Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1983/09/14 MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Wednesday, September 14, 1983 Conference Rooms 2 and 3 4:00 p.m. Public Services Building ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Cox; Members Moore, McCandliss, Scott, Malcolm MEMBERS ABSENT None COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Vice Chairman 0' Ne ill; Members Shipe, Presutti, Guiles, Green, Cannon COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Chairman Johnson STAFF PRESENT Executive Director Goss, Community Development Director Desrochers, Redevelopment Coordinator legler, Housing Coordinator Gustafson, Special Counsel Reed ALSO PRESENT Allan Gatzke, Tom Cooke, Fred Trull, Charles LeMenager ITEM NO.1 - RESOLUTION - APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION California Coastal Commission regulations require that a land use plan be submitted along with the implementation measures that would formulate the Local Coastal Plan. State Coastal Commission staff advises that if a land use plan is submitted to them for review by October 1, 1983, the Commission will be able to review said plan at their meeting in December to be held in San Diego. Therefore, the Redevelopment Agency and Planning Commission are asked to review the documents and authorize their submitta 1 to the Coastal Commi ss ion. The comments received from both bodies will be considered as part of the preparation of the final report that will be submitted to the State. Community Development Director Desrochers stated that this afternoon's meeting is a culmination of staff and consultant efforts to prepare a final draft land use plan for the Local Coastal Plan for the City of Chula Vista. Following December's Coastal Commission hearing and with approval of the Land Use Plan, the Planning Commission and Agency will review the Local Coastal Plan. It is also important that the San Diego Unified Port District is aware of our plan in order that we do not pre-suppose any conditions that might interfere with their master plan. The Director briefly referred to a change on page 1-3 of the land use plan. Mr. Desrochers proposed an 8-10 acre commun ity park for Gunpowder Poi nt and that the bikeway system be provided along Tidelands Avenue throughout the Bayfront project. The Director noted that the Jones & Stokes biological Joint Redevelopment Agency/ Planning Commission Meeting - 2 - September 14, 1983 report that was previously submitted to both bodies will also be presented to the Coastal Commission along with Gruen Gruen + Associates' financial conclusions. At this time, the consultants from Sedway Cooke Associates, Messrs. Tom Cooke and Allan Gatzke, gave their presentation which highlighted the major changes to the 1 and use plan compared to the plan proposed a few years ago. On display for review was a colored rendering of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Pl an. The consultants discussed the following: proposed land uses by subareas, proposed hotel development on Gunpowder Point, existing conditions on Gunpowder Point, designated environmental resources, proposed wetland resource modifications, proposed upland resource modifications, the SDG&E right-of-way, and a potential reverse osmosis plant. Regarding the latter, the Director noted that in the event that the water treatment system cannot be obtained, staff's recommendation would be changed. Regarding Table 6 - Circulation, the consultants indicated that the City does not have formal concurrence from the Port District regarding the general impact this would have on the entire project. However, he suggested that the City not hold up the Local Coastal Plan submittal in order to obtain approval from the Port, but immedi ate ly request that the Port Di strict revi ew thi s proposa 1. Figure 11 of the land use plan, Environmental Management, was discussed. The consultant stated that because the Corps/CalTrans project is proposed to acquire major marsh area, this use has to be incorporated into the Local Coastal Plan to determine who takes over management in order to assure the Coastal Commission of long term protection. Further discussion involved the Least Tern habitat. Chairman Cox noted the lack of Least Tern sitings in the last few years. (Commissioner Presutti arrived at this time, 4:59 p.m.) Discussion regarding the limited access to Gunpowder Point ensued. Member Malcolm stated that problems may arise in developing the Local Coastal Plan because of this. He questioned saleability of the hotel if users are unable to get to it. Mr. Charles LeMenager, representing Chula Vista Investment Co., shared Member Malcolm's concern indicating that ample parking and access is of paramount importance. Commissioner Green pointed out that the plan does not provide for water-oriented activities, specialty shops or any other attraction for the marina. Commissioner Cannon concurred with the previous statements stat ing that economic sense is required in order to provide a hotel development. Mr. Gatzke stated that the current plan provides for 400+ parking spaces which would be ample parking for the hotel. The first 200 hotel rooms that will be built will be accommodated with surface parking on Gunpowder Point. He agreed that a marketable project is required for the developer. Additional parking must be located therefore for the hotel beneath the tenni s courts or in a Joint Redevelopment Agency/ Planning Commission Meeting - 3 - September 14, 1983 remote area. This would provide for a reduction in the amount of the footprint which will increase the amount of the habitat area and provide sufficient parking to meet needs of the hotel development. Mr. Cooke continued that the uniqueness in the proposed hotel development is its isolation. Commi ssioner Green expressed concern that th i s proposal 1 imits access therefore restricting the area, and the City is sacrificing too much to push the plan throu~h. He pointed out that at the last meeting the consensus was that our plan s ould be aggressive. Mr. Cooke commented that it is the Agency's decision regarding the land use plan submitta 1. As consultants, they will recommend the plan that has the highest probability of being accepted by the Coastal Commission. He noted that the original plan was far more restrictive than the plan presented this afternoon. Commissioner Cannon suggested a cantilevered roadway to alleviate the parking and access problems. Further discussion involved the financing alternatives for providing parking. Should the developer bear the expense or should the City be asked to finance? Member McCandliss summari zed that the Agency needs to decide if a hotel development on Gunpowder Point is advisable. The City cannot submit a plan to the Coastal Commission that is not supportable by scientific evidence. Community Development Director Desrochers discussed Figure 17, Page 4-11, depicting the specific design and development guidelines on "D" Street fill. He pointed out that the Port District resolved that they would cooperate with the Redevelopment Agency in development of this area. Since the Port District will have to submit this as part of their master plan, their LCP will have to be amended. The Director suggested that the Agency not get involved with the planning of development of any portion of the Port's land. Mr. Cooke recapped the basic changes in the land use plan since the 1978 plan. He noted that the land for housing has been reduced by eight acres therefore providing greater flexibility of up to 30 dwelling units per acre; a development reserve of up to 13.4 acres has been introduced into the current plan; a reduction of 12 acres of commercial land will result; wetland and wetland buffer is increased. The trade off is that we have a nine acre reduction of park land. Member Moore remarked that economic need for future ramps on I-54 is not referenced in the plan. He suggested stronger language be implemented into the plan for this purpose. The Chairman, noting that this meeting was not noticed as a public hearing stated that it as important to obtain input from affected property owners. Mr. Charles LeMenager, representing Chula Vista Investment Co., commented on access problems. He suggested that his firm could support the plan if a new design with the cantilevered roadway was proposed. Joint Redevelopment Agency/ Planning Commission Meeting - 4 - September 14, 1983 Mr. Fred Tru 11, San Diego Unified Port District, discussed his concerns regarding Tidelands Avenue. The Port District has incurred great expenses for this area. He noted that the City should concern itself with presenting a plan that is acceptable to Port District staff. He added that the Port is concerned with the treatment of the Sweetwater Channel and the "D" Street Fill development. He suggested that Chula Vista staff coordinate with the Port District staff in order to resolve some of the concerns expressed today. Member Scott indicated that it would be premature to act on approval of the land use plan submittal at this time in light of concerns expressed by the Port District representative. MOTION TO REFER LAND USE PLAN TO STAFF MS (Cox/Scott) to refer the Bayfront Land Use Plan back to staff; direct them to incorporate into the plan the eight-acre park on Gunpowder Point; to have stronger language relating to State Route 54/1-5 on-ramps, the cantilevered freeway access to Gunpowder Point; direct staff to work immediately with the Port District on resolving their concerns and continue this joint meeting to Wednesday, September 21, at 4:00 p.m. Member McCandliss suggested an amendment to the main motion that would address the landscape improvements to the SDG&E power line right-of-way. It was moved by Member McCandliss, seconded by Member Scott to amend the main motion to include Page 3-3, paragraph 4 to change the word "recommended" to "required". The motion failed by the following vote, to wit: AYES: McCandliss, Moore NOES: Cox, Malcolm, Scott MAIN MOTION PASSED The main motion (refer to heading "REFER LAND USE PLAN TO STAFF") passed unanimously. ITEM NO.2 - REPORT: PRELIMI NARY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA A) RESOLUTION NO. PCM-84-3 - SELECTING A PROJECT AREA FOR THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT); AND APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT AREA (PLANNING COMMISSION) B) RESOLUTION NO. 446 - APPROVING THE SELECTION OF THE BOUNDARIES FOR THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE OTAY VALLEY PROJECT AREA (REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY) Joint Redevelopment Agency/ Planning Commission Meeting - 5 - September 14, 1983 Early this year, the Redevelopment Agency and Planning Commission, by separate reso 1 ut ions, approved a Redevelopment survey area for the Otay Va 11 ey Road industrial area. In accordance with State Community Redevelopment Law, the survey was proposed in order to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a redevelopment program for this sector of the City. Because of pending changes in the State law, a preliminary redevelopment plan has been completed ahead of scheduled studies. However, it is evident that the tools offered by Redevelopment will accelerate development for the benefit of the entire City. More precise details will be brought forth to the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency prior to presentation of the final redevelopment plan. Community Development Director Desrochers reported that due to impending legislation, AB 1545 (Hannigan), the redevelopment process for the Otay Valley Road project area has been accelerated. The plan must be heard and approved no later than December 31 of this year in order to comply with existing laws. A time schedule is therefore being implemented that will require the cooperation and expedient review by all agencies involved including the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, Planning Commission, and the County Board of Supervisors. Special Counsel Reed commented that our redevelopment plan should not be subject to the proposed Hannigan Bill. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION TO APPROVE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PRELIMI NARY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MSUC (Green/O'Neill) to approve the Preliminary Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan as presented. RESOLUTION "B" OFFERED BY MEMBER MOORE, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously. Chairman Cox thanked the Planning Commission for their attendance at this afternoon's meeting. A recess was called at 6:24 p.m. The Redevelopment Agency meeting reconvened at 6:31 p.m. ITEM NO.3 - REPORT: DEDICATION OF BAYFRONT PRESERVATION LANDS FOR A STATE OR FEDERAL PARK State and Federal agencies were contacted to determine if land to be preserved on the Bayfront might be dedicated in perpetuity as a park or conservation area. In particular, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been contacted to initiate discussions concerning the dedication of Bayfront lands. A representative from that Department's regional office in San Diego toured the Bayfront project area on August 30, 1983. The initial reaction towards development of this area as a State wildlife preserve under the aegis of Parks and Recreation or Fish and Game was positive, particularly in light of the possibilities of dedication of the subject properties and the Agency assisting financially in the development of the area. Joint Redevelopment Agency/ Planning Commission Meeting - 6 - September 14, 1983 MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT MSUC (Cox/Malcolm) to accept the report. ITEM NO.4 - RESOLUTION NO. 447 - APPROPRIATING $41,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETI NG CERTAIN BAYFRONT STUDI ES UNDERTAKEN BY SEDWAY COOKE ASSOCIATES FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AND RELATED DOCUMENTS Implementation measures to prepare the land use plan for presentation to the Coastal Commission must be implemented. Options 7 and 8 in the Sedway Cooke contract provide preparation of this implementation program at a cost of $20,000. The City intends to direct the consultant to carry out these options. Although the contract is with the City and not with the Redevelopment Agency, the Redevelopment Agency is providing funds to pay Sedway Cooke. Therefore, the resolution wi 11 appropriate funds for the preparat ion of the imp lementati on plan and other work necessary to complete the contract. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER SCOTT, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously. ITEM NO.5 - RESOLUTION NO. 448 - APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH WEST COAST PROJECTIONS, INC. FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A SLIDE PRESENTATION IN SUPPORT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PURCHASE THE VOYAGER II PROJECTION EQUIPMENT AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR Staff has analyzed alternatives for an audio visual presentation to generate support for our Local Coastal Plan. After meeting with five audio visual producers and equipment suppliers, staff recommends the Agency adopt a resolution approving a contract with West Coast Projections, Inc. for the production of a Bayfront slide presentation and authorize staff to purchase the Voyager II portable projection equipment and appropriate funds. This slide presentation would be used to generate support among community groups and Coastal Commissioners, as well as for presentation to the Coastal Commission at their meeting in December. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER SCOTT, the read i ng of the text was wa i ved by unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously. ITEM NO.6 - RESOLUTION NO. 449 - APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE CITY FOR EXPENSES RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES FOR THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. Following acceptance of report on the establishment of a redevelopment project area in the Otay Valley Road area to direct staff to negotiate an agreement with Community Systems Associates, Inc., a contract has been negotiated. It Joint Redevelopment Agency/ Planning Commission Meeting - 7 - September 14, 1983 has become apparent, however, that it would be appropriate for the City to employ Community Systems Associates offering that reimburseable service to the Agency in accordance with Section 2 of the Cooperative Agreement existing between the Agency and the City, enacted February 14, 1974. Funds must be appropriated to reimburse the City for services related to the proposed contract and other services related to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER MOORE, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously. Chairman Cox announced that he received a call from Senator Deddeh regarding the water resources bi 11. Senator Deddeh assures us that there wi 11 be an amendment that will assist the Agency regarding the Otay Valley Road Project by defining the effective date of Plan approval. ITEM NO.7 - RESOLUTION - ENTERING INTO AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH ARMANDO MARTINEZ Member Scott requested that this item be continued to next Wednesday's Agency meeting. He suggested that there may be a problem concerning intrusion into the residential area. MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM TO NEXT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MSUC (Cox/Malcolm) to continue this item to the Redevelopment Agency meeting on Wednesday, September 21, at 4:00 p.m. MEMBERS' COMMENTS Chairman Cox, noting that the installation of the Town Centre clock will not be ready in time for the October 15 Founders Day activities, recommended that the dedication ceremonies be held in conjunction with the completion of the County water feature for the Yuletide Parade. ADJOURNMENT at 6:37 p.m. to the joint Redevelopment Agency/Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, September 21, 1983, at 4:00 p.m. WPC 0832H