Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1974/06/12 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 12, 1974 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Chandler, Rice, Rudolph, Starr and Floto; also, exofficio members Mitchell and Anewalt. Absent, with previous notification: Member Wilson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Assistant Dir- ector of Public Works Robens, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, and Deputy City Attorney Beam. Acting Chairman Chandler led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Rudolph-Rice) The minutes of the meeting of May 22, 1974 be approved as mailed. 1. Consideration of conformance of Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan to Chula Vista General Plan Director of Planning Peterson noted that this item is familiar to the Commission since it incorporates the Bayfront Plan submitted by Sedway/Cooke, and adopted with revisions by the Planning Commission and City Council. He pointed out that the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan contains about 15 additional pages which describe the redevelopment techniques, method of financing, and a land disposi- tion supplement. These are a necessary part of the document in order to fulfill the requirements of the California Redevelopment Law. Commissioner Rudolph questioned the figures under gross acreage on page 7 for administrative and business services. Director of Planning Peterson confirmed that the figures in the report are correct as they refer to the area south of Rohr Industries. Cliff Reed, consulting attorney for the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, called attention to the proposed resolution relating to the conformity of the proposed Redevelopment Plan with the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista. Director of Planning Peterson reported that the City Council recently amended the Chula Vista General Plan to conform with the Sedway/Cooke Plan; therefore the land uses contemplated in the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan do conform with the City's adopted General Plan. MSUC (Rice-Rudolph) Adoption of Resolution No. PCM-74-13 reporting on the con~ formance of the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan with the Chula Vista General Plan and recommending that the City Council approve and adopt said proposed Redevelopment Plan. -2- 6/12/74 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of chan§in~ the name of Teal Street between MYra Court and Max Avenue to Malta Avenue Director of Planning Peterson advised that this short section of Teal Street includes the frontage of four lots. Two lots were developed some years ago at which time it was anticipated the street would be extended to connect with the segment of Teal Street to the west. Recent development by American Housing Guild has added two additional lots to this short section of Teal Street which was extended to Max Avenue. However, the location of Larkhaven Park west of Max Avenue precludes the connection of the two segments of Teal Street and since this street leads directly into Malta Avenue at the intersection of Myra Courts it is deemed advantageous to change the name to Malta Avenue. Mr. Peterson reported that a letter received from Mr. and Mrs. George Kilgore of 198 Teal Street indicates their preference to retain the name of Teal Street to avoid the trouble of an address change. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Pat Bethay, 192 Teal Street, owner of one of the original two lots on Teal Street, requested that the street name not be changed due to the inconvenience of changing records to denote a new address. Gene Dean, Fire Marshal of Chula Vista, confirmed the fact that any street with disconnected segments may present problems in reaching a particular house number by emergency vehicles. On that basis he favored renaming the subject section of street to Malta Avenue, which will leave only one segment of Teal Street. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioners Rice and Rudolph expressed understanding of the inconvenience to the four home owners who would be affected by this change of street name, but felt that in the long run it would eliminate confusion and result in better service to these residents in case of emergency. MSUC (Starr-Floto) Recommend to the City Council the change of name from Teal Street to Malta Avenue for that section of street between Max Avenue and Myra Court. Deputy City Attorney Beam advised that final action on this question will be taken by the City Council following a public hearing before that body. 3. PCM-74-11 - Consideration of site plan for new industrial building in Tide- lands Area~ 600 block Tidelands Avenue - Rohr IndUstries Deputy City Attorney Beam advised that due to the uncertainty of the conflict of interest laws, and since three members of the Planning Commission are con- nected with Rohr through employment, which leaves only two members present tonight who could take action on this request, he felt it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to send this request on to the City Council without consideration or action. -3- 6/12/74 4. PUBLIC HEARING; PCC-74-12 - Request to cOnduct bible stud,y aid prayer ser- - v.ice in home in R-1ZOn~ 899 Second Avenue JimWilliams Current Planning Supervisor Lee indicated the location of an existing dwelling located at the southeast corner of L Street and the unimproved section of Second Avenue, in which the applicant requests permission to conduct bible study on Sundays and on Wednesday evenings. The applicant is in the process of con- structing a new church on Hilltop Drive and has requested permission for this use for one year. This property is adjacent to only one other single family lot, since it abuts the golf course on the south and Second Avenue right of way on the east. By utilizing the L Street frontage, Second Avenue right of way and loop driveway for parking, the site will accommodate 18 cars, which is in excess of the parking required by ordinance for the maximum attendance of 40 persons as indicated in the application. It is felt this parking and the traffic generated by this use will not adversely affect the neighborhood since L Street is a col- lector street. Mr. Lee pointed out that structural changes would be required in order to use this building for assembly purposes, which would include fire retardant roof material and outward opening exit doors if the occupancy should exceed 50 per- sons. He called attention to the findings for approval and the 9 conditions recommended in the staff report. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jim Williams, the applicant, expressed doubt about meeting the condition for installation of a fire retardant roof and asked if there is some material which c~n be applied to the wood shingles to make them fire retardant. He indicated it would not be desirable to change to asphalt roofing. Chief Dean, Fire Marshal, advised there is nothing which can be applied to the existing wood roof to make it fire retardant to meet the Fire Code. He indi- cated a building used for assembly requires a Class C roof. Director of Planning Peterson recommended that the Commission grant the con- ditional use subject to the conditions for fire safety, which are required by State law, if the Commission finds the use will provide a desirable service to area residents and will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing in the area. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Starr pointed out this is not a unique situation. There are a number of churches that have purchased adjoining houses and where they use them for assembly purposes they must conform to Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. MSUC (Floto-Rudolph) Approval of conditional use permit PCC~74-12 subject to the following conditions: 1. The use of this residence for the proposed use shall be limited to a period of one year. 2. A certificate of occupancy shall be required. -4- 6/12/74 3. The total number of persons attending services shall be limited to 49; accordingly, all seats over 49 shall be removed. Should the number of occupants exceed 50, exit doors will be required to be modified to con- form to Sections B3303 and B3316, Title 19, California Administrative Code. 4. A one hour occupancy separation shall be required between the assembly and dwelling portions of the building. 5. The existing roof covering shall be replaced with fire retardant material. 6. Separate restrooms for each sex shall be available. 7. The applicant shall verify that the chimney is reinforced. If unreinforced, that portion of the chimney above the roof line shall De removed. This modification will not be required if the conditional use . is for one year or less; if the applicant requests an extension of timer the Director of Building and Housing shall review this condition and may require the chimney to be removed above the roofline. 8. A minimum of two fire extinguishers shall be kept within the assembly area at all times. 9. All decorative materials, such as curtains, shall conform to Section 7.20, Title 19, California Administrative Code. Findings are as follows: a. The temporary use of the structure will provide a desirable service to area residents until the permanent facility is completed. b. The temporary use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity, nor will it be injurious to property improvements in the vicinity because: 1. The use is isolated from other residential uses on two sides by street rights of way and on a third side by the golf course. 2. Church services and bible study classes will occur only for 6 hours each week and for a relatively small number of persons. 3. Because of the large lot and corner location ample onstreet and off- street parking is available. 4. Location on a major collector street will not result in detrimental effects from traffic as if it were on a residential street. c. Subject to the conditions of approval the temporary use shall comply with the regulations specified in this Code. d. Granting of the conditional use permit on a temporary basis shall not adversely affect the General Plan of Chula Vista. -5- 6/12/74 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCV-74-8 - Request for 8' X 20' roof si~n in C,C zone at 795 Third. A~.enu~ , Economy FUrnitUre Co. Director of Planning Peter$on pointed out this request for a variance is to allow a type of sign not ordinarily permitted in the C-C zone, which is among the more restrictive districts in regard to sign regulations. This zone allows wall signs or marquee signs by right, and allows freestanding signs only with Commission approval and based upon the inability to obtain proper identification without such a sign. Roof top signs are not a permitted use in this zone. He noted that the few existing roof signs in this area are nonconforming and sub- ject to abatement. He indicated that in evaluating this request, it was felt that visibility to northbound traffic could be achieved with a wall sign facing K Street and the 235 feet of building frontage on Third Avenue, on which a 198 sq. ft. wall sign will be placed, make this a prominent building easily identi- fied by southbound traffic. No hardship peculiar to this property for the justification of the variance request has been found and approval of the request would constitute the granting of a special privilege to this property owner not enjoyed by other property owners, therefore denial of the request is recommended. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Fran Berger, Pacific Sign Company, referred to the renderings on display of the proposed sign. He noted that the entire building is being remodeled and there is no room for a pole sign. He felt that to get proper identification the owner must have the roof top sign. He presented to the Commission a set of photos of the signs of six furniture stores located in the C-T zone where roof signs are permitted. Since this store will be competing with those shown in the photos he felt it should be allowed the same type of sign. He advised that the owner does not plan to put a sign on the K Street side of the building. He asked if the sign would be permitted as a pole sign if one of the end poles were placed in the ground in the front of the building and the other affixed to the roof. Director of Planning Peterson advised this would still be considered a roof sign. He advised that near the north end of the property there is a planter area and driveway where a pole sign could be installed if it is found a wall or marquee sign cannot provide identification. Commissioner Rice expressed concern over the fact that the applicant has not offered justification for the variance as mandated by law. He pointed out that without a finding of hardship the Commission cannot grant special privileges to an applicant. Mr. Burger asked if the Commission would approve the proposed sign to be installed as a freestanding sign. Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that this request was advertised as a variance and the provision in the ordinance that allows the Commission to grant a pole sign in the C-C zone requires a different kind of finding; it requires the finding that the building cannot be adequately identified by placing a sign on the building. He felt such a request should not be considered by the Com- mission without review and evaluation by the staff. The Planning Commission concurred with this statement. -6- 6/12/74 Mark Fishauf, owner of Economy Furniture, pointed out their efforts at beauti- fying this portion of Third Avenue by the construction of this building. Since they have removed their old sign, it is necessary that they install a new one. He was advised to discuss with the Planning staff the type of sign allowed by ordinance. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Rice-Starr) Application PCV-74-8 for a roof sign in the C-C zone be denied based on the following findings: a. No hardship peculiar to this property was demonstrated, as required by ordinance for the granting of a variance. b. The location of this business at a signalized intersection, its opportunity to achieve visibility to the south with a wall sign, and the 235 feet of build- ing frontage along Third Avenue, all give the establishment a high degree of visibility without the need for an additional roof top sign. c. Granting this variance would be unprecedented in this area~ no other roof top signs have been approved either by variance or as a matter of right since the sign ordinance was adopted, and those roof top signs existing within a block of this site on both sides of Third Avenue are nonconforming uses which will be subject to abatement when the moratorium on abatement is lifted. Thus, the granting of the variance would constitute the granting of a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in the same zone and vicinity. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-74-5 on Plaza del Rey regional shoppinq center, office buildings, recreational commercial facilities and residen- tial development Director of Planning Peterson advised that Mr. Reid will introduce this report; Mr. Robens has some comments pertaining to traffic, and Mr. Beam would like to briefly remind the Commission of their role in the review of Environmental Impact Reports. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that, as pointed out in the staff report, this EIR is a supplement to EIR-73-1 previously adopted by the City. Many of the conclusions drawn are based on the base reports contained in that EIR. He noted that there have been changes in the setting of the project since the adoption of that report and those changes are described in the supplemental EIR. He called attention to the brief summary of the findings of the setting of the project in the previous EIR, which primarily deal with climate, flora, fauna, air quality, archeology, geology and soils. There have been additions to the setting portion in the new report concerning meteorology and climate, primarily because of the more detailed air quality analysis that is provided. He pointed out that additional noise studies of the project have been done so that it is a more extensive background report. He further pointed out that since the adoption of EIR-73-1 there has been con- siderable development to the east of this project which has resulted in a -7- 6/12/74 continual increase in impact on urban support systems in this area, particu- larly as far as schools are concerned. He pointed out that there are conflicts in the project description of the new EIR between map presentations and project description; these are being revised for the final EIR. He advised that the staff has taken a couple of exceptions to the report dealing with the delineation of the trade area, primarily dealing with Jamul, Lemon Grove and a portion of Spring Valley. This position is supported in the staff report and a letter has been furnished to the Commission from Real Estate Research Corporation stating their position. Mr. Reid commented that the analysis of the impact of this particular project reveals that there will be a very large amount of grading. The property con- tains rough terrain and the total cumulative amount for all phases of this project is roughly between 5.4 and 5.9 million cubic yards. With regard to drainage, the applicant's proposal will adequately handle this through his property; however, there is a natural channel area between the project boundary on the west and the inlet to the Cal Trans drainage system under the freeway which is currently under construction. The applicant has recently indicated a willingness to work with Cal Trans to work out some solution to that problem. Mr. Reid felt that air quality is generally very well addressed in the reports but noted one omission, which is that no consideration is given to the mixture of automobiles from south of the border into this area to shop. The staff has contacted the A.P.C.D. on that to try to work out information for the final report. He noted that the economic analysis was not based just on the project as described in the EIR and that document is being restructured and it does not appear there will be too much of a problem in producing an accurate final document in that regard. Social considerations are not addressed in the report, but there will be some conclusions on that in the final report. Mr. Reid called attention to the list of 8 mitigating measures included in the staff report which should be incorporated into the EIR for consideration in decision making on the project. Mr. Reid indicated that in the section dealing with short term use versus long term productivity of the environment more information about the limitations on future options available to the City as far as upstream traffic generators and downstream drainage facilities is needed. Mr. Reid advised that in addition to the input received from the Department of Public Health concerning air pollution, the Environmental Control Commission of the City has requested three modifications to the report: namely, dealing with the mitigation of school problems, the relationship of this project to other similar projects under consideration in the general planning area, and some possible mitigation of the air quality impacts. -8- 6/12/74 He reported that a letter received from the City of National City indicates their opinion that "the report is somewhat lacking in detail and does not furnish enough information to determine what impact the project will have on National City. Impacts which we would be most concerned with would be the project's effect on traffic, air quality, and the economic base of National City." Mr. Reid reported that he had talked to the Office of Environmental Management for the County of San Diego and the Environmental Quality Department of the City of San Diego and they indicated that due to the work loads in those offices they would not be able to provide any input to this report. Mr. Reid recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, take any testimony relevant to the EIR, close the public hearing, give the staff any guidance felt necessary for the preparation of the final report, and, depending upon the volume of input, schedule consideration of the final EIR for either June 26 or July 10. Assistant Director of Public Works Robens noted that the Environmental Impact Report describes the shopping center as being developed in phases and provides a traffic analysis for each phase. He pointed out there are some changes in the ultimate development of the street proposed for this project and the pre- ceding Sports World project. This project calls for eight lanes for H Street from the freeway interchange to Lynwood Drive, with six lanes extending beyond that intersection. He also noted some change in the interchange design. This project also proposes an intersection of the loop road serving the shopping center and H Street. The EIR speaks to problems which this might cause. Mr. Robens pointed out that mass transit and the change in transportation modes are discussed in the narrative portions of the Environmental Impact Report but it is discounted in the figures, so that in the traffic analysis figures of the report the use of automobiles is maximized. This is probably appropriate since future modes of transportation are an uncertainty. The Engineering staff has no disagreement with the figures in the traffic analysis and the street system appears to be adequate to handle the traffic as shown in those figures. Deputy City Attorney Beam pointed out to the Commission and members of the audience that an EIR is not an approval of a project; it is a type of informational document which must be completed and adopted by this Commission and later forwarded to the decision making body for their consideration in reviewing the proposed project. The concern of the Planning Commission at this hearing is to see that the EIR adequately addresses any real or potential adverse environmental impact that this project might have. These impacts include traffic, air pollution, water pol- lution, density, schools. Comments at this hearing should be addressed to particular aspects of the report which it is felt are lacking. If these issues are addressed the Commission is then able to direct the staff to amend the EIR so that the City Council may have all of the information before them when they make their decision on the project. Mr. Beam further pointed out that it is the law, as stated in the California Environmental Quality Act and reflected in the Secretary of Resources guidelines, that the fact that there is an adverse environmental impact, or one which points -9- 6/12/74 out adverse environmental features~ does not mean that the project is halted or stopped. That decision ultimately has to be made by the decision making body,- the City Council, He suggested that if the impacts of this particular project are of a strongly adverse nature~ the Council will be well aware of them and will best act on them if the adverse aspects do go into the EIR. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Philip Walling of Westec Services, Inc., reported that he had directed the team of consultants from many areas of expertise which compiled this complex docu- ment. He introduced the other consultants, noting the firms which they represent. He pointed out that this EIR is a supplemental document pertaining only to the western 450 acres of this total 1400 acre ownership, and it is confined to that area except for certain things like traffic and air quality, which must be addressed on a broader basis. Mrs. A1 Valensky, 93 Shasta Street, representing the Hilltop Home Owners Associ- ation, asked why the home owners were not notified of the Commission's intent to rule on the EIR, and also why the Hillside Ordinance has not been enforced. She was advised that although the Hillside Ordinance has been adopted by the City Council, no action has been taken applying that zone to this property. Mrs. Valensky also objected to the proposed widening of H Street to serve this project and the adverse effect this will have on the homes located between H Street and Shasta. Carol Smith, 87 F Street, expressed concern that Dr. Bloom's project cannot legally be considered in Chula Vista at this time. She contended that this project is being reintroduced a scant six months after it was defeated by the voters at the polls, thus making a mockery of the referendum process. She pointed out that the question contained on the ballot referred not only to the proposed sports arena, but on the project as a whole, which included a regional shopping center and residential development. This project now pro- poses a larger shopping center and more housing, which will result in more traffic and more environmental degradation. She requested that the City not consider this project until November when the year required by law has passed; or that the City Attorney rule that this is a substantially different project, in which case the City is obligated to consider a new and single draft EIR, specifically designed towards this particular project. Deputy City Attorney Beam pointed out that the Commission is not considering approval of the project, they are taking testimony on the supplemental Environ- mental Impact Report. He asked for an expression from Mr. Reid on the complete- ness of this Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid advised that although it is called a supplement to the original EIR because it used some of the information on the project setting which has not changed during the interim period, this document contains all of the parts necessary to be a legally viable document under State law. It is an independent document as far as its analysis of the environmental impacts are concerned. Deputy City Attorney Beam expressed his legal opinion that this project is a different project than that which was the subject of the referendum last fall. He indicated that a written legal opinion in this regard could be rendered at the direction of the City Council. 6/12/74 Michael McQuillen, 4425 Vista Nacion in Lynwood Hills, further pursued the pro- test raise? by Mrs. Smith concerning the appropriateness of Commission con ' tion of this EIR, and it was reiterated bv the Denut~ r~+,, A~ ........ s~era- ~ r ~ ~ n~u~n~y ~na~ puolic testimony on the adequacy of the EIR may be taken by the Planning Commission tonight. Mr. McQuillen then objected on the grounds that the information is not all con- tained in a single report which has been available for public review~ since it makes reference to information contained in the previous EIR and does not include the economic report. He also felt there was a discrepancy in the report which indicated in the traffic section that only 25% of the traffic will be original trips, that 75% of that traffic would have gone through Chula Vista anyway; but in the economic impact it is indicated that 72% of the money spent in this shop- ping center is to come from outside of Chula Vista. He felt the report maximizes the economic benefits and minimizes the adverse effects. Mr. Ed Velugo, 211 East Millan Street, raised the ooint that if this is a sup- plemental report, there must have been an original'report on this particular project. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, expressed disappointment in Mr. Beam's answer to Mrs. Smith's question. He felt that if the project cannot be considered at this time, the hearings and staff work in preparation of the EIR should be ceased as soon as possible to save time and money. Mr. Watry then discussed the Market Study and Cost/Revenue Study of this report. - He felt the validity of the Market Study is important for three reasons: (1) to determine the effect of this shopping center on other businesses in Chula Vista, and therefore the resulting positive or negative impact on other parts of the city; (2) to determine how many square feet should eventually be approved; and (3) to make the necessary calculations in the cost/revenue study and evaluate other statements presently in the EIR. In this regard he questioned the assumed trading area, and referred to other market studies prepared for other projects, which concluded that 90% of the business would come from within six miles and noted that this EIR states that "current traffic studies indicate that an average one-way trip length of five miles is representative of a regional shopping center similar to this project." He noted that a second key assumption of this market study was that people now living in their assumed trading area currently spend one-half of their shoppers' dollars outside the trading area. He felt there is no supporting data for such an assumption. He felt the market study also failed to address the problem of distribution of income in their trading area. He pointed out that the incomes of families living in National City, Chula Vista and Imperial Beach is lower than the over- all average of San Diego County. Such income distribution would not support a shopping center on par with Mission Valley and Fashion Valley. Mr. Watry pointed out that with regard to costs, the EIR simply assumes that the current total cost per acre and cost per person for all of Chula Vista will apply equally to Plaza del Rey. He felt this is totally insufficient since the -ll- 6/12/74 cost for an entirely new development may be significantly higher or lower than for existing Chula Vista and this point deserves careful analysis. With refer- ence to revenues, he felt the projected sales tax revenues to the City are grossly exaggerated for three reasons~ (1) It assumes that the market study is accurate; (2) it assumes that the shopping center operates at full capacity from the first year; and (3) it does not give a net sales figure--tha~ is, it does not indicate the loss of sales tax income to the City because of bus~ness taken away from other businesses in Chula Vista. He also pointed out a minor correction in the Cost/Revenue Analysis which indicates that Phase II of the residential development will have a total of 1,110 dwelling units, but shows an ultimate population for Phase II residential of only 1,080--less than one person per dwelling unit. Mr. Watry concluded that in view of the importance of this project to Chula Vista, the recent controversy over Sports World, and the critical importance of the economics of the project, the public hearing should be continued so that citizens may speak to an amended version of the EIR which corrects some of the omissions and discrepancies noted. Esther Lassman, 264 Rogan Road, expressed the opinion that the traffic figures as shown in this report and as compared with the previous report for Sports World do not reflect the 33% increase in the regional shopping center, or the 25% increase in residential units. She contended that this draft supplement provides only an incomplete and conflicting evaluation of the impact of traffic, air pol- lution and noise pollution. She pointed out that the report does not deal with the handling of drainage beyond the project boundaries. Since the construction of a flood control channel is questionable she felt the added runoff could affect both downstream and upstream areas of Sweetwater Valley. She also noted the omission of the subject of handling and disposal of the waste products generated by the enlarged commercial, residential, recreation area, which she felt must be included in this supplemental EIR. Darrel Robbins, representing Friends of Rice Park, a recently formed volunteer citizens group made up of citizens from Chula Vista and the greater South Bay area, encouraged consideration of a possible alternative--the establishment of a multi-use recreational regional park in this 1400 acre canyon region. He spoke of the desirability of preserving the natural wildlife habitat and existing vegetation of this area while permitting its use for camping, picnicking, swimming, hiking and riding trails. He referred to the Toro Regional Park established in a similar setting in Monterey County through the use of Federal and State aid. He suggested that such a project be considered for this area. Catherine McMurray, 760 Nacion, reported that as a recently arrived resident to the area, she has not had time to study the environmental report, or the previous report, and requested that the hearing be continued so that people who are new to the area may have an opportunity to study the report. Director of Planning Peterson suggested that in view of the strong interest expressed tonight, and the lack of time on the part of some people to review and respond to the report, a continuance may be in order. In discussion between the Commission and staff a continuance of two to four weeks was suggested. -12- 6/12/74 Mr. Harner of DLB, the corporation sponsoring the report, raised objection to such a delay, pointing out that the filing requirements and posting require- ments were met, ample copies were provided for public review and ample time has passed. He felt the information submitted by the public at this hearing could readily be incorporated into the final report. Mike McQuillen contended that this report is so inadequate and inaccurate that the public should be given an opportunity to review and comment upon an amended report prepared by the Planning staff. Philip Walling responded that the consultants are prepared to respond to all of the points that have been raised. He reported that some of the statements made do not agree with facts which they have gathered, and if it is the Commission,s desire they would be happy to present those points. He pointed out, first of all, that this property is not designated on the regional park system for the County, nor designated as park land on the City's General Plan. David Parkinson, 1520 State Street, San Diego, advised that in the matter of air pollution, this report was sent to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District for comment, who took no exception with the report nor the findings of the report; this is the official body in the County responsible for air pollution control. With reference to Mexican vehicles which are unregulated in terms of emissions~ he pointed out that economic projections show that about 10% of the traffic at the shopping center, at a maximum, will be coming from Mexico, Therefore~ at a maximum there could be a 10% incremental increase in the numbers projected for air pollution. He pointed out also that many of these trips made by the Mexican shopper, were they not to go to the Plaza del Rey center, would pass right through Chula Vista to Fashion Valley or other regional centers, so the net effect in terms of air pollution may be the same. He felt there have been no adequate guidelines for analysing the problem of air pollution attributed to shopping centers. He pointed out that the emission controls on automobiles now are beginning to have an effect on the air quality of this region which is now about equivalent to what it was in 1961-62, whereas the worst measurement was in 1968. He noted, however, that automobile manufacturers are not going to meet the Federal standards in 1977, but this is not a problem which can be solved by Plaza del Rey. With regard to noise, Mr. Parkinson pointed out that the 65 dB(A) is not unique to HUD; the State of California and the Environmental Protection Agency have adopted this same standard. He pointed out that the projected grade of 10% on Lynwood Drive does not lend itself to the use of heavy trucks. He also noted that this report assumes 5% truck traffic for the shopping center, but by actual count recently taken at a comparable shopping center in the San Diego region, there were only 100 trucks a day. This figure would be 1/4 of 1% of the total projected daily traffic count for this center of 40,000. Carroll Sweet, Real Estate Research Corporation, 5452 Caminito Herminia, La Jolla, responded to the question raised about the trading area in the marketability study. He indicated that the further an area is from a shoppin~ center in terms of access- ibility, the less shoppers they~expect to draw from that area. He indicated that if the areas of Jamul~ Spring Valley and Lemon Grove were llmlnated entirely from this report it would affect the total by only about 9% in the finding of gross -13- 6/12/74 income to the center. He also pointed out that where there is a larger number of shopping facilities, instead of defeating each other, the experience is that they draw from a farther distance. The Commission again raised the question of continuing the public he~ring as requested. Director of Planning Peterson advised that under the normal procedure, following the testimony received tonight, the Commission would close the public hearing and give the staff direction for the preparation of the final EIR which would be brought back in either two or four weeks for final consideration, but not for additional public input. A1 Krier, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, discussed the traffic and transporta~ tion studies which were conducted in the preparation of this report, He pointed out that the road system proposed will accommodate the maximum traffic. Katherine Moore, 1134 Tobias Drive, expressed the opinion that this report as well as the one for the proposed Bonita center, indicate that whoever gets the show on the road first is the one who will have the center, and the consultants here tonight are saying "let's get the show on the road first." Mrs. Moore felt this is the best location for a shopping center, but that due consideration should be given to the EIR. ' Gail Otto, 570 Twin Oaks, asked if any consideration had been given to the wishes of the people of this City, whether they want this center or whether they don't. Deputy City Attorney Beam commented that if the Commission feels the public hearing should be continued, it should be only because they do not have adequate information, including public input, in this draft EIR to complete the final EIR. In further discussion between the Commission and staff, it was decided that a revised draft of this report could be made available for public review within two weeks, so that the public hearing could be concluded at the Commission meeting four weeks from tonight. MSUC (Rudolph-Rice) The public hearing in consideration of EIR-74-5 be con- tinued to the meeting of July 10, 1974. Acting Chairman Chandler reported that due to the length of this meeting, one of the Commissioners has asked if items 9 and 10, which are not public hearings, be discussed at another time, so that only the public hearings f~r items 7 and 8 be concluded at this meeting. Director of Planning Peterson advised that the Council has requested the Com- mission's recommendation on the proposed international airport (agenda item 10) prior to the Council meeting of ~un~ 18. He suggested that item 9 could be disposed of out of order, if desired, since the applicant has withdrawn his original petition and filed a new petition to cover all four phases of the Bonita Ridge Estates development. It is therefore recommended that considera- tion of the original petition be filed. 9. Report on Open Space District No. 4 - Bonita Ridge Estates Unit ? MSUC (Rice-Rudolph) The report be filed in accordance with the anplicant's withdrawal of the petition. -14- 6/12/74 7. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-74-6 on Inland Industries~ Inc. development for light industrial and warehousin9 useS Environmental Review Coordinator Reid advised that this EIR and the one to be considered under the next agenda item are the first to be processed under the revised procedures for environmental review; the draft is issued by the Environ- mental Review Committee based on information supplied to the City by the appli- cants. He commented there is little to add to the written report on EIR-74-6 except that he is requesting additional information relative to social-economic- employment standards and will make some revisions in those areas in the final EIR. He called attention to the staff request for a preliminary grading plan and a plan for the basic drainage facility from the applicant. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jerry Berg, 5887 Overlake Avenue, San Diego, President of Inland Industries, expressed the opinion that this EIR gives a picture of the impact of th~ Dro~ posed project. With regard to the request to furnish a grading and drainage plan, Mr. Berg advised that this site contains approximately 19 acres and it is their intent to originally construct three buildings next to the auto dismantling yard. He acknowledged there is a problem on the southerly part of the property, next to Palomar, which will require some grading, but at this time the ultimate development of that portion of the property is speculative. The first three buildings to be constructed are not near that portion of the prooerty. Mr. Reid indicated that a conceptual grading plan would meet the requirements - at this point. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Rudolph-Rice) The staff be directed to prepare the final EIR with the 8 revisions contained in the staff report and the request for a preliminary grading plan and type of drainage facilities contemplated, and the final EIR be presented for consideration on June 26, 1974. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-74-7 on Rancho Robinhood Subdivision Unit 2 Environmental Review Coordinator Reid pointed out this is a supplemental report to the EIR adopted for Rancho Robinhood Unit 1, due to the proposed development of approximately 5 acres which was originally reserved for a park site to be acquired by the City. He called attention to the suggested revisions, particu- larly the need for additional data on the capacity of schools and the anticipated cumulative student generation in the school service areas. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. James Ashbaugh, planner with George Nolte and Associates, consultant for the applicant, concurred with the information in the written staff report and requested that consideration of the final EIR be scheduled for June 26. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. -15- 6/12/74 Commissioner Rudolph noted that in the mitigating measures in the report it states that the application of the precise plan review of this project affords an opportunity to vary from many zoning regulations which could result in the greater integration of economic groups. She suggested the addition of a recom- mendation that a greater effort be made to increase the integration of economic groups. MSUC (Rice-Rudolph) The staff be directed to prepare the final EIR with the revisions stated in the staff report, and the added recommendation that the developer make a greater effort to increase the integration of economic groups. 10. Report of the proposed.establishment of the San Die~o-Tijuana International Airport (SDT) on the Ota~ Mesa and its impact upon the Chula Vista Planning Area Director of Planning Peterson referred to the staff report made to the City Council on this proposed airport and to the Council's request for a recommenda- tion from the Planning Commission and the Environmental Control Commission. On Monday of this week the Environmental Control Commission recommended that Council oppose the airport. Mr. Peterson noted that CPO has projected that such an air- port at Brown Field, by the year 2000, would be handling approximately 24 million passengers a year, which is the passenger level now handled by Los Angeles Inter- national Airport. He felt the economic impact on the South Bay would be tremen- dous, but the direct benefits to Chula Vista are unknown at this time, since it is assumed that the City of San Diego would annex the airport and its environs and they would reap the sales tax and property tax benefits. Any benefits that Chula Vista might realize would be of a secondary nature. Mr. Peterson pointed out that some of the environmental impacts would include strong pressures for growth and urban development with the resultant increase in traffic on the free- ways and increase in air pollution. At the present stage of planning, it is contemplated that there would be no serious ~oise impact on Chula Vista from aircraft operating out of that field; that supposition, however, was ouestioned by Councilman Hobel. Mr. Peterson felt that the lack of definite information on this proposal makes a recommendation difficult for the Planning Commission to arrive at, but such a recommendation has been asked for by the Council. He felt the Council realizes this would be a preliminary reaction based on the information that is now available. Commissioner Rice expressed the opinion that the detrimental effects of this airport would far outweigh any economic benefits that might be derived by Chula Vista; he would therefore oppose that location for the airport. Acting Chairman Chandler concurred, adding that this would have a horrendous effect on the orderly growth of the City of Chula Vista. Commissioner Rudolph suggested that the Commission recommend that the Council take the stand that a decision on the airport is premature. She felt there are a great many things that may change the idea of the airport, even the necessity for it. She felt efforts should be made to have very rapid ground transportation. She made reference to a report which had stated many trips are within 600 miles and ground transportation could take the place of air travel. She suggested that the South Bay area should seriously consider how much growth- inducing projects should be brought into the area and whether or not such -16- 6/12/74 growth is beneficial. She pointed out that while the airport could be very beneficial in terms of additional employment~ a study should be made of how many people presently living in the area might receive that employment and how many new people would be required to fill the type of positions offered. Mike McQuillen, advised of his own background in air transportation as an airline pilot for Pan American Airways. He pointed out that straight east of the runway at Brown Field a distance of 3.2 miles is the ~eak of Otay Mountain, which is over 3,000 feet high. He expressed a doubt that any commercial pilot would accept a flight under instrument conditions to either of the new runways shown on the proposed airport plan. He felt the runway would have to be more to the northwest and the takeoff pattern would be over Chula Vista. MSUC (Rice-Starr) Forward to the City Council a recommendation to oppose the Brown Field area as the location of an international airport based on the pre- liminary information available at this time. No oral communications were presented and the Director of Planning indicated he had no report at this meeting. COI~MISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Floto reported that he will be unable to be present at the Com- mission meeting on June 19. ADJOURNMENT Acting Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Secretary