Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/10/23 PLANNING COMMISSION City of Chula Vista Calendar of Meetings October 9, 1991 Regular Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers October 23, 1991 Regular Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers October 30, 1991 Workshop ~ Conference Rooms 2 & 3 November 6, 1991 Special Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers November 13, 1991 Regular Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers November 20, 1991 Special Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers November 27, 1991 CANCEL REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING December 4, 1991 Special Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers December 11, 1991 Workshop 4'_O_0_g_._._._._~.m (Cancel Regular Business Meeting) Conference Rooms 2 & 3 December 18, 1991 Special Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers December 25, 1991 CANCEL REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, October 23, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-91-01: Chula Vista Auto Center DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of October 30, 1991 at 4:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 23, 1991 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING: CHULA VISTA AUTO CENTER DRAFT EIR (EIR 91-01) A. BACKGROUND Mr. Doug Fuller and Mr. David Ordway, DBA, Chula Vista Auto Park, are proposing to develop an auto center on 25 acres on Otay Valley Road east of 1-805, in the City's Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area. The Chula Vista Auto Center project would provide for five separate auto dealerships. The majority of the site, 20 acres, is known as the Shinohara parcel. In August 1991, the Chula Vista City Engineer adopted a Negative Declaration (IS-91-45) for rough grading activities over this portion of the site. Four out of the five dealerships would be located here. The remaining five (5) acres is the current location of the Pacific Bell dispatch facility. There are no plans at this time to acquire this site or remove this facility for auto dealership development. However, this five acre parcel was included for analysis in the EIR since, at some time in the future, the Auto Center may expand to include this site. The proposed Chula Vista Auto Center has been conceptually planned, and detailed building plans will be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City following project approval. The detailed building plans will be reviewed for consistency with the Final EIR as well as all City building and design requirements. The primary use of the Auto Center would be new car sales, though other uses which could occur include the sale of recreational motor homes, used/trade-in cars, parts departments, vehicle service facilities, vehicle storage facilities, body shops, a fueling station (for exclusive use of onsite dealerships), and a car wash (for exclusive use of onsite dealerships). Parking for vehicle display, customers, and employees would also be included. The Chula Vista Auto Center Draft EIR was circulated through the State Clearinghouse for a 45 day public review period which ends October 21, 1991. The City of Chula Vista public review period ends on October 23, 1991. According to legislation which became effective January 1, 1990, the State review of environmental documents must conclude prior to local review periods. -1- City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 23, 1991 Page 2 Discretionary actions necessary for project development include the approval of Tentative and Final Maps, Disposition and Development Agreement, Assessment District, and a Special Use Permit. Because of its location with the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area, it would require design review (including a finish grading plan and site and architectural plans), and an Owner Participation Agreement. Other agency approvals, such as Air Pollution Control District and County permits, would be required for any auto painting uses, or other uses which emit pollutants. Two letters of comment have been received on the Draft EIR from Jerry McNutt, Chula Vista, and Thomas Silva of the Sweetwater Union High School District ~ included in attachments). It is anticipated that additional comment letters will be forthcoming, and these will be hand delivered to the Planning Commission at the public hearing on October 23, 1991. All comment letters received, and verbal comments heard at the public hearing, will be responded to in the "Responses to Comments ~ section of the Final EIR. The Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee considered the Draft EIR on September 23 and again on October 14. This committee voted to accept the Draft EIR, with clarification of certain issues to be included in the "Responses to Comments" section of the Final EIR (minutes of meeting are attached). The City of Chula Vista Ad Hoc Task Force conducted public meetings on June 12, October 2, and October 3. Public comments were heard (minutes of meetings are attached), and the Task Force recommended that the issues raised at the meetings be addressed in the "Responses to Comments" section of the Final EIR. The Resource Conservation Commission considered the Draft EIR on October 7. The RCC recommended to accept the Draft EIR, with clarification of certain issues raised at their meeting to be addressed in the "Responses to Comments" section of the Final EIR. B. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: Conduct the public heating on the Draft EIR (91-01), close the hearing, and give staff the desired direction for preparation of the Final EIR. -2- City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 23, 1991 Page 3 C: ANALYSIS 1. Land Use Impact Summary: Signif'lCflllt, Mitigable Impact - The Auto Center uses would be potentially incompatible (noise and aesthetics) with the passive uses of the future Otay River Valley Regional Park. Mitigation - Onsite buffering of Auto Center including attractive wall and landscape screening per the Redevelopment Area design guidelines. 2. Agriculture Impact Sunnnary: Significant, Not Mitigable Impact - Loss of 20 acres of prime agricultural soils. Mitigation - No measures are available to mitigate the impact. 3. Biology Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impacts - 1. Short-term construction noise impacts to sensitive nesting birds in adjacent 2. Long-term noise impacts to same. 3. Potential increase in sedimentation to Otay River floodway from construction and increase in impervious surfaces. 4. Disturbance to sensitive birds in riparian area from project lighting. Mitigation- 1. Noise levels would be maintained at 60 db or less at nest locations if construction occurs during March 15 to July 15. 2. Construct a six (6) foot soundwall along southern property boundary, or design automotive repair bays to face each other. 3. Construction of a berm or wall along southern boundary to serve as a barrier against runoff during construction. Energy dissipator structures for site drainage would be constructed outside of wetland/riparian area. Incorporate silt and grease traps into drainage structures. Annual cleaning and maintenance of traps would be required of the auto dealerships. 4. Shield and orient lighting away from riparian area. -3- City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 23, 1991 Page 4 4. ¢01turol Resources Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impact - Potential for archae61ogical resources in western (5-acre Pacific Bell) portion of site. Mitigation - Removal of pavement and grading would be monitored by a qualified archaeologist, and appropriate procedures followed. 5. Geoloev and Soils Impact Snmmary: Significant, Mitigable Impacts- 1. Lack of detailed subsurface geotechnical investigation and foundation repons for entire site. 2. Potential for surface rupture or fault offset due to presence of La Nacion fault trace, and associated liquefaction impacts. Mitigation -1. Submittal of foundation and subsurface geotechnical investigation of entire site, and incorporation of recommendations into final grading and development plans. 2. Prohibit buildings within 15 feet of fault trace, or additional studies to determine if less stringent measures are required (concept plan already eliminates buildings within this restricted area). 6. Drainage and Water Ouality Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impacts - 1. Increased sedimentation and erosion in the Otay River floodway during and post construction. 2. Urban runoff contributing to water quality degradation. Mitigation -1. Completion of a drainage study to determine required measures to control drainage, such as energy dissipator structures (constructed north of adjacent riparian area). Construction runoff will be controlled by building a berm or wall along the southern project boundary to serve as a barrier. 2. Silt and grease traps will be installed to remove non-point source pollutants. 7. Aesthetics Impact Snramary: Significant, Mitigable Impacts - 1. Lighting intrusion into adjacent neighborhood (to the north/northwest). -4- City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 23, 1991 Page 5 2. Aesthetic incompatibility between Auto Center and future Otay River Valley R. egional Park. Mitigation- 1. Lighting plan will be submitted by the appficant, with lighting to be designed and positioned downward toward the project. 2. Views of the Auto Center from the future Regional Park to be screened by vegetation along the southem property line. 8. Trans_mxtation Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impacts - With project traffic (7500 ADT), the existing Otay Valley Road would operate above its design capacity. Additionally, signal warrants would be met at the intersection of Otay Valley Road/Brandywine Avenue. Mitigation - Otay Valley Road is already planned for widening to six (6) lanes, with construction of this widening anticipated to begin in March 1992, and to end in August/September 1992. This widening would mitigate the capacity impact. If widening has not occurred by the time construction of the Auto Center is nearing completion, the applicant is required to widen Otay Valley Road to a four (4) lane major roadway between 1-805 and Brandywine Avenue. Additionally the applicant is responsible for installation of a signal at Otay Valley Road/Brandywine Avenue. 9. Air Quality Impact Snmmary: SignWlcant, Mitigable Impacts - 1. Construction generated dust. 2. Project-related vehicular emissions. 3. Onsite automotive painting and repair-related emissions. Mitigation - 1. Implementation of Air Pollution Control District dust control regulations (i.e., watering, street cleaning). 2. Adherence to 1982 State Implementation Plan recommendations and pending 1991 APCD regulations regarding air emission reduction measures 3. Achievement of appropriate APCD permits. -5- City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 23, 1991 Page 6 10. Noise Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impacts - 1. Adverse' (not significant) temporary construction noise impacts on nearby residents and sensitive wildlife. 2. Long-term noise impacts on sensitive bird species in adjacent riparian habitat. Mitigation- 1. Limit construction hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction access routes to avoid residential streets north of Otay Valley Road. 2. Construction of either a six (6) foot sound wall along southern property line, or design of automotive repair bays such that they are facing each other. 11. Water Supply Impact Sununary: Cumulatively Significant, Mitigable Impact - Incremental contribution to cumulatively significant demand on water supply, due to drought conditions. Mitigation - Implementation of Otay Water District (OWD) water conservation ordinance, verification of service by OWD, and participation in City of Chula Vista water offset requirement. 12. $~wer Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impact - The existing sewer line adjacent to the site is currently above its recommended capacity, thus, no additional capacity exists for project-generated sewage. Mitigation - The applicant must enter into an agreement with the City to participate in funding for a sewer study which will identify appropriate sewer infrastructure and funding for such. Prior to such infrastructure being constructed, wastewater holding tanks onsite could be incorporated into the project to release flows during non-peak times. (Construction of any offsite improvements would require further environmental review.) -6- City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 23, 1991 Page 7 13. Solid Waste Impact Summary: Cumulatively Significant, Mitigable Impact - Incremental contrib~tion to demand on capacity of the Otay I andffll. Mitigation - Compliance with the future County Solid Waste Management Plan (AB 939), and participation in Laidlaw voluntary recycling program. 14. Schools Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impact - Indirect generation of students in local school districts. Mitigation - Payment of standard school fees ($0.25/square foot). 15. Hazardous Waste Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impacts - 1. No knowledge of subsurface conditions on Pacific Bell (5-acre) portion of site. 2. Existing hazardous materials on Shinohara (20 acre) portion of site to be removed as part of Shinohara grading project, and necessity of adequate completion of removal activities. 3. Onsite generation of hazardous wastes (oils, solvents, paints, etc.) 4. Assurance that proposed underground fuel storage tank appropriately permitted. Mitigation- 1. Complete surface and subsurface investigation of 5-acre portion, and implementation of any requirements. 2. Verification of proper removal of all wastes on 20 acre portion (occurs as Mitigation Monitoring for Shinohara Grading Project). 3. The dealerships must obtain appropriate hazardous waste permits. 4. The applicant must comply with all regulations and obtain required permits. D. ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires description of a range of "reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project", and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The discussion of alternatives "shall focus -7- City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 23, 1991 Page 8 on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificag, t, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project alternatives, or would be more cosily.' The following presents a brief summary of each alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR. No Proiect]No Development No changes to the existing land use would occur with this alternative, thus, when the site is graded (per the Shinohara Grading Project), it would remain vacant. No new impacts would occur as no change would occur. Designated Use Alternative The project site would be utilized for research and limited manufacturing uses under this alternative. Impacts from development of these uses would be similar to the proposed project, with the exception of traffic, which would be less. Project ADT is estimated to be 7500, whereas ADT under this alternative is estimated to be 2250. Otay Valley Road improvements would continue to be necessary even with this alternative. Alternative Commercial Use This alternative consists of warehouse style discount stores (Power Center). Impacts from development of these uses would he similar to those of the proposed project, with the exception of traffic, air quality, and noise, which would be greater. Estimated Power Center ADT would be 15,000 to 20,000 depending on type of stores. Air emissions and noise would be correspondingly greater. Reduced Pro_iect Size This alternative would consist of the same project, with the reduction of one dealership over five acres. Impacts would be similar to the proposed project, for all issues, just correspondingly reduced. Estimated ADT would be 6000, compared to the project's 7500, and Otay Valley Road improvements would continue to be necessary. -8- City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 23, 1991 Page 9 Alternative Site East This alternative site was anal~/zed as it was one of the sites originally evaluated by the City for the potential location of the Auto center. Overall, there is not a noticeable ayoidance ofimpacts with this alternative compared to the proposed project: · Land use impacts would be similar due to the proximity of the university and university research uses; · No impacts to loss of agricultural lands would occur; · Biological resources near this site are not known to be of high sensitivity, this would need to be verified; · The site is identified as having a moderate potential for cultural resources, thus impacts to these may occur; · Mineral resource impacts would be avoided; · Seismic impacts would be reduced by avoiding the La Nacion fault trace: · Drainage and water quality impacts would be similar; · Landform impacts would be greater and aesthetic impacts would be similar: · Estimated ADT would be the same, but 5800 ADT greater than that anticipated for this site; · Air quality, noise and public services would be similar, and; · Hazardous waste impacts would be similar. Alternative Site - Broadway and K Street The site was analyzed as it is the location of existing dealerships. Under this alternative, the existing auto dealership area would be expanded to total 25 acres, and would require removal/relocation of other uses, including commercial and possibly residential uses in this area. Because the area is already urbanized, impacts associated with natural or agricultural conditions would he avoided. Other impacts would be similar to the project as the proposed use would be the same. Land use/social impacts would be substantially greater due to the necessity to remove/relocate existing commercial and possibly residential uses. Alternative Site - South Bayfront This alternative site is presently a vacant lot west of Bay Boulevard within the southern limits of the SDG&E property. It was analyzed to present an additional comparison of impacts -9- City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 23, 1991 Page 10 between the site and a different environment. The impacts of this alternative as compared to the project site are: · Land use impacts could be similar due to its proximity to the proposed U.S. Fish and Wildlife South San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge; · Agricultural impact would be avoided; · Biological impacts could be similar due to the proximity to bay resources; · Cultural and paleontological impacts would be similar; · Mineral impacts would be avoided, and seismic impacts reduced; · Drainage/water quality impacts would he similar; · Aesthetic impacts would occur from blockage of bay views currently available; · Estimated ADT would be the same as that of the project, but greater than what is currently expected for the site; · Air quality, noise and public services would be similar; and · Hazardous materials impacts would be similar. Thus, development of the project at this site does not present any substantial environmental improvement over development at the proposed site. E. CONCLUSION In summary, the Chula Vista Auto Center would result in a significant and unmifigable impact to loss of 20 acres of prime agricultural land. Otherwise, all other significant impacts are mifigable to a level of less than significant. Project alternatives were analyzed, with no alternative clearly environmentally superior. - 10- October 6, 1991 ~EC~i~'ED 522 Tallow Court Chula Vista, Ca 91911-5636 0C~0~ 19~1 Saryann C. Miller P/.~/~]~ Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 91911 Re: Chula Vista Auto Park Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Miller: The followinq comments are forwarded for the Chula Vista Planninq Commission and Redevelopment Aqency consideration in determininq the adequacy of the Chula Vista Auto Park Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR): Traffic control, as it relates to "test drivinq" of vehicles on neighborhood streets adjagent to the auto park, has not been adequately addressed. Durinq the 6/12/91 public meeting at Valle Lindo School to discuss the proposed auto park, residents expressed concern regarding the use of neighborhood streets for test driving purposes and were assured by city of Chula Vista staff that traffic control would be reviewed and thorouqhly addressed in the draft EIR. I am concerned, based on comments made durinq the 10/2-3/91 Auto Park Ad Hoc Task Force public meetinq to review the draft EIR for the proposed Chula Vista Auto Park, that city staff and/or consultants may be content with letting auto park residents "self police" themselves. From my point of view, the city would be recklessly abandoning its responsibility to its citizenry and it would be analogous to placinq the fox in cbarqe, of the chicken house. In view of the above, it is requested that the matter of. traffic control be thoroughly revisited by those responsible for the draft EIR and that effective traffic control measures and enforcement responsibilities be clearly defined in the draft EIR. It is suqqested that local traffic control requlations, authorized by Article 3, Division 11 of the California Vehicle Code, be examined and/or researched to determine how the City of Chula Vista miqht implement enforceable traffic control measures. I would appreciate being kept abreast of your findinqs and supporting rationale regardinq this matter. Sincerely, cc: Mayor and Members of Chula Vista City Council Chula Vista Star News The Tuesday night (Oct. 8) against the resolution (one was that the staff`was supposed to be meeting of the Chula Vista City also absent -- Malcolm), it took doing in the first place. Itql prob- ~: Council and ~joint~ City Court- far, far too long for the council to ably take the council many hours cil/Redevel°pment Agency decide to continue to endorse to slog through the subject,, and ~t champion Mike (surely a play on titles since all ofstaff inefficiency by again hiring theyql probably send the matter avor by mnnouncing the actom in both bodies are the expensive outside help. back to staff for additional study same people) turned into another The issue of consultants is a couple of times, but in the end l~e]ffi'om his fsngj marathon session that was about scheduled for discussion by the the city will continue to spend ysOn makes a poor as exciting as watching paint dry. full council at the Oct. 22 meet= millions to him services that the ted on charges that The subject of Tuesday night's lng. It would bo nice if this mat- staffshould provide. WhaCs new? bnerica contestant agonizing struggle was the mn- tor could be 'intelligently and llenge Evander Ho- ewal of a year's consulting con- fairly examined at that time, but Tom Davis ~ hea,~ weight rifle, tract for one person' at $138,000 there is little hope of this happen- Chula Vista ($11,500 per montl~, plus expen- S promise, ses) for ~management services' to help the city staff and Has conceriIs about public meeting to review the county... ~continue to process a draft E]R for the proposed Chula General Development Plan and autopark review Vlste Auto Park, that city staff` · · related documents for the ap- aad/er consultants may be con- pmximatoly 23,000 acre Otay Open letter to Maryann C. Mil- tent with letting auto park rest- Ranch Projedt.' ler, Environmental Review Coor- dents "serf` police" themselves. tuber of Commerce Now you folks on fixed retire- dinator, City of Chu]a Vista. From my point of view, the city ment incomes or trying to eke out Re: Chula Vista Auto Park would be recklessly abandoning undecided votes, a living on a lot less (like a whole Draft Environmental Impact Re- its responsibility to its citizenry the ,Chula Vista lot) may not appreciate that:it port. and it would be analogous to plac- ~e photo r~dsr to takes this kind of income to id'- The following comments are ing the fox in charge of the ~fortunate that the · ford the mortgage on one ofthose forwarded for the Chula Vista chicken house. ne considering the new houses in the eastern toni- Planning Commission and In view of the above, it is re- · a device that re- tortes, so don't be critical or jea- Redevelopment Agency consider- quested that the matter of traffic te driver's picture, lous, hear? There is some small ation in determining the ade- control be thoroughly revisited by .all -- is intrusive - consolation in that last year's quacy of the Chula Vista Auto those responsible for the draft contract was for more than Park Draft Environmental Ira- EER and that effective traffic con- re hope that other $200,000. Wow, what a deall The pact Report (EIR): trol measures and enforcement ty work to fight city manager helpfully computed Traffic control, as it relates to responsibilities be clearly defined that this year's consultanCs sa- ~w~st driving~ of vehicles on in the draft EIR. It is suggested he cost of postage lary would %nlf add about $.50 neighborhood streets adjacent to that local traffic control regula- Ir future. Against to the .c~_-of each house, how the auto park, has not been ade- tions, authorized by Article 3, flce subcommittee nice. , quately addressed. During the Division 11 of the California Ve- D-Arlr, the U.S. The question that seems 6/12/91 public meeting at Valle hide Code, be examined and/or ~122 million spon- critical to this whole issue '.m why Lindo School to discuss the pm- researched to determine how the the city, with all of the $80,000 to posed auto park, residents ex- City of Chula Vista might imple- .' problem is that $120,000+ planners it has on the pressed, concern regarding the ment enforceable traffic control ,lc progrnm ~s $22 staff already, needs another use of neighborhood streets for measures. can only expect a supernumerary whose primary test driving purposes and were I would appreciate being kept ing to Associated function will be to figure out how assured by City of Chula Vista abreast of your findings and sup- .to raise the density on this staffthat traffic control would be petting rationale regarding this project for the developer. Maybe reviewed and thoroughly addres- matter. the council was simply trying to sedin the draft EIR. maintain !t~ perfect record of I am concerned, based on com- ~ never imposing a constraint on ments made during the 10/1-3/91 Jerry W. McNutt thesizeandcostofcitystafffunc- Auto Park Ad Hoc Task Force ChulaVista ~r District shouk~ g water had such ,ughly 30 percent ', and flushed our CsrtooH to the editor o high-priced pu- telling ns not to l~ss revenue to the Metropolitan raise our water o a use less, pay Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91911-2896 (619) 691-5500 Division of Planning and Facilities 0CT I 5 October 10, 1991 Ms. Diana Richards Community Development Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Ms. Richards: RE: Proposed Auto Center Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Chula Vista Auto Center. I had previously responded to a Notice of Preparation for this project and had requested that the applicant provide more information regarding the relocation of existing auto dealerships to this new location. I was unable to find this new data in the report. On page 3-102, a statement is made that approximately one-third of the jobs provided by this auto center will be filled by local residents and the remaining employment opportunities will most likely be filled by residents living outside of the city of Chula Vista. This statement is not supported in the report. The number of new employment opportunities provided by this auto center, those filled by new residents to the community, is important to the school district because the addition of new households to the community will result in new children entering the classroom. Using a 1990 report prepared by SourcePoint to specifically analyze the impact non- residential develop, ment has on schools, I have estimated that approximately 170 households may be added to the community as a result of this project. Those dwellings may be new or existing units available for new household occupancy. 170 new households will add approximately 49 new students to school classrooms. If the district had to provide new space for these students, the cost would exceed $78,880.00. Given the district's present fee collection of $0.14 per square foot, only $19,460 would be collected to mitigate this impact. It is far less than what is required for full mitigation. There are many ways to mitigate the impact this project will have on the district. The following lists just a few: · Payment of Fees: The applicant can be required to pay school fees in accordance with the present school fee program. However, this solution will only accommodate one-quarter of the cost to provide the school facilities required by this project. · Full Mitigation: If the applicant's project requires a legislative decision by the city council, the council can require that the applicant fully mitigate the costs of the project's impact to the district. If no legislative decision is required, state law prohibits the collection of more than $0.26 per square foot of which the district's share is $0.14 per square foot. · Participation in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District: If the applicant's project requires a legislative decision by the city council, the council can require that the applicant mitigate project impacts by participation in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. I am requesting that this project be considered for incorporation to an existing Mello- Roos Community Facilities District: CFD No. 5. The school district has designed this CFD such that full mitigation of the project will occur. Additionally, no fees will be required of the applicant at the time of building permit issuance. If you require additional information or have questions regarding this issue, please feel free to call me at 691-5553. Assistant Director of Planning cc: Kate Shurson ANALYSIS OF IMPACT NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT'S ANTICIPATED IMPACT TO SCHOOL FACILITIES Proposed Development Type: Auto Park Classification: Other Retail Name: Chula Vista Auto Center Location: Ptau Valley Road and 1-805 Size: 139,000 Square Feet 1) Estimate number of new jobs created by development. 139,000 Sq. Ft. x 2.005/1000 Employees/Sq. Ft. = 279 New Jobs 2.) Estimate new workers living in district by development type. 279 New Jobs x 0.697 (ELF)* = 194 New Resident Employees 3.) Estimate new households. 194 Employees x 0.873 Households/Employees = 170 Households 4) Estimate new student entrollment. 170 Households x 0.29 Students/Household =49 Anticipated New Students * The employment location factor for the development type "other retail" was calculaWxl using the trip length cut-off of 18.5 minutes defined by the District GLF. CITY OF CHULA VISTA AD-HOC TASK FORCE PUBLIC MEETING June 12, 1991 Valle Lindo School Auditorium 1515 Oleander Avenue, Chula Vista, California Present: Dan Beintema, Don Blind, Guy Lichty, Keith Much, Christine Olgnin, Charles Sutherland Staff Present: Sid Morris, Deputy City Manager; Chris Salomone, Community Development Director; Fred Knssman, Redevelopment Coordinator; Robin Putnam, Principal Community Development Specialist; Alisa Duffey Rogers, Community Development Specialist; Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer; Frank Herrera, Associate Planner, Planning Department; Cheryl Dye, Economic Development Manager Others Present: Doug Fuller, Fuller Ford; David Ordway, South Bay Chevrolet; Mayur-elect Tim Nader; Mayor Pro Tempore Leonard Moore; Jim Salter, Consultant; George Avanessian, Architect I_. Introduction - Committee Chairman Chairman of the Ad-Hoc Auto Park Task Force, Mike Maslak, had the Task Force members introduce themselves; explained the charge of the task force: to review and advise on matters pertaining to the environmental impacts resulting from development of an auto park in the Otay Valley, including such areas of concern as traf~e, congestion, noise, quality of planned site, plann;ng and design, etc.; and, discussed the purpose of the meeting:, to provide a forum for exchange of issues, facts, public input of their concerns, and ask specific questions of City staff. Background Information Mr. Fred Kassman introduced City officials and staff. Mr. Kassman, in explaining the history, stated that the auto park project started late in 1987 at the request of Doug Fuller and David Ordwa'y in order to give them the opportunity to expand their dealerships, bring in more dealerships, and create an additional economic base for the City. The City would derive increased sales tax revenues, produce more local jobs, and provide the opportunity to redevelop the existing freestanding auto dealerships currently located on Broadway. These two dealerships as well as Doug Fuller's new Honda dealership on Main Street would form the nudens of the proposed auto park. The City formed a Task Force comprised of City Council members and community leaders to look into the establishment of an auto park. There were four areas to be considered: (1) West Fairfield (west OF I-5, between Orange. Avenue and Main Street), which does not consist of enough vacant land to accommodate the auto park; (2) Otay Valley Road, east of 1-805; (3) Rancho del Rey Business Park on East "H" Street, approximately i mile east of 1-805); and, a site in the Eastern Territories, in the vicinity of the proposed 1-125 and the extension of East Orange Avenue, which will not be available for five to ten years. Of the two sites, (2) and (3) above, the Otay Valley Road site is considered far superior, primarily because of its location adjacent to a freeway, the amount of vacant land presently available for development and expansion of an auto park, the price of the land is somewhat lower than land in other locations in the City, and fmaliy, the site is available for development at this time. Mr. Kassman then went on to answer the question: What happens if the City does not move forward with an auto park? He explained that the area is zoned for light indnstrial/commerclal and that development is currently moving forward in the area and that if the auto park is not developed the City may lose all auto dealerships, the sales tax revenue (approximately $1,000,000 per year for 16 years) they will generate for the City, and the jobs the auto paxk would produce. Sales tax revenues are the largest portion of the City's General Fund and fund such services Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, etc. Minutes of Public Meeting -2- June 12, 1991 III. Processine Requirements and Opportunities for Public Review and Input At this point Mr. Kassman explained the proce.qs as it will evolve as well as the public's opportunities to participate. The City as the beg;,,i.g of this process, decisions have not been made, information is being gathered at this time. Important to this is the Environmental Impact Report which has been initiated and should be available for public review ih about five months. This document will contain all the economic and environmental impact of the auto park, an assessment of problems that might be associated with the development of an auto park, and recommendations for mitigation measures to accommodate these problems. This document will be the subject of a public hearing before the Planning Commission and then it will be forwarded to the City Council for review. The public will have opportunity in public forums to address the Planning Commission and City Council, to provide questions or comments to City staff, which by law must be ro~ponded to. Mr. Kassman explained that this project will requh-e a Conditional Use Permit; he informed those present that a Conditional Use Permit can only be issued after a public hearing, before the Project Area Committee and then the Redevelopment Agency. As these are public forums, the public will be invited to participate and present your comments and questions. Finally, the plans will be reviewed by the Plannl,g Department and the Community Development Department; designs for buildings will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee, all of which are public meetings. IV.._~. Auto Dealers - Present Plans/Cq, ncepts Mr. Doug Fuller, Fuller. Ford, stated that Ford Motor Company has stated he must update the auto dealership and that this Auto Park will afford that opportunity and at the same time remain in Chula Vista. From the viewpoint of the auto dealerships the Otay Valley Road proposed Auto Park is an ideal location; the location offers them a more attractive market position and the site will help them to maintain their customer base. He stated categorically that this Auto Park will no._It be a 'Mile of Cars' as is located in National City. It will be a quality, dean, attractive facility for all dealers, customers, and surrounding neighbors. Questions from the Public 1. V, qll people who are test dh'ring cars be allowed to come up Oleander Avenue? Mr. Fuller responded: no. The auto dealerships inclination is to have a controlled test drive environment, driving through neighborhood streets is not considered a good test drive area. All members of the Auto Park will have to abide by the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions document--which will prohibit using Oleander Avenue for test drives. What it comes down to is: are the dealers going to flagrantly violate what has been put down in writing. Oleander Avenue does not lend itself to a controlled environment where the customer can concentrate on the car. 'There will be a controlled environment surrounding the Auto Park which will be conducive to test drive a ear. Mr. Sid Morris expounded upon the question, stating that this traffic concern will be a very important part of the Environmental Impact Report and will be fully addressed in the document. He further stated that the Council and City staff are very sensitive to this issue. 2. (a) Hqll there be enough parla'ng spaces in dealerships so people will not be using residential streets? and (b) When will there be a traffic signal installed at [-805/Main Street? (a) The plans call for a specific number of parking spaces for workers, people shopping for a car, and people who drop their cars off for repair. (b) Signal will begin construction in about six months. Design of the signals is underway for both north and southbound locations at 1-805/Main Street. Minutes of Public Meeting -3- June 12, 1991 3. (a) Why does their need to be an EIR for this project if an EIR was done for the Otuy Valley Road W~dening Project ? (b) Do we have to have additional EIR studies if the Auto Park expands? (a) The Draft EIR has been completed on the Road Widening Project and the Final EIR is near certification for that project, it did not address the impact of development north and south of the road, only addressed-those issued related to expanding the road to six lanes fi.om its cra'rent configuration; the Auto Park is a different project and, as such, we will be reviewing in the EIR anything that might change--traffic, etc.-due to placement of the Auto Park on that site. Co) Yes, in the State of California development projects require an environmental review. That could take the form of an EIR or it could be a Negative Declaration. Mr. Morris noted that an environmental review was going to be required whether there was an auto dealership there or whether another type of commercial or industrial project being located there· 4. If land is used for the auto park what will happen to other sections of town ? Mr. Chris Salomone stated this is of concern and the City has had interest from development community from around the state on the Southbay Chevrolet site. It is a prime site for commercial development. The Community Development Department sees it as a renewal effort in that area on Broadway. 5. (a) What jas~ifies placing an Auto Park in Chula gqsta? (b) Is this going to be just another National City "Mile of Cars"? (a) Mr. Salter explained that Toyota has done a major marketing analysis before they will locate a dealership; they have looked at the demographics and the future growth to the south and east of this location. They would not place a dealership here i~ they were not convinced they had a market. Other auto makers perform similar analyses. Specifically, Toyota has gained market share in California; their market analysis indicated this area as one of four in the entire State of California for the largest demand. Other franchises feel they are losing market share because they are not represented in the Chula Xqsta area. Co) The Auto Park has a lot of pre-thought going into it. The theory of this auto mall is the same as developing a regional shopping center: (1) make it a convenient place that is safe to go and shop for cars, not to go and buy a car but go and shop for cars; (2) it is designed and integrated to be aesthetically pleasing (e.g., landscaping requirements, noise requirements they must meet, requirements as to what views are, so that any area visible to public streets are a pleasant experience. 6. What is to prevent elisting land owners selling to additional dealerships, thereby creating a "Mile of Cars"? Mr. Morris noted that the intent is to limit the Auto Park to 9 and up to poss~ly 11 auto dealerships. They would be subject to the same conditions as the original auto dealerships creating the Auto Park. Z (a) What are the alternatives to the Auto Park? (b) What would be more desirable for the surrounding residents titan the Auto Park, something such as a park similar to SeaPort V~llage? (a) Mr. Salomone explained that there are other options, some type of development will go forward in this area whether it be industrial development, commercial development· The impact of industrial development or commercial are similar to an auto park; the industrial has bigger trucks and similar conditions that now exist on Main Street that have been mentioned by the public, and commercial has a higher volume of traffic from cars. The auto park resides somewhere between these two. There is so much developer interest, limited acreage with visibility to a major freeway, that if it is not the Auto Park, it will likely be a commercial development. Minutes of Public Meeting -4- June 12, 1991 (b) There is a regional park proposed in the Otay Valley that will be behind the site we are proposing for the Auto Park that will have recreational facilities and amenities. We will need to look to the Environmental Impact Report to answer these questions. There is no significant difference in the tln-ee types of development as far as traffic impacts, there are different kinds of traffic impacts, but there will be some traffic impact no matter what type development proceeds.. 8. (a) What is the time paine for phasing out the dump? (b) Is the quarry on limited time? (a) Ms. Putnam stated that the life expectancy for the dump is another 15 years. (b) There is a belief that Nelson & Sloan will phase out their operation south of Main Street, but they are considering moving it to is east of, the Auto Park site, which is in the County, outside the jurisdiction of Chula Vista. The County has issued them a Conditional Use Permit for operation of a quarry. 9. (a) Where will the entrance be? (b) Will there be a stop light? (a) The entrance will be on Brandywine Avenue. (b) The auto dealers def'mitely want a stop (light) signal installed at Brandywine Avenue, which will be paid out of the Auto Park Assessment District which the auto dealers will fund. 9.Ham a crime study be done7 This will be one of the items that will be studied in the Environmental Impact Report. 10. Will Auto Park lower re3identialfcommercial property values in the area? That is another item that will be addressed in the EIR. 11. Will the same classifications go btto this Auto Park as the ones for the previousty planned East "H" Street Auto Park? Yes, the restrictions and concerns are exactly the same, the mitigation will be as stringent on tray Valley Road . as it was on East "H" Street. The difference is that the East "H" Street property was already improved-streets, curbs, gutters, berms, landscaping, and such; the quality of the Otay Valley Road project and the required mitigations will be the sarhe. Mr. Maslak thanked those who took the time to attend this public meeting and express their views and concerns. He closed the public meeting at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Maslak will coordinate the Task Force making an on-location study 0f the traffic concerns relative to Oleander Avenue. Recording Secretary [C:\WP5 I\AUTOPARK\06-12-91.MIN] AUTO PARK AD HOO TASK FOROE Oit¥ of Ohula Vista, Oalifomia Wednesday, October 2, 1991 Council Conference ROom 5:30 p.m. City Hall CALL TO ORDER/ROLL C.~L: The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. PRESENT: Members Beintema, Blind, Lichty, Much, Sutherland ABSENT: Chairman Maslak, Vice-Chair Olguin STAFF: Deputy City Manager Morris, Community Development Director Salomone, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Traffic Engineer Rosenberg, Environmental Consultant Richardson, Mr. Kassman informed the Task Force that Member Olguin would not be able to attend the meeting due to an emergency at home. R was agreed that Member Lichty would be Acting Chair for the meeting. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from the meeting of September 4, 1991 Members Blind and Sutherland noted they would be abstaining from the minutes of September 4 since they were not present at that meeting. The Members agreed to continue the minutes to the next meeting due to lack of a quoru_'~'f_or approval. 2. PUBLIC FORUM: Environmental Impact Report - Chula Vista Auto Park Mr. Kassman introduced staff and stated the purpose of the public hearing - for those present to ask any questions they may have to get a better understanding of the Auto Park. He then presented a brief overview noting where the Auto Park site is located; acreage involved, number of dealerships planned and construction timelines. Ms. Richardson informed those present where the EIR was in processing: 1) that the EIR is out for public review. The public review period will close on October 23; 2) at that time staff will respond to comments made in written form and prepare the final EIR; 3) the final E1R will go back to the Planning Commission for certification that it follows CEQA guidelines; and 4) the Redevelopment Agency will then give it final certification. She noted that the EIR process is a separate process from project approval and she would answer those questions that addressed the accuracy of the EIR only. Ms. Richardson then presented a transparency which summarized the conclusions of the EIR (herein attached and incorporated as part of these minutes as Exhibit A), and spoke briefly on each issue. Chairman Lichty opened the public forum for discussion. Mr. Jerry McNutt, 522 Tallow Court, Chula Vista questioned the use of signage to impact traffic in the area and asked if the signage on Oleander would be a Division I 1 Standard of the DMV Code. Auto Park Ad Hoc Task Force - 2 - October 2, 1991 Minutes Community Development Director Salomone responded that staff would get the necessary information to Mr. McNutt as soon as possible and have the information available at the Planning Conunission public hearing. In response to questions from Mrs. Edna Dorsey, 480 Cerada Court, Chula Vista, and Ms. Shirley Busom, 491 Cerada Court, Chula Vista regarding widlening of Otay Valley Road and signalization, Ms. Richardson explained that if Otay Valley Road is not widened to six lanes by the time the Auto Center Project development is completed, the Auto Center would be responsible for widening the roadway to four lanes. The way it is planned, the widening project will be occurring-concurrently with the development of the Auto Center. Residents are safeguarded both ways as far as the widening goes. For additional information to the public, Mr. Kassman presented a transparency showing the timeline of the widening project, noting a completion date of September/October 1992. As for signalization, Mr. Rosenberg responded that the delay in the implementation of signalization of 1-805 and Otay Valley Road was due to CalTrans insisting the City provide them with a design that can accommodate ultimate buildout of the area including the eastern part of the City. They want to make sure' the signal can accommodate the traffic. CalTrans added these additional requirements within the last month. Mr. McNutt asked if there were any requirements for a deceleration lane. Mr. Rosenberg responded that there was a turn out south onto Brandywine and presented a transparency to show the detail. Mr. Jim Salter added~.both the dealers and developers want the deceleration lane; they are also in support of a signal at 1-805 and Otay Valley Road. He assured the audience that the turn outs would be installed. 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Joseph Press, 1546 Sonora, Chula Vista, asked for clarification of who the Ad Hoc Task Force were and who they represented. Acting Chair Lichty explained that the members were appointed by Council to review the proposal for an auto park in Chula Vi.s. ta. Mr. Kassman further explained that the Task Force is comprised of people who live in the project area. 4. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Acting Chair Lichty submitted a letter from Chairman Maslak containing his comments on the EIR and asked that it be incorporated as part of the record (Exhibit B). 5. MEMBERS' COMMENTS a. Member Beintema noted that the latest comments should be discussed with Member Olguin to get her 'input. Member Suthertand agreed and asked what the timeline was for submitting a report/recommendation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kassman replied that a Auto Park Ad Hoc Task Force - 3 - October 2, 1991 Minutes recommendation would have to be drafted and submitted prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on October 23. MSC (Beintema/Much to continue this meeting to Thursday, October 3 at 5'.30 in the Council Conference room (5-2, Mnslak, Olguin absen0. 6. STAFF COMMENTS a. Acting Chair Lichty asked what plans APTECH II had made as far as hazardous waste and transportation goes. There was no mention made in the EIR of this issue at all; impact of traffic or any type of 'clean-up' of spills, etc. He questioned what type of recommendations would be made in the EIR. Ms. Richardson responded that the EIR did not address this because the threshold for identifying impa~ts was not changing. This could be addressed in the responses though and she noted they would discuss a response that the Auto Center would take if such a situation occurs. There is a hazardous materials response program in place at the pre. sent time, but they will address this issue. Assistant City Manager Morris noted that the City recently hired a disaster preparedness person and a preliminary draft report has been prepared. Mr. Morris assured the Task Force that this concern would be taken into account. ADJOURNMENT at 6:30 p.m. to the continued meeting of Thursday, October 3, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, City Hall. Alice Kemp, Recording Secretary DRAFT MINUTES AUTO PARK AD HOC TASK FORCE City of Chula Vista, California Thursday, October 3, 1991 Council Conference Room (Continued from Wednesday, October 2, 1991) City Hall 5:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 5:48 p.m. PRESENT: Vice Chair Olgnin, Members Beintema, Much, Sutherland ABSENT: Members Maslak, Blind, Lichty, STAFF: Assistant City Manager Morris, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Environmental Consultant Richardson, Traffic Engineer Rosenberg 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from the meeting of September 4, 1991 Noting that Member Sutherland would be abstaining from voting on the minutes of September 4 which would leave a lack of quorum, it was agreed to continue the approval of minutes to the meeting of November 6. 2. DISCUSSION: Recap of October 2 Public Meeting - Chula Vista Auto Park Mr. Kassman gave a brief recap on the previous evening's proceedings noting that the main concerns were traffic on Oleander and the traffic light on 1-805; the turn-out lane at the dealership; and the APTECH II hazardous waste issue that had not been addressed in the EIR. Mr. Kassman also mentioned the meeting was continued from last night so that Committee members could draft recommendations to the Planning Commission on the EIR. Member Beintema asked how it wofild be feasible to widen the road if we don't have a fn'm commitment on the traffic light? What happens to the auto park if the widening does not occur, or if the light goes in after the widening takes place? Mr. Rosenberg responded that this is possible. The consequences would be that congestion would continue at that interchange. The auto park will probably not build out for a couple of years but the signals are needed today; traffic volume is growing at the rate of 34% a year. If signal is not in at the time the auto park is constructed there will be a problem. The road widening project is independent of the signal project. The City is trying to get both projects coordinated .and hopes to get the signals in before the widening. Mr. Rosenberg assured the Task Force that traffic can travel safely without the signal - it may even be safer because there will be a better road to travel on. Mr. Kassman asked if the City would be willing to take interim measures, such as installing an all-way stop. Mr. Rosenberg responded that they could although the City doesn't want to do this because this is a high speed roadway and coming to a stop sign at 50 miles per hour is dangerous. This could be an alternative until signals are activated. CalTrans would not object to an all-way stop as an interim solution. Auto Park Ad Hoc Task Force - 2 - October 3, 1991 Minutes In response to Member Olguin's question, Mr. Rosenberg answered that the project should be completed by early 1993. Mr. Jerry McNutt, 522 Tallow Court, Chula Vista, asked if signs would be posted in accordance with Division 11 of the DMV code, which allows the local public agency to designate the purpose and use of streets and then pass an ordinance to make the posting of signs enforceable. Discussion ensued regarding the use and legality of posting signs and how to prohibit test driving in the area of Oleander, and what other means and measures can be taken to ensure thaLauto park traffic would be kept out of the area. Ms. Richardson stated that you could not legally restrict people from driving certain vehicles if the streets are used for that type of vehicle. Mr. Rosenberg concurred, adding that you could make CC&R's to penalize the applicant if the street is used for test driving. He did not think Council or the City has authority to post signs prohibiting test driving of vehicles. Mr. Kassman added that a system could possibly be Set up to call the City if a citizen saw a violation. Mr. McNutt stated that this could be done; it is done this way in the City of San Diego. Mr. Kassman said it would be looked into. Vice Chair Olguin asked for input from Task Force members at this time. Mr. Sutherland stated the EIR needs a section on traffic control, that this issue was not really addressed. Ms. Richardson state~[~it the EIR focusses on traffic impact on the streets; test driving is looked at differently as far as traffic congestion goes. This can be addressed in the responses to comments. He had no opposition to the Auto Park itself, just to the traffic and congestion it may cause. Mr. Much said traffic concerns are large but as a project, it is pretty good overall. Mr. Beintema noted the concerns Mr. Maslak pointed out in his memo to the Task Force. Mr. Maslak felt the Broadway/K property looked like a better use however, this is not necessarily the case. It is important to point out the auto park use of the land (Brandywine site) would not have greater impact than other uses of the land. He also stated the traffic light alternative was acceptable, but this needs to be included or referenced itl'the EIR. Vice Chair Olguin stated the EIR was well written. The Otay Valley Road PAC has concerns in that the area is zoned Light Industrial and has been changing. She would rather see Light Industrial zoning in this area because there would be less traffic and/or problems for the homeowners in the area. She was disappointed in this and worried that eventually the rest of the project would turn into other commercial uses and increase congestion. Mr. Kassman responded that any new commercial project in that area would require an EIR. Expansion was planned only on the south side of Otay Valley Road, and through special permits, the City would have control of the spread of those land uses. Ms. Richardson said it is speculative to address further commercial development. The EIR was based on 5 dealerships in the area; a new EIR would be done if more were added. Auto Park Ad Hoc Task Force - 3 - October 3, 1991 Minutes In answer to Vice Chair Olguin's question regarding rezoning instead of a special permit, Mr. Kassman explained that it would require a General Plan Amendment and an associated EIR, this is cumbersome and there is no guarantee it would not be reaoned again in the future. Also, even though the City could rezone the property it owns now~other property owners could protest and it could drag out the process. The control may be in the EIR process for future projects; the capacity of the road may preclude the further commercialization of that area. MSC (Olguin/Beintema) to submit as the Task Force's recommendations: 1. Comments on the letter submitted by Chairman Maslak (attached a~ part of the minutes). 2. Comment on the issue of test driving 3. Comment on the hazardous waste transport issue and what plans have been formulated 4. Concerns/comments from both meetings to be addressed by Ms. Richardson. (Motion passed 4-0-3, Maslak, Blind, Lichty absent.) 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 4. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT None. 5. MEMBERS' COMMENTS None. 6. STAFF COMMENTS a. Mr. Kassman noted meetings on the Auto Park EIR would be as follows and invited members to attend: October 7 - Resource Conservation Commission October 23 - Planning Commission Public Hearing ADJOURNMENT at 6:48 p.m. to the next regular meeting of November 6, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, City Hall. oo Alice Kemp, Recording Secretary DRAFT MINU~I~$ OF THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE Monday, October 14, 1991 Conference Rooms 2 & 3 9:00 a.m. Public Services Building Members Present: Chairman Casillas, Members Palumbe, Hall, and Olguin Members Excused: Member MeMahon Staff Present: Fred Kassm~ln, Redevelopment Coordinator; Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer; Diana Richardson, Environmental Consultant; Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator Also Present: Doug Fuller, representing the Auto Park developers; Jim McCormick, property owner; Ed Marsh, Attorney; Tom Davis, property owner 1. Approval of Minutes: July 11 and September 23, 1991 MOTION [Olguin/Palumbo] to approve the Minutes as mailed. The motion was passed 3-0-1-1 with Chairman Casillas abstaining since he was not at the meeting. The Committee discussed approval of the minutes of July 11, 1991. It was determined that Mr. McMahun was one of the three members who were at the July 11 meeting and, since only two members who were at that meeting were present, it was determined to continue approval of the minutes of July 11 to the next PAC meeting. 2. Review of the Auto Park EIR (continued from the meeting of September 23, 1991). Member Palumbo explained that the Committee discussed the EIR at the last meeting and decided to continue it until the full Committee was'present. Member Hall indicated that he had no major complaints on the EIR but that he would like to make the following 1. There should be a full discussion of a traffic problem on Brandywine and Oleander. The proposed mitigation is a naive approach for controlling additional traffic on these streets. Proper signalization is needed before the fact. There is also a problem with the traffic islands proposed for Otay Valley Road and how they are to be aesthetically treated. This should be addressed. 2. The access to the park needs to be addressed more fully. How will access be addressed (walkways, driveways, bike paths, etc.)? 3. Noise needs more specific attention. 4. Air quality has to be considered further. 5. The origination of the Project Area Committee came about as a result of several lawsuits including the County versus the City and two citizen action group suits against the City. It was decided to have a committee to represent both the landowners and the residents in the area. The guidelines for development in the area have been violated including setback and the type of businesses and type of buildings which will be allowed in the 6. We have a so-called "blighted" area. The Auto Park is to be developed in a desirable agricultural area. The lost agricultural lands can never be replaced. These areas were not blighted. Mitigation is needed that will be responsible to all parities. We will lose air quality with the auto park since it will contribute to air pollution through the sale of automobiles. The process needs reevaluation and the politicians who brought this about need an awakening. 7. The sewer problems in the area are not amply addressed. The City should be prompt to remedy potential Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee Minutes October 14, 1991 Page 2 sewer problems, not wait until the project is built. 8. The Broadway and K Street alternative seems more desirable for development of the Auto Park fi.om an environmental aspect. From an economic standpoint, the Otay Valley Road site is a good alteraative. However, onea this land is taken out of agfieultural use, it is gone forever. The land on the westerly and easterly edges of the proposed Auto Parle site are all fill towards the Otay Valley fiver bed. What are the future problems which may come about because of the mstefials that have been placed here and are they going to be removed? Where is fill fi.om the Shinohara property coming from? Is it coming from the Cu.~hmau site? Mr. Kassman indicated that the fill for the Shinohara property is coming from the Cushman site. The Shinohara site will be compacted and the fill from the Cushman property will be used to bring the property back up to current grade by replacing the soil lost to shrinkage from the compaction process. Ms. Richardson added that the project won't intrude into the wetlands. Member Hall responded that there is a dana across the Otay River bed. The EIR did not address the wetland issue with enough depth and clarity. What steps are necessary to mitigate the wetlands now? Also, there is little consideration as to what will be an acce~ to the Otay Regional Park. Ms. Richardson indicated that Brandywine will be extended through the Auto Park. At the terminus of Brandywine there will be a perking lot and access to the proposed regional park. Mr. Reid indicated that plans for the regional park are not finalized as yet. We don't know what kind of access is needed because we don't know what kind of facility will be developed in that area. Member Hall indicated that staff should be looking forward now. Chairman Casillas indicated that many of the issues that Member Hall brought up were addressed in Table 1 (Environmental Summary Table) of the EIR. Maybe not to the degree that Member Hall wishes. Perhaps there should be more investigation and further depth. Ms. Richardson indicated that there is more detail in the individual sections of the EIR. Chairman Casillas stated that he thought it was a good report but needs to address some areas in more depth. Also, there is a need to look at the positive side of the proposed development. The land has not been farmed for several years and it is no longer economically feasible to do. It served its purpose as farmland and now it is time to move on. Some of the proposed improvements are better than what we have now. Concerning the creation of air pollution by the proposed Auto Park, it will be the same if its located somewhere else in the City. There are some positive things that can come out of this proposal. Member Olguin questioned whether this is the last time the Committee will have a chance to review the EIR. Mr. Kassman responded that the Committee will once again review the EIR when they review the application for a special permit. Mr. Reid indicated that the Committee will be asked to review and consider the EIR (but not certify the E1R) at the time that they consider the special permit. Ms. Richardson added that the Final EIR can come back to the Committee before it goes to the Planning Commission (October 23). The EIR is different fi.om project approval. Certification of the EIR does not necessarily mean that the project has to be approved. Mr. Reid indicated that EIR's generally have a negative bias. They have to focus on the impacts of significance in order to fulfill their purpose. Member Palumbo indicated that he thought the EIR was complete and comprehensive, and that it will keep the mitigation coordinator busy. Attacking the EIR is not a proper vehicle to stop development in the area. There are other ways. Most of the issues will be further addressed before development can take place, such as sewer and hydrology. These issues have to be addressed significantly before the City will approve a project. Concerning traffic, there should be some control over where people are test driving the cars. Salesmen have a lot of control, so this issue can be mitigated. Controls can be put in the Owner Participation Agreements. We should act on the EIR. As far as leaving the agricultural land, that's not going to happen. The most important question is whether approving this project is going to open up the door for more commercial land uses in the project area. Personally Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee Minutes October 14, 1991 Page 3 I like the project, it will be good if it's done right. Mr. Rosenberg indicated that it may be helpful to put some of the traffic issues into perspective. Otay Valley Rbad will be developed with some kind of land use. What is the best land use is another question. If the land is left in agricultural use, this will have the least traffic impact. Industrial land uses will generate traffic, approximately 200 daily trips per acre. The Auto Park'will generate approximately 300 daily trips per acre. Industrial will generate more trips during peak hours, however. The Auto Park is customer based and the distribution of trips will be more spread out during the day over time. Traffic generation will be attracted to 1-805. There will be some additional traffic on Brandywine and Oleander, but only about 200 trips per day on Brandywine. It is not practical to use Brandywine for test driving. Brandywine is designed to carry 28,000 average daily trips. The traffic volume will probably grow to that someday. The need for traffic signals is handled in the EIR. It is the result of a cumulative traffic effect that will develop as Otay Mesa develops and the Otay Valley Road area develops with further industrial land uses. The City has a monitoring program to determine when traffic signals are needed. When the area needs additional controls they are provided. This project does not impact Oleander or Brandywine and Sequoia. We removed the driveway opposite Olesnder that was to service the Auto Park in order to make it more difficult for traffic to use Oleander. A signal has to be provided on the basis of traffic generated end not just because a new project is planned for the area. Chairman Casillas questioned whether there is any basis for signalization in the monitoring program for the Auto Park project. Mr. Rosenberg responded that unless it can be proven that the project generates the need for a signal, a signal will not be provided. Chairman Casillas asked about the schedule for the widening end improvement of Otay Valley Road in relation to the Auto Park. Mr. Kassman responded that the schedule for road construction at this time indicates construction start around March and a six month construction period for phase 1. This means that phase 1 should be completed in September or October 1992. The Auto Park should be completed about the same time. If the road project does not go forward, one of the mitigation measures in the E1R requires that the Auto Park developers improve Otay Valley Road to a four lane arterial from 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue. Mr. Kassman also indicated that the proposed traffic light for 1-805 and Otay Valley Road has been delayed until the end of 1992 because CalTrana is requiring additional information in the form of a special report. The light was originally to be inatalled by the end of this yesr. Mr. Rosenberg added that CalTrans needed additionalinformation on the interchange of 1-805 and Otay Valley Road. CalTrana will not let construction proceed unless it's shown to be compatible. City staff have to provide a special study. We are currently looking at the end of 1992 or early 1993 for before we can have the signal turned on. We have the money in the budget to construct the signal, but still have to complete the special study. It will cost over $300,000 to signalize beth ramps. If we can't provide the traffic signal by the time the road is completed, we can take interim measures such as the installation as a four- way stop sign. M (Itall) to accept the EIR with the recommendations made by the Committee for further study in certain areas. The motion passed unanimously (44-1). 3. Oral Comments None. 4. Chairman's Report Chairman Casillas indicated that a meefmg was held to review the EIR by the Resource Conservation Commission on October 7, 1991. The RCC recommended that the Planning Commission consider the EIR. 5. Members Comments Member Hall questioned whether Cushman Project has been brought to the Redevelopment Agency on October 17. Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee Minutes October 14, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Kassman responded that it was on the agenda and, ifa signed Owner Participation Agreement is received from Mr. Cushman, it will be heard that afternoon. Member Olguln indicated that she would like another member of the Committee to take her place on the Regional Park Committee since she could not make the meetings on Friday afiemoous, once a month. Member Hall indicated that he would consider it if no one el~e was interested. He indicated that he would attend this Friday's meeting and give the Committee his decision. Member Olguin questioned what the regulations were concerning truck parking on residential streets. There are still problems with tracks parking on Brandywine Avenue and on other residential streets in Point Robinhood. Mr. Kassman said that he would contact the City's Traffic Control Division to look into this further. Member Hall indicated that the Ad Hoc Auto Park Task Force also held a public meeting to discuss the Auto Park EIR. Mr. Kassman indicated that notices were sent to approximately 1,000 residents in the area. Nine residents attended the meeting. The comments were most concerned about potential traffic on Oleander Avenue, increased potential for hazardous waste spills due to increased traffic in the area, and the configuration of Otay Valley Road, including the traffic signal at 1-805. Member Hall asked if there was any further information concerning the APTECH II expansion plans. Mr. Kassman indicated that he had received no word as yet as to a final decision by the State. 6. Staff Comments Mr Kassman indicated that the Cushman Project will most likely go before the Redevelopment Agency on Thursday afternoon. Notices have been sent to the residents in the area as well as the PAC membem because of the sensitivity of this project. Adjournment at 10:17 a.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting October/~g/8,/4¢91, at 9:00 a.m. // t?z FA Recorder FK/ak lC:[wP51 ~L~SSMAN\ 10-14-91 .MI/q]