Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1987/03/19 AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA March 19, 1987 4:12 p.m. Counci 1 Conference Room City Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Moore; Members Nader, McCandliss and Malcolm MEMBERS ABSENT: Chai rman Cox STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Asmus, Community Development Director Desrochers, Agency Attorney Harron, Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 19,1987 MSUC (McCandliss/Moore) to approve the minutes of February 19, 1987. (3-0; Member Malcolm not present for the vote.) CONSENT CALENDAR Communi ty Development Director Desrochers brought to the attenti on of the Agency Item No.5 from the Consent Calendar. He noted a petition on this item had been recei ved i n oppos iti on to thi smatter. Member McCandl i ss requested this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Vi ce-Chai rman Moore requested that Item No.4 be pull ed from the Consent Calendar. VICE-CHAIRMAN MOORE OFFERED THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NUMBER 2, 3 and 6, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously. (3-0; Member Malcolm not present for the vote.) 2. RESOLUTION 789 - APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ON- AND OFF -RAMP FACILITY AT 1-5 AND "E" STREET WITHIN THE BAYFRONT REDEVELOP~1ENT PROJECT AREA The Bayfront Specific Plan calls for the reconfiguration of the on/off ramp at "E" Street, west side of 1-5, on the property formerly owned by Joe Street. The Agency is providing the land for the new ramp configuration. CalTrans will construct the facility in the Spring of 1988. Staff recommended entering i nto an agreement with CalTrans for the di sposi ti on of 1 and and constructi on of the proposed facility. . Redeve1opment Agency Minutes -2- r4arch 19,1987 3. RESOLUTION 790 - AUTHORIZING FUNDING FOR NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER COI4MEMORATIVE MEDALLION AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR On February 19, 1987, the Agency discussed funding a medallion commemorating the grand openi ng of the Bayfront Nature Interpreti ve Center. Staff was directed to bring back a resolution authorizing the use of Agency funds not to exceed $2,000 for this item. APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR" IMPROVEMENT AND LANDSCAPING OF LANDIS AVENUE PARKING LOT BETWEEN F STREET AND DAVIDSON STREET IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA" 4. RESOLUTION 792 - This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar. 5. RESOLUTI ON APPROVING CONCEPT PLAN FOR MEMORIAL PARK PANHANDLE This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar. 6. RESOLUTI ON 791 - AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. FOR INVESTMENT BANKING SERVICES, TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINANCING As part of the implementation of the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project, the funding of certain activities by the Agency will require the sale of securities. The amount will need to be placed on the financial markets by an investment banker. Staff recommended approvi ng an agreement for investment banking services with Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR At this point, the Redevelopment Agency convened in joint session with the City CounciL Mayor pro-tempore Moore noted all members of the City Council were present with the exception of Mayor Cox. 7. (a) PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-87-4 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT, CHULA VISTA TRACT (CVT) 87-4 - UNITS 1 THROUGH 10 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT, CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-4 Redeve1opment Agency Minutes -3- March 19,1987 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT TRACT 87-4 (b) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CVCP NO. 009 FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CVT-87-4 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CVCP NO. 009 FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION CVT-87-4 MAP Chula Vista Investment Company filed a tentative subdivision map identified as Chula Vista Bayfront - Units 1 through 10, CVT-87-4, and proposed to subdivide approximately 125 acres located in the Chula Vista Midbayfront area. In addition to considering the subdivision of land, the Agency/Council considered a coastal development permit for the project. Community Development Director Desrochers stated that after the Conditions of Approval were mailed, a subsequent meeting was held and changes were made. He referred to the Errata Sheet before the Agency/Council and noted the changes were underlined. Changes were also noted on the Local Coastal Plan Consistency Findings. An additional finding, No. 99, will be addressed by Mr. Norbert Da11 during his presentation. Mr. Desrochers stated he a1 so wanted to make the Agency/Council aware of a letter received on this date from the California Coastal Commission. He noted that Mr. Paul Webb was present to answer questions. Director of Planning Krempl paraphrased the issues discussed at the workshop on February 19 and how those issues have been resolved and dealt wi th. The four items primarily dealt with were: (1) Feasibility study for the widening of the E Street bri dge and the pedestri an overpass to provi de access to the bay; (2) Park and recreation and open space areas; (3) Phasing plan content and completeness; (4) Drainage considerations. Mr. Krempl noted the mechanism staff has taken in dealing with those issues is in the form of requirements in conjunction with the submittal of a revised tentative map. There are two conditions in the report which are key. The first one is Condition 2 which covers the wi deni ng of the E Street Bri dge, pedestri an overpass and the phasing plan. The drainage issue is de~t with in Condition 1 (c). Norbert Dall, consultant to the City, stated the subdivision map as conditioned can be found to be consistent with the Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act. Mr. Dall referred to finding No. 99 which states that if the subdivision were to be approved on this date it would be found to be consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program as well as with Section 30604 of the Coastal Act. Section 30604 has a public access and recreational opportunities mandate that goes beyond the Local Coastal Program. Mr. Dal1 noted the Coastal Commission counsel advised that this finding be made. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -4- March 19, 1987 In response to the letter received from the Coastal Commission on this date, Mr. Dall noted the recommendation for approval specifically requires that the applicant, as a condition of the Coastal Development Permit, dedicate to the County of San Diego the 178 acres of wetl ands and upl ands that were part of the federal project. That conveyance has not as yet occurred and it was the intent of staff in anticipating Mr. Damm's letter that dedication of wetlands and uplands be required if this tentative subdivision map were to be approved. In addressing the drainage issue, Mr. Dall stated that he and the City Attorney had an extensive discussion with the Coastal Commission General Counsel, Mr. Ralph Faoust, on the question of temporary vs. permanent drainage. It was Mr. Faoust's advice that if the City wanted to differ in any specific manner from what is shown in the LCP, an LCP amendment would need to be submitted before a permit is issued for permanent drainage that was different from what is presently in the certified LCP. For that reason, staff recommended conditions with respect to drainage that implement what is presently in the LCP. In response to Councilman Malcolm's question, Mr. Dall stated the applicant must drain consistent with the LCP into San Diego Bay and obtain a Section 404 Permit. It is staff's recommendation that there can be interim drainage provisions. Mr. Desrochers, using a map, demonstrated that parcels 1, 3 and 4 could drain i nto the City system without ci rcumventi ng the approved LCP. CVIC and the City are now applying for a 404 Permit for drainage consistent with the LCP. If the 404 Permit is not issued then the applicant will have to go back to the Coastal Commi ssi on to amend the LCP. Councilwoman McCandliss asked if higher costs would be associated with this proposed drai nage plan. She stated the City/Agency shou1 d not necessarily bear the cost of temporary facil i ti es that may be hi gher. Mr. Desrochers stated at this point there is not a Disposition and Development Agreement. The developer is at risk because the City/Agency has not agreed to participate in any of the costs required due to the 60 conditions. Regarding the 404 Permit, Mr. Malcolm asked if the permit is not issued, will the City need to go back to the Coastal Commission to get a LCP amendment for somethi ng that has al ready been done. Mr. Dal1 responded technically the answer is yes. Mr. Malcolm stated if there is not a guarantee that a 404 Permit will be issued, the City should seek an amendment to the LCP. Mr. Da11 stated the test for whether or not the drainage that is proposed can be app roved i s whether or not i t i s consi stent with the LCP. Staff is comfortable in representing to the Agency/Council that with respect to only Units 1, 3 and 4, drainage can be provided on an interim basis through the City system. The recommendation would be that if at the completion of those three units a permanent drainage system had not been approved by the Corps of Engineers, then it would be obligatory on the City and the applicant to seek a LCP amendment. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -5- March 19, 1987 This being the time and place advertised, the Mayor pro tempore opened the public hearing. Joseph Davis, representing Chu1a Vista Investment Company, P.O. Box 8086, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, addressed the Agency. Mr. Davis stated that Chu1a Vista Investment Company is endorsing the conditions of approval with one exception which will be addressed by one of their consultants. In response to Councilwoman McCand1iss' question, Mr. Davis stated the conditions give the applicant a guideline for proceeding. He noted this is the first opportunity they have had to have a good idea as to what the City is going to require based on the LCP requirements as well as the normal subdivision process. Jack Dimond, Chu1 a Vi sta Investment Company, addressed the Agency /Counci 1. He stated it has been the intent of CVIC to begin immediately to process an app1 i cat i on for an amendment to the LCP. Thi s amendment wou1 d provi de for a complete alternative drainage program which could then be utilized as the permanent program in the event a 404 Permit is not issued. He suggested the City may wish to add this as a condition for approval. Agency Attorney Harron pointed out that it would be consistent with the LCP to have temporary drainage. However, what Mr. Dimond is suggesting is that there be a condition that the LCP be amended to allow the temporary drainage to be permanent. This is not consistent with the LCP. ~1r. Dall pointed out that Condition l(c) of Exhibit A does substantially and legally what Mr. Dimond is suggesting. The last sentence of the first paragraph states: "To provide for alternative drainage proposals, a LCP Amendment must be obtai ned." If the City were to approve a Coastal Development Permit for a tentative map with a condition subsequent requiring LCP amendment for the alternative permanent drainage, the advice of Coastal Commission legal counsel is that it would be acting contrary to the LCP. Agency Attorney Harron stated the Agency/Council cannot approve something that is not consistent with the LCP. The applicant is suggesting that the Agency/ Council give approval with the belief that in the future the LCP will be amended. The advice received from the Coastal Commission counsel is that this cannot be done. In response to Councilman Malcolm's question, Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam stated the 404 Permit should be completed in 10 to 12 months. She noted engineering data from the applicant is needed and there has been some problems with the Corps of Engineers in terms of scoping. Lyl e Gabri el son, Rick Engi neeri ng, consultant to the app 1 i cant, spoke regarding Condition #54. Condition 54 requires that no slopes will exceed 3:1 throughout the subdi vi si on. CVIC woul d request that 2:1 be the maximum and would agree to 3:1 in certain areas. Mr. Dall noted the LCP does not have a specifi c numeri cal requi rement. It speaks to protecting coastal resources, including native vegetation, and that the slope shall be variable. . Redevelopment Agency Minutes -6- March 19, 1987 Ms. Putnam stated staff is asking for a 3: 1 rati a adj acent to the wetl and areas. Staff is looking for erosion control, to have a more natural looking and aesthetically pleasing plan because these slopes will be viewed from San Diego Bay and Gunpowder Point. The area is naturally very flat. Regarding desiltation, Mr. Gabrielson stated he believes there would be more fall-off of a 3:1 slope vs. a 2:1 slope. Therefore, if the problem is erosion, a 3:1 slope will not solve it. Member Moore noted this is strictly a City staff recommendation. It is not a requi rement from the LCP. If thi s is bei ng recommended because of potenti al degradati on of the wetl ands, coul d thi s condi ti on be reworded where the 3: 1 rati 0 is not appropri ate1y requi red or desi red to have other protection be i ncorporated? Ms. Putnam responded that erosi on control is not the only issue. The issue is erosion control in terms of sedimentation in the wetlands as well as aesthetics from the point of view of Bayfront development. It is a slightly different situation from other areas of the City because it is a very flat area. A lot of fill would be imported and slopes added in an area that is now flat. The more mild a slope attained without putting unreasonable requirements on the developer is desired. At this time, the issue is the F/G Street Marsh. The applicant is proposing 2:1 slopes where they have already been allowed to grade in the buffer. r4s. Putnam further noted 3:1 slope is easier to maintain. All of these slopes that face wetlands will be revegetated with native vegetation. In addressing the issue of visual impact, Mr. Gabrielson stated all of these slopes face away from the development area and away from the area of normal human habitation. Councilwoman McCandliss suggested designating what areas should be 3:1. Mr. Dall suggested addi ng the foll owi ng to Condi ti on #54: " . . .. not to exceed 3:1 on the east side of the F-G Street Marsh in Unit 1 and in Unit 8 facing the Sweetwater Marsh and Vener Pond." Donald Worley, Attorney for CVIC, 110 W. 8th Street, San Diego, CA, expressed concern regardi ng the 1 etter recei ved from Mr. Damm of the Coastal Commission. He further expressed the desi re of the app1 icant to have a decision made at this meeting rather than to continue it once again. Agency Attorney Harron responded regarding the letter received from the Coastal Commission. He noted the important sentence in the letter is at the end of the second paragraph where it states: "If the subdivision map were to be approved today, there woul d be no opportunity for the Ci ty to propose additional conditions should the revised map reveal inconsistencies with the LCP not corrected by the conditions under your consideration today". Staff understands that any additional conditions would have to be consistent with the LCP. With the conditions that have been attached to the LCP, this subdivision map can be legally approved. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -7- 11arch 19, 1987 MSUC (Nader/Malcolm) to go into Closed Session for purposes of discussing Sierra Club vs. Coastal Commission. The public hearing will be continued following the Closed Session. The Agency /Ci ty Council recessed to Closed Agency/City Council reconvened at 6:01 p.m. Session at 5:35 p.m. The Councilman Malcolm asked the applicant about property that was sold to CalTrans. Mr. Davis stated there is a portion that was sold approximately 18 months ago. He noted that City staff has been fully knowledgeable about the sal e. In response to Councilman Malcolm's question, Mr. Harron stated that staff became aware of the transaction this last week. Mr. Desrochers commented staff was aware that a transacti on occurred between CVIC and the State ~Iith regard to mitigation, particularly regarding 10 acres on the D Street Fill, however, it was staff's understanding that the parcel was not to be designated until the least tern preservation area has been agreed upon by all parties, including the City, Port District, Santa Fe, and Ca1Trans. Councilman Malcolm stated if this property was sold by CVIC then it is a violation of the Coastal Act. Mr. Davis stated CVIC did not intend to break the law or violate any Act. Mr. Dimond stated the total acreage that was transferred was approximately 34-1/2 acres. Those parcel s were well identified in drawings produced by the Corps of Engineers as part of the EIS for the combi ned project. The parcel s were named, i dentifi ed, and numbered. Disposition and acquisition of the parcels was a completely public matter. fir. Dall pointed out it appears there has not been a Coastal Development Permit sought or granted by either the Coastal Commission or the City of Chula Vista that would legally create these 2 parcels that apparently were sold. Mr. Worley, Attorney for CVIC, noted that in terms of the circumstances surrounding this conveyance, it was under threat of condemnation. There being no further public testimony, Mayor pro tempore Moore closed the public hearing. Councilwoman McCandliss pointed out the Agency/Council needs to either vote to deny the tentati ve map or approve it with condi ti ons. If for any reason the Council/Agency are deadlocked on a decision then the tentative map as unconditioned would be approved. Mayor pro tempore Moore commented he woul d not 1 ike to see a compl ete deni al. If there is some other action that could be taken so that the applicant could move forward, he would consider that. Mr. Moore further stated he is uncomfortable that there is not at this time a 404 permit. He also noted concern about the 1 ack of data on the freeway bri dge as well as not havi ng a phasing plan. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -8- March 19, 1987 Councilwoman McCandliss stated she could give a general approval of concept to the conditions, however, she could not vote to approve a tentative map that is this conditioned. In response to Mr. ~1alcolm' s question, ~1r. Harron noted the LCP states that all the parts of the entire map are interrelated, but the LCP does not require all the parts to come together for approval. Councilman Nader questioned Mr. Harron regarding the fact that the LCP does not contai n a requi rement that the enti re map be approved at the same time. Wouldn't there be a possibility that grounds for appeal would be opened up by ignoring that interrelationship with the rest of the Bayfront? Mr. Harron responded yes. MS (McCandl i ss/Nader) to accept the alternati ve recommendati on and address staff to bring back findings that will allow denial of the proposed tentative subdivision map and deny the Coastal Development Permit application. Councilwoman McCandliss stated the tentative map is too approval. She stated she is interested in the phasing relationships between the Midbayfront, Gunpowder Point and 0 other consi derati ons that were supposed to come up in the Development Agreement. i ncompl ete for plan, financial Street Fi 11 and Disposition and Councilman t1alcolm noted he felt the Agency/Council somewhat made a commitment to the applicant that they could proceed. He stated there are some holes, but if those holes are closed, the applicant should receive approval of the map. Councilman Nader stated he would like to have the whole map come before the Agency/Council. Councilman Malcolm stated the applicant should be told whether or not the Agency/Council wi 11 approve a map on the Mi dbayfront without the entire Bayfront Plan. Mayor pro tempore Moore stated this should be di scussed at the next Agency meeti ng and he wou1 d 1 ike to see it on the agenda. Ms. McCandliss stated she would like to have the question addressed: Can you have a tentative map that addresses the relationships between the Midbayfront, Gunpowder Point, D Street Fill, short of the DOA? A roll call vote on the moti on was taken as follows: Nader Aye Moore Aye McCandliss - Aye Malcolm Aye At thi s point in time the Redevelopment Agency reconvened. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -9- March 19, 1 9B7 PULLED ITEMS 4. RESOLUTION 792 - APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR" IMPROVEMENT AND LANDSCAPING OF LANDIS AVENUE PARKING LOT BETWEEN "F" STREET AND DAVIDSON STREET IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA The Di rector of Publ i c Works/Ci ty Engi neer recei ved bi ds for" Improvement and 1 andscapi ng of Landi s Avenue park i ng lot between "F" Street and Davi dson Street in the City of Chu1a Vista, California." The work includes removal and di sposal of exi sti ng improvements, excavati on and grading, asphalt concrete pavement, curbs, gutter, sidewalk, driveway, wheel stops, lighting system, irrigation system, landscape planting, and park benches. Vice-Chairman Moore stated he has a problem that the original estimation and final bid do not include staff time. He further noted he could not support thi s because the cost has increased from $75,000 to approximately $125,000 plus staff time. Mr. Desrochers stated staff is attempting to bring this City parking lot up to City standards. In response to Member Malcolm's question, he noted that no parking spaces will be lost. RESOLUTIOIJ OFFERED BY MEMBER MCCANDLISS, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent. The vote was 3-1; Member Moore voting no. Member Malcolm poi nted out a 4/5ths vote is requi red on thi s item. As a courtesy, Member Moore revised his vote to aye. The final vote was 4-0, adopti ng the reso1 uti on. 5. RESOLUTI ON APPROVING CONCEPT PLAN FOR MEMORIAL PARK PANHANDLE On February 10, 1987, the Redevelopment Agency approved a contract with Nowell- Thompson, ASLA & Assoc i ates, Inc. to prepare an update of the Master Plan for Memorial Park and to prepare a plan and construction drawings for the panhandle portion of the park. Member McCandl iss commented that she is aware of some of the concerns of residents living at Parkwoods at the Village, particularly with regard to security. This need should be addressed. Another concern is that this panhandle is being referred to as a "major pedestrian access" to the park. The location of this entrance is not conducive to being a major entrance into the park. Manuel Mo11inedo, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated the plan as designed, with the exception of the major entryway, is a simple plan as far as creating a walking area. The one focal point that could attract people ~IOLIld be the art work. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -10- March 19, 1987 Member Malcolm stated his concern that the accessway is located in an area that will not be seen or utilized. He also noted concern of how the plan may or may not affect future p1 ans for the shopping center where the Canned Food Store is located. In response to Member McCand1iss' question regarding security, Mr. Mollinedo stated a wrought iron fence is being proposed that would limit people trying to climb over. In addition, natal plum shrubs, a thorny bush, would be planted along certain areas to discourage climbing. Janine Donston, 376 Center Street, #132, Chu1a Vista, addressed the Agency on behalf of the homeowners of Parkwoods at the Village. She wanted to bring the peti ti on i n oppositi on to the pl an to the attenti on of the Agency. The petition opposes making the panhandle a public access. She pointed out there have been numerous break-ins to their homes, and the homeowners are concerned this accessway would induce more vandalism and loitering. MSUC (Nader/McCand1iss) to continue this item to the next Redevelopment Agency meeting. Member McCand1iss requested that the costs for this project be brought to the next meeting. 9. ORAL COMMUNICAIONS: None. 10. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. 11. CHAI RMAN 's REPORT: rJone. 12. MEMBERS' COMMENTS: Member McCand1 i ss stated she wou1 d 1 ike to arrange on an annual basis to have a representative from the Water District attend a City Council meeting to report on the State of the Di strict. reg"" 'æ~'il ';1987 " 7.00 p.'. ~£- PAUL G. DESROCHERS Community Development Director ADJOURNMENT at 7:23 p.m. to the WPC 2823H