Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 1990/09/10MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:08 p.m. Council Chambers Monday, August 20, 1990 Public Services Buildi~ CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting called to order at 6:08 p.m. by Chairman Fox. Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called the roll. Present: Commissioners Fox, Chidester, Ghougassian, Hall and Ray. Absent with notification: Commissioner Stevens. Absent without notification Commissioner Johnson APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MSC (Chidester/Fox) 4-0-1, with Ghougassian abstaining, to approve the minutes of July 23, 1990 as mailed. NEW BUSINESS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: To take public testimony relevant to the proposed "Environmental Agenda for the 90's" as proposed by Councilmember Nader. (Continued from July 23, 1990 meeting.) Environmental Review Coordinator Reid said it was the opinion of the City Attorney that the minutes of July 23, 1990 were of sufficient detail to permit Commission members who were absent to dispense with listening to the tape of the meeting and still participate in voting on the continued items. Chairman Fox suggested that Items #2 and #25 be combined into one article. He asked what the effect would be if a time line of October 31, 1990 were affixed to both items. Councilman Nader replied that any developer who had received approval prior to November 1 would have an advantage until the Growth Management Implementation Plan was adopted. This, staff had recently indicated, would be ready by the end of the year. Mr. Nader replied to Commissioner Hall that effective "holding-up" action could not be implemented immediately by denial of a project on the basis of not having a complete Growth Management Plan or by a moratorium as expressed in #25. It would be subject to the usual public hearing process and 30-day waiting period prior to enactment unless Council were to adopt the moratorium as an Urgency Measure. Commissioner Chidester spoke on Article #3 (bike lanes) saying that more emphasis needs to be placed on bicyclists obeying the traffic laws and that the appropriate ordinances RCC Minutes 2 August 20, 1990 might need review and/or revisions. The Commissioner asked if any thought had been given to the burden placed on staff and if any money were available for assistance. The Councilman replied that hiring additional personnel would be necessary; #57 addressed that question and Council had amended the budget to that end. Commissioner Ray supported Chairman Fox's statement on #2. On #6, Commissioner Ray suggested that it would be better to change the public transit routes than the zoning ordinance. Councilman Nader replied that three different approaches could be employed: (1) locate the center near the existing transit services, (2) change the public transit routes, and (3) that the City and developer get together to create a new public transit method utilizing buses and the trolley. Commissioner Fox asked for further clarification of #14, which relates to the creation of a public energy distribution utility. Councilman Nader said this was a result of the proposed merger of Edison and SDG&E. It would be a partial municipalization of the utility by a regional agency and a partial de-regularization of a public energy distribution company which could buy energy from any source. It would encourage the development of energy technology and sources of supply and result in lower rates to the consumers. Commissioner Ray stated that he put together #20 re eliminating polluting chemicals and #44 re adopting a program similar to Irvine's to restrict sale and distribution of products harming the environment through ozone depletion and non-recycl ability. Councilman Nader remarked that the Irvine ordinance was broader than #20 in the sense that it dealt with sale of chemicals in the market place instead of the use by City gardeners. It was narrower in that it dealt only with chemicals associated with ozone depletion. The Commissioner said he objected to the use of the word "eliminate" in #20 because in some cases there might not be a viable alternative. Mr. Nader replied that depending on the specifics of the case, if there were no alternative products and it were essential to the good of the City, an exception would be considered. He suggested that the phrase "wherever feasible" might supply qualifying language. Commissioner Ray referenced #32, regarding halting develop- ment where "threshold" standards are not met. He asked at what cost do we start adjusting our thresholds and how often do we review them? Councilman Nader replied that the Growth Management Oversight Committee annually monitors the RCC Minutes 3 August 20, 1990 thresholds and reports to the Council on how they are being implemented and on recommended changes. Commissioner Ray referenced #39, regarding developing a model Toxic Waste Reduction Ordinance. He asked if there would be any input from organizations representing certain types of industries (like Rohr) on a Commission or Board working with staff. The Councilman replied that an advisory board to work with staff would be one approach or another way would be for staff to consult with effective groups on a more formal basis. Commissioner Ray remarked that no one person could be a specialist in the many fields to be considered and make specific recommendations on policies dealing with toxic waste without input from the groups most affected. Kent Aden, Eastlake Develo~nent Company, Eastlake Business Center, 900 Lane Ave., Ste 100, CV 92013, submitted a letter to the Commission indicating EastLake's support of Mr. Nader's recommendations regarding water conservation and reclaimed water programs at a planned community level. Eastlake is also supportive of all portions of the "Environmental Agenda" consistent with the City's existing growth management policies including the City's General Plan, the "threshold" standards and Proposition V. However, it does not support any items which are in conflict with these existing facility driven thresholds. Eastlake has an on-going "think tank" process and within the next 45-50 days they will be considering all 57 of Mr. Nader's points. They would like to return and report to the Commission on how these are being implemented. Chairman Fox asked if Eastlake had received notification of the meeting. Mr. Aden reel ied affirmatively. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Fox reviewed the method by which the 57 points would be addressed and asked each Commissioner to request whichever items they wish to discuss more fully. Chairman Fox asked to have items #2 and #25 pulled. Commissioner Ray asked to have items #6, #17, #20, #24, #33, #40, #41, #44 and #52 pulled. MS (Fox/Hall) to recommend that City Council adopt the docu- ment entitled "Items for Council Action from 'Environmental Agenda for the 90's "' Items #1 through #57 except Items #2, #6, #17, #20, #24, #25, #33, #40, #41, #44 and #52. Commissioner Ray objected to the word "adopt" saying that RCC Minutes 4 Auaust 20, 1990 these items should be brought up for discussion and detailed study by staff before a recommendation is made for a formal adoption. He recommended the wording "to adopt for review" as a starting point for a more formal, in-depth, item-by- item review. Chairman Fox said he would not support that language because a tougher Growth Management Plan was needed. To "adopt for review" would be an action that would take no action. Commissioner Ray replied that he was not prepared to "put it in stone" unless there were specifics provided for each item. Commissioner Hall commented that the intent was to give Council a working document rather than something carved in stone. All these actions must be taken. The recommendation is not that this be adopted as written but that it is a good basis for further study. in reply to Chairman Fox, Councilman Nader said that the document is intended as a working document, a statement of policies and goals. It is not intended to be a substitute for actual ordinance and policy language. Some of the articles are quite straight-forward and others will require a good deal of fleshing out and study. He suggested recommending to Council that such items as the Commission wishes to recommend be adopted by the Council as goals and that the Council take such steps as necessary; i.e., referrals to stafr, Commissions, citizens, etc. He pointed out that decisions about which staff member will prepare reports are functions of the City Manager's office as would be the duties of the environmentalist. Chairman Fox asked Commissioner language of "adopted as goals". from both Commissioner Ray and amended his motion. Ray if he would accept the Upon receiving acquiescence the second, Chairman Fox AMENDED MOTION MSC (Fox/Hall) 4-0-1 with Ghougassian abstaining, to recom- mend that City Council adopt as goals the document entitled "Items for Council Action from 'Environmental Agenda for the 90's'" Items #1 through #57 except for Items #2, #6, #17, #20, #24, #25, #33, #40, #41, #44 and #52. Commissioner Ray requested that the public hearing be reopened for questions and to receive testimony on item #2. Chairman Fox, for the purpose of receiving answers to questions and testimony, reopened the public hearina. Chairman Fox said that his intent was to combine items #2 and #25 to maintain 57 items since he intends to add another RCC Minutes __~___5 Au4ust 21990 item. No input forthcoming from the public, the public hearing was closed. MS (Fox/Hall) to combine Items #2 and #25 to read Item #2 and recommend that Council adopt for approval as goals. Commissioner Ray questioned that both Item #2 and #25 were the same since the General Plan to which Councilman Nader refers is much more encompassing than the tentative map approval in #2. Chairman Fox replied that all major approvals on new projects and tentative map approvals would both be halted until such time as the Growth Management Element to the General Plan had been satisfied. His motion is not merely to combine Item #2 and #25 but for the purpose of recommending that they also be adopted as goals. When the General Plan was revised, certain elements were not addressed by the promised date of October 1989. This motion would force Council to take the matter of growth management more seriously. Commissioner Ray maintained that by this item we are prohibiting certain types of growth by saying all further approvals of major developments cannot be good for the City instead of impacting the City itself. In reply to whether he would approve time restrictions on Item #2 and #25, he replied that he would if a provision were included as to what kind of repercussion would be felt by the City, not the developer, if the deadlines were not met. Chairman Fox asked if the Commissioner would be agreeable for the sake of a consensus to the deadline of December 31st. The Commissioner replied he would not. The motion to combine Items #2 and 25 to read Item #2 and recommend Council adopt for approval as goals failed by the follow inct vote Ayes: Fox, Chidester, Hall Noes: Ray Abstain: Ghougassian SUBSTITUTE MOTION MSC (Ray/Chidester) 4-0-1 with Ghougassian abstaining, to combine Items #2 and 25 singularly and label it #2, taking no action on approval at this time. Chairman Fox informed the Commission that before commencing dis- cussion on Item #6, he would like to consider Item 3 on the Agenda. The Commission members agreed. RCC Minutes 6 August 20, 1990 3. Council Referral regarding Indoor Pest Control for City Facilities Environmental Review Coordinator Reid introduced Dave Byers, Deputy Public Works Director/Operations and Community Development Specialist David Harris. Deputy Director Byers said the items should have been accompanied by a cover letter and that he would appreciate any input the Commission might have to pass on to City Council. MSC (Fox/Ghougassian) 4-1 with Hall voting against, to continue the item until the next meeting so that both Commissioner Ghougassian and Fox (who did not receive a copy in the packet) will have time to review the subject. 1. Returning to the Environmental Agenda for the '90's, Chairman Fox asked if the Commission wished to discuss one or two more items tonight and then continue the balance to the next meeting. Commissioner Ray indicated his willingness to limit discussion to two items per meeting for the next several meetings. Commissioner Ray said that Councilman Nader's statement had clarified the intent of the items. His personal concern, however, is with the exact language in the document and if it could be revised on some of the items that he would agree to them. Regarding Item 6, requiring new employment centers to be situated within convenient walking distance of public transit services, Commissioner Chidester suggested substituting the word "encouraging" in place of "requiring". Commissioner Ray agreed. Commissioner Ghougassian commented that it would be wiser to say that the public transit service stops should be located near to employment centers and reroute a bus than to reroute the center round the transit facilities. The item should be changed to say that the zoning ordinance requires public transit to accommodate any employment centers versus saying new employment centers to be situated near walking distance of public transit. Chairman Fox replied that by that action the burden is shifted to the public and taxpayers to create these routes. Commissioner Ghougassian declared that Item 6 is superfluous for the zoning ordinances already specify where commercial and residential can be located. RCC Minutes 7 August 20, 1990 Councilman Nader reiterated that the intent of the item was that the objective could be met either by new employment centers located near public transit or the transit rescheduled. Commissioner Ray moved that the Council adopt an objective to require new employment centers and public transit routes to be situated so that they allow for convenient walking distance to a public transit service and provisions for partnership between developers and the City for provision of such services where feasible. He pointed out that he was eliminating reference to the zoning ordinance originally called for. Upon not hearing a second, he withdrew the motion. MS (Hall/Fox for purpose of discussion) that Council should plan that new employment centers be situated within convenient walking distance of public transit services, with provisions for partnerships between developers and the City for the provision of such services where feasible. Commissioner Ghougassian suggested as substitute wording that City Council encourage public transit services be located at new employment centers with provisions for partnerships...etc. Commissioner Hall said she had no objection to the substitute wording but she believed Item #6 was referencing Eastlake and other planned communities where the location of new employment centers is being planned. Councilman Nader on being asked, confirmed that the reference was primarily to new developments in the eastern territory, as well as some redevelopment projects that may have new employment centers. Commissioner Hall withdrew the motion and Chairman Fox withdrew the second. MS (Ray/Fox) to recommend that Council adopt Item #6 as a goal where feasible. Commissioner Ghougassian objected on the basis that it doesn't make sense when it is known that there is an ordinance that legally overrides #6. The proper way would be to delete #6 because it will not fly. Commissioner Ray withdrew the motion and Chairman Fox withdrew the second. RCC Minutes __8 August 20L1990 MSUC (Fox/Ray) 5-0, to continue Item #6 to the next meeting for the purpose of reviewing the item and preparing more suitable language and so the Commissions's concerns and objections can be addressed. Chairman Fox suggested that perhaps an opinion from the City Attorney on the ordinance matter might be appropriate as well as a representative from Planning to address the Commission's concerns. MS (Fox/Hall) to continue all remaining items to the next meeting. Commissioner Ray said he would like to discuss Item #17 tonight and that it would take only a short time. Chairman Fox withdrew his motion, and Commissioner Hall withdrew the second. MS (Fox/Hall) 3-2, with Ghougassian and Chidester voting no, to continue all remaining pulled items except Item #17 to the next meeting. MOTION FAILED Commissioner Ghougassian said he needed further time to look into Item #17 and would like it continued also. MSUC (Ray/Ghougassian) 5-0, to continue all remaining pulled Items #17, #20, #24, #33, #40, #41, #44 and #52 to the next meeting. 2. Consideration of Previous RCC Recommendations Regarding Community Planning Groups MSUC (Hall/Ghougassian) 4-1 with Ray voting no, to continue this to the next meeting so that Mr. Ghougassian can study this further. 3. Council Ref erral regarding Indoor Pest Control for City Facilities ( Taken out of Sequence. See Page 6 ) 4. Negative Declarations out for Public Review: a. IS-90-20 Western Business Park, NWC of Palomar & Bay Blvd. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid said there had been an error in the advertising board. Also there was a mitigation monitoring program which should be mentioned in the motion. MSUC (Chidester/Fox) to adopt the Negative Declaration RCC Minutes 9 Au4ust 20, 1990 and the mitigation monitoring program. b. IS-90-49 Security First Self Storage Phase III, 3033 Hermosa. Coordinator Reid said the area was located in an urban area of Montgomery to the north of Otay wetlands and the river valley. Project area has already been disturbed greatly. The drainage run-off will remain the same. MSUC (Fox/Hall) 5-0, to adopt the Negative Declaration. c. IS-90-55, 4th Avenue Apartments, 82 Fourth Avenue The project is on 1/3-acre lot on Fourth Avenue between "C" and "D" Streets. Applicant will be requesting a bonus as there are more units than would be allowed under existing zoning and the General Plan. The Commissioners recommended that the overcrowding in the schools and the parking situation be pointed out to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hall recommended that the density bonus not be granted. Coordinator Reid replied that the matter went before the DRC for approval and that the project met the CEQA requirements. MSUC (Ray/Hall) 5-0 to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration. MS (Ray/Hall) that it be noted that the Resource Conservation Commission collectively has a negative response to the project itself. Commissioner Ray withdrew his motion, Commissioner Hall withdrew the second. Commissioner Ray asked when the DRC would review and was informed the week of 9/17/90. He said he would plan to represent the Commission at the meeting and voice the RCC's concerns. MS (Ray/Ghougassian) 3-2 with Fox and Chidester voting no, to recommend to the DRC that the project be denied as currently proposed. MOTION FAILED. MS (Ghougassian/Hall) 3-2 with Ray and Chidester voting no, to recommend to the DRC that the project be denied as it stands, however, if certain conditions are met RCC Minutes 10 ___ August 201 1990 the project be approved: (1) the bonus density be denied and (2) the parking under the structure be closed. MOTION FAILED. MSUC (Ghougassian/Hall) 5-0, to recommend to the DRC that the project be denied as currently proposed. d. IS-90-56 Thermo King Demolition, 340 Bay Blvd. This concerns the purchase of property by the Redevelopment Agency on Bay Blvd. There was great concern about the previous use of the property and the high probability of having hazardous material remaining there. However, it appears that either the presence is below hazardous levels as have been identified by various regulatory agencies or it can be mitigated. Commissioner Chidester asked how deep the bore holes were and was informed that there were 6 back hoe samples and 4 water samples. MSUC (Ray/Chidester) 4-0-1 with Ghougassian abstaining, to adopt the Negative Declaration. e. IS-91-02 Dan Way Apartments, 588 Arizona Street. This residential property is on a half-acre located on Arizona Street near Broadway just behind the auto repair facility. There was some concern about air quality and probable noise impact so special studies were done and some recommendations regarding the insulation of walls from the noise were included. These were covered under Title 24 of the State Law and are therefore in the Negative Declaration. The Elementary School says the payment of fees would be adequate but the High School recommends higher fees up front. A letter was received from Mr. Barajas who operates the facility next door requesting we look more closely at the acoustical effects. Discussion included concerns regarding air quality in connection with a body shop operation as well as noise pollution and fire potential. Commissioner Fox said he could not vote for adoption because he was not satisfied that the air quality conditions had been met. MSUC (Chidester/Fox for purpose of discussion) 5-0 to deny the item on the basis of lack of air quality and noise pollution. In reply to questions, Coordinator Reid said the item goes to the DRC and he will find out the date. RCC Minutes 11 August 201 1990 5. Review of Planning Commission Agenda for August 22, 1990. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that Item 1 was being continued. Item 2, PCC-90-27, consideration of revocation of conditional use permit for the Office Club at 630 "L" Street because of non-compliance with approved plans. The owner moved in without the landscaping, paving, etc. Work has been started and it is possible that by Wednesday staff may request a 2-week continuance to bring it up to Code. Item 3, PCA-91-1, consideration of an amendment to Title 19, is a housekeeping item to bring conflicts between the widths of driveways in panhandle and flag lots into compliance. Item 4, is a referral on low density and estate housing on a couple of projects which Council did not consider the lot sizes to be truly estate-sized. Item 5 involves a briefing on Salt Creek Ranch issues. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Council Referral on Historical Trees. MSUC (Chidester/Ray) to continue to the meeting of September 24, 1990. Commissioner Chidester said he had spoke with John Rojas who is compiling the list of historical trees. This will be incorporated in the report. He would like to make a presentation to the Commission and asks if he could be the initial item on the Agenda because of another commitment. COMMUNICATIONS STAFF REPORT Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that a more detailed copy of the Commission budget had been distributed to the members of the Commission. Saturday, September 8, 1990, was selected as the day for the paleontological resources tour of Rancho del Rey. Commissioners Ray, Chidester and Hall will be present. COMMISSION COMMENTS It was requested that a letter be sent from staff or the RCC regarding the pollutants emitted by SDG&E. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:41 p.m. to the regular business meeting of September 10, 1990 at 6:00 p.m. in Conf. Rm. 1 Tj ~-~ /~ ..~ . ~L°- Ruth M. Smith, Recorder