Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/09/09 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, September 9, 1992 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Casillas, Commissioners Carson, Fuller, Martin, and Tuchscher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Decker (excused) STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Crowley, Community Development Director Salomone, Environmental Facilitator Richardson, City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Casillas and was followed by a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Casillas reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of July 8, July 22 and August 12, 1992 MSC (Carson/Martin) 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Ray abstained, Decker absent) to accept the minutes of July 8 and 22. MSC (Carson/Fuller) 5-0-1-1 (Connnissioner Tuchscher abstained, Decker absent) to accept the minutes of August 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- September 9, 1992 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: RANCHO DEL REY COMMERCIAL CENTER DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - EIR-92-02 Community Development Director Salomone stated there would be a brief organized staff presentation by Senior Planner Pat Crowley, Environmental Facilitator Diana Richardson, and Joe Monaco from RBF. Senior Planner Crowley gave an overview of the project, showing the area proposed to be rezoned, noting the specific areas for the proposed uses, and traffic circulation. He noted the entire project would involve a General Plan Amendment, an amendment of the Specific Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey, an amendment to the SPA Plan for SPA I (a portion of the RdR Specific Plan area), and changes to the development regulations and design guidelines to recognize the new uses in the area. Also, two tentative subdivision maps are being processed for the western site and eastern site. Environmental Facilitator Richardson stated the EIR had gone through the California State Clearinghouse public review period which had ended on September 4. The City of Chula Vista public review period would be ended by this public hearing. Ms. Richardson noted the City of Chula Vista had sponsored a public forum at which the public could give comments and concerns. The Resource Conservation Commission had met on August 24, 1992, and the RCC had voted unanimously to accept the Draft EIR. In late April, the applicant had initiated a public forum for public input. Ms. Richardson noted that the public would have an opportunity to discuss the project at the Planning Commission meeting on October 14, and at the City Council hearing on October 27. She stated the comments received had focused primarily on traffic, air quality, and noise. There had also been comments on crime, graffiti, and other nuisance problems. She then turned the presentation over to Joe Monaco of RBF, the preparer of the DEIR. Mr. Monaco noted the written and verbal comments would be responded to in the Final EIR. He then summarized the issues analyzed in the Draft EIR, noting that air quality and noise would not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The resulting impact would be significant and unmitigable. Under Fiscal Impacts, the project is anticipated to have a net positive impact of $2.3 million annually. Mr. Monaco said there had been concern during the EIR review process that the project may have a negative impact on surrounding businesses, and even though it was not part of the environmental analysis, an economic impact analysis was being prepared to address those concerns. There would be potential significant impacts to police service; however, the fiscal benefits of the project would offset those. PC Minutes -3- September 9, 1992 In conclusion, Mr. Monaco stated the project would result in significant unmitigable impacts to air quality and noise. All other impacts are mitigated through the implementation of the mitigation measures proposed. Commissioner Carson, referring to page 3.2-5, first paragraph, asked what types of comments had been made at the public forum regarding the impact of glare. Ms. Richardson answered that there bad been some concern. One of the mitigation measures in the EIR was to comply with a lighting plan with the parameters that all lighting had to stay on the site. There needed to be lighting for security; however, it could not be the type of lighting which intruded off the site into the residential areas. It would be directed toward the building and parking lots. There would, however, be reflections from the buildings and parking lots. Regarding air quality, page 3.3-17, 3(d), Commissioner Carson commented on the mitigation, and noted that shoppers would not use their bicycles or transit to shop at those stores. She believed the mitigation was not a justifiable way to take care of the air quality problem caused by cars. She questioned that as being a legitimate way to solve an impact. Regarding 3(f), the installation of bike racks, she felt they may become corroded and an eyesore. She suggested more consideration on that issue; maybe traffic should be considered in order to solve air quality problems. Mr. Monaco pointed out that those measures were not intended to eliminate impacts. The impacts were unmitigable. Commissioner Carson, regarding traffic, asked that a study be done and included in the EIR on impact on other streets used as alternate routes. Jo~ Monaco said that could be reexamined, and that Dan Maxum from JHK was present to address any of those concerns regarding the way the traffic model worked. Commissioner Carson agreed that the traffic model was good, but the fact had to be built in that people would use alternate routes. She asked if the model built that in. Mr. Monaco answered affirmatively. Dan Maxum, Traffic Consultant with JHK, stated they had replaced a portion of the previous industrial use with this new commercial development project, and the characteristics of the commercial development project in its trip-making behavior was significantly different than the industrial park. His response to alternate routes being selected was that the model redistributed traffic away from "H" Street and replaced some of the traffic with the new higher trip generation. Other streets impacted primarily included the other major arterials in Eastern Chula Vista east of 1-805. However, he asked for the opportunity to report back to the Commission on the model's interpretation on the impact on .j. Street east of 1-805, as 'J" Street was forecasted to be extended (in the model) to Paseo Ranchero, and Paseo Ranchero extended between "H" and Telegraph Canyon Road. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. PC Minutes -4- September 9, 1992 Cliff Boone, 1435 Sununlt Drive, Chula Vista 91910, representing the Eucalyptus Ridge Homeowner Association, opposed the plans for the three retail stores, was concerned about the increase of traffic, litter, vandalism, undesirables, drugs, pollution, decrease in property value, and decrease in the quality of life. Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City 91950, representing the Rancho del Rey Partnership, had submitted their comments in writing to the Planning Commission. He was available to respond to any questions or comments. Commissioner Martin asked what uses they had in mind for the areas not yet planned. Mr. Fukuyama replied that the uses would be compatible with Rancho del Rey and with the types of businesses that were being proposed. They had received a great deal of interest from restaurants, health clubs, other various types of retail uses for the areas that were uncommitted with the major retailers. Commissioner Ray, referring to traffic mitigation included in Mr. Fukuyama's letter of September 2, specifically regarding setting the timing of intersection mitigation improvements, asked if there was anything that actually would limit the traffic itself. Craig Fukuyama replied that it referred to the installation of intersection improvements. The basis for the traffic analysis is the Transportation Phasing Plan on a pre-SR-125 basis. The model assumes that there is a finite number of trips that could be accommodated within the system. The system is developed as projects build out. The City has a program in place in which development stops until a solution is found for whatever road segment or area is in jeopardy. It was the Transportation Phasing Plan, the development impact fees, and the development community's responsibility to react to those needs early, because their ability to continue and proceed in a timely basis was predicated on those thresholds being maintained. He suggested that those improvements may not necessarily be needed up front, because the balance of the system had yet to be developed and all the projects presumed to be in the system had not developed. Possibly there was an opportunity to phase those improvements more as they become necessary rather than looking at them to be done up front. Commissioner Ray was concerned that when the threshold standards were reached, they were adjusted. Dan Marum explained that the recent change to the threshold standards was done in an attempt to strengthen the threshold standards and to place more reality into the threshold standards because of some of the feedback from the public in their review of some of the previous work that had been done in the annual traffic monitoring program. He noted that the concept of providing adequate capacity for this project and every project was an issue of concern to the Public Works Department. In that regard, the EIR analysis had analyzed the project to a point in time in the future which period was termed pre-125, and a series of cumulative projects were ceded into the regional traffic model along with this project. Mr. Marum continued with an explanation of the process used to determine the required improvements and the responsible PC Minutes -5- September 9, 1992 projects. Mr. Marum asked if he could summarize that analysis which had been conducted that was not previously included in the EIR, and bring that back to show there were some intersections and some segments that were critical to this project in terms of having those improvements in place in the existing-plus project condition. This being primarily a commercial development and industrial development, it could move at a much more rapid pace. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the computer model run with all projects included Telegraph Canyon Estates and Salt Creek Ranch. Dan Maxum said the traffic analysis did not include those projects which were either in the process of approval or had just been approved when this project was initiated. There would be an update of the Transportation Phasing Plan within the next year that would include those projects in a cumulative sense all of the approved projects, which would be an update of the previous TPP. Planning Director Leiter responded on the timing of a cumulative impact analysis which included those other two projects, and said it would be presented to the Planning Commission prior to final action on this project, as well as the other two projects. Staff felt that as part of the Commission's analysis of those projects, they needed to see a cumulative analysis of the three along with the approved projects that already have been approved by the Planning Commission and the Council. Staff would provide the Commission with that analysis and the traffic results of that as part of the report for the Salt Creek Ranch tentative map as well as this project. Commissioner Ray was concerned that mitigation was included in a subsequent development of SR-125, which he did not feel was mitigated. Dan Marum said the conclusion that was reached in the traffic study for this project was that in the interim timeframe, pre-SR-125, there was adequate capacity in the system to handle this project, along with all of the approved projects that had been approved to date. The results of that study could place some restrictions or some caps on some of those projects in terms of the percentage of development that the Commission would allow to go forward pre-SR-125 until the Commission had some confirmation on the reality of that facility in either an interim-type facility on State Route 125, or ultimately a freeway or toll road by CalTrans. Commissioner Ray asked what happens to the air quality when the timing of some of those lights were changed. Mr. Maxum said that could be analyzed. The signal delay is built into the air quality impact analysis model, but they could account for those differences. Steve Chappell, 1358 Los Coches, Chula Vista 91910 was also concerned with traffic increase, gang fights, accidents, and increase in robberies. PC Minutes -6- September 9, 1992 Donna Cederquist, 1251 Calle Candelero, Chula Vista 91910 spoke of the different uses that had been proposed for the site. She believed something was going to be built there, and other things could be worse; this would be a useful use. Commissioner Tuchscher applauded Ms. Cederquist for standing up in the midst of opposition; he appreciated her input, as well as the opposing opinion. Tom Davis, 1657 Gotham Street, Chula Vista 91913, commented specifically on the EIR; i.e., air quality noise impacts, traffic and circulation, impact on police, and crime. He believed the proposed Rancho del Rey Commercial Center should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and that a no project recommendation be made to the City Council. The EIR did not do justice to the citizens, and the Planning Commission should take action to reject the EIR. Vic Cederquist, 1251 Cage Candelero, Chula Vista 91910 said it was unrealistic to believe there was no need for additional shopping support because of the population move to the east side of Chula Vista. He believed the majority of the customers using this center would be from EastLake and the areas around Southwestern College. He would rather see clean industry like shopping centers as opposed to manufacturing facilities. It would create jobs in the area. The Terra Nova Center currently had a Home Depot which was being moved about a mile up the street. He discussed the traffic and graffiti impact. He had no objection to the project, and believed the citizens should be able to shop in their neighborhoods. Mrs. Cintra Cunningham, 1337 Los Coches Ct., Chula Vista said a neighbor wanted to know why McMillin was still handing out brochures for prospective buyers in the Rancho del Rey project even though there would be light industry prevailing in that development. Ms. Cunningham also discussed traffic and believed the project would have a tremendously detrimental impact on Terra Nova Plaza Shopping Center. She felt the vehicular pollution would hurt in numbers, noise, and emissions. She also felt it would be child abuse, in the sense children of today only hear noise, see traffic, and don't have the open space to grow and get stronger. She asked which intersection received an F rating in the report. Dan Maxum responded that in the course of the analysis, they analyzed intersections under their current geometric configuration, and found that a number of the intersections would operate at level of service F with the project. The recommended mitigation to improve intersection geometrics and expand geometrics and provide additional right-turn lanes and double left-turn lanes were intended to provide additional capacity for the project to reduce the levels of service to acceptable levels, level of service A through D. All of the arterials were intended to operate at level of service A through C. There were no levels of service F with the mitigation. Nancy Sormners, 1423 Eagle Peak Ct., Chula Vista 91910, commented that since 1975 when they bought their home, there was greater density and more building. She disagreed with a previous speaker who said something would be built on this property, and Ms. Sommers said nothing had to be built there if deemed that it would impact the quality of life. No consideration PC Minutes -7- September 9, 1992 was being given to the idea of open space. The existing Home Depot and K-Mart were within easy access, and there were many businesses closing. Victor Esquer, 1368 Cerritos Ct., Chula Vista 91910, spoke of the change to the community character. He said the zoning was there originally for the specific purpose of accommodating the traffic in the area. Trying to change the traffic to accommodate these three commercial buildings was a big mistake. He felt it should remain zoned left light industrial. Mr. Esquer said his neighborhood opposed the approval of the rezoning, and would like the Commissioners to support them. Ms. Ruth Young, 1135 Red Maple Drive, Chula Vista 91910, a science resource teacher at Halecrest Elementary School since 1978, said the commuter traffic was horrendous, and it would be greatly impacted by this construction; construction was a redundancy of stores that were already readily available; it would draw people away from other stores and would leave those stores empty; would be a major traffic impact; concerned about the value of her home; concerned about light pollution. She had seen the sky erode as Plaza Bonita and Terra Nova were constructed, with the additional traffic. She urged the Commission to not give permission to build this project. Commissioner Tuchscher asked why the night sky was not considered a resource in the EIRs relative to reflection and the refraction of light. Diana Richardson said it was considered in all EIRs. In this particular EIR, it was considered and there already was not a night sky in this area. There was a cumulative impact because of all the development occurring in the area. This area was already zoned for residential development, light industrial, and other uses that permit night lighting; this type of use was consistent with urban uses surrounding it. That was why it was not considered as significant impact. Mrs. Brenda Maldonado, 862 Blackwood Road, Chula Vista 91910 felt the project would be a detriment to their community. Traffic beyond the neighborhood and beyond the city would occur; traffic would bottleneck from the streets with access to "H" Street; the shopping center would be in the midst of residential communities. She did not believe it would be in the immediate or future benefit of the surrounding neighborhoods or for the City to change the zoning. She was concerned about trash in the parking lots, crime, preserving our community, pride in the city. She asked the Commission to reject the project. Russ Reuther, 550 Vista Miranda, Chula Vista 91910 said that when they bought their home, light industrial was supposed to be in that area. He said large parking lots are magnets for auto theft, auto burglaries, and vandalism. He felt that the three large stores would be taxing for the Police Department of the City of Chula Vista. It would increase the current rates within the City significantly in auto burglary, auto theft, and in vandalism. He urged a "no" vote on the rezoning. PC Minutes -8- September 9, 1992 James Cunningham, 1337 Los Coches Ct., Chula Vista said he understood K-Mart Stores also were auto centers which had been previously rejected for the area. He was concerned also with right tums onto "H" Street, double left-tums, tandem trailers, and police response time. Nick Gistaro, 809 Arroyo Place, Chula Vista spoke of the tandem trailers which would be making deliveries all night. His concerns were loss in value of his home, night light impact, and the impact to the shops on Broadway upon moving the present Price Club. Richard Stork, 1351 Blue Falls Drive, Chula Vista disagreed with the traffic mitigation; he said the level of traffic in industrial areas is much less than the traffic at the Price Club or at Home Depot; did not feel that moving those stores would make it any easier for the people in the area; recommended that the Commission leave the zoning as it was. Cindy Resler, 1085 Red Maple Drive, Chula Vista 91910, an environmental engineering student at Southwestern College, felt there should be student representation on the Commission. She said traffic was horrendous; mass transit in Chula Vista was inferior and overpriced; Council should subsidize mass transit. She believed Southwestern students would use a transit system if it was economically feasible. Addressing Commissioner Carson, Ms. Resler said the bicycle racks were made of resources which prevented corrosion. Regarding educational materials, she felt the more educational pamphlets distributed, the better. She admonished the audience to change their driving habits and to take mass transit or carpool. She supported open space. She also wanted to see EIRs and minutes of meetings in the Southwestern College library. Commissioner Carson commented that a student representative should come down to the Planning Department and make arrangements to be check out EIRs like the other citizens in the City. Commissioner Tuchscher said he hoped there was a representative in attendance from Southwestern College Administration. He would like to see them at some point have some participation in the decision-making process. Chair Casillas noted there had been several public notices published, and they were free to come. Commissioner Tuchscher encouraged their participation. Roger Resler, 1085 Red Maple Drive, Chula Vista 91910 said he represented the high school students, although he was currently enrolled at Southwestern College as a freshman. He also asked if traffic to EastLake High School had been taken into consideration, in addition to Bonita Vista High. He spoke of the health hazards caused by automobile emissions to people in the neighborhood who like to walk their dogs, mountain bike, or be outdoors. He was also concerned about crime, and noise pollution. He was opposed to more building. PC Minutes -9- September 9, 1992 John Januszewskl, 678 Rue Avallon, Chula Vista asked the net fiscal benefit of the project, including police protection and if that was based on raw land or the land that was currently there. Joe Monaco answered that the net fiscal benefit would be $2.3 million per year, and that it was based on the increase in sales tax generated by the project compared to the services that would be required to serve the project. Mr. Januszewski asked how that compared with the light industry with employment of personnel with higher wages versus the probable lower wages of employees of the three stores. Mr. Monaco answered that the fiscal analysis analyzed the impact to City services and was a comparison of what it costs the City to serve the project with respect to what type of revenues would be generated for the City for the project. For the existing approved uses, there would be a net positive benefit of approximately $230,000 per year. With this project, it was $2.3 million. It did not necessarily address the wages of the people working in the centers. Mr. Monaco said that issue was addressed in the growth inducing impact section of the EIR as it related to availability of housing for the employees in the center, and the determination was that there was adequate affordable housing within a reasonable commuting distance of the project to be able to accommodate that need for the type of jobs that would be generated for this project. Mr. Januszewski asked if there was an analysis of comparison of wages in the event of light industry buildout versus this project. Joe Monaco, referring again to the growth inducing impact section of the EIR, said it made a general comparison between the wage earnings of the existing approved uses and this project, and the existing uses include extensive warehousing activities and types of uses that would generate a similar wage structure as the proposed project, although there would be some higher paid jobs. Mr. Januszewski felt the City of Chula Vista should recruit to replace the jobs being lost at Robt. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that the Economic Development Commission spent a lot of time and energy recruiting good, clean industry to the City. David R. I-Iand, 1333 Los Coches Ct., Chula Vista 91910 said it would appear that the project would be finished before the traffic mitigation items were complete. If that happened, what would be the status of these F intersections. Did the traffic model take into consideration the possibility of the bi-national airport being built and the commensurate traffic on 805; validation of the accuracy of the model in that all the answers in their report and suggestions are based upon that model. He was concerned with the eradication of the views, the night sky, glare, density, and changes in the General Plan. PC Minutes -10- September 9, 1992 Commissioner Ray said that some of the speakers had commented about what was somewhat of a promise at the point of purchase of the homes in Rancho del Rey and now they felt they had been misled. Commissioner Ray noted that the business environment changes, and that he did not believe McMillin was that typo of a corporation. Jay I. Hilton, 713 East "J" Street, Chula Vista 91910 said the back of his house overlooks the project. Even though they had high shrubs in the back yard, they have noise, air, and light pollution. He was concerned also about additional traffic on East "J" Street. He asked that the zoning be left light industrial. Chair Casillas called a five-minute recess at 9:08 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:17 p.m. Chair Casillas noted that there seemed to be an impression that the Commission was going to make a decision that night. He said this facet of the environmental impact report process was simply to open a public hearing, take public testimony, and close the hearing. The information that was given at the public hearing would be used in preparing the Final Environmental Impact Report. That report would then go back to the Planning Commission for certification, and then on to the City Council. All concerns that had been raised would be addressed in that Final Environmental Impact Report. Linda Scher, 543 Beacon Place, Chula Vista 91910 was opposed to the change in the zoning for many of the reasons that had already been given, and was concerned also with the traffic during the holidays. She already avoided the area as much as possible, but didn't have the choice of avoiding it at times. She did not feel it could be mitigated by adding left-turn lanes and signals. She asked for consideration in terms of the extra impact that would be added to traffic during the November, December period of the year. William Lieberman, 852 Blackwood Road, Chula Vista 91910 had mixed feelings about the project. He was concerned with the additional traffic, and the mitigation of filling in canyons to add the extra lanes that would be required to handle that traffic. He was a patron of the stores, and had no problem going to other neighborhoods in order to get there. He did not agree with other speakers that it should not be in their neighborhood. A good transit system was needed. He said a proposal had recently been brought before the City Council to build a transit center at Southwestern that would have positively changed that situation. Council had rejected that proposal. Mr. Lieberman said that sometimes a project that seems distant from us, like the Southwestern transit center, could actually have affects that are beneficial a lot closer to home that could have mitigated some of the traffic caused by the shopping center. He appealed to decision makers and private citizens to think very hard about the way we get around; think about the excuses we give ourselves about why we're still in a single-occupant automobile; and then think about the impacts on other neighborhoods before we complain about the impacts that they're going to have on ours. Irving Crick, 552 El Monte Place, Chula Vista 91910 was concerned about derelicts and traffic. He also had mixed feelings; he had not been informed of the matter. PC Minutes -11- September 9, 1992 Chair Casillas asked staff to respond as to how the noticing process takes place, and who it went to. Environmental Facilitator Richardson said there is a local requirement to notice to at least 1,000 feet from the property boundary, which had been done. In addition to that, staff tried to capture neighborhoods that had expressed interest in previous projects on this site. In addition, a notice was in the Star-News. Ms. Richardson said that all their addresses were recorded, and staff would add those addresses to the mailing list to make sure they were properly noticed in the future. Commissioner Tuchscher asked that staff also comment on the State, or CEQA, requirement for noticing. Ms. Richardson said that CEQA required noticing in one of three ways: either by publication in the newspaper or by posting the notice on the site, or by sending out notices to adjacent property owners. City staff had done two of those options and in fact sent a notice to a much wider geographical area than CEQA required. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Casillas addressed the issue that Miss Resler raised--representation of certain segments in the community. He said he applauded the fact that she raised the issue, it was very important, and there definitely were groups in the community that sometimes were not as well represented as they might be, specifically, in the educational environment and the educational business. It was his judgment and the judgment of other Commissioners that members of the educational groups should have been present to present their viewpoints, because the issues that were being discussed would significantly impact the educational institutions and students. He asked that Ms. Ressler take back the message. He believed that input was needed, as well as from other groups. Chair Casillas asked the Commissioners if there was anything specifically they would like staff to address in preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Martin asked if staff knew of any report, study, or paper related to discount stores in an area regarding a higher crime rate. Joe Monaco was not aware of any. Staff had solicited comments from the Police Department, and their comments were incorporated into the EIR. Basically, their concerns were centered around increased patrols and any fiscal impact that would have. They felt the impact could be mitigated by increasing patrols in that area. Commissioner Martin was curious as to whether or not the discount store was the genesis of the crime, or if they were put into areas where the crime already existed. PC Minutes -12- September 9, 1992 Commissioner Martin, referring to correspondence received, asked if any consideration had been given to the alleged problem of trash cleanup in the parking lot. Joe Monaco said that was not considered as an impact in the EIR. Commissioner Fuller, regarding the transit station which had been denied by the City Council because of opposition from homeowners in the area, said he would like reconsideration to be given as perhaps a further condition for mitigation of traffic. Commissioner Carson said she believed at the workshop Commissioner Decker had been concerned if the road surface would be able to handle the heavy trucks. Staff should probably try to answer that in the Final EIR. She asked that a transcript or the tape of the meeting go to Commissioner Decker as soon as possible, so he could respond. Commissioner Ray asked for staff to comment on the fiscal impact in terms of a trickle down theory for the original zoning for this versus the proposed project. Does the EIR look at dollars that are earned in terms of an employment-type center versus a retail. Is any consideration given to the fact that some of those dollars are going to be spent within the City and generate in additional sales tax in that manner. Was that taken into consideration by the model. Joe Monaco said it was not considered. It was just the direct sales tax generated by the uses in the City. Commissioner Ray asked if that was a standard throughout the State models, or is was just a requirement of the City. Joe Monaco said it was a typical analysis tool, and the methodology the City uses. Commissioner Ray asked if there was any way to capture a percentage estimate based on another city, county, or municipality model that may estimate a percentage of the wages earned being spent within the City. Joe Monaco replied that there were ways of calculating that and the feasibility of such a study could be discussed in the Final EIR. Commissioner Ray commented that someone had asked him during the break if there was any follow-up in future years on mitigations in the EIR regarding replacement of dead trees or bushes, etc. with another type of mitigation. Joe Monaco said there was a City standard for that particular impact. If the impact exceeded that standard, it would have to be mitigated to that level. PC Minutes -13- September 9, 1992 In answer to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Monaco said the monitoring would be generated by a complaint; however, that could be built into the mitigation monitoring program, to be looked at every year. Commissioner Ray recommended that it be built in, because he was not comfortable that many of the mitigations that were contained in the EIR could fully be implemented and insured in future years. He would also like to see an estimate or a side worksheet from the City that gave an estimate on what the completed TPP would represent. He was not comfortable with the traffic, although it was noted in the EIR as being mitigable. Commissioner Ray also requested some k/nd of estimate on air quality impacts for some of the mitigated circumstances within the EIR, such as traffic lights, and what that does to the air quality. He also felt the internal circulation traffic was not adequate, given the use being proposed on the western edge--Home Depot--the single exit out of the project. He asked for other aitematives. Chair Casillas agreed with Commissioner Ray that some type of study was needed addressing the feasibility as to whether or not there could be an exit on the western part. Chair Casillas directed staff to incorporate and address the issues that had been raised at the public hearing, thanked everyone for their patience, attendance, and input. MSUC (Carson/Martin) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Decker from the meeting of September 9, 1992, since he was out of town on business. Commissioner Fuller asked that some of the Redevelopment Agency staff remain for a few more minutes. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Assistant Planning Director Lee drew the Commission's attention to a handout regarding a seminar on "Alcohol in Our Environment" which had been distributed to them and noted the deadline for registration was September 21. He pointed out that their next meeting was the joint meeting which was a field trip to Otay Ranch at 3:00 on September 11, with the Commissioners to meet at 2:45 p.m. Commissioner Tuchscher noted that he had other City business from 7 a.m. until 2 p.m. in La Jolla, so it may be difficult for him to meet at the Otay Ranch at 2:45 p.m. Mr. Lee noted that if they knew he was coming, they would wait for him. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: Chair Casillas asked if the membership on the Housing Advisory Commission was to represent the Planning Commission, and if it should be rotated. He had been on the Commission for over PC Minutes -14- September 9, 1992 two years and felt it was time to change. Community Development Director Chris Salomone noted that he would look into it and call Commissioner Casillas. Commissioner Fuller commented on a notice of public hearing by the Planning Commission in the City of Chula Vista which had been sent out by the Community Development Department. Residents of the area who had received the notice had advised Commissioner Fuller that the wording was not easily understood by everyone who read it. Since a Commission had spent a lot of time recently and raised a lot of issues before the City Council regarding making the system more user friendly, she felt this was one of the areas particular notice should be paid to as well, that the notices are written at a level that the average person who has no knowledge of what goes on in the City can easily understand. She believed the residents felt they would have no effect when they didn't understand what they were reading. Community Development Director Salomone stated he would attempt to get a "plain English" display ad in the local papers, which may further accomplish the "user friendly" advice given. Commissioner Tuchscher suggested that perhaps the Community Development and Planning Departments could, in the future, try to be more sensitive to that. Assistant Planning Director Lee replied that was one of the reasons staff had included maps on all of the major activities, so people would understand where the project was located, and the phone numbers were there if people had questions, they could call or come in and ask for further clarification. It was difficult with a project of this size and complexity to compress it into a public notice to make it very clear as to what actions would be taking place. Commissioner Fuller, for the record, noted she would be absent from the meetings of September 16 and 23, because she would be out of town, and again on October 14. Commissioner Carson commented, for the record, that she would not be at the meeting of September 11, because of business conflicts, and also from the meeting of September 30 because of open house at the school. Commissioner Carson noted that since it had been a long time since the Commissioners had attended a traffic workshop and the traffic model had changed, she believed a workshop was needed dealing with traffic. Assistant Planning Director Lee replied that possibly during the month of October, a workshop could be held. He noted that all of the dates scheduled for Otay Ranch may not be required. PC Minutes -15- September 9, 1992 ADJOURNMENT at 10:00 p.m. to the Joint Planning Commission/County Commission tour of Otay Ranch at 3:00 p.m. on Friday, September 11, 1992, and a Special Joint Meeting with the County Planning Commission on September 16, 1992. The next regular Planning Commission will be held September 23, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Ripl~y, Secre~tary Planning Commission (Pcg-o-92.mia)