Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/11/06 Tape: 326/327 Side: 1/2 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday. November 6. 1991 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson (4m6~l-8.'-5-5- ~.m.-)7 Casillas, Decker, Martin, Tugenberg, and Tuchscher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Griffin, Environmental Consultant Ponseggi, Community Development Director Salomone, Community Development Specialist Abbott, City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf, Sr. Code Enforcement Officer Foster PLEDGE 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. Chair Fuller introduced William Tuchscher and welcomed him as a member of the Planning Commission. MSUC (Casillas/Decker) 4-0-3 (Commissioners Carson, Tuchscher, and Tugenberg abstained) to approve the minutes of September 25, 1991, as submitted. Commissioner Carson abstained from voting on one-half the minutes. She had arrived in time to vote on the Scripps project, so she voted to approve that portion of the minutes. PC Minutes -2- November 6, 1991 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None Chair Fuller noted that it had been requested that Item 3, Palomar Trolley Center, be considered first, and that Item 4, Scripps, be considered last because of a Commissioner's conflict of interest. The order oftbe agenda would then be 3, 4, 1, and 2. ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-91-02, PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER Environmental Consultant Ponseggi noted that this public hearing would conclude the public review period for EIR-91-02. The Southwest Project Area Committee had considered the Draft EIR on October 7, 1991, and had comments dealing with the electro magnetic radiation field from the lines through the San Diego Gas & Electric easement, clarification to the impact to police and fire services, and clarification on the exaction fees to be paid for mitigation. The Montgomery Planning Committee considered the item on October 16, 1991, and duplicated and supported the PAC comments, and also raised the question regarding the current vacancy rate within the area and their concerns regarding the socioeconomic section of the EIR. The Resource Conservation Commission suggested that there be no more than two fast-food pads; that the Montgomery Planning Group should have the opportunity to review the project; that the project should provide an internal vehicular connection from its parking lot to the existing trolley station parking lot; that the mitigation's device to limit the supply of water should be more than just mitigation by fees but should in fact be true mitigations for the water impact; that a general statement about the water districts and their increase in fees if people are asked to reduce consumption; and the socioeconomic section findings. Ms. Ponseggi noted that ail of those comments would be responded to in the Final EIR. Community Development Specialist Abbott gave a brief overview of the project and noted that the Redevelopment Agency had entered into a semi-exclusive negotiation agreement with Pacific Scene on June 4, 1991, which laid out the responsibilities of Pacific Scene in terms of planning the entire 18-acre site. Some of the conditions of that semi-exclusive negotiation agreement were that there would be only two fast-food pads; the developer would pursue a daycare center, a pedestrian link between the project and the trolley station, traffic circulation loop within the project, and improvements along Palomar. Also, the developer would pursue to the extent possible the development of the linear park in the SDG&E right-of-way, and entertainment uses in the project. Commissioner Casillas asked the rationale behind a clause in the Disposition and Development Agreement language restricting the developer from leasing or selling more than 15,000 sq. ft. without the approval of the Redevelopment Agency. Community Development Specialist Abbott answered that it was to ensure that the developer would include regional-serving uses as opposed to neighborhood-serving uses which would bring in people from outside the Chula Vista community, generating revenue for the community. PC Minutes -3- November 6, 1991 Commissioner Tugenberg asked about the motivation behind the childcare center in a commercial shopping center. Community Development Specialist Abbott answered that the Agency required that the developer add some community amenities. The daycare center was not planned to be in the shopping center but across Industrial Boulevard. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that he felt it was an intelligent move to develop the 18.2 acres rather than 12 acres because much of the area which had not been included was blighted. Commissioner Tugenberg asked about the stacking problem of vehicles on Palomar when the trolley gates were down. Environmental Consultant Ponseggi answered that the Traffic Section of the Environmental Impact Report addressed traffic in general around the site and took into account the gate at the trolley track. Ms. Ponseggi introduced John Bridges of Cotton/Beland, the preparers of the EIR. John Bridges of Cotton/Beland reviewed the conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report and the mitigation measures identified including drainage, land use, aesthetics, social factors, community infrastructure, energy, utilities, human health, and transportation. Commissioner Decker asked when a report was expected from the EPA regarding electro- magnetic radiation. Mr. Bridges answered that he understood that by the end of the year they would have something; he had not seen anything or heard any update. He did not believe they had reached any conclusions, however. Commissioner Decker asked if nothing was forthcoming before the project was built, would funds be placed in escrow for the linear park rather than it being built. Community Development Specialist Abbott answered that the next step in the process of looking into a linear park was a study between SDG&E and the City of Chula Vista which would include ail of SDG&E's easement areas in the southern part of the City. The property in question was owned in fee by SDG&E and they had indicated they were only willing to have revenue- generating uses, such as parking or storage. At the moment, the City did not have the ability to require that a park be built there. Commissioner Tugenberg again pursued the question regarding stacking when the trolley arms were down. Dan Marum of JHK & Associates, the traffic consultant for the project, answered that among other things, a level of service analysis that was conducted for the project indicated that acceptable levels of service would be achieved at both intersections adjacent to those gates at PC Minutes -4- November 6, 1991 Industrial Boulevard and Palomar and at the main entrance to the existing trolley station and Palomar. In the analysis of arterial signal timing performed along Palomar Street to determine if acceptable levels of service in performance of the arterial roadway could be achieved with an additional signal to be placed at the new main entrance, the delay mused by the trolley vehicles and proposed delay was included in the analysis. He also stated that the widening of Palomar to six lanes would provide an additional lane in each direction to store vehicles when the gates were down. Commissioner Tugenberg concluded that with six lanes there would be enough room for stacking when the gates were down. Mr. Maxum concurred. Commissioner Carson asked if Palomar Street would be widened if the project was not approved. Environmental Consultant Ponseggi answered that Palomar was proposed to be widened as a mitigation to this project by the developers, and if the project was not approved, the street would not be widened. Commissioner Carson noted that the area was highly congested. She then asked about the vacancy rate there, and how it would be addressed in the EIR. Environmental Consultant Ponseggi introduced Bill Anderson, the consultant who prepared the socioeconomic technical report to address the issue of the vacancies. Mr. Anderson estimated that the portion of the project that would be neighborhood supported could potentially lead to a vacancy rate of 13% of neighborhood-supported space. The mitigation proposed would require that Redevelopment staff approve any of the tenants that are 15,000 sq. ft. or larger to ensure that those tenants are compatible with the retail mix in the market area. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jim Moxham, 3900 Hamey St., San Diego 92110, representing Pacific Scene, clarified it was his understanding that the entertainment use was a part of the project provided the conditions in the Semi-Exclusive Negotiating Agreement could be met. Those conditions related to getting the parking off-site from SDG&E. He noted also that the daycare center was conditioned upon MTDB providing the land. MTDB did not want the daycare center on the property, and Pacific Scene had found property across the street from the trolley station, and they were working with the property owner, daycare operator, the County operator, and MTDB in order to bring that to fruition. Mr. Moxbam also noted the EIR had a provision that all the buildings would be fire sprinklered. He said they had no question about the buildings which were all contiguous having sprinklers, but asked for clarification on the individual building pads that might not normally be required by the City of Chula Vista or the Uniform Building Code to be sprinklered. PC Minutes -5- November 6, 1991 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Fuller noted that no action would be taken at this time; the public review period would now be closed and staff was directed to prepare the final EIR. ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-92-06; REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A 12-BED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY FOR RECOVERING ALCOHOLICS AT 3 NORTH SECOND AVENUE - MAAC Project Senior Planner Griffin noted that the property was incorrectly called out as "Open Space" on the Chula Vista General Plan. It is actually designated "Medium High Density Residential" which is between 11 and 18 dwelling units per acre. It was a graphic mistake incorrectly placed on the General Plan when it was last printed. Mr. Griffin asked that the following condition as reflected in the Negative Declaration be added to the staff recommended list of conditions: That the applicant shall agree to no net increase in water consumption or to participate in whatever water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula Vista has in affect at the time of building permit issuance. Mr. Griffin pointed out the former Vista Hill/Southwood facility on the east side of North Second Avenue as the project site. The property is zoned R-3 Multiple Family Residential and contains two main buildings, plus some accessory structures, and 54 parking spaces. Mr. Griffin gave an overview of the site location, the surrounding land uses and zonings, the proposed use of the property, and explained the program. Senior Planner Griffin stated that the property had been used historically as a treatment facility for emotionally disturbed youngsters, and staff believed that the Nosotros program would fit within the site and is supportable based on conditions listed in the staff report. He noted that, in staff's opinion, the two most significant conditions were conditions 1 and 2. Condition 1 dealt with activities occurring on the northerly portion of the site which had not been authorized or cleared with the City. Mr. Griffin said there was Code enforcement action pending on that. The property was under single ownership, and the property owner would benefit from location of the Nosotros Program; therefore, staff had suggested a condition that would require all of the unauthorized illegal activities occurring on the site to cease before this program could be established on the site. They would have to remain in compliance in order for the MAAC Project to remain. Mr. Griffin said the second condition was more of a notification. Staff felt there was a likelihood by using only a portion of the site for the MAAC proposal, it could complicate what could go on the balance of the site both in terms of compatibility of uses and in terms of control of activities on the site by a single entity. PC Minutes -6- November 6, 1991 Based on the conditions listed in the staff report and the added condition, staff recommended approval of the request. Mr. Griffin noted that included with the staff report were three letters supporting and three letters either objecting or noting some concerns with the project. Also, a letter in support was given to the Commissioners at the meeting. Commissioner Carson asked how the applicant would make sure that residents would not be allowed to loiter off-site, which was condition no. 6. How would it be enforced? Senior Planner Griffin answered it could be part of the initial rules and regulations for residential behavior at the facility; or simply noticing that type of activity occurring within the area of the property, or neighbors calling in concerns about the occurrence of that type of activity. Commissioner Carson clarified that it would not involve the cessation of the use of the facility immediately. Mr. Griffin answered that it would not, but if it became a recurring problem it would be a violation of that condition and could be brought back to the Commission for review for additional conditions or revocation. Commissioner Carson was concerned that it would be difficult to enforce, and there may be harassment from the neighbors. Assistant Planning Director Lee pointed out that condition 8 stated that failure to comply with the conditions could be grounds for revocation, and could be brought back to the Commission. Answering Commissioner Carson's query, Mr. Lee said that if complaints came in, staff usually was able to meet with applicants and get it corrected before going back to the Commissioners. It had not been an issue. Commissioner Tuchscher, regarding ceasing the activities in the north, asked if there was any idea as far as timing. Senior Planner Griffin answered that the start-up of this program could be tied to that and, in addition, there was Code Enforcement action pending which would eventually result in that activity ceasing. Commissioner Tuchscher noted that the trailers on the property were originally put on the property under a conditional use permit in 1981 and renewed for a period of two years. He asked if they were currently legal. Mr. Griffin answered that they were not legal. They were approved originally under a variance issued in 1976 which expired in 1981. The trailers were never removed. There was nothing in the City's system to key staff into the fact that the variance had expired. If there had been a change in ownership, they may not have realized it was a temporary use. Staff suggested that an additional two years of use be granted in order to allow some transition and then be required to be removed unless an extension was requested and granted. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that he assumed staff now had some condition for triggering that timeframe. Mr. Griffin concurred. PC Minutes -7- November 6, 1991 Commissioner Decker asked if there was bus service along Second Avenue, and the location of the closest bus stop. Mr. Griffin answered in the affirmative, and said the closest stop was at the entrance of the KOA Campground. Commissioner Decker asked if the trailers were to be removed in two years, what would replace that utility. Mr. Griffin answered that the options would be to transfer into another portion of the building, or construct a permanent structure to house those facilities, or request an extension of the use of the trailers. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there had been any complaints of loitering or bad behavior by people in residence at the Pioneer alcohol treatment center on "C" Street. Mr. Griffin said he had not checked on that specifically, but hadn't heard of any. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the building had been designated as a historical site. Mr. Griffin answered that it had, and it was called the Bulmer House. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there were any restrictions by the City on buildings which had been named as historical sites. Mr. Griffin said that the Code contained certain restrictions which could be applied to such properties, but had only been applied to one property and was not applied to the subject property. Commissioner Tugenberg asked what the trailers were currently being used for. Mr. Griffin said they were empty. Commissioner Tugenberg stated that they were occupied. He had observed this himself when he had visited the site. Mr. Griffin stated they had been unoccupied when he had visited the site. The northerly building and facilities were being occupied by people who were not supposed to be there; but he was not aware of anything occurring on the southerly portion with the exception that the City had authorized MAAC to have a desk and phone in order for them to make some preparations with State licensing, etc. for use of the facility in case it was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner Casillas, referring to condition 6 regarding loitering, was concerned also with enforcement, and felt the condition was redundant since he felt it was covered under condition 9. He asked for removal of condition 6. He was also concerned with condition no. 1. He felt the applicant was being punished for the actions of the owner, and had nothing to do with what was going on with the rest of the facility. He didn't feel the applicant could be held responsible for the conduct of the owner, when they had no control over it. Commissioner Casillas was additionally concerned with condition 3. He asked for more information regarding the outdoor sitting area and the screening. Senior Planner Griffin responded that the only exterior area which would be available to this facility was in the front yard. Based upon the boundary of the area the residents would be limited to using, they wouldn't have access to some of the outdoor facilities and hack areas PC Minutes -8- November 6, 1991 including the tennis courts and recreation room on the northerly portion of the site. He felt a screen would provide a more private setting for the residents, and avoid congregation of people in front or in the street where there were not adequate recreation and patio areas to serve them internally. Mr. Griffin stated that was the only intent. Commissioner Casillas felt it would be a nice place for a leisure break, but if the area was screened, it would have an institutional look. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Pamela Smith, District Manager for the Social Security Administration, representing the City of Chula Vista's Human Services Council, 380 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, stated that the City of Chula Vista had conducted a social service plan for the City of Chula Vista to try to determine unmet social service needs and problem areas. As a result of that plan, the City had identified three areas that were major problems. One of those top three problems was drug and alcohol abuse. As a result of that social service plan, the Mayor and City Council established the Human Services Council to work with all the social service providers by sharing resources. Ms. Smith said it became critical to have a center and a facility such as the MAAC Project, who has an excellent reputation in the South Bay. She spoke in support of the project and encouraged approval of the conditional use permit for the MAAC Project. Roger Caldwell, Deputy Director for the MAAC Project, 1750 Colfax Drive, Lemon Grove 91950, gave an overview of MAAC. He did not feel they should be penalized for the landowner's wrong doings. He noted they had a problem with conditions no. 1, 3, 6 and 7. Warren Garcia Stewart, 45 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, Program Manager for Nosotros (MAAC Projec0 said he was a recovering alcoholic who had gone through a similar program in the San Francisco Bay Area, eventually went to work for that program, and became the facility manager. It was their intent to meet the requirements of a structured, organized program. He explained their program, and said the ultimate goal was to help alcoholics recover. Mr. Stewart said the trailers were not occupied, except for storage of mattresses. The building next to the trailers was occupied. He assured the Commission that no one was occupying the trailers. Mr. Stewart requested approval of the application. Commissioner Martin stated that residents were expected to pay. He asked the methodology of payment if people were there all the time, how were they expected to earn any money? Mr. Stewart answered that they were expected to be there all the time for the scheduled activities they would have. In the first 30 days, they were not expected to make any money-they were expected to be working on their recovery. Eventually, as they went through the phases and were able to go out and seek work or attend school to eventually find jobs, they would be able to pay the $250 per month that would he required. As they progressed through the program, they would back pay what they owed to the best of their ability and continue to pay until they were ready for a well-organized exit. PC Minutes -9- November 6, 1991 Commissioner Martin asked if they pay MAAC Project, which is a federally funded program. Mr. Stewart answered affirmatively, but explained that the MAAC Project is a County contract which takes into consideration in the budget the monies that axe appropriated by the County and an estimation of what their fee receipts would be. Commissioner Martin asked about trained staff, the credentials, and the selection process for staff members. Mr. Stewart answered that he was the program manager and was hired by the Director Maxitza Gaxcia on the basis of the history of his experience in social model programs. He had been working with alcoholics for 8 years and had been with the MAAC Project for 3 years working with the drinking driver program. Mr. Ramos was hired based on his experience of a similax type of program and his experience with group activities for relapse prevention; and also based on the length of Mr. Stewaxt's and Mr. Ramos' sobriety. Mr. Stewart said that was what the program was about--one alcoholic helping another. Commissioner Martin asked how the candidates were selected, and why was it limited to 127 Mr. Stewart said it was limited because the money funded by the County limits them to 12; they had made a proposal for 25 but the money was not available. As to the screening of applicants, Mr. Stewart answered that generally they were referred to them by agencies throughout the axe. a, and the individuals who are accepted axe screened by staff who have to be convinced of the applicants' willingness to make changes in their lives and willing to abide by the many rules and regulations of the program. Commissioner Martin inquired if there were any haxd-core drug people in the program in their history. Mr. Stewart answered that the program was designed primarily for alcohol problems. Commissioner Caxson asked if an Anglo came to them with the same problem, would they be allowed to come into the program? Mr. Stewart answered affirmatively. The program is referred to being Latino which is the target because of the fact they find them to be under served, but it is not exclusive to Latinos. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if they had ever gotten references from the courts or Police Department. Mr. Stewart said they had in other programs. It was possible, but they couldn't be court- ordered to their program. MAAC would make the decision as to whether they were appropriate to the program. PC Minutes -10- November 6, 1991 Commissioner Carson asked how Mr. Stewart decided that was the program for him, if he was referred, or his other staff member was referred to the program. Mr. Stewart replied that he had heard about it and decided himself to get in the program, got on a waiting list and three weeks later was in the program. Commissioner Decker asked if three people was enough staff for a 24-hour day, 7-day a week function. Mr. Stewart explained the procedure for staff coverage. Commissioner Casillas said that in a study his son had done on alcoholism, it was indicated that the alcoholism rate among Latinos was 150% of what it was in the general population. He asked if that was what Mr. Stewart was finding. Mr. Stewart said he didn't have the exact figures, but didn't feel that was far from being true. Looking at the nature of the culture as it related to alcohol and to the economic situation, it wouldn't be unusual. Ira M. Zuniea, 1127 S. 38th Street, San Diego, CA 92113, said she resided at one of their treatment homes and was a recovering alcoholic. She had been there for about 8 months. She had learned that she had a disease, and that she was not alone in the world. Ms. Zuniga said they kept very busy reading the 12-step books, going to meetings, having group meetings, and going to educational classes about the disease. She said she was now going to school and working. She was grateful that they were there when she needed them, and supported the proposal. Daniella Montalvo, 1127 So. 38th St., San Diego 92113. Referring to an earlier question by Commissioner Casillas, she noted that she was non-Hispanic, and the MAAC Project had helped her. She said she had been there six months. She had gotten a job through the MAAC Project, and asked that alcoholics be given a chance to help themselves. Sandra Fieueroa. 3010 32nd St., San Diego 92104, said she was an ex-resident, a graduate resident, of Casa De Milagros, and was also a recovering alcoholic, she had learned about the program when she was in and out of jail frequently because of alcoholism. It had been three years since she had drank and since she had been in jail. She now had self respect since she had been in recovery; she also worked and had been attending City College for the past two years. Mary. Powell, 318 Kimball Terrace, CV 91910, said she was a former resident of the area of the proposed project. She felt the neighbors felt threatened, but Ms. Powell said recovering alcoholics were dedicated to their own recovery and needed all the help they could get. She had been involved with similar types of projects, and she didn't feel there would be anything about Nosotros that would cause a neighborhood to be concerned in any way. PC Minutes - 11- November 6, 1991 Tony Ll~uiano, 80 N. 2nd Ave., CV 91912, said his house was directly across the street from Vista Hill where the MAAC Project was proposed. He had attended a meeting explaining the MAAC Project and was impressed by it. He was impressed with the fact that they were going to open up their meetings if they have good speakers to the community. He agreed with Commissioner Casillas that he didn't see a need for a screen. Mike Bell, 111 No. 2nd Ave., CV 91910, representing KOA Campground, said they did not have a problem with MAAC or the proposal, but felt granting a use for a small portion of the facility was a mistake. He noted that the applicant may kick out the people who were using the property for a period of time to get MAAC established and then bring them back and have the same zoning enforcement problem that currently existed. He recommended not approving the project. He questioned what would happen to the rest of the facility, who would accept MAAC as a neighbor; who would MAAC accept as neighbors in the rest of the facility; would they be compatible; who would be responsible for common facilities like landscape and irrigation. Peter WaUy, 81 Second Avenue, CV 91910, said he had a concern regarding the people already living there in the northern part, not part of the MAAC project. He agreed that the burden should not be on the MAAC Project to eliminate the undesirables in the area. He said the area residents were also concerned that the facility residents would wander aimlessly and/or loiter the neighborhood. Mr. Watry said that was already happening with the people were living there. He was also concerned with what would be done with the other 80% of property. He would like an added condition that would restrict the property to just this use and not some of their other MAAC projects like their driving classes. He asked that the approval of the MAAC Project be postponed until something was done about the other half of the property. Leonard Aeuillard, 138 Minot, CV 91910, didn't feel the MAAC Project belonged on North Second Avenue. He said it was a fantastic program but they were understaffed. He felt the name of the project--Nosotros--would keep alcoholics other than Hispanics from using the facility. Jeff Cotta, 935 Broadway, SD 92101, representing the owner of the property, reiterated that no one was living in the three trailers. It was empty except for mattresses. The site currently had approximately 18 independently living adults. He said that upon inspection by Mr. Foster of the City of Chula Vista, he saw nothing wrong with the way they were being housed or anything wrong with the project that was up there and thought they would probably work very well with the MAAC Project as a neighbor. Mr. Cotta said the owners of the property supported the MAAC Project in this endeavor and would like to see it take place. Mr. Cotta said he had received a letter from Mr. Foster, and Mr. Foster had gone there a couple of weeks before and had looked at the property. Then two Code Enforcement Officers came up at one time and looked at the property and talked to a few of the people. Mr. Cotta said they recommended that they get a video camera and let the Planning Commission see exactly what was going on, which again was not people out on the front lawn. The majority of their activity was contained in the back patio areas which was totally blocked from the street. He said they PC Minutes -12- November 6, 1991 were doing their best to make sure they were not using any more water than necessary. Mr. Cotta reiterated that the City officials who had looked at the property had found nothing wrong with the current state of what they were doing. As far as a pending Code enforcement action, Mr. Cotta was not sure what was meant by that. Mr. Cotta said that if Mr. Foster felt the program or the independent living was okay, he didn't find that to be much of a problem in being neighbors with the MAAC Project's program. Chair Fuller asked if a staff person was present. Sr. Code Enforcement Officer Dick Foster said he had gone to the site at the request of the Planning Department to see what was there and to see how it fit with the City Ordinances. The visit there was to determine how the property was being used, how many people, etc. It was determined that it was in violation of City Ordinances. The letter was then sent out stating the use required a conditional use permit. The Chula Vista Municipal Code required that any use of the property be discontinued until the proper permit was received, and if they needed further assistance, to contact the undersigned. Mr. Foster said he had signed the note which was mailed on September 16. There had been no response within the 30 days. They had discussed with Planning the idea of tying it to the CUP. Mr. Foster said they did, and will continue to, enforce the Municipal Ordinances. In the due process, that would be enforced whether or not a CUP was approved. Commissioner Tuchscher asked the representative of the property owner if the property owner was benefiting from the lease financially. Mr. Cotta replied that he was to some extent. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if it was the property owner's position to continue the activities on the north part of the property? Mr. Cotta said that would depend upon whether everything was okay. He asked for clarification from Mr. Foster before he would answer the question. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf determined that it was not appropriate for the person testifying to cross examine the staff. If he had a question he should ask the question through the Chair. Commissioner Tochscber withdrew the question. He said he had a real concern about the zoning violation there. He agreed with Commissioner Casillas that it was not appropriate to hang this over the heads of the MAAC Project who had a worthwhile purpose; however, it occurred to him that the property owner would be benefitting from leasing a portion of the property and that perhaps staff's obvious recommendation was to use this as some type of leverage to get him to cease the illegal activity to the north. Commissioner Tuchscber was concerned that if the CUP was approved and the MAAC Project moved in, that the illegal occupancy would start again immediately after they occupied. PC Minutes -13- November 6, 1991 Mr. Cotta said that if Mr. Reichbart wanted to make a killing on the property, he would go ahead and open it up to individuals who were homeless, and those who could pay on any kind of a sliding scale, and then stuff as many people up there until he fought it out with the City. He would rather see the site utilized the way it was intended to be which was what the MAAC Project was doing and also the independent living. Mr. Cotta said he would like clarification at some point in time as to Code regulations and violations and whether they were in fact doing anything illegal. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that he could clear for the record that the letter of September 16 from Mr. Foster to Mr. Reichbart stated that the property is currently being illegally used and it should cease. Mr. Rudolf asked Mr. Foster if he had changed his opinion after September 167 Sr. Code Enforcement Officer Foster answered negatively. He said it had nothing to do with what they were doing up there, whether it was good or bad. It was illegal. And that remained the same. They could submit for a CUP or permit for the current use, and the letter suggested that. Senior Planner Griffin clarified that the property owner seemed to be under the impression that having people living there quasi-independently in individual rooms somehow transformed the property into an apartment house which complied with the underlying R-3 zone. He said it had been pointed out to the property owner that this was incorrect; that it had been approved as an institutional use for the care of emotionally disturbed youngsters. Any other group-type of residential use of the property required a conditional use permit, which the MAAC Project was applying for, and if the property owner wished to use it as an apartment complex, they would have to submit plans showing that they comply with the occupancy requirements of the UBC and the UFC, and that they comply with the zoning standards for parking, etc. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that he had driven up to the project site, had seen a mother and a child come out of the trailers, and several other people came out and got in a taxi cab. The trailers were definitely being used, whether they lived there or not. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Casillas/Decker) 7-0 that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-05. Commissioner Carson said there was unfinished business, and she felt that before the MAAC Project is saddled with something, the illegal activity should be taken care of. She was against a split use and would not vote for it. PC Minutes -14- November 6, 1991 MS (Casillas/Decker) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-92-06, subject to conditions 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and the added condition 10. Commissioner Tugenberg stated that he was in favor of the MAAC Project, but was not in favor of deleting all of the conditions. Commissioner Tuchscher also had a problem with the motion as it stood. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there could be discussion on the four deletions and vote on them individually. Commissioner Casillas withdrew the motion. After discussion, it was decided that Commissioner Casillas would repeat his motion, and then vote on any amendment to be added. RESTATED MOTION: MS (Casillas/Decker) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-92-06, subject to the following conditions: conditions 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10. Commissioner Tuchscher said that his main concern was with condition 1. It was not the MAAC Project's burden, however, the conditional use permit was a benefit to the property owner who was currently operating illegally on the property. He believed condition 1 should be added to the conditions of the permit and that the property owner should cease the activity as part of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Carson agreed because she felt the recommendations of the Zoning Enforcement Officer should be adhered. MOTION TO AMEND MSC (Tuchscher/Tugenberg) 4-3 (Commissioners Casillas, Decker and Martin voted against) to amend the motion adding condition no. 1. VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION APPROVED 7-0 That based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-92-06, subject to the following conditions: conditions 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10. Chair Fuller declared a 5-minute break at 9:15 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:23 p.m. T4~e- Commission- ghe, n- .eo~idored- Item -1- .,~bieh- had --beon- .tmilod. -tmtil-{7.om missiene]: 4;ar-se~ arrivedr PC Minutes -15- November 6, 1991 ITEM 1: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-90-07, SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL EXPANSION Commissioner Martin asked to be excused because of a financial conflict of interest because Scripps was the source of $250 or more in the last 12 months. Environmental Consultant Miller stated the Scripps Memorial Hospital at phase ultimate would consist of 446,344 sq. ft. and 258 patient beds, a five-level parking structure and surface parking for a total of 878 parking spaces on site. The project also included a 62,000 sq. ft. medical office building during phase 1 and a six-story wing addition to that building in phase ultimate for a total of 124,500 sq. ft. of medical office space. Ms. Miller noted the Final Draft included comments received on the Recirculated Draft EIR, as well as Attachment A, an addendum to the economic analysis, and Appendices A through H to the EIR dated August 1991. She stated the EIR analyzed the impacts of the Scripps Memorial Hospital expansion as the proposed project. She noted the project alternatives required under CEQA, but which were not part of the project description. Ms. Miller stated the Final EIR was made available to the public from October 22 through October 29, 1991. Additional comments were received on the Final EIR. Those comments and responses had been provided to the Commission as attachments to the staff report. The Final EIR had been taken before the Design Review Committee on October 28, 1991, which recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Scripps Project subject to certain conditions. The Resource Conservation Commission on November 4, 1991, made a motion that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA, and recommended that the Planning Commission certify the Final EIR. Ms. Miller then introduced Jun Onaka from P&D Technologies, who prepared the economic analysis conducted for the project, but which was a separate document from the EIR. Mr. Onaka reviewed the objectives satisfied by the socioeconomic consideration study and reviewed the comparisons of the alternatives in terms of the revenue impacts from the project and the alternatives. Answering some of the Commission's questions from the previous meeting, Mr. Onaka stated there was sufficient demand for hospital beds in the South Bay area to justify construction of the expansion; the project, as proposed, would result in a positive revenue impact to the City, even if only Phase I was constructed; the proposed expansion would result in increased employment in the City of Chula Vista--approximately 427 additional jobs in health care services would be created as a result of the expansion. Mr. Onaka then discussed the alternative uses and tax revenues. Commissioner Tugenberg noted there would be 481 jobs less the existing 54, leaving 427 additional jobs. He asked if it would be correct to assume that the 54 retail service jobs being replaced would be lower-paying jobs than the 481 employees of the hospital. Mr. Onaka concurred; the national average for retail service sector jobs was approximately $200 per week as opposed to health care services jobs which averaged nationally about $350, approximately 75 % difference in the two industries. PC Minutes -16- November 6, 1991 Answering Commissioner Tugenberg's query, Mr. Onaka said there would be multiplier effects resulting from payments to employees, the larger payroll base the proposed project expansion represented. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if it could be assumed that if the projected revenues were added to the proposed project with the multiplier effect of salaries, it could be that the proposed project would generate revenues for the City in excess of the retail/entertainment alternative. Mr. Onaka did not wish to draw that conclusion because of the degree to which the retail and entertainment analysis depended upon certain assumptions regarding its market and financial structure. Commissioner Decker asked if Mr. Onaka had an estimate of how much the additional jobs represented in salary. Mr. Onaka answered that at the non-supervisory rate per week, it would be approximately $8.9 million in payroll; however, there would be a certain percentage of supervisory and medical professionals. Commissioner Casillas questioned the data used regarding demand for beds using the entire County as opposed to South Bay. Mr. Onaka noted the source of the data was the State Office of Health Planning and Development and used the County data in terms of average demand for general acute care hospital beds based on population. Commissioner Casillas asked if the demand could be higher because of the cross-border hospital demand. Mr. Onaka did not have data regarding this. Commissioner Casillas questioned the generation of in-lieu revenues. Community Development Specialist Kassman answered that the in-lieu fee for Phase I would begin within 44 months; Phase II would begin at the end of Year 5. Chair Fuller noted that although the public hearing was not being re-opened; based on advice of the City Attorney, the Commission could take comments from the public at this point. Wayne Wencke, representing Circinus Corporation, thanked the Commission for hearing them. They were concerned with issues regarding toxics, water, sewer, economic, alternate sites, and other redevelopment and legal issues. Mr. Wencke concentrated on a discussion of alternate sites, reiterating that alternate sites had not been considered. He asked that the Circinus proposal be more fully considered. Donald R. Worley, 401 B Street, San Diego 92101, attorney representing Circinus Corporation, addressed the issue of traffic impact and asked for denial of certification of the EIR because of its inadequacy. Arnold Torma, Senior Engineer with Entranco Engineers, Old Town, San Diego, using a graphic showed the ratio of square footage to the number of hospital beds in measurement of typical hospital traffic generation. He compared the ratio per bed and the ratio per square PC Minutes -17- November 6, 1991 footage. He felt the use of square footage was more reliable than the use of number of beds in determining the traffic impact. Philip Hinshaw, 3570 Camino Del Rio North, San Diego 92108, representing Circinus Corporation, discussed the issues of water and sewer, particularly the way the sewer issue was handled in the EIR. The EIR concluded that with the proposed hospital expansion, there would be an increased use of approximately 10,000 gallons of water per day resulting in cumulative unmitigated impact on water. The EIR did not quantify the amount of sewage generated by the current usage or by the proposed expansion. He believed the additional sewage flow would necessitate replacement or addition of sewer lines; and it should be discussed in the EIR. The Draft EIR only noted a study had to be done because the capacity of the existing lines would be exceeded. He also spoke of cumulative impacts because of the mall across the street. Mr. Hinshaw also spoke of the alternatives which had been briefly covered in the EIR, and the unmitigated visual impact of the proposed project if built to the west. He thought it could be possible that the visual impacts could be mitigated if built to the north and east, and that should be studied. He asked that the EIR not be certified until that information was obtained. Michael Jacobs, Vice President of Circinus Corporation, 13255 Kibbings Rd., San Diego 92130, commented on the economic analysis and the statement in the staff report that there would be no direct nor indirect physical changes resulting from the proposed project; therefore, economics had not been deemed to be a significant environmental effect and CEQA did not apply. Mr. Jacobs felt the size of the proposed structure was a physical change; therefore, he did not agree with the previous statement. He reiterated that the economic analysis should be part of the EIR; and said that in analyzing the alternatives in the EIR, they had seen that there could be significant differences between the project alternatives. Mr. Jacobs said he believed the economic analysis was very challengeable. He argued that the Environmental Impact Report should have the economic analysis included and discussed in the text instead of at the end. He said the Commission was not required to look at the economic analysis or their comments because of the structure of the Draft EIR. It was just for their information. He felt it should be part of the actual EIR. Joseph Solomon, 401 B Street, San Diego 92101, attorney representing Circinus Corporation, discussed hearings with the owners regarding redevelopment of the property, and the expansion of Scripps. He said Scripps was not an owner in the site; Circinus had a powerful ownership interest--the owner of a master ground lease covering the entire site--and under redevelopment law, Circinus was entitled to any reasonable preference that could be extended to him in the redevelopment of the property. He referred to a statement prepared by City Attorney Boogaard regarding a change to the negotiation agreement to semi-exclusive "out of concern that persons with owner participation rights were not provided official notice of the right to submit owner participation plans." Mr. Solomon referred to the buy-out of Bay General Hospital by Scripps in 1986, and suggested the possibility of political payback. Mr. Solomon stated that an approval of the project and approval of the EIR would constitute an abuse of discretion; the facts needed to be outlined in the EIR; under CEQA's plan evolution, it was a critical element. PC Minutes -18- November 6, 1991 Gall MacLeod, 6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250, San Diego 92122, planning consultant with "H" Street Business Coalition, clarified that their intention was only to stay during Phase I, which was a 10- to 15-year period. She distributed a handout to the Commission and discussed traffic circulation, entry and egress. They had been in compliance with the Draft EIR; however, the Final EIR required an additional lane. They had contacted Engineering staff and had been informed that the widening need not take place until ultimate phase. Ms. MacLeod noted that by keeping the three businesses, revenue would be generated. She said that with the broadbrush proposal of Scripps, it made sense to require the extra lane in Phase I; under "H" Street Business Coalition's proposal, the three businesses stayed and there would not be the same broadbrush clearance and the same sort of engineering logic no longer applied. She asked that if the Commission certified the EIR, that the traffic mitigation be specified as that set forth in the August 8 EIR rather than the October 1 EIR. Jim Eischen, 7855 Ivanhoe Avenue, La Jolla 92037, attorney representing RTM, Inc., urged that the Planning Commission not certify the EIR. Mr. Eischen noted that the EIR stated that an alternative sites analysis was not feasible. It was RTM's position that the EIR had not fully analyzed the various alternatives to the Scripps project. Mr. Eischen stated that the impact of the changes in community character and the physical impact of taking a pad slated for commercial retail redevelopment and placing a large institutional use made the alternative sites analysis feasible. He also discussed briefly the economic analysis; there had not been a demographic analysis done which justified the market need for the large expansion. He urged that the Commission deny certification of the EIR. Matt Peterson, 530 B Street, //2300, San Diego 92101, attorney representing Chula Vista Properties, the owner of the 8.9 acre expansion site. Mr. Peterson stated that, in addition, his client controlled all of the existing leases on the site with the exception of First Interstate Bank and ReadiCare. Mr. Peterson believed that none of the issues raised had any merit; his firm concluded that the EIR was adequate and fulfilled the requirements of CEQA and went beyond what the scope of CEQA required and included a comprehensive economic analysis. He requested that the Commission recommend certification. Jerry Willis, 475 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista 91910, operator of Fiesta Twin Cinemas, and also representing Augie Carniglia, the operator Rollerskateland, felt the project was a worthwhile project for the City. Both operations had tentative project locations which required certification of the EIR and approval of the conditional use permit in order for them to relocate. Mr. Willis recommended certification of the EIR. Dr. Llewellyn Lieber, 475 Fourth Avenue, #E, Chula Vista 91910, who owned property across from the hospital, spoke against the project because of concerns regarding health, environmental, traffic, loss of revenue to the City affecting the taxpayer, and loss of the bank. She felt the property should remain as a commercial use. MSC (Tugenberg/Carson) 5-1 (Commissioner Carson voted "no"; Commissioner Martin was excused) to certify the Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion Final EIR (EIR-90-07). PC Minutes -19- November 6, 1991 Commissioner Carson explained that she voted "no" because she still had some concerns regarding the traffic, the market study, and the visual impact of the height of the hospital. She would like to be able to travel through "I-I" Street at her leisure when the project is completed. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-35: REQUEST TO EXPAND EXISTING HOSPITAL FACILITY LOCATED AT 435 "H" STREET - Scripps Memorial Hospital Assistant Planner Luis I-Iernandez gave an overview of the project and the phasing of the project. He noted both on-site and off-site parking facilities to be used. Mr. Hernandez stated that the proposed project would replace the multi-building commercial center containing restaurants and other retail uses to accommodate that expansion and in the analysis of the conditional use permit, staff concluded that the level of service provided in the area would not be diminished. Mr. Hernandez stated that the applicant had asked that the zoning wall requirement be waived, since the project was next to a junior high school. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Casillas asked what would replace the zoning wall requirement if waived. Assistant Planner Hemandez stated that the applicant was proposing to install a chainlink fence between the junior high school and the hospital facility. He noted there was an elevation difference between the two properties. Answering Commissioner Casillas' query, Mr. Hernandez said the height of the fence could not be higher than 6' above the finished grade of the hospital. Commissioner Tuchscber asked if the chainlink fence was screened or open. Mr. Hernandez answered that the Design Review Committee had recommended that it be a chainlink fence with a vinyl coating. The landscaping would provide a screen. Commissioner Decker asked about noise abatement. Commissioner Carson noted that the parking structure would take care of the noise. The wall had been deleted. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jeff Bills, Administrator of Scripps Memorial Hospital, 435 "H" Street, Chula Vista 91910, focused on the need for hospital expansion and how it related to the operational characteristics of the facility. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if Mr. Bills had any idea of the number of patients from south of the Border. Mr. Bills estimated five or six people per month. PC Minutes -20- November 6, 1991 lames I~ary, architect representing Scripps Memorial Hospital, said that he had prepared a presentation, but recognizing the late hour, he asked the Commissioners if they had questions. Commissioner Decker noted that if the hospital was expanded, there would proportionately more space per person. Mr. Leafy said that currently there were approximately 470 sq. ft. per bed. National and local averages run between 1200 and 1600 sq. ft. per bed. He briefly discussed the traffic statistics based on number of beds or square feet. Wayne Wencke, Circinus Coq~oration, P. O. Box 883, Rancho Santa Fe 92067, said that the current use and configuration of the hospital would be changed when the expansion occurred. It could be built in phases somewhere else. The current site was an inappropriate site for future potential growth. Mr. Wencke asked that the traffic impact be considered. He then discussed economic impact. Michael Jacobs, 13255 Kibbings Road, San Diego 92130, representing Circinus Corporation, felt it was inappropriate to grant a conditional use permit for a use change on the site. He felt it was important to keep the commercial core intact. Joseph Solomon, 401 B Street, San Diego 92101, attorney representing Circinus Corporation, stated that the conditional use permit would violate the more substantial land use policies that overlay the area. He said the Chula Vista General Plan designated the site Retail Commercial; he understood the General Plan was "general" and should allow for some flexibility. However, the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan, a more specific plan, narrowed the site as a Retail Commercial site. The zoning ordinance technically allowed a hospital under a conditional use permit. His position was that a plan amendment was needed, not merely a conditional use permit. Mr. Solomon stated that the use of the site was inappropriate for a hospital. Mr. Solomon read references to the Constitution referring to due process. He said to ignore his client's owner participation rights and to ignore his rights to develop his property as a retail commercial site would constitute a serious violation of his due process rights. Donald Wofley, 401 B Street, San Diego 92101, attorney representing Circinus Corporation, distributed to the Commission comment letters which had been delivered to the City Council for a meeting the next day. Jim Eischen, 7855 Ivanhoe Avenue, La Jolla, CA 92037, attorney representing RTM, Inc., spoke of inconsistency of the project with the Redevelopment Plan. He said the question was not whether it was consistent, but whether the Commission should override that inconsistency and had there been adequate information provided to allow the Commission to find a reason to allow an inconsistent use on the site. He felt it was very clear that the area was intended for retail expansion. Mr. Eischen requested denial of the recommendation for the conditional use permit. PC Minutes -21- November 6, 1991 Matt Peterson, Peterson Price, representing Chula Vista Properties, the owner of the 8.9 expansion site, stated the uses requested by the conditional use permit were the types of uses critical to the vitality of the City. He pointed out that the whole notion of a conditional use permit was to provide the City with the opportunity to locate valuable and essential items throughout the community that are needed. Mr. Peterson compared the benefits of the hospital expansion with the retail alternative. He said that in balancing all of the factors, it was clear that the hospital expansion would provide more benefit to the City, and requested approval of the conditional use permit, and adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the hospital expansion. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Tugenberg/Decker) that based on f'mdings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, approve the request, PCC-90-35, subject to the following conditions 1, 2, and 3. Commissioner Tugenberg felt the benefits generated by Scripps would far outweigh whatever problems it might create. Commissioner Casillas stated he had been very impressed by the presentations and commended everyone. He believed it was a proper function of the City and the Redevelopment Agency to pursue activities that would enhance the health of the community. He said it was important from the economics standpoint, but the provision of better health service to the community was more important and he saw the need for the expansion. He would support the conditional use permit. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf requested clarification that the motion is to approve the 11-page resolution which included the conditions set forth in the staff report and the approval of the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Commissioner Tugenberg concurred. VOTE ON MOTION: 5-1 (Commissioner Carson voted "no"; Commissioner Martin had been excused because of confiict of interest). OTHER BUSINESS: None DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Assistant Planning Director Lee asked if the Commission had any objection to a special meeting on February 5, 1992, to consider the San Miguel Property project. There were objections. Mr. lee noted the Commission had a regular meeting the following Wednesday evening, November 13, to consider the EIR on the Chula Vista Shopping Center. PC Minutes -22- November 6, 1991 COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Chair Fuller reminded Commissioner Casillas that he would be chairing the meeting on November 13, since she would be out of town. She asked to be excused by the Commission. MSUC (Carson/Decker) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Fuller from the next two meetings. ADJOURNMENT at 12:00 a.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of November 13, 1991, in the Council Chambers. 1~Ian6y Ripl~Y~/Secretar~f Planning Commission (PCll~.M~)