Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1987/08/20 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday, August 20,1987 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Council Conference Room City Hall Members Nader, Moore, McCandliss and Malcolm; Chairman Cox arrived at 5:00 p.m. None. Executive Director Goss, Community Development Di rector Desrochers, Agency Attorney Harron, Ass i stant Community Development Director Gustafson 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 8/6/87 MS (McCandliss/Nader) to approve the minutes of August 6, 1987, as submitted. (The vote was 3-0; Member Malcolm abstained and Chairman Cox was not present for the vote.) CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items 2,5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were pulled. VICE-CHAIRMAN MOORE OFFERED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3, 4, 7 and 13, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION 850 ACCEPTING CONTRACT WORK, CONSTRUCTION OF CHAIN LINK FENCING WITH GATES FOR THE NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA On June 8, 1987, the Redevelopment Agency by Resol uti on No. 831 awarded a contract for the construction of chain link fencing with gates for the Nature Interpretive Center to King John's Fencing Service. The work is now completed and it was recommended that the Agency accept the contract work. 4. RESOLUTI ON 851 ACCEPTING BIDS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE OF BUILDI NGS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON TWELVE PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE/BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA" On August 5, 1987, the Director of Public Works/City Engineer received sealed bi ds for "Demol i ti on and Site Cl earance of Bui 1 di ngs and Other Improvements on Redevelopment Agency -2- August 20, 1987 Twelve Parcel s of Land Located Withi n the Town Centre/Bayfront Redevelopment Project Areas in the City of Chula Vista, California." It was reco1Tl11ended that the Agency accept the bi ds and award the contract to Hofer and Sons, General Engineering Contractors, Inc., Imperial Beach, in the amount of $109,700. 7. RESOLUTION 852 APPROVING PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. AS THE CONSULTANT TO PREPARE A "BIOLOGICAL OPINION" ON THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZING THE AGREEMENT On July 28,1987, authorization was given by the Redevelopment Agency to negotiate an agreement with Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. for the preparation of a "Biological Opinion" on the Chula Vista Bayfront projects. The competitive bidding process was waived because immediate collection of the most recent Bayfront biological data and formulation of a "Biological Opinion" was essential to ensure that the best available scientific data is provided for the consideration of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the newly reinitiated Section 7 consultation on the highway/flood control project. 13. REPORT: REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC LIGHT AT INTERSECTION 1-805 AND OTAY VALLEY ROAD The Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee has requested that the City consider the signalization of the intersection at 1-805 and Otay Valley Road due to the increased truck and commuter traffic. It was recommended that the Agency direct staff to reassess the necessity of installing signalization at this intersection. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR PULLED ITEMS ACCEPTING CONTRACT WORK, CONSTRUCTION OF CHULA VISTA NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER TEMPORARY WATER SUPPLY LINE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA On April 21,1987, the Redevelopment Agency by Resolution No. 805 awarded a contract for the construction of the Nature Interpretive Center temporary water supply line to Clay Warner Plumbing. The work is now completed. 2. RESOLUTION 849 Member McCandliss referred to the continuous breaks in the waterline that have been reported to the Agency. If these breaks are occurri ng in the waterl i ne constructed by Cl ay Warner Pl umbi ng, then the Agency shoul d not accept the work. Community Development Director Desrochers pointed out the waterline break that has been occurring is located where the sprinkler system enters the building. The work of Clay Warner Plumbing is not at fault. However, he suggested the resolution be amended stating the work be accepted on the condition that it is clearly understood that there is no involvement of Clay Warner Plumbing in the latest breaks of the waterline. Redevelopment Agency -3- August 20, 1987 Member Nader clarified the amendment so that it states it is on the condition that there does not turn out to be any involvement on the part of Clay Warner Plumbing. Member Malcolm stated he would vote no on this resolution in order to be consistent with his previous votes on this issue. He further noted he did not 1 i ke the fact the Ci ty / Agency approved the bui 1 di ng permit for the Nature Center before water was provided to the site. It is a City policy and requi rement that water be provi ded to a si te pri or to issuance of a bui 1 di ng permi t. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY VICE-CHAIRMAN MOORE, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted. (The vote was 3-1; Member Malcolm voting no and Chairman Cox not present.) 5. REPORT: ON CHULA VISTA TRANSIT (CVT) ROUTE 708 SERVICE TO THE NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER At its meeti ng of July 14, 1987, the Agency requested staff to analyze the possibility of establishing a free fare on Route 708 for transporting visitors to the Nature Interpretive Center. A free fare on transit service receiving Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.0 funds is not in conformance with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board's (MTDB) fare policy. However, MTDB would concur with eliminating the $0.25 fare if the fare revenue not collected from riders was generated by a subsidy. Member Moore stated he had a problem with item 2c and 2d in the staff recommendation. He believes that a $0.25 fare is very economical. MS (Moore/Malcolm) to accept the report and staff's recommendation 1, 2a and 2b. Member Malcolm stated he would not like to see children charged a fare. Member Moore stated because the Nature Center has free admittance, he does not feel the Agency should subsidize a bus route. Member McCandl i ss commented that because of the exi sti ng ci rcumstances of 1 imited access to the Nature Center, arrangements were made with the bus system to provide transportation to the Center. She believes it would be appropriate to have free transportation. MSUC (Nader/Malcolm) to amend the motion on the floor to provide free bus service for children 16 and under. Member Nader questioned the need for appropriating funds. Transit Coordinator Gustafson confi rmed Mr. Nader's comments that the appropri ati on is only an upper limit and not the actual amount that will be spent. Member McCandl i ss stated she woul d 1 i ke to add a requi rement that a report come back to the Agency in six months. The motion as amended passed unanimously. Redevelopment Agency -4- August 20,1987 6. APPROVING THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT ENHANCEMENT PLANS PREPARED BY WETLANDS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. On June 14, 1985, the Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta and the State Coastal Conservancy entered i nto an agreement for fundi ng the preparation of coastal resource enhancement plans. Following the execution of that agreement, the City contracted with Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. to prepare enhancement plans for five sites on the Chula Vista Bayfront. RESOLUTION Mr. Desrochers reported staff recently became aware that the Department of Fish and Game is reviewing the Memorandum of Understanding between themselves and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the maintenance and operation of the Sweetwater Marsh. Because the enhancement plan has a great deal to do with the marsh, it would be appropriate to wait until the negotiations conclude before voting on this resolution. MSUC (Moore/Nader) to trail this item for approximately one month or the appropriate time for consideration. B. REPORT: LAND USE PERMIT - 276 LANDIS AVENUE Mr. Donald Carse and Mr. Charles Bates, owners of 276 Landis Avenue, requested that they be allowed to reopen an antique business that was closed in 1977. The underlying zoning for 276 Landis Avenue is commercial/office and does not permi t the sale of bona fi de anti ques unl ess approved by the Agency through a Land Use Permit. Mr. Des roc hers stated the Ci ty Attorney has advi sed staff that the adjoi ni ng land owners should be notified of this request and a public hearing should be schedul ed. MSUC (Nader/McCandliss) continue to next month as a public hearing. was 3-0; Chairman Cox and Member Malcolm were not present.) (The vote 9. REPORT: LAND USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR 231 CHURCH AVENUE Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Szaras, owners of 231 Church Avenue, requested a Land Use Permit to continue to house mentally disabled adults. The owners are attempting to refinance the property, but need Agency approval as a condition of obtaining the loan. The Town Centre Land Use Policy does not address this type of land use, therefore, Agency approval is required. Mr. Desrochers stated the Ci ty Attorney has advi sed staff that the adjoi ni ng land owners should be notified of this request and a public hearing should be scheduled. MSUC (Nader/McCandliss) continue to next month as a public hearing. was 3-0; Chairman Cox and Member Malcolm were not present.) (The vote Redevelopment Agency -5- August 20, 1987 10. REPORT: STATUS OF PARK PLAIA AT THE VILLAGE The developer of the Focus Area, Mr. Richard Zogob, has been negotiating with Beverly Hi 11 s Savi ngs and Loan to avoi d pendi ng foreclosure on Parcel s 2, 4 and 6. The report included the current status of negotiations and provided information on previous subsidies and abatements awarded to Mr. Zogob. Mr. Michael Cowett, Attorney representing Centre City Associates, Inc., reported the sale is no longer the objective of the partnership. The goals involved in the rearrangement of the parking relationship between the developer and the City represents those goals of Centre City Associates and not the goals of the buyer. A proposal has been made to Beverly Hills Savings which they are presently considering. Regarding the report before the Agency, Mr. Cowett stated the recommendation is to have staff continue to monitor the situation which he believes is appropriate. In addition, Mr. Cowett would like the subcommittee to continue to be avai 1 abl e to di scuss and negoti ate. He al so asked that the Redevelopment Agency maintain its availability to consider a recommendation that the subcommi ttee may have as the deadl i ne approaches. Mr. Cowett further stated with respect to the report of subsidies given to the Focus Area, he would like the opportunity to prepare a letter in response. MSUC (McCand1iss/Moore) to accept the report. b) RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE PREPARATION AND PROCESSING OF DOCUMENTS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPf4ENT PLAN EXPANDING THE PROJECT BOUNDARIES APPROVING A COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE SHARING OF COSTS FOR THE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS FOR AN At~ENDMENT TO THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 11. a) RESOLUTION The Agency recently completed an amendment to the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan allowing for the collection of tax increments from the project area. This amendment was supported by the Sweetwater Union High School District with the understanding that a subsequent amendment would seek to expand the project boundaries to include School District properties which may be redeveloped in the near future. The School District has agreed to jointly fund the contract wi th Communi ty Systems Associ ates for the development of plans and documents for this plan amendment. Member Moore questioned the proposed cooperation agreement. On page 4 of the agreement under the section "Reimbursement of District Costs," item 4.4, he has a concern with stretching the redevelopment area to the School District and their administration and maintenance portions. Redevelopment Agency -6- August 20,1987 Mr. Desrochers stated one of the basic elements of this review of the expansion of Town Centre II boundaries is to look at public property that could be redeveloped. The school district site as well as the corporation yard would be looked at. Responding to Member Moore's questions, Mr. Desrochers stated the School District is looking for not only a means to pay their share of the contract but also to explore with the City ways in which they can benefit from the tax increment particularly for the School District headquarters. Member Malcolm commented it appears that the School District has more to gain fi nanci ally out of thi s agreement. Mr. Desrochers responded the fi nanci a 1 gai n has not been determi ned because the tax increment sp1 i t has not been agreed upon. Member Malcolm stated he believes the tax split should be negotiated before the agreement is signed. Member McCand1 i ss asked if there are other projects invo1 vi ng the School District which may be impacted by this item, such as the new community youth facility. Executive Director Goss responded there are a number of other projects going on (youth facility, corporation yard, administration offices). He would like to approach each project as a separate i ssue. If they were to be drawn together, it may delay the ability to execute projects, particularly the youth facility. Member Moore commented that what disturbed him about the agreement was that if the City did not do certain things, the District would be reimbursed. He did not see the reverse situation. Agency Attorney Harron stated the City/Agency is in a stronger position in that the City/Agency establishes a redevelopment area and has the power to carry it forward. Member Moore further stated he is not ready to vote on thi s agreement. An agreement of thi s magni tude i n worki ng wi th the School Di stri ct shoul d be discussed on a point by point basis. MS (McCand1iss/Nader) that this item be continued to Tuesday, August 25, 1987, following the Council meeting. Member Moore suggested havi ng an abbrevi ated contract to allow the study to take place and then take more time with the remainder of the agreement. The motion passed unanimously. Redevelopment Agency -7- August 20, 1987 12. REPORT: ANAL YZING A REQUEST FROM CONTINENTAL ASSOCIATES AND THE ORANGE TREE ACQUISITION ASSOCIATION ASKING THE AGENCY TO COVER ANY PARK RELOCATION COSTS EXCEEDING $36,000 RESOLUTION 853 APPROVING A LETTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ACQUISITION ASSOCIATION AT ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONCERNING RELOCATION RESERVES AT ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK The Acquisition Association at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park and Continental Associates have requested that the Agency pledge to pay any relocation costs in excess of $36,000 stemming from potential claims from displaced park residents. State Mobilehome Assistance Program (MPAP) staff have determined that park residents at Orange Tree must set aside a substantial amount of money, perhaps as much as $210,000, in a reserve account to be used exclusively for any potential relocation claims. This represents a substantial change in the State MPAP's relocation requirements, and could affect the ability of some residents to purchase. Member Moore noted hi s concern that thi s item keeps comi ng back to the City/Agency for additional money. Assistant Community Development Director Gustafson stated that in this ci rcumstance, the State has provi ded a new requi rement. From the begi nni ng, this deal has been structured so that there is a good deal of protection against economic eviction. The State has recently become concerned that there may be some liability for relocation under the State relocation laws. Respondi ng to Member Moore, ~lr. Gustafson stated the maximum 1 i abil i ty is unknown. It is reasonabl e to assume that there shoul d not be much economi c eviction because of all the programs that have been set up. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER MALCOLM, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously. 14. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Sue Lotti n, representi ng Conti nental Associ ates, thanked the Agency for thei r efforts on behalf of Orange Tree Mobilehome Park. Bud Pocklington, resident of Chu1a Vista, addressed the Agency. He suggested that the Agency look very closely at the contract with the School District. He also noted concern with the consultant on this issue. 15. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Desrochers reported another break in the sprinkler system at the Nature Center. The 1 eak is located where the spri nkl er enters the buil di ng. The Engineering Department will be investigating the cause. Redevelopment Agency -8- August 20, 1987 16. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: b. Chairman Cox reported the Coastal Conservancy approved the allocation of $150,000 per Council action for Nature Center exhibits. Chai rman Cox further reported on Port properti es off of the Chul a Vista Marina. An RFP has been issued for an expression of interest to develop the balance of the marina slips on the south end of the marina. The marina slips (320-380) are scheduled to be completed by October 31,1990. a. 17. MEMBERS' COMMENTS: Member ~lalcolm suggested staff look into a dangerous situation on Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. Heading west on Palomar Street, there is not a 1 eft-hand turn 1 ane at Industri al B1 vd. and cars are stopped on troll ey tracks. The Agency recessed at 5:35 p.m. to go into Closed Session to discuss potential acquisition of property located at 494 Third Avenue (Eugene and Amelia Roberts, owners), 315 "H" Street (Ralph Burni, owner), 496 Third Avenue (Mr. and Mrs. Grossman, owners), 280 Landis Avenue (Dr. Lopez, owner), and 282 Landis Avenue (Mr. Christianson, owner). The Agency reconvened at 6:40 p.m. 18. PROPOSAL BY CHULA VISTA INVESTMENT COMPANY TO AMEND THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PLAN At the August 6, 1987, meeting of the Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Donald Worley, Attorney, on behalf of Chu1 a Vi sta Investment Company (CVIC), presented the Agency and staff with a 1 i st of proposed changes to the Chul a Vi sta Bayfront Local Coastal Plan (LCP). The Agency suggested that because the proposal was 1 engthy and had an impact on the future of the Bayfront, that a speci al meeting be held. Jack Dimond, representing CVIC, P.O. Box 8086, Rancho Santa Fe, gave a presentati on on the proposed changes to the LCP. He noted that it was the understanding of CVIC at the time the tentative map was denied in April, that CVIC was to prepare a complete package that would include: (1) requisite amendments; (2) phasi ng plans; (3) Di spositi on and Development Agreement; and (4) specific financial data concerning how CVIC proposes to go forward with the Bayfront project. Mr. Dimond further noted the proposed amendments consist of (1) amendments requi red at the di recti on of the Agency; (2) housekeepi ng amendments; and (3) amendments generated by CVIC. The motivation of CVIC in proposing these amendments was to provide as much flexibility as possible to allow moving forward with the subdivision and development of the Bayfront. Redevelopment Agency -9- August 20, 1987 Mr. Dimond proceeded di scussi ng each of the fi fteen proposed amendments as listed in the report prepared by Agency staff. Regarding Item No.1: Identify an Additi ona 1 Publ i c Agency Eli gi bl e to Recei ve Ti tl e to Marshl and Mitigation Lands, Mr. Dimond responded to Member Nader's questions. He stated CVIC has been requested through Mr. Desrochers to proceed witil the processing involved in order to implement the Coastal Development Permit which would permit the creation of parcels. CVIC has declined to make use of the permit. They believe the transference of the land, because of easements and right-of-way, will not solve the ultimate problems existing with those parties to litigation. Regarding Item No.4: Amend Land Use on Gunpowder Point including the Nature Interpretive Center Site Area, Mr. Dimond pointed out CVIC in conversations aimed at achieving settlement with other parties to litigations, has proposed a reducti on in the intensity of development on Gunpowder Poi nt. They have never proposed the total abandonment of Gunpowder Point. They have not proposed the elimination of a hotel from the Bayfront project. CVIC, in trying to ratify what they understand to be an adopted amendment, would like to allow for the relocation of a hotel from Gunpowder Point to a specific 1 ocati on i n the Mi dbayfront provi di ng a fi ndi ng of fact is made by the Agency/City Council. Responding to Member Nader, Mr. Dimond stated CVIC has continuously suggested that they do not have a bias as to a particular hotel site. CVIC supports the concept of a hotel anywhere on the Bayfront that is practical and reasonable. Chai rman Cox asked Mr. Dimond if he was aware of any wil d1 ife refuge system that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife has in San Diego County? Mr. Dimond stated he has been informed that the Tijuana Estuary is part of the national wildlife system. Chairman Cox stated he would like Agency staff to check on this. Respondi ng to Chai rman Cox's questi on about the transference of miti gati on 1 ands, Mr. Dimond stated CV IC wi 11 comply with thei r contract provi di ng the provi si ons pl aced on other parti es to the contract are concurrently met (necessary and requisite permits to allow the development of the Midbayfront). Member Mal colm asked if a hotel at the foot of "F" Street has been investigated. Lyle Gabrielson, Rick Engineering, representing CVIC, responded that the problem with moving Marina Parkway easterly is that of encroaching upon marshlands lying southerly of "F" Street. The approximately 12 acres that currently exists has a difficult size and shape to build a hotel upon. Member Malcolm commented that the Gunpowder Point hotel site cannot accommodate sufficient parking; there is no water access; mud flats exist adjacent to the site. It may not be the most desirable site for a destination resort. Mr. Malcolm further stated that perhaps the plan needs to be sent back to the Pl anni ng Commi ssi on to be revi ewed and to take publ ic i nput. Redevelopment Agency -10- August 20, 1987 Responding to Member Nader's question, Mr. Dimond stated, regarding putting a hotel at the foot of "F" STreet, that if soils can be acceptable with remediation, given the constraints of the roadway, CVIC would have no objections. Chairman Cox stated he believes this alternate site would have significant problems, for example, mudflats are located immediately opposite the 01 d Shangri 1 a facil ity. Member Nader questioned why the alternative of the conveyance of the mitigation lands to the State Fish and Game is not being pursued. Mr. Dimond responded that CVIC is convinced that the transfer of that land, with the reservation of easements, will create sufficient objection that the mitigation land cannot be accepted by the Fish and Wildlife Service as mitigation for the flood control and highway projects. Agency Attorney Harron explained that the Fish and Wildlife Service has represented that if those easements are not part of the transfer, then that consti tutes new i nformati on that was not consi dered at the time of the EIS. This would be the subject of the reinitiation of consultation which could result in a requirement for additional mitigation. Chairman Cox noted representations have been made that the landowner/CVIC has had contact with hotel developers regarding the hotel site on Gunpowder Point. He asked about the comments received from the developers. Mr. Dimond stated Watt Industries contacted Princess Hotels, Stofer Hotels, Sheraton and Hyatt. There was no interest in this site and a rejection of the proposal that a hotel would be viable at that location. Mr. O'Gara of Santa Fe had contact with such groups as Meridian, Atlas, and Westin. Mr. Joseph Davis of CVIC stated he personally took representatives from Hyatt on site. They had such reservati ons as: lack of access to water; 1 ack of conveni ence (water) and questioned what other recreational facilities are available. Chairman Cox asked if it would be possible to receive copies of correspondence on this issue and names of people contacted. Mr. Davis stated he would look at what is available. Chairman Cox commented the LCP approved in 1984 by the Coastal Commission was environmentally sensitive and economically viable. He noted some of the alternati ves bei ng suggested wou1 d be very diffi cult for him to support. It would appear that the Midbayfront would become primarily a business office park based on the changes desi red for uni ts 3, 6, 8 and 10. Chai rman Cox stated he cannot support those changes. Mr. Davis pointed out CVIC is trying to provide flexibility. They have attempted to relocate uses (not eliminate uses) . Member Malcolm pointed out there is no way the hotel will ever allow the City to recuperate economi cally the loss experi enced due to 1 i ti gati on and del ay, as well as the lack of enjoyment of the public being able to use the Bayfront. He further noted that he had voted to have the hotel on Gunpowder Point; believes the mitigation is adequate; however, he also believes the Sierra Club has valid points and the City will be tied up for years. Redevelopment Agency -11- August 20, 1987 Mr. Desrochers introduced ~lr. Norbert Dall, consultant to the City/Agency on coastal matters; Mr. Lee Bishop, special counsel to the City/Agency; and Mr. Joseph Kordsmeier, hotel consultant. Mr. Da11 referred to the LCP with regard to the relocation of the hotel to the Midbayfront (foot of "F" Street). The LCP states that before residential uses are permitted in the residentially zoned area north of Lagoon Drive and east of Marina Parkway, a finding must be made by the Council, based on substantial evidence, that existing and reasonably projected demand for visitor-serving facilities, including visitor-destination hotel facilities, is being met or capable of being met on already zoned and available visitor-serving commercial land on the Chu1a Vista Bayfront. It is a test that applies to residential uses of land, not so much to hotel alternatives. Mr. Dall further suggested that in order to deal with the question of how to make the Midbayfront developable in the short run, the Agency direct staff to address the question of the drainage of the Midbayfront as requested by CVIC. Mr. Dall recommended the Agency authorize staff and consultants to study the number of circulation related elements raised by CVIC. Mr. Dall further recommended that a denial be given to CVIC with respect to the other proposed amendments because many of the proposal s are i nconsi stent with the Coastal Act. Other concerns deal with pub1 ic health and safety concerns and the question of community character. Mr. Kordsmei er addressed the Agency. He referred to the feasi bil ity study prepared approximately one year ago with regard to the hotel site. He stated that Gunpowder Point as a destination resort site has great potential. He believes the feasibility study presented last year still stands and is probably stronger because of the lack of waterfront sites in California. Chairman Cox asked if Mr. Kordsmeier could identify any other sites on the Chula Vista Bayfront that could accommodate a destination hotel? Mr. Kordsmeier responded he believes there is not another available site for the type of destination-resort hotel desired. Chairman Cox asked further about the limited parking situation on Gunpowder Point. Mr. Kordsmeier suggested that there are hotels that are presently using various means of access (i.e. by automated people movers, by boat, gondola, etc.) which has proven to be an attractive feature. Responding to Member Malcolm's questions regarding the costs involved with the hotel and room rates, Mr. Desrochers explained these figures are not available at this point. Mr. Desrochers added that all the consultants have stated that the hotel cannot be built first, that the quality of development in the Midbayfront must be established first. Redeve 1 opment Agency -12- August 20,1987 Mr. Lee Bishop, special counsel, addressed the Agency next. He commented regardi ng the Sierra Cl ub 1 i ti gati on. He stated the court has not rul ed whether there is jeopardy to endangered speci es on the Gunpowder Poi nt area. The Ninth Circuit has decided that the Fish and Wildlife Service must be given an opportunity to consult on that issue. The City is currently in the process of submitti ng comments; submi tti ng i nformati on to the Corps of Engi neers, which is the final decision making agency in this matter; to be consulted with the federal Fish and Wildlife Service to come up with a decision of whether or not the LCP does result in a finding of jeopardy to endangered species. That process is comi ng rapi dly to a conc1 usi on and a fi na1 deci si on on the issue will be reached. Chairman Cox asked Mr. Bishop if he is referring to the Corps/CalTrans project when he refers to the LCP? Mr. Bishop explained that the federal project is the CalTrans project. The impact which must be considered by the Fish and Wildlife Service is the impact of the LCP on that project. On that project, tile mi ti gation 1 ands and processes necessary to preserve the endangered species are being looked at, which are in turn endangered by the Corps of Engineers' project. The whole Bayfront plan and the Gunpowder Point development is under consideration but only to the extent it impacts on the ability of certain areas to mitigate for the Corps of Engineers' project. Mr. Bishop further reported that staff has developed a package of factual concessions which staff believes are more than adequate to satisfy the requi rements as expressed by the Fi sh and Wi 1 dl i fe Service i n thei r vari ous opinions. That package will be presented to the Corps of Engineers on Friday, August 21. This will be followed up with an analysis, point by point, of the issues raised by the Fish and Wildlife Service in their opinions. Respondi ng to questions, ~1r. Bi shop stated the flood control/freeway project and the Bayfront litigation are very closely related in terms of their legal relationship. The whole LCP is tied up into and is being held hostage by the Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service in the consultation process at this time. The proposal that staff has put together on the specific elements of modificatlon of that plan will involve modifications to the LCP. Mr. Dall stated staff is proposing a strategy that would significantly increase the commitment of environmental protection on the Bayfront by putting all of the existing marshes into the ownership of the California Department of Fish & Game pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding. Secondly, that Agency authorize staff and consultants to initiate immediately biological consultation with the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to look at three alternative road alignments to Gunpowder Point. Thirdly, because of the proposal that is still being evolved in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game that Wetlands Research Associates made, staff is recommending looking at an expansion of the least tern sanctuary at the western end of the liD" Street Fi 11 from the 10 acres to a total of approximately 25 acres. It is recommended that the approximately 20 acres of residentially-zoned land on the "D" Street Fill be redesignated to wetlands habitat and that a commitment be made to create a wetlands mitigation bank by taking existing dry land and recreate the historic Sweetwater Marsh wetlands. The City and the landowner would be able to count that as mitigation credits. Redevelopment Agency -13- August 20, 1987 Hr. Da11 further proposed that both Tidelands Avenue, where it crosses the Sweetwater Marsh, and the State Route 54 ramps not be used as planning alternatives. Responding to Member Malcolm's questions, Mr. Dall stated all of the marine related uses would still be retained. Mr. Dall stated the goal is to increase the +178 mitigation lands to include the approximately 30 acres of restored SweetWãter Marsh on the south si de of the "D" Street Fi 11; enhance the 1 east tern colony to a si ze congruent with what the Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated and make it part of the same property; and add the ~17.5 acres of the F-G Street Marsh. Mr. Dimond stated CVIC would be supportive of participating in the evaluation of this proposal. Mr. Fred Drew, 1275 Banner Avenue, Chula Vista, addressed the Agency. He expressed his concern that this was a public meeting, however, the members of the public had to wait over 3 hours before being able to participate. He also noted hi s concern regardi ng the I-5/State Route 54 project and that thi s should be the number one priority of discussion. Member Nader poi nted out the reason the di scussi on has not centered on the freeway realignment is that particular problem has been resolved and the freeway realignment work has been permitted to go forward by the federal judge. Mr. Barajas, 375 "J" Street, Chula Vista, expressed his concern regarding the I-5/State Route 54 project. He would like the congested traffic on "J" and "H" Streets to be relieved by the opening of State Route 54. Chai rman Cox di scussed the hi story behi nd the Sweetwater Flood Control/1-5 projects. He noted it is the first priority to get 1-5 back on schedule. As a result of the Judge's decision, 1-5 appears to be in a position where it will be back on schedule shortly. There is not a solution for State Route 54 at this time because the Corps of Engineers belatedly agreed to reinitiate their consultation which is the one thing that probably could have avoided the injunction issued in July. Chairman Cox further stated he is committed to try and make sure that State Route 54 i s not unduly del ayed. The consultati on process has begun and it needs to run its course. Chairman Cox stated he believes the City/Agency has acted in good faith in working with the property owner to provide the appropriate easements that are legally required under the LCP. Based on the information presented, Chairman Cox stated he is not prepared to allow the Sierra Club to dictate land uses in the City. The important issue at this point is that the Sierra Club was successful in seeking the injunction, which is a procedural issue. The land needs to be conveyed according to the agreement that the County signed with the Corps, which did not occur. Alternatives for mitigation need to be developed. Redevelopment Agency -14- August 20, 1987 Chainnan Cox further commented that he believes the Bayfront Plan is well ba lanced, both envi ronmentally and economi ca lly. However, i f i t woul d sol ve the pendi ng 1 iti gati on, and if the developer coul d come up wi th another quality hotel site, he would be willing to consider moving the hotel site off of Gunpowder Point. If the City/Agency could work with the Port District in developing the second peninsula off of the "J" Street Marina, he believes that would be a superior site to Gunpowder Point. He stated he is willing to look at alternatives, but he wants to have a quality development in Chula Vista. Mr. Desrochers stated staff woul d 1 i ke di recti on from the Agency to explore the proposal explained by Mr. Dall. Staff would also like to include the proposal in the comments submitted to the federal government. Responding to Member Malcolm, Mr. Dall stated he would recommend for purposes of the presently ongoing biological consultation, that the Agency authorize staff to put the proposal on the table for discussion purposes with the other agenci es. Member Moore stated he has a concern with items 1, 5 and 13 in the staff report. He suggested it would be appropriate to have staff review items 4, 6, 8 and 10 as it pertains to r4r. Dall's proposal in conjunction with the property owner. MS (Moore/Malcolm) to direct staff to review 4, 6, 8 and 10 to see how they would fit in with Mr. Da11's presentation. Member Moore further suggested items 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 be referred to staff to see how they can be incorporated into the amendment. Responding to comments, Mr. Da11 pointed out the Fish and Wildlife Service has set 5:00 p.m., August 21, 1987, as the deadline for the City or the Corps of Engineers to submit information and documents in order to participate in the biological consultation. Staff is trying to layout alternatives as part of the biological consultation. Approval of the concept is needed. Member Moore withdrew his motion. MS (Cox/Nader) to authorize submittal of alternatives presented by Mr. Da11 to the Corps of Engineers as part of the biological consultation. 14r. Dall explained the components: (1) "D" Street Fi 11 - 1 east tern nesti ng expansi on and the wetl ands mitigation bank proposed alternatives. There are three major (2) Adding F/G Street Marsh acreage to the overall acreage (3) With respect to the circulation element: a. b. c. Tidelands Avenue deletion State Route 54 ramp to "D" Street Fill deletion Look at alternati ves for the access way from the Mi dbayfront to Gunpowder Point Redevelopment Agency -15- August 20, 1987 Member Nader stated he understands the moti on to mean these a lternati ves are being submitted for purposes of exploring the extent to which this might be satisfactory mitigation. The Agency is not committing itself to these alternatives as a solution at this point. Mr. Dimond of CVIC stated they would support any of these alternatives. They will not commit to making land available for mitigation without costs or without credit. Member McCandl i ss poi nted out she bel i eves it woul d be important that the Agency/Council be apprised of the situation on a weekly basis. Member Malcolm stated he would not support this plan without reassessing the area that would allow a waterfront restaurant and a Seaport Village-type of development. The motion passed unanimously. MSUC (Cox/Moore) direct staff to move forward on items 7, 9, 14 and 15 working with GVIC. MSUC (Cox/Nader) to table the remaining item numbers in the staff report to the end of the consultation period. MSUC (Cox/Moore) to go i nto Closed Sessi on to di scuss Si erre Cl ub vs. Marsh and Sierra Club vs. Costal Commission. Adjournment to Closed Session at 11 :20 p.m. Adjourned from Closed Session at 12:05 a.m. to the regular meeting of August 25, 1987, following the City Council meeting. P'~ Community Development Director WPC 3093H