HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1989/07/13 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Thursday, July 13, 1989 Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; Members McCandliss, Nader, Malcolm and
Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Asmus; Deputy City Manager
Krempl; Acting Community Development Director
Gustafson; Agency Attorney Harron; Principal Community
Development Specialist Putnam; Principal Planner Lee
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 6/1/89, 6/15/89 and 6/20/89
MSUC (Moore/McCandliss) approve the minutes of 6/1/89, 6/15/89 and 6/20/89
as submitted.
2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from Matthew A. Peterson & Price, 530 B Street, Suite 2300,
San Diego 92101-4454, regarding the Chula Vista Bayfront
Chairman Cox noted that the comments contained in Mr. Peterson's letter
will be addressed under the next item on the agenda.
3. WORKSHOP
REPORT: Midbayfront Project
Deputy City Manager Krempl reported that at the Agency meeting of June 15,
1989, the Agency directed staff to complete an analysis of a number of
specific issues. Those issues were addressed in the staff report. Part
of staff's response in addressing these issues was in the form of a matrix
(Exhibit A to the staff report). Staff also reiterated certain
information that is incumbent to have in order to make a more definitive
recommendation to the Agency on density and intensity of development and
other specifics which have been requested.
Mr. Krempl further stated part of the referral from the Agency was for
staff to communicate with the environmental resource agencies regarding
their comments on the proposed project. Staff met with the Coastal
Commission and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Summary minutes of the
issues and discussion that took place at those meetings were provided to
the Agency on July ll, 1989. The applicant was also present at those
meetings and is in general agreement with the content of the summary
minutes.
MINUTES -2- July 13, 1989
Mr. Krempl noted that the staff recommendation was to accept the proposed
project for processing; to elicit additional guidance from members of the
Agency; and that further consideration of a recommendation should follow
completion of the Environmental Impact Report IEIR) and submittal and
review of the SPA and Precise Plan as outlined in Exhibits B and C of the
staff report.
Principal Planner Lee provided an overview of the land use issues and the
development review process. He stated that in consideration of the
developer's proposal, the planning matrix as shown in Exhibit A of the
staff report identifies three key elements: circulation, land use and
aesthetics. The primary issues under circulation include the location and
configuration of Marina Parkway; the reconfiguration of Bay Boulevard at
"F" Street; the extension of the I-5 off-ramp to serve the project; and
the perimeter road lying north of Marina Parkway. The land use issues
primarily deal with the development west of Marina Parkway; the location,
amount and type of open space; the intensity of the Visitor-Commercial and
Residential development. The primary issues under aesthetics include the
view corridors, low rise and high rise buildings.
Mr. Lee reported the staff analysis regarding circulation suggests that
the general location of Marina Parkway is acceptable and that exact radius
and driveway locations need further detailed review. Regarding the
reconfiguration of Bay Boulevard and the extension of the I-5 off-ramp,
that needs additional commitments by other agencies (CalTrans and MTDB).
The perimeter road which is north of Marina Parkway is appropriate
depending on a final decision as to the configuration and location of open
space in that area.
Mr. Lee further reported regarding aesthetics, that in the opinion of
staff, the Agency commitment should be limited to general direction,
noting that limited high rise is acceptable provided there is
consideration of view corridors such as "F" Street and Marina Parkway.
Under land use, staff requested the Agency give the applicant general
direction that Visitor-Commercial and density ranges of Residential will
be determined after the EIR process. Staff also recommended very limited
or no development west of Marina Parkway. The active park areas need to
be of a configuration and size acceptable to the Director of Parks and
Recreation.
Mr. Lee pointed out Exhibit B to the staff report outlines the critical
information needed before going beyond the general guidelines. That
includes the EIR, development standards, grading information, design
standards and phasing programs. Exhibit D outlines the necessary steps
and level of detail required in the planning process. The developer has
supplied information taking the planning process to step 1. However, in
staff's opinion, the developer is seeking commitments on many issues that
will be addressed in steps 2 and 3 in the planning process.
MINUTES -3- July 13, 1989
Responding to questions, Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam
stated a traffic analysis was completed based on the project as proposed
before the 325-unit reduction. Staff had concerns about presenting that
data at this meeting because recalculations need to be done based on the
325-unit reduction to make sure it doesn't have an impact on the traffic
analysis. The alternatives to the proposed project have been reviewed
from a traffic standpoint. The levels of service at each of the
intersections and interchanges have been calculated.
Ms. Putnam discussed the key issues identified by environmental agencies
in the meetings that were held. She reported the potential impacts of the
environmental issues will be addressed in the EIR that is currently being
prepared. The concerns ranged from impacts on recreational access caused
by traffic congestion to'the provision of shoreline access opportunities.
However, the bulk of the comments received from the resource agencies
focused on potential biological resource impacts. Some of the concerns
related to the proximity of development to the wetlands Iprovision of
predator perches, shading of wetland areas, impacts on bird flight
patterns, and night lighting of wetland areas). Impacts on the F/G Street
Marsh habitat from urban runoff and increased freshwater flows as well as
the proposal to fill the eastern margins of the F/G Street Marsh were also
raised as concerns. At these meetings there was a lot of discussion on
the appropriateness of uses other than passive nature study in the parks
adjacent to the wetlands and the bay. It was agreed by the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service and the City that mitigation measures would be included
in the park design to minimize the potential impacts to allow the City to
have more intensive uses of the park.
Member Malcolm commented that other agencies will dictate what the
Redevelopment Agency can or cannot do with regard to this project. The
plan needs to be addressed based upon state laws and what the various
agencies want to see. He further commented there is a lot of information
on this project that needs to come before the Agency (i.e., the EIR,
traffic analysis, further economic analysis, etc.). He stated he would
not cast a vote on this project without the EIR. He questioned the
appropriateness of having this meeting take place.
Chairman Cox commented there will be no conditional or conceptual approval
of the plan at this meeting. This meeting serves a useful community
purpose in that a great deal of concern has been expressed by the citizens
of Chula Vista over the years in regard to how this area might ultimately
be developed. This meeting provides the applicant and public the
opportunity to comment on the project.
Member McCandliss commented this project has been handled differently from
other projects. There were efforts early in the process to have this plan
presented to the Agency for comments periodically and then have it become
not just the developer's plan, but more of a developer/Agency plan
consensus plan).
MINUTES -4- July 13, 1989 _
Member Nader noted his concern regarding environmental review of the
alternatives to the plan. Ms. Putnam stated staff has given the
environmental consultant direction to analyze Alternatives l, lA and 2 in
an equal level of detail to the proposed project.
Mr. Paul Peterson, Peterson & Price, 530 B Street, Suite 2300, San Diego
92101-4454, attorney representing Chula Vista Investors (CVI), stated it
would be inappropriate for the Agency to reach a resolution of approval in
concept of this project at this point. He stated the project began with a
"workshop" approach with the Agency where from time-to-time the Agency has
been given the opportunity for input which has been valuable to the
applicant. It is now at a point where City staff is asking the Agency to
accept the project for processing and compare this project to the
alternatives. Mr. Peterson stated they are present to discuss the issues
referred for review at the last meeting and to discuss the recent changes
they have made.
Mr. Peterson reported there are six major issues that are outstanding:
(1) The question of whether or not there should be a perimeter road north
of Marina Parkway. CVI's traffic consultant does not believe the road is
necessary. (2) Park credits CVI understood that the lagoon, for
example, should receive full park credit. (3) Development west of Marina
Parkway - CVI would like to put a five-star hotel on the north side of F
Street with 78 units of apartments or condominiums south of "F" Street.
The balance to the area south of F Street would be designated for park
use. 14) Extension of F Street to the Bay - CVI believes it is important
that F Street be allowed to go through to the Bay area. 15) Stepping back
of the towers - CVI moved the towers back 16 feet. (6) The former Joe
Street property - CVI believes an office building should be designated for
that area.
Carl Worthington of Jerde Partnership, architects for the developer,
reported CVI responded to the issue of setting the apartment buildings
back by moving the buildings back 16 feet in addition to stepping them
back.
Regarding park usage, Mr. Worthington pointed out CVI had understood the
amount of park acreage they suggested at the last meeting to be
acceptable. They therefore began to focus on park usage. Bayview Park
(near F Street/Marina Parkway) is seen as an active park and they are
working with the City's Parks and Recreation Director to develop the
active types of uses. The Educational/Botanical Park located at the
Nature Interpretive Center INIC) Drive and Marina Parkway is one of the
key interfaces between the marsh and the development. This is seen as a
passive park to try and meet the need of keeping it as an open space
preserve and one that preserves the views and enhances the NIC. The
educational park would become a demonstration park in terms of the plant
life and different species within the area. The Educational Buffer Park
surrounding the residential component works better without the loop road
at the edge. There would be a combination of three different zones of
plant material that completely separates the public from the private.
MINUTES -5- July 13, 1989
Mr. Worthington further stated CVI suggests developing a focal point at
the end of F Street. They see this as the "Bayside Plaza" that relates to
water sports and it is the point at which the trail and walkway systems
start. The residential use north of F Street was reduced considerably to
a band along the marina because they believe the lagoon does need to have
development along the edge. The majority of that site would be open space
to complement the feeling of the public park across the street.
With regard to the biological issues raised, Mr. Worthington stated the
issues have been taken into account and CVI will continue to take them
into account in terms of trying to meet the concerns Iperching, flight
paths, etc.) and they are endeavoring to try to embody that into the plan.
Member Malcolm commented he believes the Agency should be looking at the
entire Bayfront, not just focus on this one portion of the Bayfront
(Midbayfront). Mr. Krempl responded that staff agrees that a regional
perspective should be looked at. The traffic study is a cumulative
regional look as well as a project look. However, the EIR is focused on
the Midbayfront and alternatives as well as impacts offsite. In terms of
the rest of the Bayfront, planning studies will look at the
interrelationships more than the EIR. Mr. Worthington commented CVI also
believes it is important to keep in mind the entire South Bay in
developing this project. They have tried to design a plan that could
connect to a number of different options to the south that could be dealt
with as further studies evolve.
Responding further to questions, Mr. Worthington stated the size of the
lagoon is 10 acres. With regard to the SDG&E easement, there is some
parking planned within the easement. There are 50 to 80 spaces for
parking at the gateway at E Street that would be reserved for the NIC.
The rest of the easement would be landscaped with the exception of the
tennis training area.
Regarding the realignment of Bay Boulevard, Mr. Worthington noted the
applicant is suggesting that Bay Boulevard proceeding south to F Street
would take a direct route to F Street as the primary alignment and then a
continuation to the south with an S curve. Regarding the railroad, Mr.
Worthington stated the plan does not depend on the railroad being
abandoned. They would prefer that the railroad would be abandoned from F
Street north if possible. The right-of-way would still exist along Bay
Boulevard and the curve alignment going across the freeway. They have
presented an alternative alignment that would make a curve go to the south
from F Street (which would preclude the need for the link from F to E
Street). However, this is still subject to future discussion and decision.
Penny Allen, 666 Mariposa Circle, Chula Vista 92011, addressed the
Agency. She stated she served as.the chairperson of Citizens for a
Beautiful Bayfront six years ago. This committee was founded to gain
citizen support for the Chula Vista Local Coastal Plan ILCP) as it went
before the Coastal Commission for approval. Ms. Allen along with other
MINUTES -6- July 13, 1989 -
members of the committee attended many meetings throughout the City
explaining the plan to the community and urging their support for the
vision of what the Bayfront could become. The effort resulted in over
7,000 citizens signing petitions urging the Commission to approved the
Chula Vista LCP. Ms. Allen read comments that were used during the
presentations to the community which included that the primary objective
of the LCP is to achieve a development that is consistent with the
California Coastal Act; it will merge the goals of environmental
protection with land development and public access; it will create parks,
generate open space and complete the South Bay bicycle route. The
citizens who signed the petitions believed the vision for the Bayfront
that was presented to them. Ms. Allen stated her belief that the proposal
before the Agency at this meeting makes a mockery of that vision. It is
out of character, appallingly intense, and excludes the citizens of Chula
Vista from access to the Bay. She urged the Agency to delay any decision
about the future of the Bayfront until the consultants hired by the Agency
have the opportunity to carefully and thoughtfully restructure a Bayfront
plan that is true to the vision and the clear mandate of the citizens of
Chula Vista.
Harriet F. Acton, 265 Nixon Place, Chula Vista 92010, commented regarding
waterfront projects throughout the country. She pointed out some projects
have been saviors, others costly, while a great many have turned out to be
"white elephants." The proposed waterfront project for Chula Vista must
be a project that fits this City and helps preserve the quality of life.
Ms. Acton referred to the recently appointed Chula Vista 2000 Committee,
noting that this committee is charged with creating strategies for the
future and is in a position to assure that the plans proposed for the
Bayfront are compatible with the strategies of the committee. She
suggested three subcommittees {Environmental/Open Space, Economic
Development/Jobs, and Parks & Recreation) should be allowed to research
and have priority input on this project.
Ms. Jackie McQuade, 339 East J Street, Chula Vista, recommended that the
Agency not accept the proposed plan for processing without first cutting
the density in half. She also raised concerns regarding the height of
some of the buildings {26 stories) as well as the view corridors.
Mr. Larry Dumlao, 650 Rivera Street, Chula Vista 92011, representing the
South Bay Group of the Sierra Club, spoke in opposition to the proposed
plan. They support Midbayfront development in general and believe, when
properly done, that it can be an asset to the community and be sensitive
to and harmonize with the environment. Their review of the proposed plan
before the Agency indicates that it is out of scale and not in harmony
with the community and is probably detrimental to the environment. Mr.
Dumlao stated his organization supports ready community access to the
bayfront. The proposed plan discourages such access and community
participation. His organization supports views of the bay. The proposed
plan presents a wall of buildings which will obstruct bay views. They
MINUTES -7- July 13, 1989
support the Nature Interpretive Center and would like to see a plan that
complements the center. The proposed plan overwhelms the center. It
dominates the area distracting from the marsh and wildlife. They are also
concerned that the lagoon is unnatural and detracts from the beautiful
natural surroundings. He also raised concerns about traffic congestion
and inadequate public park area.
Mr. Harry W. Roche, 8 San Miguel Drive, Chula Vista 92011, commented the
proposal calls for too many high rise buildings in a limited space. A
narrow strip of parkland is needed along the waterfront which should be
open to the public. Buildings between the parkland and I-5, and between G
Street and J Street should be spaced to allow many view corridors. He
also raised concerns r~garding traffic, air pollution and excessive
urbanization.
Ms. Reva Lynch, 626 Date Avenue, Chula Vista 92010, commented she believes
that an EIR should have been prepared prior to this meeting taking place.
She raised concerns regarding the density of the proposed plan; the
multi-story buildings; public access; amphitheater and office buildings
(these uses are al ready available elsewhere in the City); lack of open
space and park area for the public; traffic congestion and pollution; air
quality and the loan of $7 million to the applicant.
Mr. John O'Neill, 540 Carla Avenue, Chula Vista 92010, stated his concerns
related to proper planning processes. His concerns have been addressed by
the Agency at this meeting. Other concerns he raised included the
26-story buildings and the access to the northern perimeter parks.
Ms. Anne Fabrick, 355 Roosevelt Street, Apt. 2, Chula Vista 92010, stated
she is in agreement with the public comments made at this meeting. She
noted concerns regarding the proposed high rise buildings and loss of
views, as well as the impact on the flight paths of birds.
Ms. Maggie Helton, 162 Mankato Street, Chula Vista, commented it is
important to receive the EIR and a more satisfactory traffic report before
any decisions are considered regarding this plan. She noted concerns
regarding the amount of apartment units; private facilities; blockage of
ocean breeze due to high rise buildings; fire and safety provisions for
high rise buildings; concern for existing retail stores and restaurants in
Chula Vista; reflective glass is important; concern regarding the lagoon
and amount of water required; and public access to the bay.
Mr. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, commented the proposed
plan is unacceptable; it is grossly excessive for Chula Vista in his
opinion. He urged the Agency to accept the staff recommendation.
Mr. Will Hyde, 803 Vista Way, Chula Vista 92011, representing Crossroads,
stated at the last meeting of the Agency regarding this matter, Crossroads
had the impression that the Agency was on the verge of giving conceptual
approval to the developer for the proposal as it is presented. Any such
MINUTES -8- July 13, 1989 _
action would have been premature due to a lack of an EIR, lack of an
adequate traffic study and analysis, and lack of input from the public.
Crossroads recommendation to the Agency was to strongly support the
recommendations from City staff.
Mr. Hugh Christensen, 376 Center Street, #350, Chula Vista 92010,
commented this proposed project is important to the City. A project of
this type gives the City the tax base needed to provide more police,
provide better transportation, etc. It is important to give a balanced
look to the project.
Mr. Ray Raphael, ll51 Zarza Corte, Chula Vista 92010, commented the
proposed plan is a commercial project. He does not believe Chula Vista is
a commercial city. Wh~t is needed more in this city is affordable
housing, not this project.
Mr. John Kracha, 358 E. Milan Street, Chula Vista 92010, expressed his
opposition to the proposed project.
Mr. Dick Kau, 3404 Bonita Road, Chula Vista, commented he is in favor of
City staff working with the developer's staff and coming up with an
acceptable project.
Member Malcolm stated he would like to refer this item back to staff to -
obtain the information needed (i.e., EIR, traffic studies, economic
studies, meet with environmental agencies, etc.). He noted there are some
good things about the plan; he likes the lagoon; he likes a "Seaport
Village" concept.
Member Moore commented the bayfront has been in a state of planning for
approximately 19 years. Through the years it has been government planning
somebody else's property and it has not been successful. At this time,
the property owner is planning development in conjunction with the City.
He believes the developer is moving in the right direction. It is time to
move on with an EIR. He noted he believes the laqoon is an attractive
part of the plan. It is important for the Agency {o be sure to its own
satisfaction that the project will not be a "white elephant." More time
and effort should be put into an EIR and traffic and economic studies.
Member McCandliss noted approximately 3 years ago the Agency held a
workshop and set two priorities for the Midbayfront: one was visitor
serving and the other was recreation opportunities for residents of the
City. Both of these priorities were to be equal. Residential use had a
lower priority; it was felt that there could be some high rise in exchange
for a large amount of open space. The current plan does not meet the
priority of recreational opportunities for residents of the City. She
further commented she does not believe the plan is anywhere near to what
MINUTES -9- July 15, 1989
she would consider an acceptable plan for development of the Bayfront.
She believes it is possible to have a mixed-use plan that has the basic
concept of a destination resort, scaled down, be financially feasible to
the developer and be a revenue generator for the City. This should be the
goal the Agency is working towards.
MOTION
MS ~-~-~Candliss/Malcolm) to approve the staff recommendation: the Agency
establish the guidelines for the proposed project outlined under Staff
Recommendation in Exhibit A, and accept the proposed project for
processing. Further approvals should be considered following completion
of the EIR and submittal and review of the SPA and Precise Plan
requirements outlined in Exhibits B and C respectively.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION
MSUC (Malcolm/Nader) review all proposals (staff's guidelines, developer's
proposal, Alternatives 1, lA and 2) through the EIR.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATION
Mr. Mark Schumacher, 4772 Idaho, San Diego, representing Educators for
Environmental Protection, addressed the Agency regarding a tree located on
Third Avenue north of H Street which is to be cut down. He pointed out
that he spoke with the Chairman of the Botany Department at the Natural
History Museum at Balboa Park, Dr. Jeff Levin, and Dr. Levin conveyed this
tree is the largest of its species in the state. Ne also spoke with a
representative of the American Forestry Association in Washington, D.C.,
and it was indicated this tree is the largest of its species in the United
States. Because of its size and unique beauty, it would be a shame to
have it cut down. He urged the Agency/Council to in some way prohibit the
owner of the property from cutting it down.
Mr. Krempl stated staff believes the tree can be saved on site. This
could be done with minimal modifications and impacts on the project.
Staff believes they do not have any authority to require that this tree be
preserved. The Building Permit on the project has not been issued to
date, however, there is nothing that would preclude the City from issuing
that permit. The project has been through all the required processes and
received all the required review and authorization.
Mr. Krempl further noted it would be impracticable to remove the tree due
to cost and time involved. Staff does agree there is value to saving the
tree. There are conflicting view points as to the rarity of this
particular specimen.
Bob Sennett, Landscape Architect, suggested using crushed gravel and turf
block to take care of the surface area of the parking lot that would be
involved (a 4-foot radius around the tree). In this manner, the root
system would receive air and water. There would not be any increase in
cost to the property owner.
MINUTES -10- July 13, 1989 -
Assistant City Manager Asmus added he understands that the property owner,
Mr. Dan Malcolm, has not closed the door on the possibility of saving the
tree, although due to the nature of the tree, he would want the City to
hold him harmless for all time in terms of any suits that might be filed
by the general public. (The tree is a Primrose [or "Cow Itch" tree] and
has pods that have fibers which can aggravate the skin; some people are
very allergic to it.) Secondly, with regard to any associated increase in
his costs as well as any redesign time in terms of his site plan, he would
expect any costs involved to be picked up. Mr. Asmus commented he would
be reluctant to see the City accept any ongoing responsibility for
liability. He would not have any concerns with the City assisting in
redesign and the little increased cost associated with it.
Responding to questions, Agency Attorney Harron stated the City does not
have the authority to withhold issuance of the Building Permit. Regarding
the City providing indemnification for any future liability due to the
tree remaining on the property, Mr. Harron stated there is no legal
prohibition to providing indemnification. He did recommend that an
Urgency Ordinance be adopted that would give interim authority to withhold
building permits in cases where there are significant e~vironmental
effects that were not previously considered.
Mr. Asmus noted Mr. Malcolm had indicated he was willing to wait until
Monday, July 17 before moving forward with removing the tree.
MOTION
MSC (Cox/Nader) ask staff to work with Mr. Malcolm regarding obtaining an
agreement to retain the tree. If any direct costs are associated with
this effort, the costs are to be undertaken by the City of Chula Vista;
staff to bring back a recommendation with regard to indemnification. {The
vote was 3-0; Members McCandliss and Malcolm were not present for the
vote.)
5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: None.
7. MEMBERS' COMMENTS
Member Nader commented regarding the six issues raised by Mr. Peterson
earlier in the meeting. He agreed with Mr. Peterson's position on all but
two of the issues. Regarding development west of Marina Parkway, Mr.
Nader agrees with City staff that the area south of the lagoon should be a
park. He agrees with City staff regarding the issue of extending F Street
to the bay. Mr. Nader noted he believes the fundamental issue is the
overall intensity of the project, and particularly the residential and
apartment intensity.
Member McCandliss commented that if there is a question of park credit for
the promenade around the lagoon, she believes it does not deserve park
credit. Chairman Cox and Member Moore agreed with this comment.
MINUTES -ll- July 13, 1989
Member Moore commented he believes F Street should go through to the Bay
and he has no objections to the proposed development on the south side of
the lagoon.
The Redevelopment Agency/City Council adjourned to Closed Session at 9:15
p.m. to discuss:
Potential acquisition of property located at:
4555 Otay Valley Rd. {Shell Oil Co., owner)
4501 Otay Valley Rd. (Roderick & Patricia Davies, owners)
Parcel 624-060-27 on Otay Valley Rd. {Vincent & Margaret Davies,
owner)
Parcel 624-060-09 on Otay Valley Rd. {Vincent & Margaret Davies,
owners)
4705 Otay Valley Rd. (Jimmie & Judi Shinohara, owners)
Parcel 644-040-14 (N & S Materials, owner)
Parcel 644-040-40 {Walker Scott Properties/South Bay, owner)
Parcel 624-060-45 {Atomic Investments, Inc., Leonard Teyssier, owner)
East H Street - Paseo Del Rey and Tierra Del Rey {Rancho Del Rey
Employment Park)
ADJOURNMENT from Closed Session at 10:40 p.m. to the regular meeting of
Thursday, July 20, 1989 at 4:00 p.m. ~vid/~sta~fso//~?~'? ~2~
n ~
Acting Community Development
Director
WPC 4157H