HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/09/25 Tape: 325
Side: 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday. September 25, 1991 Public Services Buildinr
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson (arrived 8:55
p.m.), Casillas, Decker, and Martin
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tugenberg (excused)
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning
Director Lee, Principal Planner Howard,
Environmental Coordinator Reid, Environmental
Consultant Miller, Planning Intern Rubin,
Community Development Director Salomone,
Principal Community Development Specialist
Putnam, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant
City Attorney Rudolf
PLEDGE OF AIJ~EGIANCE - SILF~NT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of
silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARICq
Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the
format of the meeting.
MSUC (Decker/Casillas) 4-0 to excuse Commissioner Tugenberg who was on vacation.
(Commissioner Carson had reported she would be late for this meeting.)
MSUC (Casillas/Martin) 4-0 to approve the minutes of April 10, 1991, as submitted.
MSUC (Casillas/Martin) 4-0 to approve the minutes of Iuly 24, 1991, as submitted.
PC Minutes -2- September 25, 1991
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
ITEM 1: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-89-1, OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING
PROJECT
Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam stated the City was proposing to widen
Otay Valley Road from 1-805 to the eastern City boundary. She noted the construction would
be in two phases with Phase 2 anticipated to be constructed within five years of Phase 1
completion. There had been no new impacts identified which had not been addressed in the
Draft EIR.
Commissioner Decker, referring to Table 1-1, Air Quality, asked if the construction would be
halted during Santa Ana wind conditions. Ms. Putnam said the area would be watered down
more when the wind conditions exist. The main concern was the residences that exist in the
project area that are actually to the north. Commissioner Decker was concerned that when the
Santa Ana conditions exist during the construction period, any amount of watering would quickly
dry. Ms. Putnam noted it could be effectively addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
before it went before Council. Commissioner Decker concurred.
Commissioner Martin, also referring to Table 1-1, Biology and Direct Impact, questioned the
2:1 acreage replacement ratio for wetlands lost. Ms. Putnam explained that the 3 acres of
wetland which would be lost would be replaced with a &acre wetland creation project.
MSUC (Casillas/Martin) 4-0 (Commissioner Tugenberg absent; Commissioner Fuller had not
yet arrived) to certify that Final EIR-89-1 has been prepared in compliance with the State CEQA
Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures for the City of Chula Vista.
ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING; RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR-90-07, SCRIPPS
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL EXPANSION
Commissioner Fuller explained that Item 2 was to consider the Recirculated Draft EIR for the
Scripps Memorial Hospital expansion. One of the four members present had a conflict and
would have to leave the dais, which meant there would not be a quorum. She asked that the
item be trailed until Commissioner Carson arrived. The applicant agreed to continue to Item 3.
ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING; GPA-91-05; PCZ-91-G: PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE
GENERAL PLAN AND REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY, GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY 'E' STREET, 'D' STREET, THIRD AVENUE, AND LANDIS
AVENUE, TO RESOLVE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN THE CHIJLA VISTA COMMUNITY - City
Initiated
PC Minutes -3- September 25, 1991
Principal Planner Howard noted this was a proposed General Plan amendment and rezone for
approximately 5 acres located between "E" Street and "DM Street, Third Avenue and Landis
Avenue in the northern part of Chula Vista, Sub-Area B3A. A property owner forum had been
held August 1, 1991. Staff recommendation was to find that the proposal had no significant
environmental impacts, and adopt the Negative Declaration issued for IS-91-13; change
the General Plan map from low-medium residential (3-6 du/ac) to medium-high residential, (11-
18 du/ac); and to rezone from R-3 apartment zone to R-3-P-22 apartment zone, which allows
22 du/ac, with a Precise Plan modifier which contains two conditions: 1) that the City of Chula
Vista shall enforce any appropriate legal mechanisms sponsored by the Chula Vista School
District and the Sweetwater Union High School District to mitigate impacts on school facilities;
and 2) that all existing non-conforming uses created as a result of this action shall be allowed
to be reconstructed in the event of destruction of greater than 60% of the property's
improvements upon review and approval of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Howard continued with an explanation of the current surrounding land uses. Under the
existing R-3 zone up to 145 dwelling units, or an addition of 45 units, could be built (based upon
the R-3 zone which gives density bonuses for projects built on larger lots involving smaller
dwelling unit sizes). Under the R-3-P-22 zone proposed, 122 dwelling units could be
constructed, or an addition of 22 units over the existing conditions. An R-2 or R-3-P-14 zoning
designation would allow 14 du/ac; 111 units could be built on the site, or an addition of 11
units.
Principal Planner Howard noted the both school districts reported that they currently had
overcrowded conditions in both the elementary and high school districts in Western Chula Vista.
The Chula Vista Elementary School District recommended that the existing residential low-
medium designation be retained and that the area be rezoned R-I; that if individual property
owners wished to come forward with General Plan amendments individually, at that point they
could be required to provide additional mitigation for their school impacts through requiring a
Mello-Roos District or other mechanism available through the legislative process of a privately
initiated General Plan amendment.
Staff recommended the medium-high residential plan designation of 11-18 units per acre, and
the R-3-P-22 apartment residential zoning.
Planning Director Leiter stated that the letter received from the Chula Vista Elementary School
District concerned whether the proposed rezone and General Plan amendment would create
additional impacts on the schools and suggested a Mello-Roos District or other mechanism be
applied as part of the rezoning action to mitigate impact on schools. Mr. Leiter noted that such
a requirement would not be legal, and that the City-initiated General Plan amendment and
rezoning was necessary in order to bring the General Plan and zoning in conformance with each
other. Mr. Leiter acknowledged that there was a process going on to consider ways of
mitigating school impacts in Western Chula Vista. Senior staff members from both the City and
the School District have been involved in those discussions, and there has been an agreement
PC Minutes -4- September 25, 1991
to do some further consideration of ways in which the City and/or the School District could set
up mechanisms for the City and School District to require developer participation in mitigation
of school impacts in this area. He informed the Commission that if a mechanism is developed
as part of those discussions, an action by the Commission to recommend approval of the
rezoning would not preclude the imposition of mechanisms for mitigating school impacts later.
Mr. Leiter said he wanted to go on record to let the School District know that was staff's
position and the City was definitely committed to continuing the process with the School District
to try to resolve those issues.
Chair Fuller clarified that language stating that the City would enforce any appropriate legal
mechanisms sponsored by the school districts to mitigate impacts on school facilities was that
the City would help the school district when a way was found that they could legally do so. Mr.
Leiter concurred and stated that any action taken by the Commission would not preclude it from
happening later.
Chair Fuller asked about the inclusion of the second condition that all existing non-conforming
uses created as a result of this action could be allowed to be reconstructed in the event of
destruction of greater than 60%. Principal Planner Howard explained that it had been the
Council's action to also include that condition in the Precise Plan Modifier that all non-
conforming uses, if they were destroyed beyond the normal 60% stated in the zoning ordinance,
could be allowed to be rebuilt upon review and approval of the Commission.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Cynthia Williams, 114 Third Avenue, CV, said she wanted the project to go forward. However,
she wanted to keep the R-3 zoning, since she would be losing 1+ dwelling unit per acre with
the new designation.
Edward J. Benson, 134 Third Avenue, CV, said he had no objection to the rezone except he felt
there should be monetary compensation for the loss of the R-3. He felt the down zone to R-1
should be worth at least about $50,000 to $75,000.
Chair Fuller clarified that the rezone under discussion was to R-3 with a modifier, not R-1.
Carroll Rains, 138 Third Avenue, CV, said he was for a change, but felt the City was taking
money out of his pocket. Regarding the school impact, he felt if the R-3 zoning was maintained,
there would be less impact.
Allen Shaw, 142 Third Avenue, CV, felt the General Plan should be amended, but he thought
the zoning should be left R-3. The difference in the number of units between an R-3 zoning and
the R-3-P-22 was only 22 units and the difference was not worth the expense, etc. with respect
to the loss and value of the property that may result from the down zoning. He also wanted to
know how the loss to the property owners would be compensated--would it be paid in cash, an
PC Minutes -5- September 25, 1991
abatement of property taxes for 20 or 30 years? He noted also the possibility of a lawsuit. Mr.
Shaw was interested/n knowing what happens to the proceeds from the lottery, and also the
fixed percentage of the California budget designated for the school system. He said the
proposed zoning encouraged larger units which would lend itself to families, as opposed to R-3
which encouraged the smaller units and would have less impact on schools.
Kate Shurson, representing Chula Vista Elementary School District, clarified that the District
only wanted to make sure that when development occurs, schools are available to serve children
from that development. The suggestion to include a condition for all subsequent development
in the rezoned area requiring compliance with school district mitigation could take the form of
Mello-Roos or some other method. Ms. Shurson noted that the four schools in that area were
overflow busing 170 children, 77 of which were from Feaster which served the area under
discussion. She stated it was not true that the smaller the unit, the fewer the children. Two or
three families are living in the same unit with six or eight children living in small apartments.
Ms. Shurson concurred with Planning Director Leiter that a subcommittee composed of City
Council members and School Board members were meeting to discuss items of mutual interest.
She said the City Attorney had been asked to review the issue of the Central Chula Vista
consistency study and return to the subcommittee with comments and recommendations. She
requested the item be continued until the City Attorney returned with those comments. Ms.
Shurson said this was the opportunity for the City to assist the school districts. She said the
District does not have funds to finance expansion or construction of new facilities.
Chair Fuller reiterated that the action of the Planning Commission would not preclude any
assistance to the school districts at a later date, if a legal mechanism was found.
Commissioner Decker felt the only solution to the problem of overcrowding was to build more
schools.
Ms. Shurson explained that there was a misconception regarding lottery funds, and that schools
are only allowed to use them for special programs, not salaries or construction. The schools are
funded in the East through developer participation; there is no large-scale development in the
West. The State-authorized developer fees of $1.58 sq. ft. are collected, but are split with
Sweetwater High School District. They are considering expanding existing sites which they feel
is more economical. It is difficult to find land, and there's no money for that.
Commissioner Casillas suggested asking taxpayers to support the schools through a bond issue.
Ms. Shurson said it costs about $100,000 to mount a campaign, and about 17% of those
elections pass. They are not very successful, but they have been looking at it. They were
waiting to see if legislation passed which would reduce the 2/3rds requirement.
Commissioner Casillas was concerned about children attending the schools who do not live in
the district. Ms. Shurson answered that there had been a Student Welfare Attendance office
established two years ago. Any new enrollee of Chula Vista Elementary has to prove residency
PC Minutes -6- September 25, 1991
by showing rent receipt or deed, two pieces of permanent document. The difficult ones are
those who have been there for years.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MS (Casillas/Decker) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration, find that the proposed rezonings and General Plan Amendments will have
no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-13 for
the General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study, Subarea B-3-A.
Commissioner Martin asked why the sense of urgency, and requested clarification as to the
proposed rezoning.
Principal Planner Howard answered that it would be the R-3-P-22 zoning classification which
allowed the apartment zoned R-3 zone only with some special precise plan guidelines and a
maximum density of 22 dwelling units per acre.
Chair Fuller asked the Assistant City Attorney if there was a concern regarding lawsuits and cost
to the City. Assistant Attorney Rudolf answered that if the result of the rezone was a downzone,
unless the action of the Commission and the Council so lowers the potential use so it deprives
the property owner of all reasonable use of the property, it is not a taking. A reduction, as
being proposed, is not a taking under inverse condemnation law.
VOTE ON MOTION: 4-0 IN FAVOR (Commissioner Tugenberg absent; Commissioner
Carson had not yet arrived.)
MSIJC (Casillas/Decker) 4-0 to adopt a resolution to change the General Plan designation for
Subarea B-3-A from Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac) to Medium-High Residential (11-18
alu/ac).
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CASILLAS to recommend that the City Council adopt an
ordinance to change the zoning for Subarea B-3-A from R-3 (Apartment Residential) to R-3-P-22
(Apartment Residential) with the precise plan modifier, subject to conditions 'a' and 'b'.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf suggested that condition 'b' be revised to read: "...of the
property's improvements only upon review and approval of the Planning Commission."
Commissioner Casillas accepted the revision to the motion. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED
BY COMMISSIONER DECKER.
VOTE ON MOTION: 4-0 IN FAVOR
PC Minutes -7- September 25, 1991
ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING; PCA-91-06: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT
TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO DELETE CERTAIN PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCHES THAT PROVIDE TEMPORARY
SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS - City Initiated
Senior Planner Griffin designated the areas being considered, and stated that several of the
churches had seen the procedural requirements in terms of the zoning permit and noticing as a
burden. During the time of the churches' participation, the City had not received any objections
or complaints regarding the operation of the shelters. Staff supported an amendment which
would delete the requirement for a zoning permit, the detailed program and scheduling
information which is generally the same every year and closely controlled by the Interfaith
Shelter Network, as well as the noticing requirements to the surrounding residents. One of the
provisions to be left in the procedural requirements is the provision that if there are any
violations of standards or any complaints received, the shelter could be immediately closed. The
Resource Conservation Commission voted 4-3 to recommend that the ordinance not be amended,
because they thought the noticing should continue. Mr. Griffin noted that Planning Intern
Georgia Rubin had prepared the report and was assisting him, if there were any questions.
Chair Fuller asked how complicated it was for a church to notice the surrounding residents. Mr.
Griffin said it was a 300' notice around the perimeter of the church property itself. The
Planning Department provides the churches with the mailing labels. The notice would be
prepared, copied, stuffed, and mailed by the churches.
Chair Fuller felt it might be a good public relations thing to do. Mr. Griffin concurred;
however, he said the churches felt the area residents had been noticed, that they know the
churches have the shelter every year, and the churches felt it was unnecessary to do it again.
Mr. Griffin also commented that the churches felt this was part of their function as a church and
their service to the community. Staff thought this was a reasonable request based on the lack
of any problems with the facilities over the last three years.
Commissioner Decker questioned the 180-day extension of time. Senior Planner Griffin agreed
that "up to 180 days~ would be a better way of phrasing item 1, and suggested that the Planning
Commission might add it to the recommendation.
Commissioner Decker asked why the churches needed to request an inspection. Mr. Griffin
answered that previously when the zoning permit was requested, the Fire and Building
Departments would be notified and would arrange for inspections. Without an application for
a permit, the churches would have to let the City know when they would be setting up for the
shelter. The churches are under the umbrella of the Interfaith Shelter Network who makes sure
the shelters are up to Code.
PC Minutes -8- September 25, 1991
Commissioner Decker was concerned that it was optional on the part of the church. Assistant
Planning Director Lee suggested it be changed to read "The church shall request an inspection
to be conducted by the City. *
Commissioner Decker noted they would only be required to meet Code standards as a church
and not as a dwelling establishment. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said he understood as soon
as someone was there sleeping overnight, it became a dwelling and then those Code requirements
kick in and are enforced.
Commissioner Casillas commented on the exclusion of alcohol drug abusers, the mentally ill,
those convicted with any crime, etc. and wanted to know if the shelters had been able to exclude
them 100%. Senior Planner Griffin asked that Mary Niez of the Interfaith Shelter Network
respond.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mary Niez, 3435 Camino del Rio South,//108, San Diego 92108, representing Interfaith Shelter
Network, said the Network was a 5-year-old project currently under the San Diego CoUnty
Ecumenical Conference. There are no permanent shelters for the homeless in the South Bay or
in the City of Chula Vista, and the congregations provide a service to the community. Ms. Niez
said the screening happens by Lutheran Special Services Project Hand. She went on to explain
how the "guests" were screened and what they were required to do in order to use a shelter.
She distributed the "Temporary Health and Safety Guidelinesf to the Commissioners. She said
the requirements were very stringent for congregations, case managers, and guests. Any guests
who violate the rules are asked to leave and are referred back to their case managers, who are
available during the evening. Ms. Niez noted the Fire Department would be given a schedule
as to when and where the shelters would be held.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf asked if Ms. Niez concurred that Item 3 read "A post set-up prc-
shelter inspection shall be conducted by the City in order to determine compliance with
applicable building, health, safety and fire regulations." Ms. Niez replied that it was acceptable.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Decker/Casillas) 4-0 to recommend that the City Council amend the Municipal Code
in accordance with Exhibit A, as amended.
ITEM 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-92-04; CONSIDERATION OF A REZONE
CONSISTING OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY
REGULATIONS OF EASTLAKE GREENS SPA PLAN TO REZONE 51.5
ACRES WITHIN RP-8 (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED CONCEPT - 8 DISTRICT)
TO RS-7 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY - 7 DISTRICT) - Bast. Lake
Development Company
PC Minutes -9- September 25, 1991
Associate Planner Barbara Reid noted that the applicant had brought staff's attention to the fact
that the far northern parcel had been developed. He asked, and staff agreed, that this portion
be left RP-8 and not be changed to RS-7. If the Planning Commission agreed, the rezone would
be 40.8 acres after the parcel is removed.
Ms. Reid stated that on July 18, 1989, the City Council approved Tentative Map 88-3 for
EastLake Greens. One of the conditions required that the lot within Units 4, 7, and 8 and
Residential Planned Concept - 8 District be a minimum of 50 feet in width, g~tLake requested
that zoning for those units be rezoned from the current zoning of RP-8 to RS-7. She noted the
proposal was exempt from environmental review.
Ms. Reid gave staff's rationale for the rezone which would allow side yard setbacks and allow
more of a sense of open space.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing
to speak, the hearing was closed.
MSUC (Decker/Martin) 4-0 (Commissioners Carson and Tugenberg absen0 to recommend that
the City Council amend the Planned Community District Regulations of gastLake Greens SPA
plan as shown in Exhibit B to rezone 40.8 acres from RP-8 (Residential Planned Concept - 8
District) to RS-7 (Residential Single Family - 7 District).
Commissioner Carson arrived at this time -- 8:55 p.m.
ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL EXPANSION -
RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR (EIR-90-07)
Commissioner Martin requested to be excused because of his association with Scripps Hospital.
Environmental Consultant Miller noted the previous draft had come before the Commission on
April 24, 1991, at which time the Commissioners had requested additional information
concerning seismology and water conservation. The Commissioners had also been concerned
about the need for additional hospital space in the City and requested that an economic analysis
be performed showing hospital demand and the tax revenue implications of the project. Ms.
Miller stated that the Recirculated Draft EIR now contained all issues addressed in the previous
draft, in addition to the issues of seismology and water conservation. Separate from the
environmental impact report was an economic analysis which was included at the end of the
document for convenience only. She stressed that the economic analysis was not required by
CEQA and the information it contained did not affect the conclusions of the EIR.
Ms. Miller stated the Recirculated Draft also included an analysis of two new alternatives which
were not included in the previous draft -- a phasing alternative by the "H" Street Business
Coalition proposing to retain Arby's, First Interstate Bank, and ReadiCare during Phase I of the
PC Minutes -10- September 25, 1991
Scripps expansion -- as well as a proposal by Circinus Corporation for a retail commercial
project over the entire 8-acre expansion area. The EIR circulated for a 45-day public review
period. The Recirculated Draft was taken before the Town Centre Project Area Committee on
September 5, 1991. Their comments were noted and forwarded to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Miller stated the comments would be responded to in the Final EIR. The Draft EIR also
went before the Resource Conservation Commission on September 9 and 23. At the September
9 meeting, the RCC recommended that the Planning Commission certify the EIR; however, at
the request of the Community Development Department, the EIR went back to the RCC again
on September 23, after notice was sent to all interested parties. At the September 23 meeting,
the RCC rescinded their previous motion and decided not to make any recommendations on the
EIR until they had fully considered the information that had been distributed at that meeting by
representatives of the retail commercial alternative on the site. The Community Development
Department had asked that the Commission proceed with the Planning Commission public
hearing without the RCC recommendation. Environmental Consultant Miller proceeded with
discussion of the seismology and water conservation issues.
Ms. Miller stated this was a solid CEQA document. She stressed that staff would not be
responding, nor were they required to respond to any comments related to economics, since it
was not an EIR issue. Redevelopment planning and procedural issues would also not be
responded to since they are also not CEQA issues.
Ms. Miller introduced Joe Oliva of Willdan Associates, the traffic consultant who prepared the
traffic study portion of the EIR. Mr. Oliva explained the procedure used in the traffic study.
He reported that the impacts could be mitigated to a level of less than significant with the
proposed mitigation measures.
Environmental Consultant Miller recommended that the public hearing be opened, and the public
review period closed on the Recirculated Draft EIR. She stated June Collins of Dudek &
Associates, the preparer of the EIR; Jun Onaka, of P&D Technologies, the preparer of the
economic analysis; and City staff were available for questions.
Commissioner Decker was curious about the unmitigable water issue and asked if recirculation
of water from the Pt. I_oma Plant was taken into consideration, and if that recirculation or use
of recirculated water reduce the total need? Do places like this get credits for that? Then
would it not be mitigable if it is not a problem?
June Collins of Dudek & Associates concluded that he was referring to use of reclaimed water
for landscape irrigation and clarified the impact analysis with respect to water use. She said it
was identified as an incremental contribution to overall cumulative effects associated with use
of imported water in the County as a whole, not as a direct impact with the project. It was
concluded that the project incorporated appropriate drought tolerant landscaping and other types
of water conservation measures to the extent possible. There was not an analysis presented in
the EIR of the extent to which the City or the project itself would use reclaimed water. That
PC Minutes -11- September 25, 1991
could be provided in the responses to comments of the status of the Otay Valley water
reclamation project.
Commissioner Carson asked, regarding the net water demand of 10,000 to an 80-gallon-per-day,
how many homes approximately could be served if it was done on a home basis?
Ms. Collins did not have an answer, but said she could check into it.
Commissioner Carson, noting in the staff report at the bottom of page 8, ....may be required
to comply with the City-approved water...," questioned "MAY be required." She felt it needed
to be more definite--that they have to participate:
Ms. Miller responded that the reason the staff report said "may be required" was that the City
is currently in process of preparing water plans, and currently the areas that are designated for
conformance to those plans are in the Eastern Territory, so Scripps as it was developing would
not be necessarily required to comply.
Commissioner Carson replied that all parts of the City of Chula Vista needed to be considered,
because as the eastern portion develops and as the water crunch comes, it would affect all parts
of Chula Vista.
Ms. Miller felt Commissioner Carson's concern should be reiterated to the staff person working
on the water issue.
Commissioner Carson, referring to page 27, questioned the use of the term "blighting
influences."
Ms. Collins answered that.it was a direct quote from the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan.
Community Development Director Salomone responded that "blight" was an unfortunate word
that is a term of art in State Redevelopment Law. He said staff would take her comment under
consideration and address it in their response.
Commissioner Carson said she was still concerned that the clientele of the Interstate Bank would
be very definitely impacted by having the bank moved. They would have to go to downtown
San Diego unless it was relocated somewhere in Chula Vista.
Ms. Collins explained that the focus of the community character analysis on the EIR was only
on community character, how the elimination of these uses on site affects the overall character
of the community. The conclusion was that there were similar uses located within a reasonable
sphere of influence and it did not appear that the overall community character would be affected.
They did not specifically look at the proximity of the particular banking branch that existed
within a reasonable proximity to the project site. She agreed that it would be an inconvenience
PC Minutes -12- September 25, 1991
for the users of that existing bank to either have to select a new bank or go downtown for their
banking purposes. She didn't know to what extent it was regarded as an environmental impact,
as opposed to a relocation issue.
Commissioner Carson, referring to page 151, "...the existing hospital facility is currently
overcrowded and patients are going outside Chula Vista to receive medical care."
Commissioner Carson said she would like to see some figures to back up that statement. How
many people were electing to go out of the City of Chula Vista because they wanted to.
Commissioner Carson also asked why her Draft EIR had no appendices.
Ms. Miller noted it had been the policy of the City to provide appendices upon request, but in
the future an appendix would be forwarded with the EIR.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Jeff Bills, Administrator of Scripps Memorial Hospital, believed they had designed an
outstanding project in the urban core which would bring additional new life to the City,
especially the downtown area, and deliver high-quality medical care to the people of Chula
Vista. He said Scripps was prepared to undertake all of the mitigation measures described in
the EIR.
Charles Harmon, of RTM, representing Arby's Roast Beef Restaurant spoke in opposition to the
Draft EIR. Arby's was part of the "H" Street Coalition Alternative to the Scripps expansion,
basically where the Bank, ReadiCare medical facility, and Arby's Restaurant would stay on site
in Phase I of the Scripps Hospital expansion and would not be removed from the site until Phase
II. He said they wanted to stay on-site and had no intention of leaving. He said they were the
"blighting influence" that was referred to in the EIR and they took exception to that. He felt
the EIR could never be an objective document. Gail McCloud consulting service specifically
named in a letter sent to state 22 items in the Draft EIR with which they had major problems,
including the statement that the EIR was consistent with the Redevelopment Plan. The Plan
slates a commercial/retail development for the area. Mr. Harmon stated the process had started
with Scripps and the City without proper notice to them. Other areas Mr. Harmon considered
problem areas included subsidy from the City, the noise analysis, inadequacy of water use data,
and traffic. He believed the lessors had been excluded from the first meetings.
Jim Eishen, of Shanahan Smith, representing RTM referred to the letter by Gall McCloud which
identified a number of significant problems with the Draft EIR. He noted that on page 12,
alternative sites, the EIR stated an alternative sites analysis was not conducted for the proposed
project since the goals and objectives of the proposed project would not be achieved by
relocating the project to an alternative site. He said an alternative site analysis was requirec[
under California law and under CEQA. He asked that the project proponent be required to look
hard at off-site alternatives, so it would avoid the disruption of what was intended to be a retail
PC Minutes -13- September 25, 1991
commercial location in the Redevelopment Plan. He also discussed what he considered to be
significant impacts regarding land use and community character. He said social and economic
loss may not be a CEQA impact; however, it is if social and economic loss caused a physical
disruption of some kind. The Coalition felt there was an intended commercial retail core that
was supposed to be created to build business to help Chula Vista. This business use was going
to be replaced with an institutional use that was not intended by the Plan. Mr. Eishen felt that
was a physical disruption of an intended planning situation that needed to be mitigated. He felt
they had a coalition proposal, which they thought would be an outstanding mitigation. Project
justification needed to be an objective document and lacked data supporting some of the
underlying assumptions supporting the project. Mr. Eisben believed it was important to define
the project to comply with CEQA. Even though it had been stated that the economic analysis
was not part of the document, they had problems with the economic analysis provided. He said
the "H" Street Coalition description was inadequate in the Draft EIR and asked that the Draft
EIR be corrected to properly define the "H" Street Business Coalition project.
Wayne Wencke, President of Circinus Corporation, representing the owners of the master
ground lease for the entire site. They believed the CEQA process was not being served. Mr.
Wencke said they had made a lot of requests which for the most part had received only lip
service. It had also never really been proven that the highest and best use for the site would be
anything other than commercial. They believed the alternative sites issue was flawed
significantiy and needed further study. The studies of water use issue, the hazardous waste on
the site, financial considerations, and the traffic issue were inadequate. Mr. Wencke stated that
the redevelopment process itself must be considered in a disclosure fashion, if nothing else, by
the CEQA document. He believed that was fatally flawed in that the owners in interest in that
site were not properly informed early on. They had been excluded from the redevelopment
process. Mr. Wencke said they were ready, willing, and able to provide a project that they
believed to be superior. He said an analysis had never been done to prove otherwise. He stated
the law required that they were included first. He believed the reason it was particularly
applicable to CEQA process was that by including them simply as an alternative, they do not
get the full analysis benefit and support of the City, nor the full benefit of a complete, fair,
unbiased comparison. Mr. Wencke requested that the EIR be completely reanalyzed and
recirculated. The owners believed that after the analysis is done completely, the Circinus
proposal would be the only proposal that would make sense for the site.
Phillip Hinshaw, 6136 Mission Gorge Road, San Diego, also representing the owners of the
ground lease, had submitted a letter on behalf of Circinus dated September 23. On the fourth
page of the letter, the relocation of businesses was addressed in the general terms of community
character. The lessors believed the EIR should to the extent possible address the relocation of
each individual use that exists. The EIR stated that the project would implement one of the
General Plan environmental goals, but that environmental goal was never disclosed. The reader
of the EIR does not know which General Plan environmental goal is being referred to. The
reader was led to believe there would be a fuller discussion of that item. The relocation of the
sound wall was not addressed. There would be an increase in traffic. The EIR did not address
PC Minutes -14- September 25, 1991
whether or not the sound wall in its new location would be an effective noise buffer. Regarding
sewer service, the EIR discussed the overloading of the "G' and "H" Street sewer line and that
the sewage from the new hospital would go to the "G" 'Street line and some future study would
be done about how that would work. They believed it was appropriate that it be part of the EIR
so that the public would know what the City would be doing with the sewer. Would that lead
to some further growth-inducing effects in the area? Mr. Hinshaw said the EIR stated that the
existing hospital facility is currently overcrowded; however, in the socioeconomics consideration
which, again, was not part of CEQA, it said that a hospital had an occupancy rate of 83% in
1989. The socioeconomic report said the City should undertake further studies on the need for
hospital facilities at some future time. They felt in a land use decision for this hospital, such
studies should be done now before a decision is made about Scripps and the overall land use for
hospital facilities.
Michael Jacobs, Vice-President for Circinus Corporation, stated that while they were aware that
the economic study was not required by CEQA as a part of the process, they felt it was a very
important issue to take into consideration. He said the main focus of the economic study had
been to compare the revenues to the City from the alternatives presented. He wished to focus
on the Circinus proposal and Scripps proposal showing the scope of their interest. He said the
model used to generate those estimates had to do with the phasing in of the project, when the
property changed title triggered when you got your tax increment; when the project was built
triggered when you got your sales tax revenue. He said the economic study concluded that the
Scripps phase ultimate plan and the commercial retail proposal generated, for all intents and
purposes, the same amount of revenue to the City. He felt it was important to look at the
models carefully. Scripps plans completion at the end of 15 years, and they phase in the
revenues in the model in the 10th year, although it may not be in the 10th year. He said it was
important to note that minor changes generate different conclusions. He also discussed the
assumptions used for new sales tax revenues and noted it would be based upon economic factors.
Arnold Torma, traffic engineer with Entranco Engineers, 2505 Congress in San Diego. They
had been asked to look at those portions of the study that are applicable to traffic. He had
compared the project description in the traffic study to the project description in the full EIR and
had found some differences. He had documented those differences in a letter which had been
provided to staff. He felt the project would add traffic impacts that should have been analyzed
in the EIR.
Commissioner Carson asked him to give an example of the traffic that needed more explanation.
Mr. Torma answered that there were two specific issues: a diagnostic center of 80,000+ sq. ft.
that was described as part of the project in the full EIR that he did not find in the traffic section;
and 30,000+ sq. ft. in the traffic section that was described as a storage facility with a rate of
traffic generation relatively low to a storage facility that he did not find in the full document of
the FIR. He said he was confused by those two things, and felt that needed to be clarified.
PC Minutes -15- September 25, 1991
Joe Solomon, 401 B Street, San Diego, an attorney hired by the defendants, said he had
determined that the process was in violation of not only state law, but also the local planning
law. He was also concerned with the term "blight." He stated it was their contention that this
area was improperly placed in the redevelopment zone. He felt that based on some procedural
due process requirements, they had a good challenge for that. He gave a definition of "blight~
as a condition musing the reduction of or lack of proper utilization of the area to such an extent
that it constitutes a serious physical, social, or economical burden on the community which
cannot reasonably expect to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. Mr.
Solomon contended that the redevelopment prOCess began in 1988 in which the owners of the
site, particularly Mr. Wencke, was not properly solicited for a proposal for the site. Mr.
Solomon said not only did that violate redevelopment law, but they didn't even study whether
they could alleviate the situation by working with private enterprise. He said he had offered the
City the opportunity to convince them that this process was conducted properly and had
requested to review the public records. He had not yet seen them, although he had obtained a
commitment from the City Attorney that he would be able to look at those documents the next
week. He said the Commission had heard from the consultant that the EIR itself was invalid.
He said there was a comment by Ms. Miller that economics was not a CEQA impact. He stated
it had a severe environmental ramification throughout the community. But he was primarily
concerned with the procedural element. He read from a recent case he regarded as the same
type of situation. The court decided that "By the time the agency actually conducted a hearing
to determine the necessity for taking the property it had irrevocably committed itself to take,
regardless of any evidence which might be presented at the hearing, all the while the owner had
been misled, if not deceived, as to what fate was going to befall his property. It seems clear
that the hearing which led to the adoption of the resolution in necessity was a sham, and the
agency's policy-making board simply robber stamped a predetermined result." Mr. Solomon
said that basically this case was just explaining what due process was required in a
redevelopment and a CEQA process. Due process comes from our Fifth Amendment to our
Constitution which basically says no person should be deprived of property without due process
of law.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chair Fuller stated that no action was required by the Commission, and all of the information
that had been received verbally and in writing would be responded to in the Final EIR.
Commissioner Carson asked if the Commission had the choice of not closing the public hearing
if they wanted to hear more on some of the issues. She was concerned about the assertion that
a back door meeting had been held. If this was taking place, she felt the public hearing should
remain open so it could be addressed. If it had not happened, and there was no back door
situation, she favored closing the review period.
Chair Fuller asked Assistant City Attorney Rudolf to respond.
PC Minutes -16- September 25, 1991
Assistant Attorney Rudolf said he was not personally aware of any back door deals. The issue
was inappropriate for consideration with regard to the EIR. There was information regarding
.the general history of how the project began that was unnecessary, superfluous, courteous to be
revolved in the ErR, but was not important to it. He did not think that the public hearing needed
to be kept open for further information on that issue. The legal issues that counsel raised would
be addressed regarding the project itself, but those were allegations that were easily made and
would have to be followed up on.
Commissioner Decker asked if the economic study was an appropriate section or subsection of
a CEQA ErR?
Assistant Attorney Rudolf answered that that portion of the document had been separated out
from the CEQA document and was prepared specifically in response to questions to supply the
Commission with that information, and specifically designated as not pan of the CEQA
document. Ordinarily those issues are totally outside of the environmental analysis. Those
issues are lawfully within Commission review; however, the elements which must be considered
on the environmental side were in the CEQA document proper.
Commissioner Decker requested that if in fact this was not necessarily a legitimate pan of the
EIR, that it be made an addendum as opposed to a section.
Commissioner Casillas mentioned that from the standpoint of business consideration, and very
particularly in view of the fact that the City would in all probability be obligating some public
funds to this effort should it proceed, he felt it was very important for the Commission to know
what the economic likelihood was that the project would succeed. He said he would feel more
comfortable with more data. He was concerned that the Redevelopment Agency, the City
Council, the taxpayers, would have to be putting out money and he was not certain the City
would get it back in terms of taxes. He would also like to have more time to review the
information the Commission had received late. He recommended that the hearing be kept open.
Chair Fuller stated that she had already closed the public hearing. The Commission has
concerns regarding the issues that were raised and the material that was given to them late that
they did not have an opportunity to review. The Final EIR would answer all of those questions
that were raised regarding economics, whether or not it was a part of the ErR. Everything that
was raised by verbal testimony in the public hearing, plus all the written documentation had to
be responded to in the Final ErR. The Final ErR would be brought forward to the Commission.
The Commission would then decide whether those issues had been answered and whether or not
to certify the Final ErR.
Commissioner Decker asked that staff make certain that the Commission would get the
appendices to this document.
PC Minutes -17- September 25, 199!
An unidentified speaker asked for clarification regarding response to the economic items in the
Final ELR.
MaryAnn Miller clarified that the economics was not an environmental issue unless it could be
proven that it would lead to a physical deterioration. She said that had not been determined for
this project. The economic analysis that was provided was provided at the request of
Commission to talk about hospital demand and some of the tax revenue implications of the
facility. The Final EIR would respond to all environmentally related questions, and staff could
provide further clarification on the economics issue and how it related or did not relate to
environmental issues at that time.
Commissioner Carson also asked that the demand be addressed.
June Collins explained that all of the issues raised by the comments would be responded to in
some fashion. As to the format or location of those responses, she couldn't draw any
conclusions at that time.
MaryAnn Miller clarified that the public review period was now closed on the EIR.
Chair Fuller concurred.
Commission Business Card~
Assistant Director of Planning Lee advised that the City Council had approved the authorization
of business cards for boards and commissions provided there was adequate funding in their
budgets. Staff believed there was enough money in the Commission budget, and asked that the
members let the secretary know how they wished their names to be printed on the cards, if they
wanted the cards.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT;
Assistant Director Lee noted the Commission had been provided with the latest Planning
Commission calendar for the remainder of the year, and pointed out the changes made. He
noted the special meetings in November and December which were shifted because of the
holidays, and the cancellation of regular meetings.
Mr. Lee commented that the workshops scheduled in November and December were listed as
5:00, but probably would be shifted to either 4:00 or 4:30, depending on the items to be covered
with the new Commissioners. He also noted that November 30 would be a dinner workshop and
asked that the Commissioners let staff know if they had a restaurant preference.
PC Minutes -18- September 25, 1991
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS; None
ADJOURNMENT at 10:08 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of October 9, 1991, in the
Council Chambers.
ancy Ri~ley, Sf:retar~
Planning Commission