HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/11/13 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, November 13, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of October 23, 1991
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning
Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's
jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's
presentation may not exceed five minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-91-04,
Chula Vista Mall Expansion
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Special Business Meeting of
November 20, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 13, 1991 Page 1
PUBLIC HEARING: CHULA VISTA MALL EXPANSION DRAI~r EIR (EIR 91-04)
A. BACKGROUND
Homart Development, Inc. proposes to expand the Chula Vista Mall located within the
Town Center II Redevelopment Project between "H" and "I" Streets, just east of
Broadway. This project would be the second of two phases of redevelopment on the site.
The first phase, completed in 1988, added 141,000 square feet of retail space to the mall.
The current project (second phase of proposed redevelopmen0 would expand the existing
retail space at the mall by a net area of 74,316 square feet. A new Mervyn's department
store building, a building housing a Sav-On drug store and multi-screen cinema, and a
two-story parking garage would be constructed. An existing, partially vacant building,
in the southern area of the property, containing a Sav-On drugstore, a bank,
miscellaneous retail space and vacant supermarket space would be demolished.
Additionally, removal of a currently vacant J.C. Penney Automotive Center on the site
may occur as part of the project. Other improvements to the site would be installing new
landscaping, improving the "H" Street entrance to the mall, constructing a new entrance
facade, reconfiguring parking areas, and providing upgraded lighting and color in the
mall interior.
The present mall contains three anchors (J.C. Penney, Scars, and Broadway), smaller
retail shops, and a food court. Restaurants along the western and southern peripheries
of the property include Allies, Burger King, and The Olive Garden.
The Chula Vista Mall Expansion Draft EIR was circulated through the State
Clearinghouse for a 30-day public review period beginning on September 30, 1991 and
ending October 30, 1991. According to Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines, this
document requires only a 30-day public review period because the Lead Agency is not
a State and no State Agency has a Responsible Agency role in this EIR. The City's
public review period ends on November 13, 1991 with the close of the Planning
Commission public hearing.
Discretionary actions associated with the proposed project include approval of a
Development Agreement with Homart Development Company by the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency, consideration of the project by the Town Centre Project Area
Review Committee who will make recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency
regarding the project, consideration by Design Review Committee who will review the
project plans and elevations, and consideration of the EIR by the Planning Commission.
Amendments to the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance are not required.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 13, 1991 Page 2
As of November 4, 1991 two comment letters have been received on the Draft EIR from
the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School
District (included as attachments).
The Community Development Department held an informational neighborhood meeting
on October 30, 1991 which was not intended to solicit comments on the Draft EIR.
Concerned citizens were advised to submit comments in writing or appear at the Planning
Commission hearing. It is anticipated that additional comment letters will be
forthcoming. All comment letters received, and verbal comment heard at the public
hearing will be responded to in the 'Responses to Comments ~ section of the Final EIR.
The Town Center Project Area Committee considered the project on October 17, 1991.
They offered the following comments which will be responded to in the Final EIR:
1. Steps should be taken to blend the Broadway Department Store building more
harmoniously into the design of the project.
2. A more specific description of the impact to traffic on 'T' Street should be
included.
3. More information should be provided regarding the impact on the existing
theaters by the development of a multi-plex theater. Specifically what would be
the effect on downtown businesses if less people came downtown to go to the
theater as a result of the development of the 10-plex at Chula Vista Mall.
4. Clarify discrepancies between the Scripps Hospital Expansion Project EIR Traffic
Section and the Chula Vista Mall Expansion Project Draft EIR.
The Resource Conservation Commission considered the project on October 28, 1991.
They offered the following comments which will be responded to in the Final E1R:
1. Walkways should be introduced between from the parking structure to the cinema
2. The ongoing annual City costs between the initial estimates and the following
years regarding fire protection should be clarified.
3. It is recommended that a sidewalk be put in from Mervyn's to the parking lot.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 13, 1991 Page 3
B. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
Conduct the public hearing on the Draft EIR (91-04), close the public hearing, and give
staff the desired direction for preparation of the Final EIR.
C. ANALYSIS
1. Land Use/General Plan Impact Summary:
Compatibility/Zoning Not Significant
Impact:
The project as proposed is compatible with the existing and planned land uses for
the site and the surrounding properties. There would be no significant adverse
land use impacts associated with implementation of this project.
There are no land use conflicts associated with the project. Therefore, mitigation
measures would not be required.
2. Aesthetics Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable
Impact:
Because of its size and location, the proposed parking structure could cause
significant impacts to views from Broadway and the commercial areas west of the
Chula Vista Center.
Adverse impacts to the visual quality of the site would occur if landscaping is not
incorporated into the project.
The applicant shall work closely with the City on the design of the parking
structure to ensure that it is architecturally compatible with the surrounding mall
and would not cause adverse visual impacts. This measure would ensure that
aesthetically pleasing views are maintained.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 13, 1991 Page 4
The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to the City which conforms to the
design guidelines and standards promulgated in the City of Chula Vista Landscape
Manual and the Town Centre Design Manual.
3. Community Tax Structure/ Impact Snmmary:
Fiscal Impacts/Socioeconomic Impacts Not Significant
Impact:
The socioeconomic effects of the proposed new cinema could have a positive or
a negative impact, depending on outside factors. The new cinema could possibly
have a negative impact by drawing customers away from the existing downtown
theater. However, a new cinema in the area could cause film distributors to
redistrict the film distribution regions based on market studies. This
redistribution could then have a positive impact by allowing a wider variety of
films to be shown at the existing and new cinema, thereby attracting more
customers.
The project is not expected to have an adverse fiscal or socioeconomic impact on
the City of Chula Vista; therefore, mitigation is not considered necessary.
4. Utility Service and Relocation Impact Snmmary: Significant, Mitigable
Impact:
Parking areas and internal circulation routes are proposed to be reconfigured as
part of the project. Impacts to major gas lines underneath the former alignment
of Fifth Avenue could occur if work is done in this area.
Permanent structures cannot be located above underground utility lines. The
proposed building footprints are located above existing water easements, gas
vaults and lines, and electric boxes. Adverse impacts would be associated with
blocked access to these facilities.
The applicant shall submit a construction plan to SDG&E for their comment and
approval prior to any construction activity on the site.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 13, 1991 Page 5
The applicant shall coordinate with SDG&E and the Sweetwater Authority to
relocate all impacted utilities. These utilities and corresponding easements must
be relocated prior to construction of the proposed new buildings and parking
garage.
$. Transportation/Access hnpact Summary: Significant, Mitigable
Impacts:
Adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site, "H" Street is currently
constructed to four lanes. The Circulation Element of the General Plan classifies
this roadway as a six-lane major road. Project traffic entering and exiting along
"H" Street would impede through traffic due to thc absence of shoulders or
turning lanes.
The proposed location for the driveway on 'T' Street near Mervyn's (second
driveway east of Broadway) and the fact that it is proposed to be unthroated,
would cause traffic conflicts at this entranceway. An unthroated driveway is a
driveway which can be accessed from many different points along its length.
Dedicate the right-of-way and widening of "H" Street on the eastbound side along
the shopping center frontage to six-lane major standards. This measure would
bring the roadway into conformance with the General Plan and the additional lane
would function as a deceleration/acceleration lane serving the mall driveways,
which would reduce friction with through traffic.
The 'T' Street driveway should be throated for about 120 feet.
6. Noise Impact Summary: Adverse, but Not significant
Impact:
Implementation of the project would increase the future traffic volumes along 'T'
Street between Broadway and Fourth Avenue. These traffic levels would not
significantly increase noise levels along 'T' Street. The estimated future noise
levels, with project-generated traffic would remain at its current 61 dBA at fifty
feet from 'T' Avenue.
The parking lot noise is estimated to be an hourly average of 52 dBA fifty feet
from the boundary of the parking lot. Volumes after expansion of the mall are
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 13, 1991 Page 6
projected to remain at their current level of 61 Ldn. There may be some
nuisance noise from car doors, loud voices or car radios, which may occur more
frequently in the evening and at night due to the cinema operating hours. These
typ~s of noise are regulated by the Municipal Code and would not constitute a
significant impact.
7. Hazardous Waste/Public Safety hnpact Summary: Sig 'mficant, Mitigable
Impact:
The partially vacant building proposed to be demolished and the vacant J.C.
Penney Automotive Center have been documented as containing asbestos.
Improper removal of asbestos-containing materials could result in a public health
and safety hazard.
There is an unresolved underground storage tank issue at the J.C. Penney
Automotive Center site. Demolition of the J.C. Penney Automotive Center could
cause a public health and safety hazard.
Asbestos must be removed from the buildings prior to demolition. Removal of
the asbestos must conform to the regulation and procedures specified by the
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and by the
California Occupational Safety and Health Agency (CAL-OSHA). Contractors
removing the asbestos must be licensed by the State Licensing Board and
registered with the Carcinogen Control Unit of CAL-OSHA. If all applicable
regulations are followed, removal of the asbestos would not cause a public safety
and health hazard.
Official closure of the 1.C. Penney Automotive Center site by the San Diego
County Hazardous Materials Management Division must occur prior to removal
of the building.
8. Compliance with City Thresholds/ Impact Summary:
Standards Policy (fire, sewer) Significant, Mitigable
Impact:
Because detailed building plans have not been designed, it cannot be determined
whether the project would provide adequate fire access or fire fighting systems.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 13, 1991 Page 7
The proposed project could contribute to a cumulative impact to the existing
sewer system which is currently near or above the Thresholds/Standards Policy
design standards.
Building plans shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to
construction.
Since the project could contribute to the impact of the existing sewer system,
further investigation of the system is necessary. A technical report shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to preparation of the Final
EIR which addresses possible impacts and mitigations. At this time the City
Engineer has determined that the plans for the future Scripps Expansion sewage
system are not far enough along to assess cumulative impacts in conjunction with
this project. It has not been determined yet which sewer line Scripps will connect
to. This project will contribute an estimated 7 EDU to the "H' Street sewer line
which is considerably less than the Scripps project will contribute. The City is
currently conducting flow monitoring in the "H" Street line to determine its
capacity. The conclusions of that monitoring and the impact of this project on
the "H" Street sewer line will be completed prior to completion of the Final EIR.
9. Compliance with City Thresholds/ Impact Snmmary: adverse,
Standards Policy (water, drainage) less than significant
Impact:
The City is currently preparing a water policy which would require that there be
no net increase in water usage within the City. The current level of project
design is not sufficiently detailed at this time to make a determination of exact
water usage projected for the site. At the time of building pormit issuance, if the
proposed project design is determined not to comply with the no net increase
requirement, additional on-site conservation measures, or off-site mitigation (toilet
retrofit projects, park irrigation replacement projects, etc.), and/or payment of
mitigation fees may be required. The project will be conditioned to comply with
all policies which are in place at the time of building permit issuance. The actual
method of policy compliance will be determined by the Planning Director.
The applicant shall pay whatever "no net-increase" fees are in effect at the time
of issuance of building permits.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 13, 1991 Page 8
D. ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires description of a range of "reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project",
and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The discussion of alternatives
"shall focus on the alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse
environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificant, even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives, or would
be more costly."
NO Pro_iect/No Development
No changes to the existing shopping center would occur and the mall would remain in
its existing configuration. The increased financial benefit to the City would not occur,
the general aesthetic improvements to the mall appearance would not take place. The
existing partially vacant building would not be removed which would avoid the possible
impacts to public health and safety and the increase in traffic would be avoided.
Dedication and the future construction of the "H" Street widening would not occur with
this alternative. This alternative would not have an immediate socioeconomic impact on
the City, however, over the long term it could lead to a gradual decline in the quality of
life as shopping opportunities within the City's downtown area lag behind the demand
for such opportunities.
Reduced Proiect Intensity
This alternative would retain the major department store (Mervyn's) and the Sav-On
Drugstore, but would eliminate the cinema from the expansion of the mall. The
developed area on the project site would remain the same, but an upper level for the
cinema above Sav-On (approximately 36,000 square feet) would not be constructed. This
alternative would include many of the improvements as the proposed project including
the new "H" Street entrance and mall facade, the improved lighting and the color
changes, new landscaping would be installed and the partially vacant building would be
demolished.
Traffic generation would be reduced without the cinema, however, the level of service
at key intersections in the project area would not be substantially affected. Deletion of
the cinema would eliminate the evening and nighttime nuisance noise, however, this noise
is not a significant impact. The elimination of the second story of the Sav-On building
would not substantially alter the aesthetic appearance of the project from ~I" Street since
the department store and parking structure would continue to dominate views from 'T'
Street. Impacts based on City thresholds would be the same as would the impacts to
electricity, gas and water utility pipelines. Elimination of the recreation opportunities
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 13, 1991 Page 9
provided by the multi-theater cinema could have a positive or a negative effect as
discussed above in the socioeconomic section. This alternative would contribute less
revenue to City. The cost of the project to the City would be less so overall the net
income is projected to be slightly higher than the proposed project.
Alternate Pro_iect Desi~,n
This alternative would consist of replacing the anchor department store with additional
small retail shops in a two-story complex. The Sav-On/Cinema complex would remain
as proposed. Impacts would remain the same since the overall square footage would not
change. There could be an increased impact to downtown businesses since this would
increase the competition for the existing smaller retail businesses. The financial benefit
to the City would be slightly less.
Plaza Bonita Re~,ional Shoopin~, Center
This alternative would require an expansion of the existing plata Bonita Shopping Center
in National City by approximately 75,000 square feet. The expansion would require
construction of a parking structure. The traffic increase would be the same, however,
the traffic impact would be greater since the streets surrounding Plaza Bonita, in Chula
Vista are closer to their threshold capacities than the streets surrounding the Chula Vista
Mall. In addition, there are less access opportunities at Plaza Bonita. This impact would
have a negative socioeconomic and fiscal impact on the City of Chula Vista. Other
environmental impacts would be the same as the proposed project.
The proposed Eastlake Village commercial center is located at the intersection of Otay
Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon and Eastlake Parkway in the City of Chula Vista. The
City has approved the site for commercial public uses in the Eastlake Master Plan,
however, at this time no specific plan has been approved. A major department store such
as Mervyn's is not currently planned for as a part of this center and would have to added
to the already approved proposal.
Impacts such as traffic would be less particularly to the traffic system which could be
developed in this predominately vacant area to accommodate the center. In the interim,
before Eastlake Village Center is completed, shopping opportunities in the City might fall
behind demand, creating a negative or at best neutral, socioeconomic impact. The
magnitude of the fiscal impacts cannot be analyzed at this time. This objective would
not meet the City's Redevelopment Agency objectives or the applicant's objectives.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 13, 1991 Page 10
Eastern Urban Center in Otay Ranch
The conceptually proposed Eastern Urban Center in Otay Ranch would consist of a 300-
acre commercial site located at the proposed State Route 125/East Orange Avenue
interchange in Otay Ranch. The local traffic network around this center could be initially
constructed to accommodate any expected traffic demand. There could be a positive
fiscal impact since the City's population center is moving in an easterly direction.
The magnitude of impact cannot be analyzed at this time. This alternative might have
an overall long-term positive socioeconomic impact on the city if Otay Ranch is annexed
to the city. In the short-term this alternative would likely have a negative to neutral
impact since shopping opportunities in the city might fall behind demand until the time
Otay Ranch develops. This alternative would not fulfill the project's goal of creating a
regional shopping center at the Chula Vista Mall.
E. CONCLUSION
In summary, all significant impacts of the project can be mitigated to a level of less than
significant. Project alternatives were analyzed, with no alternative clearly
environmentally superior.
(CVMaU.l~t)
84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910
EACH CHILD IS AN INDW~UAL OF GREAT WORTH
BOARD OF EDUCATION
D. CU ,NOS. .D. E. C E I V E. D
LARRYCUNNINGHAM October 16, 1991
SHARON GILES ~r:~. c -.
PATRICK A. JUDO
GREG R. SAN~VAL , ~r
BUPERI~ENDENT Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi PLANNING
Environmental Section
JOHNF. VUGRIN, Ph.D. city of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE:Draft EIR 91-04 / FB-066 / DP-828
Town Centre II Redevelopment
Chula Vista Mall (East of Broadway between I & H St.)
Dear Ms. Ponseggi:
This is to advise you that the chula vista Mall project,
located East of Broadway between "I" and "H" Street, is
within the Chula vista Elementary school District which
serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6.
District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of 4 - 5
percent over the past several years, and this is projected
to continue. Permanent capacity has been exceeded at many
schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are being
utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District
also buses students outside their attendance areas, both to
accommodate growth and assist in achieving ethnic balance.
The relationship between non-residential development and
student enrollment has been clearly documented in studies
done throughout the State. Since additional employment is
linked to new homes, students associated with
non-residential growth represent a subset of those from
residential development. A portion of the facilities needs
associated with new employment activity is, therefore,
funded through residential fees. However, given that
residential fees produce only about twenty-five percent of
the required facility funding, there is a significant
shortfall. State law currently provides for a developer fee
of $ .26 for non-residential area to be charged (Chula Vista
Elementary School District - $ .12/square foot; Sweetwater
Union High School District - $ .14/square foot) to assist in
financing facilities needed to serve growth.
The subject project is estimated to generate approximately
114 new jobs which, based on the formula contained in the
March, 1990, SourcePoint study commissioned by the five
South Bay school districts, equates to 19 new students.
Given the current funding shortfall, the District encourages
developer participation in an alternative financing
mechanism to help assure that facilities will be available
to serve children generated by new construction. We are
currently utilizing Community Facilities Districts (CFD's)
as one method to help fund this deficit. Participation in a
CFD is in lieu of developer fees.
The subject project, Chula vista Mall, is located in the
Vista Square School attendance area. This school is
presently operating over permanent capacity, and an
alternative financing mechanism, such as participation in or
annexation to a Community Facilities District is
recommended.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Homart Development
O Sweetwuter Union High District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chule V~$t&, Celi~ornl& 91911-2896
(619) 691-5500
Division of Planning and Facilities
july 16, 1991 i ECEiVEo
lis. Mary Lynn Ponseggi PLANNINg
Planni ng Department
City of Chula Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista: CA 91910
Dear Ms. Ponseggi:
RE: C#ula Vista Hall Expansion Project: EIR-91-04
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the preliminary draft environmental impact report
prepared for the proposed Chula Vista mall expansion project.
As you may recall, i n May 1991, I responded to the notice of preparation by requesting that the
schools issue be addressed in the report as well os an analysis of the economic impact tax
incremer, t financinq may have on the district. Although there is no section in the document
which directly addresses schools, sufficient information is provided to allow for an analysis of
this project's impact to schools.
Using a SANDAG study which correlates nonresidential development to anticipated new
emDIourr~ent opportunities thus resulting in ne'~" households/students, it is estimated that
ap~ro×imatelu 15 to 15 new students will enter the district as a result of this project. The
cost to house these students in relocatable classrooms range from $21,244 to $24,128. The
construction cost for an equal arnount of permanent classroorns is from $174,207 to
$196,950. Given the district's present share of $0.14 per' square feet of commercial area,
this project will generate $19,740 of revenue. As you can see, the collection of fees will not
adequatel Y mitigate the project's facility impact.
In renard to the issue of tax increment, the district captures 18.870~ of the one percent
prope'rty tax assessment of the 1987 base year- assessed vol uation. As identified in the report,
the assessed valuation for' 1987 was $24,090.018 of which the district's share calculates to
$45,241.00. tn fiscal year 1989 the assessed'vol uatiorl insreased to $65 719 995; however.
the district's portion remained at $45,241.00. The district did not share in any of these funds
because no revenue sharing agreemer~t ~,as established. Instead, the city and the district
amicably resolved the anticipated Town Center II project irnpacts agreeing to enter into a jot nt
venture to construct a new district office. Unfortunately, this project never came to fruition.
and the continuing, success of To'..,'r Cenier l I, although benef:cial to all of the comrr, unity, could
result in an increased den-land of o' =I'il:i .services.
Ms. Mary Lynn Ponseggi
July 16, 1991
Peye Two
Th~ follo~,:ing items list a few possible measures, any one of which can be implemented to
mitigate the tax increment issue:
1) A revenue sharing agreement between the city and the district could be
reached which allows for the district's pa rtici patton i n the redevelopment
project.
2) The property could be annexed to an existing Mello-Roes Community Facilities
District so that a reYenue stream to the district could be established.
5) The redevelopment agency could commit to assist the district in providing
"gap" fi nanci ng for the construction of the relocatable classrooms at the
Chu!a Vista Junior High 5;chool which will replace the existing non-conforming
classrooms.
Of the three measures identified, the district urges the city to partici pate i n the "gap"fi nancl ng
of the classroom construction at the junior high school. Beca~Jse the construction of those
classrooms is tied to the Scripps,. Memorial Hospitai expansion project and the sale of district
property at the junior high school, it is difficult to accurately determine the amount of
financing require.~ at this time. However, the appropriate numbers can be identified if the city
chooses to implement this option.
I would appreciate it if you incorporate these comments into the Draft Environmental Impact
Report. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Campbell or myself at
69~-5553
Si nco ~ y, ~,
Assistar.*.. Di re.:tor of Plarlni ng
' :, r,"
c: i .1. i~ '.: ~.,~r._=.;:m, Chu18 Vista [lern.~ntary '~.chc,?! ~'.~ ~:trict