Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/11/06 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, November 6, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of September 25, 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. Consideration of Final EIR-90-07, Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-25: Request to expand existing hospital facility located at 435 'H' Street - Scripps Memorial Hospital 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-90-07, Palomar Trolley Center 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-06: Request to establish a 12-bed residential treatment facility for recovering alcoholics at 3 North Second Avenue - MAAC Project DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of November 13, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 1 Recommendinq Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report on the Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project (EIR-90-07) A. INTRODUCTION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prier to the approval of any non-exempt project that may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare a Final EIR (FEIR). lhe FEIR prepared for the proposed Scripps Memorial Hospital expansion contains the Recirculated Draft EIR, written comments and public testimony received on the Draft at the September 25, 1991 Planning Commission hearing, and the response to comments received at the public hearing and in writing. The City of Chula Vista as the lead agency under CEQA may, but need not, provide an opportunity for the public and responsible agencies to review the FEIR. The Scripps FEIR was made available to the public from October 22, 1991 to October 29, 1991. This did not reopen the public review period on the EIR. The FEIR was also taken before the Design Review Committee (DRC) on October 28, 1991, the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) on November 4, 1991, and the Town Centre Project Area Committee (PAC) on November 7, 1991. Written comments were received during this 7-day period on the FEIR from Shannahan, Smith, Scalone, and Stipanov; Worley, Schwartz, Garfield and Rice; Circinus Corporation; RTM West, Inc.; and Entranco Federhart Traffic Engineers. These written comment letters are included in Attachment "A". The comment letters received on the FEIR were reviewed by City staff and Dudek and Associates, the EIR preparer, and it was determined that no new environmental issues were raised in these letters. Responses to comments received on the FEIR in writing and at the DRC, RCC, and PAC meetings, have been included in a memo prepared by Dudek & Associates {see Attachment "B"}. B. BACKGROUND Recirculation of the Draft EIR The previous Draft of the Scripps EIR was recirculated, due to the additional information requested by the Planning Commission on the economics of the project, as well as seismology and water conservation issues. When substantial new information is included in an EIR, CEQA requires that the Draft EIR be recirculated for public review and comment. This Recirculated Draft supercedes the previous Draft. lhe Scripps DEIR was recirculated for a 45-day public review period. The public was notified in the Recirculated DEIR (p. 3} and in the Notice of Public Hearing (dated Aug. 12, 1991) that the Recirculated DEIR completely supercedes the previous DEIR and that their comments should focus on the new document. The Recirculated DEIR also went before the Resource Conservation Commission on September 9, 1991 and September 23, 1991 and the Town Centre Project Area Committee on September 19, 1991. Comments received from these advisory bodies are addressed in the "Response to Comments" section of the FEIR (see pgs. 89-101). City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 2 Written comment letters received on the Recirculated Draft during the 45-day public review period included the following: 1) Chula Vista Elementary School District; 2) Caltrans; 3) Sweetwater Union High School District; 4) A. D. Hinshaw Associates; 5) Shannahan, Smith, Scalone & Stipanov; 6) RTM West, Inc. (Arby's); 7) MacLeod Consulting Services; 8) Worley, Schwartz, Garfield & Rice; 9) Circinus Corporation; 10) Entranco Federhart Traffic Engineering; 11) Monroy-Lopez Engineering; 12) T&S Management, Inc.; and 13) Governor's Office of Planning and Research. These comment letters are addressed in the "Response to Comments" section of the FEIR (see p. 1). It should be noted that although the City is not required by CEQA to respond to comments concerning the economic analysis, due to the amount of public interest, a separate addendum to the economic analysis has been provided as Attachment A to the FEIR "Response to Comments" section. This separate response to economic comments is not a required CEQA section and has been provided as a courtesy only. No direct or indirect physical changes will result from the proposed project, therefore, economics has not been deemed to be a significant environmental effect and CEQA does not apply. A summary of the economic analysis was provided at the back of the EIR for convenience, only. Project Description The Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides a detailed review and analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Scripps Memorial Hospital expansion project. The applicant proposes to expand the existing 4.7-acre hospital site onto an additional 8.9 acres contiguous with, and directly west, of the existing facility for total project site acreage of 13.6 acres. The existing hospital facility consists of a one and four story building containing .approximately 74,000 square feet and 159 patient beds. The proposed project, implemented in phases, would ultimately expand the hospital facility to 446,334 square feet and 258 patient beds, add approximately 775 additional parking spaces in a 5 level parking structure, and approximately 124,500 square feet of medical office space on-site. Discretionary actions required for project approval include: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the hospital master plan; Design review of the hospital master plan and building design; A Special Permit due to location of a portion of the project site within a City redevelopment area; An Owner Participation Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency; Acquisition of real property, including the possible use of Redevelopment Agency condemnation powers: City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 3 A loan agreement with the Redevelopment Agency; and A lease guarantee agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. C. IMPACT ANALYSIS The Final EIR includes the Recirculated Draft EIR. The following is a brief synopsis of all the issues identified for the project which were analyzed in the Recirculated Draft EIR and their level of significance. 1. Land Use Impact Summary: Less Than Significant Land use impacts are associated with the displacement of existing commercial uses on the western 8.9 acres of the site with the hospital expansion. Impacts related to the loss of neighborhood-serving commercial uses with a master-planned medical facility were analyzed. These land use impacts were deemed to be less than significant, however, due to the location of similar uses within the project area to serve Chula Vista residents. The proposed hospital expansion is consistent with the underlying zoning (C-C-D and C-O) upon approval of a conditional use permit, as well as the general plan designations of "Retail Commercial" and "Professional and Administrative" offices. The Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan covers the western 8.9 acres of the site and the proposed project has been deemed to be consistent with that plan. It should be noted that page 42 of the DEIR incorrectly states that the site is designated "Central Commercial" on the Redevelopment Plan. The correct designation is "Retail Commercial," as is indicated on Figure 7 (p. 41}. This change is inconsequential, however, because the proposed hospital is still consistent with the "Retail Commercial" designation. The "retail commercial" General Plan designation provides general guidelines to allow retail establishments typical of downtowns. The underlying "Central Commercial" zoning designation is the zone that implements the General Plan. The C-C zone allows 'unclassified uses' such as hospitals with a Conditional Use permit. Therefore, land use impacts are still deemed to be less than significant. 2. Traffic/Circulation Impact Summary: Significant But Mitigable A traffic study was conducted by Willdan Associates (February 21, 1991) to assess traffic volumes generated by the project and their impact upon the surrounding circulation network. The project is associated with significant traffic impacts related to the additional 4,980 ADT the project will generate in Phase I and the 9,015 total project ADT generated by Phase Ultimate. During Phase I, it is likely that there will be no measurable increase in traffic volumes, since existing commercial uses will capture "passerby" trips already on the circulation network. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 4 The traffic analysis 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 overall than was assumed in the General Plan when taking into consideration the volumes produced by the existing commercial uses on site. Phase I: The traffic study focused on intersection analysis and link volumes. The conditions occurring at intersections are a good indication of what is happening overall to the circulation system. Four intersections were identified as critical: H Street/Fifth Avenue; H Street/Fourth Avenue; G Street/Fifth Avenue; and G Street/Fourth Avenue. All intersections will continue to operate at LOS C or better with Phase I at the project except H Street and Fourth Avenue which will operate at LOS D during the PM peak. This is acceptable for one hour during peak traffic, however, according to the City's Threshold Standards. Phase Two (Ultimate): Most street segments in the project vicinity are projected to operate at LOS C or better under both the General Plan and proposed project conditions. Street segments that will be most adversely impacted by the buildout of the project include H Street between I-5 and Broadway, E Street between I-5 and Broadway, Broadway between E and F Streets, Broadway between H and I Streets, Broadway between F and G Streets, and Fourth Avenue between E and ! Streets. No significant impacts are anticipated from Phase Two (Ultimate) of the project at Interstate 5 or 805. Traffic Mitiqation Although the proposed project will increase the number of trips on streets in the project vicinity, traffic impacts are deemed to be "significant, but mitigable" with implementation of traffic mitigation measures required by the City Traffic Engineer, as follows: Phase I: 1. Dedicate ultimate right-of-way along Fifth Avenue along the project frontage and construct a northbound access lane. 2. Dedicate ultimate right-of-way along "H" Street along the project frontage and construct an additional westbound lane. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 5 3. Construct raised median along "H" Street between existing improvements at Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue as shown on Figure 3. 4. Pay traffic signal impact fees to the City of Chula Vista in accordance with City policy for upgrading of traffic signals within the western portion of Chula Vista resulting from increasing traffic volumes. 5. Prepare a construction traffic control program to the satisfaction of Chula Vista Public Works Director. Phase II: 1. Prior to occupancy of the Phase Two {Ultimate) medical office building which generates 3,200 ADT, dedicate sufficient room and widen the north side of "H" Street between Fourth Avenue and the project to provide a continuous third westbound land between Fourth-Avenue and Fifth Avenue. Mitigation of potential traffic impacts will be ensured through implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program developed for the project. 3. Noise Impacts Impact Sumary: Less Than Significant A. Traffic Noise: An acoustical analysis was conducted for the proposed hospital expansion {San Diego Acoustics, July 1990) to analyze how existing noise levels would increase from project-generated traffic. The study also analyzed parking structure and mechanical equipment noise associated with the project. 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 currently range between 64 to 68 dB(A). With the proposed project, noise levels are expected to increase by 2.2 to 2.5 dBA to the north and south of the project. Noise levels would also increase by 1.2 dB along H Street between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue. Because the proposed project will have a relatively minor contribution to increased noise levels within the study area, noise impacts as~sociated with street traffic are deemed to be less than significant. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 6 Noise impacts associated with the proximity of the proposed parking structure to the junior high school were also analyzed. Noise levels from the starting and stopping of car engines are expected to reach a peak noise level of 65 Leq at the face of the future classroom building. Because this is in conformance with State noise guidelines for schools, noise impacts to the school are deemed less than significant. B. Project Site Noise Impact Summary: Significant, But Mitigable Potential noise impacts associated with the HVAC and standby power equipment will be mitigated through the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program developed for the project. 4. Health ImPacts Impact Summary: Significant, But Mitigable a. Hazardous. Waste Impacts: A limited hazardous waste investigation was conducted by Robert Prater Associates (January 1990) to assess impacts associated with the removal of the existing Express Gas station on site. The preliminary hazardous waste assessment analyzed the potential impacts related to the removal of underground storage tanks and associated infrastructure on the 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, potential hazardous waste impacts are deemed to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b. Infectious Waste Impacts The Infectious Waste Control Program currently in use at Scripps was prepared by BioMedical Waste Handling & Disposal {October 1989). 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 of infectious waste generated. Scripps has an established procedural manual for 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 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 7 current handling policy and infectious waste pick-up service, thereby mitigating this potential 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. 5. Air Oualitv Impact Summary: Significant, But Mitigable A. Construction/Grading Related Air Quality: The proposed project was analyzed for impacts to air quality during the construction phase of the project, as well as over the long term. Short-term air quality impacts would result during the construction phase of the project from earth moving and other construction activities, resulting in a temporary increase in fugitive dust emissions. With implementation of standard dust control measures during grading and construction, short term impacts are deemed to be less than significant. B. Traffic Related Air Quality Impact Summary: Less Than Significant The proposed project represents infill development in an existing urban setting. At project buildout, approximately 1,500 more ADT would be generated than was assumed in the General Plan travel forecast. Emissions generated by these trips would contribute an increment to the region's inability to meet zone standards. According to the traffic analysis, all roadway segments and intersections would operate at LOS C or better with the exception of the H Street/Fourth Avenue intersection which would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. According to the City's threshold standards, LOS D is acceptable at one AM and one PM peak hour, therefore, the proposed project would comply to the Thresholds. The proposed parking 775-space structure has been designed with adequate ventilation to ensure no building of carbon monoxide. Due to the relatively low number of trips generated, the absence of congestion, and the adequate ventilation in the parking structure, traffic-related air quality is deemed less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 6. Geology/Seismoloq¥ Impact Summary: Significant, But Mitigable Additional information relating to geology, and particularly, seismology was incorporated into the Recirculated Draft EIR. The Department of Conservation Division of Mines & Geology commented on City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 8 the previous DEIR that additional information concerning geologic and seismic hazards should be provided. Although no faults are known to pass through the project site, the La Nacion fault zone has been mapped approximately 1.5 miles to the east, and the Rose Canyon fault zone 4.5 miles southwest of the site. The La Nacion Fault zone is considered "potentially active" and Rose Canyon is considered "active" by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). The Chula Vista Fault, which was found in 1980 during excavation for the South Bay Regional Center near the corner of Third Avenue and H Street, is considered "potentially active" but there is not enough information known about this fault zone to include it in a Special Studies Zone. The prominent fault zones which are thought to have the most potential for impact to the site are the active Elsinore and San Jancinto fault zones which are 43 and 64 miles to the northeast, as well as the Coronado Bank fault zone approximately 14 miles southwest of the site. Geology/seismology issues were determined to be significant, but mitigable with the conformance to Uniform Building Code Standards, as well as the recommendations set forth in the geotechnical report prepared by Robert Prater Associates (April 1991). Additionally, the project will be required to undergo review by the Office of the State Architect and will be further subject to their requirements. 7. Water Conservation Impact Summary: Significant, But Mitigable The hospital expansion would add an additional 46,280 gallons per day {gpd) increase in water demand. This increase in water demand will be partially off set through the replacement of existing commercial uses on site with a present water demand of 36,000 gpd. Therefore, the hospital expansion project would ultimately result in a total net water demand of 10,280 gpd. Water conservation impacts will be partially mitigated on site through the use of low water usage landscaping, as well as the use of recirculated water in the water design features proposed for the facility. Additionally, although not listed as a mitigation measure in the DEIR, Scripps may be required to comply with a City-approved water use off-set policies which are presently being developed for implementation City-wide. 8. Cumulative Water Conservation Impact Summary: Significant and Unmitigable Because the proposed project will contribute to the overall regional demand for water, water conservation impacts are deemed to be City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 9 "significant and unmitigable" on a cumulative basis. Cumulative water conservation impacts will require adoption of a statement of overriding considerations. Cumulative water conservation impacts have also been addressed in the CEQA Findings prepared for this project. 9. Visual Oualitv Impact Summary: Significant and Unmitigable The Recirculated Draft EIR analyzed the visual impacts of the proposed project. As a result, the EIR determined that visual impacts are "significant and unmitigable" for the project, as proposed. Implementation of the hospital expansion and associated medical office space would change the visual character of the site through the addition of more massive structures than currently exist on site, thereby creating a significant visual impact. 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, however, located adjacent to the site is designated as a "Scenic Highway" on the Chula Vista General Plan. 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. 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. The six levels proposed for the Phase II {Ultimate) construction of the hospital complex will be set back from "H" Street, in order to minimize bulk and scale impacts. Mitigation of potentially significant visual impacts will be ensured through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as well as, through the conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit and the Design Review application. Although visual impacts will be partially mitigated through architectural treatments and building materials, because of the large scale of the project, visual impacts are deemed "significant and unmitigable." Adoption of a statement of overriding considerations is required for visual impacts. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 10 10. Public Facilities/ Services Impact Summary: Significant, But Mitigable Impacts to public facilities/services, including storm drain systems, fire services, sewer services, and school services and facilities were analyzed in the EIR, as follows: Storm Drains The proposed project would correct existing storm drain flooding problems affecting the adjacent junior high school by ducting the storm drain into the hospital's proposed storm drain system. Fire The proposed project would be constructed in compliance with Chula Vista Fire Department standards, which requires all buildings, including the parking structure, will contain an approved standpipe and fire sprinkler system and a fire alarm system; additional fire hydrants will be installed as required by the Chula Vista Fire Department; all State Fire Marshall CAC - Title 19 regulations shall be met; and the provision of a 26-foot wide access road into Chula Vista Junior High School from the north interior road off of Fifth Avenue. Additionally, the City of Chula Vista Fire Department will work directly with the Sweetwater Authority to ensure adequate water pressure for emergency fire flows. The required fire flow for a fire sprinkler system shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. Sewer The sewer line in H Street is nearing capacity, therefore the applicant proposes to install a gravity sewer line and direct all sewage to G Street so as not to further impact the H Street line. Portions of the sewer lines in H Street and G Street are flowing near or over capacity at times of peak flow. Prior to issuance of grading permits, preparation of a technical report will be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and incorporated as conditions of project approval addressing both the H Street and G Street sewer systems. It should be noted that on the bottom of page 121 of the DEIR, it incorrectly stated that this would be required prior to the issuance of any permits. Schools Although no direct student generation would occur with implementation of the proposed non-residential project, students may be indirectly generated as more employees are hired with expansion of the hospital facility and move into the area to live and work. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 11 School fees would be paid in accordance with State-mandated impact fee requirements. School impacts for the proposed project are deemed significant, but mitigable. 11. Cumulative School ImPacts Impact Summary: Significant and Unmitigable Although it has been determined that school impacts from the project are significant, but mitigable, the Chula Vista Elementary School District has asserted innumerous comment letters that the students which may be generated by the project indirectly will have an adverse effect on school overcrowding. Cumulative school impacts are therefore deemed "significant and unmitigable." A statement of overriding considerations will be required for cumulative school impacts. Cumulative school impacts are also addressed in the CEQA Findings for the project. 12. Secondary Impacts Impact Summary: Significant and Unmitigable Although the environmental impacts associated with the relocation of existing uses on the project site are speculative at this time, impacts may or may not be significant. Therefore, further environmental review would be necessary to assess the physical impacts on the environment. Secondary impacts created due to the need to relocate existing uses is therefore deemed to be "significant and unmitigable" and a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required for secondary impacts. D. AL)ERNATIVES ANALYSIS In compliance with CEQA~s mandate to provide reasonable range of project alternatives, the recirculated DEIR included a "No Project" Alternative; No G Street Access Alternative; H Street Business Coalition Alternative; and Retail and Entertainment Alternative. The following is a brief synopsis of each project alternative: No Project Alternative This alternative would retain the site in its current rundown and semi-blighted condition. Under this scenario, the hospital would not be expanded and the existing commercial uses on the expansion site would remain. Scripps would remain its current size, and significant, unmitigated impacts such as visual quality would be avoided. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 12 No G Street Access Alternative Under this alternative, access for employees and emergency vehicles would be limited to Fifth Avenue and H Street, with no access allowed from G Street. Impacts associated with this alternative would be the same as for the proposed, with the exception that Noise Impacts from emergency vehicles using G Street would be avoided. H Street Business Coalition Alternative Under this phasing alternative, Arby's Restaurant, First Interstate Bank and Readicare would remain on site during Phase I of the hospital expansion. (See Figure 5) Although the hospital expansion square footage and facilities would be identical, the location of the proposed medical office building would need to be redesigned, as would the entry along H Street. Impacts for this alternative would be the same as the proposed project for geology, water conservation, and schools. Land use, visual quality, traffic, noise, and air quality impacts, however, would change with this alternative. Land use impacts under this alternative are associated with the elimination of some parking, landscaping and courtyard areas at the southwest corner of the site during Phase I with retention of these commercial uses. However, retention of these uses would also offer a higher commercial utilization of the site during Phase I by continuing to offer these commercial services within the project area. Retention of these uses would also require the redesign of the proposed medical office building proposed. The selection of this alternative would require further environmental and design review to assess potential visual impacts not anticipated for the proposed project. Traffic impacts under this alternative are associated with the additional 3,228 ADT generated. Impacts may occur with the Arby's driveway during Phase I when vehicles making right turns out of the hospital attempt to cross the path of vehicles turning into Arby's. Traffic mitigation under this alternative includes the widening of the north side of H Street by two to four feet to accommodate a raised median and westbound auxiliary lane. Noise and air quality impacts under this alternative are associated with the 1,614 additional ADT generated in Phase I, thereby resulting in an incremental increase in noise and air pollutant emissions than the proposed project. Mitigation of noise/air quality impacts under the alternative would be the same as for the proposed project. If this alternative is selected, further environmental and design review would be necessary. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 13 Retail and Entertainment Alternative Under this alternative, the 8.9 acre expansion area would be redeveloped as a commercial center. (See Figure 6) The center would include a combination of restaurants, theaters, banks, and recreational uses for a total of 124,990 square feet. No hospital expansion would occur with this alternative. Impacts under this alternative would be the same as for the proposed project for geology/soils, water conservation, and schools. Health impacts would be reduced under this alternative since no hospital expansion would occur. Potential school impacts may occur with this alternative since it is not known whether the northwest portion of the site would be dedicated to the Sweetwater Union High School District, as it would with the proposed project. No significant land use/community character impacts are anticipated with this alternative, however, the potential land use compatibility issues could result from retail/entertainment uses adjacent to the junior high school. Traffic impacts under this alternative are associated with the approximately 12,313 ADT generated from the project site in contrast to 9,105 ADT generated by the hospital expansion project at buildout. Mitigation measures under this alternative would include the widening of the north side of H Street to provide an additional auxiliary access/right turn lane to accommodate a raised median. If this alternative is selected, it would be required to go though the City's design review process to assess visual impacts, since a detailed design has not yet been developed for this proposal. Additional environmental review would also be required if this alternative is selected. Reduced Intensity Alternative Under this scenario, the visual impacts associated with the proposed project would be avoided. The medical office building would be reduced to 3 stories for each building wing and the project would lose approximately 46,500 square feet of medical office space. Accordingly, there would be 233 fewer parking spaces needed, thereby reducing the parking structure to 3 levels plus a basement. There would be fewer traffic impacts as a result of 2,325 fewer ADT generated, and there would be an incremental reduction in noise and air pollutant emissions. This alternative would also result in less school and water conservation impacts. Geology/soils, land use, and health impacts would be the same under this alternative as the proposed project. This alternative would result in less tax revenues generated to the City. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 14 Alternative Sites An alternative sites analysis was not conducted for the proposed project since the goals and objectives of the proposed project would not be achieved by relocating the project to an alternative site, since development of the existing hospital site is a primary objective of the project. Location of the hospital on another site would not result in the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Chula Vista General Plan, Zoning Code, or Redevelopment Plan. Under an alternative sites analysis, the sites proposed in the Eastern Territories {Response to Comments, p. 154) are within largely undeveloped areas of land and significant visual impacts could occur from a 4-story hospital and 6-story medical office building placed in the area. In addition, significant water conservation, biological~ schools, cultural and land use impacts could occur with the development of a hospital. Expansion of the hospital to the north and east would have similar impacts as the project on visual quality, cumulative water supply and school overcrowding. Because Scripps does not own the area immediately north which is not in a redevelopment area, therefore city assistance would not be available to assemble the required land for expansion. E. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS An economic analysis was conducted at the request of the Planning Commission to ascertain the hospital demand and tax revenue implications of the project. This analysis is separate from the Environmental Impact Report and is included at the end of the document for ease in reference and distribution, only. Tax Revenues: The economic analysis concluded that the proposed project would generate sales tax, tax increment, and utility and franchise tax revenues equal to approximately $2.3 million dollars at project buildout. Phase I would generate approximately $1.2 million, alone. Hospital Demand: It is estimated that between lg90 and 2000, there is a demand for approximately 300 additional beds in general acute care (GAC) serving the "South Bay" area, consisting of the cities of Chula Vista and Imperial Beach, a portion of the City of San Diego, and the Otay Mesa area of unincorporated San Diego County. Countywide, there were 1,204,602 patient-days in 1989, or approximately 480 patient-days per 1,000 population. Assuming an average occupancy rate of 65%, this results in a need for 2.02 beds per 1,000 population. Applying this factor to the 1990 population of 255,351 in the South Bay area results in 516 beds, or 226 more than is currently available at the two existing hospitals. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 16, 1991 Page 15 Between 1990 and 2000, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) estimates that the population of the South Bay will increase 35,502 to 290,853. This additional population would result in a need for 72 GAC beds. In summary, there is a potential need for approximately 300 beds in the South Bay area. In conclusion, there are no negative economic impacts anticipated by the proposed project, with conformance to the following recommendations set forth in the economic analysis. Guidelines established by the City and the State should be strictly observed in the relocation of existing businesses. Appropriate assistance should be given to find new locations which are close to existing locations and to retain existing clientele as much as possible. - The Redevelopment Agency should seek assurances from the hospital that either property taxes or in-lieu payments will be made, the sum of which would be equal to 1% of the construction cost of the Ultimate Phase of the medical office building and parking structure, even if the facilities are not constructed or are only partially constructed. The City should review future proposals for construction or expansion of hospitals and other medical facilities, in order to balance supply with anticipated demand for such facilities. It should be noted that two of the tables provided in the economic analysis contained typographical errors. The corrected tables are provided in Attachment B for your information, and will be included in the Final EIR. Other typos found throughout the document will also be corrected in the Final EIR. F. CONCLUSIONS The EIR has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 {PRC 21000 et seq.), the State EIR Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Reqs. ct seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. The proposed Scripps Hospital expansion will result in significant and unmitigable impacts in the areas of visual quality, as well as cumulative water conservation, cumulative school impacts, and secondary impacts. A statement of overriding considerations will be adopted prior to project approval for significant and unmitigable impacts. F. RECO~414ENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a motion that they have reviewed and considered the information in the FEIR prior to reaching a decision on the project and that they recommend certification of the Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Final EIR {EIR-90-07). WPC 9851P ATTACHMENT A WORLEY~ SCHWAI~TZ~ GARFIELD ~ RICE October 28, 1991 Ms. Maryann C. Miller Environmental Review Coordinator Planning Department city of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: EIR 90-07/Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project Dear Maryann: As you know, I represent Circinus Corporation, Wayne Wencke, President, one of the owners of the master ground lease upon which this project is planned. This letter is in reference to the "Final" EIR for this project. Project Backqround I note first that a sentence was added to Section 2.2 Project Background: ,,Discussions between the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and Scripps Memorial Hospital regarding a proposed hospital expansion began in 1988." The next sentence still states that "in 1989 the city of Chula Vista and the Redevelopment Agency were contacted by Scripps Memorial Hospital with a proposal to expand the Hospital " Not only are these two sentences inconsistent, the EIR still fails to address the serious illegality of this project. I have explained that the City of Chula vista improperly placed this property in redevelopment and, in addition, failed to properly extend owner participation rights to my client. Rather, the evidence is clear that back in 1986 when Scripps bought out Bay Medical Center, it had intentions of expanding onto the project site, which intentions were known to the City of Chula vista. It is obvious from the way this project has been railroaded through from start to finish that the Scripps expansion was pre-selected long before the site was targeted for redevelopment and proposals were solicited. (See Redevelopment Agency of Huntinqton Park v. Norm Slausson (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1121, review den. 1876; City of Los Anqeles v. Chadwick (2nd Dist. 1991) __ Cal.App. __ [285 Cal.Rptr. 191].) Ms. Maryann C. Miller October 28, 1991 Page 2 At the very least, the EIR must detail the events surrounding the redevelopment process. For the city to maintain that project genesis is irrelevant to the CEQA process is absurd. Response No. 125 states in part that: "CEQA requires public disclosure of the planned evolution process which resulted in selection of a particular alternative as the proposed project The planned evolution process is described in detail in ~e~tion 2.2 of the DEIR " Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, as discussed, the EIR provides cursory and contradictory statements regarding project background. Response No. 125 also states that: "A primary objective of the proposed project is expansion of the existing community hospital facility. The range of alternative sites which could achieve this objective is limited." This statement also clearly exemplifies the fact that the City of Chula Vista has irrevocably committed itself to the Scripps expansion. The primary objective of this project should be to serve the needs of the residents of the city of Chula Vista, not the convenience of Scripps Hospital. Economic and Social Impacts The EIR still does not adequately address economic and social impacts. Not only does a commercial use produce far more revenues than the Scripps project, there is no guarantee that Scripps will go to Phase Ultimate. In fact, Scripps may be relieved of its in lieu tax payment obligations because Phase Ultimate may be conditioned upon the city performing certain roadway improvements (reference memo from Fred Kassman to Maryann Miller dated December 28, 1990, and submitted September 23, 1991 by Michael Jacobs, Vice President, Circinus Corporation). It is equally improper to make the blanket assertion that there will be no social effects from implementing a large hospital instead of a badly needed tasteful commercial site. Klo in Dama es The relocation activities outlined in the EIR speak for themselves; for the City to be relocating tenants and for the city to have allowed Scripps to purchase Farrell's interest clearly show that the City has utter disregard for actions which depress the market value of the site. It is equally offensive for the EIR to assert that this matter does not refer to the sufficiency or adequacy of the EIR. Despite the fact that Ms. Maryann C. Miller October 28, 1991 Page 3 correspondence with the city regarding this matter was submitted as comments on the EIR, this correspondence has been entirely omitted from the comment section. Land Use/Community Character The hospital project is clearly inconsistent with the Chula vista General Plan, which designates the site as retail/ commercial. The EIR acknowledges this fact on page 43 where it has, apparently upon discovery of this fact, crossed out "General Plan" and inserted a different plan, the "Area Plan." However, switching plans is not enough; the hospital project would require a Plan Amendment. This willingness to play "fast and loose" with Plan require- ments merely evidences the fact that the City of Chula Vista has irrevocably committed itself to the Scripps project. Were this EIR timely disseminated before the Scripps project was a "done deal," this Plan inconsistency could have been dealt with in a proper manner. (See Guidelines, § 15004(b); Mt. Sutro Defense Comm. v. Reqents of the University of California (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 20.) Phase Ultimate is a Smoke and Mirror Show Commentors have consistently challenged this project on the basis that there is no guarantee it will go to Phase Ultimate. In response, the City has consistently skirted this issue. Response No. 123 states that: "A requirement for in lieu payments will be incor- porated into the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) for the proposed project to ensure revenue to the City whether or not Phase Ultimate of the proposed project is constructed. This requirement would also serve as an incentive to the landowner to completely build out the project." However, Response No. 129 is completely contradictory, stating that: "The DEIR does not state or suggest that Phase Ultimate of the project will be constructed due to the financial constraints placed on the project proponent. Indeed, a recommendation included in the Fiscal Analysis summarized in the DEIR (page 175) suggests Ms. Maryann C. Miller October 28, 1991 Page 4 that the Redevelopment Agency should require the project proponent to pay property taxes or in lieu payments even if Phase Ultimate facilities are not constructed." First, the EIR states that in lieu payments will be required. Next, the EIR states that in lieu payments will be suggested. The bottom line here is that the EIR should clearly explain that there is no guarantee the project will go to Phase Ultimate. Therefore, by selection of the Scripps project over the retail/entertainment alternative, the city will be foregoing over $1 million of badly needed revenues. Procedural Abuses As with the series of correspondence regarding the Kloppinq Damaqes, the EIR has failed to include a series of comment letters and responses from the City regarding additional unlawful action pertinent to this project. First, the EIR fails to acknowledge that the City unlawfully stalled and continues to withhold public records regarding this project, poisoning my ability to effectively comment on the EIR. Second, this corres- pondence also outlines serious procedural abuses effected by the City in its furtherance of this project. For example, the city provided improper notice for several important hearings. Further, the action taken at these hearings by the city itself constituted procedural abuse. As I hear myself repeating so often in this case, process cannot be separated from substance. The way a project is effected is equally important as the impact a project has on traffic, water, and other engineering considerations. Conclusion The above are just a few examples of the extreme defi- ciencies in the EIR. Not one of the responses adequately addresses the issues raised in the public comments. Rather, the Ms. Maryann C. Miller October 28, 1991 Page 5 flavor of the responses is as cursory and conclusory as the EIR itself. At least the battle lines are drawn. Very truly yours, WORLEY, SCHWARTZ, GARFIELD & RICE JOSEPH A. SOLOMON JAS:sc circinus\miller.ltr Ms. Maryann C. Miller October 28, 1991 Page 6 cc: Wayne Wencke, President Circinus Corporation Michael Jacobs, Vice-President Circinus Corporation Philip Hinshaw A.D. Hinshaw Associates James J. Eischen, Jr., Esq. (H Street Coalition) Richard R. Freeland, Esq. (First Interstate Bank) Matthew Peterson, Esq. (Alvin Malnik) Ralph Kostant, Esq. (Scripps Hospital) Tim Nader, Mayor Donald Read, C.E.O. Chamber of Commerce John Goss, city Manager Susan Fuller, Chairperson Planning Commission Mr. Bob Leiter, Director Planning Department Will Hyde, Chairman Town Centre Project Area Committee Barbara Gilman, Chairperson Design Review Committee Robert Fox, Chairman Resource Conservation Committee Andrew B. Campbell, Administrator of Planning, Sweetwater Union High School District Kate Shurson, Director of Planning Chula Vista city School District Dr. Llewellyn Lieber SHANNAHAN, SMITH, SCALONE & STIPANOV A ~ROFESSIONAL LAW CORI~ORAllON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 7855 IVANHOE AVENUE, SUrE 420 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037 TELEPHONE (619) 454-3237 TELECOPIER (619) 459-8111 October 25, 1991 File No.: 01581.021 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Maryann Miller Environmental Coordinator CITY OF CHULA VISTA Planning Dept. 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: RTM, Inc. (Chula Vista Redevelopment) Final Environmental Impact Report Case No. EIR-90-0? Dear Maryann: Please find enclosed copies of letters previously provided to you that are relevant to the deficiencies of the above-mentioned Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). Having reviewed the Final EIR, we are concerned that it remains deficient in the following areas. Community Character/Physical Impact The Final EIR continues to ignore the significant impact caused by disrupting the intended commercial urban core physical relationship between the Chula Vista Shopping Center, and the project site designated for commercial/retail redevelopment. This constitutes a physical, significant impact that the Final EIR fails to address. "H" Street Business Coalition Proposal The Final EIR contains faulty analysis regarding how the coalition proposal would affect traffic. Also, the Final EIR states that retaining the coalition businesses might create a G: ~HOME\JJE\L15$128K. CMM SHANNAHAN, SMITH, SCk"~NE & STIPANOV ~' Ms. Maryann Miller October 25, 1991 Page 2 "less than tranquil environment." Neither constitutes appropriate CEQA analysis. Alternative Site Analysis The Final EIR continues to assert that an East Chula Vista Scripps Hospital campus would not alleviate alleged overcrowding at the present Scripps Chula Vista Hospital. If Chula Vista residents are travelling to hospitals outside of Chula Vista, they would presumably travel to East Chula Vista. Also, I understand that Circinus Corporation has identified parcels in East Chula Vista that could accommodate a Scripps hospital campus. The Final EIR asserts that there is no "suitable" location in East Chula Vista without adequate explanation. Finally, there remains an issue as to the true need for the Scripps expansion project to forcibly relocate viable commercial uses on the project site. The project proponent cannot dictate the scope of alternative site analysis by identifying project goals. The project proponent should be required to provide serious analytical support for the project--particularly a project with unmitigatable significant impacts. Inconsistency With Towne Centre II Redevelopment Plan The Final EIR asserts that the City of Chula Vista has determined that the project is consistent with the subject redevelopment plan. However, the Final EIR does not address the issues raised regarding the stated intent of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and the subject redevelopment plan to redevelop the project site for commercial/retail uses. The Final EIR broadly notes in response to my prior letter that City of Chula Vista regards the project as consistent with the subject redevelopment plan. This is apparently based on references to institutional use, and general goals for urban core redevelopment. However, the Final EIR fails to address or respond to the specific references to commercial/retail redevelopment in the subject redevelopment plan, related reports, and in the minutes of the joint agency/council hearing by which the project site (Area 4) was included into the subject redevelopment plan. An adequate Final EIR would note the inconsistency, and comment on the "H" Street Business Coalition G: \HOME\J J E\L158128K. CMM SHANNAHAN, SMITH, SC,a,"~NE & STIPANOV Ms. Maryann Miller October 25, 1991 Page 3 and Circinus Corporation proposals as potential means of addressing the inconsistency. Business Relocation The Final EIR retains a reference to relocation of two existing business tenants, but fails to address the issue raised in prior letters regarding the relocation of other business tenants on the project site. This may confuse the public regarding the rights and remedies of a displaced business tenant. The Final EIR should specify the relocation assistance available to the remaining business tenants barring an agreement to enhanced relocation assistance by the project proponent. In fact, the Final EIR should note that enhanced relocation efforts are only directed at two business tenants. Or, the Final EIR could avoid confusion by omitting reference to the relocation of any business tenants. The Final EIR should not appear to suggest that the negative effects of business displacement will be completely corrected by a willing project proponent that is successfully relocating all business tenants. Suggesting that business tenants are being relocated, and referring to enhanced relocation efforts for two business tenants, is inconsistent with the position that complete business tenant displacement is not a significant impact. Summary We believe that the Final EIR does not adequately address the issues raised in this letter and in the attached letters previously directed to your attention. G: \HOME\JJE\L158128K. CMM SHANNAHAN, SMITH, SCP"~ONE & STIPANOV ~ Ms. Maryann Miller October 25, 1991 Page 4 Please reconsider whether the Final EIR should be certified with the identified inadequacies of the Final EIR. e r~jr.~ ;_~ly~. l~S~ 1 Enclosures co: J. Russell Welch Charlie Harmon Gall MacLeod Wayne Wencke Joseph Solomon, Esq. Richard Freeland, Esq. Charles Deem, Esq. .~, ,,.~ rV~acLEOD · L~',, ~ ~ ;'c ~"~',',"~W~' '". .... ~ .~ ~ SERVICES '/ ~'.'t%' ¢ - ', - ( .,q,, ~ tN / _ , , ~ '. .- ' ' Su~ ect :' '~ Commen~s, on,~ Sck~ipps{ Hospital ~ DEI R '~:On b~ha2f' 'of ~he/,H"streec2 ~usiness~'Coalition; I' submit ~he followingtcommenbs~.on ~h~sub~ec%"DEIR~ ,'~The ~ommen~ are. in the ~ same,'brde6,as-~e/p~ge'~u~be~ se,quen~ p~e.a~e.c6rreC~ly indicate~ tha~ Scrxpps ~osp~tal f~rs~ ~e~e~ the A~encv~-s%aff regarding the--hospital expansion xn July ~aaa ~=~ ~A u=", 1989.,'qSe~ Attached memo )from clby flles (Attachment A),.~U~ ,~,~ - ,~ ~ ~' ~ 'h , , t ), ..'. t~ubsl-d~" ~o ne~Zec~Sc~ipps'.~,need foK ~he ~gency ~o c9, s~g~ on ~oan ~' ~a ~'~a?.a~a~man~:.ffo~J~he('yo~h se~ving businesses. Th~s pu~s th~'['financial~ b,~cking-~of .%he, Agency behind Scripps w~th the ' os~'ibility ~ha~:ci%y/ 'f~nds"~wquld bai~ ou% future problems. ~ . ~ , .~ ~ ~ -~ ~ . , · [~..'-,qp. ~25~ NO supporting a~aenca ~s p~ovidad on ~he "qua~i~y off , · ~ 'es .;~' . Data on ~h~;crea%ed,and .the multipller,'effgc~ of salarl · '),',~-[-'2_~&'~ =~ ~v~ra~e, salaries ,would'be reflective of "quality" ,13 h , - . , ., , , · '~.'[and the-mult,lpller~ effect should be based on( empErical data retail · % ~hether hospita~ pe~sq~nel w~%~ r~,al,~y.spe;nd money ,at nearby '-47,-~p.43~The 'DEIR'~indicates that the Central.-Commercial zone is to '('stabilize', improx~,.hndqprotect'~the commercial characteristics .... ,y~t~it' dogs not ppln%]out that,%he hospital .expansion eliminates -rather th~n p~o~edt~ commercial on;the'site- In fact the applicant ~is/making retention' of some-commercial uses on site during phase 1 /~ aD-'x~ff'i~ult 9~ 'P°S~le,'' %('"' '" ,~ ' ' ' - ' ' ~:, 5..(~',p'. ,53 ,'.Th~rD~IR~,9ote~.%ha~,"tn°'changes are. proposed_}n ~he - ".,~asternl4.7 aqr~s~0f' the s~e~ as pa~.t of, th~ phase one a.e~elopmen~. ,,Thiscmeans -t'h~% %duri~g Phas~~l~sign~ficant architectural -<incompatibilit'Y qccur,s.'between the,-old hospita~ building and new Obuild'~ngs." Thi~ ~paq~ should be~a,nalyzed. ~ . _ . - /~ . ~ ~', . .. ~ ~ ,.' ',.,~..~ ~This is signif'i~an~ bacau~e'on",P'155.~ha DE[R ma~es a poin~ (~nd ..D~aa~med p~ob~em)'- o~,.t~e 'a~cNi~u~aZ dissi~i~a~iby, caused 6,. [. p,._58 ~The PEIR,[-speaks~ ~n~the past tense regarding the DRC s ((concerns. over,~theJpro3ect, especially'.the bulk/scale of the medical ' office buildi~g.?,-rPl.ease correct, this to accurately reflect the ~ record.. ~ ' · ~' ', ' ' '~365,G~E~H DR~,SUITE 250 · S~ DIEGO. ~ 92122 - (619) 457-1904 .F~(6191452~680 ',-, --~'~' . ~- - , ' -r~ ~ " ' ; "" ,' ' ~ t ' '~ ]. ~ '.'~'~'~ ~==~ n~'~ me~in0 'on the 'hospital' expansion, they passed a ' ~ ~ .~ .... ~7 %'~i -,- ' ~-~' ~' the 'medical office building to be ]': lowerefl:.,,~3 :s'tories~"for the'westeSly tower aha D stor~e=.zu~ l-~ >- - ' - -t,U~tm~curren% Screens proposal a~ 4 ,stor~e~ an~ o ' · / t-"'"~ ~;~,-"-' . '" ~ ~_'_ '; .... --:-~'~=~ mi~l~adlno The illustrations , sho~,.gha .rooE5 gop'"eq~ipmenb adding nearly'another s~ory ~n ',,Pl~ea~e discuss the,-heighb compatibility in germs of actual he~9nb ,' ~and~not,,justl~umbar~of stories.,i Nobe,~his i~su? ~as ~lso of . ~ ' on~e~n"g'o~gke'DRC',~.~ its' last.idiacuaszon on r't' .....~"~e~'g visual 'quality Impactslof scripp~l Phase,1 plan. Host ~ons q o~'the ~ · . ' ~dlca,ted to the- · , ~ Irojecb ~ibe'dur~ng Scr~PPs''k'phase ~ .~s , , ~, lau~omo~le, not ,~to-people o~ p[oduct~ve use~ , ,, i r' "~'t, ~ ,~.._ )"~ .'~' .- ',.. " ' ~"'~ ,' ' ' ( , · '"'bBy not' including any reference:~to,th~s concern as voiced by Patrick ,~l Crowley'~he c~by's Cp~sultant',',the DE~R gives 'the impresslo~ of,.,__' '~ selectively,,c oo,s~ng city informati~n'for use ~n this, report, w~=n "e~ annarent ooal--to favor the bosp~bal expan~,~on. , ' ~ ~'~ ,-~ ' ,-,X< ' , , ,' ~ ~ ' ' " ~he_ visual quali}z section'tshould analyze the impact of the :~wid,~ning of lH-']Street near the comer'of 4th? This is a required ~ t'rafffc/mitiga,t~on lot',the'ultimate phase and will result in a ~ ic View':~of3bhe ,~xisbin9 ~apa~,tment building. ( -,-/'.:~.,, '~Z, ' "-=-:). · " ' ' ~ Th~, DEIR flesc~ib~s ~e/~re~en, g situation as "cramped" because there · .~is.a;5'.foot sidewaik~m~d~ately ad~acent to an apartment wall l.;?(~,7y) i~/When'~he,:road /~s widened, g~e lack of landscaping area and ' '-' ~t .' m '~d feeiihg wil'l worsen.' ,' wa~le A ~ P .... ~ ~,9 ,pp--69r72rTh%~.;intersecbiou traffic data indicate that Scripps' ~, . ~' ....... %~: C~estion-'problem 'ab ~the 4th ,and H streets %~'~ersecbi0n."Furt~er the "cramped" 'feeling (p~71) experienced by ~the":dfi~er near~this''intersecti°n ~s identified as a problem, but '~ ,is not 'mitiga~ed~during phase ~1., t~,..:,,,',.,~ .',,~.~t,.,-- , ,,,~-' .. .~ . . _j sozu ' on H s re t 3er ct%on [on e on ~ ~logiea!ly found a~.-4th and H stree%'~; But wmdenlng H street west of · ' '' e uire%~demolition,,of.~an, office building owned by the '".4th~ould-~ q ~. "~'~ 7 ~'~ '. ~ ~ ~, ' ~' - :' ,my dlients' businesses on the theory that rel~e~ oz aowns5 ~,fric~ion,will'helP keepftraffic moving. But'this ~s not really a first, choice ,solution' to/the traffic congestion problem at 4th and oS .. .., - . : ~j~. ~' 'The DEIR should disuuss the appropriate mitigation (if in fact needed during phase=l) for .%he~4th/H Streets intersection. p. ~7J T~e project ~il~ g~Derate, 20~ more traffic than allowed , ~. . ~ ?.,,/, .;t.-' p. 2 by the%General Plan trip estimates. However, no additional ~mitigationtme~sures (beyond those accounted for'in the general plan) ar~e-req~lre~..-~; ( .... A 20%:~increase in trips generated is significant. The DEIR should assume that, such' an,increase is a ,privilege that could be extended to all development' projects.' The'cumulative impact of this would slgnlf~gantly, e~fec~,the?lev~l of service ~hroughout the city. "~" to offset the main ll~.., 'Ap,~80,~.The DEiRfsugge~tsi?a'pot~n~ial need ',~driv~waM) e'ntran6e~to ~the west of the~"shopping center driveway. We %view' this as an~attempt to eliminate consideration of keeping the Arby's restaurant· ",durin~ phase 1. 'Another e~uallz viable solution is to relocate /the shopping center "driveway ~S pa~t of'the Homart redevelopment plan. In this manner, ,ino. businesses -are'affected and the desired turning movement is ."'achieved~ . -~ ~ ' ~ Thet~E R consultant should carefully evaluate mitigation measures -suggested by either the applicant or.'the staff to make sure there is ,n~t .a,-hidden ~o~ive~ 12.~ p.' 82 T~e DEIR discusses hospital ~access off Fourth as an ,..alternati'~e..%~The, Hospital currently uses access off Fourth as a main.entrance. ,~.P.re~ably, ali'%necessary agreements exist to allow suchCacce~s.; 0 ~.~ . The DEIR states that-access off Fourth rediStriDutes traffic north falong~Mourth instead of west-along H street. This would be advantageous ~iv~n_-the concern over the cramped feeling and side fr$ction along~ sVeet- 'Th~ DEIR~concludes access off Fourth wouldn't be advantageous from ra cost benefit'~standpoint. Whose cost and whose benefit? And what does cost ~benefi% have:'to do with.environmental analysis? Since ~,Scrippso~lread,~}h~s.access, ~ · , . off., and signage on Fourth, what are the 1~3. p~: 83 & 84~ ',The traffic impact conclusion should be signi-ficant and, not mitisable for phase 1 since the ,cramped driver problem on H street,'is not solved. Further the ultimate'plan generation of 20% more traffic~Lhan allowed b~ the General Plan is ~/not mitigated.- ->~ ~14.,, p.88- Explain(why a noise a~alysis assumed,that cars are only travelling a5 6'mph% ~ ' 15~"p.89. The emergency power source generates 76 dB(A) at the property, 1,ine. This is significant. How will -it be mitigated, especialZyLwith the~Pr°ximity of the school. '~6. ~p.C'88; & 89 What"is the'cumulative impact of noise if the HVAC, Standby p~wers, , and emergency vehicles are simultaneous? p.3 ]'. ' , '. ' S '',~ ~ ': ~1'~ ~h~'~enl'lowin~ 'statement, in regard to air quality: .. ..-"Due'to the ~elati'vely low number of trips,, the absence "congestion, and'the fact'th~t the project represents lnfxll /~deveiopment with.-~ohcomitan~ly'fgwer ~rips than w?uld 6cc~r !~ ~he i~ro~'ect were developed in a more~ Qu~l¥1nq area, this contribution. · is~ not~regard~d~a~ ~s~ifican~?~'i t,- · ~; ~ ~=~n~'~iven(for'.non_significance are unsupported- First, ,this preject is Causing congestion, specifically 20% more than >~assumed in~the'general'plan tr. ip..estimates. Secondly the infill reasoning doesn't-work for a regional serving /facilLty. Please 'refer to point,'~22 below which asks for the dat~_ on vehicle miles traveled, and hospitgl market ~area;.~ Due to the',eo~gestion and the absence of .,concomitantly" fewer trips, please'regnalyze the ai~.qualit~ ~mpae~s and mitigation , 18'. p.:,ll6 The water use data may ~e wrong. The methodolgy is .'flawed.,. The p~o~eebion ~or future use should not be based on a gpd/ne;' acxe of e×is~&ng. '_ . hospital use.' The-new'hospital site will have significantly more ~andscaping and the ratio of land to building as well as type of building use will~ fzcantly This ~i&l. substantially change.the gpd/net -change signi ' "~ ' ' " ' - -Please revise'these projections based o~ actual ~te usage, ? aecountin~.Lfor /landscaping,~:m~dical off~ce,bu~ldlng, and hospital \,19. p.-132 ~Including the biases of the applicant regarding the ,,eff'iciency" of~%he H' Street Business Coalition' proposal further taints the DEIR's.objectivity. -Such a comment does not belong in ? the DEIR,~ ,, ~'~ ":, 20.'. p- 138 The H Street Business Coalition Alternative was revised ~o show the'one way entrance. Staff indicated this would be used in the. DSIR. ~ ._~ ~k.,/ ~ ~ '~" 2~. '-p- ~38 Zn reference to. the H ,Street Business Coalition ..-Alternative' for'Phase ~, the~DEXR identifies the narrowness of the westbouGd curb ~ane on':H S~reet as a potential safety risk and the ~ra£~ic safet~ can, be enhanced b~,widening H Street. The fact tha~ a narrow west bound lane is a potenLial safet~ hazard enhanced through widening is a~so:re~evant ~o the ~ramped lane situatien described for the portion of H street' near Fourth Avenue (see ,,cramped ,d~scuss~on on p. 71). Yet widening ~s a Phase 2 requirement for the Scripps pro3ect presumably because ~hey'd have to ~ear down a ~med~cal office building. :ih' ,: We,ask lot'_the, same 'accomodating atti~.ude shown toward the Scipps proposal. -Fur. ther the safet, y problem FortUnately t~ busx~esses ex~s~ ,t6~ay, so conjecture xs not needed ' on .the lmpacts.,,~Attachment C ~s a, traffic ,accident analysxs ~onducted'by the. Chula"Vista en~l eerln~, ddpartment. It shows' ' ,.~!..822 ' ~ ' ~ ' ' ' ' ,cqll~s~on as. compared to the,Caltrans "expected accxdent /rate" .,of ~4'.5 for'~an'u~di~ided,road. The expected~rate: for the · ~.,~lt'lmate;' ~, ,(,,6' .lane~H~stree~.ls,~lso 4,.5h% '"Q",' ~ ~ "'" ' ' ; ~% ~ ..... /Pl'ease'~add'ress~.t~e~-,rqad ' ' '"' 'widening' xssue consistently along the ',entire ,length ?f H~<St~reet.,and.rely on acbua!,, 4 a~cident/safe%y~ considerations .' ,/~ ',.22. t p.-' 1~1 The..DEIR:states~that a hospital complex'east of 1-805' would likely: serve a'.different' ~arket area than does the existing -L ~hospital.-,'in central ~Chula Vista.h Data are needed to sapport this' , statement. <~The'~EIR. . ,'implies%the,. .. applicant,is the source of this' ~ isf°.rm~%ign ,.:~ ~' ,< , ~.-,- , ,,~ ~Ak public meetings,khe'applicanC has stated that the hospital ' serves ,all of-,.Sou%h Bay and Tijuana.' This.contradicts the ,,perceptign"of,:a hospital domina~ea by a localized market in central "'Chula' Vista. ,:~ ,',''~ . , - . For,-~this?section and the air'quality'section, specifi6 documentation'.ismeeded'on Scripps hospital's current patient r,or~gins,~veh~cle miles traveled given, the proposed and alternate 5~locakion~-0ptions~ as well a~-~l,oca~ional information of where the new patient~ will. originate. 'With .su~h_'loca~ional ,information and vehicle miles traveled, the optima~locatipn~'for? servxng the hospital's regional marketplace and ~he a~r quality implicakiop, s can be reasonably assessed. / Thank you for considering-.,~ .- ou~ comments'. Si'ncerely~ :' ' ~, 'Gail'L MacLeod .... '~ p ~'~ ~ ' "/~ , - '~ / p.5 691.723~ MEMORANDUM JUL 2 1 1988 Date: July 21, 1988 To: Paul Desrochers .C01llfllunit~( Development Dept. Community Development Director Re; Site Plan Paul; Attached, ~lease find a site plan showing the extension of facilities to the west of the current hospital site, As I mentioned, this is our first pass ~nd reflects ~ sighting of those Items essential to the expansion, growth and development of Scripps ~emorial Hospital - Cbula Vista, Additionally, the size o~ buildings ~nd circulation shown ~lll no doubt change as we refine the plan, If there ~re an~ questions, please call, DRC MINUTES - 6 - December 3, 1990. structures. Consequently the office butldtng is being presented in a · combination of five and four stories. In regard to the building setbacks, Mr. Larry explained, that the structure was located approximately 25 feet from Fifth Avenue property line and approximately 40 feet from H Street. Project Architect Childs explained in detail the office· building design and different design components. He explained that, as a result of staff concerns, the revised design featuring a water feature was being created at the corner of H and Fifth Avenue. After hearing the project architects description of the butldtng design. The committee recommended to reduce the westerly building height to three stories and the other building to four stories, l'he committee reaccounted their recommendation as follows: 1. Mechanical equipment enclosure located on top of the hospital!~i: 'building structure could be reduced in height, producing two arch~ elements to visually reduce the enclosure height. 2. Equipment structures should be modified to provide more substance':.' and meaning. ' ..... · 3. .A driveway shall be provided along Fifth Avenue for the on Phase 'I 4,.A recommendation from the city's traffic engineer shall be'.forwarded' to the' Design Review Committee, addressing the--:potenttal'..hazard 'created by the intersection of the service driveway,at'Fifth Avenue and school kids crossing said driveway_ 5 ~Office building towers shall be limited to three stories for. the~.... westerly tower .a. nd ~f_i_¥~_s_~_.o]~_tes.~_or_the northerly tower. -6. Lower floor shall be articulated to reduce building height. ~' '~ .,. · 7, The brick color shown in the building elevation, should be brick~a~nd, the white element smooth finish a stucco. . Meeting. was adjourned to ~the December 17, lggO regular meettng!~iii:'~ Conference Rooms 2 and 3 of Public Services Building located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. Recorder J. Luis Hernandez T-30 '- CHULA VISTA R UA : 9- 5-91 ROUTE SEGMENT COLLISION SL~IAR¥ -- H ST INTRSCTN CROSS STREET NAME $G~T PERIOD l: S~- 1-70 %o 8-31-91 PERIO8 2: 0- O- 0 %0 0- 0- 0 CHANGE LOCATION DIST, HO SD RE BD HT O' PE OT INT E~G HO SD RE BO HT O' PE OT INT SEG IN CODE MILES ON SW AR SD OBTN D HRCLL CLL ON SW AR SD OB TND HRCLL CLL RATE)'. 18280 FIFTH AVE ! 4 0 ~ 4 0 ~ 1 ~ ? 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ,15 0 0 2 I 0 0 0 0 ', 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18400 FID AVE 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLII~IAR¥ TOTALS . 15 11 3 0 TRAFFIC VOL/COLLISION RATE: ( 28400/ 1.822 ~ O/ ,000 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 7855 IVANHOE AVENUE, SUITE 420 L^ JOLLA, CALLFORNIA 92037 TELEPHONE (619) 454-3237 TELECOPIER (619) 459-8111 September 23, 1991 01580.021 VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL Ms. Maryann C. Miller Environmental Review Coordinator CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Re: RTM, Inc. (Chula Vista Redevelopment) Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Case No. EIR-90-7 Dear Maryann: As you know, this office represents RTM, Inc. ("RTM"), the owner and operator of an Arby's Restaurant affected by the subject Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project ("project"). The project will replace eleven commercial uses on an 8.9 acre site included in the amended Towne Centre II Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") referred to as Area Four. The Plan slated Area Four for "retail/commercial" redevelopment. RTM is participating in a coalition redevelopment proposal that provides for a hospital expansion but mitigates against the project displacing all businesses from Area Four--complete business displacement from Area Four violates the Plan. This letter is intended to comment upon the above- referenced recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Chula Vista PlanninG Commission ("Commission") and the Chula Vista Redevelopment AGency ("AGency")- · SHANNAHAN, SMITH, ~. ~'~ONE & STIPANOV ('~ Ms. Maryann Miller September 23, 1991 Page 2 A. SUMMARY The DEIR fails to adequately and objectively evaluate the project and project alternatives, including off-site project alternatives. The close relationship between the project proponent and the Agency requires a detailed off-site alternative analysis. A more in-depth market analysis is also necessary. The DEIR fails to adequately analyze the significant and cumulative impacts associated with physically disrupting the business urban core with a twelve acre hospital campus. A Plan amendment is required for the project. The project radically deviates from the Plan's plain intent to foster a revitalizedretail/commercial urban core. Documents attached to this letter confirm that Area Four was included into the Plan based on the Agency's assurances and stated goal of retail/commercial redevelopment. The DEIR economic analysis is incomplete and misleading. Chula Vista cannot afford to loose strong viable businesses, and does not need an expanded Scripps Hospital in Area Four. RTM, Inc. respectfully requests the following: 1. The EIR should objectively analyze the project and project alternatives; 2. The EIR should objectively evaluate off-site alternative that prevents a physical disruption of the Chula Vista business urban core; 3. The EIR should challenge the project proponent to provide marketing data supporting the demographic and economic assumptions used to support the project; and, 4. The EIR must require a Plan amendment to mitigate the project's inconsistency with the Plan. · SHANNAHAN, SMITH, ( ZONE & STIPANOV Ms. Maryann Miller September 23, 1991 Page 3 B. ?HE DEIR FAILS TO OBJECTIVELY DESCRIBE AND ANALYZE THE PROJECT The AGency is responsible for the adequacy and the objectivity of the EIR. The EIR must reflect the Agency's independent judgement (California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15084). The DEIR is not ob3ective. For example, the DEIR actually segregates the existinG Area Four commercial uses into three groups: Convenience Restaurants, Community Serving Facilities, and Youth-Oriented Facilities. The Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor serves the community, but the Arby's Restaurant, with its various civic activities, serves "convenience." This segregation of Area Four businesses is based on a political deal struck when Area Four was included into the Plan despite expressed reservations of current AGency Chairperson Tim Nader (see below). The DEIR so lacks fundamental objectivity that it is flawed and inadequate. The DEIR, intended to serve the best interests of the public, seems firmly controlled by the project proponent. Reviewing how Area Four was placed into the Plan reveals much about this project and why the DEIR lacks objectivity. C. THE DEIR SHOULD CONSIDER THE BASIS OF THE AGENCY INCLUDING AREA FOUR INTO THE PLAN 1. The Project Violates The Plan. Area Four was not included into the Plan for a twelve acre hospital campus. Attached as Exhibit "A" to this letter is a copy of excerpts from the June 1988 proposed second amendment to the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan. Area Four is referred to as "retail/commercial." A copy of excerpts from the May 6, 1988, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Towne Centre II amendment, page 107, is attached to this letter as Exhibit "B" and states: "site 4 (Area Four) is designated as retail/commercial and is zoned C-C-D (Central Commercial/Design Control Modifying District). Further, page 109 of the same document states: "the retail/commercial (site 4) uses allowed are intended to be neighborhood and community shopping centers." The project clearly falls outside the Plan inclusion of Area Four into the Plan was based on the Plan's stated intent to forward retail/commercial redevelopment. SHANNAHAN, SMITH, ~-'LONE & STIPANOV (' Ms. Maryann Miller September 23, 1991 Page 4 2. Area Four ProDert¥ Owners and Business Tenants Were Misled When Area Four Was Included Into The Plan. Attached as Exhibit "C" to this letter is a copy of the minutes from a joint Chula Vista Council and Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency meeting dated July 12, 1988 ("minutes"). As reflected on pages 11 and 12, representatives of Area Four leasehold interests expressed concern regarding the Agency's redevelopment intentions. For example, Mike Clark, attorney representing Chula Vista Properties, stated his concern regarding the effect of placing Area Four into the Plan on attracting businesses to the retail/commercial site. Agency Director Desrochers stated that it was Dremature to discuss land uses at that time, and noted that Agency staff is obliqated to work with the interests on that property. Redevelopment coordinator Kassman apparently met with business owners who "expressed their concerns regarding the city's plans and their will±ngness to work with staff." RTM was not aware of that meeting. The minutes, page 12, continue as follows: "Jim Peltier, leasehold property owner of the Bank and Urgent Care Center in property area #4, explained his involvement with the original lease on this area #4 and informed Council, the owner Mr. Cohen, lives in Miami, Florida. Mr. Peltier questioned and was informed that the Bank and Urgent Care Center will be included in the proposed Amendment but aDDroval of the Amendment does not mean it would necessarily affect the proDerty." (Emphasis added.) The "Bank" and "Urgent Care Center" are the First Interstate Bank and Readicare Center that, with RTM, formed the "H" Street Coalition that has forwarded an alternative redevelopment proposal to avoid forcible relocation from Area Four. That these businesses were initially excluded from redevelopment participation, and now face a pre-decided project that displaces them, is hardly consistent with what was initially told to Area Four property owners by the Agency. - SHANNAHAN, SMITH, ~'- .,ONE & STIPANOV Ms. Maryann Miller September 23, 1991 Page 5 The minutes, page 12, then provide as follows: "Todd McCreedy stated that he had a vested interest in Area #4 and questioned the type of development planned and the time it will be implemented. Director of Community Development Desrochers reported the Redevelopment Plan is a implementing [sic] provision of the law that allows the Agency to take certain actions. The time line is really deDendent on the property owners and the tenants. The Agency would like to see the property improved and present a comprehensive plan for the area. If the ownership interests desiqnate a representative to present option for a plan, it could be accomplished more quickly, but until the proposed ordinance is passed, the Aqenc¥ does not have the ability to talk to the owners and tenants." (Emphasis added.) The project not only violates the Plan, but the Agency's stated intentions in includ±ng Area Four into the Plan. 3. Aqenc¥ Members And Staff Are Iqnorinq Prior Stated Concerns In Forwardinq The Project. The minutes, page 13, show present Agency Chairperson Nader acknowledging that aesthetics is considered a driving force behind redevelopment efforts and reported his desire for affordable housing and recreational uses. The project introduces giant institutional buildings into what was supposed to be a redeveloped commercial site to assist the Chula Vista Shopping Center, has serious design flaws, and does not appear to provide affordable housing or recreational uses. Pages 13 and 14 of the minutes show that then Agency member Nadar "questioned the time constraints." Resolution 933 and Ordinance 2274 were apparently being pushed rapidly forward despite questions and concerns raised by Area Four property owner representatives. Agency Director Desrochers explained that the rush was due to the "immediate" need to file the resolution and ordinance with the San Diego County to receive tax increments. ' SHANNAHAN, SMITH, ~'~ ..ONE & STIPANOV Ms. Maryann Miller September 23, [991 Page 6 Page 14 of the minutes reveals serious concern whether Area Four should be included in the Plan. Agency consultant Frank Spevacek apparently answered Mr. Nader's questions by stating "site #4 can be included in the redevelopment project area at the request of the DroDert¥ owner, as long as the aqenc¥ is not doinq that for the sole purDose of takinq money for tax increment revenues." In reality, the Agency director was pushing for tax increments, and Area Four property owners and tenants either were uninformed regarding Plan inclusion, or were told their permission and active participation was necessary for a "retail/commercial" redevelopment. There is no record of a request for Area Four to be included into the Plan. The minutes, page 15, reflect that then Agency member Nader moved to amend the Ordinance to delete Area Four from the Plan. This motion "failed for lack of a second." The motion was then amended by current Agency members Moore and Nader to "direct staff to increase the tempo of liaisons with property owners and tenants to provide more thorough background information and potential in more depth without making commitments." What liaisons with what tenants? RTM was never approached. Another "addition to the motion" forwarded by prior Agency member Cox and current Agency member Moore was to "include the concerns of the residents which were raised on #4 (Area Four) and #7." Then Agency member Moore joined in an addition to the motion with former Agency member McCandliss "to include in the discussion show how rarely the City Council uses eminent domain." Really. RTM was excluded from the redevelopment process until it retained professional assistance, was never consulted regarding the project until it appeared a done deal, and has been threatened with eminent domain displacement for two years. 4. The Project ProDonent Neqotiated With The Aqenc¥ The Same Month That Area Four Was Incorporated Into The Plan, If Not Earlier. A memorandum dated July 21, 1988, from the project proponent to Agency Director Deschrocher specifically references negotiations with the Agency regarding a hospital expansion into Area Four. A copy of this memoranda is Exhibit "D" of this letter. The ramifications are startling. While the Agency Director and Agency members were telling Area Four businesses about permission and participation and retail/commercial redevelopment, the Agency may have been negotiating with the project proponent regarding a hospital expansion that, according to the diagram attached to the July 21, 1988, memorandum, would displace every Area Four property interest and business tenant. The memorandum specifically refers to a prior discussion. ' SHANNAHAN, SMITH, ~'- LONE & STIPANOV (~ Ms. Maryann Miller September 23, 1991 Page 7 Current Agency members Nader, Moore and Maloom were Agency members in July 1988, when the Agency negotiated with the project proponent and assured Area Four representatives. Curiously, Agency member Malcom excused himself from the July 12, 1988, Agency hearing on Area Four Plan inclusion, then returned after Resolution 933 and Ordinance 2274 were approved by the Agency. Agency member Malcom has voted on this project ever since. 5. The DEIR and A~ency's Lack of Objectivity Highlight the DEIR and Project Flaws. The blatant unfairness of the DEIR and Agency actions are relevant to the DEIR's legal inadequacy for a number of reasons. The project violates both the Plan and the Agency's stated intent in including Area Four into the Plan. The Agency's true objectivity is doubtful. Also, the DEIR might note that even if project phase I is built, project phase II is not necessarily certain due to tax incentives. Based on the project's history, Court intervention may significantly alter the project if it finds project predetermination and violations of due process. For example, in the recently decided case of City of LOS Anqeles v. Chadwick, 91 D.A.R. 10912 (1991), the Court of Appeal found both project predetermination and violations of due process by a municipality that refused to consider off-site project alternatives, undertook shallow CEQA compliance, and took by eminent domain a business site for a public facility. The remedy in this case was monetary compensation. This is because the offending facility was completed before the Court of Appeal's ruling. A complete and adequate EIR must be considered before proceeding with a project. Kleist v. City of Glendale, 56 Cal. App. 3d, 770, 777, (1976), CEQA Guidelines Section 15090. The Agency and Commission are not serving the best interests of the public by failing to request the DEIR address the issues raised by the Agency's misguided Area Four redevelopment. The attached documents evidence a "close relationship" between the Agency and the nor project proponent that translates intc a heiqhtened requirement to evaluate off-site project alternatives under CEQA. Laurel Heiqhts Improvement Assn. v. Reqents of University of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 253 Cal. Rptr. 426 (1988). The DEIR's off-site analysis is shallow and simplistic. ~ SHANNAHAN, SMITH, ~r- ~ONE & STIPANOV (' Ms. Maryann Miller September 23, 1991 Page 8 6. The DEIR Fails TO Adequately Evaluate Project Alternatives And Off-Site Alternatives Project alternatives must be described with a degree of specificity corresponding with a degree of specificity of the project description. Atherton v. Board of Supervisors, 196 Cal App 3d, 346, 350-351, 1983. Although the DEIR project description is inadequate, the DEIR project alternatives and off- site alternatives analysis is worse. The DEIR fails to justify the conclusion that displacing all of the businesses from Area Four, and disrupting urban core commercial development, is not a significant impact requiring mitigation. The project clearly includes complete business displacement from Area Four. The public, including the patrons and employees of the Area Four businesses, deserve a more thorough analysis of the project's Area Four business displacement and the impact of this on the Plan's stated goal of revitalizing and amplifying urban core commerce. The DEIR must evaluate project alternatives, including off-site alternatives, in order to comply with the CEQA and interpretative case law. 14 Cal. Code Reg. Section 15126(d). The DEIR fails to properly consider reasonable off-site alternatives and is therefore inadequate. Laurel Heiqhts Improvement Assn. v. Reqents of University of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 253 Cal. Rptr. 426 (1988). Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 197 Cal. App.3d 1167, 1180, 243 Cal. Rptr. 339 (1988). Incidentally, RTM need not justify project alternatives. The pEIR must analyze project alternatives. San Bernadino Valley Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernadino, 155 Cal. App.3d 738, 202 Cal.Rptr. 423 (1984). 7. The DEIR Should Challenqe Project Assumptions. The project proponent, presumably to justify the project, has consistently stated that the project is necessary to serve the needs of the re~ion. It is inconceivable that the DEIR has failed to provide a market analysis that supports the project's absolute need for Area Four. Further, DEIR page 151 purports to analyze off-site alternatives for the project without any independent verification or research. This is particularly inadequate. SHANNAHAN, SMITH, -,ONE & STIPANOV (' MS. Maryann Miller September 23, 1991 Page 9 An essential project element is that patients and wealthy physicians with disposable income will come from all over the region to an expanded hospital in Area Four. There are n__o demographic studies in the DEIR that adequately document this. The public deserves to know why a project with unmitigatable significant impacts should proceed if the very basis for the project remains questionable. The DEIR refers to Phase II of the project. The DEIR indicates that this may occur in as many as 13 to 18 years after phase 1 is completed. However, the DEIR seems to suggest that Phase II will ultimately be built due to the financial constraints placed on the project proponent. In particular, the DEIR seems to rely heavily on an economic analysis conducted by Mr. Onaka. The last page of Mr. Onaka's economic analysis concludes with a requirement that future similar project truly evaluate market needs. It is the responsibility of this Agency to evaluate the market need for this project, particularly for Phase II. This is wholly lacking. Phase II, as a larger future project, must be analyzed (not promoted). Laurel Heiqhts ImDrovement Association v. Reqents of the University of California, 47 Cal. App. 3d, 376, 253 Cal Rptr 426 (1988). The DEIR states that the project could not occur in East Chula Vista because of the need to expand the downtown Chula Vista facilities due to patient overcrowding. This is absurd. If the downtown Chula Vista Scripps Hospital is actually brimming over with patients, a regional facility in East Chula Vista can meet the regional needs (if any). A regional hospital can be placed in East Chula Vista. The DEIR fails to not only test the underpinnings of the Scripps project, but blindly and gullibly accepts the notion that the project can only happen in downtown because the project proponent says so. This will cause a terrible schism in the business urban core of Chula Vista. The DEIR must analyze the demographic likelihood that new patients will actually use the expanded hospital, and where these patients will come from. If the expanded hospital is to be regional in scope, the DEIR should consider why a regional hospital cannot be located in another part of Chula Vista. SHANNAHAN, SMITH, ~ .ONE & STIPANOV Ms. Maryann Miller September 23, 1991 Page 10 DEIR page 171 requires further analysis. Mr. Onaka's economic explanation uses some form of new math to justify Chula Vista losing eleven viable businesses from the business urban core. His analysis assumes that Phase II of the project must occur due to detrimental tax effects. This simply is not enough. Where is the financial analysis of the project proponent in order to determine whether or not Phase II could actually occur? Where is the analysis that justifies Phase II in the beginning? If, as Mr. Onaka states, Chula Vista has a high proportion of business use, then what about analyzing the high proportion of hospital use given the recent planned expansions of hospital institutions in East Chula Vista? In that regard, please find enclosed attached as Exhibit "D" to this letter a copy of a memorandum from Agency staff member Kassman to you. This memorandum is an explicit Agency admission that without Phase II, commercial utilization of Area Four is appropriate. Why did the Agency drop the widening of "H" Street to forward the project? This is not what CEQA requires. Further, the attached memorandum serves as specific, explicit evidence that the Agency has in essence predetermined that the project has been the only approved project truly evaluated since 1988. This only serves to amplify the inadequacy of the DEIR to objectively and honestly evaluate the project, and to objectively and honestly evaluate off-site alternatives that would mitigate the significant inconsistencies with the Plan and significant impacts associated with disruption of the business urban core. Finally, the DEIR fails to accurately describe business relocation and the private injury that will occur. The DEIR includes a comment that all businesses will be relocated--this ignores Scripps' stated position that only two of eleven businesses will be "successfully relocated." If the DEIR is to truly address business relocation, the Commission and Agency should request the DEIR require a Scripps Owner Participation Agreement that provides for the successful relocation of Area Four businesses slated for displacement. This would help insure consistency with the Plan. Alternatively, the DEIR should correctly refer to the limited relocation assistance available should eminent domain litigation proceed to forcibly relocate all Area Four businesses. SHANNAHAN, SMITH, S( ONE & STIPANOV (~ Ms. Maryann Miller September 23, 1991 Page 11 D. DEIR MUST ADEQUATELY EVALUATE THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE PLAN AND THE SCRIPPS PROJECT. AS reflected in the attached exhibits, Area Four was intended for retail/commercial redevelopment. Although the DEIR mentions the "H" Street Coalition and Circinus redevelopment alternatives, it remains apparent that the existing business tenants are still precluded from a full and fair opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of Area Four. The Agency recently voted to provide "omnibus" funding to forward the project only. The H Street Coalition project and the Circinus project are agreeing to conform with the Plan (as it is actually written). They must be provided the opportunity to participate (California Health and Safety Code Sections 33037, 33339); County of Santa Cruz v. City of Watsonville, 177 Cal. App. 3d, 831, 840-841, 1985). Every reasonable preference must be extended to businesses in the project area to re-enter in business in the project area. California Health and Safety Code Section 33339.5. Article I, Section 120, of the Plan states the following goals: a. Strengthening the mercantile posture and retail trade of Town Centre II; b. Retaining and expanding viable land uses, commercial enterprises and public facilities in the area; c. Attracting capital and new business enterprises to the project area; and, d. Promoting (1) the Chula Vista Towne Centre I project area, as the principal center of specialty-goods purveyance in the South Bay sub- region. SHANNAHAN, SMITH, ~" ~ONE & STIPANOV (" '-~ Ms. Maryann Miller September 23, 1991 Page 12 The Preliminary Report For The Second Amendment For The Town Centre II Redevelopment Project, dated May 19, 1988, stated that the Plan was amended 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 the owners and business operators in the revitalization of both the Project in the Amended Areas." This same report also states: "Market studies show that there is demand for additional commercial uses in the area that compliment the uses proposed for the Chula Vista shopping center. Including the swap meet Site area (Area Four) 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." E. THE DEIR MUST REQUIRE A PLAN AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THE SCRIPPS PROJECT INCONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN. As reflected by the attached documents, the project was forwarded through a smokescreen that prevented fair and equitable evaluation of Plan consistency. Since inconsistency between a project alternative site and plan may render a project alternative infeasible (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 197 Cal. App.3d 1167, 1180, 243 Cal. Rptr. 339 (1988), the project inconsistency with the Plan renders the project infeasible. The project is clearly inconsistent with the Plan and supporting reports and documents. The DEIR is inadequate for failing to recommend as a mitigation measure that the Plan be amended to accommodate the project. Only by the process of amending the Plan will the project truly receive the fair, open, and honest evaluation necessary to weigh whether the project should proceed as proposed. As a "fully developed" business location (DEIR, page 46) in a Plan Area designated as "retaiL/commercial" the Area Four businesses who were misled in 1988 now deserve an opportunity for the project, and project alternatives, to receive a fair public airing out. SHANNAHAN, SMITH, ~ ~ONE & STIPANOV ~ Ms. Maryann Miller September 23, 1991 Page 13 Because of the disruptive, non-conforming nature of the project, project inconsistency with the Plan and the critical lack of public input evidenced by the attached documents, the DEIR must recommend a Plan amendment. Otherwise, the DEIR is simply promoting a project that violates the letter and spirit of applicable redevelopment and CEQA law. F. CONCLUSION The DEIR solely favors the project proponent. Off- site alternatives must be evaluated given the close relationship between the Agency and the project proponent. The project will cause a physical disruption of the Chula Vista Business urban core--a significant impact. The project violates the Plan, and relies more on assumptions than strong market data. In summary, the DEIR lacks objectivity--the very purpose of an EIR. Given the history of Area Four redevelopment, RTM respectfully requests that the EIR recommend the necessary curative measures. age ~hen,~ SHANN SCALONE Enclosures cc: J. Russell Welch Charlie Harmon Gail MacLeod Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Towne Centre II Project Area Committee Wayne Wencke Joseph Solomon, Esq. SENT BY:WILLDAN SAN DIEGO ~; 9- B-91 ; 15:42 ; WILLDAN S6J~..DIE~O-'SHANNAHAN SMITH ;# 4 · ( THE TEXT OF THE PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Prepared for: Ohula Vista Redevelopment Agency 276 Fourth Avenue ChulaVista, California 92010 (619) 691-5141 Prepared by: Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 414 West 4th Street, Suite E SantaAna, California 92701 (714) 541-4585 June, l@88 EXHIBIT "A" SENT 8Y:WILLDAN SAN DIEGO ~; 9- 8-91 ; 15:44 ; WILLDAN S,z~.D~EGO~SHANNAHAN SMITH - 8 ) duly 12, lg88 OOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT MEETING 22. REPOR_~T ANALYZING A PROPOSAC FROM ST. VINCENT DE PAUL CENTER TO DEVeLoP THE R~D~VELOPMENT AGENCY'S PROPOSED RELOCATION MOBILEHOME PARK (Community Development Director) This item was trailed pending the arrival of Father doe Carroll and follows item 23. PUBLIC H£ARINGS AND RELA?£D RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES At 7:28 p.m., Councilman Malcolm left the dais. Public .EARI. RE RDING SECO.D. AMENO.EN TO TO.N CENTRE NO. II REOEVELOPMENT PLAN AND FINAL EIR FOR SAID ADIENDMENT (Community Development Director) ' Mayor Cox announced that all Members of the Redevelopment Agency were present with the exception of Member Malcolm. This being t~e time and place as advertised the public I~earing was declared open. Chairman Cox reported that prior to proceeding with the public hearing on the-Redevelopment Plan Amendment and Final EIR, the Agency must first approve the Owner Participation Rules and Regulations, Relocation Assistance Rules and the Agency Report to the City Council on the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. Mayor Cox reported the purpose of this joint public hearing is to consider and act upon (1) the proposed Second Amendment to the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Plan and Project Area; and (2) the Final Environmental Impact Report on the ReCevelopment Plan Amendment. Exhibit A, Affidavit of Publication of the Public Hearing; Exhibit B, Certificate of mailing of Notice Of Public Hearing to each property owner in the Project Area as Show, on the last equalized assessment roll; and Exhibit C, Certificate of mailing of Notice of Public Hea~lng to the governing bodies of each taxing agency within the Project Area were received by Counctlmembers and made a part of this record and filed in the office of the Executive Secretary of the Redevelopment Plan of the City of Chula Vista. EXHIBIT "B" SENT BY:WILLDAN SAN OIEGO.---; 9- 8-91 ; 15:48 ; WILLDAN SAJ~DIEGO-~$HANNAHAN SMITH ° ~ · It. EXHIBIT "C" SENT 5Y:WILLDAN SAN OIE~0 ~..; 9- 8-91 ; 15:49 ; NILLDAN Sfl~LDIEGO-~SHANNAHAN S~IITH ;#18 The Land Use Element of the General Plan discusses proposnls and policies for each category of lnnd use. The following is a s~'nm~ry of the range o! uses tiaa: are allowed within each land use category. The high residentinl category (Site 2 and pa'r: of Site 6) we-id allow for single family, small apartment uni:s, larger garden apartments, townhouses and cluster developments. The research and limited industrial category (Site ~ and eastern portion o! Site 3) would allow uses such as manufac:urln§, process~n§ and warehousing. The intensity e! the &eneral indus:rial uses allowed under the Chula Vis:a LCP (western portion of. Site 3) are :o be consistent with the exls~ing Chula Vista zoning code (the Ba)iront Specific Plan). The retail Commercial (Site 0) uses allowed are intended to be neighborhood and community shopping centers. The thorougMare commercial uses (maiori:y oI Site 6) include a mixture of retail, commercial and ofiice uses. The fir:ute expansion of the Civic Center (Site 7)shall be In accordance wlth the Civic Center Master Plan. Land uses which are permitted within the visitor commercial designation (Site 8) include complexes of high quality tourist iacililies includin$ motels with meeting and Convention f~cilities, restaurants~ service statlons, and related lacilitles to serve the visitor or traveler. The Chula Vista 3unior High School site (Site 9) Is designated as a ]~ior high school site and Eucalyptus Park (Site 10) is designated for open space/park use. B. Impacts No direct, signifiCant impacts would oCcur imm approval of the proposed proejct. However, future redevelopment of the 10 amendment area sites could result in a variety of land use chanl~es for each of the sites. As mentioned earlier, the proposed project is the amendment to add approximately 107 acres (the "Amend- ment Area") of property to the exi~ing Town Centre II project area. As a basis for the redevelopment of the Amendment Area, the Redevelopment Plan Amendment proposes that permitted land uses be commercial, residential, and institutlonall and complimentary to the a~acent uses. Pursuant to the Community Redvelopment Law all uses permitted in the Amendment Area shall conform 1o the Chula Vista General Plan as it currently exists or 'is herelnalter amended. Llkewise~ limits on building Intensity shall be in accordance with the standards contained in the Chula Vista General Plan. -10':)- SENT BY:NILLDAN SAN DIEGO ,-.; 9- 8-91 ; t5:49 ; WILLDAN SAN..DIEGO'*$HANNAHAN Sr~ITH ;#17 The ~1ontgomer¥ Specific Plan (Figure 3-6) is an intermediate level plan which is more deteiled than the Chula Vista Genera! Plan. Site ! is designated for medium density resldenti~l use (6-1! alu/ac). The zoning designation over most of the site is D. Vol5 (1~.5 du/ac) except for the centra! p~nhandie section which is zoned I~U-2~ (29 alu/ac). Site 2 is designated for high residential density (13-26 du/ac) and is zoned R-~ (~p~rtment residenNal zone), Ail of Site 5 and the eastern portion o! Site 3 are designated research and limited industrial. The western one-hal! of Site 3 is within the jurisdiction o! the Chula Vista LoceJ Coastal Pro§ram (LCP) and is designated limited lndust~lal. Both Sites § and the eastern portion o! Site 3 are zoned I-L (Limited Industrial). The western portlo~ o! Site 3 (the area within the Coastal Zone)is zoned general lndustrleJ. In addltion~ Site 3 is within the F-I zone (fJoodw~y). Site ~ ls designated retail commercial and is Zoned C-C-D (Central Commercial/design-control modi~yin§ district). Site 6 is lari~ely desi~mated thoroughfare commercial except lot the northwest corner which is designated hiSh residential (13-26 du/~c). The zonins de,ignition is thomughf are commercial. Site 7 is designated ~or civic center uses and is zoned C-O (Administrative and pro~ essional office). The northern portion of Site $ is desi~r~ted for ViSitor Commercial and the southern portion is designated for research and limited Industrial. Site $ is zoned C-¥ (Visitor Commer~al). Site ~ is designated a~ a 3unior High School site and is zoned P.-3 (Apartment P. esldentJ al). Site 10 is dCslgnated as pares and public open sp~ce and is zoned ~-3 (Apartment Residential). . -107- 435 H SIrC81 A MEMORANDUM RECEIVED JUL 2 1 1988 Date: July 21, 1988 To: Paul Desrochers .O0l/lffllll~ity. 0evel0pment 0ept. Community Development Director Re: Site P~ Paul: Attached, please find a site plan showing the extension of facilities to the west of the current hospital site. As I mentioned, this is our first pass and reflects a sighting of those items essential to the expansion, growth and development of Scripps Memorial Hospital - Chula Vista. Additionally, the size of buildings and circulation shown will no doubt change as we refine the plan. If there are any questions, please call. EXHIBIT "D" DeceI~ber 28, 1990 _ PLANNING TO: Maryann Miller, Contract Planner/Environmental Section FROM: Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator~ SUBJECT: Scripps Traffic Report I have a major problem on the attached pages. For obvious reasons, I did not send the report to Jim Leafy for comment. We have been trying to push Scripps to commit to the timely completion of Phase 2 and are negotiating payment of in-lieu taxes if Phase 2 is not constructed by year 5. By conditioning Phase 2 to the widening of East H Street between I-5 and 1-805, which probably won't happen in our life time, we are "kissing off" Phase 2 and, consequently, most of our anticipated income from this project. This condition will give Scripps a great excuse to put off Phase 2 indefinitely and an argument against in-lieu tax payments since they would be precluded from completing the project by the City. Without timely completion of Phase 2, or in-lieu tax payments, this project doesn't make economic sense to the City. We would be better off with a commercial project. FK:sc cc: Chris Salomone, Community Development Director Sid Morris, Deputy City Manager Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer (Scripps4) EXHIBIT "E" RTM West, Inc. 6225 Mission Gorge Road San Diego, CA 92120 (619) 280-6037 Septe~b~r ~, 1991 Ms. Marya~ ~iller PLANNING D-EPART~ENT 276 Fourth ~venue Chula Vista, ~ 91910 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON SCRIPPS HOSPITAL DEIR After a thorough review, I find that the DEIR is so flawed and so biased that simple clarifications and corrections are not enough as would be normal in these projects. ~HIS DOCUMENT SHOULD BE COMPLETELY THROWN AWAY AND STARTED AGAIN IN ~ LEGAL AND ~HBIASED MANNER which does not simply support staff's original conclusions using Scripps information as facts to support them. The DEIR process is supposed to be a thi~ party ~eutral document pointing to significant problem areas needing mitigation measures and then outlining those ~eas~es for correction of significant i~cts. In addition, the fact tl4at S~ripps officials m~et privately with city staff to review and change the DEIR before it was made public (a potentially da~agin§ or destructive document to Scripps), is in my opinion completely contrary to redevelopment law. Further~ the fact that the other alternatives e~.r'e not §iven the sa~e courtesy even when specifically asked for further shows the bias and prejudice which clouds this enti~ project. In the MacLeod Consultin§ Services me~)to you ~hi~h is alon~ ~ith this letter, she outlines at least 17 different places in the DEIR where your statements are false, misleading, unsupported or biased. RTM West, Inc. 6225 Mission Gorge Road San Diego, CA 92120 (619) 280-6037 Page Two Ms. Marya~l,~, Miller Septembe~ 2~ 1991 The worst of which is the fact that you did not include our revised site plan which mitigated traffic concerns of Scripps officials and city staff. You used our first preliminary plan instead of the revised plan given to the city staff. In addition, city staff chanqed our proposal to a two way (in/out) Scripps entrance on "H Street". This was never' Oilr proposal, and you were present in a meeting with myself aw~ Gall MacLeod in which we specifically told you that this was wrong. (July 23, 1991) Then staff went to cite traffic problems with a incorrect proposal. ~his appears to be an obvious attempt to discredit the "H Street Coalition" proposal and justify the staff's original pick for the Scripps p~posal. The staff's attempt to show that the hospitals expansion is consistent with the redevelopment plan is shameful. It is common knowledge that this site was specifically put into the town center II redevelopment area to facilitate the moving of the Vons Supermarket (from C~la Vista Shopping Center) and to promote the complementa~'y commercial uses for the newly remodeled center in which the city put millions of tax paye~s ~o~ey. To now make a complete reversal by simply stating that a "conditional use permit" allows hospital e~pansion on this site is wholly inadequate. The DEIR must state that the Scripps project proposal is a complete chan§e from the original plans. The result of this ch~m:e is that business owners on the site were duped into lettiz,~ this site go into redevelopment on the premise that thi~ ~o,~ld facilitate their business growth. Now these same busim~sses face extinction ~through coz~e~ation. The Chula Vista Shopping Center is clem~ly shown in the DEIR 'to be doing poor in comparison to other centers in the county. (see attached) In fact, a pl~ is currently under review to add an anchor and theatres in an attempt to revitalize 't~e center. RTM West, inc. 6225 Mission Gorge Road San Diego, CA 92120 (619) 2806037 Page ~hree Ms. Marya~ Niller Septembep ~ 1991 Anyone knowing commet-cia! retail will kreo~ that the synep§istic effect of reqional malls and support e~epeial busir~ess apound the site only helps b~ino tpaf~ie to both ~enteps. The DEIN needs to study this e~feet ~leaply and eo~elode ~hat r~egative e~ects the hospital t~a~i~ ~onge~tion ~ill ~ose on the ~entep. At ~hat point ~ill shoppees simply to~n to Bonita Plaza because of the hospital tpaffi~ ~o~estion. By putting this papcel and its e~isti~!~ b~sirue~se~ o~ the site in a pedevelop~ent apea~ you accepted the responsibility to live up to a fai~ and impat'tial de~ision on its pedevelopmer~t. This flawed document and the biased atti't~t~es ~hich c~eoted it violated that public t~ust and must therefore be discarded and the ppocess be completed again in a faip a~ impaptial manner. Respect for the law and the sense of f~:i~play expected fpom Chula Vista citizens de.and ~ less. Cha~-les ~ I~a~n P~eside~t RTM West~ I~, C~H/ad A PROFES$1ONAL LAW CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 7855 IVANHOE AVENUE, SUITE 420 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037 TELEPHONE (619) 454-3237 TELECOPIER (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 (ScripDs HosDital 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 JSE:EIRLTO20.DML:O41791 SHANNAHAN, SMITH, S~ ~NE & 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 Sensible DeveloDment of the Bishop Area v. County of Inyo, 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 217 Cal. Rptr. 893 (1985); 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 Project 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 conclusory alternative project analysis is inadequate. Alternative project locations must also be evaluated. 14 California Code of Reoulations 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, paOe 90, paragraph 6.4). The EIR avoids evaluatin~ any possible alternative site in part by restatin~ and adoptin~ 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 existin~ businesses on the project site does not constitute a significant impact. We strongly disa0ree. SHANNAHAN, SMITH, S~"~"~"'~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 "existing 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 Chula Vista Shopping Center and businesses on Third Avenue (EIR, page 30). There is n__qo 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 significant 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 SH NAHAN, SMITH, & 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 projects and sites that mitiqate siqnificant neqative impacts cumulatively caused by the Scripps project and the displacement of all businesses on the project 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. JJE: EIRLT020. DML: 041791 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 political 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 JJE: EIRLT020. DML: 041791 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 community's better interests. Si~c~re~ ---~ /~ ( Ja~~s ~ischen:Jr/ ' SHAN~, ~ITH, SCALO~ STIPANOV JJE:dl cc: J. Russell Welch Charlie Harmon Gall MacLeod · (.-~ MacLEOD r : CONSULTING SERVICES April 15 1991 Ms Maryann Miller RECEIVED APR 2 2 lg9! Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista CA 91912 Subject: 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, First 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 selectively 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 the 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 site. This treatment allows the EIR to erroneously dismiss the impacts on my client's property as "insignificant". The impact analysis does not distinguish sufficient~ly between Phase 1 and Phase 2 in the land use/community character and the visual quality section. Yet Phase 1 may be a near permanent solution, that is in place for 10-15 years.. This is part'icularly important since the Phase 1 plan significantly underutilizes the site and has been subject to significant criticism from the city's Design Review Committee. The city's consulting architect has also expressed concern over the 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 comments are documented in the specific comments below and attachments. Specific Comments · ' 6363 GREENWICH DRIVE, SUITE 250 · SAN DIEGO. CA 92122 · (619) 457-1904 · FAX (619) 452~680 1. Project Background Section 2.2 pp.7-11 $ This section only includes background information that is favorable to the hospital use and unfavorable to commercial use 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 omits the Redevelopment Plan's reference to market studies indicating a need for commercial use 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 from 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 ~eighed 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 tough 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 viability may be copied correctly, but the analyst should make sure that sweeping generalities in the Plan are accurate when used for a specific case. We ask that this quote be supplemented by the fact that the frontage businesses (Arby's, First Interstate Bank, and Readicare) are not in a poor state of repair and are economically viable. 2 This area is correctly identified as being the "urban core". The analysis section should assess the consistency of Scripps Hospital's desire for a "campus" setting with the desired character of an urban core. We believe a hospital with a campus setting is more consistent with a suburb than an urban core. Note that the term "campus" setting has b~en used repeatedly by Scripps'_representatives 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 view from H street is a large expanse of parking and the site is being again "redeveloped" because the shopping center is not as successful as desired. We feel this unsubstantiated perception of the Chula Vista Shopping center is included as a means to 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 a 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 shopping Center. 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 next closest First Interstate Bank is in downtown San Diego. Further that the absence of urgent care services at Readicare ~ould be replaced by more expensive Scripps emergency room service. This ties up emergency room care on non-emergency care and results in 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 allotted by right (e.g. commercial and retail uses) were clearly intended by the Redevelopment Plan. The plan (p.9) points out the demand for additional commercial uses that 31 · compliment those uses at the Chula Vista Shopping Center. This is followed by an elaboration that these complimentary uses will 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 the redevelopment area. The EIR3should analyze the project's consistency with the entire plan. Specific consideration should be given to the Redevelopment Plan's stated reasons for selecting this area as a redevelopment 3 area. The EIR should address the project~ consistency with the plan's "desire to facilitate 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 the Amendment Areas" (p.8 of the Redevelopment Plan). In addition to the foregoing statement in the Redevelopment Plan, the city's Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Owners and Tenants in Town Centre II Redevelopment Project also call for preferential treatment to tenants and owners. Subsequent Agency unsubstantiated conclusions regarding perceived competition problems if retail 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 Plan and can be considered through the Conditional Use Permit Process is not sufficient to support a conclusion of consistency. The evidence clearly shows that the hospital expansion is inconsistent with the adopted Redevelopment Plan. If the intent was to encourage hospital expansion, the zoning on the current hospital site and the expansion area would have been the same. Further, the Redevelopment Plan clearly calls for commercial uses and specifically does not mention medical office or hospital expansion as desirable uses even thouqh the Agency knew of Scripps' hospital expansion proposal when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted. Retrospectively interpreting the Redevelopment Plan ~o favor the expansion is not appropriate. The EIR is suppose to be unbiased 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 (page 31). The project does not result in a "concentration of uses" during the first 10 to 15 years (until Phase 2). Rather, it replaces one underutilized site (existing condition) with another-' underutilized site. To help illustrate the foregoing point, the EIR should include the amount of 8.9 acre expansion site covered by buildings given existing conditions and the amount given phase 1 conditions._ 4 On page 32 we take strong exception to the statement that significant impacts are not associated with loss of commercial uses because of the applicant's active participation in searching for relocation sites for the uses to be displaced. This is simply not true regarding the Arby's, Readicare, and First Interstate Bank. Scripps has not been an active participant. The impact of the loss of these services at this location on the 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 is referred to as a fully developed ' commercial complex. Yet the Redevelopment Plan (p.8) refers to the 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 Arby'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 the letter from the city's consulting 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 in relation to the current drought and the 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 vehicle 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 downtown 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 the visual impact of the proposal. Therefore, the EIR should be more specific on the visual impact mitigation contributed by these other downtown projects. On page 47, the project is referred to as having an urban nature. Please analyze, the Phase 1 character in terms of the "urban nature" and visual intrusion. Again consider the city's .consulting architect's comments in this regard. 5 We agree that the project's sea of~hardscape (parking mostly) will be consistent with the entry treatment for the Chula Vista Shopping Center, which is also mostly asphalt (last sentence on p.47). Please address the consistency with redevelopment and general plan goals and visual quality of all this hardscape and asphalt as an entry statement. Again have the analysis distinguish between Phase 1 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 analysis requested above and observations of the city's consulting architect should help in this reconsideration. 5. Traffic 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 required as mitigation. Since there are no traffic increases until completion of Phase 2, how can this Phase 1 mitigation measure be defended? Please consider revising the mitigation measures so that all H street widening occurs as part of Phase 2. 6. Alternatives' Secti0n 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 analysis accordingly. 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 mitigatio~ measures listed for 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 as follows: _ 7.1 An amendment to the city's Redevelopment Plan is necessary to mitigate inconsistencies between the project proposal and the Plan. Mitigation measures are needed on loss of commercial land use at this site, impact on customers~ and impact on employees. 7.2 Mitigation measures are needed for the visual quality of Phase 1 which is characterized by a significant underutilization of the site, a dominance of hardscape, 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 1 and the absence of any nearby buildings (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 you for considering our commentsl Please call if you need clarification. ~. Si~cer~l~ ( J A. Excerpt from Town Centre Redevelopment Plan Hmendment B. City Staff analysis of Hospital Bed and Office Space Demand --~"" TOWNpLAN AMENDMENTCENTRE REDEVE~O~-3'ENT~ Adopted ATTACHMENT A C ~ 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 including 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. 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 parcels 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 8 require major on- and off-site improvements before they are viable for development. Additio0ally, 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 infrastrocture 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 commerciat 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 FROM: 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 Hedical 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 19gO. 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 25, 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 b.~o, 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~ever, Chula Vista does not easily fit this model. As shoun on Table II, the existing ratio of space to beds is approximately 508. As previously shotvn, 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 40,000-60,000 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. WPC 4048H ENTRANCO · FEDERHART T FF, CE~ ,~EER,~G 2505 CONGRESS STREET, SUITE 220 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 (619) 299-2007 FAX: (619) 299-9913 October 29, 1991 PN 9160 RECEIVED Ms. Maryann Miller OCT gfl !99'! Environmental Review Coordinator CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Review of Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project EIR (EIR 90-07, SCH # 90010569), City of Chula Vista Dear Ms.Miller: EntrancooFederhart has had an opportunity to review the response to the comments on the Final EIR for the Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project (EIR 90-07), and we submit these additional comments and observations for consideration by the City Coundl. As pointed out in our September 23, 1991 letter, the use of a "per bed" trip rate in the EIR technical study for calculating the traffic impacts of the hospital expansion is the least conservative of all possible methods that can be used. It masks the true increase in traffic attraction. For example, using data in the EIR, the increase measured in beds (159 beds now to 258 beds after) is a factor of 1.62 times. When the increase in square footage for the overall project is examined (73,994 sq. ft. now to 570,764 sq. ft. then as reported in the response to comment no. 36 of the final EIR) we see a 7.71 times increase in size. The planned change in character of the hospital reflects the apparent shift to more out-patient and office-visit type of care. We feel that the traffic study should also reflect the increase in traffic using the alternative square footage based rates which are just as recognized as the per bed rates, and they may offer a more accurate look at the real increase in traffic. An adjacent project, the Chula Vista Mall, had its traffic study revised over just such an issue. In the mall study, the recognized rate was scrapped by staff and a more conservative rate was substituted. A second issue is the apparent lack of inclusion of reasonably foreseeable projects being reflected in the Scripps Hospital EIR traffic study. Again, the Chula Vista Mall does not appear to be reflected in the near-term analysis for the Scripps Memorial Hospital although the Chula Vista Mall EIR does include the Hospital in the near- term analysis. We recognize that the General Plan level of analysis would include this type of project, but apparently differing standards are being used for the Scripps CALIFORNIA · ARIZONA · WASHINGTON PR 1060 Page 2 of 2 Hospital EIR. It would be appropriate to have the Hospital EIR include the Chula Vista Mall expansion in the near term analysis of traffic impacts. In summary, we are concerned that differing standards appear to have been used in the preparation of two adjacent projects that result in underestimating the traffic impacts associated with the Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion. These differences would lead to misrepresenting the potential impacts of the project. Sincerely, Arnold Torma, T.E. Senior Traffic Engineer cc: Mike Jacobs Phil Hinshaw Joseph Solomon RTM RTM West, Inc 6225 Mission Gorge Road San Diego, CA 92120 (619) 280-6037 Oetobe~~ ~:B~ 199i ~'ls. Plal.~yann ~li i le~-" Envir~orm~ental Review Coor'dinato~~ CITY OF CHUL.~ VISTI~ PLP]NNING DEP[AR'T~IENT E',76 Fou.~"th Avenue Chula Vista~ CA 91910 Dea~~ ~a~-yarn-~: I~ wr'itir, g in ~espor~se to the F:EIR or~ the Sc)~-ipps e~pansior~ p~oje~t. While it appea~.-s that sor~'~e biased state~ents whic'h we c, bje~ted to have beer~ ~--e;'~oved f~.'om the d,z,c~ur~'~ent~ the under' lir, in~l attitudes of: the City Staff or' c)or~z'lusions r'e~'~]ain the Se~-~ipps (thorough the City Staff) eor~tinues to r~anipulate the p~oeess by eli~inatir~ ~iti~ation ~easupes ec, stly to thei~.~ pr~oje~t while ir~sistir~g on ~'~'~a~i~u~(~ tr'affic ~iti~a'l;ion ~easu~-es on the southwest eor'r~e~- of t~he p¥'oje~t. This is ar~ obvious atte~'~'~l:)t to make the "H Str'eet Coalitior~" alter, native seer~ ir~possible o~" unattr'a(~tive. The ~onstar~t unjusti~ied atte~'~pts to squeeze us out of e){~sten()e by the additior~ of u.r~necesea~"y lane widenir~ and tur'n lanes is shameful. Ha¥~old Roser~be~"~~ s (City T~-a'Ffic. En~ir~eer') August 15~ 1991 merino, to CliFffor'd Swansor~ c, utlines poter~tial safety haza~"ds r'equi~."in~ a full ~4 foot widerdr~ of %1" St~-eet in f~ont of only our' th~"ee busir~esses. Cur'iously~ "H" S~"eet at the othe'~- end of the block in f~'or~t of a Sc~ipps owned office buildin~ has Pa [_~ e Two CITY DF CHULA VIST~ PLf~NNING DEPA~T~ENT Octobe~~ 28~ 1991 r.:, sucln ~.'e(:luir'er~ent ever~ th,:,ugh the F'EIR r..-_,tes that tlnis ir~tef'sectior~ (4th arid H) will have the lowest sm*vice level arid q~tote a "E:R~2~ CL(JoEE IN FEELING . Fur~hef'rm],~"e, the ~)cf zpp.., p~-',::,pesal shc, ws this as .'2']].R "H" Stf"eet Coal it :~or~ p.'eposal show this as 3. (Itl J~_tly ~3~ 1991, I explair, ed that this dr'iveway is ~%L ';2~]!~ to, yc, u arid Hal R,::,ser~bel.~g at a city r~'~eeting; arid, I aga:h"~ poir~ted out this ~istake :h"~ ~'~y c. or~'~rr~er~ts c,r~ the DEIR. []r~ page 83 of F'EII~ ye, u}-' ~*espz, nse r~,::,tes this sarape tr'affic cc, r~f].ict as r. easor~ fer' f'eq~tir'ir~[i a full wider, ir~g ,:,f 14 feet. I assur~te tlnat sir~ce this eor~c].u~sior, is based c,r, false i~"~fof*r~atier~, fdr'.. t~c, ser~be~'*g will r.::,w withdr'a~ his ~-equir'erf~er~t for' a :[4 fz,,-,t wider~i'ng. Ir~ additien, you r:c, te a $2~:9,()00 diffef'er~c.e ir~ cost t,::, d,::, the wider~ir~g i~.-~ two segr~'~e~-~ts (which was the ,::,i.'igir~al r~'~er~dat~,],~-~) vs c,r~e segr~er~t,, Th'i.s ~;::]q,O()() savir~gs is just~.ficat~.or~ ,::,r~ why f;e /.'equir*e a fu, ll w~der:ir~[i ~.~ Phase I w~ youl.' c,~'~igir~al ne>c-or~r~er~datior~ ,z,~' 4 feet in Phase I arid 14 feet ir~ Phase That arr~c, ur~t c,f cost :[~. 't,:i, ta]ly irked grd. fic-ar~t ~r~ a r~u]l.t i~.r~ill i,:,r~ dc:,l].ar' p*oject. This caret be te}"r~ed as ct. edible justif:icatior~ whet: our' thf'ee busir~esses wc, uld pf-c,v:ide ir~cc, r~'~e ($100,000 year') t'-, Scf-~pps r,'~m",y f;i~]es, ove'r" this r¢_tr~ber' ir~ the fif'st year. alor, e. fqgair~ or~ pa[le 1.]8 of the FEIR, 'this sarape faulty assur~'~pti,::,r~ c,f tw,::,..-w.ay t~'affic at Scf'ipl:,~;~ df-iveway is used to, justify the 14 foot widenir~g, a'~'~d to, cast doubt or: ,::,ur' p'oject siting pc:,ter~tial tr'affic- safety r'isk, s. 0~'~ page 153 c,r~ FEIR, y:-m r~'d't;igatior~ r~easuf'es ,-'r~ visual quality m"e r.z, thir, g r,'~of*e thar~ ar~ ir~ver~tof'y of buildir, g setbacks ar:d Ineights ef the buildir~gs Sc-f~ipps has pf*,:,posed. This is ar~ atter~pt to r~.tzzle oppositier~ serd;ir~e'nt of r~'m].t~.~.-sto~"v buildir~gs which visually af'e o~.lt--of-syr, c: with the sur'r*our~dir, g ar"ea. You state that "r~ew ho~spital str'uc'tu~"es will be lir~ited to thf'ee stc:,ries ir~ hei[!ht arid be set back :[80 feet l~f*,:,r~ "H" Stf"eet,," Page Th~ee CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Octeber. ~8~j 1991 1. Ad~ir~iet~ation building wi].l be set back 4-8 feet fr~o~ H St~eet; 2. Half of the ~edi~cal building will be six sto~ies high, arid set bac-k c, nIy 100 feet 'f:~,~:,~'~ H St~eet~ arid, 3. 'The o~her half of the I~OB will be fou¥~ storages hi~gh and be set ba(ck 45 feet. Why bothe'~~ to set a mitigation ~easu~e ir~ whic~h thr~ee of six hospital buildir~gs don't ~)or~for~'~ to spec~ifi(~ations befor~e the pr~ojec~t is staY'ted? I t~ust theft adequate ~espor~ses will be inc~luded in the FEI~-~ pr~io~~ to askir~g fo~~ c)e~tific~ation. Cha~'les ~ Har'rnor~ H ~g~"e~ Cealigion CRH/ad Mayo~-~ Ti~ Nader' City Court,oil ~e~be¥'s TCPA Co~ i t tee Hal Rosenber]g J i ~'~ Eischen Gail I~a(~Leod Russ Welch CIRCINUS CORPORATION RF'CE]VED P.O, Box 883, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 PLANNI . October 29, 1991 Ms. Maryann Miller Environmental Review Coordinator CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 This letter is submitted as a response to the FEIR #90-07 and specifically addresses the Alternative Site Analysis portion of the FEIR. The FEIR states that the alternative sites presented in other areas of the city are not applicable to this FEIR because they do not assume an expansion of the existing hospital facility. In other words, these alternate sites would accomodate a completely new facility, however, the project at hand is an expansion of an existing facility, not an entirely new facility. It has become clear to me in this FEIR that Phase I of the hospital project is in fact an expansion of the existing hospital. However, the Phase Ultimate plan calls for the use of the existing 74,000 square foot hospital facility to undergo a fundamental change from hospital space to 37,000 square feet of office space and 37,000 square feet of storage space. In other words, after this phase, the Scripps project will be a completely new facility~ not an expansion of the existing facility. It is my u-~erstanding ~a~--the FEIR en~-6m~-~ses the ent--~project, not just the Phase I portion. This is a big issue when taking into consideration the reasons why the alternative sites in the Eastern part of the City were not researched further. We have been told in past discussions that it was not economically feasible to move the existing hospital facilities to a new location, but it was feasible to add on to this existing facility. The end result of Phase Ultimate does however complete a move of the existing facility from the current building into the new buildings that are proposed to be constructed next door. Additionally, the statement in the FEIR that another vacant 13 acre site in the same area of the city does not exist therefore cannot be analyzed as an alternative is not a realistic 619 566 7503 ~©~ 619 566 3118 CIROINUS CORPORATION statement, as a comparative site in the area would be one that is not vacant, but that could be condemned, just as the 5th and H Street site is proposed to be. For these reasons, I believe that the Alternative Site Analysis is still flawed and not acceptable for the FEIR. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Cordially, Vice President/Redevelopment MJ:ws CC:Wencke,Solomon,Hinshaw CIRCINUS CORPORATIOI EcE:lvED P.O. Box $83, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 .O(~T c .P LANNING October 29, 1991 Ms. Maryann Miller Environmental Review Coordinator CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 This letter is submitted as a response to the Addendum to the Socioeconomic Considerations Report found in the FEIR #90-07. I am a little confused with the basic topic of the Economic Study in this FEIR and the previous DEIR documents which we have reviewed. Clearly, the economics of the various development proposals are a factor in the decision by the city to back the scenario of their choice. Public record clearly illustrates this in that the Planning Commission asked that a Socioeconomic Study be included as a section in the EIR. Why then when the assumptions of this study are questioned and challenged does the city hide behind statements that lead the public to believe that economic considerations are not part of the CEQA process. That is, in my opinion, an errant interpretation of CEQA. If not important in this EIR process, then why does the city continue to spend money on the economic issues of these projects as is illustrated by the inclusion of the Addendum to the Socioeconomic Considerations section found in this FEIR ? This seems contradictory to me and must confuse the readers of this FEIR. ~y responses are organized in an item-by-item manner as presented in the Addendum. Regarding Item 1. I do not think that anyone is questioning the belief that there is a need for acute care hospital beds in the South Bay area and that this need will grow over time. However, the majority of the growth is not occurring on the West side of town because that area is built-out. The growth is on the East side of town and logically where a hospital expansion should take place. Regarding Item 2. The timing of the phasing-in of the different projects is the point that was addressed in the original comment letter. The point which I was making is that the Scripps Hospital plan cannot be deemed to be more desirable based on this cash flow study because the timing of these cash flows is not necessarily accurate and could produce very different results with only minor changes. The fact that the hospital plan needs to subsidize itself with in-lieu tax payments to be economically 619 566 7503 F©X 619 566 3118 CIR(-;,INUS OORPORATION competetive should be an issue of concern. Which project would the city rather have, with respect to long term revenues, one that will stand on its'own as far as tax increment and sales tax revenue goes or one that will be dependant upon subsidy payments for at least 10 to 15 years and maybe for the life of the project? Paragraph 4 suggests that the retail commercial project should make in-lieu tax payments to cover any shortfalls from specified levels of revenues from tax increment new sales and then suggests a distinction be made from the sales taxes diverted from other retail establishments in the City. The project alternatives should not be compared based upon which one can guaranty the largest in-lieu subsidy o~] a property that should s~and alone by itself as being financially feasible. Additionally, I would sincerely like to know how the city would make a distinction from sales taxes diverted from other retail establishments in the City with respect to the retail commercial alternative as suggested by the analyst. ~egarding Item 3. This section illustrates the bias environment in which the economic study was written. This section responds to objections that the timing of the cash flows used to evaluate the hospital and retail commercial project was incorrect. Paragraph 3 of the addendum fails to mention that if only phase I of the hospital project is built that the Retail Commercial alternative shows significantly higher revenues to the city. Paragraph 4 talks about the hospital generated revenues remaining the same assuming that the in-lieu payments start in the fiscal year 1999- 2000, however fails to comment on the fact that the retail commercial alternative still shows higher revenues under the 60% new sales scenario. As long as this addendum is going to be part of public record is should present the results of the alternatives fairly. Paragraph 5 illustrates that the analyst does not understand that the land for the retail commercial alternative will be purchased in 1992 and the project, under conservative projections, will be completed in 1993 and will become fully leased during the year 1994 This completion date would correspond to the 1993-94 year on t~e cash flow model, meaning that the project would be completed for the entire 1994-95 year on the model, which is in- fact one year earlier than is projected by the original model. Had we been asked for our projected development schedule, then the preparer of this cash flow model would have known this. This is only another errant assumption in this report that leads the reader to a misguided conclusion. Regarding Item 4. This section talks about the multiplier effect of higher job wages of a hospital employee over an employee of the retail trade sector. The fact that a hospital worker is paid more than a worker in the retail trade is OlROINUS (-;,ORPORATION supportable, but what does this really mean in terms of a difference between the two alternatives. The reader is left to interpret this information, but it is not expanded upon in such a way as to base any significant conclusions. Regarding Item 6. Paragraph I states that "The hospital and particularily the medical office buildings are comlementary uses, since they would attract additional users and potential patrons to the Chula Vista Center." Under these guidelines, any project would be "complementary" if it attracted people. This statement must be tempered with the idea of highest and best use in mind. How many modern master planned projects which include regional shopping centers also choose to use the peripheril land for hospitals ? If a hospital were the preferred use to be associated with regional mall projects, then it is my argument that more hospitals would be located adjacent to regional shopping center facilities. This is not the case as the highest and best use for the adjacent land when available is a retail commercial use. This is a well known and well documented practice as was pointed out in the letter from Marshall Baskin which was submitted with the DEIR. Mr. Baskin has been a senior executive directing site location for some of the most prolific department stores in the industry and is very qualified to discuss this concept. That is why we requested that he address this topic in his letter. Paragraph 2 states that "... placing similiar or competing uses on ~he- periphery will aggravate, rather than assist, the performance of the primary center." is not an accurate conclusion because it does not evaluate the synergistic effects of a commercial corridor nor does is acknowledge the importance of the critical mass of a commercial area in attracting shoppers and advertising dollars. These comments are submitted on behalf of Circinus Corporation and should there be questions regarding any of the issues addressed herein I would encourage you to contact me for an explanation. Thank you for y~ur consideration of these issues. Cordially, Vice President/Redevelopment MJ: ws CC: Wen cke, So 1 omen, Hin sh aw civil engineering * traf ~ transportation * parking design RECEIVED October 29, 1991 OCT g$ 199! P_.LANNING Maryann Miller Planning Department Clty of Chula Vista COMMEN'I~ ON THE RESPONSES TO TR. AI~IC QUESTIONS IN THE Dear Ms. Mlller, I am disappointed in the responses to my earlier comments. To the questions on trip generation the only response is that the City has approved the trip generation factors. That is not an explanation of why those factors were used. Attached ls a copy of the source for the trip generation rates For Storage facilities. It shows that the data comes solely from Self-Storage facilities. If one understands how trip generation factors are obtained one does not segregate areas by use and then use the lowest factor that can be found. Is the Scripps Hospital golng to Include an independent self-storage facility on the site? Sincerely, / 'Ed~r Monroy, Z'., P.E. attachment, s Copy of the S~.orage trip generation data from SANDAG 16123 Lyons Valley Road* Jamul, CA 91935* 619/669-0928 1 -SS ATTACHMENT · B TO: Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission VIA: Robert A. [eiter, Planning Director×~_~ FRO~4: Maryann C. Miller, Environmental Review Coordinator DATF: October 30, 1991 SUBJ£CT: Scripps FEIR Comment Letters Attached is a memorandum from Dudek and Associates, the EIR preparer for the Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project, responding to the comments the City received on the Final EIR. These comment letters were received during the 7-day period from October 22, 1991 to October 27, 1991 when the FEIR was made available to the public. This did not reopen the public review period on the EIR. City staff reviewed the responses prepared by Dudek and Associates and, using their independent judgement, concurs with the responses which were made. WPC 9923P MEMORANDUM To: Maryann Miller, City of Chula Vista From: Kelli Rasmus, Dudek & Associates Re: Responses to Comments on the Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion FEIR Date: October 30, 1991 Please find attached Responses to Comments to the Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion FELR. The FEIR for the project was available for public review at the City of Chula Vista from Tuesday, October 22 to Tuesday, October 29. All comments were due to the City of Chula Vista by 5PM Tuesday, October 29, 1991. The attached are the comment letters that were received during the public review period followed by responses to those comments. The following is a list of comment letters received during the public review period: -- RTM West, Inc. (I0-28-91) -- Wofley, Schwartz, Garfield & Rice (10-28-91) -- Circinus Corporation (a) (10-29-9i) -- Shannahan, Smith, Scalone & Stipanov (i0-25-91) -- Entranco*Federhart (10-29-91) -- Monroy-Lopez Engineering (10-29-91) -- Circinus Corporation (b) (10-29-91) -- Comments Received at Design Review Committee Meeting (10-28-9I) A 04-15-91 MacLeod Consulting Services letter was included as an attachment to the Shannahan, Smith, Scalone & Stipanov, this letter was also responded to in the attached responses to comments. DUDEK & ASSOCIATES,/NC. 0CT-29-'9i TUE 15:09 ID:CITY O~_CNULA UISTA TEL NO:FAX 619 691 5191 ~962 P09 (61~ 2~7 October ~8, 199i Ms. Maryann Miller CITY OB CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~76 Fourt~ Avemue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Maryann~ I~m writin~ in response to ~he ~EIR on the Scripps expansion project. While it appears that some Diased statement~ ~hi~h ~e ~bjectsd ~o have been removed fpo~l the doeuffient~ th~ under lining attitudes of the City Staff or conclusions remain the Scripps (through t~e City Staff) continues to manipulate the Process by eliminating mttlQatton measures costly to their P~oject while ln~istin§ on maximum traffic miti~ation measures on ~he ~ou~h~e~t corne~ of the project. This i~ mn obvious attempt to make ~he "H Street ~oal~ion" alternative i~pommiblm or ur~attractivm. The con~%ant unjustified to s~eeze u~ o~t of e~i~tence by ~he addition of lane ~id~inQ and turn lanes is ehamefui. Harold Rosenberg, s (City Traffic Engineer) August 15~ 1991 memo to Clifford Swanson outli~e~ potential safe~¥ requirin~ a full 14 foo~ ~i~e~,i~ of "H" Steemt {n front of only our thpmm busine~mes. Curiously, "H" Steeet at the other end of the block in feont of a Scripps owned office buildinQ has 0CT-2~-'91TU~ ~0~ ~D:C~TY OF CHULR UISTR TEL NO:FRX 6~9 6~ ~71 ~62 R~O Page Two CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT October ~, 1991 no such requirement even though the F~IR notes that thie intersection (4th and H) will have the lowest service level and quote a "CR~4MPED~ ~(~S£D IN FEELING". Furthermore, the potential safety hazar~sis ba~ed on ~he ~aul~y ~ ~cpipgs mai~ drive~ay ,~ ~tW~ ~ ~. "H" Street Coalition proposal show this a~ 3. On July 83, 1991, I explained that this dpivmway im In o~ly ~o you and Hal Rosenbepg at a city ~e~ti~; 4. I a~ai~ pointed out this mistake in my oo~mnts on the DEIR. On page 83 of ~'EIR your rempor, me no~es this sa~e tpaffio that since this conclusion i~ bamed ~n false information, widening. In addition, you note a $~9,000 difference i~ co~t to do the wider, lng in ~wo seg~er, ts (which was the original m~ndation) vm on~ segment. This $~9~000 savings is Justification on why ~o requlr~ a full wt~e?,lng tn Phase I vs you~ o~igl~al Tha~ amount of ~.ost i~ totally i~sig~i~i~a~t in a ~ul~i-~illio~ Again on Page I~8 of the ~'EIR, this same faulty assumption of two-way t?affic at Scripps dptve~ay is used to justify the foot widening, and ~o cast d~ubt on our ppoje~l siting potential ~Paffl~ safety risks. On page 153 o~ PEIR, your ~i~igation m~a~u?~ on visual quali~y attempt to muzzl~ opposition senti~mnt of ~ul~i-~topy buildi~gs which visually are oo~-of-sy~ ~i~h ~h~ surrounding area. You stories tn height and be set back 180 feet ~om "H" Btpee~. 0CT-29-'91TUE 15:10 ID:CITY_O~ CHU~A.~IS~T_A__TEL NO:EA× 619 691 5171 ~HULA VISTA PLANNIN~ DEPARTMENT O¢~obep ~8, 1991 Ths~ you ~o o~ ~o explain numerous ~x¢~ptions~ 1o A~minim~atio~ buildin~ will be Half of ~he medical buildi~ will be six stoa-imm hi~h, an~ set ba~k o~ly lO0 ~eet from H Stpeet~ Thm Ot~ep half of the MOB will be stopies hiQh and. be set back ~5 hospital buildinQs dor,'t confopm to specifications before the to amkin9 f~r certificattor,. H ~peet Coalitio~ ~RH/ad Mayor Tin~ Nadir City Council Membep~ Jim Eischen Russ ~el~h WORL£y~ SCHWARTZ, GARFIELD & RICE .~ .............. October 28, 1991 Ms. Maryann C. Miller Environmental Review Coordinator Planning Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: EIR 90-07/Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project Dear Maryann: As you know, I represent Circinus Corporation, Wayne Wencke, President, one of the owners of the master ground lease upon which this project is planned. This letter is in reference to the "Final" EIR for this project. Project Backqround I note first that a sentence was added to Section 2.2 Project Background: "Discussions between the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and Scripps Memorial Hospital regarding a proposed hospital expansion began in 1988." The next sentence still states that "in 1989 the City of Chula Vista and the Redevelopment Agency were contacted by Scripps Memorial Hospital with a proposal to expand the Hospital . .,, Not only are these two sentences inconsistent, the EIR still fails to address the serious illegality of this project. I have explained that the City of Chula Vista improperly placed this property in redevelopment and, in addition, failed to properly extend owner participation rights to my client. Rather, the evidence is clear that back in 1986 when Scripps bought out Bay Medical Center, it had intentions of expanding onto the project site, which intentions were known to the City of Chula Vista. It is obvious from the way this project has been railroaded through from start to finish that the Scripps expansion was pre-selected long before the site was targeted for redevelopment and proposals were solicited. (See ~ Aqencv of Huntinqton Park v. Norm Slausson (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1121, review den. 1876; City of Los Anqeles v. Chadwick (2nd Dist. 1991) ~ Cal.App. __ [285 Cal.Rptr. 191].) Ms. Maryann C. Miller October 28, 1991 Page 2 At the very least, the EIR must detail the events 8~ surrounding the redevelopment process. For the City to maintain that project genesis is irrelevant to the CEQA process is absurd. Response No. 125 states in part that: "CEQA requires public disclosure of the planned evolution process which resulted in selection of a particular alternative as the proposed project 9L sectio~ The planned evolution process.is described in.detail in 2.2 of the DEIR . ." Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, as discussed, the EIR provides cursory and contradictory statements regarding project background. Response No. 125 also states that: "A primary objective of the proposed project is expansion of the existing community hospital facility. The range of alternative sites which could achieve this objective is limited.,, This statement also clearly l0 exemplifies the fact that the City of Chula Vista has irrevocably committed itself to the Scripps expansion. The primary objective of this project should be to serve the needs of the residents of the City of Chula Vista, not the convenience of Scripps Hospital. Economic and Social Impact~ The EIR still does not adequately address economic and social impacts. Not only does a commercial use produce far more revenues than the Scripps project, there is no guarantee that Scripps will go to Phase Ultimate. In fact, Scripps may be 11 relieved of its in lieu tax payment obligations ~ecause Phase Ultimate maybe conditioned upon the City performing certain roadway improvements (reference memo from Fred Kassman to Maryann Miller dated December 28, 1990, and submitted September 23, 1991 by Michael Jacobs, Vice President, Circinus Corporation). It is equally improper to make the blanket assertion that there will be no social effects from implementing a large hospital instead of a badly needed tasteful commercial site. lo in Dama es The relocation activities outlined in the EIR speak for themselves; for the City to be relocating tenants and for the City to have allowed Scripps to purchase Farrell's interest clearly show that the City has utter disregard for actions which depress the market value of the site. It is equally offensive for the EIR to assert'that this matter does not refer to the sufficiency or adequacy of the EIR. Despite the fact that Ms. Maryann C. Miller October 28, 1991 Page 3 correspondence with the City regarding this matter was submitted as comments on the EIR, this correspondence has been entirely omitted from the comment section. Land Use/Community Character The hospital project is clearly inconsistent with.the Chula Vista General Plan, which designates the site as retail/ 13 commercial. The EIR acknowledges this fact on page 43 where it has, apparently upon discovery of this fact, crossed out "General Plan" and inserted a different plan, the "Area Plan." However, switching plans is not enough; the hospital project would require a Plan Amendment. This willingness to play "fast and loose" with Plan require- ments merely evidences the fact that the City of Chula Vista has irrevocably committed itself to the Scripps project. Were this EIR timely disseminated before the Scripps project was a "done deal," this Plan inconsistency could have been dealt with in a proper manner. (See Guidelines, § 15004(b); Mt. Sutro Defens~ Comm. v. Reqents of the University of California (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 20.) Phase Ultimate is a Smoke and Mirror Show Commentors have consistently challenged this project on the basis that there is no guarantee it will go to Phase Ultimate. In response, the City has consistently skirted this issue. Response No. 123 states that: "A requirement for in lieu payments will be incor- porated into the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) for the proposed project to ensure revenue to the City whether or not Phase Ultimate of the proposed project is constructed. This requirement would also serve as an incentive to the landowner to completely build out the project." However, Response No. 129 is completely contradictory, stating that: "The DEIR does not state or suggest that Phase Ultimate of the project will be constructed due to the financial constraints placed on the project proponent. Indeed, a recommendation included in the Fiscal Analysis summarized in the DEIR (page 175) suggests Ms. Maryann C. Miller October 28, 1991 Page 4 that the Redevelopment Agency should require the project proponent to pay property taxes or in lieu payments even if Phase Ultimate facilities are not constructed." First, the EIR states that in lieu payments will be required. Next, the EIR states that in lieu payments will be suggested. The bottom line here is that the EIR should clearly explain that there is no guarantee the project will.go to Phase Ultimate. Therefore, by selection of the Scripps project over the retail/entertainment alternative, the City will be foregoing over $1 million of badly needed revenues. Procedural Abuses As with the series of correspondence regarding the KloDDing Damaaes, the EIR has failed to include a series of comment letters and responses from the City regarding additional unlawful action pertinent to this project. First, the EIR fails to acknowledge that the City unlawfully stalled and continues to withhold public records regarding this project, poisoning my ability to effectively comment on the EIR. Second, this corres- pondence also outlines serious procedural abuses effected by the City in its furtherance of this project. For example, the City provided improper notice for several important hearings. Further, the action taken at these hearings by the City itself constituted procedural abuse. As I hear myself repeating so often in this case, process cannot be separated from substance. The way a project is effected is equally important as the impact a project has on traffic, water, and other engineering considerations. ConclusioD The above are just a few examples of the extreme defi- ciencies in the EIR. Not one of the responses adequately addresses the issues raised in the public comments. Rather, the Ms. Maryann C. Miller October 28, 1991 Page 5 flavor of the responses is as cursory and conclusory as the EIR itself. At least the battle lines are drawn. Very truly yours, WORLEY, SCHWARTZ, GARFIELD & RICE JOSEPH A. SOLOMON JAS: sc circinus\miller, ltr Ms. Maryann C. Miller October 28, 1991 Page 6 cc: Wayne Wencke, President Circinus Corporation Michael Jacobs, Vice-President Circinus Corporation Philip Hinshaw A.D. Hinshaw Associates James J. Eischen, Jr., Esq. (H Street Coalition) Richard R. Freeland, Esq. (First Interstate Bank) Matthew Peterson, Esq. (Alvin Malnik) Ralph Kostant, Esq. (Scripps Hospital) Tim Nader, Mayor Donald Read, C.E.O. Chamber of Commerce John Goss, City Manager Susan Fuller, Chairperson Planning Commission Mr. Bob Leiter, Director Planning Department Will Hyde, Chairman Town Centre Project Area Committee Barbara Gilman, Chairperson Design Review Committee Robert Fox, Chairman Resource Conservation Committee Andrew B. Campbell, Administrator of Planning, Sweetwater Union High School District Kate Shurso~, Director of Planning i Chula Vista City School District Dr. Llewellyn Lieber 0CT-29-'91TUE 15:04 ID:~IT~_OF CHULR tJIST~ TEL NR:FRX 619 R91 5171 ~962 P02 I II:::IC31NUS (]ORF C)F ATiC)N -IREiCEiIV 'D OCT 1991 Oc~o~[ 29~ 1991 Envi~nmengal ~evte~ Coo~inator CITY OF CHULA VISTA 2~6 FOrth Avenue Chula Vis=a, CA ~1910 Thts._~e=~?r ts.s~bmttCed as a response to the FEIR #90-0? and ~c~lly adaresses the Alternative $1Ce Analysls porClon of The FEIR states that the alternative sites presented in ocher areas of the city are not applicable to this FEI~ because the do n~ assu~e an expansion o'S=he exlsClng hospital fectlit .Y In new facility, however, the project at hand is an expansion of an existing facility, no= an enclrely new facility. It has become clear =o me in this FEIR Chat Phase I of the hospital. However, the ~hase Ultimate lan call ~he. exlsCing 74,000 sauare fooC ~*-~ ...... s for tho use O~ .... oW~ ~Ulll£y ~0 under o a fundamental change from hospital space ~o 37 000 office smace and 37-000 ~,..~ ~= _ _ , square fee~ of _, after this phase- t~e Sar~ ........ g,._p new facilitv, not an ex~anslo- -~,~ pro~eg~ wl%1%? a com~l~tely unde~'~.E~a~--C~_~_-~_=ne .exzsglnq £aclltt~. I= Is m ~ust the Phase Z par=lan. P the enclre pro, eot, not This is a big issue when £aktng in~o consideration the reasons why the alternative sloes in ~he Eastern par= of =he Cl~y were no= re~eerched fur=her. We have been ~old tn pas= dts~ussions that it was not economically feasible =o move =he exlstln has . ~o a new location bu~ i _ ~ plbal fa=iii=les , ~ was feasible Cu add facility. The end result of Ph-~ ,~ .... on ~o =his existing --- ~.m~e uoes ~owever complete ~ move of the existing facili~ from =he new bulldln s that _ current buildtn in ~ ~re pro~sed =o be cons=rutted nex=gd~r~0 Addigionally, =he =t~tement tn ~he FEIR that another va=an= 13 acre site in ~h~ same area of ~he city does not exist cannot be analyzed as an alterna~ive ts nog a Fox 81~ ~8 3~ 0CT-29-'91TUE 15:~5 ID:CITY ~F CHULA UISTA TEL NO:FAX 619.~91 5171 __ ~962 P03 (DIF;:IOINU (DORI OF:iA-I-iON statement, as a ¢ompara~ive sl£e in the area would be o For these reasons, I believe that the Alternative Site Analysis is still fla~d 4nd not aCcel=able for the FEIR. Thank you for your considera~ion of these issues. Cordially, Michae~'~A. Ja~obs~ Vice Premide~t/Redevelopment CC:Wsncke,Solomo~,Hi~shaw 0CT-25-'91FR! 16:28 ID CTTy OF CHULA UTSTA TEL NO:FAX 619~691 5171 ~903 PO~ SHANNAHAN, SMITH, SCALONI¢ & $TIPANOV ATTOI~II~¥S AND COUN~ AT ~W 5~ 420 ~ (619) ~8111 October 25, lg91 File No.: 015fll.02l VZXHAND DR?.?V~Ry ~s. ~azsranfl Niiier Znvironm~ntai Coordinator CZ?Y OF CHULA VZSTA Planning Dept. 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Viers, CA 91910 Rs: RTM, ~nc. (Chula Vist~ Redevelopment) ~n~l En~irgnmen~al impact RsD~.I Case No. ~IR-90-07 Dear Please find enclosed copies of letters Dreviously provided to you that are relevant to the deficiencies of the above-mentioned Final Environmental ImDac~ ~eDort ("EIb"). Havin~ reviewed =he Final EIK, we are concerned =ha= i= r~malns deficient In =he following areas, The Final EIR continues to ignore the si~nificant ~mpact caused by disrupt~ng the intended cO~erctal urban physical relettonship between the Chula Vista Shoppin~ Center, 22 and =he pro3ec= site designated for co~ercial/re=ai~ redevelopment. This constitutes a p~Ysical, the= the Final EIR fails to address. "H" Street Busl~ Coalition The Final EIR contains faulty analysis regard~n~ how 23 the coalition proposal would affect traffic. Also, the Final 0CT-25-~91 FRI 16:29 ID:CITY_ OF CHULA UISTA TEL NO:FA× 619.~691 5171 ~903 P03 SHANNAHAN, SNI/TH. SCALONE & STIPANO¥ Ms. Mary~nnMtller Ooto~r 25, lggl "less than tranquil environment." Neither constitutes appropriate CEQA analysis. AlternatlVQ Site Analysi. The Final EZR continues to assert =hat an East Chula Vista Scripps Hospital campus would not alleviate alleged overcrowding et the present Scripps Chuls Vista Hospital. If Chuls Vista residents are travelling to hospitals outside of Chula Vis=e, they would presumably travel to East Chula Vista. Also, I understand that Clrclnus Corporation has identified parcels in East Chula Vista that could accommodate a Scripps hospital campus. The Final EIR asserts that ~here is no "suitable" location in East Chula Vista without adequate explanation. Finally, there remains an issue as to the true need for the Scripps expansion project to forcibly relocate viable commercial uses on the project site. The project proponent cannot dictate the scope of alternative sire analysis by identifying 26 project goals. The project proponent should be required to provide serious analytical support for the project--particularly a project with unmtttgsteble significant impacts. Inconsistency With TQwn¢ Centre II Redevelopment Plan The Final EIR asserts that the City of Chula Vista has determined that the project is consistent with the subject redevelopment plan. However, the Final EIR does not address the 27 issues raised regarding the ~.~ of the Chule Vista Redevelopment Agency and the subject redevelopman~ Dian to redevelop the project site for commercial/retail uses. The Final EIR broadly notes in response to my prior letter =hat City of Chula Vista regards the project as consistent with the subject redevelopment plan. This is apparently based on references to institutional use, end general goals for urban core redevelopment. However, the Final EIR fails to address or respond to the specific references to commercial/retail ~ in the subject redevelopment plan, related reports, and in the minutes of the 3oint agency/council hearing by which the pro, eot site (Ares 4) was included into the subject redevelopment plan. An adequate Final £IR would note the inconsistency, and comment on the "H" Street ~ustnese Coalition 0CT-25-'91 FRI 16:29 ID:CITY._ OF CHULA UISTA TEL NO:FAX 619..~91 517i ~90~ P04 SHANNAHAN, SMITH, SCALO1N'~ & STIPANOV MS. MaryennMiller O~tober 25, 1991 Page 3 end Gircinus Corporation proposals as potential meene of addressing the ~nconais=enoy. Business Relocation The F£nsl EIR retains a reference to relocation of two existing bus/ness tenants, but fails to address ~he issue raised in prior letters regarding the relocation of other business t~ants on the pro3ect s~te. This may confuse the public regarding the r~ghts and remedies cf a dlsplac.d business tenant. 29 The Final EIR should specify the relocation assistance available to the remaining business tenants barring an to enhanced relocation assistance by the project proponent. In fact, =he F~nal EIR should note that enhunced relocation efforts are only directed at Cwo business tenants. Or, the Final could avoid confusion by omitting reference to th~ relocation of any business tenants. The Final EIR should not appear to suggest completely corrected by a willing pro3ect proponent that is successfully relocating all business tenants. Suggesting that business tenants are being relocated, and referring to enhanced relocation efforts for two business renan=s, is inconsistent with the position that complete business tenant displacement is not We believe that the Final EIR doss not adequately address the issues raised in this letter and in the attached let=ers previously directed to your attention. 0CT-25-~91FRI 16:]0 ID:CITY OF CHULA UISTA TEL NO:FAX 619.A~91 5171 ~k ~903 P05 ~HANNAHAN, SMITH, SCALONE & STIPANOV Me. M&LTann M~ller Oo~ober 25, 1991 Page 4 Please reconsider whether ~he Final EIR should be certif£ed with the identified ~nadequacie~ of ~he Final EIR. ~HA~A~ SM~ SCA~NE ~TI~ANOV Enclosures J. Russell Welch Charl~e He,on Ga~l Mac~od Wa~e Wenoke Joeep~ Solomon, R~cha~ Freel~d, Charles De~, ~q. · MacLEOb ' J RECEIVED I April 15, 1991 "- - SER¥1CES Ms Mary.~nn Miller Environmental Re~iew Coordinator - P.O. Box 1087 ~ *. Chula ¥ista CA 91912 - ~ubject: DEIR: Scrip~s Hospital Expansion Dear Ms Miller:- ' '- I am writing on behalf of the H Street Business:Coalition', which consists of the Arby'$ 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 Por'tions of the EIR se~ctively use information that favors the- hospital expansion. This is particularly apparent in those sections where it ignores inconsistencies with the~edevelopment plan, staff anal3sis of overbuilt medical office space and %he 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 r~development 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 "insignific%nt". The i~pact analysis does not distinguish sufficiently between Phase 1 and P~ase 2 in the land use/community characte~ ~nd the visual quality section. Yet Phase ! may be a near permanent solution, that is in plac~ for 10-15 years. This is part.icularly important since the Phase 1 plan significantly underutitizes the site and has been subject to significant criti6ism from the'city's Design Review Committee. The city's consulting architect has ~lso expressed, concern over ~he visual quality of the Phase 1 site design.' . SeveraI of the conclusions on n'ee~ed mitigation-mea~ure~ 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~he specific comments ~below and attachments. ' -. ~ ; Soecific~comments 6563 GREENN~CH DPd~E. SUITE ~0 · SAN D~GO, CA 92122 · (619) 457-1904 -FAX (619! 452-6680 1. Preject BaCkground SectiOn 2 -' ' ,- .iThis"section only,includes 'backgroun~ information ~h~t-i's · favorable t~ the hospital .use and Unfavorable ~o commercial use o~ site. . '.~ L ' _' _On* exampl¢~is~?n page 11 where-th~ TopMark In~ study is cited as a' reason a supermarket would, not .locate at th~.subj~ct site., Yet it omits__the ~edevelopment Plan's reference'to market studies indicatlng'a~eed for commercialrusel,of this ~ite to assure the economic viability.,of the area. "~, 'The R omits the afftanalysis ~hich he viability ofthe proposed quantity'of medical office Space. 'Also' omitted is the related co~cern that office space vacancy rates are important because the .office space is the primary revenue source fr~m %n otherwise tax exempt, non-profit hospital .expansion. Similarly omitted is the State Office ~f Health ~acility Planning and Development Office conclusion on overbuilt hospital-beds. The Community Hospital expansion plans validates this concern over the excess qumber of'hospital Deds in this area. Either as p~rt of Pkoject. Background or in the Land Use section, the foregoing omitted information ~hould be included and weighed in the analysis.. , 2. Envi~bnmental. . Setting Section 3.0 ~J20 ,~, This section identifies the "Chula Vista Fault" as being dangerously close to~th'e site. This fault "should be considered in siting any critical facilities, schools, or high occupancy' structures." A hospital is definitely a "critical facility". The hospita!'s proximity'to this fault should be an~ly~d and considered as a safety,issue and as part of the alternative site' 2nalysis. ~ ~Since %he 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,~gugh Seismic safety building requirements,' ~ocatSng a large hospital near a ' ~ault does not'make sense. 3. ~' Land Use/Community Character Section 4.'i pp. 23-32 ' - ~' On page 25 the ~edevelopme~t Plan quote ~n viability m~y be,' Copied correctly, but the~analyst should make sure that ~weepihg . g~neralities, in the_Rlan .are accurate when--used for a specific case. We ask that this quote be supplemented~by the fact.~hat the frontag~ ~usinesses (Arby's, First Interstate Bank, and Readicare) are not in a poor-state of repair'and are economically' viable. .~ ~... . .. ~ ~ ~_. .~' ~. ~ . ~ ~ - ~' '" - - ~ '- ' - C _ -:'-. ,C -This ar~a ~s-~orre~tly 'identified aS-b~ing 'the "urban eo~e-. ?The analysis-section ~hould assess the consistency of Scripps .- Hospital's desire for % ,icam~usi,, ~e.tting with the desired .-. -.- c~arac%er of_an-urban corek' 'We.believe a_hospital.with a campus setting i~ more consistent With-a suburb~thAn an urban_cole.' Note that ~he term "campus,, setting.has been used r~eatedly by ~cripps,_ representattve~ in'describing th~ project. -. On page 26 %he chula vista Shopping Center is described as ['~contiguous, well ~lanned shopping center,,. This i~ nofi _.. accurate.. The vgew from ~ street is ~ large expanse'of parking and the site is being'a~in "redeveloped- becaus'e the-shopping 6enter is no~ as-s~ccessful a~ desired. ~ ~-,..- We feel this unsubstantiated Perception of the ~hula Vista Shopping center is included as a means t6 justify the removal Of the commercial uses on the redevelopment site. It allows the ~IR_ (p. 31) to conclude the loss of viable commercial businesses on H Street is not a real loss because of the Shopping Cen{er across ~the street. - ?The last.paragraph on p; 31 err6neously assumes that-~by,s customers will u~e the food court in the"~h'opping 6enter. This is unsupportable because the food court_serves shoppers from that center; Arby's serves passerby traffic.-- These are two different, separate market ~laces . . This section should acknowledge that the next closest First Interstate Bank is in downtown San Diego..Further that %he absenc~ of urgent care services at Readic'are would be-replaced by more expensive Scripps emergency room service. 'Thi~ ties'up emergency room'care on non-emergency care and results in'a .financial burden on Chula Vista residents. -- ' ~Pages 27-30 correctly point out that the project ~ite 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 retaik uses) were clearly intended by the Redevelopment Plan. The plan (p/9)' points Out the demand for additional commercial uses that '- ~- " compliment those uses at..the-Chula Vista ~hopping Center.- Thls .is . followed by an elabOration that.these complimentary uses ~will enhance the econo~ic viability of-the area. - The Redevelopment :Plan does more than jus%~esignate-land uses. It sets up the reasons for and the goals of ~he redevelopment iarea. The EIR~'should analyze t~e project,s =onsistency with the entire plah. - .- _ -- ~- Specific consideration.should be given to ~he. Redevelopment Plan's stated reasQns for_selecting t~is area as, a redevelopment area. The/EIR shoul~ address- the p~oject~ · ' " .' ' · S plan's -"desire_to facilitate ~etentlon a~'d expansion 6f -as'many ~ ." of ~he~xisti~g commercial enterpri~es 'as possible through < redevelopment mctivitles and to ~ncourage the~participa%ion of - ' owners and business oper&tors in the'revitaiizatiDn or, both t~e ~r°ject-and'. ' - .- .the Amendment,,. ]Areas" (p.9 ~f. the Redevelopment, . . ?lan). ~n addition-~o-t~e foregoing statement in the Redevelopment Plan, the~city's Rules Governing Part'icipati0n~and Preferences_by 'OwDers and Tenants in Towh Centre~! Redevel0~men%.Project als0- ~all for preferential t~eatment~to .tenants ~n~ Owners. '~' Subsequent .Agenc~unsub~tantiated conclusion~ re~arding perceived' -~"l ~'~ competit-iDn problems if retail occurs On the subject site cann0t~ negate the adopted red~vel6pment.~lan.-The EIR should - - ' ~specifically conClude that'the proposal is inconsistent with tho iRedevelopment Plan and a concurrent Redevelopment Plan amendment ~should be processed. . ~ote that Simply because a hospital expansion is n~ 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~ shQws that the hospital expansion'is inconsistent'%ith ~e .adopted ~edevelopment ~lan. ' ' ~'-,- . - ' ~ ]~. - - If the intent was to encourage hospital expansion, the zoning on the curren~ hospital" site and the .expansion_area would ~ave been the same. Further, the Redevelopment Plan clea~Iy calls for commercial uses .and specifically-does not'mention medical _o~fice ' or hospital'expansion as desirable uses even thOuqh the ~gency knew of .Scripps'. hospital expansion proposal whe~ the .- - Redevelopment Plan '~as adopted. -- ~ ,~ Retrospectively interpreting {he Redevelopment Pian_~6 favor the expansion is not appropriate. The-EIR_is suppose to be ~nbiased · and not simply justify the perceived dfrection of current Agency . _ _thinking. ~ The potential i~pact section should analyze 'and-mi%ig'~te th~ underutilized nature~of the site during phase 1 and the .. ~ .. inconsistency of this with the character-of an urban'core lpage .' The project does not ~eSult in a-"concent~ation'~f us~s" du~ring' ~ · he first'10 to 15 7ears ~until Phase 2). -Rather~ it replaces - one'underutilized sit'e (exist.in condition)-~ith another ~ ~nderutil~zed site. ~ ~ - ~ ,'l .~. TO 1 illustrate%he oregoing oint, the EIR should inc1 e : --' the amount of 8.9. acre '~xpansion~ site covered by buildings given --~ .existing. conditio'ns .~nd the ~mount given phase l:c0nditions~ -' ~n page ~2 we take strong ~x~epti~n tc the statement that ~. ~ significant impacts are not associated with loss Of-commercial uses be~use of the applicant,s active participation in-searching 43 for relocatiq~ sit~s f-or the uses~to be displaced. 'This is s~mply not true regarding the Arby's, Readicare, ahd Fi~st~ Interstate'Bank. ~ Scripps.has 'not_~ee~'.an active' participant. T~e impact Of the ~o~s'of'~ese-services a~ this location on %he customers as well as 'to the employees'should be included.- t~pprop~iate mitigation-~is necessary-. ! . .. : "~ 4. Visual Quality Section~4.~ p. ',33 '- " ' The existing visual char'acte~ ~ r~ferred to--as a~fully ~ developed 44 commercial complex. Yet-~he Redevelopment Plan (p.8) r~fers to the character of the site as ~nderutilized. 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 Arby's are attractive and well-maintained. Again, please distinguish between'-the.interior =haracter of this site and the frontage. " On page_39, please include ~'discussion 6f tbs visual~haDge for the first-10-15_years when the site is significantly ~ underutilized. Please reference ~he letter from the'city's- - consulting architect where he expres~es concern over the visual quality of the site during Phase-1. On page 40, landscape features and water features are identified. Please discuss this J~ relation to'the current'drought and t~e region's long term need to conserve water resources.. On page ~4, the architectural design of the medica~ office building is stated to be similar to that of the expanded hospital building. -Scripps has expressed concern' over the possible confusion of emergency vghicle.drivers regarding the location the emergency room. Please discuss_how-this architectural ~ sameness will contribute to thi~ confusion. 'On page 44 .there is reference to other approved downt.own project~ (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"-presumabl2 mitigating %he visual 7impact ~of the proposal. Therefore, ~he EIR should be more sRecific on ~he ~-~ visual~impact ..... mitigation contributed by these other downtow~ pro3 - ects J" - ~ / ~ - On page 49,' the praject is referred to as h~vin~ ~n .urban nature. Please analyze, the Phase i character in terms of the '~urban nature" and visual intrusion. Again consider the.city's .consulting ~rchitect,'s comments-in this regard. " _ _:, i - =5 0j 6 We agree that the pr ect's .s f.-hards e (~a~king mostl will be consistent With the entry'treatment f-or~%he Chula'.¥ista Shopping Center, which is also mostly ~s~hal~,(/ast-sentence'on p.47). Please address ' - ' · - ~ the conslstency~wl~h redevelopment-and' general ~lan goals-and visual quality of all th~ .hardscape and _ ~asphalt~as a~ entry statement~ ,Again have th~ analysis' ~ ' _distinguish between Phase.1 and the.~ltimate phase. ' .'On page 51, ~lease ~econsider your conclusion that project design,, will mitigate significant visual impacts, .particularly for. the 10-15 years Phase i will be'ih ~ace. The supplemental analysis requested~above and .obser~ations.Qf the city's consulting ~ .architect should help in ~this.reconsideration. . :~-.- 5. ~raffic a~d Parking Section 4';3 pp 52-67 Page 56 includes the conclusion of "no measurable changed-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 required as mitigation. Since ~here are no traffic increases until completion or--Phase 2, how can this .Phase i mitigation measure be_defended? Please consider revising the mitigation measures so that all H street widening occurs as part. of Phase 2. ~- 6. Alterhatives' Section ~0 pp 87-90._. The Traffic analys'ls on the r'estaurant ~etention alternative (~.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 c~pture existing passerby trips already ~n the street network. Please revise the aiternative_analysi~, accordingl~. _- 7. Inventory of Mitigation Measures Section 7.0. pp 91-9~ We believe that analysis in r~sponse to our comments will result in a change to the mitigation measures li~ted for J.1, .7.2 and 7.3 a.s follows: ~ . - ..- _7.1 An amendment =o the cit3's'Red~elo~ment Plan' ~s_necessary to mitigate inconsistencies between the project proposal and the Plan. Mitigation measures are n~ede~'qn loss of commercial land use at this site,'-impact on customers,_ an~ jmpact'~n employees.,_ 7.2 ~it~ga'tion measures are'needed ~or the-~isual quality of-' 'Phase 1 9hich i~ =har~cterized by a significant underutilizati6n of the site, a dominance of hards_cape, and the ihtrusive bulk/scale of the office building. This bulk/scale problem exacerbated by the distance between the office building and, ~ '.hospital_during Phase ! and the absence of any ~earbf'buil~lngs offsite) :of similar scale. '- ~ . ' ~ my uae pro3ecu w~rlants, that ~..Thank ~og for con$iderin~ .our ~mments; ~.Ple~e call if y~u need clarificati~n. g~tac~ments ' - A. Excerpt ~rom Town Centre Redevelopment Plan Amendment ~. City Staff analy~xs of HospStal B6d and Of~ee Space Demand- 0CT-29-~1TUE 15:07 ID~ITY OF'CHUL~ UISTA TEL NO~F~× ~ 6~1 5171 ~6~ ~07 ENTRANCO - .FICDERHART,., ~ 9160 RECEIVED ' ~, M~ ~er OCT 29 1991 ~~ ~ C~r~ator P NNJN 276 Argue ~ ~m, ~A 91910 ~ew of ~pps Memo~ ~spit~ ~ion P~j~t E~ ~ 9~, ~ ~ 9~10569), ~ of ~ V~ Dear Ms.Miller: ErttrancoePecterhart l~s had an opportunity to review the response to the comments on the Final ;.rR for the Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project (~rp~ 90-07), and we submit these additional comments and observations for consideration by the City Council. ~, rer_mucai stuay tor caicmatm$ the traffic ~mpacts of the hospital expa~nsion is t~te least conservative of all possible methods that can be used. It masks the true 58 Increase in traffic attraction. For example, using data in the ~ the Increase measured in beds (I59 beds now to 258 beds after) is a factor of 1.62 times. When the Increase in square footage far the overall project ia examined C/3~994 sq. ff. now to $70,?64 sq. ft. then as reported in the response to comment no. 36 of the final EIR) we see a 7.71 times increase in size. The planned change in character of the hospital reflects the apparent shift to more out-patient and office-visit type of care. We feel that the traffic study should also reflect the increase in traffic using the alternative square footage based rates wh/ch are just as recogz~i~_,~d as the per bed rates, and they may offer a more accurate look at the real increase in traffic. An adjacent project, the Chnla Vista Mall, had Its traffic study revised over Just such an issue, in the mall study, the recognized rate was scrapped by staff and a more conservative rate was mibatituted. A second issue is the apparent lack of inclusion of reasonably for~ecable projects being reflected in the Scripps Hospital EIR traffic. study. Again, the Chula Vista Mall 59 does not appear to be reflec~d in the near-term ,analysis for the fx:ripps Memorial Hospital although the C. hula Vista Mall I/IR does include the Hospital in the neer- term analysis. We recognize that the .Ge. neral Plan level of analysis would include this type of proJect, but apparently differing standarda are being ~ for the Scripps 0CT-29-'91TUE 15:08 ID:CITY~.~ OF CHULA UISTA TEL NO:FAX 619~.~691 5171 ~962 P08 1060 ?~Se2c~2 Hospital ~ It would be appropriate m have the I-Iospit~l I~R include the Chula Vista Mall expansion in the n~r,terzn analysis o£ traffic impa~s, In summm-y, we ~re concerned ~a~ dL~er~$ standards ~ppear to have beea used in the preparation o~ two adjacent pro~ects that reault in underestimating the traffic impacts a~sodated with the Scrll~s Memorial Hospital ~xpansion. These differences would lead to misrepresentins the potential impacts of the'project. Sincerely, Arnold Torma, I.E. Senior Traffic l/n/~u~_r cc Mike I~oobs Phil I-linshaw loseph Solomon 0CT-29-'91 TUE 17:10 ID:CITY OF CHULA OISTA TEL NO FAX 619 691 5171 I~968 P02 o, clvll ~/ggln~?~ncj s( ~?~figc & t~mn~oort~t~on N parking design RECEIVED October 29, 1991 OCT ~9 1991 Maryann Miller Plann lng ~p~r~ent City o? Chule VISta Dear M~. Mlller, I am disappointed In the responses to my earlier comments. To the questions on trip generation the only response is that the City has approved the trlp generation factors. That ~s not an explanation of why Uaose factors were used. Attached ls a copy of the source for the trip generation rates rot Storage facilities. It shows that the data comes solely from Self-Storage facilities. If one understands how trlp generation factors are obtained one does not segregate areas' by use and then use the lowest factor that can be found, Is the Scripps Hospltal going to Include an independent self-storage faclIlty on the slte7 ettachment~ Copy o? the S~orage ~rlp generaLlon data ?rom SANDAG 16123 Lyons Valley Road * Jamul, CA g 1935 * 619/669-0928 0CT--~9-'91 TUE 17:11 ID:CITY OF CHULA UIST~ TEL NO:FAX 619 691 5171 ~968 1~04 OCT--~9-'~i TI~E 17:10 ID:CITY OF CHUL~ UISTA TEL NO:F~]× 61D 691 ~171 · 0CT-29-~91TUE 15:05 ID:CITY OF CHULA VISTA TEL NO:FAX 619 691 5171 ~962 P04 Ns. Naryann Nlller Environmental Review Coor~ins£or 2?$ FoU~h Avenue Chuls Vis=a, CA 91920 This letter is submitted as a response to the Addendum Co the Socioeconomic Consider~tions Report found in the FEIR I em a little confused with the basic topic of the Ec . in .thi~ FEIR and the nrevious DEI~ ~ ........ o~omic Study ~* revlewe~. Clearly, the economics of the various development proposals ere a factor in the decision by the tit co back the scenario of their choice. Public record clearl l~lustrsces this assumptions of this study are ques~toncd and challenged does the city hide behind statements that lead the public tO believe Chat economic consideratlons are not part of the CEQA process. That is, in my opinion, an erran~ inter reCatton of important in Chis SIR rocess- ~=, ~- ~ ..... gEOA. If not P , t...,. .,,~ uucs gee cloy Continue tO s~end money on the .economic issues of these projects as i~lustrete~by the Inclusion of the Addendum to the ~o~ ~ioeconomtc Considerations section found in this FEIR ? This seems contradictory to me ~nd must confuse =he readers of Chis FEIR. ~y responses ere organized in an item-by-item m~nner aspresented n the Addendum. Regarding Item 1. I do not think thdt an one sl~e of town because %hat are-~i'~''-~ .u? ocgurrlng on the West Regaling Item 2. ~he timing of ~he phasin -tn of the different ~roJects ls ~h~ ~tnt that was addressed i~ ~e 63 =Ttier. The point which I was makin~ is ~h~, ,~. - gi~l ~n c~ot.be deemed Co he more ~e~r~ necessarllv ~ccura=~ ~ ~.~ ~t .Ch~s~ cas~_ flows ~h in-lieu tax pa~ents to be economically 0CT-29-~91TUE 15~06 ID:CITY OF CHULA UISTA TEL NO:FAX 619 691 5191 ~96~ P05 (EIR(EINUS (EORPORATION c~mpeCetive mhould be an issue of concern. Whlc the tic rather hay . h project WOuld Chac e, with respect to Ion term re wll~ stand on its'own a g _ venues, one revenue ocs _ s far as ta~ increment and sal or one that will e_ Paragraph 4 suggests that the recall commercial pro, eeC should 64 make in-lieu tax payments to cover any shortfalls from specified levels Df revenues from Csx increment new sa a distinction be .~. ~ .... L . les and then recall esCablishmen ._ _axes diverted.from o s ts in the City. the Chef .hould ncc be compared based ........ ~=-= Pr°Sect alternatives largest in-lieu subsid~ o- - -~-~Yg one can uarant the ~a taxes alvertsd from other re~all e--'~:~ ~ ul~tLT, ccl°n from w==n respect to the retail commercial alter by the analyst. ~atlve s~ggested ~egarding Ztem 3. This .... ~ ...... as -q~um illustrates the bias environment 65 an w~ich the economic study was written. This ~bJe~tions Chat the ti __ section res onds to ming of the c~ah flows nospltal and ret-~ ......... used tO eva~.~** ~f ~he. addendum falls to me-*~-3~w~ in?off,cC. Paragraph nospltal oro~t ~o ~.~,. .~..~u~ unac ~r only p~ase I shows si~ni~lcantl- ~-=- Re~ail Commercial alter ~ ~ ~z nor revenu native Calks about the hos-its~ ........ =e~ =o the city. Para rah 2000, ~owever w.4~_ ~ ~a~menc~ Start in the fiscal vm~w ~- ~Ommer~ial alternative still shows ~.~_fact Chat ~ recall new sales scenario. As lo ...... ~_,,~{er. rev~nues UnQer the 60% O~ public record is s~u~ =~i~-~en~m ~s going to be parc a~ternatives fairly. ~--a.~c ~ne results of the Paragraph 5 illustrates Chat the analyst does ~ot understand Chat 66 the land for the retail commercial alternative will be in 1~92 and the nroJect, under cones .... purchased 1~4 . This completion date Would Correspond to the ..... ~ ~',~ ~e woul~ be ~a°mpleced for the enti-~ ,-~- -- . , C~ O~e , --~ ~-m~ year on the ~odel wh · year earlaer than ,. ich is in- Had we Peen asked i~ ~rojec~ed~y the orlqi for our ru hal th ~ected aeve~o ent e preparer of this cash .. . schedule, then is wo.ld .... on~ another errant assumotton in ~o._~_.;c.n?.w'n.t~ls. ~.auer co a misguided conclusion. ---- --~.~ cna: leads the 67 Regarding Item 4. ~his section Calks about the multiplier effect of higher Job wages of a hospital employee over an employee of the retail trade sector. The fact thaC a hoe itel worker is paid more than a worker in the retail trs~e is ..........- 0CT-29-'91TDE 15:07 ID:CITY~ ..... _ OF CHULA UISTA TEL NO:FAX 619 69i 5171 ~962 P06 OIRC]INUS OOR ORA-i-IOI I supl~ortable, buc whaC does Chis reslly mean in terms of e difference be=ween the Cwo alternatives. The reader is left CO interpret Chis Information, buc iC is noC expanded upon in such a way es co base any signifioanC conclusions. 'Re~erding Item 6. Paragraph 1 states that 'The hospital end pax~lculsrlly the medical office buildings are comlementsry uses, wince, they would attract additional users and potenti41 pectins co c~e Chula Vista Center.- Under the~ ~,~?~,~, - - - would ~ - ---- TM ......... any prosect be complementary if it attracted neon ~- ----~M~,~ How many modern master planned pro~eccs which include re ional shopping centers also choose to use the peripheril lan~ for hespita=s,? I~ a ho~pita~ were =he preferreWuse to be associated wlt~ reg~ons~ mal~ pro3ec=s, then it is my argument ~ha= more hospitals would be located adjacent Co regional shopping center ~l~les._ ~ht~ i~ not C~ case.as the highest and bes~ use for 9as a~JaqTn? za~ w~en ~¥a~lable is a recall commercial USe. This is a well Enown an~ we~l ~ocumented ~ ~ractlce as was ~ointed out in the letter from Marshall Baskin which was submi~ted with the DEJR. Mr. Baskin has been a senior executive d~rectinq site location for some of the most prolific department stores in the industry and is very qualified to discuss this concept. That is why we requested that he address this topic in his letter. Paragraph 2.s~ates t~? #... placing similiar or competing uses on =ne periphery will agqrevate, rather than assist, the performance of the primary center., ls not an accurate ¢oa¢lusion because lC does not evaluate the synergistic effects j.co er=ial corridor nor does is the importence crttlcal mass of a commerclal area In attracting shoppers and advertising dollars. These comments are submitted on behalf of Ctr=tnus Corporation and should there be questions regarding any of the lssues addressed herein I would encourage you to con£acC me for an explanation. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Cordle11F, Nt~hae~A. Jacobs Vice President/Redevelopment MJ:ws CC:Wencke,Solo~on,Hi~shaw DRC MEETING OCTOBER 28, 1991 A comment was made at the DRC Meeting regarding the noise analysis prepared for the project. The commentor had a question regarding the assumption of a 10db reduction of noise through an open window. According to Mr. Ed Kamps, the acoustical consultant for the project, the 10db reduction assumption is a generally accepted assumption throughout the architectural acoustician profession. It is derived from a standard calculation of the interior sound pressure level being a function of the energy multiplied by the area the sound must travel through. In this case, the window was considered a standard size window and not oversized. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 1. As stated in response to Comment #16 of the FEIR, the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR for Phase 1 of the project are intended to improve access to the hospital from H Street, not to reduce congestion on the roadway, nor the cramped feeling at H Street and 4th Avenue. The "cramped feeling" is an existing condition that is not exacerbated by the proposed project in Phase 1, therefore widening of H Street at 4th Avenue is not a requirement of the proposed project with Phase 1. However, with Phase Ultimate of the project, when the ADT generation from the project site is higher than the existing conditions and the project affects the existing "cramped feeling" at 4th Avenue and H Street, a mitigation measure requiring widening of H Street to 4th Avenue is required. The mitigation measures identified with the H Street Business Coalition (widening of H Street along the project frontage) is identical to the requirement of the proposed project and is required to improve access to the project site. 2. Please refer to the above response for an explanation of the measures requiring widening of H Street. Please refer to response to Comment//3 of the FEIR where it is stated that upon presentation of the new site plan for the H Street Business Coalition, it was recognized that the access to the hospital from H Street would be ingress only. This response also states that the City traffic Engineer has determined that a potential conflict may still occur due to the close proximity of the Arby's driveway and the hospital entrance, and he still feels that an additional westbound lane on H Street would be required. 3. The cost of an additional $29,000 to widen H Street in two phases in itself may or may not constitute a reason to widen H Street in one phase, however, when coupled with the potential conflict due to the close proximity of the two driveways, the City Traffic Engineer has determined that a full westbound lane along the project frontage would be required. In either case, the FEIR did not conclude that traffic impacts associated with the H Street Business Coalition would be significant or unmitigable. 4. Page 138 of the FEIR analyzes the site plan that was thought to be the most current at the time. As stated in response to Comment #3 of the FEIR, a comparison of the two site plans are discussed. Also discussed in response to Comment #3 of the FEIR is the determination of the City Traffic Engineer that a westbound lane along the project frontage would be required. In either case, the FEIR did not conclude that traffic impacts associated with the H Street Business Coalition would be significant or unmitigable. 5. The 180-foot setback requirement identified on page 153 is for hospital structures only and does not conflict with the setback requirements listed for the medical office building. Even with implementation of the mitigation measures identified on pages 66-67 and page 153, significant visual impacts have been identified and will remain with the height and mass of the medical office building and parking structure. 6. Stating that "discussions between the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and Scripps Memorial Hospital regarding a proposed hospital expansion began in 1988" does not preclude or render meaningless the presentation of a proposal to the Redevelopment Agency and City of Chula Vista in 1989. 7. The comments are noted. They do not reflect on the adequacy or sufficiency of the FEIR and no response is necessary. 8. The redevelopment process as it pertains to this project is included in Section 2.2, Project Background of the FEIR. 9. The discussion included in the project background of the FEIR is considered accurate. i0. As stated on pages 28-29, of the FEIR, the applicant has a number of project objectives. The first objective listed by the applicant is the "Provision of better health service to the surrounding community". 11. Please refer to Item #'s 2 and 3 of Attachment A of the FEIR for a discussion of estimated tax revenues and the timing of these revenues. Additionally, in lieu tax payment obligations for Phase Ultimate of the project will be included in the Owner's Participation Agreement, a discretionary action for the project. 12. Please refer to response to Comment #37 of the FEIR for a discussion on relocation efforts associated with the project. 13. The Central Chula Vista Area Plan is a plan _within the Chula Vista General Plan. The environmental goals of the General Plan are located within the Central Chula Vista Area Plan. The revision to the FEIR is merely a fine tuning of information and does not demonstrate an inconsistency. Additionally, please refer to response to Comment #4 of the FEIR for discussion of the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan compliance. 14. The comment is noted. It does not address the adequacy or sufficiency of the FEIR and no response is necessary. 15. Response #s 123 and 129 of the FEIR are worded slightly different. This is due to the fact that they were addressing two different comments. Furthermore, response #129 refers the reader back to response//123 and then offers further information. The two responses are not considered contradictory by the City of Chula Vista. Lastly, in lieu payment obligations will be incorporated into the Owner's Participation Agreement for the project. 16. All comment letters received during the public review period of the recirculated draft EIR were responded to, as well as the letters received after the public review period closed (refer to response 211-219). The recirculated Draft EIR stated on page 3 states: "This recirculated Draft EIR responds to the various concerns raised by commentators on the prior draft EIR (dated March 1991). Readers are advised that if they feel that any points raised in their earlier comments on the prior draft are not adequately addressed in this Recirculated Draft EIR, they must submit these points in a new comment letter before the end of the public comment period. This Recirculated Draft EIR supercedes all previous drafts." Certain commentors chose to resubmit or refer to their previous letters on the superceded draft EIR. Although these letters did not conform to the requirement of submitting new comment letters as requested in the recirculated draft EIR, these comments were also responded to. These letters include 7-16-91 A.D. Hinshaw, 4-16-91 Monroy Lopez Engineering, 7-10-91 Worley, Schwartz, Garfield & Rice, 4-24-91 Wayne Wencke, 6-21- 91 Circinus Corporation, 4-4-91, 8-4-91, 6-13-90 Chula Vista Elementary School District, 2-12-91 and 6-4-90 Sweetwater Union High School District. The public review period was from August 9 to September 25, 1991 and a public hearing was held 9-25-91. The public review period and public hearing have been completed in accordance with CEQA. 17. The comment is noted. Without specific details, it is not possible to respond to this comment. 18. The proposed project is indeed an expansion of an existing hospital. With construction of Phase 1 of the project, a 3-story hospital building will be added to the site. As stated in the comment, the existing hospital will be fully utilized during Phase 1. As stated in the FEIR, Phase Ultimate of the project is not expected to be built out for approximately 10-15 years. This means that the existing hospital will be in use for an additional 10-15 years after Phase 1 is complete. With Phase Ultimate, uses will be transferred from the existing hospital tower to another part of the hospital but the existing tower will not be torn down. The fact that the existing hospital will be in use for approximately 10-15 years after project implementation, coupled with the fact that the project will be constructed in an area where a currently existing, functioning hospital operates would define the project as an expansion and not a completely new facility. Response to Comment #130 of the FEIR discusses further the redundancies in administration operations of a hospital constructed at a different site. 19. Please refer to response to Comment #s 130 and 190 of the FEIR for a complete discussion on alternative site analysis for the project. 20. The FEIR does not state economic reasons for moving or not moving the existing hospital facilities to a new location. However, as stated above, the existing hospital facility would remain in use for approximately 10-15 years after project implementation. It is anticipated that costs associated with the expansion project would be less than moving the existing hospital facility to a new location. 21. Condemnation of the 8.9 acre site at 5th and H Street was a proposed project specific requirement as the site was adjacent to the existing hospital. Please refer to pg. 152 of the FEIR for a discussion on alternative sites utilizing the land to the east and north of the project site. 22. Please refer to response to Comment # 111 and to the Introduction as well as Item #6 of Attachment A of the FEIR for a discussion on complimentary land uses for the project 23. According to the City Traffic Engineer, the traffic analysis for the proposed project as well as the alternatives are accurate. Please also refer to response to Comment #3 for a further discussion of traffic impacts associated with the H Street Business Coalition Alternative. The DEIR and FEIR state that "retention of commercial sues on site adjacent to hospital uses may create a less tranquil environment for patients that are staying at the hospital." (page 141, H Street Business Coalition Alternative). 24. Please refer to response to Comment #s 130 and 190 for a discussion of alternative sites in East Chula Vista. 25. Please refer to response to Comment #s 130 and 190 for a discussion of alternative sites in East Chula Vista. 26. Please refer to response to Comment #125 of the FEIR. 27. Please refer to response to Comment #4 of the FEIR. 28. Please refer to response to Comment #4 of the FEIR. The H Street Business Coalition as well as the Retail and Entertainment proposals are included as alternatives to the project. 29. Please refer to response to Comment #37 of the FEIR regarding relocation of existing businesses on site. 30. This comment was not included in the Recirculated DEIR. 31. Please refer to Appendix G, the Socioeconomic Analysis (pg. 3) of the EIR for a discussion of medical office demand in the area. 32. Please refer to Item gl of Attachment A to the FEIR, responses to comments for a discussion of hospital demand. 33. A Geology section (Section 4.7) is included in the FEIR. Issues associated with the Chula Vista Fault and the close proximity of the hospital is included in this section. 34. The Redevelopment Plan quote on viability was not included in the recirculated DEIR. 35. A "campus setting" description is not a description used in the recirculated DEIR. 36. The description of the Chula Vista Shopping Center did not include the phrase "well planned" in the recirculated DEIR. As discussed in FEIR Response to Comment #37, 109 and 213 of the FEIR, removal of the existing uses on site is not considered significant. 37. The paragraph cited simply describes surrounding commercial areas within one mile radius that are available to the public. The FEIR concludes that significant community character uses on site are not anticipated due to the close proximity of similar uses. 38. Please refer to response to Comment g224 of the FEIR for a discussion on removal of the First Interstate Bank. Please refer to response to Comment #38 of the FEIR for a discussion on the removal of the Readicare from the site. 39. The proposed hospital expansion is consistent with the underlying zoning upon approval of a CUP, as well as the general plan designations of "Retail Commercial" and "office commercial." 40. The City of Chula Vista has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan. Please refer to Item #6 of Attachment A to the FEIR for a discussion of Complimentary Land Uses in the area. 41. Please refer to response to Comment #4 of the FEIR regarding consistency with the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan. 42. Please refer to response to Comment #14 of the FEIR for a discussion of utilization of the site during Phase I. 43. Please refer to response to Comment #37 of the FEIR regarding the relocation status of the displaced uses. Please refer to response to Comment #39 of the FEIR regarding the potential employment impact of the project. 44. The term "fully developed" refers to the natural condition of the site. The site is fully developed when compared to a site with natural vegetation covering it. 45. The recirculated DEIR refers to the trees fronting Readicare, First Interstate Bank and Arby's. 46. Please refer to response to Comment #14 of the FEIR for a discussion on utilization of the site. Additionally, the City of Chula Vista's DRC approved the design of the proposed project at their 10/28/91 meeting. 47. A Water Conservation Section (Section 48) was included in the recirculated DEIR. A discussion on the landscape and water features of the project are included in this section. 48. It is not anticipated that confusion of building uses would occur because directories such as the ones that currently exist on the hospital property will direct the public to the different uses on site. 49. The cited reference was not included in the recirculated DEIR. 50. The reference to "urban nature" was not included in the recirculated DEIR. 51. As shown on the landscape plans for both Phase 1 and Phase Ultimate, the entry to the hospital site will be heavily landscaped with street trees and forest box trees. The street trees will be 24-inch box minimum and the forest trees will be 15-gallon trees. The landscaping would mitigate visual impacts associated with the entry to the project site. 52. The recirculated DEIR determined that visual impacts would remain significant after mitigation due to the bulk and height of the medical office building and the parking structure. 53. Please refer to response to Comment #16 of the FEIR for a discussion of the widening of H Street. 54. The restaurant retention alternative was not included in the recirculated DEIR. 55. Please refer to response to Comment #4 of the FEIR for a discussion of consistency with the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan. 56. Please refer to response to Comment #14 of the FEIR for a discussion of utilization of the project site. The FEIR has determined that significant unmitigable visual impacts will occur onsite with construction of the medical office building and the parking structure. 57. Please refer to response to Comment #16 of the FEIR for a discussion on the widening of H Street. 58. The per bed trip generation for the expansion of Scripps Hospital is consistent with the rate published in the SANDAG "Traffic Generators" Manual. The expansion is from 73,994 square feet to 194,554 square feet after ultimate expansion. The remaining 124,470 square feet of the 570,764 square feet is generated separately at the medical office trip rate (50 trips per 1,000 square feet). Therefore, the trip rate (per bed) is used for the hospital expansion where appropriate and the medical office is used where appropriate. 59. The Chula Vista Mall expansion traffic increase was included in the year 1995 travel forecasts with the Scripps Hospital Phase 1. This forecast also includes future year land use and network assumptions within the City of Chula Vista. Differing standards were not used for the adjacent properties as the Chula Vista Mall expansion was included in the Scripps Hospital Phase 1 traffic analysis. 60. It is true that the SANDAG trip generation rate of 2 trips per 1,000 square feet was documented based on a self storage facility. Storage facilities proposed at the hospital will not generate external traffic, but internal (inside the hospital) traffic. The storage trip rate was applied as a worst case or conservative measure to account for this use. 61. CEQA Guidelines state: "Economic or social information maybe included in an EIR or may be prsented in whatever form the agency requires." Because no physical changes are linked to economic effects, it was determined to include this analysis of the economic effects in a separate report, but summarized in the EIR. The Socioeconomic Considerations Report was prepared to address the following issues: (1) demand and supply of hospital beds in South Bay; (2) potential revenues from the proposed project; and 93) effects on employment. 62. Need for general acute care in South Bay has been a major area of concern of the Planning Commission and others, as referenced in the list of comments to which Item 1 of the Addendum is addressed. It is not necessarily "logical" that a hospital expansion should take place in a location removed from the existing hospital or that a new hospital be constructed. A large number of issues, including environmental and socioeconomic effects, must be considered for alternative siting (see discussion in FEIR pages 151-152 and response to comments on pages 108, 119, 154, and 169). 63. The analysis of projected tax revenues contained in the report shows that the proposed project, if constructed as planned, would be a significant source of revenues to the City. Since actual construction may differ from the planned, the report recommends the use of in-lieu payments by the hospital, in the event that construction is not completed according to an agreed-upon schedule. Such payments are not "subsidies" and would represent an alternative source of revenues to the City. 64. As noted in (1) above, one issue of interest is the potential revenue to the City from the proposed project or its alternatives. Provision for in-lieu payments increases the likelihood that a specified level of revenues will be available to the City from the proposed project. IF the Retail and Entertainment Alternative is selected, the Addendum recommends that a similar provision be included, in order to protect the City from uncertainties in the economy and the retail market. The extent to which taxable sales may be diverted from existing establishments in the City to a new retail development can be estimated by a market study, which examines patterns of retail expenditures before and after the new establishments are opened and which incorporates surveys of individual shoppers. 65. The original report stated that, under specified assumptions, the Retail and Entertainment Alternative would generate tax revenues in excess of the proposed project. However, the report also stated that those assumptions could not be verified at this time, in the absence of market and financial feasibility studies for this alternative. 66. During the week of June 24, 1991, prior to the preparation of the original report, P&D Technologies contacted both Mr. Wayne Wencke and Mr. Michael Jacobs and requested market, financial, and scheduling information regarding the Retail and Entertainment Alternative. At that time, Mr. Jacobs stated that this project could be completed in 24 months after receipt of approval from the City. He did not state any specific date or year. Based on Mr. Jacobs' information, P&D estimated that, if a development application is made in fiscal year 1991-92 and there is not a protracted review, initial approval could be granted in FY 1992-93, resulting in project completion in FY 1994-95. For reasons discussed in the Addendum, tax revenues were recognized in the following fiscal year (FY 1995-96). Mr. Jacobs states that the project could be completed in FY 1993-94. This information was not available when the original report or the Addendum were prepared. Concerning the timing of recognition of tax revenues, Mr. Jacobs is ignoring his own projections contained in his letter of comment dated September 23, 1991, with an attached memo of September 19, 1991. In the footnote to the final page of his memo, he states, "Circinus would purchase the land in 1992-1993... ," and enters the full amount of tax increment revenues in the same fiscal year as the year of purchase. As note din the Addendum, this would not be possible, unless the transaction were to take place on July 1. The original report adopted a uniform procedure in which tax revenues are recognized in the fiscal year following a sales transaction or building completion. Hence, it would introduce a bias if the recognition is made in the concurrent year for one alternative but not for others. 67. The issue of multiplier effect was not addressed or requested to be addressed in the original report. The issue of relative compensation of health services and retail services workers was raised by the Planning Commission and addressed in the Addendum. 68. The concepts of "complementary land use" and "highest and best use" are distinct and cannot be interchanged or conditioned on one another. As stated in the Addendum, both medical office and certain types of retail commercial uses can be regarded as complementary to the existing Chula Vista Center. Similar examples of office-uses- adjacent-to-regional-retail or retail-uses-adjacent-to-regional-retail can be found in San Diego County and elsewhere. 69. As discussed in the Addendum, the Retail and Entertainment Alternative includes a number of retail uses which already exist in the Chula Vista Center or which would be included in the proposed expansion. If this alternative is selected, it is recommended that a market study be conducted regarding the extent to which the uses are complementary or competitive. Resolution No. EIR-90-7 (A) A Resolution of the Plannlng ~ommtsslon of the Ctty of Chula Vista Recommending Certification of the Ftnal Environmental Impact Report for the Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project (EIR gO-07} SCH #gOOlOS6g WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report, dated March 1991, evaluating the proposed Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project was prepared and was transmitted by the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the draft Environmental Impact Report was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the draft Environmental Impact Report were accepted from March 8, lggl to April 22, 1991; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public testimony on the draft Environmental Impact Report on April 24, Iggl; and WHEREAS, based on new information raised in the public comment period and at the public hearing, a Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated August lggl, was prepared; and WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft supersedes the previous Draft Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated August lggl, evaluating the proposed Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion project, was prepared and was transmitted by the City of Chula Vista to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Recirculated Oraft Environmental Impact Report was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report were accepted from August g, 1991 to September 25, 1991; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public testimony on the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report on September 25, 1991; and WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project; and WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Report was given both to commentators on the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report on October 18, lggl and to the general public by newspaper publication in the Star News on October 23, lggl; and WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Final Environmental Impact Report were accepted from October 22, lggl to October 2g, 1991; and WHEREAS, written responses to comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared on October 30, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and its applicable Guidelines: Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report. a. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project consists of: (i) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-07) SCH # 90010569, dated October 21, 1991, which contains (1) a reprinted recirculated Draft EIR with typographical and minor corrections; (2) Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft, including an Introduction, copies of comment letters on the Recirculated Draft, and responses; and (3) Attachment A: An Addendum to the Socioeconomic Considerations Report; and (ii) Appendices (A through H) to Environmental Impact Report for Scripps Hospital Expansion Project, dated August 1991. b. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista; and c. The Final Environmental Impact Report is recommended for certification by the City Council to have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all applicable guidelines. Passed, approved and adopted this 6th day of November 1991, by the following vote. AYES: Commissioners Casillas, Decker, Fuller, Tugenberg, Tuchscher NOES: Commissioner Carson ABSENT: None ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Martin Susan Fuller Chairperson Attest: Nancy Ripley Secretary WPC 9928P accordingly, may be allowed by the issuance of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on or about November 6, 1991, conduct a duly noticed and held public hearing at which it considered Scripps' Application; and, Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: 1. EIR Compliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered EIR No. 90-07, the environmental impacts therein identified by the project, the candidate findings attached hereto as Exhibit B the proposed mitigation measures contained therein, the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit D, and has found, by the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No.SIR-90-07~A~hat EIR No. 90- 07 was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and guidelines promulgated thereunder. 2. Grant of Use Permit on Conditions. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that they grant and permit the Property to be put to the Proposed Use on the following terms and conditions: a. Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Implemented. All environmental impact mitigation measures ("EIMM") in the nature and to the extent attached hereto as Exhibit A shall be implemented, and Applicant's continued right to use the Property in the manner herein permitted shall be conditioned on the continued maintenance of all such EIMM. b. Compliance with OPA. The Scripps Owners Participation Agreement, dated November 7, 1991, between the Agency and Scripps be approved by the City Council, and upon approval, Scripps shall be required to perform all covenants and promises therein contained required of Scripps by said OPA, and Applicant's continued right to use the Property in the manner herein permitted shall be conditioned on the continued performance of all executory obligations therein contained. scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 2 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIDN NO. EIR-90-7 (B)/PCC-90-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANTING OF, AND THE GRANTING OF AN UNCLASSIFIED/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 19.54.020 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE, RECOMMENDING THE MAKING CEQA FINDINGS, RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, FINDING CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND MAKING CUP FINDINGS. WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this permit is a rectangular area of land approximately 13.6 acres bounded on the south by H Street, on the east by the eastern boundary of parcel commonly known as 435 H Street (the parcel on which the existing Scripps Hospital is currently located), on the west by 5th Avenue, and on the north by the southern boundary of the parcel on which the Chula vista Junior High School is located, commonly known as 415 Fifth Avenue, and is diagrammatically presented in Figure 5 of the Final Environmental Impact Report, Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion, EIR 90-07 ("FEIR"), a copy of which may be attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Property") and if attached, as the area with the bolded territory designated thereon; and, WHEREAS, in conjunction with a plan for the expansion of their existing hospital facility currently located on a portion of the Property (to wit: 435 H Street), Scripps Memorial Hospital ("Scripps") has filed an application ("Application") with the City for the right to use the entire Property for a hospital campus containing the existing hospital and an expanded hospital, as well as related medical facilities such as one or more medical office buildings and surface and structured parking, all as more fully set out in the proposed Scripps Hospital Owner Participation Agreement ("OPA") and that Application ("Proposed Use") on file with the Director of the Planning; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.54.020 (H), the proposed hospital use of the Property is an unclassified use as listed in Chapter 19.54; and scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 1 1 c. Other Conditions 1. Under Section 19.58.360, the zoning wall should not be required along the north property line of the subject site. 2. Future land uses, other than hospital administrative offices, for the existing hospital tower shall comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the permittee and after the City has given to the permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right to condition the project may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the oral operation of the use permit, be expected to economically recover. d. "Project" as described in EIR Implemented. The project, as same is described in EIR No. 90- 07, except as same is required to be mitigated by the EIMM approved by this Resolution or otherwise conditioned as herein provided, shall be implemented and maintained by Scripps. 3. Consistency with the General Plan The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons: A. This Property is within the Urban Core Area. The General Plan, at page 1-33, defines the goals and objectives of the Plan with regard to the Urban Core: "In the future this area will expand both the concentration and diversity of facilities continuing to reinforce its role as the urban core of the city." B. The General Plan, in Figure 10-1, at page 10- 11, labeled: "Majoring Existing and Potential Facilities in the Urban Core," recognizes the Scripps Hospital as an existing use in the vicinity of Fourth Avenue. Furthermore, it is a goal and objective of Urban Core planning that scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 3 3 "the activities in the urban core are complimentary and mutually reinforcing." Page 10-10, General Plan. It is provided in the General Plan, at Page 10-3 and 10-4, under the heading, "Proposed Land Use," that, "Primary elements of proposed land use are ... revitalization of Town Centre II ..." The Scripps Hospital expansion area is within the Town Centre II Redevelopment Area, and this project would provide a revitalization of said area. It is therefore consistent with this goal of the General Plan. It is provided in the General Plan, at Page 10-6 and 10-7, in a discussion of the goals and objectives for the Central Chula Vista Area, under the heading, "GOAL 1. URBAN GROWTH AND CHANGE", that "Central Chula Vista and the Urban Core in particular are likely to continue to undergo transition from lower density to higher density activities and through introduction of new and redeveloped commercial and employment uses...Other changes will occur as part of planned development and redevelopment efforts such as ... Town Centres I and II. Through such changes, it is the goal of Chula Vista to foster the vitality and preeminence of Central Chula Vista and the Urban Core in particular as the downtown and focus of the city." The Scripps Hospital expansion proposal is a higher density use, and is a redeveloped employment use. It is a change that will occur as part of a planned redevelopment effort in Town Centre II. The expansion of this hospital will foster the vitality and preeminence of Central Chula Vista as the downtown and focus of the city. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with this goal of the General Plan. It is provided in the General Plan, at Page 10-7, in a discussion of the goals and objectives for the Central Chula Vista Area, under the heading, "GOAL 1. URBAN GROWTH AND CHANGE", and under the subheading 10-7 "Objective 4", that the city will, "Promote the consolidation of small lots and redevelopment of comprehensively planned and designed commercial and residential projects." The Scripps Hospital expansion proposal would consolidate small lots into a comprehensively planned project. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with this goal of the General Plan. It is further provided in the General Plan, at Page 10-12, in a discussion of the Chula Vista Shopping Center to the south of the Project, that "the expansion of Town Centre II covers ten additional sites in the Central Chula Vista area all located west of Fourth Avenue. These include ... properties that have deteriorated. They are scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 4 4 expected to be subject to redevelopment individually as warranted by market conditions and opportunities, in accordance with the general plan." The Scripps Hospital expansion proposal would occur in an area which has deteriorated. It is warranted by the opportunity provided by Scripps Hospital, which wishes to expand. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with this goal of the General Plan. From the recognition in the General Plan that Scripps is a major existing facility, taken together with its complimentary and mutually reinforcing role as a supplier of shoppers and users of other urban core services, and taken in conjunction with the goal of permitting the urban core to "expand both the concentration and diversity of facilities", the goal of the revitalization of the Town Centre II area, the goal of achieving a higher density use and redeveloped employment use, the goal of lot consolidation into a comprehensively planned project, and the goal of advancing redevelopment as serious opportunity presents itself, the Decisionmaker's find that the proposed expansion of the Scripps Hospital is consistent with the urban core goals and objectives. C. The Land Use Element recognizes that the General Plan Map is not drawn with survey-like precision: "The land use plan is a graphic expression of the general plan's land use objective and plan proposals. The diagram is not intended to be a precise map of the city, but a generalized expression of patterns of land use, circulation and public services. "In particular, the plan should not be relied upon to resolve issues of exact scale and distance. The boundaries of specific land use areas require interpretation with respect to underlying topographic features, environmental characteristics and existing land use." See General Plan, Page 1-16. The General Plan uses the "bubble concept" of planning--that is, that a particular designation may expand or contract with the future needs and demands on existing land uses. Thus, the exact boundaries of that portion of the General Plan designating "retail commercial" in the vicinity of the Project are considered by the Plan to be flexible based on environmental characteristics and existing land use. The immediate land use to the east of the Project, on which the hospital is currently located, is planned for Professional scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 5 5 and Administrative Commercial. It is consistent with the bubble planning concept of the General Plan that this professional and administrative use, to wit--the hospital existing use--may expand westerly to the Project area. D. The Land Use Element of the General Plan is not the only criteria by which to judge consistency with the General Plan. In fact, the General Plan contemplates that other goals and objectives may override the land use designation, as follows: "The inclusion of a use in a category does not necessarily mean that it is permitted in all areas where that category is shown on the land use plan. Also, the uses which are permitted in a particular area are not limited to those examples listed in the category. The city may determine that other uses, similar in nature, can be permitted in a particular area if other general plan requirements are satisfied and the use satisfactorily addresses the following: Compatibility with other uses Circulation capacity Urban design/site planning objectives Availability of services Environmental preservation .The description [of a land use category] is meant to be suggestive of examples, but not intended to be exclusive of other possibilities. Creativity and excellence in planning and design are expected and shall be consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan." See the Land Use Element, at page 1-11, in the section entitled: "4. Land Use Categories". The Hospital Expansion Project is compatible with the adjacent hospital use on the existing (Eastern Acreage") site. As the EIR indicates, the proposed Expansion Project will have sufficient circulation capacity, especially as mitigated. It is an announced urban core objective to permit a variety of mixed uses in the urban core and to permit the expansion of existing public and quasi-public facilities. All necessary public services, including police, fire, water, sewer, gas, electricity, transportation routes, etc., are readily available to the proposed Expansion Project. Most all of the current environmental conditions will be preserved by the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed use does not violate any other of the goals and objectives of the General Plan. scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 6 6 Therefore, all other general plan requirements have been satisfied, and the proposed use satisfactorily addresses the areas of concern specified by the General Plan. The General Plan contemplates the latitude of the City to deviate as of right from a particular Land Use Element designation in order to satisfy the broader goals and objectives of the plan. Such actions are entirely consistent with the Plan, and are implemented by the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. 4. Consistency with the Redevelopment Plan The proposed Project is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan for the following reasons: 1. The Concept of Land Use Designations and Consistency is borrowed from the General Plan. A. The Redevelopment Plan designation of Retail Commercial for this Site was adopted after the General Plan designation of Retail Commercial for this site. The land use syntax used therein was borrowed from, and intended to be consistent with, the words describing those concepts as set forth in the General Plan. The concept of consistency with such land use designations was similarly borrowed from the General Plan. 2. The Use is Consistent with the General Plan. As discussed in the preceding section of this resolution, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The Redevelopment Plan Contemplates the Floating Expansion or Establishment of Hospital Uses. The Redevelopment Plan, itself, contemplates the exercise of the redevelopment power regardless of which land use designation is assigned to the Property if it is done to permit the expansion of such public or quasi-public uses as hospitals. At page 11 of the Redevelopment Plan, Section 600.6, the Plan provides: "The Agency is authorized to permit the establishment and expansion of public or quasi-public uses and facilities, such as, but not limited to malls, promenades, parades, vest-pocket parks, and transportation stations of facilities." scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 7 7 While a hospital is not a mall, promenades, etc., it is clearly identified as a public or quasi-public use in the General Plan, page 1-15, "Public and Quasi-Public Uses." Since the language on page 11 of the Redevelopment Plan is, by its terms, not exclusive, the Decisionmaker(s) find that a hospital is a public or quasi-public use. Hence, the Plan gives the Agency the overriding right to redevelop in order to permit expansion or establishment of public uses despite the land use designations. Furthermore, the Preface to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, Page 2 of Town Centre No. II Project Area Redevelopment Plan (Amended), states the r~development intent with regard to the Urban Core is to provide medical services, and provides: "Contrary to the typical 'bedroom' image of similar cities in a major metropolitan area, Chula Vista has the potential of developing a complete urban core providing a wide range of retail goods; commercial and medical services; recreational centers; library, courts and civic facilities; churches, parks and residential options. There is a need to coordinate these opportunities so that they are able to compliment one another and truly benefit the citizens of Chula Vista." Accordingly, the Project is consistent, independent of consideration of the General Plan, with the Redevelopment Plan. The Proposed Use is consistent with the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area which, in the land use element thereof, plans for the redevelopment of the Property as Retail Commercial. 5. CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. a. Adoption of Findings. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the CEQA Findings attached hereto as Exhibit B. b. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted. As more fully identified and set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Council that they find, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section scrpcupp.%rp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 8 8 15091, that the mitigation measures described in the EIR are feasible, and will become binding upon the City. c. Infeasiblity of Alternatives. As set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto, the Planning Commission recommends that the Council finds that none of the proposed project alternatives set forth in the Final EIR can feasibly and substantially lessen or avoid the potentially significant adverse cumulative environmental effects that will not be substantially lessened or avoided by the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. d. Adoption of Mitigation and Monitoring Program. As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program ("Program") set forth in Exhibit C, incorporated herein by reference. The Council hereby finds the Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the Permittee/Project applicant, and any other responsible parties, implement the Project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings. e. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives, certain significant or potential- ly significant adverse environmental effects caused by the Project will remain. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends to the Council that they issue, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and as set forth in Exhibit D attached hereto, a statement of overriding considerations identifying the specific economic, social, and other considerations that render that unavoidable significant adverse environmental effect acceptable. 6. Unclassified/Conditional Use Permits Findings. a. The Proposed Use will provide acute medical care services to the members of the neighborhood and the community. Therefore, the Proposed Use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community. b. According to the FEIR, all but four impact categories could be reduced to a level below significance scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 9 9 with mitigation with the exception of water conservation due to cumulative area wide impacts resulting from a region wide drought condition, cumulative impacts due to school overcrowding, potential secondary effects from relocation of existing businesses, and visual quality. Therefore, the Proposed Use will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. c. Section 19.54.020 (H) permit a hospital, in- cluding, but not limited to, emergency care, to be conducted in any zone with a conditional use permit. The Council has considered the granting of this permit, and the conditions on which it should be issued, by the adoption of this resolution. Therefore, the Proposed Use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Chula Vista Municipal Code for such use. d. The Land Use Element of the General Plan indicates that the City has planned the eastern 4.7 acres of the Property for Office Commercial and the western 8.9 acres of the Property for Retail Commercial. For the reasons set forth above finding that the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, the City Council finds that the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the gen- eral plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. 7. Notice of Determination. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council direct the City Clerk, after the City Council ap- proves the OPA, to post a Notice of Determination, together with a copy of this Resolution and its Exhibits, and all resolutions passed by the City Council and the Agency with regard to this project, in the office of the City Clerk, to file such Notice with the County Clerk of San Diego County and, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21152, to cause such Notice to be posted in the County Clerk's office. The Executive Director shall accomplish all of the above notice requirements within five working days following adoption of the Resolution formally approving the OPA. 8. Record of Proceedings. That the Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution; shall cause the same to be entered in the book of original scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 10 10 8. Record of Proceedings. That the Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution; shall cause the same to be entered in the book of original resolutions of said City; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the Planning Commission of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. Passed, approved and adopted this 6th day of November, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Casillas, Decker, Fuller, Tugenberg, Tuchscher NAYES: Carson ABSENT: None ABSTENTION: Martin Susan Fuller, Chairperson Planning Commission City of Chula Vista, California Attest: Nancy Ripley, Secretary, Planning Commission Chula Vista, California. scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 11 11 Exhibit A to the Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit Legal Description of Property. Exhibit B to the Resolution Recommending Granting a Conditional Use Permit SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CEQA CANDIDATE FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 90-0? IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 21081 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND SECTIONS 15091 And 15093 OF TITLE 14 OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 13 13 I. INTRODUCTION It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency that a project shall not be approved if it would result in a significant environmental impact if it is feasible to avoid or substantially lessen the impact to a level below significant. Only when there are specific economic, social, or other considerations which make it infeasible to mitigate an impact, can a project with significant impacts be approved. Therefore, when an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more potentially significant environmental impacts, one of the following findings must be made: 1. Changes or alternatives which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the FEIR have been required or incorporated into the project, or 2. Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency, or 3. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR. [Public Resources Code Section 21081] This Project is being undertaken in furtherance to a redevelopment plan--the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan, approved in May 1988. Section 21090 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) provides: "For all purposes of this division [CEQA] all public and private activities or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan shall be deemed a single project." Thus, under Section 21090 and the CEQA Guidelines section 15180 (Cal. Code of Regulations, tit. 14), this Project was already "deemed approved" for CEQA purposes. The EIR which was prepared for the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan in 1988 could have been treated as a program EIR and no subsequent EIR for this Project was actu- ally necessary. Due, in part, to the level of con-troversy surrounding this Project, however, the City of Chula Vista scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 14 14 determined that an EIR for the Project would be appropriate (despite the fact that an EIR was not necessary under CEQA) so that the public and the decisionmakers could continue to have an opportunity to review and comment on meaningful information to make informed decisions concerning the Project. A draft environmental impact report, dated March 1991 (the "Draft EIR"), was prepared for the Project and circulated for 45 days for public comments. Due to new information on seismic and water conservation raised in those comment letters and the public hearing (April 24, 1991) on the Draft EIR, a new draft environmental impact report was prepared (dated August 1991) and recirculated for 45 days to the public (the "Recirculated Draft EIR"). The Recirculated Draft also contained an expanded "alternatives analysis.,, A public hearing was held on September 25, 1991. A final environmental impact report, dated October 21, 1991 (the "Final EIR" or "FEIR"), was prepared based on comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR, including those received after the close of the public comment period and those dealing with the economics of the proposed project and the alternatives. The Final EIR consists of four parts: the recirculated EIR (with technical revisions); the Introduction to Responses to Comments, the comment letters and responses to comments ("Response to Comments,,), and an Addendum to the Socioeconomic Considerations Report ("FEIR Addendum"). Although not required by CEQA, the Final EIR was also made available to the public for seven days for review. The following Findings are made by the Decisionmaker(s) relative to the conclusions of the Final Environmental Impact Report (90-07) for the proposed Scripps Hospital Expansion project (the "Project") located in the City of the Chula Vista. II. PROJECT DESCRIP_______TION The Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project proposes to expand the existing 4.7-acre hospital site on 8.9 acres directly to the west for a total project site of 13.6 acres. 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 by a pedestrian corridor. Phase One would also consist of the construction of a 62,180 scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 15 15 square foot four-story medical office building, as well as 370 surface parking spaces. Phase Two (Ultimate) would add 251,790 square feet of hospital space for an ultimate hospital expansion totalling 446,344 square feet and 258 patient beds. Phase Two (Ultimate) also includes 124,500 square feet of medical office space in a building ranging from four to six stories on site. A 775-space parking garage is also proposed for a total of 878 project parking spaces. The approximately 74,000 square foot existing hospital tower would be converted to approximately 37,000 square feet of office space and 37,000 square feet of storage space. (FEIR, pp. 1, 21-32; Responses to Comments, pp. 30-32.) III. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The discretionary actions for the proposed project involve the following permits/approvals and the Decisiomaker(s) who will take such actions: - a Conditional Use Permit for the Hospital Master Plan (Decisionmaker: City Council of the City of Chula Vista) - Design review of the Hospital Master Plan (De- cisionmaker: Redevelopment Agency) - Special permit (redevelopment area) (Decision- maker: Redevelopment Agency) Owner participation agreement with the Redevel- opment Agency (Decisionmaker: Redevelopment Agency) - Possible acquisition and sale of site by Redevel- opment Agency involving agency condemnation powers (Decisionmaker: Redevelopment Agency) - A loan agreement with the Redevelopment Agency (Decisionmaker: Redevelopment Agency) - A lease guarantee agreement with the Redevelopment Agency (Decisionmaker: Redevelopment Agency) The project is located at the northeast corner of 5th Ave. and "H" St. with in the Town Centre II Redevelopment Area. scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 16 16 These Findings are made by the Decisionmaker(s) pursu- ant to Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code, and Section 15091 and 15093 of the California Admin- istrative Code, title 14. IV. THE ADMINISTEATIVE RECORD For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the findings hereinafter set forth, the administrative record of the Decisionmaker(s) shall include the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"), the Reclrculated Draft Environmental Impact Report and its appendices, the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") and its appendices and Memorandum on Response to Comments on Final EIR ("FEIR Memorandum,,) prepared for the Project; all reports and memoranda prepared by staff and their consultants, all documents submitted by members of the public, and interested agencies in connection with the EIRs and the Project generally; and any documents embodying the Decisionmaker(s) or other action on the Project, including staff reports and resolutions and the minutes of public hearings on the Project. The record shall also include the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plans and accompanying EIRs; and the findings and statement of overriding considerations adopted in connection with the Project. V. TERMINOLOGY Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, tit. 14) requires that, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions. The first is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantlallx lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (Emphasis added.) The second potential finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." The third permissible conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." As regards the first of the three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening,, such an effect. The meaning of scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 17 17 these terms therefore must be gleaned from the other contexts in which they are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating,, with "substantially lessening.,, Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code section 21002, which declares the Legislature's policy disfavoring the approval of projects with significant environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could "avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects. For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" will refer to the effectiveness of one or more of the mitigation measures or alternatives in reducing an otherwise significant environmental effect to a less than si~ level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" will refer to the effectiveness of such measures or alternatives to substantially reduce the severity of a significant environmental effect, but not to reduce that effect to a level of insignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed],,, these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or has simply been substantially lessened (and thus remains significant). Although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "~ significant,,, these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the EIR for the Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project. VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS TO the extent that these findings conclude that mitigation measures outlined in the EIR, avoid or substantially lessen identified significant or potentially significant environmental effects, are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the Decisionmaker(s) hereby binds itself to require implementation of those mitigation measures on the Project applicant and any assigns or successors in interest. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 18 18 will come into effect when the Decisionmaker(s) adopts a resolution approving the Project. VII. Miti~ation Monitoring Pro.ram As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Declslonmaker(s), in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the Project applicant, and any other responsible parties, implement the Project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. That final program, although labelled "Draft," is contained in the Final EIR at pp. 160-165. A copy of this mitigation monitoring program from the Final EIR is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit C. VIII. Potentially Significant and Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures. The EIR sets forth environmental effects of the Project that would be potentially significant or significant in the absence of mitigation measures. These effects (or "impacts") are set forth below, along with any mitigation measures adopted that will avoid those potentially significant or significant effects. Also set forth are certain significant effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures proposed in the Draft and Final EIRs. In adopting these findings, the Decisionmaker(s) also adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the economic, social and other benefits of the Project that will render that significant effect acceptable. That Statement of Overriding Considerations i__s attached to this Resolution as Exhibit D. Public testimony, written correspondence, and comments on the FEIR indicate that there are differences of opinion as to the conclusions in the FEIR and that the Project could result in significant unmitigable impacts on land use/com- munity character, traffic, air quality, growth inducement, and other impacts. The following, however, presents the Decisionmaker(s) findings on the impact of the Project. scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 19 19 IX. F~ND~N~S A. Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) The EIR sets forth environmental effects of the Project that would be potentially significant or significant in the absence of mitigation measures. These effects (or "impacts") are set forth below, along with any mitigation measures adopted that will avoid those potentially significant or significant effects. Also set forth are certain significant effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures proposed in the Draft and Final EIRs. In adopting these findings, the Decisionmaker(s) also adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the economic, social and other benefits of the Project that will render that significant effect acceptable. That Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit D. l) Land UseJCommunit__y Character The proposed project is consistent with existing land use designations and with redevelopment plans for the project site. The EIR in Figure 7, page 41, shows that western acreage is designated "retail commercial', in the 1988 Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan. The FEIR, however, incor- rectly states, on page 42 and in response to comments No. 4, page 3, that the western acreage is designated as "central commercial". The 8.9 acres is "retail commercial,, as shown correctly in Figure 7. Nevertheless, the proposed Project is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan for the following reasons. The concept of land use designations and consistency is borrowed from the General Plan. The Redevelopment Plan designation of Retail Commercial for this Site was adopted after the General Plan designation of Retail Commercial for this site. The land use syntax used therein was borrowed from, and intended to be consistent with, the words describing those concepts as set forth in the General Plan. The concept of consistency with such land use designations was similarly borrowed from the General Plan. The use is consistent with the General Plan. This Property is within the Urban Core Area. The General Plan, at page 1-33, defines the goals and objectives of the Plan with regard to the Urban Core: "In the future this area will expand both the concentration and diversity of facilities continuing to reinforce its role as the urban scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 20 2O core of the city." The General Plan, in Figure 10-1, at page 10-11, labeled: "Major Existing and Potential Facilities in the Urban Core," recognizes the Scripps Hospital as an existing use in the vicinity of Fourth Avenue. Furthermore, it is a goal and objective of Urban Core planning that "the activities in the urban core are complimentary and mutually reinforcing.,, Page 10-10, General Plan. It is also provided in the General Plan, at Page 10-3 and 10-4, under the heading, "Proposed Land Use," that, "Primary elements of proposed land use are ... revitalization of Town Centre II ..." The Scripps Hospital expansion area is within the Town Centre II Redevelopment Area, and this project would provide a revitalization of said area. It is therefore consistent with this goal of the General Plan. It is also provided in the General Plan, at Page 10-6 and 10-7, in a discussion of the goals and objectives for the Central Chula Vista Area, under the heading, "GOAL 1. URBAN GROWTH AND CHANGE", that "Central Chula Vista and the Urban Core in particular are likely to continue to undergo transition from lower density to higher density activities and through introduction of new and redeveloped commercial and employment uses...Other changes will occur as part of planned development and redevelopment efforts such as ... Town Centres I and II. Through such changes, it is the goal of Chula Vista to foster the vitality and preeminence of Central Chula Vista and the Urban Core in particular as the downtown and focus of the city." The Scripps Hospital expansion proposal is a higher density use, and is a redeveloped employment use. It is a change that will occur as part of a planned redevelopment effort in Town Centre II. The expansion of this hospital will foster the vitality and preeminence of Central Chula Vista as the downtown and focus of the city. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with this goal of the General Plan. It is also provided in the General Plan, at Page 10-7, in a discussion of the goals and objectives for the Central Chula Vista Area, under the heading, "GOAL 1. URBAN GROWTH AND CHANGE,,, and under the subheading 10-7 "Objective 4", that the city will, "Promote the consolidation of small lots and redevelopment of comprehensively planned and designed commercial and residential projects.', The Scripps Hospital expansion proposal would consolidate small lots into a comprehensively planned project. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with this goal of the General Plan. scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 21 21 It is further provided in the General Plan, at Page 10- 12, in a discussion of the Chula Vista Shopping Center to the south of the Project, that "the expansion of Town Centre II covers ten additional sites in the Central Chula Vista area all located west of Fourth Avenue. These include ... properties that have deteriorated. They are expected to be subject to redevelopment individually as warranted by market conditions and opportunities, in accordance with the general plan." The Scripps Hospital expansion proposal would occur in an area which has deteriorated. It is warranted by the opportunity provided by Scripps Hospital, which wishes to expand. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with this goal of the General Plan. From the recognition in the General Plan that Scripps is a major existing facility, taken together with its complimentary and mutually reinforcing role as a supplier of shoppers and users of other urban core services, and taken in conjunction with the goal of permitting the urban core to "expand both the concentration and diversity of facilities", the goal of the revitalization of the Town Centre II area, the goal of achieving a higher density use and redeveloped employment use, the goal of lot consolidation into a comprehensively planned project, and the goal of advancing redevelopment as serious opportunity presents itself, the Decisionmaker,s find that the proposed expansion of the Scripps Hospital is consistent with the urban core goals and objectives. In addition, the Land Use Element recognizes that the General Plan Map is not drawn with survey-like precision: "The land use plan is a graphic expression of the general plan's land use objective and plan proposals. The diagram is not intended to be a precise map of the city, but a generalized expression of patterns of land use, circulation and public services. "In particular, the plan should not be relied upon to resolve issues of exact scale and distance. The boundaries of specific land use areas require interpretation with respect to underlying topographic features, environmental characteristics and existing land use." See General Plan, Page 1-16. This introduces the "bubble concept,, of planning into the City's General Plan--that is, that a particular designation may expand or contract with the future needs and demands on existing land uses. Thus, the exact boundaries of that portion of the General Plan designating "retail scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 22 22 commercial,, in the vicinity of the Project are considered by the Plan to be flexible based on environmental characteris- tics and existing land use. The immediate land use to the east of the Project, on which the hospital is currently located, is planned for Professional and Administrative Commercial. It is consistent with the bubble planning concept of the General Plan that this professional and administrative use, to wit--the hospital existing use--may expand westerly to the Project area. The Land Use Element of the General Plan is not the only criteria by which to judge consistency with the General Plan. In fact, the General Plan contemplates that other goals and objectives may override the land use designation, as follows: "The inclusion of a use in a category does not necessarily mean that it is permitted in all areas where that category is shown on the land use plan. Also, the uses which are permitted in a particular area are not limited to those examples listed in the category. The city may determine that other uses, similar in nature, can be permitted in a particular area if other general plan requirements are satisfied and the use satisfactorily addresses the following: Compatibility with other uses Circulation capacity Urban design/site planning objectives Availability of services Environmental preservation .The description [of a land use category] is meant to be suggestive of examples, but not intended to be exclusive of other possibilities. Creativity and excellence in planning and design are expected and shall be consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan." See the Land Use Element, at page 1-11, in the section entitled: "4. Land Use Categories',. The Hospital Expansion Project is certainly compatible with the adjacent hospital use on the existing (Eastern Acreage") site. As the EIR indicates, the proposed Expansion Project will have sufficient circulation capacity, especially as mitigated. It is an announced urban core objective to permit a variety of mixed uses in the urban core and to permit the expansion of existing public and quasi-public facilities. All necessary public services, including police, fire, water, sewer, gas, electricity, scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 23 23 transportation routes, etc., are readily available to the proposed Expansion Project. Most all of the current environmental conditions will be preserved by the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed use does not violate any other of the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Therefore, all other general plan requirements have been satisfied, and the proposed use satisfactorily addresses the areas of concern specified by the General Plan. The General Plan contemplates the latitude of the City to deviate as of right from a particular Land Use Element designation in order to satisfy the broader goals and objectives of the plan. Such actions are entirely consistent with the Plan, and are implemented by the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. As authorized by the General Plan, the City has determined that the proposed expansion project is consistent with the totality of the General Plan, even if it may not fit neatly into the land use category of "retail com- mercial''. The Redevelopment Plan, itself, contemplates the exercise of the redevelopment power regardless of which land use designation is assigned to the Property if it is done to permit the expansion of such public or quasi-public uses as hospitals. At page 11 of the Redevelopment Plan, Section 600.6, the Plan provides: "The Agency is authorized to permit the establishment and expansion of public or quasi-public uses and facilities, such as, but not limited to malls, promenades, parades, vest-pocket parks, and transportation stations of facilities." While a hospital is not a mall, promenades, etc., it is clearly identified as a public or quasi-public use in the General Plan, page 1-15, "Public and Quasi-Public Uses." Since the language on page 11 of the Redevelopment Plan is, by its terms, not exclusive, the Decisionmaker(s) find that a hospital is a public or quasi-public use. Hence, the Plan gives the Agency the overriding right to redevelop in order to permit expansion or establishment of public uses despite the land use designations. Furthermore, the Preface to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, Page 2 of Town Centre No. II Project Area Redevelopment Plan (Amended), states the redevelopment intent with regard to the Urban Core is to provide medical scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 24 24 services, and provides: "Contrary to the typical 'bedroom' image of similar cities in a major.metropolitan area, Chula Vista has the potential of developing a complete urban core providing a wide range of retail goods; commercial and medical services; recreational centers; library, courts and civic facilities; churches, parks and residential options. There is a need to coordinate these opportunities so that they are able to compliment one another and truly benefit the citizens of Chula Vista." Accordingly, the Project is consistent, independent of consideration of the General Plan, with the Redevelopment Plan. Thus, the error in the FEIR on page 42 and in response to comments No. 4, page 3, incorrectly stating that the western acreage is designated as "central commercial,,, does not change the conclusion that, as stated in the EIR correctly, the Project is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan. The project provides for infill development within the Urban Core of central Chula Vista, consistent with one of the environmental goals of the City of Chula Vista's Land Use Element of the General Plan. (FEIR, pp. 3, 27-28, 36-45; Responses to Comments, pp. 3, 5-8, 17, 28, 29, 34, 35-36, 36, 104, 109, 132; FEIR Addendum, pp. 8-9.) Loss of commercial uses on the site would not significantly affect the existing community character due to the location of similar commercial uses within one mile of the project site. The proposed hospital expansion is consistent with the underlying zoning (C-C-D and C-O) upon approval of a CUP, as well as the general plan designations of "Retail Commercial" and "Office Commercial." It has been noted that the comments received during the previous public review of the earlier Draft, as well as the Recirculated Draft, suggested that the displacement of commercial businesses from the project site would, in itself, be a significant adverse and unmitigable impact because of the physical disruption of the "urban core" and the physical changes linked to social and economic decline. (FEIR, p. 45; Introduction to Responses to Comments, pp. 1-3; Responses to Comments, pp. 27, 34, 158.) Displacement of these uses, however, would not result in significant impacts because similar commercial uses are located within the Project area and the viability of the urban core would not be impacted by the proposed reloca- tions. (FEIR, pp. 3, 44; Responses to Comments, pp. 33, 100, 158.) No social impacts are expected to occur because, assuming worst case that the eight existing businesses that will be displaced are not relocated, only a small amount of scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 25 25 jobs would be lost (58 full time equivalent). (FEIR, p. 169; Introduction to Responses to Comments, p. 2; Responses to Comments, p. 34.) This worst case loss of jobs is not expected, however, as there are attempts t? relocate the existing businesses as well and there are increased employment opportunities because of the expanded hospital. (Introduction to Responses to Comments, p. 2; Responses to Comments, pp. 34, 102, 126.) In addition, no negative economic effects are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project, as revenues should increase. (FEIR, pp. 165-175, Appendix G.) Employees generated by the proposed hospital expansion would have a beneficial effect on existing retail uses in the central Chula Vista area. (FEIR, at 174, Appendix G; Responses to Comments, p. 133; Addendum, p. 7.) It is anticipated that existing on-site business would be relocated within the central Chula Vista area and would continue to provide a similar retail element in the Project vicinity. (Responses to Comments, pp. 33, 158.) Because there are no adverse economic and social effects, the EIR concludes that no physical deterioration would occur. (Introduction to Response to Comments, pp. 1- 3; Responses to Comments, pp. 34, 43, 158, 174.) Mitigation measures proposed by commentators include amendment of the Redevelopment Plan. As stated above, the Decisionmaker(s) find this mitigation measure infeasible as the Project is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan such that an amendment to the Plan is not necessary. Therefore, the Decisionmaker(s) concludes that the impacts on land use/community character is less than significant. Because (end of page. Next Page is 26.) scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 26 26 the effect on land use/community character is less than significant, the Decisionmaker(s) is not required to make any findings nor adopt any mitigation measures. 2} Visual Oualitv The EIR identifies the following as a significant impact. SiQnifioant Impact= Development of the western portion of the site currently developed with single level commercial buildlngs, with a multi-level medical office building fronting H Street, will permanently alter the visual character of the site. The bulk and scale of the proposed medical office building on the corner of H Street and Fifth Avenue would be more massive than current structures along H Street. In addition, development of a 5-story parking structure along G Street would result in a different visual character along the roadway than currently exists. (FEIR, pp. 4, 46-66; Responses to Comments, p. 11.) Mitiqation Measures: The following measures have been incorporated into the Project design to mitigate visual impacts: (a) all structures will be within the 100-foot height limit established by the City of Chula Vista for the Town Centre II Redevelopment Area; (b) the medical office building at the corner of H Street and Fifth Avenue will range from 4-6 stories in height with the 4-story element located along the roadways set back a minimum of 25 feet from Fifth Avenue and 45 feet from H Street, and the larger, 6-story element set back a minimum of 100-feet from Fifth Avenue and set back a minimum of 25 feet from Fifth Avenue and 45 feet from H Street to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the structure; {c) new hospital structures will be limited to 3 stories in height and in general, will be set back a minimum of 180 feet from H Street except for a 3- story administration building which would be constructed on the site of the existing hospital building during the ultimate phase of development and be set back 48 feet from H Street; (d) the parking structure along Fifth Avenue will be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the roadway and architectural elements have been incorporated in the design of the parking structure to reduce the apparent scale of the facility; (e) all project plans shall be subject to review and approval be the City's Design Review Committee (DRC) which reviews projects for consistency with the overall urban design goals of the Chula Vista General Plan and relevant Area Plans; and (f) Street trees approved by the City's Landscape Architect will be planted along the inner and outer perimeters of the medical office building. (FEIR, pp. 4-5, 66-67.) scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 27 27 rA Findlnq: The EIR concludes that even after implementation of mitigation measures, the Project will change the visual character of the site and the view from the streets. The Decisionmaker(s) finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives available to prevent the visual alteration caused by the Project. As set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to this Resolution as Exhibit D, the Decisionmaker(s) concludes that the environmental detriment associated with the unavoidable significant effect is rendered acceptable by the benefits of approving the Project, namely, the fulfillment of the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan, the creation of additional construction jobs, the substantial increase in property tax base, the amount of revenue to the City of Chula Vista by tax revenues, the creation of 481 permanent jobs, the provision of a needed hospital expansion, provision of additional physician services and medical specialties in the medical office buildings, improvement of the image of the Town Centre II Redevelopment Area, improving the street circulation system, and provision of enhanced 24-Hour emergency medical service; dedication of land to the Sweetwater School District for construction of a new classroom for the Junior High School; and correction of an existing storm drain flooding problems associated with the junior high school. 3) Traffic The EIR identifies the following as a significant impact. Siqniflcant Impact: The proposed project would generate 4,980 average daily trips ("ADTs") under Phase I and a total of 9,015 ADT under cumulative Phases I and Ultimate. The traffic analysis concluded that 1500 more ADT will be generated by the Project overall than was assumed in the General Plan Buildout taking into consideration the volumes produced by the existing commercial uses in site. Cumulative traffic levels at buildout will result in levels of service (LOS) C with the exception of the H Street/Fourth Avenue intersection which is projected to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. (FEIR, pp. 5, 68-82, Appendix B; Responses to Comments, p. 12.) During construction, it is expected that 6 truck trips per day will occur to remove excavated material. (Responses to Comments, p. 39.) Pedestrians, including school children, will be exposed to more cars entering and exiting the proposed parking structure on Fifth Avenue. Mitiqation Measures: The project is required to construct an additional westbound lane on H Street along the project frontage with implementation of Phase I and extended to scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 28 28 Fourth Avenue with the Ultimate Phase as well as constructing a northbound acceleration/deceleration lane along Fifth Avenue along the project frontage. A median is also required on H Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenue during Phase I. The project shall also pay traffic signal fees to the City of Chula Vista for upgrading of traffic signals within the western portion of Chula Vista resulting from increasing traffic volumes. In addition, during construction, a construction traffic control program must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Chula Vista Public Works Director and may include detour signs, flagmen and delineators. Prior to occupancy of the Phase Ultimate medical office building, sufficient room must be dedicated to widen the north side of "H" Street between Fourth Avenue and the Project to provide a continuous westbound lane between Fourth and Fifth Avenue. To protect pedestrians, the primary entrance to the parking structure (off Fifth Avenue) will be recessed from the street and a safety bar will be provided. (FEIR, pp. 6, 83; Responses to Comments, pp. 11, 14, 17; Responses to Comments, pp. 20, 39, 41, 76 78, 79, 80, 81, 83-84.) ' Findinq: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 4) Noise A. Traffic Noise. Traffic noise associated with project-generated trips on adjacent roadways and within the proposed parking structure, as well siren noise from emergency vehicles, would not adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors, such as residential uses and the junior high school, and no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. An acoustical analysis was conducted for the expansion and concluded that noise levels would increase on the existing roadways by a maximum of 2.5 decibels. Noise from the parking garage will conform with the State noise guidelines for noise impacts to schools. Although 10-15 emergency trips are expected per day, only one is expected to use the siren which will be turned off near the entrance to the Project. (FEIR, pp. 6, 85-89, Appendix C; Responses to Comments, pp. 17, 37, 40, 92.) Therefore, the Decisionmaker(s) conclude that noise impacts from traffic, including noise from the parking structure and from emergency vehicles, are less than significant. scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 29 29 Because the effect on noise from traffic is less than significant, the Decisionmaker(s) is not required to make any findings nor adopt any mitigation measures. B. Pro~ect Site Noise. The EIR identifies the following as a potentially significant impact. Potentially ~ ~mpaet: In the absence of future assessment and monitoring, proposed HVAC and standby power equipment could generate noise in excess of State standards. (FEIR, pp. 6, 89, Appendix C.) Mitiqation Measures: Proposed HVAC and standby power equipment will be analyzed for compliance with the City of Chula Vista hourly noise limit when the equipment is defined and the architectural details are final. The planned enclosure for the standby power unit will provide the necessary noise reduction depending upon the details of construction. (FEIR, pp. 6, 89-90, Appendix C; Responses to Comments, p. 16.) Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. $) Health The EIR identifies the following as a potentially significant impact. Potgntlallv~eant Impact: Additional infectious waste would be produced with the expansion of the hospital. An underground storage tank currently exists on site (in connection with Express Gas Station) and must be removed. Asbestos may exist in on-site buildings. (FEIR, pp. 7, 91- 95, Appendix D, Appendix E.) Mitiqatlon Measures: Scripps Memorial Hospitals, including the Chula Vista Hospital, have an established infectious waste control program. Upon approval by the County Hazardous Materials Management Division, the infectious waste control program for the Chula Vista Hospital will be updated to reflect the approved hospital expansion and any changes to the hospital,s infectious waste disposal schedule. A UST removal plan will be prepared to address removal of the waste and storage tanks from the site. Although a limited hazardous waste investigation has occurred which indicated that the tank was not leaking, the removal plan will include contingency measures in case scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 30 30 leakage has occurred. An environmental audit will be preformed to asses the potential for asbestos being found in the structures on-site that would be demolished with project implementation. If asbestos is found on-site, a certified removal service will remove the asbestos prior to structure demolition. (FEIR, pp. 7, 93-95, Appendix D, Appendix E.) Findinq: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Air Oualitv A. Traffic Related Air Quality The proposed project represents infill development in an existing urban area and is consistent with the range of uses and densities anticipated for the site in the Chula Vista General Plan, the Central Chula Vista Area Plan and the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan. Land uses assumed in these adopted Chula Vista plans have been incorporated into regional air quality plans and strategies. At buildout, the project would generate approximately 1,500 more trips than anticipated in the General Plan travel forecast. Emissions generated by these trips would contribute incrementally to the region's continued inability to meet ozone standards. Project implementation would result in increased traffic on area roadways, particularly H Street, G Street, Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue. Congestion can sometimes result in build-up of CO concentrations due to idling vehicles. According to the traffic analysis, however, all roadway segments and intersections would operate at Level of Service (LOS) C or better with the exception of the H Street/Fourth Avenue intersection which would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The City of Chula Vista has adopted threshold standards which establish a LOS C standard for City streets; LOS D is acceptable at one AM and one PM peak hour. The project would comply with the City's threshold standard with respect to traffic congestion. The parking structure has also been designed with adequate ventilation to ensure no buildup of carbon monoxide. Therefore, due to the relatively low number of trips, the absence of congestion, the fact that the project represents infill development with concomitantly fewer trips than would occur if the project were developed in an outlying area, and the adequate ventilation in the parking structure, the Decisionmaker(s) conclude that the adverse air quality impacts due to traffic generated by the project and traffic congestion are scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 31 31 less than significant. (FEIR, pp. 8, 97-102, Appendix B; Responses to Comments, p. 145.) Because the impacts to air quality from increased traffic and traffic congestion are insignificant, the Decisionmaker(s) is not required to make any findings nor adopt any mitigation measures. B. Construction/Grading Related Air Quality. The EIR identifies the following as a potentially significant effect. Potentia11¥~ Impact: Short-term air quality impacts are anticipated during the grading and construction phases of the project due to fugitive dust emissions. Construction phase impacts will be temporary. (FEIR, pp. 8, 102; Responses to Comments, p. 145. ) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the City's standard dust control measures, including regular watering of the site during construction and the dust abatement measures required by the Air Pollution Control District. (FEIR, pp. 9, 102.) Fin~ing: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 7) Geology The EIR identifies the following as potentially significant impacts. Potentially Significant Impacts: Primary concerns for construction on the site include: 1) the presence of potentially expansive soils in a potentially seismically active area; 2) the presence of existing fill soils; 3) possible presence of foundation remnants, underground utilities, or other subsurface complexities related to previous site usage; and 4) proximity to the active faults. Although no known faults pass through the Project site, it is located within five miles of an active site as well as within 1.5 miles of a potentially active site. (FEIR, pp. 9, 103-107, Appendix F.) Mitigation Measures Summary: The following mitigation measures have been developed to reduce impacts associated with seismicity and soil conditions on-site with the proposed construction of the hospital expansion, medical office building and parking structure. These measures for scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 32 32 earthwork include: clearing and stripping existing site; treating existing fills and soft topsoils for recompaction; evaluating excavatibility from soil borings; preparing subgrade; using low-expansion potential fill soil; using appropriate materials for fill; compacting the structural fill to listed minimum degrees; constructing temporary slopes to a safe inclination; cutting and filling permanent slopes to no steeper than 2:1; backfilling trenches with compacted fill; and providing adequate drainage. The measures for foundations include proper design for footings, slabs-on-grade, basement walls, and lateral loads. Structural design of the medical office building must be designed in conformance with Chapter 23 of the Uniform Building Code. The Project design must be reviewed and approved by the State Department of General Services, Office of the State Architect. (FEIR, pp. 9-16, 108-115, Appendix F.) Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 8) Water Conservation The EIR identifies the following as significant impacts. S_~qRiflcan~ Impacts: With construction of the hospital expansion, an additional 10,280 gallons per day ("gpd") would be used on the site when compared with existing conditions. There is a current drought condition in San Diego County and implementation of the proposed project would contribute to a significant cumulative need to conserve water on a region-wide basis. (FEIR, pp. 17, 116- 117; Responses to Comments, pp. 18, 169.) Mitiqation Measures: Measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce water consumption. These measures include landscaping with low water usage plant species, low water use irrigation systems and compliance with State standards for water conservation. Final landscape plans demonstrating incorporation of the above water conservation measures will be subject to review and approval by the City of Chula Vista staff prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project. In addition, use of low water usage species in the landscape plans, moisture sensing and low precipitation rate sprinkler systems and compliance with the State laws described above would help minimize water consumption on-site. The water features on-site would use recirculated water to prevent water waste. Water consumption would be required during mass grading on the scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 33 33 site and the applicant would work with the City of Chula Vista and the Sweetwater Authority to obtain a permit for temporary water consumption on-site. (FEIR, pp. 17, 117- 118, Appendix H.) Fin~in=: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR for use of water on site. However, due to the current drought condition that San Diego County is currently experiencing, the project would contribute, in part, to the cumulative water supply problem despite the inclusion in the Project of mitigation measures to minimize water consumption. (FEIR, pp. 17, 118.) Although a commentator asked about the use of reclaimed water, the nearest planned water reclamation facility to the Project is the Otay Valley Road east of 1- 805. (Responses to Comments, p. 168.) Conveyance pipelines to be constructed in conjunction with the proposed water reclamation facility to certain uses within the region. Typical markets for reclaimed water include, parks, golf courses, cemeteries and large landscaping (such as Caltrans right-of-way. Double piping must be provided for distribution of reclaimed water. A market for reclaimed water has not been identified in the Central Chula Vista area in which the Project is located. This is due to the fact that large park or landscape areas suitable for reclaimed water do not exist in downtown Chula Vista and the area does not have double pipes. The use of reclaimed water is therefore infeasible. The Decisionmaker(s) finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives available to prevent the cumulative impacts caused in part by the Project. As set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Exhibit D, the Decisionmaker(s) concludes that the environmental detriment associated with the unavoidable significant effect is rendered acceptable by the benefits of approving the Project, namely, the fulfillment of the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan, the creation of additional construction jobs, the substantial increase in property tax base, the amount of revenue to the City of Chula Vista by tax revenues, the creation of 481 permanent jobs, the provision of a needed hospital expansion, provision of additional physician services and medical specialties in the medical office buildings, improvement of the image of the Town Centre II Redevelopment Area, improving the street circulation system, and provision of enhanced 24-Hour emergency medical service; dedication of land to the Sweetwater School District for construction of a new classroom for the Junior High School; and correction of an scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 34 34 existing storm drain flooding problems associated with the junior high school. 9) Public Services/Facilitie, A. Storm Drains The EIR identifies the following as a significant impact. ~ Impact: There currently exists a storm drain flooding problem affecting the adjacent junior high school. (FEIR, pp. 18, 119, 120.) B. Fire The EIR identifies the following as a significant impact. ~ Impact: If improperly constructed, the Project could increase risk from fires. In addition, water pressure may not adequate for the City of Chula Vista to fight fires. (FEIR, pp. 18, 119, 121.) C. Sewer The EIR identifies the following as a significant impact. ~ Impact: The sewer line in H Street is nearing capacity. Portions of the sewer lines in H Street and G Street are flowing near or over capacity at times of peak flow. (FEIR, pp. 18, 119, 121-122; Responses to Comments, p. 40.) D. School The EIR identifies the following as a significant impact. S_~nifiean__t Impact: Although no direct student generation would occur with implementation of the proposed non-residential project, students may indirectly generated as more employees are hired with expansion of the hospital facility and move into the area to live and work. The Project at build-out would generate 481 new employees. These employees could generate 80 elementary age children over the next 10-15 years who would attend the existing 32 elementary schools in the school district. The Chula Vista elementary schools are experiencing overcrowding. (FEIR, pp. 19, 122-123; Responses to Comments, pp. 65.) scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 35 35 A. Storm~ The Project, as proposed, would construct a duct for the junior high schools storm drain into the hospital,s proposed storm drain system. Development of the subject site must comply with all applicable regulations established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for storm water discharge. If required, a NPDES permit would be obtained for any storm water discharge, discharge of wells, or temporary ground water dewatering associated with excavation for the parking garage and any below ground structural improvement. (FEIR, pp. 18, 19, 123.) The proposed project would be constructed in compliance with Chula Vista Fire Department standards, including: (a) Ail buildings including the parking structure will contain an approved standpipe and fire sprinkler system and a fire alarm system; (b) Additional fire hydrants will be installed as required by the Chula Vista Fire Department; (c) Ail State Fire Marshall CAC - Title 19 regulations shall be met; and (d) Provision of a 26- foot wide access road into Chula Vista Junior High School from the north interior road off of Fifth Avenue. Furthermore, the City of Chula Vista Fire Department will work directly with the Sweetwater Authority to ensure adequate water pressure for emergency fire flows. The required fire flow for a fire sprinkler system shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. (FEIR, pp. 18, 20, 121, 123.} C. Sewer Prior to issuance of a grading permit for project implementation, preparation of a technical report will be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, under City engineering standards and the design criteria set forth in the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, and incorporated as conditions of project approval addressing the following items in both the H Street and G Street sewer systems: (a) Average daily wastewater flow from the project; (b) Peak wastewater flow from the project and the time and of week when peak flow is expected to occur; (c) Hydraulic analysis of the impact that peak flow will have on existing sewer lines from point of connection to the wastewater flow metering station. Existing flows shall be scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 36 36 included; and (d) Recommendations for any improvements necessary to maintain flow in the sewers in accordance with City of Chula Vista design standards, including the installation of a gravity sewer line which direct all sewage to G Street so as not to further impact the H Street line. (FEIR, pp. 18-19, 20, 121-122, 123; Responses to Comments, p. 40.) D. School State Government Code Sections 53080, 65955 and 65966 determine the fair share burden of school facilities mitigation costs that may be placed on any commercial development under CEQA. Under these sections, the only mitigation for impacts to schools are these fees as the CUP is not a legislative action. The Project Applicant must pay the State-mandated impact fee requirements. (FEIR, pp. 19, 20, 122-123, 124; Responses to Comments, pp. 65, 67, 69.). Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. To the extent that the school district,s claim that cumulative school impacts remain significant, this single Project cannot be expected to mitigate the cumulative problem of school district overcrowding. The annexation of the Project to the school district,s Community Facilities District No. 5 under Mello-Roos is outside of the control of the Decisionmaker(s). It must be initiated by the school district and would re- quire a 2/3 vote, by acreage, of the property owners affected. The Decisionmaker(s) finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives available to prevent the cumulative impacts to schools caused in part by the Project. As set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Exhibit D, the Decision- maker(s) concludes that the environmental detriment associated with the unavoidable significant effect is rendered acceptable by the benefits of approving the Project, namely, the fulfillment of the attainment of the g~als and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan, the creation of additional construction jobs, the substan- tial increase in property tax base, the amount of rev- enue to the City of Chula Vista by tax revenues, the creation of 481 permanent jobs, the provision of a needed hospital expansion, provision of additional physician services and medical specialties in the medical office buildings, improvement of the image of the Town Centre II Redevelopment Area, improving the street circulation system, and provision of enhanced scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 37 37 24-Hour emergency medical service; dedication of land to the Sweetwater School District for construction of a new classroom for the Junior High School; and correction of an existing storm drain flooding problems associated with the junior high school. 10) The EIR identifies the following as a potentially significant impact. ~~I~Da~t~ The Redevelopment Agency has requested that the applicant search for relocation sites for specific uses on the project site. Relocation sites for the remaining uses on the project site would be determined following execution of the Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the Project Applicant. The on-site cinema is proposed to be relocated in the expanded Chula Vista Shopping Center. An EIR is currently being prepared for the shopping center expansion (EIR 91- 04). Scripps has purchased Farrell's interest. The roller rink is currently in escrow on a new site in the City of Chula Vista. The cumulative environmental impacts associated with the expanded Chula Vista Shopping Center (which includes the proposed theater) were analyzed in 'the FEIR. With regard to the roller rink, the owner of the rink is currently in escrow for new property. However, no application for a conditional use permit or other entitlements for a new roller rink have been submitted to the City at this time and any analysis of the impacts associated with the roller rink would be purely speculative. Once an application has been received and the full extent of the project known, environmental review in compliance with CEQA and its implementing will be commenced. As the relocation of the other existing businesses are also entirely speculative, these relocations will be subject to supplemental environmental review. Impacts may or may not be significant (FEIR, pp.43-044; Responses to Comments, p. 33.) Finding: The impacts associated with the relocation are speculative and it is unknown whether these impacts will be significant or less than significant. As such, it is unknown whether there exist feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that can avoid or substantially lessen these impacts. Subsequent environmental review will take place for these relocations. To the extent that impacts remain significant after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to this Resolution as Exhibit D, the Decisionmakers (s) concludes that the environmental detri- scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 38 38 ment associated with the potentially unavoidable significant effect is rendered acceptable by the benefits of approving the Project, namely, the fulfillment of the attainment of the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan, the creation of additional construction jobs, the substantial increase in property tax base, the amount of revenue to the City of Chula Vista by tax revenues, the creation of 481 permanent jobs, the provisions of a needed hospital expansion, provision of additional physician services a medical specialties in the medical office buildings, improvement of the image of the Town Centre, and provision of enhanced 24-Hour emergency medical service; dedication of land to the Sweetwater School District for construction of a new classroom for the Junior High School; and correction of an existing storm drain flooding problems associated with the junior high school. The Decisionmaker(s) having reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR for the project, and the information in the Administrative Record, finds that there are no further changes or alterations to the project, that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Pub~ Resources Code ~ 108~~ The ~ °f ~ ~ ~nd Pro4ect Alternatives Other Than ~he Memorlal ~ E a~ Project. The Decisionmaker(s) approval of the Project as proposed will cause the following significant adverse environmental effects, which cannot be substantially lessened or avoided with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures: visual impacts, secondary effects, and cumulative impacts on water conservation and schools. As discussed above there are no feasible mitigation measures that can substantially lessen this effect, the Decisionmaker(s) has also considered whether any of the project alternatives outlined in the EIR could feasibly substantially lessen or avoid this effect while satisfying the objectives of the Scripps Memorial Expansion Hospital Project. (See Citizens for uag_q~j~y Growth y. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443-445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727]; see also Pub. Resources Code, section 21002.) As will be explained below, the Decisionmaker(s) concludes that none of the proposed alternatives could feasibly both meet the Project's objectives and substantially lessen or avoid the scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 39 39 unavoidable significant effect of the Project, and thus has decided to approve the Project as proposed with all feasible mitigation measures outlined above. However, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(c), the Decisionmaker(s) find and conclude that the following independent economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives or other possible mitigations as identified in the EIR. The Decisionmaker(s) further find that each independent consideration, standing alone, would be sufficient to make infeasible the following project alternatives. 1. NO Pro4ect/No ~ ~ and ~ Sit~ This alternative would retain the site in its current rundown and blighted condition. This alternative would avoid the visual and secondary impacts, as well as cum- ulative impacts to water conservation and school over- crowding. (FEIR, pp. 150-151.) This alternative would not result in attainment in the goals and objectives of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Plan, the Zoning Code, or the General Plan. Although under this alternative, Scripps would remain its current size and the significant unmiti- gated impacts such as visual quality would be avoided, this alternative would not revitalize or rehabilitate this por- tion of the community. Nor would it provide needed hospital facilities, and physician services in the urban core of the City of Chula Vista, or provide approximately 481 new jobs in Chula Vista. Under an alternatives sites analysis, the sites proposed in the Eastern territories (Responses to Comments, p. 154) are within largely undeveloped areas of land and significant visual impacts could occur from a 4 story hospital and 6 medical office building placed in the area. This Eastern Territories area also has significant water supply problems. The City of Chula Vista under its growth management ordinance requires any development in the Eastern Territories to have a water conservation plan. In addition, reclaimed water is being required in new developments in the Eastern territories for golf courses, cemeteries and parks. Because of the largely undeveloped area, impacts to vegetation, biological resources and cultural resources could occur. Land use/community character impacts could occur with the development of a hospital in an area that is expected to be primarily residential. Impacts associated with noise, air quality, traffic and geology are expected to be the same as the proposed project. Secondary effects would be avoided under this alternative. Impacts on cumulative school overcrowding scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 40 4O would be the same. (FEIR, pp. 151-152; Responses to Comments, pp. 108, 119, 154, 169.) Therefore, the selection of an off-site alternative would not reduce the remaining significant impacts (visual and water conservation) to less than significant levels. In addition,' development of the existing site proposed is a primary objective of the Project. If only the expansion were to occur on an alternative site, redundancies in certain administrative and other functions would need to occur in order operate an expanded hospital complex at two separate sites. From the standpoint of direct impacts to physical resources and impacts associated with isolation and fragmentation of sensitive habitat, infill development is generally environmentally preferred over development in outlying vacant areas. The expansion of the hospital to the north and east would have the similar impacts as the Project on visual quality, cumulative water supply and school overcrowding. Scripps does not own the area immediately north which is not in a redevelopment area. Secondary effects may not be avoided under this issue due to the need to demolish existing facilities to the north and east. Therefore, City assistance would not be available to assemble the required land for the expansion. In addition a vacant 13-acre lot does not exist within the urban core. Based upon these factors, each of the alternative discussed in this section are determined to be infeasible. 2. N_9o ~ Stree~ Access ~. Under this alternative access for employees and emergency vehicles would be limited to 5th Ave. and H St. with no access allowed from G St. The impacts associated with this alternative would be the same as for the proposed Project with the exception that noise impacts from emergency vehicles using G St. would be avoided. (FEIR, pp. 130-131.) Since it was determined in the FEIR that noise impacts are not significant, this alternative would not mitigate any of the identified significant environmental impacts. Therefore this alternative is determined to be unnecessary and infeasible. 3. ~ Street usi~ ~ ~. Under this phasing alternative, Arby's Restaurant, First Interstate Bank and Readicare would remain on site during Phase I of the hospital expansion. Although the hospital expansion square footage and facilities would be identical, the location of the proposed medical office building would need to be redesigned as would the entry along H St. scrpcupp.wp Planning CommisSion Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 41 41 Impacts for this alternative would generally be the same with regard to geology and schools. Impacts associated with water conservation would also remain the same under this alternative as the same cumulative impacts are present. However, impacts to land use, visual quality, traffic, noise and air quality would change under this alternative. Land use impacts would occur with respect to the elimination of some parking, landscaping and courtyard areas at the southwest corner of the site during Phase I with the retention of the commercial uses. It is acknowledged that retention of these uses may offer a higher commercial utilization of the site during Phase I by continuing to offer these commercial services within the project area. However, retention of these uses would also require a redesign of the proposed medical offi'ce building. The selection of this alternative would require further environmental and design review to assess potential visual impacts not anticipated by the proposed project during Phase I. However, the visual impacts associated with the Project (the medical office building and the parking structure) will remain whether the 6-story wing is built in the first house with a 4-story medical office building in Phase Ultimate as suggested by a commentator (Response to Comments, p. 44) or as shown in the coalition~s proposal ( 5 story medical office building in Phase 1). Increased Traffic impacts under this alternative are associated with an additional 3,228 ADTs. Traffic circulation impacts may also occur due to the close proximity or the Arby~s driveway during Phase I to the hospital ingress driveway. Traffic mitigation required by this alternative would include the widening of the north side of H St. by two (2) to four (4) feet to accommodate a raised median and westbound auxiliary lane. There would also be a necessity for the Project to find additional parking as this alternative removes 370 spaces of the proposed surface parking. Finally, noise and air quallty impacts under this alternative are associated with the 1,614 additional ADTs generated within Phase I, thereby resulting in an incremental increase in noise and air pollution emissions than the proposed project. Secondary effects would remain because the businesses would still have to be relocated in Phase Ultimate (rather than in Phase i as in the proposed project). (FEIR, pp. 132-141; Responses to Comments, pp. 9, 44.) This phasing alternative would entail substantial, deleterious compromises in on-site traffic circulation, visibility of the Hospital buildings and entrance from H St. and vehicular entry onto the Hospital site from H St. It would also compromises the "wellness environment- of the Hospital by exposing patients to additional noise and food scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 42 42 odors. Because this alternative does not mitigate the significant impacts identified the FEIR that remain (visual and secondary and cumulative water conservation and school impacts) and because this alternative would result in potentially more traffic impacts than the proposed alternative, and entail undesirable design compromises, this alternative is deemed less desirable and therefore infeasible. Under this alternative the 8.9 acre expansion area would be redeveloped exclusively as a commercial center. The center would include a combination of restaurants, theaters, banks, and recreational uses for a total of 124,990 sq. ft. No hospital expansion would occur with this alternative. Impacts under this alternative would generally be the same as for the proposed project for geology/soils and schools. Impacts due to water conservation would remain significant and unmitigable, similar to the proposed Project. Health impacts would be reduced under this alternative since no hospital expansion would occur. Potential school impacts may occur with this alternative since it is not known whether the northwest portion of the site would be dedicated to the Sweetwater Union High School District as it would be with the proposed project. No significant land use/community character impacts are anticipated with this alternative, however, the potential land use compatibility issues could result from a etall/entertalnment use adjacent to the Junior High School. Traffic impacts under this alternative are expected to be greater than the proposed project due to the fact that approximately 12,313 ADTs would be generated in contrast to 9,105 ADTs generated by the hospital expansion project at build out. Mitigation measures under this alternative would include the widening of the north side of H St. to provide an additional auxiliary access right turn lane to accommodate a raised median. (FEIR, pp. 141-150; Responses to Comments, pp. 45, 47, 121.) Visual impacts under this alternative would likely be less than the proposed Project. Although detailed design is not available, it is assumed that the proposed commercial structure would be of a lower profile than the 4-6 story hospital and medical office. Visual changes associated with the bulk and scale of the structures for the hospital expansion would not occur under scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 43 Page 43 this alternative. Secondary effects may remain if existing businesses were to be relocated. Selection of this alternative would preclude an expanded and enhanced central medical facility within the core of Chula Vista, depriving the City of more hospital beds, enhanced surgery, obstetrical and emergency facilities, and more physician services and medical specialties. Selection of this alternative would also result in the creation of fewer new jobs. The benefits associated with the location of the Scripps Hospital Expansion within the core of the Redevelopment Area is of critical importance to the Decisionmaker(s). Because of the need for more and higher quality hospital and physician services in the urban core of Chula Vista and increased employment opportunities, and because of the increased traffic impacts associated with this alternative, this alternative is determined to be less desirable and therefore infeasible. 5. Reduced ~ ~. Under this alternative, the medical office building would be reduced to three (3) stories for each building wing and the project would lose approximately 46,500 sq. ft. of medical office space. The visual impacts would therefore be less than significant after mitigation. There would be fewer traffic impacts as a result of 2,325 fewer ADTs generated thereby reducing the incremental noise and air pollution emissions. This alternative would also reduce the school and water conservation impacts, although they would remain cumulatively significant. Secondary effects would remain. Geology/soils, land use and health impacts would remain the same as the proposed project. (FEIR, pp. 150- 151; Responses to Comments, p. 137.) This reduction in office space would result in less revenue to the City and would also result in a proportionate decrease in the availability of physician services and immediately adjacent office space to the primary hospital use. This alternative would reduce the amount of employment on the site. This alternative would not fulfill the demand for.~ospital beds in the Chula Vista area. 6. Other Alternatives. A commentator suggested that hospital provide alternative access to Fourth Avenue. (Responses to Comments, p. 15.) The implementation of Fourth Street Access would not improve the level of service at the H Street/Fourth Avenue intersection, and could lead to a degradation in service. (FEIR, p. 82; Responses to scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 Page 44 44 Comments, pp. 15-16. The Decisionmaker(s) .... reject this alternative a? Infeasible because impacts by the Project have been mitigated to less than significant and this alternative may worsen the impacts to traffic. Another commentator suggested that the expansion occur totally on the existing 4.7 acre of the site. (Responses to Comments, p. 188.) Expansion would not be possible because the site is currently well utilized and there is no space for expansion. If expansion occurred vertically, this would require a hospital and medical office building and parking garage much larger then the current project. The visual impacts would remain significant. The Decisionmaker(s) reject this alternative as infeasible. The superseded Draft contained an alternative which was not incorporated into the Recirculated Draft EIR. This alternative, "restaurant alternative,,, was to allow only Arby's to remain on site during Phase 1. The H Street Business Coalition requested analysis of their proposed alternative in comments on the superseded Draft DIR. The H Street Business Coalition alternative included the retention of Arby's, as well as certain other existing businesses. Therefore, the "restaurant alternative,, was not included in the Recirculated Draft as it was no longer a feasible alternative. The Decisionmaker(s) also reject the "res- taurant alternative,, as infeasible because, like the H Street Coalition Alternative, it would not have avoided impacts to visual quality, potential secondary effects, cumulative water conservation and school overcrowding. scrpcupp.wp Planning Commission Reso re Scripps CUP October 31, 1991 45 Page 45 Exhibit D to the Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit BTATEHENT OF OVERRZDZNG CONSIDERATIONS: CEQA Guidelines Section ~5093 The Decisionmaker(s) in approving the various permits that are the subject of the FEIR, having considered the information contained in the FEIR, and having reviewed and considered the public testimony and record, makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of the Findings. The Decisionmaker(s) further find and conclude that the public benefits of the project outweigh the identified significant unmitigated impacts with regard to visual quality, secondary effects, and cumulative water conservation and school overcrowding. The Decisionmaker(s) find that the following factors support approval of the project despite the FEIR identified and public comment alleged potentially significant environmental impacts and therefore the Decisionmaker(s) make the following Statement of Overriding Considerations: 1. The project will help fulfill attainment of the goals and objectives of the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Plan, the Zoning Code, and the General Plan by allowing development of the site with a use that is appropriate and at a density which is appropriate, taking into account the surrounding development. 2. The project has incorporated measures to reduce the direct and indirect environmental impacts and to help minimize and alleviate the existing conditions. . 3. The project will result in the following public improvements at no cost to the City of Chula Vista: (a) additional westbound lane on H St., along the project frontage in Phase I, and extended to Fourth Avenue in the Ultimate Phase; (b) raised median along H St. between existing improvements at Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue; (c) northbound access lane along Fifth Avenue; and (d) land dedications for the above improvements. 4. The following extraordinary public benefits are associated with the project: (a) the creation of additional construction jobs; (b) substantial increase in property tax base; (c) project at build out would generate approximately $2.3 million in sales tax, tax increment, and utility and franchise tax revenues; (d) approximately 481 permanent jobs; (e) provision of needed hospital expansion, including in Phase I, 99 patient beds and enhanced surgery and 47 obstetrics facilities; (f) provision of additional physician services and medical specialties in the medical office buildings; (g) improvement of the image of the Town Centre II Redevelopment Area; (h) provision of street circulation system improvements; (i) provision of enhanced 24-Hour emergency medical service; (J) dedication of land to the Sweetwater School District for construction of a new classroom for the Junior High School; (k) correction of an existing storm drain flooding problems associated with the junior high school. (FEIR, pp. 165-174 FEIR Addendum, pp. 1-9.) ' Although the Decisionmaker(s) find that the only impacts that remain significant are visual, secondary, and cumulative water conservation and school impacts, if other impacts were found to remain by a court, the Decisionma- ker(s) find and conclude that the above considerations would also override any remaining impacts. 48 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-35~ request to expaml ~xistinq hospital facility located at 435 H Street cripps Memorial Hospital, 435 H Streel, A. BACKGROUND This item is a request to expand the existing Scripps Hospital facility located at 435 H Street within the central part of Chula Vista. The proposed expansion master plan involves the construction of a new medical office building, a parking structure and two, 3-story hospital buildings. It is anticipated that the project will be completed in phases with ultimate buildout expected in 10 to 15 years. An environmental impact report, EIR-90-07, which discusses potential environmental impacts of this project has been prepared. Certification of the Final EIR is the preceding item on the agenda. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-90-35, subject to the following conditions: 1. Waive the zoning wall required along the north property line of the subject site. 2. Future land uses, other than hospital administrative offices, for the existing hospital tower shall comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance written notice to the permittee and after the City has given to the permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoninq and land use North - R-3 Junior high school South C-C Retail commercial center East C-O-P Medical office building/residential condominiums West C-C-D & R-2 Bank/single family dwellings/church City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 2 Existinq site characteristics The project site is located on the north side of H Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues, partially within the Town Centre II redevelopment area. The 13.6 acre site is relatively flat and currently developed with a variety of uses which include the hospital on the easterly 4.7 acres, and multibuilding retail commercial operations on the westerly 8.9 acres located within the Town Centre II redevelopment area. The existing hospital facility consists of a five level structure (4 stories and basement) containing a total of 105,000 sq. ft. and 159 patient beds. A 200 sq. ft. temporary office building and two mobile diagnostic units are also part of the existing operation. The present parking consists of 183 on-site and 155 off-site parking spaces with access primarily along H Street. A reciprocal parking and access agreement with the easterly adjacent medical office complex also provides the hospital with direct access to and from Fourth Avenue. The redevelopment proposal consists of a two phase construction program to enlarge the existing Scripps Memorial Hospital complex located at the property currently known as 435 H Street. The first phase includes a four-level hospital building (three stories and basement) with capacity for 116 hospital beds and 20 bassinets. During Phase I, the number of existing hospital beds will be reduced from 159 to 122. The vacated space is anticipated to be used as office space for the hospital administration. Also as part of the first phase, a parking facility with capacity for 396 vehicles would be provided, in addition to 165 rearranged spaces within the existin~H,,site, and 155 spaces already provided off-site at a parcel located on Street approximately 600 ft. from the site (371H Street - see locator). The total parking provided in the first phase is 716, 311 of which would be spaces are dedicated to a 62,180 first-phase medical office building to be located within the hospital complex. Phase Two (buildout), consists of the addition of a second hospital building intended to house the remaining 122 beds located within the original hospital tower. The vacated area will serve to expand the hospital administrative operation and ultimately (after the new administration building is constructed) a senior care facility. Phase Two will also include a 58,800 sq. ft. administration building, a 84,000 sq. ft. operations building, and a parking for 1,033 off-site and on-site spaces. The buildout parking features 775 spaces within the parking structure, 103 surface parking spaces, and the 155 employee parking spaces located at 371H Street. Six hundred twenty three (623) of the parking spaces would be dedicated to a first and second phase medical office building to be constructed at the southwest corner of the site (see Exhibit City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 3 The following table illustrates the project's construction phasing program: TABLE ! REQUIRED PARKING SUMMARY No. of Building Parking A. [xistinq Condition Beds Area Required Existing Hospital 159 73,994 183 Parking Provided On-Site: Off-Site Employee Parking = 155 B. Phase I Existing Hospital 122 73,994 183 1.5/bed Hospital Expansion 136 220,550 204 1.5/bed Medical Office Building 62,130 311 1/200 1/200 C. Phase II Ultimate Existing Hospital 0 73,994 0 Phase I Expansion 136 120,550 204 Phase II 122 132,510 183 Phase I MOB 0 62,180 311 Phase II MOB 62,180 311 Total No. of Beds 258 Parking 1,009 Parking Provided Parking Structure 775 Surface Parking - 103 Off-Site Employee Parking - _ 155 1,033 spaces D. ANALYSIS The land use designations applicable to the site are as follows: General Plan Designation Retail commercial Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan Retail commercial Zone District CCD - (Central commercial design control) City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 4 Reason for Expansion In the past, the State of California required hospitals to prove the need for expansion and issued a ert~f~cate of Need". The process was intended to balance the number of hospital beds with community population and different age groups. The law i~ no longer in effect and today the expansion of hospitals is not subject to State review. According to the applicant (project architect), the existing 15g-bed hospital facility is operating at 85 percent capacity, which in the industry is considered to be at maximum occupancy since the division of medical beds into treatment categories and sex groups makes 100 percent capacity literally unachievable. The other reason provided by the applicant is that today's hospitals have a bed to floor area ratio ranging from 1,200-1,600 sq. ft. per bed depending on the different medical specialities and treatment facilities provided by the hospital. The existing hospital has a ratio of 560 sq. ft. per bed which is less than 50 percent of the desired ratio. The project, as proposed, will provide an additional 99 hospital beds, as well as achieve a better than 1,200 sq. ft. per bed ratio and thus, would appear to expand and improve the level of medical service to the citizens of Chula Vista and the Southbay region. The present occupancy levels suggest there is a demand for the expansion. Traffic/Circulation The proposed project would generate 4,980 ADT under Phase I and 9,015 at build-out thus adding 1,201ADT~s to the 7,814 current trips generated by the hospital. Cumulative traffic levels at buildout will result in levels of service (LOS) C with the exception of the H Street/Fourth Avenue intersection which is projected to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. This is consistent with the City's threshold standards. The project is required to construct an additional westbound lane on H Street along the project frontage with implementation of Phase I and extended to Fourth Avenue with the Ultimate Phase as well as constructing a northbound acceleration/deceleration lane along Fifth Avenue along the project frontage. A median is also required on H Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenue during Phase I. The development proposal incorporates all of the above mentioned street widening and improvements. Noise According to the environmental document prepared for this project {EIR-90-01), traffic noise associated with project-generated trips on adjacent roadways and within the proposed parking structure, would not adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors such as residential uses and the junior high school, and no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 5 Land Use/Compatibility The primary goal of the proposed project is to expand the Scripps Hospital facility at its existing location to serve patients that are presently going outside Chula Vista to receive medical care. Alternatives to the proposed westerly expansion are primarily expansion to the north or east. However, due to the incremental completion of the project and the location of medical services and other functions within the hospital (laboratories, diagnostic equipment, surgery rooms, etc.), the most logical expansion area, according to the applicant, is to the west side of the existing building. The proposed project would replace a multi-building commercial center containing convenience restaurants {Arby~s, Captain Kids), community service facilities (bank, gas station, emergency care, ice cream parlor) and youth-oriented facilities, such as a skating rink and a twin cinema. Other uses in the center include a vacant building formerly occupied by the Wherehouse Records and Tapes store (presently located within the Chula Vista Shopping Center Mall) and multi-tenant retail store commonly known as "The Indoor Swap Meet". Part of the larger building where the indoor swap meet is located is occupied by Jetco Furniture Store and Scripps Hospital Personnel/Financial Offices and a temporary immunization clinic. The above mentioned businesses provide convenient services and entertainment to Chula Vista residents in a centrally located and easily accessible site. However, since many of the services provided by the center already exist within the same general vicinity, the removal of the commercial center will not lower the quality and variety of services being offered today, but will improve the visual aspect by replacing a very disjointed commercial center with a new hospital/medical office complex. Said complex features efficient circulation system, convenient parking and easy access to and from H Street as well as Fourth and Fifth Avenues. The site is further enhanced with a comprehensive landscaping program and quality architecture that together produce a quality landmark for the City of Chula Vista. The proposed hospital site abuts residential zoned property to the north. The Zoning Ordinance Section 19.58.360 requires that a zoning wall be installed whenever commercial development abuts residential zoned property. However, based on the institutional character of the northerly adjacent land use {jr. high school), the applicant is requesting that the zoning wall be waived and allow a chain link fence to be installed in its place. The Design Review Committee at their October 28, 1991, regional meeting endorse the waiver of said wall. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 6 E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. Approval of the request will provide an additional 99 hospital beds and related medical facilities to an established hospital thus serving the needs of the community and western Chula Vista. The present occupancy levels and floor area to bed ratio support the need for the expansion. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed expansion will replace a number of commercial buildings and a redesign to the site improving traffic flow on and off site as well as providing expanded medical services to the community. The projected traffic increase will be accommodated by widening H Street and providing a deacceleration lane. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposal will be required to comply with all applicable codes and conditions and regulations prior to the issuance of development permits. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. Approval of the permit is consistent with the General Plan and General Plan policy to encourage the establishment, expansion, improvement and modernization of hospitals and related health facilities within the Chula Vista Planning Area. WPC g848P/2652P I ~~F,~h~l ~'""" ~ ~'"""" ~ '+~""~ "'~='"" 'G' .STREET' V,S~A I~~ I ~2. ~"~;I :i STREET C'c, lJJ~J j CC"~ C._Cr'~ CiTY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE.~NT ~,[CA~,~',S ~NT OF_e~SCLOSURE OF CERTAZN, OWNERSHZP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLtCATION~ ~c~ ~!.. R~qU[R~ DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY , ' COM!11SS~ON AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. COUNCIL PLANNING The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Scripps Memorial Hospitals - A California Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation administered by a Board of Trustees List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. See Below 2. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all 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 serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. Chairman of Board Roger Stewart Secretary - Fred C. Shean, ~.D. Vice Chairman - Ed Danenbauer Trea~l~rer - Lauren N. Blaqy President/CEO - Ames S. Early 4. Have ,you had mere than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Co~nissions, Con~nittees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No × If yes, please indicate person(s) I~j~n~ ~n] o:ner court=y, c~y and county, city, municipality, district or other [.poli~al subdivision, or any other group or :ombin~tio~c~ing as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)/ 7 ] 7/ F7Y /? ~]gn~ture of applicant/date Jeff Bills, Administrator WPC 0701P S_crip~s Memorial Hospital, Chula Vista A-1lO Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Paiomar Trolley Center Draft Environmental Imoact A. BACKGROUND In July of 1989 an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed and certified for the Palomar Trolley Center as it was originally proposed. At that time, Pacific Scene proposed a community shopping center incorporating a total of 127,365 gross square feet of building space on 12.2 acres. The project required a General Plan Amendment and a rezone of the property from "Research and Limited Industrial" to "Mercantile and Office Commercial". An agreement between the Chum Vista Redevelopment Agency and Pacific Scene for the development of an additional 6 acres of property directly adjacent to the south and east of the original project site requires that a new EIR be prepared for the expanded project. The original GPA and rezone for the 12.2 acre site were approved by the City Council under the condition that Pacific Scene would not go forward with the project until an expanded project consisting of an 18.2 acre site was evaluated. The City's desire for the expanded project was to 1) provide for comprehensive planning and development of the 18.2 acres site and 2) to facilitate the creation of a community-serving retail center that will maximize opportunities for the well-designed inclusion of high sales tax generating users. The EIR now before you for public comment addresses the newly proposed Palomar Trolley Center which proposes a commercial shopping center containing 198,200 gross square feet of building space on 18.2 acres. The additional property proposed for development will require a GPA and a rezone similar to the original project for 3 of the 6 acres. The existing uses currently located on the project site which include several commercial uses, a church, two single-family dwellings and one multi-family residence, would be removed prior to development of the proposed shopping center. The Palomar Trolley Center Draft E1R was circulated through the State Clearinghouse for a 45-day public review period starting on September 16, 1991 and ending on October 30, 1991. The City of Chula Vista public review period concludes on November 6, 1991 with the close of the Planning Commission public hearing to receive comments on the EIR from the public. According to legislation which became effective January 1, 1990, the State review of environmental documents must conclude prior to local review periods. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 2 Discretionary actions necessary for project development include the approval of a General Plan Amendment and rezone, Montgomery Specific Plan Amendment, Owner Participation Agreement, Tentative Map, Design Review Application and a Street Vacation. Four letters of comments have been received on the Draft EIR from the Chula Vista Elementary School District, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), Dorothy E. Greene and Robert Leiter, Planning Director (included in attachments) as of October 29, 1991. It is anticipated that additional comment letters will be forthcoming and these will be included in the Final EIR along with all comments received at the Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Southwest Project Area Committee considered the Draft EIR on October 7, 1991. They made the following comments which will be included and responded to in the Final EIR: 1. The Final EIR should address the EMR issue in as objective a manner as possible and should not conclude that there is a significant impact from the EMR without clear evidence to that fact. 2. The Draft EIR concludes that no additional Police and Fire personnel are needed to service the project. The Final EIR should address clearly the impact to Police and Fire services that the project will result in by taking Police and Fire services away from the residential population. 3. The Final EIR should not consider impacts mitigated if exactions paid to mitigate impacts (i.e. parks, community facilities, etc.) are used to replace funds that would otherwise be provided for park and recreation opportunities in the project The Montgomery Planning Committee considered the Draft EIR on october 16, 1991. They made the following comments which will be included and responded to in the Final EIR: 1. The Planning Committee duplicates and supports the comments made on the document by the Southwest Project Area Committee. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 3 2. The Committee raised concerns about the effects of the project on the Montgomery arm's existing vacancy problem, and in particular, what threshold standard is used to determine if the impact is significant, and if in fact the mitigation will reduce the impact to less than significant. The Resoume Conservation Commission (RCC) considered the Draft EIR on October 21, 1991. They made the following comments which will be included and responded to in the Final EIR: 1. The project should be limited to no more than two fast food pads. 2. The Montgomery Planning Group should have the opportunity to review the design of the project. 3. The project should provide an internal vehicular connection from its parking lot to the existing trolley station parking lot. 4. The Final EIR should include mitigations devised to mitigate for a limited supply of water versus just paying fees to mitigate the impact. 5. It does not make sense for water districts to charge more for less usage, ask for voluntary reductions, and still approve a project that will consume more water. 6. The findings of the Socioeconomic section were questioned. B. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: Conduct the public heating on the Draft EIR (90-07), close the public review period, and give staff the desired direction for preparation of the Final EIR. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 4 C. ANALYSIS 1. ~ Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable The expanded project is inconsistent with the existing industrial zoning and designations for three acres. Mitigation - The developer shall submit a General Plan Amendment changing land use designations of 2.0 acres of research and limited industrial and 1.0 acre of institutional to 3.0 acres of "Mercantile and Office Commercial"; the developer shall also submit a rezone for 3.0 acres of land zoned as "Limited Industrial" (I-L-P) to "Central- Commercial" (C-C-P). 2. Ener~ Impact Summary: Not Significant The proposed project will increase electricity consumption 132.8% and natural gas consumption 157.1% above that consumed by existing on-site development. However, energy consumption for the proposed project is less than what would occur under development of the project site according to the Montgomery Specific Plan. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant because SDG&E has the necessary facilities to provide the service. Mitigation - Although the impact is not significant, the following mitigation is recommended to further reduce energy consumption within the project: The developer shall implement energy conservation measures into construction and adhere to Energy Commission standards in construction. 3. Utilities Impact Summary: Significant, mitigable The proposed project will use 257% more water, generate 303% more sewage and 191.8% more solid waste than the existing development. However, development in conformance with the Montgomery Specific Plan would use an additional 118.2% of water and generate an additional 5 % more sewage and an additional 60 % more solid waste than the proposed project. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 5 Mitigation - Although the impact is not significant, the following mitigations are recommended to further reduce energy consumption within the project: a) The developer shall implement project water conservation measures, source control devices at food processing businesses and a recycling program; b) The project shall adhere to State Energy Commission standards in all new construction. c) Developer shall pay fees to mitigate water consumption impacts in accordance with whatever program is in effect at the time building permits are issued. 4. ~ Ixnpact Snmmary: Significant, mitigable Impacts - a. Roadway segments within the study area, including Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard and Orange Avenue, will be impacted by the proposed project. b. Some intersections within the study area will experience lower levels of service, however, they will not be reduced to below acceptable levels of service. c. Three intersections including Project EntrancedPalomar Street, Broadway/Palomar Street and Broadway/Main Street will operate below accepted levels of service without mitigation. Mitigation -a. Widen Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard and Orange Avenue to a six-lane major street to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. b. Install a traffic signal at the proposed intersection of Palomar Street/project entrance and construct geometric improvements to the intersection. c. Improve the intersection of Palomar Street/Broadway with new lane geometrics. d. Improve the intersection of Palomar Street/Trolley Station entrance with new lane geometrics. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 6 e. Improve the intersection of Main Street/Broadway with new lane geometrics. f. Various on-site internal circulation improvements and ingress and egress restrictions such as limited turning movements, vehicular access between the MTDB Trolley Station and the proposed project, etc. are recommended; however, they are not necessary to mitigate traffic impacts. 5. Communltv Infrastructure Impact Summary: Significant, mitigable Additional school children could be generated by the project and would enter schools currently overcrowded because of a lack of classroom space. Mitigation - The developer will be required to pay school fees to off-set costs or be annexed to CDF//5 to allow use of Mello Roos financing. 6. ~ Impact Snmmary: Significant, mitigable Increased runoff from the project site will increase flows to off-site drainage facilities by approximately 6%. Mitigation - The developer will be responsible for off-site drainage improvements, if necessary, based on the amount of additional flows generated by the project. The project shall incorporate into the site design any of the flow reduction measures outlined in the Drainage Study which are feasible, if such flow reductions are deemed necessary by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department. 7. ~ Impact Summary: Significant, mitigable The vacancy rate of neighborhood-serving commercial retail may be increased from 6.5 % to 13.1% by adding the 87,400 square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial retail to the market area as proposed by the project. (The remaining 110,800 square feet of the project will be regional-draw retail.) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 7 Mitigation - Potentially adverse impacts can be mitigated by adherence to the Semi Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (SENA) between by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and the developer. The SENA contains a clause restricting the developer from leasing or selling to tenants or purchasers greater than 15,000 square feet of floor area until the Redevelopment Agency has approved the tenant. The Redevelopment Agency will ensure by the clause that the impact on neighborhood-serving retail commercial is minimized. In addition, on-going Redevelopment Agency activities will work to revitalize existing shopping centers within the Redevelopment Area boundaries that may be negatively impacted. It should be noted that the EIR refers to a Disposition and Development Agreement rather than a SENA. This change will be reflected in the final EIR. 8. ~0mmnnit¥ Infrastructure I~npact Summary: Less than Significant. Implementation of the proposed project will increase demand for public services such as Fire/EMS, police protection, and recreational facilities within the project area. The level of service provided by the City will adhere to the goals and policies outlined within the City's Threshold/Standards Policy to reduce impacts to these areas. The Community Infrastructure section includes several categories. Fire/Emergency Medical Services which is considered to be an adverse but not significant impact; Police Protection is adverse but not significant; Schools which are addressed above as a significant impact and Recreation which is an adverse but not significant impact. 9. ~ Impact Snmmary: Adverse, less than significant Persons will be exposed to low-level soil contamination on-site that has occurred from a variety of hazardous materials, and possibly to above ambient levels of electromagnetic radiation for short time periods from energy transmission lines. Mitigation- a) The developer shall remove underground tanks, perform soil testing for several possible contaminants, and remove any contaminated soil from the site as required; b) Construction of the linear park shall be delayed until significance of EMR exposure can be determined from the EPA report. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 8 10. ~ Impact Summary: Adverse, less than significant Existing viewshed will be changed from vacant land to a large commercial center. Mitigation- All development guidelines outlined in the planning concepts for the Palomar Trolley Center shall be implemented along with applicable policies contained in the Montgomery Specific Plan. 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 alternatives capable of eliminating any significant, adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of less than significant, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project alternatives, or would be more costly." NO Pro_iect/No Development No changes to the existing land use would occur with this alternative. The existing uses will remain and no improvements will be done. Reduced Commercial Develonment This alternative assumes a 10% reduction in the amount of commercial development. Impacts would not be significantly reduced by this alternative. A 10% reduction in drainage would not reduce site run off. The Land Use impact would remain significant and still require a General Plan amendment and a rezone. The 10% reduction to energy consumption and utilities would not represent a substantial reduction to impacts. Traffic would be decreased by approximately 1,000 trips per day, which would reduce impacts to the surrounding circulation system. The Human Health impact would remain substantially the same even with the 10% reduction. Although a 10% reduction in the amount of commercial development may reduce the amount of impact, the reduction is not considered substantial. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 9 Alternative Access Alternative This alternative would provide the project site with an alternate access route using Iayken Way which is located just south of the project site. It would provide an additional access point for vehicles, instead of being restricted to bicycle and pedestrian traffic as called for by the current design. This alternative would have land use impacts, the extent of which can not be determined at this time. A major redesign would be necessary to remove the pedestrian plaza and modify the main entrance to provide for a throughway. The alternative would equate to only minor reductions to traffic related impacts. All other impacts would remain similar to those of the proposed project. The alternative access alternative could result in conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles within the shopping center and conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists using the linear park. Extending Jayken Way through the project would expose beth pedestrians and bicyclists to increased safety haTards from cars using the roadway. Residential Development Alternative This alternative would develop the site with high density residential uses instead of the proposed commercial retail center. The basis for this alternative is a report recently released by the State of California to bring attention to local policy boards of the need for housing located next to rail transit lines. It is difficult to compare this alternative which has no conceptual plan with the proposed project. Even if it is assumed that a residential project would be allowed to cover approximately 50% of the site, with the rest of the site being devoted to parking, open space, walk ways, etc., it is impossible to determine if there would be an increase or decrease of drainage impacts without a detailed drainage study. Land Use impacts would be similar since a General Plan Amendment and rezone would still be necessary. Impacts to energy and utilities would be about the same. Although a residential project would use less electricity, gas and produce less liquid water, it would require more water and produce more solid waste than the proposed project. Traffic impacts would be less due to the reduced traffic that would be generated by a residential development as opposed to a commercial development. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 10 A large number of high density projects are already developed in the immediate area that could provide easy access to the Trolley. Although development of the site with a residential use would provide greater access to public transportation by a larger number of people, such a development would not meet the project's objectives. When compared with the proposed project, a residential alternative would probably result in a similar level of overall environmental impacts. Three alternative sites for the project were analyzed in the Draft EIR. There is one site located in the City of National City, and two sites located in the City of Chula Vista. Alternative Site #1 is located in the southwestern portion of the City of National City west of Interstate 5 off the 24th Street exit. It consists of vacant land which is west of and directly adjacent to a wetland area. The site is designated Commercial-Tourist and lies within the City of National City's Coastal Zone. Drainage impacts would be similar to the proposed project site. Land Use impacts would be the same or greater. A General Plan Amendment and rezone to commercial shopping center would be needed as well as an amendment to the Local Coastal Plan since the site is in the City's Coastal Zone. The site has close proximity to the Sweetwater River and therefore impacts would result from the location of the shopping center in close proximity to sensitive wetlands. Impacts to energy and utilities would remain the same. Transportation impacts would be similar to or greater for this alternative site. The potential impacts to human health would be alleviated since there are no EMR issues associated with this site. Pedestrians would have to cross both a freeway off-ramp and on-ramp to use the trolley, thus increasing safety risks to trolley users. Alternative Site//2 is located within the southern portion of the City of Chula Vista just east of Interstate 805 and south of Otay Valley Road. It consists of open space and vacant land and is within Chula Vista's Eastern Territories. Access is provided by Interstate 805 and Otay Valley Road. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page i1 The impacts to land use and transportation would be similar, although the circulation system under the alternative would be better able to handle project related traffic. All other impacts would also remain similar to those of the proposed project. This alternative is not near the trolley system and therefore would not meet one project objective of providing shopping near the trolley. Alternative Site #3 is located within the southeastern portion of the City of Chula Vista, directly south of Telegraph Canyon Road and directly east of future State Route 125. It is located within Chula Vista's Eastern Territories and is designated as Retail Commercial in the Chula Vista General Plan. Access would be provided by Telegraph Canyon Road off of SR 125. Impacts to drainage will be reduced because the drainage system being put into place as development occurs will be better able to handle on and off-site drainage requirements. Land use impacts will be eliminated because of the alternative site's commercial designation. As such, no GPA or rezone would be required prior to development of the site. Impacts to transportation would be reduced by the new circulation system being constructed, as development of this area occurs. This site does not meet project objectives of providing easy, convenient access to the trolley system, providing complete planning for the entire project area and providing the Montgomery Planning area with a revenue generating commercial center. E. CONCLUSION The proposed Palomar Trolley Center will result in significant impacts, all of which can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Project alternatives were analyzed, and although the "No Project" and the "Reduced Project" Alternative are considered to be environmentally superior to the proposed project, project objectives could not be met with either alternative, and, therefore are not determined to be more appropriate alternatives than the proposed project. October 30, 1991 TO: Chula vista Planning Commission ~ VIA: Robert Leiter, Director of Planning /t'- FROM: Gordon Howard, Principal Planner'S. SUBJECT: PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Upon review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Palomar Trolley Center, we have become aware of the need for additional clarification regarding the relationship of this project to the adjacent corridor owned by San Diego Gas & Electric and used for their high power transmission lines. The corridor is designated as Open Space in the Montgomery Specific Plan, but is also designated as a Special Study Area, in order to reevaluate the appropriateness of using this land for park purposes vs. alternative uses as may be proposed by San Diego Gas & Electric. In order to resolve this outstanding issue, the Planning Department will be undertaking a special study of the San Diego Gas & Electric corridor. The study will reevaluate the land use designations for the San Diego Gas & Electric corridor through the Montgomery community, taking into account land use compatibility, park and open space needs of the Montgomery Community, and environmental concerns. Given the preliminary nature of the San Diego Gas & Electric corridor special study, several statements in the Palomar Trolley Center Draft Environmental Impact Report require clarification. Language on Pages 2-1, 3-1, 5.5-7, and Figure 5.8, all state that a linear park may be built in conjunction with this project within the SDG&E corridor just south of the project site. However, since the special study of the corridor has yet to commence, consideration of a linear park on this property is premature. The ultimate use of this property will not be known until the completion of the special study for the SDG&E corridor, which will occur subsequent to consideration of the Palomar Trolley Center project for approval. Specific mitigation measures on Page 5.5-10 call for development of the linear park on the SDG&E property as a mitigation for recreation impacts. These mitigation measures are premature, prior to completion of the special study. The Planning Department recommends that these clarifications be included within the Final EIR.  ~ .DISTRICT CHULA VL A I~I~EMENTARY SCHO~ 84 EAST 'J" STREET ° CHULA VIST~ CALIFORNIA 91910 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN IND~IDUAL OF GREAT WORTH ~ ~ ~ ~o/,/~ RECEIVED BOARD OF E~CATION JOSEPH D+ CU~INGS, ~.D. LARRYCUNNIN~AM SEP ~ ~ ~,~-, ~ARON GILES PATRICK A. JUDO GREGR.~N~VAL September 24, 1991 PLANN/~C SUPERI~EN~NT ~HNF. VUGR~,Ph.D. MS. Marilyn Ponseggi Environmental Section City of Chula vista 2?6 Fourth ~venue Chu[a vista, C~ 919~0 t~J~=Draft E[R - Paloma~ T~olley Cen~e~ ~IR-gl-02 / FB-064 / DP-80? Dear Ms. Fonseggi= Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Palomar Trolley Center. The Draft EIR states that schools serving this project are currently overcrowded and recommends either payment of impact fees or annexation to a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. I want to clarify that payment of impact fees does not mean developer impact fees allowed under current State law, but rather full cost mitigation. This, or participation in a Mello-Roos District, either by payment of the present value of the 25 year tax, or annual payments for the taxing period, would adequately mitigate impacts to school facilities and reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. I would appreciate this clarification being made in the report and also in the Mitigating Monitoring Section. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of ~lanning KS:dp 1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101-7490 ~A19) 231-1466 X (619) 234-3407 October 1, 1991 RECEIVED T 461.6 OCT 03 ~991 Ms. Maryann Hiller PLANNING Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula vista P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 91912 Dear Hs. Hiller: Subject: DEVELOPHENT OF THE PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Development of the Palomar Trolley Center. We have reviewed this document as it relates to the nearby Palomar Trolley Station and offer the following comments. The Hetropolitan Transit Development Board (HTDB) concurs with the findings on Page 10-1 that the existing Trolley Station traffic signal must be retained in its current location, and another traffic signal should be placed mid-point between the Trolley Station signal and the Broadway signal on Palomar Street for use by the Palomar Trolley Center Project. MTDB prefers that the Palomar Trolley Center have a signal separate from the existing signal for the Trolley Station. In the past, HTDB has suggested that the project include bringing retail establishments on to the property of the Trolley Station. In reviewing the DEIR, it was not apparent this suggestion was included in the design. We will appreciate knowing how this can be done. Again, thank you for this opportunity for review and comment. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 231-1466. Sincerely, Director of Planning and Operations WL:pad:paw L-MILLER.PAD Member Agencies: City of C hula Vista C~ty of Coronado Cily ol El Cajon City of Impenal Beach. City of La Mesa City of Lemon GrOYer City of National City. City of Poway. City of San Diego City of Santee. County of San Diego State of Ca~ifor nia Subsid,aryCorporations: ~ San DiegoTransitCorporat,on. ~.~iSanDiegoTrolley. inc. ancl L~SanDieg°&ArizOnaEasternRailwayc°mpany City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-061 request to establish a 12-bed residential treatment facility for recoverinq alcoholics at 3 North Second Avenue - MAAc Project A. BACKGROUND The proposal is to establish a 12-bed residential treatment facility for recovering male Latino alcoholics. The program, referred to as Nosotros, would occupy the southerly portion of the former Vista Hill/Southwood psychiatric facility site at 3 North Second Avenue in the R-3 zone. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-92-05, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-05. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-05. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-92-06 subject to the following conditions: 1. This permit shall not become effective, nor shall any improvements or operations associated herewith be commenced until the unauthorized use of the northerly portion of the facility has cased and the residents have been vacated from those premises. Reestablishment of any unauthorized use of the northerly building and facilities shall render this permit null and void. 2. The approval of this permit shall in no way be seen as an endorsement or precedent for establishing the same or a similar type of use on the northerly portion of the property. The approval of this permit may in fact complicate any proposal for the use of the northerly portion of the property because of issues regarding compatibility and coordination of land uses, and the use and control of the facilities. 3. A plan shall be submitted and implemented for the development and screening of the outdoor sitting area subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall include an appropriate surface material for the area as well as fencing and/or landscaping so as to fully screen the area from the street and from surrounding residences. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 2 4. The mobile trailer units are hereby authorized for a period of two years from the date this permit is approved by the City Council. The trailers shall thereafter be removed. 5. The parking spaces associated with this proposal shall be restriped in accordance with City standards. 6. Residents shall not be allowed to loiter off-site or in the front yard or adjoining parking areas. Outside activities shall be restricted to the designated outside sitting area. 7. Private transportation shall be provided by the facility to supplement public transportation and facilitate resident access to commercial services and public facilities. 8. The use shall comply with the information outlined in the application and supplemental materials submitted by the applicant, including numbers of residents and staff, programs, supervision, and so on. Failure to comply with these parameters or the conditions of approval, complaints from surrounding residents, or failure to properly maintain the building or grounds shall constitute grounds for review and possible revocation of this permit. 9. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance written notice to the permittee and after the City has given to the permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. C. DISCUSSION Ad.~acent zoninq and land use North A KOA Kampground South R-1 Single family East A KOA Kampground West R-l, R-3-P-20 Single & Multiple family Existinq site characteristics The 4.8 acre site is situated on a ridge line which drops off sharply to the east, down to the KOA Kampground, and falls more gently to the west and north, down to North Second Avenue. The property contains two main buildings, several accessory buildings, and approximately 54 on-site parking spaces (much of the parking space striping has faded). Access is provided by two driveways off North Second Avenue. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 3 Proposed use The proposal is to establish the Nosotros program on the southerly portion of the property. This would include the smaller of the two main structures, three adjacent, attached mobile trailer units, and 30 off-street parking spaces. The "front yard" area directly to the south of the permanent structure would serve as an outdoor sitting area with picnic benches on a sand surface and perimeter planter boxes. The main structure would contain group bedrooms for the 12 residents, plus kitchen and dining facilities, a living room area, reception and office areas, and quarters for the night manager. The adjacent mobile trailer units would serve as a training and learning center, with study, office and reception areas. The program is federally-funded, and participation is voluntary on the part of the residents. If able, the residents are expected to pay $250 per month toward their room and board. All residents are involved in on- and off-site AA programs, as well as other on-site workshops and group counseling. Residents are also responsible for house chores and maintenance of the grounds {see attached sample schedule of daily activities}. The estimated stay is between three months and one year. Supervision is provided 24 hours-a-day, with two trained staff during the day and one night manager. The residents are expected to abide by the daily schedule and are responsible for clearing with the staff their whereabouts and schedule for off-site activities. They sign an agreement to abide by the rules, and can be evicted for a breach of the rules even if the infraction is unrelated to the use of alcohol. The residents are usually not employed and generally do not own a vehicle. They must at least have been "clean and sober" for 72 hours prior to acceptance into the program, and are restricted -- no passes or visitors -- for the first 30 days of their stay. As recovery progresses, the intent is to increase their independence, which could include off-site training and job skills programs, and eventually regular, permanent employment. D. ANALYSIS The facility has been used exclusively in the past as a 60-bed residential treatment facility for emotionally disturbed youngsters -- first by Vista Hill and most recently by Southwood Psychiatric. In February of this year, Southwood vacated the site and consolidated operations at their Third Avenue facility. Several organizations have contacted the City regarding the use of the property for various group residential treatment programs. The MAAC Program has been the only organization to contact the City which is interested in using only a portion rather than the entire facility. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 4 The property owner, Mr. Seymour Reichbart, is presently using the northerly portion of the property, including the larger of the two main buildings, to house low income individuals and families. Mr. Reichbart has been informed that this or any use of the property other than psychiatric care for emotionally disturbed youngsters is a violation of the Code without proper permits and clearances. This would include conversion to multiple family use under the present R-3 zone, which would require the submission of plans to determine compliance with building and fire codes and applicable R-3 standards for parking, private and common open space, and so on. Mr. Reichbart, however, has refused to cease operations and the matter has been turned over to Code Enforcement (please see attached correspondence). Also, with respect to the general status of the property, on August 9, 1991, the City Council, upon recommendation of staff, deferred action on a request for a waiver of fees from Abundant Life Counseling (a youth home), which is another of the programs interested in the site. The basis for staff's recommendation and Council's action is that the City should not subsidize the processing of more than one application for the property at any one time. Abundant Life was informed that they could combine with MAAC in a single, coordinated proposal, but they indicated that they did not feel their program was compatible with MAAC's. They have also stated that should the MAAC application be denied, they will file an application for use of the entire property. The MAAC Nosotros program, when viewed alone, would appear to represent a supportable use of the property. It is consistent with the historical use of the site for group residential treatment, and the indoor living space and associated parking should be more than adequate to serve the proposed population of 12 residents. The area proposed to meet the need for outdoor living space, however, is presently a sand box with a play structure located in a portion of the front yard. This area should be properly developed with a durable and convenient surface and fully screened from public view in order to provide privacy for the residents and to deemphasize the institutional nature of use. A concern of staff is with the potential for off-site conflicts, either real or perceived, with the surrounding residents. Up until now the facility has served young people under the strict control and supervision of the facility's staff. The Nosotros program, on the other hand, would serve an adult population whose off-site activities are apparently cleared but not directly controlled by the staff. Perhaps one of the greatest concerns of neighbors in such instances is that the facility residents will wander aimlessly and/or loiter in their neighborhoods. This should be strictly prohibited. Also, since the property is some distance from commercial services and public facilities, the facility should provide its own private transportation, both for the convenience of the residents, and to further avoid potential conflicts with the neighbors. There is a Chula Vista Transit stop at the KOA Kampground. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 5 The greatest concern of staff is with authorizing MAAC to occupy only a portion of the property without first knowing the eventual use for the balance of the site. This not only raises issues of compatibility and coordination of uses/activities, but also the issue accountability and control over the property, particularly in light of the property owner's present position with respect to on-going violations on the site. At a minimum, the MAAC program should not be allowed to begin operations until the property owner complies with the Code and ceases operations on the northerly portion of the property. An additional issue is the continued use of the three mobile trailer units. These were authorized for temporary use by variance PCV-76-13, which expired on July 26, 1981, although the trailers were never removed. A condition has been recommended which would allow an additional two years of temporary use, at which time they would have to be removed. On balance, we believe the proposal is supportable. The physical facilities are or can be made adequate to accommodate the use. Also, conditions have been recommended which address the issue of the illegal use of the northerly portion of the property, and any real or perceived concerns or adverse impacts on the neighborhood. As of October 30, 1991, the City had received three letters of support for the proposal and five letters of opposition or concern (please see attached). The Building Department reports that the following will be required in conjunction with the application for building permit: 1. Physically impaired access at primary entrances of structure and mobilehome. 2. Physically challenged bathrooms at both sites. 3. Building permits required for all remodeling. Needs to submit floor plans with occupancy classification. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The Nosotros program will provide a desirable service by offering shelter, food, counseling and training for recovering alcoholics attempting to reestablish themselves as responsible, contributing members of society. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 6, 1991 Page 6 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The program will be established on a site which has served as a group residential treatment facility for many years. Conditions have been imposed to address the potential conflicts with surrounding residents presented by this program which may not have existed with the prior youth psychiatric programs. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. Compliance with all applicable conditions, codes and regulations shall be required prior to occupancy of the property. Specifically, a condition has been imposed that requires abatement of the present unauthorized use of the northerly portion of the property prior to this permit becoming effective. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The granting of this permit as conditioned is consistent with City policies for accommodating a full range of services and facilities for the benefit of its residents. WPC 9919P/2652P MAAC ECT A MULTI-PURPO~ Health Services Division 4~ ~i. Ave., Suite 101, Cllula Vista, CA 9~0100 (619) 4~..~gl71 DATE: August 16, 1991 FROM: bt~dA~-~a~c~m, Division Director SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit "Nnsotros" Men's Recovery Home Nesotres will be a 12 bed ~ocial Model Residential Facility for men with alcohol/drug problems. Residents wRl participate in a sober, drug free and supportive enviremant for an estimated range of stay between three months to one year. With 24 hoar staff supervision, residents will jointly participate in daily scheduled activities to include: o Group, individual and family sessions. o 12 step A.A. meetings (with some open to community participation). o Home and property maintenance ns needed. Residents who are employed, em-oiled in school or job training would, in most instances rely upon public transportation. Daily activities normally would begin at 6:00 A.M. and conclude with curfew and "lights out" at 11:00 P.M.. Residents who are unable to be on lmSS for the weekends may have visitors who are subject to the same regulations to insure an alcohol and drug free sober environment. A sample daily schedule is attached for your information. MG/2g SUPPORTED IN PART BY UNITED WAY AND COUNTY CAP ~ NOSOTROS SUMMARY Organization: MAAC PROJECT Contact Person: M .aritza Garcia Program Name: Nosotros Program Operation: 12 Bed Social Model Residential Program for Latinos with alcohol/drug problems (male facility). Program Services: Group, Individual and Family Sessions conducted to promote self assessment pertaining to the role of alcohol/drug in 12 Step Program. Proffram Duration: Estimated range of stay is between three months to one year. Supervision: 24 hour a day staff supervision. Env/ronment: Sober, Dru~-Free, supportive home-like, quiet. Intent: Program's intent is to blend into the commun/ty striving to not only to not disrupt, but to enhance it's appearance, composition and activities. DAILY SCHEDULE TIME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 6:00 AI~I AWAKEN AWAKEN AWAKEN AWAKEN AWAKEN 7:00 MEDITATION MEDITATION MEDITATION MEDITATION MEDITATIO CLEAN_UP CLEAN - UP CLEAN- UP CLEAN - UP CLEAN - UI 8:00 BREAKFAST BREAKFAST BREAKFAST BREAKFAST BREAKFAST 9:00 EXERCISE HEALTH CLASS EXERCISE OPEN CLASS EXERCISE 10:00 HOUSE TO 10:30 TO 10:30 HOUSE MGMT. · ~' MGMT. 11:00 EAT EARLY GROUP EAT EARLI BE READY AT DISCUSSION 12 STEP STUDY BE H~ADY 12:00 11:30 AM AT 11:30 A1 A.A. OUTSIDE LUNCH LUNCH LUNCH MEETING A.A. MEETING 1:00 PM BIG BOOK ENGLISH TUTOR ALCOHOL ED. ENGLISH TUTOR 2:00 STUDY QUIETTIME I.R.P. GROUP I.R.P. GROUP BIG BOOK STUE 3:00 ! PEER GROUP ~· ~ F 4:oo · ~. QUIET TIME NEWS & CURRENT QUIET TIME CURREN~ 5:00 EVENTS EVEN'Fi, DlNNER DINNER DINNER 5:30 PM DINNER - DINNER 6:00 HOUSF MGMT. RESIDENT WALK WALK PEER GROUP COU ~ICIL ~· 7:00 MEN'S CLOSED MEN'S A.A.' MEETING CLOSED ¢ 4 ~ SPANISH MEET( 8:00 NOSOTROS NOSOTROS TRAD. I OPEN A.A. A.A. 9:00 MEN'S A.A. MEETING · ~ MEETING MEETING NOSOTROS LIGHTS OUT LIGHTS OUT LIGHTS OUT LIGHTS OUT LIGHTS OUT 10:00PM *SATURDAY & SUNDAY ARE FREE DAYS***** DO YOUR INDIVIDUAL CHORES'.:'.'.:':"..' MAAC PROJECT NOSOTROS Culturally-Specific Men's Recovery Home 3 North Second Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 MAAC Pro,act's approach to serving Latinos is based on the recognition that a culture! gap exists between Latino clients and traditional Anglo programs -- a gap of language. lifestyle, attitude, and va)uss. "Latino specific' involves addressing abstract issues such as fsmi)fa~ acculturation differences as well as addressing details in the proposed men's residence such as appropriate food, room decor, recreational activities, and requirements of persona) modesty. The Social Model Principles practiced by the agency state that staff not be licensed, and that Participant oppor- tunities for experiential learning as well es opportunities to both give and receive he)p for recovery are readily available regardless of the length of their stay. The princip)es also dictate that the authority for recovery is p)aced on the experience of recovering participants, rather than on professional training or knowledge of staff. I. Attitudes: o The MAAC PROJECT is f{nancia~ly, attttudinally and programmatically available and accessible to a diverse end inclusive population. o The MAAC PROJECT is seen as part of a community and reflects the character and personality of the particular community it is located in, as well as the personality of the staff and participants. "o In a social model recovery =rogram, everyone is seen as equally Important for earn other's recovery process, off~Ing mutual strength, sup=orr, and hope to each other. Everyone is seen as an integra] part of the whole. o Each relationship in a socks' mode) recovery program is seen as e mutual le~rnin~ -e'ationshtp. Both the staff and participants see that t~e home is e piece for improving their lives; o+'e-f~g opportunities for growth and support. Everyone, regardless of the particular role they play !~ the program, recognizes that each person associate= ~ith the program is both a teacher and a student. 'NO$OTROS" Recovery Home for Latfnos Social Model Concept o The staff share their knowledge and personal experience openly with participants, recognizing that self- disclosure is an important component of a peer relationship. The program promotes a sense of joint staff/participant ownership of the home. The staff and participants work together as a team, creating a peer camaraderie among each other-- a fellowship of people working together. The staff set the tone for the home, exemplifying behavior and attitudes which promote a family-oriented, homelike environment, a peer relationship between the staff and participants, a teamwork relationship between staff and participants, and a role model for sober living. The program has a self-help and self-responsibility orientation engendered through a peer support system. Each staff and participant assumes responsibility for her or his own recovery process. Responsibility for recovery rests with each individual. Staff share their own experience as peers and serve as role models for all participants. This encourages participants to recognize the role which each plays in one another's recovery. The program has rules, guidelines, and norms that are c)early communicated and known by all participants, adapted from the general norms of the community served by the program, exemplified by all staff and participants in designing their own recovery program. The staff have knowledge and understanding of the program's objectives and assume responsibility for their role in meeting the objectives. The program creates an environment that empowers participants to take responsibility for themselves. The staff see their role as =hat of facilitating an environment of love, care, respect, and support. The staff encourage participants to establish relationships with other oarticipants, the staff, and the p~ogram as a whole that will support their recovery process. "NOSOTROS' Recovery Home for Latinos Social Model Concept o Sobriety is the norm of the program. The home has firm and consistent rules that there will be no alcohol or drug use or violent or abusive behavior. o Incidents in which rules or norms have been broken shall be handled in a manner that communicates care and respect and maintains the dignity of all concerned. Other daily activitfes outside the home include: Employment - Clients wit! be going to their regularly scheduled job in the community. b.School - Some clients will be attending school and training programs. C. Other outside activities as required in their normal daily personal lives. RECEIVED TO: DICK FOST'P..R, SENTOR CODE ENFORCRMENT OZZTC .i -LANNING City of Chula Vista FROM:S.M.REICHBART, RE: 3 North ~2nd Ave. Understanding the incredible influence which my neighbors have over the:local government, I will accept the mis- quoting of my letter to Ken Lee, July 27,1991 as simple misunderstanding. My letter, (a copy enclosed) states clearly, that I will house some overflow, for the time being, to protect the site from vandals. It says nothing about "homeless" nor my misquoting friend,does it say that it will be used as a hometel. On the contrary...it%CLEARLY STATES THE ALL WHO LIVE THERE WILL LIVE TOTALLY INDEPENDENT WITH THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS. There is no desk clerk and all who live there,about 15-18 currently, understand that they will leave when the site is leased to another organization. We are doing extensive repairs to the buildings and trying to upgrade the grounds. We will continue to do what R-3 allows me to do. I will continue to house people there and if necessary change the format to meet any code re- quirements necessary, even to the point of offering free housing, independently, to all who wish to help me rebuild this site. If the 2nd Ave. Group and the KOA wish to turn 3 No 2nd into a permanent historical or park location, I will be happy to discuss this possibility. But if they think they can influence me to vacate without a legal fight~ they are mistaken. Also, I want to see the code on paper which says that I can not occupy real estate which I pay taxes for ,(10,000.per year) have not built on, torn down or have made any changes without proper permits. My dedication is to house low income individuals and fam- ilies. If the site has a better and higher use through a supervised organization, which I have offered for"cost only" than so be it...however if proper organizations are refused a C.U.P. FOR THE OBVIOUS REASONS, then I will do whatever is necessary to cover my expenses. I will not lose 3 No. 2nd Ave. no matter ~b~t the legal costs. SMR CHULA VISTA BUILDING AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION September 16, 1991 Seymour M. Reichbart 5940 Bounty Street San Diego, CA 92120 RE: 3 NORTH SECOND AVENUE, CHUI~ VISTA, CA 91910 In your recent letter to the City of Chula Vista, Planning Department, you stated that the above referenced facility is being used as a "Hometel" - housing for the homeless. This use requires a Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) as does any use of this property. Chula Vista Municipal Code requires that you discontinue any use of this property until you receive proper permit. If you need further assistance or information, please do not hesitate to contact the. undersigned. KENNETH G. LARSEN, C.B.O. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND HOUSING DICK FOSTEI~/ SENIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DF:yu 276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010/(619) 691-5280 INFORMATION ITEM Date: September 6, 1991 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Via: John Goss, City Manager From: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning f~/'~ Subject: Status of 3 North Second Avenue The former Vista Hill psychia~c facility at 3 North Second Avenue was most recently occupied by the Southwood psychiatric facility. Southwond vacated the property and consolidated operations at their Third Avenue facility in February of this year. Sinc~ that time, the Planning Department has received inquiries from several different social programs interested in the Second Avenue site. Because of the number of inquiries and the apparent conflicting information staff was receiving regarding the property owner's commitment to one group or another, staff requested clarification from the owner, Mr. Seymour Reichbart, by letter on July 25, 1991 (see attached). Mr. · Reichbart responded in writing that the MAAC project (recovering alcoholics) had exclusive rights to seek the use of the site at this time (se~ attached). On August 8, 1991, MAAC filed IS and CUP applications for the use of a portion of the facility. (Council approved a fee waiver on ?/16.) The letter from Mr. Reichbart also indicated that he was presently using the property to house certain 'overflow adults from the Sara Frances Hometel,' which is apparently a facility also owned by Mr. Reichbart in the City of San Diego. Since the property is not approved for this or any use other than psychiatric care for mentally/emotionally disturbed youngsters, the Code Enforcement office has initiated action to abate this unauthorized use of the property. On August 9, 1991, the Council, upon recommendation of staff, deferred action on a request for waiver fees from Abundant Life Counseling (youth home), which is another of the programs interested in the Second Avenue site. The basis for staff's recommendation'is that the City should not subsidize the processing of more than one application for the property at one time. Abundant Life was informed that they could combine .with MAAC in a single, combined proposal, but they indicated that they did not feel their program was compalible with MAAC's. BL:SG:vt 5949 ~,~unt-y St. S.D. 92120 · July 27,1991 TO: KENNETH LEE,Planning Dept,City of Chula Vista FROM: S.M.REICHBART RE: 3 North 2nd Ave. Chula Vista I realize that there have been many inquiries about our facility in the past law months. The volume surprised me as the sign in frc,~t of 3 No.2nd is the only adver- tising we have done. At this point, we are ~)t accepting Dffers from any group until THE MA%C PROJECT off the ground. When they have concluded their move into our.facility, we will again, perhaps, 3eek a comparable organization to fill the North portion, of 3 No. 2nd. For the time being, ! will house some overflow adults from the Sara Frances Hometel, who will live totally independent, with individual micros, refrigerators:and TVS. The main purpose is however, to protect the site from transients and ;o. vandals. We are trying to bring che grounds and the buildings to an improved condition. :'. , SMR : :" ' 231 2403 ~ i '~ 239 7272 :t-I,',: 2 ': ' ; ;'ii' : " CHULA VISTA i PLANNING DEPARTK' ENT ~ '" July 25, 19~! " ' "~ :.. j~ ~ Seyatour Reichbarl: - : 5940 Bounty Street San Diego, CA 92120 D~ar ~r. Reichbart; .~ The City of Chula Vista has received several inquiries regarding the property you own at North Second l.venue in the City of Chula Vista for a variety of uses. The lates'~ organizations to contact the City has been the California Mothers/Infant Program, the MAAC Program, and the Abundant Life Coun~?!ing Center. As you are aware, we had a separate meeting with homeowners in the general area discussing the California Mother~/Infant Program status, as well as eome of the details of that pre,ram. With the various inquiries coming in from other organizations, it would be helpful to us if you could fill the City in as soon as possible as to whether or not you're -tying to lease or rent the property out to all of these organizations, or if you're attempting to provide a facility for a multitude of different organizations. I believe it's important at this point for the City to understand your overall intent before we proceed processing any applications to have a better overall understanding of the total use of this piece of property. If you have any quesl:ions, you may cc:,.'act me at 691-5101. ASSxs~an~ uxrec=or ~ ~OURTH AV[/CHULA VISTA CALIfOrNiA 9~9~(6t9) 691-5101 California Legislature Assembly Revenue and Taxation Water, Parks and Wildlife Ways and Means Ways and Means Subcommittee on Resources, Agriculture and the Environment STEVE PEACE Jr, Committee on PrJsorl Construction ASSEMBLYMAN and Operations Chairman: Select Committee on Radioactive Waste Disl)osal and Fusion Technology September 25, 1991 RECEIVED_ .$EP 30 P-.LAHNING To: Chula Vista Planning Commission Chula Vista City Council Re: NOSOTROS Alcohol Recovery Home I am writing to lend my support for the MAAC Project's Nosotros Alcohol Recovery Home. Through the successful operation of Casa de Milagros, a recovery program for women, the MAAC Project has proven itself as a responsive service provider. This agency has consistently demonstrated its ability to meet the needs of its clients in a professional and effective manner. I urge your approval of the MAAC Project's application for the establishment of the Nosotros Alcohol Recovery Home. SP/mz State ofCalifornia - Health and We/f~' ~gi~ncv , DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION 678 Third Avcau¢~ Suite 205 Chu~ V~ta, ~ 91910 Vol~ - (619) 426-8~0 TDD - (619) 422-3~87 O~ber 24, 1991 R~CEIV~D Chula V~ p]...i~g Commission 0C7' Chula Vis~ City Co~cil 276 4th Ave, Chula Vis~, CA 91910 RE: Nosotros Alcohol Recovery Home I am writing to endorse MAAC Project's application to provide alcohol recovery services at Nosotros. MAACProject has been involved in alcohol and drug related services for almost two decades. In addition to providing Drinking Driving Services in San Diego County since the law was implemented in 1978, MAAC has administered a highly successful recovery program for women since 1986 (Casa de Milagros). This agency has consistently demonstrated its ability to be sensitive to the needs of its clients as well as the CO1TU~nity. MAACProject has a proven track record of effectively integrating services such as job placement, housing and trsi-i~g services which would also be available to residents of Nesotros. I would strongly urge you to approve the application of the MAAC Project as it has clearly demonstrated a unique ability to provide meaningful services to a population that all too often does not receive the kind of attention that is required. Sincerely, Jese Quintero:sj Rehabilitation Supervisor TO: CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL RE: NOSOTROS ALCOHOL RECOVERY HOME I am writing to endorse MAAC Project's application to provide alcohol recovery services at Nosotros. MAAC Project has been involved in alcohol and drug related services for almost two decades.. In addition to providing Drinking Driving Services in San Diego County since the law was implemented in 1978, MAAC has administered a highly successful recovery program for women since 1986 (Casa de Milagros). This agency has consistently demonstrated its ability to be sensitive to the needs of its clients as well as the co~nunity. MAAC Project has a proven track record of effectively integrating services such as job placement, housing, and training services which would also be ~available to residents of Nosotros. I would strongly urge you to approve the application of the MAAC Project as it has clearly demonstrated a unique ability to provide meaningfu~ services to a population that all too often does not receive the kind of attention that is required. Sincerely., ~ , ~ I ~ ancy Hi~tchcock, Chairman South Bay Directors Council Kampgrounds Enterprises, Inc. AUG 2 6 19911 1 1 1 NORTH SECOND AVENUE Mr. Douglss D. Reid August 26, 1991 Environmental Review Coordinstor City of Chule Vists PO Box 1087 Chule Vista, CA 91910 RE: Case # IS-92-05 Deer Mr. Reid: This letter addresses eome concerne that we have here et Sen Diego KOA end also concerns expressed by Harriet Acton of 265 Nlxon PL, Chuls Vista, who requested that we write on her behalf since she is out of town at thie time. Our primary concern is centered around the fact that MAAC is proposing to lesse only e small portion of the total facility. This rslsee a number of issues. What, if sny, compatible uses will be found for the rest of the facility? While the MAAC proposal as presented doesn't sound too bad, who will be willing to take over the rest of the facility? Currently, it seems to be used for trsnsient housing. We are very concerned that without e single tenant for the fscility or without s propossl that presents the multiple tenants at one time, there will be e great deal of pressure on the city to accept far less desirable uses for the rest of the fscility. Who will be responsible for the maintenance end upkeep of the grounds and exterior of the buildings, shared facilities such ss irrigation systems and f/re alarms? Mrs. Acton reports that there have been numerous fslee alarms for fire end each time several units respond creating s disturbsnce for the neighborhood end e cost for the city. We hsve experienced flooding problems brought on by faulty irrigation systems. With multiple tensnts we ere concerned about accountability for correcting theme de£ecte. another concern we have is that we already have sn alcohol rahab facility in our neighborhood (South Bey Pioneers). Do we need another? We fesr that we will soon be viewed as e convenient repository for locating socisl rehsbilitetion services. This could have s very negative impact on the stsbility of our neighborhood. The propomal by MAAC im for a group home for '*Latino Nan". Our neighborhood im culturally mhd mthnically diverme. Will the inatmllation of an ethnic mpecific operation create mn imbalance? A facility of only twelve permona plum staff probably would not. However, once there, the moat likely tenant for the rest of the fmcility will also be a HAAC mponmored program. WAll it too be allowed to be cultural or ethnic specific? If mo, we think this will have mn impact on the neighborhood. We are aware of other propomed umea for the pro3ect mite which would both leame the entire facility and invite remidentm regmrdleam of their ethnic backgroundm. We think that the proposal meritm more study and that an £IR should be prepared at leamt on a limited basim to ammem~ the potential lmpactm to the neighborhood. ~ll,~Prem. San Diego KOA Harriet Acton, 265 Nixon PL, C.V. RECEIVED AU6 g 6 1991 P..LAI~NING · .......... i~,,** ~ RECEIVED August 23, 1991 PLANNING Environmental Review Coordinator P. O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 Dear Sir: In response to IS being conducted on location at 3 North Second Avenue, I am objecting to the idea of moving in two mobile homes for classes for facilities for Latino men. In my estimation, this will be more clutter on the property, more people, more cars and traffic coming and going, and this facility will be in addition to whatever is going to be placed ~-~ the 62-bed facility. I feel this is absolutely too much activity. I own and have lived at 44 North Second Avenue for the past thirty years. My place is the old Victorian Orchard home across the street and in direct view of 3 N. 2nd. Please consider the quiet ambience of our neighborhood and our desire to maintain as much as possible the peacefulness that now exists. Very truly yours, negative- declaration PROJECT NAME: Nosotros Culturally Specific Men's'Recovery Home PROJECT LOCATION: 3 North Second Avenue, Chula Vista ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 563-310-26 PROJECT APPLICANT: MAAC Project CASE NO: IS-92-05 DATE: August 26, 1991 A. Pro3ect Settinq The projec~ site is a 33,600 square foot lot on which there is an existing structure previously used as a group home. The site is on a bluff overlooking open space to the east. Other adjacent land uses include single-family homes to the west and south, and open space and the KOA Campground to the north. The site has been landscaped and there are no sensitive plant or animal resources on the si~e. B. Project Description The proposed project would provide a group home for Latino men with alcohol problems, utilizing the existing structure on the site. The 1,500 square foot lot facility will be used as a residential recovery home, and two mobile homes will be used as classrooms. Since no remodeling over 500 square feet is proposed, school fees will not be required. All handicap requirements must be met. C. Comoatibility with Zoninq and Plans The project site is designated'as Open Space in the General Plan and R-3 "Apartment Residential." The Chula' Vista Municipal Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for approval of a group home in an R-3 zone. With conformance to the conditions of project approval for a Conditional Use Permit, the proposed project would be compatible with the zoning. The group home is an existing use and the proposed project would not have a significant impact on adjacent open space areas since residents will use the grounds on site for daily recreation. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls, within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 1 1/2 miles away and.would be associated with a 5 minute response time. The proposed project wi~,~f~.~ comply with this Threshold Policy. city of chula vista planning department cm~ OF environmental review lection CHULA VI~A -2- The Fire Department requires that all fire systems, including these in the mobile homes, be certified by a properly licensed agency as meeting all code requirements. Other requirements include: 1. All drapes, curtains, window and wall coverings shall be flame treated. 2. All exit doors shall meet code as to signs and latches. 3. 2AIOBC fire extinguishers shall be provided throughout the building, i.e., one for each 300 square feet. 4. Smoke detectors are required. 2. Police The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to 84~ of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The Police Department has indicated that an acceptable level of service can be maintained for this project. 3. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The existing Level of Service {LOS} for North Second Avenue is "C", and the Average Daily Traffic (ADT} is 4,830. After completion of the project, the LOS would remain "C", and the ADT would be 5,070. The traffic generated would not exceed existing pre-approved uses. Dedication to meet the standards of a Class II Collector street may be required on North Second Avenue, and a street light must be installed. 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,000 population. This policy only applies to residential projects, therefore, this project is exempt from the threshold. -3- 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineer Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. Onsite drainage is surface flow to Second Avenue. Offsite, surface water flows north to a downstream curb inlet which outfalls to the Sweetwater River. The City Engineering Department has determined that these facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. 6. Sewer The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The proposed project will not cause sewage waste to exceed existing use. 7. Water The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards, are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. Potentially significant water impacts will be discussed further in Section E of this document. E. Identification of Environmental Effect~ An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant. A discussion of each of these less than significant impacts from the proposed project follows. Water Due to recent drought conditions, as a condition of project approval, the applicant must agree to no net increase in water consumption or participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. -4- F. Mitioatton necessary to avoid siqnificant effects The proposed project is not associated with any significant or potentially significant environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation will be required. G. Findinq~ of )nsiqnificant Imeact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate ieportant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the natural environment. The site is currently developed and there are no endangered plant or animal species present. There are no cultural or historic resources on the site. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project will not achieve short-tehm environmental goals at the expense of long-term environmental goals because these long-term goals will be achieved through the conditional use permit process, and the conditions of project approval. With compliance to the conditions of a CUP, the project will be consistent with uses designated by the zone and General Plan. 3. The project has. possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, 'cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The proposed project will not result in any significant adverse environmental effect which are cumulative in nature, provided all conditions pursuant to the issuance of a CUP are fulfilled. The group home is not expected to result in secondary projects or have a growth inducing influence. -5- 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There are not environmental effects from the project which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. No public health impacts were identified in the Initial Study. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Orqanization~ City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering John Lippitt, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Oepartment Diana Lilly, Plan~ing Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: 'Maritza M. Garcia 45 Third Avenue, Suite 101 Chula Vista, CA 91910 2. Documents Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code General Plan, City of Chula Vista This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for the Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. VIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 12/90) WPC g681P APPLICATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS SITE PLAN FOR OFFICE USE IS FOLDrnTO FIT INTO AN 8-1/2 X 11 FOLDER Case No. ~ Deposit INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by A. ~ Application Fo~ Project No. I. PROJECT TITLE "~osotros" ozlt~u:ally Specific PP-n's Recovery Hc~ne 2. PRO~ECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 3 ~~A~, ~ula Vis~, ~ 91910 Assessors Book. ~ge ~ Parcel No.... 56~-31-26 3. BRIEF PRO~ECT DESCRIPTION ~ ~vl~ a ~ ~ s~i~ ~o~ ~ti~ ~ wi~ al~hol ~obl~ ~ ~ ~e ~ty in ~al ~ou~h ou~ ~ ~tio~l effo~s. 4. Name of Applicant ~c ~o~ Add,ess 14o ~st 16~ S~t Phone (619) 474-2232 City ~i~ city, State ~ Zip 92150 5. Name of P~eparer/Agent ~itza M. ~cia Address 45 ~i~ A~ S~Ce ~0~ Phone (619)425-9171 City ~ula uis~ State ~ Zip 91910 Relation to Applicant Division Dir~or 6. Indicate all pe~tts or approvals and enclosures . or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Pe~its or approvals required: __ General Plan ~endment Design Review Application__ Public .Pro~ect __Rezone/Prezone __ Tentative Subd. Hap __Annexation __ Precise Plan __Grading Pe~lt __ Redevelopment Agency __Specific Plan __Tentative Parcel Hap O.P.A. ~ Cond. Use Psmtt __ Site Plan ~ A~ch. Revte~ ~ Redevelopment Agency __ Variance __ Pro~ect Area Co~tttee D.D.A. ~ Coastal ~velop~nt Use Pe~tt ~ Other * Pemtt b. Enclosures or documents (as requt~ed by the Envtron~ntal Revie~ Coordinator). ~ iradtng Plan Arch. Elevations ~ Hydrological Study __ Parcel gap : Landscape Plans __ Biological Stud~ __ Preclse Plan __Tentative Subd. gap __Archaeological Surve~ __ SpecJftc Plan __ ]~rovement Plans __ Notse Assessment __Other Agency Pe~Jt __ Soils Report __ Trafftc impact Report or Approvals Required__Hazardous Waste __Other Assessment WPC g45gP 1. Land Area: sq. footage 33~60o ~ ~r~ or acreage If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section tf project ls r_estdenttal. a. Type development: Stngle fa~tl~ Two fa~tly Nultt fimtly , To~nhouse Condominium. b. Total number of structures c. Haxteum hetght of structures d. Number of Units: ] bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total untts e. Gross denstty (DU/total acres) f. Net denstty (DU/total acres mtnus any dedication) g. Estimated project population h. Estimated sale or rental prtce range t. Square footage of structure ~-. J. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures k. Number of on-stte parktng spaces to be provtded .. 1. Percent of stte tn road and paved surface 3. Complete thts sectton tf project ts ~ or~ or mtxe~ use. a. Type(s) of land use b. Floor area Netght of structure(s) c. Type of construction used tn the structure d. Oiscrtbe la,tot access potnts to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. Number of on-stte parktng spaces provtded f. Estimated nueber of employees per shtft , N~mher of shtfts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and bests of esttmate~ h. Estimated number of deliveries per'day gdt a~cao t. Estimated range of servtce area and basis of estimate_ J. Type/extent of operations not In enclosed buildings ,, k. Hours of operation 1. Type of exterior 11ghttng 4. ~f project ts ~ 'resident.ia1, com~rctal or industrial complete thts section. a. Type of project. ~roup~c~ b. Type of facilities provided ,, c. Square feet of enclosed structures ~ ,~FT ' d. Height of structure(s) -maxtmum 20'9" e. Ultimate occupancy load of project 12 ¢11enta f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 25 g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces 40oo sgrc h. Additional project characteristics ~o~bile F~es to be usecl ~" as classrooms 1500 SqFT. Facility to usedasresidential recovery hc~ne. Maximum occu~anc~wouldbe 12 clients and3 staff' members. C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ]. Zf the project could result in the direct emtsston of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) tdenttfy them. Is eny type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated (If yes, coaLolete the following.) a. Excluding trenches to be backfllled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. Ho~many cubic yards of ftll will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) wtll be graded? d. Yhat wtll be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of ft31 YPC g4sgP -a- 3. ¥tll there be any notse generated from the proposed project stte or from potnts of access which lay tmpact the surrounding or edJacent ]and uses? No 4. Describe all energy consuming devtces which art part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (itt conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) ~r ~ition~n~. central He~t±nq ~Kh~r and Dryer. Stove. REfriaerator, Fr~r, Television and Stereo S. Indicate the amount of natural open space that ~s part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) 4,0o0 Ft ~. If the project will result in any employment opportuntt.~descrtbe the nature and type of these Jobs. Three Positions~ (Pro3 Manager, Resident Manaqer and Niqht Manaqer) 7. ~tll highly fla~able or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? ~o 8. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will .be generated by 5 ~or ~I~aEE the project? 9. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets~ street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. ~k~ne D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Has a geology study been conducted on the property? -/~ (If yes, please attach) N/A Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? (If)es, please iotech) Are any Of~othe following features present on or adjacent to the site? (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of · shallow ground water table? b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? c. Does runoff from the project stte dratn dtrectly tnto or toward a domestic uater supply, take, reservoir or bay? d. Could dratnage from the stte cause eroston or siltation to a~acent areas? e. Oescrtbe all dratnage facilities to be provtded and thetr location. 3. Notse a. Are there any notse sorces tn the project vtctntty uhtch may tmpact the-project stte? ~ 4. ~1oloav a. Is the project stte tn a natural or partially natural state? b. If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property? Yes No (Please attach a copy). c. Descrtbe all trees ~nd vegetation on the stte. Indtcate location, hetght, diameter, and spec~,eA of trees, and vhtch. (tf any) wtllbe removed by the project. "~ 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical Or~oarcheologlcal resources located on or near the project stte? b. Are there any known paleontological resources? c. Ha~e there been any hazardous materials dtsposed of or stored on or near the project stte? ~ d. ~hat was the land previously used for? Pr~vim~lv ~1 ~nr Grmum Descrtbe a]l structures and lend uses currontlly e.xJsttng on the project stte. Residential Stl-uc~cc~"e ~ L~ ~.l-aileJ~s b. Descrtbe all structures and land uses currently extsttng on adjacent property. North Vac~p~ Land , , South R-e_~tdent i a 1 Area East . vaba*nt Land 7. e. Are there eny rostdents on stte? (If so, ho~ many?) b. Are there any current emp~loyment opportunities .on stte? how many and what type?) ~ "~ ~ /R~i~t ~ ~/Night ~g~ 8. Please provide any other tnfomatton ~tch wy asstst tn the evaluation of the proposed project. ~e ~C ~ ~11 ~ es~lishi~ a 12 ~ ~t~all~ S~ific ~'s R~ H~. ~ p~ will ~i~ a ~tal ~el r~ve~ p~ for ~ wi~ al~l relat~ ~1~. ~1 r~i~ts ~e vQ~g~tarilv enrolled and are.employed or Kill be trained for ~loy~t in ~e ~it~. MPC g459P -ll- or O~ner/o~ner in ISCrOW* Executive Oirector or Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and Information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting has been included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: July 31, 1991 *If acting for · corporation, include capacity end company THE C1TY OF CHUZA FISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATF.,MF. IVT '~" $~atement of disciosure of cenaLi ownership interests, payments, or campa/gn conUu'butions, on all matters which will require discrationary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commi~_~ion, and all other official bodies. The foEowin~ information must be d~cioscd: 1. List the vnmes of all persons having a financial Llterast in the con~ract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. 2. H any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest Li the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit org,,,i~ion or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit or/anization or as trustee or beneficiary or trastor of the u'ust. 4. Have you had more than $2~0 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past mvelve months? Yes No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consul~anis or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. Maritza Garcia Ro~er Cald~ell Victor Lop~z Warren Garcia-$te~a~t Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contn'buted more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes ~ No ~ If yes, state which Councilmember(s): ~cmon iS defined as: 'Any individual, fimt, co-partners/tip, joint ventt~re, associati~, $~ial club,~al ~tion, co~oration. e~tate, t~t, ~dv~, ~dicdt~ t~ and dt~ oth~ ~un~, 0O, add cott/t~ ~i~ n~lici~li~, ~ ~ ~lt~ ~litical subdi~.i~ion. ~ atO, ~lt~ ~ ~ combination acting ~ a unit: (NO~ Attach additional png~ ~ ~c~.~) ~,,,} ~ ~ate: a~y 31r 1991 ~ ~' Signature ~' contractor/applicant ROGER CAZARE$~ ~xeeu~ive Director ' ' Print or typ~ n~mc of contractor/applicant f MAAC PROJECT ROGER CAZARES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS ERNESTO AZHOCAR - CHAIRPERSON MANUEL R. CAMACHO - VICE CHAIRPERSON DOLORES ADAME - SECRETARY · EDWARD NICHOLAS -TREASURER 1) Anthony reneges 6) ~dward ~icholaa Stadium Technician Hlgh School Coach 90 E. ~aplea 2312 '~" Ave. Chula Viata, CA 92010 ~acional City, ~2050 283-5503 (work) 677-5726 (home) 691-12~9 (ho~e) 6/77 7) Victor Reeendez 2) ZrneaCo Azhocsr Principal, Perm ~lem. Z~PACT Director $932 ~alm Dr~ve ~ 26~5 £anoit~n Ave. BonlCa, CA 92002 National CiCy, CA 91950 575-5962 (work) 267-~7~ (home) ~72-~005 (home) ~/7~ 6/78 3) Dolores Adze a) Ju~ Rodrlquez Co~uniCy Activist ~urJery Worker 250 E. Park Avenue 2212 Pr~oJi, ~C. 5 'S~ Faidro, CA ~2073 Vista, CA 92083 428-2528 (home) 598-9863 (home) 7/82 727-2~92 (work) 7/87 ~) Delf~ L~ao J901G~a Street T~ Compli~ce Officer ~a=ional Ci=~, ~ ~2050 Emplo~n~ ~evelop. 262-~9~ (~) 32? W. Bobier ~rive 665-3958 7~ 7-2203 5) H~uel R. C~achO 2/89 TeaCro Huelcal 3717 Heade Avenue S~ Diego, CA 282-8262 (h~) ~ ~7~-678~ (work) ~/~ Case ~--- CITY DATA F. 1. ~ on stte: North South East West Does the project confo~ to the current zoning? 2. fP~eJCLI_F_]_~ land use designation on site: .0~,. ? ~u~ North ~ ~. ~,~.:~ South ~ ; ....,~ East '"~ West ~ ,-, '~I 1~,., i/:,].u~ /~..,/~c.~-~:.- ~ Is the project compatible ~ith the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the route.) 3. ~chools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Students Permanent Temporary Current Generated School Attendance Caeacttv Caoacttv From Pro~ect Elementary High Sr. High 4. Remarks: D~recto~ of Planning or Representative Date WPC 9459P -13- ¢ G. £NGINE£RING DEPARTIq£NT ]. Dr tna e e. Is the p~oJect stte wtthtn· flood platn? if so, ·tare ~?ch FFJ4A Floodway Frequency Boundary b. Yhat. ts the locatton &od description of exJstJng on-site dratnage factltttes? ~F~.~ ;~V ~-~ ;;~ c. Are they adequate to serve the proJect?~d~.~ If not, explatn brtefly. ~ * ' d. Yhat ts the ]ocatton end description of extsttng off-stte e. Are they ~dequate to serve the p~oJect?~. If not, exp~atn a. #hat roads provide prtmary access to the proJect?~~ b. #hat ts the estimated number of one-way auto trtps to be generated by the project (per day~? ~ - = * c. ~hat ts the ADT and estt~atod level of ·ervtce before end after project completion? Before After A.D.T. ~ ~o?o L.O.S. ¢ .... ~ If the A.D.T..or L.O.S. ts unknovm or not applicable, explatn brtef]y. d. Are there any Intersections at or near the potnt that wtll result Jn en unacceptable Level of Service (LOS)? t4o. If so, Identify: Locatton Cumulative L.O.S. -14- t e. Ts there eny dedtc·tton required? A~ G · ]f so, please spectf~.~ Is there lay steer vldentng ~qutred? If so, please spectf~. g. ' Are there any other street teprovemnts required? Y~ If so, ple·se spectfy the gener·l eat_ur~ of the aecessary t~rovements. ' ' - e. Are there ·ny ·nttctpated ·dverse geotechntcel conditions on the project stte? b. If yes, spectfy these conditions. c. Is ·sotls report necessary? ~. 4. LandForm a. What ts the average natural slope of the stte? b. What ts the maxtmum natural slope of the stte?~ $. Notse Are there ·ny traffic-related notse levels Impacting the stte that are significant enough to Justtfy that e notse analysts be requtred of the applicant? How much sol?d and l~qu?d (sewage) waste w711 .~ generated b~ the p~oposed p~o~ect pe~ day? Solld ~/A Ltoutd Vhat ts the locatton and stze of extsting sewer 1tries an or do~stre~ fr~ the stte? Are the~ ·dequate to serve the proposed project? ~459P -IS- Case #o. 7. Remarks Please tdenttfy and dtscuss any remaining potential adverse tmpacts, mitigation measures, or other tssues. ~ Ctt~ Engtneer or Representa~ve MPC 9459P -16- I. ~at ~s ~e ~ista~ce ~o ~e ~eares~ ~ire station? A~ ~at ~s t~e 2. ~ ~e F~re De~ar~e~t ~e a~e ~o ~ro~i~e a~ adequate ~e~e~ o~ ~i~e ~rotectio~ ~or ~e ~ro~ose~ ~aci~t~ ~t~o~t a~ ~crease ~ e~e~t or ~erso~e~7 '3. Remarks ~.~ ~ ,,q -~ ~.~ ¢_ ~=..~-~ ~ ~...~ ~ ~-,-~e_~r~f',~ ~ ~r~**c.~ © .~.~-~. ,~ ~'.l*~ ~.-j.l ~ ~ ! Fire Mar§hal ~/ ' Y Date WPC 945gP -]7- CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Address 3 ~-~. ~J~ Plan F ilFN~o~Z-~)~Checker~Date Type Constr. Occupancy No. Stories Bldg. Area The foll~ing list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PL~: FPB-29 Case No. /~-~- ~-~ H-1. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTHENT 1. How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? 2. How many acres of developed parkland ere wtthin the Park Service Dtstrict of this project as shown tn the Parks end Recreation Element of the General Plan? (If applicable) 3. ghat are the current park acreage requirements tn the Park Servtce District? (If applicable) 4. Is project subject to Parks & Recreation Threshold requirements? ,~ If not, please explain. 5. Are extsttng neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population tncrease resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community Parks 6. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community Parks 7. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? 8. To meet City requirements, will applicant be required to: Provide land? Pay a fee? g. Remarks: ~o ~ ~ ~-~J~'~ c~- ~h~~ Parks and Recreation Director or Representative Date WPC 945gP -18- '.~ Iu lll. Deteminatton (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basts of thts tnttta] evaluation: I ftnd that the proposed project COULD NOT have e significant effect on the environment, and e NEGATIVE DECLARATION wtll be prepared ....... [ ] I ftnd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wtll not be e significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED ................................................... [ ] I find the proposed project MAY have e significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ........ [ ] Dat~ Si IV. SUFt~ARY OF ZSSUES List all significant or potentially significant impacts identified in the Initial Study checklist form. YES MAYBE DE MINIMI$ FEE DETEP~INATION (Chapter 1705, Statutes of 1990 - AB 3158) ~' It ts hereby found that this project involves no potential for " ·ny adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources ·nd that · "Certificate of Fee Exemption" shall be prepared for this project. It ts hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or cumulatively ·nd therefore fees tn accordance with Section 711.4 (d) of the Fish and Game Code shall be paid to the County Clerk. Environmental Review Coordinator D WPC 9459P -29- COMMENT LETTERS I 11 NORTH SECOND AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 Mr. Douglas D. Reid August 26, 1991 Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista PO Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Case # IS-92-05 Dear Mr. Reid: This letter addresses some concerns that we have here at San Diego KOA and also concerns expressed by Harriet Acton of 265 Nixon PL, Chula Vista, who requested that we write on her behalf since she is out of town st this time. Our primary concern is centered around the fact that MAAC is proposing to lease only a smell portion of the total facility. This raises a number of issues. What, if any, compatible uses will be found for the rest of the facility? While the MAAC proposal ss presented doesn't sound too bad, who will be willing to take over the rest of the facility? Currently, it seems to be used for transient housing. We are very concerned that without a single tenant for the facility or without a proposal that presents the multiple tenants st one time, there will be a great deal of pressure on the city to accept far less desirable uses for the rest of the facility. Who will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the grounds and exterior of the buildings, shared facilities such sa irrigation systems and fire alarms? Mrs. Acton reports that there have been numerous false alarms for fire and each time ~everal units respond creating a disturbance for the neighborhood and a cost for the city. We have experienced flooding problems brought on by faulty irrigation systems. With multiple tenant~ we are concerned about accountability for correcting these defects. Another concern we have is that we already have an alcohol rehab facility in our neighborhood (South Bay Pioneers). Do we need another? We fear that we will soon be viewed ss a convenient repository for locating social rehabilitation services. This could have a very negative impact on the stability of our neighborhood. The propoeel by MAAC is for e group home for "Latino Men". Our neighborhood is culturally and ethnically diverse. Will the installation o£ en ethnic epeci~ic operation create en imbalance? A facility o~ only twelve persona plue ete£f probably would not. However, once there, the eoat likely tenant for the feet of the facility will also be a MAAC sponsored program. Will it too be allowed to be cultural or ethnic epecific? If mo, we think thie will have an impact on the neighborhood. We ere aware of other proposed usee £or the project site which would both lease the entire facility end invite reeidente regardleee of their ethnic backgrounds. We think that the propoesl merits more etudy end that an EIR should be prepared et least on a limited baeie to eaeeaa the potential impacts to the neighborhood. Sie~d~llY,.~. pr ea. Sen Diego KOA Harriet Acton, 265 Nlxon PL, C.V. PLANNIMc. TO: CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSICN CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL RE: NOSOTROS ALCOHOL RECOVERY HOME I am writing to endorse MAAC Project's application to provide alcohol recovery services at Nosotros. MAAC Project has been involved in alcohol and drug related services for almost two decades.~ In addition to providing Drinking Driving Services in San Diego County since the law was implemented in 1978, MAAC has administered a highly successful recovery program for women since 1986 (Casa de Milagros). This agency has consistently demonstrated its ability to be sensitive to the needs of its clients as well as the co~nunity. MAAC Project has a proven track record of effectively integrating services such as job placement, housing, and training services which would also be · available to residents of Nosotros. I would strongly urge you to approve the application of the MAAC Project as it has clearly demonstrated a unique ability to provide meaningful services to a population that all too often does not receive the kind of attention that is required. Sincerely., ~ , ~ ~) . a cy Hr/cc cock, Chairman South Bay Directors Council RECEIVED AUG g 6 19fl~ P. LANNING RECEIVED AUG g 6 }99] RECEIVED ' AUG g 6 August 23, 1991 PLANNING Environmental Review Coordinator P. O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 Dear Sir: In response to IS being conducted on location at 3 North Second Avenue, I am objecting to the idea of moving in two mobile homes for classes for facilities for Latino men. In my estimation, this will be more clutter on the property, more people, more cars and traffic coming and going, and this facility will be in addition to whatever is going to be placed -i~ the 62-bed facility. I feel this is absolutely too much activity. I own and have lived at 44 North Second Avenue for the past thirty years. My place is the old Victorian Orchard home across the street and in direct view of 3 N. 2nd. Please consider the quiet ambience of our neighborhood and our desire to maintain as much as possible the peacefulness that now exists. Very truly yours, !.. ~rsl. Joan ~..! Jb~es  Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91911-2896 (619) 691-5500 Division of Planning and Facilities RECEIVED SEP - 5 ';~ August 29, 1991 PLANNING Mr. Douglas Reid City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue ChulaVista, CA 91911 Dear Mr. Reid: Re: IS-g2-05 - 3 North Second Avenue The above project will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government Code No. 65995 (Developer Fees) prior to issuance of building permit. Director of Planning TS/ml CHULA EI,EME NTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET ° CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 · 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH BOARDOFEDUCA1]ON August 15, 1991 JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, Ph.D. LARRY CUNNINGHAM SHARON GILES PATRICK A. JUDD GREGR, SANDOVAL MS. Maryann Miller Environmental Review Section SUPERINI'END~h"~ City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue JOHNF. VUGRIN. Ph.D. Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: IS-92-05 / FA-542 / DP-N/A Location: 3 North Second Avenue Applicant: MAAC Project Project: -Nosotros" Culturally Specific Men's Recovery Home Dear Ms. Miller: This is to advise you that the project, located at 3 North Second Avenue, 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. Currently a developer fee of $1.58 per square foot of assessable area ($ .70 for Chula vista Elementary School District, $ .88 for Sweetwater Union High School District) is assessed for new residential construction and additions/remodels of over 500 square feet. Since developer fees currently allowed under State law provide approximately twenty-five percent of the facilities costs to house new students, the District encourages developer participation in alternative financing mechanisms 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 shortfall. Participation in a CFD is in lieu of developer fees, with school mitigation paid by the homeowner in the form of a special tax. Residential projects of 20 units or more west of the 1-805, and all new development east of the 1-805, are recommended for participatiog/annexation in a CFD. Other smaller projects are also given the opportunity to mitigate school impacts through annexation in lieu of fees. August 15, 1991 Ms. Maryann Miller Page 2 RE: IS-92-05/"Nosotros" Culturally Specific Men's Recovery Home The subject project, "Nosotros" Culturally Specific Men's Recovery Home, is located in the Rosebank School attendance area. This school is presently operating over capacity, and a developer fee as described above is required to help mitigate school impacts. To fully mitigate impacts this project will have on elementary facilities, the project proponent is encouraged and has the option to request annexation to CFD No. 5 in lieu of fees. If you are interested in annexing to CFD No. 5, please let us know as soon as possible, and we will forward our annexation criteria to you. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: Roger Cazares Maritza M. Garcia