Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1999/07/146:00 p.m. Wednesday, July 14, '1999 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Absent: Chair Willett, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Ray, Thomas, O'Neill Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager Ed Batchelder, Senior Planner Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Willett APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 98-06; Tentative Subdivision Map subdividing Village One West of Otay Ranch, Sectional Planning Area (SPA One), into 783 lots. The Otay Ranch Company. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue public hearing to the regular Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1999. MSC (Thomas/Hall) to continue public hearing to July 28, t999. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR 97-02; Consideration of comments on the San Miguel Ranch Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Third- Tier Draft SEIR). Background: Ed Batchelder, Senior Planner gave an overview of land use plan and project history. The San Miguel Ranch consists of two parcels (north and south) and has been at various stages of planning since the mid 1980's. The property was first acquired by San Miguel Partners and the City approved a GDP and EIR in April 1993. San Miguel Partners lost the property in a foreclosure and Emerald Property subsequently acquired the property and commenced further in the planning of the GDP. At that time, various routing scenarios for SR-125 were being discussed and in December 1996 Council approved two alternate Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - July 14, 1999 versions of the GDP for the project that were called The Amended Proctor Valley GDP, which is predicated on a westerly alignment through Proctor Valley and also approved "The Horseshoe Bend", which was predicated on an alighnment through Horseshoe Bend. In March 1997, Caltrans announced that Horseshoe Bend was their preferred route alignment and at that time Emerald Properties moved forward with the SPA plan based on the Horseshoe Bend GDP and that alignment of SR-125. In August 1997 Emerald Properties entered into a conservation bank agreement regarding mitigation for development of the southern parcel; the northern parcel (approximately 1,852 acres) was entirely designated as an open space preserve. In September 1997 Emerald Properties sold the southern parcel to Trimark Pacific Ltd. and has actively been processing a SPA since early 1998. Under the amended Horseshoe Bend GDP, much of the northern parcel, which is designated as an open space preserve, is under the control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is part of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The south parcel (approximately 738 acres) was set up in two different planning concepts. The western area (west of the SR-125 alignment) was to be more of a Iow density community and the eastern area was to more urban-type with more typical single-family detached residential subdivisions and commercial-serving areas to the south. Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager presented a brief history of pdor San Miguel Ranch environmental review. Prior to the Third Tier EIR, there were two prior EIRs certified for the project. The first EIR analysed the impact of developing 357 lots on the northern parcel and 1,257 lots on the south parcel and was certified in 1993. Two addenda were prepared to that document. The first addenda evaluated the environmental effects or refinements to the proposed land use concept. The second Addendum incorporated additional changes to the Plan and mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources. In 1996, Emerald Properties, the former project applicant, redesigned the project and a second EIR analyzed the impact of an Amendment to the GDP and General Plan amendments and the document was certified in 1996. Typically in a tiering process, the first tier EIR addresses broad environmental issues affecting a large physical area associated with a program, plan, policy or ordinance. Successive tiers address project impacts. This EIR is a project level document and incorporates prior EIR's by reference. When the GDP was approved, it committed the City to include County staff in all aspects of the traffic analysis and also required that if there was a circulation element amendment required in the County, that it take place prior to the Council hearing on the SPA Plan. The County has subsequently submitted letters indicating that they are not requiring a circulation element amendment as part of this project. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - July 14, 1999 County staff has participated in all aspects of the traffic study which includes the scope, the analysis, findings and recommendation. A San Miguel Ranch Citizens Advisory Group was formed to provide staff with comments on all aspects of the SPA Plan and on the EIR. The group has been active and meeting on a monthly basis for over a year. Chair Willett expressed concern with the number of letters that were placed on the dais, raising issues regarding the DEIR and that the commissioners have not had an opportunity to review them. John Maddox, with the law firm of Remy & Thoma, explained that the materials that were placed on the dais were received late today. Staff felt it would be appropriate to distribute them to the Commission, understanding that they would not be required to respond tonight, but rather that staff would include them as part of the public input and would be included in the Response to Comments. Mr. Maddox further stated that part of the CEQA process emphasizes informed public decision-making. The purpose of the public hearing is: to receive public testimony, via written letters and/or personal testimony at tonight's hearing close the public hearing which ends the public review period direct staff to proceed with preparing a Response to Comments made verbal and in writing prior to the closing of the public hearing, and to prepare a final EIR. Betty Dehoney, P&D Consultants, stated that the EIR analyzed five alternatives. They are: The proposed project Land use intensities under existing County Land Use designation Reduced grading alternative North parcel/Otay Water District Parcel Annexation, and No project alternative The impact analysis included the direct and indirect impacts of the project, cumulative, significance criteria were established for each issue area in which the project was evaluated, and mitigation measures. Each section identifies the mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring program is provided. The following impacts were identified: Land Use The land use issues were identified as not significant because they were found to be consistent with the previously adopted GDP. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - July 14, 1999 There were significant impacts associated with the landform alteration and visual quality. With 7.5 cubic yards of landform alteration and manufactured slopes, the issue was considered significant and unmitigated. Transporation Impacts Transportation impacts are considered significant both at the project level and cumulatively. A number of different traffic scenarios were analyzed, including full build-out analysis. There are potential issues with the timing of SR-125 and ultimate build-out. The analysis, which was coordinated with the County of San Diego indicated that there is not going to be necessary a Circulation Amendment with the County related to any of the project components. Since there is no funding mechanism for the County to build their roads in accordance with the demand, therefore, the impacts were considered significant and unmitigated because there is no enforcement mechanism for this project to improve County roads. If a funding mechanism is established with the County regarding cumulative impacts to the circulation element, there is a mitigation measure that requires the applicant to provide their proportionate pro-rata share of contribution, There are cumulative impacts with the circulation element outside of the project that are unmitigated. The project will be required to adhere to City threshold standards Air Quality Air quality impacts are considered significant both on a project level emissions and on a cumulative basis. To reduce short-term pollutant emissions during the construction phase, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated in the SPA Plan: Modified combustion/fuel injection systems for heavy equipment during grading and construction. To reduce dust, disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as soon as possible. Trucks hauling fill material shall be covered. 20 mph shall be enforced on unpaved surfaces To control dust raised by grading activities, the graded area shall be watered twice a day. Noise Noise impacts were considered significant and were mitigated to below a level of significance with the incorporation noise walls along the project. Planning Commission Minutes - $ - July 14, 1999 Public Services and Utilities Water, sewage, police, fire, gas & electric, and storm drains were evaluated and no significant impacts were identified that are not mitigable through the standard DIF contribution. Schools have been identified as both project specific and cumulatively significant. We recognize that the applicant is working with the school districts to come to some agreement, but because of a lack of ability to provide enforcement on the City, that impact is still being considered significant and unmitigated through the CEQA process. Parks, Trails, and Open Space The previous EIR for the GDP/GPA concluded that the project would provide adequate parkland and open space, however, development of the community park would require substantial alteration ofthe existing landform on the South Parcel. Implementation of the adopted GDP would significantly impact the trail system because SR-125 would bisect numerous routes of the trail system. This impact was proposed to be mitigated by the following measures: Creation of trails that intersect with the greenbelt in other areas, or Creation or utilization of planned structures (e.g. Mt. Miguel Rd) that would allow trail users to cross over SR-125, which will need to be analyzed at the SPA level. Cultural Resources A testing program, and mitigation monitoring and salvage program were conducted for cultural resources. Paleontolo.qical There is a geological strata on the project site that has a high potential for containing fossils, therefore, there is a potential for a significant impact. However, the standard mitigation measures of monitoring during grading operations will be incorporated into the mitigation monitoring reporting program thereby reducing that impact to a level below significant. Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager reported that the public review for the Draft SEIR began on May 28, 1999 and the State Clearinghouse 45-day review period ended on July 11, 1999. The City of Chula Vista procedures require that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing to receive public comments and the public review period ends with the closing of the Planning Commission public hearing. As stated on the report, the following impacts were identified as significant and not mitigated to a level below significant in the Draft SEIR: Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - July 14, 1999 · Biological Resources (Project and Cumulative) · Landform and Visual Quality (Project) · Transportation (Project and Cumulative) · Air Quality (Project and Cumulative) · Public Services and utilities (schools) (project) Additionally, the following areas have impacts, which will be reduced as a result of mitigation measures. · Noise · Specific Public Services and Utilities (Water, Sewage, Police Protection and Fire Protection) · Parks, Recreation and Open Space · Cultural Resources · Paleontological Resources Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission conduct the public headng on the Draft SEIR (EIR 97-02), close the public hearing and public review period and direct staff to prepare the Final EIR including: mitigation monitoring report, responses to the comment letters received to date and testimony at the public hearings, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Public Hearing Opened 7:07. Stephen Hester, Division President, Trimark Pacific, 85 Argonaut, Suite 205, Alizo Viejo, CA 92677 Mr. Hester thanked the Commission for their time and commended Planning staff, City Attorney's office and the Environmental staff for their diligence and work on this project. Mr. Hester cladfied that they will pay school fees of $1.93 per square foot of habitable space as required by SB-50 and have also committed themselves to ge beyond that work with both Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District to enter into agreements to provide full mitigation for school impacts. The next item to clarify is related to the archeological work on the project. The EIR states that a Reseamh Design would be submitted. The Reseamh was submitted several months ago to the City and the archeology mitigation work has been underway for approximately one year now and is expected to be completed later this Fall. Kathy Wright, Director of Planning for the Sweetwater Union High School District, 1130 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA Ms. Wright stated that schools everywhere have been hard-hit, specifically with new growth. In Chula Vista, that occurs both on the west and east side of town, but fortunately in the eastern territories, there is a mechanism for dealing with and facilitating construction of new Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - July 14, 1999 schools. Since 1984, the development community has participated with the SWD in forming 11 community facilities districts that has resulted in the construction of Eastlake High School and most recently Rancho Del Rey Middle School In the future, there will be two additional high schools and three middle schools in the eastern territories to serve the growth. Senate Bill 50 changed the rules in terms of how school impacts from new development can be mitigated. The development community consensus is that school are very important and they are aware of the inadequacies in the State program which will result perhaps in less than ideal schools in this community. I am pleased to report that the applicant has agreed to mitigate fully, though they don't have to. I have received today a letter from Mr. Hester and he has indicated that Trimark will voluntarily enter into a mitigation agreement with us and that they will agree to a condition of the EIR that says the following: "Prior to the SPA Sectional Planning Area approval, by the City Council, the project applicant shall provide documention to the City confirming satisfaction of Sweetwater Union High District's School Facility Funding requirement to off-set student generation impacts. Compliance with this condition shall be evidenced by the execution of a school mitigation agreement with the Sweetwater District for the formation of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District." Ms. Wright thanked the applicant for their leadership and commitment to the Community and stated that the school district fully supports their project. Steve Bilson, Re-Water Systems Inc., 477 Marina Parkway, Chula Vista gave an informational update on Re-Water Systems' concept as an irrigation system that uses the showers, tubs, clothes washer water for on-site landscape irrigation. We've been in discussions with City staffto incorporate gray-water systems into new developments. The City hired a consultant to investigate this concept and has strongly supported the concept of re-use of recycled water its use. Steve Bilson also recommended that a financial incentive be offered toward a reduction in sewer connection fees. Stanley Waid, Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, 5617 Galloping Way, Bonita, CA stated he is the finance officer for the Bonita Highlands Homeowners association and also the Flooding and Water Chairman of the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association and Co-Chair of Traffic and Roads. Mr. Waid expressed concern with and stated that there needs to be some update on the cumulative impacts to arterial roadways. Additionally, Mr. Waid expressed concern with cumulative impact from eastern Chula Vista developments with regards to flooding in Central Creek. Planning Commission Minutes - g - July 14, 1999 The Bonita Highlands Home Owners Association is responsible for lot 50, which is on the flood plain on Central Creek. We were sent a Violation of Water Ordinance notice and it has cost the HOA approximately $20,000 to date to dig out that flood channel. The HOA wrote a letter to the City Attorney and requested reimbursement out of the impact fees for Eastlake and other developments in the east. We was told that there wasn't any money in the impact fund for drainage problems. Mr. Waid stated that, in his opinion, the cumulative effect of Eastlake, Rolling Hills and Salt Creek and now San Miguel Ranch exacerbates the flooding condition of Central Avenue. The County has stated that it would be cheaper to buy the nine homes in the flood plain than to put in a flood channel. They quoted about 3 million dollars to buy the properties and about 9 million dollars to put in the flood channel. Donald Jensen, P.O. Box 127, Bonita, CA stated he has followed this project since its inception, and he and his wife own and operate a dog boarding kennel adjacent to the property in question. He further stated that he has been vocal with regard to the adverse impacts their business will have to any neighbor that is willing to pumhase a home right next to them. Another area of concern is drainage from the detention basins where the water line is at least 20 feet from the San Diego County Water Authority and then dumping that water onto another private property, which is the BUIE Corporation. They have experienced about a 20% increase in traffic due to the construction of Rolling Hills and they are concerned with traffic impacts from Mt. Miguel Road which will end right at the end of their property. Geodean Jensen, P.O. Box 127, Bonita, CA stated she is on the Citizens Review Committee and is very much aware of the issues related to this project. She reiterated her husband's concerns relating to drainage, traffic impacts and urged the commission to take a good look at those issues which are so-called mitigatable. Phil Gaughan, 455 Rivercreek Ct., Chula Vista, CA stated he is also a member of the Citizens Review Board and he would like to talk about the school area that is going to be a part of San Miguel Ranch. The EIR addresses the traffic that will be lightened for the adjoining areas as far as 2.5 miles away due to SR-125 going through, but it does not address the traffic impacts from the school in the San Miguel Ranch and how the Estancia development, immediately to the south of it, will bare the brunt of the school traffic. The proposed entrance/exit into the school through Proctor Valley Road, a two-lane read is inadequate to contain the amount of traffic the school will generate. It will create vehicles backing up on to Proctor Valley, which will create congestion and more road-rage. Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - July 14, 1999 To state that people are going to drive through Estancia is really an understatement and they're going to speed. The roadways in Estancia were specifically designed narrow with cars to be parked on the roadway to slow traffic down. So now we have a narrow roadway with cars parked in it and speeding traffic. The people of Estancia, (91% of us) have gotten together to say that we need to move the school. We cannot move the entrance/exit; its going to be on Proctor Valley Road. We need to move the school into the development; the best idea we can come up with is next to NP and have the applicant move the homes. Chair Willett Stated he remembered reading somewhere that the committee did not concur with moving the school. Ed Batchelder responded that, in effect, in a July 9t~ memorandum to you from myself stated that this is an issue that Phil has raised a number of months back and when we took the petition, Phil asked at the last Citizen's group meeting on July 8th, that this petition be made aware to the group and that a request be made to the group as to whether they also desired to embrace this particular issue as one of the recommendations that would come formally from the entire Citizen's group. At that meeting, we spent some time discussing Phil's request and the group decided that it did not feel collectively that it was ready to embrace this issue, which they felt was more personal and unique to the residents of Estancia so they opted to not make a formal recommendation on this and simply requested that this issue be brought forward by Mr. Gaughan and the residents through the petitions they have submitted. The school district has not completed site planning in terms of the actual on site circulation and driveways, and whether roads would connect through the site. They are not at that level. What the District has done, when Phil first brought this up, is that they had the District architect look at their new prototype plan that they're trying to use on school sites. Lowell Billings was at the last meeting and we also had a meeting independently with Lowell and Phil to discuss this. The District is saying is that they've changed the way they approach site design. They've learned some things from the experiences that Phil is speaking to that are bad examples out there today. They are understanding these issues in their normal course of their site planning. They would work with the neighborhood and City to look at a more detail level traffic analysis once they've got something nailed down on a site plan. Planning Commission Minutes - l0 - July 14, 1999 Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager clarified that the concept of the tiered document. School site impacts would be addressed at another level. Impacts to the surrounding neighborhood will be addressed when we have a specific plan for the school and would include entrances and exits, and that kind of detail, and would be external to the Final EIR. Stephen Hester stated that the school site is located in the center of about half of the generated population. Only about half of the school population comes from San Miguel Ranch, the rest comes from surrounding areas and a lot of it from Estancia. So where it is currently proposed to be located is in the center of that population area on Proctor Valley Road, which is the most accessible road for that population to reach the school site. I also wanted to add that the current location is consistent with the General Plan Amendment and GDP, which was previously approved in which CEQA documentation was done on this project. The school in and of itself does not generate significant impacts. In addition to that, a large amount of the traffic will be handled through on-site design of the school itself. Cindy Burrascano, Conservation Chair of the San Diego Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, P.O. Box 121390, San Diego CA 92112. Our organization is a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of California's native flora. This project has not minimized impacts to Otay Tarplant (Hemizonia Conjugens) and the species is being placed in jeopardy due to the Iow level of preservation of the species with this project. Ms. Burrascano stated that their lawyer would be filing a lawsuit against U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the County of San Diego and the City of San Diego because of the impacts of this project. If you look at calculations, approximately 31% of the plants on site will be preserved, including the south and north parcel. That means there is going to be 69% take of a State listed endangered species. I would suggest that the existing County land use alternative be approved and the reduced density come out of this area here so that you can increase the preservation level to an acceptable level. I am also a resident of Chula Vista at 771 Lori Lane and have great concern with traffic analyzis that state that there will be Level of Service F on the major freeways at build-out.. Ray Ymzon, Sweetwater Civic Association stated that he is also a member of the citizens review group of the San Miguel Ranch project and I'm speaking on behalf of the Sweetwater Civic Association. The SCA opposes the approval of the Draft SEIR for San Miguel Ranch for the following reasons: Planning Commission Minutes - 11 - July 14, 1999 Transportation impacts, which has already been covered. Air quality Sewage Jo Holehouse a 27 year resident of San Miguel Rd. and am a member of the Sweetwater Civic Association stated that apart from the obvious inadequacies of this report regarding the air quality and the biological resources, transportation, flooding etc. that my colleagues have already noted, I would offer the following: Archeology - I would like to know were any Native American Archeologists consulted any time during that year of mitigation mentioned earlier? Were any artifacts removed, if so, may we know where they removed to? Schools - I don't think that building a school in the proposed site, being built half a mile from the proposed 10 lane toll way is not very conducive to our children's learning. On page 47 of the report was the Reduced Grading Alternative. It says that it has been determined that the implementation of the project would result in significant impacts to land form alteration of visual resources. These impacts are a result of significant amounts of grading to accommodate flat padded areas. The result is being extensive manufactured slopes of approximately 100 feet in elevation. It says that Chula Vista has a hillside development policy, which rd never heard of, Resolution 7088 dated 11/20/73. I'm wondering why this is not being adhered to. What is the point of having it. Commissioner Ray stated that there are limitations as to how much they can build up and to the point that SR-125 goes through. Ed Batchelder stated that we completed the Public Facilities Finance Plan, which is part of the SPA document; there are some phasing-related controls that are presented in that document that we intend to make conditions of approval of the project and I believe that 675 EDU's worth of development can be constructed in this project prior to the time that SR-125 is needed. The general provision has been that the project is going to phase from east to west and there will not be construction in this area nor will Mt. Miguel Road connect through until after the time that SR-125 is in. The 675 EDU's does not even add up to the total amount of development that is in this eastern portion of the project. So there is a phasing limit we've established through subsequent traffic work and that will come forward as a condition of approval on the project. Commissioner Ray asked if that means that Eastlake can build 675 less than what we approved previously on their phasing plan? Ed Batchelder responded, "No". My understanding is that the study that was done considered any other commitments or entitlements that had already been granted regarding the circulation capacity to any other project. We were trying to determine how much of this project could be built before SR-125 was needed. Planning Commission Minutes - 12 - July 14, 1999 Frank Rivera, Traffic Engineer stated that we also have the City's Traffic Monitoring Program and on an annual basis the program looks at the major corridors of the City. The Eastlake area is separated from this one in the sense that the additional analysis that was done by the PFFP showed that after 675 EDU's from this area from the eastem area of this project there would be an impact on the City's infrastructure in the vicinity of this project. That's why that threshold was put in. The Eastlake one has a different analysis and at this point, its through the Traffic Monitoring Program that we're aware of the project's limitations on their arterial streets that they are in proximity to, such as Otay Lakes Road. Commissioner Ray stated that he hopes the Final EIR will address specifically, as opposed to a generic comment, on cumulative impacts, specifically the phasing plan of Eastlake, San Miguel Ranch and as those two compete for development. Mark McGuire, Land Use Counsel to Trimark Pacific Homes, 19900 MacArthur, Irvine, CA 92675 thanked the Commission, staff for their efforts and outside counsel, Remy Thomas and Moose, and John Maddox of that firm. I did want to take a minute to comment on a couple of things. One is the Table 1.3-1 in the Draft EIR. It has language in a number of topics that's slightly different in each instance and I think it would be our view that they probably mean to say the same thing. In particular, if you look at the column for the proposed project come down to the impacts of Landform, Visual Quality, Biological Resources and then Transportation, and on down to Air Quality also; in each of those columns, there are significant impacts and the language then "impacts after mitigation" is slightly different in each case. In one case it says "Significant and not mitigable". In another it says"Significant, not fully mitigable. It would be our view that for each of these, the impact would be significant. We are implementing mitigation, but they're not fully mitigable; things such as landform alteration on a project of this size is almost never fully mitigable, although we have done significant efforts to reduce the amount of landform alteration from the GDP approvals which is discussed in the EIR. Also, on biological resources, we have gone to great lengths to try to address biological impacts. Where it says, "Not Mitigated", I think what's intended there is that we've done everything we can to mitigate those impacts. We have adopted mitigation, but that the impacts aren't fully mitigable. With regard to the Otay Tarplant, we have worked with the resource agencies, our predecessors worked hard with the resource agencies, and we realize that it is a sensitive resource. The preservation of the north was partly for Tarplant, partly for a variety of sensitive resources and then there are two of the large open space areas that have significant concentrations of Tarplant. Those areas have been designated and preserved Planning Commission Minutes - 14. - July 14., 1999 be the panacea for the interior of this City that we might think it is. I want to see less density. I've been around City Hall now, along with Commissioner Willett, since the mid 1980's when we started in Parks and Rec. When we looked at the initial maps that were being drawn a long time ago; by the time we started crawling up the side of the mountain like we're doing, we were thinking a whole lot less density than what we're looking at today. We were thinking large-acre lot estate homes. Now we're talking about a development that is approaching over 1300 DU's. Commissioner Castaneda stated that he too is concerned about all the significant non- mitigatable points that were raised. The issue of treffic is clear to all of us who travel these roads. When the Final Draft comes back, we'll decide whether or not its sufficient, and vote that way. Cmr. Castaneda stated he is also concerned about the landform visual quality element. Although 20% of the grading has been reduced, we're still at 7.5 million cubic yards, which is extensive. Without reducing density, I'm not quite sure what can be done and I'd like to see some kind of analysis on that; I don't think this report really talked about that enough. The other element of concern is the visual impacts that are created by all of the soundwalls. How are we going to mitigate that. I'd like to see this issue address further. With respect to the schools and the issues relative to that; we can talk about it all night, but frankly, the school is an autonomous government entity and they're going to develop the school and design it the way they want to. I would hope, however, and am confident that the developer would be able to get some guarantee that the school districts will incorporate in their school design the issues that were brought up. The drainage also is something that I think we need to look at a little bit further. Another item that was not addressed and would like to know if it is a potential impact is the proximity of the school in relation to power lines and EMF's. Commissioner O'Neill stated he echoes all of the previously stated comments and concerns from the Commission with regards to traffic. The development to the east, whether its Eastlake, Sunbow, San Miguel or the Ranch; they tend to feed 1-805 and then feed through either Telegraph Canyon, Orange, Olympic Parkway, or H Street. Cmr. O'Neill stated that in his opinion, this is a larger issue because, we can do all of the sacrificing that we want, but the fact remains that the City is straddled by the County and City of San Diego. They've demonstrated that they will do as they please, so whatever we do, we need to make sure we're all in the same row-boat. This is a like air quality; it is a regional issue. Chair Willett thanked the commissioners and said he would like staff to follow-up and come back in two or three weeks with a summary, comments, discussion, of the literature Planning Commission Minutes - 13 - July 14, 1999 specifically for that purpose and in fact, for the GDP EIR they've increased substantially. The commitment at the GDP approval and EIR was for 23 acres; we've increased that to 37 acres. The last thing that I would say on that is that the Tarplant is going to need intensive management to preserve. Although the good news is that in a real wet year, like El Nifo, we apparently have more Tarplant out there than they believed. As our additional survey showed, they assumed maybe 200,000 Tarplant on our site. In a good year, we have actually close to 2 million in the same general areas; a robust population just after El Nino. The Tarplant is going to need affirmative management preserve and we are committed to doing that. Without it, the Tarplant would be worse off even if the project wasn't implemented. Public Hearing closed 8:25. Chair Willetts asked why on the Agenda Statement, "Schools" was not included as an issue along with Biological Resources, Landform, Transportation, Air Quality, John Maddox responded that it was left out by error. The EIR does disclose that the impacts to schools are considered significant and unmitigable because we recognize that the fees do not make up for short-fall. Commissioner Thomas expressed great concerned with traffic and the Levels Of Service. I just completed my two year term of GMOC, and the concept of what they're going through is also to find out if the City of Chula Vista or Council is going to support the threshold standards. Another concern Commissioner Thomas has is with drainage. Commissioner Ray stated his primarily concern is on traffic and Levels of Service, as well as the school issue. He then urged the Commission to take a very good look at the cumulative impacts of what's already been approved and what's coming forward because SR-125 "is not going to cut it". Commissioner Hall stated that the prevailing word at tonight's hearing has been "mitigation" and in his mind, when we continue to hear the word "mitigation", it ought to raise red flags because it tells us that there is something going on and we need to proceed very carefully. I would like staff to address the word "mitigation" in terms of lesser density, the next time around. I want to know what lower levels of density, what we have to get to to mitigate a lot of these problems because I don't think that they're going to be easily achievable without this developer doing flips, twists, and turns. Cmr. Hall further that we've approved so many things down the road that we're not even sure of what the ultimate results of that is going to be. We can have all of these rocket-science traffic studies we want, but I'm not convinced SR- 125 is going to solve the forthcoming traffic problems and the toll road is the not going to Planning Commission Minutes - 15 - July 14, 1999 that you gave to us tonight. I would also like staff to consider issues brought up tonight with regards to the school, come drainage, and traffic. Also, I would like to see more discussion on the drainage problems on Central Creek get more involved with the County to come up with a permanent solution to this problem and cleaning of the creek. Chair Willett called for a motion. Commissioner Castaneda MSC (Castaneda/Ray) (6-0) that the Planning Commission close the public hearing and the public review period and direct staff to prepare the Final EIR including the Mitigation Monitoring Report, Responses to Comments, letters received to date and testimony at this hearing, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration. Motion carried. Commissioner Ray asked what would happen if we don't want you to develop the Final EIR? Barbara Reid responded that if you want to vote on the project ultimately to approve the project, then you need an EIR that has been certified prior to doing that. John Maddox stated that there is an obligation that once you've put a Draft EIR out for public comments, it then needs to be brought back to the Planning Commission and at that point in time if the Planning Commission vote is to not recommend to the City Council or some other action, that is certain within your discretion to do that. Under CEQA the City does have an obligation to prepare a Final EIR and to respond to comments. Ann Moore stated that the Planning Commission is advisory in this regard. Basically, what John Maddox is saying is that the process needs to be finished and when the Final EIR comes forward, if you feel appropriate, recommend that it not be certified by the City Council. Call for vote on motion. ADJOURNMENT at 10:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1999. Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission