Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1987/05/07 AGENDA AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday, May 7, 1987 4: 00 p. m. ROLL CALL Council Conference Room City Hall 1. WORKSHOP REPORT: Discussion of issues relating to the resubmission of a Tentative Subdivision Map for the Midbayfront (Continued from April 30, 1987) 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 4. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 5. MEMBERS' COMMENTS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WILL MEET IN CLOSED SESSION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE MEETING TO DISCUSS SIERRA CLUB VS. MARSH; SIERRA CLUB VS. COASTAL COMMISSION ET. AL.; AND ITEMS OF POTENTIAL LITIGATION ADJOURNMENT to the regular meeting of May 7, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. and the regular meeting of May 21, 1987 at 4:00 p.m. ."'- MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, May 7, 1987 4:15 p.m. Council Conference Room citv Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; Members Nader, Moore, McCandliss and Malcolm MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Executive Director Goss, Community Development Director Desrochers, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Garibay, Deputy City Attorney Moore 1. WORKSHOP REPORT: DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE RESUBMISSION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE MIDBAYFRONT At its April 2, 1987 meeting, the Agency directed staff to set up a conference for a discussion of the recommended revisions to the Midbayfront Tentative Subdivision Map. The discussion was desired to establish a clear policy to give direction to the developer and staff. Executive Director Goss stated the recommendation of staff is to (a) continue to negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Chula vista Investment Company (CVIC) with the understanding that the City and CVIC share all necessary information to bring the discussions to a successful conclusion; (b) begin preparation of a Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment that incorporates an alternative drainage plan for the Midbayfront that does not require a federal permit; and (c) recommend that CVIC incorporate the Conditions of Approval into a revised Tentative Subdivision Map to be resubmitted to the Agency/Council. Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Garibay discussed the five major issues focused upon in the Agenda Statement. 1. The relationship of the Tentative Subdivision Map to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) now being prepared. Mr. Garibay noted this is referring to the need for a 404 permit and the alternate drainage system. The Tentative Subdivision Map previously proposed allowed for a diversion of drainage for units Redevelopment Aaencv Meetina Minutes - 2 - May 7. 1987 3 and 4. In order to provide for an alternate drainage system other than going to the bay for the entire site, a LCP amendment would have to be processed. The issue brought up by the Agency at the previous workshop in March was whether or not this would become a permanent alternate drainage system. If a LCP amendment is processed and approved then it is possible that the drainage would never go through to the bay and a 404 permit would not be processed. 2. The relationship of the entire Bayfront Plan to the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map and a DDA. Mr. Garibay stated this deals with the issue that the previous proposal did not cover all of CVIC's Subdivision Map. The Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map and a recommendation that they be met prior to submittal of a revised Tentative Subdivision Map. 3. 4. The relationship of the pending litigation to the approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map. The desire to provide guidance to the developer to allow timely resubmittal of a Tentative Subdivision Map. In referring to the letter received from CVIC dated April 23, Mr. Garibay stated staff did not have any problem with the issues and concerns discussed with the exception of condition 2 (c) which was inadvertently left off the list by the applicant. 5. In response to Member Malcolm's questions regarding the alternate drainage plan, Norbert Dall, consultant to the City, commented that staff is looking at the alternate drainage plan as only an alternative. The "downsides" of the alternate plan would be (1) a supplemental EIR would be needed for the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan to analyze the potential significant environmental effects; (2) a supplemental source of water for the small freshwater marsh immediately north of F Street would need to be identified; and (3) there is the question of committing the volume of water that would go through the existing stormwater drainage system east of 1-5 that goes out into the bay at J Street. Whether or not this would preclude any other development opportunities in the City that would rely on that discharge system that is already in place is an issue that must be addressed. Member Malcolm asked Mr. Dall if he had been contacted regarding the removal of the building on Gunpowder Point. Mr. Dall responded yes, and removal of the building requires a Coastal Development Permit because it constitutes a change in intensity of use. Redevelopment Aqencv Meetinq Minutes - 3 - Mav 7. 1987 In response to Member Nader's questions, Mr. Dall stated it would be his recommendation that the supplemental EIR proceed simultaneously with the LCP amendment. It would take approximately 13 to 14 weeks to process a LCP amendment. Lyle Gabrielson, Rick Engineering Company, representing Chula vista Investment Company, referenced the letter prepared by CVIC dated April 23 outlining issues to be addressed. Using the attachment to the letter titled "Topics for the Chula vista Bayfront Hearing", Mr. Gabrielson began with item 4, LCP Amendment. He noted a LCP amendment is required in order for this project to go forward. The items that need to be addressed in the amendment include: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Alternate drainage system; Alternative alignments for Tidelands Avenue. There are two alignments which have been suggested. The original LCP has a total linear alignment lining back up with the Tidelands bridge across Sweetwater Marsh. Mr. Gabrielson further noted the original tentative subdivision map had aT-intersection proposal.CVIC believes the T-intersection needs to be shown as an alternative because it was predicated on discussions with CalTrans. Alternative improvements for 1-5 and E Street interchange as proposed by CalTrans. Mr. Gabrielson stated CalTrans has concerns with an off-ramp parelleling a public facility. There is a watermain/sewermain in Bay Boulevard and CalTrans is requesting that the off-ramp end in a T-intersection with Bay Boulevard. CVIC believes this alternative should be shown in the LCP amendment. Interchange ramps at Highway 54/1-5 intersection. CVIC believes that is going to be the most viable method to get to E Street, and they would like to show this as an alternative only. Mr. Dall stated he believes it would cause a major problem at the Coastal Commission to propose alternative ramps. He recommended not addressing this alternative at this time and not to put it in the LCP amendment. Alternative residential uses to Unit 5 and 7. Mr. Gabrielson noted this involves moving the residential areas away from the bay and onto the open spaces. Mr. Dall pointed out that if by "residential uses" it is meant the potential reservation of the site for hotel analysis purposes, this was included in what the Commission previously approved. Redevelopment Aaencv Meetinq Minutes - 4 - May 7. 1987 Joseph Davis of Chula vista Investment Company stated that if the hotel is designated for lO-acre site, it makes sense to make the adjacent site commerical. CVIC would like to consider designing in the flexibility of allowing the visitor serving commercial to be on the adjacent site to be a compatible use and eliminate residential uses completely from these two units. Chairman Cox asked if this would then eliminate all residential uses on the Midbayfront. Mr. Davis responded that is correct. Mr. Dall clarified that the LCP as it presently stands as a result of the November, 1986 amendment, does not designate the residential area referenced to for hotel uses. It provides for an analysis by the City to determine whether hotel use will be adequately provided on the Bayfront in its entirety. If the City made such an analysis and determines that there is inadequate provision for hotel use then the City would have to process a new LCP amendment. Presently there is no double zoning of the property in question. Member Malcolm asked if the City/Agency would want commercial uses locked-in East of Marina Parkway? It may be desirable to have visitor serving commercial uses (i.e., restaurants, etc.) on the water. Mr. Davis responded that one of the reasons for the realignment of Marina Parkway and some of the shifts of the land uses was based on soil analysis. The worst soil conditions are immediately adjacent to the Bay in the park area as opposed to where the residential is now situated. Responding to Chairman Cox's concern, Mr. Dall stated it would be his recommendation to advise against having double zoning. Member Nader stated in the unlikely event the hotel cannot be built on Gunpowder Point, he would like to be sure there is another place for it in the Midbayfront. Is it correct that a tentative map cannot be approved that would have this contingency unless it is compatible with the LCP? Mr. Dall responded that is correct. Responding further to Member Nader's questions, Mr. Dall stated before construction of residential uses could be approved, the LCP requires that an analysis be done to determine whether or not hotel uses, or visitor serving uses generally are being adequately met on the entire Bayfront. If the study indicates they are not then there would be a direct obligation on the City to deny the residential application and go ahead with a LCP amendment for the higher priority visitor-serving hotel or other use. Redevelopment Aaencv Meetinq Minutes - 5 - May 7. 1987 Mr. Gabrielson stated from the discussion thus far it is his understanding that the LCP amendment will include: (1) (2) (3) drainage system alternate alignments for Tidelands Avenue alternate improvements for I-5 and E street The Highway 54 interchange question mark and alternate residential uses for units 5 and 7 will not be included. Member Malcolm asked what the environmental concerns would be if a marina was added at the foot of F street. Mr Dall stated it is his understanding that the area west of Marina Parkway which is designated for park uses clearly can include such things as public parking that serves recreational purposes. The area is not presently utilized by any known endangered species. Mr. Dall further stated he believes it is the policy of the Department of Fish and Game that the only instance under which this could be used for marina purposes would be if there was one-to-one mitigation by dredging existing dryland to create new wetlands in lieu of the wetlands that would be altered for marina purposes. Responding to Member Moore's questions, Mr. Gabrielson stated item 2 (c) on the Topics for the Chula Vista Bayfront hearing was intended to cover matters dealing with the E street bridge. Mr. Garibay stated it was his understanding that CalTrans has submitted an agreement to the Agency showing the T-intersection configuration. On a temporary basis it would probably work, however, as the flow of traffic increases staff believes the configuration would need to be modified. Mr. Gabrielson stated it is the desire of CVIC to show the configuration as an alternative. Mr. Garibay noted staff did not have any problems showing this as an alternative. Mr. Dall asked for a clarification of item 4 (b) of the Topics for the Chula Vista Bayfront Hearing, specifically in reference to "all actions necessary for the approval of the tentative map". Mr. Gabrielson stated CVIC would like the LCP amendment to include all things necessary for approval of the tentative map consistent with the LCP. Using the Topics for the Chula Vista Bayfront Hearing, discussion followed on each item: 1.a. Revise the subdivision boundary to reflect the entire CVIC ownership within the city limits of Chula Vista. Mr. Dall pointed out that technically the requirement in the subdivision ordinance within the Coastal Zone is not to show all of the ownership but rather to show parcels. Redevelopment Aaency Meetina Minutes - 6 - May 7. 1987 Mr. Gabrielson noted it has been asked by Agency members to show all ownership. It is the intention of CVIC to show all subdivision units and proposed parcels. Mr. Dall asked if this would show what the existing parcels are as of the date of application. He stated this is very important because one of the reasons staff recommended denial of the application initially was that the proposed map did not show the existing parcels that were owned by Santa Fe/CVIC. Mr. Dall stated staff presently is not aware as to whether the one parcel that is at the northerly extended CVIC ownership is totally within the City of Chula Vista or if it extends into National City. Mr. Gabrielson stated it may be a legal parcel in two different cities' jurisdiction. He asked if it was the desire of city staff to show land use and proposed subdivision of property in National City on a tentative map to be approved by the City of Chula Vista. Chairman Cox questioned that there is a political jurisdictional and geographic boundary between Chula Vista and National City, wouldn't it make sense that National City have one entirely separate parcel? Mr. Dall responded that in the Coastal Zone, a parcel formed in National City would not be legal unless the Coastal Commission (because National City does not have a LCP) takes action. Mr. Gabrielson clarified that he will prepare a map that shows the legal ownership and that provides the boundaries. If there is a problem of creating a parcel in National City, it will be necessary to go to the Coastal Commission. 1.b. Address the parcel proposed for condemnation for the Department of Transportation for the State of California. Mr. Davis stated CVIC was notified by Santa Fe that the property was taken as a result of court action. Documents are in the process of coming to CVIC that show that the courts interceded and provided for the conveyance of the land. Mr. Dall stated there is a Coastal Commission precedent on this point. Court action by itself cannot result in a division of land. The previous owner needs to apply to the city for a parcelization. Those parcels must be consistent with the land uses in the Chula Vista LCP. An action of a court is not a satisfactory in-lieu activity to get a Coastal Development Permit. Mr. Dall further pointed out the area that was conveyed to CalTrans was not just the 9.6 acre moat but included the City's portion of the 10 acre least tern nesting area. The dilemma is that this area is designated in the LCP for endangered species conservation. CalTrans has put on it a land use designation for highway related use which is not congruent with the LCP. Redevelopment Aqencv Meetinq Minutes - 7 - May 7. 1987 Chairman Cox stated many of the problems could be resolved if there was a parcel map created that would identify the specific acreage that was provided to CalTrans; the remaining portion that should be a least tern nesting site; and the parcel that is in National city. In reference to the mitigation for the flood control and freeway projects, that property cannot be conveyed at this time because it is not a legal parcel. Items 1 c, d, e and f were reviewed and no objections were raised. Member Moore suggested the parcel map be for the entire subdivision. 1.g. 2. c. Tentative Map shall show all street circulation and access points as adopted on the amended LCP including those off-site improvements previously identified, i.e. Tidelands Avenue south to "J" street, "E" street overpass and improvements easterly of the subdivision boundary, and 1-5 and Highway 54 off-ramps to Tidelands Avenue. d. Tentative Map will contain cross-sections of all proposed streets consistent with the amended LCP. e. Tentative Map to outline interim and ultimate drainage system as proposed as well as sewer and water facilities proposed. f. Tentative Map to address all grading concerns including slope ratio, delineation of top and toe of slopes, grades proposed and on-site local drainage. Tentative Map will include all public interest easements consistent with the LCP or specify methods, by which these easements will be defined. Mr. Gabrielson stated regarding the one open space easement that is located between units 5 and 7, this easement will be further defined with subsequent submittals of detailed development plans. Mr. Dall noted that under the LCP, specific provisions for the connecting accessway would have to be provided at the point of the Tentative Map approval. Phasing/Feasibility Plan Mr. Davis suggested reviewing items a. and d. together. a. The plan document will address timing and extent of all public improvements by subdivision unit and level of development. d. The plan will develop overall time frame phasing for the build-out of all properties within the Chula vista Bayfront LCP as shown on the Tentative Map. In response to Mr. Davis' questions regarding flexibility in building out of sequence, Ms. McCandliss responded it would be necessary to bring the matter up before the Agency/Council. Redevelopment Aqencv Meetinq Minutes - 8 - May 7. 1987 Member McCandliss asked if time projections are put in the Tentative Map, would the applicant be bound to the projections? Mr. Dall responded yes, under the LCP all of the specific provisions for the permit are mandatory by law. Chairman Cox commented one of the things he would like the Agency to consider as an option is the development of a reimbursement district. Items 2 b, c, e, and f were addressed and no objections were raised. 3. b. The plan will outline the proposal for funding of all public improvements required by the Tentative Map. c. The plan will develop traffic service levels which will initiate on- site and off-site public improvements. e. The plan will address the social, visual, physical and financial viability of a pedestrian overpass. f. The plan will address the phasing and development of the drainage system as reflects approval of or lack thereof, of the 404 Permit of the Corps of Engineers. Facilities Financing Plan Items a, b, c, and d were addressed and no objections were raised. a. The plan will address all subdivision improvement costs. b. The plan will describe the developer contribution towards all subdivision improvements. c. The plan will address the redevelopment financing of those public improvements necessary to support the Tentative Map. d. The plan will propose a draft of the development agreement consistent with past discussions concerning the overall project of the Chula Vista Bayfront. Member Nader suggested that if the developer and City staff are not in agreement on any issues, the issues should be brought before the Agency/Council in advance of a decision on the Tentative Subdivision Map. Member Moore concurred. Mr. Gabrielson noted his desire to have further workshops throughout the entire process. Redevelopment Aaencv Meetina Minutes - 9 - May 7. 1987 Mr. Davis stated his desire to have workshops with the Agency specifically in regard to the phasing plan and DDA. Mr. Davis further noted that CVIC is inferring that all Members are satisfied with the outline presented. If a Tentative Map is produced with all the documents included in the outline, that it will be sufficient to receive a favorable decision. Member Malcolm stated he wanted to put it on the record very clearly that he does not support this particular process. He would prefer to see the lawsuit settled and develop the Bayfront knowing what can be built and where. He stated if Gunpowder Point and D street Fill cannot be used, then he would prefer a different use for the Midbayfront. Member Nader stated he would like to see contingencies addressed in the Tentative Map so that options are not lost in the event Gunpowder Point and D street Fill cannot be used. Mr. Davis stated it is the intent of CVIC to develop a Tentative Map consistent with the LCP. If some settlement or resolution is made with regard to the pending litigation which prevents them from moving forward, they would come back with an amended Tentative Map. In response to Member Malcolm's concerns, Mr. Gabrielson stated he added more soil testing and reports to his package to be presented. Member Moore commented more information on the soils report and review of the park area and hotel site is needed. MS (Moore/Cox) approve staff's recommendation and direct staff to continue to negotiate with CVIC as it pertains to the "Topics for Chula Vista Bayfront Hearing" and Conditions of Approval as submitted. Member Nader noted he assumes that within the motion that staff is directed to negotiate along the lines included in today's discussion. Also, he noted the desire to have included a mechanism whereby the City is assured that regardless of the outcome of the litigation that the City will not lose the hotel. Member Moore and Chairman Cox included this in their motion. The motion passed (4-1; Member Malcolm voting not) MSUC (Moore/Malcolm) move for a review of the parkland in the LCP as it pertains to the area west of Marina Parkway. Redevelopment Aaency Meetinq Minutes - 10 - May 7. 1987 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None 4. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: None 5. MEMBERS' COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT at 6:55 p.m. to the regular meeting of May 21, 1987. M;;.lL Paul G. Desrochers Community Development Director