Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/04/24 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, April 24, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-90-07, Scripps Hospital Expansion 2. Consideration of request for a waiver of the requirement to widen First Avenue and Oxford Street OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of May 8, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of April 24, 1991 Page I PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR-90-07 Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion A. BACKGROUND The Draft of this EIR was issued through the State Clearinghouse (SCH) for the required 45-day agency review period which ended April 22, 1991. The City of Chula Vista 30-day public review period commenced on April 15, 1991. Letters of comment were received on the Draft EIR from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Chula Vista Elementary School District and from interested members of the public. These letters are enclosed as Attachment A. According to legislation which became effective January 1, 1990, the State review of environmental documents must conclude prior to local review periods. The circulation of this Draft EIR complied with this legislation. The Draft EIR went before the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) on April 8, 1991. The RCC is recommending that the Planning Commission certify the EIR. The minutes from the RCC meeting are enclosed as Attachment B. The Planning Commission hearing date for consideration of the Final EIR has been tentatively scheduled for a special meeting on May 15, 1991 at 5:00 p.m. B. RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing to take testimony on the adequacy of the Draft EIR and close the public review period on the Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion EIR (EIR-90-07). C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project proposes to expand the existing 4.7-acre hospital site onto an additional 8.9 acres directly to the west for a total project site of 13.6 acres (see Figure 3 of the EIR). The proposed hospital expansion would be accomplished in two phases. Phase One would consist of the addition of approximately 120,560 square feet to the existing 73,994 square foot hospital for a total Phase One hospital square footage of 194,554 square feet. The hospital expansion would be built approximately 40 feet west of the existing hospital and would be connected to the hospital by a pedestrian corridor. Phase One would also consist of the construction of a 62,180 square foot four-story medical office building with 370 surface parking spaces. Phase Two (Ultimate) would include an additional 251,790 square feet of hospital space consisting of a three-story 58,800 square foot medical office building, two-story 84,560 sq. foot diagnostic and treatment City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 24, 1991 Page 2 center, as well as, 132,570 square feet of additional medical office space in the hospital complex. A 775-space parking garage is proposed in addition to the 103 surface parking spaces for a total of 878 project parking spaces. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Design Review application, and Special Permit issued by the Redevelopment Agency are required for the actual construction of the hospital expansion and medical office buildings. This EIR analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the proposed expansion of the Scripps Hospital site allowed by these discretionary actions. D. IMPACT ANALYSIS During the preparation of the EIR, various environmental impacts of the proposed project were analyzed. The EIR identified as "significant but mitigable" those impacts related to land use/community character, visual quality, traffic and parking, noise, health, and air quality. The following is a synopsis of the major issues discussed in the Draft EIR, which have been determined to be significant, but mitigable. No significant, unmitigable impacts have been identified for the project. SIGNIFICANT, BUT MITIGABLE IMPACTS 1. Land Use The project site is located within central Chula Vista which contains the oldest and most central activities of the City. The proposed project would expand the existing 4.7 acre Scripps Hospital site onto 8.g acres resulting in a total project site of 13.6 acres. Existing land uses that would be displaced as a result of the proposal include, but are not limited to the following commercial uses: Express Gasoline, Farrell's, Fiesta Cinema, Rollerskate Land, Readicare, Arby's, First Interstate Bank, and Jetco Furniture. There is currently a proposal by Readicare, Arby's, and First Interstate Bank to remain on the project site until construction begins on Phase II (Ultimate). This alternative project will be considered by the Redevelopment Agency at the same time that the Scripps proposal is presented. In addition, a second alternative proposal to develop a commercial project on the site was submitted by Wayne Wencke, one of master ground lease holders on site. These alternative proposals are not analyzed in this EIR and would require separate environmental review if either are approved for further consideration by the Agency. Although one of the EIR alternatives did analyze the environmental impacts associated with Arby's remaining on the site, this alternative does not reflect the current Arby's proposal to include Readicare and First Interstate Bank. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 24, 1991 Page 3 The project site is currently underutilized and poorly planned. Commercial uses such as the Chula Vista Indoor Swap Meet have now leased out space to the Jetco furniture business. The underutilization of commercial uses on the site is evidenced by the "blighted" designation the site was given in the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan and the relocation of Wherehouse Records to the renovated Chula Vista Center. Land use impacts are associated primarily with the displacement of existing commercial uses on the western 8.9 acres of the site. Potential land use impacts would result from the loss of neighborhood-serving commercial uses on site, such as restaurants, a gas station, bank, readicare center, cinema, furniture business and roller skating rink and their replacement with a master-planned medical facility. Land use impacts are not deemed to be significant, since the proposed hospital expansion is consistent with the existing C-C-D (Central Commercial Design control modifying District) and C-O (Administrative & Professional Office) zone designations provided that a conditional use permit is obtained. The Towne Centre II Redevelopment Plan covers the western 8.9 acres of the site, and the general plan designations are "Retail Commercial" and "Office Commercial". The proposed project is in compliance with the General Plan designations with an approved conditional use permit for the Retail Commercial portion of the site. 2. Visual Oualitv The existing visual character of the site consists of a fully developed commercial complex including a 73,994 square foot existing hospital facility. The site topography is generally flat and there are no unique visual resources on the property. Fourth Avenue, which is located 300 feet east of the site is designated as a "Scenic Highway" on the Chula Vista General Plan. Fourth Avenue is the only continuous major street transecting the central part of the City which is not dominated throughout by commercial land uses. The implementation of the proposed hospital expansion would alter the visual character of the site from a developed commercial property and hospital facility to a master-planned medical center with associated medical offices and infrastructure. The Phase II (Ultimate) expansion includes the construction of a 775 space parking structure which will create potentially significant visual impacts. Potentially significant visual impacts are primarily associated with the relationship between the proposed mid-rise medical office complex in an area currently dominated by low lying, two- and three-story buildings. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 24, 1991 Page 4 The six levels proposed for the Phase II (Ultimate) construction of the hospital complex will be setback from "H" Street, in order to minimize bulk and scale impacts. The proposed hospital expansion may provide some visual relief to portions of the site which are underutilized currently, however, the Design Review Committee has expressed its preliminary concern over the height and massing of the medical office buildings. Mitigation measures to ensure adequate setbacks, minimization of bulk and scale, and architectural and landscape treatment will continue to be refined through the Design Review process. Mitigation of potentially significant visual impacts will be ensured through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program developed for the project as well as, through the conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit, Special Permit and the Design Review application. 3. Traffic/Circulation The project is associated with potentially significant traffic and parking impacts related to the additional 4,980 ADT the project will generate in Phase I and the 9,015 total ADT which will be generated overall by the hospital expansion by Phase II (Ultimate). The traffic analysis conducted for the project utilized the Chula Vista General Plan Scenario 4 buildout travel forecasts. Assuming that the proposed project will generate 9,015 ADT with the Phase Ultimate expansion, it was determined that 1,500 more ADT will be generated by the project than was assumed in the General Plan for the existing commercial uses. Although the proposed project will increase the number of trips on streets in the project vicinity, most street segments operate at LOS E or better. Potential traffic impacts are deemed to be mitigable to below a level of significance with implementation of the mitigation measures listed on Pages 66 and 67 of the Draft EIR. Mitigation will be ensured through implementation of the the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program developed for the project. 4. Noise Impacts An acoustical analysis was conducted for the proposed hospital expansion which indicated that existing noise levels would change from increased street traffic, as well as, parking structure and mechanical equipment noise. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 24, 1991 Page 5 Existing ambient noise levels were measured on Fifth Avenue and H Street to determine volumes associated with street traffic in the project vicinity. Noise levels in the study area ranged between 64 to 68 dB(A). With the proposed project, noise levels are expected to increase by 2.2 to 2.5 dBA on Fifth Avenue and 1 dB on H Street. Because the proposed project will have a relatively minor contribution to increased noise levels within the study area, noise impacts associated with street traffic are deemed to be less than significant. Potentially significant noise impacts are anticipated from the parking garage located adjacent to the junior high school. Noise levels from the starting and stopping of car engines are expected to reach 69 dB(A) which is 4 dB(A) over City noise ordinance standards. Project mitigation such as the enclosure of the wall of the parking garage adjacent to the junior high school would reduce noise levels to approximately 61 to 62 dB(A). Noise impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant with proper noise attenuation. Noise mitigation will be ensured through the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program developed for the project, as well as, through the conditions of approval for the CUP, Special Permit, and Design Review application. 5. Health Impacts Potential health impacts associated with the proposed project consist of hazardous waste impacts during the removal of the existing gas station and the impacts associated with the disposal of infectious waste generated by the hospital and additional medical related uses. a. Hazardous Waste: A preliminary hazardous waste assessment conducted for the site in January 1990 analyzed the potential impacts associated with the removal of underground storage tanks and associated infrastructure on the Express Gas station site. Based on the findings of this study, no evidence of hazardous waste contamination was found from the subsurface testing conducted. No other apparent hazardous materials use or storage is expected to be present on the project site, therefore, mitigation of potential hazardous waste impacts is not required. b. Infectious Waste: Potential infectious waste impacts associated with the hospital expansion result from the daily operations of the medical facility and the increased need for proper disposal facilities. Scripps has an established procedural manual for City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 24, 1991 Page 6 the handling and disposal of all infectious waste in conformance with Title 22 of the California Administration Code. Although the amount of infectious waste generated will incrementally increase with the project, impacts are not deemed to be significant. The hospital will be required to revise its infectious waste pick-up service, thereby mitigating this health impact to a level of less than significant. Mitigation of infectious waste impacts will be ensured through the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program developed for the project. 6. Air Oualitv Short-term air quality impacts would result during the construction phase of the project from earth moving and other construction activities. This would result in a temporary increase in fugitive dust emissions. Long-term air quality impacts would result from the increased congestion that may occur on surrounding intersections with increased traffic levels. An increase in traffic congestion could lead to a buildup of carbon monoxide. Potential air quality impacts would be mitigated to a level below significance with implementation of the traffic mitigation required for the project to ensure that traffic is flowing smoothly in the project vicinity. Potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed 775-space parking structure will be mitigated below significance with the implementation of adequate ventilation at exits and entryways to the undergound level. Therefore, potential air quality impacts are deemed to be less than significant with implementation of street improvements and other traffic mitigation requirements. These mitigation measures will be ensured by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program developed for the project. WPC 9178P ATTACHMENT A SHANN.,HAN, SMITH, SCALONE & S.tPANOV ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 7855 Iv.nmto£ AVI[NU£. RECEIVED LA JOLLA. CALIFORNIA 92037 APR T~L~COP~ (619) 459-8111 April 17, 1991 01580.021 HAND DELIVERED Maryann C. Miller Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, California 91912 Re: RTM, Inc. Draft Environmental Impact Report Case No. EIR 90-07 (Scripps HosPital EIR) Dear Ms. Miller: This office represents RTM, Inc. ("RTM"), the owner of the Arby's Restaurant that the Scripps project will displace. This letter is intended to comment upon the adequacy of the above-referenced draft environmental impact report ("EIR"). In summary, the EIR must adequately evaluate project alternatives. The EIR should dispassionately evaluate the Scripps project and the existinG uses on the project site. The EIR relies on assumptions or avoids negative comment on the Scripps project where facts and critical analysis are required. A. THE EIR MUST INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE PROJECT AND SITE EVALUATION 1. Physical Chanqes Caused By Economic and Social Effects Should Be Evaluated Economic or social effects are not environmental effects under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). However, the EIR must evaluate physical changes caused by economic or social changes. 14 California Code of ReGulations Section 1513(a). The EIR absolutely fails in this regard. For example, causinG the economic decline and subsequent physical deterioration of the Chula Vista commercial/retail urban SHANNAHAN, SMITH, SCAI-ONE & STIPANOV - Maryann C. Miller April 17, 1991 Page 2 core ("urban core"), or Chula Vista medical office buildings or medical providers, constitutes a physical impact. This negative impact must be evaluated in the EIR. Citizens' Association for SensibleDevelopment of the Bishop Area v. County of Inyo, 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 217 Cal. Rptr. 893 (198§); Citizens for Quality Growth v. City Mount Shasta, 198 Cal. App. 3d 433, 243 Cal. Rptr. 727 (1988). The EIR lacks this critical analysis. 2. An Adequate EIR Must Assess Pro~ect Alternatives One of the most important functions of an EIR is to thoroughly evaluate reasonable alternatives to a proposed project, even if all significant environmental impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. An EIR that simply concludes that no feasible alternatives exist without sufficient supporting analysis and factual basis is inadequate. Laurel Heiqhts Improvement Association v. Reqents of University of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 253 Cal. Rptr. 426 (1988); 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15126(d)(1). The EIR's conclusoryalternative project analysis is inadequate. Alternative project locations must also be evaluated. 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15126(d). An EIR that fails to consider alternative project locations when such an analysis is warranted is inadequate. Laurel Heiqhts Improvement Association v. Reqents of University of California, supra; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 197 Cal. App. 3d 1167, 243 Cal. Rptr. 339 (1988); San Bernadino Valley Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernadino, 155 Cal. App. 3d 738, 202 Cal. Rptr. 423 (1984). 3. The EIR Fails To Adequately Evaluate Scripps Project Alternatives The EIR wholly fails to analyze alternative projects or sites (see EIR, page 90, paragraph 6.4). The EIR avoids evaluating any possible alternative site in part by restating and adopting Scripps' expansion goals. The EIR should analyze, not adopt, Scripps' position that their project simply cannot be modified. The EIR asserts that alternative projects and sites need not be evaluated because complete displacement of all existing businesses on the project site does not constitute a significant impact. We strongly disagree. JJE: EIRLT020. D~L: 041791 SHANNAHAN, SMITH, SCA'~'~NE & STIPANOV - Maryann C. Miller April 17, 1991 Page 3 EIR, page 32, claims that the loss of existing commercial uses on the project site would not affect "ex/sting community character." Historically, the City of Chula Vista has attempted to attract, not displace, businesses to the "urban core" designated for commercial and retail uses. Redevelopment agency documents provide for retail or commercial redevelopment on the subject site to amplify urban core business activity. Complete business displacement may preclude the urban core business activity contemplated by the subject redevelopment plan. This in turn could cause the further erosion of businesses from the community to other neighboring communities. The EIR must consider the ultimate impact of urban core business dispersion that could be caused by removing all businesses from eight acres of available urban core commercial/retail property. In another attempt to avoid evaluating alternative projects or sites, the EIR asserts that increased retail or commercial use on the project site could negatively impact the Chule Vista Shopping Center and businesses on Third Avenue (EIR, page 30). There is no evidence cited for this questionable assumption. If additional retail or commercial uses on the project site would negatively affect other area businesses, the subject redevelopment plan and the Chula Vista General Plan would preclude, not require, retail or commercial redevelopment on the project site. However, if the EIR assumes increased use in an area might detract from other uses, the EIR should evenly apply this assumption. The EIR is silent whether the Scripps project will negatively impact other Chula Vista medical providers and medical office buildings. There is strong evidence the Scripps project is excessive and unnecessary. For example, the Scripps project includes a large medical office building. There is little evidence that the building is needed. Areas where other existing medical office buildings are located will be negatively affected. Unoccupied medical buildings and under-used community medical providers can lead to significant negative impacts that should be evaluated and mitigated. A disrupted commercial urban core due to a non-conforming use acquiring eight acres of prime urban core commercial property is a sign/f/cant negative impact that should be evaluated and mitigated. EIR, page 12, fails to mention that Scripps owns a leasehold and option interest in a medical office building immediately adjacent to the project site. This fact must be SHANNAHAN, SMITH, SCALONE & STIPANOV Maryann C. Miller April 17, 1991 Page 4 revealed and analyzed in the EIR. In other words, the EIR must include a substantive analysis of alternative pro.~ects and sites that mitigate si~nificant negative impacts cumulatively caused by the SCriDDS Dro¶ect and the displacement of all businesses on the protect site. The EIR is inadequate under California law in this area. B. THE EIR MUST ADDRESS THE NON-CONFORMING NATURE OF THE SCRIPPS PROJECT EIR, pages 12, 27 and 28, suggest that the Scripps project is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan and the Town Centre I I Redevelopment Plan ( Amended ) barring the technicality of obtaining a conditional use permit. This is misleading. The Scripps project is a non-conforming use that displaces existing commercial uses from a retail/commercial site. The subject redevelopment plan contemplated retail or commercial redevelopment. Unlike Scripps, California redevelopment law prefers retaining, not displacing, existing uses. Further, under CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, Impacts Normally Deemed Significant, disrupting or dividing the physical arrangement of a community is a significant impact. The Scripps project, without mitigating complete business displacement, will divide and disperse the urban core. The EIR should address the non-conforming nature of the Scripps project. The EIR must consider alternative projects and sites that mitigate this inconsistency. C. THE EIR FAILS TO OBJECTIVELY EVALUATE THE SCRIPPS PROJECT AND THE EXISTING BUSINESSES ON THE PROJECT SITE The EIR seems calculated to cheer on rather than critically evaluate the Scripps project. The lack of solid facts to support the EIR's conclusions Jeapordizes the EIR's adequacy. The designation of existing business uses as either "Fast Food Restaurants," "Community Serving Facilities" and "Youth- Oriented Facilities" in EIR, pages 23 and 24, is unfair. The "Fast Food" reference in relation to the other designations ignores the community services and patrons of many "fast food" restaurants. Arby's Restaurants are actively involved in promoting literacy. SHANNAHAN, SMITH, SCALDNE & STIPANOV Maryann C. Miller April 17, 1991 Page 5 Many elderly and young Chula Vista residents patronize the affected Arby ' s Restaurant. The designations represent a ~olitical rationalization for dispirit assistance from the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and Scripps to two of eleven existing businesses on the project site. These political designations are not analytically accurate, and should not be incorporated into the EIR. The EIR suggests Scripps has assisted the existing businesses on the project site. Only two existing businesses on the project site have received "assistance" while under the threat of condemnation (see EIR, page 32). The remaining businesses have simply been slated for displacement. Simplistic political designations and inaccurate suggestions of Scripps' reasonableness do not assist the public's understanding of the cumulative effects of the discussed project. EIR, page 25, refers to the "declining economic viability of commercial uses on the project site" and references a 1988 report to describe the "poor state of repair" of existing buildings. This qrossl¥ distorts the actual appearance and commercial viability of most current businesses on the project site. The enormity of this miscalculation will surface when the existing businesses assert over $10 million in goodwill losses should they be forcibly displaced. An accurate EIR might better inform the public and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. EIR, page 57, states that the Arby's Restaurant generates 1715 average daily trips. This appears to suggest the Arby's Restaurant is the problem, not the Scripps project. At this time, RTM is currently aware of no more than 700 customers per day patronizing the affected Arby's Restaurant. Further, EIR, page 56, provides: "It should be noted that the existing uses are commercial and capture existing 'passby' trips already on the street network. # Please correct the EIR to accurately estimate average daily trips generated by the existing business. The EIR refuses to consider other redevelopment proposals forwarded by existing businesses on the project site, claiming a different EIR must address those proposals. Yet, the EIR includes inaccurate information that seemingly suggests the Scripps project cannot be modified to allow existing businesses to remain on the project site. Actually, the redevelopment proposals forwarded by existing businesses on the project site constitute feasible project alternatives that should be adequately evaluated in this EIR to SHANNAHAN, SMITH, SCAkONE & STIPANOV _ Maryann C. Miller April 17, 1991 Page 6 mitigate the cumulative significant impacts associated with complete business displacement on the project site. D. RTM REQUESTS THE EIR BE CORRECTED RTM respectfully requests the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency supplements or corrects the EIR to provide an intellectually balanced analysis of significant impacts and project alternatives, bolstered by accurate information. RTM continues to await a spirit of fairness and critical analysis of the Scripps project to descend upon this redevelopment. A complete, accurate and fair Scripps project EIR would facilitate this process, and thus serve the co/~munity's better interests. si 6dre /3 · SHAN~, ~ITH, SCALON_F~ STIPANOV JJE:dl cc: J. Russell Welch Charlie Harmon Gail MacLeod JJE: EIHLT020. IkML: 041791 " ~ LEOD - ~ONSULTING SER¥ICE$ April 15, 1991 ~- Ms Mary~nn Miller Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula ¥ista CA 91912 ~ubject: DEIR: ScriPps Hospital Expansion Dear Ms Miller: · I am writing on behalf of the H Street Business ;Coalition, which consists of the Arby's restaurant, Fir'st Interstate Bank and Readicare located on the subject redevelopment site. ~The following comments on the Draft EIR are submitted for your response. Summary Comments Portions of the EIR sesectively use information that favors the hospital expansion. This is particularly apparent in those sections where it ignores inconsistencies with the redevelopment plan, staff analysis of overbuilt medical office space and State Office of Health Facility Planning and Development ~ conclusions on hospital bed needs. - · The EIR treats the site as if all businesses are .in the Same financial and physical condition. It ignores the state rules and redevelopment plan goals to retain viable businesses on s~te. This treatment allows the EIR to erroneously dismiss the impacts 'on my client's property as "insignificant". ~ The impact analysis does not distinguish sufficiently between Phase 1 and P~ase 2 in the land use/community character and the visual quality section. Yet Phase ! may be a near permanent solution, that is in place for 10-15 years.. This is particularly important since the Phase 1 plan : significantly underutilizes the site and has been subject to significant criti6ism from the city's Design Review Committee. The city's consulting architect has also expressed, concern over {he visual quality of the Phase 1 site design.' Several of the conclusions on needed mitigation measures should be revised. Specifically, revisions are needed for those listed as Section 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.~ These summary .~omments are documented in<the specific comments below and attachments. ~_ Specific 'Comments 6156~ GREENWICH DRIVE, SUITE 250 · SAN D~GO, CA 92122 · (619) 4S?-1904 .FAX (619) 452-6680 1. PrOject BaCkgroun~ Section '2.2 pp.7-11 This section only inclU4es b~Ckgroun~ information ~hat iS 'favorable to the hospital use and unfavorable oN site. One example is~on page 11 where the TopMark Inc study is cited as a reason a supermarket would not locate at the subject site.- Yet it omit~t~e Redevelopment Plan's reference'to market studies indicating a need for commercial~se of this Site to assure the economic viability of the area. '~ The EiR omits the Staff analysis which questions the financial viability of the proposed quantity of medical office space. Also' omitted is the related concern that office space vacancy rates are important because the office space is the primary revenue source frbm an otherwise tax exempt, non-profit hospital expansion. Similarly omitted is the State Office of Health Facility Planning and Development Office conclusion on overbuilt hospital~beds. The Community Hospital expansion plans validates this concern over the excess number of 'hospital beds .in this area. Either as part of Project Background or in the Land Use section, the foregoing omitted information should be included and weighed in the analysis. 2. Environmental Setting Section 3.0 p.20 This section identifies the "Chula Vista Fault" as being dangerously close to the site. This fault "should be considered in siting any critical facilities, schools, or high occupancy structures." A hospital is definitely a "critical facility". The hospital's proximity to this fault should be analyzed and considered as a safety issue and as part of the alternative site analysis. Since the hospital size is increasing more than~600% and the number of beds is increasing nearly 100%, consideration of the safety risks~should be addressed. Even with the bough seismic safety building requirements, locating a large hospital near a fault does not make sense. 3. Land Use/Community Character Section 4.1 pp. 23-32 On page 25 the RedeVelopment Plan quote-on wiability may be copied correctly, but the analyst should make sure that sweeping g~neralities in the Plan are accurate when used for a specific case. We ask that this quote be supplemented by the fact ~hat the frontage businesses (Arby's, First Interstate Bank, and Readicare) are not in a poor state of repair and are economically viable. -v. This area ~s ~orrectly identified as being the "urban core". The analysis section should assess the consistency of Scripps Hospital's desire for a "campus- ~etting with the des,ired c~arac%er of an urban core. ~We~believe a_hospitalJwith a campus setting is more consistent with a suburb'than an urban core.' Note that the term "campus" setting has been used repeatedly by Scripps'-re~resentativeg in describing the project.. - On page 26 the Chula Vista Shopping Center is described as ,"contiguous, well planned shopping center,,. This is. not accurate· The vi~ew from H street is a large expanse of parking and the site is being'again .redeveloper- becaus-e the shopping center is not as s~ccessful a~ desired. ~ We feel this unsubstantiated perception of the ~hula Vista Shopping center is included as a means %0 justify the removal of the commercial uses on the redevelopment site. It allows the EIR (p. 31) to conclude the loss of viable commercial businesses on H Street is not s real loss because of the Shopping Center across the street. ~ - The last paragraph on p. 31 erroneously assumes that'Arby,s customers will use the food court in the's~opping denter. This is unsupportable because the food court.serves shoppers from that center; Arby's serves passerby traffic. These are two different, separate market places. This section should acknowledge that the nexn closest First Interstate Bank is in downtown San Diego. _Further that the absence of urgent care services at Readicare would be-replaced by more expensive Scripps emergency room service. This ties up emergency room care on non-emergency care and results ~n a financial burden on Chula Vista residents. Pages 27-30 correctly point out that the project site is designated for retail-commercial in the General Plan, zoned central-commercial, and shown for commercial rehabilitation- redevelopment in the Redevelopment Plan. It unfortunately fails to point out that a hospital is not a commercial-retail use. Uses allowed by right (e.g. commercial and retail uses) were clearly intended by the Redevelopment Plan. The plan (pJ9) points out the demand for additional commercial uses that compliment those uses at the Chula Vista Shopping Center. Th~s is followed by an elaboration that these complimentary uses Jwill enhance the economic viability of the area. The Redevelopment Plan does more than just~designate land uses. It sets up the reasons for and the goals of ~he redsvelopment area. The EIR should analyze the project's consistency with the entire plan. Specific consideration should be gzven to the Redevelopment Plan's stated reasons for selecting this area as a redevelopment 4rea. The~EIR should address the project~ consistency with the plan's "~esire to facilitate ~etention and expansion 6f as many of she-exiSting commercial enterprises las possible through redevelopment~activities and to encourage the~participation o~ owners and business operators in the revitaiization of~both the Project--and the Amendment Areas" (p.~f the Redevelopment Plan). in addition to the foregoing statement in the Redevelopment Plan, the~city's Rules Governing Par~cipati0n~and Preferences.by .'OwDers and Tenahts in Town Centre~lI Redevelopment Project also call for preferential t~eatment,to .tenants ~nd owners. Subsequent Agency'~unsubstantiated conclusions regarding perceived competition problems if ~etail occurs on the subject site cannot negate the adopted redevelopment plan. The EIR should specifically conclude that the proposal is inconsistent with the Redevelopment Plan and a concurrent Redevelopment Plan amendment should be processed. ~ Note that simply because a hospital expansion is not prohibited by the Redevelopment P%an and can~be considered through the Conditional Use Per,it Process'is not sufficient to support a conclusion of consistency. The evidence clearly shows that the hospital expansion is inconsistent'With %he~adopted_~edeveloPment Plan. ' ~ If the intent was to encourage hospital expansion, th:e~z0ni~g on the current hospital' site and the expansion.area would ~ave been the same. Further, the Redevelopment Plan cleafly calls for commercial uses and spectfigally does not mention medical office or hospital expansion as desirable uses even thOuqh the ~gency knew of .Scripps' hospital expansion proposal when the Redevelopment Plan 'was adopted. Retrospectively interpreting the Redevelopment Plan tO favor 'the expansion is not appropriate. The EIR is suppose to be ~nbiased and not simply justify the perceived direction of current Agency thinking. The potential impact section should-~analyze and mitigate the underutilized nature of the site during phase 1 and the inconsistency of this with the character of an urban core 3ipage 31). ~ ~ The Project does not ~esult in a-"concentra%ion'~f uS~s" during the first 10 to 15 years (until Phase 2). Rather~ it replaces one underutilized site (existin~ condition)-with another underutilized site. ~ . TO help illustrate ~he ~oregoing point~ the E~R Should include the amount of 8.9 acre expansion site covered by buildings given existing condit~o'ns and the amount given phase 1-conditions~ On page ~2 we take strong exception to the statement that _ significant impacts are not associated with loss of commeru~al uses because of the applicant's active participation in searching for relocation sites for the uses to be disp'iaced. This is s~mply not true regarding the Arby's, Readicare, and First_ Interstate Bank. Scripps has not ~een an activ9 participant. The impact of the loss of these services at this location on %he customers as well as to the employees should be included. Appropriate mitigation is necessary. 4. Visual Quality Section 4.2 p. 33 · The existing visual character ~ referred to~as a~fully developed ' commercial complex. Yet ~he Redevelopment Plan (p.8) refers to ~he character of the site as underutilized. Please reconcile this. Landscaping 'Is described as ornamental trees at-isolated locations. In fact, the landscaping and street trees in front of Readicare, First Interstate Bank and Arb~'s are attractive and well-maintained. Again, please distinguish between the interior character of this site and the frontage. -On page 39, please include a discussion of the visual change for the first 10-15 years when the site is significantly underutilized. Please reference ~he letter from the city's -~onsulting architect where he expresses concern over the visual quality of the site during Phase 1. On page 40, landscape ~features and water features are identified. Please discuss this ~n relation to the current'drought and t~e region's long term need to conserve water resources. '- On page 44, the architectural design of the medical office building is stated to be similar to that of the expanded hospital building. Scripps has expressed concern' over the possible confusion of emergency v~hicle drivers regarding the location of the emergency room. Please discuss how this architectural ~ sameness will contribute to this confusion. On page 44 there is reference to other approved downt.own projects (presumably nearby) which are multi-level. -'Could you identify these buildings, the number of stories and the proximity to the .site. The actual subject is bulk and scale~ with these ,'other approved projects" presumably mitigating ~he visual ~impact of the proposal. Therefore, ~he EIR should be more specific on the visual impact mitigation contributed by these other downtown projects. '~ ~. , ~ - On page 47, the projeot is referred to as having an 'urban nature. Please analyze the Phase 1 character in terms of the "urban nature" and visual-intrusion. Again con~ider the city's .consulting architect's comments'~in this regard. We agree that the project's sea of-hardsCape (pa~king mo~t~y) will be consistent with the entry treatment for %he Chula Vista Shopping Center, which is also mostly ~sphal~(last sentence on p.47). Please address the consistency with redevelopment'and general plan goals and visualrquality of all thi~ .hardscape and 'asphalt as a~ entry statement. ~Agaln have th~ analysis distinguish between Phase i and the-ultimate phase. · On page 51, Please reconsider your conclusion that project design will mitigate significant visual impacts, particularly for the 10-15 years Phase 1 will be in place. The supplemental ~nalysi~ requested above and observations of the city's consulting_ architect should help in this reconsideration. ._ 5. ~raffic and Parking Section 4.3 pp 52-67 Page 56 includes the conclusion of "no measurable change--in trips generated from the project site under Phase 1". Yet on page 66, construction of an additional westbound lane along the project frontage is reguired as mitigation. ~ Since there are no traffic increases until c~m~letion of-Phase 2, how can this Phase ] mitigation measure be defended? Please consider revising the mitigation measures so that all H street widening occurs as part of Phase 2. 6. Alternatives Section 6.0 pp 87-90 ~ The Traffic analysis on the restaurant retention alternative (p.89) states that 1715 ADT would need to be added back into the total ADT generation for the project. This contradicts the statement on page 56 that existing commercial uses capture existing passerby trips already on the street network. Please revise the alternative analysls~accordingl~. ~ 7. Inventory of Mitigation Measures Section 7.0 pp 91-94 We believe that analysis in response to our comments will result in a change to the mitigation measures listed for -7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 as follows: ~ ~ 7.1 An amendment to the cit3's Redevelopment Plan is_necessary to mitigate inconsistencies between the pro3ect proposal and the Plan. Mitigation measures are n~ede~ on loss of commercial land use at this site, ~impact on customers, an~ ~mpact on employees.~_ 7.2 ~itigat~on measures are needed ~or the~visual quality of~ Phase 1 which is characterized by a significant underntiliz~tion of the site, a dominance of hards~cape, and the intrusive ~ bulk/scale of the office building. This bulk/scale problem iS exacerbated by the distance between the office building and 'hospital_during Phase ! and the absence of any nearb~uild~ngs (offsite) :of similar scale. _ 7.3 Require widening of H Street only when traffic contributed by the project warrants, that is during Phase 2. - Thank yo~ for considering our qo~mentsZ -Please call if you need clarificabion. - Sincerely, ~, [ Glil MacLeod '- _ ents - A%tachm A. Excerpt from Town Centre Redevelopment Plan Amendment B. City Staff analysis of Hospital Bed and Office Space Demand ATTACHMENT A TOWN CENTRE REDEVELOP "ENT Adopted PLAN AMENDMENT -- June 1988 SECTION A REASONS FOR SELECTING THE AMENDMENT AREA The proposed Amendment Area encompasses commercial, residential, institutional and vacant properties that would benefit from redevelopment assistance to stabilize, enhance and stimulate their economic viability. The primary reasons for selecting the Amendment Area include: o The desire to accommodate the request of the Sweetwater Union High School District to include certain properties under their ownership in the Amendment Area. o The desire to accommodate market demand through the removal of impediments that constrain development. o The desire to foster the development of uses that will compliment the Chula Vista Shopping Center which is currently being rehabilitated and expanded. o The desire to facilitate the retention and expansion of as many of the existing commercial enterprises as possible through redevelopment activities, and to encourage the participation of owners and business operators in the revitalization of both the Project and Amendment Areas. o The need to assemble land into parcels suitable for modern integrated development with improved pedestrian and vehicular access. o The need to facilitate the future rehabilitation and the expansion of existing public facilities incluc~ing the Civic Center and Eucalyptus Park. In May, 1987 the Agency adopted the First Amendment to the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan; this amendment permitted the Agency to receive tax increment revenue from the existing 65.4 acre Project Area. As part of this process, the Agency agreed to amend the Plan again in 1988 to include certain Sweetwater Union High School District (School District) properties. Pursuant to an agreement with the County of San Diego, the Agency was also permitted to add approximately 50 acres of property to the Project Area that may be developed for private uses. 7 Given these parameters the Agency selected the properties within the Amendment Area for consideration as part of the Project. Pursuant to the agreement with the School District the existing District administrative facility and the Chula Vista Junior High School site are included to avail redevelopment assistance.for the future redevelopment of these sites. The District desires to use financing vehicles that are available to the Agency to assist in funding the construction of a new replacement administrative facility. This would enable the District to relocate its administrative and maintenance operations to a more central location, and to a facility that would permit greater operational efficiencies. The existing site is proposed to be redeveloped for residential uses that would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. The District has not proposed a specific re-use option for the Chula Vista Junior High School property. However, redevelopment assistance may be used to refurbish facilities, or to facilitate the re-use of the site for residential and commercial uses. The various privately owned sites that are included in the proposed Amendment Area encompass either vacant or underutilized properties. These properties are located within areas of the community that are experiencing' private sector rehabilitation, redevelopment and development activity. However, these particular sites have not benefited from this activity due to various development constraints. Some of the sites are plagued by problems associated with parcets of property that are inadequately sized and/or shaped to accommodate new development. These parcels are also owned by a variety of property owners. Without the tools of land assembly and lot consolidation provided through redevelopment, the private sector is not able to assemble these properties and recycle them with new uses. , Other parcels in the Amendment Area require major infrastructure improvements before private development can occur. The are located adjacent to the Sweetwater River and require major on- and ,..,-site improvements before they a,,, viable for development. Additior)ally, these sites are adjacent to or within environmentally sensitive habitats; measures to mitigate development related impacts are required before these sites can be developed. The combined costs of both the infrastructure improvements and the environmental mitigation measures cannot reasonably be expected to be borne by private enterprise acting alone. One private site, the Chula Vista Indoor Swap Meet, is developed with various commercial uses; each use is on its own parcel and is under separate ownership. The Agency has recently concluded a development agreement that provides for a $42 million public and private investment in the Chula Vista Shopping Center. This Center is immediately adjacent (to the southwest) to the Swap Meet site. Market studies show that there is demand for additional commercial uses in the area that compliment those uses proposed for the Chula Vista Chopping Center. By including the Swap Meet site in the Amendment Area the Agency desires to use redevelopment tools to facilitate the redevelopment of this site with complimentary uses to enhance the economic viability of the area. Two of the publicly-owned sites - the E Street Trolley Station and the City Public Works Center and Yard - are proposed for inclusion in the Amendment Area to avail redevelopment financing for a future development with commercial and residential uses. The other public sites are included for future funding of civic center and park expansion and rehabilitation. chment B April 25, 1989 TO: Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator FROI4: Lance Abbott, Community Development Specialist ~ SUBJECT: Hospital Bed and Office Space Demand in the Chula Vista Area Both major hospitals in the Chula Vista area are planning major expansions on their existing sites. Community Hospital, located on Medical Center Drive, has 131 beds and is planning to add 85 beds. Scripps Hospital, located at the corner of Fourth Avenue and "H" Street, has 159 beds and is planning to add 100 beds. Scripps has also proposed a major expansion of medical office space adjacent to hospital expansion. Scripps is requesting Agency help in the purchase and relocation of businesses on the seven-acre parcel located at Fifth Avenue and "H" Street. Since Scripps is seeking some level of public subsidy for its expansion,and because alternative developments for the site have been proposed, the question of demand for an expansion of hospital facilities and related office space has been raised. Because Scripps is a non-profit entity and does not pay property taxes, an increase in Agency revenues would come only from possessory interest taxes levied on the leased portion of the proposed medical office space. If, for example, Scripps constructed a medical office building and because of a lack of demand the building remained vacant, the Agency would realize no revenues from the project. Hospital Beds There is conflicting information about the need for hospital beds in Chula Vista. A study of the market suggests that Chula Vista can support additional hospital beds, while State planning forecasts for hospital bed need indicate that Chula Vista and the South County area may be over built for hospital space. According to the State Office of Health Facility Planning and Development, the South County area of the San Diego Imperial County region had more existing beds in 1986 in most categories than would be needed by 1990. Table I below shows the State counts of hospital beds in seven categories and the need for beds in each category for 1990. Hospital Bed/Office Space Demand in the Chula Vista Area -2- April 25, 1989 TABLE I STATE OFFICE OF HEALTH FACILITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STATEWIDE HEALTH FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN Bed Type Inventory as Forecasted of 12/31/86 Need 1990 Medical/Surgery 388 363 Pediatric 36 22 Intensive Care/Coronary 38 44 Care Perinatal 49 44 Skilled Nursing/ 704 959 Convalescent Care Intensive Care 99 201 Emergency Medical Services 42 22 However, the validity of these figures should be questioned on several points. First, the information is not broken down for the Chula Vista area. The smallest measurement area for the State Planning Office is "South County" which includes Chula Vista, National City, South San Diego, and much of East County to the international border. Second, it is unlikely that State information for this forecast gathered in 1985 adequately considered South Bay population growth and the potential development of Chula Vista's eastern territories. Third, in the last decade there has been a shift in State emphasis from planning and management of health resources to allowing a market-driven provision of hospital beds and facilities. And fourth, the State information is directly contradicted by the experience of both major hospitals in Chula Vista -- Community and Scripps, which now operate at or near capacity. The local demand for hospital beds is clearly strong. Administrators from both Scripps and Community indicate that patients are regularly turned away for lack of space. Scripps claims to refuse 90 patients a month. As shown on Table II, Chula Vista will have fewer beds available even after expansion is completed by Scripps and Community Hospital than other surveyed areas. In addition, Scripps has conducted marketing studies that show Chula Vista has a low rate of hospital usage by residents. According to Scripps marketing researchers, residents of Chula Vista and other South Bay communities are less likely to seek local medical and hospital services than similar communities with similar demographic profiles. Hospital Bed/Office Space Demand in the Chula Vista Area -3- April 28, 1989 This suggests, along with future growth projections for Chula Vista and South Bay, that hospital bed and medical office demand will be increasing, and that an aggressive marketing/information campaign by the hospitals could keep more local dollars spent on medical services in Chula Vista, provided sufficient supply is available. MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE An indication of demand for medical office space are rates of vacancy. Information gathered from major Chula Vista Medical office buildings shows a very low vacancy rate. Buildings associated with Scripps, at 450 and 480 Fourth Avenue, are fully leased as are buildings on Medical Center Drive associated with Community Hospital. Lease rates at these buildings are equivalent to other areas in San Diego County, ranging from $1.98 sq.ft. triple net, to $1.35 sq.ft, in the 22-year old Doctors Park building at 340 Fourth Avenue. Of nearly 30 medical office buildings surveyed, only bvo, at $2.25 on Frost Street in the Children's Hospital area, had higher lease rates than Chula Vista's comparable buildings. Clearly, demand for medical office space is high. Gauging the local supply of medical office space is difficult. An attempt was made to compare Chula Vista's ratio of medical office space to available hospital beds. A comparable ratio was determined for other areas in the San Diego region. It should be noted that comparison areas were selected only because of available information on bed counts and office space. There has been no attempt to compare areas with similar populations, service areas, demographics, etc., all of which are factors that might affect the derived ratio. Also, only buildings over 15,000 sq. ft. and devoted primarily to medical use were included. With this disclaimer, the results of the comparison are shown on Table II. Some regional office brokers believe that a ratio of 450 sq. ft. of medical office space to each bed is approximate market equilibrium. And, in fact, UTC with the lowest ratio at 191 (and presumably the greatest need for new space) has two medical office buildings under construction. Conversely, Alvarado/ Grossmont, with a ratio of 572, has th~ highest vacancy rates of any area surveyed. Ho~vever, Chula Vista does not easily fit this model. As shown on Table II, the existing ratio of space to beds is approximately 508. As previously shown, the Chula Vista market seems now to be at healthy equilibrium. With the proposed expansion, Chula Vista's ratio jumps to 583, higher than any other area. This projected high ratio may suggest that Scripps' office space plans are overly ambitious at this time, and that a 40,000-60,00D building would be a safer project from the City's perspective of needing full occupancy to realize maximum possessory interest tax revenues. It is important to note that Scripps' proposed 129~500 sq. ft. office building would represent a very large increase (88%) in the City's total existing supply of medical office space. ~PC 4048H ~ ~- CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCH(kOL DISTRICT  84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600 ~ EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH .oA.oo, RECEIVED JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS. Ph.D. [ 'l LARRYCUNNINGHAM April 10, 1991 SHARON GILES PATRICKA. JUOD ' i;:;; I 7 199! GREG R. SANDOVAL Nembers of the Planning Commission SUPEmN~E.OEN! City of ChQla ~ista PLANNING 276 Fourth Avenue ~NF.V~R~,P,.°. Chula vista, CA 91910 RE: Scripps Hospital Expansion Draft EIR No. 90-07 Dear Commissioners: The Chula vista Elementary School District has serious concerns over the impacts non-residental development has had and will have on District enrollments, particularly in the already overcrowded western area of town. Creation of new jobs is the major cause of population growth, and with population growth comes additional elementary age children. Since the Notice of Initial Study for the Scripps Hospital expansion was circulated in January, 1990, the chula Vista Elementary School District has responded to all City notices and project information by documenting impacts on school facilities and recommending an alternative financing mechanism, such as participation in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CF°). The project requires approval of a rezoning, and thus constitutes a legislative action.. As the Lead Agency for preparation of this Draft EIR, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency has the ability to deny the Scripps Hospital expansion based on inadequacy of school facilities to serve the project, or condition the project to require compliance with District recommendations. Two recent court decisions (Mira and Hart Union School District) have upheld this ability when the approval required by a city or County involves a legislative action, such as a general plan amendment or rezoning. The Draft EIR prepared for the Scripps Hospital expansion fails to respond to impacts on school facilities identified by the District, does not include District data on projected new students or information on District schools, and dismisses District recommendations. The Draft EIR states "The proposed project would be subject to the school district State mandated development fee for non-residential projects. Impacts to the Chula Vista Elementary School District with project implementation would be fully mitigated by these mandated fees." This statement is false. The Draft EIR does not adequately respond to the finding of Potentially Significant School Impacts identified in the Initial Study. April 4, 1991 Members of the Planning Commission Page 2 RE: Scripps Hospital Expansion Draft EIR No. 90-07 facilities. Staff recently proposed the following language for inclusion in the modifying district for properties being rezoned in Area B-1 of Central Chula Vista: "The city of Chula Vista shall enforce any legal mechanism sponsored by the Chula Vista School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District to mitigate impacts on school facilities." We fully support this language and ask that it be applied to all City actions. For legislative acts, such as the Scripps project, we have the legal authority to require adequate mitigation. The city has the legal mechanism it needs to assist the District. We ask that our mitigation recommendations be implemented. School Facility Impacts On August 14, 1990, the District responded to the first Draft EIR on this project by stating that impacts cannot be adequately mitigated by payment of school fees. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit A. At that time, our impact analysis was based on 396,490 square feet of hospital space. With an additional 124,500 square feet of medical offices, proposed new construction totals 520,380 square feet, and impacts to schools would be greater than previously indicated. Over 2,000 new jobs/employees are projected for this project, 1,231 of whom will create new households in Chula Vista, and 347 new elementary students will need to be served by the District. It is not possible to predict where in the District these new residents will live, or the specific schools that will be affected. However, virtually all schools west of 1-805 are severely overcrowded, operating at or above permanent capacity. District-wide, there is little available capacity. Several hundred children are being bused to various schools with capacity. In some cases, siblings are separated because one school does not have space in grade levels to accommodate all family members. The opening of Clear view School in September, 1991, will provide temporary relief on a District-wide basis, and it is likely that many children from western Chula Vista will be bused to this school. However, as that area develops, Clear View School will be needed to serve neighborhood children. The data utilized above to calculate employee/student impacts is from a study prepared for the District by SANDAG which was recognized by the Legislature through AB 530 as the basis upon which commercial/industrial employee estimates are calculated. While a proportion of growth from new jobs contributes to mitigating impacts on schools April 4, 1991 Members of the Planning Commission Page 3 RE: Scripps Hospital Expansion Draft EIR No. 90-07 through new residential fees, not all new residents live in new housing, and only new housing within a CFD contributes 100% of new facilities costs. Increased enrollments in areas with little or no new residential development result from families doubling up, formation of multi-generational households, and neighborhood recycling. Further, the Education Code requires school districts to accept students residing outside the District if a parent is employed within the District. Chula Vista Elementary School District has over 350 inter-district transfers attending our schools. Mitigation In recognition of the difficulties in calculating percentages of new employees who will contribute to school mitigation via new housing/CFD's, the District's annexable CFD No. 5 apportions contributions between residential and non-residential development based on the same formula used by the State in authorizing developer fees. State authorized developer fees, which provide approximately one-fourth of new facility costs, are approximately 16% of residential fees. Similarly, the taxing formula for CFD No. 5 assesses non-residential development at the rate of 16.67% of the $ .154/square foot base rate, with single family residential development assessed at 100% of the base rate. Taxes commence at the time building permits are issued, are collected for twenty-five years, and the District is able to bond against future revenues in order to finance facilities at the time of need. Based on the impacts implementation of the Scripps Hospital expansion will have on District facilities, it is recommended that annexation to CFD No. 5, be a condition of project approval. Assuming project buildout of 520,380 square feet, the first year's assessment would be approximately $13,359. By annexing to CFD No. 5, the Scripps Hospital project will contribute 16.67% of the total costs needed to house students estimated to be generated as a result of project implementation. The Draft EIR does not discuss impacts or mitigation for the Sweetwater Union High School District. According to correspondence from Sweetwater, in a separate agreement, Scripps and Sweetwater agreed to an alternative mitigation measure which includes "... (1) the purchase of district property located on Chula vista Junior High School; 2) the southerly expansion of the Chula vista Junior High School's southern boundary; and 3) the provision of storm drain April 4, 1991 Members of the Planning Commission Page 4 RE: Scripps Hospital Expansion Draft EIR No. 90-07 improvements on the campus and the district ability to construct ten relocatable classrooms on site." It is assumed developer fees will also be collected by the District. Copies of Sweetwater's correspondence to the City are attached as Exhibit B. There have been no discussions between the Chula Vista Elementary School District and Scripps relative to an agreement for mitigation of impacts to elementary schools. To assure that this will occur and that impacts will be mitigated, we request that the City condition project approval of the Scripps Hospital to include participation in the District's CFD No. 5. Absent implementation of this condition by the city, the District's overcrowded facilities will be further taxed and our ability to accommodate new children resulting from implementation of this project will be severely affected. The City's cooperation with our efforts to assure elementary facilities are available to serve all children in Chula vista is essential to our success. The City took a major step in this direction by adopting the Threshold Standard for Schools. In order to attain that standard, all development, including non-residential, must pay its fair share toward providing school facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: John Goss George Krempl Chris Salamone Carl Kadie Jack Matlock John Linn 84 EASI J STREEI · CllUI~,VISFA. CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600 EACI! CIIILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTIi BOAROOFEDUCAI~H AUgUSt 14, 1990 EXHIBIT A - Page 1 ~AROH G~E~ PAIR~K A. ~DD ~,,^.~R~O Hs. Haryann Hiller Envfronmental Sectton SU~R~nE,~N~ Ctty of Chula Vtsta 276 Fourth Avenue ~O~r. VUOR~.~.V. Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: Scripps Ilospital Expansion Oraft Environmental Impact Report No. gO-07 Oear Hs. Htller: On danuary 30, 1990, the Chula Vista Elementary School District responded to a notlce of Inttlal Study (IS) on the Scripps Ilospttal expansion. The ]S subsequently prepared for the project was not circulated to affected/Interested agencies or individuals, and the District was not advised of slgntftcant or potentially significant Impacts Identified tn that document. Therefore, we were unable to respond to specifics. The IS contained tn the Draft £nvJronmental Impact Report (DEIR) ts not dated or stgned, so the date of preparatlon/ctrculatton cannot be determined. On dune 4, 1990, the Dtstrtct received a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a DEIR on thts project. The NOP provided a 30 day revlew/com~ent period following recetpt of the Nottce. The Dlstrtct respo~tded on dune 13; thts response was not Incorporated Into the DEIR. 1he NOP, dated May 29, 1990, described the proposal as enlarging the hospttal complex from 4.7 acres to 8.5 , with an ulttmate 396,490 square feet of hospttal space. The project upon which the DEIR, dated duly, 1990, ts based has apparently been revised, and now consists of 13.6 acres, wtth 470,484 square feet of hospttal area. As stated tn my dune ]3 letter, the DJstrtct has several concerns relattve to the tmpacts this project could have on nearby Vista Square School. The Intttal Study contalned tn the DEIR Identifies significant or potentially significant tmpacts tn the areas noted tn the District's letter, namely noise, trafftc, health, and schools (deterioration of service). The DEIR does not adequately address potential Impacts the proposed Scripps expansion w111 have tn the above areas on children attending Vista Square School. Specific discussion and mitigation measures must be provided for each of these Issues. The Identified potentially significant tmpacts on school facilities cannot be adequately mitigated by payment of school fees. The relatlonshtp between non-residential development and student enrollment has been clearly documented tn a Joint study sponsored earlter this year by ftve South Bay school districts. Based on thls study, the proposed 470,484 square feet of hospital space will generate approxlmately 334 new elementary age children. Sw elwaler Union High ?'hool District CHULA VI~?A. CALIfOrNIA 92OIf February 12, 1991 Hr, Rober~ Letter Utrec~or of PlanMng EXHIBIT B - Page City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula VJs~a, CA 91911 Dear ~r,.LeIter: o~Y 30, 1991;'-! me{ ~I~h .you-*end O~6Fge Frempl ~o discuss future deve]opmen~ projects and ~heIr poLentIal mItJga~ion specific projects ~ere discussed at length: the Roh~ office complex and the Scripps ~morIal ItospI~al projects. You had mentioned tha~ a publlc bearing was scheduled fo~ FebrUary 14, 1991. Rohr Office C~lex: The emplo~en~ opoor~uMtIes offered by ~he addi~ton oF a 245,000 square- foo~ oFFice building could sIgnJfIcen~ly Impact Swee~wa~er's schools. As s~ated In prior correspondences from this office, ~hese Impac~s could be miHga~ed by the project's annexation to Co~nunIty FacIli~Ies No, 5 (CFD No. 5). Scripps ~rIal Ilospttal Expansion: On June 4, 1990, Hr. Campbell, admInis~ra~or oF planning, sent a le~er responding to ~tte ~o~Jce or Preparation oF Ora~ EnvIronmen~al Impact Report requesting U~a~ the project be annexed to Co~unIty Facilities District No. 5. As I s~a~ed In one mee~Ing, annexation to not necessary because the applicant agreed to an al~ernatIve measure which was found to be acceptable by the dIstrIc~. The solu~ton Includes: 1) the purchase o~ dis~rJc~ property located on Chula Junior ltigh School, 2) the souU]erly expansion o~ the Chula Vista dunior UIgh School's southern boundary, and 3) the provision or storm drain Improvements on the campus and the dIs~rJc~ ability ~o construc~ ten relocatable classrooms on sI~e. This soluHon and tile pa~en~ o~ school fees adequately mitigates the projects' tmpac~ to ~he dIs~rIc~. Should you require additional Inrorma~Ion, please call me. S ~ nc~ 1 y, Thomas Stlva DJrector of PlanMng 15/sF cc: James Leafy Ka~e 5hurson. AugUst ]4, t 0 EXH]B]T A - Page 2 Hs. Haryann Hiller Page 2 RE: Scripps Ilospttal Expansion - Draft EIR No. 90-07 Per student factltty costs to the District are estimated at $8,814, or $2,943,867, for this project. These costs significantly exceed school fees currently allowed under 5tare law. The District's share of these fees is $ .]2 per square foot, or $56,458, far short of~ tvhat ts needed to provide t~aclltttes to serve this development. To adequately mitigate poptl housing impacts this project ~vill have on elementary facilities, the District recommends alternative financing mechanisms including formation of or annexation to a Hello-RoDs Community Facilities District. If you have any questions, please contact my office. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: Tom Silva Tom Heade Scripps Hemortal Hospital - Community Relations Dept. 84 EAST J'SIREE~ · CIIULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600 EACll CIIILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH ~OAnOOrEOUCA~ON EXHIBIT A - Page 3 ~ARON G~ES F~HKAIARANT~O Oune 13, 1990 ~s..Haryann Htller nwronmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 920]0 RE: Scripps Memorial Ilospital Expansion - Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Hs. Hiller: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the proposed expansion of the Scripps Hemortal Hospital facility. The proposed site on Fifth Avenue is across the street and slightly south of the Vista Square Elementary School. HaJor issues which must be addressed in the EIR include: ]. Traffic. Potential impacts of increased trips and lowering of service levels on school bus routes as well as safety issues must be addressed; 2. Noise. A norse study addressing impacts associated wtth emergency vehtcles should be prepared and adequate mitigation measures proposed; 3. Health. Impacts and mitigation for potential release of, or accidents associated with hazardous or toxic wastes must be thoroughly analyzed. Thank you for the opportunity to provide ~nput on th~s project. If you have any questions, please contact my office. Sincerely, ~ate Shurson Director of Planning IS:dp cc: Tom Silva Scripps Memorlal Hospital Community Relations Dept. Sweetwa-.,r Union High School-District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 FIFTH AVENUI~ CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA g201! (6~g) 6g~.sss3 EXHIBIT B - Page 2 JUN 7 1_9~0 JUne 4, 1990 Mr. Robert Letghter Planning D~rector C~ty of Chula V~sta 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vtsta, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Lefghter: Re: Not~ce of Preparatlon of an Environmental Impact Report EIR-90-07 The Sweetwater Un,on H~gh School D~strtct ~s ~n receipt of your May 2g~ 1990, NOtice'of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and as a responsible agency we would l~ke to respond to the follow~ng areas of concern: l~ Land Use The following three areas have been d~scussed w~th the hospital regarding the expansion: a. The deeding over to the Sweetwater Un,on H~gh School D~str~ct of property as ~dent~f~ed ~n Exh~b~.t B ~n order to facilitate the construction of future classrooms. 'The hospital has agreed to provide a common driveway w~th access from F~fth Avenue and provide D~str}ct vehicular access to the rear port~on of the school. Th~s rear access ~s required by the C~ty of Chula V~sta's Ftre Marshal. b. Durlng previous developments, a large storm dra~n was constructed from Fourth Avenue to the southeast corner of the school site. The current affect of th~s dralnage ~s to flood both the athletic and classroom areas of the Junior h~§h school. To m~t~gate th~s ~mpact, th~s dra~n needs to be ducted ~nto the hospital's propos.ed ~torm draln system. EXHIBIT B - Page 3 Mr. Letghter June 4, lggO Page 2 c, At the request of the Ctty of Chula Vista and Scripps Hospital, the District has agreed to provide a thirty foot right-of-way from the Chula Vista Junior High School campus southeast corner to "G" Street. This right-of-way needs to be shielded in order to provide pedestrians visual eye contact with the athletic field. This provision of right-of-way availability is contingent upon the District's sale of its current "handball court area" (approximately 22,000 Feet). square 2, Development Impact of Enrollment The 6onstructton of approximately 521,000 square foot" calculates into 312 new students. This will need to be m(6tgated prior to the issuance of the 'building permit and construction. This can be potentially mitigated by inclusion into our Community Facilities District No. 5. $(nc~rely~ ' ' And6ew B, Campbell Adm(ntsbrator of Planning ABC:mr AND PLANNING April 10, 1991 Ms. Maryann C. Miller Environmental Review Coordinator city of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92011 Re: Scripps Memorial Hospital Comments on Draft EIR Chula Vista, California Project No. 8907.10 Dear Maryann: I represent the project applicant, Scripps Memorial Hospital, as an architect and planner. The following are the applicant's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated March, 1991, as prepared by Dudek and Associates, and received on March 6, 1991: 1) Page 4, paragraph 3 - Traffic The mitigation summary should acknowledge that the ADT's added by the project are not the sole basis for the construction of the additional westbound lane on "H" Street between 4th and 5th Avenues with the second phase medical office building. It should acknowledge that the widening of "H" Street is necessitated in part by additional expected trips on the street network from developments other than the proposed project. Rather than saying that the project is required to construct the additional westbound lane between 4th and 5th Avenues with the second phase medical office building, the EIR should state that the westbound lane will be constructed concurrently with the completion of the second phase of the medical office building and expressly leave the allocation of financial burden of that work among the City, Scripps Memorial Hospital and other project proponents contributing ADT's to "H" Street, as determined in the future. 9845 ERMA ROAD SUITE 205A SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92131 (619) 695-0444 FAX (619) 695-8922 MEMBERS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS Ms. Maryann Miller April 10, 1991 Page Two 2) Page 17, paragraph 2.4.3 - Project Related Utility and Service Upgrades In the paragraph on "School Contributions", the second sentence should read, "Impacts to Chula vista City School District and the Sweetwater School District with project implementation would be fully mitigated by the payment of the State mandated fees." Presently, the language refers only to the Chula Vista City School District. 3) Page 24, paragraph 4.1.1 - Existing Conditions In the paragraph on "Youth Serving Facilities", the Fiesta Cinema should be included and the Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor excluded to be accurate with Redevelopment Agency discussions. 4) Page 39, paragraph 4.2.2 - Potential Impacts The introductory paragraph should reflect Phase 1 construction beginning in late 1992 or early 1993 and Phase Ultimate construction occurring at various times over the following 10-15 years. 5) Page 56, paragraph 4.3.2 - Potential Impacts The second to last sentence on the page should read, "It should be noted that the existing uses are commercial and capture some existing "passer-by" trips ." 6) Page 72, paragraph 4.4.2 - Potential Impacts - Noise In the paragraph entitled "Parking Facility": a) A fallacy exists in the methodology wherein PM peak hour traffic volume is used to develop the noise level heard in a class room that is not occupied past 2:30 - 3:00 PM. Ms. Maryann Miller April 10, 1991 Page Three b) It is not possible that the number of ADT shown on page 72 will be driving in the area assumed (i.e. the parking structure and on the north drive.) within any given hour. It is possible that the numbers of vehicles cited came from an early traffic report when there was still an entrance/exit off the northerly drive. c) The derivation and source of the 6 mph speed noise level is not clear or identified. d) It is not clear what contribution to the 65 dB(A) noise level that the "H" Street traffic is making or whether the fact that multi-story buildings will "shadow" the school in the Ultimate Phase has been taken into account. e) Re-review of the above matters should reduce the noise level during normal school hours to below the 65 dB(A) level. If, however, the level is slightly above the 65 dB(A) level, perhaps partial enclosure should be considered by the analyst. (For instance, enclose north wall of the first floor only rather than all floors). 8) Page 92, paragraph 7.3 - Traffic and Parking The first sentence should read "Prior to the occupancy of the second phase of the medical office building . ." rather than "prior to Phase Ultimate ." which presents some ambiguity and is not consistent with understandings reached at applicant/staff meetings. 9) Page 93 - School Contributions Per paragraph 2 above, add wording to include Sweetwater School District. Ms. Maryann Miller April 10, 1991 Page Four Thank you for your attention to the above matters. Should you have any questions regarding these or other matters in the Draft EIR, please do not hesitate to contact me. S~::erely, ~.~Leary~,/A~. i. A. JAL/bjm cc: Lauren Blagg/Scripps Memorial Hospital Jeff Bills/Scripps Memorial Hospital Ralph Kostant/Weissburg & Aronson L PLANNING S,:ripp-~ H~,~F-,~'ta~ John t~. Krecha As identified in text within the Draft EIR, Scripps Memz, ria; Hespi~al purchased Bay General Hospital in 1986 f,_-,11 c, wl ng financial hardships by the latter. Scripps compensated the Cit} ,:,~ Chula Vista fc, r certain c, ut st andi ng bonds against the hospital. One WC, L~ld be trLtly naive tc, believe that Scripps the risk withc, ut sc, me high prc, babitity ef financial gain. The hc, spital is nc, w a self supporting facility and S,:rippE app:7, rent 1 v sees that the tremendc, us grc, wth i n this area i s t f e,q,~:~.re addit~c, na] medical facilities. The Chula ViEta st~t~ r~..~ewe,~ pcEiimini~ry plans wi'~h Scripps in July 19~ and in Scripps approached th~, City c,f Chula Vista and the ~<ede'~eic,pment ~je c-. wi~r,'~-'- the prc, pc~sal tc, expand the facility. ~he latter ~%r =2' ~: ~i~ - ~: I ~ 1 I ~ i= nr,'i just the expio~lon c,f ( I~.~ ~: ..... wi t~, [)i. Lii, bei '~= letter, I beli(~,.e that our popula~lCm 1. OLt of date (02/12/90) financial difficulties 3. Inac,zurat6 c,n several issues because the EI~:'. not 8,¢a] lable 4. Uninformed as to, di~pc,~al c,f ~iszsrdC, Lt~ medica, i wastes aF~d regulat it, ns regarding oper at ic, n oi' 5. Unnecessarily general in that the article refe¢,'ed well 8::~ the Gr'c, wth ManagemE:nt Element gc, al:~. and c, bjecti'.e~. r-eplac*_¢: t?em with a mc, rE- m,i, dci-rQ he=~lth E]P:: 90--07 Scripps Hospital Tk~e only clerical er¥'c,r that I could find ie on page 47, line wherein "t~e primary access to tk~e hc, spital along East H Stree'~:" is inc,_-,rrect. Recommend delete the wor~ "East" A general comment is that it appear~ the preparer was "paid by the pc, und". Repetitions proliferate. In summary, I find nc, fault in the Environmental Impa,:t Repc, rt as l~?ng as the mitiga~i,z,n measures a~e e:,,ecuted as lndicate,]. am reas,:,F-,ably certain tk~a{ t~,,~ rel,:-:a~ion ,:,f existing commer'clal STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor CALl FORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ~ SAN DIEGO REGION 9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Ste. B __ RECE~v~ -- San Diego, California 92124-1331 ' ~rch20,1991 [C 221991 Maryann Miller PLANNinG I City of Chula Vista ~76 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Ms. Miller: D~FT E~IRO~ENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR SCRIPPS M~ORI~ HOSPITAL EXP~SION (SCH 90010569) The subject document indicates that multiple-storied basements are proposed. If construction requires temporary groundwater dewatering and subsequent discharge to San Diego Bay, it will be necessary to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. This Regional Board has prohibited new permanent groundwater dewatering discharges to San Diego Bay. If subterranean structures are built below the groundwater table, it may be necessary to build the structures to withstand hydrostatic pressures if alternative means of disposing of the groundwater are not found. During the design phase, the project proponent should also check with the City of Chula Vista to determine if there are any new requirements to control pollutants in runoff from parking lots. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Chris Sandall at the number above. Very truly yours, ARTHUR L. COE Executive Officer cc: Roger Daoust City of Chula Vista 707 F Street Chula Vista, CA 92010 Tom Loftus, State Clearinghouse file: Groundwater Dewatering & 10-0510.02 ATTACHMENT B MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:00 p.m. Conference Room 1 Monday, April 8, 1991 Public Services Building CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Fox. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Present: Commissioners Ray, Johnson, Hall, Kracha and Ghougassian. Absent: Stevens. MINUTES: Note that the minutes from the February 11, 1991 meeting did not appear on this agenda. The agenda was taken out of order to accommodate guests at the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Mobilehome Park EIR 90-09 - Dan Coniff, Mary Ann Miller and David Harris gave an overview of the project description. Discussion was held on some of the unmitigable impacts. (Commissioner Johnson left the meeting at 6:55 p.m.) It was moved and seconded (GhougassiavdKracha) that RCC recommend City Council not certify EIR 90-09 due to the following reasons: need for an economic impact study of surrounding neighborhoods, specifically addressing the value of single family residences; not adequately addressing the moving of mobilehome park from one location to another increasing density and impacting noise, already overcrowded schools, sewage and availability of water; social impact study to the neighborhood should be done due to transient residents. Vote: Ayes - Fox, Ghougassian; Nos - Hall, Kracha, Ray; motion failed. Subsequent discussion followed, reiterating the above reasons for the inadequacy of the EIR. Hall stated the easy access of transportation to shopping facilities was not adequately addressed. Ray agrees with the adequacy of the EIR, but not the project itself. It was moved and seconded (Ray/Hall) to recommend certification of the EIR for CEQA requirements, citing the unmitigable negative concerns. Vote: Ayes - Ray, Kracha, Hall; Nos - Fox, Ghougassian; motion failed 3-2. It was MSUP (Fox/Ray) to inform Planning Commission that RCC was unable to come to a consensus on the EIR but forwards its concerns as previously listed. It was moved and seconded (Hall/Ray) to recommend the mobilehome park project be denied. Vote: Ayes - Hall, Ghougassian, Ray; Nos - Fox, Kracha; motion failed 3-2. It was moved and seconded (Ray/Ghougassian) to recommend that based on the data presented, the project be denied. Vote: Ayes - Ray, Ghougassian, Hall; Nos - Fox, Kracha; motion failed 3-2. 2. Scripps EIR 90-07. Doug Reid and John Ka'acha have a conflict of interest in this matter and did not participate in the discussions. Jim Leafy, Architectural Planner, presented an overview of the components of the project. Comments were mede on using G Street as an access, air quality from the open parking structure, water conservation, widening of street and noise. It was MSUP (Fox/Ray) to recommend the EIR be certified with further recommendation that a water conservation element be addressed. It was MSUP (Ray/Ghougassian) to recommend that project look into opening the access to the west side of Bay Medical Plaza to access off the parking lot and 4th Street. 3. Steve Griffin, Planning Department, answered questions on the periodic review of Conditional Use Permits. Staff was directed to discuss with Planning Director to decide how to review particular permits, with legal interpretation by the City Attorney, and report back to RCC in one month. OLD BUSINESS: The last items of the Environmental Agenda for the 90's, g2, 24, 25, 33, 44 and 52 were resolved. Item #2 and #25 - It was moved and seconded (Fox/Ghougassian) that #2 and g25 are issues the commission feels is resolved due to eminent adoption of the Growth Management Element to the General Plan. No vote was taken, the motion was withdrawn and a new motion was made. It was MSUP (Fox/Ray) that it would appear that the necessity for #2 and 25 are no longer valid due to projected adoption of the Growth Management Element to the General Plan. Item #24 - It was MSUP (Fox/Hall) to take no action either in favor or in opposition of Item #24 due to inadequate information as to the status of the bill to make such a decision. Item #33 - It was moved and seconded (Ray/Kracha) to recommend that this item be removed from the Environmental Agenda for the 90's. Vote: Ayes - Ray, Kracha, Ghougassian; Nos - Fox, Hall; motion failed 3-2. It was moved and seconded (Fox/Hall) to take no action either in favor or in opposition of Item #33 due to the lack of sufficient information. Vote: Ayes - Fox, Hall; Nos - Ghougassian, Kracha, Ray; motion failed 2-3. It was moved and seconded (Ray/Kracha) to recommend that Item #33 be removed from the Environmental Agenda for the 90's. Vote: Ayes - Ray, Kracha, Ghougassian, Hall; No - Fox; motion passed 4-1. II~m #44 - It was moved and seconded (Ghougassian/Hall) to recommend City Council not edopt this item due to lack of information. Vote: Ayes - Ghougassian, Hall, Kracha; Nos - Fox, Ray; motion failed 3-2. It was MSUP (Ghougassian/Ray) to recommend that Item #44 be removed from the Environmental Agenda for the 90's. Item #~52 - It was MSUP 0tall/Ghougassian) to recommend the City Council adopt this item as goal. (Return to New Business on Agenda): 4. It was MSUP (Kracha/Fox) for John Ray to be the representative for RCC to serve on the Bayfront Subcommittee. 5. Items for the Planning Commission Agenda for the meeting of April 10, 1991 were reviewed and included the following: Staff recommendation is approval; no action by Commission. 6. The Role of RCC in Mitigation Monitoring Programs was continued to the next meeting. STAFF REPORT: Doug Reid will include in the next meeting the changes to the ordinance establishing the RCC. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Bob Fox reported that City Council has received a letter indicating that James Stevens should be removed from RCC due to lack of attendance. It is currently on Council's agenda, with vacancy to be declared at their next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Fox at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES Barbara Taylor CiTY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATL~ENT  TATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF ~ ......... EQUIRE DISCR~rTn~ov ~_.~c~:m uw~KbHip INTERESTS ON ALL APPL~CAT~ coLCOM.hlSSiDN AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING The following information must be disclosed: I. List the names of ail persons having a financial interest in the application. ~cri?~s Memorial Hosgitals _ A Cali£or:ia No~-Pro£it Public BeAe£it Corgoration administered by a Board o~. Trustees List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. See Belo~ 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, ?ist the names of ali individuals owning more than 10% of'the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. N/A 3. If any person identified pursuant to (l) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person servino as director of the non-profit organization or as t, us~e. or beneficiary or trus~or of the trust. Chairman of Board - Roger Stewart Secretary - Fred C. Sheen, M.D. Vice Chair~a~ - Ed ~-- Tree,liter - Lauren President/CEO - Ames S. Early 4. Have you had mcre than $250 worth of busi~e~ t~nsacted wlt~ ~::~. member of City ..... , ~,-~, ~J,r, misJ~ons, Co~ittees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes. No X If yes, please indicate person(s) , puraclon, essase, trust, receiver, syndicate, )this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other LpoIitical su~di~'s~Jn, or any other group or combination ct]n {NOT~: Attach additional pages as necessary.) WPC 0701P S ' ' ' ' ' trator .... crzpps Memorial Hospital, Chula Vzsta rint or type name of ~pplicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of April 24, 1991 Page I CONSIDEP~ATION OF REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT TO WIDEN FIRST AVENUE AND OXFORD STREET A. BACKGROUND Mr. Alberto Romero Real, owner of the property in the northwest quadrant of First Avenue and Oxford Street, submitted plans for the move on of a building on Assessor's Parcel No. 619-192-13. The building valuation is $91,000. Section 12.24.040 of the City Code allows staff to impose the requirement to widen the roadway along the frontages. The proposed project will add additional traffic to the street and, therefore, the developer is required to improve his frontage. On March 18, 1991, Mr. Real applied for a waiver of the widening requirements. The City Code provides that all waivers be considered by the Planning Commission. B. RECOMMENDATION Deny the request for a waiver of the requirement to install public improvements on First Avenue and Oxford Street. C. DISCUSSION Mr. Real's property has 187.10 feet of frontage on Oxford Street and 50 feet on First Avenue (see Exhibit "A"). He is being required to increase the roadway width from 20 feet to 26 feet from centerline along the Oxford Street frontage. The City standard for Oxford Street is a Class II collector street, with an ultimate half-width of 26 feet. The City standard for streets west of 1-805 allows existing improvements to remain except within 300 feet of an intersection (please see Exhibit "B"). This project is on a corner and, therefore, needs improvement. The result is that the street will be widened six feet throughout the Oxford Street frontage. First Avenue is classified as a Class III collector which requires a half-width of 20 feet. Currently, no improvements exist on the frontage of First Avenue. It has been the City's goal to improve and widen the intersections in the older parts of the City, notably, the recently annexed Montgomery area. It has also been our policy to improve intersections and frontages along street corners whenever possible. We do not, for example, usually grant deferrals for improvements required on corner lots. The widenings provide space to install left-turn lanes and overall facilitate turning movements. The County installed curb, gutter and sidewalks along Oxford Street at 20 feet south of centerline at about the time Montgomery was annexed. Since that time, however, the increased traffic demands have forced the City to change the standards especially at intersections which usually control the street level of service. This project is adding traffic to streets and the widening will provide for safer ingress and egress from the site in addition to improving the flow of traffic through the intersection. Adequate right-of-way exists for all improvements to be installed. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 24, 1991 Page 2 Section 12.24.060 of the City Code provides for the waiver of requirements to install public improvements under the following circumstances and conditions which include but are not limited to: 1. Where adequate improvements of the nature and type already exist; 2. Sidewalks may be waived where the topography is such that the installation of sidewalks would be impracticable; 3. Where the street or alley has not or cannot be readily graded to the established grade; 4. Where installation of sidewalks would be hazardous to pedestrians because of grade; 5. Where Council has, by resolution, previously waived or modified the requirement for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The estimated cost of the widening work is approximately $23,763 and is further broken down as follows: Unit Item 0uantitv Price Total Mono. curb, gutter & sidewalk 208 LF $ 26.00 $5,408.00 Curb & gutter removal 187 LF 4.90 916.00 Sidewalk removal 935 SF 1.90 1,776.00 2 Driveways 290 SF 2.50 725.00 Pedestrian ramp 1LS 600.00 600.00 Subgrade prep 1,172 SF 0.35 410.00 5" A.C. paving 1,172 SF 1.85 2,168.00 Street light 2 EA 3,000.00 6,000.00 Subtotal $18,003.00 Survey & design 1,800.00 Construction staking 1,800.00 Subtotal $21,603.00 10% Contingencies 2,160.00 Total Estimated Cost $23,763.00 The approximate traffic counts at the intersection are as follows: Oxford Street East of First: 5,930 cars per day West of First: 5,130 cars per day First Avenue North of Oxford: 1,270 cars per day South of Oxford: 1,470 cars per day The intersection is currently operating at a LOS "A". Considering the existing LOS on Oxford, a case could be made that the existing improvements are adequate. For the current situation that is true, however, the standards were adopted to provide for adequate intersection LOS for the future projected flows. The widening will assure that the LOS will not diminish with the addition of this project traffic and future impacts to the area. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 24, 1991 Page 3 Staff cannot support granting the requested waiver and recommends that the request be denied. Mr. Real has agreed to widen and install the improvements along First Avenue, since no improvements currently exist along that frontage, and has also agreed to install the two street lights in the event that widening along Oxford is waived by the Commission. As an alternative to deciding upon waiving the entire improvement requirements {both for First Avenue and Oxford Street), the Commission may decide upon waiving the widening requirement on Oxford Street only, and ordering the installation of street lights and widening improvements on First Avenue. The consequence, however, is removal of the curb return at First Avenue and Oxford Street and the relocation of street lights at the time Oxford Street is finally widened {see Exhibit "C"). Mr. Real has already posted a cash bond with the Engineering Department for the entire improvements in the amount of $23,763.00 as a requirement for the issuance of his building permit by the Building and Housing Department. WPC 5540E CO, Grn a $/w ~£¥OV~L ~OR ~ ~ EXHIBIT DRAWN BY T I T L E oate4.8.9/ OXFORD SE 8 FIRST AVE.