The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutrda min 1988/07/14 AGENDA AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, July 14, 1988 ,JiOO p.m. (Followinq City Council Item) 0:,:::;'::'1 ROLL CALL . 'In~ <~~tf~y- 1. WORKSHOP ON MIDBAYFRONT PLANNING PROGRAM Council Chambers Public Services Building 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NtJY¿ 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT NC,.,v¿ 4. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT /VvN'c3' 5. MEMBERS' COMMENTS ,y?r¿",¿ ADJOURNMENT to Saturday, July 16, 1988 at 8:00 a.m. for a joint meeting of the Redevelopment Agency/Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee and to Thursday, July 21, 1988 at 4:00 p.m. MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Thursday, July 14, 1988 6:00 p.m. Counci 1 Cor JJ"I" 0"-'&' ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; McCandliss Members Nadel' , ¡·1oore, MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Member Malcolm Executive Director Harron, Community Desrochers, Goss, City Oevelopment Attorney Director Communi ty Development Di rector Desrochers introduced Nancy Locus, and Gary Cinti, consultants working on this plan. He stated the purpose of the meeting is to look at the Bayfront with a clean slate and asked that Council look at the basic land use alternatives. Staff would like to get the Agency's input and direction as to land use, building heights (including densities) and whether or not staff should take an active or passive role in the development plans for the Bayfront. Chula Vista Investment is currently the owner of the property and is working with the Federal Government at this time in order to achieve a settlement as proposed by the court. The Midbayfront comprises approximately 85 acres. Mr, Gary Cinti submitted the plat of the Bayfront area, stating that they are tryi ng to fi nd a si ngl e use for the si te as the primary focus for the Bayfront. They developed a series of primary land uses which he presented with a matrix depicting his presentation. As to the land uses, he commented that they woulo be 1 ight industrial office park, intense urban office complex, destination resort, water sports center, entertainment center, coastal housing, specialty tourist retail and recreation public open space. The matrix depicted the degree of sUitability criteria of these primary land uses on a number of issues such as traffic, pUblic access, national wildlife, economic benefits to the City, coastal act consistency. ---",".--...-..- . --.---"..-.- "-- Minutes - 2 - July 14, 1988 Member Nader commented that the hei ght of the bui 1 di ngs woul d depend on the type of development. He woul d not 1 i ke to see tile area filled with high or low rises. They need something as a trade-off such as open space or recreation. Member Nader questioned how they arrived at the entertainment aspect being unsuitable according to the National Wildlife Refuge compatibility as he could see a number of uses that would be compatible. Mr. Ci nti expl ai ned that some of more bufferable than other uses. density should be accommodated parkland. the more intense uses coul d be Chai rman Cox stated that hi gher by having more open space and Robin Putnam, Principal Community Development Specialist, stated that in the first certified plan there was no building over six stories; however, there was the potential to go to nine stories. Member McCandliss that she did not want to see 8 or 9 tall buil di ngs in thi s Bayfront area; however, the 1 ength and bulk of the buildings is a factor pertaining to the height. She added that the Agency wants to see a hotel there somepl ace, perhaps it will be on the second peninsula, but in the absence of having the peninsula, she would like to see it included in this plan as a possibil ity. Member Nader stated that staff needs to do some contingency planning because at this point there is no assurance that the second peninsula will happen. Member Moore spoke on the location of the streets, which will effect the land uses. He questioned whether Tidelands and Bay Boulevard would need to be in the particular location as oepicted on the map since these are two mai n arteri al s and may have to be relocated according to what land use happens on the Bayfront, Mr, Cinti agreed stating that the employment park would generate traffic and there may be a need for real ignment of the streets leading to that area. Member McCandliss stated that her concern is to have some tourist activity and recreation opportunity for the people who live in the City. She 1 ikes the idea of having the recreational resort and more public recreational space provided in the area. She also commented that she 1 iked the mini restaurant row now in place on Bay Boulevard. Member Nader asked if there coul d be some pl ace on the Bayfront for a 1 arge open ai r amphi theater. Mr. Ci nti noted the probl ems associ ated with the amphi theater one of which woul d be the great amount of parking spaces needed for this activity. Minutes - 3 - July 14,1988 Chairman Cox stated he had as proposed but no probl em Street. He does not want office/park. Agency di scussi on ensued regardi ng the resi denti al trade-off, the opening of "H" Street to Marina Parkway, the improvements on "E" Street, the off-ramp and the business park area. some concerns with the residential area with the Industrial Park south of "F" to see too much space provided for Director Desrochers reported that it is the City's responsibility to have in place a local coastal plan. Staff is questioning whether the Agency wants them to continue to develop plans for the Bayfront, go through the Planning Commission and other commissions and develop the plan or take a more reactive posture and wait for Chula Vista Investment Company to submit their plan and then see if it fits. Chairman Cox indicated he would like to have staff proceed wiU¡ the process now to get it moving and questioned the time element, Mr. Ci nti stated that a rough estimate woul d be 3-6 months for the final plan to be presented to the City Council and another 3-6 months for the Coastal Commi ssi on for adopti on; therefore, the time element would be from 6 months to 1 year. Joe Davis spoke on behalf of the property owners stated that they view the Agency as spending time, effort and money in devel opi ng the plans. The settlement will make a big change in the plan. The heart of the project still remains, however. The Marina is el iminated; there is still a provision for a hotel; the current plan as adopted really serves as good as they are going to have in the final analogy. The current plan provides for a lot of flexibility; it provides a range of various uses. The owners would like to resubmit a tentative map that provides for a project consistent with the current LCP and settlement agreement on which the Agency can propose modifications. Chai rman Cox commented that 1 egally the Agency cannot stop the property owners from submitting their tentative map; however they do have 1 year in which to process it. None of the Agency members have any problems with at least a portion of the plan as submitted today. Di rector Desrochers stated the staff and consul tant wi 11 now take the Council's Comments into consideration in revising the plan. In summary, he stated the Agency's consensus as follows: a. The height of buildings is more a function of design rather than height. Minutes - 4 - July 14, 1988 b. visitor serving, housing and office "F" Stteet shoul d Land uses should focus on hotel, recreational and specialty retail with complmentary uses. The area south of remain as area for Rohr expansion. c. The Agency will take the lead in replanning the Mid-Bayfront. ADJOURNMENT AT 7 :00 p,m, to the Agency workshop scheduled for Saturday, July 16 at 8:00 a.m. (joint meeting with the Otay Valley Project Area Committee). ~l7¡~~ ~nle M. Fulasz, ~ ity Cl erk 1283C