Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1989/06/15 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday, June 15, 1989 Council Conference Room 4:15 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; Member Malcolm and Member )loore; Member McCandliss arrived at 4:30 p.m.; Member Nader arrived at 4:45 p.m. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Executive Director Goss; Acting Community Development Director Gustafson; Agency Attorney Harron; Principal Planner Lee; Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam; Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 5/23/89 AND 5/25/89 MSUC (Moore/Malcolm) to approve the minutes of 5/23/89 and 5/25/89 as submitted. (The vote was 3-0; Members McCandliss and Nader were not present for the vote.) 2. REPORT: UPDATE ON MIDBAYFRONT STUDIES This item was continued to later in the meeting pending the arrival of additional Agency members. 3. REPORT: AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING STUDIES FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER RECONFIGURATION On November 17, 1988, the Agency accepted a report which recommended adoption of an alignment for Otay Valley Road subject to further environmental review. The recommended alignment includes a 2,000 foot radius curve just east of the Animal Shelter. The 2,000 foot radius meets the City's criteria for a major road or prime arterial without superelevation of the curve. A less desirable design, using superelevation of the curve, was not recommended because the Animal Shelter will eventually be relocated, so it was not a priority to design the road to avoid the facility. The relocation of the Animal Shelter is expected to occur in approximately five years. The plan is to relocate the permanent Animal Shelter facility on the same site as a new Public Works Yard. It was recommended to issue a Request for Proposals for engineering and architectural services for the reconfiguration of the Animal Shelter. The planned reconfiguration includes demolition of the office and workroom facilities north of the kennels and the construction of replacement facilities elsewhere on the site out of the future roadway right-of-way. MS {MOORE/MALCOLM) to accept the report. Redevelopment Agency Meetin~ -2- June 15, lg89 Chairman Cox noted the cost for design will be $25,000. Acting Community Development Director Gustafson stated this is correct. It will be necessary for the project to go through the design review process. ' Chairman Cox further noted the RFP states the completed proposal must be received by the Community Development Director by 5:00 p.m. on June 19. Ne asked if this date has been extended. Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam responded the RFP was initially intended to go before the Agelcy two weeks prior to this date. The schedule has been amended an~ the Request for Proposals will reflect the change. VOTE ON THE MOTION The motion passed unanimously. IThe vote was 3-0; Members McCandliss and Nader were not present for the vote.) 4. RESOLUTIO~ 1017 APPROVING A PAYMENT FOR RELOCATION OF EDWIN JONES, 329 "H" STREET In February 1989, the Agency acquired a residence occupied by Edwin Jones at 329 "H" Street. As owner of an Agency-acquired residential property, ~r. Jones is eligible for relocation assistance of $15,000. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER MALCOLM, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. (The vote was 3-0; Members McCandliss and Nader were not present for the vote.) 5. RESOLUTION 1018 APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE CWULA VISTA CENTER, A PARTNERSHIP, ROBERT CAPLAN, TRUSTEE, FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT TNE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOURTH AVENUE AND "F" STREET WITNIN THE TOWN CENTRE I REPEVELOPMENT PROJEC~ AREA The owners of Chula Vista Center submitted plans for the renovation of the shopping center, improvement of the parking lot and the addition of a considerable amount of landscaping. At the meeting of May 4, 1989, the Agency reviewed alternative schemes for partial and full redevelopment of the Center and concluded that reconsideration of the Owner Participation Agreement was the best course of action. Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman stated the plans have been revised to reflect a change in the number of parking spaces. The existing center has 153 parking spaces; the revised plans show 148 parking spaces. The plans have been approved by the Planning Department and by the Design Review Committee. Chairman Cox asked if the Agency staff is in the process of obtaining an appraisal for condemnation of the Santa Fe parcel. Mr. ~assman responded that staff is in the process of obtaining an appraisal for this parcel. However, they have held up on obtaining an appraisal for the Center and for the office building pending the outcome of this item and further Agency direction. Redevelopment Agency Meeting -3- June 15, 1989 Mr. Robert Caplan, 3003 Fourth Avenue, San Diego 92103, representing Chula Vista Center, stated the Center does have an existing lease with Santa Fe that extends for 8 years. They are concerned because there is not a commitment beyond the 8 years. The owners of the center desire to have at least a 15 year term to allow time to amortize the improvements that will go into the Center. Chairman Cox stated if the property is condemned there may be a willingness on the part of the Redevelopment Agency to extend the lease or there may not. A commitment cannot be made at this time. The Agency can commit that they will talk with the ownership of the Center. Chairman Cox further stated he would like to have a good comfort level that irrespective of what happens with that lease, that the Center will move forward with the renovation. ~r. Caplan stated this is difficult to do. Ne pointed out there is lO,O00 to 11,000 square feet of space out of a total of 48,000 square feet which may not be leased to them after 8 years. It is an economic factor that is difficult to face. He pointed out the Agency always has rights of eminent domain over the entire Center. Member Malcolm asked how much the proposed improvements will cost. Hr. Caplan stated he will report back in approximately one week with a more accurate figure, however, an approximate figure is $600,000 to $700,000. Mr. Caplan stated he would like to have approval of the ~wner Participation Agreement at this time. He asked that the matter of the extension of the lease of the Santa Fe parcel be put on the Redevelopment Agency agenda after the appraisal is completed. Chairman Cox asked if the Agency decided not to purchase the Santa Fe parcel, would the ownership of the Center decide not to go ahead with the improvements. Mr. Caplan responded not necessarily; it is a question of economics. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN COX, the reading of the text was waived hy unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. (The vote was 3-0; Members McCandliss and ~ader were not present for the vote.) 2~ REPORT: UPDATE ON MIDBAYFRONT STUDIES At its workshop meeting on May 25, 1989, the Agency directed staff, working with Agency consultants, to conduct further traffic, economic, and environmental analyses of the Midbayfront development proposal as well as Alternatives 1, lA, and 2. Executive Director Goss stated there was consideration of possibly postponing discussion of this item on this date because all information requested had not been received. However, given the volume of information received, it seemed appropriate to go through the information as it has been develope~. Mr. Goss noted that Ken Lee will present the land use alternatives. Dan Marum, Traffic Redevelopment Agency Meetin9 -4- ,June 15, 1989 Engineer with JHK & Associates, has prepared an evaluation of the developer's report on the traffic; however, the piece of missing information is the evaluation of the traffic impacts of the alternatives. That will not be completed until next month. Claude and Nina Gruen, economic consultants, will give a presentation. Mr. Goss noted information was distributed to Agency members on Tuesday, June 13, 1989 regarding the economic analysis prepared by the Gruens. In addition, there is another report from the Gruens to be handed out at this meeting regarding phasing and other issues. Mr. Goss further noted that the Parks and Recreation Director, Manuel Mollinedo, will provide his input on the parks aspect of the proposal. Member Malcolm commented the presentation on this matter is very important and suggested the Agency consider the Closed Session items at this point in order to allow time for Member McCandliss and Member Nader to arrive at the meeting. Member Moore concurred with the suggestion. Chairman Cox stated there is one additional item for Closed Session that came up after the agenda was presented that needs to be considered on this date. The item is Brooks vs. Phares in which the City of Chula Vista is a 2arty in interest. MSUC (Cox/Malcolm) to add consideration of Brooks vs. Phares to the Closed Session items for discussion. (The vote was 3-0; Members McCandliss and Nader were not present for the vote.) MSUC (Cox/Malcolm) to adjourn into Closed Session for the purposes of considering actual litigation: Brooks vs. Phares, in which the City is a real party interest and for the potential acquisition of property located at: 4555 Otay Valley Road (Shell Oil Co, owner) 4501 Otay Valley Road (Roderick and Patricia Davies, owners) Parcel 624-060-27 on Otay Valley Road (Vincent and Margaret Davies, owners) Parcel 624-060-09 on Otay Valley Road (Vincent and Margaret Davies, owners) 4705 Otay Valley Road (Jimmie & Judi Shinohara, owners) Parcel 644-040-14 (N & S Materials, owner) Parcel 644-040-40 (Walker Scott Properties/South Bay, owner) Parcel 524-060-45 (Atomic Investments, Inc., Leonard Teyssier, owner) 354 Church Avenue (Miguel Ao & Fernandez A. Cardenas, owners) (The vote on the motion was 3-0; Members McCandliss and Nader were not present for the vote.) The Agency adjourned into Closed Session at 4:30 p.m. The Agency reconvened at 5:00 p.m. Principal Planner Lee stated that as a result of the Agency meeting held on May 25, 1989, the City Planning Department and Cinti & Associates prepared illustrative plans of the three alternatives. Referring to Alternative 1, Mr. Lee pointed out it retains the same number of hotel units in the core area; however, the overall plan has a reduction in hotel units from +1900 units down Redevelopment Agency Meeting -5- June 15, 198g to 1500. In addition, there is a reduction in the residential development of approximately 540 units. The residential development at the end of F Street was removed; leaving that area as a larger park location. The lower residential units near the apartment structures were removed, but the high rises were retained. This was an attempt to address the question on the view corridors and the intensity of residential development in that area. This plan also represents certain reductions in the commercial area, the office area and the highway-commercial. Regarding Alternative lA, Mr. Lee reported the numbers are essentially the same as Alternative 1. The difference is that Alternative lA eliminates all of the hotel units west of Marina Parkway. Alternative 2 is the most dramatic change from the original proposal. Development is eliminated west of Marina Parkway. The primary difference is a substantial reduction in the core area. It drops down to 1,000 hotel units in the core area. The apartment area is reduced to 750 units. Responding to questions, Mr. Lee stated the Rohr property is located south of F Street and on both sides of the SDG&E right-of-way. The portion on Alternative 1 targeted for reduction in office space is located west of the right-of-way. Under this scenario there is a 120,000 square foot loss of office space. This is visualized coming out of the Rohr area. Mr. Dan Marum of JHK & Associates, the Agency's traffic consultant, reported on his firm's conclusions after investigating the future traffic conditions in the Bayfront area. He stated they primarily dealt with a review of a traffic report prepared by USA, the developer's traffic consultant. They also attempted to define future traffic conditions in the ~ayfront planning area that would result from the implementation of these projects. Their review dealt only with the proposed project and it does not deal with the alternatives. They are currently in the process of defining the impacts of the alternatives and this will be completed in approximately three weeks. The development project proposed by Chula Vista Investors represents the most significant development project in the Bayfront planning area in terms of traffic impact. The street system that is planned for the ~ayfront planning area can accommodate the cumulative impact of the CVI project and other planned Bayfront area projects that are known at this time. The proposed CalTrans improvements that are planned for I-5 and the interchange at E Street coupled with the mitigation measures recommended by USA will significantly increase the capacity of the E Street/I-5 interchange. Opportunities, therefore, will exist for more efficient operations at the signalized ramp intersections near the interchange at I-5 and E Street. The new traffic generated primarily by the proposed CVI project will utilize a significant portion of the new carrying capacity at the interchange. The two signalized ramp intersections on either side of the interchange are projected to operate at level of service "D" during the peak hours with mitigation improvements in place. This condition places the circulation system adjacent to the freeway at the threshhold point for acceptable levels of capacity of operation. Under these conditions, the influence of congestion is apparent Redevelopment Agency Meetin~ -6- June 15, 198~ and delays may result. Delays at signalized intersections may occur durin~ portions of the peak hours. Acknowledging that the circulation system near the interchange is projected to operate near capacity, signal operations at tile ramp and interchange area at signalized intersections will require sophisticated design to allow for full communication and the most efficient timing and progression. Traffic generated by the Bayfront development project will also impact operation on I-5. Based on the high demand for freeway access created by the land uses proposed, special freeway on-ramp geometrics may be required beyond those currently being considered by CalTrans. A ramp geometric needs analysis would need to be performed with CalTrans to determine the possible need for lane addition treatments onto the freeway (for on-ramp movements)° Mr. Marum further reported that other I-5 interchanges south of E Street will also experience increased traffic volumes resulting from implementation of the proposed development project. During peak periods of congestion, trip diversion from the E Street interchange will further impact the interchanmes at H Street and J Street. There are two factors that will benefit traffic operations on the street system in the Bayfront planning area. First, it is anticipated that approximately 15% of future traffic volumes on E Street will be diverted at SR-54 upon the completion of this facility with connection to I-5. Second, during peak periods when traffic operations at E Street/I-~ reach congestion level, excess capacity at H Street and J Street interchanges could be utilized by trip diversion from the E Street area. The reserve capacity at these southern interchanges will provide motorists with an alternative route for accessing or crossing the freeway. If peak period trip diversion from the £ Street interchange does occur on a consistent basis, the reserve capacity at the two southern interchanges may be utilized to a point that potential for other redevelopment projects in or near the Bayfront may be limited. With regard to the proposed street connection at the new southbound off-ramp with I-5 as proposed by the developer, Mr. Marum stated this alternative street connection does have merit in terms of overall circulation operations. This concept design will provide more capacity to the street system and will reduce congestion on E Street (Marina Parkway) west of I-5. Mr. Marum stated with the lower densities of Alternatives 1, lA and 2, and the concept that they involved mixed-use development, it is anticipated that improved levels of service above "D" would be realized. Responding to questions of Member McCandliss, Mr. Marum stated his firm used the accepted regional method - Intersection Capacity Utilization for analyzing the traffic load. They did not use the national method referred to as the Highway Capacity Manual. They used the standard means of analyzing signalized intersections that is accepted in Southern California. Claude and Nina Gruen of Gruen Gruen + Associates, economic consultants to the Agency, gave a presentation using the overhead projector. The Gruens did not attempt to look at the whole project in terms of a year by year flow, i.e., Redevelopment Agency Meetin~ -7- June 15, 19A9 all of the project together and how it comes to a bottom line. This is important to keep in mind because ultimately when the Agency makes a ~ecision about the feasibility of the project, this is exactly what is needed. The Gruens looked at the individual uses, their costs, their occupancy rates, and then asked what could a developer of those uses pay for the land to see whether those totals equalled or exceeded what the applicant has paid for the land. The Gruens' and the applicant's methodology differed in several respects. They both used cash flows and returns which assumed 13% return to the developer; and included a profit margin for the developer on top of hard and soft costs. However, the Gruens excluded some of the costs shown in the applicant's figures as taking place for each component before the project had started. The Gruens also ran two sets of numbers; one using their own judgments as far as rents and occupancy rates, and the other one using the applicant's numbers. The two questions the Gruens addressed were: (1) Are all alternatives to the project still feasible; and (2) What is the net fiscal benefit to the City? Dr. Gruen stated his answer to the first question is that if he uses his understanding of the applicant's numbers, with the exception of possibly Alternative 2, the alternatives are still feasible even if the Agency does not use tax increment funds to repay the infrastructure costs. Member McCandliss commented that she wanted to emphasize that the Agency is looking at totals which are dependent upon the type of uses; as the uses are changed the feasibility will increase or decrease. Dr. Gruen noted one of the differences in methodology used is that as the developer calculated land value, each builder of each individual unit was given credit for the tax benefits that investors would gain as a result of depreciation. The Gruens did not do that because under the new tax law it is necessary to have passive income to offset passive losses. Member Malcolm pointed out hotels are the only investment left in real estate that this does not apply to. Dr. Gruen further noted what is being seen today in San Diego with regard to rental projects at today's rents is that it is difficult to make large scale rental projects work because they do require a good deal of equity. That equity particularly under the new tax laws is hard to get. He stated at this point in time it is not easy to make hotels work either. Dr. Gruen stated that, as he understands the applicant's proposal, the build out of the project will occur in 6 to 8 years. The difference between this project building out in 8 years versus a longer period of time is enormous. It is enormous not only in terms of the impact on the feasibility but also on what the City gets out of the project. Nina Gruen demonstrated the differences in the rental assumptions used by their firm and the developer, noting it makes a difference in the overall feasibility. The Gruens' rates were lower than the estimates used b.v the developer. Ms. Gruen further noted with regard to the apartment rental figures that the developer's figures are higher than they should be. The Redevelopment Agency Meetin~ -8- June 15, 1989 developer's figure is that all of the apartments together will average $1.20 per square foot. Ms. Gruen pointed out there is no major apartment complex in the entire San Diego region that is renting for anywhere near this figure. Ms. Gruen discussed the issue of the developer's assumption of an approximate 8-year build out. She was not as concerned about the absorption of the apartments as she was about the absorption of the hotels. She wanted to point out that the absorption rate has fiscal implications because it will indicate when the City will get its full return on the built-out project. Chairman Cox asked that the Gruens review their report further, refine the report and forward the revised copy to the Agency. Director of Parks and Recreation Mollinedo gave a presentation regarding points on parks and open space relating to the proposed project. He stated the existing parks on the Bayfront are unique, however, they do have some limitations. With a slide presentation, Mr. Mollinedo illustrated existing problems and also ideas of what he would like to see for future parks. The size of the existing parks limits what can occur at the parks in nrdei~ to make it a vibrant area for the residents of Chula Vista. Bayside Park gets more usage than any other park in the City. Marina View Park is a long linear park as is Bayside Park. There are minimal amenities as far as picnic shelters and minimal play area. Mr. Mollinedo would like to see a more extensive play area; something unique, attractive, and have a soft composition surface in the event of falls. He would like to see a restroom structure which could accommodate a concession stand. Picnic shelters and picnic tables are important amenities to include. He suggested including outdoor basketball courts because this type of activity would lend itself very well to a beach experience. Member Malcolm commented he does not believe the outdoor basketball courts is a good use of a waterfront experience. ~ir. Mollinedo further suggested he would like to include an outdoor sand volleyball area in the proposed park/open space. Member Malcolm clarified that he understands that Mr. Mollinedo is saying that additional open space and usable area is needed in the Rayfront. Would the area directly east and adjacent to the existing linear park fulfill that purpose? Mr. Mollinedo responded he would like to see the park extended at that location. Ne believes that because there is the bay, it is a tremendous resource to the City. The view corridor along the bayfront should be kept open as much as possible. Mr. Mollinedo stated an adequate park size would be at least 600 feet from the shoreline back. The 50 yards that exists presently along the Bayfront is very narrow and does not allow the ability to accommodate the amenities that would be desirable. Redevelopment A~ency Meetin~ -9- June 15, 198g Mr. Mollinedo suggested the possibility of including a jogging trail system that would go along the Bayfront. Also, because of the location and the size and shape of the land, it would be appropriate to consider the capability of building an amphitheater to possibly accommodate pops festivals and summer concerts. Mr. Paul Peterson, Attorney with Peterson & Price, representing Chula Vista Investors (CVI), commented that CVI has revised their project in response to what they understood to be the direction of the Agency at their last meetinq. One revision is the further reduction of residential use. There is an overall reduction of 292 residential units. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the traffic consultants have stated that the traffic will work. The proposed project without any reduction does not pose traffic concerns; it works at the level of service and thresholds that the City requires. There is no reason from a traffic viewpoint to reduce the intensity of the project. Mr. Peterson further noted CVI did not reduce hotel units nor office space because they did not understand that to be the direction of the Agency. Regarding the Gruen report, Mr. Peterson noted the report was only received on this date and it is difficult to comment on it. CVI believes the project is viable as proposed. They are hoping that the Agency will give conceptual approval to proceed forward. ' Mr. Carl Worthington of the Jerde Partnership, architects for CVI, commented they are sympathetic with the recreation needs raised by Mr. Mollinedo. However, it is important to find the right environment for the right pieces. He noted it is important to continue to try to talk specifically about what are the precise needs that are needed along the Bay. It is not just open space but rather the weaving together of all the uses so that they all support each other. The Midbayfront area is a challenge because it appears there are two key anchor elements that need to be connected together. Mr. Worthington pointed out the City has committed to a waterfront activity center around the marina and this is bounded by the passive waterfront park area. He pointed out that Southwest Marine is beginning to develop a fairly significant marina facility. It is important to see how this project needs to link with Southwest Marine and particularly to the Bay. Mr. Worthington further stated they want to have a plan in which everyone can share the Bay in one recreation mode or another. They do not want park use to act as a separator nor do they want commercial use to act as a separator. They looked seriously at eliminating all development west of Marina Parkway. However, there needs to be a link between the overall resort and the waterfront. In the revised plan presented at this meeting, they are suggesting not giving up the water edge created around the lagoon but that this be activated with public activities and then dropping the residential component south of F Street in the interest of increasing a more aggregated area of park. They also feel it is important to have a hotel to be able to share a closer proximity to the Bay. In addition, there may still be an extension of F Street to the Bayfront so there is some public auto access Wor activities. Redevelopment Agency r~eetin~ -10- June 15, 1989 Mr. Worthington referred to the revisions made to the plan. Il) The dwellin~ units have been reduced to 1550 units (a reduction of 292 units). (2) Peduced the density at the F Street village from 190 units to 76 units (part of the total reduction). (3) Park acreage in the new plan (if the entire lagoon area is included) is increased to 32.5 acres of active park area. There is approximately three acres of pedestrian, plaza, and amphitheater uses which brings the total to +35 acres before adding in the SDG&E acreage. The SDG&E right-of-way will be~rimarily park wi th some parking. There is an additional 7.6 acres in the SDG&E park area plus the 3 acres within the residential area itself. Mr. Worthington pointed out they believe there is a danger in eliminating the low rise buildings proposed in between the high rise buildings. The plan would lose a piece of what makes it a village and what creates security, privacy, and windbreak in the private areas. Without the low rise buildings, there would be a space of approximately a city block lonQ separating the towers. The towers need to work together with the low rise buildings. In viewing the model of the proposed project, Member McCandliss requested that the Nature Interpretive Center or the SDG&E Power Plant be included in the model to aid in giving a sense of the size of the proposed buildings and project. Another issue addressed by CVI is the view corridors. Mr. Worthington stated there are a couple of view areas that are very important and that there are other areas where no views exist even today because of the topography, proximity to tree masses, etc. The views he addressed were: Il) Off-site perception of the project coming south on the freeway: He stated they have worked diligently in terms of trying to find a balance between high rise and low rise in order to minimize foot print of buildinos so there can be more park and open area and at the same time not create a '~all of views". /2) The E Street view corridor: There is a significant +20 foot knoll in the middle of the project presently that acts somewhat as ~ mass. This corridor deals with a horizon view because it is not possible to see the water from this point. (3) The F Street view corridor: At this point there is also relatively little view because of the knoll. Mr. Worthington commented that with development, views are being created that presently do not exist; even though the project would cut out some views they have replaced many more. Chairman Cox commented the Agency has discussed having some type of marina at the foot of F Street. He does not want to see anything done at this site which would preclude the ability to provide access for a potential marina. Mr. Worthington stated this area is being looked at as one of the last phases of actual development which would allow flexibility if a sub-study was done to look at the potential of actually developing and expanding the marina capabilities at this site. Redevelopment Agency Meeting -ll- June 15, 198g Member Malcolm commented he understands the linkages that Mr. Worthinnton is trying to accomplish with the different uses. Ne does not have a problem with the 76 dwelling units. However, he believes it forecloses the use of the property if it would be possible to have a marina at the foot of F Street. If there was a marina, he foresees a walkway (similar to Seaport Village) and the need to provide more commercial, retail, visitor destination type of shops. The CVI plan right now precludes that. If it is not possible to have a marina at that site, then the CVI plan could be a fallback plan. Mr. Worthington stated there are two reasons the CVI proposal does not preclude the possibility of a marina: (1) The phasing of the development of this area is held off until the possibility of a marina at F Street has been fully studied. They agree with everything noted on the need to have this site available in the event it is possible to have a marina. (2) Even in the design as proposed, underneath the dwelling units, tucked back into the parking structure, could be a ribbon of shops, cafes, and waterfront services so that there is a continuous link of these services. In terms of patterning and a balancing between the commercial, the parks, the wildlife and the marina, it may be another level of study that has not been undertaken and those shapes may change to the benefit of the new concept. Member Malcolm suggested submitting the plans to the Coastal Commission showing the area at the foot of F Street as "unzoned". Chairman Cox suggested the possibility of "white holing" the site. ~ The Redevelopment Agency recessed at 7:20 p.m. The Agency reconvened at 7:40 p.m. Member McCandliss noted the traffic level is at the maximum acceptable level at this point for the proposed development. If a marina or another alternative use was developed at F Street, then something in the plan would need to balance that. ' ~lember Nader asked if the area is "white holed" does it preclude public park use until another planning designation replaces the "white hole"? Agency Attorney Harron responded yes. Member ~ader stated in this event, he would be more inclined to "white hole" the area north of F Street so that some of the active park uses could go ahead to the south. Member Malcolm suggested the public may be better served by preserving the opportunity to put in a marina. This would be the last phase of development in the project which will be manv years down the road. It should be determined whether or not it is feasible t'o have a marina at this site before the site would be developed even as a park. Member McCandliss commented that before reaching a decision on the conceptual approval of this plan, she would like to have time to further review the Gruen Gruen + Associates report presented at this meeting. She still has some concerns with the intensity of the residential on the northern side. She believes it is ill advised to move forward with a concept approval because there is still a lot of information lacking. It may be more appropriate to refer the plan for environmental review. Redevelopment Agency Meetin~ -12- June 15, 198g Member Nader stated he has concerns about the area west of Marina Parkway. lie also has concerns about the impression of width in the park along the north side of the residential community and wants explored the possibility of mitigating that by "stepping back" the high rise apartments on the north side. Member Moore commented he believes it is important that there is a connection between everything that borders the lagoon. Chairman Cox suggested continuing this item to Thursday, June 22, 1989 at 4:00 p.m. giving specific direction to staff as far as what additional information is needed. He believes it is important to keep the process moving. He has a higher level of comfort in regards to a lot of the elements that have been proposed by the developer. He asked if any feedback has been received from the environmental agencies. Ms. Putnam stated a meeting has not yet been set up by the developer with all of the agencies. Hember Malcolm noted his dissatisfaction with the report prepared and presented by Gruen Gruen + Associates. The Disposition and Development Agreement needs to be negotiated in order to know what the taxpayers' involvement will need to be. It is not possible to negotiate until there is a concept to negotiate with. MS /Cox/Moore) continue this item to Thursday, June 22 at 4:00 p.m. durin~ the scheduled Council Conference. Mr. Goss reported there are currently two items scheduled for that Council Conference. Brehm Communities is making a proposal for a development across from Terra Nova Shopping Center and there is also a presentation on the Civic Center Master Plan. Member Moore commented he would not have any concerns if either of these items were postponed. Member Malcolm stated he believes it would be possible to handle the Brehm item between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. and then schedule the Bayfront discussion at 5:00 p.m. SUBSTITUTE ~OTION MSUC (Malcolm/Cox) continue this item to Thursday, June 22, 1989. The Council Conference is to begin at 4:00 p.m. with discussion of the Brehm Communities proposal and start at 5:00 p.m. with the Bayfront. ~ember Moore stated he would like to have the planning staff comment on the revised plan. Chairman Cox stated he would like to ensure that the Agency/City receive communication from various environmental agencies in regard to the applicant's proposal to make sure there are no major problems from their perspective. Mr. Goss noted one of the goals of staff has been to try to get all parties (Agency staff, developer and environmental agencies) to meet to ensure all receive the same input and feedback. Redevelopment Agency Meeting -13- June 15, 1989 ~ember Nader stated he would like staff to provide comments on the area suggested for "white holing". The advisability of taking this action; what impact this would have on public recreational opportunities. He would also like staff to comment on the possibility of shortening or "stepping back" the residential high rises. He would like to receive more specific comments on the alternatives. For example on Alternative 1 where it is proposed to have 540 less residential units, where that would come from; a feel for what it would look like. He would like to see more detail specifically as to what the differences are in the alternatives. If staff believes the Agency should seriously be considering the other alternatives, he wants to know in more detail as to how it changes the plan presented by the developer. Chaimnan Cox stated he would like staff's comments on the applicant's proposal without the perimeter road as opposed to the three alternatives with a perimeter road. Member McCandliss commented one of the reasons in addition to the EIR that the alternatives were developed was the balancing discussed earlier in the meeting. Is there a possibility of maintaining the community benefits, the economic private benefits, the economic public benefits, and still have perhaps less intensity to the project. Chairman Cox summarized the comments made by Agency members: (1) Planning staff review of the applicant's revised submittal. 12) Staff request comments on environmental issues from the various state and federal agencies. (3) Comments on the "white holing" from staff. 14) Shortening or "stepping back" of the high rise residential as it butts up against the Wildlife Refuge property. 15) Comments from staff as to where they would see the residential use decrease in Alternative I as opposed to the applicant's proposal. (6) Staff comments on the perimeter road. MSUC (Cox/Moore) to refer these comments to staff for a report back. Hember Nader asked if staff felt comfortable that they will be ready to report back on these items by June 22. Mr. Goss stated this is a very tiaht timeline, however, staff will make the best effort to address these issues. Member Nader stated he believes it would be better to postpone the meeting a few weeks to be sure staff feels the review is complete and the Agency will be able to make a decision. Mr. Goss stated he would report to the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, June 20 whether or not staff will be able to report on the requested information by the June 22 date. 6o ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 7, DIRECTOR'S PEPORT: None. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: None. 9. MEMBERS' COMMENTS: None. Redevelopment Agency Meetin~ -14- June 15, 1989 ADJOURNMENT at 8:15 p.m. to Tuesday, Jun~ 20, 198~ following the City Council meeting. D~d Gust~ fson ~ Acting Community D~velopment Director WPC 41051~