Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/12/04 Tape: 328 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COIVIMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, December 4, 1991 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Martin, Tuchscher, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Decker (excused) STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Griffin, Planning Technician Pedder, Community Development Director Salomone, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Environmental Consultant Richardson, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Associate Civil Engineer Ouadah, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - S12.ENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINIyFF~q - Meeting of November 13, 1991 MSC (Casillas/Maxtin) 5-0-1 (Commissioner Fuller abstained; Commissioner Decker absen0 to approve the minutes of November 13, 1991. MSUC (Casillas/Carson) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Decker from the meeting because of illness. PC Minutes -2- December 4, 1991 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: CONSIDERATION OF CHULA VISTA AUTO CENTER FINAL FIR (EIR-91-01) Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman noted that the Auto Park FIR had been before the Planning Commission on October 23, 1991, for a public hearing. He added that the City's Auto Park Ad Hoc Task Force had reviewed the FIR and recommended approval of the FIR with the understanding that issues had come to light with regard to potential soil and ground water contamination on an adjacent site to the Auto Park on the north side of Otay Valley Road which may eventually have some impact on ground water which runs beneath the Auto Park site. The Ad Hoc Task Force asked that the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency accept or reject the FIR with that clear understanding. Mr. Kassman stated there was no evidence of contamination, but there was some concern because of findings on an adjacent site. It had been determined there was no adverse impact upon the Auto Park project as a result of the information received to date. Mr. Kassman then introduced Diana Richardson, the environmental consultant on the project. Ms. Richardson stated the public review of the EIR had ended on October 23, 1991, with the Planning Commission public hearing. Most of the comments had referred to traffic concerns and compatibility with the future Otay Valley Regional Park. The Final FIR included responses to those comments. Ms. Richardson said that CEQA requires that the lead agency certify that the Final FIR had been completed in compliance with CEQA, and that the decision-making body of the lead agency--the City Council and Redevelopment Agency--had reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR. Staff recommended that the Final FIR be forwarded to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency with the recommendation for certification. Regarding hazardous materials, Ms. Richardson stated it had been considered in preparation of the Draft EIR and it had been determined that there was no remote possibility of ever contacting the potential contaminated ground water, and that it was not an issue to be considered. Since that time, the City of Chula Vista sent to the Regional Water Quality Control Board a letter asking for their response to this concern in that area. The Regional Water Quality Control Board had replied with a letter stating that they would not require the agency to conduct any kind of remedial investigation and would not initiate any kind of enforcement or action against the agency. This further supported the opinion that the issue of ground water contamination was not an issue related to the Auto Center development. Commissioner Casillas asked why the issue was raised if it was insignificant and would not impact the outcome or recommendation on the Final FIR. What had been found? Ms. Richardson answered that the concern was contamination that was generated by the Omar Rendering site across the street. It was raised as an issue in the first place because of a non- PC Minutes -3- December 4, 1991 understanding of the issue, and any time "haTaxdous waste" is brought up, people become concerned. She said it was more of a perceived issue than a real issue. Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman noted that the reason for bringing up the issue was that they were advised to make it a matter of public record that the issue was investigated and it had been determined that there were no adverse environmental impacts. Commissioner Casillas asked what was found on the site; he felt the Commissioners needed something more definitive as far as what was there and what the possibilities were of impacting the ground water, because the ground water would ultimately go beyond the project site. Mr. Kassman stated that the fact that the ground water may or may not have contaminant materials did not mean that the site was contaminated and did not preclude development of the site. It may be an issue in terms of securing financing for the site, but was not an environmental issue which would preclude development or issuance of a building permit by the City. Mr. Kassman then introduced Stan Reynolds to speak to the Omar Rendering site. Stan Reynolds, 160 Chesterfield Drive, Suite 3, Encinitas 92007, President of Torsdan, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, explained that in March 1991 the City Redevelopment Agency asked their firm to provide an evaluation of the Omar Rendering site and the kinds of contamination which may or may not be there. He noted that liquids containing various materials which had been held in holding ponds had been removed and carried to another hazardous waste disposal facility. In response to various regulatory requirements, the historical Omar Rendering site has been characterized by conducting boring operations to analyze the soil in order to determine whether or not there were any contaminant materials in the soil; placed monitoring wells into the ground water tables to take samples of the ground water to determine whether or not anything was in the water. Mr. Reynolds stated that the ground water monitoring wells in the area of close proximity to the Class I containment area contained some benzine, trichloroethane, and other chlorinated hydrocarbons. The monitoring wells move outward radially from the Class I containment area to the point where they are on the boundary of the Otay Valley Road. At the Otay Valley Road, samples of ground water have in fact been found to contain very iow concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons. Mr. Reynolds clarified that ground water moved inches per year and that the contaminants were in very low concentration and may or may not have crossed the road into the property south of Otay Valley Road; however, in Mr. Reynolds' conversations with officials of the Water Control Board, they were thoroughly aware of the conditions at the Omar Rendering site, and Mr. Reynolds had been informed that negotiations were underway to remediate the former Omar Rendering site and that it didn't make any sense in a technical or scientific way to place any kind of remedial action constraints on the property to the south of the Omar Rendering site because the Omar Rendering site was the source. That risks were very low. Commissioner Tugenberg asked how deep below the project site the water would be. Mr. Reynolds stated it would be roughly 20 feet, well below any foundation construction. PC Minutes -4- December 4, 1991 Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there would be danger to the health of people if they drank the water or came in physical contact. Mr. Reynolds answered that there would not, because there was no pathway to them. In answer to Commissioner Tugenberg's query, Mr. Reynolds said there was no problem with emanation of fumes, because even if there were some slight contamination in the ground water, the contamination would be on the level of parts per billion, analogous to a speck of dust in a room. The speck is contained in the water system which is itself contained in the soil and would not be able to get to the surface. Chair Fuller clarified that there was a remediation program underway on the Omar Rendering site. Mr. Reynolds said there were negotiations to remediate the site; not whether or not it would take place, but what form. Commissioner Martin asked if the construction would have any impact on the water. Mr. Reynolds answered that to the best of his knowledge there was no intention to excavate beneath the ground water table. The actual motion of the ground water would not be affected. Even in the event that excavation activities did penetrate the ground water table, all it would do would be to remove some ground water and basically slow it down. Commissioner Casillas wondered why the issue came up if the possibility of negative impact was negligible. Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman said it was their intent to make it a matter of record that they were aware of the problem and it had been investigated. They were advised by special counsel to the Redevelopment Agency on environmental matters that it should be made a matter of public record that it was investigated and it was determined that it was not an adverse environmental impact, because it was a volatile issue. Chair Fuller clarified that it was by a special counsel. Mr. Kassman concurred. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) 6-0 (Commissioner Decker absent) that the Planning Commission certify that the Final EIR is adequate according to the requirements of CEQA and send the Final EIR to the Redevelopment Agency with a recommendation for certification. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-92-12; REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A USED CAR SALES FACILITY AT 1506 BROADWAY - Fernando Durazo Planning Technician Pedder gave the background of the project and the various meetings with the applicant. After working with staff, there was no activity and the project was assumed to be abandoned. Instead, the applicant had established his business at the current location without a business license. He was contacted a number of times for application of his conditional use permit. Upon receipt of a complaint from a resident in the vicinity regarding driveway blockage around the parking lot of the restaurant, Code Enforcement advised the applicant to obtain a conditional use permit or cease business at that location. In September, 1991, the applicant requested a conditional use permit. PC Minutes -5- December 4, 1991 Commissioner Casillas asked what was done to correct the illegal operation, and if the 13 businesses who had signed a petition supporting the conditional use permit had conditional use permits. Ms. Pedder stated that as long as an applicant continues to work with staff, they will try to give him/her leeway. Mr. Durazo had insisted throughout the entire period that he was in the process of applying for a conditional use permit. Additionally, the City's Code Enforcement staff were actively working with Mr. Durazo, or on his behalf, to find additional locations where he could operate where it may not be necessary to obtain a conditional use permit. Ms. Pedder did not believe Mr. Durazo had returned Code Enforcement staff's calls, but directed his attorney to call. Alternative sites had been recommended to the attorney. Answering Commissioner Casillas' query regarding the businesses listed on the petition, Ms. Pedder said that very few had conditional use permits because they were already established at the time of the Montgomery annexation and were continuing uses. Commissioner Tuchseher asked Ms. Pedder if staff had been helpful in assisting Mr. Durazo through the process. Ms. Pedder answered affirmatively, and said a lot of time had been spent suggesting alternate plans for Mr. Durazo and he was given the benefit of staff's recommendations regarding landscaping, lighting, and signage. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if Zoning Enforcement routinely made suggestions for alternative locations. Ms. Pedder said that Code Enforcement did attempt to do so in similar situations. In this case, Planning staff had asked Code Enforcement to assist as much as possible. Planning Technician Pedder noted that the Commissioners had received at the beginning of the meeting a petition with signatures of eight business owners who had agreed to the location of the used car facility at the proposed location. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Fernando Durazo, 272 Rancho Court, Chula Vista, said he had tried to solve the problem and was forced to move without being given much time. He disagreed that staff had tried to help him; instead, they tried to discourage him. He had never heard of alternative locations. He read a letter he had written to the Planning Commission pleading with them to approve the conditional use permit. Commissioner Casillas said he appreciated Mr. Durazo's comments regarding his desire to be an entrepreneur, but he felt there was another issue which insisted that certain processes be followed in order to be granted permission to do certain activities. These rules had to be applied to everyone. He would support staff's recommendation to deny the conditional use permit. PC Minutes -6- December 4, 1991 Commissioner Tuchscher echoed Commissioner Casillas' comments and added that he had a strong sensitivity to the small businessman. However, he felt staff had gone beyond the call of duty to work with the applicant, and would support staff's recommendation to deny. Chair Fuller said she was not in sympathy in continuing the over proliferation of used car dealers in the Montgomery area. Commissioner Martin commented that he would support staff's recommendation, because there had to be some rules. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSIJC (Carson/Martin) 6-0 (Commissioner Decker absent) that based on the findings contained in Section 'E' of the report, deny the request, PCC-92~12, to establish a used car sales facility at 1506 Broadway. INFORMATION ITEM: PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM FOR CONTOUR GRADING REVIEW Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that since the issue of contour grading was the subject of a workshop session earlier in the year, staff wished to give the Commission an outline of how staff intended to follow through regarding contour landform grading. Mr. Lee elaborated on some of the information given to the Commission in the staff report. He pointed out that it was staff's intent to meet with the present large-scale developers to make sure they were on target as far as moving a~ead with a landform grading proposal, especially on the major slope areas contained within their projects. Commissioner Tugenberg felt the program should be implemented as soon as possible, because slope grading of some of the existing projects is objectionable. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee noted the purpose of the field trip to Kaiser Hospital in Riverside was to observe the surrounding land uses and similarities to the proposed hospital in Chula Vista. He asked if there was any interest on the part of the Commission and if there was a preference for a weekend or weekday trip. Commissioner Tugenberg was concerned about voting on the Kaiser project if a Commissioner used the Kaiser services. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf did not see a conflict of interest, since the Commissioners were a source of income to Kaiser, rather than Kaiser being a source of income for them. PC Minutes -7- December 4, 1991 The six Commissioners present indicated a desire to participate in the field trip. Commissioner Casillas preferred a weekday; Commissioner Martin the weekend; Commissioner Carson preferred Saturdays, except the last Saturday; Commissioners Fuller, Tugenberg, had no preference, and Tuchscher Assistant Planning Director Lee advised the Commissioners that the workshop to be held on December I1, 1991, would begin at 5:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT at 8:00 p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of December 11, 1991, at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. Nancy Ripl~, Secreta~ Planning Commission