concerns of the neighbors and do whatever would be necessary to mitigate those. Mr. Camaro concurred; they had finally been able to have a meeting with the condominium owners association and those interested parties. They had made a fLrm commitment to the owners association and told them if anything came up, Bonita Country Day would be very proactive and reactive when necessary. Peter Morion, 897 Buena Vista Way, CV, a parent and representing approximately 40 families of children enrolled at Bonita Country Day, said their family used to live in Rancho Penasquitos and moved down to Chula Vista to attend the Bonita Country Day School. He thought if people wanted to move down, they could. There were good things here. Mr. Motion stated the school is independent, small, quality, and the reason he moved his child here was because he could not f'md the same thing in the Poway School District. He knew at least three other families who had moved from outside of Chula Vista into Chula Vista in order to bring their children here. The school has a good reputation. It was important that the children start to school as soon as possible; their normal school year starts mid September. The school is well designed, well staffed has taken care of all the considerations surrounding the various questions. He requested the Planning Commission to accept the project. Norma Delgado, 575-38 Otay Lakes Road, CV, speaking on behalf of the elderly people, was concerned about the traffic and the elderly residents trying to use Otay Lakes Road. She also stated that the left-mm lane had been taken out. If there was back-up traffic going into the Church, she was concerned about the holding area for traffic making a left turn, because there was heavy traffic coming down from Otay Lakes Road to Bonita Road. The Jr. High School starts at 7:35 ending at approximately 2:45; the High School starts at 7:00 and ends at 2:00; Tiffany starts at 8:30 also. The residents of the complex have to have really clear traffic on both sides in order to make a left turn. She felt the school had a wonderful project, and she had no concern about that. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Tuchscher asked the Traffic Engineer the current traffic count on Otay Lakes Road and the total anticipated capacity with development such as the Otay Ranch. Mr. Rosenberg stated that at present there were approximately 19,000 to 20,000 cars on Otay Lakes Road. It was anticipated that the traffic would grow to around 32,000; when the City is built out with the Otay Ranch, Otay Lakes Road would probably carry up to 40,000 to 50,000 cars a day. At that time, Otay Lakes Road would have to be widened and the medians may have to be extended across all the openings that do not have enough traffic to warrant a traffic signal. PC Minutes -12- August 10, 1994 Chair Tuchscher asked the approximate distance between the classrooms and the closest condominium unit. Principal Planner Griff'm asked for a few minutes to research. Commissioner Tarantino asked if anything could be done to meet the homeowners of Bonita View Terrace condo complex halfway in providing a safe access back onto Otay Lakes Road. He was concerned about school children arriving at the same time as people go to work. Mr. Rosenberg felt the problem was prevalent without the school; he did not think the school added any significant amount of traffic; the residents have difficulty accessing Otay Lakes Road today; there is a traffic signal at Ridgeback which provides an opportunity roi: some gaps in traffic and he believed there were sufficient opportunities to make a safe exit out of the condo driveway. The island which was formed to provide a left-turn pocket into the Church site was of sufficient width, in his estimation, to store enough cars to allow for the time for a gap to occur. He did not believe the traffic would back up in a manner to prevent the cars from exiting out of the condo project. With the acceleration lane, he felt, the danger was drivers exiting out to the center lane to wait for traffic to clear and having to look over their shoulders to see oncoming traffic. He did not view the change in the island as a detriment in traffic safety. Chair Tuchscher asked if the traffic lights at Ridgeback and to the north were timed together so the gaps could coincide. Mr. Rosenberg believed so. Commissioner Ray asked if it would be possible to see if those lights were timed out to see if the gaps coincided to allow periodic intervals where there was easier ingress and egress to the condo complex. Mr. Rosenberg said the distance between the two lights was great, and there was random flow. There was no intemonnection between the two signals which would platoon the traffic so the gaps may occur at different intervals. Commissioner Ray was concerned that there would not be a significant amount of time or speed acceleration such that the lighting could not impact the traffic flow. He would like staff to look at it briefly. In answer to Chair Tuchscher's earlier question regarding the distance between the classrooms and the closest condominium, Mr. Griffin said it was approximately 70 feet. He also noted that Otay Lakes Road is designated on the General Plan referred to earlier by the City Traffic Engineer as a six-lane prime arterial which is designed to carry the eventual level of traffic. Principal Planner Griff'm noted that City Attorney Boogaard had suggested an additional condition as follows: "That the property owner shall execute an agreement to remove the modular buildings when the conditional use permit terminates, such agreement to be secured to the satisfaction of the City Attorney." Mr. Griff'm also suggested an amendment of Condition No. 4 in the resolution to read as follows: PC Minutes -13- August 10, 1994 "Relocate either building number 5 or number 6 to future building site number 7 as shown on the plot plan submitted with the application (or as an alternative place an additional building on future site number 7, or establish a minimum 6 foot high solid fence connecting buildings 4 and 5)." Commissioner Ray asked if there was a time limit between the point where the temporary use of the buildings would be terminated and the time the buildings would be removed, or if that was already on the books in the City. Attorney Boogaard said it was not, and it would be put in the agreement to be a reasonable time period after the use is terminated not to exceed three or four months. Commissioner Ray asked if it needed to be part of the motion. Attorney Boogaard stated he was going to put it in as part of the record, but it would be excellent if the Commission wanted to specify a specific time period. Chair Tuchscher asked the applicant to comment on that. Mr. Catanzaro pointed out that Bonita Country Day would own the buildings, and he thought the agreement should be that Bonita Country Day would remove them at the end of the lease period. Chair Tuchscher stated the conditional use permit ran with the property, and the owner of the property would be responsible contractually. Attorney Boogaard was concerned that there was no enforcement mechanism, because the enforcement mechanism was the termination of the conditional use permit, which by that time would by its own terms have terminated. So the property owner would need to agree in advance. Commissioner Fuller commented that she was really pleased that the Bonita Country Day School had found an appropriate home. Motion by Commissioner Fuller to adopt resolution PCC-94-48 reconunendlng that the City Council approve the conditional use permit in accordance with the draft City Council resolution, based on the f'mdings and subject to the conditions contained therein with the revision to item 4 as stated regarding the relocation of buildings or the establishment of the 6' solid fence, and the condition as stated by the City Attorney recommending that the property owner remove the reiocatables with the timeframe being within three to four months after the termination of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Ray seconded, and asked that condition 9, the removal of the buildings, be stated more in a manner that all temporary buildings be removed within a reasonable time period up to four months upon expiration of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Fuller agreed. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Martin, Moot, and Salas excused) Principal Planner Griff'm noted that this item was scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 23, 1994. PC Minutes -14- August 10, 1994 Chair Tuchscher added that the Planning Commission appreciates the good work the Bonita Country Day School does in the grand scheme and the bigger picture, and appreciates the words stated about providing a level of educational service that is lacking. 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 Assistant Planning Director Lee informed the Commissioners that a request had been received from the American Society of Landscape Architects asking for the final version of the document to verify that their earlier comments were incorporated and to take a final position as far as their organization. Staff would be asking for a continuance of the item; however, I. atndscape Planner Williams and Parks Landscape Architect Schmidt, co-authors of the document, would give the Commissioners an overview of the document to determine of there were particular concerns by the Commissioners which could be addressed. Landscape Planner Williams stated that the Manual addressed the City's overall general landscape requirements and process for projects, including a sample water management plan; private projects such as residential subdivisions and commercial centers; the landscape requirements and criteria for public projects, including parks, open space, and City-maintained rights-of-way. Recommended amendments to the Municipal Code, included Section 19.14.485, increasing the dollar amount required for a particular site to be improved and brought into conformance with current standards; and Section 19.14.486, to provide a process for a landscape plan appeal which did not previously exist. Mr. Williams noted that the Manual had been reviewed by the State Department of Water Resources and found to be in compliance with AB 325. Parks Landscape Architect Schmidt stated the Manual had been reviewed by the ASOA and the local development community, and their comments had been integrated into the Manual. Comments are anticipated from the ASOA and the development community within Chula Vista to be incorporated and addressed in the final document. Commissioner Tarantino asked for an explanation of "watering windows." Mr. Schmidt explained that the criteria established specifically addressed the timeframe per day that staff has to program the irrigation systems at both the City parks and within the open space districts. The criteria was to assure that when a project is designed with the intent of turning it over to the City that the design of the system is such that if all systems needed to be operated within the 10-hour timeframe, or eight-hour timeframe, it could be done each day based on the month of the year that demands the most amount of supplemental irrigation water--which would be July. For the City parks, there are only four days a week to irrigation, one day being a mowing day and the other two being weekend days. Therefore, the parks have a four-day criteria. The open space areas have a five-day criteria, because two of the days staff are not working. The nine-hour window is also consistent with the Otay Water District for their reclaimed water facilities. Staff recommended coordination with the Otay Water District and the same criteria, so it would not be confusing to the design professionals or developers. PC Minutes -15- August 10, 1994 Commissioner Tarantino commented that all parks are grass, and that in the future the City may want to move away from that. Parks Landscape Architect Schmidt stated that one of the primary differences was that tuff should be utilized in specific locations when there is a functional need to provide for lawn areas, either for picnicking passive use or for active use--ballfield activities. Within Chula Vista, the parks do double-duty; they are passive use areas and also active uses. Commissioner Ray asked how the Landscape Architect position was funded, and what would happen if the position was eliminated by budget shortfall. Mr. Schmidt noted that the position was funded primarily through deposit accounts and capital improvement program projects. In developing the fiscal year budget, staff time had to be identified in the capital improvement program. The developer projects had the deposit accounts. Commissioner Ray asked if this position were no longer retained as a City position because of funding restraints, would that automatically invalidate the manual on the conditions that the Landscape Architect position would review the areas, and thereby force the City into pouring more money into another update. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated it was covered in the ordinance, but it could be reviewed before coming back to the Commission. It was typical in this type of document to use the primary person or his/her designee as opposed to the specific position. The purpose of naming the specific position was that it was a registered position and there are specific requirements in terms of document signatures by a registered landscape architect. If the position was lost, it may be necessary to revise other ordinances rather than just the manual. Commissioner Ray asked the City Attorney if it would be easier to include some language in the manual simply stating that in lieu of that position being filled or some potential position where that position was cut, it would befall the Director of Parks and Recreation to fill the position or add some language to that affect. City Attorney Boogaard stated he was advised there were no specific duties assigned in the manual. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted it would be considered before fmalizing the document. Commissioner Ray asked why drought-tolerant landscaping had been excluded for those related to recreation. He felt the recreational uses, which would be those which would have to be heartier plants, would need to be drought tolerant and take less maintenance. Principal Planner Griffin stated he believed that related to the active recreation area where there would be turf and would not be drought tolerant. Mr. Ray asked if that meant the drought- tolerant treatments there were reduced rather than eliminated. Mr. Griffin felt the areas that would not require surface to actively recreate would be using drought-tolerant material. Mr. Williams stated that normally areas used for recreation were turfed, and the distinction was between non-active areas and active areas. Chair Tuchscher asked if all of the major developers in the City had reviewed the manual and were satisfied. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that Rancho del Rey still had some issues PC Minutes -16- August 10, 1994 they were trying to f'malize. Staff had not gotten a final response, but thought they had addressed all of their issues. The continuation of the item would give them an opportunity to meet. Staff planned to have another forum with the development community to make sure that all of the issues were settled, and then come back to the Planning Commission with a public hearing. Mr. Lee suggested that the item be readvertized for a date certain and make sure a forum was held. Chair Tuchscher confu-med that staff would be contacting McMillin to get their revisions worked out and immediately going to the American Society of Landscape Architects. Mr. Lee concurred. DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 4: DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1994. BROCHURE ENCLOSED WITH AUGUST 10 PACKETS. Assistant Planning Director Lee discussed the Planning Commissioners Workshop which had been set for Saturday, September 10, and asked those Commissioners who might be interested to let the secretary know. Staff would contact the three members who were absent to see if they were interested. The seminar would be from 8:00 to 12:30. Mr. Lee brought the Commissioners' attention to a letter from the Traffic Engineer outlining the action being taken on Plaza Bonita Road, which sounded like a good response from the County on that particular issue of the right-mm movement. Commissioner Ray thanked Hal Rosenberg, the Traffic Engineer, for his swift response on an issue which was a concern of citizens in the area. Mr. Ray stated he appreciated City staff's efforts in this matter. Chair Tuchscher agreed. Mr. Lee noted there were no items for the Workshop which had been scheduled for August. Chris Salomone of Community Development would be out of town that week and would not be able to address the Commissioners. Staff would like to come back in September with either an update from Conmaunity Development on their work program and what's happening there, or the Park Implementation Program. Mr. Lee asked that the August 17 workshop be canceled. The August 24 meeting was still scheduled. Commissioner Tarantino commented that in light of the fact that there was so much concern about school districts and mitigation of students from projects, maybe it would be a good idea to have a workshop session on that and have one or two of the school districts come and explain their side, how it works, and how it affects what they are trying to do. Mr. Lee felt that would be appropriate, and when the work was finalized with SourcePoint, a workshop could be scheduled. City Attorney Boogaard told the Planning Commissioners that it was his intent to try to get some expert outside legal counsel to provide staffmg for the Planning Commission and to provide PC Minutes -17- August 10, 1994 guidance to the Planning Department until he could get Rich Rudolf's position filled. He would be looking for counsel with public planning, land use experience. In the meantime, he would be working with the Planning Department himself. Chair Tuchscher noted his appreciation, and stated that Rich had done a great job, and the efforts of the Attorney's office were greatly appreciated. It was really critical to the Commission as a whole and personally to make sure the Commission was going in the right direction. Mr. Boogaard stated that that in their capacity as Planning Commissioners, they were indemnified, so the Commissioners did not have to worry about personal liability. Commissioner Ray asked what kind of cost would be involved. Mr. Boogaard discussed the anticipated cost range and compared it to the staff rate. He believed for the short term the need could be met with outside help. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Fuller asked that she be excused from the meeting of August 24, 1994, since she would be out of town. MSUC (Ray/Tarantino) 4-0 to excuse Commissioner Fuller from the meeting of August 24, 1994. MSUC (Ray/Tarantino) 4-0 to excuse Commissioner Martin since he had a prior engagement and had informed City staff for the meeting of August 10, 1994. ADJOURNMENT at 9:30 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of August 24, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Na~ncy Ril~ley, Sc/cretar~ Planning Commission