Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1987/02/19 AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPHENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 19, 1987 4:00 p.m. Council Conference Room City Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; Members Nader, Moore, McCandliss, Malcolm MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Asmus, Community Development Di rector Desrochers, Agency Attorney Harron, Di rector of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy Director of Public Works/Engineering Garibay, Transit Coordinator Gustafson 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of 2/3/87 and 2/10/87 MSUC (Moore/Nader) to approve the minutes of 2/3/87 and 2/10/87 BAYFRONT - PUBLIC HEARING 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED FINANC ING OF A PORTI ON OF THE SECOND INCREASE IN COST TO DEVELOP THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT TROLLEY STATIOtJ AT "E" STREET AND 1-5 WITH REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS RESOLUTION 776 DETERMINING THAT NO OTHER REASONABLE MEANS OF FINANCING THE BAYFRONT TROLLEY STATION ARE PRESENTLY AVAILABLE TO THE CITY a. b. RESOLUTION 777 APPROPRIATING $169,500 FROM THE BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT FUND At the 1/6/87 meeting, the Council approved a second amendment to the agreement between the County of San Diego and the City for the final design and constructi on of the Bayfront Troll ey Stati on. The amendment was necessitated by updated cost estimates for the project which require an added contri buti on of funds by the County and the Redevelopment Agency to the project. This being the time and place advertised, Chairman Cox declared the Public Hearing opened. Transit Coordinator Gustafson remarked that the Department of Energy has approved the release of the funds for the $961,000 grant. The California Transportation Commission should consider approval of this grant in either March or April. There being no public testimony, the Public Hearing was closed. Redevelopment Agency -2- February 19, 1987 MEt1BER t400RE OFFERED RESOLUTIONS a and b, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously. (4-0; Member McCand1iss was not present for the vote.) At this time the Redevelopment Agency convened in joint session with the City Council. Mayor Cox noted that all members of the City Council were present. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CVT -87-4; CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT UNITS 1 THROUGH 10 PUBLIC HEARING: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CVT-87-4; CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT UNITS 1 THROUGH 10 4. RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP FOR CVT -87-4; CHULA VI STA BAYFRONT UNITS 1 THROUGH 10 AND APPROVING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR SAID TENTATIVE MAP CVT-87-4 Due to the number of conditions recommended for this project and the complexity of these items, it was recommended by staff to provide the Council with a presentati on for di scussi on purposes. I t was further recommended to continue the public hearings for the purpose of taking and considering public testimony to the Redevelopment Agency/City Council meeting of March 5, 1987. Community Development Director Desrochers stated there are policy issues related to this subdivision map that staff would like the Council/Agency to be aware of and consider. Mr. Desrochers noted that the Planning and Engineering Departments, Mr. Norbert Dall, Consul tant, as well as representatives from Chula Vista Investment Company were all present to discuss these issues. In response to Councilman Moore's question, Mr. Desrochers stated it is the intention of staff to delay the taking of public testimony until 14arch 5. Councilman Nader suggested asking if there were members of the public present desiring to speak. There were none. Councilman Malcolm stated since this property is under litigation he would like a short recess to go into Closed Session. MSUC (Malcolm/McCandliss) to recess to Closed Session to discuss Sierra Club vs. Marsh, Sierra Club vs. Coastal Commission et al. The Redevelopment Agency/City Council recessed at 4:20 p.m. to Session. The Redevelopment Agency/City Council reconvened at 4:31 p.m. Mr. Desrochers stated that Chul a Vi sta Investment Company has submitted a Tentative Subdivision Map for approximately 125 acres of the Midbayfront. This is the first subdivision map for the Coastal Zone. This is very different from other subdivision maps because of the Local Coastal Plan restrictions. The Planning Commission reviewed the Subdivision Map on January Closed Redevelopment Agency -3- February 19, 1987 28 and approved it, with 60 conditions. The purpose of this discussion is to alert the Redevelopment Agency/City Council to some of the policy questions that are involved in this Subdivision Map. Mr. Desrochers further noted staff wanted to alert the Agency/Council to the fact that there is a Coastal Development Permit associated with this Subdivision Map. An overview of the project was presented by Principal Planner Lee. Mr. Lee used three exhibits; an aerial photo; a map showing the land use controls covering the entire Bayfront area; and the subdivision map. Mr. Lee noted that the approximately 125 acres consists basically of the 45 acres to be devoted to office park use, 3-1/2 acres for highway commercial, approximately 11-1/2 acres for industrial area; 16-1/2 acres for residential, approximately 21 acres for park area, and approximately 24 acres devoted to marsh/wetland areas. Deputy Di rector of Pub 1 i c Works/Engi neeri ng Gari bay used the overhead projector in his presentation. Regarding the widening of the "E" Street bridge, Mr. Garibay stated the phasing plan determining if the bridge should be widened, when it should be widened, and who should pay for it, will be addressed in a study to be presented to the Engineering Department prior to the recording of the first Final Map. Mr. Garibay in addressing the issue of drainage noted the Tentative Map as presently conditioned allows for the diversion of drainage. The condition states that this is being allowed until a 404 permit is obtained. The Local Coastal Plan does allow this diversion to take place. The applicant must prove as part of the diversion that he does not have any impacts. If there are impacts they must be mitigated. Mr. Norbert Dall, consultant, pointed out the drainage to the inland side of 1-5 is permitted under the amended certified Local Coastal Program. However, there is still a graphic in the certified LCP that shows the drainage, which is generally located south of Marina Parkway, as draining into the Freshwater Marsh or Pond. To implement a Tentative Subdivision Map as shown in the graphic on the screen before the Council/Agency, probably would require another LCP amendment. The Tentative Subdivision Map as it has been submitted to the City is not fully consistent with the presently certified LCP. Director of Planning Krempl commented on the hotel and residential parcels. The Planning Department and Planning Commission have conditioned the Tentative Map on the fact that this particular area remain as one single lot and not be subdivided. It is the opinion of the Planning Department and Planning Commission that the final result of the open space easement is better dealt with if the parcel remains in a larger acreage. Also, there is now a condition of the LCP that before residential uses are allowed on that property, a finding would need to be made that existing and projected reasonable demand for visitor commercial serving facilities would have to be met on already zoned and available land for visitor commercial uses. Redevelopment Agency -4- February 19, 1987 In addressing the issue of the phasing plan, Mr. Krempl noted the revised phasing document shows the phasing by parcel, separately and independently. What has not been provided is a development sequence nor is there any indication of timing on each of these development units. The current tentative map condition that the Planning Commission has imposed states that all improvements shall be guaranteed pri or to approval of each final map. Furthermore, this is to be done in accordance with the phasing plan approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first final map. Mr. Krempl stated the issues are (1) what should the phasing document include, and (2) at what point should the phasing document be complete and available for consideration by all public bodies. Mr. Krempl stated it is his understanding that Mr. Dall' s advice is that the true phasi ng document be presented to the Ci ty and be acted on by the City pri or to tentati ve map consi derati on by the Ci ty Counci 1. If thi s is the case as opposed to the way the stipulation is currently stated which calls for it before the final map, very likely the phasing plan and also the tentative map woul d need to be further consi dered by the Pl anni ng Commi ssi on. r1r. Desrochers addressed the issue concerni ng the Di spositi on and Development Agreement. He noted that for over a year a negotiating team consisting of the City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director and Community Development Di rector, have been meeti ng wi th Chul a Vi sta Investment Company in an attempt to come up with a Disposition and Development Agreement. At this time an agreement has not been settled upon. One condition of the tentative map and before the fi 1 i ng of the fi rst map, is the requi rement for an approval of the Disposition and Development Agreement. The DDA would contain the cost sharing of the infrastructure within the project. It is possible for the tentative map and for the Coastal Development Permit to be approved without a DDA. In addressing the issue of coastal access Mr. Desrochers noted the major issue deals with the timing; should all the parks be installed and all the public access be provided in conjunction with the first phase of development. It is a requirement for the first map that access be provided to the bay, Gunpowder Point and the Nature Center. Councilman r~alcolm asked Mr. Dall if the City should seek an amendment to the LCP before consideration of the tentative map or go to the Coastal Commission after the map has been approved. Mr. Dall stated the tentati ve map as submi tted is not consi stent with the certi fi ed LCP. There conti nue to be a number of remaining inconsistencies that can be addressed in two ways. (l) Go to the Coastal Commission and seek a further LCP amendment to bring the LCP into conformi ty with the tentati ve map as submi tted with the 66 conditi ons. (2) Provide another 2 to 10 additional conditions to the tentative map and submit a revi sed document. Redevelopment Agency -5- February 19, 1987 Mr. Dall further pointed out the certified LCP which includes the subdivision ordi nance has a very hi gh degree of specifi city. Thi s tentati ve subdi vi s i on map has to be in full and complete conformance with all of those specific requirements. Mr. Dal1 recommended that the conditions that staff and consultants have come up with be transmitted to the app 1 i cant to gi ve the applicant the opportunity to include these conditions in the submittal, then proceed with a LCP amendment prior to the approval of the map. Otherwise, this action will not be consistent with the certified LCP and will be a definite candidate for appeal to the Coastal Commission. Mr. Dall noted that once the Coastal Commission takes on appeal one of the City Council's decisions on a Coastal Development Permit, the Coastal Commission becomes the agency that has control over any amendments to the subdivi si on map or any alterations in it. The local control of the City would be lost if a successful appeal is prosecuted at the Coastal Commission. Lyle Gabrielson of Rick Engineering, 5620 Friars Road, San Diego, California 92110, addressed the Agency on behalf of Chula Vista Investment Company. Mr. Gabri el son was concerned that the impressi on was bei ng gi ven that so many conditions were imposed because the application was not complete. He pointed out the detail of the conditions are very specific and could not be adequately demonstrated in pl an form on the map. He further noted that probl ems brought into this project were a result of the LCP. Regarding other inconsistencies that have been poi nted out on the wi deni ng of the E Street bri dge, t4r. Gabri el son stated the E Street desi gn is not bei ng approved as part of the tentative map. The tentative map has a condition which states that the design will come forward as part of the feasibility study and be considered for approval. Regarding the phasing plan, f1r. Gabrielson stated it has been the philosophy of Chula Vista Investment Company in this project to try and provide flexibility to meet market demand. The phasing plan that was presented to the Ci ty was to address what faci 1 i ti es woul d be requi red to be constructed to complete each individual unit within the subdivision. Councilwoman McCandliss asked once the phasing plan is created, does it become a recorded part of the LCP and would it require more than just an admi ni strati ve functi on for the Counci 1 to change it? Agency Attorney Harron responded an amendment to the LCP would have to be filed in order to change it. Councilman Malcolm stated Mr. Da1l needs to point out all the deficiencies in writing to the Agency/Council and the appl icant needs to address each problem. Councilman Malcolm is concerned about the risk of losing Coastal Development Permit control over this project. Joe Davis, Chu1a Vista Investment Company, P.O. Box 8086, Rancho Santa Fe, California, addressed the Agency/Council. Mr. Davis noted the complexity of this project and that the map is an attempt to implement the LCP. The majority of conditions are those that will be dealt with in the detail drawings that come about with the grading improvement plans and final mapping. The other issues have been belabored on with staff to a point where Redevelopment Agency -6- February 19, 1987 CVIC is coming before the Agency/Council and endorsing all of the conditions that staff has imposed. He further pointed out he is extremely disappointed that CVIC is before this body and find they are still not in conformance. Mr. Davis stated one of the reasons that it has been difficult to conclude the negotiations on the Development Agreement is that the conditions keep changing. He pointed out they are trying to get the tentative map approved so they have an outl i ne of what is agreed on by everyone. At that poi nt they would be able to successfully finalize negotiations on the DDA and meet all the condi t ions on the map. Councilman Moore asked Mr. Davis how long it would take to work out the Di sposi ti on and Development Agreement if approval is gi ven on the tentati ve map. Mr. Davi s responded a DDA coul d be worked out in a month's time by knowing what the specific conditions are. Mr. Desrochers stated it may take much longer because there are some basic disagreements that need to be worked out. One of these is how the Midbayfront profits are treated in relationship to Gunpowder Poi nt and D Street Fi 11. Mr. Harron noted that one of the concerns involved in working out the DDA is who will pay. The conditions are very expensive such as widening of the E Street bridge and drainage. The issue of who will pay for these conditions is a difficult issue to resolve. Community Development Director Desrochers noted his concern about the statement made by Mr. Dal1 regarding compatibility with the LCP. Mr. Desrochers further stated he does not feel comfortable in going forth with the public hearing on March 5. He suggested that the public hearing be postponed until the tentative map is brought into conformance. Mayor Cox responded that he does not see any problem in continuing the public hearing to March 5. He was concerned that the Agency/Council has not had an opportunity to see any of the documents being referred to. MS (Cox/McCandliss) to continue the public hearing to March 5. Councilman Nader noted staff may need more time and suggested March 19 woul d be a better date. Substitute Motion MS (Nader/Malcolm) to continue the public hearing to March 19. Councilman Malcolm asked Mr. Davis if it created a problem for the public hearing to be continued to March 19. Mr. Davis pointed out delays have been continually occurring. CVIC would like to proceed with the project as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Gabrielson stated the problem from a timing standpoint is that all grading must be completed by the first of November or the project wi 11 become a 1988 job because of the restricti ons of not bei ng able to do this type of work on the Bayfront between November and April. Redevelopment Agency -7- February 19, 1987 Mr. Lee poi nted out concurrence from the appl i cant is requi red in order to continue this item to March 19. Councilman ~1alcolm withdrew his second. of a second. The substi tute moti on di ed for 1 ack The motion to continue the public hearing to March 5 passed unanimously. 5. RESOLUTION 12907 ACKNOWLEDGING THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION'S RESOLUTION CERTIFYING LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1-86 AND AGREEING TO ISSUE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS Itl ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDED LCP On September 18, 1986 the Ci ty Counci 1 adopted an amendment to the City's certified Local Coastal Program for the Midbayfront subarea. The amendment was forwarded to the California Coastal Commission and considered and approved by the Commi ssi on on November 13, 1986. A resol uti on acknowl edgi ng the Coastal Commission's resolution certifying Land Use Plan Amendment No. 1-86 and agreei ng to issue coastal development permits in accordance with the amended LCP is required. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNC ILMAN r400RE, the readi ng of the text was wai ved by unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously. The Redevelopment Agency reconvened. 6. RESOLUTI ON APPROVING AN INCREASE IN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE IN-LIEU PARKING FEE AND REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AND APPROVE THE SAME MSUC (Malco1m/McCandliss) to continue this item to March 5. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Mr. Desrochers noted the need for Closed Session to discuss Sierra Club vs. Marsh, Sierra Club vs. Coastal Commission et al. 9. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT a. Additional Demolition Work for Gunpowder Point MSUC (Cox/Malcolm) to continue this topic to March 5. b. Gunpowder Point Park Plan Redevelopment Agency -8- February 19,1987 MSUC (Cox/Malcolm) to continue this topic to March 5 c. Creation of a Council Task Force for Focus Area Merchants MSUC (Cox/Malcolm) that Chairman Cox and Member rloore serve as a two-member task force to work with the Town Centre Focus Area merchants regarding parking problems in reference to the parking structure. d. Commemorative Medallion for Nature Interpretive Center Grand Opening Member Moore described the medallion for the Nature Center as 1/10" thick; one side will have the Nature Center on the facing; 1,000 would cost approximately $3,800. Mr. Moore noted the Diamond Jubilee Committee will fund up to $2,000. MSUC (Malcolm/Cox) that a resolution be brought back to the Agency authorizing payment (not to exceed $2,000) for the balance of the costs for the medallion. 10. MEMBERS' COMMENTS: ~1ember McCandliss suggested creating a task force of business leaders in the community to work on developing a plan on how the City could participate in the America's Cup if it is accepted for San Diego. MSUC (McCandliss/Cox) that staff work on outlining task force responsibilities and composition relative to participating in the America's Cup. (4-0; Member Nader not present for the vote.) Member Malcolm pointed out there has been confusion and inconsistencies regarding information being presented to the public with regard to the closure of Fifth Avenue. He woul d 1 ike Council to work as a joint body with the Planning Commission regarding the closure of Fifth Avenue. Member McCandl i ss stated the probl em has been that there is someone el se who is conducting community meetings on behalf of Homart that is leaving the impression that other options to the closure of Fifth Avenue are not being consi dered basi cally because it is a matter of cost. However, Homart has clearly stated they want a contiguous center and that is their primary consideration. Member McCandliss noted the need to get definitive answers on the issues and make sure that that i nformati on becomes part of the publ i c heari ng. Member Nader stated it would be beneficial for the Council to be involved at the early stage of discussions rather than only when the final decision is necessary. He further asked when thi s item wi 11 next be addressed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Desrochers responded it will come before the Planning Commission on Wednesday, February 25 and it is scheduled for the Council to consider this item on March 17. Redevelopment Agency -9- February 19, 1987 MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) to have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on Wednesday, February 25, in a workshop. The workshop is to be on the Agenda following the consideration of the certification of the EIR regarding the closure of Fifth Avenue. (4-0; Chairman Cox not present for the vote.) ADJOURNMENT at 7:10 to Closed Session. Adjourned at 7:15 from Closed Session to the regular meeting of March 5, 1987 at 4:00 p.m. tJiJ /? / ~ -;~ vi.. '" - moo"'" Community Development Director WPC 2744H