Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1994/11/09 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, November 9, 1994 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Fuller, Moot, Ray, Salas, and Tarantino COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Martin (excused) STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, Community Development Specialist Shanahan, Contract Attorney Basil MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Fuller/Ray) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Martin who was out of town on business. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. ITEM 1: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCM-95-09; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 16~UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT AT 588 "L" STREET IN THE C-O ZONE - San Diego County Housing Authority (continued from October 26, 1994) Principal Planner Griffin stated that this project was originally approved in 1992. The term of the permit had been extended in 1993 for an additional year. The permit expired in March, and the County Housing Authority was now asking that a new permit be approved, since they were PC Minutes -2- November 9, 1994 ready to go forward on the project. Mr. Griffin noted that the project was essentially what had been approved by the Planning Colnmission in 1992. The Design Review Committee approved the design and site plan on October 10, 1994. The project was proposed to be established in a Commercial Office zone. Staffhad determined there was no shortage of commercial office areas available in that vicinity, it would not be an adverse impact to convert this site to apartment use, and the project met a recognized need in the City for lower-income housing. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions and based on the f'mdings in the Plann/ng Commission resolution. Commissioner Ray asked for clarification of the parking quantity. Mr. Griffin replied that there would be 32 on-site parking spaces, which met the basic Code requirement for that type of residential development. Commissioner Tarantino stated that the plan mentioned 14 units and 2 flats; the text noted 9 three-bedroom and 7 two-bedroom for a total of 16. He asked if the flats were still included in the general project. Mr. Griffin answered that the overall 16 units included 2 flats and 14 townhouse-type units which were two-story. Commissioner Tarantino stated that he felt the staff, applicant, and the School District did a good job in working out a compromise of having the bungalow. Commissioner Moot asked how the compromise worked. Mr. Griffin said that in this case staff put the County Housing Authority in touch with the Elementary School District, and they worked out a solution amongst themselves and reported that to staff. Commissioner Moot asked if it was a non-issue for the Planning Commission, if a compromise was reached by the School District and Housing Authority. Mr. Griffin concurred. Mr. Moot asked if there was some point in which the Planning Commission became involved, or had an obligation to insure that when the Planning Commission approved a project that the deal was fair, or was it out of their jurisdiction. Mr. Griffin replied that there was the question of finding conformance with the General Plan for projects with respect to adequate school facilities which would play a part. Staff could report back. Commissioner Moot was concerned that someone may come before the Commission with the complaint that they did not get as good a deal as someone else, and how the Commission would respond. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that to his knowledge it had never been an issue before the Commission, but it could occur in theory. He also noted that when staff was trying to make findings for consistency with the General Plan, it was important that the applicant satisfy the needs of the school district to keep in compliance with the City's growth management program. Small cases were considered on a case-by-case basis. If there was any disagreement, the applicant would return before the Commission. PC Minutes -3- November 9, 1994 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Fuller/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Martin excused) to adopt Resolution PCC-95-09 approving the proposal based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commissioner Salas commented that she felt this was a good project; she liked the fact that it was a low-number project and the way it integrated into the neighborhood. She would like to see more low-income projects like this throughout the City of Chula Vista. ITEM2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-95-01; CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR FIELDSTONE CREST, CHULA VISTA TRACT 95-01 - Western Salt Company Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report, noting that the property was part of the EastLake Greens community, parcel R-27, located at the southwest corner of Clubhouse Drive and Hunte Parkway. The project consisted of a 40 lot single-family development, with a project density of 4.3 dwelling units per acm. The project also provided a component of the EastI2~e Trails program. Staff recommended approval of the project, based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the resolution. This being the Ome and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Salas asked what kind of housing the 10% minimum affordable housing would be and where it would be distributed within the 40 homes. Mr. Griffin replied there would be no affordable housing in this particular project. The City was working with the Task Force to determine the appropriate locations and numbers for those affordable housing units. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated the areas being considered for affordable units were the landswap area, south of the high school, and along that corridor where densities were higher. This project had one of the lower densities in EastLake. Commissioner Salas surmised that this project did not lend itself to the low income housing, so it would be negotiated into another area. Mr. Lee concurred. The location and the numbers had been discussed with the Task Force, which included representation by homeowners within the EastLake Greens. Commissioner Moot, a member of the Task Force, stated that the 10% requirement was not for each individual subdivision map, but was originally intended to be for the entire EastLake project. Before certain steps in the project could be taken, however, EastLake must begin meeting their criteria. The Task Force had located nine areas within EastLake which they had PC Minutes -4- November 9, 1994 identified as suitable sites for affordable housing. The site being discussed was not a suitable site, primarily because it had no real public access by public transportation. MSC (Ray/Fuller) 6-0 (Commissioner Martin excused) to approve Resolution PCS-95-01 reconunending that the City Council approve the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map in accordance with the draft City Council resolution, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. ITEM 3: PCM-95-07; ZONING INTERPRETATION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND RECYCLING FACILITY - Resoume Recovery Techniques, Inc. - (continued from October 26, 1994) Principal Planner Griffin reminded the Commission that the issue was a general zoning interpretation which would apply to all areas. The request was to allow a wastewater treatment facility as either a permitted or conditional use in the I-L zone. The applicant had listed the kind of uses they felt would be similar or more impactive than a wastewater treatment facility and would support their argument to include that use in the I-L zone. While staff admitted some of those uses seemed rather heavy and may be consistent with the type of use proposed, staff tried to look at the intended character of the zone as described in the General Plan, as well as the zoning ordinance, and the totality of the uses treated in the zones. Mr. Griffin noted that permitted and conditional uses in the I-L zone involved processing of products from previously prepared materials. The uses that were specifically prohibited in the I-L zone were processing uses of products from raw materials. Staff equated the wastewater treatment more with the products from raw materials more than from previously prepared materials. Mr. Griffin stated that recycling collection centers are conditional uses in the 'T' or General Industrial zone. There are only two areas in the City zoned for industrial use. One of the areas is a large portion of the Bayfront, including the Rohr facility as well as the SDG&E facility. The other General Industrial area in the City is on Energy Way south of the landfill. Staff felt the wastewater facility was more appropriate as a conditional use in the General Industrial zone, and recommended that the Planning Commission make that interpretation. Commissioner Ray asked if this was solely a question of zoning or if the City had a problem with location as a result of the zoning. Mr. Griffin stated that at this point in time it was strictly a zoning processing issue. Chair Tuchscher clarified this was defining the process on which this use and potentially other uses attracted by the Border Environmental Commerce Alliance (BECA) which would attract green businesses would be approved. Principal Planner Griffin replied that it would define the process for this use; as far as other uses that might fall under that umbrella, they would have to be treated separately. This consideration was just for wastewater treatment and recycling. PC Minutes -5- November 9, 1994 Chair Tuchscher asked if consideration should be given to the broader perspective, possibly at a future meeting or workshop. Mr. Griffin agreed, and stated staff would be coming back to the Commission and Council with a report in the near future. Answering Chair Tuchscher, Mr. Lee stated the Commission should concentrate on the issue before them rather than give consideration to the broader perspective. Chair Tuchscher commented that there seemed to be some City directives coming in conflict, one being the BECA and another being "not in the South Bay". He felt it should be dealt with as a planning issue, since the Community Development Department and Economic Development Commission were working hard to attract those new technology, green businesses to the area. He did not know where they would be put. Principal Planner Griffin said that if the Commission found that this use belonged in the General Industrial zone as opposed to the Limited Industrial zone, it would not prohibit the applicants from proceeding with their plans on this particular site; it would simply need a more elaborate process which would involve a General Plan Amendment and rezoning and processing through the Local Coastal Commission. If the Commission found it was a conditional use in the I-L zone, it would be a conditional use which would go through the Planning Commission. If a permitted use in the I-L zone, there would be no discretionary land use entitlements; it would simply be subject to design review. Chair Tuchscher noted that it was effectively the same project, but two very different processes, one long and arduous and the other simple, both discretionary. Commissioner Salas asked if the two zones were next to each other. Mr. Griffin replied that at that location they joined. Commissioner Salas felt if a conditional use were allowed, it would erode the buffer between the two zones. Mr. Griffin clarified that there was no built-in buffer. Each zone would have setbacks and design criteria. Commissioner Salas asked if there were sites available in the General Industrial zone which could be considered rather than going into the 'T' zone. Mr. Griff'm replied that there were limitations on the RRT facility going into the eastern area because of some of the materials they handle could not be processed through a reclamation facility. Commissioner Moot questioned how the Planning Commission's review from a discretionary perspective would be different if they considered the project as a conditional use permit as opposed to the more elaborate General Plan amendment and LCP. Mr. Griffin said the level of the review was different. In a General Plan amendment rezoning, there was a basic issue as to whether the use was appropriate at this location, how it fit in the overall pattern of surrounding uses. That process would go through both the Planning Commission and City Council through a public hearing. A conditional use was still discretionary and could either be approved or denied, but the assumption was that it generally PC Minutes -6- November 9, 1994 could fit within a zone if certain findings could be made and it allowed certain conditions to be placed upon the project. The presumption with a conditional use was that it theoretically could fit within that context and it was just a matter of reviewing the specifics, making sure it was compatible with directly adjacent uses. Commissioner Moot inquired as to the appealability of the Planning Commission's decision if a conditional use permit were granted. Mr. Griffin stated the Planning Commission action was reported to the City Council, and particularly with the more significant ones, the Council could call them up for review. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that, basically, if the Commission determined this was an appropriate use in the I-L zone, they were setting the stage for potentially other applications in other parts of the City in the I-L zone. He did not see a lot of difference if the Commission made a final determination as to whether it belonged in the I-L. Staff felt it added another, heavier, use into the I-L zone and staff believed it belonged in the "I" zone. Commissioner Fuller asked if there were 'T' zones in Chula Vista other than on Energy Way and the Bayfront. Mr. Lee stated there were none, and the Bayfront was limited in terms of ownership. Rohr had the bulk of the ownership along with San Diego Gas & Electric. Commissioner Fuller asked why the applicant could not locate in the Energy Way area. Mr. Lee explained that it was too far to the east in terms of where they can locate. They have to have access directly to the sewer main, the main trunk line. But the concern was not as to site, but ordinance interpretation. Commissioner Fuller stated she was thinking in terms of future requests for this type or any type of application that was now considered more appropriate for the 'T' zone and there was such a limited amount of 'T' zone and some of the uses, both permitted and conditional, were similar. Mr. Lee concurred and stated that if they were looking at the BECA uses coming in, there may be a third industrial zone. He was not sure if all of those would fit within either the 'T' or I-L. The Limited Industrial zoning was spread throughout various areas of the City and all of these uses may not be appropriate in those locations. Commissioner Ray asked if the Commissioner were to make a recommendation that it was either a permitted or conditional use, then would the project specific come before the Commission. Mr. Lee stated a conditional use would come back before the Commission; a permitted use would go through site plan architectural approval through the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Ray asked if the City chose to create another zone for BECA-type projects, if this project would then be grandfathered in under that zone and then remove this project as a conditional use off the I-L retroactively. Mr. Lee said it would either be grandfathered in or the property rezoned. PC Minutes -7- November 9, 1994 Commissioner Ray was concerned that if the Commission determined this to be a conditional use under the I-L zone, how it could be removed if a third industrial zone was created. Mr. Lee answered that all the conditional uses in the I-L zone would be reviewed and that zone would probably be modified as well. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Grant E. Destache, of Schneider Langston, 772 Second Avenue, CV 91910, stated the reason RRT had decided to locate at this particular site was because of water reclamation. The only portion of Chula Vista which is able to dump effluent into the Metro Wastewater District without going to a future planned wastewater treatment facility is west of 1-5. The Energy Way property was not capable of handling the facility; therefore, they had to look at the property west of I-5 in the I-L zone. Mark Schneider, 10704 Eagle Eye Drive, Tucson, AZ, representing Resource Recovery Techniques, said that because of the reclamation districts, certain water could go into the line and certain water was restricted. It had forced them to narrow the search; they believed the site was very sensitive to the region and to the City. He pointed out that a typical wastewater facility discharged either into the ground or into the waterways. RRT does not do that; their effluent is discharged into a sewer. Their annual discharge is equal to the daily discharge of a typical wastewater plant. More accurately, it is a pre-treatment facility. They are not doing anything which is hazardous. The chemicals involved, and the treatment itself is not hazardous; nothing is put into the air; no rendering. About 15% of the use would be office; 10% lab; 20% storage; and about 55% of the building would be involved in the processing of materials. It is not a use that would be widespread through the region. Matt Peterson, Peterson & Price, 530 B Street,//2300, San Diego 92101, representing RRT, compared the permitted versus conditional uses in the I-L zone. The issues for this site would be visual which could be dealt with by design review, and truck delivery. Freight trucking terminals and distribution centers were two of the uses in the I-L zone as conditional use permits. Mr. Peterson believed that to go through the process of amending the site, changing the zone, amending the General Plan, and going through a Local Coastal Plan amendment was too time consuming. They had found a site that was available which had a Coastal Development Permit issued on the site for industrial uses. After the conditional use permit processing through the Planning Commission, the project had to go to the Coastal Commission for amendment to the Coastal Development Permit on the site, and the project would have a very high level of scrutiny. He did not feel the Commission would be setting a precedent. This type of use is a very specified use. The BECA-type uses, if a new zone was not developed, would each have to come before the Commission with a similar request, so the Commission had a level of discretion as to whether or not they could be classified within an I-L zone as a conditional use. There was discussion regarding the processing time of the conditional use permit versus the General Plan amendment, rezoning, and Local Coastal Plan amendment. PC Minutes -8- November 9, 1994 Commissioner Salas agreed with the applicant that in terms of permitted uses by right, she saw other uses more onerous than those proposed. She asked if there was some kind of other issues involved in the distinction between raw versus previously processed material; was there some kind of health issue involved? Mr. Griffin said that was the way the Code was set up; he assumed it was because the processing of raw materials could involve more onerous kinds of impacts than from previously prepared materials. Commissioner Fuller asked if in furore applications for projects that do not fit into any existing permitted use or conditional use, would it be better to individually continue to make General Plan amendments to change the zone from I-L to I wherever this might occur rather than to make a discretionary judgment by the Planning Commission. Mr. Griffin did not think so. The BECA Program is fairly recent; as an overall City policy, the uses had not been defined, there was not an implementation program. If staff can make a rational comparison from one use to the other, it will be done administratively. In the case of RRT, they were not happy with that determination. If the Planning Commission agreed with their argument, the Commission could make the interpretation that they were a conditional use in the I-L zone and they would follow that process. Most of the applications in the past for zoning interpretations have come with staff support. Staff intent was not simply to argue for a process which would cause a timing issue with RRT. Commissioner Tarantino asked if there were odors, etc., associated with what they were doing, or if everything was contained in the storage tanks. Mr. Schneider replied that there was nothing involved with their processing or treatment that created an odor. The product itself, septic waste and restaurant grease, had an odor. All the handling and off-loading of materials are handled inside the building. They had never been required to get an air permit. Commissioner Tarantino was concerned for the people who live in the area. He asked if there would be a negative impact on them. Mr. Schneider said the materials are enclosed inside a tank truck which goes inside the building. There was negative air pressure, and all the handling of the materials was inside the building. The odor is not allowed to escape. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the City has performance standards that would preclude that from occurring. It would be subject to a zoning enforcement issue. When RRT comes in for a specific site, the engineer will have to certify that they will comply with the City's performance standards. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the Light Industrial area on Energy Way was also adjacent to a General Industrial area as in the Bayfront. Mr. Griffin said that the Energy Way was the other General Industrial area in the City and is zoned for General Industry rather than Limited Industry. Mr. Lee stated that the area immediately to the west is I-L. Answering Commissioner Tarantino, Mr. Griffin said there was no buffer; only Otay Valley Road separated the General Industrial area and the Light Industrial area to the south. It was similar to the Bayfront area. PC Minutes -9- November 9, 1994 Commissioner Fuller reiterated that it was not the project at this location that staff was concerned about, but the process by which it comes before the City and the determination. Mr. Griffin concurred. Commissioner Ray asked the applicant if the tanks to the rear of the facility would be screened. Mr. Schneider said he was sure it would be screened. If the architectural and design criteria say that the tanks would have to be screened, they intended to do that. Answering Commissioner Ray, Mr. Schneider said all the filtering was done inside the building. Commissioner Ray asked staff how many LCP amendments were received per year. Mr. Lee said there were three General Plan amendments allowed by State. He would have to check with Advance Planning Division to see how many had been used. Mr. Lee said that was a factor when looking at General Plan amendments; it was not automatic. Depending on when the next amendment was due, it may lengthen the processing time. Mr. Griffin stated he had checked into that and there would be no problem in initiating a General Plan amendment right away in this particular case. Chula Vista was a charter city and there was a City policy that there be only three General Plan amendments a year, but there could be an additional amendment if the project was considered worthy. Commissioner Ray asked if there were limitations as to how frequently the Local Coastal Plan could be changed. Mr. Lee replied that an LCP amendment was basically a General Plan amendment. Commissioner Ray asked if there was anything else in which the City was limited in terms of the number which could be done. Mr. Lee stated that Chula Vista is a charter city, and by practice and policy, the General Plans are put together so that a General Plan amendment would not be coming before the Commission and Council on a monthly basis. An overview of the City should be taken when looking at General Plan amendments. Mr. Lee noted that the Commission seems to have some concerns regarding appearance. He asked them to keep in mind that it would go through a design review process. If the Commission decided that it was appropriate that this land use be handled through the conditional use permit process in the I-L zone, the project could be scheduled to go through the design review and the fmisbed product could come to the Planning Commission with the conditional use permit, so the Commission could understand what the project would look like specifically before taking action on the use permit. It would not delay the applicant in the matter. No one else wishing the speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Moot/Ray) that a non-hazardous wastewater treatment and recycling facility be allowed with a conditional use permit in the I-L zone. PC Minutes -10- November 9, 1994 Commissioner Ray stated that this was a stop-gap measure so as not to prohibit the applicant from being able to move forward. He felt it achieved the City Council's goals, and at the same time he hoped the City staff would initiate another zoning so this project could be grandfathered in and this conditional use could be taken out of the I-L zone. Commissioner Fuller commented that she appreciated staff's concern about following the Code requirements; however, she felt the General Plan amendment was too cumbersome when looking at the existing land uses. There are things that don't fall into a particular category, and she thought they had to use a discretionary decision. Commissioner Salas restated her comment that she felt the distinction between the uses was very minimal, but that did not mean she did not want to see this before them again, and would really ask some tough site specific questions when it came through. Commissioner Tarantino agreed that the one visual was very helpful to see that it was adjacent to General Industrial. Chair Tuchscher was not sure a new zoning was appropriate, but felt staff should look into some type of solution for these types of decisions in the furore, especially relative to BECA. He was confident that a lot of the things the City would see in the next several years are new technologies that probably had not been invented yet, or thought about. The City has to create a vehicle by which the applicant could get through the process relatively quickly without the burden of the bureaucracy of the years past. He liked the comments that staff made relative to design review and asking the applicant in this particular case and perhaps others to go through that first so the Commission could have an idea of what the project is specifically before it comes to them with a conditional use permit. Commissioner Moot felt the quicker the City could work and process projects and be comfortable that the process is thorough, the better. In this particular instance, knowing the location and the issues, it could be handled through a conditional use permit with the review and consideration it needs but accommodate business people who want to locate in Chula Vista by doing it as quickly as possible. Chair Tuchscher noted it was important for the applicant to understand that this was not an endorsement of his project. He had some very serious questions relative to the project itself when it comes forward project specific. He encouraged RRT to work diligently with staff to solve their concerns early on. Commissioner Salas stated that in terms of the location, there are families living in the area and the Commission had to be sensitive to a project moving in there with those families. VOTE: 6-0 (Martin excused) PC Minutes -11- November 9, 1994 ITEM 4: REPORT ON INDUSTRIAL ZONING POLICY: THE CITY COUNCIL HAS REQUESTED COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON A DRAFT POLICY ADDRESSING LAND USE CHANGES TO INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the City Council had previously requested that staff prepare a draft Council policy to address both possible economical and fiscal impacts resulting from non-industrial use of industrially designated property. As a result, the draft Industrial Zoning Policy states that if there was a proposal to amend the General Plan from Industrial to some other non-industrial category or to rezone property from Industrial to a non-industrial use or to have a major conditional use permit of a non-industrial nature in an industrial zone, staff would present to the City Manager a preliminary evaluation and the economic and fiscal impact of that particular project. The applicant or the manager may forward that information on to the Economic Development Commission and the reports and comments would be forwarded to the Planning Commission/City Council for consideration at the public hearing. The policy also states if them are impacts that are deemed to be negatives, alternatives could be provided. It flags the property if it is proposed to be developed with other than industrial to take a close look at the impacts and try to provide enough information to help the Planning Commission and City Council to make a better decision. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission endorse the policy as drafted and forward it on to City Council. Commissioner Ray felt the policy was long overdue. He felt this type of information in an environmental impact report would be very helpful, because financial impacts would impact the environmental aspects, as well. He would like to see it expanded to other uses. Commissioner Salas queried how the school got into the EastLake area initially, if it was by conditional use permit. Mr. Lee replied that it was by conditional use permit in an Industrial zone. Under this policy, there would be a fiscal analysis prepared to look at that particular land use, and how it affected Industrial property in either a negative or positive fashion. When moving through the public hearing process, there would be more information and evaluation from staff with possible input from the Economic Development Commission giving the ramifications of the project, giving the economic impacts to be considered in making the decision. Commissioner Salas said, theoretically, the school moving in could have chilling effects on other businesses wanting to move in, which might be a negative fiscal impact. Mr. Lee agreed, and said the policy would take a broader overview and make sure that was examined rather than simply looking at the land use. Chair Tuchscher, who is a member of the Economic Development Commission, stated that the Economic Developmem Commission had been trying not to review land use, but to stay in the broader scope economic developmem programs and financing. Their internally adopted policy was to endorse a land-use-type project only when requested by the applicant and only if a project met certain criteria. The Economic Development Commission was asking Council to amend PC Minutes -12- November 9, 1994 their ordinance to do the same, and is carrying their comments on to Council. He commented that he thought it was important that the Council understand the meaning of the numbers of how many years of supply of Industrial land the City actually had. Per the Williams-Kuebelbeck Study there was a 39-year supply of Industrial land; he would ask staff to make sum that Council understood that was a gross supply number and that, of finished available land, it was a very small number of roughly 35 acres which is very confining from an economic standpoint on the City. Answering Commissioner Salas, Chair Tuchscher stated that Williams-Kuebelbeck was a consultant hired by the City at the direction of the EDC to do a City-wide study on business, inventory of land, and other economic factors that could help steer the City's decision making. Commissioner Salas asked if it was similar to the SANDAG forecast the Commission had studied a couple of months earlier. Chair Tuchscher said those were General Plan numbers and/or sphere of influence numbers of gross acreage rather than actual finished land--curbed, guttered, streets, sidewalks--ready to deliver to a company that might come into the community. He thought both reports looked at it in the same way, using the General Plan, including Otay Ranch and other projects which had Industrial land. Mr. Lee said he thought Commissioner Salas was referring to the Series 8 SANDAG report which really dealt with residential property which would be built out by the year 2005. Chair Tuchscher noted that it was important to understand that when SANDAG and others do their analyses, their focus is regional and they look at the Otay Mesa as a huge industrial area with enough land to supply the entire South Bay. But it is in the City of San Diego and is in a total different jurisdiction. There were reasons why companies locate in Chula Vista versus in the City of San Diego other than locational. Those included jurisdictional, permit processing, incentives, and other opportunities. MSC (Ray/Tarantino) 6-0 (Commissioner Martin excused) to endorse the proposed Council Policy with a notation to include Commissioner Tuchscher's comments stating that the numbers represented are raw numbers and not finished goods. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee reported on City Council action since the last Planning Commission meeting. He pointed out that the Moss Street vacation tobe considered at the City Council had been rescheduled to November 22, along with the Landscape Manual. The SANDAG Series 8 Forecast had been adopted. Also, the Council, regarding a solid waste transfer site, had narrowed it down to two sites along Maxwell Road. Mr. Lee noted that staff had recently become aware that the Boards/Commission banquet was set for November 30 which was scheduled to be the next Planning Commission meeting. He asked the Commissioners to consider whether they would like to meet at 5:00 that evening PC Minutes -13- November 9, 1994 before the banquet, meet at 7:00 p.m. on December 7, or wait until the next regular meeting of December 14. Commissioners Tarantino and Salas said they would prefer December 7. MSUC (Salas/Fuller) 6-0 (Commissioner Martin excused) to cancel the meeting of November 30 and have a special meeting on December 7, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Lee stated he and Mr. Griffin were discussing the option of moving the items scheduled for December 14 to December 7. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT at 8:40 p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of Wednesday, November 16, 1994, at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Special Business Meeting of December 7, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Riplo'y, Planning Commission