Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1995/05/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, May 24, 1995 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Fuller, Ray, Salas, Tarantino, and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Principal Planner Bazzel, Assistant Planner Wolfe, Senior Civil Engineer Thomas, Assistant Attorney Moore MOTION TO EXCUSE - None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of April 12 and May 10, 1995 MSUC (Fuller/Ray) 6-0 to approve the minutes of April 12, 1995. (Commissioner Tarantino had not attended the meeting, but had read the minutes and felt he could vote on them.) MSUC (Fuller/Ray) 5-0-1 (Commissioner Willett abstained) to approve the minutes of May 10, 1995. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- May 24, 1995 ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-95-05: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PARCEL R-28, CHULA VISTA TRACT 95-05, INVOLVING DEVELOPMENT OF 51 DETACHED CONDOMINIUM DWELLINGS AND LOCATED WITHIN THE EASTLAKE GREENS PLANNED COMMUNITY - EastLake Development Company Assistant Planner Wolfe presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the tentative subdivision map, in accordance with the conditions contained in the draft City Council resolution. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mike Dunham, California Pacific Homes, 9191 Town Center Drive, Suite L-101, San Diego, Vice President and Director of Operations, gave a slide presentation of a project they had done in Orange County, and an overview of their company. He noted that in attendance were representatives from their civil and planning engineering company, and the director of in-house engineering to answer any questions the Commission may have. Commissioner Willett, regarding the mitigation monitoring reporting program, asked if there was a mechanism to ensure that the reporting program was implemented, and to whom it reported. Assistant Planning Director Lee replied that the Initial Study referred to in the document was part of the SPA amendment rezoning package that had taken place some time before. The mitigation monitoring was relating to a noise analysis which was not applicable to this use. It was basically monitored by staff. Conunissioner Willett was concerned about drainage into the Poggi Canyon and the future Orange Avenue. Mr. Lee stated he believed there were more detention basins planned that would offer better drainage control. Sr. Civil Engineer Thomas stated they were working with the developers of several projects to have several significant detention basins in Poggi Canyon to reduce that effect to approximately 50% of what it would ultimately be. This particular project was a small component of the watershed. Commissioner Ray asked the rationale for supporting private streets in this subdivision. Mr. Lee explained that the overall loop road system within the Greens (Greensview Drive) was the main vehicular and pedestrian system tied to the overall EastLake trail system. In this case, staff did not feel that the subject site was instrumental to the general circulation in the area, thus the streets could be either private or public. Commissioner Ray questioned the maintenance and the frequency of maintenance. Mr. Lee replied that maintenance was covered more extensively by CC&Rs and the Department of Real PC Minutes -3- May 24, 1995 Estate reports requiring a maintenance budget. He noted that the street section would be built to City standards. Commissioner Ray asked if the applicants were precluded from gating the subdivision. Mr. Lee answered negatively, and stated there would be a gate at the entry point. There was further discussion regarding gating projects. Mr. Lee explained that project gating was on a case-by-case basis. There was no definite City standard regarding gating. It was determined on the size of the project, the circulation pattern, isolation of the project, and other issues. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Fuller/Willett) 6-0 to adopt Planning Connnission Resolution PCS-95-05 recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Subdivision Map for Unit 28, Chula Vista Tract 95-05, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-95-04: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM FROM OPEN SPACE TO RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF "L" STREET, BETWEEN INTERSTATE 5 AND THE SAN DIEGO TROLLEY TRACKS - City Initiated Principal Planner Bazzel gave the staff report, and noted that this was a clean-up amendment to bring the current zoning into concert with the General Plan. The subject property did not have a specific General Plan designation. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt Negative Declaration IS-95-20 and approve the General Plan Amendment to Research and Manufacturing. Commissioner Willett stated he had walked the area, and approved staff recommendation. He questioned, however, the School District's concern that it the designation would remove the District's ability to secure full mitigation from future development until the current SourcePoint Study was completed. He was not aware of the SourcePoint Study. Mr. Bazzel stated that the SourcePoint Study was a school mitigation study that the City and the School Districts agreed to conduct using SANDAG as a third party consultant to analyze what impacts commercial development and residential development have on school generation and mitigation for new students in the entire Chula Vista area, both elementary and high school. A final report should be coming forwarding during the next couple of months. As part of the agreement between the City and the School Districts, the City had agreed not to bring forward City-generated General Plan amendments that would have an impact on school facilities. The School Districts had been contacted and they now understood the amendment and that there was no project proposal at this time. PC Minutes -4- May 24, 1995 Commissioner Ray asked if there was carpool parking in the subject area. Mr. Bazzel replied that there was a paved area for park-and-ride but it is currently not in use. He did not think it was equipped with any of the CalTrans surveillance equipment. It was one of the first park-and- ride facilities in the area, and because of its location or remoteness, CalTrans may have abandoned the site because of lack of use. Designation of the property would not affect its use as a park-and-ride. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mark Baker, Baker Enterprises, 15334 Bandy Canyon Road, Escondido, stated they were the other property owners in addition to the City, and concurred with staff recommendation and supported an affirmative vote. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Willett/Salas) 6-0 to find that the proposed General Plan Amendment will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt Negative Declaration IS-95-20 based on information contained in the Initial Study for the project proposal and findings within the Negative Declaration, and recommend that the City Council adopt the draft resolution to amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram designation for approximately 4 acres located at the northeast quadrant of Interstate 5 and "L" Street from Open Space to Research and Limited Manufacturing. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-94-05: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 19.58.225 AND 19.60.060 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW FREEWAY-ORIENTED ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGNS TO BE ESTABLISHED "OFFSITE" AT SELECTED LOCATIONS - City Initiated Principal Planner Griffin noted that in August 1994, the Planning Commission had considered a previous version of this amendment, resulting from an agreement the City reached with the auto dealers in the Auto Center on Otay Valley Road, which was to assist in the consideration of a Municipal Code amendment that would allow a message board-type sign to identify the auto center. At that time, some issues were raised by the dealers on the proposal to require 30% of the time on the message board to be committed to public service messages. Subsequent to that meeting, the City Attorney had also raised some issues as to the legality of some of the conditions that were part of the previous amendment. As a result, it had not forwarded on to Council. Planning staff and the City Attorney's office have done more work on the amendment. Mr. Griffin stated that the auto dealers supported the staff's recommendation. Since these would only be allowed in the Otay Valley and the Town Centre redevelopment areas, staff took the recommendations to both project area committees. The Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee endorsed the amendment as proposed; the Town Centre Project Area Committee recommended that there be established some minimum for public service and suggested 20%, and also recommended that if any of the messages were in a foreign language, that that be duplicated in English on the sign as well. He recommended endorsement by the Planning Commission in accordance with Resolution PCA-94-05. PC Minutes -5- May 24, 1995 Commissioner Ray asked if a minimum percentage is not set, does it leave it open to litigation if one person gets more time than another. Assistant City Attorney Moore believed it was better not to have a minimum percentage, because it would be close to regulating content of the message on the sign. She thought it would be preferable not to have a set requirement. Commissioner Ray was concerned that one public entity would have more time than another which could create problems. Principal Planner Griffin did not believe there would be a problem, since it had been reported to him that its hard to fill the time. Assistant Attorney Moore stated that she believed that the particulars of the agreement as to the non-commercial sign was being left open for agreement down the road. Based on economics, there is no problem if a business would rather pay for a two-minute message as opposed to a one-minute. Commission Ray said he was strictly concerned with the public service messages. Ms. Moore said if that was based on the ability of the person wanting to have a public service message on the sign, if that was something they would have to pay for, then that was not a problem. If it was something that they didn't have to pay for, the way to get around that is to have a certain amount of minutes available for public services at a given time and on the first-come first-served basis. She thought that would alleviate that concern. Commissioner Ray asked if the Commission voted to recommend a minimum, he was concerned with the recommendation of the Town Centre PAC that a minimum of 20% be set, and that if the message was displayed in a language other than English that the message be also translated into English. Would the translated message be included in that minimum or in addition. Ms. Moore said that with respect to the translation to the English language, there had been a court case directly on point that held that a requirement that it be in English is considered a content regulation and is unconstitutional. The Attorney's office would recommend that that not be added as a condition. Commissioner Salas stated that she strongly agreed with that, because if the reverse were true, in reverse, if the message were in English would have to be translated to Spanish, as well. Also, if a company was paying for that message, it was their right to have it in their preferred language. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Tuchscher asked if there was some manner in which the City might be able to do free public service announcements, and how staff would guarantee they would be done in a regular manner without a certain a percentage. How do you have those public service announcements available without setting some standard for time. Mr. Griffin stated he would not argue against the Commission's desire if they wanted to recommend staying with the present minimum or some other minimum. The way the system was presently set up was that the operator of the sign would submit a program to the Community PC Minutes -6- May 24, 1995 Development Director for approval in terms of that percentage and what kinds of messages would be used during that time. That decision could be appealed to the Agency. It would be the Commission's pleasure if they felt there was enough in that process to ensure that it would be done properly. If not, they could recommend a percentage they felt was appropriate. Chair Tuchscher felt that even at minimum, he would like to know how the person on staff would be evaluating and making sure that those who solicit the use would be serviced. Mr. Griffin stated that in terms of an outreach program, the City's public relations person contacts community groups and public service operations to let them know of the availability of the time and asking them if they want to have certain special events or messages displayed on the signs. One of the Project Area Committees suggested that the electronic message board itself advertise the fact that it was available for public service messages and give a number for them to call. Chair Tuchscher, assuming the message board was very successful and there were many entities that wished to utilize the sign, without a percentage how would it be dealt with. Ms. Moore stated that was an excellent point, and she thought it was contemplated that there be an operational program. That was probably a legitimate concept that could be included in the operational program. It seemed that Chair Tuchscher was talking about establishing a set of guidelines, and that could definitely be included in the operational program which would be approved by the Community Development Department. Chair Tuchscher said that he would like to see what they were approving in the way of guidelines. He understood the challenges legally with setting aside time, and the limits to time, etc. He would like to know that the community is getting its maximum due out of a very visible monument, and that it is not purely commercial but also utilized for the public good. Principal Planner Griffin explained that when the minimum public service component was originally adopted, it was associated with the on-site message boards which were limited to on- site advertising. It was felt the user was being given a very special privilege; they were going to be able to have a moving sign when no one else was within a half mile of them. In order to receive that privilege, they should do something for the public as a whole; therefore, a minimum was established. This was different in that it was serving the purposes of the redevelopment area. Assuming it was resulting in the economic well-being of the commercial enterprise in the redevelopment area, it was serving the public good by the City establishing the redevelopment area and encouraging that sort of redevelopment. Chair Tuchscher concurred. What he needed to feel comfortable was that the sign itself would be used in some parameters for public service message as well. He did not feel comfortable with that. Commissioner Ray asked when the guidelines would be available; was it actively being pursued. Mr. Griffin did not feel they were guidelines. If there were guidelines, they would be proposed as part of the amendment. He felt it would be based upon guidelines that would be negotiated during the acceptance of the operational program by the Community Development Director. Those guidelines could vary from one sign to the next. PC Minutes -7- May 24, 1995 Chair Tuchscher said that the Planning Commission was then giving approval without checks and balances to some staff member who in the future may change with responsibilities maybe going someone else in a different department. He thought some guidelines should be drafted so that if the current person approving the signage left and it was passed on to someone else, at least there would be some parameters as to what the Commission's intentions were at the time of approval. He would be comfortable approving this with those guidelines coming forth in the future. Assistant Planning Director Lee thought it would be appropriate if the Commission felt there should be some type of percentage. The feeling was that it was more economic driven, and if there is a demand for various businesses to go on that sign, they would win out over the public message issue unless there is some percentage established. Chair Tuchscher concurred and stated that he felt there should be some priority placed on those public service messages, and hoped that staff could figure out a way to bring back some guidelines that the City Attorney could live with and which would make him feel more comfortable. Commissioner Salas had a concern about what constituted a public service message. She would be more comfortable with a definition of what constituted a public service announcement; where does it cross the line to being some that was political or offensive to a certain section of the community. Commissioner Ray echoed Commissioner Tuchscher's comments that without the guidelines the Commission could see as a reference, there were no rules in terms of what they were approving. He would feel more comfortable with the guidelines before them. Principal Planner Griffin stated he did not know what a guideline would be unless it was a percentage. Chair Tuchscher said that his comments revolved around time and assurance that there was time for public service messages. He was not as concerned about the definition. He was not confident that a percentage was defensible or the best way, because there were different values of time. How would it be distributed? Mr. Griffin suggested that the Commission, if they were comfortable that there would be guidelines, could endorse the amendment as written, suggesting that a set of administrative guidelines be developed by the Community Development Director that would be brought to the Commission for their review. Commissioner Ray asked the urgency in getting approval. Mr. Griffin said the sign may not be built for several years, depending on development of the additional lot of the auto park and Phase II of the auto park. If the Commission wanted to delay action, that could be done. MS (Ray/Tarantino) to continue the item until those guidelines could come forward with the resolution. Commissioner Willett asked staff for clarification as to who determined what would go on the sign. Mr. Griffin replied that as far as public service component, the Community Development Director would have to approve the operational program for that component of the sign. The commercial component would be determined by the sponsor of the sign. It would have to be PC Minutes -8- May 24, 1995 made reasonably available to other commemial users in the area based upon a reasonable fee, but they would determine the commercial component of the sign. The City would have to have some sort of oversight to ensure that they were being given a reasonable opportunity to be on the sign and that would be the administrative program that would be worked out. Commissioner Willett said he supported Mr. Griffin's comment with a recommendation that an operational plan come before the Planning Commission. He asked the Assistant City Attorney Moore if she said to take out the 20%. Ms. Moore said her preference would be not to have a percentage. She thought they would be getting into the realm of regulating the content of the message on the board. Commissioner Fuller concurred with Chair Tuchscher's comments regarding the public service announcement portion. She thought administrative guidelines as to the amount of time was appropriate, but she would be opposed to guidelines as to the content as to who would be able to have a message and who wouldn't. It was up to the eye of the beholder as to what is and what isn't public service. Assistant Planning Director Lee, responding to an earlier question regarding premium time, said that one thing the Commission might consider if they were looking at percentages was a measurement of time; i.e., 15% per hour would be approximately 9 minutes per hour. That would keep the public services announcement from being advertised only at low-premium times. Commissioner Salas said that she noticed that on radio and t.v., public service announcements were reserved for those times when there were no paid commercials. She asked if this would be the same. Chair Tuchscher stated that Mr. Lee's solution for that problem seemed feasible. Principal Planner Griffin stated that was part of the amendment being considered. The public service component had to occur during each and every hour of the operation of the sign. Chair Tuchscher said that because there was no percentage, there was a possibility that some hours had zero and others had 100%. Chair Tuchscher wanted to be certain the entities involved with the electronic message board and sign understood that this was not reflective of their opinion relative to the validity of having that sign. He was not sure what the Commission's vote would be, but he was confident that he was endorsing the project as a whole. He needed further information to be confident with the public service element. VOTE: 6-0 to table PCA-94-05 until staff came back with administrative guidelines. ITEM 4: MSCP REPORT Director of Planning Leiter gave a report regarding the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan, which is a program dealing with several levels of governmental interests--the federal, state, regional, and local governments in addition to private property owner interests and interests of environmental groups. He gave a slide presentation giving an overview on the regional plan, and discussed some of the major issues identified by staff. He asked the Planning Commission for any questions or comments they might like to be forwarded to Council at their meeting on June 13. PC Minutes -9- May 24, 1995 Commissioner Willett stated that he chairs the Otay Valley Regional Park JPA which is working on a concept plan. He thought it would be advisable to get member of MSCP as a voting member of CAC. They did not have anybody familiar with this. Mr. Leiter replied that the Multiple Habitat Planning Area for the MSCP was the basis for the concept plan. They had staff from the jurisdictions directly working on the MSCP which was working with Otay Valley Regional Park staff, and the boundaries of the concept plan as far as the areas proposed to be preserved as part of the preserve system are intended to be basically identical to the MSCP. It might be helpful to have some MSCP staff directly involved in the discussions that the CAC would have. Since there was not an MSCP entity, staff working on the MSCP might attend the meetings to advise them on issues that MSCP is dealing with. Mr. Leiter thought that could occur. Commissioner Willett asked if a member representative could attend the June 2 meeting in Waller Recreation Center. Commissioner Fuller asked, since this involves so many agencies and jurisdictions, how is it going to be resolved? She questioned whether a resolution of intention that was to be approved by the 12 local jurisdictions had been approved, and if Mr. Leiter saw ultimately all the issues being resolved, so this Program would actually happen. Mr. Leiter explained that the Resolution of Intention was approved by most of the jurisdictions. The County of San Diego did not approve it. All of the other major jurisdictions entered into that resolution. That was basically agreeing to participate and agreeing to plan. They were now trying to get approvals of an actual plan. Each jurisdiction would approve a subarea plan which would hopefully be consistent with the general plan of each jurisdiction. If each jurisdiction approved a subarea plan and then some sort of agreement regarding a regional funding program, each jurisdiction would actually enter into direct agreements with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Fish & Game Authority regarding the permitting authority. It does not require a lot of negotiation beyond this point in terms of planning. Commissioner Fuller asked if the County is an entity that has to develop a subregional plan themselves as a county? They seem to be in opposition to the total concept. Is it their fear of lack of control since they are not in a position financially to have the control and finance it. Mr. Leiter replied that the County has two concerns: 1) dealing with a lot of smaller property owners who don't have plans for development of their properties--a logistical problem, a property rights issue, and a legal issue. They can't adopt a plan that will be viewed as taking away property rights without some kind of compensation. 2) Would probably be a greater need for public funding participation in the County because it would probably be more difficult for them to get exactions from the smaller property owners. The County would probably benefit from a regional funding program. Probably a higher percentage of the land that would be purchased through a regional funding program would happen in an unincorporated area, but all would benefit because that's where the open space should be. Most of the open space in the permanent preserve should be in the outlying areas in the County and urban development should be happening in the cities. Mr. Leiter thought part of the County's concern was that they would get left behind; this plan would be adopted; the urban jurisdictions would start to develop and they would be holding the bag trying to figure out how to pay for this preserve system, with PC Minutes -10- May 24, 1995 lawsuits from property owners. The County wanted to make sure that as a jurisdiction they were treated equitably. Chair Tuchscher said it seemed that during the Otay Ranch discussions, the County relied very heavily on the MSCP as the answer and on several occasions tried to delay the whole project on the eventuality of this becoming approved. It was interesting to hear that they are taking the position they are regarding the MSCP and the whole program. Commissioner Ray questioned the impact of Governor Wilson's legislation, which failed, to lessen the restrictions based on the CEQA requirements relative to the Endangered Species Act. If that were resurrected and passed, how big of an impact would that have on this plan, since it deals with preserving the habitat and lessens preserving the habitat if the species isn't present on that area. Mr. Leiter stated that there were also proposals on the Federal Endangered Species Act along the same lines. He thought a lot of those changes were working toward a multiple species approach rather than a species-by-species listing approach and that that was where a lot of Wilson's focus was on. It was also on doing some trade-offs, looking at some cost benefit analysis of some of the issues rather than strictly looking at the biological issues. Those kinds of changes would favor a multiple species approach versus the past procedure. Federal and State agencies both are promoting this type of approach versus the old approach. San Diego County is ahead of the curve by having a plan such as this. Commissioner Ray asked if there had been any discussion relative to mitigation banking? Mr. Leiter answered affirmatively, and said that mitigation banking is a way to deal with the kinds of problems being talked about with the County. Some of the property owners in the outlying areas could create mitigation banks, and as urban development occurs in the cities, rather than having to do on-site mitigation, they could purchase credits or purchase lands in the mitigation banks. Then some of the County's concerns would be answered. Some of the property owners then instead of developing their property would be able to sell it at market value as part of a mitigation bank. McMillin did that with Rancho del Rey SPA III--purchased land in a mitigation bank in O'Neill Canyon. This program would formalize that and make it easier to administer. Commissioner Ray asked if Baldwin had any input on this. Mr. Leiter stated that the Otay Ranch adopted plan was put into the draft MSCP. They've taken the position along with staff's that that plan was well thought out and that there were careful biological analyses that went into that. They have assisted in presenting that information and have had meetings with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Fish & Game to go in detail regarding the analyses and responding to some of their criticisms. There would be another meeting 5/25 to try to resolve that issue. Staff was surprised to hear from USF&WS that they had that level of concern with Otay Ranch and that they were basically holding the whole MSCP Plan hostage to resolve the Otay Ranch issues. They had input for five years on that, and staff and the Chula Vista City Council had taken a strong issue on that, that the current plan should be defended. Their comments would be taken, but much it was lack of information or lack of understanding. PC Minutes -11- May 24, 1995 Commissioner Ray commented that he recalled that Kim Kilkenny had made a comment that they weren't real supportive of mitigation banking. He asked if he was incorrect on that. Chair Tuchscher believed Mr. Kilkenny had said that in the context of setting up a mitigation bank on their particular property, because of the administrative challenges and some of the unknowns associated with it. Mr. Leiter said he thought there were suggestions by USF&WS that Otay Ranch set up mitigation banks on some of the parcels that were proposed for development, particularly south of the Lake, and Baldwin's feeling was that they were basically going to provide 14,000 acres into a permanent preserve as mitigation for their project. They didn't want to be bound as well to add another 1200 acres in a mitigation bank and have to try to market that as well over a period of time. They felt they basically wanted to mitigate for their project, and the rest of it should be able to develop. Chair Tuchscher, regarding acquisition cost, stated that he understood the difference between Case A and Case B and the associated costs, and was comfortable with the fact that those costs are public/private and are an aggregate of costs. He questioned, regarding operation, maintenance and management, the difference in the percentage in Case A development area base and in Case B. With more acreage, he believed more intense management would be necessary. Mr. Leiter replied that he would get that information for him. Chair Tuchscher, referencing the percentage of habitat acres in San Diego, stated he would like to see how that compared with the SANDAG Series 8 calculations relative to developable land. He thought there was a huge differential between this habitat acreage and what is really developable. Money should not be spent to acquire, manage, put them into this kind of intense program, if working to preserve lands that aren't developable anyway because of slope, hillside, or wetland or economics. Mr. Tuchscher would like to see how those acreage numbers compare. Mr. Leiter replied that he believed the 19,000 acre number was the shortage of acreage to meet the Series 8 projection at the year 2015. This program would exacerbate that. It would take out lands that were general planned, although the MHPA alternative had minimized the amount of additional land being taken out of urban development. Unless the cities went back and amended their general plans to allow more intense urban development, when nearing the years 2008 or 2009, based on the existing general plans, there would be a shortage with or without MSCP. Chair Tuchscher discussed total acreage and absorption through the year 2015, and the shortage in almost every year based on demand. Some properties had been acquired for mitigation purposes with a higher value as mitigation land rather than development land, because the potential for development was very low. He was not sure it was a benefit to preserve land that was not going to be developed anyway. Regarding the 100% preservation, Chair Tuchscher felt it was not sensible. It would mean no trails, phone lines, no antenna or something that might be just a minimal intrusion. He felt access was important. Preserved land should be managed, but Mr. Tuchscher wanted people to be able to access it and learn from it. PC Minutes -12- May 24, 1995 Chair Tuchscher was concerned that the countywide map and the MSCP map differed regarding the preserve area south of the Lake. He wondered if these maps were incorporated into the overall MSCP, and how those were defined. Mr. Leiter noted that errors would be found and staff would be cleaning up the map to more accurately reflect the general plan. In the review process, it would be basically consistent with the general plan. Chair Tuchscher asked if it was incumbent upon each jurisdiction to do that? Mr. Leiter answered affirmatively, and stated that each of the cities is directly involved in reviewing and preparing the maps. Chair Tuchscher was concerned about predatory birds, and asked that as a result of the efforts to preserve the gnatcatcher, the cowbirds, for example, were being captured and exterminated. He asked if there had been any discussion about those types of circumstances. Mr. Leiter stated that if the Commission would like to forward any specific recommendations or if they would just like to keep informed. Commissioner Ray, relative to the lawsuit filed by Daniel Tarr, asked if the County approved this as an overall plan, was it likely that they would challenge the City again? Mr. Leiter stated that one of the issues in the lawsuit had to do with the relationship of the Otay Ranch Plan with the forthcoming MSCP. As long as the City and County continue to reaffirm their positions and, if in fact at the end of the line, the MSCP reflects the Otay Ranch Plan, then that would reaffirm the City's positions. He understood that the case was reviewed already and the City's position was affirmed. It is now under appeal, but it was his understanding that the City's position was affirmed that this plan was consistent with the regional habitat planning that was ongoing. Commissioner Ray asked if that issue had been brought up with the County in relation to trying to get them to approve this? Mr. Leiter stated the County was in support of the Otay Ranch Plan, and they are in support of the plan concept itself in the Otay Ranch area. The problems the County had more directly effected the East County area, and some logistical problems they have in trying to plan such a large area. He thought they were in line with the City on the Otay Ranch area. They hadn't done the level of detail planning in the East County that had been done on the Otay Ranch. Commissioner Ray asked if it was possible to approve pieces of the program. Mr. Leiter replied affirmatively, and stated that was one of the things being worked on with the County--to define subareas that they could act on now like Otay Ranch and San Miguel Ranch, and then buy them some time to work on some of the outlying areas. Commissioner Ray asked if it was anticipated that anything in the City of Chula Vista would be impacted as a result of their hesitancy to approve the overall plan. PC Minutes -13- May 24, 1995 Mr. Leiter said that as long as staff could work out some kind of phased implementation, the City and the County were pretty much in line and they would not do anything that would unduly delay the City, unless they didn't see any other way out. Chair Tuchscher asked if without an MSCP Program, would it be fair to say that the federal agencies would also get comfortable with the planning the City has done and probably permits would be forthcoming relative to those major projects. Mr. Leiter said that on Otay Ranch and San Miguel Ranch, if there are some major stumbling blocks to MSCP, they would honor the commitments they had already made. However, on Otay Ranch, that would have to be resolved. They still are not in agreement with the City regarding Otay Ranch. Chair Tuchscher thanked Mr. Leiter for the report. ITEM 5. REPORT: FY 1995-96 PLANNING COMMISSION BUDGET Assistant Planning Director Lee presented the Planning Commission budget, noting a reduction of 26%. He noted it did not affect the Planning Commission directly; the reduction was in staff overtime, postage, and supplies. The recommended budget was based on actual usage. Commissioner Tarantino asked what happened if there was a need for the overtime and there was no money. Could they do a budget transfer, or appeal to the Council. Mr. Lee said budget transfers could be done, if approved by Administration. The requests are handled individually. Regarding staff, there would be an option of bringing people forward with compensatory overtime instead of overtime pay, or not bring those staff to meetings with management having to present the items, spending mom time in preparation. Commissioner Ray was concerned that the Commission would not get the present level of service regarding Otay Ranch, etc. Mr. Lee assured him that it was included as part of the management team and was not included in the overtime budget. Commissioner Ray was concerned that staff would be more well versed on other projects than management, and that some of the Commission's questions may not be answered by management. Mr. Lee said that further in the year, if they found there were problems, they would go forward to Administration with a request. Commissioner Ray asked a person was to be at the meeting, could their hours be adjusted to come in later during the day to make up that time. Mr. Lee said there were some options; the Planning Department already had a flexible schedule. Chair Tuchscher asked where the League of California Cities meeting would be held this year. Mr. Lee believed it was in the Southern California area, possibly Anaheim. Chair Tuchscher said there would be at least two new Commissioners, maybe three. He wanted to be sure the new Commissioners had a chance to attend those meetings. He asked Mr. Lee if there was enough in the budget to send three people. Mr. Lee answered affirmatively. PC Minutes -14- May 24, 1995 Chair Tuchscher was concerned about mailing. In recent years the City Council had taken action to expand the mailing, in addition to mailing to property tenants including apartments and businesses. He suspected the mailings were 20 times more than they were six years ago. He thought it was time to reel that back in, that it was inappropriate. It was one major item that could be curtailed. He would look to staff how that could be handled in relation to a recommendation to Council. It did not relate to the Planning Commission budget, but he felt it was appropriate that the Planning Commission bring the issue up. Mr. Leiter said that staff could bring back some basic information about the Planning Department budget and some historical data at their next meeting, and the Planning Commission could forward a recommendation over a minute action to the City Council on that particular issue. Chair Tuchscher asked if that could be an item on their agenda so they could take some action. He also asked that staff give them a handle on how much return mail is received and what kind of manhours are associated with assembling the mailing list. He suspected to track down tenants, it is people out in the field as opposed to some list that exists. He would like some general parameters to help them raise the issue with Council and ask them to take some action relative to the total budget. Mr. Leiter stated they would report to Council that the Planning Commission had reviewed the budget and did not have any comments on it. There would be a workshop on the Boards/Commissions budgets on June 14. Unless the Planning Commission is there to protest it, staff would let them know the Planning Commission had no problems with it. DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 6. UPDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the Council had continued the Covenant Christian School item so that staff could look at some potential additional CPF sites, or meet with the applicant and EastLake. Also, Council would be interviewing for new Planning Commissioners on June 3. Mr. Lee said that the regular workshop date of July 19 may have to be used for a special meeting for the MCA theater proposal. He thought it would be a 7:00 meeting rather than a 5:30, since there had been extensive public notice proposed as far as the environmental and project review. There were potential traffic impacts which extend to 1-805. Mr. Lee reminded the Planning Commission that their next meeting was a joint meeting with the GMOC, with dinner at 5:30 and the meeting following. Their regular Planning Commission meeting would be at 7:00 with a short break between the two meetings. He thought the regular meeting of June 14 was relatively light. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - None. PC Minutes -15- May 24, 1995 ADJOURNMENT at 9:25 p.m. to the Special Joint GMOC/Planning Commission Dinner Meeting at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of June 14, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. /2. N'a~cy Rip(ey, Secretary Planning Commission (m:\homc\planning\nancy\pc95min\pc5-24. rain)