HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1987/02/25 Tape No: 277
Side 1 : 0 - 2381
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, February 25, 1987 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Shipe, Commissioners Cannon, Carson,
Fuller Grasser, Green, and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Goss, Director of Planning Krempl,
Principal Planner Lee, Environmental Review
Coordinator Reid, Assistant Planner Schilling,
City Attorney Herron, Director of Community
Development Desrochers, Redevelopment Coordinator
Kassman, Community Development Specialist Davis,
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Lippitt
Deputy Director Public Works/Engineering Garibay,
City Traffic Engineer Glass, Deputy City Manager
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Shipe and was
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairman Shipe reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its
responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
Chairman Shipe noted that all members of the City Council, except Mayor Cox,
were present and welcomed them to the Planning Commission Meeting.
1. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-86-3 - TOWN CENTRE II (EXPANSION OF CHULA VISTA
SHOPPING CENTER)
Commissioner Green declared that he had a potential conflict of interest on
Items 1 and 2 because he owned property at 535 "H" Street, and on Item 3
because he was a member of the Counctry Club. Commissioner Shipe said he also
had a potential conflict of interest on Items 1 and 2 since he was employed as
Planning Commission -2- February 25, 1987
the Manager of the bank located at ~ and "H", and on Item 4 because his bank
shared the parking lot on which the parking variance was requested. He
therefore turned the Chairmanship over to Commissioner Cannon and both he and
Commissioner Green left the dais and the Chambers.
Commissioner Pro Tempore Cannon remarked that Item 1 was consideration of the
Final EIR for the expansion and renovation of Town Centre II and did not
constitute a public hearing; testimony had been received at the meeting of
January 28, 1987; and the Final EIR would address the testimony and those
concerns.
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid said that the actual presentation would
be made by June Collins, PRC Engineering, the Project Director for the EIR
preparation, and that Donald Frischer, Traffic Engineering, was also in
attendance and would comment on certain aspects of the EIR. As requested by
the City Council on February 19, 1987, there would be a Joint Workshop of the
City Council and the Planning Commission (after Item 1) to discuss the Chula
Vista Shopping Center. On February 28, 1987, the Commission had received
testimony, made comments on the Draft and closed the public hearing,
therefore, the Commission legally could not accept more testimony. For that
reason, it was recommended that after the presentation, the Commission should
certify the EIR and then convene to the Workshop Meeting with the City
Council. Mr. Reid then introduced June Collins.
Ms. Collins said she would focus on the comments and replies made at her
presentation January 28, 1987, and on the changes made in the Final EIR. She
summarized the project by saying it involved the renovation and expansion of
Town Centre II shopping center by the closure of Fifth Avenue to provide a
continuous shopping area. The project would also include the addition of
140,100 square feet of leasable shopping area; and the five issues addressed
at the previous meeting included traffic, noise, air Quality, utility
relocation and the fiscal analysis. In response to the comments and letters,
a variety of changes were made to the Final EIR, the most significant of which
involved traffic and the fiscal analysis, and that Howard Smith and Jun Onaka
of PRC were present to comment on those changes. The traffic analysis had
looked more closely at the cumulative long-term effects of the Fifth Avenue
closure and the additional comments in the EIR augmented those submitted by
Frischer and Associates. The fiscal analysis features a more detailed review
of the cost estimate supplied by the applicant and consideration of the fiscal
effects of various scenarios such as facility relocations and other issues.
Referring briefly to other responses made in the EIR to testimony given, she
said that in response to the letter from Sweetwater Authority a hydraulic
network analysis will be made to determine the full effects of the water line
relocation prior to initiation of the project work. The Fire and Police
Departments have advised that the closure of Fifth Avenue will not
significantly impact the response time of emergency vehicles. The decision to
relocate the Boy's Club to Oleander and Palomar Streets had been made prior to
review of this project and is not affected by the proposed renovation of the
shopping center. That the applicant has indicated that a pedestrian walkway
Planning Commission -3- February 25, 1987
with appropriate traffic control measures will be provided for school children
to walk in the parking areas of the site to and from school. The anticipated
closure of Vons is unrelated to redevelopment of the shopping center or the
proposed project. No features of the proposed project, as analyzed in the
EIR, would preclude the retention of Vons on the shopping center property.
She then introduced Howard Smith for the traffic analysis.
Mr. Smith stated that the cumulative traffic analysis focuses on the long-term
aspect of the project if (a) Fifth Avenue remained open or (b) were closed.
The SANDAG Study, prepared 3 or 4 years ago, with a Year 2005 horizon line was
used to provide a good bench mark. This Year 2005 analysis incorporated a
variety of development and redevelopment (including Town Centre I and the
Bayfront) within the area bounded by the Frischer and Associates' Study. Town
Centre II was not factored; therefore, the information garnered from the
SANDAG Study is the equivalant of the no project aspect. The long-range daily
traffic forecast in the area of the shopping center for the generalized level
of service (LOS) of the traffic includes the assumed roadway buildout to the
General Plan standards. Illustrating with overhead slides he discussed the
project scenario if Fifth Avenue remained open; namely, if the original
forecast of 4200 daily trips were added, the resultant changes would be
minimal in the LOS on a daily generalized basis. The same situation would
occur with Fifth Avenue closed, and using the same 4200 trips per day adapted
to indicate the closure of Fifth Avenue and resultant traffic diversion.
These calculations are based on the same method used by Frischer and
Associates. The study revealed that there would not be a great difference in
the LOS. The magnitude of change in the comparison between no project and
with Fifth Avenue closed indicates only three changes in the LOS: (1) on Fifth
Avenue south of the center there would be a lower level of traffic; (2) there
would be a drop in the LOS from "A" to "B" on Fourth Avenue between "G" Street
and Fifth because of the traffic diversion; and (3) "I" Street south of the
center (the link between Broadway and Fifth) crosses over the LOS from "D" to
"E" if Fifth Avenue is closed and the LOS is close to the threshold with Fifth
Avenue open. The segment between Fourth and Fifth Avenues, because of~-~-~
diversion of traffic, becomes close enough to the LOS threshold to cause
concern. Mr. Smith confirmed that the mitigation methods proposed in the
Frischer Report would return the LOS to a suitable level on "I" Street.
In reply to Commissioner Tugenberg's inquiry if consideration had been given
to traffic other than at intersections and the difficulty of making left-hand
turns, Mr. Smith suggested that as his analysis dealt with the long-term
focus, Mr. Frischer should answer the question. Mr. Frischer replied that the
difficulty in making left-hand turns from private driveways was not unusual as
left-hand turns were considered congesting and hazardous.
Discussion then occurred about whether the alley behind the commercial lots
would permit exits from the rear of the property.
In reply to Commissioner Grasser's question if the additional 4,200 trips
indicated those from the renovation as well as the expansion, Mr. Frischer
stated that the traffic generation factors were based on similar situations
involving other centers of like size and circumstances which were renovated
and expanded.
Planning Commission -4- February 25, 1987
Jun Onaka, PRC Engineering, stated his field of expertise was project analysis
and he was responsible for the main outline of the fiscal analysis whose
purpose is to estimate the impact to the City, if it is positive, and to
compare several alternatives to discover the area of magnitude of the fiscal
impact of these alternatives. The alternatives reviewed included: (1) the
closure of Fifth; (2) full depression; and (3) partial depression of Fifth. A
limited study of the maintenance of and the bridging of Fifth indicated that
the cost factor plus the reduction in revenues made this alternative
infeasible. The full depression showed the least benefit to the City and the
partial depression was closest in impact to the Fifth Avenue closure.
The closure of Fifth Avenue and the full depression would cost the City $20
million because of the tunnel, bridge, interest and so forth. The partial
depression would cost $9 million. Because of the structure of the agreement
between the City and the applicant, the portion funded by the developer
remains practically the same as long as the estimated sales experience remains
comparable. The additional cost for the full depression would fall on the
Redevelopment Agency and be funded by revenues through additional taxes.
The $26 million estimated cost includes the purchase price of the Boy's Club
property (which is a change from the Draft EIR) but does not include the
relocation of the high-pressure gas mains.
Revenue to the City comes from the increase in the property tax increment and
from sales revenue. Between 1980-86 taxable sales increased to $637 million
at a time when the shopping center was basically stagnant. It is anticipated
that after the renovation, the higher sales experienced and the additional
revenues generated within 3 years of opening will increase the sales tax
revenue by $1.6 million.
In response to the question raised regarding the effect of the devaluation of
the peso during 1982, Mr. Onaka said that because of the large number of
cross-border customers utilizing the center, purchasing power declined 8~
resulting in a sales percentage decline from 35% to 10%. Plaza Bonita, during
the same time, increased their overall center sales from $26 million to $93
million. That imbalance is interpreted to be the lack of competition.
Commissioner Cannon interposed saying that with the rate declining to $86
million in the Chula Vista Shopping Center and with a brand new center, Plaza
Bonita, grossing $93 million, it appeared that Chula Vista was holding its own
amazingly well.
Mr. Onaka stated that over a 20-year period (the term of the bond issue) the
revenues anticipated were $7.6 million in property tax increments and $31.6
million in additional sales tax revenues. A comparison of net revenue over
the 20-year period indicates a total net benefit to the City of $21.5 million
with the closure of Fifth Avenue, a deficit of $34 million with the full
depression and a deficit of $9 million with the partial depression. Comments
were made at the February 19th meeting about the fact that the developer's
figures were used; for that reason, PRC reran the project costs using new
revised figures and wished to confirm that the developer's unit price is in
line with PRC's.
Planning Commission -5- February 25, 1987
To allow for a condition in which the sales experience might not be as large
as anticipated, a sensitivity analysis using a 25% reduction in anticipated
sales was performed. Even with such an abnormal reduction in sales, the
project would still result in a fiscal profit to the City and is financially
sound from the City's perspective.
Commissioner Carson expressed concern that five alternatives were mentioned in
the report, but no figures had been provided for all five alternatives. She
maintained that mention of those alternatives should either have been left out
of the report, or some figures to enable a comparison with other alternatives
should have been supplied.
MSC (Tugenberg/Fuller) Carson - no; to certify that EIR-86-3 had been prepared
in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
Chairman Pro Tempore Cannon declared the meeting would now convene to a Joint
~lorkshop with the City Council.
****************************************
At 8:00 p.m., Councilman Moore declared that all Council Members were present
with the exception of Mayor Cox and that the Council had questions to ask of
both the Commission and the applicant.
Councilman Malcolm said he would like the applicant to explain what
alternatives were acceptable to them; what would they accept. In reply to the
Chairman's question, "Let's assume for the purpose of this question that we
are not going to close Fifth Avenue to renovate this shopping center, will
Homart do this project? Yes or No." Tom Gourguechon said that although they
had responded "no" to that question at the January 28, 1987 meeting, he would
like to explain the reasoning behind the answer; namely, that Homart had
considered 15 or 16 methods regarding the redevelopment of the center and had
eliminated alternatives which did not indicate a long-term viable retail
complex, thereby leaving only the proposed project. They had originally
considered the Chula Vista Center redevelopment as a marginal opportunity
because of the demographics, per capita income, level of competition and other
reasons; then they began to look at the physical possibilities after
determining that with the rate of growth Chula Vista was experiencing there
was a potential. Alternatives were eliminated as too expensive, or having too
much impact on the local community including some that Commissioner Carson
mentioned as not being equally addressed in the report. They realized the
sensitivity of asking a community to close a street and that only a very
significant redevelopment action which also provided a significant return to
the community would be acceptable. He displayed a projected chart comparing
the 17 alternatives considered versus the real estate, retailing, engineering
and community factors that had been used by Homart (in-house} to make their
decision and explained the reasoning involved.
Planning Commission -6- February 25, 1987
Further discussed was the sales projection based on the sales history of the
center since 1965 and that of Plaza Bonita. In reply to a question of what
percentage the County would receive, Director Desrochers replied that as long
as the project remained indebted, the City received a 100% tax increment;
however, after the debt is retired, the County will take its share of the
revenues.
Councilman ~lalcolm said that because the project involved a major land use, he
had hoped the Commission would offer a recommendation; also, that if Council
decided to adopt a solution not covered in the EIR, the Commission would have
to proceed through an additional hearing; he expressed regret that the
Commission was not involved further in the process and working in partnership
with the Council. Chairman Cannon replied that the Commission would have no
trouble being an active participant and would be happy to do whatever Council
wanted; however, the Commission had been asked only to look at the EIR with
certain alternatives; these have been reviewed, questioned, and excellent
input and answers had been received. He added that he considered the EIR to
be one of the better EIRs he had reviewed.
Items of discussion included the necessity of a ring road; design of an
alternative to provide greater safety for pedestrians; the possibility of a
second level with a pedestrian overpass; use of a barrier similar to that at
the San Francisco Airport; the infeasibility of a S-curve around the building
because City streets are built with certain radii of curvature; a comparison
between City streets and private roads within shopping centers; speed
enforcement difficulties; the need for a mechanism to allow through traffic
from "H" to "I"; two-tiered parking; proposed location of the fourth
department store; the fact that the ring road is meant to provide free,
continuous circulation as far away from the buildings as possible, to provide
access to the parking fields and were equipped with vehicle stop signs at
appropriate locations.
Councilman Moore pointed out that 8 years had been spent in subcommittees
unsuccessfully working on a redevelopment solution and the apparent success of
this project was because the property had come under one ownership.
Councilman Moore questioned why a reduction in the number of lanes from five
to two on Fifth Avenue was not considered; and expressed dissatisfaction that
such an alternative was not presented with its pros and cons for the ultimate
decision to be made. He asked if there was any data available indicating the
amount of traffic the ring road would keep off the street, and questioned why
such data was not presented. He noted that he was aware of numerous unasked
questions in the audience, and endeavored to supply that information through
questioning.
Commissioner Carson spoke in favor of investing "big dollars" into the center
to make it more attractive and unique; she suggested an exclusive restaurant
over the street, or an aquatic theme, something to attract attention and make
people want to shop at that location. Mr. Gourguechon replied that in terms
of pure retailing they felt they had something unique in comparison to other
centers and were in the process of developing a more direct community-related
facility, which, at the present time, lacked definition.
Planning Commission -7- February 25, 1987
Discussion returned to Council's desire for the Planning Commission's advice
based on the Commission's experience with the EIR; the need for a more
in-depth presentation on the actual internal workings of the proposed center;
that it was too late to consider another land use; the alternatives that
Homart had eliminated in-house plus those eliminated during discussions with
various City departments, consultants and others; the need for a new major to
bring in shoppers and a good variety mix of tenants; if Chula Vista needed to
find another location for a regional shopping center; that dollars are not the
only thing to consider; the need for immediate action based on the April 30th
date when Homart's purchase contract expires; 72 hours to notice a workshop;
and the willingness of the Planning Commission to participate in one.
Councilman Moore maintained that to ask the Commission to give an advisory
vote would be a disservice to the Commission because of the wealth of
background information already presented to the Agency and that when Council
"wears the redevelopment hat, we become partners with the developer".
Councilman Nader said he would feel uncomfortable directing the Commission to
give an advisory vote, but would appreciate any contribution offered by them.
Councilwoman McCandliss concurred.
Chairman Cannon expressed the willingness of the Commission to attend a joint
workshop with Council and a presentation by Homart and to offer the
Commission's opinions.
The Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop was adjourned at 9:40.
A 10-minute break was declared from 9:40 to 9:50 p.m.
Commissioner Shipe returned to the Chambers and the dais and resumed the
Chairmanship and reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 9:50 p.m.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: MAJOR USE PERMIT PCC-87-5M - REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN
EXISTING CLUBHOUSE AND BUILD A NEW FACILITY AT 88 "L"
STREET - SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB
Principal Planner Lee noted that the request is for a major use permit to
demolish an existing 23,000 square foot clubhouse and construct a new facility
with a proposed gross floor area of 36,140 square feet. The proposed
clubhouse would be a two-story structure stepped into the slope of the
property to present a one-story appearance when viewed from "L" Street. The
existing parking lot would be expanded to accommodate 197 parking spaces, an
increase of over 50 more spaces. The department received a petition signed by
102 members of the Country Club requesting that approval of any demolition
permit be delayed until a structural survey of the existing building was
completed. Subsequent petitions opposed demolition based on the historical
significance of the building which was designed in 1921 by Richard ReQua, one
Planning Commission -8- February 25, 1987
of the region's most prominent architects. Staff requested a feasibility
study, the result of which indicated a repair cost of $100,000. The Country
Club representatives have said that the size and design of the present
clubhouse does not meet the needs as originally designed. Originally the
membership was 125 and now it is 400; the building structure can not support a
second story or be expanded without encroaching into the golf course or too
close to "L" Street. Staff recom~ends approval subject to the conditions of
approval. Condition "h" reflects the concern of the Montgomery Planning
Committee regarding right hand turn movements from eastbound "L" Street to the
clubhouse.
Staff also suggested that the building be placed elsewhere on the grounds or
the Club members locate someone who might be interested in the structure. The
Planning Commission voted not to certify the Final EIR because the many
changes and modifications to the building over the years had lessened the
historical significance. Staff was directed to prepare a Negative Declaration
which is being presented at the meeting.
In response to questions put forward by the Commissioners, staff replied that
a membership quota of 485 was recommended, 415 actual and 70 social, and no
additional membership anticipated; the maximum occupancy would be 425 as
opposed to the present 350; parking had been increased by 35 percent, from 150
to 197.
Director Krempl noted that the Negative Declaration had been submitted per the
Commission's direction; however, when the EIR is considered by Council, they
would have a choice between adoption of the Negative Declaration or
certification of the EIR.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Walter Haas, 3420 Trumbull Street, San Diego, representing the Country Club,
indicated that he, the Vice President of the Club and Tony Ambrose, the
architect, were available to answer questions. He remarked that the structure
would be erected at the same location as the present building; that the
membership had voted on three occasions and that in response to the question
if they favored the design of the clubhouse as drawn and would they be willing
to an assessment to build a new clubhouse not to exceed $4 million, 60 percent
had voted in favor.
Irene Bushong, 856 Country Club Drive, indicated that efforts were still being
made to save the clubhouse from demolishment; they had gone to the general
public and they average 96 out of 100 favorable responses; she expressed
regret that the Commission had not accepted the EIR; declared there was
another location for the clubhouse which would allow a great deal of parking;
asserted that on special occasions golf carts have to be sent to pick up the
people who have to park a great distance from the clubhouse.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission -9- February 25, 1987
MSUC (Tugenberg/Cannon) Green out - to find that the project would have no
significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on
EIR-86-2.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Cannon) Green out - that based on findings contained in
Section "£" of the staff report, to approve the request, PCC-87-5M, to
construct a new building for use as a Country Club subject to the conditions
contained in the staff report.
Commissioner Green returned to the Chambers and the dais.
Commissioner Shipe reminded the Commission that he had a potential conflict of
interest on Item 4, and Commissioner Cannon asked if the election of officers
could be taken out of sequence so a Vice Chairman could be designated.
5. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN
~ISUC (Green/Tugenberg) to nominate Joanne Carson for Vice Chairman.
Commissioners Shipe and Cannon left the dais and the meeting. Vice Chairman
Carson assumed the Chairmanship of the meeting.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-87-19 REQUEST TO VARY FROM STANDARD
PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT 475 "H" STREET - IN SANG COMPANY
Principal Planner Lee commented that this was a relatively new retail
operation identified as the Chula Vista Swap Meet. It occupied 32,000 square
feet and all except about 6,400 square feet was devoted to retail sales. The
variance was requested to expand into that 6,400 square feet without adding
additional parking. He noted that the roller skating ring (21,000 square
feet) had received a conditional use permit in 1976 allowing 30 parking
spaces, so some precedent had been set. Strict interpretation would require
32 additional spaces. The applicant has conducted several parking surveys,
both before and after the opening of the Swap Meet. 30 percent of the parking
was used at peak periods before opening of the Swap Meet, and 60 percent is
now in use; namely, 300 spaces out of an available 500. Ample parking does
exist and the recommended conditions will provide adequate controls. Some of
the parking is utilized by the hospital, however, the wall between the
hospital and the center will be closed to encourage the hospital personnel to
utilize their own lot located on "H" Street between Third and Fourth Avenues.
If the variance is granted for 6 months, the Zoning Administrator can grant
two extensions (6 months each) depending on survey data submitted by the
applicant at prescribed times. The variance request would return to the
Planning Commission in August 1988 and could be revoked if necessary.
Discussion included the parking situation, the difficulty of finding space at
the bank; and the possibility of a drive-thru being installed at Arby's.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Planning Commission -10- February 25, 1987
In Sang Hwang, 475 "H" Street, Chula Vista, the applicant, stated that there
was a lot of parking space available, the skating rink, theatre, Farrell's and
the bank had agreed to share the space and the bank was closed on Saturday and
Sunday. He said he had done about $20,000 in advertising since December and
had budgeted between $6,000 to $10,000 per month for additional advertising.
Werner R. Hashagen, 7460 La Jolla Bovd, La Jolla, the architect, stated that
the survey revealed that only 300 out of the 500 spaces were utilized; that
even if business increased, there was a 6-month monitoring period.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MS (Tugenberg/Grasser) Shipe and Cannon out, that because of the 6-month trial
period, and based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to
approve the request, ZAV-87-19, to waive the requirement for 32 additional
parking spaces to serve 6,400 square feet of additional retail floor area at
475 "H" Street subject to conditions "a" through "e".
Comissioner Green said he did not believe in trial periods. Once the
expansion is accomplished it would be a hardship to ask anyone who had moved
into the expanded space to leave; and he perceived a traffic problem as he had
seen what happens around other swap meets.
Principal Planner Lee commented that all the material sold was new, the
vendors occupied a space within the structure but no improvements were
involved.
Commissioners Green and Carson voted no. The motion failed.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None
CO~MISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Carson reported that there were ants on the dais.
ADJOURNMENT AT 10:24 p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of March 7, 1987 at 9:00 a.m.
in Conference Rooms 2 & 3
Ruth M. Smith, Secretary
Planning Commission
WPC 3705P