HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1987/01/28 Tape No.: 275 Tape No.: 277
Side 2: O- all Side l: 0-1200
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF TBE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, January 28, 1987 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Shipe, Commissioners Cannon, Carson,
Grasser, Green, and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee,
Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil Engineer
Daoust, City Traffic Engineer Glass, Environmental
Review Coordinator Reid, Principal Planner Pass,
Senior Planner Heiter, Assistant Planner Reid,
Director of Community Development Desrochers, Sr.
Community Development Specialist Buchan,
Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, and Deputy
Director Public Works/Engineering Garibay
THE 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
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-5M - CONSIDERATION OF
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CLUBHOUSE AT 88 "L" STREET -
SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB (CONTINUED)
Principal Planner Lee noted that the item had been continued from the meeting
of January 14, 1987 because of lack of a quorum. Since additional survey data
is still needed, continuation to the meeting of February 25, 1987, was
requested. Mr. Lee further stated that the item would be considered by the
Montgomery Planning Committee on February 18, and the Commission would have
the benefit of that body's recommendation.
Planning Commission -2- January 28~ 1987
MSC (Cannon/Carson) Green abstained because of potential conflict of interest,
to continue the item to the meeting of February 25, 1987.
2. REPORT: CONSIDERATION OF PART I OF THE DRAFT MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
Principal Planner Pass stated that a brief overview would be presented by
Assistant Planner Barbara Reid assisted by Senior Planner Heiter, Project
Manager of the development of the Specific Plan. Planner Reid noted that the
components of Part I included (1) the Introduction and History of the
Community and the subareas from a sparcely populated rural community to its
present densely populated urban condition; {2) a Survey of both the physical
and social/economic areas including site usage on a parcel-by-parcel basis and
the strong "cottage industry" indicated by family-owned and operated
commercial and industrial businesses; (3) an Evaluation of result and analysis
of the survey; such as, the discovery that Montgomery possesses a very small
amount of public parkland (3.90 acreage) in contrast with the lO0 acreage
needed under Chula Vista General Plan standards; (4) the Trend Analysis
involving all phases of land use, population, expansion, circulation, housing
and redevelopment in which a trend toward multi-family development was
supported by the fact that 75% of the units constructed in Montgomery between
1980 and 1986 were multi-family as opposed to 6.5% single-family construction;
(5) a Forecast predicated upon the survey, evaluation and trends analysis of
the economic growth-and related aspects; and (6) in Conclusion, the basic
strengths of the Community and the proposal for addressment in the text and
graphics of Part II those issues identified. Ms. Reid then indicated the
availability of both Project Manager Heiter and Principal Planner Pass to
answer any questions.
In response to a question regarding need for a motion, Principal Planner Pass
recommended the Commission endorse Part I of the Montgomery Specific Plan for
approval by the Council which would enable staff to commence preparation of
the goals, objectives and standards.
Commissioner Green observed that Montgomery would be better served if the
entire area were treated as a whole unit with no distinction being made
between areas annexed earlier and the area annexed recently; that a more
logical chosen boundary should be delineated rather than the present irregular
one; and the utilization of San Diego County Ordinances or Chula Vista
Ordinances not be considered a separation factor.
Principal Planner Pass agreed that probably only 70 percent of the entire
Montgomery area was being dealt with under the present structure; however, as
the area was created by election and the inhabitants promised their own
Planning Committee, the method being utilized is the only legal recourse. He
added that to redefine the original boundaries which have been changing since
World War II would be extremely difficult.
Planning Commission -3- January 28. 1987
Director Krempl added that with the updating of the General Plan, the
integration of Montgomery will be achieved and that because of the irregular
boundaries, care is being taken to consider the interrelationship between
adjoining areas in planning usage.
Comnissioner Cannon commented that a similar situation of autonomy will arise
if Bonita should annex to Chula Vista.
MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) 5-1, Green no, to approve Part I of the Draft
Montgomery Specific Plan and recommend its adoption by City Council.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-87-3 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
FOR THEOKA VILLAGE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-3 - ALKIVIADIS
VASSILIADIS (CONTINUED)
Commissioner Cannon declared a potential conflict of interest and left the
dais and the Chambers at 7:20 p.m.
Principal Planner Lee observed that the item involved a condominium project of
55 units located on 3.15 acres on the north side of "K" Street between Third
and Fourth Avenues. He pointed out that the item had been continued from the
previous meeting because of lack of a quorum; the project is currently under
construction as apartments; it has been through the Design Review Committee
process; does conform with all City regulations and that staff has recommended
approval subject to nine conditions in the staff report. In those conditions,
the sentence, "The minimum radii for all curb return shall be l0 feet" should
be deleted from condition "a", and condition "i" should be deleted in its
entirety.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Frank Phillips, Civil Engineer, 71 North Fourth Street, representing the
applicant, said that all problems with Engineering and Planning had been
solved; the project is underway; and that he was available for any questions.
No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) 5-0, Cannon out, to find the project will have no
significant environmental impacts and readopt the Negative Declarations issued
on IS-8-49 and IS-86-12.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) 5-0, Cannon out, that based on the findings contained
in Section "E" of the staff report, to approve the tentative subdivision map
for Theoka Village, Chula Vista Tract 87-3, subject to conditions in the staff
report with the deletion of the sentence in "a", reading "The minimum radii
for all curb return shall be 10 feet" and deletion of condition "i" in its
entirety.
7:25 Commissioner Cannon returned to the dais.
Planning Commission -4- January 28, 1987
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative map for CVT-87-4; Chula
Vista Bayfront - Units 1 through lO
Principal Planner Lee displayed the map, noting that the 125 acre area is in
the middle of the Bayfront area, just north of Rohr. The subdivision includes
45 acres designated for office park, 4 acres set aside for specialty retail,
ll-1/2 acres for industrial development, 3-1/2 acres of highway commercial,
16-1/2 of residential use, approximately 21 acres of park land, and 24 acres
of wetland or marsh area. Individual lots are established in each of the 10
units.
Mr. Lee advised that since the land is located within the redevelopment area,
a Disposition and Development Agreement between the developer and the
Redevelopment Agency will be prepared which will allocate the costs and
responsibilities for the various improvement; that agreement will be finalized
prior to the approval of any final map.
Aside from the preservation or restoration of the wetland and upland habitat,
which will be addressed in an enhancement program, the major issues related to
this project relate to circulation and parks. The Local Coastal Plan called
for approximately 26 acres of parks in th Midbayfront area. The subdivision
includes 21 acres, including the area leading up to Lagoon Drive, a small
segment to the south, and the main park in the center area to the park along
the bayfront. That will provide pedestrian access and visual enhancement. A
small park that has been developed at "F" Street and another 4 acres of
parkland generally in this area are located outside the subdivision boundary.
Combining all the parkland areas, there will be nearly 28 acres within the
Midbayfront area.
Mr. Lee noted that in te~ms of circulation, Marina Parkway, which provides the
primary linkage to "E" Street, going southerly back to Tidelands Avenue, is
offset from the existing Tidelands where it terminates at the south property
line of this subdivision. The extension and alignment of that road will
require cooperation with the Port District, which controls the property
involved. The Planning and Engineering Departments are meeting with the Port
District to resolve this problem.
He also noted that Tidelands Avenue on this map reflects a T-intersection with
an extension of Bay Boulevard going north, whereas, in the approved Local
Coastal Plan, Tidelands Avenue was actually the northerly route so it was a
more curvalinear nature and more direct on that north alignment. A condition
of the proposed map speaks to the realignment in accordance with the Local
Coastal Plan.
Mr. Lee reported that third issue involved the Question of whether a
pedestrian overpass to the park to be developed on the outside of Marina
Parkway was feasible, necessa~, or desirable. It was determined that the
cost would be between $500,000 and $600,000 and the structure would have a
visual impact. With signalization at each of the park, where the activity
Planning Commission -5- January 28, 1987
areas will be, the staff concurred with the feasibility study that it was not
desirable or necessary to provide an overpass at the center of this linear
park area.
In terms of phasing, the applicant submitted a phasing plan that was an
independent unit development plan. A condition of approval of the map
requires a true phasing plan to identify sequencing of developments with the
associated infrastructure, prior to approval of the final map.
l~r. Lee advised that one of the more complex issues was the "E" Street bridge
widening. The Local Coastal Plan established a condition to address the
feasibility of widening the bridge at 7 to 9 lanes. This subdivision design
reflects 6 lanes with a modified loop design at the northwest corner of the
I-5/"E" Street interchange, which would eliminate a left-turn from "E" Street
to go south on I-5. Mr. Lee showed designs of the various alternatives for 7,
8, or 9 lanes, noting that the cost would range from nearly $1 million for 7
lanes, to $2.5 million for 8 lanes and over $3 million for 9 lanes, each of
the estimates exclusive of right-of-way acquisition. He also discussed in
detail the impact each of the alternatives would have on the already developed
property adjacent to "E" Street. Due to these impacts and the high cost, it
was indicated in the conditions for this map that a more detailed feasibility
study, in terms of traffic, is needed. Such study would be presented to the
Planning Commission for consideration prior to approval of the final map.
Mr. Lee called attention to the 59 conditions recommended for the approval of
this map, a joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting scheduled for
February 17th at 4:00 p.m. would consider both the tentative map and the
Coastal Development Permit.
Commissioner Green expressed concern as to whether the proposed parks will be
adequate for this area and for all the people of Chula Vista who want to use
it. He also asked about pedestrian paths and bicycle trails along the
Sweetwater Marsh and Vener Pond.
Mr. Lee affirmed that there will be such trails and displayed a map showing
the major pedestrian links designed into the park, going out to Gunpowder
Point and continuing in a northerly direction. It is intended to link that
system along 1-54 back to this area. There would also be a bike system along
there and bike lanes will be provided in both "E" Street and "F" Street.
Community Development Director Desrochers advised that bicycle and pedestrian
access routes along the Sweetwater Marsh and the bay are part of the buffer
system included in the Local Coastal Plan, outside the boundaries of this
subdivision map. The City is working with the Corps of Engineers because it
is part of their mitigation for the Sweetwater Flood Control/CalTrans project
to provide a lO0-foot wide buffer which would include feet of linear park way
with bicycle paths and pedestrian paths.
Chairman Shipe opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission -6- January 28. 1987
Mr. Joe Davis, speaking for Chula Vista Investment Company, P.O. Box 8086,
Rancho Santa Fe, noted that this map is ths culmination of five years of
intense planning by their company staff and consultants. He expressed
gratitude to the City staff for their cooperation and indulgence in the
detailed negotiation and reviews required for this complex project. He
endorsed the staff's recommendations as presented by Mr. Lee.
As no one else wished to speak, Chairman Shipe closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Green expressed his desire to have the pedestrian paths, bike
trails, and parks completed first so that all the citizens of Chula Vista can
enjoy the Bayfront area.
MSUC (Green/Cannon) based the findings contained in Section D of the report,
the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative
subdivision map for the Bayfront area, units 1 through 10, reference CVT-8?-4,
subject to the conditions specified in the report with the changes requested
by Mr. Lee, with an additional condition that parks, bicycle routes and
pedestrian paths be provided before any other construction takes place, as per
the Coastal Plan, and that the studies which have been to be completed
regarding traffic and other feasibility studies be brought to the Planning
Commission for approval as a condition of this map.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-86-3 - TOWN CENTRE 11 {EXPANSION OF CHULA VISTA
SHOPPING CENTER) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Commissioners Shipe and Green declared potential conflicts of interest and
left the dais, the Chambers and the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Cannon
assumed the Chairmanship.
For the benefit of the audience, Chairman pro Tem Cannon outlined the EIR
process and what actions could be expected at tonight's meeting.
8:05 - 8:10 - Recess
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid spoke of the necessity for the
renovation and enlargement of the Chula Vista Shopping Center which also
included the possible closing of Fifth Avenue; that the draft EIR is a
supplement to the Master EIR 78-13 (which established the Town Centre II
Redevelopment Plan Area) and was issued for public review on December 24,
1986. He noted that the Commission had been provided with two letters of
comment, a memo from the Resource Conservation Commission and correspondence
from the Sweetwater Authority. Those communications would be included in the
Final EIR along with a transcript of any testimony offered at the hearing.
Responses to these comments would also be included in the Final EIR which will
be considered at the meeting of February ll, 1987. Mr. Reid then introduced
June Collins, Project Manager for preparation of the EIR by PRC, Inc., to
discuss the findings of the EIR.
Planning Commission -7- January 28, 1987
Ms. Collins stated that the proposed project involves the renovation of the
existing Shopping Center, including closure of Fifth Avenue which bisects the
two parts of the Center, and a 141,400 square foot expansion of gross leasable
area. She presented a brief overview of the five issues addressed in the EIR;
namely, traffic, noise, air quality, utility relocations and the fiscal
analysis.
Traffic Analysis - This was based on a study done by Donald Frischer and
Associates and examined the impacts associated with the proposed addition and
the redistribution of traffic by the closure of Fifth Avenue including
existing and projected future background traffic in the area. The analysis
focused on 14 critical intersections which could be affected, with potential
adverse effects identified at Broadway/"H" by the reduction of the Level of
Service (LOS) at those intersections to Level "F" and "E" respectively. The
proposed mitigation measures, however, would raise the LOS to a higher Level
"E" at Broadway/"H" Street and return the LOS to Level "D" at Fourth
Avenue/"H" Street.
Noise Analysis - This measured existing ambient noise levels on "I" Street,
east and west of Fifth Avenue; on Fourth Avenue, north of "I" Street; and at
residences located on the side of Fig Street which abuts the Shopping Center.
The results indicated an increase from 1 to 1.5 db(A) on Street and Fourth
Avenue and of 0.4 db(A) to the Fig Street residences. This increase was not
considered significant as it measured less than a 3 db(A) and therefore not
noticeable to the human ear.
Air Quality - The increased mobile air emissions generated by increased
~raffic were consistent with assumptions within the Regional Air Quality Plans
in the State Implementation Plan.
Utility Relocations - This would require relocation of a variety of utilities
including water lines, sewer lines, electrical facilities with the most
significant of these being the high-pressure gas mains which SDG&E has
indicated are very important in providing service to the South Bay Region.
The EIR determines that by the applicant working closely with SDG&E,
relocation plans agreeable to everyone could be developed. Relocation of
power and sewer lines involved the possibility of a new pump station, however,
the impact was not considered significant.
Fiscal Analysis The detailed analysis of the project and alternatives
concluded that the project would have a net positive revenue -generating
benefit to the City under the three different assumed property tax increment
splits reviewed if both the property tax increment and sales revenue were
considered; the property tax increment alone would be insufficient.
The four alternatives considered were (1) no project; (2) partial depression
of Fifth Avenue; (3) full depression of Fifth Avenue; (4) elevation of the
mall over Fifth Avenue; and (5) that Fifth Avenue would remain open.
Planning Commission -8- January 28~ 1987
Fifth Avenue retention alternatives would result in traffic impacts the same
as those for existing conditions. The partial depression alternatives would
involve ramping because of the tunneling under the Mall. The full depression
would result in the cul-de-sacing of several streets because of street closure
necessitated as a result of the extensive ramping required of Fifth Avenue.
Noise and air quality would remain similar to those under existing conditions
and traffic circulation patterns would be similar. Under the no project and
Mall elevation, utility relocation would probably not be involved. Full
Jepression would involve total utility relocation impacts similar to those
associated with the partial depression alternative. Lowering might replace
relocation, but relocation to another area might prove to be more advantageous.
The fiscal analysis concluded that none of the alternatives would have the
same positive benefits to City revenue as the proposed project. In the no
project alternative, it was projected that the Center would deteriorate and
the revenues decrease over the long term.
In reply to Commissioner Cannon, Ms. Collins reviewed the mitigation measures
planned for the intersections at Broadway/"H" Street and Fifth Avenue/"H"
Street, which involved a widening of 3 feet of the north side of the eastbound
approach of "H" Street at Broadway and again at Fifth Avenue, a widening of 2
feet on the east side of the southbound approach at Fifth and restriping of
both intersections to accommodate additional left-turn lanes on all approaches
at both intersections. Mitigation measures including restriping and
prohibition of parking are also proposed to improve left-turning movements at
the two intersections with "1" Street. Additionally proposed is the closure
of Fig Avenue to through traffic just north of Shasta Street.
Commissioner Cannon stressed the importance of the overriding traffic
mitigation factors since traffic conditions would not be improving. He
requested that before consideration of the Final EIR, a quantitative traffic
analysis be provided addressing the effect on the intersections if Fifth
Avenue remained open and the proposed 140,000 square feet of retail space were
added.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked (a) if consideration had been given to bridging
over Fifth Avenue in an east-to-west direction (instead of north-to-south) and
leaving Fifth Avenue open? (b) if there had been any committal by Penny's to
remain in the shopping center? and (c) expressed concern that much of the
statistical analysis on which the final, basic assumptions were made had been
supplied by the applicant instead of by an independent consultant.
Commissioner Cannon asked {d) if the present anchor tenants were strong enough
to upgrade the center? (e) the shopping center would still be viable in 5
years if left in its present condition? and (e) if the center failed, what
would be the impact on the City from the Redevelopment Director's viewpoint?
Replies by staff and the consultants included that (a) the applicant had
considered an elevation over Fifth Avenue to create a continuous mall and
still leave Fifth Avenue open; and the Resource Conservation Commission also
had proposed an elevated mall over the street and a ring road over the
Planning Commission -9- January. 2~, 1987
right-of-way; (b) no commitment had been made by any of the anchor tenants;
(c) the revised redevelopment plan for Town Centre (including fiscal
information), prepared by Mr. Krupp, the Redevelopment Consultant, had been
available to PRC since January 6, 1987; the Final EIR would include data
prepared by Mr. Krupp in conjunction with his proposed redevelopment plans;
however, although some of the numbers might change, the conclusion of the
analysis and the relationship between the project and the alternatives would
remain the same.
Director Desrochers explained that many considerations and configurations had
been explored and rejected since 1978; revenues from the center had declined
from $100 million to $81 million; and unless the center were improved, the
decline would continue; efforts to improve the center included a search for a
fourth department store, consideration of a major renovation and a more varied
tenant mix. If the center failed, the peripheral businesses would be affected
also; it would be necessary to look for new uses and to fill the spaces.
Director Desrochers added that he felt somewhat pessimistic at the present
time since he could visualize another regional shopping center developing at
1-805 and Palm Avenue (in San Diego) with a shift of some of the major stores
to that area and it would be a l0 to 15 year wait before a regional center
could be developed in the EastLake Area at SR-125 and Orange Avenue.
Commissioner Carson expressed the opinion that the shopping center needs to
project its image to the public as there is nothing to entice the youth to
shop locally and many adults do not care to shop at the "H" Street Shopping
Center because "it is too close to the Trolley".
Commissioner Cannon said that a lower quality of merchandise was stocked in
the Chula Vista branches than in other locations which is one of the reasons
he and many others do not shop in Chula Vista but patronize Mission Valley
while the people from Tijuana come to Chula Vista.
Director Desrochers replied that the Town Centre Subcommittee had been stating
that fact consistently and public money would be invested in the renovation
only upon interior modifications. Sears has indicated they plan to put in one
of their super stores. Homart has hired the Jerde Partnership to be the
renovation architect. The aim is to create something attractive and fun
enough to keep the dollars and people here in Chula Vista. He admitted that
there has been a "leakage" of the middle income and above demographic
population leaving Chula Vista, bypassing Bonita Plaza, and shopping in San
Diego.
He pointed out that regional shopping centers involve major tenants with
enough financial support to withstand tenant turnover and able to attract
national credit tenants. If the proper environment is available, high quality
tenants are attracted.
Commissioner Tugenberg said he would like to see the following reflected in
the final EIR - a study of the peripheral areas not al ready addressed; such as
"G" Street; the area surrounding "I" and "H" Streets; and how the vacant land
Planning Commission -10- Januars 28, 1987
along the north side of East "H" Street would impact the traffic. He
expressed concern that the more the City shifts in demographics to the east,
the less viable the center would be.
Ms. Collins reiterated that the traffic study considered 14 key intersections
(as shown on page 22) and extended to Third, Fourth, Fifth and "G", "J", "I"
and "J" Streets; that her presentation had highlighted only the intersections
anticipated to experience an adverse effect as a result of the project
development. Existing and futur~opment as far apart as the vacant land
north of "H" Street and the Bayfront development were included in the 3%
growth factor calculations.
Mr. Desrochers explained that Town Centre ll as well as the Trolley, the
Bayfront development and other provisions in the General Plan are seen as ways
of keeping the area east of 1-805 viable.
Commissioner Cannon questioned if a firm position has been taken on either the
shallow tunnel or a bridge over Fifth Avenue; if the project made economic
sense to Mr. Desrochers as a Redevelopment Director; and if the City could
afford the involvement.
Director Desrochers replied that a recommendation would be made to the
Redevelopment Agency at the time the EIR was considered; he, personally, was
in favor of the redevelopment of the center and would prefer not closing Fifth
Avenue; however, consideration must be given to the traffic and the importance
of that area of the City. He regarded the investment as marginal in that
neither the bridge nor the total tunnel was feasible, and practically all the
tax increment plus sales revenue would be needed to amortize the City's
portion of the partial tunnel.
This being the time and the place as advertised the public hearing was opened.
Thomas Gourguechon, 55 W. Monroe, Chicago, IL, 60603, representing Homart
Development, explained that several criteria really define a regional shopping
center in rems of operational conditions and physical layout. Among those
are size; tenant and shopper perception of the project; the success of one
store directly affecting the success of another; the flow of vehicular and
pedestrian traffic within the site, the buildings and on the arterial streets
as epitomized by the ring road "which is the primary driver that has to do
with the issue of Fifth Avenue". This road permits traffic entering the site
from any point to circulate freely within the site, parking aisles and access
roads. Sidewalks, curbing and landscaping are laid out in accordance with the
ring road to direct shoppers to the various entrances of the department stores
and the mall.
In reply to questions, Mr. Gourguechon declared that Homart had become one of
the industry leaders in the redevelopment of existing property similar to the
proposed project. He noted the situation of having a major regional shopping
center with very strong anchors only 4 miles away; remarked that Homart's
uniqueness included developing a series of public destination areas as
Planning Commission -ll- January 28, 1987
depicted on the drawing. These destination areas are what people see the
anchor stores, a food court, the mall opening, the activity, colors, banners,
lighting, things that are subjective and deal with perception and cause people
to move around within a shopping center. He pointed out that J.C. Penny's is
hesitant to make a commitment until they know what the program will be
although they must make a decision by November 1987. Homart is buying
virtually all the property except the Broadway and the Sears' store.
In reply to a direct question by Commissioner Cannon if Homart would build the
center if Fifth Avenue were not closed, Mr. Gourguechon replied that they
would not. Their analysis of various alternatives indicates a direct impact
on rents and sales because of the"perception problems, the inability to do the
free circulation, (and) the lack of definition of a regional shopping center
(as compared to a community or neighborhood shopping center) to the extent of
about 20 percent".
In reply to whether Homart had Quantified the difference between the cost of
the center, per square foot, of closing Fifth Avenue versus the cost in the
event a partial tunnel or bridge, Mr. Gourguechon said that although
construction costs impact the mall market rents, Homart has found that the
mall market rents are an extrapolation of the sales performance and the
projected performance of the anchor department stores. In a projection on the
alternative of a shorter tunnel and the bridge over Fifth Avenue, the rent
projections were consistent with other market rents in a similar market. He
noted also that because of the concentrated and symbiotic relationship among
the stores, the entire area becomes a regional shopping center with a positive
effect on the peripheral businesses.
Perry Hall, Project Financial Director, Homart Development, stated that
because of the leasing problems none of the alternatives originally reviewed
were suitable from the owner's point of view that "revenue comes from rents,
not sales". He used a chart to illustrate the initial funding and estimated
cost over a period of time for both Homart and the City, showing that Homart's
cost of $70-$80 million over a period of time after an initial investment of
$35 million remained the same on all three alternatives. This would be
consistent with the memorandum of understanding.
Using the data prepared for the City by Community Systems Associates, the
chart indicated that with the proposed plan, after an initial investment of
$6-$7 million and a cost of $}b mi~ion over a 15 year period, the net
revenues for the City were forecast at an additional $22 million. For the
full tunnel, after an initial investment of $27-$28 million and a cost of
$6b-$TU million, the forecast would be a net deficit of $19 million because of
the cost of purchasing private property offsite, excavating, ramps, facility
relocating and cul-de-sacing other streets. For the partial depression, after
an initial investment of $17-$18 million and a cost of $40-$42 million, the
result would be essentially "breaking even". Mr. Hall continued that the $22
million surplus influenced them over the traffic impact or other environmental
impacts caused by a full or partial tunnel situation. No figures were shown
for the elevated macvet F'i-f-t~---Avenue because it would create unleasable
Planning Commission -12- January 2~ lg~7
space. None of the calculations used included any impact of a fourth
department store, any secondary inter-sharing effects on the surrounding
commercial area, nor did they reflect the impacts on property values in the
area.
Commissioner Cannon asked why, if Homart's investment remained the same under
each alternative, had Homart said they would not build the center if Fifth
Avenue were not closed. Mr. Homart replied that their market research and
their leasing people forecast diminishing sales under the alternative
scenarios; as much as 20 percent in the case of the full tunnel.
Additionally, these would involve construction of a type outside Homart's
experience and involves risks in which Homart prefers not to invest.
Chairman Cannon said that the Commission wanted a firm answer to whether or
not Homart would refuse to build the center other than the way they had
proposed. Mr. Hall said that was correct.
Donald Frischer, Frischer and Associates, Traffic Engineering Consultant,
retained by the City, said he had stressed in his early discussions with the
developer the need of investigating all alternatives either to eliminate them
entirely or consider them as a distinct possibility. His objections included
that the full tunnel would remove two important accesses to the site; namely,
a driveway on Fifth Avenue opposite each end; the partial bridging or
depression of the street would preclude an outer ring road within the center;
a ring road immediately adjacent to the building could be provided however
traffic close to the buildings is not desirable because of the pedestrian
travel between cars and stores. These two alternatives, therefore, were not
analyzed trafficwise.
Commissioner Cannon remarked that for the purposes of an EIR the report should
be as complete as possible since data was needed to evaluate alternatives
measures. Mr. Frischer said the data would be provided.
9:28 - 9:37 - Recess.
Charles Barnes, manager of the Trust and Savings Bank located at the southwest
corner of "H" and Fig Avenue, expressed concern about the undesirable traffic
circulation pattern if the street were closed north of Shasta, and the bank's
customers had to turn left and proceed north on Fig.
Mike Raya, Raya Men s Store, Broadway Shopping Center, referred to rejection,
several years ago, of the proposed regional shopping center at "H" and 1-805
which was consequently developed by National City. He pointed out that,
ironically, Bonita Plaza did not have a great impact on the sales at the
shopping center, but the neglect by the owners did; several tenants, including
Highlander and his own firm, were planning to relocate; if the redevelopment
did not take place there could be a "blighted center" which would increase
Planning Commission -13- January ~8, 1987
Chula Vista's "bad image"; the only way trade that has left for San Diego and
National City can be retrieved is by creating a center of significance with
major tenants and possibly a fourth department store. From a tenant's
standpoint, such a center would encourage local residents of the entire South
Bay Area to gravitate to Chula Vista.
Anne Bridges, 615 Cedar AVenue, CV, 92010, representing self and neighbors,
favored the redevelopment but opposed the Fifth Avenue closure; cited the very
round-about route Junior High and High School students would have to take;
asserted the residents want written confirmation if Vons, Penny's and the
Broadway are not renewing their leases; asked if the proposed fourth
department store would occupy Vons' site and how much parking would be
sacrificed; expressed concern about the merchandise quality and service level
in the stores; the preponderance of shoppers from Tijuana; emergency vehicle
access for people living south of "I" Street; and lack of public knowledge of
the impending street closure. She stated that citizens want the bridge over
Fifth Avenue and retention of Fifth; money should not be the dominant factor;
if the center renovation is not accomplished or is unsuccessful, a street has
been lost; that Homart offers no guarantees and the citizens could be the
ultimate losers not Homart.
Sid Morris, 862 Cedar Avenue, expressed concern over the traffic; favors
private development more than commercial; considers the quality of life more
important than cash; asserted the EIR is an opinion or supposition, not a
fact; if Homart's claim that the closing of Fifth Avenue and renovation of the
center will improve local business is true, why is it necessary to close the
street; that business will improve within the center if it improves outside;
and money can be made by investing the $6.4 million in another fashion.
Hugh Copeland, 521 Halsey Street, Chula Vista, identified himself as a project
manager and senior electronics engineer, and submitted a communication
entitled "Environmental Impact Report Notes~ which, he said, was a compilation
of questions and observations dealing with the scientific accuracy of the EIR
and other issues. Mr. Copeland cited several examples covered in the "Notes"
and concluded that "the use of unchallenged, uncorrelated data...makes those
portions of the report useless...(and that) each formula and equation...needs
to have its associated variables described in body text closely associated
with the formula or equation using those variables..."
Richard Bridges, 625 Cedar Avenue, decried the traffic conditions; expressed
lack of confidence in the proposed mitigation measures; objected to the
narrowing of lanes by restriping; questioned who would bear the cost of
relocating signals, hydrants, etc., since the information is not included in
the EIR; questioned why the statement {pg 13, 3.1) that Fourth Avenue will be
a primary access road to SR-54 extension is not supported by mention of
traffic it will generate in the traffic analysis of cumulative traffic volume
{pg 16); that the widening of Broadway by 2 feet will bring its width to 72
feet (pg 23), yet the number of lanes cited adds up to 75 feet.
Planning Commission -14- January 28, 1987
Joseph Brummett, 659 Beech Avenue, CV, declared the developer should come up
with a new design which will leave Fifth Avenue unaffected.
John Ralph, 583 Fig Street, CV, a driver for the Sweetwater Union High School
District, maintained that with the closure of Fifth Avenue, it would be
necessary to use Broadway to "G" and then turn east, however, it takes two
lanes to turn a 40-foot bus which would be impossible with the resultant
traffic; closure of Fig Avenue at Shasta would be good because it is a
residential street currently being used as a commercial street; the issue of
closing Fifth Avenue has been brought up four times to his knowledge;
questioned how the proposed project would facilitate the joint City/School
District corporate yard and the new District Administrative offices; observed
that pedestrian-vehicular traffic will not be improved because elementary,
junior high and high school students would be walking both ways and the five
school buses currently in use would add to the traffic impaction.
Gerald LaFredo, 627 Ash Street, CV, said he thought the closure of Fifth
Avenue for a test study period several years ago had proved the closure to be
infeasible; and cited Halsey Street which runs parallel to "I" would increase
as a potential through-access street and that the site would be good for a
shopping center or a park.
Clay Gingerich, 768 Riverlawn, CV, said he used Fifth Avenue because of the
traffic congestion on Fourth or Broadway and opposed the closure even though
he appreciated the need and value of the shopping center; suggested the
addition of a high-quality restaurant be considered; pointed out the success
of the inner ring road at Plaza Bonita; expressed concern regarding finding a
site and relocating the 20-inch and lO-inch gas mains, particularly since the
LNG plant is no longer in operation; and gave the opinion that SDG&E would be
very reluctant to relocate.
Joe Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, (corner of Fifth and "H") said the tunnels or
ramps would adversely affect his home; favors the shopping center; that
traffic is a necessary evil in our society; expressed concern over what he
perceived as the "preconceived negative attitude on the part of the
Commission"; and was not opposed to Fifth Avenue being closed.
Gayland Goodrich, 654 Cedar Avenue, former 17-year employee of SDG&E, said he
doubted strongly that SDG&E would pay a portion of the relocation since they
have a right to their present location and if a street-vacation process were
employed and they were moved out, "then you pay them." He expressed hope that
"I" Street would be widened because of the additional traffic and possible
conflict with truckers backing out of Vons; and declared that the closure of
Vons would be a major impact on the downtown area for grocery shopping.
In reply to Commissioner Cannon's expressed concern over the substantial
amount of parking needed to accommodate the proposed project, Environmental
Review Coordinator Reid said the primary plan in the EIR met the current code
requirements for off-street parking.
Planning Commission -15- January 28.~1987
David Pease, 1744 Yale Street, spoke against the street closure for traffic
reasons, and issued a challenge to the developers to create an outstanding
shopping center using their own money.
Mrs. Davis, 621 Fourth Avenue, inquired why one-way streets could not be
created from Fourth and Fifth; asked if the houses on Fifth Avenue that are
affected would be removed; and noted that if Fourth Avenue is widened any
further it will be up to her front porch.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
The Chairman informed the audience that staff would return with a Final EIR
incorporating the issues and questions advanced during the meeting and
reminded those present that the Commission was not discussing the actual
construction of the center but the environmental document.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Krempl
reminded the Commission about the Planning Commission workshop scheduled
for February 7, 1987;
the League of California Cities' Planning Commission Institute is
scheduled for March, budget provisions have been made for one
Commissioner to attend, and to contact the Secretary if interested in
attending.
CO~tISSION COMMENTS - None
ADJOURNMENT AT 10:45 p.m. to the Special Workshop of February 7, 1987 at PRC
Engineering, Inc., 401 West A Street, Suite 2500, San Diego, California, and
to the Regular Business Meeting of February ll, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers
Ruth M. Smith, Secretary
Planning Commission
WPC 3667P