Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/02/14 -4 . . . Tape: 307 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, February 14, 1990 Council Chamber Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, and Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Di rector of Pl anning Lei ter, Principal Pl anner Pass, Assistant Planner Barbara Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid, Associ ate Pl anner Herrera-A, Seni or Ci vil Engi neer Ull rich, Associ ate Traffic Engi neer Sepehri, Assistant City Attorney Rich Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Tugenberg and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Tugenberg reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Nancy Palmer, 971 Fourth Avenue, Chul a Vi sta 92011, representi ng the Montgomery Planning Committee. Ms. Palmer said that as a member of the Montgomery Pl anni ng Committee, she had been i nvo lved in the envi ronmenta 1 impact report for the trolley center. She had noticed there was no certificati on of the EI R on the agenda. Thi s project was presented to the Montgomery Planning Committee a week after the Planning Commission had certified the EIR in July 1989. After going through the EIR, it was apparent tp all of the members of the Montgomery Pl anni ng Committee that there were some errors in the document, and at their meeting of July 19, they refused to certify it. At that point they were requested to do a more detailed analysis of their denial. On August 2, 1989, the Montgomery Planning Committee took in excess of an hour to detail point by point where they felt, particularly, the traffic and the economic impact analysis was lacking. Those points were condensed into 19 items and in October 1989 a draft addendum was arrived at. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- February 14, 1990 It was presented to the City and Pacific Scene wanted to add economic information. That was done in November 1989. Because Henshaw and Associates did not return the final addendum to the City in time, a special meeting of the Montgomery Planning Committee was held on January 31, 1990. When they were asked to certify the document, in their agenda packet the certification was dated July 12, 1989. She said that was in error; that when they found the document in July 1989 unworthy of certification, any certification the Planning Commission had given prior to that was null. The certification that they were asked to pass, and was passed wi th a 5-2 vote in favor, di d not address the existence of the addendum and the added economic and traffic information concerning the impact of this project on the Montgomery communi ty. She requested that the Commi ssi on postpone the two agenda items regarding the trolley center until the Planning Commission had the opportunity to compare the addendum with the Fi na 1 Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Report they had seen, and had a chance to drive through the community after comparison. She said there were many items, many places of businesses, excluded from the economic analysis that exist as commercial entities in the community of Montgomery on Bay Boulevard, south on Broadway to Main Street, "for rent" east on Main and north on Third. The community is blighted with signs. There is an orgy of building since annexation. She asked that after the Commission has a chance to compare the items to go into the Montgomery Community and look at the impact; then make a decision on the certification of the EIR and the two items on the agenda. The following items were considered together. ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-88-2M: REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 12.22 ACRES FROM INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL USE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY QUADRANT OF AN UNNAMED STREET AND PALOMAR STREET - PACIFIC SCENE DEVELOPMENT ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-J-M: REQUEST TO REZONE 12.22 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY QUADRANT OF AN UNNAMED STREET AND PALOMAR STREET FROM THE CITY ADOPTED COUNTY "~1-52" ZONE (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL) TO "C-C" (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) - PACIFIC SCENE DEVELOPMENT Chairman Tugenberg asked if staff had any comments to make. Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid said the first portion of the Planning staff report addressed most of the issues raised and if there were additional questions, they would be happy to respond to them. Chairman Tugenberg informed the Commission that staff had requested them to first consider as part of the GPA the EIR-89-4M addendum. Assistant Planner Barbara Reid said the comments on the addendum on EIR-89-4M were incorporated into the rezone report, and also attached was a copy of the staff report which had gone to the Montgomery Planning Committee. Staff asked that the addendum be considered as part of GPA-88-2M. She reviewed the history of the EIR, as Nancy Palmer had previously stated. As a result of the . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- February 14, 1990 incorrect data that was in the EIR which was detailed to great extent by two of the Montgomery Commi ttee members, the need to respond to many of the comments and questi ons of the Montgomery Pl anni ng Commi ttee, and the need to clarify the methodology, an addendum was required. The Finance Director had reviewed the addendum and felt it was satisfactory. At the January 31, 1990 meeting of the Montgomery Planning Committee, the Committee voted to recommend that the FEIR be certified that it is in compliance with CEQA. Staff recommended that the Commission pass a resolution stating that the Planning Commission had "considered" the addendum to the EIR. Envi ronmental Coordi nator Rei d stated the reason for an addendum versus a supplemental document to the Final ErR was because some questions were raised regarding the adequacy and accuracy of the report. The addendum was required to basi cally address those questi ons and, in some instances, reassess them. He said there were only minor technical changes in the EIR that did not change the basic conclusions of fact in the Final EIR. Therefore, no supplemental EIR was necessary. Commissioner Carson asked why the Commission received the EIR before the Montgomery Planning Committee. Mr. Reid said the Planning Commission functions under the policy of the City Council, as a hearing board on Draft EIRs and before it is forwarded to other deci si on-maki ng or recommendi ng bodi es, it must fi rst be certifi ed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Carson said it was difficult for her to follow the language in the Addendum which referenced portions of the original EIR, since she didn't have the original EIR. Commi ssi oner Full er concurred. It was diffi cult to understand the porti ons which were referencing the original EIR. She could say she "considered" the Addendum, but really couldn't say she understood it in the context to what was being referenced. Mr. Reid stated that the wording under the State Guidel ines was that the decision-making body "considers" the Addendum to the EIR. Assistant Attorney Rudolf clarified that the Commission had considered the EIR before and had certified it. The Montgomery Planning Committee comments could have been included in the draft, as opposed to it being certified in the Final EIR, whi ch woul d have been preferabl e. Si nce the Addendum was now requi red, the regulations require that the regulating body certify the EIR. The Planning Commission had already done that, and now was required to "consider" any addendum thereto. That was the reason for the staff recommendati on that the Planning Commission make a motion that they "considered" the addendum. That was logical in light of the original EIR, which was certified, and the addendum. The Pl anni ng Commi ss i on had now looked at the whol e package as a unit and was satisfied, as in the beginning when the EIR was certified, that it was an adequate document under CEQA and had been prepared in accordance with the original document. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- February 14, 1990 Commissioner Cannon said the problem was they hadn't seen the original document in conjunction with the addendum and the two together as one. What they had seen si x, seven, or ei ght months ago was the ErR; now they were seeing the addendum to the EIR which without the EIR itself did not make much sense. Assistant Attorney Rudolf suggested if the Commissioners were not comfortable with making the motion, that they delay the matter so they could get the original EIR and compare it with the addendum. MOTION (Casillas/Grasser) to continue items 1 and 2 (GPA-88-2M and PCZ-88-J-M) to the meeting of February 28, 1990. Chairman Tugenberg asked if the applicant wished to speak to the continuance. Charles Gill, 600 "B" Street, San Diego, attorney representing the applicant, said they had no objection to continuance. He believed since they had not seen the ori gi nal document in ei ght months, it woul d be appropri ate. He stated they di d have a concern about the 1 ength of time the project had been in the pipeline, and he believed a lesson had been learned by all regarding the best procedure to follow in the future. Chairman Tugenberg said that, in some cases, projects have gone to other committees who have commented on the projects before goi ng to the Pl anni ng Commission. He said the minutes from the Montgomery Planning Committee were very helpful in understanding the problem in that area. Environmental Coordinator Reid said the Montgomery Planning Committee had received copies of the Draft EIR before it had gone to the Planning Commission in July, but staff had not received comments from them. VOTE ON MOTION The Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to continue items 1 and 2 to the meeting of February 28, 1990. ITEt1 3. PCM-90-l2: CONSIDERATION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF HERMOSA AVENUE TO FOURTH AVENUE BETWEEN ORANGE AVENUE AND BEYER WAY - City Initiated Assi stant Pl anner Barbara Rei d stated that Fourth Avenue extended from SR 54 south through Chul a Vi sta to Orange Avenue. South of Orange, it changed to Hermosa down to its connection to Beyer Avenue. Since the major portion of the north/south runni ng street through Chul a Vi sta was known as Fourth, it confused drivers unfami 1 i ar with the area to encounter a street name change unexpectedly, and could also potentially affect the response time for emergency vehicles. The Montgomery Planning Committee had voted 6-0 to approve the recommendation. Staff recommended a motion recommending that City Council change the name of Hermosa Avenue to Fourth Avenue. This being the time and the place advertised, the publ ic hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. ~ . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- February 14, 1990 MSUC (Shipe/Carson) 7-0 to recommend that the City Council change the name of Hermosa Avenue to Fourth Avenue. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Establishment of Policy to Provide Adequate Lead Time for Planning Commission Review of Agenda Items Director of Planning Leiter presented a draft policy to accomplish: 1) that the Planning Commission would receive reports on projects at least a week prior to their public hearings; and 2) all written communications to include requested modifications or additions to a project would have to be received by the Commission no later than 24 hours prior to their action. In order for that to occur, staff would need to receive them by the previous Friday. Staff woul d be getting reports out earlier both to the Commission and to the appl icants, and staff will be asking the appl icants to get correspondence to staff and to the Commi ssi on earli er so the Commi ssi oners woul d have a chance to look at it before the hearings. Mr. Leiter said this would require some Code amendments since it would require some changes to requirements for time frames for processing. He said if the Commission agreed, staff would proceed and bring that back at the next meeting. Commissioner Cannon said he was concerned that the public would not have ample time to get i nformati on to the Commi ssi on. He was not concerned with the applicant, who should have had ample time prior to the meeting. Chairman Tugenberg expressed his dissatisfaction with receiving a large amount of material just before the meeting, as had been the case recently, and not having time to review it. Planning Director Leiter explained that the drafted policy was oriented mainly toward the applicants. He said the the Commission may wish to change the draft policy wording to say "written communications from the applicant" instead of saying "all communications." Commissioner Cannon concurred with that approach. Planning Director Leiter asked for direction from the Commission as to whether to come back with the change and the Code amendments that would accompany it. MSUC (Cannon/Carson) 7-0 to ask staff to make the change in the draft policy and bring back the policy and the Code amendments that would accompany it. Mr. Leiter directed the Commission's attention to a notice regarding the Planning Commissioners' Institute and for them to let staff know if anyone was interested in attending. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- February 14, 1990 Mr. Leiter also reminded them that their workshop was the following Wednesday and some of the Commi ssi oners had approached him regardi ng reschedul ing the meeting. It was decided the Commissioners would cancel that meeting and take care of all the items at the next workshop. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT - None COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Casillas questioned staff regarding an article he had seen referring to density transfer issues in EastLake. Pl anning Director Leiter answered there were two development agreements, for EastLake Greens and EastLake Phase II I. In one of the development agreements, there was some issue regarding transfer of density that had not been used in EastLake I to the Greens project. There was some discussion in the public hearing regarding the development agreements. Commi ssi oner Casi 11 as sai d the i tern he had seen regard ed EastLake not wanti ng to commit to the Growth Management Element of the General Plan that is not yet in pl ace. He asked what the impact mi ght be on some of the deci sions the Commission had made. Mr. Leiter answered that one of the considerations in the EastLake Greens Development Agreement was to provide "safe harbor" provisions for a certain number of the units in the EastLake Greens project, and there were specific parameters for that in terms of the number of units and uni ts per year that had been recommended by staff; a di fferent number had been requested by the appl icant. The City Council approved the agreement with, in essence, "safe harbor" provisions for the entire project. Commissioner Cannon commented on the fact that EastLake had owned a certain portion of land when it was actually on option. The Planning Commission based their decision on that ownership; and then when it went to Council, EastLake presented it as an option rather than ownership. He said the Planning Commi ssi on rel i ed on EastLake' s good fai th and representati ons. Commi ssi oner Cannon asked staff to check to see if it was bonded. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:35 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of Wednesday, February 28, 1990, at 7;00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. {1L'~ ;;?~",J"~ Nancy Rl ey, ecret y Planning Commission WPC 7324P