Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 1991/10/07MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:00 p.m. Conference Room 1 Monday, September 23, 1991 Public Services Building CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairman Fox. Present: Commissioners Hall, Kracha, Ray and McQuade. Commissioners Ghougassian and Johnson arrived at 6:10 and 6:15 p.m. respectively. Staff members present: Doug Reid and Maryann Miller. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of September 9, 1991 were approved with two corrections: Item 3b on Page 2 should list specific names as moving and seconding motion and the "Commissioner" should be deleted from Item 2, 3rd Paragraph as Mr. Kracha was not participating or voting. NEW BUSINESS: A. Nominations were opened for Chair. Barbara Hall and John Kracha were nominated with election votes being deferred to end of meeting. B. Chairman Fox moved Recirculated Draft EIR (EIR-90-07), Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion to first item of business. Discussions were opened to the public. Wayne Wencke, President of Circinus Corporation, commented that defects were found in the EIR and needed to be analyzed and fully explored. The defects were as follows: Traffic issue; asbestos issue; redevelopment issues and design/review issues. Abetter alternative location was suggested by his company. 2. Joe Solomon, Attorney representing Circinus Corporation, commented that EIR is flawed with the same above reasons including the economic analysis. Solomon stated there had been a violation of state and local law because Wencke had not been consulted for the project and that Scripps had been chosen too quickly cancelling Wencke's chances. Solomon commented that a letter had been sent to the City asking for an injunction regarding economics. 3. James Leary, Architect representing Scripps Memorial Hospital, commented that he was available to answer questions at this meeting. 4. Mike Jacobs, Vice President of Circinus Corporation, commented there were serious traffic flaws in the EIR and economic analysis. Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 5. It was moved and seconded to rescind the previous recommendation to the Planning Commission to certify the EIR. A motion was made and seconded to sustain any recommendations until all documents distributed by Circinus Corporation at this meeting had been reviewed by the RCC members. B. Discussions were opened on GPA-91-O5; PCZ-91-G: Proposal to amend the General Plan and rezone certain territory. Concern was expressed by Barbara Hall on the number of trucks and length of time they were parked alongside road. Also she pointed out the sewer lines are up to capacity and that they should be enlarged now before starting to build roads. A unanimous motion was carried to see adequacy on sewer system. It was also noted that it is the only unzoned area in the city. A motion was passed 6 to 1 that a request be given to City Council to look at zoning. C. Discussions were held on PCA-91-06: Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code. It was expressed by John Ray that because there had not been any complaints, why change it? Discussion followed with a motion being passed 4 to 3 to not consider it amended to the Municipal Code. D. Commissioner Fox asked for further nominations for Chair. John Kracha withdrew his nomination and Robert Fox declined mentioning he had been Chair for two years and felt he should give someone else a chance. A motion was carried unanimously for Barbara Hall as the new Chair. Further nominations were taken for Vice Chair with John Kracha and John Ray being nominated. John Kracha left the meeting temporarily. Votes were taken with John Ray winning 4 to 2 with John Kracha not present. STAFF REPORTS: Doug Reid mentioned regular scheduled meetings for October with November and December meeting the first 3 mondays in each month. He also made a suggestion that food be brought in for the next meeting on October 7 to celebrate the elections of Chair and Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Chairman Fox said he is in favor of a Public Hearing on every EIR, because it might not be possible to know if there is enough public interest until a public hearing is called. Discussion followed with a motion unanimously passed regarding public hearings on all EIRs. Meeting was adjourned by Chairman Fox at 8:50 p.m. fcffully submitted, tlv~o,~A______ Condron 2.32.040, Duties-General,(OZiginal~(Reyisedl 948Batles-6exesal-~9slglea~} The commission shall provide the city council with a citizens' assessment of the following: A. The effectiveness of proposed goals, policies, procedures and regulations of the city in accomplishing the purpose, intent and goals of this chapter; H. The effects of individual projects being subjected to environmental review on the implementation of the purpose, intent and goals of this chapter; C. The extent to which the capital improvement program implements this chapter; D. Recommendations.for „ new..goals~Addltiepally=--whea--aeededT ~~~sebm4t-te-the--eity-eeaae#1-reeammexdat4ens--€er-new--Beals; policies, procedures or regulations necessary to implement this chapter; E. The commission may recognize individuals or groups in the community who have implemented notable measures to foster the purpose, intent and goals of this chapter; F. Held hearings and take testimony of any persons under oath, if desired, relating to any matter under investigation or in question before this commission.,, ~; Oversee M}~}gatign Monitgr}ng „ Programs,,,,and,,,make recommendations,to,decision-making authority; H;,,,Make,,,recommend3tions „ 3nd,,,comments,,,to „decision,-making authority „ qn „each „ EIR% „ Negative ,declaration and other matte;s,a~,deemed,neces~ary, (Ord. 1928 *2 (part), 1980). 2.32.050 Additional duties-Environmental quality. A-9?ke-eHaltgersen;-er--member-ef-tH#s-eemmisslen--designated by-the-eHa#rgersen;-shall-be--a-member-ef-the--env#renmental review-eemmittee- A. The commission or its chairperson or designated member may review all environmental documents to assure adequate commission review, analysis and comment. $. In conjunction with input on enviromnental documents, the commission may make recommendations regarding the environmental impact, energy or resource conservation or impact on historic resources of the project to the appropriate decision-making authority. These recommendations may include methods to mitigate adverse effects, reduce energy or resource consumption or other suggestions within the purpose and intent of the commission. (Ord. 1928 *2 (part), 1980).