Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/12/18 Tape: 328 Side: ! MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, December 18, 1991 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, Martin, Tuchscher, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Griffin, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Environmental Consultant Ponseggi, Planning Technician Smith, Community Development Director Salomone, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Environmental Consultant Richardson, Finance Director Christopher, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf pi.EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of October 9, 1991 MSC (Casillas/Martin) 5-0-2 (Commissioners Tuchscher and Tugenberg abstained) to approve the minutes of October 9, 1991. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- December 18, 1991 ITEM 1: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-91-04, CHULA VISTA MALL EXPANSION Environmental Consultant Ponseggi gave a brief overview of the project. She noted that two sections of the EIR had been modified including the impacts to sewer and traffic. The recommendation for the widening of "H" Street was still in the report as a recommendation, not a mitigation. The recommendation would comply with the City's Circulation Element which called for "H" Street to be widened to six lanes. The project could proceed without the widening of "H" Street, since the impact was adverse and it was a recommendation and not a required mitigation. She noted that the Candidate CEQA Findings were not included in the Commission packet and were not to be considered. Ms. Ponseggi noted that staff's recommendation was to certify the EIR as being complete and adequate in accordance with CEQA. Commissioner Tugenberg asked why the currently vacant J. C. Penney automotive center could not be removed. Environmental Consultant Ponseggi answered that the center was under a different leasehold with a long-term lease. Homart was attempting to negotiate with the lease holder to allow them to close that center. Also, there was a procedural matter regarding the closure permit for the underground storage tank which had almost been completed with the County Health Department. Commissioner Decker questioned the fiscal and social impact analysis, and asked if fire prevention should be added as an ongoing impact, since there would be new buildings which would add to the workload of the Fire Inspector and Police Department. John McTighe, President of John McTighe & Associates, Fiscal and Economic Consultants, said that in the detailed document, they had determined that there would be an impact both on police and on ongoing fire costs. The impact would be approximately $18,000 annually for additional police service as a result of the expansion of the shopping center, and approximately $4,000 to $5,000 annual additional ongoing fire service in incremental impact. Commissioner Decker also questioned the traffic analysis regarding the Rohr Industries office complex which would add dally end trips to the process in this area. He understood there would be no increase in Rohr employees, since part of the Rohr plant would be closed and employees moved over to the new office complex. That result would be zero. John Boardman, of the engineering firm who prepared the traffic analysis, answered that their analysis was based on the square footage of the Rohr office complex to be built. MSUC (Casillas/Carson) 7-0 to certify that the Final EIR had been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State of California Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, including the various modifications alluded to by the consultant. PC Minutes -3- December 18, 1991 ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-92-13 FOR THRIFT STORE AT 741 BROADWAY - Skill Centers of America Senior Planner Griffin, using the overhead projector, showed the location of the proposed project and the available parking spaces. Mr. Griffin said the Skill Centers had applied for and was granted a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator to operate a thrift store including the sale of used clothing. The Zoning Administrator conditioned the permit on having no more than 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to clothing sales because of the limited on-site parking. The current request was to modify the conditional use permit to allow up to 7,000 sq. ft. of clothing sales. Mr. Griffin went on to explain staff's rationale to deny the request. Commissioner Carson asked how many thrift stores were currently in the immediate area. Mr. Griffin answered that he was aware of one on the east side of Broadway just north of "L" Street. Commissioner Carson was concerned that with children's clothing being sold, there would be children getting in and out of cars and going into traffic. Commissioner Decker asked if other businesses in the area were entirely in conformance with the parking standards. Mr. Griffin said that had not been evaluated specifically. It varied from site to site. Usually the properties which had been developed in the last 10 to 15 years would comply with the parking standards. Those prior to that would generally not comply. There was general discussion on the amount of floor space used versus number of parking spaces at the Veterans Thrift Store on Broadway near "L" Street, the inadequacy of parking spaces and the problem with double parking and alley parking. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Keith Davis, 5700 Baltimore, La Mesa, President and Co-Founder of Skill Centers of America, said they had no problem with parking at their other stores. There had been no complaints from any other businesses. Regarding the proposed business on Broadway, Mr. Davis said the curbside parking was not being utilized by the existing businesses nearby, and Vista Palms, Fuller Ford, and T&D Top had submitted letters of support. Mr. Davis gave some of the attributes of the Skill Center and the employment opportunities. Chair Fuller clarified that the purpose of the request was to expand the retail sale of clothing inside the store, because the sale of clothing brought in more revenue than just appliances and furniture. Mr. Davis concurred, and noted there would not be the problem of alley parking that exists at the Veterans Thrift Store because there was not an alley. Allen Abrams, Hyde Park Drive, San Diego, representing the owner of the property, noted that the building had been empty for a year and would probably remain empty unless a business of this type or something less intensive was allowed. He discussed the possible types of usage and PC Minutes -4- December 18, 1991 the number of parking spaces required. He said the main problem with the building was the way the building sat on the lot. Tractor trailers could not traverse the comer to make deliveries of furniture. He noted that the building may sit vacant for many more years and actually become much more of a detriment to the community. Mr. Abrams suggested that possibly 40% to 60% of the people shopping at thrift stores use public transportation. Commissioner Casillas asked if staff had offered any assistance in terms of relocating to a more suitable location. Mr. Davis answered that staff had stated that if he could find something, they would work on something else, but he had not been able to find anything suitable. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Fuller asked why staff had not considered the on-street parking that was available. She had noted open parking in the area at various times. Mr. Griffin answered that the way the Code was established, all parking related to a new use was supposed to be on the site. On-street parking was for overflow. The amount of on-street parking varied from place to place and from time to time. From staff perspective, they were limited to looking at on-site parking. Commissioner Tuchscher stated the Mr. Abram had made a good point. He asked Mr. Griffin if there had been any investigation regarding the clientele and the use of public transportation, or what percentage of the clientele used public transportation as opposed to driving. Senior Planner Griffin noted that the applicant had stated that it was his impression that a large percentage of his clients took public transportation, although a specific figure was never given to staff. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that when he went to look at the property, there was ample parking on the street but there were five cars parked in the existing driveway along the side of the building. That may account for the reason there was no one on the street. Commissioner Casillas questioned the history of the building on "E" Street that was at one time Bumett Furniture Store where a similar-type use had been requested and denied. Mr. Griffin stated that the denial was not based on parking, but more because of image, in terms of an entrance into the Town Centre Redevelopment Area. MSC (Casillas/Carson) 6-1 (Commissioner Fuller voted against) to deny the request to modify PCC-92-13. PC Minutes -5- December 18, 1991 ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-92-09: CONSIDERATION OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MID-BAYFRONT Community Development Director Salomone gave a brief history of the project. He noted the Redevelopment Agency had directed that the Bayfront Subcommittee determine the various issues outlined in the staff report, and the recommendation would be presented by the Subcommittee Chairman to be considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Salomone stated that the Commission would be considering a developer/subcommittee proposal and a staff report which responded to that proposal. He noted the Commission was being asked to define the basic issues of the development land use density intensity. He felt it was appropriate to acknowledge the issue of economic feasibility; the full data was incomplete. He recommended that they consider the other issues of development, however, to the Commission's ability. Staff would return during the next year with the Local Coastal Plan, the General Plan Amendment, the project and development agreement, in addition to other issues. Mr. Salomone then turned the presentation over to Diana Richardson, the environmental facilitator, who updated the Commission on the Final EIR, which was considered adequate for either the Subcommittee alternative or for the staff alternative. At the January 8, 1992, meeting, the Planning Commission would consider the Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, along with an Addendum to the Final EIR which would explain and update the Final EIR packet. Ms. Richardson then presented Gary Cinti. Gary Cinti, the planning consultant, reviewed the plans recommended by the Subcommittee and staff and noted the differences, including the land uses, density, and square footage of units. He also noted the preferred site for the cultural arts facility, but said that data was not available to determine the size of the cultural arts facility, the parking requirements, or the height. Mr. Cinti then introduced John Moot. John Moot, Vice Chair of the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee, described the Subcommittee activities and the resulting recommendation. He noted the Subcommittee had considered 12 staff position papers, reviewed an economic and traffic analysis prepared by the City consultant, reviewed the environmental impact report and various position papers on the history of Bayfront development and the planning process that was prepared prior to the formation of the Subcommittee, in addition to many issues affecting the conceptual development plan. Lyman Christopher, Director of Finance, spoke on the economics of the project, giving background information, and the status of the current economic data, and indicated the intention of staff to provide additional economic analysis. He noted that the economic model was based on a discounted cash flow method which looked at two financial performance measures--the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and the net present value of the projected cash flow. The discount rate used in the economic analysis was 15%. Part of the additional economic work staff intended to do was an analysis with a target 12% IRR instead of the 15%, so there could be a comparison of the different rates of return. Mr. Christopher informed the Commission that the current economic analysis was not to be considered the "final" economic analysis of the project. PC Minutes -6- December 18, 1991 Staff would be incorporating modifications pursuant to comments received and suggestions on Table 7 into a new economic run which would be available in early January. Commissioner Tugenberg, after reading a statement from a letter received from Peterson & Price, asked why a person would enter into a development other than IRR. Anne Simpson, economic consultant with Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, answered that in all of the consultant work they had done both in private sector as well as public agency clients, they typically look at the Internal Rate of Return. There was no such thing as cash-on-cash internal rate of return; they looked at a cash basic internal rate of return which they typically used as a benchmark. Commissioner Decker questioned the inflation rate assumed for the foreseeable future. Ms. Simpson answered that they were using a 4% annual inflation rate. They were trying to look at a very long-term project and an average over a very long projection period. They would be considering a lower Internal Rate of Return at 12% for comparative purposes in subsequent analyses. Finance Director Christopher noted that the target Internal Rate of Return to a large extent was driven by the size and the complexity of a project. Regarding the staff alternative recommendation internal rate of return with the smaller units, Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the economic analysis took into account the fixed cost involved of the infrastructure, the lagoon, land cost, etc. Ms. Simpson answered that they assumed the same infrastructure cost for the less intense development alternative, which took into consideration 25 % surface parking and the rest subterranean parking. Commissioner Tugenberg asked what type of bond would have to be sold to finance Chula Vista's participation in the infrastructure. Mr. Christopher answered that several types of bonds had been discussed. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that mutual funds made up of tax-free California municipal bonds had been liquidating most of their Mello-Roos bonds. Mr. Christopher concurred. Community Development Director Salomone closed the staff presentation and asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Tugenberg asked about the restriping of the "E" Street overpass and the normal width of a lane. Dan Mature, representing JHK & Associates, the traffic consultant for the project, answered that the standard lane width was 12' on the bridge structure. Commissioner Tugenberg asked the method of redistribution of traffic from the "E" Street interchange south to the "H" Street interchange. Mr. Marum explained the logic of redistribution, after which there was general discussion regarding the traffic. Commissioner Tugenberg did not agree with Mr. Marum's methodology for traffic redistribution. PC Minutes -7- December 18, 1991 Commissioner Decker commented that the traffic from Rohr would probably be lessening because of the reduction in personnel. He also asked if the northeast parcel on the map had been considered as an office complex. Mr. Marnm answered that he believed the alternative analyses included both hotel-type and commercial uses at that site. Commissioner Decker questioned Mr. Moot regarding the northeast parcel and asked why the Subcommittee had made no recommendation on that. Mr. Moot said that since it was a City- owned piece of property, the City at a later time would ultimately reassess what would be best at that site. The Subcommittee felt the option should be remain open for the best use at that time. Commissioner Carson asked Mr. Moot why the developer was an ad-hoc member on the Subcommittee. Mr. Moot explained that not all members were in unanimous agreement that he sit as an ex officio member, but the Subcommittee took a very practical approach. They felt it was important for the Subcommittee to understand what the developer's plan was and whether what they felt was appropriate matched what he intended to do with it. The fact that he was there as an ex officio member was a great benefit to the committee. Commissioner Carson asked about the view of the water and natural vegetation. Mr. Moot answered that it had been discussed in the environmental impact report; that any development in the area would significantly block a view of the water. It had been the subject of two position papers presented by staff and discussed during preparation of the environmental impact report. It was apparent that any development in that area of any size would significantly block the view. One of the reasons for the reduction of the number of high rises was to preserve the view corridor. Commissioner Casillas, as a member of the Bayfront Subcommittee, stated that he had never felt it was inappropriate to have the developer as an ex officio member of the Subcommittee, because in many instances they helped to clarify the concept and what they were trying to do, and much time was saved. Commissioner Tuchscher concurred with Commissioner Casillas and Mr. Moot in that there was a lot of benefit, that it saved a lot of time, and it let the Subcommittee look at several sides of various issues. He added that Mr. Barkett's team brought forth some ideas specifically with regard to the cultural arts center and other design issues which were truly beneficial. Regarding square footage, Commissioner Martin asked Mr. Moot where the differences were between the staff conceptual plan and the Subcommittee conceptual plan. Mr. Moot answered that it was in the amount of residential square footage, the number of hotel rooms, and the Subcommittee had not designated a particular use for the City-owned portion in the northeast. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if during their discussions of the cultural center there was any mention of locating the cultural center on Otay Ranch. Mr. Moot said that if there had not been PC Minutes -8- December 18, 1991 a site large enough, they encouraged the Cultural Arts Commission to look to other sites. When this site was offered, the Subcommittee felt it would be an ideal place for a cultural arts center. Commissioner Tuchscher clarified that this was one of the sites being considered by the Cultural Arts Commission, but not necessarily the site the consultant would recommend. Commissioner Tugenberg questioned Community Development Director Salomone regarding the density of the core area and its conformance to the General Plan. Mr. Salomone answered that in the core area it was almost impossible to calculate the density, because it was mixed with hotel and retail uses. The density was calculated only on the northern village where it was solely residential. Discussion followed regarding density. Chair Fuller asked if, in staff's recommendation, the "inn" designation on the City-owned parcel in the northeast was to include it as part of the total concept as opposed to allowing, in the Subcommittee's report, the City to put something other than a hotel on the parcel it would be in addition. Mr. Moot said the Subcommittee did not want to go forward on the City-owned parcel and recommend a particular number of rooms. They wanted to make it clear to the Commission that the number of rooms in their recommendation were on the balance of the ownership, and that any hotel rooms that the Planning Commission might want to put on that parcel would be in addition to their recommendation. The Subcommittee was trying to define the land use a little differently than if zoned Commercial. Chair Fuller asked if the Subcommittee desired the Commission to consider that as a definition of land use as part of the conceptual plan, that it was a very different point from the Subcommittee's view. Mr. Moot concurred, and said that staff's recommendation was that it be an inn. Commissioner Tuchscher asked for clarification regarding the number of rooms. Mr. Moot answered that, in the staff recommendation, the total number of hotel rooms was 1200 -- 400 in the two parcels were visitor-serving commercial with no particular distribution of the 400 units, although it was the Subcommittee's assumption that there would be 250 on the City parcel and 150 on the other parcel. Regarding the Chula Vista Investors' property, there would be 950 on the resort, as well as the visitor-serving commercial site. Chair Fuller called a 5-minute recess at 9:10 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 9:17 p.m. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Paul A. Peterson, 530 B Street, Suite 2300, San Diego 92101, attorney representing Chula Vista Investors, stated that Bill Barkett, the applicant, was in attendance to answer questions and noted that their presentation would consist of discussion of the conceptual merits of the planning PC Minutes -9- December 18, 1991 aspects of the project, and then with the financial aspects. He then introduced Carl Worthington, and thanked the Bayfront Subcommittee for the work they had done. Carl Worthington, Jerde Partnership, 913 Ocean Front Walk, Venice 90291, architects for the applicant, dealt with the differences between the staff recommendation and the applicant's (Subcommittee's) recommendation. Among other differences, he noted that in the redesign of the residential area there were two very clear view corridors that were important, one from the top of the bridge and the Nature Interpretive center, and the second from the crest of the hill. At that point, the residential area was cut back. Mr. Worthington said the applicant agreed with the Subcommittee regarding the residential inn and felt the inn should be kept in the core. There were a number of alternate uses on the City site. Mr. Worthington said the phasing and financing were continuing to be refined. Fred Pierce, Price Waterhouse, 15768 Caminito Cercado, SD 92138, marketing consultant, commented on cost, revenue, and financing alternatives. Mr. Pierce stated it was critical that there was an opportunity to have rental housing, which would be accommodated in the core area, and for-sale housing. The 1,000 units were needed to amortize the heavy infrastructure costs. The blend of square footage and number of units was integral to both marketing and to the economic feasibility of the project. He noted there was still work to be done regarding economic feasibility; that assumptions were critical in any measurement, in IRR or net present value, and there were extremely varied assumptions being used by Price Waterhouse versus the City's consultants in the areas of costs, revenues, and financing mechanisms which all impact the feasibility. Commissioner Decker asked about the number of hotel rooms to serve a convention center based upon the 40,000 sq. ft. of meeting rooms. Mr. Pierce said there would be additional meeting rooms within the individual hotel properties that would create more meeting space. A minimum of about 25,000 sq. ft. was needed in a single ballroom to handle large groups. Commissioner Casillas questioned Mr. Pierce regarding page 4 of Mr. Peterson's letter relating to Mello-Roos and assessment district financing. Mr. Pierce explained that the numbers on a project in terms of what Internal Rate of Return was acceptable to an investor was based upon the capital structure; how much money could be borrowed, how much equity had to be put into the project; how much it cost for the different types of debt financing. Peter Warty, 81 Second Avenue, CV 91910, representing CROSSROADS, spoke in opposition of the project. He complimented the Subcommittee on the work they had done and the time they had devoted. He also had accolades for City staff. However, CROSSROADS could not support all the components of either the staff or Subcommittee recommendations. They supported the idea of a cultural arts center somewhere in Chula Vista, and supported staff's suggested location of the northeast intersection of Lagoon Drive and Marina Parkway. They objected to the recommended land use, the number of high-rise structures, traffic, funding and impact to schools. They objected to the City requirement of the third lagoon in the condo residential complex, and felt it should be optional; the scope of the Bayfront Plan should be significantly PC Minutes -10- December 18, 1991 reduced, thereby improving its economic viability while decreasing the adverse affects of traffic and schools; subterranean parking needed to be reduced; and felt the project as proposed would put the City at great risk. CROSSROADS recommended disapproval of both conceptual proposals. Rol~ert J. Spiegel, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Diego 92101, an MAI appraiser, spoke in favor of the project and spoke to the reliability, dependability, and honesty of Mr. Barkett. He also suggested that any additional economic studies made be done on an after-tax basis. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Decker commended the Bayfront Subcommittee on the work they had done. He felt the proposal was realistic and well thought out; felt the number of dwelling units may be on the low side. He supported the report. Chair Fuller reminded the Commission that the Subcommittee accepted the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the six key issues given them. She felt the Subcommittee had addressed those and some of the issues brought up by staff, and that the Commission had been asked to accept the plan in concept and was ready to do that. There were many unanswered questions, but the Commission would have the opportunity to deal with those. Commissioner Carson commented that, since she had been appointed to the Commission to represent the community, and after talking with members of the community, she would vote against the project in order to represent the members of the community who were strongly against the high density, the problem with the traffic, the problems with the schools, and the feasibility of the project. Commissioner Tugenberg said he had no confidence in the traffic report, especially with the redistribution of traffic. He generally liked the concept, but felt the intensity and the density both in the core and in the residential area were much too intense and unhealthy. The principal concern of the people in the community was the intensity and density of the Bayfront. He would not support either the staff or the Subcommittee's recommendation. Commissioner Casillas asked the Assistant City Attorney to clarify condition no. 18, as to who would approve the economic feasibility analysis. He wanted to more about how the economic feasibility factor would be tied in, so the City would not commit future generations to something which may or may not work. He also commented on the density, and felt square footage should be used rather than number of units; would support staff's recommendation regarding number of hotel rooms; felt there should be better economic data and wanted to make sure that future generations were not committed to something that would not benefit all of Chula Vista. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that Mr. Casillas was asking when in the subsequent process, assuming there was some kind of recommendation from the Commission and some action by the Council with regard to approval of a project, the development agreement would PC Minutes -11- December 18, 1991 have to be negotiat~l and the fine tuning of the economic analysis would have to fall into place. He understood condition no. 18 to say that staff's re, commendation for the Commission was to get that done before the LCP resubmittal. Community Development Director Salomone stated that should the Commission choose a plan to be sent forward from this meeting, staff would be back on January 8, 1992, with a number of clarifying languages to address the addendum to the EIR. Before recommending the adoption of those statements of overriding considerations, staff would want to be reasonably assured as staff that in fact it was economically feasible. Every attempt would be made to do so by that time. Commissioner Tuchscher echoed Commissioner Casillas' comments regarding economic feasibility. He discussed some of the Subcommittee's procedures, and some of the reasons for their recommendations especially regarding square footage and number of units. Commissioner Tuchscher endorsed the Subcommittee's recommendation regarding the square footage and number of units in the residential area. Commissioner Martin expressed disappointment in the last-minute information received from staff, but noted that the Planning Commission was considering a concept to do something progressive. He felt the Subcommittee had done an excellent job and would support their recommendation. After discussion, it was decided that a basic motion would be made to approve the conceptual development plan of the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee with the following clarifying text, and then go through the staff's recommendation and vote on the inclusion of them one at a time. At the end, a vote would be taken on the motion as amended. MS (Deeker/Tuehseher) to approve the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee/Applicant Alternative Plan, with the following clarifying text which specifies certain items to be specifically addressed in the LCP Resubmittal, the General Plan Amendment submittal, or an agreement between the applicant and the City or Redevelopment Agency: 1) Public Lagoon: The lagoon west of Marina Parkway shall be investigated for the possibility of swimming/wading; 2) Cultural Arts Facility: The area west of Marina Parkway shall be the preferred location for a facility. If this location is proven to be infeasible, then a location somewhere in the core area will be used for the facility. Development of limited recreation/commercial uses could be allowed adjacent to this facility (within parameters of certified FEIR); PC Minutes -12- December 18, 1991 3) Density: The residential maximum is 1000 du's comprising a maximum square footage of 1.355 million. A maximum of 700 du's will be contained in the residential area north of Marina Parkway. The maximum number of hotel units is 1610; 4) Building Heights: -- Residential: Residential structures adjacent to the Park along the western and northern edge of the residential parcel shall be limited to two stories. Two residential high rise structures are required and may be no higher than 22 stories. Residential uses in the Resort area shall not be permitted on the first level, but shall be mixed with and above other retail uses; -- Hotels: A minimum of 2 high rise hotels are required and shall be no higher than 22 stories (229 feet). VOTE ON MOTION: 5-2 (Commissioners Carson and Tugenberg voted against) In addition to the recommendation that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the conceptual plan of the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee, the Planning Commission voted individually on the following text which had been included in the Staff Alternative. Those which were included in the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee Alternative or considered routinely were disregarded. 1) Schools: Residential development shall be restricted until assurance that facilities for students generated by the project will be available when needed. MS (Tugenberg/Carson) that in addition to the aforementioned, that the words "no development of any sort will occur prior to an agreement to house the students generated by the project." Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the motion meant any particular phase of the project which was being built. Commissioner Tugenberg answered that he was asking that an agreement be made prior to the development starting that would assure that the schools were there when needed. In answer to Commissioner Casillas' question, Commissioner Tugenberg explained that the agreement should be made at the very beginning, not when the residential goes in, but before any development began. Commissioner Tuchscher suggested removal of the word "residential" from the sentence. Commissioner Tugenberg concurred. PC Minutes -13- December 18, 1991 AMENDED MOTION: 1) Schools: Development shall be restricted until assurance that facilities for students generated by the project will be available when needed. VOTE ON MOTION: 6-1 (Commissioner Decker voted against) MS (Decker/Casillas) to accept the following as worded: 2) Phasing: Project phasing shall be programmed to ensure fiscal benefits to the City, and early implementation of public parks. Updated and objective market, economic, and fiscal analyses shall be provided prior to the commencement of any phase of development. The first phase shall include development of the core area comprising the lagoon, core hotels, retail/commercial with residential above, and sports complex. Residential development in the northern area (north of Marina Parkway) may be included to a maximum of 25 percent of the total number of units. Assistant Planning Director Lee clarified that the last sentence regarding the residential development in the northern area may be included to a maximum of 25 % of the total number of units in the first phase. VOTE ON MOTION: 7-0 (The following were considered but not voted on.) 3) Public Lagoon: Subcommittee's alternative accepted. 4) Cultural Arts Facility: Subcommittee's alternative accepted. 5) Community Purpose Facility: Already addressed in zoning ordinance; if it becomes a Planned Community District, it is a requirement in the P-C zone. The Cultural Arts facility would be considered a community purpose facility. 6) Density: Subcommittee's alternative accepted. 7) Building Heights: Subcommittee's alternative accepted. 8) Parking: Determined that it would be considered in the future. PC Minutes -14- December 18, 1991 MSUC (Carson/Decker) 7-0 to accept as stated: 9) Bike/Hiking Trails: An integrated trail system to maximize trail and visual access to the bayfront shall be provided and shall provide linkage to the Chula Vista Greenbelt (as described in the General Plan). MSUC (Decker/Carson) 7-0 to accept as stated: 10) Water Access: A location for future direct access to the Bay shall be identified on the final plan in the event that future Federal, State, and Port District approvals would permit such access. MSUC (Decker/Carson) 7-0 to accept as stated: 11) Traffic: A traffic monitoring program shall be established as an implementation and phasing requirement. MSUC (Carson/Decker) 7-0 to accept as stated: 12) Conversion of Hotels: Hotels may not be converted for residential use. (The following were considered but not voted on.) 13) Family and Luxury Housing: To be determined later. 14) Affordable Housing: To be addressed in development agreement. MSUC (Carson/Decker) 7-0 to accept as stated: 15) Air Quality: An Air Quality Improvement Plan (as defined in the Growth Management Ordinance) shall be required for approval concurrently with the project submittal (SPA Plan). MSUC (Carson/Decker) 7-0 to accept as stated: 16) Water Conservation: A Water Conservation Plan (as defined in the Growth Management Ordinance) shall be required for approval concurrently with the project submittal (SPA Plan). PC Minutes -15- December 18, 1991 MSUC (Carson/Decker) 7-0 to accept as stated: 17) Nature Interpretive Center Assessment District: The properties enjoying the benefits of the Nature Interpretive Center (including the Midbayfrunt) will be included within a yet- to-be-established Assessment District which will contribute funds toward Center programs). MSUC (Carson/Decker) 7-0 to accept as worded: 18) Economic Feasibility: An Economic Feasibility Analysis shall be approved prior to, or concurrently with, the approval of the LCP Resubmittal. The report shall be prepared in a format acceptable to the City's Director of Finance and be available with adequate lead time for a thorough staff review. The criteria for approval of this report shall be that it demonstrates clearly that the project/phasing proposed is economically feasible. The report shall include a supportable statistical basis for marketing (revenue/absorption) and costs associated with the feasibility analysis. Community Development Director Salomone asked that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare an Addendum to the Final EIR, the Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and bring the package back to the Planning Commission at the meeting of January 8, 1992, to consider, deliberate, and act upon as it related to the Commission's action at the present meeting. MSUC (Carson/Martin) 7-0 to direct staff to prepare an Addendum to the Final EIR, the Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and bring the package hack to the Planning Commission at the meeting of January 8, 1992, to consider, deliberate, and act upon as it related to the Commission's action at the present meeting. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee reviewed the updated calendar of meetings of the Planning Commission. He noted a potential field trip to San Miguel Ranch on January 18 and asked the Commissioners to contact the secretary if interested. He also noted there would not be a formal workshop in January; however, there would be a special meeting on February 5, with a potential field trip to Kaiser facility in early February. Commissioners Decker and Fuller needed to check their calendars; the rest could go on February 8, 1992. PC Minutes -16- December 18, 1991 Mr. Lee said there would be a dinner workshop on February 19, and then the Commission would proceed with the normal schedule in March. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated another workshop regarding the CEQA process would be held at a regular staff meeting on January 16 at 8:30 a.m. Commissioners Tuchscher and Casillas agreed to attend, since they had been unable to attend the workshop for the Commissioners due to a conflict in meetings. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Chair Fuller, on behalf of the Commission, expressed holiday greetings and presented a gift to the secretary, along with their thanks for her services. ADJOURNMENT AT 12:15 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of January 8, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. N~cy Ripl~ey, Secrefary · Planning Commission