Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/11/13 Tape: 327 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:05 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, November 13, 1991 Public Services Building ROL__Q_L_L_~ALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Casillas, Commissioners Carson, Decker, Martin, Tuchscher, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Fuller (excused) STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Associate Civil Engineer Ouadah, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLF. GIANCE - SILF. NT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Vice Chair Casillas and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Vice Chair Casillas reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTF~q - Meeting of October 23, 1991 MSC (Decker/Martin) 5-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher abstained; Chair Fuller absent) to approve the minutes of October 23, 1991. ORAL COMMUNiCATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- November 13, 1991 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-91-04, CHULA VISTA MALL EXPANSION Environmental Review Coordinator Reid gave an overview of the proposed project. He noted that the Draft EIR had been circulated for well over the 30-day public review period required by CEQA. He said discretionary action required for consideration of the project included review of the project by the Design Review Committee and the Town Centre Project Area Committee, and entering into a development agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. Comments from the Design Review Committee and Town Centre Project Area Committee were included in the Commission packet. Mr. Reid noted letters had been received from the Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater School District. A letter from Homart Development Company and a petition had been received by the Commissioners just prior to the meeting. Mr. Reid then introduced Lee Sherwood, of RECON, who was the project manager preparing the EIR. Mr. Sherwood summarized the issues and impacts addressed in the EIR and the mitigation measures recommended. Commissioner Decker asked Mr. Sherwood about the comments from Homart regarding no net increase in water. If no net increase in water, how could there be an increase in sewage? Lee Sherwood, RECON, the preparer of the EIR, answered that they had not determined which line they were going to be using, and until they actually knew the number of fixtures in the buildings, etc., they couldn't determine how much sewage would be generated. Commissioner Decker commented that he couldn't see how there would be an increase in sewage if the applicant was required to agree to no net increase in water usage. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid answered that the no net increase could involve some off-site water conservation measures that would balance the increase in water consumption at this site, so there could be an increase in sewage flow and still overall be a no net increase. Commissioner Decker asked that it be clarified in the Final EIR. Commissioner Martin asked if staff had seen the petition delivered this evening, and asked if their ideas had been considered. He noted that the petitioners disagreed that the traffic impact was mitigable. Mr. Reid said that staff had also just received the petition, and he felt they were addressing both the noiseand traffic issues. Staffhad not considered thealternafives, sinee there had been no significant impact identified due to traffic or noise, in the sense of environmental noise. PC Minutes -3- November 13, 1991 Commissioner Tuchscher asked about the noise impact associated with the theater's hours of operation. Mr. Sherwood answered that it was considered to be at a "nuisance" level but would not exceed any particular City standard. Those types of impacts are enforceable through the Municipal Code. Mr. Reid explained that there are two different types of noise--environmental noise which is evaluated in the EIR, and nuisance noise which is handled differently. Commissioner Decker asked if the letters from the school districts would be answered in the Final EIR. Mr. Reid answered affirmatively. Commissioner Carson, referring to page 36 of the EIR, noted that over 30,000 new residents would be moving into the City between now and 1997 in the western portion or the City of Chula Vista? Mr. Reid answered that it would be citywide, including areas not currently in the City. Commissioner Carson asked if the pipelines had to be relocated for the San Diego Gas & Electric, etc., how expensive would it be for the developer. Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman answered that the smaller gas lines would not pose a problem, but the main gas line going down Fifth Avenue would be a major expense and would render the project infeasible. Commissioner Carson asked why the projection for the build-out of Scripps was for 1994 but the EIR was not projecting or using the traffic analysis for the ultimate phase. She felt the projection should consider the ultimate build-out for ail projects rather than project by project. She asked if the City Engineer knew when the widening of "H" Street would take place. Associate Civil Engineer Zoubir Ouadah, of Traffic Engineering, said the statement was included in the EIR regarding the timing by the City Engineer because it was due to cumulative traffic. The widening was not just for this project and traffic would be monitored and the street would be widened when traffic warranted. The dedication of right-of-way was being requested at this time, so it wouldn't have to be done later. Commissioner Carson was concerned that the City would wait too long to widen the street. She felt staff should take a serious look at why the projection was only to 1994; she would like to~ see it in relationship to all projects taking place at one time. Commissioner Carson, referring to page 42, asked for an explanation of the second paragraph under 3.4.2.1 -~ 48 trip ends instead of 40 trip ends per 1,000 sq. ft. PC Minutes -4- November 13, 1991 Mr. Ouadah explained that the traffic consultant had done an actual driveway count and there was a total of 39.7 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. Staff had used the 1978 SANDAG Study of the Chula Vista Shopping Center to determine the 48 trip ends per 1,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Carson felt the 1978 SANDAG Study was outdated and thought staff needed to determine a measurable device. The sentence needed to be changed to another place, or the information from SANDAG needed to be explained in the beginning. Commissioner Carson, referring to page 63, asked when the City's water policy would be put into effect. She asked if instead of no net increase, the applicant could make payment and use ail the water they wished. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid said the Task Force was still meeting on the water policy and he did not know when it would be in place. He said since the policy had not yet been established, one of the possibilities is that the applicant would make some type of fee payment into a common fund that the City would then use to retrofit parks or schools, etc. for better water conservation measures. Answering Commissioner Carson's query, Mr. Reid stated the Redevelopment Agency could include, as part of the development agreement, some type of water offset policy. Commissioner Carson asked that a recommendation be made to the Redevelopment Agency to that effect. Commissioner Carson asked why an off-site alternative in Nationai City was included in the report. Mr. Reid answered that jurisdictionai boundaries could not define where off-site alternatives are to be located, and that particular shopping center had a pad for another department store. Commissioner Carson stated that she was strongly asking staff to look at helping with the recommendations that were given by the School Districts, especially Agency participation in replacing the classroom trailers. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if any consideration was given to mitigating the height of the parking facility by undergrounding the first level. Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman answered that Homart had concluded it would be much more expensive to excavate and build the structure than to build the surface parking lot. Vice Chair Casillas noted the parking structure would be essentiaily the same height as the Broadway. Mr. Kassman said he understood it would be approximately the same height at the J. C. Penney's building with the exception of a couple of design features which might extend a bit higher. Vice Chair Casillas questioned the traffic circulation and the impact on "H" Street, and felt the impact should be established. Mr. Reid answered that the system was basically in place. There PC Minutes -5- November 13, 1991 would be an annual review of many of the intersections throughout the City, including the ones affected by this project, which would go to the GMOC for their review and recommendation to Council. Vice Chair Casillas agreed with Commissioner Carson that the formula used by SANDAG should be revisited. Associate Civil Engineer Ouadah noted that staff has been working on a development impact fee method for the Western Territories similar to the Eastern Territories, where all developments contribute to a pool and the project is built as needed. Commissioner Tugenberg noted that in a previous EIR for Scripps Hospital, there was an item that said it was a CEQA requirement to look at the cumulative impact. He felt this project should be projected cumulatively to the ultimate phase, particularly on East "H' Street between Broadway and Third Avenue, because of the two projects going in simultaneously. He asked Environmental Coordinator Reid for verification of the requirement by CEQA. Environmental Coordinator Reid answered that a cumulative analysis is required, and he thought there was a cumulative analysis throughout the City because of the recent EIR on the General Plan Update. The recommendation had been made at that point that "H" Street and East Street should be six-lane facilities between I-5 and 1-805. There was further discussion regarding the level of service capacity of "H" Street and the difference in a four-lane collector, four-lane major street, and a six-lane major and the existing capacity. Commissioner Decker, referring to Appendix B regarding fiscal and socioeconomic impact analysis, asked if when the extension is built and a reevaluation is done, all the tax money gained from the reevaluation went to the Redevelopment Agency. Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman answered that the Redevelopment Agency would receive the tax increments (estimated at approximately $208,000 per year on a $21 million project) from the physical improvements. The sales tax revenues would go to the City of Chula Vista. This would be for the duration of the redevelopment project, which is a 45-year project ending in the year 2033 or 2032. Mr. Kassman discussed the right-of-way for the widening of "H" Street and noted that Homart had agreed to help negotiate with Carter-Hawley-Hale and with Sears, so they could do the whole block. Commissioner Carson asked where the EIR referred to the ultimate phase. John Borman who had prepared the traffic report answered that Table 6 showed the build-out of the entire area, which included Scripps' ultimate. Commissioner Carson requested that clarification be made that everything had been used across the board. PC Minutes -6- November 13, 1991 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Paul Rapp. 683 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista 91910, discussed the traffic issue on Fifth Avenue regarding the south entrance. He said he was not in opposition to the project. His concern was primarily the traffic generated by the cinema that would be built in the second phase of the project. Mr. Rapp had circulated a petition concerning the negative impact the increased traffic would have on their neighborhood, and the possible decrease on their property values and quality of life. Speaking for the residents, he requested that Fifth Avenue be blocked off at 'T' to retain the integrity of their neighborhood and/or remove the Chula Vista Center entrance at "H" and "I" Streets and direct the parking traffic onto Broadway. He noted that Fourth Avenue also would be appropriate. He disagreed with the EIR which stated that 1% of the traffic would use Fifth Avenue, and the fact that the main entrance/exit pointed down a residential area. He agreed that everyone would expect more traffic; however, they felt it would be too much for an area like Fifth Avenue which was not a thoroughfare. Commissioner Tugenberg asked how long he had lived there. Mr. Rapp replied that he had owned that particular property less than a year. Commissioner Tugenberg noted that the neighborhood had actually experienced a decrease in traffic since the closure of Fifth Avenue between 'T' and "J" Street. Mr. Rapp said he felt the people were experiencing an increase in traffic, but were ready to embrace a measure of increases in traffic because of the positive aspect that the Chula Vista Center would bring into the area. He reiterated that the neighborhood was not against the project and were not going to try to stop building. Mr. Rapp emphasized the nighttime nuisance noise associated with the traffic and parking in the cinema. Commissioner Martin asked how the neighborhood felt regarding Homart as a neighbor--his sense of what the people felt about the shopping center. Mr. Rapp answered that the people liked it. There was only one negative aspect that was brought out, and that was the absence of Vons and the fact that they have to walk to Lucky's. Jerry_ Moore, 7161 Minot, San Diego, said he had grown up in Chula Vista. He suggested mass transit as an alternative to widening the street. He also suggested the deletion of left-hand tums for two or three hours during the day making it only straight traffic or right-hand tums. (No sbeaker slip~ said she lived in San Diego but worked in Chula Vista. She felt it was already necessary to widen "H" Street. Recently, it had taken her 10 minutes to go from I-5 to Fifth, and she avoids "H" Street as much as possible because of the congestion. She had nothing against the Center coming in, but felt the traffic problem needed to be taken care of now, not in five years when there would be additional traffic, and construction would be at its peak. PC Minutes -7- November 13, 1991 John Relph, 583 Fig, Chula Vista was also concerned with traffic and the route of emergency services. He felt all arteries leading into the shopping center should be widened before construction of a larger center. He said an artery could be put through Fifth Avenue because it could not be built up because of the 10" and 20' gas mains located underneath. The same problem was underneath where Mervyns was proposed to be built, but the main was not as big. He felt Fifth Avenue could be opened for one-way traffic going through the shopping center. Homart could also open Shasta Avenue, which would create another artery. Kenneth Hocker, 11766 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 250, Los Angeles, CA 90025, Development Director for Homart, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Hocker said they were in overall agreement with the report and the conclusions and findings of the project. They were, however, concerned about the requirement that Homart conduct additional technical studies that would measure effects of off-site projects, and that it would delay their project since Scripps had not determined where their sewer was going to be. The EIR also required Homart to construct improvements to bring downstream sewers to City design capacity. Homart felt that was unwarranted, since their incremental sewer impact for the project was minimal. Mr. Hocker agreed that another issue was traffic. He said the traffic study conducted by the EIR's traffic consultant concluded that the planned expansion would not cause any significant traffic impacts on "H" Street or surrounding intersections. It further concluded that all the adjacent intersections would maintain the same level "C" of service or better. However, the EIR was requiring Homart to give right-of-way and expand the eastbound side of "H" Street and turn it into a six-lane road. They felt that since the traffic generated by this project was negligible, that they shouldn't be required to expand the roadway. He said it was very important for their customers to be able to come to the mall easily, and the last thing they wanted was any type of traffic jams or problems in front of the mall. The traffic study was done by taking actual car counts existing today on the mall, and they were used in conjunction with other studies done on other regional malls and statistics with SANDAG. The other concern Homart had regarded landscaping. The 10% landscaping requirement would result in significant loss of parking and would force a third or fourth level on the parking deck to make up for the lost parking. It would also cause a significant increase in water consumption due to the increased irrigation. In answer to an earlier question, Mr. Hocker said the height of the parking structure was actually below the buildings currently existing. Commissioner Decker asked if Mr. Hocker had any idea how late the theater would be open. Mr. Hocker said he did not, but would get an answer for him. Vice Chair Casillas asked about facilities for human beings in these shopping malls. Mr. Hocker said they had spoken with the mall manager, and they were presently looking into it. Again, it was a convenience they wanted to offer to their customers. PC Minutes -8- November 13, 1991 Vice Chair Casillas was concerned with the location of the auto center and why it couldn't be relocated. He felt the it was almost incompatible with the recreational areas, the pharmacy, and restaurants. Mr. Hocker concurred, but stated the building was owned by Sears and there was nothing they could do about moving the building. He said they were landscaping in front of the cinema, and upgrading the area, but there was nothing they could do about the Sears building. Commissioner Tuchscher said he recognized that Sears was operated independently, but they also owned Homart. He asked if there was any way to work with them. Mr. Hocker answered that, unfortunately, there was not. Homart didn't have any influence over Sears. They may be closer than some other developers, because of their connection, but they didn't have any influence over them in that capacity. He said Sears looked at their bottom line. Commissioner Tuchscher, referring to the nuisance noise issue, said he was a little uncomfortable with the way the EIR had handled that. Simply saying the nuisance noise is a City ordinance issue and the police would have to react to solve any concerns bothered him. Had there been any discussions or ideas that Homart had talked about regarding that specific issue, especially relating to the long hours that a theater would be open? Mr. Hocker said he thought the theater would be a relocation of the one across the street, so there was already late-night traffic in the area. It was not a new generation being brought into the area. He agreed with Commissioner Tuchscher that it was new to that side of the area. Mr. Hocker said they had talked about it, and that was one reason they had tucked the cinema as far as they could up into the mall Homart believed that a majority of people would park and walk into the mall. The traffic studies had indicated that customers had consistently parked on the Broadway side of the mall. There would be some increase of people parking on the back side. Commissioner Carson asked how many security personnel they had, and whether they would be the first ones on the scene to keep noise down, etc. Mr. Hocker introduced Ben Richardson, the mall manager, and referred the question to him. Ben Richardson, 555 Broadway, Suite 1019, Chula Vista, said they had courtesy patrol officers that did patrol and would patrol the parking lot at all hours that the shopping center would be open, as well as the movie theaters. They would be increasing security officers. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Casillas instructed staff to prepare the final EIR, taking into consideration the comments heard. PC Minutes -9- November 13, 1991 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that a special meeting which had been set for November 20, 1991, had been canceled. The next Commission meeting would be December 4, which would also be a special meeting since it is the first Wednesday of the month. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT at 8:25 p.m. to the Special Business Meeting of December 4, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Nancy Rip~ey, S~cretary~ Planning Commission