Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/11/13 MINOTES OF A CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CHULA VISTA, CALJFORNIA Tuesday, November 13, 1990 City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CAKL: PRESENT: Commission members Carson, Cartmill, Casillas, Fuller, and Chairwoman Grasser-Horton ABSENT: Commission members Decker and Tugenberg 2. PLEDGE OF .~I.I.I~GIANCE 3. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairwoman Grasser-Horton explained that the meeting would run concurrently with the Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting. Mayor Cox informed the public that staff was available to anyone needing spanish translation. Commissioner Cartmill tendered his resignation from the Planning Commission effective November 15, 1990 due to his recent election to the Sweetwater School Board. He thanked the City Council and the Planning Commission for the opportunity to serve the City. City Attorney Boogaard stated he would give a legal opinion to any member questioning whether they had a conflict of interest regarding the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. Commissioner Fuller stated that her home at 523 Welton Street and business at 1063 Third Avenue are within 1,000 feet of the Redevelopment Project area boundaries. She did not feel that the value of her properties would be increased by $10,000 or more. City Attorney Boogaard responded that the FPPC ruled there was a conflict of interest if it is within 300 feet, it must be shown that there would be no financial effect on the property. Due to the 300 foot proximity of her property to the boundary, he recommended that Commissioner Fuller abstain from the proceedings. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None 5. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-90-08, SOUTHV~ST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator, informed the Commission that there was a modification to the Statement of Overriding Considerations which adds a paragraph #6 dealing with air quality impacts. Deborah Fricher, staff consultant, gave a brief overview of the review process which has now been completed and the project. The Planning Commission needs to certify the final EIR and take action on the Redevelopment Plan and transmit the report and recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council. Following certification of the EIR and approval of the Redevelopment Plan, the appropriate CEQA Minutes November 13, 1990 Page 2 findings must be made and a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be made. John Bridges, Cotton Beland & Associates, presented the final EIR and reviewed the six areas of impact. All impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant with the inclusion and implementation of mitigation measures included in the environmental impact report, with one exception, air quality. It is considered to be mitigable but can not be reduced to a level less than significant. It is a cumulative impact, as it is a regional problem and not tied solely to the redevelopment project or the City of Chula Vista. He also gave a brief overview of comments received on the EIR. They recommended that the Commission approve the recommendations as presented by staff. Commissioner Carson questioned what type of survey had been conducted in order to designate a 'blight area". Frank Spevacek, Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc., responded that a parcel by parcel survey was done to document those conditions as defined by the California Community Redevelopment law that clarifies blight within a project area. There is full documentation of the survey results and conditions found in the field listed in the Agency report. Councilwoman McCandliss questioned which comment(s) were the most significant in adding to or changing the EIR. Mr. Bridges responded that comments received from the San Diego County Office of Education were felt to be significant. The method by which mitigation for redevelopment projects is arrived at, in most cases, is an agreement between the taxing agencies for distribution of the taxing increment. A preliminary agreement has been reached with the County and therefore many of the comments do not pertain to the situation as it now exists. Antonio Castro, 158 Zenith, Chula Vista, California, stated he was the only member of the Montgomery Planning Committee that was against the Redevelopment Plan. He questioned the incremental tax set-aside and expressed his concern over the County having to make up any shortfall and the burden it would place on those residents. He also expressed concern over restrictions that would be imposed upon the businesses within the redevelopment area as well as the numerous non-conforming businesses. The area should not be considered as a "blight" area and the plan should be reconsidered. Carlos Flores, RSG Consultants, replied that negotiations are required by law with each of the taxing entities. The County negotiated very hard but did acknowledge that part of the area was considered, prior to annexation, to a redevelopment area. The County will continue to receive the 2% inflation increase as per Proposition 13, which is part of the pass through agreement. It is anticipated that at the end of the forty years, the plan will have been successful with property values increased in the area. The Specific Plan notes that the area does have industrial/commercial properties which generate high taxes. Because the area is already developed, it does not have the means of financing improvements and takes action such as a redevelopment area to do this. It has been the intent of staff and the Agency that it would not change the development process other than have the redevelopment Agency review projects for the area to insure that they are consistent with the plan. John W. Stump, 2413 Shamrock, San Diego, California, representing Otay Land Investment Corporation, stated their concern was the width of the redevelopment area along Main Street. He felt that once the project was approved the result would be that all properties north of Main Street would become non- conforming due to set backs. They were also concerned over the owner participation, and the denial of anyone with non-conforming property. If Main Street is widened, all properties would become non- conforming which would exclude all those property owners from participating. He asked that the real Minutes November 13, 1990 Page 3 impacts be looked at and how many of the properties would become non-conforming and who benefits from the participation program. Mr. Spevacek, replied that the Redevelopment Plan does not set land use policy. That policy is set by the General Plan and Montgomery Specific Plan. Redevelopment law and owner participation guidelines are specific that every property owner and business tenant must be provided an opportunity to participate in the redevelopment program notwithstanding the status of the property they are occupying. The plan does not deny owner participation rights for non-conforming uses. MSC (Casfllas/Carson) Planning Commission cert/fy Final Environmental Report EIR-90-08 has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered information on the final environmental impact report even though there remains one unmitigable issue of significant impact, air quality, ff the City Council wishes to approve the project, a statement of overriding considerations will be issued for Sections 15093 and 150126.B of the State CEQA Guidelines, approved 4-0-3 with Commissionem Decker, Fuller, and Tugenberg absent. 6. REPORT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, CERTIFYING PLAN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, AND TRANSMITTING THE REPORT TO THE AGENCY AND COUNCIL MSC (Carson/Ca~,,,;ll) to approve the resolution and further recommend approval of the Redevelopment Plan and certify its conformance to the City's General Plan, approved 4-0-3 with Commissioners Decker, Fuller, and Tugenberg absent. 7. CONSIDERATION OF CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS - EIR 90-08 MSC (Carson/CarrmiIl) to adopt the CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, approved 4-0-3 with Cornm;esionem Decker, Fuller, and Tugenberg absent. 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT 7:27 P.M. to the Regular Business Meeting of November 14, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: Vicki C. Soderqu~st, Deputy ~ Clerk