The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-09-22 PC MINS MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 22, 2004 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALLI MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Absent: Madrid, Hall, O'Neill, Castaneda, Hom Cortes, Felber Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Director of Planning and Building Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator Steve Power, Environmental Projects Manager Jim Hare, Deputy Redevelopment Director Marni Borg, Environmental Projects Manager John Mullen, Deputy City Attorney III PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Vice Chair Madrid ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Sunny Chandler, 442 F Street, Chula Vista, addressed the Commission and stated she was concerned with wanton spending and inquired why is what appears to be a perfectly good City Hall building being demolished. Steve Molski, stated he had two issues to address; the first one being that he is opposed to putting residential development on the Bayfront. Secondly, he would like to see a concerted effort to repaving of the older streets in western Chula Vista. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR 04-05; Close of Public Review Period for the Espaiiada Environmental Impact Report. A verbatim transcript has been prepared of the public testimony and is available under separate cover. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: a. Consideration of the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact report (EIR 04-06) for the Otay Ranch Village Seven Sectional Planning Area (SPA) and Tentative Maps. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - September 22, 2004 b. PCM 04-05; Consideration of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and supporting regulatory documents including Planned Community District Regulations, Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan and Affordable Housing Program involving approximately 303 acres between the future extension of La Media Road and the alignment of SR-125, south of Birth Road, within the Otay Valley Parcel. c. PCS 05-09; Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map for a portion of Otay Ranch Village Seven Sectional Planning Area Plan. d. PCS 05-07; Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map for a portion of Otay Ranch Village Seven Sectional Planning Area Plan. Jim Hare, Deputy Redevelopment Director reported that McMillin Otay Ranch LLC submitted an application requesting approval of a new Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan associated regulatory documents for Village 7. Additionally, Otay Project LP submitted and application for a subdivision comprising 105 acres of Village 7 of Otay Ranch, while concurrently, McMillin Otay Ranch LLC submitted an application for a subdivision comprising 163 acres of Village 7 of Otay Ranch. Mr. Hare presented an overview of the proposals as submitted in the staff report. Marni Borg, Environmental Projects Manager reported that in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Second Tier EIR, CEQA Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the Otay Ranch Village Seven SPA Plan and Tentative Maps. Ms. Borg gave an overview of the content of the Final EIR and stated that the Final EIR contains responses to comments received during the public review period. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt resolutions recommending to the City Council:: . Resolution EIR 04-06 certifying that the final Second-Tier EIR for the Otay Ranch Village 7 SPA and TM's has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; making certain findings of fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. . Resolution PCM 04-05 approving Village 7 SPA Plan and supporting regulatory Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - September 22, 2004 documents including the Village Design Plan, Water Conservation Plan, Non- Renewable Energy Conservation Plan and Park, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan. . Adopt an Ordinance approving Planned Community District Regulations in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. . Resolution PCS 05-09 approving Tentative Subdivision Map in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, and . Resolution PCS 05-07 approving the Tentative Subdivision Map in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commission Comments: Cmr. Hall stated that a lot of faith has been put into the success of SR-125, and it has been his experience in speaking with people, that although studies may show the road will be used, the average citizen feels that the toll is going to be a disincentive to its use. Cmr. Hall further inquired if there was another alternative, or mechanism in place that ensures that construction is halted if SR-125 doesn't work and the major arterials are over-loaded. Dino Serafini, General Services Engineering Division stated that all of the SANDAG traffic models he has seen show that with the completion of SR 125, the traffic on the arterials that feed into SR-125 are reduced. Mr. Serafini also stated that the GMOC process has thresholds in place and is a means by which to gauge how construction is impacting traffic and roadways. Worst case scenario; should it be determined that they've reached unacceptable levels, the City Council would have the option of imposing a building moratorium. Jim Sandoval clarified that the GMOC is an annual process that measures, among other things, traffic. Furthermore, there are several villages and commercial development yet to be constructed and it takes a couple of years for each of these villages to build-out, therefore, we're not going to see much development between now and October 2006 when SR-125 is scheduled to open. Worst-case-scenario, if after a year or two after SR-125 opens, the GMOC threshold is reached, then at that time, the City Council would have to make a determination as to what happens in terms of future development. Cmr. Castaneda inquired what is the remaining number of units yet to be constructed before reaching the 8,990 unit cap. Mr. Serafini responded that approximately 2/3 of the units are left to be built. The components (1-805/0Iympic, H Street and Telegraph Canyon) of the monitoring agreement is not complete until these three traffic enhancements are completed. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 . September 22, 2004 Cmr. Castaneda further asked what was the process for revising the threshold standards. Mr. Serafini responded that he was not aware of any process for doing that. Cmr. Castaneda stated that he recalls this being a topic of discussion a while back, and that there is a provision in the environmental document that states that if the City Engineer were to determined that the levels of traffic or congestion were either resolved or insignificant, then he could allow the thresholds to be changed. Cmr. Castaneda also recalls that if any changes were to occur to the existing thresholds, it would require a public hearing in order for this to be done. Mr. Serafini responded affirmatively that that is still the case. Furthermore, there is a condition of approval in the mitigation measures which states that the City will not allow any units to be built in Village 7 until SR-125 is constructed between SR-54 and the international border. Cmr. Hom stated he was actively involved, co-chairing the efforts to bring SR-125 to fruition. He further indicated that in spite of knowing that this would be a toll road, there was a lot of support from the community for the construction of this roadway. Cmr. Hom stated that ridership on SR-125 is critical to future development since it is envisioned to bring traffic relief and avoid overloading other major arterials, therefore, he put forth the idea that perhaps the developer would be willing to purchase the pass/transponder for the toll road for new home-buyers. Public Hearing Opened. Kathy Tanner, Sweetwater Union High School District, stated she was present to express their support for the Otay Ranch Village 7 SPA Plan because this completes another step in the process for opening High School #13 in July of 2006. She urged the Commission's approval of the plan. Todd Galarneau, McMillin Company, acknowledged staff's efforts and hard work on this project. Mr. Galarneau stated that the need for a new high school in the Otay Ranch came up in the Spring of 2003 when the City was holding the high school siting committee hearings. During those hearing the McMillin Company offered to deliver a high school site complete with utilities and infrastructure if the City could expedite the SPA Plan for Village 7. Over the last 15 months they worked extremely hard with City and District staff to development the SPA Plan and Tentative Map that is before the Commission this evening. Mr. Galarneau further stated that, had it not been for the extraordinary and continuing effort and commitment to achieving that goal, this SPA Plan would not be on schedule and before the Commission at this time. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - September 22, 2004 Mr. Galarneau wished to clarify the condition stating that Village 7 does not get any building permits until SR125 is built all the way down to the international border. Mr. Galarneau indicated, however, that this condition is caveated to allow them to take advantage of a couple of opportunities. One is; if there is an early opening of SR125 to Olympic Parkway, and they can provide a traffic study that demonstrates that it does provide the necessary traffic relief on the arterials, then they would be able to request building permits. Secondly, if other alternative measures were to be identified by the City, i.e. additional improvements that might provide additional capacity, changes to the GMOC thresholds, or subsequent building agreement; if anyone of those measures were to come up, then they would have the ability to take advantage of those as would any other development coming in. This would not preclude them from opportunities that are available to others, just because McMillin is coming in early in the process. Public Hearing Closed. MSC (O'Neill/Hom) (5-0-2-0) that the Planning Commission adopt resolutions recommending to the City Council:: . Resolution EIR 04-06 certifying that the final Second-Tier EIR for the Otay Ranch Village 7 SPA and TM's has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; making certain findings of fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. . Resolution PCM 04-05 approving Village 7 SPA Plan and supporting regulatory documents including the Village Design Plan, Water Conservation Plan, Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan and Park, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan. . Adopt an Ordinance approving Planned Community District Regulations in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. . Resolution PCS 05-09 approving Tentative Subdivision Map in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, and . Resolution PCS 05-07 approving the Tentative Subdivision Map in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT at 9:35 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 2004. Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission Planning Commission September 22, 2004 Verbatim Transcript of Public Testimony Close of Public Review Period for EIR 04-05; Espanada Project Terry Thomas "My name is Professor Terry Thomas and I'm a teacher of Microbiology at Southwestern College and a homeowner for over 20 years, a resident of southwest Chula Vista and very proud to be a member. I'm speaking for myself this evening, although I have been serving two four-year terms on the Resource Conservation Commission. Our co-chair person will be representing the RCC to you this evening. I would like to focus my 2.5 minutes on a couple of issues that may not be addressed by others that I find as not represented in this EIR. Its one of the poorest EIR's I have ever seen and I don't say that lightly, yet it would have one of the greatest impacts on our City. Those specific things will also be addressed by the statements that come from the RCC. However, I would like to reflect on a couple of things that stand out. One of them is addressing and mitigating the impacts of the traffic and impacts on the members of the Pacific flyway. In the introductory remarks of the EIR they state that the MSCP will not be impacted in anyway by this project, and on the surface you might assume that that may be the case since it is in the urban part of western Chula Vista, but in fact, if you are talking about a 15 or 16 story building that will have a number of reflection surfaces as well as other kinds of chemical as well as other attractions that would definitely interfere with both our native as well as out migratory visitors that use the Pacific flyway and they contribute to the importance of our habitats through the Pacific Rim area and especially along the Californias, South America and North America. I would also like to address another issue that may not be addressed by others, and that is, safety. I would also like to add that this EIR address whether or not this City could take care of a catastrophic event that may occur on such a high building at this time. If we had a fire or if we had some other kinds of catastrophe occurring in the upper floors. I speak in reference to my mom who lived for many years in Congregation Towers and they had a number of things that closed down their single elevator and she had to walk up and down. There were things like that, that we should avoid. I cannot address anymore, my time is out, but I could say that it also needs hydrology, the two floors are underneath the ground, are parking. Are they at the water table. Things like that also need to be addressed. I hope that when you vote on the adequacy of this EIR, that you vote that it is not adequate. Look at the other lower alternatives that have other impacts and then do not approve this. Thank you." Page 2 Teresa Acero - "My name is Teresa Acero and I live at 3730 Festival Court in Chula Vista. I would like to ask the Planning Commission to take a vote on this and to vote to ask that it be withdrawn at this time. Because what is very important in CEQA is cumulative impacts and there is no way that they can be fairly evaluated until the Urban Core Plan is done because nobody knows what is going to happen in that area at this point. In not doing that, obviously what would have to be adopted would be the lower impact alternative or leaving the zoning the way it is; at least for the time being until the Urban Core Plan is completed. There are way too many unmitigatable impacts that have been mentioned already in this EIR. Things like: community character, shading, traffic, parking. So please consider that tonight. Thank you." Susan Stoltz - "My name is Susan Stoltz, 333 Roosevelt St. Our concerns as far as the traffic with this project when we built our properties on Roosevelt St., we have five properties on that one block. We had to follow certain guidelines that were asked as far as off-set and parking. We ask that those things are inconsideration for this project as well. And when we did build our properties, we did get awards from the City of Chula Vista for the best properties, and this is for the whole entire City, not just the block and we take pride in our community and to keep it that way. Thank you." J. Peterson - Yielded his time to Patricia Aguilar. Lupita Jimenez - "I'm going to run just a little bit over time; I'm not yielding my time, but I'm going to speak as a South bay Green, rather than Crossroads II. I'm a member of both of the groups. My name is Lupita Jimenez and I reside at 1134 Arbusto Corte, I've been here 20 some years. I'd like to refer to the Expanada Specific Plan EIR in the Section entitled Public Services and Utilities, and that's 4.10 , where SDG&E indicates that adequate gas and electric supplies are available to meet the future needs of this proposed project. As a sidebar to that statement, I'd like to tell you that SDG&E is busy seeking approval for additional electricity transmission lines and poles to be brought north and west across our City. These towers, instead of carrying 138 kilo volts of power, they are going to be required to carry 230 kilo volts of power and that is almost a 40% additional load. This extra transmission capability is not before you at this time, but I do want to make you aware of huge conditions, such as public health and public access, which will impinge seriously upon out city. We ask that Expanada be built "green". By that I mean, the buildings are tailored to the site, to local climate and to the culture and community surrounding it in order to reduce resource consumption, while enhancing the quality of living. You might say that this is a new concept, but it is not. However, it has become increasingly important in the last 10 to 15 years. Sustainable design lessens the harm poorly designed buildings cause by using the best of proven building approaches in logical combinations with the best of new technological advances. Page 3 From the drawings in the Specific Plan, it is obvious that the buildings are not sited properly to be called "green". The ultimate goal is to make buildings that are net producers of energy, food, clean water and air, beauty, and healthy human and biological communities. The overall goal is to build buildings that take less from the earth and give more to the people. Green buildings are cheaper to heat, cool and light. They produce less pollution, are more affordable because they lower utility bills and are healthier to live and work in. Thus, developers can use the principles of sustainability to distinguish their products in the marketplace to save money and to waste fewer resources, all the while, doing their share to conserve the environment. I won't list the many ways that developers and builders can do this, but we ask the City of Chula Vista, in the future make the sustainable principle a bedrock requirement for future development in the City. Yes, we want buildings that save water; yes, we want buildings that promote economic development; yes, we want buildings that reduce pollution; of course we want buildings that protect the environment. Consider that every living system on earth is in decline. What are we handing down to our children and our grandchildren. Our American Indians respected their environment and realized how important it is to their existence. They had a saying, which has come down to us; "we do not inherit the world from our forefathers, no; rather, we have borrowed it from our children". I urge you to require sustainability in future buildings and to use the leeds silver-rating as the floor, not the ceiling for your standards. Thank you." John Chavez - "Good afternoon, I'm John Chavez and reside at 377 Del Mar, Chula Vista. I'm here in my capacity as vice chair of the Resource Conservation Commission. When we heard this matter on September 13, there were a few things that we wanted to be sure got transmitted to the Planning Commission very clearly. One of which was a motion which unanimously passed the RCC which recommended that this EIR and project be coordinated with the Urban Core Specific Plan. By coordinated, the sense of the RCC was that the Urban Core Specific Plan is so close behind us and is so influential and has so much impact and relates to this project so heavily, that by just a short amount of time, we felt that this particular EIR and project was being rushed just a little bit too much and should perhaps for the Urban Core Specific Plan to be completed. In another action on this EIR, that same day, we further adopted a motion recommending that the reduced density alternative of 7 stories be adopted as the preferred alternative; that is in lieu of the two each 15 story buildings. Just in closing, the RCC has had a few discussions amongst ourselves during the meetings. We are trying to interact more closely, particularly with the Planning Commission, since we both hear EIR's and we both interact on projects. We intend to have this kind of dialogue and communication in the future and I extend an invitation for you to do the same. Once in a while , the DRC and the Parks and Rec also fall in that category. Any questions?" Page 4 Cmr. Hall - "You asked to coordinate the EIR with the Specific Plan. Were you given an answer back from staff in terms of the legal do-ability." John Chavez - "I believe the staff recommendation; correct me if I'm wrong Marilyn, was that the appropriate place to do that was for us to voice our opinion and our feeling on that matter at this hearing, in that this is the public hearing on the draft EIR. So we did not take it beyond that." Cmr. Hall - "So I will ask the City Attorney. Sir, based upon their request to have a coordination of the EIR with the Urban Core Specific Plan; is that legally do-able?" John Mullen - "I'll have to apologize; I'm familiar with all the specifics of the Urban Core Specific Plan, but what I can say is that that comment will be responded to in the Response to Comments in the Final EIR that will be back before you." Francisco Flores - (Translation is from Spanish to English). "After all of the problems that this project can create on Roosevelt Street, because of the smallness of the streets, which an accident has occurred in front of my house; yet, in spite of that, according to the communication I have from the owner of the proposed project, he wants to take away my house and put me out on the street. Mr. Jim Pieri sent me a person who called himself, something like an associate of his or the project. This gentleman, his associate, offered me $450,000. So, Mr. Ned Rose told me that I had to sell him my house, my property that is a triplex on 364 Roosevelt, and he told me that he was paying me a very good price as commercial property. So I investigated and they told me that it wasn't worth what he was offering me. He told me that he didn't know anything about residential real estate, only commercial. Later, he came with a letter that was sent from Mrs. Laurie Madigan stating that I had to sell my property and that that paper is eminent domain and you have to sell me your property. So, at that time, I got mad at the gentleman and I paid more attention because he handed me a letter from the City of Chula Vista. So, I asked him to put everything in writing. Later he told me that he would be my representative so that I would sell him my property, and since I didn't want to sell it to him for $450,000 he said he was going to take it away from me anyways, not through eminent domain, but through condemnation. These problems that this gentleman is causing me, I try to get help from someone in the City and no one answers my questions; there is zero information being given to me, nobody knows anything. I spoke with the assistant to the City Attorney and she said she didn't know anything about this project. I'm talking to Mr. Crocket and all he tells me is that I have to convince the City Council why I don't want to sell my property and that the project needs my property. So, what I want to know is, how is it possible that just because the project owner wants my property, that I'm being obligated to sell it to him, and what's worse, is that they are trying to pay me below market value. I just want to state that this project is one which the City is only trying to benefit the developer of this project. They are trying to pressure me and this matter has caused me to have health problems because of the pressure I'm in and I've been told this by my doctor. Page 5 Steve Castaneda - "Mr. Flores raised a lot of issues. Much of what he's talking about is about the situation with respect to the attempt to purchase his property. However, when he opened his remarks, he talked about the impacts of the project, which is specifically related to the EIR that we're talking about tonight and he talked about the impact of traffic on the streets and the fact that the streets are too small to handle the levels of volume that would be generated by this project. He raised a lot of issues of how he was approached and how he was offered whatever to purchase the property. I think that's very interesting and I think that staff should respond to that, but that is not germaine to EIR and perhaps Mr. Flores should seek out a meeting with our Redevelopment staff and talk about those issues outside of this action. Cmr. Hom - "From what I guess he feels like he's being pushed out of his property; was that pretty much what his statement entailed?" Cmr. Castaneda - "Again, I think that that was a lot of what he was talking about, but again, this is an Environmental Impact Report meeting and I think the Redevelopment personnel should deal with Mr. Flores and address his concerns. If there are those issues flying around, then obviously the City needs to know about it and deal with. I don't think that that would be handled in the Environmental Impact Report, but the traffic issues would and the fact is that we have dangerous situations and there have been accidents there and that may be exacerbated by the development of this project." Mr. Flores - "Its just that Mr. Crocket just keeps telling me to go before the City Council, in other words, its just for them to take my property away. No one wants to listen to this problem; no one wants to hear me. Since three months ago they send me letters from the City to let me know. I'm facing this problem and no one wants to help. Mr. Castaneda, this is a problem for me and no one wants to here me out. All I want is that you hear me out." Lorna Barrett - Lorna Barret, 181 Halsey, Chula Vista and thank you for this opportunity. I've lived in Chula Vista 50 years and its always been home and lived downtown. I had the opportunity to go to two meetings, one right after the other, which was interesting: the RCC mtg. Which was about the EIR and then we ran across the street to the Urban Core and spent two hours with the remote controllookin9 at, "is this better or is this better, or do you like this or that. After I went home, I couldn't sleep. I won't way I was depressed, but I was kind of in shock over several things. One, I really appreciate all of the interest and all of the areas of Chula Vista because having lived here 50 years; I went to elementary school across the street; went to Hilltop when it was a brand new high school. All of downtown third avenue had everything. It had the hamburger place, it had the youth. You could go to the park and rec and they had the dances. They had a jewelry store; they had everything from nice stores, and it was all downtown. Then the mall was built, which hurt downtown. As I then saw this plan for two 15-story complexes and then I sat through and we spent two hours looking at a nice selection of low-rise/high-rises for all of the different areas; for the downtown, the midtown, the south, east and west. Then I though, why do we need two 15-stories when they want to develop all of these areas. All the plans were nice and they want to move Page 6 people and businesses into them. I kept thinking that evening; how big are we going to get and why do we have to do it straight up and not out like they're planning with the different areas. It was overwhelming at the ideas; different areas are definitely in need of improve, but to put two 15-story towers; we need parks in this area. If you're going to be taking something down then I would ask that they put in some parks for the people and families. I think its fine to put multi-housing units and mix them with businesses, but I think that's terribly over-stated to do two 15-stories in downtown. The traffic can't take it, H Street can't take it. Thirds Ave. can't take it. What about the airplanes; I know the birds are in the path, but some of the helicopters are too." Earl Jentz - My name is Earl Jentz and live in Chula Vista for about 30 years with my wife and we have a real estate office at the corner of Third and G St. We own two apartment buildings next door to the proposed project and there are four things I would like to comment about the EIR. The first is that we agree that the bulk and height of the proposed buildings would create a significant unmitigated impact and we would recommend that there be a maximum height of 100 feet for each tower. We also agree that the proposed traffic circulation and access would have significant and unmitigated circulation impacts. We would recommend that the property that faces H Street where the towers are located, that the traffic would be directed on to H Street instead of Roosevelt St., leaving the 16 town home units to exit on Roosevelt. We do not agree with the City shadow analysis. If you turn to page 13; our property is just to the east of the pan-handle and you can see how impacted it is. I don't believe there was a shadow or shade analysis done of the new town homes to the west of us, which are definitely taller than our buildings. So the cumulative impact of the shade and shadow analysis isn't there and even if the properties are only partially shaded, it would impact any possibility of solar generation and also the quality of life for the units and for the occupants. The next item that we do not see anything in the EIR. We had send a letter to Steve Power on July 8th talking about a recorded drainage easement over the property next door. I didn't see that addressed. On pg. 444 of the Appendix it states that the only flows generated on-site will be treated. All off-site treatment flows will be the responsibility of upstream owners, but we do have a recorded easement that we do have drainage access across that property. So for those reasons we would like to recommend that the EIR is not complete and to get those items addressed. (Members of the audience forfeited their time to allow her to speak for approx. 15 minutes). Patricia Aguilar - "Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, Patricia Aguilar representing Crossroads II, 262 Second Avenue, Chula Vista. First let me thank all of the people who yielded their time to me so that I can speak on behalf of our organization. First I have a question for the City Attorney. Apparently based on what I Page 7 understand, your options today are limited, but I notice that you barely have a quorum here to day. As you can see, this is an issue. The project itself, as well as the EIR is an issue of great interest and concern in the community, and I wanted to ask the City Attorney if it would be permissible given the fact that there is barely a quorum, for the Commission to continue this hearing on the close of the public review period until a later meeting when a fuller representation of the Commission would be present. Is that allowable. John Mullen - "The Planning Commission has its discretion to vote to continue the public hearing if it so chose. You should note though, that under the California Environmental Quality Act the public review period for the draft EIR is only suppose to be for a period of 45 to 60 days, absent unusual circumstances. The term "unusual circumstances" is not clearly defined in the CEQA Guidelines and there has been no case law that has been specifically interpreted that phrase. Unless you were to find unusual circumstances I would recommend against continuing the hearing beyond 60 days." Cmr. Castaneda - "I'd like to ask a follow-up question. What if this body were to determine that based on testimony and our own review of the document that it was either inadequate or, shall we say, not accurate and there is a need to amend the EIR so that it does provide accurate data to the public." John Mullen - "Commission Castaneda the proper procedure would be for the comments to be received tonight and to allow City staff to be able to respond those comments. Now, the response to the comments could take several forms. It could take a written response to the draft EIR. It could also take the form of a revision to the EIR which would be presented to you in the Final EIR. So, really the proper way is to take the oral comments tonight and allow the City staff the opportunity to respond to the comment and then you can decide at a future public hearing whether you believe that response is adequate or not in your decision to certify the EIR or not." Dan Hom - "But the public hearing closes today, so there is no future public hearing after this, right. I'm a bit confused because I thought that the close of the public hearing would just happen automatically and that we wouldn't have the option at that point to continue or not. I think there was a little confusion; Pat, I think we worked on this for a couple days early this week. That's where I think I need a little clarification because from my understanding I thought that basically the close of the public hearing just happens; we take all the concerns from the public. At that point, the Final EIR comes to us whenever the next scheduled meeting is, and at that point, we as a commission vote on it or we continue or we an even re-circulate the document at that point." John Mullen - "Everything you said is correct. The question that was posed was whether you could vote to continue the public hearing and my response to that is that you have your discretion to do so, but I would recommend that you not do it passed 60 days, so I believe today is the 45th day of the public review period." Page 8 Patricia Aguilar - "Thank you for that answer; then I have a request for your. I would submit that there are unusual circumstances here and I'll explain exactly what they are and my request to you is that given that we are now at 45-days and it apparently must close in 60 days and you do have the option to continue the public hearing; I would argue, ask, request that you do continue it to a future meeting 15 days from now and then close the public hearing at that point. Now, the unusual circumstances that I would like to call to your attention that I think justify this. First of all, is the fact that you have a bare majority here and again, this is such an important issue that it deserves hearing by the full commission unless there is someone who needs to recuse himself, who won't be named. We feel that the draft EIR should be revised and re-circulated. We feel there are major flaws in the EIR that have the public a misimpression about the project and we don't feel that simply incorporating comments and then in the Final EIR and then certifying the Final EIR will do the trick. Here's the reason. This EIR was available at the library for public review. According to the EIR, 140 people are going to be displaced by this project. They were notified that the EIR was available at the public library for public review. We have no idea how many of these 140 people went to the public library, read the draft EIR, which states that those people who are displaced by this project will get relocation assistant; read that in the EIR and said, "oh, okay, I'm going to be displaced, but I'm going to get relocation assistance, so I'm fine." These people will never find out that that information was wrong because staff does not have their names, so they won't get copies of the Final EIR and they will be lulled into a false sense of security about their own personal futures. So we believe that #1, you should continue the hearing until you have more members here at least for another 15 days, and secondly, we understand that on the issue of re- circulation we understand that you cannot direct staff to re-circulate the EIR. That if you feel it should be re-circulated all you can do is recommend that to Council and then Council would have to make that decision. However, you can make your opinions made know to staff. You can make a recommendation to staff without directing them. And we, Crossroads II, want to go on the public record today by making a recommendation to staff, a request to staff, that given the community concern about this project, given the flaws in the EIR that staff, on its own volition take the initiative to go ahead and re- circulate and we hope that you will join us in that recommendation to staff. Now, what are these major flaws that we think are so important that we think that it needs to be re-circulated: 1. The EIR states, as I mentioned before, that the City will implement a relocation assistance program for the people who are displaced. It states in the project description of the project and also states it in the chapter in the EIR on population and housing. If fact, this is incorrect. No relocation assistance will be provided to these residents. Again, we believe that this has lulled people into a false sense Page 9 of security. We think that needs to be corrected and have it go out for public review and noticed once again. 2. The EIR states that the project will provide parking in accordance with Title 9 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Again, this is incorrect. The applicant has requested in the Specific Plan that the City allow a program for what's called "shared parking". Meaning, that elements of the operation, like the office buildings and the restaurants that may have different hours may be able to share the same parking. Now, that may be a good idea or a bad idea. The point is that it is not analyzed in the EIR and so for the public to come to a conclusion as to whether or not this is a significant impact or not. It deserves to b analyzed and the EIR conclusion that the project parking is in accordance with Title 19 of the Code is simply incorrect. There is nothing in Title 19 of the Code that allows for shared parking. So, this is another incorrect statement and again something we think another reason why the document should be revised and re-circulated. It doesn't have to be the whole document; just the parts that are incorrect. 3. The third reason we believe that re-circulation should take place is that under the CEQA guidelines, the lead agency, the City, is required to re-circulate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR. So I've just given you two points of information: 1) there will be no relocation assistance program, and 2) although the EIR states that parking will be in compliance with the Municipal Code; it is not in compliance with the Municipal Code. 3.) Has to do with an alternative to the project that the EIR did not address. The CEQA guidelines defines significant new information to include, "feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others analyze that would clearly lessen environmental impacts of the project" All right, there is a feasible alternative or mitigation measure that is different than those previously analyzed, that would clearly lessen the environmental impact. That feasible alternative is having traffic access the project from H Street instead of from Roosevelt Street. The EIR concludes that there is a significant, unmitigatable impact on Roosevelt Street resulting from this project. So this is an alternative that could eliminate that mitigation measure that is not analyzed in the EIR and should be. So again, not analyzing a mitigation alternative that would avoid a significant impact is a reason under the CEQA guidelines for are-circulation. So I'm not making a legal argument here; we're not lawyers, we've read the guidelines, we've read the EIR and we're just doing the best we can here. I'm making a request to staff that given all of the issues and concerns about this project that they just take it on their own volition to re-circulate. And I'm asking you Commissioners, given these issues, to continue the public hearing until you can have more commissioners here and to agree with our request and make your own request, not a direction, but an informal request to the staff that given the community concerns and issues that they take a second look at the EIR, make some changes to it and re-circulate it for further public review. I think I didn't use up my full 15 minutes, but I appreciate your patience and I'd be happy to answer any questions if there are any. Thank you." Page 10 Cmr. Hall - "What was the notification process to the residents in terms of, given the enormity of the project, was there any attempt to do a workshop on the EIR?" Marilyn Ponseggi - "The workshop would be in the form of the public hearing that we have this evening; that's the provision that our Environmental Review Guidelines provides for making comments. Our environmental review guidelines for the City also states that other than this meeting, any other comment must be in writing. So this is the opportunity for oral comments" Cmr. Hall - "So we leave it on the volition of individual residents to go down and get a copy of the EIR and make their own determination." Marilyn Ponseggi - "There was a scoping meeting prior to the preparation of the EIR at which time the project was discussed and people had the opportunity to bring up issues that they felt needed to be addressed in the EIR, but its important to keep in mind that we have CEQA guidelines, we have our City Environmental Review Guidelines that layout a very specific process for how an EIR can happen and what our environmental review guidelines call for is for public testimony on the EIR to come in through this process." Cmr. Hall- "What is the scoping meeting and when was that held." Marilyn Ponseggi - "Steve can give us the exact date, but the purpose of the scoping meeting is to invite other public agencies as well as the public to come forward and let us know of issues that they see potentially with the project, that they would like to see addressed in the EIR. Unlike the comments that come in on a draft EIR; scoping meeting comments are not specifically responded to. They are taken in; if you'll look through the appendices you'll see that the responses to the scoping meeting are in there and those are all considered in the preparation of the draft EIR. Unlike these comments that when they come forward they are actually specifically responded to in the Final EIR." Cmr. Hall - "Now, residents were invited to the scoping meeting, you said?" MP - "It was on June 30th; its my understanding there were about 50 people that were there." Pat Aguilar - "Mr. Hall, if I could comment on that that. The question you asked was, was there a workshop. My vision of what a workshop is that its sort of a give and take and exchange and sort of informal exchange. Nothing like that has happened with regard to this project. The scooping meeting is simply a formal meeting, kind of like this one, where the staff sits down, people make comments, there's no response, no questions are answered and they say "thank you very much for your comment." That's it. So its not a workshop in the definition of the term. There have been none on this project." Page 11 Cmr. Hall - "Given the enormity of the project, would it have been prudent on the part of staff to maybe have a workshop where you can roll this out and have as a Ms. Aguilar just said, have a little give and take on it. Because again, you're dealing with a lot of technicalities, a lot of language that the average person on the street is not familiar with. In other words, the burden of putting that back on the residents to even try to begin to understand, you look at the thickness of the information we get; we struggle ourselves. I'm wondering, wouldn't it be prudent to do something like that. Marily Ponseggi - "It is important to note that the Community Development Department is going to be holding a series of workshops in the neighborhood on the project, prior to the project coming back to the Planning Commission for consideration. So that's an appropriate time for the community to come forward and to have give and take on the project itself. And, whereas, I recognize what you're saying about the complexity of an EIR, the issue as far as CEQA is concerned for the EIR, not project, is the adequacy of the document. Unfortunately for someone to be able to comment on the adequacy of the document, really needed to have looked at the document. We can have workshops with them; we can speak in generalities as to what's in the document, but CEQA calls for a determination to be made by the decision-makers on the adequacy of the document, which really is a very separate decision on whether or not the project should be approved. I'm just not certain how we could do a workshop to walk through the EIR in the way that you're discussing. I'm more than open to looking into that; I just don't know that we could do it." Cmr. Hall - "I appreciate where you're coming from on that and I also appreciate where Pat is coming from. My concern is that I just feel what I'm hearing is that the residents are kind of at a disadvantage on this part of the process because of the technical nature of the CEQA requirements to understand everything that goes into one of these reports. The average person on the street is not going to sit down and run down to the Chula Vista Library, pay $35 to read this thing through and come back down here and make some type of half-educated comment. I my conundrum here is I'm wondering why we're going through all this. If you're going to take their comments it seems to me that on the one hand then there has to be some form of help to educate them in terms of what this thing is about. I understand you are stuck with what CEQA calls for. This is not a clean process." Marilyn Ponseggi - "I recognize what you're saying; we're bound by State law and that's part of the problem that we have." Steve Power - "One point I'd like to make quickly is that staff has been readily available to answer anybody's questions and our phone number and name is there and people where to go and ask. We did have several questions so we explained as well as we could when people came in." Steve Castaneda - "I've got a couple of questions; one for Marilyn and one for the attorney. I want to go back to the adequacy issue. Ms. Aguilar has raised a couple Page 12 of issues where she contends that information contained in the document is not accurate. Specifically, I've seen the comments on the resident relocation assistance and then also the fact that the project parking requirements are consistent with the City Municipal Code. What is your comment to her comments regarding the fact that that's not the case." Marilyn Ponseggi - "Considering what this hearing is for this evening, those are comments that we will respond to in the Final EIR." Steve Castaneda - "Marilyn, I'm asking you to answer the question whether or not those comments that she made are accurate. And the fact is that there is no relocation program anticipated and that the fact is that the project does not meet the Municipal Code's minimum standards for parking. Those are two very simple questions." Marilyn Ponseggi - "Commissioner, we're not prepared to respond to those questions." Steve Castaneda - "So what I'm saying then is that this document is tantamount to false advertising because the bottom line is, that if this is the only document that's been circulated in the public, where the public can come in and look at what exactly this project will mean to their neighborhood, and if in fact we're saying we can't even tell them what's in the document is true or accurate; I agree with Cmr. Hall, what's the point of this process. And the fact is, I think that's an extraordinary circumstance where we need to really look at the adequacy of this document and decide whether or not we should put the truth in it and re-circulate it. So that's all I really want to know and maybe the attorney can comment." John Mullen - "Maybe I can just add a little bit of perspective. The main purpose for tonight is to receive these comments, to allow staff to research them, to evaluate them and to respond to them, to come back then when the project is considered on the merits for certification of the EIR. If at that point, you determine that the responses are inadequate, that the EIR does not serve its informational purposes as required under CEQA, then your option is to not certify the EIR." Steve Castaneda - "I think we're working with a double-standard here because remember quite clearly; the City of San Diego when they were looking to expand Brown Field and there was an analysis done to that environmental document. It was proven that there was incorrect and just plain wrong information contained in that document. The City of Chula Vista requested that the City of San Diego amend that document and re-circulate it. So I'm really having a problem as to why the City would ask for somebody else to do something and then when we've got internal projects where we're willing to essentially just gloss over it and answer something like, "well, what we told the public is not really true, but we'll tell the truth now." So that's where I'm have a problem and that's where I think the conundrum is with respect with this process because its cock-eyed. It doesn't make sense. This is a Page 13 draft document; people should have access to the accurate information and if they don't have access to the accurate information, then it should be made accurate and should be put back out to the public for comments that relate to what exactly is going to occur on this project; that's all I'm asking." emr. Horn - "I'm trying to understand this and get my hands around this; I'm not a CEQA expert, okay. This is a draft and what we're trying to do is get as much input as we can so that the City and the staff has the ability to answer the questions, correct?" Jim Sandoval - "Maybe I can handle this one; first maybe just to speak a bit to Cmr. Castaneda's comments as well. As you know, as a veteran commissioner, all of you are actually, we brought numerous EIR's to you, so I know you're probably more familiar with this process than the public in general is. Its always a challenge that everybody has all the information that they need. A second comment as to information being correct or not; staff would never knowingly bring you information that we believe is false. We would take forward what we think is accurate and I think the fact that we've had a good turn-out tonight shows that the process works. This is a good process. What will happen, as the City Attorney has pointed out, and I think what you're asking Cmr. Hom in regards to processes is that we will take all of this information that is gathered tonight and respond to it. If we determine, based upon the information provided by the public, that the documents need to be amended, that will happen. What will happen next; when this project comes back to you, it will have all of that information in it and you'll get the project and you'll get the environmental impact report as well. Now that evening, you'll be asked to determine whether that document is adequate or not and if you look at that document and you feel we have not: a) accurately responded to all of the potentially environmental impacts, and b) not adequately responded to the input by the public, you have at that point the opportunity to say to us, "look, you guys needs to take this back and take another look at it." So that's the way the process works and actually from staff's perspective, this is really what we want to see; this is good to see the community out and expressing these concerns and I'm sure you feel the same way." Kevin O'Neill - "Kevin O'Neill, 621 Del Mar, Chula Vista. Quickly, I don't think you can look at this project just as itself; I've never seen this project depicted with the adjacent Gateway project on the same map and the same thing. As you'll remember, as a condition of approval, this body has an intersection at essentially Garrett for Gateway alone, which would in my mind the optimal way of handling the traffic internally and not using Roosevelt, which is only 27 feet from curb to curb with permanent no-parking on the north end of that street. As a private citizen I think we need to look at this from a planning standpoint in context with both gateway and Espanada. We wouldn't do it with the Bayfront and we insisted that we actually look at the City's planning and the Port's at the same time because it only makes sense. Now, as a landowner or homeowner on Roosevelt, I own 372 Roosevelt and then on the north side directly across the street I have 377 and 381. The traffic really affects me because the gateway to this project is the adjacent property from 372 just to the Page 14 east of that. The condominiums; that's just an artifice in order to use Roosevelt as the driveway. The number of units that you have there certainly isn't necessary to make this larger project work. More importantly, the units that I have just built, that are almost complete; I built as energy-star buildings (tankless water heaters and all of that and I, in fact, put a large flat roof section on that with mansard to accommodate photovoltaic). Now if you were to look at the shadow profile; I'm in shadow through morning through lunch in the winter and less so in the summer, but that puts to my photovoltaic efforts on this and also put these units in the shadow. One of the mitigation measures for the unmitigable traffic impact is that the north side from the entry all the way down to Fourth, that the parkway goes away and then that puts all of those houses with a 20 foot setback and a 5 foot monolithic curb. Roosevelt looses its street trees, it looses its parkways, it looses much of its character only for the convenience for a project that is on H Street. So I have concerns how it affects all of my properties; those are parochial concerns, but valid concerns. You're not going to do anything about it tonight, but I need to continue to make the record. I've got concerns with the height and the shadow and I have concerns about the traffic and the impact to Roosevelt and, again, I don't think we can look at this as separate. They don't want to look at it as separate for parking. What are the issues that we are going to consider is that if they are going to share parking between Gateway parking structure and the retail and the residential in Espanada, you may find that Roosevelt is closer than the other parking lot. So we have to look at it holistically. Finally, and I probably won't be the most popular person here; this is a draft and part of that draft is that this is where you make the corrections to it and the only way you get to, one, that this group can take an action on and either throw it out or say it fails dismally, or whatever it is, or even address how it affects the impacts, is to get passed the draft and get to the permanent document. So there is an interest in re-circulation because of the 148 people who may have been lulled into a sense of security thinking that they are going to get some relocation help, but that could also be taken also with a targeted letter to those exact people that are at-risk and an invitation to come in and have things explained to them. If those units on H were to be condemned, then there would be some relocation, but if it is not condemned and if the developer requires just through the marketplace, then my understanding is that there is no assistance. It is different on Roosevelt because Roosevelt is not in redevelopment and there is no way that I know that anybody can compel someone on Roosevelt to give up their property for this project or any other project. In order to move this thing forward, you may want to consider all of this; its known its out its going to have to be addressed. Accept this now and then look at it seriously when it comes back; does it have flaws, are they mitigated are there changes. And I say this being literally in the shadow of these monoliths that I think the next step is to accept it and then come back with a final EIR." Steve eastaneda - "Marilyn, we're being asked to close the public hearing; let me as you about the procedure. Is the Planning Commission the certifying body or are we just advisory to the City Council." Page 15 Marilyn Ponsegg - "The Environmental Review Guidelines for the City require the Planning Commission certify every document and in this case because the final decision-maker is the City Council, you would also be making a recommendation to City Council. So you would be taking both actions." Steve- "So in other words what you are saying is that if for some reason we find something with the document that we believe to be flawed or whatever, we could actually at this body to make a decision to send it back to do whatever we felt, or would we have to just provide our recommendations to the City Council in terms of a resolution and send it along" Marilyn - "You can take an action not to certify and then recommend to the City Council that they not certify. Your action would not in itself stop the process; it would then go on the City Council." Steve - "Irrespective of what we call the process; we are clearly advisory to the City Council." Marilyn - "Well, you are charged with certifying the documents, so you are a recommending body for the entire project, including the EIR, but you do have the decision before you when the project comes forward, whether to certify the document or not certify the document." Steve - "I'm still trying to understand what the impact of that is because what you said is if this body for some reason decided not to certify it and it would still go to the City Council and it would be certified and adopted." Marilyn - "That is because the City Council in the case of this project is the final decision-maker on the project." Steve - "Okay in other words, irrespective of what we call the process, we're merely advisory to the City Council." John Mullen - "Chula Vista has very unique procedures with respect with the processing of environmental review documents. For instance, this hearing tonight is not called for in CEQA. There's nothing requiring......" Steve - "Right, we know that the City Council has already been asked to remove this process." John Mullen - "But I believe that, if for instance, you chose not to certify the EIR and recommend that the City Council not certify; that would be reported to the City Council in the staff report and it would be reported as that you did not certify the document. The City Council would ultimately have the decision to certify or not." Page 16 Steve - "Well, its sufficient confusing, but the bottom line is, what I'm saying is that we are advisory to the City Council, irrespective of whether we have certification powers or not, because the City Council can override what we do here." John Mullen - 'That's correct." Dan Horn - "The certification part of it with the document, doesn't really have anything to do with close of the public hearing because we need to close the public hearing before...and take the input...staff responds to the items. Following that response, at that point we can make the recommendation to say we like it or we don't like it. Is that correct?" John Mullen - "Correct. With the close of the public hearing, the public review period is over. Now, I should say that staff has to make responses to all of the comment made tonight and those responses could take many forms and if significant new information is added to the EIR, that could or could not trigger an obligation to re-circulate it. So the fact that there's not a decision made here tonight to re-circulate, doesn't end the question. If significant new information is added, pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, that could trigger the obligation to re-circulate." Dan Horn - "And from my understanding, again, from CEQA it's the public hearing goes anywhere from 30 to 60 days and in the beginning when the process happens in the public hearing, you can choose within that timeframe, and that's why we chose 45 days how that determination came?" John Mullen - "45 days is when EIR are submitted to the State Clearinghouse, so again a requirement of the State CEQA guidelines." Dan Horn - "Now once it hits 60 days, automatically the public hearing would have to stop by law, or does it never hit 60 days." John - "CEQA provide that the public review process should be anywhere from between 30 to 60 days, absent unusual circumstances, but just to be clear, we've said many times, with the close of the public hearing tonight, the public review process would be closed absent re-circulation of the document. " Dan - "So what you're saying is that exactly kind of like what Cmr. O'Neill had said; that starts the ball rolling so that we can actually, it pushes us to make the decision." Vicki Madrid - "Could we close the public hearing and request the re-circulation of the EIR." John Mullen - "You can close the public hearing, but an EIR cannot be re-circulated unless significant new information is added to the document. So really the process that would flow is: staff would make the responses, if the responses included significant new information and triggered the obligation to re-circulate, then staff Page 17 would need to do that. Now, then the document would be brought to you and if you felt that that process was inadequate, you could choose to not to certify and recommend that the City Council do the same." Pat Aguilar "May I make a few more remarks for a minute. On the issue of re- circulation, we recognize that you have the option to close the public hearing tonight and then staff will respond to the comments and when the document is brought back to you, you can make the decision, which would be when the project is brought back and at that time staff has prepared responses to all of the comments, including responses to our comments on re-circulation. At that point you could make a decision whether to re-circulate or not. Seems to us that it would be advisable for staff, again, on its own volition to go ahead and re-circulate now, because if it responds to all of the comments; you've got the final document before you, you've got the project before and then you decide you really ought to re-circulate, the process is extended out even longer. So it seems to us to make sense to urge staff given the flaws in the EIR to go ahead and re-circulate now, which in the long run will actually save time." Dan Hom - "I think to re-circulate they would first need your input and then based on answering the questions of what was inputted this evening tonight, then they could make the determination to re-circulate, if that was to be done. Is that correct." Marilyn - "That is correct if in fact during the preparation of the responses it is determined that significant new information has been brought, there are new impacts that weren't identified or impacts are worse that were previously identified, then we would re-circulate the document." Dan Horn - "So when I look at it in simple terms, I look at it and say that the close of the public hearing is what starts the process to get these questions answered and to make a determination on whether we circulate, whether the EIR is bad, whatever that may, but the close of the public hearing is how that happens, correct? Steve Molski - "Steve Molski, 677 G Street. I read that EIR, the whole printed version and I went bleary-eyed looking at it. You've got a relocation assistance paragraph, but its extremely vague. What does that mean. It should be spelled out. Relocation assistance doesn't mean a thing; it means you could hire a truck, spend $1000 to move and the City will say, "we'll give you $10". That's your relocation assistance. Its got to be much more clear than it is. Its too vague. Secondly, I did not like the phrase that they used that the impacts on people moving off Roosevelt, the impact was insignificant. I think people are very significant. Thank you." John ehavez - "John Chavez, 377 Del Mar, I spoke to you earlier as a member of the RCC; I'm speaking to you as a private citizen. I will advise you that the RCC rejected certification of this EIR on the basis that the project had two unmitigated significant impacts. So you can choose by yourself as a Commission how you choose to proceed. We chose for ourselves, and that's what we chose. We had Page 18 many of the same comments, many of the same concerns you have here. My private opinion is that for me to review and EIR and access it for adequacy is like reading the constitution and checking it for spelling errors. It makes no sense at all. The project is relevant, and that's what its about." Vicki Madrid - "I have a question for staff real quick. Is the closing of the public hearing equal to certifying." Staff - No. Russ Hall - "We can certainly vote on the closing of the processes; can we also make separate motions after that in terms of recommendations to Council and what we feel should happen next?" John Mullen "Just to clarify, there is no vote required with respect to the close of the public hearing as we iterated in the beginning." Russ Hall - "So we can make our own motions since we are on an open topic here, separate to the issue itself" Vicki Madrid - "And if you want to continue it you have to make a motion for me not to close it. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. I'm sorry, we do hear you and our concern is that the sooner we get this moving, the sooner we can act on it. The public hearing has been closed at this point." Dan Horn - "Can I say something; I want to yield some time, the 30 seconds to Ms. Jimenez; I would like to hear what she wants to say. Can I do that?" Steve eastaneda - "You'd have to re-open the public hearing." Russ Hall - "I have a motion I'd like to make. I would move that we send a concern to the Council on behalf of the Commission about the process by which this has been conducted in that even though it appears that the rough requirements of the State CEQA have been met, staff has obviously done their responsibility, at least as they are told to do, however, my concern is that the process, given the enormity of the project, I think requires in good public administration, good civics, good government that we send this process back for further review back to the people and to the staff given the comments that are before us tonight for staff to respond to. But I think what this staff needs to do as part of this recommendation to the Council is that Council direct staff to open up a much larger and more publicized workshop review so that when this thing comes back to us, we will have a better, clearer understanding of what is fact and what is fiction. What I'm hearing tonight is a world of concern about the authenticity of this document and so my motion would be again to request to council that they act on the emotions and the information received tonight from the public and that they direct staff to meet with the public in very open, very well publicized workshop processes to address their concerns." Page 19 Steve eastaneda - "Are you saying that this all be done prior to the finalization. What you're really saying is that you want to continue this and to direct staff to conduct the meetings." John Mullen - "I think there's a couple of practical problems with the motion in that this item is returning back to you after staff completes its response to the comments that we received tonight, so it may be more appropriate to offer that motion at the certification hearing so that it can be transmitted along with your recommendation on the project." Jim Sandoval - "I was just going to concur with what John said. The way the process works right now is if you close the public hearing... if we hold any type of workshop and get input from the community; that's not going to be reflected as part of the EIR. Tonight we've heard a broad array of concerns about the EIR that we need to go in and look at and make sure that the EIR is adequate in terms of what it covered and the content, and secondly respond to any comment that was made tonight has to be responded to in writing. So when that document gets back to you it will have response. At that point, you look at that document and you don't feel its adequate, you can recommend that different actions be taken. You can tell the Council that you feel that you can't certify it and needs to be re-circulated. The other point that I want to bring up is that it is my understanding that the Community Development Department is going to be meeting with the neighborhood in a series of meetings on the project itself. So when the whole project comes before and when the Draft EIR comes before you, both those documents, it will have the benefit of our response to all those comments; it will have the benefit of having had public input through these neighborhood workshops and that will be a noticed public hearing item when it comes back to you. It would be our hope that the community would be there again to provide comments on the entire package, which would be the project and that final EIR that would have all of the information for your review." Steve eastaneda - "I have a question regarding the process. The public hearing has been closed. Obviously there is a trepidation on the part of staff for us to try to do anything so that we are actually putting information to the public that is accurate because I'm not sure what we're hearing is accurate. The fact is that you answer the questions, you finalize the draft and we schedule a public hearing at this body. Jim Sandoval - "That's correct, and staff doesn't have a trepidation about providing accurate information; our concern is following State law. The bottom line is that all of the comments made by the public, according to the law, have to be responded to by us and you get to be the arbitrator of whether we did a good job or not. If it comes back and we haven't addressed it adequately, you can certainly let us know at that time. Again, that will be a notice of public hearing as well, so we would hope that the community is there at that hearing as well." Steve eastaneda - "Would RCC see that again?" Page 20 Marilyn Ponseggi - "No, the RCC already made their comments on the document and made their recommendation." Steve eastaneda - "So they have no right to review the mitigation measures and the responses; whatever comes out of the Final Draft." Marilyn Ponseggi -"What our Environmental Review Guidelines for the City call for is for the RCC to be given the opportunity to comment on the EIR during the public review period." Steve eastaneda -"Okay; so in other words, the last bite at the apple for the public is the finalized document and then, comment on that, and then look for us to make a decision." Marilyn Ponseggi - "It would be to comment on that document at the hearing when you consider the project; there isn't another opportunity to prepare written comments on the Final EIR." Steve eastaneda - "I understand that; I guess what I'm asking is that I'd like to see. . because we certify a lot of EIR's at this body. I spent a lot of time working with the City of San Diego and I worked on a lot of projects from Scripps Ranch to North City West; we use to see a lot of folks come to these and we certify a lot of EIR's in the eastern part of Chula Vista and it could be for 3,000 units in Eastlake and no one shows up. This is a significant amount of people here that have taken time out of their evening to come down to voice their concerns about this particular document so I think what we're really seeing is that we're seeing a mobilization of the community to try to get their concerns and priorities aired and I think that based on what we're seeing, the evidence of just the folks that are here tonight; within that time after the final draft has been completed and we see it, there's got to be some effort by the City to go out to this community and to show them exactly what is in this document. Mr. Hall is completely right; this is a very complicated document, very voluminous, the average person doesn't have the time and may not understand all of it and I think that it's incumbent upon the City for perhaps one of the most impactful project on the western side of Chula Vista to be proposed in the last 20 years, that I think we owe it to the community to take that extra step. I understand that the proponent wants everything to be within the law and I think that we should, but we should try to adhere to that, but I think that there are enough issues here that have been raised of the adequacy of the document and the fact that there may be information that is contained that could not be accurate so I think that we need at the very least to make that commitment to this community and I'd like to make a motion that we at least do that." Russ Hall "I would second and I'm ready to get something done here; we've been sitting here a long time. My concern is not the process by which we go forward with, it's the process by which how we got here and from what I'm hearing is that there's a lot of folks that have doubts about the integrity of the document to begin with. So if Page 21 there's doubts about the integrity of the document to begin with, how can you have an adequate review process by which to close. I'm just struggling with all of this." Dan Horn "From a motion standpoint and I can understand the passion of the community, but again, isn't that done after we get the final EIR; I guess I sound a little bit like a broken record, but I just need to clarify that simply because it reminds me of the Crossings project and Cmr. Felber had a bunch of things that he wanted changed on it. He, like any public person gives the items that he feels is incorrect, staff responds to it, and then if we still disagree, we kick the project out, right? Is that essentially what happens?" Jim Sandoval "You're right; the actual action you would take would be when we bring the project back to you and then this document with the response to the concerns of the public. Now, you talked about getting maximum public input on the process as we move forward; staff agrees that this is the right things to do, so it seems that this has been a pretty effective forum this evening because we have been fortunate in getting a large amount of the public here and this is a project on the west side of town, where in the west side of town you think of another venue that you can get everybody here, we've been fortunate to do that, so. Staff's thoughts is that when this item comes back before you and you have the opportunity to judge its adequacy; you have a couple of opportunities there. One would be to make your determination that evening and forward those comments to the City Council, or if you feel that you've taken a lot of dialogue that evening, but you still need more information or you want to continue that, you can continue that hearing another night and have another forum on it. When it comes back to you you'll have more information because we will have responded to the comments made by the public and at that time the ball is in your court to even elicit more public input. You're correct, that would be the time to actually take any kind of action as a Planning Commission." Steve eastaneda - "Madam Chair, we have a motion and a second on the floor." Russ Hall "Could you redo the motion." Steve eastaneda "Essentially what I said was since I feel like we're being pushed to move this thing to the next phase; I'm not hearing that we have the opportunity but, I've got a little problem with that, but I've also heard from the community that there are concerns with the adequacies of this document. The thing is that I don't want the City to get in any kind of legal problems with respect to the conformity to CEQA, but I think that its very important that this community be informed as to what is, shall we say, the produce of this final document. I'd like to see from the time that the issues that are raised, as part of this public comment period and responses and whatever additional mitigation measures may be formulated to address those concerns, that before it gets to this body, that we have some sort of public meeting in the community to kind of go through this EIR and inform the community and the members that are going to be affected by this project exactly what that document Page 22 says. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking that this thing be closed until we get unanimity because that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for the public to be informed as to what this document is and if there are accuracy problems, we need to flush those out and address them. And then we can come to the Planning Commission; we can review the document and we can vote certified or not certified, or whatever is within our purview. That's what the motion is." Marilyn Ponseggi - "Can I ask for some clarification on the motion. Our thought is that perhaps what we would do if you feel this meets the intent of the motion you made, is that prior to the document coming back the Planning Commission for consideration of the Final EIR and the project, that we will hold a workshop here, not during a Planning Commission meeting; staff will hold a workshop here for the community and walk them through the content of the Final EIR, but that we will not be taking comments from the document at that time. It would be strictly an informative meeting for them, that if they have comments and bring that forward to you." Steve eastaneda "Exactly, and at that point that the community can be informed as to what it says, what it means, formulate their opinions and at the point in time that we have a public hearing to determine the adequacy and certification, that they can be better informed to address this body." Marilyn Ponseggi "We will do that prior to the item coming back to you." Vicki Madrid "One thing I'd like staff to clarify on the relocation; make sure that there's very clear verbage regarding the relocation program so that there isn't any possible confusion with people that are being affected; there's 150 people that are going to be affected; I'm concerned about that." Dan Hom "I just have two quick things for my input. Is the traffic coming in to the project and going out of the project; I was told that the H Street entrance, there's also an entrance there, and they said that that was somewhat inadequate, but I want to shine the light on that. In addition, I would like to look at the transit area; how there's some sort of a parking requirement and we're giving them a 10% reduction; I'd just like to see that study because we don't have really a transit area scheduled there for another ten years so I want to make that its in accordance with that." (SAI!DAG 407 8 Street, SUite 800 San Diego. CA 92707-4237 (619) 699 1900 Fax (619) 699-7905 wwwsandag.org MEMBER AGENCIES eit/psof lClr/sbad Chula Vista r u(Qnddo 0,"1 Mar EI (djOn EnClnltas ESLOndido Impenal Beach La Mpsa Lemon Grove ! National ( Jty Gceam/dp Poway San Dieqo San Marcos Santep C;OI.:Jnd Beach Vista dnd lounty of C;dn Diego ADVISORy MEMBERS Imperial County laliforma Depdrtment of TransportatIOn Mptropolitan Tr amlt System North San Ol-:go Cuunty Tramlt Development Board Umtpd Stdtes Department of Defense 5iJn Diego Unified Port District San Diego County Water Authority Baja CJ!dornldlMexicQ August 5, 2004 Ms. Diana Vargas City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Ms. Vargas: The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), in partnership with Caltrans, is conducting a study to develop a transportation improvement strategy to enhance the mobility of inter-regional and regional trips for the entire Interstate 805 (1-805) corridor and the Interstate 5 (1-5) corridor south of State Route (SR) 54. The 1-805/1-5 Technical Working Group, which includes representation from the City of Chula Vista, meets periodically to review the progress of the study and provide input. SANDAG and Caltrans conducted three Open Houses in April 2004 to provide information and gather input from the public on the eight transportation alternatives under evaluation. Each alternative included different levels of regional transit service and highway improvements. In addition, the alternatives include different types of main lane highway improvements, such as high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes, managed lanes, and mixed-flow lanes. In May 2004, SANDAG's Transportation Committee approved four alternatives for further study, including a No-Build scenario. One alternative contains MOBILITY 2030 regional transit service and HOV improvements on both 1-5 south and 1-805. Another alternative would provide enhanced transit services in the South Bay and Mid-Coast areas beyond MOBILITY 2030. Finally, the last alternative would provide MOBILITY 2030 regional transit services and two additional mixed-flow lanes on 1-805 from Telegraph Canyon Road, in Chula Vista, to the 1-805/1-5 north merge. Staff is currently in the process of evaluating these alternatives in preparation for a recommended transportation improvement strategy for the study corridor. In order to provide more information and obtain input from the local community and members of the public on the corridor study, SANDAG and Caltrans staff would like to make a presentation to the Chula Vista Planning Commission at one of your September 2004 meetings. The presentation would be informational in nature and would last around 15 minutes. Ms. Diana Vargas August 6, 2004 Page 2 If you are interested in scheduling a presentation on the 1-805/1-5 Corridor Study, please contact Heather Werdick at (619) 699-6967 or via e-mail at hwe@sandag.org. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, rc~A~'-- ELISA ARIAS Project Manager EAlHW/ais