HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1983/03/03 7:35 PM Jt. Planning Comm.
MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Thursday, March 3,1983 Conference Rooms 2 & 3
7:35 p.m. Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
AGENCY MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Cox; Members McCandliss, Malcolm, Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT Member Scott
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS PRESENT Members G. Johnson, Canon, O'Neill, Green, Shipe
STAFF PRESENT Executive Director Goss, Community Development
Director Desrochers, Redevelopment Coordinator
Ze91er
BAYFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PLAN PROGRESS
Chairman Cox welcomed the Pl anni ng Commi ss i on to the workshop. He explained
that in order to facil itate the LCP process, the Commission members'
viewpoints are requested in order to be appropriately conveyed to the
consultant.
Community Development Director Desrochers acknowledged the presence of several
Bayfront property owners who have been invited to provide input regarding the
LCP process.
Representatives of the Sedway/Cooke firm, Messrs. Gatzke and Cooke, presented
an update on the status of the planning efforts for the Bayfront Redevelopment
Area, including a review of the history of the various plans that have been
prepared. The maj or elements of the Corps/Ca lTrans project and the most
current LCP submittal were described together with the findings of the various
review bodies including the California Coastal Commission, U. S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish & Game.
Copies of the consultant's LCP alternatives and options plan were distributed.
A short review of the relevant Coastal Act Regulations focused on the
following issues: permitted fill in wetlands, access to "D" Street Fill area,
endangered species protection, and restoration projects.
The meeting was recessed at 9:05 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
----
Jo i nt Redevelopment Agency /
Planning Commission Meeting -2- March 3, 1983
Further discussion involved A 1 ternati ves A, B, C, and D provided by the
planning consultants.
MOTION TO REFER ALTERNATIVES BAND D TO CITY STAFF
MSUC (McCandliss/Malcolm) refer Alternatives Band D to City staff to prepare
an ana lys is of these two plans as they compare to previ ous plans and bri ng
back to the Agency (and Planning Commission) conference in two weeks
(March 17).
Pl anni ng Commission members discussed the possibility of the Agency
entertaining an additional motion concerning modification of Alternative A.
MOTION TO MODIFY ALTERNATIVE A
MSUC (Moore/Malcolm) ask consultant to modify Alternative A (particularly "D"
Street Fill), slanted towards Alternatives Band D.
Chairman Cox thanked the Planning Commission members for their attendance and
requested that they be present for the next Redevelopment Agency meeting on
March 17 at 4:00 p.m. to continue discussion regarding comparison of old and
new plans and a recommendation of plans for evaluation.
SAMMI S PROPOSAL
At this time, the Chairman invited Messrs. Wissler, Street and Schnaubelt to
address the Agency concerni ng the proposed development at Bay Boul evard and
"E" Street.
Mr. Wissler indicated that Sammis Properties has entered into a joint venture
wi th the fee owner, Mr. Joe Street, to deve lop the northerly 8.: acres of the
commercial/visitor property on Bay Boulevard at "E" Street. Mr. Schnaubelt
added that the critical issue appears to be the proximity of the
ingress/egress to the property and the density of the development.
Mr. Wissler stated that his firm had a 5-year option with SDG&E in order to
obtain additional parking for the proposed development in the western easement
of the utility company. He further stated that if the easement is waived,
parking structures could be built on the long-term leasehold and fee ownership
of the property.
Member McCandliss stated that parking structures were never considered in the
conceptual review of the plans and as far as she was concerned were
unacceptable. Mr. Desrochers stated that parking garages were not studied in
the Environmental Impact Statement or in the Planning reviews that have been
on-going. He suggested that a first phase development be pursued wherein the
area east of the railroad tracks without the SDG&E easement be considered for
development. Member Malcolm agreed that, despi te previous conceptual
approvals, he could not support more than a first phase development.
Joint Redevelopment Agency/
Planning Commission Meeting -3- March 3, 1983
Discussion ensued regarding problems with traffic circulation. The planning
consultants indicated that it would be difficult to make a determination about
the Sammi s Properties proposal until the Agency makes their final deci si on
regarding the LCP. However, the consultants suggested that Bay Boulevard be
utilized as a two-way street for flexibility.
Member Malcolm suggested the following to allow Sammis Properties to proceed
with their development: (1) the developer work with staff to resolve traffic
circulation problems, (2) the developer work wi th SDG&E for a longer lease
agreement, and (3) if the developer's plans are discontinued, their fees
should be refunded.
Chairman Cox noted that ample parking exists in the first phase development
with limited expanded use of Bay Boulevard provided, therefore, he could not
see why they couldn't plan for this phase now.
Member Mal co 1m summari zed that fi rst phase development shou 1 d be pursued by
the Sammis Group and there was no need for formal action to convey this
understanding.
Chairman Cox suggested that Sammis Properties work closely with the Community
Development Department, particularly Mr. Desrochers and Tom Cooke, in the
future.
ADJOURNMENT at 11 :33 p.m. to the mi d-month meeting of March 17, 1983, at
4:00 p.m.
WPC 0559H