Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1973/08/15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 15, 1973 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Macevicz, Whitten, Chandler, Rice, Rudolph, Swanson, Wilson and ex-officio member Anewalt. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Senior Civil Engineer Harshman and Acting Secretary Scholl. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Whitten-Chandler) The minutes of the meeting of July 25, 1973 be approved as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Macevicz called for oral communications and none were offered. He commented that since the oral communications had been moved to the beginning of the meeting no one had spoken and observed it might be well to have them moved back on the agenda to the end of the meeting. Commissioner Whitten suggested trying oral communications both at the beginning and end of the meeting for a couple of months to see if it stimulated any interest. MSUC (Whitten-Rice) Oral Communications be placed both at the beginning and end of the meeting agenda. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the BaS Front Plan and the Environmental Impact Report on. the Bay Front Plan - EIR-73-3 Director of Planning Peterson noted that the Bay Front Plan had first been presented at the joint meeting with the City Council on May 16, when the consultant made his presentation. It was again considered by the Commission at a study session on June 20, and the preliminary draft of the Environmental Impact Report was conisdered on July 18. The Draft EIR and the Bay Front Plan are the items for consideration at this meeting, for the purpose of taking testimony. The staff recommendation is to continue the item to September 26, 1973, at which time it is hoped that action may be taken adopting the EIR and perhaps recommending a change in the General Plan, change in zoning and adoption of a precise plan. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid commented briefly on the changes in the Draft EIR. Three areas reflect a substantial change from the preliminary draft: (1) additional information from the Air Quality Control Board shows an average increase of about 16% in Chula Vista's contribution to the incremental increase of pollutants in the air basin; (2) the secondary effect on predatory species of the reduction in wildlife population, and (3) inclusion of an appendix showing the subareas outlined in the Bay Front Study and identifying some of the major features. -2- 8/15/83 Commissioner Wilson inquired how the 16% increase to air pollutants by Chula Vista relates to the total air basin. Mr. Reid pointed out that Appendix A of the Report shows the average incremental increase would be about .7 to .8 percent to the total air basin, or less than 1%. Chairman Macevicz asked what factor was used to determine student growth so far as the schools were concerned and commented he felt it unfair to use the same figure used in computing the number of students generated by the usual residential development, since the type of residential development on the Bay Front would be occupied mainly by elderly retired people or by young people. Mr. Reid agreed and remarked that one of the advantages of phasing an EIR is that when specific development proposals are made, the impact on schools can be more accurately evaluated. Planning Director Peterson suggested that for record keeping purposes, the testimony on the Bay Front Plan be presented first and then the comments on the EIR, in order that the two items might be considered separately so far as possible. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened for testimony on the Bay Front Plan. Reva Lynch, 626 Date Avenue, Environmental Quality Chairman of the League of Women Voters of San Diego South Bay Cities, reported that the League supports the Sedway/Cooke plan of residential and commercial-recreation development and objects to any major industrial development on the Bay Front, and urged that the Planning Commission also support the Sedway/Cooke Bay Front Plan. Ken Wood, 501 "H" Street, Attorney for National Steel and Shipbuilding Co., distributed a written presentation to the Commissioners, and indicated the anticipated need of the Company for approximately 100 acres on the Bay for the purposes of constructing a shipyard for the building of supertankers and LNG tankers, if contracts are acquired. The construction cost is estimated at approximately $100,000,000. Mr. Wood observed that a committee has recently been appointed to consider the industrial needs of the City of Chula Vista and to determine where the industrial development ought to take place. He also quoted from a recent Comprehensive Planning Organization draft of a Coastal Area Planning and Management Policies Report, "Some development, such as shipyards and harbor facilities, need to be located directly adjacent to coastal water bodies." He summarized the history of NASSCO, commenting on their reputation for high quality and expertise that has been gained over half a century of growth. Today their national trademark is maintained under the ownership of Kaiser Industries Corp. and Morrison-Knudsen Co., with management and supervision being conducted by Kaiser Industries. Recent contracts will necessitate expansion of their present facility to the absolute maximum, and it is not physically possible to expand further to accommodate the LNG and supertankers which they expect to build. Other possible sites in San Diego Bay have been considered, but the area in Chula Vista seems to be the last opportunity for a shipyard of this size. -3- 8/15/73 Mr. Wood commented that the establishment of zoning for the proposed shipyard would provide Chula Vista with high quality, high employment, high tax revenue industry which would not cause air pollution or water pollution, It would also provide the financial wherewithal to construct and maintain the parks and recreational areas proposed by Sedway/Cooke. The employment demand would be subject to the contracts that NASSCO succeeds in acquiring. If they receive contracts for two supertankers they would proceed with construction of the shipyard and would employ approximately 2,000 to 2,500 people. Contracts for six ships would require 5,000 employees. Mr. Wood compared the estimated yearly tax revenues of the NASSCO development with those of Options A, B and C under the Sedway/Cooke Plan: Total Tax Revenue Chula Vista's Share Option A $2.4 million $1.9 million Option B $859,000.00 $621,000.00 Option C $495,000.00 $317,000.00 NASSCO $2.9-$3.2 million $1.9-$2.1 million Mr. Wood discussed the physical aspects of the shipyard. It is anticipated there will be approximately 6 single story structures with 300,000 square feet of floor space. The highest structures will be the three/four cranes used for construction of the tankers; they will be 120 feet above ground level. The next highest structure will be the ship itself, and at its highest point it will be approximately 80 feet above ground level. NASSCO has indicated they would provide appropriate landscaping, screening and green belts as required by City ordinances. They wish to make the facility compatible with any of the options proposed by Sedway/Cooke. They will set aside areas for bicycle paths and walking areas, subject to safety considerations. They would con- sider the construction of facilities for the minibus or the people mover proposed by the consultant. Mr. Wood noted that the northwestern section of the Tidelands area is the desired site for shipbuilding activities due to the fact that deep water is presently available. NASSCO would consider alternate sites and have submitted plats showing the various locations. Any other site on the Tidelands would be considered, provided a deep-water channel could be assured by the appropriate governmental agencies, although timing of construction of such a channel would be a very important factor. Mr. Wood disagreed with the Sedway/Cooke Study in believing that the NASSCO shipyard situated at the northwesterly section of the study area would detract from the possibilities of development of the total area, but would blend in even with Option A, should the City decide on that. He displayed a short movie film showing the industrial activities along I-5 as Chula Vista is approached from the north and showing the entrance to the Bay Front Study Area from I-5 and Tidelands Avenue. Mr. Wood stated the environmental impact of the shipyard on marsh and mudflat areas would be minimual. The major consideration is the 26 acres of fill in -4- 8/15/73 non-marsh areas which is already being considered for filling by the Corps of Engineers in conjunction with the deepening of the channel. The facility will meet all local, state and federal air quality standards. The material used in sandblasting and the devices now used for painting do not create air pollution. The proposed shipyard will have no ship repair facilities and new ship con- struction activities do not cause water pollution. The crane, which is the highest structure, is constantly moving during working hours and will be stored in a nonobstructing position when not is use. The Sedway/Cooke Study shows there is only a limited view to the north from the study area and, therefore, there would be virtually no visual pollution caused by the NASSCO facility. Commissioner Wilson inquired regarding the status of negotiations and the projected length of time required for acquisition of contracts for building the tankers. Mr. Wood replied that, as he had indicated, it is impossible for NASSCO to solicit in the marketplace to build the tankers without a facility readily available to construct shipyards. There are only two shipyards in the United States--one in Baltimore and one in Brooklyn--where such tankers can be built. With the need for the United States to import large quantities of oil and with the development of the Alaskan oil fields, it is anticipated there will be greatly increased demand for the supertankers and LNG tankers. Commissioner Rudolph commented that Exhibit C of the Report indicated the shipyard going out beyond the bulkhead line. Mr. Wood said that was because of the Freeway 54 and I-5 interchange. There is a possibility of redesigning that area, but federal officials had assured them that as long as the facility does not interfere with ship lanes, going beyond the bulkhead line presented no problems. Commissioner Chandler asked about the time period required to construct the shipyard once two ship contracts were received, if the area were available. Mr. Wood answered that a total period of 18 months would be required, which would include the engineering. Commission Rice remarked that he was under the impression that putting fill out in the Bay or conducting dredging operations represented a problem with the environmental groups and wondered whether there were anything to lead NASSCO to believe the fill could be more readily accepted than the dredging and if one site has any more immediate benefits than the other site. Mr. Wood noted that Exhibit A in their Report referred to the deep water Bay channel delay and what the Corps of Engineers and the Port of San Diego have been attempting to do for approximately six years in their effort to dredge a channel to the 24th Street Marine Terminal. Part of that package is to provide the 26 acres of fill. He said on August 22 a public hearing will be held in the National City Council Chambers, and, hopefully, the dredging would be approved in the near future. If not, it is a contingency that would have to be met in terms of some assurance that it was going to be accomplished. "J" Street would provide no site at all until the dredging is approved. -5- 8/15/73 In answer to questions regarding the period of time before a deepened channel from the Marine Terminal to "J" Street would be needed, Mr. Wood explained that the facility and a major portion of the ship could be built before the channel was dredged, probably three to four years. However, in putting $200,000,000 into a facility, it is absolutely essential that the dredging be approved before any construction were begun. With that approval, any of the southerly sites would be viable options to NASSCO. Commissioner Rudolph asked what back up facilities would be needed. Mr. Wood referred that question and one on the lack of repair facilities at the new site to Mr. Anthony, NASSCO's manufacturing engineer, whom he introduced. Jack Anthony, Chief Manufacturing Engineer for National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, observed that tankers are not usually repaired in the middle of a voyage, but when they are empty back at home base. San Diego is not a recognized stop on any major voyage for a tanker, but at San Francisco, which is home base for many of them, there are two shipyards with drydock and repair facilities for ships of this size. He said that they would require both rail and highway transportation and one of the advantages of the site under consideration is that it is close to freeways and the Santa Fe Railroad has assured them that they could readily bring a spur line into the new shipyard. Commissioner Rudolph asked if any of the marshland would be used for this facility. Mr. Anthony expected about 25 acres would be needed for the parking area on the eastern side of the shipyard; however, this would not be an encroachment into the Sweetwater Marshes. Mr. Anthony commented that the cost of dredging a channel from the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel down to "J" Street is estimated to be about $9,000,000, and to defray that tremendous expense it would be necessary to use the fill from the dredging to build up a site. The "J" Street site is predominantly water, and a great amount of fill would be required, so they would not want to wait for the dredging to be done after the shipyard was started. The drydock and the crane tracks would have to be on piling, but the rest of the shipyard would be built on stable fill. Ken Wood continued his discussion of the environmental impact and noted that basically NASSCO falls within the same decibel level as San Diego Gas & Electric and Rohr Corporation, which is considered insignificant. Traffic generated by NASSCO would fall within the same categories as any of the options which have been proposed. Mr. Wood estimated about 25 acres, or approximately 4% of the total marsh area would be needed by NASSCO to build a facility. He mentioned exhibits J, K and L of the Report which refer to scientific studies and experiments being conducted in the creation of tidal salt marshes, and suggested that considera- tion be given to recreating and moving to another area any marshland which is displaced by construction and development. Mr. Wood requested that the Planning Commission give consideration to zoning the General Plan for 100 acres of the Bay Front Study Area for shipbuilding -6- 8/15/73 purposes. He said it is NASSCO's plan, as soon as they are in a position to obtain contracts, to enthusiastically proceed into the marketplace to obtain these contracts and, hopefully, National Steel and Chula Vista can be partners in the development of the first shipyard on the west coast to build the super- tankers. Robert E. McGinnis, 1700 Bank of California Building, San Diego, Attorney for the Santa Fe Land Improvement Co., an affiliate of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., introduced Mr. Hauptli of the Santa Fe Railway Co. Robert W. Hauptli, Manager of the Real Estate and Industrial Development Depart- ment of the Santa Fe Railway and Santa Fe Land Improvement Co., 121 East 6th Street, Los Angeles, recalled that in previous hearings before the Planning Com- mission and the City Council, Santa Fe, as the largest private property owner in the Chula Vista Bay Front Study area had pointed out their objectives in developing their approximately 500 acres as industrial park: (1) San Diego County has a shortage of industrial land that can be served by rail, and the Bay Front area is adjacent to water, rail and interstate freeway; (2) there is an apparent need for diversification of employment in Chula Vista, with only one large employer in the County's second largest city; and (3) the area is in a corridor developed with industry on three sides and separated from I-5 by rail and electric transmission lines. Mr. Hauptli said Santa Fe disagreed with portions of the Sedway/Cooke recom- mendations and had engaged the Stanford Research Institute to conduct a thorough feasibility and engineering study which determined the property could generate 3,000 to 4,500 new jobs and up to $1.3 million annual taxes for the City of Chula Vista. He believes serious consideration should be given to - industrial development of the property for the economic benefits that would result to the City and the South Bay area, and heartily endorsed National Steel's proposal to use a portion of their land for a shipyard. He said his company would furnish in writing their opinions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report concerning this matter prior to August 22. Commissioner Swanson inquired if the shipyard were built on what is now Santa Fe property, would that be the only industrial development promoted? Mr. Hauptli replied that if any other of their land were zoned industrially, certainly they would wish to promote the development of that. Santa Fe pur- chased the property 40 years ago with the purpose of developing it industrially. Wallace Higgins, 233 A Street, San Diego, representing the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, recognized the necessity for providing employment throughout the San Diego area, the growing scarcity of industrial lands in large parcels, particularly that which combines deep water access with rail access, and the importance of tax base and tax revenues. He felt that the utilization of at least a portion of the land under consideration, especially that which fronts on deep water, which can be developed industrially without great environmental problems is highly desirable and urged the Commission to give National Steel the opportunity to develop the land as a shipyard. Jack Anthony, Chief Manufacturing Engineer for National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, noted that in his previous presentation he had failed to answer a · question relative to the number of cranes proposed for use at the new shipyard. -7- 8/15/73 He said there would be one shipbuilding station, the dry dock, and one--or a maximum of two--outfitting berths, so the requirement for cranes would be - considerably less at the new facility than at the present one. The meeting recessed at 8:38 and reconvened at 8:58. Chairman Macevicz opened the hearing to comments on the Environmental Impact Report. No one had additional comments on the EIR. Planning Director Peterson reminded the audience that comments were being solicited on the EIR, verbally or in writing, through August 22nd. MSUC (Whitten-Rice) The public hearing for consideration of the Bay Front Plan and the Environmental Impact Report on the Bay Front Plan be continued to September 26, 1973. Commission discussion indicated that the "J" Street site for location of a shipyard seems to be more favorably looked upon than others proposed, but the environmental impact of dredging and filling would need careful con- sideration. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Macevicz adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, teoda Scholl Acting Secretary