HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/05/31 Tape: 299
Side: 1
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, May 31, 1989 Public Services Buildin~
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Cannon, Casillas,
Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner
Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid,
General Plan Consultant Bud Gray, Assistant
Director of Management Services Chase, Assistant
Fire Chief Lopez, Traffic Engineer Rosenberg and
Deputy City Attorney Fritsch
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Carson and was
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its
responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSC (Shipe/Fuller} Cannon abstained, to approve the Minutes of April 26, 1989
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
1. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-88-2 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid said the Draft EIR was the subject of a
public hearing before the Commission on )lay lO, 1989. All letters of comment
and testimony have been incorporated into the Final EIR. The several changes
made in the EIR are indicated by underlines and strike-outs in the document.
Staff recommends certification of the Final EIR.
Minutes - Special Meeting of
City Planning Commission -2- May 31, 1989
MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) 7-0, to certify that EIR-88-2 has been prepared in
compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review
procedure of the City of Chula Vista.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-89-6 - CONSIDERATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN
The slide projector being inoperable, the Chairman directed that Items 2, 3,
and 4 be held until the projector was repaired and moved consideration to Item
5.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-22 - CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED FIRE STATION MASTER
PLAN - CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning Direcor Krempl stated that the proposed Fire Station Master Plan had
been under preparation for quite some time. He then introduced Assistant Fire
Chief Sam Lopez and Assistant Management Services Director Mary Chase as
available to answer any questions. Mr. Chase said the Fire Station Master
Plan has been undertaken in conjunction with the General Plan Update. He
asked that the Negative Declaration be approved and to recommend that Council
adopt in principle the proposed eight fire station network to service the
Planning Area as well as adopting the very specific fire coverage guidelines
that have been developed as a means to ensure that the fire service
thresholds, which are adopted as part of the General Plan, be maintained.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) 7-0, that based on the Initial Study and comments on the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that the proposed Fire Station
Master Plan will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the
Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-71.
MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) 7-0, to recommend that City Council: (al adopt in
principle the proposed 8 fire station network for the Planning area, and (b)
adopt the fire coverage guidelines detailed in Tables 4 of the report (paqe
23} which are to be applied to individual development projects.
The slide projector still being inoperable, Chairman Carson proposed a
5-minute break.
7:20 p.m. - The Commission reconvened and the Chairman called up Item 2.
-2-
Minutes - Special Meeting of
City Planning Commission -3- May 31, 1989
2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-89-6 - CONSIDERATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN
Mr. Krempl began the staff presentation by giving a brief introduction and
overview of the General Plan process. Mr. Krempl introduced the consultants
who had worked on the General Plan Opdate including P&D Technologies, Inc.,
JHK on traffic, and Engineering Science with respect to land use, traffic and
engineering aspects. Mr. Bud Gray served as project manager for the overall
effort. Mr. Krempl then explained the process which had occurred over the
past two years in order to arrive at the current General Plan draft. He
indicated that initially (1) three separate land use scenarios had been
developed, (2) tested, and thoroughly evaluated, and (3) presented to the
Planning Commission and Council, Out of that effort evolved a Scenario 4
which included certain components of each of the previous three scenarios.
The components had been identified at a goals workshop as reflective of the
community's needs and desires. Mr. Krempl then reviewed the extensive citizen
participation public input effort that had taken place with regard to the
General Plan ranging from questionnaires, interviews, workshops, publication
of 5,000 summary draft plans, publication of the 500 full draft plans,
numerous community presentations, news articles, etc. Mr. Krempl then
referred the Planning Commission to Attachment #3 in their packet which
highlighted the changes being recommended to both the text and the map of the
General Plan. He stated that many of the changes with reqard to the text were
in response to the recent overtures between the Baldwin 'Company and the City
of Chula Vista to ensure flexibility and recognition of future planninq for
the Otay Ranch. He also indicated that with respect to the map, three special
study areas were being noted. They include the Otay Ranch, the Bayfront, and
the Lower Sweetwater Areas. Mr. Krempl then introduced Mr. Gary Wood of P&D
Technologies to discuss the Land Use Plan.
Mr. Wood, through the use of slides, went into a discussion of the major
proposals of the overall Land Use Plan having to do with residential,
commercial, industrial, public, and quasi-public uses. Mr. Wood highlighted
the open space greenbelt concept of Scenario 4 as being one of the key
components of the plan. This includes a continuous network of open space and
trail systems around the community linking the Bayfront via the Otay River
Valley to the Lower and Upper Otay Reservoirs to Mother Miguel Mountain and
back to the Sweetwater Reservoir and the Sweetwater River Floodplain to the
Bayfront. Mr. Wood then pointed out that the planning area had been divided
into four communities: the Montgomery Community, Sweetwater/Bonita Community,
the Bayfront/Central Chula Vista Community, and the Eastern Territories
Community. With regard to Montgomery, it was pointed out that a recent
Specific Plan was adopted by the City in 1986 which was wholly incorporated
into the General Plan Update. Further, with respect to the Sweetwater area,
the County of San Diego recently completed a community plan update for that
portion of the planning area. Those land uses and densities likewise are
reflected on the Chula Vista General Plan in a consistent fashion. With
respect to the Bayfront/Central Chula Vista area and the Eastern Territories,
separate area plans were developed in somewhat greater detail and are included
as a part of the General Plan Update. Mr. Wood reviewed the key proposals
Minutes - Special Meeting of
City Planning Commission -4- May 31, 1989
with regard to the Central Area as well as the Eastern Territories. In the
Eastern Territories, emphasis was given to the eastern regional center
suggested to be located at the interchange of future State Route 125 and
Orange Avenue which would include potential regional shopping center,
residential, mixed use developments, a university, and research employment
opportunities. Mr. Wood went on to indicate that two alternatives to Scenario
4 had been evaluated in the General Plan -- one for the Rancho San Miguel
properties in the northeastern corner of the planning area and one for the
Olympic Training Center/EastLake III. Mr. Wood reviewed the staff concerns
and position with respect to those two areas.
Mr. Dan Marum of JHK next reviewed the circulation system designed to support
the overall land use plan. Mr. Marum reviewed the circulation planning
process, the various street design standards, levels of service, and proposed
roadway classifications. He then highlighted the proposed circulation network
and hierarchy including major streets, prime arterials, expressways, and the
freeway system. Mr. Marum also highlighted the public transit component of
the transportation system pointing out the trolley system, potential for mass
transit along the 125 corridor, the proposals for an express bus system and an
interconnecting local bus system. The central Chula Vista Area includes a
proposal for a transit loop interconnecting the Bayfront, downtown, the Chula
Vista Shopping Center, and new employment opportunities along Highway 5
between "E" and Streets.
Mr. Jeff Olsen reviewed the public facilities systems needed to support the
overall land use plan including water, wastewater, drainaqe, flood control,
and hazardous and solid waste. Most of Mr. Olsen's comments were directed
toward the water and wastewater component. He emphasized the long-range water
supply issues facing San Diego and the current studies and facilities being
planned by the Metropolitan Water District. In addition, he focused on the
short-term storage and supply issues facing the Otay and Sweetwater Authority
Water Districts. With regard to wastewater, Mr. Olsen reviewed the City's
current sewer authorization from Metro and also the future Metro II program.
Reclamation and water conservation components of the Public Facilities Plan
were likewise highlighted.
With the conclusion of the staff presentation, the Chairman proceeded to open
the public hearing.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Matt Peterson, of the Law Firm of Peterson and Price, 530 "B" Street, #2300,
San Diego, 92101, said he represented Chula Vista Investors for the proposed
Bayfront Development. He reminded the Commission that at the meeting of
May l0 he had requested staff be directed to incorporate some modif(cations
to the General Plan, specifically, designating the Chula Vista Bayfront as a
"Special Plan Area." They are still concerned that the "Special Study Area"
designation proposed by staff still has the underlying uses incorporated. Mr.
Peterson requested that the area be designated as a "Special Plan Area" so the
Planning Commission and City Council would have discretion to deal with the
proposal as cL)rrently being processed through the City.
-4-
Minutes - Special Meeting of
City Plannin~ Commission -5- May 31, 1989
Carol Freno, 3703 Alta Loma Dr., Bonita, 92002, representing Crossroads, spoke
in support of adoption of the General Plan. Crossroads believes the overall
density is still too high for the well-being of the community and may likely
reduce the quality of life as known today. Crossroads hopes that future
Councils will adhere to the target densities as a recall overall average and
that the density transfer provisions will not be abused. There is concern
that the apparent encouragement of multi-family developments in the older
parts of the City, as indicated in the General Plan, may degrade the character
of the present neighborhoods.
Bill Haul, 12707 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, CA 92130, San Miguel Partners,
stated concurrence with staff's recommendation of a change in the land use
from open space to a low-density residential. He pointed out that open space
for the enjoyment of the community is an integral part of this proposed plan.
Three areas in which staff recommended disapproval, they would like to have
included; namely:
(1) The bed and breakfast inn which was designed for those who are not camping
oriented but want to enjoy open space and which is located across from the
Interpretive Center and will provide a lower intensity use than the Center.
(2) Allowance of the 80 quarter-acre lots which are located in an eastern
valley with complementary adjacent open space would provide the community
with a type of product not normally available in Chula Vista.
(3) Imposition of a cap of 300 units on the entire northern part of the
property would eliminate the flexibility required to make additional
adjustments as more input is received from biological and other reports.
The area now is proposed for 296 units. Mr. Hauf recommended no
assignment of a cap but to allow the area to be part of the Specific Plan
for consideration at that time in the process.
Commissioner Tugenberg expressed concern about the cost to the City to
maintain and administer the Interpretive Center. Mr. Hauf requested Mr.
Loftus, the Project Manager, to reply.
Wayne Loftus, 12707 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, 92130, San Miguel Partners
said that all amenities on the project had been discussed in detail with the
Parks and Recreation Department. They intend to construct the initial
building, grounds and amenities that go with it and turn everything over to
the City. He said he was not aware of what plans had been made by Parks and
Recreation but they were enthused about having the facility especially in
conjunction with the Wilderness Preserve Area.
Commissioner Grasser asked how large a bed and breakfast facility was beinq
considered. Mr. Loftus replied that they have considered a small-scale
facility with a top range of 40 rooms. They have also given thought to its
use as a conference center for the local community. Commissioner Cannon asked
staff why, with regard to the Special Study Areas, we would want to limit our
studying to eliminate the bed and breakfast inn as well as the 1/4-acre lots
Minutes - Special Meeting of
City Planning Commission -6- May 31, 1989
instead of studying them. Director Krempl replied that the only Special Study
Areas referenced were the Otay Ranch, the Lower Sweetwater Area and the
Bayfront. An Alternative in the EIR was evaluated for Rancho San Miguel as
part of the General Plan Update, so staff feels they are ready to respond and
that no further study is needed. Commissioner Tugenberg then asked why the
Bayfront was not included as part of a "Special Study Area." Director Krempl
explained there might be some confusion in nomenclature; the designation on
the Plan right now which is used for the Eastern Urban Center is called
Special Plan Area because of the synergy and mixture of land uses that would
occur there. Sta'ff has suggested the addition of another nomenclature called
Spe'cial Study Area which is considered appropriate for the Otay Ranch, the
Bayfront and the Lower Sweetwater Area. Regarding the Bayfront Plan, since
there is already an adopted Local Coastal Plan for the Bayfront, the land use
within it should be reflected in the General Plan Update. The purpose of the
Special Study Area designation is to make it clear that there is another
proposal which the City is evaluating which would take a General Plan
Amendment sometime in the future. Similarly, for the Otay Ranch, adoption of
the land use shown on Scenario 4 is recommended with an acknowledgment that
the area is being restudied and change would require a General Plan Amendment.
Bob Fox, 1466 Lilac Avenue, CV, 92011, representing the Resource Conservation
Commission (RCC), said that the RCC recommended encouragement of community
planning groups in all planning areas not currentlv served by them or where
community support exists for such a group. The RCC'also recommends that there
be incorporated in the General Plan a policy statement recognizing that
regional and inter-agency cooperation is vital not only in crisis management
but in monitoring the collection, transportation, storage and disposal of
hazardous waste whether being stored in the community or being transported
through it. He pointed out that often the responsible agencies have
conflicting jurisdictions or agencies/communities are not fully cognizant of
their responsibilities and a crisis is thereby compounded.
Jeff Brinton, 401 B St., Ste 1150, San Diego, 92002, an Attorney representing
Herbert Beckett (the owner of 40 acres near the Rancho San Miguel Property),
expressed concern regarding designation of Mr. Beckett's property as open
space. He noted that a low-density residential would be more in keeping with
property which is contiguous to already-developed properties along San Miguel
Road and which is located in an easily developable gently sloping ridge area.
He pointed out that public services were available and that the County in its
recent review and update had agreed that there was a basis for low-density
residential. Regarding staff's determination that the designation cannot be
changed at this point because there has not been consideration through the
environmental review process, Mr. Brinton said that a written suggestion that
it would be appropriate to consider Mr. Beckett's property in a manner similar
to that proposed for Rancho San Miguel had been sent to staff several months
ago. The property contiguous on both the east and southern boundaries are
low-density residential. A suggestion that Mr. Beckett's property would be
evaluated, without cost to him, at the next general plan amendment process was
appreciated. He did urge, however, that in accepting this proposal it be made
clear that the open space designation on the Beckett property be an interim
Minutes - Special Meeting of
City Plannin9 Commission -7- May 31, 1989
open space designation so he can return and attempt to make the change. Staff
concurred. Mr. Brinton then introduced Mrs. Pam Stahl, one of Mr. Beckett's
daughters.
Mrs. Pamela Beckett Stahl, 1539 W. Eleventh Avenue, Escondido, 92025, said she
represented her parents, Herbert and Marcella Beckett, who have owned the
property since 1950. She indicated that the neighbors directly to the
southwest are designated for 1-acre parcels allowing low-density housing;
electricity and water are readily available, in fact there is a fire hydrant
within a few feet of the property. Her father has been paying $800/vear for
many years to maintain his access to the water. Mrs. Stahl concluded saying
that if it is not possible to change the land designation at the ~resent time,
it is hoped that the Commission would be amenable to a change in the future.
Laurie McKinley, 309 Laurel St., S.D., 92101, representing the San Diego
National Sports Training Foundation, distributed copies of a letter from David
Neilson, Executive Director of the Foundation, in which he expressed concern
with the staff recommendation to defer designation of the choice of the
Alternative for the Olympic Training Center (OTC~ in the General Plan Update.
The Foundation has been working over two years, will be submitting a SPA Plan
to the City within a month, and the opening of the Olympic Traininq Center is
scheduled for the summer of 1991. Mr. Neilson is concerned that deferring the
adoption of the Olympic Center Alternative, which will necessitate a
subsequent General Plan Amendment, could seriously impair their ability to
meet the schedule.
Director Krempl indicated that staff would be willing to recommend to the
Commission that the 154 acres on which the Olympic Training Center is located
be designated as the Olympic Training Center site. Staff's concern is with
the surrounding land uses, which are part of the Alternative but are not the
OTC site per se, and feels that additional time and consideration is needed
for evaluation for the EastLake III portion of the alternative. The EIR is
anticipated in July and the project subsequently.
Robert Santos, 900 Lane Ave., Ste 100, CV 92013, representing EastLake
Development Company, thanked the Commission, staff and consultants for the
opportunity given them as a major land-owner to input to the General Plan
Update process. He expressed pleasure that the General Plan being adopted is
a contemporary Plan that actually addresses today's issues and provides
mechanisms and a basis for progressive solutions in the future. Mr. Santos
said EastLake's concerns relate more to the interpretation and application of
the Plan. They oppose the recommendation that the Olympic Training Center,
EastLake III Alternative, be deferred from consideration. He claimed the OTC
represents the basis of EastLake's support of the General Plan and embodies
the public/private effort to establish a major usage relating to the Olympic
Training Center. Mr. Santos said by not adopting the Alternative at this
time, the City is indicating that there are serious concerns about whether the
Olympic Training Center is part of the future for the City and that is
counter-productive to the on-going effort. The issues associated with the OTC
and its surrounding uses, like those associated with the Eastern Urban Center
Minutes - Special Meeting of
City Planning Commission -8- May 31, 1989
or the future college, will have to be analyzed in greater detail in the
future. EastLake requests that the General Plan as adopted by the City
reflect the OTC and the rippling effect it has on the surrounding land uses
for the sake of consistency. The City can still review and evaluate the
proposal during its future SPA hearings and, if appropriate, turn down the
proposal and the General Plan be amended at that time.
Mr. Santos referenced the previous public hearing wherein it was indicated
that a portion of EastLake Business Center located along the Salt Creek
Corridor could be a "swing" parcel, either residential or industrial, and
requested that this flexibility be spelled out in the text of the General Plan.
Mr. Santos pointed out that the General Plan does not show a high-density
affordable housing node just southerly of the EastLake High School site which
is part of the EastLake II (EastLake Greens) Proposal and which is coming to
the Commission in the near future. He wants to be certain that it will not be
necessary to go back for a general plan amendment for that since it has been
part of the Proposal for roughly a year.
In conclusion, Mr. Santos also referenced Crossroads' desire for lower density
and pointed out that the density within EastLake has been reduced by over 20
percent from the 1982 Policy Plan which spoke of over ll,O00 units for the
property. However, now there is a Plan that will meet the mutual goals of all
and that is what they would like to see adopted by the City at this time.
Commissioner Cannon inquired whether in Mr. Santos' opinion the General Plan
does not adequately address the issues of the Salt Creek Business Center and
the higher-density affordable housing or if his concerns were regarding the
language of the text. Mr. Santos replied that in the case of the Business
Center, he did not believe the language was clear enough, however, as he did
not have the most current copy of the text he would have to review the
language further. In the matter of the higher-density affordable housing
node, it was his understanding that the General Plan graphics and text were
silent in that regard and he is not certain whether policy would allow an
interpretation that is consistent or whether there is a problem involved.
Director Krempl stated that he believes there is concurrence on both of those
points. There is language in the Eastern Territories Area Plan about the
EastLake Business Park, Salt Creek and the land use transition and staff's
intent was exactly as Mr. Santos had stated. With respect to the area south
of the High School and EastLake Greens, staff is suggesting that be shown in a
residential designation of low-medium, which if based upon the other policies
of the Plan having to do with clustering and transfers, could accommodate the
density he is proposing. The bottom line is that staff does not see a problem
on either of those points with the current document.
Mr. Cannon asked Mr. Santos regarding his concerns if the Olympic Training
Center Site were approved and the EastLake III aspects deferred. Mr. Santos
replied that to simply approve the OTC would ignore the fact that there are
rippling effects on the adjacent land. He said that EastLake had not known
about the recommended deferral until that afternoon and was caught by surprise
Minutes - Special Meeting of
City Planning Commission -9- May 31, ..1989
as was the Sports Foundation. He was concerned about the reactions of others
if the General Plan does not show the Olympic Training Site with respect to
all the publicity that has been generated.
Director Krempl stated there would be no problem from staff's perspective if
the Commission wished to designate the 154 acre Olympic Training Center site
on the General Plan but the balance of EastLake III land use should be held
over.
Rikki Alberson, Baldwin, 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, 92130, said Baldwin
was in agreement wi th the changes and recommendations. She would like to
thank staff for all the assistance given them and to say that Baldwin is
proceeding with their planning efforts on the 22,000 acres of the Otay Ranch
and hopes to be back before the Commission with their submittal this year.
Laurie McKinley returned to the podium for a point of clarification. She said
that although the Training Foundation has no opinion on the density and
request made by EastLake for the EastLake III Area, they are nonetheless tied
to the area for purposes of annexation to the City. There is concern that if
the remainder of EastLake III is not designated in the General Plan and is
delayed because of a subsequent GPA, that the annexation will be delayed.
Director Krempl replied that the annexation if planned for September, 1989 and
every effort will be made to ensure that the general development plan,
pre-zoning and environmental review take place prior to that date.
Commissioner Cannon then asked if there was a deferral of consideration on
EastLake III, would there be an effect on the timing of the annexation. The
Director replied that there would not.
Matthew Peterson ret~rned to the podium regarding a point of clarification on
the Bayfront. He said that staff is recommending it as a Special Study Area
which would also show the underlying density and zoning of the previously
approved Plan, however, they were requesting that the area be designated as a
Special Plan Area with no underlying density shown. The purpose is to ensure
that there is no need to return and amend the General Plan assuming the Chula
Vista Bayfront is approved. He wished to clarify that there is a very
fundamental difference in the two approaches.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cannon commented that a responsibility exists not only to persons
who live in Chula Vista now but to those who will come in the future. The
General Plan Update serves both interests adequately. It doesn't call for
rampant growth but doesn't stifle growth either. It is something that
everyone can live with and he is proud to have had a small part in its
formation. Mr. Cannon stated that the consultants and staff should be
commended. This is the second time he has gone through a General Plan
Amendment with Bud Gray and has a great deal of respect for him and the
wonderful job he does with everything. He continued that he was incredibly
impressed with George Krempl; that few people can write as well as he does and
put together staff reports and other aspects any better. Mr. Cannon concluded
--9-
Minutes - Special Meeting of
City Planning Commission -10- May 31, 1989
saying he looks forward to working on implementing the General Plan, hopes the
developers will work in good faith with everyone, keep the spirit of the Plan
alive and work toward expanding the City of Chula Vista in a careful, moderate
and tasteful fashion.
MSUC (Cannon/Casillas) 7-0, to recommend to the City Council that the existing
General Plan be repealed and that the Draft General Plan be adopted in
accordance with the proposed changes listed in Attachment 3.
MSUC (Cannon/Casillas) 7-0 to change the land use designation for a portion of
the northerly section of Rancho San Miguel to Low Residential (0-3 du/ac) as
shown in the General Plan alternative excluding the quarter acre lots and the
bed and breakfast inn.
Mr. Cannon commented that although he followed staff's recommendation, he had
listened to the comments made by the developer. He has grave reservations,
however, about the viability of a bread and breakfast inn in that location and
believes that the lower-density residential is more appropriate. In the
future, he could see a General Plan Amendment to a lower density in that
location. Mr. Cannon commented that he does agree with the cap on the
development of 300 units. In that regard, he believes that the Beckett
property is going to be adequately covered by a future General Plan Amendment
at no cost to the Becketts. That even thouqh the issue must be followed-u~,
it has been addressed.
MSC (Cannon/Grasser) 6-1, Casillas voting no, to defer consideration of the
EastLake III Alternative until a future general plan amendment consideration
in the summer of 1989; assuming that the summer of 1989 is a firm date. He
emphasized that he is not moving to defer consideration of the Olympic
Training Center.
MSC (Cannon/Grasser) 6-1, Casillas voting no, to adopt the General Plan
designation in the Alternative attached to the staff report with regard to the
Olympic Training Center for the 154-acre site designating it an Olympic
Training Center.
3. CONSIDERATION OF CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
EIR-88-2, GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that there was nothing in the
motions to alter the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
that had been drafted. He would like to emphasize that the conclusions
reached as to whether or not these are significant impacts is preliminary in
nature and subject to review of precise plans and environmental documents on
more precise development proposals; therefore, there can be some changes in
the conclusions in the future.
MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) 7-0, to adopt the "CEQA Findings" and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
-10-
Minutes - Special Meeting of
City Planning Commission -ll- May 31, 1989
4. CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE EIR-88-2
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid said that this is the first such proqram
presented to the Commission and is the result of recent legislation. It
applies to environmental impact reports that include mitigation measures which
are necessary to avoid significant impact and also to mitigated negative
declarations that contaln specific mitigation measures that have to be
implemented.
MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) 7-0, to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-22 - CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED FIRE STATION MASTER
PLAN CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Taken out of Sequence - See Page 2
OTHER BUSINESS: None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Krempl said he wanted to acknowledqe staff's appreciation for
comments made by the Commission and to thank the consultants, P&D
Technologies, JHK, and Engineering Science. It has been a long haul on the
General Plan and it is to be hoped that Council acts favorably on it and he
looks forward to moving into implementation.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS
None
ADJOURN AT 9:07 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of June 14, 1989 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
Ruth M. Smith,'Secreta~
Planning Commission
WPC 6335P
-ll -