Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/05/22 Tape: 319 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, May 22, 1991 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Grasser Horton, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, Fuller, Martin, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid, Contract Planner Gray, Associate Planner Barbara Reid, Planning Consultant May, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, Traffic Engineer Rosenberg, Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Grasser Horton and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Grasser Horton reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting of April 24, 1991 MSUC (Decker/Carson) 7-0 to approve the minutes of April 24, 1991, as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- May 22, 1991 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING; RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, CITY OF CHULA VISTA LCP RESUBMiTI'AL NO. 8 AMENDMENT: EIR-89-08 Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam stated that the Commission would be receiving public testimony on the Recirculated Draft EIR for Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No. 8. She reviewed the background of the Draft EIR and the reasons for recirculafion. The Recirculated Draft EIR was issued for public review on April 5, 1991. Comments had been received from the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Environmental Health Coalition, along with additional written comments submitted by the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the State Clearinghouse. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested that the deadline for acceptance of comments by the City be extended until May 23, 1991, to allow them to respond. Ms. Putnam then introduced Christine Keller of Keller Environmental Associates. Ms. Keller provided an overview of the modifications to the EIR which had occurred since the Planning Commission heating on the original Draft. She noted the proposed LCP No. 8 revised the existing LCP as follows: .designation of Sweetwater Marsh Wildlife Refuge, concentration of development in the Mid-Bayfront, and increase of the overall land use intensity and building heights over the current allowance through the certified LCP. Ms. Keller noted the new information included comments and responses to the comments on the original Draft EIR, new technical data and design standards, revised applicant's project termed Alternative 8 in the Recirculated Draft EIR, a new public comment alternative termed Alternative 9 in the Recirculated Draft, and a re-analysis of impacts of both the new information as well as a further refinement of impacts to distinguish between plan level versus project level impacts. She proceeded with a more detailed description of the alternatives and their impacts. Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam requested extending the comment period, with the concurrence of the applicant, specifying that it only be extended to receive the Fish & Wildlife Service comments. All other comments would be concluded following the close of the public hearing. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Laura Hunter representing the Environmental Health Coalition, 1844 Third Avenue, San Diego, said they were concerned about the characterization of pesticide use within the project. She submitted an additional article from the Daily Transcript on data gap and pesticide evaluation. She said that even if the pesticide is EPA registered, it still may not be safe and could be a problem for neighborhood wetland areas. If the project moves into the project EIR stage, the Coalition hoped that some larger mitigations would be incorporated. A water reclamation facility could be considered as another water source for the lagoon, since that would still be an issue; passive and solar energy use; a reduction of dependence on the automobile would all help PC Minutes -3- May 22, 1991 to reduce the negative effects to the environment from this project. She said the effect of high density and toxics use on the bay was still a primary concern for Environmental Health Coalition, and she asked that the statement which appeared in the first EIR which read ~Since potential for contaminant discharges cannot be estimated at this time, the impact is considered to be significant and unmitigable" be reinstated. The Environmental Health Coalition would support the certification of the EIR if the language on pesticides was changed, as recommended in their letter to the Commission, and if the projects named in their letter were added to the accumulative effects to be evaluated. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, speaking on behalf of Crossroads, said he was outraged at the category called "significant and not mitigated at the plan level" which implied the problem could be corrected later on. He felt it should be stricken from the EIR; either it was mitigable or was not. Mr. Watry was concerned about the school situation, and also questioned the method used to determine traffic impact and if they took into consideration the trolley gate. Commissioner Tugenberg said that one of the letters regarding the high school or the junior high school said that the applicant would purchase vacated land adjacent to the junior high school and high school to add to the schools. Matt Peterson of the law firm of Peterson and Price, representing Chula Vista Investors, said they had no objection to extending the comment period through Friday for the Fish & Wildlife Service to submit their comments. He requested that the final EIR be brought back before the Commission at the first meeting in June. Commissioner Carson asked about the negotiations with the School District and which property around Chula Vista Junior and Chula Vista High School the applicant would be buying. Mr. Peterson said he did not have that information and it would be available at the next meeting. The public hearing was then closed, exclusive of receiving comments from the Fish & Wildlife to May 24, 1991. Chair Grasser Horton directed staff to include the information presented in finalizing the EIR. PC Minutes -4- May 22, 1991 ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: A) RECERTIFICATION OF EIR-89-10, RANCHO DEL REY SPA III B) CONSIDERATION OF WATER CONSERVATION PLAN FOR RANCHO DEL REY SPAs II AND III; C) CONSIDERATION OF AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR RANCHO DEL REY SPAs II AND III; D) PCS-90-02; REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 404.9 ACRES KNOWN AS RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA III, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 90-02 LOCATED BETWEEN EAST 'H' STREET AND TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD, IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF RANCHO DEL REY SPA I, RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP E) CONSIDERATION OF RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA III DESIGN GUIDELINES; F) CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR EIR-89-10, RANCHO DEL REY SPA III; G) CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED CEQA FINDINGS FOR EIR-89-10, RANCHO DEL REY SPA III. Associate Planner Barbara Reid stated the Final Supplemental EIR was certified by the Planning Commission in November 1990 and by Council in January 1991. Since the recertiflcation of EIR-89-10 should occur prior to the tentative subdivision map being adopted, staff recommended that the Commission recertify the EIR. Staff also recommended that items 'f' and 'g' (the Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Amended CEQA Findings) be continued to correct inconsistencies in the Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program, to incorporate a staff meeting with developers which had been held and to be assured that the EIR consultant agreed with those changes, to incorporate more specific language from a recommendation from the U. S. Fish & Wildlife regarding the gnatcatcher protection, and ascertain that the CEQA Findings as a result of these amendments reflect those. Ms; Reid noted that a letter had been received from a resident west of the proposed project who was opposed to development in the area; it was the Planning Department's opinion that it had been dealt with at the time of SPA Plan approval. Planning Consultant May discussed briefly a memo which had been given to the Commission regarding the air and water plans, the tentative map, and the design guidelines. She stated the applicant had submitted to the Commission a letter stating their opposition to any amendments to the water conservation plan. Ms. May noted that City Council had directed the zero net increase in water use. She also said that an outcome of the air quality improvement plan PC Minutes -5- May 22, 1991 prepared for SPAs II and III was the suggestion of the park and ride facility to help limit individual car trips and to encourage carpooling and bus ridership. The Transit Coordinator had identified the need for a facility near the intersection of East "H' Street and Paseo Ranchero. The developer is being required to provide the improvements for that facility. Ms. May stated the applicant was opposed to the park and ride. Staff had discussed this further with the applicant and recommended that condition no. 5 be moved to the agreement section beginning with Condition no. 55 and be modified to require the applicant to enter into an agreement to provide the facility. The precise language would be approved by the Transit Coordinator. Staff recommendation was that the Commission take action on items 'a' through 'e' and provisionally approve the project, pending the final action on items 'f' and 'g', the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Modified CEQA Findings which would be brought back to the Commission at a later date. Commissioner Casillas asked for clarification of the impact of the policy statement on water conservation going to the City Council, and why it was going to them after the Commission met on the project currently before them. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered that from staff's perspective and in fairness to the applicant, this was the first project which had been required to come forward with an air and water plan. In terms of timing, staff felt it was important. A memo had been provided to Council advising them of staff's intent to move forward with a proposed outline of a program for water policy that would be before Council on June 11. The Commission's recommendation on this particular water program could be as definitive as the Commission wished. Staff suggested consideration of the zero net increase as a condition. While this project could be held until the Council moved ahead with their policy, staff didn't feel that would be equitable. Commissioner Casillas felt the City would want to develop a good policy statement that applied to everyone as to how to handle the water conservation. Ultimately, the policy statement may come up with information that may not be valid to a particular applicant. Assistant Planning Director Lee concurred. He said that including the condition of the zero net increase would allow the applicant to proceed, and if the Council wanted to soften that posture, they would have the opportunity to do so, or to qualify their approval for the applicant to come back to have another opportunity to comply with an overall City policy. Commissioner Fuller asked if the staff's recommendation on the water policy had any input from the County Water Authority as to a broader perspective of how our City's plan would tie into a regional policy. PC Minutes -6- May 22, 1991 Contract Planner Gray responded that there had not been the opportunity by City staff to explore that with the County Water Authority at this point. The objective would be to coordinate any kind of water policy that the Council may wish to pursue in Chula Vista with the County Water Authority, Otay Water District, and Sweetwater. The Interagency Water Task Force had been established with membership including the City, Sweetwater and Otay to provide that kind of thrust and coordination on the water issue. Commissioner Fuller suggested that staff use that approach in the presentation to Council. She felt if the zero net increase and water policy were to be imposed on developers in our area, the same restrictions should be imposed on other developers throughout the County. Commissioner Decker asked if the policy hadn't fully evolved at the Council, how could we ask the applicant to abide by it. Assistant Director Lee said it was the Commission's choice. The applicant had presented a water conservation program, and staff was making a recommendation that the zero net be applied. It had been requested by Council, but the Commission was not required to take action on the plan. Commissioner Tugenberg asked about the equation for retrofitting. Planning Consultant Gray answered that the technique was to reduce everything to gallons saved. Parks and Recreation could calculate how many gallons of water could be saved by particular sprinkler heads, moisture sensing type of irrigation system, etc. Commissioner Tugenberg was concerned with the sites selected for the park and ride, and why East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero was chosen over the other suggested sites. Transit Coordinator Gustafson said the primary reason Paseo Ranchero was one of the areas chosen was because that location and the location to the west at Terra Nova Drive were two major access points from Rancho del Rey to East "H" Street which would be a major corridor for transit service. He explained why some of the other sites were not suitable. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there was consultation with the applicant. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered that there had been consultation, but he thought the applicant was looking at other options. Discussion followed regarding the potential sites which could be used, and the security offered by them. Commissioner Casillas felt Condition 57 was ambiguous. Commissioner Carson asked if there would be some kind of adjustment to the developer if they developed one place, and had to redevelop another place. PC Minutes -7- May 22, 1991 Assistant Planning Director Lee answered there would be. The applicant would not be required to develop two sites. Commissioner Martin commented about the church area being designated. He thought one of the things Council wanted to do everything they could to have a multi-use parking area. Commissioner Tugenberg suggested the Pilgrim Lutheran Church as a candidate for the park and ride facility. Transit Coordinator Gustafson said they were flexible. If an arrangement could be worked out with the Church, it would make an ideal candidate because the parking lots are normally not utilized during the week. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, representing Rancho del Rey Partnership, objected to Conditions 5 and 57 dealing with the park and ride facility. They did not object to their fair share obligation to meeting the needs of the park and ride facility, is committed to its air quality plan, and the air quality provisions moving forward through the County system would be a good idea. They objected to a finite location being established for a park and ride and believed further study was necessary to arrive at an area that could be more optimally located to serve a larger area. A development impact fee may be the way to equitably share and spread costs for these types of facilities. In addition, the applicant was opposed to the timing. They also objected to Condition 57, and the zero net increase. He requested a workshop allowing the CIF and developers to participate in a forum to discuss what the County is doing, and what other water solutions might be available to help the City Council arrive at a water policy. He believed any commitment that sought a zero net increase in their project in absence of that policy was inequitable. He requested that the discussion of the water conservation plan, mitigation monitoring, and air quality plan be deferred until Council policy was prepared and committed to. He asked for approval of the tentative map, recertification of the EIR, and approval of the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Fukuyama what his position was regarding the zero net policy. Mr. Fukuyama answered they would prefer not to have the zero net increase applied to their project, independent of a City-wide policy that would enact that. Commissioner Casillas asked what impact the rebate program might have. Would it be encouraged more in certain parts of the City. Mr. Fukuyama thought it would. He read a letter from the Construction Industry Federation as their statement of what was ongoing. PC Minutes -8- May 22, 1991 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Decker asked that the air quality improvement plan be revisited after an agreement had been reached between the applicant and staff. MS (Tugenberg/Carson) to continue the item until such time as the City Council defines its policy regarding the zero water increment. Commissioner Decker asked him to clarify. Commissioner Tugenberg said it would be item 2 in its entirety. Commissioner Decker asked why they needed to exclude 2a and 2d and 2e since they seemed to be rather straight forward and had nothing to do with water policy or agreement to set up a par and ride facility. Discussion ensued as to whether to delay the whole project or just the air and water conservation plan. Commissioner Tugenberg felt condition 57 was inequitable. Assistant Planning Director Lee suggested modifying condition 5 as proposed by Planning Consultant May that prior to the first final map an agreement be reached with the applicant; condition 57 could be excluded. The final agreement could be brought back for ratification by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Carson said that if Mr. Lee's wording was included for condition 5 that there be an agreement reached before the final map was accepted, condition 57 would be deleted. She agreed with that. The whole thing could go ahead and be processed. Commissioner Tugenberg withdrew his motion and Commissioner Carson withdrew her second. AMENDED MOTION MS (Tugenberg/Casillas) 7-0 that the Planning Commission accept item 2(a),Co), (c), (d) with the deletion of condition 57 and the rewording of condition 5, and (e) contingent upon the Planning Commission's subsequent approval of (f) and (g). Assistant Planning Director Lee asked if there was a particular statement or direction the Planning Commission wished staff to carry forward to the City Council when the map moved forward, or if they desired to have those plans brought back before the Commission after the Council had adopted a policy. PC Minutes -9- May 22, 1991 The Commissioners asked that the plans be brought back; Commissioner Tugenberg said he would like to see the Council make every effort possible to expand this program into a countywide or regional program; Commissioner Carson said she believed in zero net increase. Commissioner Decker said he would like some workshops opened regarding air and water. Commissioner Tugenberg was concerned that if the credit for off-site retrofit is to be only in the General Plan area, there may be a time that the City would run out of retrofit in order to accommodate the new housing. Assistant Planning Director Lee concurred that it was a real issue. Commissioner Casillas asked if it was conceivable to develop a plan that gave credit for saving water outside the City limits; could there be a program where someone outside the City could sell their credits to the City--similar to a tax credit. Mr. Lee agreed it could possibly be done, and had been done between districts. Commissioner Decker requested that the Commission revisit the Air Quality Improvement Plan as soon as there was some kind of reasonable agreement between the applicant and staff. Ed Elliott, Executive Vice President of Development Engineering for McMillin, said he was currently serving on several committees involving the water issue. The Governor's plan was to study water marketing; find the sources; move them around the state through their system; and develop a credit system. He went on to explain some of the other issues involved. He asked that they be allowed to get into the workshops to get some of the issues on the table and regionally solve the problem. ITEM 3: PCC-91-05: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RELATING TO A CONDITION OF APPROVAL REQUIRING DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THIRD AVENUE AND 'L' STREET FOR THE PROPERTY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT INTERSECTION Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that with late discussion that afternoon it had been determined that the item was part of the City Ordinance and was not an item for Commission discussion. It had been discussed further with the applicant, who had asked that the item be filed. The applicant will follow up by discussion with the Engineering Department. PC Minutes -10- May 22, 1991 Assistant Planning Director ~ advised the Planning Commission that on Monday, June 10, at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers, the Council would be discussing budgets of the various Commissions. The Commissioners or the Chairperson could attend the meeting. If they had any questions or desired a special meeting, they should contact staff. The Commissioners felt the budget should be increased for conferences. They also felt staff should be able to attend the Planning Commission conferences. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Lee reported that their next workshop in June would include a discussion on grading issues and contour grading, and some examples. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Casillas asked the status of the workshops regarding service stations, to check the adequacy of the service being provided. He also felt the issuance of liquor licenses should be reviewed. Commissioner Martin said he had talked with Chief Winters regarding the sale of liquor at gas stations, and Chief Winters felt there was no problem. Commissioners Casillas and Martin asked that the liquor problem be addressed, possibly involving ABC in a workshop. Assistant Planning Director Lee said a workshop could be held; he would need to check with the Attorney's Office regarding the involvement of ABC. More input could be obtained in writing from Chief Winters, then a determination could be made regarding a workshop. Commissioner Tugenberg advised the Commissioners that the Joint Jurisdictional Task Force would be meeting the next day regarding the Otay Mesa. Commissioner Decker noted there would be an airport hearing the next week in the Council Chambers. Commissioner Decker asked that Assistant Director Lee inform the Commission if the Council held a workshop on the subject of water policy. Mr. Lee informed the Commissioners there would be a forum with the developers tentatively scheduled for June 4 at 1:30 prior to taking the item to Council. The Commissioners were welcome to attend. PC Minutes -11- May 22, 1991 ADJOURNMENT AT 9:10 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of June 12, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ey, Se~retar~ Planning Commission (PCMIIqS-22-91)