HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1997/04/15
"I d~cb"è ('[,J", .'n,jly of ppdury that' èil'i
em'!e> ~'C' ,l'c c; l ',,; .."- ""'o"n the
CO,,"," '" t'! A r '", ,,~d (hM! þôèted
this (" "'1'~! ' (,'<Ii
Pu,,¡,C ct;'JCCO "" '..., , 011 (;;1
Tuesday, April 15, 1997 D ~ . 11::þ. ~ 'J Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. ATE. I SIG,',ED X'( ",1 f"!'li.'~ervices Building
(immediately following the City Council meeting)
Joint Meeting of the Redevelooment Agencv/Council of the City of Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL: Agency/Council Members Moot -' Padilla -'
Rindone -' Salas -, and Chair/Mayor Horton -
2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 8, 1997 (Special meeting)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject matter within
the Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the
Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not incladed on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
address the Agency on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form"
available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the
meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Agency/Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the
Agency/Council and staffrecommendations may in certain cases be presented in the aUemative. Those who wish
to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the
Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
3, JOINT
COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 18624 AUTHORIZING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE SOUTHWEST
AGENCY PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE AND ESTABLISHING TIlE
RESOLUTION 1536 PLANNING COMMISSION AS TIlE RECOMMENDING BODY
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR PROJECTS
LOCATED WITIIIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA--On 3/16/93, the Redevelopment Agency adopted
a resolution approving revised "roles and functions" for the Town
Centre, Otay Valley Road, and Southwest Project Area Committees.
On 8/17/93, the Council/Agency dissolved the Montgomery Planning
Committee and seated the remaining members on the Southwest Project
Area Committee. It was the expectation that the consolidation of the
two committees would bring the group into a more cohesive and
effective review body for projects proposed in the southwestern portion
of the City. However, there has been a lack of interest and meetings
have been cancelled due to lack of quorums. During this period, the
Community Development and Planning Departments have processed
Southwest Project Area projects through the Planning Commission
pursuant to authority granted in the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and
the City's Zoning Ordinance, Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Community Development)
Agenda -2- April 15, 1997
OTIlER BUSINESS
4. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTlS)
5, CHAIR'SIMAYOR'S REPORT(S)
6, AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on May
6, 1997 at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers,
. . . . .
CLOSED SESSION
Unless Agency Counsel, the Executive Director, or the Redevelopment Agency states otherwise at this time, the
Agency will discuss and deliberate on the following item(s) of business which are permiUed by law to be the
subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency is advised should be discussed in closed session to
best protect the interests of the City. The Agency is required by law to retum to open session, issue any reports
of if11gl action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up
by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Agency's
rerum from closed session, reports of if11gl action taken, and adjoumment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless,
the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the Office of the
Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Clerk's Office.
7. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8
. Instructions to negotiators regarding purchase price and terms for disposition of Agency-owned property
at 760 Broadway (Parcel Nos, 571-200-13, 14, IS, 16, 17), Redevelopment Agency (Chris Salomone)
and Broadway Village Business Homes, LP,
[M: IH OMEICOMMD EVIA GEND ASI04- t 5-97 ,RDA]
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, April 8, 1997 Council Chambers
6:17 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers John S, Moot, Stephen C, Padilla, Jerry R, Rindone, Mary
Salas, and Chair/Mayor Shirley A. Horton,
ALSO PRESENT: John Goss, Administrator/City Manager; John M, Kaheny, Legal Counsel/Cily Attorney:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk; and Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk"
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: None)
THE CONSENT CALENDAR WAS OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was
waived, titles read, passed and approved unanimously 5-0.
2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 25, 1997 (Special Joint Meetmg)
3, RESOLUTION 1535 AUTHORIZING THE CONTRIBUTION OF $15,000 TO THE COUNTY FOR
UPDATE OF SOUTH BAY REGIONAL CENTER MASTER PLANnCounty Supervisor Greg Cox has
requested that the City participate in the funding to update the South Bay Regional Center Master Plan" The 1990
plan incorporated the space needs for lhe facility through the year 2010, It is now necessary to extend the planning
horizon to 2015, The Agency has been asked to share a portion of these costs with the County in consideration of
the services provided and economic benefits accrued from the Center. The facility is located at Third Avenue and
H Street within the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area, Staff ",commends approval of the resolution,
(Community Development Director)
* * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * . *
.'.Meeting recessed at 6:18 p.m. and reconvened at 8:28 p.m,'"
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None,
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
4, PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER GRANTING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT TO TEXACO
REFINING AND MARKETING INe. FOR THE REMODELING AND EXPANSION OF A SERVICE
STATION AT 902 BROADWAYnTexaco is proposing to remodel and expand the existing service station located
on the southwest comer of Broadway and L Street. The construction of a new lacility would include gasoline
pumps, a convenience store, and last food services with a drive-thru. The project site is located within the Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area and final approval of a Special Use Permit and Owner/Tenant Participation Agreemenl
07 -I
M,nuks
April 8, 1997
Page 2
is required by the Redevelopment Agency, Staffreconunends approval of the resolutions, (Community Development
Director) Continued from the meeting of 3/18/97.
a, RESOLUTION 153\ ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-97-07 AND
APPROVING SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT FOR THE REMODELLING AND EXPANSION OF A
SERVICE STATION AT 902 BROADWAY
b, RESOLUTION 1532 APPROVING AN OWNER/TENANT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MR,
AND MRS, ROY E. NICKERSON AND TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INc. FOR THE
REMODELLING AND EXPANSION OF A SERVICE STATION AT 902 BROADWAY
Miguel Tapia. Community Development Specialist, indicated staff recommends approval of both resolutions, because
construction of the new facility will enhance the area, as well as generate tax increment revenue for the Agency and
sales tax revenue for the City, He showed a diagram of the site plan and explained the plan was revised to provide
better circulation,
Chris Salomone. Director of Community Development, explained the current contiguration of the site plan, which
IS common for fast food drive-thru h\cilities,
8 Allen Slpe, Tait and Associaks, 3665 Ruftïn Road, Suite 230. San Diego, representing Texaco Refining and
Marketing Inc" reported the two restaurants proposed for the facility are A&W Root Beer and TCBY Yogurt,
The public hearing was declared open" There being no speakers, the public hearing was declared closed,
RESOLUTIONS 1531 AND 1532 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was
waived, titles read, passed, and approved unanimously 5-0.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
5, REPORT: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE REGARDING SALE
OF CERTAIN BA YFRONT PROPERTIES AND THE CITY'S RETENTION OF ACCESS AND VIEW
RIGHTS ON LAGOON DRIVE
8 John C. Rodriguez, 153 Cypress Street, Chula Vista, Chair of the Design Review Committee, expressed
concerns regarding the sale of certain Bayfront properties, The Committee requests the Agency/City retain westerly
views of San Diego Bay and the Pacitic Ocean. The Committee recommends the following: (1) any sale of parcels
in and around the terminus of Lagoon Drive shall retain easements for the City's right-of-way along Lagoon Drive
for pedestrian and bicycle access, as well as view corridors, all of which are identified in Section 19.85.001-010
of the Municipal Code: (2) the City should not, under any circumstances, vacate Lagoon Drive; and (3) any
consideration for sale of property south of Lagoon Drive should include a required reservation for the necessary
street width to accommodate the future Marina Parkway in the alignment identitied in the City's adopted Bayfront
Specitic Plan, The Committee urges the Agency/City try to ensure in the process of sale of any of these properties
that the Port District be required to use the property in substantial conformance with the land uses in the
Mid-Bayfront Specitic Plan, including use of a portion of the land for habitat re,storation as required by the adopted
Lncal Coastal Program; omitting this would require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program which could result
in a modification to the required habitat restoration program, He stated the Committee supports preserving the
Bayfront resources for the City's future enjoyment and enhancement.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated access for pedestrians and bicycles are all part of the
Specific Plan, and the Lagoon Drive right-of-way is not contemplated for sale.
ol-~
Minutes
April 8, 1997
Page 3
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
OTHER BUSINESS
6. DIRECTOR'S REPORTlS): None,
7. CHAIR'S REPORTlS): None,
8. AGENCY/COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS: None,
AD IOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p,m,
* * * * *
CLOSED SESSION
9. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8
. Instructions to negotiators regarding purchase price and terms IÓr disposition 01 Agency-owned property at 760
Broadway (Parcel Nos, 571-200-13, 14, 15, 16, 17), Redevelopment Agency (Chris Salomone) and Broadway
Village Business Homes, LP"
Respectfully suhnutted,
BEVERL Y A, AUTHELET. CMC/AAE, City Clerk
by:
Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk
02-3
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
I ~~ 2..«1 Meeting Date 04/15/97
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /S3(, Authorizing the dissolution of the Southwest
Project Area Committee and establishing the Planning Commission as the
recommending body to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency for
projects located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area
SUBMITTED BY: Comm""", DW"J(f ~' (;. S .
Planning Director 'Lß~'
REVIEWED BY: Executive Director Æ" (4/5ths Vote: Yes- NoXI
BACKGROUND: J4 b() ,Q; -->
l
The Southwest Project Area Committee (SWPAC) was formed pursuant to California
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33385, et seq,) by Council resolution on
July 17, 1990, The Southwest Project Area was subsequently adopted in December 1990.
Project Area Committees were established to provide local residents direct representation and
certain ri9hts of review on redevelopment matters which could affect their neighborhood. Of
particular concern, are project areas that could potentially experience significant residential
relocation activity and loss of low and moderate income housing units. State law provides for
these committees to have a limited term of three years after adoption of the redevelopment plan
unless the local jurisdiction allows for their continuance, which has been the practice in Chula
Vista,
In response to permit streamlining recommendations by the Economic Development Commission
(EDC), the Redevelopment Agency modified the original EDC recommendation to dissolve all of the
redevelopment project area committees, and instead, adopted revised "roles and functions" for the
Town Centre, Otay Valley Road, and Southwest Project Area Committees in March 1993 (included
as Attachments 1 and 1 A). The revised roles and functions were adopted by Agency resolution
in order to facilitate a more "business friendly" environment while also retaining the public input
benefits of a community planning committee, The Council/Agency took subsequent action in
August 1993 to dissolve the Montgomery Planning Committee and seat the remaining members
on the SWPAC. This action was formalized by ordinance, after a Public Hearing, on November 9,
1993. It was the expectation that the consolidation of the two committees would galvanize the
9roup into a more cohesive and effective review body,
Unfortunately, this has not been the case. The SWPAC has suffered from a general lack of
interest which has resulted in various resignations and the inability to fill vacancies. Currently,
there are only four of nine seats filled, and thus a quorum is not possible. (Roster included as
Attachment 2.) As part of Council/Agency discussion of the "Mace Street Trash Transfer Station"
project on January 21, 1997, (which was a project proposed in Southwest) staff was directed to
come back with a report on the possibility of dissolving the SWPAC (minutes included as
Attachment 3).
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency adopt
the resolution which dissolves the Southwest Project Area Committee and formally establishes the
Planning Commission as the recommending body to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency
for projects located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area.
.3 -1
Page 2, Item .3
Meeting Date 04/15/97
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The current members of the Southwest Project
Area Committee have been provided an advisement of this item and invited to attend the meeting,
DISCUSSION:
Staff recommends that the SWPAC be dissolved in order to: 1) provide the residents, businesses,
and property owners a more effective higher-profile forum for discussion and evaluation of projects
proposed in their neighborhoods; and 2) provide a straight forward "business friendly" project
review process which is consistent with the City's permit streamlining efforts and the normal
process established for projects outside of project areas. Staff believes that there will be benefits
to both the business and residential communities, and that there are ample existing protections
that address the State's overall intent for establishing project area committees,
General Area Description and History
The Southwest Project Area is contained within the approximate 3,5 mile boundary of the
Montgomery community which was annexed from the County effective December 31, 1985 after
an affirmative vote of its approximately 25,000 residents. The area had long been suffering from
a lack of attention from the County and its lax zoning regulations and standards. The Montgomery
Planning Committee and Montgomery Specific Plan were established in order to help transition the
area from the County jurisdiction. Although there has been significant projects (Palomar Trolley
Center, Trolley Terrace, Broadway Business Homes) and substantial local government investment
since annexation (NAP, Broadway Avenue street improvements, etc.), the area continues to be
characterized by open storage, wrecking, and salvage uses along the Main Street corridor as well
as marginal commercial uses along south Third Avenue and Broadway. Additionally, the project
area includes underdeveloped coastal areas south of "L" Street and older residential subdivisions
along the easterly edge just west of 1-805. (Map included as Attachment 4,)
Project Review by Planning Commission
The 40 year Southwest Project Area (to expire in 2030) has tremendous potential for development
but faces a wide variety of complex land-use and economic issues that, in staff's opinion, is better
suited to be addressed at the Planning Commission level. The sheer size of the project area, along
with the variety of difficult transitioning land uses, does not allow for a collective "vision" for the
area which has been a traditional use of project area committees and community planning
committees. Contrast Southwest with the Town Centre I project area as a case in point, Town
Centre has operated well with a PAC due to its limited size, focused interests and issues, The
number and variety of complex issues, concerns and interests in Southwest makes it difficult to
be centralized and focused in a typical "community planning" effort,
Staff therefore, believes that the Planning Commission would provide a much better forum and
review body more appropriate to handle the complex issues and concerns that will be raised as
this large and expansive project area continues to mature and redevelop. Interested residents,
businesses, and property owners should benefit from a higher profile and more direct voice to the
Council/Agency on redevelopment matters and other issues affecting their neighborhood. In fact,
staff is hopeful that elevating review to the Planning Commission will result in increased public
participation and involvement.
J-~
., - .
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 04/15/97
Existing Protections in Redevelopment Law and Southwest Redevelopment Plan
As discussed previously, the SWPAC is unable to conduct business due to the inability to establish
a quorum. Therefore, over the last several months, the Community Development and Planning
departments have been processing Southwest projects through the Planning Commission pursuant
to authority granted in the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and the City's Zoning Ordinance. This
was implemented in order to ensure that Southwest projects received some level of review and
public input prior to being presented to the Agency for consideration. To date, this review process
has worked well in that the community has responded and participated in the process, Some of
the most recent projects include Texaco, KFC, Mace Street Trash Transfer Station and Pacific Bay
Auto Brokers.
As indicated previously, a primary objective for project area committees is to provide protection
for residents in redevelopment areas that anticipate significant residential relocation activities,
Redevelopment Law expressly provides protections to all parties that may be subject to eminent
domain and relocation action, including compensation at fair market value as well as relocation
benefits and technical assistance. More specifically, the Southwest Redevelopment Plan also
directly precludes the Redevelopment Agency from exercising eminent domain authority on parcels
residentially zoned and improved with residential uses,
The vast majority of land uses in the project area are commercial and industrial with only a few
pockets of residential in the "West Fairfield" (mixed use), "Woodlawn Park", and "Broderick's Otay
Acres" areas, The protections included in the redevelopment plan would preclude any residential
eminent domain activity in Woodlawn Park and Otay Acres since those areas are zoned for
residential uses. The only significant area where such residential relocation could emerge, is the
West Fairfield area which is located west of 1-5, just south of Palomar. West Fairfield is improved
by marginal mixed commercial-industrial-residential uses, and as such, permanent City zoning
designations have not been established, Currently, the City is using the old County zoning
designation of M-54 (Light Industrial) which was included in the Montgomery Specific Plan. West
Fairfield has been contemplated for a "Special Study" to determine the appropriate permanent City
zoning and General Plan designations but has not been initiated due to other projects and priorities.
Given the aforementioned factors, staff is confident that the elimination of the committee will have
positive benefits for the community. The business community will be better served by an efficient
"business friendly" straight-forward entitlement process that is consistent with the City's permit
streamlining efforts, Both the business and residential community will be better served by having
projects reviewed and evaluated by a review body that is more experienced and adept at resolving
the complex issues to be faced in the future,
FISCAL IMPACT: There is not a fiscal impact directly associated with the recommended action,
Impacts on staff are mixed with Community Development being provided some minor relief by not
having to staff the SWPAC, whereas Planning will experience an increased workload by having
Southwest projects permanently processed through the Planning Commission. It needs to be
noted that Community Development staff will still be the lead department on all Southwest
projects. However, when the project is ready for presentation to the Planning Commission, the
Planning Department will assume a greater role and responsibility which would have some level
of impact on their staff.
ILHI H:\HOMElCOMMDEV\STAFF,REPl04"15"97\SWPACDlS,113 lAp", 8, 1997 15.07pmll
.3-3
- -
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO, /:i'at.
and t/
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. L..8..IL:t
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISSOLVING THE SOUTHWEST PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE AND
ESTABLISHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS THE
RECOMMENDING BODY FOR PROJECTS LOCATED IN THE
SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
WHEREAS, the Southwest Project Area Committee was established pursuant to
California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33385, et seq,) by City Council
resolution on July 17, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Project Area was adopted in December 1990; and
WHEREAS, the California Redevelopment Law allows for established Project Area
Committees to be dissolved by local jurisdictions three years after adoption of the project area;
and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Project Area Committee expired by its own terms in
December 1993, and the "Rules and By-Laws" were replaced with revised "Roles and Functions"
by Redevelopment Agency resolution in March 1993; and
WHEREAS, by Council Ordinance in November 1993, the Council dissolved the
Montgomery Planning Committee and seated the remaining members on the Southwest Project
Area Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Project Area Committee has only four (4) current
members on a nine (9) seat committee and is, therefore, not able to conduct business due to a
lack of quorum; and
WHEREAS, staff has not been successful in recruiting members to serve on the
Southwest Project Area Committee pursuant to the established rules and procedures for filling
such vacancies; and
WHEREAS, staff has been processing development projects located in the
Southwest Project Area through the Planning Commission for recommendations prior to the
projects being presented to the City Council and/or Redevelopment Agency for consideration
pursuant to the authority granted in the Zoning Ordinance of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and
the Southwest Redevelopment Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chura Vista
and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency do hereby dissolve the Southwest Project Area
Committee and establishes the Planning Commission as the recommending body for projects
located in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area,
Presented by Approved as to form by
CL, S(~
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
[(LHI H,\HOMEICOMMDEV\RESOS\SWPACDIS,RES IAp,;1 9, 1997 {4,OOpmll
.,ß-1
- -
ATTACHMENT 1
III. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
14. RESTRICT THE ROLE OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEES (PACs) TO THE
SPECIFIC DUTIES REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW; DISBAND
THE TOWN CENTRE I AND II AND OTAY VALLEY PACs WITHIN ONE YEAR; AND
DISBAND THE SOUTHWEST PAC IN THREE YEARS FROM ITS FORMATION
Discussion: The California Health and Safety Code requires a Project Area Committee (PAC) to
be established within a Project Area where "",a substantial number of low and moderate income
families are to be displaced by the redevelopment project" and, further states that the PAC should
be consulted regarding "",those policy matters which deal with the planning and provision of
residential facilities or replacement housing for those to be displaced by project activities," and that,
The Agency shall also consult with the committee on other policy matters which affect the residents
of the project area," These provisions apply for a three (3) year period after adoption of each
redevelopment plan, and may be extended by the Agency by one year renewals,
However, the Rules and By-Laws adopted by each of the three PACs state that the PAC shall
review "."all major proposals for the development, platting, conservation, circulation, or public
service of the Project Area, and shall report its findings and recommendations to the Redevelopment
Agency, Design Review Committee, or referring body," And, under current practices, the PACs
review virtually all discretionary applications, creating additional layers of review and time delays
for redevelopment projects, actually acting as a disincentive to development. Staff support demands
are extensive and are not reimbursed by cost recovery fees,
The three year periods have expired for TCI and II and Otay; Southwest will expire in July, 1993,
This recommendation will require Council to adopt resolutions, PACs to amend their Rules and By-
Laws and the Redevelopment Project Area Procedures Manualsllmplementation Plans to be
amended,
- October 6, 1992 City Council Meeting, Item #17
H: IHO M BCOM M D EVlHA YN ESID DC U M E NTS\SWP ACREe ,#14
..3 -~-
1[ -. - .'
ATTACHMENT 1-A
SOUTHWEST PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
Effective: January 1994
PURPOSE:
The Southwest Project Area Committee (SWPAC) currently serves as a State mandated redevelopment
project review recommending body, Members are currently elected and serve under the mandated
responsibilities for Project Area Committees under California Health and Safety Code Sections 33385
through 33388, The State mandated status is effective through December 1 993, Beginning in
January 1994, the members are to be appointed by Council to represent business owners, business
tenants and residents from within the Project Area and serve as a local redevelopment project review
advisory body on redevelopment matters affecting the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area in the
same manner as the Town Centre and Otay Valley Road Project Area Committees.
ROLE AND FUNCTION:
The SWPAC reviews all projects requiring discretionary land use approvals by the Redevelopment
Agency and/or City Council through Conditional Use Permits/Special Permits, Zone Changes and other
land use permits as specifically allowed pursuant to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and the
Montgomery Specific Plan, Projects that do not require discretionary approval by the Agency or
Council and/or those that can be approved "administratively" as set forth in the Municipal Code (e.g.
a non-discretionary site plan review) are not reviewed by the SWPAC. In addition, Variances are not
to be reviewed by the SWPAC unless it is included as part of a project that requires a discretionary
land use approval as described above. Variances will be handled" administratively", and those
variances that cannot be decided administratively, will be forwarded directly to the Redevelopment
Agency.
The primary role of the SWPAC is to evaluate projects brought before them in terms of overall land use
appropriateness, general economic impact of land use changes, and related planning and zoning issues.
The SWPAC is to receive and review the project site plan and all applicable materials submitted to the
City in support of the development application including the respective environmental documents,
However, the review of the environmental documents (Environmental Impact Reports or Negative
Declarations) is to use them as tools for evaluating the project, and not to review them in terms of
the adequacy of the document itself.
A secondary role is to also evaluate the project characteristics relative to the site plan, or "site
specific" issues related to safety such as pedestrian/traffic safety, internal traffic pattern/circulation,
parking, lighting, noise, signage and drainage. A more focused review of the above stated issues along
with all environmental impacts and building design/aesthetics will be performed by the RCC and Design
Review Committee (DRC) respectfully, Landscaping is to be reviewed and approved by the City's
Landscape Architect.
All SWPAC members, upon appointment, are to be scheduled for indoctrination about the scope of
their role and function both in terms of the overall function of the redevelopment process, and the
specific goals of redevelopment within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, The Role and
Function description will be incorporated in the updated Boards and Commissions Handbook,
PROCESS:
Upon completion of the environmental review process by staff, the project is presented to the SWPAC.
The project, along with the SWPAC comments, is then presented to the RCC for review and adoption
of the environmental document. Then the project, with all cumulative comments, is reviewed by DRC
for approval of the site and building plans. Finally, all cumulative comments and any conditions of
approval imposed by the RCC and DRC, are forwarded to the Agency and/or City Council for final
project approval.
H,\HOMElCOMMDEV\HAYNES\OOCUMENTlSWPACEX1"A
J-f'ø
ATTACHMENT 2
SOUTHWEST PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
I MEMBER I TERM EXPIRES I CATEGORY I
Clay Platt" 06/30/96 Public at Large (MPC)
VACANT' 08/31/94 Resident/Occupant
VACANT' 08/31/94 ResidentlTenant
Allen Jones 06/30/98 (2nd Term) Property Owner
Ed LaGuardia 06/30/98 (2nd Term) Business Owner/Operator
Andy Campbell" 08/31/94 School
Tom Silva (Alternate)
VACANT' 08/31/94 Resident (MPC)
VACANT' Business Tenant
VACANTs Community Organization
"Although their terms have expired, these members regularly attend the SWPAC meetings when they
are held,
c:\commd.,"wpaclt."",
'Vacated by Linda Brown,
'For all intents and purposes, this position is vacant. Mr. Olalde has not attended any meetings
or responded to any correspondence. The City Clerk's office confirms that he still fills out a
Statement of Economic Interest every year.
"Vacated by Ann McFarlin,
'Vacated by Hector Tamayo.
"Vacated by Carlos Sanchez.
..i- 7
11 . - --,
ATTACHMENT 3
MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, January 21, 1997 Council Chambers
7:40 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
, ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers John S. Moot, Stephen C, Padilla, Jerry R. Rindone, Mary
Salas, and ChairlMayor Shirley A. Horton.
ALSO PRESENT: John Goss, Director/City Manager; John M, Kaheny, Agency Legal Counsel/City
Attorney; Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk; and Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: None)
TIlE CONSENT CALENDAR WAS OFFERED BY CHAIR/MAYOR HORTON, including continuing Item
No.2 to 02/04/97, reading of the text was waived, titles read, passed, and approved unanimously.
, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 17, 1996 (Joint meeting); and January 7, 1997 (Joint meeting).
2, RESOLUTION 1528 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 18-97-06 AND APPROVING AN
OWNERrfENANT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MARINA A. PICCIONI AND KENTUCKY
FRIED CmCKEN OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR TIlE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING AT 1305
THIRD A VENUE--Kentucky Fried Chicken is proposing to lease the site, demolish the existing building and
construct a new restaurant. Staff recommends approval of the resolution subject to conditions listed in the
agreement (Community Development Director). The applicant requested this item be continued to 02/04/97.
. . . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR' . .
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
3. PUBLIC HEARING SUPS-95-O2 - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A MUNICIPAL
WASTE TRASH TRANSFER STATION AND MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE
STREET - MACE STREET TRANSFER STATION, INC.-The applicant is requesting approval of a Special
Land Use Permit to construct and operate a municipal waste trash transfer station and material recovery facility in
the Limited Industrial - Precise Plan Zone. Staff recommends approval of the resolution denying the application
to construct and operate a trash transfer/material recovery facility at this site. (Community Development Director)
Item continued from the meetilUl of 11/19/96
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1529 DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
TRANSFER STATION AND MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE STREET
Martin Miller, Associate Planner, gave a presentation explaining the reasons for staff's recommendation to deny
the special use permit. The facility will accept municipal waste, sort that waste, recycle those items which are
J-<¡
- -
Minutes
January 21, 1997
Page 2
recyclable, and transport the remaining nonrecyclable material to a landfill. This work will be done in an enclosed
approximately 36,000 square foot structure. Approximately 1,000 tons of municipal solid waste is expected to pass
through the facility on a daily basis when operating at maximum capacity. The operation will initially begin with
500 tons per day, and all waste brought into the facility is proposed to be shipped out the same day. The trash
transfer station will generate approximately 300 trips per day by traffic arriving at and departing the facility. Some
of the vehicles will be the neighborhooe-type trash trucks with 8 to JO-ton pay loads, while others will be the larger
semi-tractor-trailer-type trucks with 25-ton pay loads. Staff recommends denial of the permit because the project
is not consistent with the provisions of the various applicable plans, the type of traffic attracted to the proposed
facility will degrade the community, and the project is not compatible with nearby residential land uses.
Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordmator, concurred with the Planning Department's recommendation. He
stated that a number of the concerns raised by residents in the area were more solid waste related than land use
related.
This being the time and place, the public hearing was declared open.
8 Robert Epler, 9601 Ridgehaven Court, San Diego, CA, Assistant Director of Environmental Services Department
for the City of San Diego, spoke in support of staff's recommendation to deny the permit. He stated the site will
not meet the needs of Cbula Vista and will require new trash to be brought to Cbula Vista and will be subsequently
exported out of the Couoty. He indicated that trucks from the City of San Diego would not be diverted to this
facility even if it is approved and constructed.
8 Steve Palma, 176 Montgomery Street, Cbula Vista, CA, spoke in support of staff's recommendation to deny the
permit. He stated the residents encourage new business, employment, and revenue to the City but do not encourage
traffic in this area of the City.
8 Mark Kroeger, 3691 Via Mercado, Suite 16, La Mesa, CA, owner of the industrial complex across the street
from this project, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation to deny the permit. He felt this project would be better
suited at the dump area where there are trash facilities and mitigation issues there to accommodate it. He
commented that this site on Mace Street currently has loaded trash trucks which are uocovered, an extensive fly
problem, and he has seen barrels of human waste in the dumpsters. He stated the odor from the dumpsters from
the residue on the side of the containers even when empty is as much a problem as the trash itself.
8 Bud Cbase, 3730 Valley Vista Road, Bonita, CA, representing Sexton Sand & Gravel, spoke in favor of staff's
recommendation. He stated over three years ago, the City went out for a request for proposal on the trash transfer
project and from the 35 initial sites, it was narrowed to 3 final sites at the Bayfront, Energy Way, and Maxwell
Road. There were many public forums, and the vast majority of those attending the forum felt the Maxwell Road
site was the best location.
8 Cbarles R, Gill, 600 West Broadway, Eighth Floor, San Diego, CA, representing Mace Street Inc., spoke in
opposition to staffs recommendation and felt this facility will be an asset to the community. The assessments
associated with the property taxes are such that redevelopment of the site will provide significant tax benefits
through tax increments to the City that can be used in the City's redevelopment area. The proposed operation will
remove all of the existing truck storage and a 36,000 square foot building will be constructed. The trash brought
into this facility will be commercial industrial department-type uses, will not be hazardous materials, and all of the
operations will be indoors. This type of a facility is extensively regulated by the Integrated Waste Management
Board by the State of California. He indicated Mace Street Inc, would agree to any type of a covenant the Agency
feels is consistent with the terms of the use permit. A traffic study was conducted, and the proposed use has the
same or fewer trips, There may be a difference in the type of trucks that come in, but in general there are no
traffic impacts. He suggested that Main Street will probably become an issue with every redevelopment project that
comes forward in the limited industrial area because there is a lot of non-<:onformÏng uses. He suggested that impact
...,3-c¡
., -. --,
Minutes
January 21, 1997
Page 3
issues regarding the noise, odor, and concerns about hazardous materials be included as condition imposed by the
Agency,
Chair/Mayor Horton asked Mr. Gill to address the concerns regarding odor that may permeate from the trucks due
to the leftover residue.
Mr. Gill stated the facility has several issues associated with odor to reduce it. There would be a vacuum
mechanism created through a suction inside the building so when the doors open, the odor does not leave the
building. There is also a misting operation that will mask the odor based on its chemical components to break it
down so there is no residual odor in the building. There would be no storage of materials in this building because
all materials that come in will leave the facility the same day. There will be trucks that drive up and down the street
with some odor associated with the individual trucks, but the odor will be transitory in nature unless the truck Was
stopped for any prolonged period of time.
Chair/Mayor Horton clarified that Mr, Gill recommended to include a covenant that if this proposal was approved
and there Was a problem in the future, the Agency would have the power to revoke the permit.
Mr. Gill answered it Was correct, and not only would the Agency have the power through the conditional use permit
findings to revoke the permit, if the Agency found it Was a nuisance or the terms of the conditions were not being
fulfilled, an additional layer of protection could be added to give the Agency the right to put a lien on the property.
ChairlMayor Horton stated in her conversation with the proponent, a development impact fee Was discussed to
address the main concern from the members of the community regarding traffic,
Mr. Gill replied that traffic in this area is an existing problem, The eastern territory has the opportunity for
infrastructure needs to be met. The imposition of a development impact fee on the commercial industrial areas will
provide a vehicle by which the City, in its redevelopment of these properties, would ensure there would be adequate
funds available for improvements. While this project will not have any specific traffic impacts, Mace Street Inc.
would be prepared, depending on its reasonableness and cost, to fund the initial development of such a development
impact fee which would require significant engineering to determine the types of improvements that will be
necessary.
8 Blanca R. Bystrak, 24 Tourmaline Street, Cbula Vista, CA, expressed concern that her residential area has been
downgraded due to a lack of improvement in the area. She was concerned for the health and welfare of the
residents and children, and she invited the Agency/Council to visit her neighborhood to visualize these concerns,
She indicated there are four schools in the area that are impacted due to the existing truck problem. The trash
transfer facility is one more thing they will have to fight. With the substantial tonnage of trash arriving at the
facility on a daily basis, the doors will constantly open and close, odor will emit from the building, and the trucks
will be lined up on the streets waiting to enter the facility.
There being no further speakers, the public hearing was declared closed.
Glen Googins, Agency Legal Counsel/Deputy City Attorney, commented that staff was not of the opinion the
existing or proposed uses were necessarily legal and non-conforming uses. As to date, the applicant has not
submitted evidence supporting this indication. The use would need to have been existiog and legal at the time of
the adoption of land use regulations which may be non-conforming and that use must be continuous and non-
interrupted. He stated that staff has not had the opportunity to make that analysis yet.
Cliff Swanson, City Engineer, stated when the traffic study Was completed for the project, the engineers did a truck
count of the existing use. Based on the counts, there were 400 two-way trips of trucks and cars daily. From tbat
number, there were 366 two-way trips for trucks and 34 two-way trips for patrons. Under the proposed use, the
maximum tonnage Was 1,000 tons per day, Assuming the trash trucks have loads of approximately 8 tons per trip,
....3- 10
'I - -
Minutes
January 21, 1997
Page 4
that gave 250 trips; there are also transfer trucks that will hold 25 tons per trip which would be 80 trips. The total
means 330 two-way trips, and there is anticipation there will be an additional 70 passenger vehicle trips for
customers, employees, and patrons to the site, From a traffic standpoint in numbers, it just about balances out,
Agency/Councilmember Salas asked if the plot plan changed. The County was concerned the scales were 250 feet
from the site's entrance, and with an approximate length of 30 feet for each truck, only six trucks can be stacked
before they are lined out in the street.
Mr. Swanson commented that the traffic study orily considered the number of trucks on the street; however as they
get more into the site plan review process, they could ask for sufficient stacking distance during peak hours.
Mr. Mitchell stated the site plan was originally proposed to be a 63,000 square foot building, and was later revised
to reflect a 36,000 square foot building; however, the daily tonnage of a maximum use of 1,000 tons per day did
not change, Staff Was concerned with traffic and recognizes there would not be a significant change in the number
of vehicles coming and going from the facility; however, staff was deeply concerned with the types of vehicles
coming and going.
Agency/Councilmember Salas stated there is a substantial amount of public opposition regarding this facility, and
she did not hear anything to convince her to approve this project.
Agency/Councilmember Moot commended Mr. Gill on his presentation and the owner of the property for
recognizing a need to improve the facility. He stated that locations are important factors in land use decisions, and
one of the advantages of the Maxwell site is they are next to the County facility.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone stated that a transfer station if well designed, well placed, and well planned is a
project that provides a great deal of public benefit and is essential for our community because of rising tip fees.
He commented that in the past six years he has served on the Agency/Council, he has not seen as much opposition
for this project from the boards, commissions, committees, and residents. He stated there is a need for economic
viability in this redevelopment area that is critical to the growth and development of this City, but this proposal
doesn't seem to be the right project or right time for it. He supported staff's recommendation but indicated he
would reserve serious consideration for an appropriate transfer station as we proceed with the study towards the
Maxwell site.
Agency/Councilmember Padilla commended Mr. Gill on his presentation regarding this project and stated there were
legitimate issues pointed out by staff regarding compatibility with the plan.
ChairlMayor Horton stated she is a member of the Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee, and they
unanimously opposed this project. She requested staff return to the Agency with a report on the concept of having
a developer impact fund for this part of the community to generate new development.
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1529 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER SALAS, reading of the text was waived,
title read, passed, and approved unanimously 5-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
OTIlER BUSINESS
4, DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTlS); None.
J-II
" - .
Minutes
January 21, 1997
Page 5
5. CHAIR'S/MA YOR'S REPORT(S): ChairlMayor Horton requested staff return to the Agency with a report
or action to officially dissolve the Southwest Project Area Committee, as recommended by the Economic
Development Commission.
6. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
8 Agency/Councilmember Rindone concurred with ChairlMayor Horton that capital improvement projects were
needed for the Southwest area.
8 Agency/Councilrnember Salas commented that the area for the proposed transfer station is an area of Chula Vista
on the verge of becoming an economically viable area due in part because of the MCA amphitheater and the
waterpark. She commended all of the citizens that were involved in this process who came together to make this
area of Chula Vista a better place for themselves.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/ AAE, City Clerk
by: ~i¡¡ I~£i. CÇy.,hli)Py¡kR
Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk
...3-/~
" -. --,
ATTACHMENT 4
. <I
"" ~~!lla~ I ¡¡
~í1~§&1 ~
«
w
O::::f-
«a:¡
:2:
t-1:2
u~
w~
Jf-
0 a:¡
0:::::2:
o...ê5
-'
w
t->
(f)~
w>-
S~
J::2:
t-ð
:Ju
0
(f)
(!)
(ij
(.)
. en
.
. 0
~ z
,
,
"'" z~
", ~
J 1.3 \
.,