Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1987/03/19 (2) '1 r --c}"'i'l.t'Zlt,' " t; ///, I r 7-/ "~/ r7 AN ADJOURNED REGULAR ~1EETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA March 19, 1987 4:12 p.m. Council Conference Room City Hall ROLL CALL ~1Er1BERS PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Moore; Members Nader, McCandliss and Mal colm MŒBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Chai rman Cox Assistant City Manager Asmus, Community Development Director Desrochers, Agency Attorney Harron, Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam 1. APPROVAL OF HINUTES - February 19, 1987 MSUC (rkCandliss/Moore) to approve the minutes of February 19, 1987. (3-0; f.1ember Malcolm not present for the vote.) CmJSENT CALENDAR Communi ty Development D i rector Des rochers brought to the attenti on of the Agency Item No.5 from the Consent Calendar. He noted a petition on this ite~ 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. Vice-Chairman Moore requested that Item rio. 4 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. VICE-CHAIRr1AN MOORE OFFERED THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NUr~BER 2, 3 and 6, the readi ng 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 CAL TRANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NE~J ON- AND OFF-RAt~P FACILITY AT 1-5 AND "E" STREET WITHIN THE BAYFRONT REDEVELOP~1ENT PROJECT AREA The B~yfront 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 into an agreement with CalTrans for the disposition of land and construction of the proposed facility. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -2- ¡larch 19, 1987 3. RESOLUTION 790 - AUTHORIZING FUNDING FOR NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER Cor11-1EMORATIVE MEDALLION AND APPROPRIATING FUrJDS THEREFOR On February 19, 1987, the Agency discussed funding a medallion conmemorating the grand opening of the Bayfront Nature Interpretive Center. Staff \1aS directed to bring back a resolution authorizing the use of Agency funds not to exceed $2,000 for this item. 4. RESOLUTIatJ 792 - APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "II~PROVEMENT AND LANDSCAPING OF LAtJDIS AVENUE PARKING LOT BETWEEN F STREET AND DAVIDSON STREET IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA" This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar. 5. RESOLUTI ON APPROVING CONCEPT PLAN FOR t1EMORIAL PARK PANHANDLE This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar. 6. RESOLUTI at! 791 - AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRt1AN TO EXECUTE AN AGREE~1ENT IIITH DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, ItIC. FOR INVESTMENT BAtJKIIJG SERVICES, TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINAriCitJG 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 i nvestment banker. Staff recommended approvi ng an agreement fori nvestment banking services with Dean \-Jitter Reynolds, Inc. EtJD OF CONSENT CALENDAR At this point, the Redevelopment Agency convened in joint session with the City Council. Mayor pro-tempore t~oore 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 HAP FOR CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT, CHULA VISTA TRACT (CVT) 87-4 - UNITS 1 THROUGH 10 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION ~1AP FOR CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT, CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-4 Redeveloprnent Agency ~1i nutes -3- r~arch 19,1987 REDEVEL OP~1ENT AGENCY RE SOLUTION CONO I TI OIIALL Y APPROV ItJG TENT A TIVE SUBDIVISION t1AP FOR CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT TRACT 87-4 ( b) CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CVCP NO. 009 FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CVT-87-4 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOpr.1ENT PERI'1IT CVCP NO. 009 FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION CVT-87-4 I~AP PUBLIC HEARING: 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 t1idbayfront area. In addition to consi deri ng the subdi vi si on of 1 and, the Agency/Council consi dered 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 t1r. Norbert Dall during his presentation. fIr. Desrochers stated he also wanted to make the Agency/Council aware of a letter received on this date from the Cal ifornia Coastal Comission. He noted that r.1r. Paul Webb was present to answer questi ons. Director of Planning Krempl paraphrased the issues discussed at the workshop on February 19 and how those issues have been resolved and dealt with. The four iteMs' primarily dealt with were: (1) Feasibility study for the wideninr¡ of the E Street bridge and the pedestrian overpass to provide 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 mechanisr~ staff has taken in dealing with those issues is in the form of requirements in conj uncti on with the submi ttal of a revi sed tentati ve map. There are t\~O conditions in the report which are key. The first one is Condition 2 which covers the widening of the E Street Bridge, pedestrian overpass and the phasing plan. The drainage issue is dealt with in Condition 1 (c). Norbert Da 11 , consul tant to the Ci ty, stated the subdi vi si on map as conditioned can be found to be consistent with the Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act. ~1r. 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. r1r. Dall noted the Coastal Commission counsel advised that this finding be made. Redevelop~ent Agency t1inutes -4- f~arch 19, 1987 In response to the letter received from the Coastal Commission on this date, ~'r. Dall noted the recommendation for approval specifically requires that the appl icant, as a condition of the Coastal Development Permit, dedicate to the County of San Diego the 178 acres of wetlands and uplands 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 tbis tentative subdivision map were to be approved. In addressing the drainage issue, ~1r. Dall stated that he and the City Attorney had an extensive discussion with the Coastal Commission General Counsel, !~r. 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 ;s 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, ~1r. Dall stated the applicant must drain consistent with the LCP into San Diego Bay and obtain a Section 404 Pe mit. It i s staff's recommenda ti on that there can be i nteriM drai nage provi si ons. nr. Desrochers, using a map, demonstrated that parcels 1, 3 and 4 could drain into the City system without circumventing 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 Commission to amend the LCP. Councilwoman McCandliss asked if higher costs would be associated with this proposed drai nage pl an. She stated the City/Agency shoul d not necessarily bear the cost of teMporary facilities that may be higher. t'1r. 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 Pemit, r,1r. Malcolm asked if the permit is not issued, will the City need to go back to the Coastal Commi ssi on to get a LCP amendment for somethi ng that has al ready been done. Mr. Dall 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. Hr. Dall stated the test for whether or not the drainage that is proposed can be approved is whether or not it is consistent 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. Redeveloprnent Agency i"li nutes -5- tlarch 19, 1987 This being the time and place advertised, the Mayor pro tempore opened the publ ic heari ng. ,Joseph Davis, representing Chula Vista Investment Company, P.O. Box 8086, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, addressed the Agency. Mr. Davis stated that Chula Vista Investment Company is endorsing the conditions of approyal with one exception \~hich wi 11 be addressed by one of thei r consul tants. In response to Councih~oman tlcCandl iss' question, t1r. 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 i dea as to what the City i s going to requi re based on the LCP requirements as well as the normal subdivision process. Jack Dimond, Chul a Vi sta Investment Company, addressed the Agency/Council. He stated it has been the intent of CVIC to begin immediately to process an application for an amendment to the LCP. This amendment would provide 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 approva1. Agency Attorney Harron pointed out that it would be consistent with the LCP to have temporary drainage. However, what ~1r. Dimond is suggesting is that there be a condition that the LCP be amended to allow the tefõ1porary drainage to be permanent. This is not consistent with the LCP. f'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 ap~icant 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 ~1alcolm's question, Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam stated the 404 Permit should be completed in 10 to l? months. She noted engineering data from the applicant is needed and there has been SOfõ1e problems with the Corps of Engineers in terms of scoping. Lyle Gabrielson, Rick Engineering, consultant to the applicant, spoke regarding Condition #54. Condition 54 requires that no slopes will exceed 3:1 throughout tile subdivision. CVIC would request that 2:1 be the maximum and would agree to 3:1 in certain areas. rlr. Dall noted the LCP does not have a specific nuMerical requirement. It speaks to protecting coastal resources, including native vegetation, and that the slope shall be variable. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -6- r1arch 19, 1987 ~ls. Putnam stated staff is asking for a 3:1 ratio adjacent to the wetland 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 DiAgo Bay and Gunpowder Point. The area is naturally very flat. Regarding desiltation, r~r. 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. f1ember ¡'¡oore noted this is strictly a City staff recomMendation. It is not a requi rement from the LCP. If thi s i s bei ng recoMmended because of potenti al degradation of the wetlands, could this condition be reworded where the 3:1 ratio is not appropriately required or desired to have other protection be i ncorporated? Ms. Putnam responded that erosi on control i s 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 f1arsh. The applicant is proposing 2:1 slopes where they have already been allowed to grade in the buffer. r~s. 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 ~sual impact, Mr. Gabrielson stated all of these slopes face away from the development area and a\~ay from the area of normal IlUrlan habi tati on. Councilwoman t.1cCandliss suggested designating what areas should be 3:1. Mr. Dall suggested adding the following to Condition #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 t1arsh and Vener Pond." Donald Worley, Attorney for CVIC, 110 vJ. 8th Street, San Diego, CA, expressed concern regarding the letter received from t'lr. Dam of the Coastal Cor.mission. He further expressed the desire of the applicant to have it decision made at this meeting rather than to continue it once again. Agency Attorney Ha rron responded regard i ng the 1 etter recei ved from the Coastal Commission. He noted the important sentence in the letter is at the end of the second paragrapb 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. Wi th the condi ti ons that have been attac hed to the LCP, thi s subdivision map can be legally approved. Redeyelopment Agency tlinutes -7- r1arch 19, 1987 MSUC (Naderfi-'lalcolm) 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/City Council recessed to Closed Agency/City Council reconvened at 6:01 p.m. CouncilMan t1alcolM asked the applicant about property that was sold to CalTrans. Mr. Dayis stated there is a portion that was sold approximately 18 Months ago. He noted that City staff has been fully knO\~ledgeable about the sale. Session at 5:35 p.m. The In response to Councilman ¡1alcolm's question, r.1r. Harron stated that staff becaMe aware of the transaction this last week. r'lr. Desrochers comr:1ented staff was aware that a transaction occurred between CVIC and the State I/ith regard to mitigation, particularly regarding 10 acres on the D Street Fill, however, i t was staff's understandi ng that the pa rce 1 was not to be desi gnated Ilntil the least tern preservation area has been agreed upon by all parties, including the City, Port District, Santa Fe, and CalTrans. Councilman Malcolm stated if this property was sold by CVIC then it is a violation of the Coastal Act. r~r. Davis stated CVIC did not intend to break the law or violate any Act. Mr. Dir:1ond 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 combined project. The parcels \~ere named, identified, and nuf1bered. Disposition and acquisition of the parcels was a cor:1pletely public matter. t1r. 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. 11r. Horley, 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 ter:1pore iloore 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. ¡'layor pro tempore i'1oore commented he woul d not 1 ike to see a compl ete deni a 1. 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 having a phasing plan. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -8- r~arch 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 fIr. ¡'lalcolm's question, ~'r. 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 ¡.ader questioned t~r. 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 i gnori ng tha t i nterrel ati onshi p wi th the rest of the Bayfront? ~1r. Harron responded yes. f.1S (rkCandl i ss/Nader) to accept the alternative recommendati on and address staff to bri ng back fi ndi ngs that wi 11 a 11 ow deni a 1 of the proposed tentati VI'! subdivision map and deny the Coastal Development Permit application. Counc il woman 11cCandl i ss stated the tentati ve map i s too approval. She stated she is interested in the phasing relationships between the Midbayfront, Gunpowder Point and I) other consi derati ons that were supposed to come up i n the Development Agreement. incomplete for plan, financial Street Fi 11 and Disposition and Councilman t1al colm noted he fel t the Agency/Council somewhat made a commitment to the applicant that they could proceed. He stated there are some holes, but if those h~es 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 ~1alcolm 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 i1oore stated this should be discussed at the next Agency meeting and he would like to see it on the agenda. r~s. l~cCandl i ss stated she woul d 1 i ke to have the questi on addressed: Can you have a tentati ve map that addresses the re 1 at i onshi ps between the ~li dbayfront, Gunpowder Point, D Street Fill, short of the DDA? A roll call vote on the motion was taken as follows: Ilader Aye t"1oore Aye 1'1cCandl iss - Aye Malcolm Aye At this point in time the Redevelopment Agency reconvened. Redeve 1 opment Agency i1i nutes -9- 11archlS, 1987 PULLED IW1S 4. RESOLUTION 792 - APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING ßIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR" UlPROVEMENT AND LANDSCAPING OF LANDIS AVENUE PARKING LOT BETWEEN "F" STREET AND DAVIDSON STREET 1IJ THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA The Director of Public \-Iorks/City Engineer received bids for "IfI1provement and landscaping of Landis Avenue parking lot between "1'" Street and Davidson Street in the City of Chula Vista, California." The work includes reMoval and di sposal of exi sti ng improvements, excavati on and gradi ng, asphal t concrete payeMent, 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 fi nal bi d do not i ncl ude staff time. He further noted he coul d not support tllis because the cost has increased from $75,000 to approximately $125,000 plus staff time. i1r. Desrochers stated staff is attempting to bring tllis City parking lot up to City standards. In response to Member ~lalcolm's question, he noted that no parking spaces will be lost. RE SOLUTI OIJ OFFERED BY ¡'1EMBER i.1CCANDLI SS, the readi ng of the text was \~a i vect by unanimous consent. The vote was 3-1; Member t1oore voting no. t1ember Malcolm pointed out a 4/5ths vote is required on this item. As a courtesy, i1ernber t1oore revi sed hi s vote to aye. The fi na 1 vote was 4-0, adopti ng the resol uti on. 5. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONCEPT PLAN FOR ,1EMORIAL PARK PANHANDLE On February 10, 1987, the Redevelopment Agency approved a contract wi th Nowell-Thompson, ASLA & Associates, Inc. to prepare an update of the r~aster Plan for i1emorial Park and to prepare a plan and construction drawings for the panhandle portion of the park. ~1enber ~1cCandliss 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 m~or entrance into the park. r,1anuel 11011inedo, 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 would be the art work. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -10- ¡'1arch 19, 1987 ¡'1ember r1alcolm 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 plans for the shopping center where the Canned Food Store is located. In response to ~1emher ¡'1cCandliss' question regarding security, ~1r. ~1011inedo stated a wrought iron fence is being proposed that \~ould limit people trying to climb over. In addition, natal plum shrubs, a thorny bush, would be planted along certain areas to discourage climbing. Jùnine Donston, 376 Center Street, #132, Chula Vista, addressed the Agency on behalf of the homeowners of Parkwoods at the Village. She wanted to bring the petiti on i n opposi ti on to the pl an to the attenti on of the Agency. The petition opposes making the panhan~e a pu~ic access. She pointed out there have been numerous break-i ns to thei r hoMes, and the holileO\~ners are concerned this accessway would induce more vandalism and loitering. 1'1SUC (Nader/11cCandliss) to continue this item to the next Redevelopment Agency meeti ng. t1el,lber :.1cCandliss requested that the costs for this project be brought to the next meeting. 9. ORAL COt1~1UNICAIOtJS: None. 10. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. 11. CIiAIRtWJ'S REPORT: IJone. 12. ~1EI1BERS' COt1l1EtJTS: ~1ember NcCandl i ss stated she woul 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 District. ADJOURIH1ENT at 7:23 p.m. to the regular meetiM"o~');~ril 2,/1987 at 7:00 p.m. t~~i>~<,~:.. PAUL G. DESROCHERS Community Development Director liPC 2823H Redeve 1 opment Agency ~1i nutes -3- r~arch 19, 1987 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION CDNDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDI VISIO" t1AP FOR CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT TRACT 87-4 ( b) PUBLIC HEARII!G: CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CVCP NO. 009 FOR TEIITATIVE SUBDIVISION 1'1AP CVT -87-4 CITY COUNC IL RESOLUTl ON APPROVI NG COASTAL DEVELOPI'IENT PERrlIT CVCP NO. 009 FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION CVT-87-4 I~AP Chill a 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 tlidbayfront area. In addition to considering the subdivision of land, the Agency/Council considered a coastal development permit for the project. Connunity Development Director Desrochers stated that after the Conditions of Approval were nailed, a subsequent meeting vias held and changes were made. He referred to the Errata Sheet before the Agency /Counci 1 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 fIr. Norbert Dall during his presentation. tcIr. Desrochers stated he also 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 with. The four items primarily dealt with were: (1) Feasibility study for the wideninc) 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 widening of the E Street Bridge, pedestrian overpass and the phasing plan. The drainage issue is dealt with in Condition 1 (c). Norbert Da 11, consul tant to the Ci ty, stated the subdi vi si on map as conditioned can be found to be consistent with the Local Coast~ 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. r~r. Dall noted the Coastal Commission counsel advised that this finding be made. Redevelopment Agency Iii nutes -4- t1arch19,1987 In response to the letter received from the Coastal Commission on this date, ~1r. Dall noted the recomnendation 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 r.1r. 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 neerl 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 recomnended conditions with respect to drainage that implement what is presently in the LCP. In response to Councilman Malcolm's question, ~1r. Dall stated the applicant must drain consistent with the LCP into San Diego Bay and obtain a Section 404 Permit. It is staff's recorrmendation that there can be interim drainage provisions. nr. 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 appl icant will have to go back to the Coastal Commission to amend ttle LCP. Councilwo¡;lan McCandliss asked if higher costs would be associated with this proposed drainage plan. She stated the City/Agency should not necessarily bear the cost of temporary facil iti es that may be hi gher. I1r. 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 Commi ssi on to get a LCP amendment for something that has already been done. Mr. Dall responded technically the answer i s yes. t~r. Mal co 1 m stated if there i s not a gua rantee that a 404 Permit will be issued, the City should seek an amendMent to the LCP. ~lr. Dall stated the test for whether or not the drainage that is proposed can be approved is whether or not it is consistent with the LCP. Staff is comfortabl e i n representi ng to the Agency/Council that with respect to only Uni ts 1, 3 and 4, drai nage can be provi ded on an i nteri m basi s through the City system. The recommendation would be that if at the completion of those three uni ts a permanent drai nage 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 amendl1ent. RedevelopMent Agency i~i nutes -5- t1arch 19, 1987 Tllis being the time and place advertised, the r'Iayor pro tempore opened the publ ic heari ng. ,Joseph Davis, representing Chula Vista InvestMent Company, P.O. Box 8086, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, addressed the Agency. Mr. Davis stated that Chula Vista Investment Company is endorsing the conditions of approval with one exception which wi 11 be addressed by one of thei r consul tants. In response to ColJncih~oman tlcCandliss' question, ~~r. Davis stated the conditions give the applicant a guideline for proceeding. He noted this is the first opportunity they Ilave had to have a good i dea as to what the Ci ty i s going to requi re based on the LCP requi rements as well as the normal subdi vi si on process. Jack Dimond, Chul a Vi sta Investment Company, addressed the Agency /Counci 1. He stated it has been the intent of CVIC to begin ilTl11ediately to process an application for an amendment to the LCP. This amendment would provide for a complete alternative drainage program which could then be utilized as the pennanent program i n the event a 404 Permi t i s not i ssued. He suggested the City may wish to add this as a condition for approva1. Agency Attorney Harron poi nted out that i t woul d be consi stent wi th 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. t'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 obtained." If the City were to approve a Coastal Deve 1 opment Permi t for a tenta ti ve map wi th a conditi on subsequent requi ri ng 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 th~t 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 t1alcolm's question, Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam stated the 404 Permit should be completed in 10 to l? 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. Lyle Gabrielson, Rick Engineering, consultant to the applicant, spoke regarding Condition #54. Condition 54 requires that no slopes will exceed 3:1 throughout the subdivision. CVIC would request that 2:1 be the maximum and would agree to 3:1 in certain areas. rlr. Dall noted the LCP does not have a specific numerical requirement. It speaks to protecting coastal resources, including native vegetation, and that the slope shall be variable. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -6- narch 19, 19R7 ~'s. Putnam stated staff is asking for a 3:1 ratio adjacent to the wetland 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 ve~y 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. t1ember t'loore noted this is strictly a City staff recommendation. It is not a requi rement from the LCP. If thi s i s bei ng recoMmended because of potenti al degradation of the wetlands, could this condition be reworded where the 3:1 ratio is not appropriately required or desired to have other protection be i ncorporated? t~s. Putnam responded that erosi on control i s 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 fl a t area. A lot of fill woul d be imported and slopes added i n an area that is now flat. The more mild a slope attained without putting unreasonahle requirements on the developer is desired. At this time, the issue is the F/G Street i1arsh. The applicant is proposing 2:1 slopes where they have already been all owed to grade i n the buffer. r~s. Putnam further noted 3:1 slope i s easier to maintain. ~l of these slopes that face we~ands will he 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 nonnal human habitati on. Councilwoman McCandliss suggested designating what areas should be 3:1. Mr. Dall suggested adding the following to Condition #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 r~arsh and Vener Pond." Donald vJorley, Attorney for CVIC, 110 W. 8th Street, San Diego, CA, expressed concern regardi ng the 1 etter recei ved from Mr. Dam of the Coastal CoT.mission. He further expressed the desire of the applicant to have i\ 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 City 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 conditi ons that have been attac hed to the LCP, thi s subdivision map can be legally approved. Redevelopment Agency ,'linutes - 7- flarch 19, 1987 MSUC (Nader/~Ialcolm) to go into Closed Session for purposes of discussing Sierra C1ub vs. Coasta1 ComMission. The public hearing wi]] 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 nalcolM asked the applicant about property that was sold to CalTrans. r~r. Davis stated there is a portion that was sold approximately lß Months ago. He noted that City staff has been fully knO\~ledgeable about the sale. In response to Councilman 11alcolm's question, ~1r. Harron stated that staff became aware of the transaction thi s 1 ast week. Mr. Desrochers commented staff was aware that a transaction occurred between CVIC and the State \lith 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 CalTrans. Councilman Malcolm stated if this property was sold by CVIC then it is a violation of the Coastal Act. M~ 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 combined project. The parcels were named, identified, and nuT1bered. Disposition and acquisition of the parcels was a completely public matter. t1r. 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. t'1r. 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 r~oore closed the public hearing. Councilwoman McCandliss pointed out the Agency/Council needs to either vote to deny the tentative map or approve it with conditions. If for any reason the Council/Agency are deadlocked on a decision then the tentative map as unconditioned would be approved. r-Iayor pro tempore ¡'10ore commented he would not like to see a complete denia1. 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 uncomfortabl e that there i s not at thi s time a 404 permit. He al so 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- t~arch 19, 1987 CouncihlOman I.IcCandliss 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. f-Ialcolm'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 r1r. 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. ¡,IS (rkCandl i ss/Nader) to accept the alternati ve recommendati on and address staff to bring back findings that will allow denial of the proposed tentatiye subdivision map and deny the Coastal Development Permit application. Councilwoman 11cCandliss stated the tentative map is too approva1. She stated she is interested in the phasing relationships between the Midbayfront, Gunpowder Point and ) other consi derati ons that were supposed to come up i n the Development Agreement. incomplete for plan, financial Street Fi 11 and Di sposi ti on and Councilman tlalcolm 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 liader stated he would like to have the whole map come before the Agency/Council. Councilman Malcolm stated the applicant should be told \~hether or not the Agency/Council wi 11 approve a map on the Mi dbayfront without the entire Bayfront Plan. ~layor pro tempore r10ore stated this should be discussed at the next Agency meeting and he would like to see it on the agenda. I~S. l~cCandl i ss stated she woul d 1 i ke to have the questi on addressed: Can you have a tentative map that addresses the relationships between the Midbayfront, Gunpowder Point, D Street Fill, short of the DDA? A roll call vote on the motion was taken as follows: Hader t-loore McCandliss - Malcolm Aye Aye Aye Aye At tlli s poi nt i n time the Redevelopment Agency reconvened. Redeve 1 oprnent Age!lcy IIi !lutes -9- ¡~arch 1S, 1987 PULLED ITE~'S 4. RESOLUTION 792 - APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING ßIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR" H1PROVEMENT AND LANOSCAPING OF LAUOIS AVENUE PARKING LOT BETWEEN "F" STREET AND DAVIDSON STREET ltJ THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA The Di rector of Publ i c \-Iork s/Ci ty Engi neer recei yed bi ds for" Improvement and landscaping of Landis Avenue parking lot between "F" Street and Davidson Street in the City of Chula Vista, California." The work includes removal and disposal of existing improvements, excavation 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 i ncreased from $75,000 to approximately $125,000 plus staff time. t1r. 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. RESOLUTI 011 OFFERED BY 1'1EMBER r.1CCANDLI SS, the readi ng of the text was wai ved by unanimous consent. The vote \~as 3-1; Member noore voti ng no. r1ember Mal col m poi nted out a 4/5ths vote i s requi red on thi s item. As a courtesy, t4ember tloore revi sed hi s vote to aye. The fi na 1 vote was 4-0, adopting the resolution. 5. P.ESOLUTIOtJ APPROV ING COUCEPT PLAN FOR 1.1EMORl.I\L PARK PANHANDLE On February 10,1987, the Redevelopment Agency approved a contract with Nowell-Thompson, ASLA & Associates, Inc. to prepare an update of the r~aster Plan for 11emorial Park and to prepare a plan and construction drawings for the panhandle portion of the park. Member ~1cCandl i ss commented that she i s 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. r~anuel f4011inedo, 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 would be the art \~ork. Redevelopment Agency ¡,Ii nutes -10- f'1arch 19, 1987 I'¡ember I~alcolm 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 plans for the shopping center where the Canned Food Store is located. In response to rlember NcCandliss' question regarding security, ~1r. ~lo11inedo 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, Chula Vista, addressed the Agency on behalf of the homeowners of Parkwoods at the Vi 11 age. She wanted to bri ng the peti ti on i n oppositi on to the pl an to the attenti on of the Agency. The peti~on opposes making the panhandle a public access. She pointed out there have been numerous break- i ns to thei r hoMes, and the homeowners are concerned this accessway would induce more vandalism and loitering. r~suc (Nader/11cCandliss) to continue this item to the next Redevelopment Agency meeti ng. t1ember r,lcCandl i ss requested that the costs for thi s project be brought to the next meeting. 9. ORAL Cor1t1UNICAIONS: ¡lone. 10. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: rJone. 11. CIiAIRtW/'S REPORT: IJone. 12. 11EI1BERS' CO!1f1ENTS: ~lember ~lcCandliss stated she would like to arrange on an annual basis to have a representati ve from the Water Di strict attend a City Council meeti ng to report on the State of the District. ~"", ~:~~::~~7 " 7,00 ,.m. PAUL G. DESROCHERS Communi ty Development Di rector ADJOURt1f.1ENT at 7:23 p.m. to the \iPC 2823H SAN O'EGO UN'F'ED PORT O'HR'CT Date: January 12, 1987 To: CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL From: PHIL CREASER, Commissioner Subject: QUARTERLY REPORT TO CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL Berthing of CALIFORNIAN The District has applied for a Corps of Engineers Permit for the dredging necessary to accommodate the vessel at a p1~r/float to be installed at the attenuation pier at the entrance to the Chula Vista Marina. A contract for $36,000 has been awarded to Westec Services to perform bioassay work required by the Corps of Engineers. Chula Vista Park Extension Contractor difficulties continue. Beach sand is at the site. It was not placed due to the unusally high tides experienced in San Diego late last year. Full landscaping is not yet in place. Meetings with the contractor continue. Contractor will plant winter rye grass seed now and place stolons required by contract later in spring when warmer weather arrives. Bayside Concession Stand A contract has been awarded to upgrade the utility system to allow pro- vision of a wide range of concession services to park visitors. The project is scheduled for completion in early March. Convention Center Phase II, the major building construction, is out to bid. Bid opening is scheduled for February 11. Construction is expected to begin mid-March. South Bay Wetlands Enhancement Study Port and Coastal Conservancy staffs continue to meet to fine-tune the work program for formal submittal to the Conservancy Board for the $50,000 study grant. The program will attempt to address in a uniform way the environmental considerations for the variety of development plans envisioned for the South Bay. Baywide Anchoring and Mooring Management Plan Regulations governing the South and Central Bay areas are nearing completion. The regulations will be submitted to the California Department of Boating and Waterways this week. Board deliberations will be scheduled for an agenda in the near future. South Bay community support for the regulations will be crucial to the efforts to bring some order to the Bay. It is anticipated special user groups (water skiiers, fishers, live-aboards) will lobby ardently for their particular interest. UPD FO'" 026 - 2 - January 12, 1987 Derelict Vessel Removal Another large removal contract is in preparation. bids will be solicited early February. It is anticipated Chula Vista Bayfront EIR/EIS The Board approved District financial participation in an amount not to exceed $30,000. Port staff stands ready to work with the City on this important project. Close coordination among all participating entities is necessary to ensure all concerns are addressed appropriately. Plover Way Name Change As requested by the City, the Board approved the name change to Bayside Parkway. Airport Improvements Good air service is a must if Chula Vista is to continue to experience economic growth and vitality. That we have a major airport only 7 - 8 miles from our downtown section is a substantial plus for our city. Last year, we established a Port Commission Ad Hoc Committee to study improvements in passenger convenience, parking and ways to ease congestion. These studies are well under way. By next quarter, I would expect a positive announcement will have been made in this regard. Bario Logan Park The commission voted 7 - 0 to approve the Bario Logan Park Compromise and to forward the matter to the State Coastal Commission for final approval. It now appears that a suit will be filed within the next few days which will seek to overturn the decision and compel us to give up the entire five acres for a park. Discussion of Marine Trade Development Temple, Barker & Sloane report attached for Council information.