Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/11/12 . . . .". Tape: 314 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 6:00 p.m. Mondav. November 12. 1990 Council Chambers Public Services Buildinq ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Fuller, Commissioners Cartmill, Casillas, and Decker Carson, COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chai r Grasser Horton, Commi ss i oner Tugenberg (with notification) STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Community Development Specialist Abbott, Contract Planner Miller, Contract Planner Frischer, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Vice Chair Fuller noted she was acting as Chair in the absence of Chair Grasser Horton. She then reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Vice Chair Fuller. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM I: PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-90-08, SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Envi ronmental Revi ew Coordi nator Reid stated that the Resource Conservat i on Commission had recommended approval and certification of the EIR, and also made recommendations regarding implementation of the threshold policies on traffic and noise, and that the Commission and Council fully consider the cumulative impacts of this and other projects as they occur in the City. Contract Planner Deborah Frischer noted that the EIR had been through a 45-day review period of the State Clearinghouse which had concluded November 9, and the public review period concluded with this public hearing. They had received comments from the Engineering Department, Police, County of San Diego, State Department of Water Resources, Sweetwater Union High School District, and County Office of Education. MINUTES - 2 - November 12. 1990 Ms. Frischer said the Draft EIR had been reviewed by the Montgomery Planning Committee on October 17, 1990, and they had recommended approval of the Draft EIR. The Project Area Committee reviewed it on October 22 with no action, and the Resource Conservation Commission on October 22 recommended approval. Mr. Frischer proceeded to give an overview of the project, noting it was proposed for an area of 1,040 acres in the area wi th i n the southwest port i on of Chul a Vi sta. She stated the Commi ss i oners had rece i ved cop i es of all the comments received on the redevelopment project. John Bridges of Cotton Beland, who prepared the Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Report, stated the report reviewed 19 areas of potential impact associated with the redevelopment project area. Six of those areas were identified as having significant impact: air quality, land use, transportation circulation, noise, schools, and parks and recreation. Mr. Bridges stated all except air quality could be reduced to a level of less than significant through the use of mitigation measures associated with implementation of the redevelopment project. The air quality impact is a cumulative impact occurring as a result of development region-wide. He stated the Air Quality Management Plan for the region was in the process of being updated and would be in place by July 1991 as a plan that would identify mitigation measures that would be necessary to achieve state and federal standards. The other 13 impact areas which had been identified in the EIR had been determined to be not significant. Commi ss i oner Decker asked what basel i ne had been used to fi nd that the air quality was not mitigable. Mr. Bridges answered that the air quality measurements presently being taken in the San Diego region indicate that there are certain days within the year when the region is unable to meet both state and federal standards. Any further development would continue to aggravate that problem. The Ai r Quality Management Pl an to be adopted in 1991 woul d take into account the standards of the Air Quality Act of 1990. Commi ss i oner Cas i 11 as quest i oned the statement on page 3-17 regard i ng tax increment financing, and the possibility of not receiving federal revenue shari ng funds. Mr. Bri dges answered that federal revenue shari ng funds was one source of funding; and although it may not be available now, it may become available during the 40-year life of the plan. Commissioner Decker asked what percentage of the total funds could have been represented by federal revenue sharing, and if the City would have to absorb a portion of that. In answer to Commissioner Casillas' query, Mr. Bridges explained that the ICU method used for measuring traffic was "intersection capacity" and it had been found that the weak links in the traffic systems were the intersections. The intersection capacity had been found to be the best method of identifying the overall efficiency in capacity of a circulation system. . . . .../ .. MINUTES - 3 - November 12, 1990 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Casillas asked the location of the dwelling units to be eliminated. Mr. Bridges noted the General Plan called for the change of some of the residential to non-residential uses. Community Development Special ist Abbott indicated on the map the areas along Main Street, but noted there was no particular time period for the change of uses. Commissioner Decker asked when the Commissioners would receive the responses to the comments to the Draft EIR. Mr. Bridges stated they would be responded to in the Final EIR for the meeting of November 13, 1990. Commi ss i oner Carson was concerned about when and how the Commi ss i oners woul d receive the answers. Community Development Specialist Abbott assured her the Commissioners would have the answers as soon as possible. He noted that agreements had been reached with the County Office of Education regarding the spl it of the tax revenues. The comments had been passed on as a matter of information so the EIR would be correct. Commi ss i oner Cas ill as asked about the recyc 1 i ng program wh i ch had been noted in the EIR as being available in September 1990. Planning Director Leiter answered that the City Council had originally directed staff to negotiate with Laidlaw to develop a permanent curbside recycling program. The Council, however, at the Council meeting of November 6, had opened it up to competitive bidding to allow other firms to also make proposals for curbside recycl ing. Mr. Leiter noted it would probably take another six or seven months to complete the process. Commi ss i oner Cas i 11 as noted that the est i mated 1 i fe of the Otay 1 andfi 11 was eight years. He asked what would happen in eight years; what were the a lternat i ves. PI ann i ng Di rector Leiter stated that the County was doi ng a study of a lternat i ve 1 andfi 11 sites for the South County. He said that, in addition, implementation of the statewide sol id waste management law (AB 939) requires that cities develop plans for reducing the amount of waste by 25% by the year 1995 and 50% by the year 2000 to try to reduce the impact. Mr. Bridges noted that on page 11 the name "Laidlaw Waste System" should be removed and made more generic (Section 5.1.15). Vice Chair Fuller clarified that there would be answers to the letters to be read before the meeting to be held the next evening, but not a large packet. Mr. Bridges indicated it should take about half hour to 45 minutes to read the answers in detail. Vice Chair Fuller clarified the format for the meeting of November 13. MINUTES - 4 - November 12. 1990 OTHER BUSINESS: None DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None COMMISSION COMMENTS: None ADJOURNMENT AT 6:30 p.m. to a Special Business Meeting of November 13, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. I .~ Nancy Ripley, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 8576P